Amicus brief proves beyond doubt Exponent lied in claiming pressure was unexplained.

Link to home page:

10/14: Updated brief posted: better clarity about what really happened at half-time.

9/17: Amicus follow-up letter (downloadable below) now includes proof that the court placed the full amicus brief on the docket.  The court docketed the amicus as part of that letter (document 70) rather than as part of the original request for permission to file.

9/17/2015: Wall Street Journal reporter Jacob Gershman mentioned the brief but not its significance, which is that when adjusting for Exponent having rigged the half-time simulation, Exponents work proves that Exponent cheated and the Patriots didn’t.

Robert F Young Amicus Brief in DeflateGate Aug. 25, 2015 updated 10/14/2015
1.4 MiB
Amicus As Submitted
Amicus As Submitted
amicus as submitted.pdf
1.3 MiB
Amicus Request Letter
Amicus Request Letter
amicus request letter.pdf
101.1 KiB
Amicus Request  Follow Up Letter from court docket.  Proves brief was dockted: NFL says bias/error okay: Response: lying is not.
546.5 KiB

The permission letter may have been sufficient to show the judge a powerful illustration of how lack of due process and lack of fairness truly hurt the Patriots/Brady.  Perhaps this helped sway him in deeming the violations to be material and unacceptable.

The permission letter and follow up letter and now the brief can also be downloaded from court by lawyers admitted to the court, or by using a free PACER account (but if you’re not careful, you’ll run up billable charges for the service).

Below is some additional summary information.

8/28/2015: 7:25pm EDT: Clarified explanation.  Referenced Mike Greenway’s data confirming (prior to my work)  the 75%-slower warm-up that my Amicus brief had predicted based on some simple theoretical calculations.

Exponent’s simulation couldn’t replicate Patriots’ ball pressures because Exponent’s simulation warmed the balls up fast, by freely exposing them to the air.  Proof: Exponent’s “simulation” rate of warming correlating exactly with rate of warming in a previous test Exponent did of one ball at a time, in the open.  Exponent even commented on the correlation (as if it were a good thing, whereas it’s damning to their central conclusion).

In the real half-time locker-room period on game day, the Patriots’ balls stayed in the bag, slowing their warm-up.  Each ball was removed only seconds before it was tested.  Exponent even documented that.

Patriots’ footballs were at just the pressure Exponent’s research said they should be if one accounts for the warm-up being slowed because they were in a bag.

Exponent research vindicated the Patriots.  Exponent lied about how to interpret their research.

This conclusion from Exponent (which is the only one that really matters) is a lie:

In both the Non-Logo Gauge and Logo Gauge simulations, … subject to the discovery of an as yet unidentified and unexamined  factor, the measurements recorded for the Patriots footballs on Game Day do not appear to be completely explainable based on natural causes alone
— Exponent report, page 61.

Exponent used clever wording to sneakily disavow simulating the warm up properly.  In the earlier steps of the “game-day” simulations, they vouched for replicating the use of bags to match game day.  But for the critical part, the halftime locker-room simulation, they used trick wording to commit only to using the same gauges.  There was no lie by Exponent until Exponent feigned inability to explain the Patriot ball pressures.

For a somewhat deeper explanation (but not as deep as in my amicus brief), see my letter to Professor Marlow.  For beyond-a-reasonable-doubt proof, see the amicus brief below.

NFL has argued it can be “wrong” and still be immune from the judge having the power to overturn the decision (source: Rich Levine post: Silly Deflategate has taken a serious turn).

But NFL didn’t argue that they are allowed lie about the fundamental question: was air removed.   Is that their next argument?

For those who say the earlier drafts, or the one erroneously left up on 8/25 at the time Professor Blecker first tweeted about it, the actual one the court put on the docket (added below 8/26, 8:24am) is vastly improved.


Change history:

9/22/2015: Updated the brief.  Again no consequential change.  Technically, it turns out that the conclusion about the Patriots-Colts pressure differential, which was always a moot point relative to the question of whether the Patriots’ balls had the right pressure, was an intentional deception but not a lie.  Legally speaking, the final conclusion of Exponent (item 13 on page 68) never claimed that the patriots-colts pressure differential was inexplicable.  Instead, legally, it only claimed that the source of the explanation did not lie within the in-game events.  Of course it didn’t: the explanation was the combination of the difference in pressures when measured by the ref pre-game, and especially in the different handling of the Patriots and Colts balls during the half-time period in the locker room.  The locker room period (rather than the game events) provides the explanation that had seemed missing.

9/11: Noted that the Judge posted my letters, and that the letters may have had an impact.

9/9: Updated title of post to reflect current use of the info.  Moved download links to the top and posted minor correction to the brief.

8/27: Tests of actual balls warming up (slowly) in a bag by Mike Greenway, found on his website, in his “Exponents (sic) fundamentally flawed research” link as of 8/28/2015 6:56PM  EDT (dated July 19) confirms nicely the 4x slower in-bag warming I predicted theoretically in the amicus brief.  As of the time noted, I disagree with some things Mike says is wrong with the Exponent report.  I contend that the Exponent data and research is good, and that it just needs a reasonable adjustment to the simulation to reflect the lower warming rate on game-day as compared to Exponent’s simulation. Result: Exponent’s own data vindicates the patriots.   Credit due: Mike did identify the in-bag issue (before I noticed it on my own) and he even did a test!!!! I believe I was unique in identifying the accurate way to use this to show Exponent lied in their conclusion, and to further use the Exponent data to prove that the Patriots did not remove air from the footballs.   I believe I’m also unique in totally shredding the “ref was wrong on the gauge” argument by the NFL (proving that Exponent believed none of the reasons Exponent gave against the ref) and to show that had Exponent changed Exponent’s Colts-timing assumption to better match reality, Exponent’s own data affirmed that the ref was right about the gauge use.

8/26/2015: 7:50pm: court says judge not considering any (contrary to Judge’s clerk earlier in day)

8/26/2015: 11:10am: Overnight mailed follow up letter.  Responds to new NFL contention that bias or getting facts wrong is not grounds to overturn.  Response: even if so, colluding with Exponent to lie on the central issue is grounds to overturn.  Also called out the trick wording that was omitted from the original request letter for the sake of brevity but was discussed in the brief page 35 and 36.

8/26/2015 9:10am: Court confirms judge will review request letter submitted with the actual brief.  Hopefully he will also read the brief.