|
Post by stevec on May 20, 2015 19:03:59 GMT -6
Jim,
I don't want to put words in your mouth either, but if you don't have confidence in Goodall's ability to not screw up the league's case, how much faith do you have in the Wells Report? All indications are that Goodall set up his VP of operations to suspend Brady(illegal according to CBA regulations) so that he would be the sole arbiter in Brady's appeal. How do you explain that? I see it as covering his ass for ordering the Wells Report to reflect a predetermined outcome.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on May 21, 2015 9:40:19 GMT -6
I have yet to see evidence that the Wells investigators did not take the deflator comments out of context, so until they do, I' m siding with the Pats. As it is, the Pats's lawyers have done a pretty good job of showing the Wells investigstors taking Brady's phone conversations out of context. The Wells Report seems more goal oriented than truth oriented. Hi Steve, We really genuinely disagree on this. I think the Pat's rebuttal is laughable. It seems to me that you are overlooking the actual words and clear meaning of the texts entirely with the "out of context" defense. Also, what do you suppose the deflator was doing in that restroom for almost two minutes? Heck, why did he take the balls with him at all? Also, why did Tom take such an interest in Jastremski after the game? Do you suppose that Indy's message to the NFL, delivered in advance, asking them to prevent the Patriots from playing with soft balls was just a coincidence? All of this evidence points to a pattern of minor ball deflation cheating by the Patriots that the rest of the league knew about. I personally think that the rest of the league would have continued to play "no-harm, no-foul" and Indy would not have sent that message to the NFL if Brady had not been so rude after the Baltimore game, although that is just speculation. Steve, I am not sure if these issues ever get before a judge (as in a real courtroom judge), but if it does I think you are going to be really disappointed. In court, Brady's phone records will be subpoenaed. Brady will be made to squirm. It is one thing to lie during a press conference, it is another to lie under oath in a pre-trial deposition when you have no idea what the deflator is going to say. The deflator would of course be made to testify under oath - he could crack wide open. He will also have been deposed in advance of any hearing of course, he might sing before this ever gets to the judge. The Patriots will never risk having the truth told here, mark my words on that one. Kraft's roll-over was step one. Brady soon to be announced deal (rolling over) on his appeal will be step two. Jim
|
|
|
Post by Jim on May 21, 2015 9:47:39 GMT -6
Jim, I don't want to put words in your mouth either, but if you don't have confidence in Goodall's ability to not screw up the league's case, how much faith do you have in the Wells Report? All indications are that Goodall set up his VP of operations to suspend Brady(illegal according to CBA regulations) so that he would be the sole arbiter in Brady's appeal. How do you explain that? I see it as covering his ass for ordering the Wells Report to reflect a predetermined outcome. I think that Goodell is capable of screwing this up the old-fashioned way, through ineptness - not because of some broader conspiracy. The Wells report strikes me as well-researched given that the investigator was hamstrung. Brady did not cooperate. The Pats refused to let Wells interview the deflator after the texts became known. the last thing the Patriots wanted was a more detailed investigation. The Pat's did what they could to hinder Well's efforts. Jim
|
|
|
Post by Jim on May 21, 2015 10:04:38 GMT -6
Jim, Btw, If I were Brady, I would not have let anyone have access to my text messages. Sensitive information is always leaked despite safeguards and promises made. The Wells investigators had access through McNally and Jastremski phone records. Any clsims that Brady didn't cooperate is a joke, and the Patriots' claim the the investigators ignored evidence and failed to follow up with potential witnesses seems entirely plausable considering that Goodall sent the Wells people on a predetermined mission. Steve, Sensitive information? Not sure what Tom has on his phone, but I doubt that any "sensitive information" that might have been leaked from his phone outweighs the damage to Brady's reputation caused by the fact that he refused to cooperate entirely and therefore admitted to guilt and admitted to lying in the view of most citizens of about 49 states. The sponsorship implications to Brady must be in the 10s of millions of dollars. If Brady were actually innocent, I can not imagine why he did not cooperate fully. He has a whole lot on the line here. I really don't want to piss you off (like I've pissed off others in the past)...but seriously. Do you also buy that all of Hillary's deleted emails were nothing but personal stuff, yoga chat, Chelsea's wedding and that sort of stuff? I doubt it. I'm not comparing the magnitude of the offense, but in each case there is only one valid reason for either of these two to hide their email/text data - because the content of that data is deemed more damaging to their reputation than the act of hiding or deleting it. That's the only plausible reason in the court of public opinion. Also, If Wells "ignored evidence and failed to follow up with potential witnesses..." as the Pats allege, they had the opportunity to present that evidence and present those witnesses in an appeal or lawsuit. Bummer for the Pats that Kraft choose not to press his case. If/when the backroom deal emerges cutting Brady's suspension to two games (as I expect to happen in a week or two) will you change your mind about the strength of this ignored evidence and these potential witnesses? Jim
