Deflate-gate investigation complete

[Pneumonic]

I guess I am dumb, cause I see no point here. It does strike me as odd that Yee keeps pointing to an NFL vendetta vs his clients innocence ...maybe I missed it but I have not seen him say unequivocally Brady had zero knowledge of balls being deflated.

 

Is it really the contention of all the "vendetta" people think the NFL really wants Brady to be caught cheating. Give me one, and I do mean just one, where him getting caught cheating is good for the NFL? As soon as I hear that , maybe I can start to look at things different.

 

And let's not forget , Kraft is one of three owners who decides Rogers pay.

 

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2457244-sources-patriots-reputation-as-nfls-best-cheaters-made-them-a-target

[plenzmd1]

Damien Woody is going OFF on pats, pats fans, etc on cowherd. Great stuff!!

I am listening as well. Too funny. I asked earlier, but has anyone seen Brushi and Harrison commented yet? They have always been the ones talking the most about the "Patriot Way". I really want to hear what they say.

 

BTW, Chris Russo has been Classic last couple of days.

[Pneumonic]

On the invasion of privacy stuff, it was very narrow discovery. If there was nothing to hide, I question the lawyers advice to not turn it over. Knowing this was going to be a court of public opinion, his clients celebrity status, and the NFL's low levels of standards to punish.

 

If the lawyer weighed all that and put "not setting a precedent for other players" or "making a moral stand" then that's very suspect advice. Brady is his client, not other players. That's why I can't believe that advice was given.

 

The request is very narrow, it's not court enforced, and would produce a small amount of documents. They could have tailored what they gave. To not give anything is bad advice, as we see now.

 

http://blog.masslive..._investiga.html

 

"With the text messages, the scope that they asked for was actually very, very wide," Yee told CNN. "I probably should have made the letter public that we received from the NFL's lawyers, but in any event, if we would have provided the phone or text messages...Tom is also member of the union, the commissioner's office actually does not have any subpoena power. If a prominent player were to provide all of their private communications absent a subpoena, that sets a dangerous precedent for all players facing disciplinary measures."

 

"Finally," Yee continued, "any information we would have provided -- and the Wells investigative team did ask us to go through Tom's phone on our own and provide them with information if we chose to go that route -- but as you might surmise, if we would have chose to go that route any information we would have given them they probably would have had skepticism about, anyway. When it came down to it, either way you turned, you're really not playing on a level playing field."

[Go Kiko go]

 

You are entitled to your opinion on whether clear evidence is required or not. I happen to think it is vitally important to have an established reference documented and not some presumption based on the recollection of an official who couldn't even recall whether he signed the kicking balls or even what gauge was used for crying out loud.

 

Did you read my post? The point is that having a record of the precise PSI level of each ball at the start of the game--instead of Anderson's recollection that the footballs were all around the 12.5 PSI level--would not have affected the determination that atmospheric conditions could not have accounted for the pressure drop because the report assumed that the footballs were inflated to the lowest PSI permissible under the rules--the most favorable possible scenario for the Patriots. The footballs could not have been any lower than 12.5 PSI, because the officials would have raised the pressure of those footballs to bring them to the minimum level--as they did with two of the Patriots footballs.

 

It's possible that some of the footballs were inflated to a higher pressure (indeed, Anderson said that some of the footballs may have been inflated to 12.6 PSI instead of 12.5) and that having a record of the pressure of each ball may have shown that some of the footballs were inflated to a higher pressure than the report assumed. But, as I pointed out, that information would be less favorable to the Patriots because it would show an even greater drop in pressure.

 

Could you explain why you believe that having documented records of the initial inflation level of each of the Patriots footballs would alter the conclusion that atmospheric conditions could not account for the drop in pressure?

[plenzmd1]

 

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2457244-sources-patriots-reputation-as-nfls-best-cheaters-made-them-a-target

I can't open that now, but based on the title

 

Pats are widely considered to be cheaters, NFL caught them cheating, so NFL is at fault for catching them? Is that the premise?

 

So I have just seen it. Says once Colts raised the issue, other teams supported the claim that they thought the Pats had used under inflated balls against them as well. In other words, this was not an isolated incident( as most think) but had been happening for a period of time.

