Case 1:15-cv-05916-RMB-JCF Document 62 Filed 09/09/15 Page 1of3 Robert J. Wilensky, MD, PhD Dt Washington DC 20016 MEMOE DORSED ctith elu t Hon. Richard M. Berman US District Judge Dear Judge Berman: 1 like football. I am not a lawyer, but I have a brief suggestion how to conclude the mess with the NFL. I assume you will review the history of this issue in legal terms and I will not address that, but only what I feel the conclusions should be. Namely: There is no evidence that Tom Brady did anything to alter the air pressure in the footballs, in fact there is no reliable evidence that the footballs were actually outside of guidelines, nor is there any evidence that the opposition team’s footballs were within those guidelines. The process of the individual imposing a penalty being the person who hears the appeal of the penalty boggles (I believe that is a legal term) the mind, and is totally unreasonable. There is no precedent for a suspension of such length for this supposed activity. Finally: The suspension is lifted in its entirety. Tom Brady is fined one million dollars ($1,000,000.00), If you wish to explain why, please do so, if not simply let it stand. And: Both parties of course have the right to appeal this decision. If such an appeal is filed and accepted by a court,Case 1:15-cv-05916-RMB-JCF Document 62 Filed 09/09/15 Page 2 of 3 then in the interests of competitive fairness, all NFL games will be suspended until the appeal is resolved. Respegtfully submitted, Robert J. WilenskyCase 1:15-cv-05916-RMB-JCF Document 62 Filed 09/09/15 Page 3 of 3 Thank you for your submission ~ | apologize tor the delay 1n responding, We have placed your submission on the court dockets for the NEL v. NELPA (Tom Brady) matter (15 Civ, $916 and 15 Civ. 5982). Richard M. ee USDJCase 1:15-cv-05916-RMB-JCF Document 63 Filed 09/09/15 Page 1 of 2 24 August 2015 £2327 2018 CHaVaeRS OF RICHARD M. BERMAN USD. Judge Richard M. Berman Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse MEY Ei 500 Pearl St., Courtroom: 17B New York, NY 10007-1312 ad Dear Judge Berman, ‘have been an ardent NFL fan for 58 years and have never seen the level of ineptitude and incompetence displayed by Roger Goodell and his band of yes men during this whole Deflategate fiasco. I could go on and on with examples of how unfair he is being (e.g. Favre, Bell, Rice, Hardy et al) but let ‘me just say that | will never spend another penny (spent $25K on tickets/merchandise/concessions over the years etc) until Roger wakes up from his brain cramp and does the right thing! I'm sure this doesn’t matter to him but if several hundred thousand fans feel this way (and they do!), we can make a serious dent in his precious revenue streams. Please do the right thing and vacate Bradys suspension since he won't? Very Truly Yours, hy Gainesville, Georgia Ce: Tom Brady, Roger Goodelli Case 1:15-cv-05916-RMB-JCF Document 63 Filed 09/09/15 Page 2 of 2 Thank you for your submission — | apologize for the delay in responding. We have placed your submission on the court dockets for the NFL vy. NFLPA (Tom Brady) matter (15 Civ. 5916 and 15 Civ. 5982). ims Richard M. Berman, USDJ fasCase 1:15-cv-05916-RMB-JCF Document 64 Filed 09/09/15 Page 1 of 2 ECEIVE ceonsane MENOEIDSISED [Aa To: The Honorable Richard Berman Sa, awh my From: Liz Minnerly Cleak to Mut GREAT seRiaN Re: NFL vs. Tom Brady settlement Thave been a long time, long suffering New England Patriots fan (my disclaimer) but I have a settlement solution for your consideration. As I have listened to comments about “Deflate Gate” for nearly eight months now it has occurred to me that what we are really talking about is one half of one game, so my solution for a settlement is this: The official score of the AFC Championship game is changed to 28-7, taking away the Patriots’ “disputed” 17 first half points. The NFL gives back to the Patriots the $1,000,000 fine (if they have already paid it) and the Patriots give that money to the two “ball handlers” who have been on leave from the team and they get their jobs back (with back pay) if they still want their jobs. ‘Tom Brady is suspended for the first half of the first game, that way we can still see him play in the second half of the opening game of the new season. And finally, for the duration of the 2015-2016 season, for every touchdown that Tom Brady throws the amount of $170,000 is given to a mutually agreed upon (non NFL or Patriot affiliated) national charity by the Patriots, the NFL and Tom Brady. I doubt if everyone will be happy with this “settlement” so it could be a winner. Thank you for your time and consideration as well as trying to get the NFL’s season going in the right direction! Sincerely, - Ka Liz MinderlyCase 1:15-cv-05916-RMB-JCF Document 64 Filed 09/09/15 Page 2 of 2 ‘Thank you for your submission — I apologize for the delay in responding. We have placed your submission on the court dockets for the NEL ¥.NELPA (Tom Brady) matter (15 Ciy. $916 and 15 Civ. 5982). 1M Richard M. Berman, USDJ LAICase 1:15-cv-05916-RMB-JCF Document 65 Filed 09/09/15 Page 1 of2 William A and Marilyn A. Keller Joint Revocable Trust LL .._ Sse MER ENDORSED — August 13,2015 Clerk oKeke + Honorable Richard M Berman U.S. Court House 500 Pearl St New York, NY 10007-1312 ECEIVE el | avs ras | 28 | ae ERS Ce RICHARD M. BE eebaehMan Ref. Brady v NFL Dear Judge Berman: Isn't it the responsibility of the league and their representatives (refs) to operate the game, including inspection of all equipment used (the balls), as well as the field markings and goal posts are propery erected and first down chain markers? It would seem that if the leaque did not know the balls were deflated, they should have, as it is their job to operate the game; thus it was dereliction of duty on their part. Just my opinion your honor. Witfiarly/A Ketter WA KeeCase 1:15-cv-05916-RMB-JCF Document 65 Filed 09/09/15 Page 2 of 2 ‘Thank you for your submission ~ I apologize for the delay in responding. We have placed your submission on the court dockets for the NEL v.NELPA (Tom Brady) matter (15 Civ. 5916 and 15 Civ. 5982). HS Richard M. Berman, USDJ 4lalisCase 1:15-cv-05916-RMB-JCF Document 66 Filed 09/98. ear 3udge Berman, MEMO jengiene UN aay 08 | clextt let ey ie I am a teacher in Reno, Nevada. I need “io ‘ you WAY matters despite the absurdity that you, an esteemed Federal Judge, needs to supervise these juvenile adults. I often work at an award winning elementary school where one teacher is a passionate Patriots fan. Every sports-day Friday, she wears a Patriots’ Jersey with Brady across the back. Her room is filled with Patriots memorabilia, including personalized autographs from Tom Brady. The school district has a junior football program that is extremely competitive. The few boys who do not participate in the program have a hard time given they can be excluded from recess “practice games." Fortunately, the teachers have quickly put a stop to that: we have banned football for weeks. No arguments from the boys or the parents. No precedent needed to determine the consequences for choosing bad behavior. Needless to say, every day there are sixth grade boys wearing the Tom Brady jersey and the girls admire him as well. Tom Brady is their role model. I want to share with you the student's straightforward understanding of this cheating scandal that cuts through the cloud of distractions Brady is using to deflect attention away from the simple fact that he cheated. You have asked for a “smoking gun” pointing to Brady having ordered the footballs deflated. More than likely, that was destroyed. However, there is plenty of circumstantial evidence and one can say actions speak louder than words. Or, if there is smoke from a gun, it had to have been fired. The sixth graders believe Brady knew the footballs were altered given he touches them everyday and he has touched a football “a million times.” He would be “plain stupid if he couldn't tell." Additionally, Brady has said he knows when they are over inflated, thus, he is well aware of the football's inflation. (BTW, theCase 1:15-cv-05916-RMB-JCF Document 66 Filed 09/09/15 Page 2 of 4 kids know when their footballs need air.) Brady knew he was playing with underinflated footballs. He could have pointed this out to referee. He did not. Brady chose not to play by the rules. The students have a hard time understanding why their hero didn't say a word and continued to play with deflated footballs that gave him an unfair ‘advantage over the other team. That is cheating. And there is your “smoking gun." A sixth grader recognizes that cheating is not sportsmanship and that cheating shows a lack of personal integrity. With all due respect, I ask you Judge Berman, How can teachers and coaches expect youngsters to abide by the rules of fair play if their favorite player doesn't have to? A common strategy used by a person accused of a transgression is to turn on the accuser and point out all of their faults, even using outrageous claims, in order to rile the accuser. The accuser is placed on the defensive and quickly everyone loses sight of the original transgression. This is exactly what Mr. Brady has done. Notice that his team challenges the inquiry procedures, the penalty and Mr. Goodell’s common sense. They are ignoring the original accusation that Brady cheated; he chose to play with footballs that gave him an advantage, whether or not he asked for the footballs to be deflated, he knew they were. Notice that Brady will accept a fine. Seriously, no monetary fine will cause Mr. Brady any remorse for his actions. That is insulting to the NFL, the courts and to those innocent persons that are distressed when a family member has to pay a fine. This case is embarrassing. Mr. Brady cheated and he feels he should not be punished. He interfered with the investigation. Even a sixth grader knows that if you eat the note the teacher's catches you with, you have admitted the note was dirty. That is common sense. Is Mr. Brady above common sense?Case 1:15-cv-05916-RMB-JCF Document 66 Filed 09/09/15 Page 3 of 4 Please uphold the 4 game suspension against Mr. Brady. No other consequence will matter to him. The "smoking gun” that you are looking for is in Mr. Brady's actions; he knowingly played with a deflated football and he purposely destroyed his telephone knowing that investigators wanted to see it. He ate the evidence. Even a sixth grader knows better. Sincerely, VK. Tabak In Gddvhen tthe # game Sus qertion P.S. If you fine Mr. Brady, you can give the money to the NFL's fund that is assisting payers with head trauma. The group really needs the money. 