|
|
|
Post by stevec on May 21, 2015 11:21:00 GMT -6
Jim,
Goodell and all his staff will have to turn over their phone and text info also. They will also have to testify under oath. I will agree to change my mind if you agree to change yours if the league caves in by dismissing Brady's suspension. A one game suspension = draw.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on May 21, 2015 13:44:33 GMT -6
Jim, Goodell and all his staff will have to turn over their phone and text info also. They will also have to testify under oath. I will agree to change my mind if you agree to change yours if the league caves in by dismissing Brady's suspension. A one game suspension = draw. I'd certainly change my mind if the league caves and drops the suspension entirely. But not in the way you would want me to. I'd change my mind to believing that the league is irredeemably corrupt and willing to do anything to sweep bad PR under the rug, assuming they drop the suspension with no explanation or lip service to some thin explanation. If the appeal proceeds, and if we are privy to the testimony and evidence, and if Brady states a plausible case that he was not involved, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. I would still shake my head and say to myself, "man, it was really stupid for him to not cooperate fully in the first place..." Brady has a lot of explaining to do to redeem his reputation with those who are admittedly pre-disposed to think the Patriots are repeat cheaters. Jim
|
|
|
Post by stevec on May 21, 2015 14:43:36 GMT -6
Jim, Goodell and all his staff will have to turn over their phone and text info also. They will also have to testify under oath. I will agree to change my mind if you agree to change yours if the league caves in by dismissing Brady's suspension. A one game suspension = draw. I'd certainly change my mind if the league caves and drops the suspension entirely. But not in the way you would want me to. I'd change my mind to believing that the league is irredeemably corrupt and willing to do anything to sweep bad PR under the rug, assuming they drop the suspension with no explanation or lip service to some thin explanation. If the appeal proceeds, and if we are privy to the testimony and evidence, and if Brady states a plausible case that he was not involved, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. I would still shake my head and say to myself, "man, it was really stupid for him to not cooperate fully in the first place..." Brady has a lot of explaining to do to redeem his reputation with those who are admittedly pre-disposed to think the Patriots are repeat cheaters. Jim Those who are predisposed to believe negatively towards the Pats are rivals and jealous fans and sport personalities. No amount of explaining is going to tilt anyone towards believing Brady has redeemed himself. Sports personalities and the media as a whole don't make money and establish reputations by reporting redemption, and rival fans don't want to hear it. Tell me truthfully, that you don't believe that Wells could not have strung together all the info he needed with McNally's and Jastremski's emails and text messages. These messages are most often strung together in a continous thread. Also, tell me that it's not common practice for lawyers ask for information hoping that they would be turned down so that they can imply guilt and lack of cooperation? I spent 10 years of my life playing that game. Quite a few times I asked my lawyer to press for information when it was lacking, and he said something to the effect - no, the point was to show lack of cooperative, that's what we want. Btw, you haven't ticked me off in the slightest, it's been fun. I've been defending the Pats on Cloudy Nights and ticking off quite a few with my unabashed support of Brady and criticism of the Wells report. Even good ol' Clyde signed off the thread saying he didn't want to discuss it anymore. The problem was that nobody read either report and only a few claimed to have glanced at both. Clyde's knowledge of the reports were based on articles written by Mike Lupica and listening to other newscasters. Everyone refused to read the reports, so of course, I cranked up the support rhetoric. The thread died. At least you made the effort, so you're knowledgeably wrong, I can deal with that in a friendly discourse.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on May 21, 2015 15:40:51 GMT -6
