Deadspin.Could you let me know who wrote this and what exactly was said so I can not give it clicks?
As a level-headed Pats fan, it’s been easy to enjoy the Patriots ill-gotten success. It’s like being a Wall Street banker, reaping the rewards of beating the market. Kind of a “hate us cause they ain’t us” mentality.
The only problem is the Tawmmy from Bahhston martyrs who cry for their perceived victimization. It’s like when rich people whine about the class warfare from the comfort of their ivory towers.
...who are pandering to the non-New England commentariat and the narrative that we are all insufferable hotheads with a victim/inferiority/persecution complex.I work for a newspaper in Florida, and am a Pats fan, and wrote a similar column about this over the offseason. Pats fans should stop bitching and just accept the villain role. Play it up. When you whine you give everyone more ammunition. When you say, so what they have four Super Bowls, people don’t know how to respond. Just own the shadiness. Anyway this was a good take and I wish more Pats fans would listen.
(Repeating my post from January)I saw Ballghazi out in the wild long before I joined here, but not sure where it originated.
ABC owns ESPN, yes.Even the friggin soap operas are getting into the act, on GH Thanksgiving program today, a Jets and Bills fan were watching the game on TV. It was Bills vs Pats tied with 20 seconds to go and Brady had the Pats almost in field goal range when he threw a pick six that was returned 60 yds for the Bill to win. Soap was on ABC, are they affiliated with ESPN?
ABC owns ESPN, yes.
That is correct.I believe Disney owns both, don't they?
Sounds more like Fantasy Island.Even the friggin soap operas are getting into the act, on GH Thanksgiving program today, a Jets and Bills fan were watching the game on TV. It was Bills vs Pats tied with 20 seconds to go and Brady had the Pats almost in field goal range when he threw a pick six that was returned 60 yds for the Bill to win. Soap was on ABC, are they affiliated with ESPN?
Nah, on Fantasy Island Revis would be the guy in the Bills jersey...Sounds more like Fantasy Island.
Thank you for putting into words what I've found so irritating about Deadspin and it's comment section over the past 2+ years.I think it's an interesting topic. Buried under 500 layers of bullshit, but still interesting. Deadspin seems to be the HQ of Boston/Pats fans who rush to out-do one another in terms of denouncing the rest of the fanbase for being whiny assholes. In my opinion, this is much more lame than simply being a whiny asshole, because the world is full of idiots and every team has ignorant dipshit fans that can easily be called out as such from their social media postings.
The original post by Samer is the epitome of this behavior as no one has been talking about DFG for a couple months and it doesn't seem to be in response to any specific controversy beyond the Sportscenter tweet, which is a pretty thin foundation for an article like this. Then you get to the the comments section, and people like this:
...who are pandering to the non-New England commentariat and the narrative that we are all insufferable hotheads with a victim/inferiority/persecution complex.
Maybe I was insulated by primarily following the whole saga on SOSH but to me the panderers are worse than the sports radio whiners because they see themselves as the cool, self-aware Pats fan who's not like all the other tools -- but don't have the spine to just brush it off and go about their day. They gotta distance themselves like Obama did to Jeremiah Wright, with the small caveat that instead of a presidential race, it's the internet, and the additional caveat that no one gives a fuck.
I guess this turned into more of a rant than a thesis but this phenomenon is bizarre. You don't really see it with other teams or cities unless I'm just blind. It does reinforce my main takeaway from the DFG saga, however, which is that Everyone Sucks.
They were told by the NFL to "prove" the hypothesis that evil Patriots had deflated footballs. They're a junk science outfit whose job is to "prove" the laughably absurd (e.g. petrochemical spills don't harm the environment) and muddy the waters enough at trials that juries are confused.After watching that video, one cannot help to wonder what really happened with Exponent. Were they rushed? Are they incompetent? Did they have an agenda? Unless this professor made some sort of mistake, isn't this the slam dunk debunking in a very digestible format (i.e. a layperson can follow it)?
I know that Brady is waiting for the appeals to play out, but if he wins he really should sue Exponent, even though it would drag this disaster out even longerAfter watching that video, one cannot help to wonder what really happened with Exponent. Were they rushed? Are they incompetent? Did they have an agenda? Unless this professor made some sort of mistake, isn't this the slam dunk debunking in a very digestible format (i.e. a layperson can follow it)?
As we've discussed before, nothing "happened" with Exponent and they are perfectly competent. However, Exponent was not engaged in a search for the truth. They were hired by a client (Ted Wells and, ultimately, the NFL) and produced a report that was faithful to the assumptions that guided their work. Some of those assumptions were dubious to the point where they were laughable, and Exponent went to great lengths to hide the more indefensible of those assumptions. And to a great extent, it worked.After watching that video, one cannot help to wonder what really happened with Exponent. Were they rushed? Are they incompetent? Did they have an agenda? Unless this professor made some sort of mistake, isn't this the slam dunk debunking in a very digestible format (i.e. a layperson can follow it)?
