#DFG: Canceling the Noise

[Super Nomario]

 
I'm particularly fond of the part in the report where they said that if the non logo gauge was used then the pre-game temperature had to be 67 degrees because otherwise the colts balls didn't have enough time to get back to the "observed" PSI. 

This is the most disingenuous part of the entire Wells report. I wish Kessler had asked whether there was an earlier draft that had the transient chart starting at 71 degrees and what it would have suggested about the Patriots' PSI drop. I'm guessing that there must have been such a draft, and it would have been amazing to hear the Exponent guys try to tap-dance around that (or hear someone lamely invoke privilege).

 

[Reverend]

 
I'm particularly fond of the part in the report where they said that if the non logo gauge was used then the pre-game temperature had to be 67 degrees because otherwise the colts balls didn't have enough time to get back to the "observed" PSI. 

 
In graduate school, I lived with a theoretical physicist who I once asked because I couldn't remember if the universe was expanding or contracting. I'll always remember his answer.
 
"We initially thought it was expanding. But then we got some new data that suggested it might be contracting. But then we worked some more stuff out and we do now know it is expanding, thank God."
 
I thought the end was a curious response, and asked, um, what the hell do you mean by "Thank God"? His response?
 

Spoiler

Because then all our models would be wrong!

 
True story.

 

[Shelterdog]

This is the most disingenuous part of the entire Wells report. I wish Kessler had asked whether there was an earlier draft that had the transient chart starting at 71 degrees and what it would have suggested about the Patriots' PSI drop. I'm guessing that there must have been such a draft, and it would have been amazing to hear the Exponent guys try to tap-dance around that (or hear someone lamely invoke privilege).

 
I'd be almost willing to guaranty you that there is no such draft--I'm sure they did some sort of work to get to that point but they most likely kept none of it (quite intentionally, I might add--just so they can avoid questions like yours). 

 

[edmunddantes]

 
I'm particularly fond of the part in the report where they said that if the non logo gauge was used then the pre-game temperature had to be 67 degrees because otherwise the colts balls didn't have enough time to get back to the "observed" PSI. 

 
Also consider earlier in the Wells report that the number of people in the Ref's lockerroom was extra high that day.
 
All those bodies moving about, talking, breathing in & out, etc have a tendency to up the temperature. 
 
I'd be shocked if the temp in that room really was 67 degrees. 
 
The temperature from all those people could easily raise the temp by 2-3 degrees above the set point. Meaning the Pats need to be setting it 65 or below as a matter of course in order for the temp to be at 67.
 
Are the Pats lilke my dad and refuse to set the thermostat above 65 for the rooms inside Gillette?
 
 It's more likely the temp in that room was in the low 70's, but we'll never know for certain on that day. We could run some experiments where we replicate number of people, Pats normal set point, and time in room and get some interesting data, but that's about it. 

 

[Reverend]

 
Also consider earlier in the Wells report that the number of people in the Ref's lockerroom was extra high that day.
 
All those bodies moving about, talking, breathing in & out, etc have a tendency to up the temperature. 
 
I'd be shocked if the temp in that room really was 67 degrees. 
 
The temperature from all those people could easily raise the temp by 2-3 degrees above the set point. Meaning the Pats need to be setting it 65 or below as a matter of course in order for the temp to be at 67.
 
Are the Pats lilke my dad and refuse to set the thermostat above 65 for the rooms inside Gillette?
 
 It's more likely the temp in that room was in the low 70's, but we'll never know for certain on that day. We could run some experiments where we replicate number of people, Pats normal set point, and time in room and get some interesting data, but that's about it. 

 
I suppose calling someone at Gillette and asking them was out of the question.

 

[crystalline]

 
In your mind, how close does the part in the transcript where he basically says he concluded which gauge was used based on the one it needed be for his results to work out right come to being proof?

I couldn't find that. Can you quote it?

 

[ifmanis5]

Front page of NYPost.com is Brady & Manning. I mean, the coverage of all of this is so predictably bad.

 

[Reverend]

I couldn't find that. Can you quote it?

 
You're going to enjoy this, I think:
 
Spoilered for length:

