Deflation-gate

Brady was testifying under oath at the NFL arbitration hearing, so I assume he would have answered questions truthfully. And I think events pretty much bear out the prudence of Brady's actions. The Wells Report describes Brady's refusal to turn over his cell phone:

quote:

---

Similarly, although Tom Brady appeared for a requested interview and answered questions voluntarily, he declined to make available any documents or electronic information (including text messages and emails) that we requested, even though those requests were limited to the subject matter of our investigation (such as messages concerning the preparation of game balls, air pressure of balls, inflation of balls or deflation of balls) and we offered to allow Brady?s counsel to screen and control the production so that it would be limited strictly to responsive materials and would not involve our taking possession of Brady?s telephone or other electronic devices.

---

Yet Goodell didn't make a significant issue of this refusal in his original ruling. Only after learning before the arbitration hearing that the cell phone had been destroyed instead of merely withheld did he become outraged (and still is - so much for managerial temperament). Why would that be, unless he realized it meant he couldn't subpoena it. With the Wells Report and the Exponent analysis discredited and a court fight likely looming, he obviously felt he needed a smoking gun, and what better place than on Brady's cell phone obtained through a subpoena. But with the phone destroyed that option was gone, so to justify his 4-game suspension he falsely claimed the Wells Report proved things it didn't, things beyond the assertions of the Wells Report itself (this was where the charge was elevated, with no additional evidence or revelations, from "generally aware" to something far beyond that), and then added the destruction of the cell phone itself.Do you think the appeals court would, like Goodell, have viewed withholding the cellphone much less negatively than destroying it? If so, why? For the same reason?From the transcript of the NFL arbitration appeal hearing before Roger Goodell, here is Brady in his own words explaining why he wanted to keep the cell phone secure:

quote:

---

I think whenever I'm done with the phone, I don't want anybody ever to see the content of the phone, photos. Obviously there is a log with the smart phones of all my e-mail communications. So in those folders, there is player contracts. There's, you know, endorsement deals. There's -- along with photos of my family and so forth that I just don't want anyone to ever come in contact with those. A lot of people's private information that, had that phone -- if it shows up somewhere, then, you know, all the contacts in my phone, you know, wouldn't want that to happen. So I have always told the guy who swaps them out for me, make sure you get rid of the phone.

​

And what I mean is destroy the phone so that no one can ever, you know, reset it or do something where I feel like the information is available to anybody.

---

I didn't mean that Brady was concerned that during the NFL appeals hearing his cellphone could get subpoenaed. I meant that looking forward he could see a court fight brewing and his cellphone being subpoenaed. If the NFL knew the phone still existed, couldn't they have sought a subpoena before Judge Berman's court? I don't think the courts have any particularly greater expertise at Internet security than any of the other government agencies that have been hacked.--Percy

As you might have been able to tell, I draw a distinction between the law and justice. The difference between the two is why there are appeals and ultimately gubernatorial and presidential pardons. The number of cases being overturned on DNA evidence tells us that there is a difference between the way the legal system works and the way we wish it would work. But the reason we disagree is based upon a key point: you believe the cellphone's contents could be kept secure, and I don't. Anybody and anything can be hacked. All that's needed is motivation. Did you mean to say, "...could have ended up...?" Answering that question instead, people aren't robots following rules in exquisite perfection. The more relevant question is why you seem so confident that the contents of Brady's phone couldn't have ended on a device vulnerable to hacking? And then there's just simple accident. An Apple employee once left an iPad prototype in a taxi, and another once left an iPhone prototype in a bar. There's probably rules against putting case information on a laptop and taking it home, but I bet it happens all the time anyway. Perhaps they take it home in a taxi, and perhaps to a home where as soon as the laptop opens it connects to the neighbor's router that has no password. And then there's the possibility of an inside job. Data security is a myth (though Apple seems on the right track). And beyond the concerns about security, there's still the problem of reviewing each item on the phone to determine if it's relevant. Won't the NFL, the one with leaks the size of a fire hose, insist on a representative being present during the review?--Percy

I have to guess that you don't read much of the media coverage about Deflategate. If it isn't outrage blinding Goodell's judgement then something certainly is. Maybe it's not outrage, maybe it's just par for the course for Goodell. From Roger Goodell Appeared To Peddle More Deflategate Lies In ESPN Interview:

quote:

---

Goodell also manipulated Brady’s arbitration testimony when he issued his statement that upheld the quarterback’s draconian Deflategate punishment.

