Cartire":lnicwn2e said:
Dude, correlation does not equal causation. So what if they had the fewest. It doesn't take away intent. They had a performance pool. They had GW's. They had a power point about it.
These are facts. Not assumptions.
And I don't know your personally, but I'm gonna take a wild stab and say that you don't know GW personally, and yet, you feel more then qualified to tell me how he is well known for speaking in abstracts.
Here's what I know. A court room doesn't deal in abstracts. They deal with facts. Just like you don't say bomb in an airport even if your kidding, not everyone around you is gonna know if your kidding, being abstract, speaking hyperbolic.
All your "facts" are not facts.
You have correlation of injury results.
You have a character analysis of a guy none of us actually know outside of media eyes.
You have a decision by the commish overturned by someone else (this is not proof of anything other then the other guy didn't feel the same punishment was warranted)
So tell me again how my eyes are biased and yours are not.
Yes they had a performance pool. Virtually every, if not every, team in the league had a performance pool. How can you imply any intent with less knowledge of the players than I have of Williams? That's convenient. But, players have stated that Williams did deal in those abstracts.
You ignore the correlation which is statistically significant and would be substantial evidence, as stated in the independent study, in a court of law.
You ignore the analysis of people who have worked closely with the questionable individual for many years.
You ignore the fact that the punishments were overturned because there was no evidence that the players engaged in the alleged activity.
You also brought up the courtroom. Let's return to your courtroom. Show me one single piece of evidence that
proves anything. If we bring up courts and such we must admit that we live in America, right? In this country we are assumed innocent until PROVEN guilty. There is not any evidence to prove guilt and many to disprove.
Testimony under oath is accepted in the court of law, correct? At least 13 Saints defensive players and coaches swore, under oath with the threat of perjury, that no bounties ever existed in a U.S. District Court hearing. Nine others submitted signed affidavits declaring the same. Yet, the league office (ie., Goodell), refused to let the lone accuser, Mike Cerullo (that was fired for lying on multiple occasions) testify under oath.
Yes, bring up the court. It was soon after these testimonies that the league took it to Tagliabue as an arbitrator to overturn.
You talk facts. There are legally defined facts showing that this most likely never took place. Yet, there is not one single shred of fact that implies that it did.
Where does that unbiased eye lie?