Spoiler

1 Q. Now, Mr. Anderson was interviewed by you,
2 correct?
3 A. Yes, sir.
4 Q. And he said his best recollection was that it
5 was the logo gauge, correct?
6 A. That's absolutely correct.
7 Q. So you have decided to conclude something
8 opposite to the best recollection of the only
9 witness you have as to which gauge was used, right?
10 A. Well, no. When you say "the only witness, I
11 have three witnesses as to whether the ball started.
12 Because that's the issue. Let's talk about the --
13 let's forget people for a minute. The issue is
14 where did the balls start in the locker room before
15 they went outside?
16 Because what we are trying to measure, we are
17 trying to measure the beginning pressure from where
18 they started in the locker room pre-game, and then
19 the balls go outside. They deflate with the cold.
20 Then they come back into the room at halftime and
21 they start to slowly rise.
22 And those measurements that Mr. Prioleau and
23 Mr. Blakeman took, now you are trying to compare
24 what was the starting psi and where was it at
25 halftime? So that's the exercise, okay. So the
DIRECT/WELLS/KESSLERPage 293
1 question, the relevancy of non-logo, logo, is really
2 to ask your question, where did the balls start?
3 Now, the evidence we have is that the
4 Patriots were emphatic with us that they set their
5 balls at 12.5 or 12.6. That testimony came from
6 Mr. Jastremski and it also came from Mr. Brady. Our
7 balls are coming in at 12.5 or 12.6. So that's the
8 Patriots. So I assume for the AFC Championship
9 Game, the Patriots are set. They know where they
10 are setting their balls. They have told me they are
11 12.5, 12.6.
12 We then go interview the Colts. The Colts
13 say their balls are at 13, maybe 12.95, maybe 13.1,
14 but that's their number. But they are 13. And they
15 are emphatic. You have two witnesses, the Colts at
16 13, Patriots at 12.5. And let's just forget Walt
17 Anderson existed. If he disappeared from the face
18 of the earth, I would have written a report that
19 said these balls started at 12.5 and 13 because
20 that's what the Patriots told me and that's what the
21 Colts told me.
22 Now, what happened next is Walt Anderson
23 actually gauged the balls. And Walt Anderson said
24 when he gauged the balls, they measured Patriots
25 12.5, may have been a couple, two exceptions, and
06/25/2015 03:43:11 PM Page 294 to 297 of 457 78 of 172 sheets
DIRECT/WELLS/KESSLER Page 294
1 Colts at 13. So Walt Anderson without talking to
2 the Patriots, talking to the Colts, has said what he
3 observed is just what the Patriots said and what the
4 Colts said.
5 Now, how do you get to what gauge he used?
6 The only way Walt Anderson could get to 12.5 for the
7 Patriots and 13 for the Colts is if he used the
8 non-logo gauge. And that is because the logo gauge
9 always reads .3 to .4 higher. It is consistent.
10 That gauge, it may read high, but we tested
11 it hundreds of times. It always reads .3 to .4.
12 It's like I tell people I have a scale in my house.
13 Q. Mr. Wells, can I break in to ask a question
14 here. I know you would like to make a speech about
15 your report, but I would like to ask a question.
16 MR. LEVY: Why don't we let him finish.
17 MR. KESSLER: It wasn't even the question.
18 MR. NASH: It was.
19 A. I have a scale in my house. I have two
20 scales. One scale reads the same as the calibrated
21 scale at the gym. I know that's the perfect scale.
22 I have another scale that always reads three pounds
23 lighter. I love that scale. But that scale is as
24 calibrated as the good one.
25 You know why? It's consistently three pounds
DIRECT/WELLS/KESSLER Page 295
1 under. That's how -- that's how the logo gauge is.
2 It always is reading high. And the only way you
3 could get those measurements where Walt says he saw
4 just what the Patriots saw and what the Colts saw is
5 with the non-logo gauge.
6 And that's why we made that finding. Now,
7 maybe lightning could strike and both the Colts and
8 the Patriots also had a gauge that just happened to
9 be out of whack like the logo gauge. I rejected
10 that.
11 MR. LEVY: Why don't you ask another
12 question.
13 Q. Okay, Mr. Wells, I know you have been in my
14 shoes, okay.
15 A. Okay.
16 Q. Try to bear with me and answer my questions.
17 A. I just haven't been in this chair. This is
18 kind of interesting.
19 MR. NASH: You asked for it.
20 Q. So my question is very specific. I am going
21 to try to be very specific. You just testified that
22 you never found the Patriots gauge, right? You now
23 that?
24 A. That is correct.
25 Q. You never found the Colts gauge, correct?
DIRECT/WELLS/KESSLER Page 296
1 A. That it correct.
2 Q. So as you are sitting here, you have no idea
3 whether the Patriots and the Colts gauge would read
4 exactly like the logo gauge or the non-logo gauge?
5 You have no basis for knowing one way other the
6 another?
7 A. In terms of the actual gauge, you are
8 absolutely correct. I had to make a judgment.
9 Q. So bear with me.
10 A. Okay.
11 Q. If their gauges read like the logo gauges
12 because they were older gauges that were given by
13 Wilson and may have looked just like the logo gauge,
14 then they might read like the logo gauge if that was
15 true?
16 A. That's what I mean if lightning were to
17 strike and what you would have to have happen in
18 terms of my analysis, you would have to have had
19 both teams for that Championship Game had gauges
20 that were .3 to .4 off and then that all flowed into
21 Walt Anderson using the logo gauge which was .3 to
22 .4 off.
23 And I don't think that happened and that's
24 what I ruled. I think what I ruled is totally --
25 not only do I think it's correct, I think it's
DIRECT/WELLS/KESSLER Page 297
1 reasonable.
2 Q. Now let's talk about what else is here to
3 make lightning strike. The Patriots didn't tell
4 you -- you mentioned you had three sources. The
5 Patriots didn't say anything about what gauge
6 Mr. Anderson used, right? They didn't know what
7 gauge he used?
8 A. Correct.
9 Q. The Colts didn't tell you anything about what
10 gauge he used, correct?
11 A. Correct.
12 Q. The only person who told you anything about
13 which gauge he used is Mr. Anderson?
14 A. Correct.
15 Q. Who said his best recollection was it was the
16 logo gauge, direct?
17 A. Correct, but he also said it was possible he
18 was mistaken.
19 Q. As you know as a lawyer, witnesses will say
20 anything is possible?
21 A. Not Walt Anderson. You need to meet him.
22 You should call him.
23 Q. He maintained with you he really thought it
24 was the logo gauge?
25 A. But he also maintained that he could have
79 of 172 sheets Page 298 to 301 of 457 06/25/2015 03:43:11 PM
DIRECT/WELLS/KESSLERPage 298
1 been wrong.
2 Q. Now, let me direct your attention to NFL
3 Exhibit 14.
4 A. I don't have it. I don't have it, sir.
5 Q. You don't have that?
6 A. Unless somebody gives it to me.
7 MR. NASH: I will get you one.
8 MR. KESSLER: I'm sorry; I apologize.
9 THE WITNESS: This is the whole book?
10 MR. NASH: That's the binder. It's 14.
11 A. I'm sorry; I didn't have it. Okay, go ahead.
12 Q. Take a look at page 260.
13 A. 260?
14 Q. Do you recognize these were the notes that
15 were taken, this whole exhibit, at the various
16 testing at the halftime and the post-game the day of
17 the game? Do you recognize that that's what these
18 notes are?
19 A. But just help me. Are these -- is this what
20 is taken at the end of the game?
21 Q. Well, it's all of it. What's taken on
22 page --
23 A. Page 260.
24 Q. -- page 260, as you can see, has four and
25 four. So this would have been at the end of the
DIRECT/WELLS/KESSLERPage 299
1 game?
2 A. Okay, that's what I wanted clarification. I
3 agree these are the notes taken at the end of the
4 game.
5 Q. Okay. And I will show you the other pages,
6 too.
7 A. Okay, okay.
8 Q. So at the top, it's written when it says,
9 "Ending number 1," okay.
10 A. Right.
11 Q. It says, "JJ gauge, red Wilson sticker."
12 Do you see that?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. You know who JJ is?
15 A. Yeah, Jastremski.
16 Q. Okay. So somebody thought the gauge used by
17 Indianapolis was the same as JJ's gauge,
18 Mr. Jastremski's missing gauge, correct?
19 A. Yeah. Let me tell you what I recollect
20 happening. These notes are made by Mr. Farley.
21 Mr. Farley wrote things on these documents after
22 they were signed. So the one I know -- I don't have
23 an express recollection about 260. The same
24 information, though, is -- he writes on 2 --
25 Q. 56?
DIRECT/WELLS/KESSLERPage 300
1 A. -- 56.
2 Q. Yes.
3 A. And this is in the report. I just don't
4 think we addressed 260. But on 256, if you look at
5 it, it says, I think it says, "Belonged to JJ."
6 Do you see that?
7 Q. Yes.
8 A. He wrote that days later because Robyn
9 Glaser, a lawyer for the New England Patriots, told
10 him that that was JJ's gauge. And then he wrote it
11 there.
12 And when we questioned him, we said, Where
13 did this come from and when? He said, This is what
14 Ms. Glaser told me and we talked to her and she is
15 confused, so that's how it got there. It was after
16 the fact and it came from Robyn Glaser. And I think
17 we explained that in a footnote in the report, if my
18 recollection is correct.
19 Q. Take a look at page -- take a look the
20 Exponent report for a second, which is NFLPA
21 Exhibit 8, if it's separate. Take a look at page
22 Roman IX, the Executive Summary.
23 It says in the second paragraph, "We have
24 been told by Paul, Weiss that there remains some
25 uncertainty as to which of the two gauges was used
DIRECT/WELLS/KESSLERPage 301
1 prior to the game."
2 Do you see that?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Is that true?
5 A. You know that is true that I told them that,
6 but ultimately, in the report itself, I make an
7 express finding that the non-logo gauge was used.
8 And, in fact, also in the Exponent report, they make
9 the finding.
10 But in terms of my role as the ultimate
11 finder of fact, I made a ruling that I believe is
12 absolutely correct based on the evidence that the
13 non-logo gauge is the one that was used by Walt
14 Anderson.
15 Q. Well, when did you tell them there was some
16 uncertainty remaining?
17 A. At the beginning of the case because I didn't
18 know, okay. We have uncertainty. They did one.
19 They go out and buy hundreds of gauges and they do
20 not only what they call exemplars, they take the
21 logo gauge and the non-logo gauge.
22 The right question to ask is whether both of
23 these gauges, do they work, are they reliable and
24 are they consistent? So they run the test on the
25 non-logo gauge and they find that that gauge is
06/25/2015 03:43:11 PM Page 302 to 305 of 457 80 of 172 sheets
DIRECT/WELLS/KESSLERPage 302
1 almost perfectly calibrated. It works over hundreds
2 of tests. It works close to what they call the
3 master gauge. They have a master
4 perfectly-calibrated gauge.
5 Q. So your testimony, I just want to understand,
6 is that the Exponent report was issued the same day
7 as your report, correct?
8 A. Yes, sir.
9 Q. And despite that fact, they wrote on that day
10 that there was some uncertainty still about which
11 gauge was used. You are saying they were wrong?
12 There was no longer any uncertainty --
13 A. No, no, sir.
14 Q. -- the date their report was issued?
15 A. I said ultimately I made a finding in the
16 report.
17 Q. Did that resolve the uncertainty?
18 A. Well, what I'm saying to the public, anybody
19 that reads this report, you will see I say clearly,
20 because I try to be transparent about what all the
21 witnesses said. So I say Walt Anderson says it is
22 his best recollection that he used the logo gauge.
23 We then did tests that showed that there is
24 consistent uptick on the logo gauge of .3 to .4.
25 The scientists, the Exponent people say they believe
DIRECT/WELLS/KESSLERPage 303
1 based on their scientific tests that the non-logo
2 gauge was used.
3 I have a ruling that says there's
4 uncertainty, but I am making a ruling as a finder of
5 fact, because that's my job as the judge, that it's
6 more probable than not that the non-logo gauge was
7 used by Walt Anderson. That is set forth in those
8 words or substance in both my report and in the
9 Exponent report.
10 Q. Okay. So in your role as the judge, okay,
11 you concluded that you were going to reject as a
12 finder of fact Mr. Anderson's best recollection that
13 he used the logo gauge, correct?
14 A. Not only did I reject it, I first said this
15 is what he says and this is why I am rejecting it.
16 And I set it out so everybody can see it. Look,
17 this is no different than a case where somebody has
18 a recollection of X happening and then you play a
19 tape and the tape says Y happened.
20 Now, the person could keep saying, well, darn
21 it, I remember it was X. But the people are going
22 to go with the tape. I went with the science and
23 the logic that I had three data points. And that's
24 what I based my decision on. It is a totally
25 reasonable and, I think, correct decision.
DIRECT/WELLS/KESSLERPage 304
1 Q. Okay. I'm not going to quarrel with you
2 right now about what you did. I just want to
3 confirm, so in addition to Mr. Anderson, there are a
4 number of other testimony from people who you
5 rejected in your conclusions in this case, correct?

