|
Post by DC-Fan on Feb 28, 2017 21:55:42 GMT
Re: deflategate. (no need to systematically quote a bunch of different nonsense) Everything you're saying boils down to two fallacious statements; 1. Judge Chin said so 2. Marlow said so They're both the appeal to authority fallacy. They both have the same problem; they're reliant on Exponent's appendix in The Wells report. Two (at least) of Exponent's experiments are demonstrably fraudulent. One experiment's graph shows a wet football and a dry football warming at the same rate. They do not. Wet footballs warm more slowly, due to the water insulating the ball and evaporative cooling. That means this experiment was either performed very shoddily or the data was forged. The other is the Master/Exemplar gauge experiment which sought to determine if Walt Anderson used the logo gauge or the non-logo gauge pre-game. This experiment would require precise temperature and pressure values from the pre-game measurements. None of that data exists, so that experiment could not possibly have accurately made the reached conclusion that Anderson probably used the non-logo gauge. In short, that experiment was garbage. It's also interesting to note that this experiment hinges on the accuracy of Jastremski's gauge, which was last known to be in the possession of NFL exec James Daniel, when he used it to thrice measure the ball intercepted by D'Qwell Jackson. Then it mysteriously went missing... This is just two blatant mistakes. I can't imagine what mistakes have been made that are not so obvious... that they made two such obvious errors indicates either incompetence or bias. That Marlow approves of their methodology shows he's either incompetent or biased. That Chin thinks such evidence is compelling or overwhelming illustrates how little he knows about science. If you want to continue citing them, you first have to address Exponent's errors, because your entire argument is built on the foundation of the Wells Report. And it's a shitty foundation upon which to build. LOL wrong. JJ said "This is exactly how I was told to do it 18 years ago by a Kansas City Chiefs scout. I tried it, but I didn't think it helped us." Notice his use of the word 'exactly.' That You also keep making the mistake that 'breaking a rule = cheating' which isn't so. Cheating means there is an advantage. If there is no advantage, then the action isn't cheating. The result is the same, the signals are stolen, regardless of how they're stolen. Nope. Judge Chin relied on all the evidence presented, which includes the briefs from the lawyers and the oral arguments from the lawyers, to make his decision. Brady's lawyers tried their best to argue against Professor's Marlow's analysis, but they failed to poke any holes in Professor Marlow's analysis. That's why Judge Chin ruled in favor of the NFL - because Brady's lawyers didn't have a sufficient counter-argument to debunk Professor Marlow's analysis.
I don't have to address the Wells Report because Brady's lawyers already tried to argue against the Wells Report and Judge China already decided that they didn't have a sufficient counter-argument to debunk the Wells Report.
And when Jimmy Johnson was asked point-blank where his camera guy filmed from, Johnson said his camera guy was in the booth. Johnson never said his camera guy was filming from the sidelines. On the contrary, when asked point-blank where his camera guy filmed from, Johnson specifically said that his camera guy filmed from the booth, which isn't against the rules and isn't cheating.
And there was a significant advantage to filming from the sidelines. Again, if there was no advantage, then why did Belichick continue doing it for 6+ seasons and risk getting caught? The reason that Belichick continued illegally filming from the sidelines and risking getting caught for 6+ seasons is because there was indeed an advantage and that advantage was significant enough that it outweighed the risk of getting caught. That's also why the NFL prohibited filming from the sidelines but didn't prohibit filming from the coaches booth - because filming from the sidelines provides a significant advantage over filming from the coaches booth.
|
|
|
Post by fangirl1975 on Feb 28, 2017 22:02:55 GMT
Tom Brady
|
|
zoilus
Junior Member
@zoilus
Posts: 2,831
Likes: 1,683
|
Post by zoilus on Feb 28, 2017 22:17:37 GMT
I shouldn't have to tell you this, but this isn't a court of law here. What Brady's lawyers did or did not do is not binding here. All you're doing is doubling down on your appeal to authority fallacy, and I already told you I don't accept that. This is still on top of the foundation of Exponent's shoddy science.
I doubt Brady's lawyers focused on the science, as the ruling was only about Goodell's authority and not the veracity of Wells' or Exponent's findings. So again, another moot point made by you.
