Reply With Quote
It absolutely applies. You are claiming "Brady won't serve a 6 game suspension." You are talking out of your ass.
The are you talking about? lol They DID deflate footballs. That's not even in question. It's become quite evident that no amount of proof will ever be enough to convince you of anything, tbh. You're a defense team's dream juror.
It absolutely applies. You are claiming "Brady won't serve a 6 game suspension." You are talking out of your ass.
Quick! Get that ragin hard-on under control!
ROFL what a ing re . In Ted Wells' opinion they deflated footballs. Nothing more. There is no concrete evidence, just cir stantial evidence, and enough to say "more probable than not". Which can work in a civil case, but even here, the plaintiff can state there's a preponderance of evidence all he wants, he still has to convince a jury. And juries have to actually sit for the entire trial, they can't just read the cliff's notes version, read buzz words the media wants you to read, then make a judgement.
So how did the footballs deflate?
lol, that is none of brady's concern
Ted Wells' opinion!!
do you know something that nobody else does?
Pretty sure they have evidence that the balls were deflated. Come on. What they don't have is evidence that Brady was involved. But that wasn't the point of Wells' report. The investigation was whether the Pats deflated the balls. There's almost no doubt that that was the case.
That Pats cheated ... again. That much is established, so the shills can get off their high horses. As to whether the su ion of Brady's involvement is enough to warrant a suspension, I'd say people seem to forget that the league suspends people for less than that.
Ideal Gas Law. 3 out of 4 Colts balls were underinflated for the same reason.
No, they don't. Did you read the ing report?
So the balls in the Colts game were hearsay?
The balls were underinflated, just like the Colts balls were underinflated. The Wells Report could not conclusively say cheating occurred, which is in the report. It was in Ted Wells' opinion that cheating occurred. Goodell trusts Ted Wells and will use his professional opinion to issue punishments, but that still doesn't make any of it fact.
Bruh, almost everything we take as knowledge in this world is based on a person's opinion based on the data they've collected. The word "probably" doesn't actually mean anything. It's always implied in assertions of fact. The sun will (probably) rise tomorrow. The dinosaurs (probably) died from the fallout resulting from an asteroid crashing into the planet. Today is (probably) May 11. Adding in the word doesn't change the structure of the argument.
If Wells had said that it was his opinion that the Patriots DID know, would that have made you happier? "Probably" is good enough for the NFL, hence why it suspends people for crimes that never go to trial. Sports organizations use the opinions of consultants and arbiters all the time. Some of the biggest changes in the history of the NFL have come from one person's opinion.
The Wells Report clearly states there's no conclusive evidence cheating occurred. If you had read it you'd know that.
But that doesn't matter. It was Wells' informed opinion that cheating occurred. The NFL gave him the power to make that judgment, and he did. There's nothing underhanded about the process, save for fact that Wells is a a hedging loser.
Yeah that's what I just ing said. YOU said there's evidence that the balls were deflated, which is absolutely false.
No. It's true. You already admitted that. Unless you are really going to split hairs on 'underinflated' and 'deflated'.
just sucks because it continues a trend of the league not having any ing clue what it's doing with regards to punishments for rules infractions. they seem to dole out punishments not because they're deserved, but because outside forces pressure them to. there is no consistency to what they do. and since the colts balls were found to be underinflated too, why wasn't there an investigation into that?
just your typical NFL/roger goodell show.
Classic
One implies action taken on the balls, the other does not.
So why does it look like they're gonna just punish Brady and not the Pats as a whole.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
