The Deflategate stupid argument thread

[Darth Despot]

If you actually believe that the pressure in the footballs, high or low, has any relationship to the integrity of the game you know nothing about the game.

There are 3 reasons the commish came down hard on Brady & the Pats

1. The media firestorm which was orchestrated by someone in the league office leaking false information (most of use suspect Kensil)

2. The Ray Rice debacle which made the commish look like an idiot

3. So Roger could declare his independence from Kraft, he wants to show the other 31 he was a tough guy.

There is absolutely no relationship between Cameragate (for which the organization was accused) and deflategate (for which Brady was accused).

The NFL makes this shit up as it goes for it's own reasons. One of the interesting ironies is the fans who got ****ed before (Saints) are usually leading the chorus for ****ing the next team to get the shaft from Roger.

 

[Beaglebay]

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on...-pats-gave-refs-a-copy-of-psi-rule-in-october

Here's an interesting question: if Tom Brady knew the Patriots were providing NFL game officials with a copy of the rulebook about the PSI level in footballs, why would he order someone to purposely deflate said footballs?

Because according to the appeal transcript released Tuesday, Brady was telling Patriots equipment managers to give NFL officials a rulebook as early as October 2014.

Brady told Roger Goodell and NFL officials during his appeal hearing that, after using Lexol leather conditioner in a bad-weather game against the Bills and having the footballs get slick, they went a different direction for the Jets game on Oct. 16.

So when we went into that particular Jet game, there was going to be inclement weather and I -- we came to I think a mutual decision. And he said, believe me, we are going to use a lot of these old footballs that are from training camp which, I don't know, four or five weeks, six weeks ago that we would never typically use in a game because they don't have any Lexol on them.

But they are already broken in so that when the water hits the ball, the water will absorb into the ball and it will create, you know, enough tackiness with just the water that you will be able to grip it when you throw it.

So I was a little hesitant, but I went with it. You know, I felt the balls before the game. I said all right, you know, let's go for it. And then I got on the field and hated it.

The result, according to Brady's testimony, was horrendous.

The ball was very hard, so it didn't feel like the ball was the way I approved them before the game," Brady said. "And for one reason or another, I don't know what happened to the balls."

As a result, Brady got "very pissed off" at equipment manager John Jastremski, who he claims talked him into used the balls.

"It was over the course of the first half that, you know, I was just, I was very pissed off. I was very pissed off at -- partly because I felt like I got talked into using these balls that we had done, like I said, a different protocol, and I felt like it didn't work out very well," Brady said.

Brady was then informed the balls were heavily inflated (16 PSI), which he believes occurred before the game by officials.

"I thought possibly the referees added balls -- added air to the balls, just because maybe they squeezed them, felt that these balls feel soft and just, you know, squeezed air into the ball," Brady said.

So Brady tried to find out about the rule and let officials know about it.



The rule in question is here (highlighting mine):



One thing that pops to mind? Who inflated the balls to 16 PSI? If they were that cranked up they were clearly outside the acceptable realm of inflation, except on the high side. Did the officials do that? If so, are they just feeling things out before games in the same way as Brady?

There wasn't ANY regulation when it came to inflation or deflation of footballs. Just a fly-by-night, wing-it type of rule application.

But back to my original question, then. Why on earth would Tom Brady get mad about over-inflated footballs, have someone on the Patriots alert the officials about not over-inflating footballs and then attempt to sneakily deflate them?

You don't walk into a jewelry store with a mask on and ask about their security situation 30 minutes before you rob the joint.

If Brady was supposed to be sneaking around, engineering some vast conspiracy about the PSI in footballs, the last thing he'd want to do is call the officials' attention to them.

 

[Beaglebay]

An inside look at the procedure with standards described as "good enough":

http://mmqb.si.com/2015/01/22/deflategate-video-how-nfl-officials-check-game-ball-pressure

 

[Dwight Schrute]

I can't answer why the balls in the Jets game were 16 psi because there is no actual evidence they were 16 psi. If the allegation is correct, my best guess would be it was a mistake, unless you have evidence to support some sort of tampering conspiracy for that game.

The rules that clearly talk about replacing balls, or being inflated or deflated, are things that happen prior to the opening kickoff. It's part of the inspection process. It is assumed that after the officials have inspected the balls the opportunity to tamper with them wouldn't exist. It's the idea of tampering with game balls after inspection that is the problem, not the actual change in PSI.


