Hall of Famer
- Mar 22, 2007
Interesting...seems like you learned to quote the same way you cherry pick research information...
You do realize that you are constantly engaging in copyright infringement, right?best deflategate article yet written, Sally Jenkins, Washington Post sports writer, calls Wells Report a 'falsified report"
Tom Brady is said to be seeking total exoneration, and it appears he’s entitled to it. The idea that Brady and the New England Patriots intentionally deflated footballs for a competitive advantage has been discredited by everyone from sidewalk chemists to Web physicists to unlicensed ceramicists, not to mention your own common sense. But most importantly, it is utterly shredded in a new scientific analysis by the American Enterprise Institute, which shows the only inflation problem is in NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell’s head.
The NFL paid millions for a fundamentally flawed report by lawyer Ted Wells that made Brady and the Patriots out to be slam-dunk guilty, based on more than 100 pages of mathematical analysis of ball pressurization . . . that turns out to be erroneous. The AEI’s report totally rejects the finding that the footballs used by the Patriots in the AFC Championship had a significant drop in air pressure compared to those used by the Colts. But the truly damning sentence is this one, buried in its erudite phrasings and equations: “The Wells report’s statistical analysis cannot be replicated by performing the analysis as described in the report,” the AEI concludes.
Translated into normal English: The math didn’t add up. It’s a standard principle in science: If you can’t replicate a set of results, then there is a problem with them. A flaw or a fraud is at work. Either you made a mistake, or you made it up.
When the AEI analysts looked more closely at how such a mistake could have been made, what they found “astonished” them, says the report’s co-author Stan Veuger. The Wells report “relies on an unorthodox statistical procedure at odds with the methodology the report describes.” Translation: The Wells report said it would use one equation, but then used a different (and weird) equation to arrive at its numbers.
“It was really clumsy,” Veuger says. “It’s the kind of mistake you’d see in freshman statistics class.”
Another plain English phrase possibly applies to all of this:
Normally, these “special counsel” reports are airtight documents. They’re meant to give sports leagues an unshakeable legal basis for discipline and protect league integrity. The report by Major League Baseball on Pete Rose’s gambling was an unassailable document of 215 pages that included 313 witnesses and seven volumes of exhibits, including bank and phone records, and transcripts of interviews, that made it impossible for Rose to fight his banishment. But lately the NFL has begun turning these special counsel investigations into manipulated campaigns calculated to enhance the commissioner’s profile and powers.
And they seem to be written to fit predetermined conclusions.
Twice now Goodell has ginned up false scandals that seriously and unfairly targeted individual players, and damaged franchises, on what turned out to be bogus or flawed evidence. Forget his bungled handling of Adrian Peterson and Ray Rice — at least those guys actually did something wrong. In the DeflateGate and BountyGate affairs, Goodell hammered people who appear to have done nothing.
The AEI’s entry into DeflateGate is important, because the institute was a major factor in righting the Goodell-driven injustice in BountyGate back in 2012. The commissioner went all hanging judge on the New Orleans Saints, suspending several officials and players for a supposed bonuses system to injure opponents between 2009 and 2011. But then AEI analyzed injury data — something that surely the commissioner should have done. The AEI found that the Saints injured fewer opposing players than all but two teams in 2009 and all but one from 2009 to 2011. After AEI’s report was presented at an NFL hearing, the suspensions were vacated.
AEI is a conservative think tank that normally doesn’t get into sports issues. But given their experience with BountyGate, the DeflateGate case was too inviting. The discussion of ball pressurization in the Wells Report was so contested that Veuger and Kevin Hassett, AEI’s director of economic studies, decided to examine it.
“There was a lot of talk about the report not being good,” Veuger said, “and a fairly big chunk of it was stats analysis and data, and we thought, ‘We might as well look at this one and see if it holds up.’ It’s really hobby.”
Goodell is now in a truly interesting and awkward position. In one week he will hear Brady’s appeal. He has said, “I very much look forward to hearing from Mr. Brady and to considering any new information he may bring to my attention.”
Well, here is a boatload of very inconvenient new information.
