“America’s Worst Charities”
The Center for Investigative Reporting
“America’s Worst Charities”
“America’s Worst Charities”
The Center for Investigative Reporting
“It’s official: Anil Potti faked cancer research data, say Feds”
“Drug Company Raises Price of Daraprim from $13.50 Per Tablet to $750 Overnight”
Using the most forgiving analysis of the work of Exponent, a large number of concerns could be kindly described as numerous serious “flaws” and “weaknesses” which Fraudit.org contends is so beyond the scope of accepted research analysis that it likely reflects intentional misrepresentations and
others which are simply obvious distortions.
(1) The report states “Each team provided at least 24 balls . . . ”
The 48+ potential data points pre-game were never recorded. Exponent essentially fabricated 15 of these data points (11 for the Patriots and 4 for the Colts) for the study, supposedly based on the recall of the officials. All Patriots’ pre-game balls were assigned 12.5 psi and the Colts’ balls were assigned 13.0 psi pre-game. Table 3 of Exponent Appendix 2 shows that the Patriots balls were not just assigned the value of 12.5 but actually 12.500 (to the level of 1/1,000 psi) when there was no recorded data.
For halftime, 11 Patriot balls (22 data points) and just 4 Colts balls (8 data points) were measured (psi).
However, Exponent raises serious doubts to the validity of the Colts ball #3 data and eventually drops it in the analyses. Therefore there are
. Pre-game Half time
Pats 24+ balls and 24+ unrecorded psis 11 balls; 22 psi measurements*
Colts 24+ balls and 24+ unrecorded psis 3 balls ; 6 psi measurements*
* 2 gauges used
of the 30 used data points (initially 4 Colts balls and 11 Patriots balls) were included, 15 were never recorded but were manufactured by Exponent with virtually no attention to the essentially complete corruption of any analysis.
Keep in mind that it appears that all parties agree that the Patriots claimed to prefer psis at the very lowest end of acceptable (12.5) and the Colts report a desired psi was around 13. The HeadSmart Labs analysis (not included in the “Wells Report,” see post below) and even Exponent fully concede that the pressure of the balls were expected to drop during the game. Again, the Patriots balls supposedly started near 12.5 and were expected to drop during the game which they all did. They all fell below 12.5 psi and this is well noted in the report: 100% of 22 readings below 12.5 and 100% of 11 balls with 2 readings below the 12.5 reading, which is all expected.
What is not highlighted is that 50% of the Colts ball readings (3 of 6) and 100% (3 of 3) of readings by one gauge were all below 12.5 at half time. 100% of the 3 usable Colts’ balls had at least one reading below 12.5 at half time (the most unfavorable spin), but Exponent chooses to report it as “Three of the eight Colts measurements were under 12.5 psig.” 3/8 = 37.5% which is more favorable than 50 or 100%. They use ball #3 to expand the denominator from 6 to 8 though Exponent suggests that data of ball #3 is corrupted. They also use the most favorable spin possible: “Each of the Colts balls measured was within the permissible 12.5–13.5 psig range on at least one of the gauges used.” (i.e., 0% were under 12.5) when the worst spin could claim 100% of Colts ball were under 12.5 at the half by at least one gauge. The equivalent view of the data is not afforded to the analysis of the Patriots’ balls – see (3) below. Impartial researchers never engage in this type of misrepresentation.
But this is all fairly irrelevant since the balls are expected to drop in pressure. It is used erroneously in the study to draw suspicion. So, 100% of Patriots balls were under 12.5 and 0% of Colts balls under 12.5 per Exponent but 100% of all Patriot and 100% of usable-data Colts balls had at least one measure under 12.5 at the half. How many readers would realize that though?
In every comparison, the most favorable spin in Colts data is chosen and the least favorable when the Patriots are analyzed. In at least one case the researchers simply falsify a conclusion about the data presented.
So, a fairer analysis would be to measure the drop in psi to what is expected. HeadSmart Labs physically did this analysis and determined that the Patriot ball deflations fell within what was expected.