13 August 2015 Vanessa Ivelich Reno, Nevada 89519Case 1:15-cv-05916-RMB-JCF Document 66 Filed 09/09/15 Page 4 of 4 ‘Thank you for your submission — I apologize for the delay in responding. We have placed your submission on the court dockets for the NFL. vy. NELPA (Tom Brady) matter (15 Civ. $916 and 15 Civ. 5982). MS Richard M. Berman, USDJ 4/4nisCase 1:15-cv-05916-RMB-JCF Document 67 Filed Q9/09/15_Page 1 of 2 P Mohan, MD . fee MEMO ENDOR ED ue Etzabeth G. Nabe MD t Atty AICHARD A waa President, B ind Women's Heakh Gi ee Cal bk Debt September 1, 2015, Dr, Nabel, {am contacting you with some ungency as a fellow physician/cardiologbt for a non-medical and certainly non Ife-threatening issue because of the unique postion you hold, not at Brigham but with the NFL. You have never heard of me and there is no reason you ever should have. 1 ama physictan-educator but nota researcher. I do have a history of teaching accomplishments and major institution awards (7 including 3 in 2 years from the nation’s largest private medical school, 300 miles from where I taught) that is unlikely matched by any other physician in the country for such a short time as a teaching attending (4 years and that includes @ 1 year chief residency year prior to fellowship training). Now, to the point of my letter. Iam equally passionate about medical education as I am to justice, equality, truth and ethics. I want to expose the fraudsters and cheaters (In medicine and elsewhere) and completely understand investigating the NFL team, its employees and QB in question given the allegations of cheating. To put it simply, the “DeflateGate” analysis by the the company Exponent is without a doubt the single most obvious work of ‘research’ fraud that I have ever read. I have read the complete reports inchiding the lawyer's portion and understand the case (text messages etc.) presented and accepted by the NFL and the Commissioner. Do not misinterpret my use of the word fraud as meaning just flawed. T suspect the Commissioner is a most honorable man seeking to do what is right. It would seem reasonable that he would highly regard your opinion (regardless of where you call home) and does not want ro be deceWved into pursuing anything except what is just. However, he and the NFL have been victimized by the appalling ‘work’ of Exponent. The NFL should get every dime they paid, directly or indirectly, rerumed. | suggest reading and viewing (1) a short critque of the Exponent report on Fraudit.org, (2) see the video of the study performed by HeadSmart Labs below that and (3) the complete “DeflateGate report (tink at Fraudit.org). Give the Commissioner the opportunity to be the moral hero inthis case. My suggestion to the other side would be to have 100 prominent scientists sign a letter declaring the Exponent report as fraud and to publish it widely. ‘The Commissioner has the time advantage since that cannot be done quickly, but it can be done eventually. GT bon P Mohan, MDCase 1:15-cv-05916-RMB-JCF Document 67 Filed 09/09/15 Page 2 of 2 Thank you tor your submission — | apologize tor the delay in responding. We have placed your submission on the court dockets for the NEL vy. NELPA (Tom Brady) matter (15 Civ, 5916 and 15 Civ. 5982), IMS Richard M. Berman, USDJ afafisCase 1:15-cv-05916-RMB-JCF Document 68 Filed 09/09/15 Page 1 of 2 24 August 2015 £2327 2018 CHaVaeRS OF RICHARD M. BERMAN USD. Judge Richard M. Berman Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse MEY Ei 500 Pearl St., Courtroom: 17B New York, NY 10007-1312 ad Dear Judge Berman, ‘have been an ardent NFL fan for 58 years and have never seen the level of ineptitude and incompetence displayed by Roger Goodell and his band of yes men during this whole Deflategate fiasco. I could go on and on with examples of how unfair he is being (e.g. Favre, Bell, Rice, Hardy et al) but let ‘me just say that | will never spend another penny (spent $25K on tickets/merchandise/concessions over the years etc) until Roger wakes up from his brain cramp and does the right thing! I'm sure this doesn’t matter to him but if several hundred thousand fans feel this way (and they do!), we can make a serious dent in his precious revenue streams. Please do the right thing and vacate Bradys suspension since he won't? Very Truly Yours, hy Gainesville, Georgia Ce: Tom Brady, Roger Goodelli Case 1:15-cv-05916-RMB-JCF Document 68 Filed 09/09/15 Page 2 of 2 Thank you for your submission — | apologize for the delay in responding. We have placed your submission on the court dockets for the NFL vy. NFLPA (Tom Brady) matter (15 Civ. 5916 and 15 Civ. 5982). ims Richard M. Berman, USDJ fasCHAMBER OF RIGHARP M, BERMAN, ‘Windsor, VT. 05089 ent 69 Filed 09/09/15 Page 1 of 2 Hon, Richard M Beran U.S. District Judge Daniel Patrick Moyninan MEMO END SED ‘nied Siales Courtnouse So Peat St Ses Atte N.Y. CNY. 10007-1312 Cluk fh Doekst Hon. Richard Berman, The New England patriots easily won the AFC title game in the second half of that game; after some of the game balls were found to be under inflated. The halftime score was 17 t0 7 in favor of the Patriots. In the second haff the Patriots defense shut the Colts down while the offense scored 4 TDs. Three TDs were ‘completions by Brady and 3 were from Blount’s exceptional running. The three previous games between Andrew Luck and the Patriots were blow-outs. There was no need for Brady and the Patriots to look for an advantage by cheating, especially playing at home in a cold rain. ‘The weather forecasts for the game day were ice warnings up and down the |-95 corridor. It was a cold rain when the game began. Inflating balls in a locker room to a set psi pressure and then bringing them ‘out to sit on the field in a cold rain, the air in the balls will condense to a lower pressure, as any car ‘mechanic in New England or physicist would testify. The fact that at halftime some balls were under inflated and not ail the balls is further testimony that some were more affected by the drop in temperature than others; due to the cold rain penetrating the bal bags. Heat transfers more easily through waler than air. ‘This whole controversy has been totally blown out of proportions through an unintelligent society and fan base biased against the Patriots. It is also heightened by the Patriots winning the Super Bow! when the were facing defeat. That game was won through good coaching and a defensive player having done his homework, studying the videos of the opposing team. He recognized the play called and ran before the ball was thrown to be there for the interception. Further proof that the Patriots are a team that doesn't need to cheat, Sincere Regards, /_-Case 1:15-cv-05916-RMB-JCF Document 69 Filed 09/09/15 Page 2 of 2 Thank you for your submission ~ I apologize for the delay in responding. We have placed your submission on the court dockets for the NFL ¥.NELPA (Tom Brady) matter (15 Civ. 5916 and 15 Civ. 5982). ims Richard M, Berman, USDJ alsfsCase 1:15-cv-05916-RMB-JCF Document 70 Filed 09/09/15 Page 1 of 61 cme nena cnsOr™ aE Blaan ‘August 26, 2015 Hon. Rchard M Berman United States District Court, Southern District of New York Soo earsteet, Reo 3650 MEMO MO ENDORSED New York, NY 10007 fe: Permission requested to file AMICUS CURIAE IWoPPosmioNTo Claah ty CE Seeds i ‘THE NFL’S MOTION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD Case No. 15-cv-5916 (RMB)\JCF) No 15-0 5916 RMBNICF) Your Honor, ‘While my request letter, which you received Wednesday morning, was in the mail, it emerged that new NFL filings were arguing that it is okay for the NFL to be biased and mistaken in their facts. Even if true, that doesn’t mean that itis okay for them to collude to lie about the central fact: their researchers knew the Patriots balls were at the right pressure. ‘That's why my brief is so vital. It proves that lie beyond a reasonable doubt. For the sake of brevity, | omitted from my first letter to you some further evidence that my brief proves the lie: Exponent rigged their simulation to misrepresent their understanding of what the Patriots’ ball pressure was supposed to be: Exponent went out of their way to NOT represent that their simulation of half time replicated how the balls were handled during the real half time (i.e. kept in a bag): The procedure used to generate the halftime measurements during Game Day was replicated. Namely, the Logo and Non-Logo Gauges were used. ~Source: Bottom of Exponent page 56 (as discussed in my brief on page 35). Notice how the word “namely” deletes the first claim and replaces it with a claim that excludes keeping the balls in the bag. That is in contrast with how Exponent calls attention to replicating the game-day use of ball bags during other phases in their simulations (see my brief on page 36). ‘What do you make of all this? Sincerely Rober > Ga- Robert F. YoungCase 1:15-cv-05916-RMB-JCF Document 70 Filed 09/09/15 Page 2 of 61 ‘Thank you for your submission — I apologize for the delay in responding. We have placed your submission on the court dockets for the NEL v. NFLPA (Tom Brady) matter (15 Civ. 5916 and 15 Civ. 5982). HS Richard M. Berman, USDJ afsfisCase 1:15-cv-05916-RMB-JCF Document 70 Filed 09/09/15 Page 3 of 61 Case No. 15-cv-5916 (RMB)(ICF) IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE MANAGEMENT COUNCIL, Plaintiff, we Case No, 15-cv-5916 (RMB)(ICF) NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE PLAYERS ASSOCIATION, Defendant-Counterclaimant ROBERT F. YOUNG'S AMICUS CURIAE IN OPPOSITION TO ‘THE NFL’S MOTION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD 1. ROBERT F. YOUNG'S AMICUS CURIAE IN OPPOSITION TO THE NFL'S MOTION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARDCase 1:15-cv-05916-RMB-JCF Document 70 Filed 09/09/15 Page 4 of 61 Contents Statement of Interest . ‘Summary of Argument ... Argument . Understanding the halftime warming deception and how it escaped notice until now. If the simulation was true to game-day conditions, the warming rates should NOT have matched the prior tab-bench testing (the transient curves)... 22 As tong as you believe Exponent knew the bag could slow warming even alittle, then you must believe Exponent lied in their central conclusion. 25 How far were they from having told the truth? Is there any reasonable evidence that air was even probably” removed?... ee ev nee DD More evidence that Exponent was aware that their simulation didn’t match the reality: .n..10ucue 32 Grammatical sleight-of-hand: 34 More Evidence that Exponent knew their simulation didn’t match reality 38 Gauge assertion and assumptions: Evidence of deceit: nA ASSOrIOM one 40 Impact 40 Proving that Exponent’ final conclusion was a tie — et Data shows the ref was right about the gauge. Other uncertainties. unsuitability for “criminal-like penalties... Proof of non-cheating.. Perspective on “what if Patriots cheated but by too small an amount to be caught by the testing: impact oon motive and game-integrity relevance. oe Conctusion: 56 Soure 58 2 ROBERT F. YOUNG'S AMICUS CURIAE IN OPPOSITION TO ‘THE NFL'S MOTION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARDCase 1:15-cv-05916-RMB-JCF Document 70 Filed 09/09/15 Page 5 of 61 3. ROBERT F. YOUNG'S AMICUS CURIAE IN OPPOSITION TO THE NFL'S MOTION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARDCase 1:15-cv-05916-RMB-JCF Document 70 Filed 09/09/15 Page 6 of 61 Figure 1 Short version of why Exponent "says" the Pats cheated... 14 Figure 2 Why Exponent "says" Pat's likely cheated, this time explaining it based on the e-warming rates predicted by Exponent's’ simulation. 5 Figure 3 Exponent Figure 29: Assumes the ref was wrong about which gauge the ref used pre game 19 Figure 4 Rate of rise of simulation data in Exponent figures 29 and 30 as compared to "transient" curves based on Exponent lab-bench testing of a lone ball on a small pedestal on a table, which was done prior to the simulations. 21 Figure 5 Exponent equipment used to create the "transient curves" on Exponent's Figures 29 and 30 Found on page 41 of Exponent's report son d2 Figure 6 Exponent data from lab-bench testing using the equipment inthe earlier figure 23 Figure 7 The portions of the lab-bench testing data that Exponent translated onto their Figures 29 and 30.. eeeeZd Figure & Exponent Figure 30, the one Exponent used to assert that the Patriot game-day pressure was (very slightly) to different from the Exponent simulation pressure (the red dot near four minutes) to be explained just by chance. Thus Exponent claimed their work could not explain the Patriot's ball pressure. Figure 9 Picture NOT FROM EXPONENT | found online to give an example of what a ball bag might look like. What I do know is that Exponent believed that whatever bag was used was capable of keeping the balls dry (thus not an open mesh design). 