 

[crystalline]

n/m. 
 
This whole situation is a total circus and I hope Wells loses business because of it.
 
Yeah, Rev, that is great.  Wells basically said he told Exponent what gauge to assume and that's what made the numbers come out that way.  Exponent's report is an exercise in using statistics and "science" to make a lawyer's conclusion seem plausible.

 

[Dollar]

 
Posted 13 June 2015 - 09:22 PM

At this point it's beyond hilarious that the AEI study still can't even merit a mention on the ESPN NFL page, which has seen articles ranging from opinions throughout the league (Stevan Ridley, Jerry Rice, Jason Babin, Ben Roethlisberger, Joe Flacco, Matt Cassel, LeVeon Bell, Jack Del Rio, Sean Payton, Jim Harbaugh, Joe Namath, Eli Manning, Scott Shanle, Darnell Dockett, Don Shula, Peyton Manning, Colin Kaepernick, Rex Ryan, Charles Haley, Ron Rivera, among others), not to mention the creation of a Free Brady beer, a billboard paid for by some Jets fans, an article about how Dolphins fans reacted on Twitter, and how the suspension fucking affects the Cowboys.  
 
But no mention of the AEI study.  Hilarious.

 
Bumping my previous post to express how amazed I am that Jim Kelly's opinion is the one DFG mention on the ESPN front page, instead of anything about the testimony, or the Ravens tipping off the Colts, or any other real, you know, fucking news.  I don't want to live on this planet anymore.

 

[Reverend]

Second, there are no "Nobel Peace Prize" winners in Chemistry.  And a chemist is arguably better placed to apply the ideal gas law than a physicist.  Moreover, if you win a Nobel Prize in Chemistry, you are for real.  Nobel prize in chemistry:Scientists as Supreme Court justice:Lawyers.  At any given time there are only a handful of living awardees.  Dismissing MacKinnon because he is not a physicist just shows that Wells is – I am sorry – a total moron about science.

 
This is exceedingly hard to explain to people who haven't at least traveled in some of those circles. Even though the ideal gas law is taught in chemistry class but after a few years, people just imagine beakers with chemists and know that physicists are wicked smart.
 
Here's a favorite of mine:
 

 

[Leather]

It's like saying Ted Wells isn't qualified to argue a dispute over a will because he doesn't do estate planning.

But, don't forget, Wells is playing possum a bit. He needs to defend his own conclusions and he knows damn well those conclusions are suspect. So he has to find any means he can to plausibly attack the other side. Pretending to not know much about chemistry and physics is an easy out.

 

[geoduck no quahog]

The implication is that Brady was "generally aware" ... based on an instruction to JJ that footballs be deflated after approval. That's a huge stretch that has no basis in evidence or even plausibility.
 