If Exponent’s predictions are to be trusted on this one point, they state (p 40) “these equations predict that the Patriots balls should have measured between 11.52 and 11.32 psig at the end of the first half.” If one looks at the table on page 68 of “The Wells Report” portion, 11 out of 22 or exactly half of the numbers are above 11.32. Furthermore 8 out of 11 measurements by one gauge are above 11.32. Yes, 8 out of 11! This is not pointed out by the Exponent authors. In fact they falsely claim that “Most of the individual Patriots measurements recorded at halftime, however, were lower than the range predicted . . . ” When does 50% count as most? (There is the falsification). Why would they never discuss the potentially most exculpatory data to benefit the Patriots: the 8 out of 11 favorable numbers. This would be more consistent with HeadSmart Lab’s experiment (see post below).
One of the 2 gauges were used pre-game on the Patriot balls. No one knows which. If it was the presumed higher measuring ‘logo’ gauge, 8 of 11 numbers were within expected with no direct mention by Exponent. If the other had been used it was 3 out of 11, but again no one knows which was used. If the “at least one” standard (previously applied to the Colts) is used, again 8 out 11 are within expected for the Patriots. Does the distinct possibility of 8/11 within predicted range appear to be evidence of tampering? Why is this possibility not even mentioned?
Does the data suggest tampering during this game or like HeadSmart Lab’s experiment actually suggest data potentially fairly consistent with the weather and field conditions and the conclusions have been aggressively manipulated to suggest otherwise? Can guilt be assigned without evidence of a ‘crime?’
Fraudit.org gives no credence to Exponent’s adjustments to “Master Gauge pressures” since there is no clearly adequate explanation of this conversion. Exponent determined the length of the report and chose in their unlimited space and one opportunity to not explain it adequately and it is therefore rejected.
The heavy reliance of Exponent on a greater degree of change (while eliminating the possibly most favorable change data for the Patriots) compared to the Colts as evidence of tampering is academic nonsense. The researchers are assigning the Colts balls as an unassailable control when there is no justification for a researcher to ever do this. The Colts balls were assigned a control status but measurements were only attempted on 4 of their balls (3 balls with usable data) at halftime when there were reportedly 24+ Colts balls for this game and 50% of the data were manufactured for the study.
Exponent contemplates the possibility of the non-logo gauge or the logo gauge being used on the Colts or the Patriots but inexcusably does not factor the possibility of one gauge being used on one team pre-game and the other on the other team pre-game. There is no written game day documentation presented to eliminate this possibility.
the 4 possibilities include (accepting Exponent’s conclusions regarding the logo vs non-logo gauges and the possible switching of gauges between the officials at half time between measuring the team balls)
team pre-game half time
Patriots a non logo Blakeman = non logo, Piroleau = logo
. b logo Blakeman = non logo, Piroleau = logo
Colts c non logo Blakeman = logo, Piroleau = non logo
. d logo Blakeman = logo, Piroleau = non logo
Table 7 follows the assumption by Exponent that the officials switched gauges at halftime between the 2 teams’ measurements and their assumption that the lower numbers represent the non logo gauge. So there were 2 gauges used on game day with no recording whatsoever of their use. There is the belief that both gauges were used at half time, and the possibility of both gauges being used pre-game is eliminated, but there is no game day documentation presented to justify this. The analysis includes only the possibilities that the non logo or the logo gauges were used on both teams pre-game. Why?
If the omitted possibility of the logo gauge being used on the Patriots pre-game and the non logo gauge on the Colts pre-game the difference in pressure drops between the Patriots and Colts potentially shrinks considerably (1.01 – 0.73 = 0.28), less than half of the 0.66 and 0.68 possibilities Exponent chose to highlight in table 7. This greater drop in the home team ball pressure is used to draw suspicion of tampering. But there are 4 possible scenarios, not 2 and no one knows which one of those 4 is correct since there was virtually no acceptable level of documentation of procedures.
The officials are not researchers and certainly should have been provided a research supervisor/advisor on game day to oversee this ad hoc ‘study.’
So an a/c scenario and a b/d scenario is considered but a/d and b/c scenarios are mysteriously omitted.
Since the officials made no records of the gauges used, there is no reason to consider only 2 of 4 possibilities other than to hide the most favorable data (b/c) for the home team. A/d is the worst case scenario for the home team.
