Pneumonic

Brady's camp didn't release this .... the Pats did. Kraft apparently has awaken from his drunken stupor.

And this email exchange ...... this is about to get very ugly for the league. http://nesn.com/2015/07/patriots-publish-emails-to-nfl-asking-to-correct-false-deflategate-reports/

The NFLPA's petition to vacate is quite explicit on these points and references Wells in doing so. Do you disagree with them? 58. Although each team's footballs were measured by the game day officials prior to the game, the PSI measurements were not recorded, the gauge used to measure (and set) PSI was not recorded, and none of the environmental factors (such as the Temperature in the locker room and on the field) were recorded. NFLPA Ex. 7, Wells Report at 5I-52, 116 59. During the first half of the game, the Colts examined a ball intercepted from the Patriots and made a further complaint to the NFL. In response to the NFL decided to ask the referees to measure the air pressure in both teams' game balls at halftime. NFLPA Ex.7, Wells Report at 63-66. 60. Because of the absence of any protocols or basic understanding of what factors are relevant to football deflation, the data collection was a disaster. None of the following was recorded: the temperature on the field; the temperature in the officials' locker room where the balls were tested; the specific gauge used to conduct the testing (where, as here, multiple gauges were used and each had very different calibrations and yielded different readings); whether the balls were wet or dry (and how wet or dry); the sequence and timing of the halftime measurements (this was the most critical factor, because both teams' balls would warm and gain pressure minute-by-minute after being returned from the cold and wet field to the warm and dry locker room, yet the balls were measured at different times). The Wells Report even states that the PSI measurements of the eleven Patriots balls and four Colts balls that were measured-the only data that was recorded-contained a transcription error. NFLPA Ex. 7, Wells Report at 69 n,41. 61. After the game, officials tested the pressure level of four footballs from each team. Once again however, none of the critical information necessary to determine the meaning of the PSI readings was recorded. 1d. at72-73. 62. The data collection was so deeply flawed that even Wells and the NFL's consultants concluded that it was unreliable: Our scientific consultants informed us that the data alone did not provide a basis for them to determine with absolute certainty whether there was or was not tampering as the analysis of such data is ultimately dependent upon assumptions and information that is uncertain. 2lNFLPA Ex. 7, Wells Report at 12. Sure, but only if a non biased (ie objective) science perspective shows it as possible. Otherwise, it's all just subjective biases in play; biases which, at least in this case, appear to be based off assumptions and assertions more than anything.

Reading their petition, it seems to me that they hit on all of the salient points. 125. It is undisputed that, prior to the AFC Championship Game, the League had no collection and testing procedures for assessing changes in football pressure. As a consequence, the officials did not know to-and therefore did not-record critical information such as the temperafure of the locker room where the footballs were tested, the specific gauge used to conduct the testing (here, multiple gauges were used with diflerent calibrations), whether each of the balls was wet or dry (and how wet or dry), or the sequence or timing of the measurements (which was critical, as the balls heated up inside the room but were each measured at different times).

Fair enough. My point still stands that the NFLPA disagrees with the science and is highlighted in their petition to vacate.

The NFLPA has questioned the testing methodology. As did the league just recently .... by actually implementing some element of testing control.

Temp alone doesn't account for all things in science discovery process but, without proper starting (and end) points, the ideal gas law is not solvable ....... without making assumptions and inferences. EDIT; adjusted the last sentence for clarity.

This need not be specific to a lab situation. It's entirely possible to replicate the results in the real world, provided proper testing protocols were in place. The issue is these protocols weren't in place .... yet they form the basis for the entirely of the process which continues to base its judgements on assumptions and speculation. The science is the objective component, in place to (hopefully) remove the biases that come with subjectivity.

Sure, I suppose. it certainly fit the narrative which is that the entirely on the Wells report, which it seems Goodell used to administer unprecedented punishment, seems mostly grounded in assumption and speculation.

This may be true .... I don't know the legal ramifications. However, I do know science and #'s enough to know any conclusion based upon the methodology in place here is ridiculously suspect.

There is no recorded and noted T's and P's with which to find their respective delta's. Without these delta's we are unable to solve PV=nRT without making assumptions.