After reading the entire transcript it's once again clear that the science is inconclusive (telling how defensive the 2 Exponent witnesses were). Interesting that Rodgers' statement was considered irrelevant by the NFL since it did not imply post-approval tampering (only trying to "get one over" on the officials) - which apparently doesn't impact the integrity off the game, and that a ballboy tampering with footballs (or a Jet employee being fired for tampering with kicking balls) doesn't imply that any of the impacted players were "generally aware" that something was going on.

 

[geoduck no quahog]

One more thing. Kessler was pursuing a line of reasoning that hasn't been talked about, but is incredibly plausible and would explain everything. He dropped it because this hearing wasn't so much about evidence?
 
1. Assume the officials never really measure(d) the footballs pregame. I think that's a pretty good bet and is typical because no one cares, except for kicking balls...which they probably do measure.
2. Brady testified that for the AFC CG, Jastremski was preparing balls differently (without going into detail) which involved him working the balls ("gloving" to be exact) probably right up to the time they were handed over (2.5 hours before game time).
3. Exponent showed that gloving the balls raised their temperature substantially, but they ignored that because of the 2.5 hour interim
 
4. But no one asked at what point JJ sets the balls to 12.5
5. If he inflates/deflates soon after gloving (probably one ball at a time, or even all balls at once), each football will be arbitrarily over-stating the room-temperature pressure by some amount. It's totally plausible that a ball measured at 12.5 after gloving could measure 12.2 or lower after sitting in the locker room for 2 hours...and the variance would be all over the place.
 
And the officials don't ever gauge the QB's balls. Maybe they squeeze them and inspect for surface tampering, but they only gauge the kicking balls. 

 

[djbayko]

n/m. 
 
This whole situation is a total circus and I hope Wells loses business because of it.
 
Yeah, Rev, that is great.  Wells basically said he told Exponent what gauge to assume and that's what made the numbers come out that way.  Exponent's report is an exercise in using statistics and "science" to make a lawyer's conclusion seem plausible.

Meh...not that I want to defend Wells at all, because we know that the scientific findings were predetermined, but he doesn't actually provide his rationale for selecting the gauge in this testimony. He says it was his decision, but he doesn't have the chance to explain how he arrived at that decision (because he was on cross, despite the best efforts of the NFL lawyers in the room). The Wells Report does provide that rationale, and Wells' insistence in the early part of that snippet of testimony that he had 3 witnesses is the basic foundation for this rationale in the report.

Now, MacKinnon does a great job of discrediting Wells' rationale in the Patriots "in Context" website, but it's not exactly fair to say that Wells admitted to arbitrarily choosing the gauge that supported his findings.

 

[edmunddantes]

 
 
You're going to enjoy this, I think:
 
Spoilered for length:

