List of discrepancies in or with the wells report.

[Tony2046]

After reading Don Yee's response I wondered if we could put together a list of discrepancies with the Wells report or with the way it has been interpreted by radio/tv shows.

My questions and thought regarding the pressure readings:

1. Two different gauges were used during the Cots game. One with a Logo one without. During testing the Wells report indicates that the gauges had reading variations between them of + .3-.4 psi and -.07.
- the report mentions the possibility that the upper end gauge (which would have read the pressure fraudulently higher) could have been used when initially testing the footballs before the game and using the lower reading gauge when testing them at half time? If so then that would have added a minimum of .47 to the discrepancy of the air pressures plus the Ideal Gas law (-1.35) plus wet weather conditions (-.2 to -.3) would bring that total possible pressure loss to a minimum of 1.77 psi to a possible 1.9 -2.07.

12.5 - 2.07 = 10.43

The lowest reading found on one of the footballs during half time was 10.5 psi.

2. The text messages I see utilized by the media:

McNally: Tom sucks...im going make that next ball a ****in balloon
Jastremski: Talked to him last night. He actually brought you up and said you must have a lot of stress trying to get them done...
Jastremski: I told him it was. He was right though...
Jastremski: I checked some of the balls this morn... The refs ****ed us...a few of then were at almost 16 Jastremski: They didnt recheck then after they put air in them
McNally: **** tom ...16 is nothing...wait till next sunday
Jastremski: Omg! Spaz

Doesn't that conversation look as though they prepared the footballs prior to the game and they were complaining that the refs inflated the footballs too high? Doesn't that also infer that they did not tamper with the footballs during the game and found out the pressure the next day?

Okay, those are a few of the questions I have. Please add any of your own. Please check for any mistakes in my assumptions. Thanks.

 

[Sfpat]

I believe there are 246 pages full of discrepancies

 

[Sciz]

Walt Anderson is praised for his work with the balls before the game and his recollection of pregame measurements, but can't remember what gauge he used, which balls he checked first, or whether a certain discussion happened, and he lost the balls.

For some reason (that may be in there but I haven't found yet), the standard for what should have happened due to weather is the Colts' 3 or 4 balls, as opposed to, you know, the basic math.

 

[Oswlek]

3) The fact that two guys supposedly weren't able to test 23 balls in a full half-time, but one guy could release air from 13 in a minute and a half.

4) As an addendum to those, if you compare NE's four highest psi balls and the Colt's four, the drop in pressure as a percentage of original psi is nearly identical. Why should I assume that the remaining didn't also drop a little more?

5) The fact that the ref was supposedly an iron clad witness of original psi, but yet is allowed to misremember, or forget entirely, essential details shortly thereafter.

6) The fact that the balls disappeared for the first time in said ref's 19 year tenure - and he was fully aware of Indy's concern - yet he did nothing about it.

7) The fact that NE's balls were supposedly under inflated during the Nov game despite the home team never having access once the balls are turned in (I'm not entirely sure about this one, let me know if it is wrong).

8) The fact that the most damning evidence - the texts - explicitly say the psi for the first Jet game was 16, so clearly the desired pressure isn't as important as people make it out to be.

9) The fact that NE clearly wasn't doing anything shady for the Jet game despite the report implying this has been an ongoing issue.

10) The fact that, if ball deflation has been a longer term issue, why was it such a surprise when the balls disappeared prior to the game? Did NE adjust their SOP that time?

I'll post more later if I think of any.

 

[Oswlek]

11) The company relied upon for scientific data is about as disreputable as they come. Doesn't mean they are wrong, but it means it isn't reliable.

12) The fact that the report goes out of its way to ignore factual data about league mismanagement.

 

[Eric Manchester]

After reading Don Yee's response I wondered if we could put together a list of discrepancies with the Wells report or with the way it has been interpreted by radio/tv shows.