If you want to continue this argument, yes you do have to. I don't accept your appeal to authority fallacy. Your entire argument of Chin/Marlow is based on a fraudulent science report. That's a problem.
Oh he did it from the sideline alright. He said "That’s the best way to do it, but anyway you can’t always do that because the press box camera crew might be on the same side as the opposing team. If they’re on the same side as the opposing team that’s when you need to do it from the sideline." Sure sounds like he considered filming from the sideline to be a valid option. "you need to do it." Otherwise he would have just said "then you can't do it that game" or "you would have to but it's not allowed."
Already answered. Try paying attention.
|
|
SportsFan19
Junior Member
@sportsfan19
Posts: 2,858
Likes: 2,255
|
Post by SportsFan19 on Feb 28, 2017 22:27:21 GMT
This is seriously some of the dumbest shit I have every read. You're seriously saying the last 3 Pats drive plus their OT drive were all luck. Sure they got lucky that Shanahan decided to pass and not run but they still had to win the game after that. Other than the one turnover (which was skill and a missed assignment, not luck) they still had to drive down the field to score and had to convert 2 two-point conversions. The Falcons just got outplayed at the end of the game. Stop being so salty, you sound ridiculous. Yes, it was pure luck (not the Patriots playing better) that when Brady's pass into traffic was tipped straight into the air and should've been intercepted, not only was the pass not intercepted but Bennett was lucky enough to be standing directly under where the tipped ball come down and caught it.
And it was pure luck (not the Patriots playing better) that when another pass by Brady into traffic was deflected and should've been intercepted, not only was the pass not intercepted but Edelman makes a lucky catch.
And it was pure luck that on a play in which multiple penalties occurred (including an obvious facemask penalty against the Patriots), the refs not only miss the obvious facemask penalty against the Patriots but call the ONLY penalty that miraculously moved the Falcons out of FG range and miraculously took away the Falcons' chance to kick a FG that would've put the game away late in the 4th quarter.
If all 3 of those plays didn't happen in the Patriots' favor, then the Patriots don't win. And all 3 of those plays weren't the result of the Patriots playing better. All 3 of those plays were clearly the result of the Patriots simply being extremely lucky.
Add in the fact that the Patriots winning the OT coin toss was also not the result of the Patriots playing better but the result of the Patriots being lucky. It's simple to understand, but once again your failure to understand such a simple concept further proves that I'm 100% right about Patriots' fans being slow at getting things.
It wasn't Andrew Luck, dummy, it was Tom Brady!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2017 22:46:53 GMT
Lebron James. The man cannot drive to the basket without traveling.
|
|
ctown28
Sophomore
@ctown28
Posts: 507
Likes: 391
|
Post by ctown28 on Mar 1, 2017 2:24:38 GMT
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Mar 1, 2017 7:02:08 GMT
I shouldn't have to tell you this, but this isn't a court of law here. What Brady's lawyers did or did not do is not binding here. All you're doing is doubling down on your appeal to authority fallacy, and I already told you I don't accept that. This is still on top of the foundation of Exponent's shoddy science. I doubt Brady's lawyers focused on the science, as the ruling was only about Goodell's authority and not the veracity of Wells' or Exponent's findings. So again, another moot point made by you. If you want to continue this argument, yes you do have to. I don't accept your appeal to authority fallacy. Your entire argument of Chin/Marlow is based on a fraudulent science report. That's a problem. Oh he did it from the sideline alright. He said "That’s the best way to do it, but anyway you can’t always do that because the press box camera crew might be on the same side as the opposing team. If they’re on the same side as the opposing team that’s when you need to do it from the sideline." Sure sounds like he considered filming from the sideline to be a valid option. "you need to do it." Otherwise he would have just said "then you can't do it that game" or "you would have to but it's not allowed." Already answered. Try paying attention. I shouldn't have to tell you this, but the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, which held the final hearing on the DeflateGate case, is a court of law. It's the 2nd highest court in the country. And Brady's lawyers focused entirely on the science. Because they knew that they had no legal argument against Goodell's authority as granted by the CBA. So their entire legal strategy was to attack the science. They tried their hardest to poke holes in Professor Marlow's analysis, but they failed to even put a dent in Professor Marlow's analysis. In the end, Professor Marlow's all challenges and not a single scientist even had the courage to come forward and sit in the witness chair and oppose Professor Marlow's analysis. Because they all knew that their faulty conclusions would never be able to overcome Professor Marlow's sound analysis in court.
