TeamFirst
On the Game Day Roster
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2007
- Messages
- 394
- Reaction score
- 459
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.I see you attended the Ted Wells School of Let's Get 'Em, Facts Be Damned.
McNally threatening to go to ESPN. -- A joke in a text message
McNally taking the balls into the bathroom in the first place and the particular one he choose. -- 100 seconds to take a leak and wash his hands, or let air out of 12 footballs?
No follow up in person interview for McNally. -- He already was interviewed FOUR times, including a SEVEN-HOUR interview by Wells. He has a full-time job and family. If Wells didn't get what he "needed" in the first SEVEN-HOUR interrogation, that's his problem.
Brady Refusing to hand over his phone or text -- He wasn't required to and was advised not to because it would've set a precedent in subsequent disciplinary cases. Besides, Wells already had all pertinent messages between Brady and the ballboys.
I don't believe Brady did not know McNally. I think he lied and why lie? -- Why do you think he lied? He might not have known McNally by name or remembered his face before or even after the sting occurred.
I see you try to explain away my concerns. Honestly I don't think you did a good job. I don't think your explanations are good and that is the problem.
A joke that's context appears to be dubious
McNally going to that bathroom, why not a closer one?
Pats should have allowed another interview if Wells wanted. Period. Pay McNally for his time If you are concerned about it.
Brady should have handed over his phone. I don't care about precedent and he was a key figure in this investigation. Also we only know what text those 2 sent to Brady. What text might be relevant that Brady sent to others? We don't know.
McNally has worked there for a very long time and been on the sideline a lot and handles the football's Brady uses. I just highly doubt he would not at least know his name and face.
So basically if Bob Smith was acting "suspicious" about the murder of Joe blow but Joe Blow was still alive you would still think Bob Smith may have done it.
Ahhhhhh brilliant.
You are strawmaning here and doing it badly. Joe Blow is alive and well. There is no murder despite what some slimeball named Ted Wells wanted people to think.We are speaking entirely about 2 different standards of proof needed here.
If you want to talk about upping the standard of proof in the NFL fine. I am all for that. It should be more that 51% but that is what it currently is.
so evidence isn't part of your analysis, just a feeling huh?
Well its obvious someone did not read the Wells report, the Pats rebuttal or more importantly follow this case and the nuances.
Not surprising. All of your points above heave clear and reasonable explanations.
You keep avoiding the real issue though. Oh well. Think what you want.I have read much of the report and the entire rebuttle. I don't agree with the Rebuttle's explanations for these things. They were not good enough for me. I don't buy it.
You are strawmaning here and doing it badly. Joe Blow is alive and well. There is no murder despite what some slimeball named Ted Wells wanted people to think.
But there is none.I am using evidence and facts. It is not "hard evidence" though. It depends what you mean by evidence. How about we just call it information?
I have made my point clearly and multiple times with several analogies. Also, I can not find anyone here yet that disagrees with me or even would.How did I straw man? Explain in detail.
You keep avoiding the real issue though. Oh well. Think what you want.
Kraft folded like weasel for something.
How do you accept a punishment when you know you did nothing wrong. Its about integrity! You fight until you exhaust all avenues, you fight for everything you supposedly stand for. You just don't accept a penaty like this for nothing.
Correct.Kraft goes to an owners meeting and suddenly changes his tune. Does that imply
(a) 31 owners got on his case about supporting the 'shield' and threatened him financially
(b) coincidentally some smoking gun evidence suddenly surfaced against the Pats
I'm going with A.
I have made my point clearly and multiple times with several analogies. Also, I can not find anyone here yet that disagrees with me or even would.
I am not hear to tell you that you are not in reality.
But there is none.
There is not a single piece of evidence or testimony that anything untoward was done.
The only evidence created is that someone read text messages and asked what they meant, then called the person a liar and concluded their interpretation was a fact.
There is nothing else.
Evidence is testimony or fact that something occurred. That's just not there.
On top of this if you don't know the balls were underinflated, you can't find someone guilty of something you can't prove is.
Lets put it another way. If the balls were under lock and key the all day long, and no member of the Patriots had access, you have the exact same evidence that you are using.
We are speaking entirely about 2 different standards of proof needed here.
If you want to talk about upping the standard of proof in the NFL fine. I am all for that. It should be more that 51% but that is what it currently is.