A punishment is implied anytime someone subverts the safeguards that are in place to protect the integrity of the game, i.e., the officials' game ball inspection. The officials aren't responsible for "checking pressure throughout the game", regardless of the punctuation you use after the phrase. They are responsible for inspecting the game balls at the beginning of the game. There should be no one accessing them without the officials present after the inspection, and McNally's possession of them by himself after that point is suspect.

Again, argue all you want that the PSI data was badly gathered and analyzed and ultimately inconclusive. Argue that the punishment was out of sync with similar infractions. Those arguments have basis. But please don't try to state that if all of this were true that even then, nobody did anything wrong. If the allegations are true, Brady cheated, no matter how much you try to bend the rule book.

If the allegations are false, then Brady is innocent, and his reputation has been unfairly tarnished by unproven conjecture based on circumstantial evidence.

I've said before, and I stand behind this, there is not enough evidence available for anyone but Brady, McNally, and Jastremski to know the truth either way.


I haven't addressed the fact that someone who isn't Manning confesses to having used HGH? Does someone who isn't Manning using HGH, through some brand of logic with which I'm unfamiliar, somehow mean that Manning must have used it too? Is this really a point you're trying to make or are you just effing with me? You're just hazing the new guy, right?

So you can't see the lack of common sense in your efforts to discredit the words of Slay AND the confirmation of a current professional athlete in his presence admitting to his program while they had no idea they were being filmed?

You are an ostrich.

Henceforth BSOstrich.

 

[benhamean]

 

[deec77]

I can't answer why the balls in the Jets game were 16 psi because there is no actual evidence they were 16 psi. If the allegation is correct, my best guess would be it was a mistake, unless you have evidence to support some sort of tampering conspiracy for that game.

The rules that clearly talk about replacing balls, or being inflated or deflated, are things that happen prior to the opening kickoff. It's part of the inspection process. It is assumed that after the officials have inspected the balls the opportunity to tamper with them wouldn't exist. It's the idea of tampering with game balls after inspection that is the problem, not the actual change in PSI.


A punishment is implied anytime someone subverts the safeguards that are in place to protect the integrity of the game, i.e., the officials' game ball inspection. The officials aren't responsible for "checking pressure throughout the game", regardless of the punctuation you use after the phrase. They are responsible for inspecting the game balls at the beginning of the game. There should be no one accessing them without the officials present after the inspection, and McNally's possession of them by himself after that point is suspect.

Again, argue all you want that the PSI data was badly gathered and analyzed and ultimately inconclusive. Argue that the punishment was out of sync with similar infractions. Those arguments have basis. But please don't try to state that if all of this were true that even then, nobody did anything wrong. If the allegations are true, Brady cheated, no matter how much you try to bend the rule book.

If the allegations are false, then Brady is innocent, and his reputation has been unfairly tarnished by unproven conjecture based on circumstantial evidence.

I've said before, and I stand behind this, there is not enough evidence available for anyone but Brady, McNally, and Jastremski to know the truth either way.


I haven't addressed the fact that someone who isn't Manning confesses to having used HGH? Does someone who isn't Manning using HGH, through some brand of logic with which I'm unfamiliar, somehow mean that Manning must have used it too? Is this really a point you're trying to make or are you just effing with me? You're just hazing the new guy, right?

To the 2 bolded portions your wrong.

First if it was the idea of tampering why not charge the Colts with tampering since they are the only ones that theres proof any real proof of tampering:shrug_n:
Sure McNally shouldn't have gone into the bathroom with them absolutely he should have called an official over to watch them. But being suspect and actually proving it they had none still don't. As a matter of fact the NFL and NE have tape of McNally carrying the balls back out after 1/2 time once again unsupervised. No one cared:shrug_n:

The officials are most certainly suppose to check the balls through out the game. They change out balls all the time and no I don't mean during a change of possession.

