Talk with Judge - Labor lawyer who deals with Unions every day

[tom444]

So are you a 50/50 means guilt person? Lean that way? Then act is there has been NO proof to convict. That's what this is about. Not about opinions. By your proof, he must be innocent.

Not at all. There is more to this than just the science. Lets say the science is 50/50, what about the rest?

 

[ViperGTS]

Not at all. There is more to this than just the science. Lets say the science is 50/50, what about the rest?

Still nothing there. IF anything can have just as easy counter explanation (ie the texts, calls etc), then that is not proof either. Point is, some things may lean further one way, others the other. It's up to perception. What isn't though is stating complete guilt. That based on the report, cannot be. To get a massive suspension or suspended at all require this. This wishy washy generally aware BS may work for the league (for now), but how it works in the minds of what I hoped were otherwise intelligent people is shocking to me.

 

[upstater1]

Not at all. There is more to this than just the science. Lets say the science is 50/50, what about the rest?

The rest is totally irrelevant.

If the balls fell to where they were predicted to fall, then the rest doesn't mean squat. Why? Because no one measured the balls on those days.

The texts are about as relevant as the Vikings and Jaguars altering the balls in their games, are about as relevant as Aaron Rodgers said he had balls inflated out of spec. It's all hearsay. No one caught Rodgers doing it. So there is no case against him. Just like the Jets got off spying on the Patriots in 2006. Theyw ere not caught redhanded.

The NFL has to have a probable suspicion that the balls at the AFCCG were tampered with.

Since the balls fell exactly to where they should have fallen, what is the suspicion based on? If they were tampered with, they should have fallen below to where the Ideal Gas Law said they would fall.

 

[patsfan13]

"but it also looks much more likely (than not) this was done just based on the science.”

Again, there is NO scientific evidence that proves unequivocally that Brady is innocent, or guilty.

The were NO RECORDED PSI for any of the game balls, NONE, so the measurements at halftime can establish ANYTHING .

 

[Froob]

The rest is totally irrelevant.

If the balls fell to where they were predicted to fall, then the rest doesn't mean squat. Why? Because no one measured the balls on those days.

The texts are about as relevant as the Vikings and Jaguars altering the balls in their games, are about as relevant as Aaron Rodgers said he had balls inflated out of spec. It's all hearsay. No one caught Rodgers doing it. So there is no case against him. Just like the Jets got off spying on the Patriots in 2006. Theyw ere not caught redhanded.

The NFL has to have a probable suspicion that the balls at the AFCCG were tampered with.

Since the balls fell exactly to where they should have fallen, what is the suspicion based on? If they were tampered with, they should have fallen below to where the Ideal Gas Law said they would fall.

If they did tamper with them, then they did a very poor job. What happened to "do your job?"

 

[upstater1]

The were NO RECORDED PSI for any of the game balls, NONE, so the measurements at halftime can establish ANYTHING .

This doesn't even need to be argued since the PSI's stated by Walt A. for the Patriots (12.5 PSI) resulted in a 1.2 PSI drop, as predicted. So why should we bother even arguing either that Wells' scientists were wrong (they weren't) or that the PSIs before the game were only from recollection? It's not like the Patriots balls fell out of the expected range. They didn't.

We shouldn't even criticize Anderson or Exponent.

This should all be on the science denier Wells.

 

[Ross12]

Not at all. There is more to this than just the science. Lets say the science is 50/50, what about the rest?

The science is not 50/50. The science proves innocence of Tom Brady. Even in the article you quote to attempt to support your opinion, the professor says that the science would appear to prove nothing happened to the balls, but says that because the Colts balls didn't lose nearly as much PSI, then something nefarious must have happened. How a "physics professor" can understand Ideal Gas Laws on one hand and yet seemingly ignore them is a matter for another discussion...

The point is, what we are left with is a law of physics, Patriots balls which fit that law, and Colts balls which do not. You are left with a choice: 1) Inaccurate data on Colts' balls (such as false recollection by Walt Anderson, or simply temp inside ball not being known) leading to appearance of magical science-defying footballs; 2a) Ideal Gas Law is a farce and should be ignored and the 4 Colts balls should be the standard of deflation which Patriots' balls must meet, but since the Patriots' balls lost more pressure then therefore there could've been human intervention, but there's not very much evidence which supports this theory and even if there were, there is none proving Tom Brady's participation/awareness; 2b) Ideal Gas Law is a farce and should be ignored and the 4 Colts balls should be the standard of deflation which the Patriots' balls must meet, but since the Patriots' balls lost more pressure then therefore I will simply decide there was definitely human intervention, and Tom Brady was definitely complicit.

