List of discrepancies in or with the wells report.

[Danger Zone]

@Palm Beach Pats Fan brings up an excellent nugget that I didn't see myself before which brings the whole thing down IMO:

They take Anderson's recollection as fact on what the starting PSI was for the footballs, and use that as an absolute. However, they also say that he says he used the Logo gauge to test them, but they say "we think that's wrong so we are gonna assume he used the Non-Logo gauge."

WHAT THE F***?

So you mean to tell me that all of your mathematics start with the implicit trust of Anderson's memory, but you later competely turn around and say Anderson misremembered??? So how do we trust ANY OF THIS?????

Any impartial judge at this point would dismiss the case over this alone in my opinion.

 

[Ross12]

Somebody send/tweet this to the media members.

I honestly don't know where I would send it anymore. Maybe Reiss or Curran, but it certainly doesn't lend itself to a tweet. None of this does. That's the problem these days.

 

[Danger Zone]

I honestly don't know where I would send it anymore. Maybe Reiss or Curran, but it certainly doesn't lend itself to a tweet. None of this does. That's the problem these days.

I need to find the better worded quote instead of paraphrasing it crudely, but as somebody said: Twitter is the most efficient method of receiving the news, yet the most inherently inefficient method of discussing it.

 

[Ross12]

Any impartial judge at this point would dismiss the case over this alone in my opinion.

Yeah, really. All Brady has to do is show that he was found to be more probably than not generally aware of tampering that was proven by math half based on the idea that Anderson has the rock solid memory of an elephant, and half based on the idea that Anderson doesn't know wtf he's talking about so we're gonna go with whatever was most probable (and by most probable we mean, most fitting to our agenda).

 

[Ross12]

I need to find the better worded quote instead of paraphrasing it crudely, but as somebody said: Twitter is the most efficient method of receiving the news, yet the most inherently inefficient method of discussing it.

I would probably say Twitter is the most efficient method of receiving the headlines. No real news can be understood in 140 char.

 

[TheBostonStraggler]

How about this discrepancy- calling him "independent" and having him be paid by the league. It doesn't take a trained eye to see the lawyer's spin in this. He cherry picks the facts that helps him; ignores inconvenient facts that don't support his narrative; hires a scientific consulting firm of dubious repute to give him the conclusion he wants.

The large, hostile crowd of slack-jawed, Patriots-hating dimwits are all too happy to except this gloss at face value. People who don't follow the sport closely are being drilled with the anti-Patriots narrative until they simply assume that it must be right. Hell, I even see signs that more gullible members of the Patriots own fanbase are starting to have doubts because it was written by some high powered NYC lawyer.

If Kraft doesn't hire someone to do a rebuttal analysis of this garbage, Brady definitely should.

Worried about how the Patriots are viewed? That shipped sailed on the USS SpyGate. However, I agree with your general sentiment on the simpleminded. Yet, at least so far, my own anecdotal evidence suggests this is a non story to much of the masses (I live outside New England). While I personally have no doubt this will eventually subside, largely, to make way for the next outrage, if you step outside of diehard football circles I'm not finding much interest. IMHO this is partly because this story is a rehash. For those that thought the Brady/Patriots deflated footballs they already thought it.
But the rehash will now have temporary big legs not because of some blathering report, it will because the media is getting another bite at the apple of knocking someone from a lofty perch -- especially when that someone fits the profile of who should be knocked off, especially someone from the mighty and omnipresent NFL industry.
Only way this could be better for them is they not only record the thud of Brady falling off the perch, but then later recording his resurrection as he is feeding starving people from the back of his prius. I have my doubts, though, they will get to see their plan play out to full fruition (the media will not fret as another sacrificial lamb will make himself/herself available soon enough).

 

[Tony2046]

I've read some good replies in this thread. However, I'd make the suggestion of keeping the refuting to a succinct list of items. IMHO the answers to the below questions is what the masses need:

(5) What evidence is there of Tom Brady requested footballs be deflated after it was illegal to do so, and was the request to deflate it below required level?
(4) What evidence is there of Patriot equipment personnel deflating footballs after it was illegal to do so?
(3) What, if any, PSI discrepancy can be expected due to atmospheric conditions?
(2) What were the football PSI measurements at the next official measurement?
(1) What were the football PSI measurements at the official pregame measurement?

IMHO it is all about the answers to those questions starting at the bottom at #1 and ending at #5. Again just my two cents but keep the answers as succinct as possible -- something that even Borges and Felger could understand . A meme doesn't begin because of a 200 page answer to a 200 page report, it begins with a list of bullet points that is small yet solid in what information they convey while speaking directly to the crux of the matter.

Good questions. I will answer you tomorrow.

 

[Froob]

Exactly. What reason would he go all mission impossible on the balls in the bathroom? He could be in there for five or six minutes and it wouldn't raise any suspicion on it's own.

Sadly the report was agenda driven....ridiculous.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

I need to find the better worded quote instead of paraphrasing it crudely, but as somebody said: Twitter is the most efficient method of receiving the news, yet the most inherently inefficient method of discussing it.

