Other New Patriots Scandal - DeflateGate

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.

rumply said:
Just stating the obvious, wouldn't you think it the most likely reason to take a bag of balls to the dunny with you?
Click to expand...

Personally I think the most obvious answer is he took a piss and he took them in with him because he was the one with the responsibility of looking after them once he wondered out of the locker room. This has left an opportunity for doubt, but very very hard to imagine him getting all 12 balls done. If the theory was he stuffed with a couple it would be more believable but the psi readings are too consistent to support that theory
 
Galactic said:
Personally I think the most obvious answer is he took a piss and he took them in with him because he was the one with the responsibility of looking after them once he wondered out of the locker room. This has left an opportunity for doubt, but very very hard to imagine him getting all 12 balls done. If the theory was he stuffed with a couple it would be more believable but the psi readings are too consistent to support that theory
Click to expand...
The variation is too high for ALL the balls to have been tampered with. The variation destroyed the ideal gas law argument too. Scientific explanations are great when all the results can be covered.... but in this case the variation is too great.
 
Gmod23 said:
The variation is too high for ALL the balls to have been tampered with. The variation destroyed the ideal gas law argument too. Scientific explanations are great when all the results can be covered.... but in this case the variation is too great.
Click to expand...

Firstly there are 2 sets of readings. One set your statement is correct but the other which the ref was sure were correct do fall exactly within the gas law.
 
From Wells....
As a result, at halftime, members of the officiating crew assigned to the game, overseen by a senior officiating supervisor from the National Football League (the “NFL” or the “League”), tested the air pressure of footballs being used by each of the Patriots and the Colts. All eleven of the Patriots game balls tested measured below the minimum pressure level of 12.5 pounds per square inch (“psi”) allowed by Rule 2 of the Official Playing Rules of the National Football League (the “Playing Rules”) on both of two air pressure gauges used to test the balls. The four Colts balls tested each measured within the 12.5 to 13.5 psi range permitted under the Playing Rules on at least one of the gauges used for the tests.

From context...

This statement is not complete. Halftime psi measurements are on pg. 8. The reality is that, on the second gauge, 3 of 4 Colts footballs were below regulation. A more accurate and complete statement regarding the Colts footballs would have been: “Using two different gauges (one of which was used for pre-game psi measurements), the League tested only four Colts footballs at halftime. Three of those footballs measured below regulation on the so-called “non-Logo” gauge. Four measured at or above regulation on the so-called “Logo” gauge. One Colts football averaged below regulation when taking into account both gauges. As soon as that fourth Colts football was measured, League personnel stopped any further gauging of Colts footballs. Relying on the higher Logo gauge measurements of the Colts football, League officials decided not to add air to any of the Colts footballs. Additional measurements using the same two gauges were made post-game. Post-game, each of the four Patriots footballs measured were well above the required level of 12.5 psi on both gauges (including one that had been overinflated to 13.65 on the Logo gauge). Three of the four Colts footballs measured below 12.5 psi on the non-Logo gauge (a violation of League rules), one measured below 12.5 psi on both gauges (also a violation), and three Colts footballs measured above 12.5 on the Logo gauge.”

The most fundamental issue in this matter is: DOES SCIENCE EXPLAIN THE LOSS OF PSI IN THE PATRIOTS FOOTBALLS? That issue turns on what psi numbers are used for the psi levels pre-game and at halftime. Those numbers will show the amount of lost psi. Given the gauges varied from each other, the only relevant halftime psi measurements are those shown by the gauge that was used pre-game. One gauge, referred to as the Logo gauge, was consistently .3 to .45 psi higher in its measurements than the non-Logo gauge. Referee Walt Anderson, who was alerted to psi issues before the game, has a detailed recollection of the unrecorded psi levels of the 48 footballs he gauged pre-game — essentially 12.5 for the Patriots footballs and 13.0 or 13.1 for the Colts footballs. His Recollection of those pre-game psi levels is one of the foundations of this report. MR. ANDERSON SPECIFICALLY RECALLS THAT HE USED THE LOGO GAUGE FOR THESE PRE-GAME MEASUREMENTS (pg. 52). (This is the only recollection of Mr. Anderson that the report rejects.) Therefore, the Logo gauge numbers are the correct numbers to use for halftime psi. The investigators did rely on those Logo gauge halftime psi numbers in dealing with the Colts footballs. Using that gauge, all the Colts footballs were within regulation. That justified the officials not adding air to them. However, when assessing the Patriots footballs, the investigators reject Anderson’s best recollection that he used the Logo gauge pre-game, and instead look to the larger psi drop that is shown by the lower psi, non-Logo gauge.