​

This kind of behavior is par for the course for Goodell. In her written decision last year that vacated Ray Rice’s indefinite suspension, independent arbitrator Barbara S. Jones says the commissioner lied about conversations he had with the running back. Goodell said Rice originally misled him about whether he struck his then-fiancee Janay inside of the Atlantic City elevator, but Jones determined that wasn’t the case, and thus ruled the NFL didn’t have grounds to change Rice’s original suspension.

---

But this article thinks it goes beyond lying, that Goodell is obsessed, NFL commissioner Roger Goodell is biggest loser in DeflateGate debacle:

quote:

---

Only you should know this stopped being about deflated footballs a long time ago. This is a fight about the collective bargaining agreement in the NFL, the power that DeMaurice Smith and the NFLPA ceded to Goodell, power that Goodell refuses to give up, no matter how much it damages the brand and shield he says he is protecting.
...
And Goodell, obsessed as ever with the way things look and the way he looks, pressed forward when he didn't think Brady was being a team player.
...
The NFL has officially taken a misdemeanor and turned it into Biogenesis. Or, as Bob Costas said the other day, they've taken a misdemeanor and literally turned it into a federal case,...
...
Now the court will have to decide if Goodell, even exercising all the power he won in collective bargaining, abused it in the Brady case, trampled due process in the process, and set down an unprecedented penalty for the crime Ted Wells says Brady, well, may or may not have committed. As people continue to lose their minds over a cellphone that doesn't matter here and never did.

---

And some articles describe Goodell's state of mind the same way I do, Deflategate: The Wreck That Could Have Been Avoided says:

quote:

---

Goodell's own conduct-policing fury fanned the flames...

---

And some headlines just state the obvious: A Furious Roger Goodell After Federal Judge Overturned Brady's 4 Game SuspensionWhat causes someone to behave so irrationally that he hurts his own best interests? Outrage, fury, apoplexy, that's my conclusion, but maybe it's just ruthless and vindictive power-mongering. Whatever is behind Goodell's relentless pursuit of Brady, it's hurting the NFL, it's hurting Brady, and all over something that never happened.--Percy

Right, maybe it isn't, but you asked, "Where do you get this stuff from?" as if my opinion was unfounded and shared by no one else. My reply strived for balance by quoting several sources indicating a variety of opinion, including ones pretty much the same as mine. Yes, of course, though those aren't my words but are from one of the articles I quoted. Well, we shall see what happens with the appeals court. Looking back, Brady's hearing before Goodell *was* arbitration, and Brady *did* prevail in Berman's court because of issues related to impartiality and fairness, so maybe questions about cell phones *will* turn out to have been off the mark.--Percy

He is, as many in the media have commented, tarnishing and embarrassing the NFL brand and destroying the reputation of one of the best quarterbacks in the history of the league, as well as one of the most upstanding representatives of the league. One would have to be blind not to see such behavior as tainted with vindictiveness and anger. Oh, don't worry, you've been expressing yourself in plenty strong enough terms. Stuff like "You should be telling us what you mean before," and "Where do you get this stuff from?" are stinging criticisms that you pursued relentlessly. Don't chastise yourself for holding back, because it sure doesn't feel like it from this end. When did I claim, when does anyone claim, or even imply, that their opinions are the only alternative? Sure, perhaps Goodell is just coldly and logically pursuing NFL policy. It's possible. The reason I don't accept that alternative is because someone who is calm and rational wouldn't engage in actions so damaging to the organization they head and their own reputation, and it isn't just Deflategate. There's a reason Goodell gets booed at the NFL draft every year, one of the few times he appears before informed fans. If to you it seems that I don't fill in a lot of the blanks, to me it seems that you're often badly uninformed considering your active participation level. Disagreement can be misinterpreted as criticism and then taken personally. I mean you no ill. I'm just defending my position.--Percy