Rule 2 The Ball
Section 1
BALL DIMENSIONS
The Ball must be a “Wilson,” hand selected, bearing the signature of the Commissioner of the League, Roger Goodell.
The ball shall be made up of an inflated (12 1/2 to 13 1/2 pounds) urethane bladder enclosed in a pebble grained, leather case
(natural tan color) without corrugations of any kind. It shall have the form of a prolate spheroid and the size and weight
shall be: long axis, 11 to 11 1/4 inches; long circumference, 28 to 28 1/2 inches; short circumference, 21 to 21 1/4 inches;
weight, 14 to 15 ounces.
The Referee shall be the sole judge as to whether all balls offered for play comply with these specifications. A pump is to be
furnished by the home club, and the balls shall remain under the supervision of the Referee until they are delivered to the
ball attendant just prior to the start of the game.
Section 2
BALL SUPPLY
Each team will make 12 primary balls available for testing by the Referee two hours and 15 minutes prior to the starting time of
the game to meet League requirements. The home team will also make 12 backup balls available for testing in all
stadiums. In addition, the visitors, at their discretion, may bring 12 backup balls to be tested by the Referee for games
held in outdoor stadiums. For all games, eight new footballs, sealed in a special box and shipped by the manufacturer to
the Referee, will be opened in the officials’ locker room two hours and 15 minutes prior to the starting time of the game.
These balls are to be specially marked by the Referee and used exclusively for the kicking game.
In the event a home team ball does not conform to specifications, or its supply is exhausted, the Referee shall secure a proper
ball from the visitors and, failing that, use the best available ball. Any such circumstances must be reported to the
Commissioner.
In case of rain or a wet, muddy, or slippery field, a playable ball shall be used at the request of the offensive team’s center.
The Game Clock shall not stop for such action (unless undue delay occurs).
Note: It is the responsibility of the home team to furnish playable balls at all times by attendants from either side of the playing
field.
OFFICIAL

~Dee~

 

[TheBSPolice]

So you can't see the lack of common sense in your efforts to discredit the words of Slay AND the confirmation of a current professional athlete in his presence admitting to his program while they had no idea they were being filmed?

You are an ostrich.

Henceforth BSOstrich.

So you can't see the lack of common sense in trying to build an argument around the idea that someone must either be saying 100% true things or 100% false things? He was trying to sell his program to a potential client. Why do you think he's going to be 100% honest or 100% dishonest? Why wouldn't he take the truths that sell his product and mix them with the lies that also help to sell his product?

And regarding the ostrich comment, I have never proclaimed Manning innocent. I have endorsed an investigation, stated that I would absolutely denounce Manning's behavior if it turned out to be true, and expressed my opinion that it should harm his legacy if he were found to be guilty.

My "head burying" is limited to wanting more facts in a case defined by poor sources and hear-say so far before leaping to a conclusion.

 

[PatsFanLisa]

If the allegations are true, Brady cheated.

An allegation is a claim or assertion that someone has done something illegal or wrong, typically one made without proof.

It is a suspicion.

It is a thought.

It is nothing. It is something made without proof.

Therefore, without proof, Brady did NOT cheat.

You've taken a leap that has no basis in fact.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

So you can't see the lack of common sense in trying to build an argument around the idea that someone must either be saying 100% true things or 100% false things? He was trying to sell his program to a potential client. Why do you think he's going to be 100% honest or 100% dishonest? Why wouldn't he take the truths that sell his product and mix them with the lies that also help to sell his product?

And regarding the ostrich comment, I have never proclaimed Manning innocent. I have endorsed an investigation, stated that I would absolutely denounce Manning's behavior if it turned out to be true, and expressed my opinion that it should harm his legacy if he were found to be guilty.

My "head burying" is limited to wanting more facts in a case defined by poor sources and hear-say so far before leaping to a conclusion.

You've repeatedly denounced the whole video taped admission. And then justified that denouncement by his recant. All I've said is the presence of a current professional athlete sure gives it credibility in my book.

Do I suspect he did it? Absolutely. 39 yr olds after 4 surgeries just do not set all time passing stats as astronomical as that and then completely revert and fall off a cliff to the point of being benched when testing starts. WAY too coincidental.

But I don't have proof.

But there's no proof in a lot of things people are being punished for. Just give me equal treatment.

So Kubiak should be being hauled out of planning meetings right now and Manning should be front and center for 100 reporters venomously attacking and questioning him for 40 minutes.

Then I'd be satisfied.

 

[TheBSPolice]

An allegation is a claim or assertion that someone has done something illegal or wrong, typically one made without proof.

It is a suspicion.

It is a thought.

It is nothing. It is something made without proof.

Therefore, without proof, Brady did NOT cheat.

You've taken a leap that has no basis in fact.

An allegation isn't nothing. As you indicate above, it is a claim or assertion, it is a suspicion, it is a thought. All of those things are more than nothing.