My questions and thought regarding the pressure readings:

1. Two different gauges were used during the Cots game. One with a Logo one without. During testing the Wells report indicates that the gauges had reading variations between them of + .3-.4 psi and -.07.
- the report mentions the possibility that the upper end gauge (which would have read the pressure fraudulently higher) could have been used when initially testing the footballs before the game and using the lower reading gauge when testing them at half time? If so then that would have added a minimum of .47 to the discrepancy of the air pressures plus the Ideal Gas law (-1.35) plus wet weather conditions (-.2 to -.3) would bring that total possible pressure loss to a minimum of 1.77 psi to a possible 1.9 -2.07.

12.5 - 2.07 = 10.43

The lowest reading found on one of the footballs during half time was 10.5 psi.

2. The text messages I see utilized by the media:

McNally: Tom sucks...im going make that next ball a ****in balloon
Jastremski: Talked to him last night. He actually brought you up and said you must have a lot of stress trying to get them done...
Jastremski: I told him it was. He was right though...
Jastremski: I checked some of the balls this morn... The refs ****ed us...a few of then were at almost 16 Jastremski: They didnt recheck then after they put air in them
McNally: **** tom ...16 is nothing...wait till next sunday
Jastremski: Omg! Spaz

Doesn't that conversation look as though they prepared the footballs prior to the game and they were complaining that the refs inflated the footballs to high? Doesn't that also infer that they did not tamper with the footballs during the game and found out the pressure the next day?

Ok those are a few of the questions I have. Please add any of your own. Please check for any mistakes in my assumptions. Thanks

Actually, you pointed out something that I only got partly correct. I noted that even if they did tamper pre-game, it might be because they had found a ball in the Jets game to be 16 and didn't trust the refs. But what I missed is that they found the 16 AFTER the game, and not during or before it. This would explain why Brady was upset--he had to play the whole game with it. And it shows, as you note, that they didn't gauge it and discover the overinflation until AFTER the Jets game (the next morning)--so this exonerates them from even my semi-guilty-but understandable scenario based on offsetting the refs effects of overinflation.

 

[jb1095]

After reading Don Yee's response I wondered if we could put together a list of discrepancies with the Wells report or with the way it has been interpreted by radio/tv shows.

My questions and thought regarding the pressure readings:

1. Two different gauges were used during the Cots game. One with a Logo one without. During testing the Wells report indicates that the gauges had reading variations between them of + .3-.4 psi and -.07.
- the report mentions the possibility that the upper end gauge (which would have read the pressure fraudulently higher) could have been used when initially testing the footballs before the game and using the lower reading gauge when testing them at half time? If so then that would have added a minimum of .47 to the discrepancy of the air pressures plus the Ideal Gas law (-1.35) plus wet weather conditions (-.2 to -.3) would bring that total possible pressure loss to a minimum of 1.77 psi to a possible 1.9 -2.07.

12.5 - 2.07 = 10.43

The lowest reading found on one of the footballs during half time was 10.5 psi.

2. The text messages I see utilized by the media:

McNally: Tom sucks...im going make that next ball a ****in balloon
Jastremski: Talked to him last night. He actually brought you up and said you must have a lot of stress trying to get them done...
Jastremski: I told him it was. He was right though...
Jastremski: I checked some of the balls this morn... The refs ****ed us...a few of then were at almost 16 Jastremski: They didnt recheck then after they put air in them
McNally: **** tom ...16 is nothing...wait till next sunday
Jastremski: Omg! Spaz

Doesn't that conversation look as though they prepared the footballs prior to the game and they were complaining that the refs inflated the footballs to high? Doesn't that also infer that they did not tamper with the footballs during the game and found out the pressure the next day?

Ok those are a few of the questions I have. Please add any of your own. Please check for any mistakes in my assumptions. Thanks

The report points out 2 gauges were used to measure the balls at half time. It also mentions that "Walt Anderson and staff" measured all the balls prior to the start of the game. This implies that more than 1 person was doing the measuring.