25 Figure 10 Use of Exponent figure 30 to show that if Exponent believed balls might warm even slighty slower together in a bag, then Exponent lied when they said the Patriots’ football pressure was not explained by their research 27 Figure 11 Using Exponents data, together with trowledge that being together In abag slows ball warming a lot, the Patriots’ ball pressure was right where it was supposed to be... 31 Figure 12 Patriot's ball pressures inorder of measurement, with bes ft line, compared to simulation expected rate of increase, and upper range of 87.5% confidence interval above the best fit line for the game-data data: (over lapping line): Only a 1:8 chance the data fits simulation... Figure 13 Patriots balls fine, but Exponent claims they can’t explain the Colt's ball pressures.. igure 14 Colts’ ball pressures explained by changing the presumed order of testing, to test the Colts! balls last as is widely understood to be what really happened. AB Figure 15 Ref must have been right on his gauge use, because for him being wrong doesnt fit with the Colts’ ball pressure measurements at half-time. BL Figure 16 No cheating detected, and any cheating too small fo be detected would be completely irrelevant... 54 4. ROBERT F. YOUNG'S AMICUS CURIAE IN OPPOSITION TO ‘THE NFL'S MOTION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARDCase 1:15-cv-05916-RMB-JCF Document 70 Filed 09/09/15 Page 7 of 61 Statement of Interest My primary, relevant interests are: 1) Promoting a rational and just system and public confidence therein, This motivation is so large as to transcend team favoritism. A notable Example: New York Law School Professor Robert Blecker writes and speaks on DeflateGate, wishing to see the Patriots/Brady lose on the field but win this case. 2) To prevent my local team from being unfairly disadvantaged. Millions share that interest; sports enrich the lives of many. If hours of increased happiness are assigned even a small value, then the cumulative stakes for the class of persons rooting for the Patriots greatly exceed the stake for the parties in the dispute. Note: I have prepared this brief without any collusion or support from any party to the conflict. 5. ROBERT F, YOUNG'S AMICUS CURIAE IN OPPOSITION TO ‘THE NFL'S MOTION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARDCase 1:15-cv-05916-RMB-JCF Document 70 Filed 09/09/15 Page 8 of 61 Summary of Argument The controversy would have been resolved during the appeal if the league had stayed within the normal range of bias and the normal use of paid experts to support a desired position. Unfortunately, the league went beyond those norms. ‘The lack of due process prevented the earlier detection of deceit central to the entire scandal. Much good scientific research by the NFL/Exponent provided sufficient data to prove that the Patriots did nor tamper with footballs. So why, then, did Exponent make essentially the opposite conclusion (basically that cheating is the best explanation for the pressures measured at half-time in the Patriots/Colts game)? Exponent lied in how they presented the data and lied about the conclusions. The trick that until now has gone unnoticed: in Exponent’s “simulation” of the half-time testing, Exponent freely exposed the balls to air, to warm them up more quickly, despite Exponent knowing that on the real game day the balls had remained in a bag on the floor until measured. In reality, the reason the Patriots’ footballs had lower pressure than what Exponent has simulated is that the Patriots’ footballs hadn’t warmed up much (because they each stayed in the bag until the last minute) 6 ROBERT F. YOUNG'S AMICUS CURIAE IN OPPOSITION TO THE NFU'S MOTION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARDCase 1:15-cv-05916-RMB-JCF Document 70 Filed 09/09/15 Page 9 of 61 Exponent knew that their research indicated that on game day, the Patriots” footballs had, within the normal range of variation, the pressure they should be expected to have at the time they were measured. This brief proves these points for anyone who believes that keeping cold footballs together in a closed bag can slow their warming even a little compared to spreading them out on a table. Exponent’s data and words prove that Exponent freely exposed the “simulation” balls to the air, rather than keeping them in a bag. For those assuming this to be another “crackpot theory”, consider how AEI found a key clue but did the wrong thing with it. The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) noticed the lack of rise in the game- day ball pressures during the four minute assumed measurement period. Because AEI didn’t expect that Exponent might be completely lying, AEI challenged whether it really took four minutes to test the balls, instead of whether Exponent had rigged their simulation to falsely re-warm the balls in a most basic and obvious way. For similar reasons, AEI missed the grammatical sleight-ot-hand by Exponent (on their page 56) that could have been a tipoff. First Exponent said “The procedure used to generate the halftime measurements during Game Day was replicated.” But the sentence that immediately followed had the effect of retracting that assurance: “Namely, the Logo and Non-Logo Gauges were used.” 7 ROBERT F. YOUNG'S AMICUS CURIAE IN OPPOSITION TO THE NFL'S MOTION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARDCase 1:15-cv-05916-RMB-JCF Document 70 Filed 09/09/15 Page 10 of 61 Exponent has thus sneakily gone out of their way to avoid saying that they handled the balls in their test the way they were handled on game day. Something that Exponent said that sounded good was actually another tipoff: “The data sets generated by the two methods (game day simulations and the transient curves) correlate well to one another: (page 59). They shouldn’t have correlated so well: the “transient curve” warming rate was for a ball alone on a pedestal on a table. The game day simulation was supposed to be of balls staying in a bag on the floor (likely closed the first two minutes) before then taken out one by one for measurement. This was thus a tipoff that Exponent didn’t simulate what they were supposed to. The lie came from making the conclusion that the Patriots” ball pressures couldn't be explained. Even the slightest reduction in warming, as compared to the “ball in the open on a table” moves the pressure that was supposed to be seen down into the normal range of random variation around what was actually measured. Therefore Exponents conclusion only holds if Exponent can’t possibly imagine that keeping the cold balls in a bag even slightly slowed their warming. Exponent surely doesn’t believe that, so Exponent surely lied. Additionally, this brief shows that Exponent is smart enough that surely they believed none of the reasons they gave for setting aside the refs recollection about which of his two gauges he used pre-game. The pattern strongly suggests that Goodell played along when he claimed to trust Exponent on this. 8 ROBERT F. YOUNG'S AMICUS CURIAE IN OPPOSITION TO ‘THE NFL'S MOTION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARDCase 1:15-cv-05916-RMB-JCF Document 70 Filed 09/09/15 Page 11 of 61 This brief shows evidence that the data supports the ref in the ref’s recollection of which gauge the ref used. The last remaining chance the NFL had to suggest that there was some evidence of tampering was to assume (for no sensible reason they'd ever provided) that the ref was wrong in his recollection of which gauge was used. That unjustified assumption increased by roughly 0.4 psi the appearance of possible tampering. With proper use, the Exponent research proves that there was no cheating. By applying any reasonable estimate for how the balls being in a bag slowed their warming, one can use the rest of the quality research to determine whether the Patriots’ footballs had the right pressure; they did. The interpretation of the CBA favored by the plaintiff has the effect of inserting language that the arbitration finding can be “for any reason or no reason”. This language is present in some agreements but not the CBA. The CBA does intend for rapid, imperfect, expedient solutions to empower the league to function against inappropriate player conduct. It is not intended to exempt the League from needing integrity. It is not intended to allow players to be punished to mollify disgruntled owners or make the teams more evenly matched. The earlier claims of “independent” investigations gave false assurances that the investigative work would fall within the normal bounds of behavior for quasi- independent work. Not expecting the level of deceit, the defense looked for 9 ROBERT F. YOUNG'S AMICUS CURIAE IN OPPOSITION TO THE NFL'S MOTION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARDCase 1:15-cv-05916-RMB-JCF Document 70 Filed 09/09/15 Page 12 of 61 shading around the edges rather than for gross misrepresentation at the heart of the Exponent conclusion. Based on the nature and impact of the plaintiff's misbehavior, the Court is free to rule in favor of the defendant without obligating itself to intervene in countless other sports arbitration cases. Very few other cases would contain such ‘outrageous behavior. The courts benefit when the public uses arbitration instead of the courts to resolve disputes. If the public finds that arbitration can’t be trusted, people will not agree to arbitration. This case is the rare example when the strength of the institution of arbitration is strengthened by overruling the arbitrator. In light of the conduct, had the CBA intended to grant that much leeway to the Commissioner, it would have explicitly stated that he make his decision “for any reason or for no reason,” as is contained in other legal agreements. 10 ROBERT F, YOUNG'S AMICUS CURIAE IN OPPOSITION TO ‘THE NFL’S MOTION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARDCase 1:15-cv-05916-RMB-JCF Document 70 Filed 09/09/15 Page 13 of 61 Argument Note: some of the points from the summary do not require further elaboration and are not repeated here but are part of the argument. Sources: see end of brief Understanding the half-time warming deception and how it eseaped notice until now. Both sides appear to agree that how to apply the “timing” is the most crucial question in the scandal. * Based on the American Enterprise Institute (AEH) report and the NEL and Exponent report, both sides appear to agree that the pivotal assessment in the scandal is whether research indicated that there is, or is not, a known, likely explanation for the Patriots’ half-time ball pressures other than tampering. Evidence of agreement on this as the central issue: a) the concluding sentence of the summary paragraph atop the American Enterprise Institute Report “On the Wells Report”. b) The concluding paragraph of the body of the Exponent report allegedly relied upon by the NFL Management Committee (item 13 Exponent p68). The Exponent focus on the differential between Patriots and Colts is primarily as evidence to suggest tampering; there was no other need to speculate as to how the Colts’ balls got to be a different pressure. « Had Exponent concluded differently, then the headline would be more like “Patriots” science is right: no evidence of tampering.” One could 11 ROBERT F. YOUNG'S AMICUS CURIAE IN OPPOSITION TO THE NFL'S MOTION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD.Case 1:15-cv-05916-RMB-JCF Document 70 Filed 09/09/15 Page 14 of 61 still assert tampering in an amount too small to detect, but it would be absurd to suggest sufficient motive for doing it. © Both sides appear to agree that one potential question of fact that would reverse the assessment is the timing of the ball measurements at halftime Concluding paragraph of the Exponent report (item 13, Exponent p68): particularly regarding the timing and sequencing of the measurements” These are applied by the reader when using Figure 30 on page 61 of the Exponent report to determine if the Patriots balls pressure were explainable. I agree that how to apply the time scale is the single most important question of fact in the scandal: © Exponent research showed that the average Patriots’ ball pressures measured at half-time were completely appropriate for a ball at field- temperature (in fact, they were a little on the high side). The simulation predicted 11.05 psi for a ball at on-field temperature. On game day there was no on-field measurement. By time the time it got taken into the locker room and measured, it was at 11.22 psi; as if the Patriots had snuck air into the balls after the ref inspected them. The patriots didn’t 12 ROBERT F. YOUNG'S AMICUS CURIAE IN OPPOSITION TO ‘THE NFU'S MOTION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD. Case 1:15-cv-05916-RMB-JCF Document 70 Filed 09/09/15 Page 15 of 61 sneak air into the balls — the balls had warmed up a little, raising their pressure. © The entire controversy is hased on Exponent asserting that the Patriots’ balls had already warmed up quite a bit before they were measured. They say the key question to knowing how much they warmed up is how long it was before the refs measured the balls (on average) from the time the balls came off the field. Exponent’s “simulations” (loosely speaking) of the process used in the locker room at half time indicated that the balls would have warmed up by about 0.42psi, so they should have been at about 11.47psi. The Patriots’ footballs were only at | 1.22 psi or so. That’s just slightly too much different from Exponent’s prediction to explain the difference by random chance alone, so there must something unexplained happening (like cheating). 