Do you seriously need a test that footballs adjust to ambient temperature gradually, along with the air within them, and along with that the air pressure? When I did my own tests over a year ago (see Message 8) I didn't check the football pressure every minute. I measured the pressure, waited a half hour, then measured it again, but can there be any doubt that pressure changes gradually? There's no way not to "buy that" or not to "believe that." During halftime of the 2014-2015 AFC title game, NFL referees brought the cold footballs into a warm room and measured their pressures while they slowly warmed. Obviously they had no idea the footballs would gradually increase in pressure and invalidate their measurements (not to mention the confusion over different gauges that differ by nearly a half PSI). The absence of protocols for testing football pressure (until this past season) is more evidence that the NFL has never taken temperature into account, or cared much about football pressure at all.And the NFL still hasn't made public their protocols, so we still don't know how they reliably measure football pressures in Green Bay or Minnesota in January, or Miami in September for that matter. At temperatures above 90 and below 50 halftime may be too short (15 minutes) for footballs to reach ambient temperatures. When the temperature dips to 10 degrees it's definitely too short. So how are they doing it? That they won't say tells us all we need to know: they still don't have a handle on it. Does Bill Belichick qualify as "been around footballs forever?" About football pressure a year ago January he said:

quote:

---

"I spent a significant amount of time this past week learning as much as I could learn about bladders, air gauges, stitches, pressure, game-day ball preparation, rubdowns and so forth. Trying to be as helpful as I can here and share with you what I've learned. Having coached for 40 years in the National Football League, played for several years, growing up in a football family, being around this game my entire life, it's clear that I don't know very much about this area."

---

About this: I did advance this idea very early on before it was mentioned in the press, but since then this same scenario has been described in the media countless times, sometimes in excruciating detail. Read up. Try this summary of a report from the Analysis Group: Critical Analysis in "Deflategate" Matter - NFL Players Association, Victorious. Key quote:

quote:

---

Dean Snyder concluded that after properly accounting for timing, there was no statistical difference in the relative pressure drop of Patriots' and Colts' footballs. Subsequent to the hearing, Dr. Moore stressed that Exponent could have easily incorporated time into their original model with all the halftime data and that failing to do so was a fundamental methodological mistake.

---

Earlier you claimed, "I have absolutely no investment in the outcome of the case," but your relentless defense of even the most boneheaded NFL behavior says otherwise.--Percy

