Tired of Deflategate

[thebandit27]

No he was not, he was only required to show " more probable than not". That is why he uses that phrase so often in the report.

 

Kelly, good points on the balls and when they were measured. Had not thought of that.

 

As I siad, I believe 100% Brady is guilty. For me, still comes back to initial press conferences of Brady and Belicheck. Brady " I get the balls all week in practise, get here 6 hours before game pick the ones I want, and no one touches them after that".

 

Belicheck" right before balls are handed over to refs, we put them through a rigorous rubbing process that could increase the PSI"

 

They are lying cheating scum, just them nailed on the stuff that can not be disputed.

 

"More probable than not" is generally accepted as the legal standard for a "preponderance of evidence" existing; it's common in civil cases. They're the same thing.

[Kelly the Dog]

"More probable than not" is generally accepted as the legal standard for a "preponderance of evidence" existing; it's common in civil cases. They're the same thing.

Here is what Wells himself said on that very topic when he came out to refute the Patriots accusations about the report:

 

"Wells: If I were sitting on a jury, and the judge had charged the jury that it should apply the preponderance of the evidence standard, I would have checked the box that said proven. I believe the conclusions have been proven by the preponderance of the evidence standard. I used the words more probable than not because that is what is in the rules because I thought it was appropriate when people read my report to always make sure that they understood the burden of proof that I was following. I did not want someone to read the report if I just said proven and think perhaps I used a beyond a reasonable doubt standard. I think that would have been misleading. So I was very careful to draft in the report just what the appropriate standard of proof was. And that is far different than probable cause, which some reporters have reported. The preponderance of the evidence standard is the commonly used standard in most civil litigation."

[ko12010]

Here is what Wells himself said on that very topic when he came out to refute the Patriots accusations about the report:

 

"Wells: If I were sitting on a jury, and the judge had charged the jury that it should apply the preponderance of the evidence standard, I would have checked the box that said proven. I believe the conclusions have been proven by the preponderance of the evidence standard. I used the words more probable than not because that is what is in the rules because I thought it was appropriate when people read my report to always make sure that they understood the burden of proof that I was following. I did not want someone to read the report if I just said proven and think perhaps I used a beyond a reasonable doubt standard. I think that would have been misleading. So I was very careful to draft in the report just what the appropriate standard of proof was. And that is far different than probable cause, which some reporters have reported. The preponderance of the evidence standard is the commonly used standard in most civil litigation."

It's actually mind-boggling how many people are confused over this. It's pretty darn simple.

[K D]

Did they ban this cheater from football for life yet? F5

[Kelly the Dog]

Here is another thing that Wells said after the report during his press conference. Would anyone like to offer any chance in hell that Brady didn't know what was going on?

 

Reporter: "Sometimes intelligence agencies use the word chatter when theyre describing back and forth conversations that are taking place. Do you sense that was what was taking in the conversations between Tom Brady and the two equipment managers? How significant was that in your belief that Mr. Brady had a general knowledge of what was going on? And secondly are you personally insulted by some of the criticism that you are getting, not from maybe fans, but from the Brady camp, Mr. Yee, Robert Kraft?"

 

Wells:" Look, the bottom line, Mr. Yee is Mr. Bradys agent, and hes trying to do, I assume his job. Lets put it like this, I totally reject any suggestion that I was not independent or the report in some way was slanted to reach a particular result. So I reject all of that. In terms of Mr. Bradys knowledge, as I set forth in the report, one of the text messages between McNally and Jastremski read explicitly, Tom sucks, Im going to make that next ball a [expletive] balloon, thats what McNally says and Jastremski replies, Talked to him last night. The him, I conclude, is Brady. So talked to Brady last night. He actually brought you up. The he, I conclude, is Brady. He brought you up and said you must have a lot of stress trying to get them done. So I view that statement as Jastremski saying that Tom Brady brought up McNally and said McNally must have a lot of stress trying to get them done and Jastremski replies, I told him it was. So that is not circumstantial evidence. That is two of the participants in the scheme discussing what has taken place and in that particular text Jastremski directly says that Tom Brady brought you, brought up McNally and says you must have a lot of stress. And I interpret that and I believe that to the bottom of my heart that refers to the fact that there must be stress in getting the balls done."

Edited June 24, 2015 by Kelly the Dog

[hondo in seattle]

No he was not, he was only required to show " more probable than not". That is why he uses that phrase so often in the report.

 

Kelly, good points on the balls and when they were measured. Had not thought of that.

 

As I siad, I believe 100% Brady is guilty. For me, still comes back to initial press conferences of Brady and Belicheck. Brady " I get the balls all week in practise, get here 6 hours before game pick the ones I want, and no one touches them after that".

 

Belicheck" right before balls are handed over to refs, we put them through a rigorous rubbing process that could increase the PSI"

 

They are lying cheating scum, just them nailed on the stuff that can not be disputed.