I'd certainly change my mind if the league caves and drops the suspension entirely. But not in the way you would want me to. I'd change my mind to believing that the league is irredeemably corrupt and willing to do anything to sweep bad PR under the rug, assuming they drop the suspension with no explanation or lip service to some thin explanation. If the appeal proceeds, and if we are privy to the testimony and evidence, and if Brady states a plausible case that he was not involved, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. I would still shake my head and say to myself, "man, it was really stupid for him to not cooperate fully in the first place..." Brady has a lot of explaining to do to redeem his reputation with those who are admittedly pre-disposed to think the Patriots are repeat cheaters. Jim Those who are predisposed to believe negatively towards the Pats are rivals and jealous fans and sport personalities. No amount of explaining is going to tilt anyone towards believing Brady has redeemed himself. Sports personalities and the media as a whole don't make money and establish reputations by reporting redemption, and rival fans don't want to hear it. Tell me truthfully, that you don't believe that Wells could not have strung together all the info he needed with McNally's and Jastremski's emails and text messages. These messages are most often strung together in a continous thread. Also, tell me that it's not common practice for lawyers ask for information hoping that they would be turned down so that they can imply guilt and lack of cooperation? I spent 10 years of my life playing that game. Quite a few times I asked my lawyer to press for information when it was lacking, and he said something to the effect - no, the point was to show lack of cooperative, that's what we want. Btw, you haven't ticked me off in the slightest, it's been fun. I've been defending the Pats on Cloudy Nights and ticking off quite a few with my unabashed support of Brady and criticism of the Wells report. Even good ol' Clyde signed off the thread saying he didn't want to discuss it anymore. The problem was that nobody read either report and only a few claimed to have glanced at both. Clyde's knowledge of the reports were based on articles written by Mike Lupica and listening to other newscasters. Everyone refused to read the reports, so of course, I cranked up the support rhetoric. The thread died. At least you made the effort, so you're knowledgeably wrong, I can deal with that in a friendly discourse. Steve: I've read quite a bit of the report and I think it is very convincing. The texts I've read in the report and in various articles are very convincing. Also, I find Brady's sudden interest in Jastremski in the day or two after the game interesting, to say nothing of the "Deflator" locking himself in a bathroom with the game balls for a minute and two thirds. I note that you have never in our thread, which has been fun to me too, by the way, offered up any explanation for the meeting in the QB room between Tom and Jastremski, or the many minutes of follow up phone calls between these new buds. Nor have you offered up any plausible reason why the Deflator locked himself in that bathroom! I haven't even mentioned the kicks and jerseys. Just Tom being generous? There are a lot of damaging facts here that you have not even tried to rebut. I have not read what the Patriot's spin on the post game phone calls and meetings between Tom and Jastremski might be... I can guess though. Something like Tom merely wanted assurance that Jastremski and the Deflaotr were on the up and up... right? And that took how long and how many calls? How about the Deflator locked in the john? He wanted to pee right? Must be shy given that he locked the door. I've acknowledged my bias, (it goes without saying that I have a bias here as do you.) I sincerely do think that I am well trained to put my bias aside when I read the report. As I mentioned a few days ago, based upon the facts I've read in the report I'd rule that Jastremski and the Deflator let air out of those balls after they were certified. I would make this ruling even with a reasonable doubt standard. Based upon the texts, video and Brady's post game behavior (refusing to cooperate and getting chummy with Jastremski all of a sudden) I would rule that Brady was involved according to a preponderance of the evidence standard, but not beyond a reasonable doubt. If, as you suggest, the report is BS, then I'll acknowledge that I am being swayed by BS. Nothing the Patriots have published makes me think the report is BS however. On the contrary, the "deflator as a weight loss type of guy" bit is ridiculous and undemines the whole Patriots rebuttal. If the report is BS, why did Kraft fold? Very uncharacteristic for this man. Second to last, if the Wells team asking for Brady's phone bit was just a set up, Brady sure stepped in it. Brady is smart, he also has counselors. I think it is much more plausible that Brady's phone has damaging evidence on it. And if this was just a set up, so what? Going back to Hillary, whom you have not touched with a ten foot pole, the fact that a right wing conspiracy to defame her really does exists hardly justifies keeping her own mail server and deleting emails (actions that would and have landed any lesser politician and any CEO of a public company in jail). Lastly, they let you discuss this stuff on CN? I'm shocked.... I lurk through CN now and then, but I was under the impression that they squashed any non-sanitized non-astro conversations with an iron thumb. J
|
|
|
Post by Jim on May 21, 2015 15:49:10 GMT -6
