Brady 4 game suspension upheld; Will go to court

[Mr. WEO]

 

Why don't you read the actual Tags decision before leaping to your logic? The parallel in this case is that Hargrove was McNally/Jastremski and Brady was the Saints coaches. Tags was very clear where he thought blame lay.

 

 

The point is that Hargrove was suspended only for lying. His suspensions were tossed (as were all the rest) in order to bail out Goodell and the NFL from the mess thye created with the crazy suspensions. It really doesn't matter how Tags contorted himself to get Hargrove off and pin it on the coaches.

 

Really, "he was just following orders" to lie? Tags can't really believe that. It's a ridiculous excuse/defense for not cooperating. Hargrove lied to save his own skin---not those of his bosses.

 

The "old rules" for conduct did not allow for lying under any circumstance in an investigation before the commissioner. This line of reasoning is just wrong.

Edited July 31, 2015 by Mr. WEO

[Pneumonic]

Sorry but that is just ill-informed and stupid. They had very clear procedures to know if they were deflated and they followed them. The Pats gave them the balls from the ball bag (McNally), told them (Anderson) the PSI they wanted exactly. The Official measured them the way they always do and are supposed to, and then put them back in the bag to bring out to the game.

When one of the balls was thought to be deflated, they took it out of the game, at halftime they took the rest and measured them all again, found they were all below, and took them out of the game.

 

When they were found to be deflated they did an exhaustive study. The maker of the ball said the elements could not have affected them that much. Even if the ideal gas law was followed to the greatest amount, a couple of the balls, including the ONE in question, was still under.

If you want to say the league did not have a specific policy to follow if one team stole all the balls and altered them, then yes, they didn't have a "If a team steals the balls, this is what you do" provision.

 

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.

[Kelly the Dog]

well, honestly, most appeals to this level are process and not substance, unless they were grossly out of line in the substance (and that is normally reflected in gross negligence in the process too).

What's funny is in the substance angle, it's Wells' fault that 90% of the science is crap crowd jumped all over the science. He left out a reason for his actions, and it seemed strange to any naysayer. He said "we determined" that it was all but certain Anderson used the logo gauge even though Anderson himself said to his best recollection he used the non-logo gauge. Reports like AEI jumped all over that and said Wells didn't account for a distinct possibility and here is why. And if everything went the Patriots way, one could kinda argue that the Ideal Gas Law could account for 10 of the 12 balls (not the one in question of course).

 

Wells also said it didn't matter which gauge he used, because either of them shows the balls were under. Which is true, but the other side had a field day with that.

 

Well Goodell put that all to rest because he explained why they knew Anderson used the logo gauge, and it's foolproof. So all of the "it could have been" arguments are gone because it could not have been. Period.

 

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.

That argument, technically is valid. In the real world though, it's nonsense. If you are going to say that because the officials measured all of the balls, all of them uniform, to the same amount of PSI requested by the Patriots, but did not WRITE DOWN those 12 identical numbers then all of the science is totally suspect go ahead. It's stupid.

[BuffaloHokie13]

What's funny is in the substance angle, it's Wells' fault that 90% of the science is crap crowd jumped all over the science. He left out a reason for his actions, and it seemed strange to any naysayer. He said "we determined" that it was all but certain Anderson used the logo gauge even though Anderson himself said to his best recollection he used the non-logo gauge. Reports like AEI jumped all over that and said Wells didn't account for a distinct possibility and here is why. And if everything went the Patriots way, one could kinda argue that the Ideal Gas Law could account for 10 of the 12 balls (not the one in question of course).

 

Wells also said it didn't matter which gauge he used, because either of them shows the balls were under. Which is true, but the other side had a field day with that.

 

Well Goodell put that all to rest because he explained why they knew Anderson used the logo gauge, and it's foolproof. So all of the "it could have been" arguments are gone because it could not have been. Period.

That argument, technically is valid. In the real world though, it's nonsense. If you are going to say that because the officials measured all of the balls, all of them uniform, to the same amount of PSI requested by the Patriots, but did not WRITE DOWN those 12 identical numbers then all of the science is totally suspect go ahead. It's stupid.

Goodell said in his decline for an appeal that the non-logo gauge was used and there's ample evidence to prove it. It's in footnote 1 on page 7 of the report if you're curious.

[Pneumonic]

What's funny is in the substance angle, it's Wells' fault that 90% of the science is crap crowd jumped all over the science. He left out a reason for his actions, and it seemed strange to any naysayer. He said "we determined" that it was all but certain Anderson used the logo gauge even though Anderson himself said to his best recollection he used the non-logo gauge. Reports like AEI jumped all over that and said Wells didn't account for a distinct possibility and here is why. And if everything went the Patriots way, one could kinda argue that the Ideal Gas Law could account for 10 of the 12 balls (not the one in question of course).

 

Wells also said it didn't matter which gauge he used, because either of them shows the balls were under. Which is true, but the other side had a field day with that.

 

Well Goodell put that all to rest because he explained why they knew Anderson used the logo gauge, and it's foolproof. So all of the "it could have been" arguments are gone because it could not have been. Period.

