In other words, if his report fits your pre-conceived narrative and supports your agenda, then he is a man of integrity and honor. But if he comes out and says the Patriots are innocent, well then obviously he's just in on the cover-up.
Obviously, you fail to read what I've written.
George Mitchell's report was a joke and obviously biased as I showed. And in the end David Ortiz *admitted* to using PED's.
When first reading the report one could see that Mitchell, who works for the Red Sox, had no current Red Sox players on his list and the only other team without any players on the list conveniently were the Brewers. Everybody on the list they had evidence of actual payments going to trainers, wellness facilities, etc...except for the Yankees players listed.
This would fit the belief that Mitchell was not unbiased. And in the end the fact that Ramirez was caught twice and Ortiz admitted to it along with Ryan Braun getting caught...showed the Mitchell Report to lack credibility.
If Wells can create a report and it says that the Patriots are innocent, then I want to know what evidence he has. If he says they are innocent and uses Healy's example of how the PSI would decrease by 1.8 PSI and that would
not explain the Colts' footballs being within the league regulated PSI...then it is a shoddy investigation.
If he says they are innocent and gives a valid, logical, and well founded report as to why they are innocent...then so be it.
Personally, I think he's having a difficult time determining why the Colts' footballs were not under the NFL mandated limits. I think he can probably explain how the Pats getting under the mandated PSI requirements was
possible, but has struggled to figure out how the Colts didn't and that is the hold up.
No, you're the one who claims to be a statistician but doesn't know what that phrase means. I'd say I feel sorry for your clients, but we both know you're full of crap and don't understand the first thing about statistical analysis.
Dude, you're the one that claimed that Warren Sharp was showing a 'correlation analysis' and there was no correlation analysis being done. It was a trend analysis and spotting an outlier and analyzing the outlier. He showed trending charts of the Patriots' fumble rate and you don't know what you're talking about because you're not educated in statistics. You also don't even understand what a correlation analysis represents and means, but that's beside the point.
I don't need to conjure up anything. I will accept the results of the Wells investigation, whether it exonerates the Patriots or condemns them. You don't care what the 14 week investigation says, nothing is going to change your closed mind.
I don't take things at face value. Especially from this league. The same league that tries to tell us that it was perfectly reasonable to destroy the evidence from SpyGate, immediately. The same league that tells me that Dez didn't actually catch the pass against the Packers. And the same league that tells me that they were not executing collusion when they decided to fine Washington and Dallas cap room for their signings in an uncapped year. The same league that wants me to believe that they did not get a hold of the Ray Rice tape when a police officer had a recording from somebody from the league's office telling them that they got the tape and it was worse than they originally thought.
If Wells exonerates the Patriots and comes up with good, logical evidence in the process, I'm all for it. But, I'm simply not going to take it at face value until I can go over the report and verify how he came about the decision.
YR