Why didn't Brady's legal team challenge the scientific analysis to Goodell?

[Ken Canin]

Two of the most obvious errors in the scientific analysis in the Wells report are (1) the failure to show that McNally had sufficient time to deflate the 12 footballs, and (2) the failure to explain the choice of gauge.

Did the Brady's team try and depose any of the creators of this analysis to pin down exactly how they came the conclusions they did? For example, as to (1), did they account for the balls being in bags, or for measurement of the pressure prior to any deflation?

 

[memento]

The NFLPA brought in Edward Snyder, Dean of Yale School of Management, as an expert witness to go after the Exponent analysis:

Q. Okay. So let’s go, let’s start with your slide deck. The first slide shows your three key findings. And if you could just sort of walk the Commissioner through each of the three key findings that you made and that we will elaborate on.

A. So first finding is that their analysis of the difference in differences, the analysis of the pressure drops and the difference in the average pressure drops is wrong because Exponent did not include timing and the effects of timing in that analysis.

Secondly, Exponent looked at the variation and the measurements between the Patriots’ balls and the Colts’ balls at halftime. They compared the variances. And despite conceding that there was no statistically significant difference between the two, they went ahead and drew conclusions, but those conclusions are improper.

And, last, and this goes to the issue of alternative assumptions, as well as error, if the logo gauge was used to measure the Patriots’ balls before the game, then given what the framework that Exponent provides us with scientifically, and if the analysis is done correctly, eight of the eleven Patriots’ balls are above the relevant scientific threshold.

...

Q. So let’s go to our Slide 12. And what is this showing?

A. This takes the earlier Figure 22, and I will refer to that again. It takes the top schedule, what Exponent calls their transient analysis, that’s their scientific framework.

It says, okay, you bring in a Colts’ ball. It was pre-game at 13. It’s brought right into the locker room. It’s going to be 11.87. This is, like, so 2:40 is, like, in locker room terms, it’s minute zero. And then 12 minutes later, it’s warmed up and it’s roughly 1.1 psi greater in 12 minutes.

Q. The same ball?

A. The same ball.

Q. What did Exponent do in its difference in difference analysis to account for time?

A. Nothing.

Q. How do you know?

A. Absolutely nothing. If you look at their difference in difference equation in their appendix and you look at Table A3, where they report their results, they have explanatory variables for their difference in difference analysis and time is not an explanatory variable.

You can read the Exponent report forwards, backwards, upside down. You see time referred to again and again and again and again. However, you have to look at what they actually did, the statistical analysis that they actually did. They left time out of the analysis that they said was the most important.

There's more: Here Is The Transcript From Tom Brady's Appeal Hearing [UPDATED]

 

[Ken Canin]

This does not seem to answer my question. Why weren't the Exponent report creators deposed/examined?

 

[memento]

This does not seem to answer my question. Why weren't the Exponent report creators deposed/examined?

Robert Caligiuri (vice president, principal engineer for Exponent) and Duane Steffey (director of Exponent’s statistics department) were questioned, as was Daniel Marlow who was used as a second statistical consultant.

 

[ChoWZa]

From a strategic point of view, they might as well present the case against the obviously flawed science by Exponent, but Brady's team/NFLPA knew Goodell would not budge from 4 games based on discrediting the Wells' report or Exponent. The goal was to get the NFL to break the rules, to 'draw them offsides' if you will. They achieved this by requesting Pash testify (NFL refused) then asking for all evidence (NFL refused), etc. This was all posturing for the inevitable court case. Pash would have had to lie under oath, or answered truthfully destroying the NFL's case and more importantly their reputation on the matter. Requesting Pash testify really was the significant move that won Brady's case, in my amateur opinion.

 

[memento]

From a strategic point of view, they might as well present the case against the obviously flawed science by Exponent, but Brady's team/NFLPA knew Goodell would not budge from 4 games based on discrediting the Wells' report or Exponent. The goal was to get the NFL to break the rules, to 'draw them offsides' if you will. They achieved this by requesting Pash testify (NFL refused) then asking for all evidence (NFL refused), etc. This was all posturing for the inevitable court case. Pash would have had to lie under oath, or answered truthfully destroying the NFL's case and more importantly their reputation on the matter. Requesting Pash testify really was the significant move that won Brady's case, in my amateur opinion.

Goodell's impartiality and the "independence" of the Wells report were major concerns before the appeal. It was a big deal when Goodell oversaw the arbitration himself, as he abstained for matters such as Bountygate. He refused requests to step down.

The questions about Pash were natural, since he was publically announced as a co-lead and then they tried to downplay his involvement. Wells testimony was bizarre, as the "independent" investigator invoked attorney client privilege on things like investigation notes, and the NFL was represented by members of his law firm.

The Exponent analysis was attacked at length, as well as the procedural errors in measuring the footballs and the gauges. The unaccounted time for the Colts balls to warm up, insisting Walt Anderson used the non-logo gauge when he remembers using the logo gauge, why Exponent converts halftime measurements to master gauge pressure but not pregame measurements, etc.

I think the real key has been the lack of notice.

 

[Patsfanin Philly]

The court case was only allowed to attack the process, not the underlying facts (i.e. science) which I understand why the IDL was not cited in Kessler's briefs and only arose in court due to Berman's questions...

 

[meatface]

Because this whole thing was really really stupid and why bother treating it like it's real

Sent from my KFSOWI using Tapatalk