13. ROBERT F. YOUNG'S AMICUS CURIAE IN OPPOSITION TO THE NFL’S MOTION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARDCase 1:15-cv-05916-RMB-JCF Document 70 Filed 09/09/15 Page 16 of 61 Short version of why Exponent “says” Pat’s likely cheated even if you believe the ref about which gauge he used a The longer the balls were in the locker room to warm up, This solid, horizontalred the higher their pressure would be. We did three line is the average pressure ulations of games with “simulations” (loosely speaking) of the Patriots balls, of the half-time measurement process. These dots show measured at halftime in the our results. Each simulation picked different timing. locker room. We don’t ar know exactly when that’s pag gms | =. -Most likely time here. why it'sgraphed as aline 3 a7 7 "the simulation said Bp r- the pressure should 7 have been this high, If our simulation comes this - close to the actual, then the actual can be explained by ‘outside the band that our science plus random we can explain away as | variation being by chance. Must ee be some other cause (ie the patriots took air out illegally) That's just barely "We" = Exponent. Exponent’s Figure 30 shown, Mark-upsin green. Figure 1 Short version of why Exponent "says" the Pats cheated 14 ROBERT F, YOUNG'S AMICUS CURIAE IN OPPOSITION TO ‘THE NFL'S MOTION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARDCase 1:15-cv-05916-RMB-JCF Document 70 Filed 09/09/15 Page 17 of 61 Pressure vs. time according to Exponent | Based on simulated games at Exponent, followed by “simulating” (loosely speaking) the | moacuramont pracscein the lncler com at half sieve) duticu gICGH fe STIOWS NOW | what the Patriots’ ball pressure “should be” depends on when you measure it, relative ‘the first half, “Inv our earlier lab experiment * unrelated to the simulation, a wet sets ball, by itself, on a table, increased sssure at thi sre *-6imulation: Balls should be 11.05 psi at field temperature (time=0) ‘At the game, Patriots’ balls measured 11.22 psiavg. (we think most likely at 4 minutes, but we don’t know, so we show it as aline) That’s actually MORE pressure than it was “supposed to have on the field. } Simulation result: : balls warm up by 0.42 | psfin'those four minutes. Due to the re-warming, our si aaiani ‘expected about 11.5 psi just barely ‘too much to allow us to explain the lower Patriot measurement based on Figure 2 Why Exponent “says” Pat's Iikely cheated, ths time explaining it based on the rewarming cates predicted by Expanent’s’ simulation. Proof that the solid red line on the chart is the game-day average pressure actually measured for the Patriots’ balls. (Note: it's not known at what time those measurements were made. Exponent thinks it was at four minutes): We can further refine this construct by overlaying a representation of the average pressures observed on Game Day for each team, as measured by the Non-Logo Gauge. The result of this is shown in Figure 25. - Exponent report, bottom of page 50. The convention from Figure 25 is carried forward to figures 29 and 30. 15 ROBERT F. YOUNG'S AMICUS CURIAE IN OPPOSITION TO THE NFL'S MOTION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD,Case 1:15-cv-05916-RMB-JCF Document 70 Filed 09/09/15 Page 18 of 61 Proof that anything within the horizontal shaded area would be considered to within the normal range of variation based on the sample data, as Exponent Indicated here: For a given team, the overlap between the shaded area of that team's Game Day average and the shaded area of that team’s transient curves represents the window in which the Game Day measurements can be theoretically explained by a physically plausible combination of environmental variables as well as a possible range of average measuring times --Exponent page 51, just below figure 25. The same convention is carried forward to Figures 29 and 30. AEI “On the Wells Report” noted that the balls didn’t seem to be warming during the game-day half-time measurement process, but drew the wrong lesson from it. © The critical clue for AEI was that the balls were not showing evidence of warming up during the testing. AEL used that clue that to question whether the balls were measured at the average times claimed by the NFL, both for the Patriots’ balls and especially for the Colts’ balls. 16 ROBERT F. YOUNG'S AMICUS CURIAE IN OPPOSITION TO. THE NFL'S MOTION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD,Case 1:15-cv-05916-RMB-JCF Document 70 Filed 09/09/15 Page 19 of 61 “The coefficient on the count variable for the order in which the balls were tested in our regression (N,) varies in precisely the way that one would expect to observe if the individual Patriots’ balls were tested in rapid succession” +AEI report: “On the Wells Report”, page 9, bottom left “The fact that the officials ran out of time is highly material: it implies that the Colts’ balls were inside a warm room for almost the entire halftime before they were measured and thus had a chance to warm up.” --AEI report “On the Wells Report,” page 7, right side Given AEI’s conclusion that testing was very rapid, AEI suggests that Colts testing began and completed all at the very last minute. « What AEI failed to consider was the other most-likely explanation: that Exponent’s half-time simulation was significantly mismatched to the game-day events. Maybe Exponent warmed the footballs faster than happened on game day. The reason why the Patriots’ footballs weren’t warming up during the half-time measurement was that they were in the bag on the floor. There's no reason to doubt that the testing took four minutes. AEI should have doubted why the pressures in Exponent’s simulation rose so fast, instead of why the Patriots’ balls rose so slowly or not at all. Had then NFL not given false assurances of some “independence”, AE] would have been looking to see if Exponent cheated. The false assurances served to prevent the defense from finding the issue in time to raise it in the appeal. 17 ROBERT F. YOUNG'S AMICUS CURIAE IN OPPOSITION TO THE NFL'S MOTION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARDCase 1:15-cv-05916-RMB-JCF Document 70 Filed 09/09/15 Page 20 of 61 AEI would have expected that the Exponent report would have bias applied to any input Exponent had leeway over. However, especially in light of the claims of independence, AEI would expect that there would be some boundaries Exponent would not cross, AEI would have no reason to expect outright lying, and thus no reason to focus their time on looking for evidence of lying. You'd think that repeating the process of taking balls one by one out of a bag on the floor and measuring them would be so straightforward that you wouldn’t need to question it. AEI thus focused on areas where there is more likely to be mere error or bias. The additional misrepresentation Exponent made (about purporting to have a reason to think the Colts’ balls were measured immediately after the Patriots) further served to throw AEI off the track. * The critical clue that AEI missed is, ironically, that the Exponent game-day simulation points’ relative rate of pressure rise was too much in agreement with the other Exponent experiments on ball warm-up rates that were done in the lab on a single ball (not a simulation of a game). Earlier in their work, Exponent did lab-bench testing of a lone football on a small pedestal on a table to explore how fast the pressure rises as the ball warms up. This work created the “transient curves” shown in the Exponent Figures 29 and 30. The rising pattern of the “simulation” dots in those figures runs parallel to the 18 ROBERT F. YOUNG'S AMICUS CURIAE IN OPPOSITION TO. ‘THE NEL'S MOTION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARDCase 1:15-cv-05916-RMB-JCF Document 70 Filed 09/09/15 Page 21 of 61 transient curves. The rates of rise between “game-day” simulation and the prior “transient curve” lab work were identical to within the maximum sensitivity of the simulation points to discern. Exponent also noticed this correlation, and mentioned it as if it were a good thing: “The data sets generated by the two methods (game day simulations and the transient curves) correlate well to one another:” Exponent, Page 59, last paragraph To see just how well they correlated (too well!), consider the following: Colts - ary Colts - wet Patnots - dry Patriots - wet gz = g 5 a a & a =o Time (min) Fiquee 3 Eeoonent Figure 29: Assumes the ref was wrang about which gouge the rf used aee-game 19 ROBERT F. YOUNG'S AMICUS CURIAE IN OPPOSITION TO THE NFL'S MOTION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD."Case 1:15-cv-05916-RMB-JCF Document 70 Filed 09/09/15 Page 22 of 61 Reading left to right, notice that the rate of rise of the large red dots matches the slope of the red dotted curve. Notice the same thing for the blue dots and line. That shows that the warming rate of the simulation very nicely matched the warming rate in the lab-bench test that was used to create the dotted curves. There is a slight extra upward ripple for the red dots in the previous figure when reading left to right. That is due to experimental accuracy limitations rather than evidence of an actual trend difference. Figure 30 describes the same simulation, using measurement taken a few seconds apart from the above, and any trend seems to go the other way, even though it was the same balls measured at almost the same time. With just this data it’s not clear how exactly the simulation rise matches the smooth curve rise. To provide more clarity as to whether the trends really match, I combined the data measured from Figures 29 and 30 onto one chart. The key question is the slope at which data rises, rather than the absolute level. I shifted what was the “transient” curves up to make it easier to see how exactly the rate of rise of the simulation data points are following the curve. 