Choice #1 requires acceptance of science and nature that has been established likely since before your conception. Choice #2a requires ignorance of science and nature that has been established likely since before your conception but an unbiased point-of-view and ability to understand context (or lack thereof) and to realize that talking about someone =/= talking with someone. Choice #2b requires ignorance of science and nature that has been established likely since before your conception, and either a heavily biased point-of-view, an extreme propensity to be influenced by mainstream media, or access to a Magic 8-ball: "Is Tom Brady guilty?" "YES" "All the proof I need!"

You chose #2b; therefore, our forum will choose to dislike your choice based on your reasoning listed above, and more probably than not choose to dislike you.

 

[RobertWeathers]

This doesn't even need to be argued since the PSI's stated by Walt A. for the Patriots (12.5 PSI) resulted in a 1.2 PSI drop, as predicted. So why should we bother even arguing either that Wells' scientists were wrong (they weren't) or that the PSIs before the game were only from recollection? It's not like the Patriots balls fell out of the expected range. They didn't.

We shouldn't even criticize Anderson or Exponent.

This should all be on the science denier Wells.

This whole f-ing investigation is sullied. It has no foundation. There is no context to the texts. There is no stable control groups for the testing. There is no historical frame of reference for how, when, with what equipment refs use to document PSI. There is no database. Its all hearsay. All of it. If you go by what was in the report McNally and Tb12 are clean. Period.

 

[Dougkdp]

Physics Professor: Deflategate Report’s Science Holds Up
By Braden Campbell
Boston.com Staff | 05.06.15 | 7:59 PM
The 243-page Deflategate report released Wednesday, which included independent analysis by two sources, was a big blow to those holding out hope science would exonerate the Patriots.

But could there be any holes to the analysts’ logic? Not likely, says Boston University professor Martin Schmaltz.

While the ideal gas law states air pressure in a given volume will drop along with temperature — and the balls used in the AFC Championship game likely dropped in temperature when moved from inside the stadium to the 51-degree field — the discrepancies between drops in pressure between the Colts balls and the Patriots balls was likely too much to be chance, according to Schmaltz.

“I see that the Colts’ balls pressure dropped about half a PSI and the Patriots balls seem to be more like 1.5, or maybe between one and 1.5,” says Schmaltz. “So it’s a little mysterious why the Patriots’ balls dropped more.”

According to the report, the Patriots’ balls began the game inflated to at least 12.5 PSI, while the Colts’ balls were around 13 PSI, give or take a tenth of a PSI. But it’s not the drop in PSI from that reference point that Schmaltz says looks bad for the Patriots, but the drops relative to each other.

According to Schmaltz, the ideal gas law equation suggests a drop in temperature from 68 or 70 would produce a drop of less than 1 PSI in a ball inflated to 12.5 or 13 PSI. While the report found the Colts’ balls measured at or around the league-minimum 12.5 PSI at halftime, many of the Patriots balls were a PSI or more below that threshold, a drop so large its unlikely to have been caused by atmospheric conditions.

While a 12.5 PSI ball could drop to 11.6 PSI, by his calculations, with a temperature drop from 68 or 70 degrees to 51, given both sets being subject to the same conditions, it’s suspicious the Patriots’ balls would drop so much further.

“The Patriots’ balls are around there, some are a little bit low, so the Patriots’ balls are not inconsistent with having been deflated by going down in temperature,” he says. “But it is very mysterious just based on why the Colts balls didn’t drop as much and the Patriots’ balls did.”

Given the exactness with which the analysts approached their study and the other evidence found by investigators, Schmaltz said the conclusion two equipment managers likely tampered with the footballs is an apt one.

“A lot of the text message stuff, that looks pretty damning to me,” Schmaltz says. ‘The science I don’t think is a slam dunk in terms of convicting them, but it also looks much more likely (than not) this was done just based on the science.”

http://www.boston.com/sports/footba...ience-holds/T2HqI3vFVivr9grXOD2VEI/story.html

Here's what I believe is missing in all this analysis and how ultimately he will beat this.

Although the numbers do not account for the drop, the experiment is seriously flawed and holds no weight unless they provided documented[emphasis added] pre-game numbers WITH confirmation both the Pats balls and Colts reached equilibrium or post game readings of ALL the colts/pats balls measured at equilibrium. Without this, no scientific analysis can be made comparing the drop of the pats balls to the colts since they have no idea what the pats/colts ball started and ended at.

