NYT report on Exponent and Deflategate

Jackson 2 · Sep 21, 2016

Fencer said:
I don't think even he did.

He just said early on that physics couldn't explain 2 PSI, back when the 2 PSI claim hadn't been debunked yet.

What he said was, "In order to really change the air pressure in a football you need one of these, an inflation needle." His clear implication was that the Ideal Gas Law couldn't account for the loss of pressure in the Pats' footballs.

Tony2046 · Sep 21, 2016

Fencer said:
I don't think even he did.

He just said early on that physics couldn't explain 2 PSI, back when the 2 PSI claim hadn't been debunked yet.

He was an idiot. Made a cute little video regarding deflategate to push his Climate change agenda.

Warning: This video contains serious stupidity.

Tony2046 · Sep 21, 2016

Jackson 2 said:
What he said was, "In order to really change the air pressure in a football you need one of these, an inflation needle." His clear implication was that the Ideal Gas Law couldn't account for the loss of pressure in the Pats' footballs.

He said that but I think he was lost on the subject. I think he thought they were talking about air leaking out of the valve. Later he made a ridiculous video apparently after he realized what the buzz was about.

TBR · Sep 21, 2016

Triumph said:
The Treason Times is a joke anymore.

Jackson 2 · Sep 21, 2016

TBR said:

The NY Times history of its treatment of Deflategate has been, overall, favorable to the Patriots. Can't say the same for the Herald or Globe.

Dr Pain · Sep 21, 2016

Tony2046 said:
Well they've done quite well since deflategate but have recently taken a hit in revenue. So it depends how you look at it I guess.

View attachment 14137

Anyone can call into a quarterly earnings call and ask questions. There should be one in 3 or 4 weeks for the third quarter. Buy a single share of stock if you want so you can ask as a shareholder.

Some question like, "Given that Exponent's work on Deflategate has been publicly ripped to shreds by the scientific community, do you think the resulting damage done to Exponent's reputation will cause damage to shareholder value as clients are less likely to hire Exponent for trial work since a jury may associate Exponent with paid for shoddy results? Should you change the company's name to try and hide the stink of Exponent's work in deflategate?"

These quarterly calls are always recorded with transcripts available. It is a legitimate question as Exponent and their reports are used at trials and this is a part of Exponent's business. A jury now knows their name and reputation so they are less likely to be hired in the future so deflategate will no doubt hurt their business. The NFL burned them and I doubt will ever them again. There is always another whore firm to give you the answer you pay for that a jury won't automatically associate with fraud results.

SVN · Sep 21, 2016

PatsWickedPissah · Sep 21, 2016

SVN said:

I know most here love the NYT but this article typifies their approach all too often. Start with a conclusion and leave out or de-emphasize any information that might contradict that conclusion.
Steph nails it. The "journalist" was in a position to raise cogent objections by virtually everyone else in the scientific community to Exponent's work and ask Exponent to present their rebuttal. He did nothing of the kind.
The article is trash. Worst of all, a pathetic job by the senior editor(s) not insisting their writer do the basics.

XLIX · Sep 21, 2016

As much as I hate to revisit deflategate, the biggest flaw in all this nonsense was the data gathering. They literally were using an individual's "best recollection" for the starting values.

Tony2046 · Sep 21, 2016

OT: Exponent was also involved with some shady research in which they found a way to pay the government to redo their research with pesticides and their link to parkinson's.

I'm writing this while smoking a non-cancerous cigarette at the dinner table with my kids (who are coughing uncontrollably.... must be the flu season) and eating strawberries. I think I'll go grind some brake pads later this evening.

Company pays government to challenge pesticide research showing link to Parkinson's - Toxic Influence | Investigative Reporting Workshop

In an unusual scenario that raises questions of conflict of interest, a company that conducts research on behalf of the pesticide industry has paid a U.S. government agency to help prove some controversial chemicals are safe.

The company, Exponent Inc., based in Menlo Park, Calif., is known for its scientific research on behalf of corporate clients facing product liability concerns. In this case, Exponent is trying to refute research showing that even a small amount of combined exposure to two agricultural chemicals, maneb, a fungicide, and paraquat, an herbicide, can raise the risk of Parkinson's disease, a progressive disorder of the central nervous system.

Federal ethics rules generally prohibit government employees from accepting money from businesses related to their jobs, which helps ensure that government staffers remain unbiased and free of corporate entanglements.

Exponent was able to circumvent these restrictions, however, by donating $60,000 to theCDC Foundation, an independent, 501(c)(3) public charity. The foundation in turn passed the money along to NIOSH.

Enjoy your Strawberries.

Tony2046 · Sep 21, 2016

XLIX said:
As much as I hate to revisit deflategate, the biggest flaw in all this nonsense was the data gathering. They literally were using an individual's "best recollection" for the starting values.

Using each individual's best recollection except for the one that mattered.

"No Walt ... you didn't use that gauge."

zydecochris · Sep 21, 2016

PatsWickedPissah said:
I know most here love the NYT but this article typifies their approach all too often. Start with a conclusion and leave out or de-emphasize any information that might contradict that conclusion.
Steph nails it. The "journalist" was in a position to raise cogent objections by virtually everyone else in the scientific community to Exponent's work and ask Exponent to present their rebuttal. He did nothing of the kind.
The article is trash. Worst of all, a pathetic job by the senior editor(s) not insisting their writer do the basics.