Spoiler

1 Q. Now, Mr. Anderson was interviewed by you,
2 correct?
3 A. Yes, sir.
4 Q. And he said his best recollection was that it
5 was the logo gauge, correct?
6 A. That's absolutely correct.
7 Q. So you have decided to conclude something
8 opposite to the best recollection of the only
9 witness you have as to which gauge was used, right?
10 A. Well, no. When you say "the only witness, I
11 have three witnesses as to whether the ball started.
12 Because that's the issue. Let's talk about the --
13 let's forget people for a minute. The issue is
14 where did the balls start in the locker room before
15 they went outside?
16 Because what we are trying to measure, we are
17 trying to measure the beginning pressure from where
18 they started in the locker room pre-game, and then
19 the balls go outside. They deflate with the cold.
20 Then they come back into the room at halftime and
21 they start to slowly rise.
22 And those measurements that Mr. Prioleau and
23 Mr. Blakeman took, now you are trying to compare
24 what was the starting psi and where was it at
25 halftime? So that's the exercise, okay. So the
DIRECT/WELLS/KESSLERPage 293
1 question, the relevancy of non-logo, logo, is really
2 to ask your question, where did the balls start?
3 Now, the evidence we have is that the
4 Patriots were emphatic with us that they set their
5 balls at 12.5 or 12.6. That testimony came from
6 Mr. Jastremski and it also came from Mr. Brady. Our
7 balls are coming in at 12.5 or 12.6. So that's the
8 Patriots. So I assume for the AFC Championship
9 Game, the Patriots are set. They know where they
10 are setting their balls. They have told me they are
11 12.5, 12.6.
12 We then go interview the Colts. The Colts
13 say their balls are at 13, maybe 12.95, maybe 13.1,
14 but that's their number. But they are 13. And they
15 are emphatic. You have two witnesses, the Colts at
16 13, Patriots at 12.5. And let's just forget Walt
17 Anderson existed. If he disappeared from the face
18 of the earth, I would have written a report that
19 said these balls started at 12.5 and 13 because
20 that's what the Patriots told me and that's what the
21 Colts told me.
22 Now, what happened next is Walt Anderson
23 actually gauged the balls. And Walt Anderson said
24 when he gauged the balls, they measured Patriots
25 12.5, may have been a couple, two exceptions, and
06/25/2015 03:43:11 PM Page 294 to 297 of 457 78 of 172 sheets
DIRECT/WELLS/KESSLER Page 294
1 Colts at 13. So Walt Anderson without talking to
2 the Patriots, talking to the Colts, has said what he
3 observed is just what the Patriots said and what the
4 Colts said.
5 Now, how do you get to what gauge he used?
6 The only way Walt Anderson could get to 12.5 for the
7 Patriots and 13 for the Colts is if he used the
8 non-logo gauge. And that is because the logo gauge
9 always reads .3 to .4 higher. It is consistent.
10 That gauge, it may read high, but we tested
11 it hundreds of times. It always reads .3 to .4.
12 It's like I tell people I have a scale in my house.
13 Q. Mr. Wells, can I break in to ask a question
14 here. I know you would like to make a speech about
15 your report, but I would like to ask a question.
16 MR. LEVY: Why don't we let him finish.
17 MR. KESSLER: It wasn't even the question.
18 MR. NASH: It was.
19 A. I have a scale in my house. I have two
20 scales. One scale reads the same as the calibrated
21 scale at the gym. I know that's the perfect scale.
22 I have another scale that always reads three pounds
23 lighter. I love that scale. But that scale is as
24 calibrated as the good one.
25 You know why? It's consistently three pounds
DIRECT/WELLS/KESSLER Page 295
1 under. That's how -- that's how the logo gauge is.
2 It always is reading high. And the only way you
3 could get those measurements where Walt says he saw
4 just what the Patriots saw and what the Colts saw is
5 with the non-logo gauge.
6 And that's why we made that finding. Now,
7 maybe lightning could strike and both the Colts and
8 the Patriots also had a gauge that just happened to
9 be out of whack like the logo gauge. I rejected
10 that.
11 MR. LEVY: Why don't you ask another
12 question.
13 Q. Okay, Mr. Wells, I know you have been in my
14 shoes, okay.
15 A. Okay.
16 Q. Try to bear with me and answer my questions.
17 A. I just haven't been in this chair. This is
18 kind of interesting.
19 MR. NASH: You asked for it.
20 Q. So my question is very specific. I am going
21 to try to be very specific. You just testified that
22 you never found the Patriots gauge, right? You now
23 that?
24 A. That is correct.
25 Q. You never found the Colts gauge, correct?
DIRECT/WELLS/KESSLER Page 296
1 A. That it correct.
2 Q. So as you are sitting here, you have no idea
3 whether the Patriots and the Colts gauge would read
4 exactly like the logo gauge or the non-logo gauge?
5 You have no basis for knowing one way other the
6 another?
7 A. In terms of the actual gauge, you are
8 absolutely correct. I had to make a judgment.
9 Q. So bear with me.
10 A. Okay.
11 Q. If their gauges read like the logo gauges
12 because they were older gauges that were given by
13 Wilson and may have looked just like the logo gauge,
14 then they might read like the logo gauge if that was
15 true?
16 A. That's what I mean if lightning were to
17 strike and what you would have to have happen in
18 terms of my analysis, you would have to have had
19 both teams for that Championship Game had gauges
20 that were .3 to .4 off and then that all flowed into
21 Walt Anderson using the logo gauge which was .3 to
22 .4 off.
23 And I don't think that happened and that's
24 what I ruled. I think what I ruled is totally --
25 not only do I think it's correct, I think it's
DIRECT/WELLS/KESSLER Page 297
1 reasonable.
2 Q. Now let's talk about what else is here to
3 make lightning strike. The Patriots didn't tell
4 you -- you mentioned you had three sources. The
5 Patriots didn't say anything about what gauge
6 Mr. Anderson used, right? They didn't know what
7 gauge he used?
8 A. Correct.
9 Q. The Colts didn't tell you anything about what
10 gauge he used, correct?
11 A. Correct.
12 Q. The only person who told you anything about
13 which gauge he used is Mr. Anderson?
14 A. Correct.
15 Q. Who said his best recollection was it was the
16 logo gauge, direct?
17 A. Correct, but he also said it was possible he
18 was mistaken.
19 Q. As you know as a lawyer, witnesses will say
20 anything is possible?
21 A. Not Walt Anderson. You need to meet him.
22 You should call him.
23 Q. He maintained with you he really thought it
24 was the logo gauge?
25 A. But he also maintained that he could have
79 of 172 sheets Page 298 to 301 of 457 06/25/2015 03:43:11 PM
DIRECT/WELLS/KESSLERPage 298
1 been wrong.
2 Q. Now, let me direct your attention to NFL
3 Exhibit 14.
4 A. I don't have it. I don't have it, sir.
5 Q. You don't have that?
6 A. Unless somebody gives it to me.
7 MR. NASH: I will get you one.
8 MR. KESSLER: I'm sorry; I apologize.
9 THE WITNESS: This is the whole book?
10 MR. NASH: That's the binder. It's 14.
11 A. I'm sorry; I didn't have it. Okay, go ahead.
12 Q. Take a look at page 260.
13 A. 260?
14 Q. Do you recognize these were the notes that
15 were taken, this whole exhibit, at the various
16 testing at the halftime and the post-game the day of
17 the game? Do you recognize that that's what these
18 notes are?
19 A. But just help me. Are these -- is this what
20 is taken at the end of the game?
21 Q. Well, it's all of it. What's taken on
22 page --
23 A. Page 260.
24 Q. -- page 260, as you can see, has four and
25 four. So this would have been at the end of the
DIRECT/WELLS/KESSLERPage 299
1 game?
2 A. Okay, that's what I wanted clarification. I
3 agree these are the notes taken at the end of the
4 game.
5 Q. Okay. And I will show you the other pages,
6 too.
7 A. Okay, okay.
8 Q. So at the top, it's written when it says,
9 "Ending number 1," okay.
10 A. Right.
11 Q. It says, "JJ gauge, red Wilson sticker."
12 Do you see that?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. You know who JJ is?
15 A. Yeah, Jastremski.
16 Q. Okay. So somebody thought the gauge used by
17 Indianapolis was the same as JJ's gauge,
18 Mr. Jastremski's missing gauge, correct?
19 A. Yeah. Let me tell you what I recollect
20 happening. These notes are made by Mr. Farley.
21 Mr. Farley wrote things on these documents after
22 they were signed. So the one I know -- I don't have
23 an express recollection about 260. The same
24 information, though, is -- he writes on 2 --
25 Q. 56?
DIRECT/WELLS/KESSLERPage 300
1 A. -- 56.
2 Q. Yes.
3 A. And this is in the report. I just don't
4 think we addressed 260. But on 256, if you look at
5 it, it says, I think it says, "Belonged to JJ."
6 Do you see that?
7 Q. Yes.
8 A. He wrote that days later because Robyn
9 Glaser, a lawyer for the New England Patriots, told
10 him that that was JJ's gauge. And then he wrote it
11 there.
12 And when we questioned him, we said, Where
13 did this come from and when? He said, This is what
14 Ms. Glaser told me and we talked to her and she is
15 confused, so that's how it got there. It was after
16 the fact and it came from Robyn Glaser. And I think
17 we explained that in a footnote in the report, if my
18 recollection is correct.
19 Q. Take a look at page -- take a look the
20 Exponent report for a second, which is NFLPA
21 Exhibit 8, if it's separate. Take a look at page
22 Roman IX, the Executive Summary.
23 It says in the second paragraph, "We have
24 been told by Paul, Weiss that there remains some
25 uncertainty as to which of the two gauges was used
DIRECT/WELLS/KESSLERPage 301
1 prior to the game."
2 Do you see that?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Is that true?
5 A. You know that is true that I told them that,
6 but ultimately, in the report itself, I make an
7 express finding that the non-logo gauge was used.
8 And, in fact, also in the Exponent report, they make
9 the finding.
10 But in terms of my role as the ultimate
11 finder of fact, I made a ruling that I believe is
12 absolutely correct based on the evidence that the
13 non-logo gauge is the one that was used by Walt
14 Anderson.
15 Q. Well, when did you tell them there was some
16 uncertainty remaining?
17 A. At the beginning of the case because I didn't
18 know, okay. We have uncertainty. They did one.
19 They go out and buy hundreds of gauges and they do
20 not only what they call exemplars, they take the
21 logo gauge and the non-logo gauge.
22 The right question to ask is whether both of
23 these gauges, do they work, are they reliable and
24 are they consistent? So they run the test on the
25 non-logo gauge and they find that that gauge is
06/25/2015 03:43:11 PM Page 302 to 305 of 457 80 of 172 sheets
DIRECT/WELLS/KESSLERPage 302
1 almost perfectly calibrated. It works over hundreds
2 of tests. It works close to what they call the
3 master gauge. They have a master
4 perfectly-calibrated gauge.
5 Q. So your testimony, I just want to understand,
6 is that the Exponent report was issued the same day
7 as your report, correct?
8 A. Yes, sir.
9 Q. And despite that fact, they wrote on that day
10 that there was some uncertainty still about which
11 gauge was used. You are saying they were wrong?
12 There was no longer any uncertainty --
13 A. No, no, sir.
14 Q. -- the date their report was issued?
15 A. I said ultimately I made a finding in the
16 report.
17 Q. Did that resolve the uncertainty?
18 A. Well, what I'm saying to the public, anybody
19 that reads this report, you will see I say clearly,
20 because I try to be transparent about what all the
21 witnesses said. So I say Walt Anderson says it is
22 his best recollection that he used the logo gauge.
23 We then did tests that showed that there is
24 consistent uptick on the logo gauge of .3 to .4.
25 The scientists, the Exponent people say they believe
DIRECT/WELLS/KESSLERPage 303
1 based on their scientific tests that the non-logo
2 gauge was used.
3 I have a ruling that says there's
4 uncertainty, but I am making a ruling as a finder of
5 fact, because that's my job as the judge, that it's
6 more probable than not that the non-logo gauge was
7 used by Walt Anderson. That is set forth in those
8 words or substance in both my report and in the
9 Exponent report.
10 Q. Okay. So in your role as the judge, okay,
11 you concluded that you were going to reject as a
12 finder of fact Mr. Anderson's best recollection that
13 he used the logo gauge, correct?
14 A. Not only did I reject it, I first said this
15 is what he says and this is why I am rejecting it.
16 And I set it out so everybody can see it. Look,
17 this is no different than a case where somebody has
18 a recollection of X happening and then you play a
19 tape and the tape says Y happened.
20 Now, the person could keep saying, well, darn
21 it, I remember it was X. But the people are going
22 to go with the tape. I went with the science and
23 the logic that I had three data points. And that's
24 what I based my decision on. It is a totally
25 reasonable and, I think, correct decision.
DIRECT/WELLS/KESSLERPage 304
1 Q. Okay. I'm not going to quarrel with you
2 right now about what you did. I just want to
3 confirm, so in addition to Mr. Anderson, there are a
4 number of other testimony from people who you
5 rejected in your conclusions in this case, correct?