What is the consequence of rejecting Anderson’s statement that he used the Logo gauge pre-game? The Ideal Gas Law, according to the League’s consultants, establishes that the psi of the Patriots footballs at halftime would have been 11.32 to 11.52 due solely to the temperature impact on the footballs. (pg. 113). With the Logo gauge, 8 of the 11 Patriots footballs are in the Ideal Gas Law range and the average of all 11 Patriots footballs was 11.49 — fully consistent with the Ideal Gas Law’s prediction of exactly what that psi would be. THAT IS, RELYING ON MR. ANDERSON’S BEST RECOLLECTIONS, BASIC SCIENCE FULLY EXPLAINS THE DROP IN PSI OF THE PATRIOTS FOOTBALLS DURING THE FIRST HALF.

Mr. Anderson’s recollections are adopted by the investigators for the pre-game psi numbers. His recollection that he used the Logo gauge pre-game is the premise of the investigators’ justification for League officials not reinflating Colts footballs at halftime. But his recollection of which gauge he used pre-game is rejected when assessing the psi drop for the Patriots footballs. There is no rationale for this flip-flopping on whether Mr. Anderson’s recollections were correct. And it is clear that the investigators, not happy with his recollections on this point, pushed the issue so he would state that, despite his best recollection, it was “possible” he used the other gauge. (pg. 52). The report buries in note 5 of the consultant’s report (pg. 65 of the Exponent Report, which is Appendix 1 of the Wells Report) and on pg. 116 of the report, the supposed rationale for rejecting Mr. Anderson’s recollection as to the gauge he used. It is convoluted and difficult to understand at best. Even during his May 12 call with the media, Mr. Wells did not even attempt to explain this, and his colleague’s explanation gave no more clarity to it. Perhaps releasing drafts of the consultant’s report, and all communications between the investigators and their consultants regarding the development of their opinions, would shed more light on this so the public can have all relevant information.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Galactic said:
Right true, so your theory is McNally released 0.42,0.32,0.12 psi in the bathroom?
Click to expand...
Not my theory, but let's go with it! Patriots should have given complete access to everything.... the evidence is so crappy they should have gotten off.
But they didn't.... Why is the question we should be asking? Why not cooperate fully?
 
Gmod23 said:
Not my theory, but let's go with it! Patriots should have given complete access to everything.... the evidence is so crappy they should have gotten off.
But they didn't.... Why is the question we should be asking? Why not cooperate fully?
Click to expand...

Ah yes the co operating factor. Well I'd love to go into this again, we have two sides. Wells deemed we didn't cooperate patriots argue this isn't true. The damning two things for patriots being Brady and his phone and the final wells meeting with McNally. Considering the context report this looks very suspicious considering he already had many hours to interview McNally..but I'll give you the Brady phone one for now as we still don't know if it was his legal team, union advice or Brady not cooperating. I guess we will find out in the appeal. As good old Roger himself said just the other day "if Brady has some more info hed like to share I'm willing to listen". Thanks Rog! Ill post more on this shortly.


From the context....

The Patriots provided cooperation throughout the investigation, including by making personnel and information available to us upon request.

The Patriots provided exceptional cooperation throughout the investigation. Among other things, they provided 17 witnesses, access to relevant stadium facilities (e.g., equipment room, Officials’ Locker Room, the bathroom off the hallway) on multiple occasions, the game footballs and bags of footballs, information on the stadium heating system, recorded temperature information from game day, the equipment room pump, email searches, access to phones, etc.