The words I would use are "sloppy" and "lazy". It looks like the Exponent PR person spoon fed them some information, and they re-wrote it a bit (perhaps) and went with it. So much easier than actually doing all of that investigative reporting stuff.

zydecochris · Sep 21, 2016

Tony2046 said:
OT: Exponent was also involved with some shady research in which they found a way to pay the government to redo their research with pesticides and their link to parkinson's.

I'm writing this while smoking a non-cancerous cigarette at the dinner table with my kids (who are coughing uncontrollably.... must be the flu season) and eating strawberries. I think I'll go grind some brake pads later this evening.

Company pays government to challenge pesticide research showing link to Parkinson's - Toxic Influence | Investigative Reporting Workshop

Enjoy your Strawberries.

Good Lord, and I thought they were sleazy before. First the work for the tobacco industry denying the effects of second hand smoke now this doubly sleezy thing (I'll just let people read your link, it speaks for itself).

Faust managed to bargain with Mephistopheles for unlimited knowledge and worldly pleasures. I wonder what these guys are getting?

raduray · Sep 21, 2016

DaBruinz said:
BTW.. Best part about that Times article? No Comments Section.. because they'd have been blasted by thousands of people showing them to be full of garbage.

Actually, there is a comments section, and I posted
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/25/s...ots-nfl-science.html?comments#permid=19870967

raduray · Sep 21, 2016

Fencer said:
I don't think even he did.

He just said early on that physics couldn't explain 2 PSI, back when the 2 PSI claim hadn't been debunked yet.

Nye failed to account for ambient air pressure. Degrassee Tyson made the same mistake, but fessed up when the error was pointed out to him. AFAIK, Nye never corrected himself.

trevrox · Sep 22, 2016

"A rule we enforced on ourselves is that we had to control for football-fan bias, so we specifically did not involve our Boston office.”

We wanted to avoid football fan bias, so we made sure that only people outside New England, in areas where the Patriots are hated, worked on this project.

bresna · Sep 22, 2016

Tony2046 said:
OT: Exponent was also involved with some shady research in which they found a way to pay the government to redo their research with pesticides and their link to parkinson's.

I'm writing this while smoking a non-cancerous cigarette at the dinner table with my kids (who are coughing uncontrollably.... must be the flu season) and eating strawberries. I think I'll go grind some brake pads later this evening.

Company pays government to challenge pesticide research showing link to Parkinson's - Toxic Influence | Investigative Reporting Workshop

From this quote in that article:
David Michaels wrote, "While some may exist, I have yet to see an Exponent study that does not support the conclusion needed by the corporation or trade association that is paying the bill."

It sounds like maybe the New York Times should have talked to Mr. Michaels to find out why he concluded this? Ha ha ha ha ha ha.

Koma · Sep 22, 2016

trevrox said:
We wanted to avoid football fan bias, so we made sure that only people outside New England, in areas where the Patriots are hated, worked on this project.

The implication there is that if people from Exponent's Boston office were involved, they would fudge the numbers to benefit the Patriots. If that was a concern, then, not only does it make the Boston office look bad, it casts suspicion over all of Exponent's offices.

Of course, neither the Exponent guy or the NYT writer mention that one of the team members, Ganot, is a big Giants fan. No bias from that guy, though

Koma · Sep 22, 2016

Looking at this article in a general sense, does anyone else think the timing of it's release is curious? Exponent's work has been done since May of 2015. This story could have been released in the summer of 2015 or this past spring or summer. Instead, it comes out between weeks 2 and 3 of the football season.

Heading into the first week of the season, we heard how Goodell was 100% right about punishing Brady and the Patriots. All the ads NBC ran to promote his interview on Today mentioned deflategate. Now, we hear from Exponent. Considering Goodell said the league had moved on from this story a while ago, there has been a definite effort to keep it in the news while Brady is serving his suspension. Are we going to hear from Ted Wells and how he believes he got everything right next?

Tony2046 · Sep 22, 2016

Koma said:
Looking at this article in a general sense, does anyone else think the timing of it's release is curious? Exponent's work has been done since May of 2015. This story could have been released in the summer of 2015 or this past spring or summer. Instead, it comes out between weeks 2 and 3 of the football season.

Heading into the first week of the season, we heard how Goodell was 100% right about punishing Brady and the Patriots. All the ads NBC ran to promote his interview on Today mentioned deflategate. Now, we hear from Exponent. Considering Goodell said the league had moved on from this story a while ago, there has been a definite effort to keep it in the news while Brady is serving his suspension. Are we going to hear from Ted Wells and how he believes he got everything right next?

It is curious. Maybe an 18% drop in stock value over the last 3 months added to the fuel.

NYT report on Exponent and Deflategate

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Supporter

Pro Bowl Player

PatsFans.com Supporter

In the Starting Line-Up

PatsFans.com Retired Jersey Club

PatsFans.com Supporter

Pro Bowl Player

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Supporter

2nd Team Getting Their First Start

2nd Team Getting Their First Start

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Supporter

Third String But Playing on Special Teams

PatsFans.com Supporter

In the Starting Line-Up

In the Starting Line-Up

PatsFans.com Supporter

Similar threads