20. ROBERT F. YOUNG'S AMICUS CURIAE IN OPPOSITION TO THE NFL’S MOTION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD.Case 1:15-cv-05916-RMB-JCF Document 70 Filed 09/09/15 Page 23 of 61 | 126 | | © Exponent gameday simulation | ua for the Patriots (Fig's 29 and 30) 1 | | m «Exponent gameday simulation | 2 forthe cots fs 29 and 30) | Acuatpa 128 | | =++-Depicton ofthe slope at which a | - wet bal ona pedal wormed | Upinearer Exponent tests | (slope measured from the ! “transient curves” Exponent Fig | nu aa =++-Same as above, diferent eight | wa I | | u ! et ee Minutes into simulated halftime Figure 4 Rate of rise of simulation data in Exponent figures 29 and 30 as comparad to “transient” curves based on Exponent lab-bench testing ofa lone bail on a small pedestal on a table, which was done prior to the simulations. The key take-away is that the balls in the ulation were rising essentially at the same rate as in the earlier lab-bench experiments. [t shows that in the simulation, the balls warmed up at the same rate they had in the lab-bench testing that produced the “transient curves.” The slope of that “transient curve” is shown. It corresponded to a wet ball, on a pedestal on a table, being measured continuously as it warmed up. 21 ROBERT F. YOUNG'S AMICUS CURIAE IN OPPOSITION TO THE NFL'S MOTION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARDCase 1:15-cv-05916-RMB-JCF Document 70 Filed 09/09/15 Page 24 of 61 Ifthe simulation was true to game-day conditions, the warming rates should NOT have matched the prior lab-bench testing (the transient curves) © The rate of rise of the curves was based on testing of a ball alone on a small pedestal on a table. The test setup shown in Exponent Figure 20 showed a lone ball on small pedestal on table. This was the setup for the lab testing that resulted in the curves shown in Figure 21, which were expanded in Figure 22. Figure 22 shows the “locker room” potion that was carried into the pivotal Figures in the report: 29 and 30. Figuce 5 Exponent squipment used to create the “transient curves’ an Exponent’ Figures 29 and 30, Found on page 31 of Exaanent’s report 22 ROBERT F. YOUNG'S AMICUS CURIAE IN OPPOSITION TO THE NFL’S MOTION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD.Case 1:15-cv-05916-RMB-JCF Document 70 Filed 09/09/15 Page 25 of 61 "3098-39 12 8ps1-Ony 13008- Oxy 125 ps1. Locker room pete 70 2 2a 208 8 Figure 7 The portions of the lab-bench testing data that Exponent translated onto thei Figures 29 and 30 23 ROBERT F. YOUNG'S AMICUS CURIAE IN OPPOSITION TO THE NFL’S MOTION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARDCase 1:15-cv-05916-RMB-JCF Document 70 Filed 09/09/15 Page 26 of 61 (cote ary Cots wet Panos dry Patriots - wet Figure & Exponent Figure 20, the one Exponent used to assert thatthe Patriot game-day pressure was (very slightly) to diferent From the Exponent simulation pressure (the red dot near four minutes) to be explained just by chance. Thus Exponent claimed their work could not explain the Patriots ball pressure © In contrast, on game-day each Patriots’ ball stayed in the ball bag until immediately before measurement “4. The next ball was removed from the equipment bag and the process repeated from Step 1”. ~-Page 5, describing what happen on game day 24 ROBERT F. YOUNG'S AMICUS CURIAE IN OPPOSITION TO THE NFL’S MOTION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARDCase 1:15-cv-05916-RMB-JCF Document 70 Filed 09/09/15 Page 27 of 61 Figure 9 Picture NOT FROM EXPONENT I found online to give an example of what a ball bag might look lke. ‘What { do know is that Exponent believed that whatever bag was used was capable of keeping the balls dry (thus not an open mesh design) “According to information collected during witness interviews conducted by Paul, Weiss, the Patriots ballboys attempted to keep the balls as dry as possible during the first half” -- Exponent report, Page 54: Taking that into account, Exponent knew there was no reason to suggest possible cheating by the Patriots. This is because even the tiniest reduction in the expected rate of warming brings the “simulated” expectation down to within the normal variation range of the actual game-day measurements. As long as you believe Exponent knew the bag could slow warm: little, then you must believe Exponent lied in their central conclu Exponent’s central conclusion is that regardless of which gauge the ref used, the Patriots’ ball pressure was still too low to be explainable by natural causes. The customary confidence level for making such statements as I if they were absolute fact is 95%. That way there is only a 5% or less chance that natural causes plus 25. ROBERT F. YOUNG'S AMICUS CURIAE IN OPPOSITION TO THE NFL'S MOTION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD.Case 1:15-cv-05916-RMB-JCF Document 70 Filed 09/09/15 Page 28 of 61 dumb luck in the random sampling could have resulted in the observed measurement. The center point of their estimate of the timing, the center red dot in Figure 30, is ever so slightly outside the 95% confidence range. The slightest revision downward would put Exponent’s best estimate in that confidence range. Exponent reported that the Patriots’ balls were in the bag on the floor until measured. Their simulation had them fully exposed to air. Anyone who's brought home a bag of refrigerated groceries would expect that the ball’s being in the bag slowed their warming by at least some. 26 ROBERT F. YOUNG'S AMICUS CURIAE IN OPPOSITION TO THE NFL'S MOTION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARDCase 1:15-cv-05916-RMB-JCF Document 70 Filed 09/09/15 Page 29 of 61 Exponent knowing they had no sensible reason to doubt the ref in his gauge recollection, Exponent knows Pat’s pressure was explainable On game-day Patriots balls stayedin Exponent'’s simulation had the balls the bag. freely exposed to the air... cots. | SO exponent knows that the balls sma | ShOuld have warmed at least a little Jpavois ay slower on game day than they did in : the original “simulation”. So the expected pressure should be -.., lower than what the simulation | showed. i 5 i ‘Anything less than this is explainable | result of normal variations. With this adjustment, the Patriots Figen 20 . Pressures are explained. Thus Exponent lied when they said (Green items not part of the Exponent graph. they couldn’t explain the Patriot Dotted green line parallels the ball pressures. dotted red ine due to combined data of Figures 29 and 30) Figure 10 Use of Exponent figure 30 to show that if Exponent believed balls might watm even slighty slower together in 3 ‘bag, then Exponent lied when they said the Patriots football pressure was not explained by their research The most relevant conclusion in the Exponent report: The real question is not how Patriots and Colts’ balls compare but rather did the Patriots let air out of the ball. Therefore this conclusion from Exponent is the most relevant: Therefore, subject to the discovery of an as yet unidentified and unexamined factor, the measurements recorded for the Patriots’ footballs 27 ROBERT F. YOUNG'S AMICUS CURIAE IN OPPOSITION TO THE NFL'S MOTION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD.Case 1:15-cv-05916-RMB-JCF Document 70 Filed 09/09/15 Page 30 of 61 on Game Day do not appear to be completely explainable based on natural causes alone. --Exponent report, Page 61, Experimental simulations conclusion. Exponent cannot possibly be unaware that having a ball be in a bag could slow its warming a little bit, relative to it being ona table. Thus by stating that conclusion, they lied. © Special significance of the above relative to an assurance of “independent” investigation. AEI had every reason to expect that should the results indicate something to unlikely, Exponent would have undertaken further research to investigate it and would have been open about how they went about it. Special significance to lack of access by the Patriots and NFLPA to communications between Exponent and the NFL: Just as the NFL asserts that it would be unlikely for the ball-boy to cheat if he didn’t strongly believe it was desired, it seems unlikely that Exponent would have acted this way without strong reason to believe the NFL wanted this. The NFL complains that Tom didn’t hand over communication that might have shown such conspiracy between him and the ball boy. But then the NFL refused to give the NFLPA and Patriots the NFL's. 28 ROBERT F. YOUNG'S AMICUS CURIAE IN OPPOSITION TO THE NFL'S MOTION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARDCase 1:15-cv-05916-RMB-JCF Document 70 Filed 09/09/15 Page 31 of 61 communication that might have shown their conspiracy with Exponent. How far were they from having told the (ruth? Is there any reasonable evidence that air was even “probably” removed? That depends on how much being in a bag slows down the warming. Exponent indicated the bag was impervious enough to keep balls dry under damp conditions “According to information collected during witness interviews conducted by Paul, Weiss, the Patriots ballboys attempted to keep the balls as dry as possible during the first half” -- Exponent report, Page 54: The bag must have been closed to carry the balls to the locker room. There’s no reason to expect anyone opened the bag until they sat down to measure. Estimating the effect of being in a bag: This site http://hyperphysics. phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/tables/rvalue.html indicates that the air layer touching an object has an R value of 0.17. Most of the mass of the ball is the leather and the bladder layer. The inside has little thermal mass, so it needs little heat transfer to warm up. Except where the bag touches the surface of the ball, adding a bag adds two additional air layers (on either side of the bag). Thus even with one football, assuming the bag is not contacting a high percent of the surface area, putting one 29 ROBERT F. YOUNG'S AMICUS CURIAE IN OPPOSITION TO THE NFL'S MOTION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARDCase 1:15-cv-05916-RMB-JCF Document 70 Filed 09/09/15 Page 32 of 61 ball in a bag triples the thermal resistance between the ball and the open room air. Thus the ball would warm three times slower. If the balls average 2 layers deep, so there are not many places where a ball is alone but not many where a ball is sandwiched between two other balls, then is twice as much ball to warm up. At two layers deep, it’s as if each ball must get all hits heat from one side (because the ball on the other side is soaking up the heat from the other side of the bag. Twice as much heat must flow through the bag surface area as in the one-ball scenario. So, in addition to there being 3x more R value, you have to wait for 2x as much heat to move. So based on that estimate, balls in a bag would warm 6 times lower than a single ball, alone on a pedestal. That’s ignoring that when you make the bag bigger to hold a second layer, the ends and sides get bigger. Accounting for that, the higher surface area partially makes up for there being more balls to soak up heat. Whatever the exact math, the bag should greatly slow the warming as compared to the ball in the open. Perhaps Exponent would estimate that the bag makes less difference than above, but clearly they have the science to make some estimate, and the bag does make a significant difference, especially when closed. The graph depicts about 4x slower warming. One side of the bag was likely partially open during minutes 2-6 after. 30. ROBERT F. YOUNG'S AMICUS CURIAE IN OPPOSITION TO THE NFL'S MOTION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARDCase 1:15-cv-05916-RMB-JCF Document 70 Filed 09/09/15 Page 33 of 61 "Exponent Knowingtheyhad no sensible reason Co doubt the retin his gauge recollection, Reasonable adjustment for the bag provides complete vindication On game-day Patriots balls stayedin | t's simulation had the ball fae Exponent’s simulation had the balls freely exposed to the air... . so the warming rate was much gore eglower on game-day than in the ‘simulation °*"= Btls should have warmed up to less and have lower pressure than the ~~ “simulation. The pressure they should have. 3 7s... 15 close to what they did have (likely less) Time (in = on) Any difference is likely by chance So as best Exponentcan tell, there was no cheating by the Patriots (Green items not part of the Exponent graph. Dotted green ine parallels the dotted redline dueto combined dataof Figures 29 and 30) Figure 11 Using Exponent’s data, together with knowledge that being together ina bag slows ball warming aot, the Patriots ball pressure was right where it was supposed to be This puts expected simulated pressure almost exactly on top of the actual pressure ~ which was likely just good luck that it would match that well. teh More evidence that Exponent was aware that their simulation dida’t m the reality: 31 ROBERT F, YOUNG'S AMICUS CURIAE IN OPPOSITION TO THE NFL'S MOTION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARDCase 1:15-cv-05916-RMB-JCF Document 70 Filed 09/09/15 Page 34 of 61 Recall that Exponent’s central conclusion in the case is that no factors known to them can explain the ball pressures. Based on the transient curve matching the simulation, the simulation suggests that the pressure should rise 0.35psi during the four minute measurement period. The game-day data does not match that well at all. Based on the Microsoft Excel regression function, there is roughly a | in 8 chance that the game-day observations could be trending down so much if the population of footballs being measured on game day was really rising like the simulations predicted. This is not “proof” that the simulations are wrong, but it casts a lot of doubt on the simulations. It suggests that the simulations were over-estimated how fast the balls were warming in the real half-time period. Whether not Exponent graphed it or not, Exponent had a table indicating that they were studying the data. The last four samples averaged lower than the first four samples. 