The NFL screwed up by inflating the Pats balls at halftime losing the experiment control. Tom just needs to attack the initial readings. He could claim they just realized some of their gauges read high and possibly could have unintentionally submitted balls lower than 12.5 , or attack the validity of the original readings since it was not documented, or highlight possible error.

If they can't prove the balls were deflated, this gets tossed.

Does the report mention the readings of ALL the colts balls having been measured at the same temperature at equilibrium in Foxboro?

 

[RobertWeathers]

Does the report mention the readings of ALL the colts balls having been measured at the same temperature at equilibrium in Foxboro?

No. Conveniently absent.

"Thats a Mystery"

 

[ViperGTS]

Here's what I believe is missing in all this analysis and how ultimately he will beat this.

Although the numbers do not account for the drop, the experiment is seriously flawed and holds no weight unless they provided documented[emphasis added] pre-game numbers WITH confirmation both the Pats balls and Colts reached equilibrium or post game readings of ALL the colts/pats balls measured at equilibrium. Without this, no scientific analysis can be made comparing the drop of the pats balls to the colts since they have no idea what the pats/colts ball started and ended at.

The NFL screwed up by inflating the Pats balls at halftime losing the experiment control. Tom just needs to attack the initial readings. He could claim they just realized some of their gauges read high and possibly could have unintentionally submitted balls lower than 12.5 , or attack the validity of the original readings since it was not documented, or highlight possible error.

If they can't prove the balls were deflated, this gets tossed.

Does the report mention the readings of ALL the colts balls having been measured at the same temperature at equilibrium in Foxboro?

Name me one high school science test that you would PASS without documenting the initial numbers of the experiment? Answer to that is an answer to this.

 

[upstater1]

Although the numbers do not account for the drop

The numbers/calculations DO account for the drop.

Why are we making this so difficult folks?

Exponent used the same numbers that PalmBeachFan did, and came up with the same answers.

The balls deflated as predicted by Exponent.

Given that even the Boston U. professor made an error, it's clear to me that the strategy for Wells was to confuse and obfuscate, and it worked even with smart people.

Somehow, the Colts balls are now the control set, even though they defied Physics.

 

[Dougkdp]

The numbers/calculations DO account for the drop.

Why are we making this so difficult folks?

Exponent used the same numbers that PalmBeachFan did, and came up with the same answers.

The balls deflated as predicted by Exponent.

Given that even the Boston U. professor made an error, it's clear to me that the strategy for Wells was to confuse and obfuscate, and it worked even with smart people.

Somehow, the Colts balls are now the control set, even though they defied Physics.

Not attacking, can you provide a quick explanation? (Catching up). Is this taking avg of the readings? balls were > 1.3 psi below

 

[hambone1818]

Not at all. There is more to this than just the science. Lets say the science is 50/50, what about the rest?

But here's what you're missing: the science exonerating the Patriots would be a nail in the coffin. If the Pats balls were scientifically accurate then context-devoid text messages would mean nothing, correct? Can you get behind that statement?

Now, here's where the Wells report trips up in a big way: there were two gauges used by the refs that day: Non-Logo (I'll call it A) and Logo (I'll call it B). The gauges were calibrated differently, with A reading .4 psi lower than gauge B, consistently.

Anderson said he believed he used gauge B for his pre-game readings, so the established baseline (Patriots at 12.5; Colts at 13.0 pre game) should be based on the halftime measurements from gauge B--again, the higher of the two gauges.

Putting aside the fact that most of the readouts for the Colts balls didn't match the predicted psi based on the ideal gas law (which can be easily explained with either them being inflated either on the field/in colder conditions than the Pats balls, or that the measurements were taken 10 minutes after the Patriots, giving them more time to reach the inside equilibrium, which only takes ~20 minutes per the Exponent data), the Patriots halftime readouts on gauge B are SPOT ON where the ideal gas law predicted they'd be.

So Exponent/Wells used all of Anderson's testimony as gospel--the pre game readouts based on recollection, the balls disappearing in an unprecedented manner. They did not, however, believe he used gauge B and based all their conclusions on gauge A, with the Pats balls coming in .3-.4 psi lower than predicted. It fit their narrative so they ran with it, despite what a trusted, 20 year league Referee told them.