I have read all of the info. My point is the testing methodology is so fatally flawed that it is unable to support any application of scientific discovery. As such, nothing afterwards is relevant for it's conclusion(s) have been based entirely on speculation and assumption.

This is an unprovable situation for we don't have the starting temperature points. Without valid starting points, we have no delta T which disallows PV=nRT to be solved. This is less about physics than it is about simple maths. I think the prof is unable to see the forest for the trees.

Even giving the benefit of the doubt to having accurately recorded PSI's, there are numerous other factors which would cause this test to laughably fail. I can't imagine any sensible judge would get passed this fatal procedural fault. Afterall, it is the bases for the entirety of the rest of the report. But, I am no lawyer.

There may have been a procedure but it was anything but proper. Without proper procedure (recorded temperatures, R&R/calibrated gauges, wet/dry conditions, timing, etc) it is impossible to determine if the drop in footballs by halftime was caused by environmental factors or by tampering. As a scientist, the lack of a proper testing protocol is the fatal flaw which kills the process before it even has a chance to start. The fundamental tenets of scientific discovery are non-existent in this test. There is no support/non support of a hypothesis. The testing results are not measurable (ie objective) nor can another person conduct the test in a repeatable fashion to see if they are able to attain similar results by following the steps the exact same way. This test wouldn’t stand a chance to pass a peer review. If any of my guys produced such a report, I would fire them on the spot. As for PV=nRT ….. it is a non starter since we have no recorded temperatures, and thus, no delta T component to solve the equation. It’s application can only be administered via assumption which is what happened here. Even, the leagues “expert”, Exponent admitted that the testing protocol administered by the league lacked essential info which Wells reported as such. Yet Goodell went ahead and concluded that factors, other than environmental, contributed to the PSI decrease. It’s comedic, to Laurel and Hardy standards, to even attempt to assert blame on anything but natural factors given the lack of scientific methodology involved.

I would say it's even simpler. Any judge, with an ounce of common sense, will look at this case and plainly see that the league had insufficient procedures in place (ie failure to gather the right information to even know whether the balls were artificially deflated or not, not measuring the temperature nor the timing nor the wetness or anything for that matter) which would make it impossible to know what did, or didn't, happen to the balls that night in order to render a decision. Without such procedures, it is impossible, for anyone, to hand down discipline in a fair and consistent manner.

I believe the NFLPA's counter is as follows: 106. This is because the Player Policies actually given out and made applicable to players provide only for specified, collectively bargained Fines for equipment violations, including those aimed at obtaining a competitive advantage. For example, the Player Policies provide that "[a] player may not use unauthorized foreign substances (e.g., stickum or slippery compounds) on his body or uniform . . . [and that] such a violation affects the integrity of the competition and can give a team an unfair advantage . . . ." NFLPA Ex. ll4 at 15. First-time offenders of this player rule, however, are only subject to a fine of 58,268. Id. at 20. The Player Policies also contain a catchall" provision for "Other Uniform/Equipment Violations." Id. at 15. First offenders of this provision are only subject to a fine of $5,512. Id. at 20. There is no separate category of violation specified for ball deflation in these policies. 107. These Players Policies, with their collectively bargained fines, do not provide for any suspensions despite the fact that violations of these Policies can be "conduct detrimental" to the integrity of the game. Then the matter of conduct detrimental being fair and consistent. According to the NFLPA, that seems not to have taken place here. A. Goodell Summarily Denies the {'Improper Delegation' Ground for Appeal Without Any Fair Process 132. Under the CBA, the Commissioner has the exclusive authority to impose conduct detrimental discipline on NFL players. NFLPA Ex. 107, CBA Art. 46, $ 1(a); NFLPA Ex. 108, CBA App. A, fl 15. The NFL has zealously guarded this responsibility as the Commissioner's-and the Commissioner's alone-for decades. 133. Recently, however, Goodell publicly stated his desire to abdicate his disciplinary role and allow a new individual to make the initial [Article 46] disciplinary decision." That is exactly what Goodell did here. As Vincent's letter disciplining Brady makes crystal clear, Goodell delegated to Vincent his exclusive CBA authority to impose conduct detrimental discipline on Brady. NFLPA Ex. 10. ) 134. The CBA does not allow this. In fact, the NFLPA brought a CBA grievance against the NFL, challenging the Commissioner's unilateral decision to delegate away his conduct detrimental powers. This grievance is pending, and the merits of any Commissioner delegation are not before this Court.

