Please show where you get your 85% number. Last I checked, 51% could also be "more probable than not". How do you know he didn't mean 51%?For the last time "more probable than not" is a legal term. You're just pulling out the word "probable" from it and acting like the other words mean nothing.The Wells Report itself says it was "probable". No one is making that up. That's plain english.Love that. At this point the Pope would have to have cell phone footage of Tom Brady letting out the air himself..and then Pats fan would say it's not completely conclusive because the Pope is a known Jets homer.Probable cheaters. The Wells Reports concludes it was probable, not for sure.
More Probable Than Not = It's more likely that he is guilty than it is that he is innocent. In the same vein, it's more probable than not that Tom has sex with his wife. But I've never personally seen photos or video so I can't prove without resonable doubt that he does... but he probably does. Lack of definitive proof is not evidence of innocence.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Patriots being investigated after Colts game (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter HobbesAB
- Start date
Read it again. You missed the point entirely.There's nothing to admit. The Wells Report says over and over that the cheating was probable, and specifically does not say there was cheating for sure.You probably wont admit Brady is guilty either. If you want your point to have any relevance at all; prove yourself right and admit that Brady is both the cheater and liar that he appears to be.The Wells Report itself says it was "probable". No one is making that up. That's plain english.Love that. At this point the Pope would have to have cell phone footage of Tom Brady letting out the air himself..and then Pats fan would say it's not completely conclusive because the Pope is a known Jets homer.Probable cheaters. The Wells Reports concludes it was probable, not for sure.
A bunch of Salty Haters have problems understanding plain english, and seem to think "probable" means "for sure".
The General
Footballguy
There's nothing to admit. The Wells Report says over and over that the cheating was probable, and specifically does not say there was cheating for sure.You probably wont admit Brady is guilty either. If you want your point to have any relevance at all; prove yourself right and admit that Brady is both the cheater and liar that he appears to be.The Wells Report itself says it was "probable". No one is making that up. That's plain english.Love that. At this point the Pope would have to have cell phone footage of Tom Brady letting out the air himself..and then Pats fan would say it's not completely conclusive because the Pope is a known Jets homer.Probable cheaters. The Wells Reports concludes it was probable, not for sure.
A bunch of Salty Haters have problems understanding plain english, and seem to think "probable" means "for sure".
hang your hat on that if it makes you feel good.
GoBirds
Footballguy
Those Salty Haters again.There's nothing to admit. The Wells Report says over and over that the cheating was probable, and specifically does not say there was cheating for sure.You probably wont admit Brady is guilty either. If you want your point to have any relevance at all; prove yourself right and admit that Brady is both the cheater and liar that he appears to be.The Wells Report itself says it was "probable". No one is making that up. That's plain english.Love that. At this point the Pope would have to have cell phone footage of Tom Brady letting out the air himself..and then Pats fan would say it's not completely conclusive because the Pope is a known Jets homer.Probable cheaters. The Wells Reports concludes it was probable, not for sure.
A bunch of Salty Haters have problems understanding plain english, and seem to think "probable" means "for sure".
Yeah, clearly a toss up here. 51/49.
netnalp
Footballguy
The investigation team wouldn't have worded the rest of the report so strongly if it was 51%.
Taking a couple of aspirin probably won't kill you. But the manufacturers leave themselves the out that it might. FDA even has a threshold of what the acceptable risk of death level is.
I'm hanging my hat on plain dictionary meanings. If you believe the dictionary is wrong, what can I say?There's nothing to admit. The Wells Report says over and over that the cheating was probable, and specifically does not say there was cheating for sure.You probably wont admit Brady is guilty either. If you want your point to have any relevance at all; prove yourself right and admit that Brady is both the cheater and liar that he appears to be.The Wells Report itself says it was "probable". No one is making that up. That's plain english.Love that. At this point the Pope would have to have cell phone footage of Tom Brady letting out the air himself..and then Pats fan would say it's not completely conclusive because the Pope is a known Jets homer.Probable cheaters. The Wells Reports concludes it was probable, not for sure.
A bunch of Salty Haters have problems understanding plain english, and seem to think "probable" means "for sure".
johnnycakes
Footballguy
Somehow I love how they built a dynasty by cheating blatantly and outrageously for over a decade. I mean, if you're going to do it, do it BIG, right? And I revel in the chaos that spins out of the mockery that BB makes of the rules... Such a smooth way of stickin' it to The Man. And we are The Man. Artistry at work.
I tried to have fun together with him. Pure fun, nothing else. A little levity. ....and wound up with a prompt salty hater tag.
Up to this minute there's no reason to believe he even read my post.
So...I guess you have a point about why on earth we continue to indulge.
netnalp
Footballguy
The more important meaning is the one the authors have for "more probable than not" and not a dictionaries definition of probable.I'm hanging my hat on plain dictionary meanings. If you believe the dictionary is wrong, what can I say?
Last edited by a moderator:
I'll admit that I'm partially fishing, if the Salty Haters admit they are also partially fishing.
