This is based on the notion that the NFL brought no evidence of coercion/etc to the NFL conduct hearings. Pit wants to refute this based on the fact that this nugget is tied to anonymous sources. I disagree with his take, but it is true that it could be wrong in that we don't know the source. Pit, feel free to correct (not that I need to tell/let you).
No, you don't need to tell me that. lol
It's actually not about being an anonymous report as much as it's about perception. I've explained this several times but will yet once again.
We see it on this very board. Different people hear the exact same thing and come to a totally different conclusion as to what that means. Some see it as he said/she said and consider anything that the women have claimed as having no evidentiary value. While others do. I could list several such examples of the differing perceptions on this very board people have concluded based on the same information. Then I think people must consider the logic of such a statement. If the NFL has no actual evidence, why were there three days of hearings? Why would there be a judgement that takes a former judge so long to revue the evidence in order to render a decision?
Sometimes things just don't add up and I think this happens to be one of those times.