And no, I don't have to address the Wells Report because Brady's lawyers already tried to argue against the Wells Report and Judge Chin already decided that they didn't have a sufficient counter-argument to debunk the Wells Report. In legal terms, it's called "asked and answered". Brady's lawyers already asked Professor Marlow the questions and Professor Marlow already answered those questions and the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals felt that Professor Marlow's answers were compelling and convincing and felt that Brady's lawyers didn't have a sufficient counter-argument against Professor Marlow's analysis.
And no, Chin's decision wasn't based on any fraudulent science report. 1st, the Wells Report was confirmed to be accurate by the most qualified physicist on the planet. 2nd, Chin based his decision on the briefs and oral arguments from both sides and Chin decided that the NFL's lawyers made a much more compelling and convincing argument than Brady's lawyers did.
Notice in your quote of Johnson that he said "If". "If" means a conditional or hypothetical situation and not an actual situation. For example, near the end of Super Bowl XVLII, the Ravens had a 5-point lead and had the ball at their own 8-yard line and 4th down with 12 seconds left. They took a safety and would have to punt the ball to the 49ers with 4 seconds left. The 49ers only chance was to return the punt back for a TD.
On NFL Sound FX, Joe Flacco could clearly be heard on the Ravens sidelines telling his teammates on the sidelines "If he break its and it looks like he's going to score a TD, just run out on the field and tackle him." A player on the sidelines running out onto the field to tackle a player during a play would be against the rules. But we never saw that happen, even though we clearly heard Flacco tell his teammates to do that.
That's because Flacco said "IF" he breaks it. "IF" means it was a conditional or hypothetical situation, which never occurred. And even though Flacco was clearly heard telling his teammates to do something that was against the rules, since that conditional or hypothetical situation never actually happened, we can't say that Flacco or the Ravens cheated on that play.
Likewise, Johnson said "IF', which is a conditional or hypothetical situation. And there's no evidence at all that conditional or hypothetical situation ever occurred in the Cowboys case. So without any evidence, we can't assume that it ever occurred and thus we can't assume that Johnson ever did that. The only thing we know for sure that Johnson did was what Johnson specifically said - that his camera guy was in the coaches booth. Johnson didn't say "IF" his camera guy was in the coaches booth. Johnson specifically and categorically said his camera guy was in the coaches booth. So that' the only filming we know for sure that Johnson did, everything else is just pure speculation based in a conditional or hypothetical statement made by Johnson, similar to Flacco's conditional or hypothetical statement in Super Bowl XLVII telling his teammates to break the rules, which never happened in Super Bowl XLVII.
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Mar 1, 2017 7:06:31 GMT
When the reported asked Johnson point-blank where his camera guy was, Johnson specifically said his camera guy was in the coaches booth and didn't say anything about his camera guy filming from the sidelines. Basically, the reporter wanted to clarify what Johnson said so the reported asked Johnson point-blank where his camera guy was and Johnson clearly and specifically answered that his camera guy filmed from the coaches booth.
Filming from the coaches booth (like Johnson did) isn't against the rules and thus isn't cheating. Filming from the sidelines (like Belichick did) is against the rules and is cheating.
|
|
zoilus
Junior Member
@zoilus
Posts: 2,831
Likes: 1,683
|
Post by zoilus on Mar 1, 2017 15:14:27 GMT
I shouldn't have to tell you this, but the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, which held the final hearing on the DeflateGate case, is a court of law.
Again, whether Brady's team did or did not poke a hole in the science is irrelevant. THIS is not a court of law. 'Asked and answered' does not apply here. There's no judge here to say what is and is not admissible. There are no lawyers to yell objection - argumentative! or anything like that. I've poked holes in the science. Others have poked holes in the science, because their 'science' was bought and paid for. Exponent's report is garbage because of the two experiments already thoroughly covered, and Marlow has no credibility due to failing to notice (or purposefully ignoring) those errors. Your appeal to authority fallacy will not work, now matter how much you repeat it. This is a big problem for you because you don't understand the relevant science. LOLOL. Get real. You say a lot of stupid things but this is really up there. It's not just for hypotheticals. It's for actual decision making. If he were speaking hypothetically, he wouldn't have said "then you need to do it from the sideline" he'd say "then you can't do it" or "then you'd have to break the rules" or some such. But he didn't, because he considered filming from the sideline to be a valid option, which is clear from his utterance of "This is exactly how I was told to do it."