Seriously though, a lot of people here are over-stating the level of guilt found in the report. Yes, there are lots of texts that look bad. But there are legitimate holes in the report. Ted Wells knew there were holes, which is why he didn't conclude guilt for sure. And if he didn't conclude guilt for sure, how could anyone else?
Khy
Footballguy
It's just so unbelievably entertaining that any one person can be so blissfully ignorant. In situations such as these I can't simply turn away and ignore the ignorance. It's like a coke addict ignoring an 8 ball on the table in front of him. My brain just can't understand how people can have evidence literally thrust down their throat and just brush it off with such horribly flawed explanations.
Simple fact is, just throwing away the entire document due to the usage of the word 'probable' and ignoring the "more probably than not" is just ridiculous. Perfect example, the THEORY of Gravity could be stated as:
"Our study concluded that the theory of gravity is more probable than not" that doesn't mean gravity doesn't suddenly exist.
Just like saying that the study concluded it's more probable than not that Tom Brady is a cheating piece of ####. Both the same thing.
massraider
Footballguy
Such a great day to watch ESPN
massraider
Footballguy
'More probable than not' got Aaron Hernandez a life sentence.I'll admit that I'm partially fishing, if the Salty Haters admit they are also partially fishing.
Seriously though, a lot of people here are over-stating the level of guilt found in the report. Yes, there are lots of texts that look bad. But there are legitimate holes in the report. Ted Wells knew there were holes, which is why he didn't conclude guilt for sure. And if he didn't conclude guilt for sure, how could anyone else?
Khy
Footballguy
I think you mistake the term "holes" for the term "lack of definitive evidence of guilt". The two are not interchangible. In fact, there are very few, if any holes in Wells documentation and I would implore you to point them out. The only hole is the lack of a smoking gun. If they had a text from Brady or too Brady stating clearly that he was involved it'd be done. But dammit if they don't have a pile of stuff that all points to the all but certain fact that Brady cheated.I'll admit that I'm partially fishing, if the Salty Haters admit they are also partially fishing.
Seriously though, a lot of people here are over-stating the level of guilt found in the report. Yes, there are lots of texts that look bad. But there are legitimate holes in the report. Ted Wells knew there were holes, which is why he didn't conclude guilt for sure. And if he didn't conclude guilt for sure, how could anyone else?
GoBirds
Footballguy
If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit.I'll admit that I'm partially fishing, if the Salty Haters admit they are also partially fishing.
Seriously though, a lot of people here are over-stating the level of guilt found in the report. Yes, there are lots of texts that look bad. But there are legitimate holes in the report. Ted Wells knew there were holes, which is why he didn't conclude guilt for sure. And if he didn't conclude guilt for sure, how could anyone else?
Love it.
netnalp
Footballguy
It'll be enough to "#### Tom"I'll admit that I'm partially fishing, if the Salty Haters admit they are also partially fishing.
Seriously though, a lot of people here are over-stating the level of guilt found in the report. Yes, there are lots of texts that look bad. But there are legitimate holes in the report. Ted Wells knew there were holes, which is why he didn't conclude guilt for sure. And if he didn't conclude guilt for sure, how could anyone else?
You werent there. I wasnt there. Wells wasnt there. No one will admit anything apparently. Of course there are many, many holes in the argument when no one admits anything and no one is stupid enough to leave behind a red-hot smoking gun. So none of us know. Agreed.I'll admit that I'm partially fishing, if the Salty Haters admit they are also partially fishing.
Seriously though, a lot of people here are over-stating the level of guilt found in the report. Yes, there are lots of texts that look bad. But there are legitimate holes in the report. Ted Wells knew there were holes, which is why he didn't conclude guilt for sure. And if he didn't conclude guilt for sure, how could anyone else?
Yet we look at evidence about such things in life and occasionally draw conclusions.
So your point is valid, but it isn't news. It's obvious to the point of irrelevance.
Last edited by a moderator:
The General
Footballguy
Yes there are lots of texts that look badI'll admit that I'm partially fishing, if the Salty Haters admit they are also partially fishing.
Seriously though, a lot of people here are over-stating the level of guilt found in the report. Yes, there are lots of texts that look bad. But there are legitimate holes in the report. Ted Wells knew there were holes, which is why he didn't conclude guilt for sure. And if he didn't conclude guilt for sure, how could anyone else?
The Titanic just nicked that iceberg.
"More probable than not" is equivalent to "preponderance of evidence", which only means greater than 50%. It is a lower standard of proof than "clear and convincing evidence" and "beyond reasonable doubt". If Ted Wells was so convinced, he would have concluded that it met the other higher standards instead, right?
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/05/06/more-probable-than-not-carries-important-legal-meaning/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_burden_of_proof#Preponderance_of_the_evidence
"Clear and convincing proof means that the evidence presented by a party during the trial must be highly and substantially more probable to be true than not and the trier of fact must have a firm belief or conviction in its factuality. In this standard, a greater degree of believability must be met than the common standard of proof in civil actions, which only requires that the facts as a threshold be more likely than not to prove the issue for which they are asserted."
