A Nobel Prize winner and a naughty webmaster comment on the Wells report

A Nobel Prize winner (linked) and a naughty webmaster (see below) comment on the Wells report

The Professor stated:

"The Wells report concluded 'within the range of likely game conditions and circumstances studied, they could identify no set of credible environmental or physical factors that completely accounts for the Patriots halftime measurements or for the additional loss in air pressure exhibited by the Patriots game balls, as compared to the loss in air pressure exhibited by the Colts game balls.' I do not agree with this conclusion."

I guess you don't need me to tell you that the professor is right, since he has the fuckin' Nobel Prize and I write a naughty internet blog, but in fact he is absolutely right, as I pointed out the day the report came out. There are no opinions involved. The facts speak for themselves:

1. The referee says he used the "logo gauge" to measure the Pats balls at 12.5 before the game.

2. Based on the Ideal Gas Law and the prevailing temperature conditions, as the report correctly notes, "The Patriots' balls should have measured between 11.52 and 11.32 psig at the end of the first half." Again, that is a quote from the report.

3. When measured on the same logo gauge at halftime, the Pats' balls actually averaged 11.49, exactly where they should have been. That fact is also taken from the report.

4. Any discrepancies between the Colts' balls and Pats' balls must be deemed irrelevant unless the chain of custody is identical.

a. Did the Colts leave their balls near a heater, or wrapped up, or in the hands of bench guys, while the Pats left them out in the open somewhere? (The report never addresses this.)

b. Did the Pats balls get measured first at halftime, therefore giving the Colts' balls more time to warm up? (This actually seems to have happened!)

5. The scientific evidence shows that the Pats' balls fall within the range predicted by the Ideal Gas Law on at least one gauge. The Colts' balls fall out of the range on both gauges. From this, the report concludes that the team within the proper range tampered with the balls and the non-conforming team did not. This conclusion can only be drawn if the purpose of the study was to draw exactly that conclusion. If the purpose was to be fair and objective, the investigators would have first tried to determine why the Colts fell out of the predicted range.

Wells said that the preponderance of the evidence showed that some employees of the Patriots deflated the balls. I can't accept that simply because the evidence does NOT clearly show that the balls were, in fact, deflated in the first place.

Look, Brady has acted like a weasel during this investigation, I can see that. He told the Wells investigators that he didn't know Jim McNally or his role on the team, and that assertion was contradicted by other evidence. He refused to allow the investigators any access to his cell phone.

And some of those text messages, while they may not constitute smoking guns, seem like the smoke which indicates a nearby fire. Like many of you, I'm suspicious of wrongdoing.

But is there a "preponderance of the evidence" to convict? Hell no. I can't see how a truly independent arbitrator could uphold the suspension.