 

 

That strikes me as an odd burden-of-proof standard, even if used elsewhere. If Wells assessed that there was a 51% chance of Brady's complicity and 49% chance of his innocence, then he'd have to find against Brady.

 

Though reading the report highlights, it seems the circumstantial evidence went far beyond the minimum for "more probable than not" despite the lack of a smoking gun and may have reached the 'reasonable doubt' standard.

[NoSaint]

Here is another thing that Wells said after the report during his press conference. Would anyone like to offer any chance in hell that Brady didn't know what was going on?

 

Reporter: "Sometimes intelligence agencies use the word chatter when theyre describing back and forth conversations that are taking place. Do you sense that was what was taking in the conversations between Tom Brady and the two equipment managers? How significant was that in your belief that Mr. Brady had a general knowledge of what was going on? And secondly are you personally insulted by some of the criticism that you are getting, not from maybe fans, but from the Brady camp, Mr. Yee, Robert Kraft?"

 

Wells:" Look, the bottom line, Mr. Yee is Mr. Bradys agent, and hes trying to do, I assume his job. Lets put it like this, I totally reject any suggestion that I was not independent or the report in some way was slanted to reach a particular result. So I reject all of that. In terms of Mr. Bradys knowledge, as I set forth in the report, one of the text messages between McNally and Jastremski read explicitly, Tom sucks, Im going to make that next ball a [expletive] balloon, thats what McNally says and Jastremski replies, Talked to him last night. The him, I conclude, is Brady. So talked to Brady last night. He actually brought you up. The he, I conclude, is Brady. He brought you up and said you must have a lot of stress trying to get them done. So I view that statement as Jastremski saying that Tom Brady brought up McNally and said McNally must have a lot of stress trying to get them done and Jastremski replies, I told him it was. So that is not circumstantial evidence. That is two of the participants in the scheme discussing what has taken place and in that particular text Jastremski directly says that Tom Brady brought you, brought up McNally and says you must have a lot of stress. And I interpret that and I believe that to the bottom of my heart that refers to the fact that there must be stress in getting the balls done."

if only to play devils advocate..... to fully prep them to his liking, legally, wouldnt change the meaning of that string of texts drastically would it?

 

Im still of mindset that brady did this and that its easily 51% likely at this point, just pointing out that paragraph doesnt say much meaningful

[Kelly the Dog]

if only to play devils advocate..... to fully prep them to his liking, legally, wouldnt change the meaning of that string of texts drastically would it?

Im still of mindset that brady did this and that its easily 51% likely at this point, just pointing out that paragraph doesnt say much meaningful

Give me any scenario as to what it means other than that, anything, especially considering there are ten other texts mentioning deflating and messing with the balls and Brady and getting swag for it.

[dave mcbride]

Ok - I finally read the full AEI report through. It seems pretty solid and straightforward to me. Are there any compelling critiques (i.e., of the non-conspiratorial variety and which don't attack it for being the product of a right wing think tank) of the AEI report out there?

 

https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/On-the-Wells-report.pdf

 

Also: http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/06/14/opinion/deflating-deflategate.html?referrer=&_r=1

Edited June 24, 2015 by dave mcbride

[Kelly the Dog]

Ok - I finally read the full AEI report through. It seems pretty solid and straightforward to me. Are there any compelling critiques (i.e., of the non-conspiratorial variety and which don't attack it for being the product of a right wing think tank) of the AEI report out there?

 

https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/On-the-Wells-report.pdf

 

Also: http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/06/14/opinion/deflating-deflategate.html?referrer=&_r=1

Post 601.

 

Furthermore, the entire argument of the AEI report seems to be that the Pats balls were measured first at halftime, and the Colts balls, measured immediately afterward, were sitting around in the warm inside air and so their PSI rose so it looked like theirs didnt change more.

 

If you believe that to be true, than the last few balls of the Pats that were tested should have rose, too, sitting around in that warm air. But it seems to me looking at AEIs own data, that the last three balls check of the Pats were actually some of the very lowest, not higher, and ball 10 of 11 was the absolute lowest. So that makes no sense. Someone please explain why this is not true, it's possible I am overlooking something but that seems logical to me.

[dave mcbride]

Post 601.

 

Furthermore, the entire argument of the AEI report seems to be that the Pats balls were measured first at halftime, and the Colts balls, measured immediately afterward, were sitting around in the warm inside air and so their PSI rose so it looked like theirs didnt change more.

 

If you believe that to be true, than the last few balls of the Pats that were tested should have rose, too, sitting around in that warm air. But it seems to me looking at AEIs own data, that the last three balls check of the Pats were actually some of the very lowest, not higher, and ball 10 of 11 was the absolute lowest. So that makes no sense. Someone please explain why this is not true, it's possible I am overlooking something but that seems logical to me.

I'm not referring to random posts. I'm referring to outsides sources in which the authors aren't Pats-hating Bills fans. I will look, however.