|
|
ctown28
Sophomore
@ctown28
Posts: 507
Likes: 391
|
Post by ctown28 on Mar 1, 2017 15:34:13 GMT
When the reported asked Johnson point-blank where his camera guy was, Johnson specifically said his camera guy was in the coaches booth and didn't say anything about his camera guy filming from the sidelines. Basically, the reporter wanted to clarify what Johnson said so the reportedi asked Johnson point-blank where his camera guy was and Johnson clearly and specifically answered that his camera guy filmed from the coaches booth.
Filming from the coaches booth (like Johnson did) isn't against the rules and thus isn't cheating. Filming from the sidelines (like Belichick did) is against the rules and is cheating.
What part of "This is EXACTLY how I was told to do it" did you not Understand? Where's your source for the reporter asking him point nlank where the camera Was? I provided a source for my claim while you're just making shit up. Oh, I figured out out what DC FAN stands for dick cock fan
|
|
|
Post by socalboy83 on Mar 1, 2017 17:43:51 GMT
Brady
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Mar 1, 2017 18:03:29 GMT
whether Brady's team did or did not poke a hole in the science is irrelevant It's completely relevant because their entire argument was that the science in the Wells Report was wrong. By failing to debunk Professor Marlow's analysis, they failed to prove their argument. That's why they lost in court. I've poked holes in the science. No, you haven't. All you've done is the same thing that other scientists (including 1 scientist who works for a company funded by Robert Kraft) did and that was to offer your own opinion which was never subjected to the scrutiny of cross-examination, like Professor Marlow's analysis was. You and all the dumb Patriots fans (such as Rey_Kahuka, schlacko, and others) just don't seem to understand the concept that any opinion that hasn't been subjected to the scrutiny of cross-examination is worthless and invalid.
I don't know what country you live in, but here in the U.S. the accused is allowed to confront his accuser. So a defendant gets to have his lawyers cross-examine any witnesses who testify against him. But it also works both ways. The prosecution also gets to cross-examine any witnesses who testify for the defendant.
In the DeflateGate case, Professor Marlow gave his analysis and then Brady's lawyers got to cross-examine Professor Marlow. Brady's lawyers tried their hardest to poke holes in Professor Marlow's analysis but they couldn't even put a dent in Professor Marlow's analysis.
Conversely, a few scientists (including 1 scientist who works for a company funded by Robert Kraft) gave their opinions but the NFL's lawyers never got the chance to cross-examine those scientists. Because those scientists were afraid to come forward and sit in the witness chair and have their opinions subjected to cross-examination by the NFL's lawyers because they knew that their analysis was faulty and would be taken apart under the scrutiny of cross-examination.
Their refusal to subject their analysis to the scrutiny of cross-examination by opposing lawyers (like Professor Marlow's analysis was) makes their analysis worthless and invalid. Likewise, since your analysis was never subjected to cross-examination by opposing lawyers, your analysis is also worthless and invalid. Professor Marlow's analysis is the ONLY scientific analysis of DeflateGate that has withstood the scrutiny of cross-examinaton by opposing lawyers so Professor Marlow's analysis is the ONLY valid scientific analysis of DeflateGate.
he considered filming from the sideline to be a valid option And Joe Flacco considered it to be a valid option to have his teammates on the sidelines run onto the field and tackle the 49ers punt returner IF the 49ers punt returner broke it and it looked like he would score a TD. But like I said, that was just a conditional or hypothetical statement, which never happened. Likewise, when a reporter asked Johnson point-blank where his camera guy filmed from, Johnson specifically and categorically said that his camera guy filmed from the coaches booth and didn't say anything about his camera guy filming from the sidelines. So all you have is a conditional or hypothetical statement by Johnson of something that we don't know ever happened and thus is no more cheating than Joe Flacco telling his teammates to break the rules in a conditional or hypothetical situation, which never happened.
|
|
|
Post by klawrencio79 on Mar 1, 2017 18:11:12 GMT
whether Brady's team did or did not poke a hole in the science is irrelevant It's completely relevant because their entire argument was that the science in the Wells Report was wrong. By failing to debunk Professor Marlow's analysis, they failed to prove their argument. That's why they lost in court. I've poked holes in the science. No, you haven't. All you've done is the same thing that other scientists (including 1 scientist who works for a company funded by Robert Kraft) did and that was to offer your own opinion which was never subjected to the scrutiny of cross-examination, like Professor Marlow's analysis was. You and all the dumb Patriots fans (such as Rey_Kahuka, schlacko, and others) just don't seem to understand the concept that any opinion that hasn't been subjected to the scrutiny of cross-examination is worthless and invalid.