Since the Patriots were the target of this investigation and since information coming directly from game officials and League officials was crucial — and it was the League that also employed the investigators — Patriots’ counsel requested to be present during interviews of such League personnel. That request was rejected. Patriots’ counsel also requested from the outset that he be provided with the actual halftime psi measurements. That information was not provided until March 23, over two months into the investigation. It was provided then only on the condition that it not be disclosed and, particularly, that it not be disclosed to the media until the final report was issued. This condition was imposed in the face of the extensively reported misinformation about halftime football psi that the League had refused to correct. One can only speculate why it was so important for the League that the accurate halftime information be withheld from the public until it was ultimately part of a report that downplayed the science and instead relied on selective texts.

Counsel for the Patriots, however, refused to make Jim McNally available for a follow-up interview requested by our investigative team on what we believed were important topics, despite our offer to meet at any time and location that would be convenient for McNally. Counsel for the Patriots apparently refused even to inform McNally of our request.

By the time Mr. Wells was retained by the League, the League had all of Mr. Jastremski’s texts, Mr. McNally had already been interviewed three times, and Mr. Jastremski had been interviewed twice. The first of Mr. McNally’s interviews happened the evening of the AFC Championship, when Mr. McNally volunteered to stay at the stadium for an interview since he would not be back for his game-day responsibilities until August. Patriots management had not yet been advised that an investigation had started, but Mr. McNally, having nothing to hide, talked freely to the League personnel without even asking if someone from the team should be there with him. The second and third interviews happened within the next several days. Again, Mr. McNally gave these interviews without any Patriots representative with him. His phone was offered to League personnel for imaging, but they advised that they did not need his phone. (His phone data was later provided to the Wells investigators upon their request and prior to their interview with him.) At his third interview with League Security personnel, he was subjected to very aggressive questioning and demeaning assertions that he was lying when he denied any knowledge of improper football deflation. This approach to the issues by League personnel was consistent with their prejudgments of wrongdoing by the Patriots. Notwithstanding that he had already been interviewed three times, when Mr. Wells asked to interview him again, the Patriots agreed to facilitate that fourth interview. That agreement was based on an explicit understanding reached with the Wells investigators: barring unanticipated circumstances, individuals would only be interviewed by the Wells investigators one time. [AMENDED DOCUMENT ADDED WITH ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, 5/16/15 8:47AM]

Based on this understanding, the Patriots asked Mr. McNally, a game day only employee with whom the team had no ongoing employment relationship, to leave his full-time, out-of-state job in order to be available for an interview at the stadium. Prior to the interview, the Patriots prevailed upon Mr. McNally to allow his personal phone to be checked for any relevant information, all of which was provided to the Wells investigators before the interview. The investigators therefore had all of Mr. Jastremski’s texts (which were provided three weeks before Mr. McNally was interviewed) as well as Mr. McNally’s phone records. The Wells investigators brought four lawyers to the McNally interview. They spent the entire day with him. He gave over seven hours of testimony. He answered every question. Among other things, the Wells investigators inquired at length about texts with Mr. Jastremski. Having taken a day off work, he was willing to stay as long as it took to finish. The interview did not end until the investigation team exhausted every topic and question they had.

Thus, when subsequently asked for what would have been a fifth interview of Mr. McNally, Patriots counsel wanted to understand what unanticipated circumstances warranted this, including whether the interview would be limited to matters that were simply not available to the investigators during Mr. McNally’s prior interview. The Patriots advised the investigators of their reluctance to have Mr. McNally back yet again, particularly given the media harassment he and his family had suffered as a result of prior leaks of Mr. McNally’s name and hometown. The distress to him and his family caused by the ensuing media attention was described in detail to the investigators. With this background, there was a high hurdle before the Patriots would ask Mr. McNally to appear yet again for what would be his fifth interview, and a particular desire to be sure that the standard for another interview — unanticipated circumstances — was met.