 

And you think this is good for Brady and the Pats how? Maybe they started using these balls after that KC game eh? Maybe they don't get home fieldd without the balls and don't get the Colts at home.

 

Explain please how several teams thinking the Pats cheated is somehow good for the Pats or that the NFL finding they cheated is good for the NFL.

 

Again, just one example how it is good for the NFL I will accept.

Edited May 8, 2015 by plenzmd1

[Jerry Jabber]

Jon Stewart blasts Tom Brady: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rm6jblP51w

[Pneumonic]

 

Did you read my post? The point is that having a record of the precise PSI level of each ball at the start of the game--instead of Anderson's recollection that the footballs were all around the 12.5 PSI level--would not have affected the determination that atmospheric conditions could not have accounted for the pressure drop because the report assumed that the footballs were inflated to the lowest PSI permissible under the rules--the most favorable possible scenario for the Patriots. The footballs could not have been any lower than 12.5 PSI, because the officials would have raised the pressure of those footballs to bring them to the minimum level--as they did with two of the Patriots footballs.

 

It's possible that some of the footballs were inflated to a higher pressure (indeed, Anderson said that some of the footballs may have been inflated to 12.6 PSI instead of 12.5) and that having a record of the pressure of each ball may have shown that some of the footballs were inflated to a higher pressure than the report assumed. But, as I pointed out, that information would be less favorable to the Patriots because it would show an even greater drop in pressure.

 

Could you explain why you believe that having documented records of the initial inflation level of each of the Patriots footballs would alter the conclusion that atmospheric conditions could not account for the drop in pressure?

 

The issue isn't with the gas law (BTW weren't 8 of the 11 shown to be in proper levesl?) but rather questioning the competency of the measurements and/or those taking the measurements.

[DC Tom]

I can't open that now, but based on the title

 

Pats are widely considered to be cheaters, NFL caught them cheating, so NFL is at fault for catching them? Is that the premise?

 

And "everyone cheats, but the Pats were singled out because they're better at it."

[Pneumonic]

I can't open that now, but based on the title

 

Pats are widely considered to be cheaters, NFL caught them cheating, so NFL is at fault for catching them? Is that the premise?

 

Sorta,kinda.

 

Basically, the he Patriots’ reputation as the best cheaters in the league drew the focus of other teams in the NFL and eventually led to the Wells report. IOW, implied possible sting operation.

[Go Kiko go]

 

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2457244-sources-patriots-reputation-as-nfls-best-cheaters-made-them-a-target

This, for once, is a reasonably probative source of potential bias that the league may have had (I would think you would agree that this explanation--a league-wide belief that the Patriots are cheating, but haven't been caught--is more compelling than the belief, without more, that the NFL took it upon themselves to engage in a sting operation in the hopes that they would get to denounce Brady as a cheater, with no plausible explanation for the league's motivation).

 

I still believe that it is unlikely that the NFL's preferred outcome in this matter was a public finding that Brady was likely involved in cheating, and more unlikely still that Paul, Weiss prepared an intentionally-biased report--which they knew would be publicly available for review and critique--so that one of the faces of the NFL could be denounced as a cheater. But this is interesting information nonetheless.

Edited May 8, 2015 by Go Kiko go

[Kirby Jackson]

I am listening as well. Too funny. I asked earlier, but has anyone seen Brushi and Harrison commented yet? They have always been the ones talking the most about the "Patriot Way". I really want to hear what they say.

 

BTW, Chris Russo has been Classic last couple of days.

I am not sure if Bruschi commented but I did find this picture of him from yesterday:

[Go Kiko go]

 

The issue isn't with the gas law (BTW weren't 8 of the 11 shown to be in proper levesl?) but rather questioning the competency of the measurements and/or those taking the measurements.

But you haven't identified the potential flaw in the measurements that could have affected the conclusion that atmospheric pressure was not to blame. As I pointed out, the report assumes the best case scenario for the Patriots with respect to the initial measurements, and the measurements taken at halftime were recorded, taken using both pressure gauges, and the scientific consulting firm concluded that the gauges were reliable and consistent, as noted in the excerpt from the report posted a few posts earlier in this thread. Where is the flaw in this methodology that you've identified?