While you're correct it is made without proof, your conclusion is flawed. Absence of proof doesn't mean automatically that Brady didn't cheat. It means there is no proof. He may have cheated and he may not have. Without proof, there is no way to know for certain.

I might be one of the few people in the country that hasn't taken a leap without basis in fact. There are some who denounce him as guilty with insufficient proof, and there are some who proclaim him innocent with equally insufficient proof. The only "leap" I've made is that Brady, McNally, Jastremski are the only ones who know for sure what happened, and the rest of us are forced to speculate based on the data that is available. I've not even one time proclaimed him guilty. I have not wavered from the stance that the evidence is insufficient to draw a conclusion.

So Kubiak should be being hauled out of planning meetings right now and Manning should be front and center for 100 reporters venomously attacking and questioning him for 40 minutes.

Then I'd be satisfied.

So when you denounce the way the NFL handled things and that you want them to be better, you don't actually mean it. You want the NFL to do everything wrong over and over again, learning nothing, repeating the same mistakes for which you vilify them, as long as they do it to other teams. Got it. The spite is strong with this one...

 

[deec77]

An allegation isn't nothing. As you indicate above, it is a claim or assertion, it is a suspicion, it is a thought. All of those things are more than nothing.

While you're correct it is made without proof, your conclusion is flawed. Absence of proof doesn't mean automatically that Brady didn't cheat. It means there is no proof. He may have cheated and he may not have. Without proof, there is no way to know for certain.

I might be one of the few people in the country that hasn't taken a leap without basis in fact. There are some who denounce him as guilty with insufficient proof, and there are some who proclaim him innocent with equally insufficient proof. The only "leap" I've made is that Brady, McNally, Jastremski are the only ones who know for sure what happened, and the rest of us are forced to speculate based on the data that is available. I've not even one time proclaimed him guilty. I have not wavered from the stance that the evidence is insufficient to draw a conclusion.


So when you denounce the way the NFL handled things and that you want them to be better, you don't actually mean it. You want the NFL to do everything wrong over and over again, learning nothing, repeating the same mistakes for which you vilify them, as long as they do it to other teams. Got it. The spite is strong with this one...

Or you can take Brady's word under oath that he did not request anyone to alter the PSI after the balls were inspected. Just as you take Manning's word that he didn't take any of his wives drugs. Look I understand your view i do . I also feel that if there is no proof you can't suspend someone. Innocent or not. But the mere fact that they haven't even proved the balls were in fact actually tampered with the rest is nonsense. Or Manning is "guilty" by association also. Again no one in the Manning camp has deny Ashley Manning was sent prescription drugs from Guyer. There is absolutely no reason to send the actual drugs anywhere if the prescription is legal you'd just fill out a prescription for it and have it filled at any pharmacy. :shrug_n:

~Dee~

 

[Dwight Schrute]

An allegation isn't nothing. As you indicate above, it is a claim or assertion, it is a suspicion, it is a thought. All of those things are more than nothing.

While you're correct it is made without proof, your conclusion is flawed. Absence of proof doesn't mean automatically that Brady didn't cheat. It means there is no proof. He may have cheated and he may not have. Without proof, there is no way to know for certain.

I might be one of the few people in the country that hasn't taken a leap without basis in fact. There are some who denounce him as guilty with insufficient proof, and there are some who proclaim him innocent with equally insufficient proof. The only "leap" I've made is that Brady, McNally, Jastremski are the only ones who know for sure what happened, and the rest of us are forced to speculate based on the data that is available. I've not even one time proclaimed him guilty. I have not wavered from the stance that the evidence is insufficient to draw a conclusion.


So when you denounce the way the NFL handled things and that you want them to be better, you don't actually mean it. You want the NFL to do everything wrong over and over again, learning nothing, repeating the same mistakes for which you vilify them, as long as they do it to other teams. Got it. The spite is strong with this one...

That sounds all well and good. And what you'd hope for in the real world.

But maybe it'd be preceded with a public acknowledgment of the error of their ways and a statement of attempting to do better moving forward.

You may think you'd handle things better. That's your opinion.

Show me after its your team.

Twice.

And the sheeple from other organizations collaborate and swallow everything the league feeds the public. Because they need to cling to some reason, any reason, to explain why they aren't as good as the Pats.

 

[TheBSPolice]

Or you can take Brady's word under oath that he did not request anyone to alter the PSI after the balls were inspected. Just as you take Manning's word that he didn't take any of his wives drugs.