Yep, said otherwise, that was a made to order expert report. Just like the Wells Report itself was not remotely a search for the truth and instead served the NFL's agenda.As we've discussed before, nothing "happened" with Exponent and they are perfectly competent. However, Exponent was not engaged in a search for the truth. They were hired by a client (Ted Wells and, ultimately, the NFL) and produced a report that was faithful to the assumptions that guided their work. Some of those assumptions were dubious to the point where they were laughable, and Exponent went to great lengths to hide the more indefensible of those assumptions. And to a great extent, it worked.
OK, I'm willing to accept that answer. But it also debunks the notion that Ted Wells is anything more than an intelligent, hired lackey/hack of a lawyer. For him to put his name on a report that is so full of holes and logical inconsistency means, at least to me, that the sterling reputation many of the lawyers here genuflected to was misplaced. Unless, of course, they were genuflecting to his "rainmaking" ability. Kudos to Wells for making a lucrative living out of such shoddy work.Yep, said otherwise, that was a made to order expert report. Just like the Wells Report itself was not remotely a search for the truth and instead served the NFL's agenda.
Neither Paul Weiss nor Exponent fell down on the job...except that much of their work was shoddy and therefore easily exposed. And that's a pretty big exception.
He did the best he could with a shitty case. Lawyers "put their names on" shitty cases all the time. IMO his only real sin was his personal proclaimation that he was somehow independent of his client (i.e., his press conference).OK, I'm willing to accept that answer. But it also debunks the notion that Ted Wells is anything more than an intelligent, hired lackey/hack of a lawyer. For him to put his name on a report that is so full of holes and logical inconsistency means, at least to me, that the sterling reputation many of the lawyers here genuflected to was misplaced. Unless, of course, they were genuflecting to his "rainmaking" ability. Kudos to Wells for making a lucrative living out of such shoddy work.
It's an adversarial process. They can't lie, and their continued credibility depends upon their ability to defend their methodology, but if there are flaws in the methodology, that's for the process to bring out--as it has, for all to see, and for all to judge the parties accordingly. Again, the problem is with Wells claiming he was "independent." He was not. He was trying to make his client's case against Brady.But if the employees at Exponent and Wells and his staff were aware that they were applying bad data to help their client frame an innocent man, shouldn't we at least see them as lousy people, regardless of their profession? Or is it like not yelling at the cable company rep when you call, because they just follow the procedures of their job?
This was from October. I didn't listen, but fuck NDT in his fat head.Don't listen to the Oct 9 episode of Neil deGrasse Tyson's StarTalk podcast. This time, Neil isn't leading the charge - instead it's the "expert" panel he brought together and enabled.
* The whole discussion is based on the false premise that the balls were a full 2psi below.
* Corey Booker, Senator, former college football player
- Huge advantage for gripping/throwing the ball and for catching (he was a receiver)
- Advantage not important because "integrity of the game"
- Otherwise, on other topics, seemed to be in the 90th percentile of congressional intelligence. Promoted science and data-driven decision making.
* Dr. Anissa Ramirez, "science evangelist" (whatever the fuck that is, but appears to mean "fails at logic")
- Acknowledged Ideal Gas Law but said that it couldn't account for entire difference - "Morher Nature is off the hook!"
- Acknowledged it was raining when convenient (they'd cheat to ensure a better grip on the ball), but failed to say anything about how the precipitation would further decrease air pressure.
- Her nail in the coffin proof that they cheated? The test performed in the Wells Report that showed the balls could be deflated in the bathroom on under two minutes. Someone needs to teach her the difference between "could" and "definitely did".
* NDT
- Never really weighed in with an opinion. More traffic cop.
- As a scientist, didn't introduce any critical thinking around instrument precision, sample size, etc.
* Crowd was rowdily cheering on the panel (at the Apollo, NY audience)
Oh, and the show's resident "comedian", as always, interrupted any time a scientist was in the middle of making an interesting point. This guy's never said a funny thing in his life. NDT is awesome when he's trying to be serious and educational, but awful when he's trying to be cool and funny. I'm going to delete the podcast now. It's really disappointing that the show sucks, and that assessment has nothing to do with DFG.
And even if someone, say an MIT scientist, was able to completely discredit everything in the Exponent report, the defense of Exponent would go something like this - "you can pay experts to say anything" - and everybody would buy it.Exponent's analysis is nothing more than scientific misconduct, but both they and their attorney buddies will come up with all sorts of excuses as to why they did what they did and why it's perfectly acceptable. Because, after all, they "did science on it".
http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/patriots_nfl/the_blitz/2015/05/transcript_of_ted_wells_conference_callWells did what attorneys are paid to do: represent their client, the NFL in this case, in an adversarial proceeding. Nothing more, nothing less.
I would like to start out by responding to criticisms by Mr. Brady's agent, Don Yee, about my independence and his suggestions that the conclusions of the report were somehow influenced by persons in the league office who wanted to find wrongdoing by the Patriots and Mr. Brady.
The conclusions of the report represent the independent opinion of me personally and my team. And those conclusions were not influenced in any way, shape or form by anyone at the league office. We made a fair and reasonable review of the evidence and we reached conclusions based on the preponderance of the evidence standard, which I was required to apply based on the league's rules.