Either way, once and for all, timing is not accounted for in Exponent’s statistical analysis. Goodell is either misrepresenting the truth or he is very, very confused and was not able to understand this issue at the hearing. Steffey: There’s no term in there that says time effect. Kessler: This one-structured model that you chose to present as your only structured model in this appendix and in the entire report, okay, has no timing variable in it, correct?” Steffey echoes this fact on page 429 and 430: Kessler: So the initial test you did to determine whether there was anything to study did not have a timing variable? “So the reason you don’t see a timing effect that we concluded in the statistical analysis is because it’s being masked out by the variability in the data due to these other effects.” Caligiuri’s testimony on pg 361 of the hearing: Steffey after much run around and refusal to answer this question. And it is a fact agreed upon by Dr. Caligiuri and Dr.
![red herring fallacy referee red herring fallacy referee](https://pctechmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/CELLPHONE_s878x649.jpg)
“In reaching this conclusion, I took into account Dean Snyder’s opinion that the Exponent analysis had ignored timing…however, both explained how timing was, in fact, taken into account in both their experimental and statistical analysis.” 1 - Timing was accounted for the in the statistical test
![red herring fallacy referee red herring fallacy referee](https://img.youtube.com/vi/exdK7Lirngg/0.jpg)
I’m not going to go into legal details or CBA issues, but I will discuss n then scientific and logical errors and inconsistencies from Goodell’s appeal ruling and the hearing itself in deflategate.
![red herring fallacy referee red herring fallacy referee](https://i.imgur.com/jkCFxdU.png)
Follow turns out that Roger Goodell, Exponent and Ted Wells just aren’t very good at logic. Whether that’s due to severe defensiveness and a major confirmation bias or something else is irrelevant.