I don't take Manning's word that he didn't take any of his wife's ALLEGED drugs. I am on record in this very forum stating the NFL should investigate because these are serious charges. I'm just not willing to call him guilty unless evidence turns up.

Again no one in the Manning camp has deny Ashley Manning was sent prescription drugs from Guyer. There is absolutely no reason to send the actual drugs anywhere if the prescription is legal you'd just fill out a prescription for it and have it filled at any pharmacy.

Lack of a denial is not the same as confirmation. There is, as far as I know, no actual confirmation that even Ashley received these drugs.

And while you may think this prescription, if it exists, could be filled at any pharmacy, I'm less confident that every CVS on the corner is carrying HGH. Add in the possibility that she may have been travelling, and shipping the drugs looks like a much better option than trying to get multiple pharmacies to fill the same prescription.

I also feel that if there is no proof you can't suspend someone. Innocent or not. But the mere fact that they haven't even proved the balls were in fact actually tampered with the rest is nonsense.

This is the argument against Deflategate that I can get behind the most. If there is insufficient proof to conclusively show that an infraction was committed, it's hard to justify punishment, especially landmark record breaking punishments.

 

[deec77]

I don't take Manning's word that he didn't take any of his wife's ALLEGED drugs. I am on record in this very forum stating the NFL should investigate because these are serious charges. I'm just not willing to call him guilty unless evidence turns up.


Lack of a denial I not the same as confirmation. There is, as far as I know, no actual confirmation that even Ashley received these drugs.

And while you may think this prescription, if it exists, could be filled at any pharmacy, I'm less confident that every CVS on the corner is carrying HGH. Add in the possibility that she may have been travelling, and shipping the drugs looks like a much better option than trying to get multiple pharmacies to fill the same prescription.



This is the argument against Deflategate that I can get behind the most. If there is insufficient proof to conclusively show that an infraction was committed, it's hard to justify punishment, especially landmark record breaking punishments.

What part of there is NO LACK of denial from the Manning camp. You keep overlooking that. Ashley Manning was in fact receiving as in sent to her all over the U.S. prescription drugs ( not a prescription but the actual drugs) from an anti aging clinic. The manning camp confirmed that. If she was prescribed HGH that was illegal period end of disscussion. What part of that seems to be alluding you? HGH is a controlled drug :shrug_n:

~Dee~

I really don't care if he took or not to be honest it won't change my view of him. But if the league convicted Brady on circumstantial evidence and let Manning slide on circumstantial evidence there's a problem. That's all I'm saying.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

I don't take Manning's word that he didn't take any of his wife's ALLEGED drugs. I am on record in this very forum stating the NFL should investigate because these are serious charges. I'm just not willing to call him guilty unless evidence turns up.


Lack of a denial is not the same as confirmation. There is, as far as I know, no actual confirmation that even Ashley received these drugs.

And while you may think this prescription, if it exists, could be filled at any pharmacy, I'm less confident that every CVS on the corner is carrying HGH. Add in the possibility that she may have been travelling, and shipping the drugs looks like a much better option than trying to get multiple pharmacies to fill the same prescription.


This is the argument against Deflategate that I can get behind the most. If there is insufficient proof to conclusively show that an infraction was committed, it's hard to justify punishment, especially landmark record breaking punishments.

Finally.

---------- Post added at 08:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:58 PM ----------

What part of there is NO LACK of denial from the Manning camp. You keep overlooking that. Ashley Manning was in fact receiving as in sent to her all over the U.S. prescription drugs ( not a prescription but the actual drugs) from an anti aging clinic. The manning camp confirmed that. If she was prescribed HGH that was illegal period end of disscussion. What part of that seems to be alluding you? HGH is a controlled drug :shrug_n:

~Dee~

I really don't care if he took or not to be honest it won't change my view of him. But if the league convicted Brady on circumstantial evidence and let Manning slide on circumstantial evidence there's a problem. That's all I'm saying.

Far more solid circumstantial.

