Do you actually understand the difference between doing something and being able to prove that something was done?
Here's a great example. Let's see if you can follow along. I just farted. It was long and loud and glorious. However, my wife and daughters are all out right now, so no one can prove that I did it. I expelled air from my ass just like the Patriots expelled air from the footballs and both stink to high heaven.
Prove it or GTFO.
Here clearly doesn't get the concept of "proving a negative".
I understand the difference between direct evidence and circumstantial evidence and the impact of extreme homerism on the same. I can't remember a fanbase for which I've lost more respect than the New England Patriots. You guys, collectively, have completely lost the capacity for rational, logical thought.
And you haven't read the Well's report, the transcripts, etc. etc. etc, you simply based your opinion on what you heard in the media didn't you?
I did read it. More importantly, I understood it. Something you clearly are incapable of doing because you're blinded by your homerism. If you had even a little intellectual integrity, you'd acknowledge your biases in this regard and your inability to look at things objectively, but I won't hold my breath.
I did read it. More importantly, I understood it. Something you clearly are incapable of doing because you're blinded by your homerism. If you had even a little intellectual integrity, you'd acknowledge your biases in this regard and your inability to look at things objectively, but I won't hold my breath.
I did read it. More importantly, I understood it. Something you clearly are incapable of doing because you're blinded by your homerism. If you had even a little intellectual integrity, you'd acknowledge your biases in this regard and your inability to look at things objectively, but I won't hold my breath.
The fact that you say you read it, and actually bought it as factual, proves you didn't actually read it.
Or are you suggesting Federal Judge Berman is blinded by homerism too?
The League even admitted in court there was no evidence Brady broke any rules.
You would know this if you had actually read the Wells report, the transcripts, and the ruling.
Direct evidence. That first word is very important. As someone who claims to conduct investigations at work, I would hope for your employer's sake that you understand the difference between direct and circumstantial evidence, but it appears you do not. In addition, if you think that the judge's verdict was based on whether Brady was complicit in cheating, you don't understand that either.
So we have video of Ben breaking a seemingly innocuous NFL rule and no video of Brady breaking a seemingly innocuous rule.
Brady's non video yields 8 months of trials and tribulations. Ben's video is denied flat out and no one wants to discuss it a few days later. Hmmmm.
two different scenarios. One guy was altering game balls and the integrity of the game, the other guy was looking at a playsheet. Not even same ballpark.
A rule is a rule. That's what I was told for the last eight months. Remember? How's about Ben produce all his texts and emails from the last couple of months and let the NFL judge whether he was breaking the rules or not?
sounds fair, I guess. What do Ben's texts and emails have to do with looking at a playsheet armband thingy?
He clearly has an electronic communication device. The NFL needs to investigate exactly what type of device that is. Get Wells on this stat!