There are at least 3 levels of proof that could have applied here:I think you mistake the term "holes" for the term "lack of definitive evidence of guilt". The two are not interchangible. In fact, there are very few, if any holes in Wells documentation and I would implore you to point them out. The only hole is the lack of a smoking gun. If they had a text from Brady or too Brady stating clearly that he was involved it'd be done. But dammit if they don't have a pile of stuff that all points to the all but certain fact that Brady cheated.I'll admit that I'm partially fishing, if the Salty Haters admit they are also partially fishing.
Seriously though, a lot of people here are over-stating the level of guilt found in the report. Yes, there are lots of texts that look bad. But there are legitimate holes in the report. Ted Wells knew there were holes, which is why he didn't conclude guilt for sure. And if he didn't conclude guilt for sure, how could anyone else?
a) Lowest level above 50% guilt: "Preponderance of evidence"/"More probable than not"
b) Next level above 50% guilt: "Clear and convincing evidence"
c) Highest level above 50% guilt: "Beyond reasonable doubt"
Don't you think there's a reason why he concluded the lowest level above 50% guilt? If he was so sure, he could have said so. But he didn't.
IrishTwinkie
Footballguy
I really need to tune into EEI tomorrow. If the level of denial is so big here, the radio loonies will be off the rails. It will be epic. 
I forgot to mention this, but a massive hole that I've pointed out already, is that Ted Wells assumes the Patriots balls all started at 12.5 PSI. The refs didn't record it, but they claim to have measured the PSI. But there's video proof/other refs who have said in the past, that pre-game checking of PSI is not done very carefully.I think you mistake the term "holes" for the term "lack of definitive evidence of guilt". The two are not interchangible. In fact, there are very few, if any holes in Wells documentation and I would implore you to point them out. The only hole is the lack of a smoking gun. If they had a text from Brady or too Brady stating clearly that he was involved it'd be done. But dammit if they don't have a pile of stuff that all points to the all but certain fact that Brady cheated.I'll admit that I'm partially fishing, if the Salty Haters admit they are also partially fishing.
Seriously though, a lot of people here are over-stating the level of guilt found in the report. Yes, there are lots of texts that look bad. But there are legitimate holes in the report. Ted Wells knew there were holes, which is why he didn't conclude guilt for sure. And if he didn't conclude guilt for sure, how could anyone else?
If you don't know what the football PSI started at, how can you know how much it dropped? One popular theory from way back, is that the Patriots try to sneak in under-inflated balls past the refs to check (similar to how the Packers try to sneak over-inflated balls past the refs to check). If that is true, then the starting football PSI was lower, which combined with the cold weather explains the halftime PSI.
Last edited by a moderator:
GroveDiesel
Footballguy
You do realize that the language used in the report mimics the language used in the NFL rules regarding the commissioner being able to hand down punishment, right? There's a reason that language was used.There are at least 3 levels of proof that could have applied here:I think you mistake the term "holes" for the term "lack of definitive evidence of guilt". The two are not interchangible. In fact, there are very few, if any holes in Wells documentation and I would implore you to point them out. The only hole is the lack of a smoking gun. If they had a text from Brady or too Brady stating clearly that he was involved it'd be done. But dammit if they don't have a pile of stuff that all points to the all but certain fact that Brady cheated.I'll admit that I'm partially fishing, if the Salty Haters admit they are also partially fishing.
Seriously though, a lot of people here are over-stating the level of guilt found in the report. Yes, there are lots of texts that look bad. But there are legitimate holes in the report. Ted Wells knew there were holes, which is why he didn't conclude guilt for sure. And if he didn't conclude guilt for sure, how could anyone else?
a) Lowest level above 50% guilt: "Preponderance of evidence"/"More probable than not"
b) Next level above 50% guilt: "Clear and convincing evidence"
c) Highest level above 50% guilt: "Beyond reasonable doubt"
Don't you think there's a reason why he concluded the lowest level above 50% guilt? If he was so sure, he could have said so. But he didn't.
Since the Patriots blocked a full and total investigation, some things had to be based on the probability of statistical models. They determined that there was a 4/1000ths chance that the balls were not deflated purposefully. So they were very exacting and used the exact wording in the NFL rules and said that it was probable that a violation had occurred.
Devine Intervention
Footballguy
Patriot fans are silly. Let it go. Most likely they will just fine them and somehow change another rule to fit around the patriots shady ways. A slap on the wrist and an embarrassment for the league.
The General
Footballguy
There is the small problem of the equipment mangers openly discussing Brady, his deflated balls, and getting hooked up with swag. Probably just jokes though.I forgot to mention this, but a massive hole that I've pointed out already, is that Ted Wells assumes the Patriots balls all started at 12.5 PSI. The refs didn't record it, but they claim to have measured the PSI. But there's video proof/other refs who have said in the past, that pre-game checking of PSI is not done very carefully.I think you mistake the term "holes" for the term "lack of definitive evidence of guilt". The two are not interchangible. In fact, there are very few, if any holes in Wells documentation and I would implore you to point them out. The only hole is the lack of a smoking gun. If they had a text from Brady or too Brady stating clearly that he was involved it'd be done. But dammit if they don't have a pile of stuff that all points to the all but certain fact that Brady cheated.I'll admit that I'm partially fishing, if the Salty Haters admit they are also partially fishing.