I'd certainly change my mind if the league caves and drops the suspension entirely. But not in the way you would want me to. I'd change my mind to believing that the league is irredeemably corrupt and willing to do anything to sweep bad PR under the rug, assuming they drop the suspension with no explanation or lip service to some thin explanation. If the appeal proceeds, and if we are privy to the testimony and evidence, and if Brady states a plausible case that he was not involved, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. I would still shake my head and say to myself, "man, it was really stupid for him to not cooperate fully in the first place..." Brady has a lot of explaining to do to redeem his reputation with those who are admittedly pre-disposed to think the Patriots are repeat cheaters. Jim Those who are predisposed to believe negatively towards the Pats are rivals and jealous fans and sport personalities. No amount of explaining is going to tilt anyone towards believing Brady has redeemed himself. Sports personalities and the media as a whole don't make money and establish reputations by reporting redemption, and rival fans don't want to hear it. Tell me truthfully, that you don't believe that Wells could not have strung together all the info he needed with McNally's and Jastremski's emails and text messages. These messages are most often strung together in a continous thread. Also, tell me that it's not common practice for lawyers ask for information hoping that they would be turned down so that they can imply guilt and lack of cooperation? I spent 10 years of my life playing that game. Quite a few times I asked my lawyer to press for information when it was lacking, and he said something to the effect - no, the point was to show lack of cooperative, that's what we want. Btw, you haven't ticked me off in the slightest, it's been fun. I've been defending the Pats on Cloudy Nights and ticking off quite a few with my unabashed support of Brady and criticism of the Wells report. Even good ol' Clyde signed off the thread saying he didn't want to discuss it anymore. The problem was that nobody read either report and only a few claimed to have glanced at both. Clyde's knowledge of the reports were based on articles written by Mike Lupica and listening to other newscasters. Everyone refused to read the reports, so of course, I cranked up the support rhetoric. The thread died. At least you made the effort, so you're knowledgeably wrong, I can deal with that in a friendly discourse. Steve, you can't spin this as me just being biased by the way. I read the report before you did. There is so much damaging evidence that you have not even tried to rebut (as mentioned in my immediately previous post). I'll predict again that Brady will make a private deal and drop his appeal. That way he never has to be asked hard questions about his involvement and he does not have to risk the Deflator or Jastremski telling the full truth. Brady will very predictably say that he wanted to put this all behind him so he will accept a one or two game suspension for the good of the league. In other words he'll say what Kraft has already said. The faithful will put common sense aside and believe him. Jim p.s. I would love to see your own point by point rebuttal to the language of the texts, the gifts, the video, the post game meetings, the "Deflator nickname" etc. And was Indy's pre-game complaint as just a coincidence and so forth. So far you've pretty much argued that (a) Goodell is a hack and Wells is a stooge (b) Jim is biased and (c) Tom had good reasons for refusing to cooperate. Even if a-c are true, this does not rebut all of the damaging evidence. I just waded through some of the juicy bits of wellsreportcontext.com/#lockerroom and I can say with all sincerity that this reads to me (biased as I am) like a desperate and laughable attempt to rebut fairly clear facts. If you want, start with the language of the texts between Jastremski and the Deflator and tell me what you think they were talking about? Or if you prefer, tell me what you think the deflator was doing in that bathroom behind a locked door? peeing in a non-existent urinal I suppose? Steve, you are tenacious and pugnacious enough to beat the CN crowd into submission, but I'm having a tough time believing that you don't believe in your heart that Jastremski and McNally are guilty. I think that you are being overly generous, to Tom, but there is much less hard evidence implicating him.
|
|
|
Post by stevec on May 21, 2015 20:46:58 GMT -6
Jim,
I wrongly assumed you realized that I stood by the Pats' official response. Before my beloved Pats released their response, I was cowering in a corner depressed and ashamed to wear my SB XLIX Championship hat. The Pats' response changed that.
As far as rebuttals are concerned, it's more believable than the Wells report. It may be fiction, but it's better fiction than the Wells product. The league office has a lot of work ahead in overcoming the Pats' rebuttal. What I don't understand is why the league didn't wait until they had real evidence. If you want my rebuttal, read the Pats' response.
All my hopes rest on Brady's appeal, so I'll be very disappointed if he settles on even a single game suspension. I believe you're wrong about Brady settling, the union has a skin in this game also - they don't settle and they're not afraid of Goodell's NFL. Goodell tried to subvert the CBA while handing down Brady's suspension, the union is not going to let that go unchallenged. The union didn't back down/settle when they represented Ray Rice and his unconscionable behavior - they were on the wrong side of that moral issue and they still won.