I don't know what country you live in, but here in the U.S. the accused is allowed to confront his accuser. So a defendant gets to have his lawyers cross-examine any witnesses who testify against him. But it also works both ways. The prosecution also gets to cross-examine any witnesses who testify for the defendant.
In the DeflateGate case, Professor Marlow gave his analysis and then Brady's lawyers got to cross-examine Professor Marlow. Brady's lawyers tried their hardest to poke holes in Professor Marlow's analysis but they couldn't even put a dent in Professor Marlow's analysis.
Conversely, a few scientists (including 1 scientist who works for a company funded by Robert Kraft) gave their opinions but the NFL's lawyers never got the chance to cross-examine those scientists. Because those scientists were afraid to come forward and sit in the witness chair and have their opinions subjected to cross-examination by the NFL's lawyers because they knew that their analysis was faulty and would be taken apart under the scrutiny of cross-examination.
Their refusal to subject their analysis to the scrutiny of cross-examination by opposing lawyers (like Professor Marlow's analysis was) makes their analysis worthless and invalid. Likewise, since your analysis was never subjected to cross-examination by opposing lawyers, your analysis is also worthless and invalid. Professor Marlow's analysis is the ONLY scientific analysis of DeflateGate that has withstood the scrutiny of cross-examinaton by opposing lawyers so Professor Marlow's analysis is the ONLY valid scientific analysis of DeflateGate.
he considered filming from the sideline to be a valid option And Joe Flacco considered it to be a valid option to have his teammates on the sidelines run onto the field and tackle the 49ers punt returner IF the 49ers punt returner broke it and it looked like he would score a TD. But like I said, that was just a conditional or hypothetical statement, which never happened. Likewise, when a reporter asked Johnson point-blank where his camera guy filmed from, Johnson specifically and categorically said that his camera guy filmed from the coaches booth and didn't say anything about his camera guy filming from the sidelines. So all you have is a conditional or hypothetical statement by Johnson of something that we don't know ever happened and thus is no more cheating than Joe Flacco telling his teammates to break the rules in a conditional or hypothetical situation, which never happened. Anne Hathaway Fan, I'm not convinced. Tell me more!
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Mar 1, 2017 18:28:24 GMT
When the reported asked Johnson point-blank where his camera guy was, Johnson specifically said his camera guy was in the coaches booth and didn't say anything about his camera guy filming from the sidelines. Basically, the reporter wanted to clarify what Johnson said so the reportedi asked Johnson point-blank where his camera guy was and Johnson clearly and specifically answered that his camera guy filmed from the coaches booth.
Filming from the coaches booth (like Johnson did) isn't against the rules and thus isn't cheating. Filming from the sidelines (like Belichick did) is against the rules and is cheating.
What part of "This is EXACTLY how I was told to do it" did you not Understand? Where's your source for the reporter asking him point nlank where the camera Was? I provided a source for my claim while you're just making shit up. Oh, I figured out out what DC FAN stands for dick cock fan I've posted the transcript of the interview many times on IMDb but you want to pretend that you didn't see it, just like you want to pretend that Brady didn't order Jim "The Deflator" McNally to tamper with the footballs even though (as the honorable Judge Denny Chin said) "THE EVIDENCE OF BALL TAMPERING IS COMPELLING". But I shall provide the link again so that you can't pretend you didn't see it. Look at the 6th post: www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?page=6&t=184447
Q: Where’d you put your guy who was videotaping? Where was he?
JJ: My guy was up with my camera crew in the press box.