The questions you ask have all been hashed through previously both here and in the press. Asking a cascade of questions from a position of hyperskepticism isn't evidence, and many are revealing of how little you know or have retained about deflategate. Some questions are surprising. For instance, it gets cold in North Carolina - surely you have experience with how long things take to warm up from the cold, or even from the fridge or freezer. You can pretty much figure that out from how fast footballs warm up. You're just playing at defense attorney by throwing out as many questions as you can as a hassling tactic, but this one is easy to answer. I stuck a digital meat thermometer into the inflation hole in a football, cooled it in the fridge, put it on the kitchen table, then measured the change in temperature over 15 minutes, the length of halftime: So the answer to "how gradually?" is approximately 1.3° per minute, pretty much in the range that I expected just extrapolating from normal daily experience with items from the fridge. Without actually going through the math of the Ideal Gas Law it looks like the Patriot balls were measured very soon after being brought in, and the Colts balls were measured about 10 minutes later, just before the end of halftime. Measurement of Colt footballs was brought to a halt by the end of halftime, explaining why only four Colt footballs were measured.This exercise also answers the question of how long it would take the footballs to warm up from 10° during halftime of a game on a cold night in Green Bay. The larger difference between indoor and outdoor temperatures means that during the early stages they would warm up faster than 1.3° per minute, but erring in your favor and guestimating it at 2° per minute for all of halftime, in that 15 minutes they would warm up 30 degrees and just before returning to the field would have been at 40°. If the footballs had been inflated to 13 PSI indoors at 72° before the game then at 40° they would have measured in the neighborhood of 11.0 PSI, well out of the legal range (again, I'm guestimating and haven't gone through the Ideal Gas Law calculation).We also shouldn't forget that water makes footballs cooler than ambient, I assume due to the temperature of the water falling on them being cooler than ambient due to evaporation, and the water continuing to evaporate once on the footballs. Footballs in play would be cooler than footballs on the sideline, which are kept somewhere dry and are cycled regularly into play depending upon precipitation rates. In the AFC championship game New England ended the first half with a 15-play drive, so going into halftime their balls had seen a good amount of rainy on-the-field time.It again makes one wonder what protocols the NFL has put in place for accurately measuring football pressures at halftime during games played in cold temperatures. My guess, of course, is that they haven't, else they would be bragging about it while displaying for one and all how well they understand the Ideal Gas Law. Uh, no I'm not. I don't believe I've said anything denigrating about the referees. I think what they were able to do in so short a period of time while having to invent a protocol on the fly was commendable. They were measuring football pressures at halftime because they were directed to do so by NFL vice president of operations Troy Vincent, who was present at the AFC championship game. But the NFL, most visibly Goodell, is very wrong to insist that the referee data leads to definite conclusions.By the way Troy Vincent testified at Brady's appeal hearing that he had "no idea" that footballs "were automatically going to lose pressure if it was cold outside compared to how warm it was inside."But much more importantly, if you really believe all your questions have no precise answers, then you must agree that it would be improper to reach any definite conclusions about deflated footballs. If the NFL has nothing to hide, why are they hiding it? If they're hiding incompetence then I guess it's consistent with their whole behavior in the deflategate matter. And if their hiding exculpatory evidence, well, that doesn't speak well of them, either. Can you think of another reason for their lack of transparency about a matter which is critical to the "integrity of the game" (in case you've forgotten, that's Goodell's constant refrain). Uh, no we don't. The four Colts balls all measured below their initial 13.0 PSI, and three our of four measured out of legal range using the non-logo gauge, see Message 108. Uh, wrong again. Unless the refs are lying, they measured the Patriot balls first. Casting aspersions of "knowing diddly" is pretty ironic coming from you on this topic. Even that sentence is incorrect. I have no "hatred for all things NFL," and have expressed no such thought. But the NFL has a demonstrated incompetence regarding player discipline and court appeals, their behavior in these areas has been irrational and self-damaging, and their deflategate case that may reach the Supreme Court doesn't even have evidence to conclude deflation ever happened, let alone that Brady led an effort to deflate footballs and hide it from officials. I think you have a large emotional investment in being right but don't have the time and/or inclination for investigating the support for your views, explaining why you forget, ignore or pretend ignorance of so much evidence.--Percy

You are definitely remembering incorrectly. Yes, you've got it now. And then there's the two gauges, called the Logo gauge and the non-Logo gauge in the Exponent analysis included in the Wells report, that differed by around .4 PSI.Could you at least check your recollection before posting next time? I refer you back to the two differing gauges again.You know, probabilistic analyses have already been performed taking the differing gauges into account and the uncertainty about which was used before the game, and they show it very likely that no deflation occurred.From your Wikipedia quote: This Wells report claim that footballs could warm that fast looks ridiculous on its face, and as proven by my Message 371 is obviously wrong and not even close. Assuming an on-field temperature of 45 degrees at halftime and not accounting for wetness, my table says that in 2-4 minutes the footballs could only warm up 48°- 51.0°. Over the ensuing 4-5 minutes they would have increased in temperature by another six or seven degrees, introducing a range of variation of maybe 0.5 PSI (again, a guestimate).--Percy

Yeah, right. I'm still waiting for your acknowledgement of your error about whether Brady's hearing before Goodell was arbitration.Your big problem is that you keep making the same mistakes, often repeating claims rebutted long ago. Come up to speed or get off the track. Not only can you do that, it's been done. The analysis is statistical, just as Exponent's was except that they made critical errors. Your stuff is all laden with misinterpretations of my stuff, and either your memory or your thoroughness is severely impaired, because just a few minutes after my quote of NFL vice-president Troy Vincent testifying he never knew football pressure varied with temperature (Message 371) you criticize me for taking the position that the NFL didn't understand that football pressure varies with temperature.And if you think Goodell has been demonstrating good managerial temperament in his handling of player discipline and the resulting court cases, you and everyone who shares your view can meet in a phone booth.--Percy