The question before any judge is how do you suspend someone without evidence. Ray Rice got a two game suspension based on overwhelming evidence, yet Brady got 4 games based on conjecture. It's not going to fly, that's why the league should have put in more effort and produced something more substantial.
|
|
|
Post by stevec on May 21, 2015 21:05:24 GMT -6
I'll believe McNally and Jastremski are guilty when the league produces the evidence. As someone who has an enlarged prostate, yes, I believe the Deflator took 90 seconds to take a piss, wash his hands and dry them, and I always lock the door behind me. Don't you?
|
|
|
Post by Jim on May 22, 2015 8:50:52 GMT -6
Jim, I wrongly assumed you realized that I stood by the Pats' official response. Before my beloved Pats released their response, I was cowering in a corner depressed and ashamed to wear my SB XLIX Championship hat. The Pats' response changed that. As far as rebuttals are concerned, it's more believable than the Wells report. It may be fiction, but it's better fiction than the Wells product. The league office has a lot of work ahead in overcoming the Pats' rebuttal. What I don't understand is why the league didn't wait until they had real evidence. If you want my rebuttal, read the Pats' response. All my hopes rest on Brady's appeal, so I'll be very disappointed if he settles on even a single game suspension. I believe you're wrong about Brady settling, the union has a skin in this game also - they don't settle and they're not afraid of Goodell's NFL. Goodell tried to subvert the CBA while handing down Brady's suspension, the union is not going to let that go unchallenged. The union didn't back down/settle when they represented Ray Rice and his unconscionable behavior - they were on the wrong side of that moral issue and they still won. The question before any judge is how do you suspend someone without evidence. Ray Rice got a two game suspension based on overwhelming evidence, yet Brady got 4 games based on conjecture. It's not going to fly, that's why the league should have put in more effort and produced something more substantial. Hi Steve: The texts, then balls, the video, the phone records etc. - that is all evidence. Pretty compelling evidence too in the case of the video and texts, if one is willing to approach this objectively. Hernandez got life based upon circumstantial evidence - I wonder why the Pats faithful aren't screaming about the quality and nature of the evidence in that case too?
|
|
|
Post by Jim on May 22, 2015 9:13:07 GMT -6
I'll believe McNally and Jastremski are guilty when the league produces the evidence. As someone who has an enlarged prostate, yes, I believe the Deflator took 90 seconds to take a piss, wash his hands and dry them, and I always lock the door behind me. Don't you? "I'll believe McNally and Jastremski are guilty when the league produces the evidence" You didn't read the texts then? What would you call those texts if not evidence? What you meant to say is this: "I'll believe McNally and Jastremski are guilty when the league produces the evidence that is convincing to me." Know thyself Steve...you are a true believer. The league has about as much chance of producing evidence that convinces you as you do of producing evidence that convinces Ken that Jesus is just a man or that he never existed at all. I wager that I am more objective on deflategate than you are, although I can't prove it to you since you are in true believer mode. For example, do you pee in urinals that don't exist like the Deflator? Good one. (You also apparently actually believe that "the Deflator" was a weight loss nickname in the context of all that watermelon and rugby ball banter!) Wow. Double good one! Can't wait to see what arguments from the Pat's silly rebuttal you endorse next! If that's the best the Pat's can do, I expect the four games to stand. I'll be gloating here when Brady and the Union sweep this under the rug by striking a secret back room deal. Until then, have a great weekend! I'll be off until Tuesday, unless something really big breaks. (I'll certainly check in after work to see if you have any final revelations...) We are in a seemingly never-ending cycle of drizzle here in Colorado, which sucks. It's supposed to be nice by now. Jim p.s. Steve: You are a more faithful believer in the Lord Tom than some it seems: www.csnne.com/new-england-patriots/borges-im-told-belichick-never-believed-bradyftw.usatoday.com/2015/05/bill-belichick-didnt-believe-tom-brady-deflategatep.s.s. Ok, I admit that was snarky and I have no idea whose side Ray Borges is on (or who he is). But as I am sure we agree, Brady is getting creamed in the court of public opinion.
