#DFG: Canceling the Noise
- Thread starter nattysez
- Start date
WayBackVazquez said:
I guess the question is are your surprised that a major law firm doing an investigation massages the shit out of it to get a result that is both supported by a lot of facts and aligned with the interests of whoever is paying the bills?
tims4wins said:
What's even more ridiculous to me is that the purported pressure drops range anywhere from 0.2 to 1.6 psi. One would think that would have lead them to question the assumption that all the balls started at 12.5 psi.
TheoShmeo said:
Well, we did a sports investigation that was arguably higher profile fairly recently, and we certainly didn't bring in the chair of the firm to ride shotgun. But that's really not the point. If Paul Weiss wants to bill up a storm, more power to them. I just don't think this document reads as neutral investigative findings. Like I said, I am sure we will soon get voluntary expert rebuttals.
For that matter, if this was going to take this much time and money, I don't know why they didn't just arbitrate the thing. Let the Patriots submit their own expert report and let the arbitrator(s) be the judge of the witnesses' credibility.
I guess what I'm not getting from the report is why the texts and information obtained make it more probable that they released air from the balls after the referee check (illegal) than that there was a concerted effort to get the balls as soft as possible but in the acceptable range pre-check so that the referees wouldn't inflate them more (legal).
All the texts are, to me, consistent with both narratives.
The report makes a big deal about the head official not knowing where the balls were right before the game and how that was unusual--indeed, unique--in his career. But the texts would support a theory that this was a regular practice. As such, that inclusion of that other evidence about the weirdness of not being able to find the balls doesn't sit right, because you can't at once advocate a narrative that this was a special case and one where this was a regular practice.
I'm with WBV--this report kinda stinks.
All the texts are, to me, consistent with both narratives.
The report makes a big deal about the head official not knowing where the balls were right before the game and how that was unusual--indeed, unique--in his career. But the texts would support a theory that this was a regular practice. As such, that inclusion of that other evidence about the weirdness of not being able to find the balls doesn't sit right, because you can't at once advocate a narrative that this was a special case and one where this was a regular practice.
I'm with WBV--this report kinda stinks.
LuckyBen, I'm saying that complaining that PW had senior guys on the report and the Chair of the firm is silly. Of course they did.
I think that the faux outrage regarding the balls is a joke, that QBs and teams around the NFL most likely adjust air pressure on a regular basis (or did) and the low tones seriousness around the issue is a bit much.
As to the report itself, it appears that it doesn't reach any firm conclusions so my reaction is "much ado about little."
WBV, whatever report your firm just did doesn't have the profile of the Wells Report, I suspect. But different firms act differently, and I repeat: If my firm was doing the Wells Report, I'd want some of our very best to review it and make sure it passed muster.
I think that the faux outrage regarding the balls is a joke, that QBs and teams around the NFL most likely adjust air pressure on a regular basis (or did) and the low tones seriousness around the issue is a bit much.
As to the report itself, it appears that it doesn't reach any firm conclusions so my reaction is "much ado about little."
WBV, whatever report your firm just did doesn't have the profile of the Wells Report, I suspect. But different firms act differently, and I repeat: If my firm was doing the Wells Report, I'd want some of our very best to review it and make sure it passed muster.
dcmissle said:
Good point. The NFL doesn't always follow their on bylaws and rules. Let me go check the Goodell thread now on getting a decision thrown out of court again.
OK, so... the report boils down to saying that some of the Pats' balls may have been (depending on the gauge used) below the allowable PSI range at halftime, and that there are no pre-game PSI measurements available. That's not news.
The only news is that the guys who handle the balls before the refs get them know that Brady doesn't like overinflated balls, and they text one another about what a prissy-butt he is about it. Whatever those guys do or don't do to the balls, the balls then go to the refs for approval.
Someone explain to me where there's any evidence that anyone did anything wrong, or that anything unusual happened to any footballs that day?
The only news is that the guys who handle the balls before the refs get them know that Brady doesn't like overinflated balls, and they text one another about what a prissy-butt he is about it. Whatever those guys do or don't do to the balls, the balls then go to the refs for approval.
Someone explain to me where there's any evidence that anyone did anything wrong, or that anything unusual happened to any footballs that day?
Remind me again the penalties recieved by (IIRC) Carolina and the Vikings for actually tampering with balls during the game on the sidelines?
Doug Beerabelli said:
Please try to stay on topic. This is about winning teams doing something illegal. Not losers.
