There's a difference between believing something you can't prove and having evidence of something you believe despite it not being sufficient to qualify as proof.
For example, when a new personality can't describe any aspect of the game correctly, stumbles over her words repeatedly, and then, once or twice a show answers a soft-pitch technical football question correctly with a vocal pattern that suggests she's very likely reading from her notes and with an answer that has the syntax wrong with the exception of the phrases that are obviously written explicitly on the notes and which are more sophisticated than anything else she's said all day....is that proof? No. Is it enough give a reasonable person suspicion that she's been fed an answer? In my opinion, it completely and obviously is. At the same time, I can understand somebody thinking it's not--especially in the context of trying to win a debate on a football forum. Either way, it's circumstantial evidence, at best.
So I"m saying I believe she was spoonfed answers early on based entirely off of anecdotal observations. I believe they did it to cover for a football knowledge gap that was significant. And I believe she's worked hard to close that gap. Would I have hired her at the start? Nope. Do I mind a person getting a break and working hard to justify the faith the show showed her? Nope. I respect it, in fact. But I still think Brian spoonfed here.
(Lol, autocorrect changed 'spoonfed' to 'spooned.' Gross).