Seriously though, a lot of people here are over-stating the level of guilt found in the report. Yes, there are lots of texts that look bad. But there are legitimate holes in the report. Ted Wells knew there were holes, which is why he didn't conclude guilt for sure. And if he didn't conclude guilt for sure, how could anyone else?
If you don't know what the football PSI started at, how can you know how much it dropped? One popular theory from way back, is that the Patriots try to sneak in under-inflated balls past the refs to check (similar to how the Packers try to sneak over-inflated balls past the refs to check). If that is true, then the starting football PSI was lower, which combined with the cold weather explains the halftime PSI.
Yes, that's true that the language mimics the NFL rules. But as pointed out in the link, there is still a higher level of guilt that the NFL can use when a team doesn't cooperate: "credible corroborating evidence"You do realize that the language used in the report mimics the language used in the NFL rules regarding the commissioner being able to hand down punishment, right? There's a reason that language was used.There are at least 3 levels of proof that could have applied here:I think you mistake the term "holes" for the term "lack of definitive evidence of guilt". The two are not interchangible. In fact, there are very few, if any holes in Wells documentation and I would implore you to point them out. The only hole is the lack of a smoking gun. If they had a text from Brady or too Brady stating clearly that he was involved it'd be done. But dammit if they don't have a pile of stuff that all points to the all but certain fact that Brady cheated.I'll admit that I'm partially fishing, if the Salty Haters admit they are also partially fishing.
Seriously though, a lot of people here are over-stating the level of guilt found in the report. Yes, there are lots of texts that look bad. But there are legitimate holes in the report. Ted Wells knew there were holes, which is why he didn't conclude guilt for sure. And if he didn't conclude guilt for sure, how could anyone else?
a) Lowest level above 50% guilt: "Preponderance of evidence"/"More probable than not"
b) Next level above 50% guilt: "Clear and convincing evidence"
c) Highest level above 50% guilt: "Beyond reasonable doubt"
Don't you think there's a reason why he concluded the lowest level above 50% guilt? If he was so sure, he could have said so. But he didn't.
Since the Patriots blocked a full and total investigation, some things had to be based on the probability of statistical models. They determined that there was a 4/1000ths chance that the balls were not deflated purposefully. So they were very exacting and used the exact wording in the NFL rules and said that it was probable that a violation had occurred.
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/05/06/more-probable-than-not-carries-important-legal-meaning/
So if Ted Wells could choose between "more probable than not" (lower level of guilt) vs "credible corroborating evidence" (higher level of guilt), why did he choose the lower level?
Did those texts say they deflated before the ref-check or after the ref-check?There is the small problem of the equipment mangers openly discussing Brady, his deflated balls, and getting hooked up with swag. Probably just jokes though.I forgot to mention this, but a massive hole that I've pointed out already, is that Ted Wells assumes the Patriots balls all started at 12.5 PSI. The refs didn't record it, but they claim to have measured the PSI. But there's video proof/other refs who have said in the past, that pre-game checking of PSI is not done very carefully.I think you mistake the term "holes" for the term "lack of definitive evidence of guilt". The two are not interchangible. In fact, there are very few, if any holes in Wells documentation and I would implore you to point them out. The only hole is the lack of a smoking gun. If they had a text from Brady or too Brady stating clearly that he was involved it'd be done. But dammit if they don't have a pile of stuff that all points to the all but certain fact that Brady cheated.I'll admit that I'm partially fishing, if the Salty Haters admit they are also partially fishing.
Seriously though, a lot of people here are over-stating the level of guilt found in the report. Yes, there are lots of texts that look bad. But there are legitimate holes in the report. Ted Wells knew there were holes, which is why he didn't conclude guilt for sure. And if he didn't conclude guilt for sure, how could anyone else?
If you don't know what the football PSI started at, how can you know how much it dropped? One popular theory from way back, is that the Patriots try to sneak in under-inflated balls past the refs to check (similar to how the Packers try to sneak over-inflated balls past the refs to check). If that is true, then the starting football PSI was lower, which combined with the cold weather explains the halftime PSI.
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
Such denial. This has to ####### sting.
rockaction
Footballguy
Not in the context of the article. "More probable than not" is a higher standard than "credible corroborating evidence."Yes, that's true that the language mimics the NFL rules. But as pointed out in the link, there is still a higher level of guilt that the NFL can use when a team doesn't cooperate: "credible corroborating evidence"You do realize that the language used in the report mimics the language used in the NFL rules regarding the commissioner being able to hand down punishment, right? There's a reason that language was used.There are at least 3 levels of proof that could have applied here:I think you mistake the term "holes" for the term "lack of definitive evidence of guilt". The two are not interchangible. In fact, there are very few, if any holes in Wells documentation and I would implore you to point them out. The only hole is the lack of a smoking gun. If they had a text from Brady or too Brady stating clearly that he was involved it'd be done. But dammit if they don't have a pile of stuff that all points to the all but certain fact that Brady cheated.I'll admit that I'm partially fishing, if the Salty Haters admit they are also partially fishing.