 

[TheBSPolice]

What part of there is NO LACK of denial from the Manning camp. You keep overlooking that. Ashley Manning was in fact receiving as in sent to her all over the U.S. prescription drugs ( not a prescription but the actual drugs) from an anti aging clinic. The manning camp confirmed that. If she was prescribed HGH that was illegal period end of disscussion. What part of that seems to be alluding you? HGH is a controlled drug :shrug_n:

~Dee~

The part eluding me is this confirmation you're claiming. Please cite the source. There has been no confirmation from the Mannings about whether or not Ashely received HGH from the clinic. His only reference to her in this whole issue has been that any drugs she may or may not have received is her private medical business and has nothing to do with him. If you have a source that says otherwise, by all means link it.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

the part eluding me is this confirmation you're claiming. Please cite the source. There has been no confirmation from the mannings about whether or not ashely received hgh from the clinic. His only reference to her in this whole issue has been that any drugs she may or may not have received is her private medical business and has nothing to do with him. If you have a source that says otherwise, by all means link it.

View attachment 97222

 

[Patriots4ever]

You've repeatedly denounced the whole video taped admission. And then justified that denouncement by his recant. All I've said is the presence of a current professional athlete sure gives it credibility in my book.

Do I suspect he did it? Absolutely. 39 yr olds after 4 surgeries just do not set all time passing stats as astronomical as that and then completely revert and fall off a cliff to the point of being benched when testing starts. WAY too coincidental.

But I don't have proof.

But there's no proof in a lot of things people are being punished for. Just give me equal treatment.

So Kubiak should be being hauled out of planning meetings right now and Manning should be front and center for 100 reporters venomously attacking and questioning him for 40 minutes.

Then I'd be satisfied.

I wonder why Manning hired Ari Fleischer, PR crisis management ?

 

[deec77]

The part eluding me is this confirmation you're claiming. Please cite the source. There has been no confirmation from the Mannings about whether or not Ashely received HGH from the clinic. His only reference to her in this whole issue has been that any drugs she may or may not have received is her private medical business and has nothing to do with him. If you have a source that says otherwise, by all means link it.

His PR guy said she indeed received a prescription drug from the clinic but refused to say what it was citing medical confidentiality. If any anti aging prescription was given to Ms Manning she would have been able to walk into any pharmacy to fill it other then HGH. I find her nondenial interesting too. All she would have to do is say no I never took nor was HGH prescribed to me period. There are an abundant sources out there. Manning himself claims his wife never provided him with any of her drugs. What other drugs would have mattered? I'm on my iPad so can't link it at the moment goggle Forbes and manning Hgh. It's the only one I can remember off the top of my head. Again if you find that not circumtial then any deflate gate stuff is noncircumcial too. If you believe Mannings denials then why not believe Brady's denials under Oath:shrug_n:
I'll provide all links in the morning. I never said they comfirmed it just they never denied it.


~Dee~

 

[TheBSPolice]

I never said they comfirmed it just they never denied it.

I must have misread when you used the word "confirmed" earlier...

The manning camp confirmed that. If she was prescribed HGH that was illegal period end of disscussion. What part of that seems to be alluding you?

His PR guy said she indeed received a prescription drug from the clinic but refused to say what it was citing medical confidentiality. If any anti aging prescription was given to Ms Manning she would have been able to walk into any pharmacy to fill it other then HGH. I find her nondenial interesting too. All she would have to do is say no I never took nor was HGH prescribed to me period. There are an abundant sources out there. Manning himself claims his wife never provided him with any of her drugs. What other drugs would have mattered?

And we're back to refusing to deny not being equal to a confession. It's a cornerstone of the American Justice System some of you cling to in Deflategate, which by the way isn't a crime, so not really as relevant. There are a multitude of reasons why she might be unwilling to deny it, even if it's not true. Under legal advice for possible upcoming proceedings, she may have been advised to volunteer no information. She may have one of the health conditions that warrant HGH prescription and not want it widely known which would be her right under HIPPA laws. On a matter of principle, she is a very private person and may not wish to volunteer her private information to the country at large. She was pregnant with twins that year, and I wonder if that had an impact on her body that her doctor felt could be alleviated with HGH, and she doesn't want to talk about it. And of course, it is possible she is not denying because she is guilty. These are the first five speculations that just popped into my head and only one of them is guilt. It is irresponsible to leap to the guilty verdict based solely on someone's unwillingness to deny something they have every right to remain silent about.

And let me try to express this again. I don't believe Manning's denials any more or less than I believe Brady's. I've never, not once, at all, here or anywhere else, at any time, for any reason, proclaimed Brady guilty. I am also not proclaiming Manning guilty until there is more evidence than some guy, who immediately recanting, telling stories.