The text messages suggest it could have been a regular practice by the team to manipulate air in footballs on any given game. That's what circumstantial evidence is, ,if A is happening then it could suggest B.
As for the nickname... same thing. I'm not talking about hard evidence just circumstantial.
So again, not exactly "NO evidence". I know if this was another team and I didn't know any better, my eyebrow would be raised if there was such text messages. I know the Patriots do not cheat so I think about this circumstantial evidence accordingly. But it's still evidence.
I think he and I are talking about actual evidence. Do you just like to play contrarian to argue?
They have no case. We could do this to every single set of colleagues in any business in America, take out texts, remove contexts, not really know the tone of the texts, and frame people left and right. That's what Goodell did here.
That's why the report took 3 months. They had nothing, so they had to create something. When the Pats put up that counter-report within 24 hours of the Wells Report, that means they knew what Wells/Goodell/Pash were up to LONG before that report was done.
It's why they removed all of the context from around the text exchanges and WHY we never saw the Brady, McNally and Jastremski interviews in the Wells Report.
They didn't like their rational explanations, so they hid them from you and I.
Why bother playing semantics around evidence, when well know what went down here?
You're essentially saying what Goodell is hoping the average person or lawyer will regurgitate in a court room, hoping it sticks.
It's like you're aligning with what a dirty, disgusting attorney might do, but you're a Pats fan?
