Early efforts on DeflateGate

Early efforts at resolving Deflategate

WBUR.org (NPR radio station) 8/31/2015 Op-ed “DeflateGate, And The Patriots’ False Appearance Of Guilt references this site.  The the author of that piece (Robert Blecker) recommends particularly the third link below:

Analysis of the Exponent report indicates that the headline from the investigation would have been: “Patriots right on their science: no evidence of wrongdoing” , except that, to please the NFL, Exponent applied assumptions they knew to be wrong and misrepresented how their simulation compares to the real-world events.  Absent those assumptions, the rest of the Exponent experiments and analysis thereof strongly supports the Patriots.  Thus #FreeTomBrady

The analysis is in the Amicus brief  that was submitted to the court for consideration, received 8/26 before 10am.    It relates to the court case and not just the data.

Attention-catching highlights from the above brief (I will add convenient links to details later if there’s enough traffic)

  • Basically, the only reason the Exponent data is incriminating is that Exponent’s simulation didn’t keep the balls in the bag during their simulated halftime like the NFL did in January.
  • When reading Exponents charts, only this time adjusting for the balls’ warming slower in a bag, Exponents data clears the patriots of wrongdoing.
  • None of the reasons Exponent gave for not believing the ref (about what gauge was used) were ones Exponent actually believed made sense; they don’t.
  • The NFL is hurting the integrity of the game with new rules that pump up balls by 2 extra psi for the 2nd half of 30-degree games for 2015 as compared to all previous years.

Best next steps to verify for yourself: See the list of links at the top of this post.  use the above Amicus brief link for deeper proof, beyond a reasonable doubt.

Contact: Robert.Young@BetterDialogue.com.

Sorry for crude website formatting.

Please submit only comments addressing specific steps in the arguments proposed below.  I’ll correct my analysis and conclusions if needed.

Revisions:

9/26: Exponent never claimed pressure difference unexplained; lawyered up language fooled lawyers.  Additional letter to NY times.

9/18, 9/21: New York Times op=ed request/correction request and follow on request.

9/17: Wall Street Journal mentions the amicus brief but not its importance.

9/16: A reporter for a major national newspaper called me and informed me that the amicus brief I submitted is now on the official court docket.

9/11: Court put my letters on the docket

9/9: added the Amicus brief link to the bullet list.

8/31: Reference the editorial (early AM), Open letter to Robert Kraft (9:13 am)

8/30: simple picture explanation added

8/26: see hot/new.

Aug. 20 (just after midnight)

  • Brief improved (see brief point),
  • Above points simplified: greater clarity of the real point although loss of precise numbers.  For numbers see the brief
  • Jim

    Why have I not seen this blog before. Hats off to you for contacting Marlow, when he backed the Wells Report, I was absolutely appalled. Quite frankly it was disturbing how many fans, media-talking heads bought Marlow’s support of the Wells Report. For some strange reason, AEI’s dismantling of the Wells Report also did not see the light of day in the media. I’ve been pretty sad as an American Citizen to watch what was unfolding in real life, and what was being broadcasted on TV by HIGHLY respected professionals of all walks. Disgusting.

    • Rob Young

      Thanks Jim. I believe the AEI report *did* get coverage. The problem is that AEI missed the fundamental lie. When AEI saw the lack of warming trend, they used it to question NFL witness testimony about how long the measurements took. The witness testimony seemed reasonable to me. Had AEI instead looked for evidence that Exponent took the balls out of the bag — such that the witness testimony on timing was fine but the balls on game-day didn’t warm like the balls in the simulation because on game day the damp bag (closed for the first two minutes) slowed the warming, then it would have been the knock-out punch that was needed to overcome the unseemly text messages of Patriots’ staffers. The defense relied on the AEI report extensively — too much so, because AEI never credibly addressed why the simulation most favorable to the Patriots didn’t vindicate the Patriots. It was easy for Goodell to decide trust his experts over AEI. I sent email to AEI and at first got a non-specific response. I followed up and got a more specific response from the co-author that he was just too busy to read emails. Personally I believe the co-author read enough of my email to see that he missed the lie. I figure he just didn’t want to admit that AEI blew it by missing the problem. Since then I’ve learned of a person who was quoted as supporting Exponent, who at first supported Exponent, but now believes the report was bogus. He admits this to another helpful supporter of this cause but he too refuses to comment on the matter even if the person who quoted him were to re-contact him for re-comment.

      • Jim

        Excuse me Robert…I’m astonished quite franky. I was completely unaware that the Goodell and his legal team even went so far as to defend themselves against the AEI report credibly…I may have been rather dismissive of their defense. Second, I was unaware the Kesslers defense strategy employed the use of the AEI report. Thank you that tidbit it was interesting.