Seriously though, a lot of people here are over-stating the level of guilt found in the report. Yes, there are lots of texts that look bad. But there are legitimate holes in the report. Ted Wells knew there were holes, which is why he didn't conclude guilt for sure. And if he didn't conclude guilt for sure, how could anyone else?
a) Lowest level above 50% guilt: "Preponderance of evidence"/"More probable than not"
b) Next level above 50% guilt: "Clear and convincing evidence"
c) Highest level above 50% guilt: "Beyond reasonable doubt"
Don't you think there's a reason why he concluded the lowest level above 50% guilt? If he was so sure, he could have said so. But he didn't.
Since the Patriots blocked a full and total investigation, some things had to be based on the probability of statistical models. They determined that there was a 4/1000ths chance that the balls were not deflated purposefully. So they were very exacting and used the exact wording in the NFL rules and said that it was probable that a violation had occurred.
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/05/06/more-probable-than-not-carries-important-legal-meaning/
So if Ted Wells could choose between "more probable than not" (lower level of guilt) vs "credible corroborating evidence" (higher level of guilt), why did he choose the lower level?
The General
Footballguy
They were talking about all aspects of it over a long period of time well before this became a public issue. Again probably just jokes made well before this would even be an issue that anyone would know about.Did those texts say they deflated before the ref-check or after the ref-check?There is the small problem of the equipment mangers openly discussing Brady, his deflated balls, and getting hooked up with swag. Probably just jokes though.I forgot to mention this, but a massive hole that I've pointed out already, is that Ted Wells assumes the Patriots balls all started at 12.5 PSI. The refs didn't record it, but they claim to have measured the PSI. But there's video proof/other refs who have said in the past, that pre-game checking of PSI is not done very carefully.I think you mistake the term "holes" for the term "lack of definitive evidence of guilt". The two are not interchangible. In fact, there are very few, if any holes in Wells documentation and I would implore you to point them out. The only hole is the lack of a smoking gun. If they had a text from Brady or too Brady stating clearly that he was involved it'd be done. But dammit if they don't have a pile of stuff that all points to the all but certain fact that Brady cheated.I'll admit that I'm partially fishing, if the Salty Haters admit they are also partially fishing.
Seriously though, a lot of people here are over-stating the level of guilt found in the report. Yes, there are lots of texts that look bad. But there are legitimate holes in the report. Ted Wells knew there were holes, which is why he didn't conclude guilt for sure. And if he didn't conclude guilt for sure, how could anyone else?
If you don't know what the football PSI started at, how can you know how much it dropped? One popular theory from way back, is that the Patriots try to sneak in under-inflated balls past the refs to check (similar to how the Packers try to sneak over-inflated balls past the refs to check). If that is true, then the starting football PSI was lower, which combined with the cold weather explains the halftime PSI.
GroveDiesel
Footballguy
That link actually says the exact opposite of that. It says that the standard used by Wells is higher than the "credible corroborating evidence" standard.Yes, that's true that the language mimics the NFL rules. But as pointed out in the link, there is still a higher level of guilt that the NFL can use when a team doesn't cooperate: "credible corroborating evidence"You do realize that the language used in the report mimics the language used in the NFL rules regarding the commissioner being able to hand down punishment, right? There's a reason that language was used.There are at least 3 levels of proof that could have applied here:I think you mistake the term "holes" for the term "lack of definitive evidence of guilt". The two are not interchangible. In fact, there are very few, if any holes in Wells documentation and I would implore you to point them out. The only hole is the lack of a smoking gun. If they had a text from Brady or too Brady stating clearly that he was involved it'd be done. But dammit if they don't have a pile of stuff that all points to the all but certain fact that Brady cheated.I'll admit that I'm partially fishing, if the Salty Haters admit they are also partially fishing.
Seriously though, a lot of people here are over-stating the level of guilt found in the report. Yes, there are lots of texts that look bad. But there are legitimate holes in the report. Ted Wells knew there were holes, which is why he didn't conclude guilt for sure. And if he didn't conclude guilt for sure, how could anyone else?
a) Lowest level above 50% guilt: "Preponderance of evidence"/"More probable than not"
b) Next level above 50% guilt: "Clear and convincing evidence"
c) Highest level above 50% guilt: "Beyond reasonable doubt"
Don't you think there's a reason why he concluded the lowest level above 50% guilt? If he was so sure, he could have said so. But he didn't.
Since the Patriots blocked a full and total investigation, some things had to be based on the probability of statistical models. They determined that there was a 4/1000ths chance that the balls were not deflated purposefully. So they were very exacting and used the exact wording in the NFL rules and said that it was probable that a violation had occurred.
