chevss454
Data-driven decision-making is science and art.
Well, mostly...
Her name is Julie Marron and she’s the director of a recent documentary called “Four Games in Fall.” It’s about Deflategate, which began at 12:55 a.m. January 19, 2015, a few hours after the Patriots smacked the Colts, 45-7, in the AFC Championship Game.
I know something about Deflategate.
I broke the stupid story.
But given my involvement, I wanted to speak to Marron, whose compelling documentary makes a strong case that the Deflategate science was flawed, that Exponent, the company hired to investigate the science, was basically a science-for-hire, doubt-science operation and that the NFL’s investigation was deeply flawed as well.
“Based on all the research I’ve done,” Marron said, “I don’t believe anything improper happened. I was very satisfied there wasn’t a scandal; not only wasn’t there a body, but nobody was missing.”
Over the next hour, we talked. She told me her hypothesis. She told me she had no horse in the race, having grown up with little to no interest in football. She told me about how an MIT scientist (an Eagles fan) proved the deflation could all be explained by natural atmospheric conditions. She brought in experts on “science for hire,” or “doubt science,” making the case that Exponent, the company the Wells Report used during the investigation, was known for producing pre-determined outcomes.
She pointed to the many dubious steps that were taken throughout the investigation, the way the league manipulated the media for its purposes. She pointed to all the more pressing issues facing the league, like domestic violence and traumatic brain injury, and views Deflategate as a manufactured deflection or, as ESPN’s Don Van Natta and Seth Wickersham suggested, it was a makeup call for the mishandling of Spygate.
The documentary is decidedly one-sided; no voices are offering the counterargument. But it wasn’t for a lack of trying. Marron and her team reached out to the NFL, reached out to Wells, reached out to Exponent and all of them declined to be interviewed.
“The NFL deliberately lied about things, withheld information and spent months digging in to construct a narrative,” she said. “To me, the fact that they could do this to arguably the most successful player in the league was pretty chilling,”
Here we were, talking nearly six years after the whole thing began, and I began wondering in earnest: Could I have been wrong about Deflategate, the scandal/fiasco that seized the American sporting consciousness for nearly a year and resulted in Tom Brady’s four-game suspension and other Patriots-related penalties?
Well?
Is it possible?
I didn’t know if Brady and the Patriots were guilty of anything or not, but I knew an investigation was underway, I shared that news and frankly, I’m damned proud of it. It was right, 100 percent right.
Here’s where I screwed up:
The next day, legendary ESPN national football reporter Chris Mortensen tweeted that 11 of 12 Patriots footballs came in 2 pounds per square inch lighter than the rules allow. I had no reason to doubt Mort or his source; if he’s broken a thousand stories, 999 of them have been right on target. If this was some no-name blog from some guy in Sheboygan, it wouldn’t have registered, but this was Mort, for crying out loud.
Well, this was the one time he got it wrong because he was provided with bad information. Someone at the NFL was acting in bad faith. This was the one out of a thousand.
Now, two days later, back in Indy, I saw the tweet. And I reacted viscerally, which sometimes makes for great tweets and sometimes leaves you bathed in regret.
I tweeted this:
View: https://twitter.com/bkravitz/status/557759912173125634
and this
View: https://twitter.com/bkravitz/status/557760530832961536
The thinking there was that Belichick, a micro-manager of the highest order, had to be involved in this scandal, had to know exactly what was going on. He knows everything, right?
Well.
That’s a pitch I wish I had back.
There are a couple of things along those same lines I wish I had back, but that’s the one that came to mind.
My other regret is I failed to remain above the fray. Understand, I was getting crushed on Twitter and by some members of the Boston media, who I felt were blindly circling the wagons around the uber-successful local franchise. I was genuinely prepared to live with the Wells Report findings, but it’s human nature that when you break a story, you become somewhat proprietary about it. And then with so many people questioning my integrity and methods and just about everything else both professionally and personally, I dug my heels in.
