basically whichever side is more believable. In other words is it more likey the kid went in the bathroom to piss or drain 12 balls. Normally that means we're good but seeing as how the NFL seems to be run entirely by ex jets, kraft is out $25k
Kraft has already drawn a line in the sand. He expects an apology if there is not "definitive" evidence of wrongdoing. That is different from, and a much a higher standard than a preponderance of evidence. If Goodell punishes the Pats under that lower standard, it means war with Kraft, his closest and most powerful supporter.
Balance of probabilities = 51% or better. I don't think think we should worry too much yet, can't see them finding 51% against replicable science (cause that's what science, and the scientific method is, right?).
Same as the standard in civil cases, not as high as the burden in criminal (beyond a reasonable doubt).
The funny thing is that at this point I doubt they even have enough evidence to meet the preponderance of evidence standard. Won't stop Goodell from doing whatever he wants, but the Pats should win an appeal.
After all, what's more likely? That air did what air always does or that there was some bizarre plot to deflate 12 balls in a bathroom over the course of 90 seconds?
It means if can we prove some one in the world can take a piss and wash their hands in less than 90 seconds...then the ball boy must have been deflating balls
Of course, the NFL is not a court of law. It's just a corporation enforcing its own internal policies. The fact that it's taking so long and spending so much effort on something this patently ridiculous screams of an agenda.
Exactly...think civil cases--like you said, where a 51/49 percentage of agreement is enough to find "guilt" or award money.
It's pretty much the opposite of what the majority here think when they claim "they'll have to have solid evidence."
If there was really a sting operation, our team is screwed. It's already going to be hard enough explaining why the ball boy suddenly decided to go into an illegal area (coincidence #1) prior to the field, when you take into account the fact the balls ended up under inflated or deflated (coincidence #2).
If the NFL was seriously "watching" them due to already having questions and these coincidental events both took place, it will look very, very bad for us. It still may not be enough to justify a suspension for anyone though, and at this point that's all that really matters. I think it's highly unlikely that we get exonerated, so the court of public opinion has already had their say, and that sucks.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