Knowing this, I find it "more probable than not", that each person measuring the team balls had a different gauge and that they were not tossing the same gauge back and forth to each other.

 

[Ross12]

How about the fact that their own math says to expect over a 1 PSI drop, and Anderson says none of the Colts balls were above 13.1 PSI, yet one of the readings on the balls (measured with the lower reading gauge) says a ball was 12.95? Are we expected to believe a ball only lost 0.15 PSI after being taken outside, rained on, played with, and tested multiple times?

 

[Ring 6]

How about the fact that their own math says to expect over a 1 PSI drop, and Anderson says none of the Colts balls were above 13.1 PSI, yet one of the readings on the balls (measured with the lower reading gauge) says a ball was 12.95? Are we expected to believe a ball only lost 0.15 PSI after being taken outside, rained on, played with, and tested multiple times?

Maybe the Colts added air.

 

[Ross12]

Maybe the Colts added air.

That's what I'm contemplating. Or, more likely, several balls were a fair deal higher than 13.0 to start, but Anderson either lied about it or misremembered, or Wells just changed the details to fit the agenda.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Walt Anderson is praised for his work with the balls before the game and his recollection of pregame measurements, but can't remember what gauge he used, which balls he checked first, or whether a certain discussion happened, and he lost the balls.

For some reason (that may be in there but I haven't found yet), the standard for what should have happened due to weather is the Colts' 3 or 4 balls, as opposed to, you know, the basic math.

Also couldn't remember if he initialed the k balls

 

[Ring 6]

That's what I'm contemplating. Or, more likely, several balls were a fair deal higher than 13.0 to start, but Anderson either lied about it or misremembered, or Wells just changed the details to fit the agenda.

Or, and more likely:


Lets hypothetically track 2 footballs.

Ball C
Equilbrium pressure at room temp 13.5.
Ball stored on team bus overnight then brought in to refs room to be measured.
Brought in at 12.5 (because of the effect of the cold air it spent the night in)
Measured at 13.0 while rising to equilibrium, becomes 13.5 at equilibrium.
Goes to field at 13.5 then drops to 12.5 by end of first half.
Drop from measure to measure, 0.5, drop from equilibirum to cold 1.0

Ball P
Equilibrium at room temp is 12.2 psi.
Stored in room at 80 degrees, then brought to refs room.
At 12.6 at measurement.
Returns to 12.2 when reaches equilibrium at room temp.
Goes to field at 12.2 drops to 11.2 at end of first half.
Drop from measure to measure 1.4 psi. Drop from equilibrium to cold 1.0

Both footballs behaved EXACTLY the same way and ball P lost 1.4 psi while ball C lost 0.5.

That is one large potential flaw in the science used.

 

[LivinLovin&Breathin_Brady]

This quote from the report...

"WE do not view these explanations as plausible or consistent with common sense. WE [because only our opinion matters] believe that the most plausible reading of the messages..."

was enough for me to take this report for what it is, BS and a smear campaign against Brady. Another discrepancy was pages 94-98. What did Brady signing a supposed milestone football have to do with deflated footballs or anything related to case? Was it meant to cast Brady as a liar? I'm confused.

He should've concluded this report discussing how the refs are not doing their jobs pregame. If they had measured the balls in the first place, there would be no issue. There is nothing in the report proving or even discussing that Brady or the others had any intentions of deflating footballs. Brady is only guilty because he SHOULD (regardless of whether he did or not) have knowledge of footballs and he didn't hand over the contents of his emails and texts.

 

[1960Pats]

How about the fact that their own math says to expect over a 1 PSI drop, and Anderson says none of the Colts balls were above 13.1 PSI, yet one of the readings on the balls (measured with the lower reading gauge) says a ball was 12.95? Are we expected to believe a ball only lost 0.15 PSI after being taken outside, rained on, played with, and tested multiple times?

They'd like you to believe that.

 

[Ross12]

Or, and more likely:


Lets hypothetically track 2 footballs.