But hey, when your wife and daughters are becoming social-media collateral damage, it’s only natural to fight back. I could handle the threats and the anti-Semitic nonsense, but when you’re involving my family, everything changes.
But here’s the bottom line, and on this count, Marron and I agree: In the collective bargaining agreement, the players agreed to give commissioner Roger Goodell the unquestioned, unilateral power to rule on disciplinary issues. So whatever you thought of the process, or the fact Goodell did not recuse himself while hearing the appeal of his own initial ruling (a mistake) the bottom line remained: He had the ultimate authority to do whatever he wanted in this case or any disciplinary case.
Right, wrong or indifferent, this was Goodell’s call to make.
Want to blame somebody? Blame the NFL Players Association.
Six years later, I am trying to maintain an open mind. The documentary is fascinating and, if you’re interested, it’s available on Amazon, Google, YouTube and iTunes.
Was I wrong to think that something happened?
I don’t think I was.
Maybe that makes me bullheaded, or worse.
Now, can I “prove” it? No more than the Wells Report could. But remember in that case, it was a lower threshold of proof, like a civil case rather than a criminal case. Remember the words “more probable than not” sufficed. We’re not in “innocent until proven guilty” territory here.
And I still laugh at the notion that the texts, which included one equipment manager calling himself “the deflator” were supposed to be related to a man forever hoping to drop weight (as the Patriots’ counter-argument went).
After I spoke with Marron, I re-watched the documentary. I wanted to give her words and her work a chance to resonate once again. Now, six years after the Deflategate tweet, my general sense has remained largely the same. While it’s not provable, I believe something untoward occurred in the minutes before the Patriots-Colts game.
But I am open-minded, too, and am always willing to listen to more arguments on either side.
Six years later, there is a seed – just a seed – of doubt.
Was Bob Kravitz wrong on Deflategate, Tom Brady, Patriots?
I was texting my sources in a white-hot panic, asking again if they were completely sure this story was absolutely right.
theathletic.com
Her name is Julie Marron and she’s the director of a recent documentary called “Four Games in Fall.” It’s about Deflategate, which began at 12:55 a.m. January 19, 2015, a few hours after the Patriots smacked the Colts, 45-7, in the AFC Championship Game.
I know something about Deflategate.
I broke the stupid story.
But given my involvement, I wanted to speak to Marron, whose compelling documentary makes a strong case that the Deflategate science was flawed, that Exponent, the company hired to investigate the science, was basically a science-for-hire, doubt-science operation and that the NFL’s investigation was deeply flawed as well.
“Based on all the research I’ve done,” Marron said, “I don’t believe anything improper happened. I was very satisfied there wasn’t a scandal; not only wasn’t there a body, but nobody was missing.”
Over the next hour, we talked. She told me her hypothesis. She told me she had no horse in the race, having grown up with little to no interest in football. She told me about how an MIT scientist (an Eagles fan) proved the deflation could all be explained by natural atmospheric conditions. She brought in experts on “science for hire,” or “doubt science,” making the case that Exponent, the company the Wells Report used during the investigation, was known for producing pre-determined outcomes.
She pointed to the many dubious steps that were taken throughout the investigation, the way the league manipulated the media for its purposes. She pointed to all the more pressing issues facing the league, like domestic violence and traumatic brain injury, and views Deflategate as a manufactured deflection or, as ESPN’s Don Van Natta and Seth Wickersham suggested, it was a makeup call for the mishandling of Spygate.
The documentary is decidedly one-sided; no voices are offering the counterargument. But it wasn’t for a lack of trying. Marron and her team reached out to the NFL, reached out to Wells, reached out to Exponent and all of them declined to be interviewed.
“The NFL deliberately lied about things, withheld information and spent months digging in to construct a narrative,” she said. “To me, the fact that they could do this to arguably the most successful player in the league was pretty chilling,”
Here we were, talking nearly six years after the whole thing began, and I began wondering in earnest: Could I have been wrong about Deflategate, the scandal/fiasco that seized the American sporting consciousness for nearly a year and resulted in Tom Brady’s four-game suspension and other Patriots-related penalties?