Twitter's great for breaking news... In this context, you could use it to point to a web page with the big repository of info (I am sure you could hop on a hash-tag, e.g., framegate, that already exists, or just hop the most popular hash-tag, e.g. #deflategate... and tweet very succinct nuggets + the web addy)

But it seems like you'd be a voice in the wilderness. I dunno, maybe I'm wrong. I don't tweeter, I don't MyFace...

 

[DarrylS]

It is more probable than not that the Wells report deliberately left out all the questions and comments that Brady made.. the report that was already 243 pages long another 50-60 pages would not have made much difference..

It is more probable than not that Brady's decision not to turn over his cell phone and his messages had nothing to do with cooperation, it had to do with his right a a private citizen. However they framed it as "lack of cooperation"...

It is more probable than not that despite being warned, Anderson lost sight of the balls for a while, and instead of critiquing this chain of custody or failure to check the balls a second time(<1 minute 40 seconds) he received a very gentle "ball washing" from the authors..

It is more probable than not that the failure to test all of Indy's footballs was a serious error as we were told how important that was, they had about 12 more to test that could have been done in a about 1 minute 30... so much for the integrity of the game..

 

[YOUGOTMOSSED]

Worried about how the Patriots are viewed? That shipped sailed on the USS SpyGate. However, I agree with your general sentiment on the simpleminded. Yet, at least so far, my own anecdotal evidence suggests this is a non story to much of the masses (I live outside New England). While I personally have no doubt this will eventually subside, largely, to make way for the next outrage, if you step outside of diehard football circles I'm not finding much interest. IMHO this is partly because this story is a rehash. For those that thought the Brady/Patriots deflated footballs they already thought it.
But the rehash will now have temporary big legs not because of some blathering report, it will because the media is getting another bite at the apple of knocking someone from a lofty perch -- especially when that someone fits the profile of who should be knocked off, especially someone from the mighty and omnipresent NFL industry.
Only way this could be better for them is they not only record the thud of Brady falling off the perch, but then later recording his resurrection as he is feeding starving people from the back of his prius. I have my doubts, though, they will get to see their plan play out to full fruition (the media will not fret as another sacrificial lamb will make himself/herself available soon enough).

Hard to hold out much faith in humanity in light of this farce. There are people out there that believe Goodell has a PRO-Patriots bias!

Pretty sad state of affairs.

 

[Ross12]

Seriously, consider the ramifications of the Logo/Non-logo deal. They explain that the Logo gauge was calibrated as much as 0.4 PSI too high, and the Non-logo gauge was only 0.07 PSI too high. Anderson tells us he set all the balls to 12.5 and 13.0 for the Pats/Colts, but he says he used the Logo gauge to do so. This would mean that the balls would, in reality, be 12.1 and 12.6 PSI to start the game, and all measurements based on the prior starting point of 12.5/13.0 would have to be reduced by 0.4. Since we are only talking about a less than half PSI difference in expected pressure loss, this means that according to Anderson's own memory and the mathematics supplied by Exponent, the Patriots were fully in compliance...

Of course, Wells decides to randomly say "Oh, we think Anderson misremembered so we are going to assume he actually used the Non-Logo gauge." This pumps up all the numbers by 0.4 and creates the entire controversy, and is 100% from the baseless opinion of Ted Wells as he does not give a reason for why he believes Anderson misremembered.

 

[Ross12]

This would be the same as Wells saying "Anderson says he measured the balls to 12.1 and 12.6, but we think he misremembered so we are gonna run our numbers based on levels of 12.5 and 13.0."

Would you believe a report that was attempting to prove guilt based on science whose starting point was totally clearly fabricated?

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Thanks for so many great posts.

Once again, as was also unfortunately the case during Spygate, Patriots fans on this board are being more proactive in stating the Pats' case in a public forum than is the Patriots organization. The statements by Kraft to date are the bare minimum one would expect. I'm keeping an open mind in his case this time; perhaps he is keeping his powder dry until the League takes its actions, but I'm not holding my breath on that.

As I posted often in 2007-08, I was very disappointed and even shocked that the Patriots hadn't set up some form of "Truth Page" and prepped an army of media surrogates with daily Talking Points to debunk the barrage of attacks that gradually eroded the reputation of the organization and belittled its fans.

Thank you!

 

[hambone1818]

***snip***
Of course, Wells decides to randomly say "Oh, we think Anderson misremembered so we are going to assume he actually used the Non-Logo gauge."

I believe the justification, in the report, is that Anderson was unsure of which gauge he used but believed it to be the Logo gauge. Further, because the Colts weren't being investigated the data lined up with the non-Logo gauge being used initially, since the psi drop in those balls more aligns with the non-Logo gauge readings at halftime. So they used the non-logo numbers as the more scientifically plausible.