See: Falcons, Atlanta
Doug Beerabelli said:
Come on, do you really expect those quarterbacks to be more probable than not generally aware of a temperature difference like that?
That's exactly what they're concluding - that the extreme variance in the readings of the Pats' balls (as compared to the Colts) is explained by the balls not starting at a uniform 12.5. And that the balls were not at 12.5 because McNally tampered with them after the refs set each ball to 12.5.bsartist618 said:
So much of this relies on the assumption that the refs inflated the balls to 12.5 before the game. And all we have to confirm that is the testimony of the refs themselves.
TheoShmeo said:
There actually may be a sport or two in the world bigger than American football.
I think the whole thing is crap; we have been aligned on that from the beginning. I also think they were out to get the Pats.Stitch01 said:
But once you accept this as the playing field and understand that the Roger does not like to lose face, we're going to get whacked, no?
The problem is that this was teed up as a "fair competition" issue from the beginning. Roger repeated it last week and today. That's why I think the Polian stuff hurts. He's echoing Roger, egging him on. And as we all recall, he was on the competition committee for a long time.
The Exponent report speaks to this. Broadly, it says "Taking all the factors into account, for the Patriots balls to measure what they did at halftime, they must have started below 12.5, so someone must have let air out of them. However, this conclusion depends on facts given to us by Paul, Weiss-- such as the fact the balls were in the locker room for 2 min before measurement. If they were measured immediately, these conclusions are invalid and the balls could have started at proper inflation."There is no Rev said:
In other words: there is no real evidence.
This.joe dokes said:
I've conducted investigations. It's totally different than advocacy. If a lawyer in this position delivered a 'made as instructed' result, he'd be placing his reputation squarely on the line.
Neither Ted Wells nor Paul Weiss play that way. I dislike the outcome, but I believe that they are convinced TB was directly involved, and in the absence of direct evidence, they can go no further than probability. However, that phrase speaks volumes.
TB's presser will hang him. I think he'll get whacked for a few games. More important, even people who don't have a dog in the fight will conclude he's a liar.
So...Aaron Rodgers admits to tampering with footballs, and it's an amusing anecdote in the booth...there is no evidence that Tom Brady did and we're talking suspensions and fines and loss of integrity of the game. This is absurd.
WBV. there may or may not be a sport bigger than pro football, but I would be shocked if there was an investigative report that has been issued in the last 3 months that has garnered more attention than the Wells Report.
Maybe I'm just missing it. But I don't think so.
The point, however, is that whether your firm chose to involve the Chair is a red herring. Many firms, when issuing a document that is going to be as widely read as the Wells Report, would. I think mine would.
But either way, acting as if PW did something wrong by giving this document very senior attention is wrong headed and overly judgmental. Pick on them for stuff that matters, like jumping to conclusions about Tom without enough evidence.
And Otis Foster has bingo, sadly.
Maybe I'm just missing it. But I don't think so.
The point, however, is that whether your firm chose to involve the Chair is a red herring. Many firms, when issuing a document that is going to be as widely read as the Wells Report, would. I think mine would.
But either way, acting as if PW did something wrong by giving this document very senior attention is wrong headed and overly judgmental. Pick on them for stuff that matters, like jumping to conclusions about Tom without enough evidence.
And Otis Foster has bingo, sadly.
Something interested posted at Deadspin, about the Colts telling the league before the game that they were concerned about the Pats' ball prep:
Didn't Blandino deny that the league was tipped off when he had a presser before the Super Bowl?
Didn't Blandino deny that the league was tipped off when he had a presser before the Super Bowl?
TheoShmeo said:
Isn't Peer Review a standard for any sort of document of importance? At least in my industry it is. If it's an important document, it's peer reviewed by the most senior person necessary based upon the document's importance. If I'm a partner at a major law firm in a case with the NFL and the Patriots, you're damn sure I'm reviewing it to make sure it's accurate before it goes out. This document will be poured over to the grammar level and my law firms name is on it.
at end of day ...all this does is piss off BB and Brady ...they go 13-3 - telling everyone to F off ....one of the reasons I'm a big fan.
You are delusional. A lack of firm conclusions has almost nothing to do with this. It is all about rhetoric. 'Probable' might as well mean iron clad evidence in the public discourse on this one.TheoShmeo said:
Details about the way the scientific info in the appendix complicate things and the selective logic and evidence used to see the sequence of events as implicating Brady mean almost nothing against the summary statement.