32 ROBERT F. YOUNG'S AMICUS CURIAE IN OPPOSITION TO THE NFL'S MOTION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARDCase 1:15-cv-05916-RMB-JCF Document 70 Filed 09/09/15 Page 35 of 61 | 2 | ! ! i x | | _ | us * —+— Game data (per non- \ ee logo gauge preferred by Exponent) j u = = Rate of pressure rise in Exponent game-day_| le Simulations | | tos best ft rate of | pressure change | based on the game | | data ' | 10 Lin 8 upper limit | i i | 95 | 1234567891011 t Ball number {in order tested) Figure 12 Patriot's ball pressures in order of measurement, with best fit ine, compared to simulation expected rate of increase, and upper range of 87.5% confidence interval above the best fit line forthe game-data data: [overlapping line) Only a 1:8 chance the data fits simulation There is ample evidence that Exponent was aware of the significance but did not attempt to replicate the same ball handling in their tests. Exponent commented on the bags being similar to the ones in their test and made multiple referenced to the role of the bag on game-day and in their simulation. 33 ROBERT F. YOUNG'S AMICUS CURIAE IN OPPOSITION TO THE NFL'S MOTION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARDCase 1:15-cv-05916-RMB-JCF Document 70 Filed 09/09/15 Page 36 of 61 “Some remained dry and in ball bags (these bags, provided by Paul, Weiss (sic), are believed to be similar, if not identical, to those used by the Patriots and Colts on Game Day. At the end of 2 hours, the balls were removed from the field and brought back into the simulated Officials Locker Room in the ball bags.” ~-Exponent Page 56 item 3 and 4. Exponent indicated the bag was impervious enough to keep balls dry under damp conditions “According to information collected during witness interviews conducted by Paul, Weiss, the Patriots ballboys (sic) attempted to keep the balls as dry as possible during the first half” -- Exponent report Page 54: Grammatical sleight-of-hand: There was no actual day warming rates. tention to make the half-time simulation match game- Exponents’ test description appears at first to assure that that critical simulation was matched to game-day conditions to the best of Exponent’s ability: The procedure used to generate the halftime measurements during Game Day was replicated. --Source: Bottom of Exponent page 56. Perhaps AEI found this assuring, and also figured this was true because of faith that Exponent, biased as they may be, would stay within some expected bounds. Perhaps not accustomed to clever lawyering, AEI missed the special significance of the sentence immediately following the above quotation: 34. ROBERT F. YOUNG'S AMICUS CURIAE IN OPPOSITION TO THE NFL'S MOTION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARDCase 1:15-cv-05916-RMB-JCF Document 70 Filed 09/09/15 Page 37 of 61 Namely, the Logo and Non-Logo Gauges were used. Source: Bottom of page 56. (Bold emphasis added), According to Google, “Namely” means “that is to say.” Thus the entire paragraph reads: The procedure used to generate the halftime measurements during Game Day was replicated. [That is to say], the Logo and Non-Logo Gauges were used. Thus the meaning of “the same procedure was replicated” is transformed into only a claim that the two gauges were used. Had Exponent intended that their use of bags in the locker room simulation matched that of the game day, Exponent would have mentioned the bags to follow the same pattern of repeatedly mentioning the ball bags in describing the other test steps. Evidence of the pattem: “Some remained dry and in ball bags (these bags, provided by Paul, Weiss, are believed to be similar, if not identical, to those used by the Patriots and Colts on Game Day. At the end of 2 hours, the balls were removed from the field and brought back into the simulated Officials Locker Room in the ball bags." -- Page 56 items 3 and 4. Alternatively, if Exponent believed they had made best reasonable efforts to simulate the half-time period, they could have stopped at “The procedure used to generate the halftime measurements during Game Day was replicated”. Or said that and added “the best abil we knew.” There was no data from the NFL. 35. ROBERT F. YOUNG'S AMICUS CURIAE IN OPPOSITION TO ‘THE NFL'S MOTION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARDCase 1:15-cv-05916-RMB-JCF Document 70 Filed 09/09/15 Page 38 of 61 describing whether the Colts’ balls stayed in the bag, whether it was open, whether only the top balls were pulled out, etc. Given the criticality of this issue, Exponent would have known that they should have disclosed what assumptions were made ‘on the Colts’ balls. Because they didn’t do this, it shows that they were trying to avoid calling attention to the issue. In fact, they didn’t discuss these because they made no attempt to simulate them. In light of the warm-up data, the two sentences were created to create an impression of having simulated accurately even though they knew they had not. The balls may well have been sitting freely exposed to airflow in the simulation rather than in the bag on the floor. Whatever their actual location, the results showed it to be equivalent to the balls being on their own pedestals on a table, something Exponent would have sense enough to know was quite potentially very different from game-day. If pressed, I would expect that Exponent would say this: if they had simulated with the balls in the bags, then the Colts’ balls wouldn't have warmed up enough to match the game-day measurements. They might falsely argue that in order to be fair, they had to treat the Colts’ balls the same as the Patriots’ balls. However, there is direct witness testimony that the Patriots’ ball remained in the bag on the floor but no witness comment on whether Colts’ balls might have been handled a while first, or whether the Colts’ balls might have been from the top of a 36 ROBERT F, YOUNG'S AMICUS CURIAE IN OPPOSITION TO THE NFL'S MOTION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARDCase 1:15-cv-05916-RMB-JCF Document 70 Filed 09/09/15 Page 39 of 61 bag that had been open for a long time. There was noted confusion about the Colts’ balls and the timing. There is no testimony to suggest the Patriots’ and Colts’ balls were handled the same. The fact that the handling could have been different must be known by Exponent from their thought into simulating the events. Differences in ball handling are a factor undoubtedly known by Exponent to be sufficient to explain the difference between the Colts’ Balls and the Patriots’ balls. Exponent feigned ignorance in order to indict the Patriots by claiming lack of any explanation. Special significance of this lawyerly wording of the Exponent report as it relates to NFL/Exponent communication and collaboration: Scientists and truly independent investigators tend to prefer direct communication. When the truth is “we did not replicated the most vital questions of halftime, it would be unlike a scientist to open with a sentence to the contrary, only to then retract it in the next sentence. Had there been access to the kinds of edits worked on with Exponent, it quite likely would have exposed the efforts to make as unnoticeable as possible the fundamental issue. Technically there was no lie in the above suspiciously worded description of the half-time simulation process. The lie was created by Exponent asserting that they knew of no likely explanation for how the Patriots’ ball pressures were 37 ROBERT F. YOUNG'S AMICUS CURIAE IN OPPOSITION TO ‘THE NFU'S MOTION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARDCase 1:15-cv-05916-RMB-JCF Document 70 Filed 09/09/15 Page 40 of 61 different than the Colts’ ball pressures. That is the lie central to why there remains much of a scandal. Special significance to the question of whether the Roger Goodell can arbitrate in good faith: Having established behavior this egregious and central to the case, of the kind that would only occur with the plaintiff's consent, it becomes untenable that the arbitration process could have been anything but a sham. Nota bona fide arbitration, and this a violation of the CBA. More Evidence that Exponent knew their simulation didn’t match reality: First red flag: smooth curves on the graph, but no continuous testing of balls in a bag every second. Anyone familiar with the testing would know that at no point did Exponent measure simultaneously and every few seconds the pressure of multiple footballs ina bag. That would have been very impractical and did not match what took place. Therefore they know the transient curves were based on a single ball being tested at a time, out on the table. Given that the warming rate is the central question to be addressed, multiple factors had to be considered, each of which could make a vital difference in the evidence of lack of evidence against the Patriots. * Was the bag open or closed? 38 ROBERT F. YOUNG'S AMICUS CURIAE IN OPPOSITION TO THE NFL'S MOTION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARDCase 1:15-cv-05916-RMB-JCF Document 70 Filed 09/09/15 Page 41 of 61 © Ona table? Ina draft (that would help air move between the balls) or not? ‘© Was the bag really identical to the game bags? What common bags are out there and what difference would it make? Was the bag itself damp (as it may likely have been on game-day)? While it’s not necessary to address the Colts’ balls to prove the Patriots” balls were where they were supposed to be, there was no data provided to assure that the four Colts’ balls that were measured didn’t have much better opportunity to warm up than the 11 Patriots’ balls measured. Regardless of what Exponent did or did not do in their simulation, it’s clear that they knew that there were plenty of physical factors that could cause their simulation to not match reality. Most of them favor adjusting the warming rate in the Patriots’ favor. Exponent made some suggestion their simulation data was biased downward because they dampened all of the balls slightly (spray then wipe off), whereas they presume that perhaps a few balls weren't used on game and were dry. However, the difference between “wet” and misted-and- wiped off was a very small one. A little moisture made a big difference. There’s no reason to believe that any of the balls had remained pertectly dry 39 ROBERT F. YOUNG'S AMICUS CURIAE IN OPPOSITION TO THE NFL'S MOTION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARDCase 1:15-cv-05916-RMB-JCF Document 70 Filed 09/09/15 Page 42 of 61 in the bag with the other balls. There were other variables known to Exponent that could have helped offset or reverse this. Gauge assertion and assumptions: Evidence of deceit: Assertion Exponent dismissed the ref’s recollection of which gauge was used pre- game. As will be shown, Exponent believed none of the reasons they gave for over-ruling the ref’s testimony of which gauge he used. Impact Everything else being equal, this adverse assumption makes it look like the Patriots took (another?) 