I've seen this term misinterpreted quite a bit since the Wells report came out and felt this deserved it's own thread since there seems to be much confusion based on it. Mostly, people see the term and immediately jump to the conclusion that the report was weak and could only come to a "probably" because they weren't quite sure and didn't have enough evidence. This is not the case. Specifically, as noted at the bottom in the executive summary the NFL policy on the integrity of the game & enforcement of competitive rules the standard of proof required to find a violation of the competitive rules has occurred is a "preponderance of evidence", meaning that "as a whole the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not." Basically the answer to the question "was there a violation" is answered in terms of whether it is more probable than not. This question is what is asked for any violations of the policy the league asked wells to investigate. They answered that question plainly and exactly.
And if you've read the report or listened to any of the commentary this week, while the Wells Report said that it was "more probable than not" that Brady was generally aware of the deflation scheme, what Wells did not need to prove, but what, in fact, he implied, was that there was no fucking way Brady wasn't 100% the cheating piece if shit that orchestrated the entire ordeal, that he lied about it and then obstructed the investigation into his wholesale and systematic scheme to cheat. The GOAT my ass. Piece of shit. _
I think it further could be concluded that had Brady cooperated (as well as the Pats not denying 2nd interviews) that the evidence would have nailed Brady. I also read someplace that in a civil case more probable than not would have meant he is guilty, this would have been a civil case so it means he would have been guilty in such a case.
Correctamundo. In a criminal case (one that would send one to prison) the proof requires "beyond a reasonable doubt". 100% but the doubt has to be reasonable. The defense can't allege an alien committed the murder when the defendant drove the victim to a park, then showed up back at his house 20 minutes later with a gun. In a civil (not criminal) case (the payment of monetary damages), the standard is a "preponderance of the evidence". The burden of proof is "more likely than not". 51% This is not a criminal case. No one is putting Brady in prison. But his guilt can be determined by a 51% decree. By NFL standards. That doesn't mean he isn't 100% quilty, which he is. Wells only had to show a 51% likelyhood for him to be guilty by NFL standards But he's 100% guilty. If this were a criminal case he'd be taking cocks up the ass for 15 years. Enjoyably no doubt. _
If the words "not likely" were used instead of "probably" everyone would immediately think Brady is innocent. So unless there is video of Brady himself deflating footballs there will always be people out there that dont believe he knew. And probably even if there was a video people would call it a conspiracy and that this video was fake. Just the way people are. But in this case..just like the bountygate case, the punishment will come mostly from the Pats not cooperating with the NFL. The punishment wont be as severe because of Goodell and Kraft's buddy buddy relationship. But bias aside every football fan knows that doctoring a ball to below the league standard is much worse than putting bounties on certain QB's heads.
Jesus H, stop fucking cheating New England!! You won't though......as long as BB and Brady are there......they will do it again. Take away the trophy
I think one of the best parts is that say they do give him a lengthy suspension, say for the entire year, and he wants to appeal it you would think part of the grounds for an appeal would be him turning over his cell phone and all electronic data as well as follow up interviews. More stuff would go public which could make him look even worse. So it puts him in a tough spot, does he accept whatever punishment he gets regardless of how tough or does he risk his name being dragged through the mud further and possibly losing his appeal anyone and completely cementing the idea in everyone's head (except blind Pats fans, of course) that he's a cheater. The only other scenario is one in which he believes he can prove his innocence but, IMO, if he was innocent he would have cooperated in the first place and not tried to stonewall the investigation. Plus, come on, he's obviously involved. The evidence makes that abundantly clear.
I just love how pft and others are claiming the gauges are inaccurate and it undermines the report. Come on if there was no tamlering Brady woulda just copperated and called it a day. He didnt. These other two characters wouldnt have been issues. They were under inflated thats it. There doesnt need to be beyond a reasonable doubt. I don't understand how people dont get this simple concept. It's not rocket science
and why is that standard used by the NFL? Because the Pats of course - "NFL's Goodell Proposes Crackdown on Cheating Friday, March 7, 2008 NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell wants the league to conduct unannounced inspections of locker rooms, stadium press boxes and in-game communications equipment, and to lower the standard of proof needed for him to impose penalties on a team or person for cheating, according to a memo obtained by The Washington Post. The proposals were among a series of changes Goodell wants implemented before next season "to preserve the competitive integrity of the game" and "maintain public confidence" in the sport, according to the memo, which he sent to the league's competition committee yesterday. The memo represents Goodell's strongest response to the controversy stemming from the videotaping scandal involving the New England Patriots this past season and the league's handling of it. One person familiar with Goodell's proposals said the new threshold for imposing punishment for a rule violation would be closer to a preponderance of the evidence than beyond a reasonable doubt. "Too often, competitive violations have gone unpunished because conclusive proof of the violation was lacking," Goodell wrote. "I believe we should reconsider the standard of proof to be applied in such cases, and make it easier for a competitive violation to be established. And where a violation is shown, I intend to impose more stringent penalties on both the club and the responsible individual(s)"
Tom shady is right. Plus the Saints bounty gate has the precedents for coverup and lying too. Goodell is going to save himself and prove to all 32 owners he is king and Drunkard Krafty holds no undue influence. Here comes a big stick