While the report states that certain of Mr. Jastremski’s texts were not “discovered” until after this interview (pg. 75, footnote 47), there is no question that the investigators had all such texts in their possession and available for the questioning. They apparently just overlooked them, identifying them now as a matter they wanted to cover in yet another interview. (pg. 75) Although asked numerous times for the reason for their request for yet another interview with Mr. McNally, the Wells investigators never stated the reason that now appears evident from the Report: They had overlooked texts in their earlier interviews and wanted the opportunity to ask about them. This information would have confirmed what is now clear. The request was inconsistent with the interview protocol agreed to at the outset.

Although receiving no assurances that the requested additional Mr. McNally interview would satisfy the agreed-upon interview protocol, Patriots counsel nonetheless suggested that there might be ways other than another in-person interview to get whatever further information was sought. Patriots counsel offered to be of assistance in those respects. There was no follow-up from the investigators. It now appears that the Patriots are being severely punished because the Wells investigative team apparently overlooked materials they had in their possession long before their interview with Mr. McNally — scarcely an “unanticipated circumstance” calling for yet another interview — and refused to disclose their reason for an additional interview. There was no refusal to cooperate by the Patriots.

We believe the failure by the Patriots and its counsel to produce McNally for the requested follow-up interview violated the club’s obligations to cooperate with the investigation under the Policy on Integrity of the Game & Enforcement of League Rules and was inconsistent with public statements made by the Patriots pledging full cooperation with the investigation.

Similarly, although Tom Brady appeared for a requested interview and answered questions voluntarily, he declined to make available any documents or electronic information (including text messages and emails) that we requested, even though those requests were limited to the subject matter of our investigation (such as messages concerning the preparation of game balls, air pressure of balls, inflation of balls or deflation of balls) and we offered to allow Brady’s counsel to screen and control the production so that it would be limited strictly to responsive materials and would not involve our taking possession of Brady’s telephone or other electronic devices. Our inability to review contemporaneous communications and other documents in Brady’s possession and control related to the matters under review potentially limited the discovery of relevant evidence and was not helpful to the investigation.

At various points in the investigation, counsel for the Patriots questioned the integrity and objectivity of game officials, various NFL executives and certain NFL Security representatives present at the AFC Championship Game or otherwise involved in the investigative process. We found no evidence to substantiate the questions raised by counsel. Specifically, we identified no evidence of any bias or unfairness. We believe that the game officials, NFL executives, NFL Security representatives and other members of the NFL staff who participated in the testing of the footballs and the subsequent investigative process acted fairly, properly and responsibly.

______
Footnotes

1 Under the Policy, the “standard of proof required to find that a violation of the competitive rules has occurred” is a “Preponderance of the Evidence,” meaning that “as a whole, the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not.”
Click to expand...


and on Brady's phone

(4) Mr. Brady’s agent explained to the investigators why, from the perspective of precedent for other players and the Players’ Union, there were good reasons not to turn over his private phone or any phone records or texts. The investigators already had all of Mr. Jastremski’s texts with Mr. Brady, since Mr. Jastremski’s phone had been given to the League within about 48 hours of notice of the investigation. They also had Mr. McNally’s phone records for a period prior to and including the AFC Championship Game. Those records show no texts with Mr. Brady, even in connection with asking for or receiving the three autographs. The absence of any texting between Mr. Brady and Mr. McNally was further confirmed by the uncontradicted testimony by each of them that they had never spoken to each other on the phone, had never texted each other, and had never even had a substantive in-person conversation with each other. The investigators found no witness who contradicted any of these statements even though they had access to countless people who were in the Patriots locker room area or the player’s bench area where, on game day, Mr. Brady and Mr. McNally were in the same vicinity. The absence of a single witness who observed some substantive conversation, and the absence of texts during what the investigators felt was a critical time, corroborated their statements that they never had any such communications. If any information about texts on Mr. Brady’s phone was really an issue, they could have asked Mr. Brady’s agent (who offered at the end of Brady’s interview to respond to further inquiries) to confirm there were no texts with Mr. McNally.