That argument, technically is valid. In the real world though, it's nonsense. If you are going to say that because the officials measured all of the balls, all of them uniform, to the same amount of PSI requested by the Patriots, but did not WRITE DOWN those 12 identical numbers then all of the science is totally suspect go ahead. It's stupid.

 

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.

Edited July 31, 2015 by Pneumonic

[K-9]

Lost in all this is that for all the "the science is garbage" and Ideal Gas Law and AEI crowd, Goodell's report shot the **** out of all of that. No one is talking about it because it is all about the phone and coverup, but he gave the answer that knocks down virtually all of that. The ideal gas law could not have fit or explain the drop, the Wells report was correct in their assumption of what gauge Anderson used, which is the basis of pretty much ALL of the science is garbage argument.

 

And the argument is all but proof.

He put credence in the better scientific credentials of those that did the experiment. Just as common sense would dictate any reasonable person should do. Nice attempt by Brady to cloud the issue, but it fell short.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

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.

Laurel and Hardy standards? Are those your words or the words contained in Brady's motion?

 

GO BILLS!!!

[BuffaloHokie13]

 

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.

Well there is a Physics Professor from Princeton who disagrees with you. You might want to read Goodell's Appeal Decision

[K-9]

What's funny is in the substance angle, it's Wells' fault that 90% of the science is crap crowd jumped all over the science. He left out a reason for his actions, and it seemed strange to any naysayer. He said "we determined" that it was all but certain Anderson used the logo gauge even though Anderson himself said to his best recollection he used the non-logo gauge. Reports like AEI jumped all over that and said Wells didn't account for a distinct possibility and here is why. And if everything went the Patriots way, one could kinda argue that the Ideal Gas Law could account for 10 of the 12 balls (not the one in question of course).

 

Wells also said it didn't matter which gauge he used, because either of them shows the balls were under. Which is true, but the other side had a field day with that.

 

Well Goodell put that all to rest because he explained why they knew Anderson used the logo gauge, and it's foolproof. So all of the "it could have been" arguments are gone because it could not have been. Period.

That argument, technically is valid. In the real world though, it's nonsense. If you are going to say that because the officials measured all of the balls, all of them uniform, to the same amount of PSI requested by the Patriots, but did not WRITE DOWN those 12 identical numbers then all of the science is totally suspect go ahead. It's stupid.

Will the new atomic pressure gauges have logos or not?

 

None of this is relevant to the matter before the court, anyway, at this time.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Pneumonic]

Well there is a Physics Professor from Princeton who disagrees with you. You might want to read Goodell's Appeal Decision

 

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.

[BuffaloHokie13]

 

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.

You really should read the decision. The science is only one small piece of it.

[Kelly the Dog]

 

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.

The Patriots tested the balls with their own gauge and set them at 12.5. McNally says Tom wants these at 12.5. Then the officials tested them with their gauge and 10 were at 12.5 and two were a little under so they added a little to get them to 12.5.

 

And your argument is they didnt write 12.5 down on a piece of paper so there is no scientific starting point.

[GG]

 

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.

 

Is this the part of the argument that the NFL doesn't have a policy in place to properly measure the balls which were stolen?

[Pneumonic]

You really should read the decision. The science is only one small piece of it.

 

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.

[K-9]

 

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.

You really need to let "the science" go. It is no longer relevant to the proceedings.

 

One final word on it though and that is the NFL did Brady a favor by seeking outside expert scientific testing to see if environmental factors played a key role. Goodell just could have accepted the readings taken by the refs before the game and at halftime and drawn his conclusions from that alone. Lucky for Brady the league provided something to poke holes in. But ultimately, Brady made it become so much more things that have nothing to do with air pressure in a football.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Kelly the Dog]

You really need to let "the science" go. It is no longer relevant to the proceedings.

It's no longer relevant but it is the entirety of the Tom didn't do it argument, and it no longer exists.

[Pneumonic]

The Patriots tested the balls with their own gauge and set them at 12.5. McNally says Tom wants these at 12.5. Then the officials tested them with their gauge and 10 were at 12.5 and two were a little under so they added a little to get them to 12.5.

 

And your argument is they didnt write 12.5 down on a piece of paper so there is no scientific starting point.

 

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.

[BuffaloHokie13]

 

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.

You mean the speculation necessary because Brady* destroyed his phone? Or the assumptions that were made because the Pats* didn't provide McNally and Jastremski for follow up interviews about the messaages?

[gumby]

It's my understanding that Brady can't take this to court just because he doesn't agree with the outcome. By signing on to the CBA which regulates the governing of the league in respect to all 1700+ NFL players Tom Brady wittingly or unwittingly agreed to the procedures that were used to prosecute him. The idea that the NFL is investigator, prosecutor, judge and jury is weird but that is what was agreed upon to save time and money. Unless Roger Goodell's motives were corrupt or he did them for an improper motive the penalty will stand.

 

So look for Brady's team to go after Goodells character because that's the only way they can move forward. Good luck to them in proving corrupt personal motives.

[Pneumonic]

You really need to let "the science" go. It is no longer relevant to the proceedings.

 

 

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.

[Beerball]

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.

life isn't lived in a laboratory. You either "see" this for what it is (IMO a small transgression that became an explosive volcano because of brady's many refusals) or you decide to get caught up in the minutia & pick nits.