|
|
|
Post by stevec on May 23, 2015 13:05:20 GMT -6
Jim, I can post reporters' opinions also. It seems this reporter is very well informed. www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/in-trying-to-restore-his-authority-goodell-undermined-his-credibility/ar-BBk5HB3Did you read the entire Pats' response, or did you merely glance at it? I'm not getting an impartial vibe from you. It could be the fact that you are a Broncos fan, or that despite your background, you can't discern alternative contextual scenerios behind the needle, balloon, and deflator references, and that those references may have been misused by Wells. It could be the fact that you find it unrealistic that Brady would reach out to someone on the Patriots sideline who found himself vilified and under close scrutiny. Where ever there could be a hint of doubt, you nevertheless insist on dropping the hammer on Brady and the Pats. I might as well get my Jesus reference in also - you and Caiaphas have a lot in common in the impartiality department. Our hero, Tom, is being crucified with the same type of credible evidence. We know Sanhedrin when we see them. I'm sure you've read that Goodell has refused to recuse himself from hearing Brady's appeal. Why has Goodell not done the right thing, and why have you not read into that the same way you've read into so much of what Wells provided? It's rather apparent that Goodell has something to hide concerning Wells' report. Hope you have a great weekend!
|
|
|
Post by Jim on May 26, 2015 9:30:58 GMT -6
Jim, I can post reporters' opinions also. It seems this reporter is very well informed. www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/in-trying-to-restore-his-authority-goodell-undermined-his-credibility/ar-BBk5HB3Did you read the entire Pats' response, or did you merely glance at it? I'm not getting an impartial vibe from you. It could be the fact that you are a Broncos fan, or that despite your background, you can't discern alternative contextual scenerios behind the needle, balloon, and deflator references, and that those references may have been misused by Wells. It could be the fact that you find it unrealistic that Brady would reach out to someone on the Patriots sideline who found himself vilified and under close scrutiny. Where ever there could be a hint of doubt, you nevertheless insist on dropping the hammer on Brady and the Pats. I might as well get my Jesus reference in also - you and Caiaphas have a lot in common in the impartiality department. Our hero, Tom, is being crucified with the same type of credible evidence. We know Sanhedrin when we see them. I'm sure you've read that Goodell has refused to recuse himself from hearing Brady's appeal. Why has Goodell not done the right thing, and why have you not read into that the same way you've read into so much of what Wells provided? It's rather apparent that Goodell has something to hide concerning Wells' report. Hope you have a great weekend! Hi Steve: I agree that Goodell is screwing up by not recusing himself. It is very bad form, even if permitted by the rules, which I find very surprising. Here is the real rub, you've entirely exposed the weak basis of your position from my point of view: "Where ever there could be a hint of doubt, you nevertheless insist on dropping the hammer on Brady and the Pats."I'll give you that there is a "hint of doubt..." Heck, I'll concede (with respect to Brady) that there is a reasonable doubt. "Hint of doubt" is not the standard at play in this case. "Reasonable doubt" is also not the applicable standard. The standard to determine whether or not to sanction Brady is "preponderance of the evidence". To win, all the league has to show is that the Wells report conclusions based upon the needles, watermelons, rugby balls, clandestine meetings, kick-back kicks, singed jerseys and balls, "deflator nicknames" restroom video, refusal to cooperate and other evidence is 51% more likely to be true than the Pat's spin on this same evidence. Under the actual standard I don't think this is a very close case. Shoot, based upon the national reaction, it appears that only genuine Pats-arrazi think this is a close case. You are probably offended that Brady and the Pats are getting hammered under the 51% "more likely" than not standard instead of some more rigorous "hint of doubt" standard you would rather apply - at least when the Pats are the guilty parties. FWIW I agree that it truly sucks to be the innocent defendant if the plaintiff only has to meet a 51% burden. In this case however, the conclusions drawn by the Wells report are (in my best attempt at objectivity) much more likely to be accurate than the counter conclusions set forth by the Pat's rebuttal. Not that it matters to the outcome, but, if I were judge, I'd back the Wells conclusions with respect to Jastremski and the Deflator at 90% more likely than not and I'd back the Wells conclusions with respect to Brady at 67% more likely than not. That means I concede a 33% chance that Brady was not aware of the post-inspection deflation. Under that applicable standard he is therefore guilty. Had a great weekend by the way, although it is still raining a lot... Hope you did too! Jim p.s. I never claimed impartiality. I am getting guilty joy out of watching the Patriots squirm. I do think I am objective enough to determine which of the two sets of conclusions drawn from the evidence detailed in the Wells report is more likely to be true, as detailed above. Jim
|
|