What do you guys think of this: pg 36 C. Brady Had No Notice of the Policy Under Which He Was Disciplined 109. Instead of applying the Player Policies, Vincent punished Brady pursuant to, and for being generally aware of, violations of the Competitive Integrity Policy, which like the Equipment Policy-is only incorporated into the Game Operations Manual and provided only to teams and team executives. Indeed, the Award specifically acknowledges that this Policy "imposes certification and reporting requirements on clubs and senior club executives." Award at 17 n.19.

They expand on the material more on pages 16-19. Under B. THE CBA LAW OF THE SHOP AFFORDS PLAYERS ADVANCE NOTICE OF POTENTIAL DISCIPLINE ....... 47-51

I think the Peterson referencing will end up being critical as it seems Kessler filed this with that disregard of precedent in mind. But, I am no lawyer! At any rate, the seemingly relevant points that counter your claim are as follows: ln Peterson, this Court squarely held that the law of the shop under the CBA affords players advance notice of potential discipline. This Court further held in Peterson that any arbitration award sustaining discipline in the absence of proper notice is an award contrary to the essence of the CBA and must be vacated. Thumbing its nose at the Peterson order, Commissioner Goodell's Award upholds Brady's four-game suspension in its entirety despite the undisputed arbitration record of several egregious notice defects: Brady had no notice of the disciplinary standards that would be applied to him; no notice of the disciplinary policies that would be applied; and no notice of the potential penalties. In fact, the NFL collectively bargained over the punishments (fines, not suspensions) for alleged equipment tampering by players-including those designed to gain a competitive advantage-and was not free to disregard that CBA bargain and subject Brady to other standards, policies, and penalties without any notice at all. The notice defects which each independently require vacating the Award are: (i) suspending Brady for claimed "general awareness" of alleged misconduct by other people, an unknown disciplinary standard never previously applied to players in the history of the NFL; (ii) suspending Brady despite the fact that the Player Policies provide only for specified fines for any type of equipment violation; (iii) subjecting Brady to the Competitive Integrity Policy, which applies only to Clubs-not players; and (iv) suspending Brady for alleged non-cooperation, when a fine is the only penalty that has ever been upheld in such circumstances. By ignoring each one of these notice failures, the Award-as in Peterson-utterly disregards the CBA law of the shop and must be vacated for defying the essence of the CBA.

One of Brady's best facts is Wells Report wasn't independent. NFL paid for it and Brady now says NFL edited it, too. https://twitter.com/McCannSportsLaw/status/626534382552096768 NFL imposing penalty meant for teams (not players) on Brady is the "repondeat superior" doctrine in reverse. Good argument for Brady & NFLPA https://twitter.com/WALLACHLEGAL/status/626565891086512129 Judge Kyle assigned to PA/Brady v. NFL case. He was assigned Brady v. NFL in 2011 but recused himself. Judge Kyle worked for Briggs & Morgan, who served as lead counsel for NFLPA in the Reggie White antitrust case. In Brady v. NFL I (2011),Judge Kyle & Judge Schilitz recused & case was assigned to Judge Nelson, who ruled for Brady. 8th Cir then reversed Assuming Judge recuses again,case will be randomly reassigned,so Doty still in play.PA might argue should be assigned to him as related case https://twitter.com/SportsLawGuy

For those who want the other half of the story ....... NFLPA's petition to vacate https://nflpaweb.blob.core.windows.net/media/Default/PDFs/Media%20Resources/7.29.15%20petition%20to%20vacate.pdf

All of which is as "more probable than not" to have happened as what is presumed in the Wells report.

http://wellsreportcontext.com/

According to Wells yes. Others viewing the case may not conclude the same. See http://wellsreportcontext.com/for some context.