Further, let's say he DID use gauge A... a .3-.4 psi difference is little more than sticking the pin in and taking a reading, try it yourself if you don't believe me. There is positively NO difference in feel or weight between 11.4 and 11.1, absolutely none. Hell, there are dozens of internet videos out there of people--many ex-QB's--feeling no difference between a full 2.0 psi drop. Do you really, truly believe that McNally--and by extension Brady--would risk a major scandal in an AFC Championship game over .3-.4 psi? Everyone's jumping to conclusions based on text messages, how about using some logic around the actual scientific evidence. Even the lower gauge, the one Anderson said he DIDN'T use, makes no sense from a logic standpoint.

This is nothing more than a non-story with complex scientific data gaining traction because the team and player in question are the most successful and most vilified in the league. This is also a story of an incompetent Commissioner letting the sensationalistic media narrative drive the story, and also cover up what was a sting operation by other teams and his own personnel, and what also is a faulty football measurement and control protocol. Wells as tasked with finding evidence of the Patriots cheating and he did his best, but the data absolutely does not back him up and the footnotes around the sting and poor ball controls tell the real story.

 

[Tony Cahncuhd]

Not at all. There is more to this than just the science. Lets say the science is 50/50, what about the rest?

No. Science is the core issue. This whole hullabaloo is about air pressure in footballs. If science says that the air in those footballs is about what you'd expect from natural temperature change, then there is no problem. It doesn't matter what those two jackasses texted to each other.

You don't have a murder if no one dies.

 

[RobertWeathers]

No. Science is the core issue. This whole hullabaloo is about air pressure in footballs.

Yes but the real core of the issue is did TB12 influence the balls being altered after Walt and his guys checked them and at any moment prior going back to 1982.

 

[hambone1818]

Not attacking, can you provide a quick explanation? (Catching up). Is this taking avg of the readings? balls were > 1.3 psi below

Read my post (above this one).

I don't have the exact numbers in front of me, but there were two gauges, non-Logo and Logo. I always mix them up the one of them (let's say Logo) read ~.4 PSI below non logo consistently.

So based on the non-Logo gauge, the Pats balls were recorded with an average PSI of, I believe, 11.49 at halftime, spot on the ideal gas law predicted drop. The Logo gauge recorded an average PSI of somewhere around 11.1, about .3-.4 PSI below where it's expected the balls would have dropped.

(EDIT: actually, I believe the average of the two gauges is right on the predicted value; the lower of the two gauges happens to below that average. Again, I don't have the exact numbers but this is the gist of it).

Anderson believed he used the higher of the two gauges at the start of the game. The Wells report bases their conclusions based on the lower, however, since the Colts balls are more in line with the observed PSI drop. Putting aside how faulty all that logic is, we also only have four Colts balls to go by. There's a lot of 'fail' in this report, but consistently Wells and Exponent base their scientific conclusions on data that is more harmful to the Patriots case...over and over again. It's disappointing, but not at all surprising.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Humor me. Prove his innocence.

After you.
YOU made the statement
Back it up

A clue: proving a negative is not really possible.

 

[upstater1]

Not attacking, can you provide a quick explanation? (Catching up). Is this taking avg of the readings? balls were > 1.3 psi below

Balls averaged 1.2 below.

For several reasons, Palm Beach took the average. I think he was right for doing so.

Here are the reasons.

1. The Wells report could not tell us who measured the balls first.
2. if Prioleau measured them first, and by doing so let a bit of air out, it stands to reason that the second measure would have lower readings. This is why the average might be taken.
3. if air doesn't come out with measuring, then the two different gauges used might account for the variance. But there too we don't know who used which gauge.
4. The intercepted ball from the field was not tested, probably because it had been tested on the field 3 times, with each different number taped to the ball. This presumes that they got 3 different readings each time they tested it. I can think of no other reason for this to happen than air escaping with each test.

In other words, given the extremely shoddy way the refs went about doing this, it makes sense for someone like Palm Beach to take the average of the readings. 1.2 when the predicted PSI is 1.22

That being said, things become extremely funky if #3 is true and the gauges were different, because Ref. Anderson couldn't remember which gauge he used before the game. And if that's true, we don't even know that his claim of 12.5 PSI is correct. The balls could have started out at 12 PSI if he was using the same gauge as the ref with readings higher than 1.3 drop.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

Based on the article, that was from the Missouri high court.

Where does one go? federal court?

Perhaps some of our legal eagles can opine but I always thought state high courts rulings take precedence to everyone except the Supreme Court.

A lawsuit in the state courts can only go to the state's supreme court and then after the state's supreme court has ruled the only remaining appellate court that can hear the case is the US Supreme Court. Which of course almost definitely won't hear it since it picks the cases it wants to hear and picks very few. So for all intents and purposes the ruling of the state's supreme court will be final.