0.37 psi out. The larger the pressure difference, the greater the statistical proof, the greater the implied motive, and the greater justification to claim that the Patriots violated the integrity of the game. Even, with that adverse assumption, if you take into account balls warming. slowly (especially in a closed bag), then there’s not too much difference left between predicted and measured? The observed difference could still be modestly bad luck in measurement and other variables as seen in the testing, rather than some unknown factor. Even if the warming was a bit faster, there are still other factors identified to Exponent and researched in part that could account for the remaining difference. 40 ROBERT F. YOUNG'S AMICUS CURIAE IN OPPOSITION TO ‘THE NFL'S MOTION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARDCase 1:15-cv-05916-RMB-JCF Document 70 Filed 09/09/15 Page 43 of 61 It seems that Exponent was unduly over-confident disbelieving that any would make a difference. A separate section is devoted to that. Impact on whether the NFL violated the CDA by nut attempting ty arbitrate in good faith: It indicates that Exponent, Wells, and the Commissioner likely colluded to provide plausible deniability to pick the gauge assumption most damaging to the Patriots. One party advances reasons they know don’t pass scrutiny, and the other, colluding party either fails to scrutinize or plays dumb. Given the centrality of this issue to fueling the speculation that Tom Brady would be motivated to engage in a conspiracy, this deserved special attention and Goodell was unfair to not question the reasons. He knew the report was not- independent. The complete list of reasons Exponent cited. because we found the Logo Gauge to read at least 0.35 psig high in our experiments, while the Non-Logo Gauge reads closer to a calibrated gauge and most of the other gauges tested during the investigation, and because we found during our testing that the Non-Logo Gauge never produced a reading higher than the Logo Gauge, we conclude that it is more likely that the Non-Logo Gauge was used to measure the balls prior to the game. This conclusion is based on data provided to us by Paul, Weiss and data generated by our experiments. It also is consistent with the pressure readings reported by the Patriots, the Colts, and Walt Anderson, --(Exponent page 65) The data provided by Paul Weiss as referenced above: 41 ROBERT F. YOUNG'S AMICUS CURIAE IN OPPOSITION TO ‘THE NFL'S MOTION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARDCase 1:15-cv-05916-RMB-JCF Document 70 Filed 09/09/15 Page 44 of 61 According to information provided by Paul, Weiss, personnel from both the Patriots and the Colts recall gauging the footballs for their teams to pressures at or near 12.5 psig and 13.0 psig, respectively, prior to providing the balls to Walt Anderson. Each team used its own gauge to adjust the final pressures before presenting dhe bulls t the referee, who used a gauge different from either used by the two teams to measure the pressure in the footballs. Walt Anderson recalled that according to the gauge he used (which is either the Logo or Non-Logo Gauge), all of the Patriots and Colts footballs measured at or near 12.5 psig and 13.0 psig, respectively, when he first tested them (with two Patriots balls slightly below 12.5 psig). This means that the gauges used by the Patriots and the Colts each read similarly to the gauge used by Walt Anderson during his pregame inspection --Exponent Page 44). The Paul Weiss data’s significance: The result of the above is to indicate that whatever gauges Patriots and Colts used and the ref used must have read similarly for the pre-game measurements to match the testimony. They all had about the same bias if any. That is good logic. The problem is that none of the reasons given above are ones Exponent would actually believe to dictate which kind they were like: whether they were all like the one the ref said he used or all like the refs less preferred gauge. All we know is that they were all alike. Here is why the separate reasons have no bearing on the question and why Exponent knew that. “Reason” Tested many gauges, all like the one not used. 42. ROBERT F. YOUNG'S AMICUS CURIAE IN OPPOSITION TO THE NFL'S MOTION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARDbecause we found the Logo Gauge to read ... closer to ... most of the other gauges tested during the investigation, There is a sneaky reason for this: all the gauges Exponent bought were the same model as the one the ref denied using. Exemplar Gauge: A gauge that is thought to be nearly identical to the Non- Logo Gauge. Specifically, Model CJ-01 with the description “Electronic Ball Pressure Gauge." Exponent obtained multiple dozens of Exemplar Gauges from both Wilson Sporting Goods (via Paul, Weiss) and other sports equipment retailers. -Exponent report, Page 13 The above creates a superficial appearance that much good test work and logic went into the decision to reject the ref’s recollection. Exponent must know this to be a smokescreen for their decision to overrule the ref for no real reason other than to make the Patriots look guilty. It provides the plausible deniability Goodell needs to pretend to have overruled the Patriots (and the ref’s opinion) in the appeal. Rather than providing evidence that the gauges like the ref said he used are unusual, the testing helped indicated the opposite: it found that gauges of a given model tend to share the same bias and be very consistent. Thus if the ref"s preferred mode! over-reads by 3%, that’s likely because that design over-reads by 3%, Thus it’s not that individual gauges tend to vary. It's not like the ref’s gauge was likely an outlier. 43 ROBERT F. YOUNG'S AMICUS CURIAE IN OPPOSITION TO THE NFL'S MOTION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARDCase 1:15-cv-05916-RMB-JCF Document 70 Filed 09/09/15 Page 46 of 61 “Reason”: teams would shun gauges that are 3% biased. In contrast to this assumption, other filings have established that there was no cuch intence foewo on minor varlattono in presoure across the Icague, 30 no reason to believe teams favored accurate gauges over 3% biased gauges. There’s no reason to believe basketball or soccer teams or other markets for such gauges care that much about 3%. Therefore there no reason to believe a manufacturer would withhold from production an inexpensive, sports-store gauge that happens to have a 3% bias. “Reasons” related to one gauge reading too high (rather than too low): because we found the Logo Gauge to read at least 0.35 psig high in our experiments, while the Non-Logo Gauge reads closer to a calibrated gauge ... and because we found during our testing that the Non-Logo Gauge never produced a reading higher than the Logo Gauge What's the most bizarre is to suggest that people pay special attention to the direction of the measurement bias in their gauge. Even more strangely, Exponent’s assumption means that Exponent thinks teams are especially carefuul to avoid gauges that would allow them to get away with making the ball too soft if someone used them unaware of the 3% error. Only the Packers’ star quarterback, Aaron Rogers, is on the record as preferring to have the football harder rather than softer. Had the Patriots been playing the Packers on that day, then at least the assertion 44 ROBERT F. YOUNG'S AMICUS CURIAE IN OPPOSITION TO. ‘THE NFL'S MOTION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARDCase 1:15-cv-05916-RMB-JCF Document 70 Filed 09/09/15 Page 47 of 61 wouldn't be nonsense. But as it is, the assertion contradicts the NFL's claim that teams might want underinflated footballs. The evidence is that Exponent preferred to assume the ref was wrong because that allowed them to make a better case against Tom Brady. Reasons to believe the ref: © He always travels with the two; he’s bound to have a favorite © One has a much longer needle than the other: © He’s bound to have a favorite length © Makes it easier to remember because this affects how it feels in use. © Ifyou think the Patriots want to cheat, you'd think the Patriots would use a gauge that over-reads (like the one the ref said he used), so you can make the ball look fine on the gauge while putting less air in it, Whatever bias the gauges had, it was the same for both the ref and the Patriots. Therefore the ref must also have used the gauge that over reads. © Ifunder heavy questioning, the ref had not been pretty confident, you'd have gotten a stronger indication of lack of confidence than merely “certainly possible” he was wrong. 45 ROBERT F. YOUNG'S AMICUS CURIAE IN OPPOSITION TO THE NFL'S MOTION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD.Case 1:15-cv-05916-RMB-JCF Document 70 Filed 09/09/15 Page 48 of 61 Proving that Exponent’ final conclusion was a lie The last conclusion in the report was this: ...based on all of the information provided to us, particularly regarding the timing and sequencing of the measurements conducted by the game officials at halftime, and on our testing and analyses, we conclude that within the range of game characteristics most likely to have occurred on Game Day, we have identified no set of credible environmental or physical factors that completely accounts 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 -Exponent concluding paragraph (item 13 on page 68) Emphasis added. The Patriots” pressures are understood and fully explained. By assuming for no good reason that the Colts’ measurements were made before the Patriots balls were re-inflated, Exponent made it look like the Colt’s pressures weren’t explained adequately. Then they used that to cast innuendo on the Patriots, knowing that most readers would assume there to be no uncertainty about the Colts” balls. 46 ROBERT F. YOUNG'S AMICUS CURIAE IN OPPOSITION TO ‘THE NFL'S MOTION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARDCase 1:15-cv-05916-RMB-JCF Document 70 Filed 09/09/15 Page 49 of 61 Exponent knowing they had no sensible reason to doubt the ref in his gauge recollection, Patriots fine — but Exponent says this chart can’t account for the Calts balls Patriot’sball when accounting for slower ‘Time Exponent says was used to re- warming on game-day than in the simulation 21 Ur ball preseuresto get com ome them ready. (NFL didn’t say it - but Exponent assumed it.) 7 Actual game-day colts pressure 3 i i Only 1 in 20 chance simulation and actual disagree this much by just dumb chance Simulated day pressure Time (min) “Time range on game-day when Exponent unreasonably claims the colts balls were most likely (Green itemsnot part of the Exponent graph) measured, (Just four of them) Figure 13 Patriots balls fine, but Exponent clams they can’t explain the Colts all aeessures 47_ ROBERT F. YOUNG'S AMICUS CURIAE IN OPPOSITION TO THE NFL'S MOTION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARDCase 1:15-cv-05916-RMB-JCF Document 70 Filed 09/09/15 Page 50 of 61 Exponent knowing they had no sensible reason to doubt the ref in his gauge recollection, Solution: change time order assumption Patriots and Colts balls both explained Patriot’sball when accounting for slower wepmingongame-daythanin the simulation solution: Recognize that the process ~ — |=. of re-setting Patriots balls was done .. before measuring Colts balls Solution: Recognize that Colts balls were only measured last second. Makes the pressure prediction go up (Green items not part of the Exponent graph) Figure 14 Colts’ ball pressures explained by changing the presumed order of testing, to test the Colts’ balls last ass widely Lunderstood to be what really happened 48 ROBERT F. YOUNG'S AMICUS CURIAE IN OPPOSITION TO THE NFL'S MOTION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARDCase 1:15-cv-05916-RMB-JCF Document 70 Filed 09/09/15 Page 51 of 61 It makes much more sense to figure that the Colts’ balls were measured only at the last minute, Explains how the officials ended up switching which gauge they used between the Patriots test (then the