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/05/06/more-probable-than-not-carries-important-legal-meaning/
So if Ted Wells could choose between "more probable than not" (lower level of guilt) vs "credible corroborating evidence" (higher level of guilt), why did he choose the lower level?
massraider
Footballguy
Why would they joke about going to ESPN if they were doing it before hand?Did those texts say they deflated before the ref-check or after the ref-check?There is the small problem of the equipment mangers openly discussing Brady, his deflated balls, and getting hooked up with swag. Probably just jokes though.I forgot to mention this, but a massive hole that I've pointed out already, is that Ted Wells assumes the Patriots balls all started at 12.5 PSI. The refs didn't record it, but they claim to have measured the PSI. But there's video proof/other refs who have said in the past, that pre-game checking of PSI is not done very carefully.I think you mistake the term "holes" for the term "lack of definitive evidence of guilt". The two are not interchangible. In fact, there are very few, if any holes in Wells documentation and I would implore you to point them out. The only hole is the lack of a smoking gun. If they had a text from Brady or too Brady stating clearly that he was involved it'd be done. But dammit if they don't have a pile of stuff that all points to the all but certain fact that Brady cheated.I'll admit that I'm partially fishing, if the Salty Haters admit they are also partially fishing.
Seriously though, a lot of people here are over-stating the level of guilt found in the report. Yes, there are lots of texts that look bad. But there are legitimate holes in the report. Ted Wells knew there were holes, which is why he didn't conclude guilt for sure. And if he didn't conclude guilt for sure, how could anyone else?
If you don't know what the football PSI started at, how can you know how much it dropped? One popular theory from way back, is that the Patriots try to sneak in under-inflated balls past the refs to check (similar to how the Packers try to sneak over-inflated balls past the refs to check). If that is true, then the starting football PSI was lower, which combined with the cold weather explains the halftime PSI.
Why would Tom express concern that the guy was under pressure to get it done if he was leisurely doing it beforehand?
GroveDiesel
Footballguy
They talked about McNally needing a needle. Why would McNally need a needle if he wasn't deflating them after the ref-check?Did those texts say they deflated before the ref-check or after the ref-check?There is the small problem of the equipment mangers openly discussing Brady, his deflated balls, and getting hooked up with swag. Probably just jokes though.I forgot to mention this, but a massive hole that I've pointed out already, is that Ted Wells assumes the Patriots balls all started at 12.5 PSI. The refs didn't record it, but they claim to have measured the PSI. But there's video proof/other refs who have said in the past, that pre-game checking of PSI is not done very carefully.I think you mistake the term "holes" for the term "lack of definitive evidence of guilt". The two are not interchangible. In fact, there are very few, if any holes in Wells documentation and I would implore you to point them out. The only hole is the lack of a smoking gun. If they had a text from Brady or too Brady stating clearly that he was involved it'd be done. But dammit if they don't have a pile of stuff that all points to the all but certain fact that Brady cheated.I'll admit that I'm partially fishing, if the Salty Haters admit they are also partially fishing.
Seriously though, a lot of people here are over-stating the level of guilt found in the report. Yes, there are lots of texts that look bad. But there are legitimate holes in the report. Ted Wells knew there were holes, which is why he didn't conclude guilt for sure. And if he didn't conclude guilt for sure, how could anyone else?
If you don't know what the football PSI started at, how can you know how much it dropped? One popular theory from way back, is that the Patriots try to sneak in under-inflated balls past the refs to check (similar to how the Packers try to sneak over-inflated balls past the refs to check). If that is true, then the starting football PSI was lower, which combined with the cold weather explains the halftime PSI.
Hmmm, I guess you have a point: it says "more probable than not" is perhaps even higher than "credible corroborating evidence". My bad.Not in the context of the article. "More probable than not" is a higher standard than "credible corroborating evidence."Yes, that's true that the language mimics the NFL rules. But as pointed out in the link, there is still a higher level of guilt that the NFL can use when a team doesn't cooperate: "credible corroborating evidence"You do realize that the language used in the report mimics the language used in the NFL rules regarding the commissioner being able to hand down punishment, right? There's a reason that language was used.There are at least 3 levels of proof that could have applied here:I think you mistake the term "holes" for the term "lack of definitive evidence of guilt". The two are not interchangible. In fact, there are very few, if any holes in Wells documentation and I would implore you to point them out. The only hole is the lack of a smoking gun. If they had a text from Brady or too Brady stating clearly that he was involved it'd be done. But dammit if they don't have a pile of stuff that all points to the all but certain fact that Brady cheated.I'll admit that I'm partially fishing, if the Salty Haters admit they are also partially fishing.
Seriously though, a lot of people here are over-stating the level of guilt found in the report. Yes, there are lots of texts that look bad. But there are legitimate holes in the report. Ted Wells knew there were holes, which is why he didn't conclude guilt for sure. And if he didn't conclude guilt for sure, how could anyone else?
a) Lowest level above 50% guilt: "Preponderance of evidence"/"More probable than not"
b) Next level above 50% guilt: "Clear and convincing evidence"
c) Highest level above 50% guilt: "Beyond reasonable doubt"
Don't you think there's a reason why he concluded the lowest level above 50% guilt? If he was so sure, he could have said so. But he didn't.
Since the Patriots blocked a full and total investigation, some things had to be based on the probability of statistical models. They determined that there was a 4/1000ths chance that the balls were not deflated purposefully. So they were very exacting and used the exact wording in the NFL rules and said that it was probable that a violation had occurred.
