Tom Brady, NFLPA Granted 14-Day Extension To File Motion For Rehearing By Second Circuit Court

[RobertWeathers]

Too bad she married Jon Lovitz.

Are you serious???

 

[Tony2046]

Are you serious???

"Yeah that's the ticket" Tommy Flanagan

Watch Weekend Update: Tommy Flanagan on Oliver North and Iran-Contra from Saturday Night Live on NBC.com

 

[cmasspatsfan]

Are you serious???

It's a Saturday night live joke, you may be to young to get it.

 

[Tony2046]

It's a Saturday night live joke, you may be to young to get it.

That's it but I think RW is close to my age. Nearing 50.

 

[RobertWeathers]

It's a Saturday night live joke, you may be to young to get it.

I'm 44. Just old and forgetful. I remember it now..

 

[SHOWTIME15]

Goodell probably didn't seem AT&T to be credible.

At&T only keeps their texts on their servers for 3 days.

Brady should have just kept his phone in the closet or under lock & key. oh well.

 

[ReverendMaynard]

Wasn't someone looking for something debunking figures 26 and 27 of the Exponent report?

http://www.climateaudit.info/pdf/deflategate/mcintyre_new light_on_deflategate_submitted.pdf

 

[letekro]

Wasn't someone looking for something debunking figures 26 and 27 of the Exponent report?

http://www.climateaudit.info/pdf/deflategate/mcintyre_new light_on_deflategate_submitted.pdf

No, I was referring to the experimental results shown in Figures 29 and 30 and how they relate to the actual halftime measurements. As far as I know, the experimental results are noncontroversial (other than some quibble with the use of a spray bottle as an approximation for rain). This paper certainly takes no issue with them. I really have nothing to say about the theory of this stuff, transient curves, all that. I just want to see an experiment that refutes Figures 29 and 30. The only one I have seen that does this is the carnegie mellon one, but he has to dunk the balls in water to get the desired result. The truth about the wetness of the balls (like so many other factors) is unknown, and unknowable. Cue the morons.

As I have said many times, the Exponent Report is basically worthless since the inputs into the IGL are unknown. Kessler said the same at the Appeal hearing and Brady's expert said the very same at the Appeal hearing as well. Somehow, this noncontroversial statement has gotten me labeled as a troll, for the first time in more than 10 years of posting on this site.

 

[Joker]

read the link he posted you insufferably contentious miscreant...it renders pages 29 and 30 USELESS-MEANINGLESS

 

[ReverendMaynard]

No, I was referring to the experimental results shown in Figures 29 and 30 and how they relate to the actual halftime measurements. As far as I know, the experimental results are noncontroversial (other than some quibble with the use of a spray bottle as an approximation for rain). This paper certainly takes no issue with them. I really have nothing to say about the theory of this stuff, transient curves, all that. I just want to see an experiment that refutes Figures 29 and 30. The only one I have seen that does this is the carnegie mellon one, but he has to dunk the balls in water to get the desired result. The truth about the wetness of the balls (like so many other factors) is unknown, and unknowable. Cue the morons.

As I have said many times, the Exponent Report is basically worthless since the inputs into the IGL are unknown. Kessler said the same at the Appeal hearing and Brady's expert said the very same at the Appeal hearing as well. Somehow, this noncontroversial statement has gotten me labeled as a troll, for the first time in more than 10 years of posting on this site.

If the balls actually started at 12.2 or 12.1, doesn't that resolve all the issues?

 

[SHOWTIME15]

If the balls actually started at 12.2 or 12.1, doesn't that resolve all the issues?

they were stupid enough not to record the starting PSI or the gauge they used.

 

[letekro]

If the balls actually started at 12.2 or 12.1, doesn't that resolve all the issues?

OF COURSE! Any number of inputs into the IGL, if they are changed a tiny bit, could exonerate Brady. That's why the Exponent Report is worthless as a piece of evidence. IMO, far too much time has been spent discussing this stupid report. Wells himself found it so weak he deemed it necessary to state in his Report that his conclusion would not change if the Exponent Report were completely ignored.

There is not enough evidence to punish Brady. Not even close. My only quibble is with those who take the unsupportable position that the Exponent Report or any scientific study somehow PROVES innocence. No study could, because the results are determined by the inputs, none of which are known.

 

[letekro]

read the link he posted you insufferably contentious miscreant...it renders pages 29 and 30 USELESS-MEANINGLESS

You are a madman.

 

[Galeb]

You are a madman.

 

[Joker]

I might well be a madman but I know a pathological liar when I come across one. Roger Goodell has been lying IN PUBLIC his entire adult life. The Wells "report" is nothing more than a pack of trumped up deceits masquerading as "integrity". Federal priosn terms of ten years or more are warranted for every single miscreant involved in this criminal sham.

 

[letekro]

You couldn't have waited for OTG to post it!!

 

[letekro]

I might well be a madman but I know a pathological liar when I come across one. Roger Goodell has been lying IN PUBLIC his entire adult life. The Wells "report" is nothing more than a pack of trumped up deceits masquerading as "integrity". Federal priosn terms of ten years or more are warranted for every single miscreant involved in this criminal sham.

Well, I don't really disagree with the essence of this. I'm more confused with your venom towards me.

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

My only quibble is with those who take the unsupportable position that the Exponent Report or any scientific study somehow PROVES innocence. No study could, because the results are determined by the inputs, none of which are known.

These many scientific reports, however, prove that:

1) nobody took any amount of air out of any football

or

2) if anyone did take any amount of air out of any football, it was such a small amount that,
-within experimental error, it was completely undetectable (<0.4 psi), AND
-such a small amount would not be discernible by anyone, even an NFL quarterback, AND
-such a small amount would provide no competitive advantage, AND
-nobody in their right mind would ever concoct a deflation scheme that confers no advantage whatsoever.


IN OTHER WORDS,

1) We know that no tampering occurred
or
2) any tampering that could theoretically have occurred is completely implausible and was not detected

 

[VectorPrime]

letekro is the insufferable kid in philosophy class who argues with the professor about how you can't 100% prove that we don't in fact live in the Matrix. Because there's technically a .00001% chance of it he's gonna die before he gives up the fight.

 

[letekro]

These many scientific reports, however, prove that:

1) nobody took any amount of air out of any football

or

2) if anyone did take any amount of air out of any football, it was such a small amount that,
-within experimental error, it was completely undetectable (<0.4 psi), AND
-such a small amount would not be discernible by anyone, even an NFL quarterback, AND
-such a small amount would provide no competitive advantage, AND
-nobody in their right mind would ever concoct a deflation scheme that confers no advantage whatsoever.


IN OTHER WORDS,

1) We know that no tampering occurred
or
2) any tampering that could theoretically have occurred is completely implausible and was not detected

Agree not detectable, agree no competitive advantage. Would say unlikely, but not implausible that some air was removed. At any rate, insufficient evidence that there was.