Ball C
Equilbrium pressure at room temp 13.5.
Ball stored on team bus overnight then brought in to refs room to be measured.
Brought in at 12.5 (because of the effect of the cold air it spent the night in)
Measured at 13.0 while rising to equilibrium, becomes 13.5 at equilibrium.
Goes to field at 13.5 then drops to 12.5 by end of first half.
Drop from measure to measure, 0.5, drop from equilibirum to cold 1.0

Ball P
Equilibrium at room temp is 12.2 psi.
Stored in room at 80 degrees, then brought to refs room.
At 12.6 at measurement.
Returns to 12.2 when reaches equilibrium at room temp.
Goes to field at 12.2 drops to 11.2 at end of first half.
Drop from measure to measure 1.4 psi. Drop from equilibrium to cold 1.0

Both footballs behaved EXACTLY the same way and ball P lost 1.4 psi while ball C lost 0.5.

That is one large potential flaw in the science used.

Well put.

 

[NashuaPats]

In the same damning text message conversation, Jastremski explicitly tells McNally that the balls should have been 13. "I just measured some of the balls. They supposed to be 13 lbs. They were like 16. Felt like bricks."

Doesn't that text refute all the inferences that Wells draws from the other texts from that same conversation?

 

[NashuaPats]

As per Exponent's own calculations, the Patriots footballs were only an average of .2 to .3 psi below where they were expected to be when using the Colts balls as the control group. That would mean the Patriots balls would have started out at an average of 12.2 to 12.3 psi which is a negligible difference from 12.5 and hardly worth risking getting caught and going through this mess. Nevermind the fact that that small difference is neglible considering the lack of accuracy and inconsistency shown by the side by side air gauge measurements taken at half time.

 

[Danger Zone]

As per Exponent's own calculations, the Patriots footballs were only an average of .2 to .3 psi below where they were expected to be when using the Colts balls as the control group. That would mean the Patriots balls would have started out at an average of 12.2 to 12.3 psi which is a negligible difference from 12.5 and hardly worth risking getting caught and going through this mess. Nevermind the fact that that small difference is neglible considering the lack of accuracy and inconsistency shown by the side by side air gauge measurements taken at half time.

Thats all it should have come down to right there.

The Patriot footballs were .3 psi below where Wells expects their footballs to be after taking into account the psi lost from cold temperature.

But is a .3 psi variance enough to infer human intervention?

Are we really are going to conclude that McNally went into that bathroom and deflated 11 footballs by .3 psi? Really?

Really?


EDIT:
In fact, isn't .3 just about the psi a football loses when it is tested ?

Did Wells even look into the possibility that the Patriot footballs were simply tested one time more than the Colts?

 

[Ross12]

The point I want to make is that Wells debunks himself by virtue of his own findings. Think of it as a conversation with Patsfans:

Wells: "The Patriots are more probably than not guilty because their balls had a greater pressure drop than the Colts' balls."

Patsfans: "Check the science, Ideal Gas Law etc"

Wells: "Aha, but I did do the math! My findings show that the Patriots' and Colts' balls should have both lost over 1 PSI, and some of the Patriots' balls lost more than that! They're guilty!"

Patsfans: "By your own numbers then ALL of the Colts' balls didn't lose nearly enough PSI. Your entire mathematical argument is invalidated."

Wells: "... Look at these texts! Totally guilty."

 

[Dougkdp]

Posted in another thread;

1) you cannot use the colts balls as a control group unless you know;
A. The balls reached equilibrium temp before measurement at the beginning of game as did the pats.
B. The balls were measured at the same time as the pats were at half time (what likely happened are the balls warmed up closer to room temp near the end of half)

2. What I still don't understand why nobody brings up the fact the ideal gas law accounts for most of the deflation of the pats ball. Are they stating the ball attendant removed ~.3 psi of air only for a couple of balls? This makes zero sense to me.

These two points adds major holes in my mind.