Concerning accuracy and having the available facts at hand? Not even close. You do seem to try very hard to apply logic ad absurdum in a search of meaningless Talmudic weakness's in people's arguments. I'll have to guess what you're referring to here. You questioned my objectivity by accusing me of being too emotionally invested. I reject that accusation and point out that I have facts I continually reference and that I can remember from one post to the next. But you have a big emotional investment in being right on an issue where you're unwilling to put in the necessary work to learn the relevant facts. You sure are consistently out in left field. There was no claim that the Wells Report ignored the gas law. How could Wells ignore the gas law, given how much it was discussed after the Patriots were accused of deflating footballs? I brought it up mere days after the AFC championship game, as did numerous other people. How could you even hint that there's a claim that Wells hadn't heard of the gas law given how many times I've mentioned the Exponent analysis in the Wells report?The actual claim I think you're trying to bring to mind is how obvious it is that before the AFC championship game the NFL had no clue that football pressure varies with temperature. Certainly their instructions to referees included no hint of such knowledge, and Troy Vincent testified as much at one point.Subsequently, Exponent's statistical analysis in the Wells Report was shown to contain fatal errors. Wells said checking Patriot football pressures took 4-5 minutes, but in the same sentence he said the footballs would reach ambient temperature in only 2-4 minutes, which is clearly wrong. I don't think it's possible to know which information in the Wells report can be relied upon. Don't call it my indication. Halftime is supposed to be 15 minutes. I do recall that the start of the second half was delayed, I didn't notice by how much. Jim Nantz and Phil Sims called the game on TV, and they commented that they didn't know what the delay was about, but that the referees seemed to be trying to make sure the right footballs got into play. The referees did have both teams' footballs in the same room at the same time, which normally never happens, so maybe there was some confusion about whose balls were who's.Whatever else the referees had to do at halftime, we know it involved this:

• Measure and record 11 Patriot football pressures with two different gauges.
• Reinflate the Patriot footballs to 13 PSI.
• Measure and record 4 Colt football pressures with two different gauges.

It's interesting to note that since the Patriot footballs were likely somewhere between 50° and 60° when they were reinflated to 13 PSI, had they been left indoors and their pressures checked a half hour later they would have again tested out of range, but this time on the high side.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar, punctuation.

Well, that's some nice dissembling there. Everyone and his mother, including the NFL and the judge, called it arbitration, but I guess I won't be holding my breath for the admission of error.--Percy

I recall them the same way, but if you don't intend to repeat them then don't restate old assertions that have already been rebutted. I'm not a big fan of your, "I don't recall the discussion about this issue, so I think I'll state this as a fact again."--Percy

No, dissembling doesn't mean lying, and I don't think you're dissembling outward but inward to convince yourself of the truth of a belief shared by no one else except Rush Limbaugh that I know of. Almost no one else doubts or ever doubted that it was arbitration, including the NFL, NFLPA and the judges. If you want to continue arguing the point I'll leave you to your windmill.--Percy

Dissembling isn't lying, it's giving things a false appearance. You're trying to construct a characterization of events and arguments that gives a false picture that you weren't wrong. But your position is hopeless and silly. To repeat, the NFL, NFLPA and the judges all think it's arbitration. They've cited arbitration cases and the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) in their briefs, in open court, and in legal rulings. Give it up. For some reason? You don't remember the reason? It must be nice to always live in the moment with recent yesterdays so far away they're not even a distant memory. You said, "When my errors are pointed out, I have no problem acknowledging them." I pointed out that this wasn't true by mentioning one of your more glaring errors, asserting that the Brady hearing before Goodell wasn't arbitration.I wasn't reviving discussion about arbitration. I was responding to your soliloquy of how measured and reasonable you are by proving your claim wrong that you "have no problem acknowledging" your errors. You're proving yourself wrong right now, showing that you definitely do have major problems acknowledging your errors. You instead go into "keep arguing the point no matter how ludicrous" mode.--Percy

Yes, of course in your opinion it's not an error. That's why your claim that you admit error when shown you're wrong was totally bogus. You just extend the arguing interminably. There was no vehement argument, and the fact that you refuse to admit obvious error supports my point that you refuse to admit obvious error. What I've just described is dissembling. Look it up. You seem to have an intense desire to be wrong about simple things. Sports organizations, lawyers, judges, they all think Brady's hearing was arbitration, but you don't, and you're right. And dictionaries and thesauri all agree that dissembling and lying are not synonyms, but you don't, and you're right. Yeah, sure. Yes, of course to you this isn't about the name. In order to be right you've got to bring in a host of other issues, issues hinted at nowhere in any of the deflategate legal proceedings. They're all in your head.--Percy