DISCLOSURE: The author is an educator in the health sciences who has owned season tickets to an NFL team, which plays many states and 100s of miles away from Massachusetts and the New England area, for almost 2 decades.
The author has traveled once to see another NFL team play: to root for the author’s longtime other favorite team, the Colts against the Patriots in Indianapolis.
(c) 2015 Fraudit.org
Full PDF of
“INVESTIGATIVE REPORT CONCERNING FOOTBALLS USED DURING THE AFC CHAMPIONSHIP GAME ON JANUARY 18, 2015”
aka “Wells Report” or “DeflateGate” Report
The Exponent portion begins on the 145th page of this PDF
after the table of contents, the text of this portion is between the PDF page 154 – 243
HeadSmart Labs “DeflateGate” Study
“Toyota calls in Exponent Inc. as hired gun”
2010 LA Times
“The California engineering firm is known for helping big corporations weather messy disputes. It denies accusations that it skews results to benefit its clients.”
“When some of the world’s best-known companies faced disputes over secondhand smoke, toxic waste in the jungle and asbestos, they all turned to the same source for a staunch defense: Exponent Inc. . .
“If I were Toyota, I wouldn’t have picked somebody like Exponent to do analysis,” said Stanton Glantz, a cardiologist at UC San Francisco who runs a database on the tobacco industry that contains thousands of pages of Exponent research arguing, among other things, that secondhand smoke does not cause cancer. “I would have picked a firm with more of a reputation of neutrality.” . .
The firm was hired by Exxon to show that a double hull probably would not have prevented the Valdez disaster of 1989. . . .
Swiss Re, an insurer of the World Trade Center, hired Exponent after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks to argue its case that it should have to pay only half the $7 billion in claims sought on the grounds that the collapse of one tower would have compromised the entire complex even if the second tower had not fallen.
Cindy Sage, an environmental consultant in Santa Barbara who specializes in electromagnetic interference, said that much more extensive testing than described in the report would be necessary to find a potential problem.
Sage, who has faced off against Exponent witnesses on safety issues in the past, said Toyota’s hiring of Exponent was telling.
“The first thing you know is that when Exponent is brought in to help a company, that company is in big trouble,” she said.
“Lilly Sold Drug for Dementia Knowing It Didn’t Help, Files Show”
“I Was Raped—and the Police Told Me I Made It Up”
” . . Sara Reedy was working as a cashier in a gas station in . . Cranberry, Pennsylvania . . .
Frank Evanson, the detective . . . accused her of stealing the cash from the drawer and fabricating the assault story as a cover-up. She was put in jail for five days, and waited eight . . . months for her criminal trial. . . .
Wilbur Brown was arrested for a similar crime a month before Sara’s trial date in 2005. He confessed to both Reedy’s assault and the robbery, in addition to numerous other rapes. . . .
. . . she sued the Cranberry Township Police Department. But the suit was dismissed in 2009, after Detective Evanson presented evidence claiming that Sara had pulled the power cord to the gas station’s security system an hour before the time she claimed to have been assaulted. She pulled the cord, he testified, in order to steal the $600, and then invented the rape story as a mere diversion.
Except, it turns out, the good detective had misread the security company’s timestamp data . . . ”
Dec 2014 Waltham, MA
“Waltham woman pleads guilty to embezzling $350K from condo complex”
“A Waltham woman admitted over the summer to embezzling about $350,000 from a condominium complex, according to the Middlesex District Attorney’s Office.”
Dec 2014 Keystone, CO
“Keystone HOA’s financial admin charged with embezzlement”
“. . . an external audit last month revealed that $160,000 in Treasury bills was missing from the HOA’s surplus funds. . . .”
Oct 2014 Torrington, CT
“Ex-treasurer accused of stealing $87,000 from Torrington homeowner’s association”
“A former president and treasurer of a local homeowner’s association is facing felony larceny charges after the organization said he stole more than $85,000 from their bank account.”
Sep 2014 South Florida
“New Case of Theft, Fraud by a South Florida Homeowners Association President”
“EMBEZZLEMENT LEADS TO BANKING FRUSTRATION” – Fraud Magazine
” . . . recent case . . . The property manager usually attended the regular board of directors’ meeting over the course of two years. However, she surprised everyone when she abruptly resigned and told board members that she’d embezzled all of the association’s funds.”