[UpperDeck]

 

You are entitled to your opinion on whether clear evidence is required or not. I happen to think it is vitally important to have an established reference documented and not some presumption based on the recollection of an official who couldn't even recall whether he signed the kicking balls or even what gauge was used for crying out loud.

 

The entire premise of the report is based on pre-game ball pressure totals that have no proof of being accurate. It's a sham.

 

You obviously don't understand math. The refs check the balls before the game to make sure they are legally inflated. So they were legally inflated before the game. In addition, the air gauges used were confirmed to be accurate. Given that, the best case scenario for the Pats* would be that the balls were inflated to the minimum legal pressure of 12.5 PSI. The deflation rate from that legal pressure to the halftime readings was significantly higher than the what the Colts footballs experienced. Any other legal pre-game pressure would have to be higher than 12.5 PSI and would mean the rate of deflation was even higher.

 

Your unending feeble attempts to discredit the investigation makes me wonder. Is Brady paying you to wash his balls?

[Pneumonic]

But you haven't identified the potential flaw in the measurements that could have affected the conclusion that atmospheric pressure was not to blame. As I pointed out, the report assumes the best case scenario for the Patriots with respect to the initial measurements, and the measurements taken at halftime were recorded, taken using both pressure gauges, and the scientific consulting firm concluded that the gauges were reliable and consistent, as noted in the excerpt from the report posted a few posts earlier in this thread. Where is the flaw in this methodology that you've identified?

 

I did back in post 921 to which you already responded.

[Go Kiko go]

 

http://blog.masslive..._investiga.html

 

"With the text messages, the scope that they asked for was actually very, very wide," Yee told CNN. "I probably should have made the letter public that we received from the NFL's lawyers, but in any event, if we would have provided the phone or text messages...Tom is also member of the union, the commissioner's office actually does not have any subpoena power. If a prominent player were to provide all of their private communications absent a subpoena, that sets a dangerous precedent for all players facing disciplinary measures."

 

"Finally," Yee continued, "any information we would have provided -- and the Wells investigative team did ask us to go through Tom's phone on our own and provide them with information if we chose to go that route -- but as you might surmise, if we would have chose to go that route any information we would have given them they probably would have had skepticism about, anyway. When it came down to it, either way you turned, you're really not playing on a level playing field."

 

Yee's comments run counter to how discovery is conducted in civil litigation every day, in courts across the country, for stakes far greater than Tom Brady's reputation.

 

This is how the process should have unfolded:

 

The NFL asks Brady's attorneys to produce any text messages or email communications that are relevant to the investigation, which the NFL did. Then, Brady's attorneys are responsible for reviewing Brady's communications in order to sift out the communications that were relevant to the investigation from those that were not (a number of posts in this thread have suggested that Brady would have had to turn over his phone, or all of his messages; that is not accurate, and is not how discovery works). His attorneys would have then provided the NFL with the responsive communications, redacted as necessary to remove any material not relevant to the investigation that Brady wanted to remain private. His attorneys would have also prepared what's called a "redaction log" where they would provide a brief explanation of why they chose to omit certain communications or redact portions of communications (for example, because those materials were not relevant to the investigation). Then, the NFL would review the communications Brady's attorneys turned over, and they could challenge his attorneys' decision to withhold certain information or redact parts of communications, which the parties could have attempted to resolve themselves or through a neutral mediator, who could review the communications in question (in private) and decide whether Brady's attorneys were correct in their decision that the information they chose to withhold was not relevant to the investigation.

 

But instead of following this normal, well-established procedure, Brady (or Brady's attorneys) elected to refuse to provide any of his communications.

Edited May 8, 2015 by Go Kiko go

[Pneumonic]

You obviously don't understand math. The refs check the balls before the game to make sure they are legally inflated. So they were legally inflated before the game. In addition, the air gauges used were confirmed to be accurate. Given that, the best case scenario for the Pats* would be that the balls were inflated to the minimum legal pressure of 12.5 PSI. The deflation rate from that legal pressure to the halftime readings was significantly higher than the what the Colts footballs experienced. Any other legal pre-game pressure would have to be higher than 12.5 PSI and would mean the rate of deflation was even higher.