re-inflation) and the Colts test © Consistent with how important it was to make sure Patriot balls were re-prepared for the 2™ half. © Explains why only 4 Colts’ balls were measured: the measurements were cut short to get back to field. © Exponent’s simulation tested the four balls in a 26-second span (p. 58 table 13 middle row, 2x the time span from start to average.) Thus the remaining 8 could have been tested in another minute. If there were plenty of time, why would the break protocol by not following through with their original intention to test them all? Why panic and stop testing them unless there was something really urgent? Robert Blecker, of New York Law School, pointed out to me this passage on Page 2 of the Exponent report, which indicating to him that it was Exponent, rather than the NFL, that made the decision to assume that the Colts’ balls were measured in the middle, after the Patriots ball tests, before the refs pumped more air into the Patriots’ footballs: 49. ROBERT F. YOUNG'S AMICUS CURIAE IN OPPOSITION TO THE NFL'S MOTION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARDCase 1:15-cv-05916-RMB-JCF Document 70 Filed 09/09/15 Page 52 of 61 According to information provided by Paul, Weiss, it is clear that of the three events listed above, the measuring of the Patriots balls occurred first. Although there remains some uncertainty about the exact order and timing of the other two events, it appears likely the reinflation and regauging occurred last. --Exponent report, page 2. Exponent gave no reason for saying that “it appears likely.” The flow of the quote does not indicate that the “it appears likely” assumption came to the “according to information provided by Paul”. It seems to be Exponent deciding that “it appears likely”, and for no good reason, and against other contrary reasons known to Exponent. The real reasoning seems apparent: Something incriminating was sought, and only by making the illogical assumption could Exponent impugn the Patriots. 50_ ROBERT F. YOUNG'S AMICUS CURIAE IN OPPOSITION TO THE NFL'S MOTION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARDCase 1:15-cv-05916-RMB-JCF Document 70 Filed 09/09/15 Page 53 of 61 Data shows the ref was right about the gauge. Ref must have been right on gauge use (his being wrong doesn’t fit the results) Revised predicted simulation based == “* on Colts balls tested at last minute If this is the right chart (if the ref was wrong), then the simulation is outside the tolerance range. i § i i Solutions: a) Colts cheated (let out air?) eee b) Exponent simulation didn’t match reality (so the Exponent report is ruined) ¢) Believe the ref (so don’t use this {Green items not part of the Exponent Figure) chart) Figuee 15 Ref must have been right on his gauge use, because for him being wrong doesn't fit with the Cots ball pressure measurements 3t halftime Therefore the Colts’ ball pressure is properly explained fully within the information supplied by the NFL to Exponent, The Exponent research, when used without bogus assumptions applied to it, proves that the ref was right about which gauge was used, and that the Patriots ball pressure was what it was supposed to be. 51_ ROBERT F. YOUNG'S AMICUS CURIAE IN OPPOSITION TO THE NFL'S MOTION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARDCase 1:15-cv-05916-RMB-JCF Document 70 Filed 09/09/15 Page 54 of 61 Therefore, whatever you believe about the text messages, no air was removed, There was no cheating (unless it was by 0.1 psi ~ which would be silly and pointless and of no value). Other uncertainties, unsuitability for iminal-like” penalties. Whatever benefit the Patriots got from the simulation making all balls a little damp (whereas a few balls may have been dryer but not bone dry), there were other factors that, if fully simulated, would have counter-acted that effect. If one side’s expert says “more likely than not, but not conclusive”, then there's a good chanced that there’s enough extra dimension of uncertainty outside the statistics to give pause so as to not frequently dole out excessive, undeserved punishment: How expert are they? Does their model perfectly match reality? Has bias influenced their judgment calls? By this point it’s clear that Exponent had some biases. It’s inappropriate to take their other judgments at face value with no range of uncertainty. Some clues that Exponent testing didn’t cover some of the factors Exponent was aware of, factors that had been identified, that could have resulted in lower pressures: * Since they contend that most balls were damp, why didn’t they use a damp ball in their test where they pressed on a ball with a piston? Anyone who’s worn athletic shoes knows that the same flexing causes 52 ROBERT F. YOUNG'S AMICUS CURIAE IN OPPOSITION TO ‘THE NFL’S MOTION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARDCase 1:15-cv-05916-RMB-JCF Document 70 Filed 09/09/15 Page 55 of 61 more stretch when there’s moisture. Note: Exponent testing found that leather, rather than the bladder, determines ball pressure. Exponent buried this in footnute 39. © Kickers try to flex the ball by pushing on the ends. Nobody pushes on the center. If it made good sense to impose criminal-like penalties for more “more likely than not” suspicion, then society wouldn’t have a “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard and a unanimous jury requirement. Given how close some of the numbers are on the non-ref gauge at low warming rates, even a 0.0Spsi difference (well under 1%) can tip the scale from “no particular evidence” to “more likely than not”. It seems evident that Exponent biased their results a bit by pretending that things don’t make a difference. Proof of non-cheating Based on my estimate that being in a bag, closed for the first two minutes, greatly slows warming, there is very little room for even undetected cheating. 53. ROBERT F. YOUNG'S AMICUS CURIAE IN OPPOSITION TO ‘THE NFL'S MOTION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARDCase 1:15-cv-05916-RMB-JCF Document 70 Filed 09/09/15 Page 56 of 61 No cheating detected Undetected cheating would be tiny Simulated pressure (in bag) If you think they snuck 0.1 psi out, then the simulation plus cheating would predict this pressure. "At the outer 95% confidence limit of distance from the actual). Onlya 1:20 chance the mes would be as high as Patriots cheated. Therefore, if they did cheat, it was by no more than 0.1psi For all practical purposes, the data provesthey did not cheat OD (Green items not part of the Exponent graph. Figure 16 No cheating detected, and any cheating too small to be detected would be completely irralevant Perspective on “what if Patriots cheated but by too small an amount to be caught by the testing: impact on motive and game-integrity relevance Based on the ill-seeming texting data, some may be inclined to assume that the Patriots must have cheated, and that the data just wasn’t sufficiently precise to catch them. If one took a hundredth of a psi out, no one would ever know. But why would you? 54 ROBERT F. YOUNG'S AMICUS CURIAE IN OPPOSITION TO THE NFL'S MOTION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARDCase 1:15-cv-05916-RMB-JCF Document 70 Filed 09/09/15 Page 57 of 61 With a little lower pressure to due to a better simulation of the game-day conditions, the pressure prediction drops to closer to the game day measurement, In other words, the balls had close to exactly the pressure they were supposed to. Therefore the evidence is that there was no cheating. At most, the amount by which the most-likely predicted pressure and the measured pressure are very small. That means very little motivation to cheat by any amount not detected and very little effect on the game. If you assume a 50% decrease in warming rate (especially given that the bag was likely closed for the first two minutes, Exponents’ Figure 30 should be read at 2 minute, at which simulation data suggests the balls were off by a statistically completely insignificant 0.1 psi. If you think that ref gave the Patriots a break by not using the gauge he thinks he did (the one he probably uses first everywhere he goes), the difference the Patriots “got away with” would be 0.47psi (adding the game-day difference of the two gauges, 0.37, to the 0.1). 55. ROBERT F. YOUNG'S AMICUS CURIAE IN OPPOSITION TO THE NFU'S MOTION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARDCase 1:15-cv-05916-RMB-JCF Document 70 Filed 09/09/15 Page 58 of 61 How much of an advantage is that and how much does it affect integrity of the game? S uch a 0.Ipsi difference is: © Less than 1% of the ball pressure © Stil imes more the amount of extra air the Colts legally and voluntarily put in the ball (0.5psi) ° 25 times the amount by which the ref disadvantaged the Patriots in the Jets game by over-inflating (16-13.5 psi) Conclusion: © 20 times the amount that this coming season, balls in the 2nd half of 30-degree games will be at higher pressure than they were in all previous years (because previously the balls weren't pumped at halftime to make up for losing pressure due to cold) (2 psi) To verify the row (2psi increase) calculated as follows: Assuming, balls were and will continue to be first set to | 3psi indoors, but that refs will pump them up to 13 again on the field at halftime under the new rules. For ballpark proof that 2psi is the right number, compare first and last row of Table 10 on page 37 of the Exponent report, multiply by 2 for 40-degree differential (70 degree locker to 30 degree field) rather than 20 degrees to calculate 2.01 psi difference. The net result of the Exponent research isn’t evidence against the Patriots. It isn’t inconclusive. It is conclusive evidence of no wrongdoing. The reason that evidenced to prove innocence was not discovered earlier is the hidden through lies and deception (and bias and ill-will). Therefore you can’t blame the Patriots for not catching it sooner during appeal. Therefore the NFL 56 ROBERT F. YOUNG'S AMICUS CURIAE IN OPPOSITION TO ‘THE NFU'S MOTION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARDa —_—— $$ eee ae Case 1:15-cv-05916-RMB-JCF Document 70 Filed 09/09/15 Page 59 of 61 decision was changed due to the lack of due process. The CBA cannot possibly be construed as agreeing to this kind of behavior. In addition to the arbitration decision being wrong, it must be overtumed. 57_ ROBERT F. YOUNG'S AMICUS CURIAE IN OPPOSITION TO ‘THE NFL'S MOTION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARDCase 1:15-cv-05916-RMB-JCF Document 70 Filed 09/09/15 Page 60 of 61 Sources: Exponent report: is part of the Wells Report, produced for the NFL: huip://static.nfl.com/statie/content/publie/photo!2015/05/06/0ap3000000491381.ndF American Enterprise Institute (AEI) critique of the Wells/Exponent report: “On the Wells Report”: https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/20 1 5/06/On-the-Wells- report.pdf 58 ROBERT F. YOUNG'S AMICUS CURIAE IN OPPOSITION TO ‘THE NFL'S MOTION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARDCase 1:15-cv-05916-RMB-JCF Document 70 Filed 09/09/15 Page 61 of 61 Date: August 25, 2015 Respectfully submitted, Ches 2 Gey P Robert Young Fitzwilliam, NH 03447 Word count certification: Using MSWord, | determined the word count to be below 14,000. 59 ROBERT F. YOUNG'S AMICUS CURIAE IN OPPOSITION TO THE NFL'S MOTION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARDCase 1:15-cv-05916-RMB-JCF Document 71 Filed 09/09/15 Page 1 of 2 faust 12 2015 Newierrer Senet lh &% yiuvrec Prepnas M, Kerrie 500 PEwmL SH i HP MY-MY, Y sob MEMO ENDORSED Pear Fuoce BECMAM: Sua Akl tow # i MYSTEAY TO ME, Mece CHéens Fd Tom Setoy Sionctok Siatenon Shaap (9 fA latin role ctf on daden ohucCase 1:15-cv-05916-RMB-JCF Document 71 Filed 09/09/15 Page 2 of 2 Thank you for your submission — I apologize for the delay in responding. We have placed your submission on the court dockets for the NEL v. NELPA (Tom Brady) matter (15 Civ. 916 and 15 Civ, 5982). 1M Richard M. Berman, USDJ ats