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/05/06/more-probable-than-not-carries-important-legal-meaning/
So if Ted Wells could choose between "more probable than not" (lower level of guilt) vs "credible corroborating evidence" (higher level of guilt), why did he choose the lower level?
>
"That’s a standard perhaps even higher than the one that applies to players accused of violating the Personal Conduct Policy, where “credible corroborating evidence” (even without cooperation from the alleged victim) can result in a significant suspension. Regardless, it’s enough proof on which the NFL can base punishment of a team."
>
"The primary standards in the legal system are the high bar of proof beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal prosecutions, the lower test of clear and convincing evidence incertain civil cases, and the minimal, 51-49 barrier known as preponderance of the evidence, which applies in most lawsuits.
In the statement announcing Hardy’s 10-game suspension, the NFL simply said that the “decision is based on findings that are supported by credible corroborating evidence independent of Ms. Holder’s statements and testimony, such as testimony of other witnesses, medical and police reports, expert analyses, and photographs.” But under what standard is the evidence deemed to be credible, especially with Nicole Holder not cooperating due to the settlement she received?"
In any event, I believe that "clear and convincing evidence" (which is higher guilt than 'more probable than not') is a standard recognized in the NFL: that phrase pops up in the CBA.
https://nfllabor.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/collective-bargaining-agreement-2011-2020.pdf
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
A preponderance of the evidence standard is sufficient for 99% of the civil suits you hear and read about in this country. That standard has been met here, in the opinion of Wells. Whether the evidence would be sufficient were a higher standard imposed, which is unusual, remains an open question. Having read the report I believe the evidence would have. I note that this was evidence gathered against the efforts of many, and without the aid of subpoena. One could readily speculate that greater access to mandatory process would have uncovered more evidence. Long and short, the Patriots had every opportunity to present all of the exculpatory material they choose to present, and the investigator was potentially hamstrung by his lack of compulsory process, and Wells still built a very compelling case.You couldnt sound more like a lawyer of you tried.
That he didnt get asked "whether he found evidence to satisfy a clear and convincing standard" is part of the problem. Who is going to take this evidence and determine guilt or innocence? Is it Roger Goodlell and the NFL lawyers? Or are they going to snap back and state that they cannot punish Brady and the Pats given that the report didnt clearly indict them?
Knowing the particiants here, and being overly cynical, I can see this turning into a circular argument that lets the team/player get off with a slap on the wrist.
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
Native
Footballguy
Interesting. So is it your understanding that the NFL's next step would be to infer a ruling of guilt citing the report as evidence?A preponderance of the evidence standard is sufficient for 99% of the civil suits you hear and read about in this country. That standard has been met here, in the opinion of Wells. Whether the evidence would be sufficient were a higher standard imposed, which is unusual, remains an open question. Having read the report I believe the evidence would have. I note that this was evidence gathered against the efforts of many, and without the aid of subpoena. One could readily speculate that greater access to mandatory process would have uncovered more evidence. Long and short, the Patriots had every opportunity to present all of the exculpatory material they choose to present, and the investigator was potentially hamstrung by his lack of compulsory process, and Wells still built a very compelling case.You couldnt sound more like a lawyer of you tried.
That he didnt get asked "whether he found evidence to satisfy a clear and convincing standard" is part of the problem. Who is going to take this evidence and determine guilt or innocence? Is it Roger Goodlell and the NFL lawyers? Or are they going to snap back and state that they cannot punish Brady and the Pats given that the report didnt clearly indict them?
Knowing the particiants here, and being overly cynical, I can see this turning into a circular argument that lets the team/player get off with a slap on the wrist.
Mookie
Footballguy
What is there to infer? Guilt has been established. All that's left is punishment.Interesting. So is it your understanding that the NFL's next step would be to infer a ruling of guilt citing the report as evidence?A preponderance of the evidence standard is sufficient for 99% of the civil suits you hear and read about in this country. That standard has been met here, in the opinion of Wells. Whether the evidence would be sufficient were a higher standard imposed, which is unusual, remains an open question. Having read the report I believe the evidence would have. I note that this was evidence gathered against the efforts of many, and without the aid of subpoena. One could readily speculate that greater access to mandatory process would have uncovered more evidence. Long and short, the Patriots had every opportunity to present all of the exculpatory material they choose to present, and the investigator was potentially hamstrung by his lack of compulsory process, and Wells still built a very compelling case.You couldnt sound more like a lawyer of you tried.
That he didnt get asked "whether he found evidence to satisfy a clear and convincing standard" is part of the problem. Who is going to take this evidence and determine guilt or innocence? Is it Roger Goodlell and the NFL lawyers? Or are they going to snap back and state that they cannot punish Brady and the Pats given that the report didnt clearly indict them?
Knowing the particiants here, and being overly cynical, I can see this turning into a circular argument that lets the team/player get off with a slap on the wrist.
The General
Footballguy
The Cleveland dude got 4 games for texting a coach during a game.