Does Goodell stand by the conclusions of the Wells report, dig in and refuse to budge — thus establishing that he’s incapable of fairly considering evidence and is a serial abuser of his powers? Does he try to parse and sidestep the AEI analysis, by claiming that the scientific evidence is just a small part of the case against Brady? Trouble with that is, more than half of the Wells report’s 243 pages is taken up by pressure gauges and pounds-per-square-inch analysis — all of which must be thrown out according to AEI. If the balls weren’t deflated, then what’s left? One e-mail exchange, in which Brady complained that some game balls against the New York Jets were ludicrously overinflated. Is this evidence of ill intent? Hardly. Brady’s solution to the over-inflation was to suggest the refs check the rulebook. Not the act of a cheater.
Or does Goodell do the right thing and rescind Brady’s suspension on the basis of the new info in the AEI report — thus admitting that the league spent millions on a railroading farce? There is trouble for Goodell in this option too, because it suggests that the league office under Goodell’s leadership is either incapable of executing a proper investigation, or unwilling to.
The AEI analysis suggests that NFL Players Association Director DeMaurice Smith was right when he said the Wells report “delivered exactly what the client wanted.” It suggests that this wasn’t an investigation; it was a frame job by the commissioner’s office desperate to reestablish its authority.
Brady may or may not win his appeal. But there is one sure loser here, trapped in a box of his own making: the commissioner.
marry me, Sally!
So what? I never suggested she was a bad journalist.impeccably credible
In 2005 Jenkins became the first woman ever inducted into the National Sportscasters and Sportswriters Hall of Fame.
In 1986, Jenkins was part of the team nominated for a Pulitzer Prize for stories about the cocaine-related death of University of Maryland All-American Len Bias.
She is the author of twelve books, four of which were New York Times bestsellers.
Jenkins was born in Fort Worth, Texas, and is a graduate of Stanford University with a degree in English Literature. She lives in New York.
LOL.Sally Jenkins nails it, yet again
Roger Goodell has one credible option on DeflateGate; will he take it?
Roger Goodell can restore a sense of loftiness to the NFL commissioner’s office with a simple expedited decision. He should lift the suspension on Tom Brady this week... sound and logical thinking, so of course Goodell won't listen.
Apparently brilliance is a Boston area thing.......
If you want to be around the epicenter of smart, young people, move to Boston. The City on a Hill has more educated people between the ages 18 and 34 years old than any other city in the U.S.
You talked to Peter King on the phone? Did you already know him previously, or are you such a dweeb that you actually tracked him down to discuss Defl... wait, never mind.Peter King clarifies his opinion: Brady deserves no suspension whatsoever:
"ON THE BRADY BAN. As a longtime reader of The MMQB, I have noticed that you rarely pass judgment on an issue unless the facts are clear (i.e. you didn’t hammer Kromer too hard for his alleged actions). I am curious, however, if you were in Goodell’s shoes would you reduce Brady’s suspension to one or two games, get rid of it altogether, or leave it as is? The facts are unclear and if the suspension stood Brady would be handed the same punishment as Greg Hardy. (I am a Jets fan and I still don’t think that’s right.) What would you do given the lack of evidence?
—Chris, Stamford, Conn.
What I would have done is I would never have banned Brady in the first place. I don’t think the Wells Report proved that Brady ordered the balls to be deflated. What would I do now? Certainly reduce the sanction to either one or two games, but I’d never be in this position, because I would come up with a different penalty in the first place."
Peter has been fully consistent on thinking the Wells report is a bundle of bad science and slanted arguments. He's been clear on that point with me on the phone. His twitter feed has also been pretty clear on that.
It would be a little better if instead of just saying "I don’t think the Wells Report proved that Brady ordered the balls to be deflated" that he also said "I don’t think the Wells Report proved that the balls even WERE deflated" but it's a start.
Of course he says that. All that article is is a CBS-published NFLPA press release. Please save your posts for genuine news.As I expected (and contrary to the opinions of most here), Tom Brady has no concerns whatsoever about additional discovery, being innocent.
Thus he and the NFLPA will absolutely go to court if any suspension whatsoever remains after Goodell's dog-and-pony show.
You're like Tom Brady's own personal little Batman, aren't you?Brady will sue because he is innocent.
Goodell is not so eager for the lawsuit, because the NFL will have to reveal a very embarrassing factoid about the Wells investigation. The bombshell: The scientific firm hired by Wells, Exponent, was not the first group of scientists employed by Wells and the NFL to analyze the data. The first group of scientists reached a preliminary conclusion that Wells and the NFL found to be unacceptable, favoring the Patriots, so they were relieved of their duties.
Yes, I have corresponded with one of those Ph.D, scientists who was hired and then fired by Wells and his team.