Pneumonic

The baseline reference for the original PSI was never properly established so, scientifically, the entire premise is fatally flawed without even having to consider PV=nRT.

Scientifically, it is 100% flawed. Legally ......

I foresee another $5M bill job by Mr Wells and his hot shot team.

It means that any conclusion(s) drawn from PSI measurements alone are fatally flawed.

I am just commenting from a science perspective. if I were called in to debunk the paper, I could easily do so in a manner of minutes. How that reflects legally .... beats me.

As i said .. this is my scientific opinion of its validity. This would be laughed at at peer level. Cooperation (or lack thereof) seems to be the only relevant issue to me. If it gets to court, I think the NFL will have to prove they have just cause/reason to fire a union guy. Do this, they win.

No need to get personal. I don’t have a grip on the legal issues but the science is well within my area of expertise. There are too many variables involved for the Colts balls to be considered controlled. Scientifically, Wells would have had his answer within minutes if proper consideration was given to the primary tenet of conducting a test that involves instrument measurements; that test is valid only if said test instruments are properly calibrated (at minimum gauge R&R) at the onset of the testing procedure. That the league doesn’t have such a protocol in place meant that the refs didn’t use calibrated gauges which means there is no established reference point insofar as the PSI levels of the initially tested footballs. With no established initial PSI the final PSI’s matter not. But having his scientific answer in a matter of minutes didn’t jive with the $5M retainer/billable hours charge set aside so ..... the hunt was on.

With no real control group nor knowledge of original ball pressure and no proper measurement testing, no scientific peer group would ever accept the results in the Wells report. Such inadequacy casts the Wells report as nothing but a complete scam.

No doubt that would explain Montana's 4 TD/9 INT performance stats in those 4 one and done games.

But is it really? Brady - 4 SB wins with 2 SB losses incl 2 one and dones. Montana - 4 SB wins with no SB loses but with 4 one and dones. Is it really better getting eliminated in the 1st round than it is to win your way to the SB only to come up 2 miraculous catches show from not losing any? Why should Brady be dis-credited for getting to the finish line more times than Montana? Not to mention Montana played with 12 offensive pro bowlers in his 4 SB title years; Brady played with just 2.

I don't have the time to dwell on all of the particulars involved so I will simply link to a CBS debunking story noting the salient point "3. Debunking Brady's knowledge of what was going on" for possible answers. http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/25185118/patriots-lawyer-responds-to-wells-report-three-things-to-know

As I said, I'll await further clarity on this point. As I said to K-9 .... I'll await further clarity on this point.

True, I suppose, if you believe that is all ther is to the "diet" remark. We are talking about Brady here, not the team. Any "history" is team related; not Brady. Again, depends on who you are talking about. The Pats gave their reason for not making McNally available for a further interview. As for Brady, I am waiting for additional clarity before deciding one way or another.

Procedurally, it appears the NFL blew it. No amount of additional evidence would cure the NFL of this fundamental blunder. As for the text messages ..... it appears as though all we have as evidence is that the two guys were deflators of balls. I see no hard evidence that they were directed by Brady to deflate the balls below legal limits.

That's one of the million $ questions it would seem.

If one is to base things solely on the Wells report, it appears that way. Before passing final judgement, however, I think it is wise to hear the other side of the story.

I most certainly believe so as far as the Patriots go. Their deflategate summary clearly mentions, amongst other things, an unwillignness of the league to allow cross examination. But, keeping this focused on topic (of Brady only) I suspect clarity will be provided on a great many things once this goes to court. EDIT. BTW, so as to show my unbiased opinion, I also believe the league may have additiional info (such as new discovery) that they may have that the Wells report may not have touched upon.

I can't comment on anything since I have not seen the counter arguments involved. All I can base anything on at this time is a report that amounts to nothing more than circumstantial evidence, culled from an investigation that appears to be chalk full of procedural errors. As for evidence, I'd like to see more than just a bunch of insinuations that Brady knew of guys who deflated footballs which, best as I can determine, isn't illegal. Are you suggesting that ALL of the relevant info on this matter has been released? I beg to differ.

Seems silly to rely on 1 side of the story only doesn't it? Perhaps context will be added to the deflator point and it will make better sense to all who read it? To define certainty to its meaning at this stage may be unwise, no? Well, in Brady's appeal letter, his attorney's are quite explicit in their thoughts: Third, Mr. Brady’s discipline is premised solely upon the Wells Report, which contains insufficient evidence to find that Mr. Brady committed any violation of NFL rules. Indeed, the Report is wrought with unsupported speculation regarding Mr. Brady’s purported knowledge of, and involvement with, two Patriots employees’ purported conduct, and grasps at dubious, contradictory and mischaracterized circumstantial evidence merely to conclude that it is “more probable than not” that Mr. Brady was “generally aware of” “inappropriate activities.” Report at 17. Mr. Wells conceded that “there is less direct evidence linking [Mr.] Brady to tampering activities than either [Messrs.] McNally or Jastremski.” Id. The Report—based on speculative possibilities piled on top of speculative possibilities and a disregard of contrary evidence—is a legally inadequate basis upon which to impose this unprecedented discipline.

In all fairness, this was a PR rebuttal and not a cross examination piece which required extensive explanation.

Nah, this didn't happen at all in the Wells' investiogatio, errrr, prosecution ...... because I am ...... ummmm, speculating

Depends on what angle (guilty or not guilty) one is approaching the info from. In the end, it's ALL speculative (unsupported at that) based on the Well's report alone. At least, we now have some contrary evidence to digest from the defense' perspective Again, once contradictory evidence is supplied (presuming it does) all context will become clearer.

Context ...... once this goes to court, the context will become clearer.

..... still doesn't mean Brady knew him as McNally!

Jastremski was the go between Brady and McNally. It's not at all surprising Brady might not know McNally by surname. Much like when I used to give my secretary paperwork that needed to be copied and I instructed her to take these down to Jess, the Xerox gal in the print room. Even though Jess printed off stuff for me daily and I dined in the same lunch room with her and and saw her almost on a daily basis, I never knew Jess' surname.