Given the fact that Mr. Jastremski and Mr. McNally had both turned over their phone records, no adverse inferences should be drawn from the fact that Mr. Brady did not make his phone or its contents available.

As to the texts, which are discussed later, there is not a single text which refers to a plan to deflate footballs after the referee’s inspection, to having done so, to any Brady instructions to do so, or to any knowledge by Mr. Brady of such conduct. It is pure surmise and speculation that every deflation reference in a text is to improper deflation of footballs after the referee inspected them.
In short, there is simply no evidentiary support for the conclusion that Mr. Brady was aware of any actual or even attempted effort to improperly release air from the footballs. All the evidence — as well as logic — is to the contrary.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
GG said:
Anyway.....soon as you accept a punishment you are guilty. That's the sound of a lawyer's case closing.
Click to expand...
lol stop it. Bob's so hopped up on viagra he doesnt know what hes doing.He never admitted guilt just wussed out because he couldnt afford more viagra if he did take on the other 31 plus rog
 
Some of the demands from the Pats during the investigation smack of an organisation with something to hide.

"Interview protocol"?

WTF? Just answer the bloody questions.
 
Demands lol written by lawyers jd. WTF is with 5 fracking interviews!? "Oh ya know, I gotta ask him again about the toilet he called a urinal!" Jeez must really be pushing the limits of interviewing McNally the halfwit! :D Did Wells bother to tell us what this all important information he was looking for was? Did the patriots find wells to be as much of a pleasure as Turner did and probably thought he was out to get them at that stage? WTF????
 
He wasn't interviewed by Wells 5 times. The questioning by NFL security is irrelevant as it wasn't part of the investigation. They were fact finding to determine IF there should be an investigation.

It's pretty clear that once the investigation had started the Pats did everything they could to limit the scope of the investigation.

The Pats denying this (& other stuff) makes them look like liars. That is why most people think they are guilty.
 
ausbacker said:
Can you conclusively prove the Patriots did anything that would be considered cheating during Deflategate? I sure as hell can't if we're using the Wells Report as a reference.
Click to expand...
Can you or the Patriots conclusively prove they didn't cheat?
They didn't cooperate within an investigation that could have cleared them. What else do you need to know?
 
Please be aware that everyone is arguing over a report that concluded:

"..... in connection with the AFC Championship Game, it is more probable than not that New England Patriots personnel participated in violations of the Playing Rules and were involved in a deliberate effort to circumvent the rules," Wells writes. "In particular, we have concluded that it is more probable than not that Jim McNally (the Officials Locker Room attendant for the Patriots) and John Jastremski (an equipment assistant for the Patriots) participated in a deliberate effort to release air from Patriots game balls after the balls were examined by the referee. Based on the evidence, it also is our view that it is more probable than not that Tom Brady (the quarterback for the Patriots) was at least generally aware of the inappropriate activities of McNally and Jastremski involving the release of air from Patriots game balls."
Click to expand...

It has been stated on many occasions that the Wells Report will not stand the required tests to be upheld by a Court of Law.

That doesn't mean that the Patriots didn't do it, and it doesn't mean the Patriots did do it.

I have no idea why Tom Brady was suspended, based on the conclusions of the Wels report.
 
Sven said:
Please be aware that everyone is arguing over a report that concluded:



It has been stated on many occasions that the Wells Report will not stand the required tests to be upheld by a Court of Law.

That doesn't mean that the Patriots didn't do it, and it doesn't mean the Patriots did do it.

I have no idea why Tom Brady was suspended, based on the conclusions of the Wels report.
Click to expand...
Yep. Happy for the Pats to cop the punishment if a stronger and supportable argument is put forward. It's not as if I haven't said this from day 1.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

gaskin
NCAA 2023- NCAA Off Season News
4 5 6 7 8
Replies
184
Views
8K
aussiedude
aussiedude

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top