Two major flaws with these assumptions:
1. Where and how were the Colts balls prepped? Belichick gave a detailed accounting of the Patriots prep, but what happened with the Colts balls, at what temp were they pumped up at? Did they come in from the team bus (or the field) minutes before they were tested pre-game, thus reading artificially low (and closer to their mid-game reading), which would make the Logo gauge the one Anderson likely used? Maybe some of this is in the report, can anyone who's been brave enough to read it cover-to-cover let me know?
2. Speaking of the ball prep, what about Belichick's presser where he discussed their pre-game ritual? The artificial inflation of ~0.5 psi due to the rubbing process...I know Exponent did a side study on the effects of rubbing on the footballs but it never seems to come up when comparing psi's. What if the footballs the Pats used had an 'equilibrium' state indoors of 12.0-12.1 rather than 12.5, wouldn't that fully explain the non-Logo gauge readings?

In both cases the observed data would completely align with the science. Further, I have a very hard time believing that McNully (and Brady by extension) would risk a monster scandal over .3-.4 psi...that's seriously what they're hanging their hat on, literally the effect of putting the needle in twice--not even deflating but the natural effect of putting the needle in twice is what McNully/Brady are guilty of. INSANITY!

 

[Rob0729]

More to my point about how Wells takes Walt Anderson's recollection of the PSI of each ball as fact and gives him praise for his attention to detail, Matt Chatham posts another part of the Wells report to undermine it:

Wells report "evidence" undermines certainty of any reading. Halftime ones are diff w/ each gauge. Then this (p52)...

https://twitter.com/chatham58/status/596657217195143171/photo/1

So they don't even know which gauge they used and they went under the assumption that he used the logo gauge for the science although Anderson cannot remember which gauge he used.

 

[Dr Pain]

I honestly don't know where I would send it anymore. Maybe Reiss or Curran, but it certainly doesn't lend itself to a tweet. None of this does. That's the problem these days.

Send it all to Brady's agent. Especially the issues with the gauge and PSI info. http://www.yeedubin.com/

 

[Ross12]

I believe the justification, in the report, is that Anderson was unsure of which gauge he used but believed it to be the Logo gauge. Further, because the Colts weren't being investigated the data lined up with the non-Logo gauge being used initially, since the psi drop in those balls more aligns with the non-Logo gauge readings at halftime. So they used the non-logo numbers as the more scientifically plausible.

Two major flaws with these assumptions:
1. Where and how were the Colts balls prepped? Belichick gave a detailed accounting of the Patriots prep, but what happened with the Colts balls, at what temp were they pumped up at? Did they come in from the team bus (or the field) minutes before they were tested pre-game, thus reading artificially low (and closer to their mid-game reading), which would make the Logo gauge the one Anderson likely used? Maybe some of this is in the report, can anyone who's been brave enough to read it cover-to-cover let me know?
2. Speaking of the ball prep, what about Belichick's presser where he discussed their pre-game ritual? The artificial inflation of ~0.5 psi due to the rubbing process...I know Exponent did a side study on the effects of rubbing on the footballs but it never seems to come up when comparing psi's. What if the footballs the Pats used had an 'equilibrium' state indoors of 12.0-12.1 rather than 12.5, wouldn't that fully explain the non-Logo gauge readings?

In both cases the observed data would completely align with the science. Further, I have a very hard time believing that McNully (and Brady by extension) would risk a monster scandal over .3-.4 psi...that's seriously what they're hanging their hat on, literally the effect of putting the needle in twice--not even deflating but the natural effect of putting the needle in twice is what McNully/Brady are guilty of. INSANITY!

I appreciate the further analysis but in this case it doesn't really matter if his using the other gauge was more scientifically plausible. The fact of the matter is that they are basing all of their numbers on his recollections, but then change their assumptions when it suits them to what is more plausible. You can't tell me to implicitly trust Walt Anderson's memory on the initial PSI of all 15 footballs, then later tell me his memory on the gauge he used isn't as likely to be true so you're gonna do the opposite. You're then telling me "absolutely trust him for this part, but he is totally wrong for this part." It's a total farce. Especially when you consider the fact that you're asking me to trust that he remembers that he definitely inflated all 15 footballs to these exact numbers, but misremembers which of 2 gauges he used.

 

[Dr Pain]

Everyone, please send this to Mythbusters http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/mythbusters/about-this-show/mythbusters-submit-a-myth/

Directions are here

 

[hambone1818]

I appreciate the further analysis but in this case it doesn't really matter if his using the other gauge was more scientifically plausible. The fact of the matter is that they are basing all of their numbers on his recollections, but then change their assumptions when it suits them to what is more plausible. You can't tell me to implicitly trust Walt Anderson's memory on the initial PSI of all 15 footballs, then later tell me his memory on the gauge he used isn't as likely to be true so you're gonna do the opposite. You're then telling me "absolutely trust him for this part, but he is totally wrong for this part." It's a total farce.

Oh no doubt, I'm with you all the way. I'm just following his faulty logic but pointing out additional issues.

End of the day the 'control' data is suspect (no idea what the conditions were for pre-game measurements of Colts balls), the gauge used for pre-game is suspect (Anderson says one thing, they base their report on another), the Patriots psi data could be faulty (no accounting for Belichick's presser and how the Patriots say they prepare footballs).

It's ALL faulty, and even with that said the Patriots balls were NO MORE than 0.3-0.4 psi out of range (even using the 'worst' combination of data metrics), a miniscule amount that hardly justifies the risk involved to Brady and the Patriots.