Well?
Is it possible?
Mistakes were made
In the months to come, I made some mistakes, but reporting the existence of the investigation wasn’t one of them.I didn’t know if Brady and the Patriots were guilty of anything or not, but I knew an investigation was underway, I shared that news and frankly, I’m damned proud of it. It was right, 100 percent right.
Here’s where I screwed up:
The next day, legendary ESPN national football reporter Chris Mortensen tweeted that 11 of 12 Patriots footballs came in 2 pounds per square inch lighter than the rules allow. I had no reason to doubt Mort or his source; if he’s broken a thousand stories, 999 of them have been right on target. If this was some no-name blog from some guy in Sheboygan, it wouldn’t have registered, but this was Mort, for crying out loud.
Well, this was the one time he got it wrong because he was provided with bad information. Someone at the NFL was acting in bad faith. This was the one out of a thousand.
Now, two days later, back in Indy, I saw the tweet. And I reacted viscerally, which sometimes makes for great tweets and sometimes leaves you bathed in regret.
I tweeted this:
View: https://twitter.com/bkravitz/status/557759912173125634
and this
View: https://twitter.com/bkravitz/status/557760530832961536
The thinking there was that Belichick, a micro-manager of the highest order, had to be involved in this scandal, had to know exactly what was going on. He knows everything, right?
Well.
That’s a pitch I wish I had back.
There are a couple of things along those same lines I wish I had back, but that’s the one that came to mind.
My other regret is I failed to remain above the fray. Understand, I was getting crushed on Twitter and by some members of the Boston media, who I felt were blindly circling the wagons around the uber-successful local franchise. I was genuinely prepared to live with the Wells Report findings, but it’s human nature that when you break a story, you become somewhat proprietary about it. And then with so many people questioning my integrity and methods and just about everything else both professionally and personally, I dug my heels in.
But hey, when your wife and daughters are becoming social-media collateral damage, it’s only natural to fight back. I could handle the threats and the anti-Semitic nonsense, but when you’re involving my family, everything changes.
Goodell’s authority reigns
It may very well be that science was flawed. We tend to believe whatever science confirms our currently-held bias. If you believed they were innocent, you seized upon the MIT study. If you believed they were dirty, you found evidence in another scientific study from another researcher from an equally august university. Clearly, the investigation was a mess. Clearly, Exponent, while it does some good work and has noted scientists on its payroll, does have a reputation as a science-for-hire outfit, like so many are.But here’s the bottom line, and on this count, Marron and I agree: In the collective bargaining agreement, the players agreed to give commissioner Roger Goodell the unquestioned, unilateral power to rule on disciplinary issues. So whatever you thought of the process, or the fact Goodell did not recuse himself while hearing the appeal of his own initial ruling (a mistake) the bottom line remained: He had the ultimate authority to do whatever he wanted in this case or any disciplinary case.
Right, wrong or indifferent, this was Goodell’s call to make.
Want to blame somebody? Blame the NFL Players Association.
Six years later, I am trying to maintain an open mind. The documentary is fascinating and, if you’re interested, it’s available on Amazon, Google, YouTube and iTunes.
Was I wrong to think that something happened?
I don’t think I was.
Maybe that makes me bullheaded, or worse.
Now, can I “prove” it? No more than the Wells Report could. But remember in that case, it was a lower threshold of proof, like a civil case rather than a criminal case. Remember the words “more probable than not” sufficed. We’re not in “innocent until proven guilty” territory here.
And I still laugh at the notion that the texts, which included one equipment manager calling himself “the deflator” were supposed to be related to a man forever hoping to drop weight (as the Patriots’ counter-argument went).
After I spoke with Marron, I re-watched the documentary. I wanted to give her words and her work a chance to resonate once again. Now, six years after the Deflategate tweet, my general sense has remained largely the same. While it’s not provable, I believe something untoward occurred in the minutes before the Patriots-Colts game.
But I am open-minded, too, and am always willing to listen to more arguments on either side.
Six years later, there is a seed – just a seed – of doubt.