 

Your unending feeble attempts to discredit the investigation makes me wonder. Is Brady paying you to wash his balls?

 

My math is fine. My English not so much which may be contributing to your not understanding my relevant points. Th eissue is not with the measurements nor the math but the protocol for taking said measurements. Namely, there apparently are no established protocols in place for the measurement process.

[BuffaloHokie13]

 

The issue isn't with the gas law (BTW weren't 8 of the 11 shown to be in proper levesl?) but rather questioning the competency of the measurements and/or those taking the measurements.

No. The 4 Colts balls lost an average of 0.47 PSI in the same conditions. (0.47, 0.47, 0.27, and 0.65 respectively)

 

Of the 11 Pats* balls, only 2 were reasonably close to that. One had a drop of 0.42, another had a drop of 0.72 (which is close enough to 0.65 for me to admit). The average PSI drop in the Pats* balls was 1.20 and only 3 of their balls lost less than 1 PSI, over double what the Colts balls lost. If you want to argue sample size I will give the Pats* the benefit of the doubt. If their absolute best 4 were chosen they lost an average of 0.79, which is a 68% increase over the Colts balls...

[UpperDeck]

 

My math is fine. My English not so much which may be contributing to your not understanding my relevant points. Th eissue is not with the measurements nor the math but the protocol for taking said measurements. Namely, there apparently are no established protocols in place for the measurement process.

What sort of protocols would you want to see?

[Pneumonic]

 

Yee's comments run counter to how discovery is conducted in civil litigation every day, in courts across the country, for stakes far greater than Tom Brady's reputation.

 

This is how the process should have unfolded:

 

The NFL asks Brady's attorneys to produce any text messages or email communications that are relevant to the investigation, which the NFL did. Then, Brady's attorneys are responsible for reviewing Brady's communications in order to sift out the communications that were relevant to the investigation from those that were not (a number of posts in this thread have suggested that Brady would have had to turn over his phone, or all of his messages; that is not accurate, and is not how discovery works). His attorneys would have then provided the NFL with the responsive communications, redacted as necessary to remove any material not relevant to the investigation that Brady wanted to remain private. His attorneys would have also prepared what's called a "redaction log" where they would provide a brief explanation of why they chose to omit certain communications or redact portions of communications (for example, because those materials were not relevant to the investigation). Then, the NFL would review the communications Brady's attorneys turned over, and they could challenge his attorneys' decision to withhold certain information or redact parts of communications, which the parties could have attempted to resolve themselves or through a neutral mediator, who could review the communications in question (in private) and decide whether Brady's attorneys were correct in their decision that the information they chose to withhold was not relevant to the investigation.

 

But instead of following this normal, well-established procedure, Brady (or Brady's attorneys) elected to refuse to provide any of his communications.

 

And this may be what it all boils down to in the end. An issue of the non submission of text messages rather than of actual ball pressure shenanigans, What a lovely world we now live in.

No. The 4 Colts balls lost an average of 0.47 PSI in the same conditions. (0.47, 0.47, 0.27, and 0.65 respectively)

 

Of the 11 Pats* balls, only 2 were reasonably close to that. One had a drop of 0.42, another had a drop of 0.72 (which is close enough to 0.65 for me to admit). The average PSI drop in the Pats* balls was 1.20 and only 3 of their balls lost less than 1 PSI, over double what the Colts balls lost. If you want to argue sample size I will give the Pats* the benefit of the doubt. If their absolute best 4 were chosen they lost an average of 0.79, which is a 68% increase over the Colts balls...

 

4 Colts balls isn't a large enough sample size to be valid.

 

As for Pats balls.

 

http://www.breitbart.com/sports/2015/05/06/probably-doesnt-cut-it-wells-report-damns-investigators-more-than-patriots/

What sort of protocols would you want to see?

 

I touch on a couple protocol concerns in my post #921 .

[The Wiz]

Jon Stewart blasts Tom Brady: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rm6jblP51w

Did you catch Rome yesterday. I normally hate listening to him but he was lighting up brady.

 

Brady: Hey Johnny boy how you doin? how's the wife?

John: Umm, I don't have a wife.

Brady: You want one Johnny boy? I know some supermodels.