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
Actually, in legal parlance it means more probable than not. It means at least 50.0001%, or more, but how much more is undefined. It establishes a floor, not a ceiling.For the last time. Probable means like 85% chance they cheated. But there isn't 100% evidence. According to the NFLs rules, this ruling is enough to 'convict' and dish out punishment. Expect a Brady suspension in the near future.Probable cheaters. The Wells Reports concludes it was probable, not for sure.
Run It Up
Footballguy
Yes, a GM got four games, for absolutely breaking the rules.
Even if Brady gets some time off, they only hasten the second coming.
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
No, no it didn't.'More probable than not' got Aaron Hernandez a life sentence.I'll admit that I'm partially fishing, if the Salty Haters admit they are also partially fishing.
Seriously though, a lot of people here are over-stating the level of guilt found in the report. Yes, there are lots of texts that look bad. But there are legitimate holes in the report. Ted Wells knew there were holes, which is why he didn't conclude guilt for sure. And if he didn't conclude guilt for sure, how could anyone else?
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
He was not asked to opine as to whether, in his opinion, the information he uncovered would have satisfied the higher standards. His task was specific, and so was his response, calculated so by his employer, the League.
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
But no "exacting" evidence. Just a pile of "use your brain" and its evident, evidence.No, no it didn't.'More probable than not' got Aaron Hernandez a life sentence.I'll admit that I'm partially fishing, if the Salty Haters admit they are also partially fishing.
Seriously though, a lot of people here are over-stating the level of guilt found in the report. Yes, there are lots of texts that look bad. But there are legitimate holes in the report. Ted Wells knew there were holes, which is why he didn't conclude guilt for sure. And if he didn't conclude guilt for sure, how could anyone else?
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
Demonstrably wrong, but you are not worth the breath. You refuse to hear.I forgot to mention this, but a massive hole that I've pointed out already, is that Ted Wells assumes the Patriots balls all started at 12.5 PSI. The refs didn't record it, but they claim to have measured the PSI. But there's video proof/other refs who have said in the past, that pre-game checking of PSI is not done very carefully.I think you mistake the term "holes" for the term "lack of definitive evidence of guilt". The two are not interchangible. In fact, there are very few, if any holes in Wells documentation and I would implore you to point them out. The only hole is the lack of a smoking gun. If they had a text from Brady or too Brady stating clearly that he was involved it'd be done. But dammit if they don't have a pile of stuff that all points to the all but certain fact that Brady cheated.I'll admit that I'm partially fishing, if the Salty Haters admit they are also partially fishing.
Seriously though, a lot of people here are over-stating the level of guilt found in the report. Yes, there are lots of texts that look bad. But there are legitimate holes in the report. Ted Wells knew there were holes, which is why he didn't conclude guilt for sure. And if he didn't conclude guilt for sure, how could anyone else?
If you don't know what the football PSI started at, how can you know how much it dropped? One popular theory from way back, is that the Patriots try to sneak in under-inflated balls past the refs to check (similar to how the Packers try to sneak over-inflated balls past the refs to check). If that is true, then the starting football PSI was lower, which combined with the cold weather explains the halftime PSI.
The General
Footballguy
I don't even care if he gets suspended, but I'd say this is more impactful on the game than a GM texting a coach.I just want people to admit Brady is lying his ### off when presented with all this info.
Know that's not going to happen though.
rockaction
Footballguy
I'd be pissed if I were the Ravens. One dubious tactic was banned in the off-season by the NFL, and the Patriots were found to have been cheating all the way back to October. This should be a big deal for competitive balance, and the suspension should be harsh.
Whether it will be is another issue.
Whether it will be is another issue.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
My understanding is that the league can adopt the report as their official findings in this matter and proceed to discipline, or not, at their sound discretion. It seems likely to me that they have already determined to adopt the findings and to contemplate punishment. I have not, as yet, heard this or read this from League Offices or spokesmen, but rather speculated upon by Reporters whose accuracy I always question prior to confirmation.Interesting. So is it your understanding that the NFL's next step would be to infer a ruling of guilt citing the report as evidence?A preponderance of the evidence standard is sufficient for 99% of the civil suits you hear and read about in this country. That standard has been met here, in the opinion of Wells. Whether the evidence would be sufficient were a higher standard imposed, which is unusual, remains an open question. Having read the report I believe the evidence would have. I note that this was evidence gathered against the efforts of many, and without the aid of subpoena. One could readily speculate that greater access to mandatory process would have uncovered more evidence. Long and short, the Patriots had every opportunity to present all of the exculpatory material they choose to present, and the investigator was potentially hamstrung by his lack of compulsory process, and Wells still built a very compelling case.You couldnt sound more like a lawyer of you tried.
That he didnt get asked "whether he found evidence to satisfy a clear and convincing standard" is part of the problem. Who is going to take this evidence and determine guilt or innocence? Is it Roger Goodlell and the NFL lawyers? Or are they going to snap back and state that they cannot punish Brady and the Pats given that the report didnt clearly indict them?
Knowing the particiants here, and being overly cynical, I can see this turning into a circular argument that lets the team/player get off with a slap on the wrist.