Edited June 24, 2015 by dave mcbride

[Kelly the Dog]

 

Not to mention nothing in the AEI report really proves the exponent or the Princeton professor were wrong.

[dave mcbride]

Post 601.

 

Furthermore, the entire argument of the AEI report seems to be that the Pats balls were measured first at halftime, and the Colts balls, measured immediately afterward, were sitting around in the warm inside air and so their PSI rose so it looked like theirs didnt change more.

 

If you believe that to be true, than the last few balls of the Pats that were tested should have rose, too, sitting around in that warm air. But it seems to me looking at AEIs own data, that the last three balls check of the Pats were actually some of the very lowest, not higher, and ball 10 of 11 was the absolute lowest. So that makes no sense. Someone please explain why this is not true, it's possible I am overlooking something but that seems logical to me.

Dog, They measured the Pats balls twice - and wrote the info down. For 12 balls, that takes AT LEAST five minutes, and probably closer to 10. Also, we should assume an interval of a minute or two between moving to the Colts balls. The fact that they only had time to do 4 of the Colts balls is telling. It raises doubts, at least to me.

Edited June 24, 2015 by dave mcbride

[Kelly the Dog]

I'm not referring to random posts. I'm referring to outsides sources in which the authors aren't Pats-hating Bills fans. I will look, however.

Show me anything in the AEI report that proves the Exponent report was erroneous.

Dog, They measured the Pats balls twice - and wrote the info down. For 12 balls, that takes AT LEAST five minutes, and probably closer to 10.

And the more time the balls sat in the warm room according to AEI the HIGHER THE PSI should have been. That is their argument. But the earlier balls tested were higher and the later balls tested, including the ones a minute before the Colts balls were tested were the low scores. Three out of three, included the absolute lowest.

[dave mcbride]

Show me anything in the AEI report that proves the Exponent report was erroneous.

I can only speak to the AEI report at this point. The timing between the measurements and the confusion re: the gauges -- inarguable, right?!? -- are important, and from what I gather the Wells report didn't deal with these two issues in a substantive or satisfactory way.

Edited June 24, 2015 by dave mcbride

[NoSaint]

Give me any scenario as to what it means other than that, anything, especially considering there are ten other texts mentioning deflating and messing with the balls and Brady and getting swag for it.

if that was in a vacuum, it would probably still be stressful to deflate to exactly 12.5 and properly rub and prep for brady. and i wouldnt be shocked by a qb throwing some swag to those guys is all i was pointing out. it could read either way.

 

obviously with wider context its easier and easier to add perceived meaning to it. and that is probably correct. but to pull that answer as a major development i dont think really does it for me....

[BuffaloHokie13]

Show me anything in the AEI report that proves the Exponent report was erroneous.

 

And the more time the balls sat in the warm room according to AEI the HIGHER THE PSI should have been. That is their argument. But the earlier balls tested were higher and the later balls tested, including the ones a minute before the Colts balls were tested were the low scores. Three out of three, included the absolute lowest.

[Kelly the Dog]

I can only speak to the AEI report at this point. The timing between the measurements and the confusion re: the gauges -- inarguable, right?!? -- are important, and from what I gather the Wells report didn't deal with the issue in a substantive way.

Yes they did. They spent pages and pages and pages on it.

if that was in a vacuum, it would probably still be stressful to deflate to exactly 12.5 and properly rub and prep for brady. and i wouldnt be shocked by a qb throwing some swag to those guys is all i was pointing out. it could read either way.

obviously with wider context its easier and easier to add perceived meaning to it. and that is probably correct. but to pull that answer as a major development i dont think really does it for me....

McNally doesn't touch or rub or prepare the balls. Jastremski does.

[dave mcbride]

Yes they did. They spent pages and pages and pages on it.

Summarize it for me then. I'm all ears. The AEI report says that the Wells report dealt with the gauge issue, but in an incorrect way. The AEI report seemed convincing, but I have not gone back and looked at the Wells report on that issue.

 

Also (and again), are there any published critiques of the AEI report that are from reputable sources? I haven't seen any, and I looked. I would be happy to see some if they're available. By "reputable," I'm referring to a source who is able to competently engage with pp. 3-6 of the AEI report. My hunch is that you are not one of those people. That's no shame. Neither am I.

Edited June 24, 2015 by dave mcbride

[The Wiz]

Dog, They measured the Pats balls twice - and wrote the info down. For 12 balls, that takes AT LEAST five minutes, and probably closer to 10. Also, we should assume an interval of a minute or two between moving to the Colts balls. The fact that they only had time to do 4 of the Colts balls is telling. It raises doubts, at least to me.

The difference in density of air at 10psi from 40 degrees to 70 degrees is 0.008 lb/ft^3. And that's even assuming the air in the ball heated up to 70 degrees after coming from outside into a heated room. It's pretty clear that 8/1000ths isn't going to change the PSI of the ball that much.