 

 
Another sign of how screwed up it was.
 
Kessler tries to stop the Ted Wells filibuster answer by interrupting and re-directing him
 
Levy and Nash then both chime in saying "no no. He's good. Let him talk".
 
Highly doubt that happens in a real arbitration.

 

[judyb]

Another example of how thinking about this makes me feel crazy because I'm wondering if the person who made the decision to destroy the evidence by adding air to the Patriots footballs at halftime when they had limited time and already approved backup balls available might be the same person who made sure both teams' gauges would disappear.

 

[crystalline]

Meh...not that I want to defend Wells at all, because we know that the scientific findings were predetermined, but he doesn't actually provide his rationale for selecting the gauge in this testimony. He says it was his decision, but he doesn't have the chance to explain how he arrived at that decision (because he was on cross, despite the best efforts of the NFL lawyers in the room). The Wells Report does provide that rationale, and Wells' insistence in the early part of that snippet of testimony that he had 3 witnesses is the basic foundation for this rationale in the report.

 
I was only making one point:
The entire Exponent report is based on assumptions given to them by Wells.  They say as much.  Wells made the decision to select the gauge.  Thus, Wells is the one dictating the science.

 

[The Napkin]

Yeah. I would have expected at least 5...

 

[Myt1]

That was well done.

 

[djbayko]

 
I was only making one point:
The entire Exponent report is based on assumptions given to them by Wells.  They say as much.  Wells made the decision to select the gauge.  Thus, Wells is the one dictating the science.

Sorry for the confusion. I was really replying to Rev by your proxy. He very clearly identified his motive for posting the testimony, and that was his belief that Wells had admitted to selecting one of those assumptions in order to meet the desired scientific outcome.

I think we all agree that Wells' inputs drove the science. And it's pretty clear to me that they were indeed selected to meet the desired scientific outcome, but he'll never admit it.

With all the talk of the NFL influencing Wells' findings, if this had gone to discovery, there's a good chance that the communications between Wells and Exponent might have been the most damaging piece.

 

[ElcaballitoMVP]

I particularly liked this exchange: 
 
A...The scientists, the Exponent people say they believe
based on their scientific tests that the non-logo
gauge was used.
I have a ruling that says there's
uncertainty, but I am making a ruling as a finder of
fact, because that's my job as the judge, that it's
more probable than not that the non-logo gauge was
used by Walt Anderson. That is set forth in those
words or substance in both my report and in the
Exponent report.
Q. Okay. So in your role as the judge, okay,
you concluded that you were going to reject as a
finder of fact Mr. Anderson's best recollection that
he used the logo gauge, correct?

A. Not only did I reject it, I first said this
is what he says and this is why I am rejecting it.
And I set it out so everybody can see it.

 
Nice answer from the honorable independent investigator Wells

 

[Super Nomario]

 
Also consider earlier in the Wells report that the number of people in the Ref's lockerroom was extra high that day.
 
All those bodies moving about, talking, breathing in & out, etc have a tendency to up the temperature. 
 
I'd be shocked if the temp in that room really was 67 degrees. 
 
The temperature from all those people could easily raise the temp by 2-3 degrees above the set point. Meaning the Pats need to be setting it 65 or below as a matter of course in order for the temp to be at 67.
 
Are the Pats lilke my dad and refuse to set the thermostat above 65 for the rooms inside Gillette?
 
 It's more likely the temp in that room was in the low 70's, but we'll never know for certain on that day. We could run some experiments where we replicate number of people, Pats normal set point, and time in room and get some interesting data, but that's about it. 

The low temperature is because the balls were near the showers in the locker room and thus were cooler than most of the room. I don't know that they compensated for more bodies being in the room, but I'm not sure it was enough for a significant effect.
 

And the officials don't ever gauge the QB's balls. Maybe they squeeze them and inspect for surface tampering, but they only gauge the kicking balls. 

Are you assuming Anderson is lying about this?
 

 
I was only making one point:
The entire Exponent report is based on assumptions given to them by Wells.  They say as much.  Wells made the decision to select the gauge.  Thus, Wells is the one dictating the science.

Did you read the Exponent report? The assumption as to the correct gauge is based on their assessment that one of them was closer to the master gauge (i.e., provided a true measure of pressure) than the other.

 

[AB in DC]

 
I was only making one point:
The entire Exponent report is based on assumptions given to them by Wells.  They say as much.  Wells made the decision to select the gauge.  Thus, Wells is the one dictating the science.