Now what part of "My guy was up with my camera crew in the press box" do you not understand?
|
|
zoilus
Junior Member
@zoilus
Posts: 2,831
Likes: 1,683
|
Post by zoilus on Mar 1, 2017 18:30:48 GMT
Nope. It's the appeal to authority fallacy. Fallacy. Meaning illogical. Meaning not a sound argument. Meaning incorrect. Meaning saying it over and over won't make you right. Exponent's experiments are demonstrably erroneous. Maybe they missed those errors in court, but I didn't miss them. You would understand this if you knew anything about physics.
Do you believe wet and dry footballs warm at the same rate as suggested by Exponent? Do you believe that precise temperature and pressure measurements from the pre-game inspection were not needed to determine if Anderson used the logo gauge or non-logo gauge?
Again, this isn't a court of law here. I don't have to be subjected to the scrutiny of cross-examination to be correct.
Ipse dixit. Meaning you made a dogmatic statement.
LOLOL. Did Flacco also say "When I came into the league this is exactly how I was told to do it."?
|
|
SportsFan19
Junior Member
@sportsfan19
Posts: 2,858
Likes: 2,255
|
Post by SportsFan19 on Mar 1, 2017 18:50:46 GMT
Anne Hathaway_Fan, it's clear that Troy Aikman is a much bigger cheater than Brady. He even faked his concussions as an excuse to retire before he was caught (as he would have eventually been beaten up by a bunch of drunk Patriot fans outside of a gay bar).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2017 18:54:37 GMT
Armstrong sued and tried to ruin people who doubted him. #1 cheater by very far.
|
|
ctown28
Sophomore
@ctown28
Posts: 507
Likes: 391
|
Post by ctown28 on Mar 1, 2017 23:20:10 GMT
Q: Where’d you put your guy who was videotaping? Where was he?
JJ: My guy was up with my camera crew in the press box.
Now what part of "My guy was up with my camera crew in the press box" do you not understand?
Why did you leave out this part? Is this where you claim he was speaking in a hypothetical? The clear context is that when the crew is on the same side, that is when you do it from the sideline, which is where he gets the phrase that he did the EXACT same thing. Because he wasn't always able to have his guys in the pressbox.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2017 23:42:01 GMT
Bradley Wiggins...
You'll see.
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Mar 2, 2017 0:00:58 GMT
Why did you leave out this part? Because that's a conditional or hypothetical statement: "IF they're on the same side as the opposing team that's when you need to do it from the sideline" - Jimmy Johnson "IF it looks like he's going to break it and go in for a score, just run out on the field and tackle him" - Joe Flacco in Super Bowl XLVII Notice the similarity in both statements? That's right, both statements have an IF, which indicates a conditional or hypothetical situation. Did any of the Ravens on the sidelines run out on the field and tackle the 49ers punt returner on that final play of Super Bowl XLVII? No. Why not? NFL Sound FX has a recording of Flacco clearly telling his teammates to do that so why didn't they do that? Because Flacco was talking about a conditional or hypothetical situation just like Johnson was. That's why they used the word IF, which indicates a conditional or hypothetical situation. Now you can argue that even though the Ravens didn't do it, Flacco was clearly thinking about doing it. But thinking about cheating isn't cheating. This isn't like George Orwell's book 1984, where people are punished for thoughtcrime. Thinking about cheating isn't cheating. The clear context is that when the crew is on the same side, that is when you do it from the sideline, which is where he gets the phrase that he did the EXACT same thing. Because he wasn't always able to have his guys in the pressbox. If Johnson wasn't able to have his guys in the pressbox and he had his guys filming from the sidelines, then he would've just said "Sometimes my guys filmed from the press box and sometimes my guys filmed from the sidelines." But Johnson only said "My guy was up with my camera crew in the press box" and NEVER said his guy filmed from the sidelines EVEN THOUGH HE WAS ASKED POINT-BLANK "Where’d you put your guy who was videotaping? Where was he?" So it's pretty clear from Johnson's exact answer to the question of "Where’d you put your guy who was videotaping? Where was he?" that Johnson only filmed from the press box (which isn't against the rules and isn't cheating) and NEVER filmed from the sidelines (which is against the rules and is cheating) like Belicheat did. And we can't assume from a conditional or hypothetical statement that it ever happened, since we know that Flacco's conditional or hypothetical statement telling his teammates to break the rules NEVER resulted in any actual breaking of the rules.
|
|