Aug 2014 Scottsdale, AZ
“Scottsdale HOA sues property management company” ” . . . accused of embezzling more than $3.4 million”
“Their property management company is accused of embezzling more than $3.4 million.”
Aug 2014 Tamarac, Fl
“Tamarac HOA president charged with forging checks”
“About $200,000 stolen from residents of Mainlands home community”
Jul 2014 Severn, MD
“Community leader convicted of theft from Severn condo association”
“An Anne Arundel County woman once honored for her activism pleaded guilty Thursday to misusing nearly $74,000 of her community association’s money.”
Jul 2014 West Palm Beach, Florida
“Ex-condo association president, 82, arrested on embezzlement charges in West Palm Beach”
“A former condominium association president was arrested Thursday and charged with allegedly embezzling about $22,500 in association funds to pay for a long-distance affair.”
Jun 2014 Rockland County, NY
“Former Bon Aire treasurer indicted for allegedly pilfering $81K from condo fund”
Jun 2014 Hampton Beach, NH
“Former condo president guilty of mail fraud”
“A former Hampton Beach condominium president pleaded guilty Friday in U.S. District Court in Concord to one count of mail fraud for allegedly embezzling hundreds of thousands of dollars from his condo association. . . .”
May 2014 Westport, CT
“Milford Resident Admits Embezzling From Ct Condo Associations”
“Deirdre M. Daly, United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut, announced that DAVID LIPTAK, 49, . . . pleaded guilty today. . . . to one count of interstate transportation of money obtained by fraud. . . . LIPTAK was employed by Consolidated Management Group (“CMG”) of Westport. . . . approximately June 2008 to March 2012, LIPTAK embezzled approximately $108,000 from CMG.”
April 2014 Clearwater, FL
“Former Clearwater condo association president sentenced on theft, fraud charges”
“The former president of a Clearwater condominium association has pleaded guilty to grand theft and fraud charges and has been sentenced to two years in prison.
Barbara Lockett, 52, a real estate broker, convinced an investor to put money into Mission Hills Condominiums. But police said at the time of her arrest that she swindled nearly $300,000 by trying to sell condos that were in foreclosure or off the market.”
Feb 2014 Worcester, MA
“Condo trustee charged with embezzling nearly $15K from Mill Hill Condo Association in Worcester”
“Condo trustee Aaron Church has been charged with embezzling nearly $15,000 from the Mill Hill Condominium Association.”
Jan 2014 Texas
“Condo Manager Sentenced for Embezzlement”
“A former building manager for a local condominium is sentenced for embezzling tens of thousands of dollars of homeowner association funds.
Benny Hopkins was found guilty of theft of property over 20- thousand- dollars. He’s sentenced to 10 years deferred adjudication and will also have to pay more than 63- thousand- dollars in restitution. . . . “
Jan 2014 Hallandale, FL
“Former Hallandale condo manager gets 10-year sentence in kickback scheme”
” . . . sentenced to 10 years in prison Friday for participating in a kickback scheme that fleeced unit owners out of more than $3 million.”
bold / color emphasis added on this post and throughout this website
“Nurse impersonator cared for Bobbi Kristina”
“Hit with 70k emails, Delmont firm deleted account — including warning about $3.5M theft”
” . . . the Westmoreland County energy company’s techs deleted the email account. But among the 70,000 emails was a crucial one that might have helped stop a huge theft. It was from First Commonwealth Bank, notifying the Delmont company that it had just wired more than $3.5 million to Russia.”
“DraftKings pulls advertising from ESPN amid questions of inside trading”
“EPA accuses Volkswagen, Audi of evading emission laws”
“Those cars emitted nitrogen oxides, which can exacerbate respiratory conditions such as asthma, at up to 40 times the standard level, the EPA said.
Volkswagen admitted to investigators that it had installed the defeat device, the EPA said.”
“Academy Award Winner; Best Documentary. Follows director Laura Poitras and journalist Glenn Greenwald’s encounter with former NSA contractor, Edward Snowden.”