 
Honestly, I've never had much of a problem with the Exponent analysis itself.  The real flaws are (a) like you said, it's basically garbage in (from Wells), and garbage out; and (b) the conclusions (probably re-written by the Wells team to look as bad as  possible for Brady) don't really follow from the analysis.  The honest conclusion would have been "Somewhere around 70% to 80% of the deflation is clearly attributable to natural causes, as demonstrated by our lab experiments.  The remaining 20% to 30% could be explained by any number of factors, including errors in assumptions, human intervention, or other unknowns that we weren't able to test for"

 

[Reverend]

Sorry for the confusion. I was really replying to Rev by your proxy. He very clearly identified his motive for posting the testimony, and that was his belief that Wells had admitted to selecting one of those assumptions in order to meet the desired scientific outcome.
I think we all agree that Wells' inputs drove the science. And it's pretty clear to me that they were indeed selected to meet the desired scientific outcome, but he'll never admit it.
With all the talk of the NFL influencing Wells' findings, if this had gone to discovery, there's a good chance that the communications between Wells and Exponent might have been the most damaging piece.

My broader point was that he draws his conclusion based on the only possible option that could make this all scientifically rigorous. He does not consider the possibility that based on existing data and protocols used, it is impossible to make it scientifically rigorous.

As such, scientific rigor is basically postulated. Depending how nerdy a person is, this is epistemically hilarious.

That said, fact only mattered for the appeal: I'm on to federal court!

 

[Eddie Jurak]

 
I was only making one point:
The entire Exponent report is based on assumptions given to them by Wells.  They say as much.  Wells made the decision to select the gauge.  Thus, Wells is the one dictating the science.

 
And from what we can tell, no sensitivity analysis?  
 
In real science, assumptions are made, sure, but they are then tested by changing them and seeing how the results change.  Leading to statements like:
 
"The results were most sensitive to changes in the pregame ambient temperture in the officials' room, whether or not the logo gauge was used, and how hard Mike Kensil squeezed the balls immediately prior to the halftime measurements.  The results were robust to a range of realistic assumptions about the number of offesnive plays run with each ball, the wetness of the balls, and   on whether or not Tom Brady grips the balls hard than he does a golf club."  
 
Was the Exponent report completely devoid of such analyses and statements?

 

[djbayko]

My broader point was that he draws his conclusion based on the only possible option that could make this all scientifically rigorous. He does not consider the possibility that based on existing data and protocols used, it is impossible to make it scientifically rigorous.

As such, scientific rigor is basically postulated. Depending how nerdy a person is, this is epistemically hilarious.

That said, fact only mattered for the appeal: I'm on to federal court!

Okay, I don't necessarily read his testimony that way.

But you're right...we are debating an irrelevant point.

 

[SamK]

One more thing. Kessler was pursuing a line of reasoning that hasn't been talked about, but is incredibly plausible and would explain everything. He dropped it because this hearing wasn't so much about evidence?
 
4. But no one asked at what point JJ sets the balls to 12.5
 

 
That is an interesting idea I hadn't heard yet.
 
And was Kessler suggesting that it is possible the Colts balls may have been set by the Colts with the same gauge that was used to set the Patriots' before the game.  Hence the "lightning" jab?

 
2 Q. Now let's talk about what else is here to
3 make lightning strike.
..
(I omitted a page or so of stuff mostly about getting to the same spot in the report)
 
11 Q. It says, "JJ gauge, red Wilson sticker."
12 Do you see that?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. You know who JJ is?
15 A. Yeah, Jastremski.
16 Q. Okay. So somebody thought the gauge used by
17 Indianapolis was the same as JJ's gauge,
18 Mr. Jastremski's missing gauge, correct?
19 A. Yeah. Let me tell you what I recollect
20 happening. These notes are made by Mr. Farley.
21 Mr. Farley wrote things on these documents after
22 they were signed. So the one I know -- I don't have
23 an express recollection about 260. The same
24 information, though, is -- he writes on 2 --
25 Q. 56?
DIRECT/WELLS/KESSLERPage 300
1 A. -- 56.
2 Q. Yes.
3 A. And this is in the report. I just don't
4 think we addressed 260. But on 256, if you look at
5 it, it says, I think it says, "Belonged to JJ."
6 Do you see that?
7 Q. Yes.
8 A. He wrote that days later because Robyn
9 Glaser, a lawyer for the New England Patriots, told
10 him that that was JJ's gauge. And then he wrote it
11 there.
12 And when we questioned him, we said, Where
13 did this come from and when? He said, This is what
14 Ms. Glaser told me and we talked to her and she is
15 confused, so that's how it got there.
 

 

[crystalline]

Did you read the Exponent report? The assumption as to the correct gauge is based on their assessment that one of them was closer to the master gauge (i.e., provided a true measure of pressure) than the other.

In the testimony posted by Rev above, Wells said that *he* made the decision to select the gauge.


If Exponent actually felt they could stand by their gauge selection, they would have not needed Wells to tell them. I agree there was text in the Exponent report justifying the choice.

 

[Super Nomario]

In the testimony posted by Rev above, Wells said that *he* made the decision to select the gauge.


If Exponent actually felt they could stand by their gauge selection, they would have not needed Wells to tell them. I agree there was text in the Exponent report justifying the choice.

There's a difference between assumptions that fed into the Exponent Report as inputs (like the temperature in the locker room or the PSI measurements of balls) and decisions made by Wells based on the information in the Exponent experiments (like which gauge was used). You wrote
 

I was only making one point:
The entire Exponent report is based on assumptions given to them by Wells.  They say as much.  Wells made the decision to select the gauge.  Thus, Wells is the one dictating the science.

which is misleading. The gauge Exponent concluded was most likely was based on their experimentation, not based on an assumption from Wells.

 

[soxhop411]

“@GreggDoyelStar: John Harbaugh about Patriots’ releasing info: ”Somebody’s trying to take away from the real issue - deflated footballs.“ Amen brother.”

 

[Section30]

Apologies if this was already linked:
 
Dan Wetzel at yahoo sports
 
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/roger-goodell-s-manipulation-of-tom-brady-s-testimony-leaves-nfl-on-slippery-slope-214409591-nfl.html
 
He sees deliberate manipulation to support Goddell's assumption of guilt.
 
He starts with, "At this point it's fair to say the NFL was immediately convinced the New England Patriots deflated footballs in the AFC championship game and then worked backward with great diligence and, at times, great duplicity to conclude it as true."
 
He ends with, "Perhaps more importantly, how does anyone in the NFL – owner, coach, player or fan – possibly trust the league office to investigate and rule on anything ever again?"

 

[MillarTime]

“@GreggDoyelStar: John Harbaugh about Patriots’ releasing info: ”Somebody’s trying to take away from the real issue - deflated footballs.“ Amen brother.”

Two crybabies.

 

[tims4wins]

Two crybabies.

Well apparently the NFL is also trying to take attention away from the footballs by talking about cell phones

 

[Shelterdog]

There's a difference between assumptions that fed into the Exponent Report as inputs (like the temperature in the locker room or the PSI measurements of balls) and decisions made by Wells based on the information in the Exponent experiments (like which gauge was used). You wrote
 
which is misleading. The gauge Exponent concluded was most likely was based on their experimentation, not based on an assumption from Wells.

 
Oh sweet summer child.  

Reading the Exponent report is not a good way to figure out why Exponent used the assumptions they did. 

 

[Leather]

The American legal system is trying to take attention away from where it belongs, deflated balls, by focusing on justice.

 

[tims4wins]

Amazing Wetzel article, as usual

 

[ifmanis5]

The Wetzel article is very solid. It's insane to have watched RG paint Brady with the shit brush over something that is a big nothing. He would never do this to Peyton. And he did everything he could to do nothing about Rice and concussions until he was forced to. Just an awful human being.

 

[MillarTime]

The Wetzel article is tremendous...starting to think the release of the testimony is a net positive for Brady.

 

[Red Averages]

The Wetzel article is tremendous...starting to think the release of the testimony is a net positive for Brady.

At this point any transparent release is a positive, it's blatantly obvious at this point which side is bring shady to cover up a wrong.

 

[OCST]

 
Honestly, I've never had much of a problem with the Exponent analysis itself.  The real flaws are (a) like you said, it's basically garbage in (from Wells), and garbage out; and (b) the conclusions (probably re-written by the Wells team to look as bad as  possible for Brady) don't really follow from the analysis.  

 
other than that, it's fine

 

[PedroKsBambino]

The Wetzel article is tremendous...starting to think the release of the testimony is a net positive for Brady.

 
I think it's a gigantic positive for Brady---many national writers have flipped, and the overall narrative now is more like "even if Brady did it, NFL has botched this" to "NFL made such a mess here we can't know what happened" which is a huge improvement.

Eventually, the truth usually comes out...

 

[crystalline]

 
which is misleading. The gauge Exponent concluded was most likely was based on their experimentation, not based on an assumption from Wells.

Yeah, you are correct and I was being a little misleading here. I was conflating the assumptions about temperature, which they said they got from Wells, with the decision about the gauge which according to the report they didn't get from Wells.

But with this testimony, we now know that Wells DID make the decision about which gauge to use, despite what the Exponent report said.

 

[JeffLedbetter]

OK, so maybe this is for the other thread, but the way things are headed, Goodell is going to have to testify and be questioned UNDER OATH in a federal court about the process he and the NFL followed through all of this. I know there's a lot of discussion about the fact that Goodell doesn't get penalized for losing in federal court, but can't he now be asked, "Is it your contention that Tom Brady said that he did not speak to John Jastremski about the deflation of footballs during his appeal and that you based your decision to uphold the original penalty based at least partially on that fact?"
 
And when I say "penalized," I mean in the court of public opinion.

 

[nighthob]

There's a difference between assumptions that fed into the Exponent Report as inputs (like the temperature in the locker room or the PSI measurements of balls) and decisions made by Wells based on the information in the Exponent experiments (like which gauge was used). You wrote
 
which is misleading. The gauge Exponent concluded was most likely was based on their experimentation, not based on an assumption from Wells.

Unfortunately as was posted in one of the 17,000 threads, the Colts measured the intercepted ball on the sidelines with Jastermski's gage, which gave readings consistent with the gage that Anderson recalled using. Exponent went to great lengths to obfuscate this fact.

 

[Reverend]

OK, so maybe this is for the other thread, but the way things are headed, Goodell is going to have to testify and be questioned UNDER OATH in a federal court about the process he and the NFL followed through all of this. I know there's a lot of discussion about the fact that Goodell doesn't get penalized for losing in federal court, but can't he now be asked, "Is it your contention that Tom Brady said that he did not speak to John Jastremski about the deflation of footballs during his appeal and that you based your decision to uphold the original penalty based at least partially on that fact?"
 
And when I say "penalized," I mean in the court of public opinion.

No. There will be no testimony.

 

[RIFan]

At this point any transparent release is a positive, it's blatantly obvious at this point which side is bring shady to cover up a wrong.

If the trend of disclosure continues, it's not only reasonable but should be expected that Goodell's resignation will be requested. There is no plausible explanation for his deliberate mischaracterization of Brady's responses on his calls with Jastremski. That combined with past missteps, all the other leaks, falsehoods, and over zealously about a non issue has to be seen as weakening of the commissioners office by at least some owners as too damaging to the NFL to allow to continue. The amount of blood in the water will cause even more feasting on Goodell by the media. They'll never move past this if he remains in place.

Of course nothing that has happened has followed a path even remotely reasonable or expected so the idea that the right outcome will happen is most likely a pipe dream.

 

[Section30]

Michael McCann of Sports Illustrated speaks on Doug Gottliebs' CBS radio show. Discussing the release of the Brady hearing.
 
video only, no text. http://www.cbssports.com/video/player/douggottlieb/499161155979/0/michael-mccann-on-tom-bradys-deflategate-testimony
 
"I don't see anything in this that warrants even a fine."
 
Points out NFL smokescreen on the phone, Can't see how the commissioner came to this point due to zero evidence of wrongdoing.
 
Decries Wells claiming attorney client privilege when he was supposedly independent. 

 

[Reverend]

Unfortunately as was posted in one of the 17,000 threads, the Colts measured the intercepted ball on the sidelines with Jastermski's gage, which gave readings consistent with the gage that Anderson recalled using. Exponent went to great lengths to obfuscate this fact.

The sheer craziness of how many different people may have been trying to go Encyclopedia Brown on all of this really should be getting more play in the national media.

 

[JeffLedbetter]

One other point from this morning ... and as a lurker I'll go back to listening mode ... but this morning listening to Mike & Mike, I didn't catch the early Cris Carter diatribe about Brady, and then had listen to this whole long thing about Ray Rice because they teased Schefter. Shelter comes on and they have to cut him short and he chimes in quickly that Brady testifying under oath that he knew nothing about the deflation meant something to him and that he knows Brady as a stand-up guy and he totally believes him. He almost literally had to spit that out as they were going to commercial. They go to commercial and come back with the "previously on Mike & Mike" type of a lead-in, using Carter's earlier diatribe saying something to the effect of "Brady is a bold-faced liar."
 
I sense Greenberg has some "thinks in his head," as my kids used to say, but I just can't believe that going after Goodell and the NFL on this isn't the type of story that drives ratings.