Originally Posted by SloMotion

I just lose interest when I see statements like this coming from the NFL's "Investigative Report Concerning Footballs Used During the AFC Championship Game on January 18, 2015": "Based on the evidence, it also is our view that it is more probable than not that Tom Brady was at least generally aware of the inappropriate activities of [two New England employees] involving the release of air from Patriots game balls,". http://sports.yahoo.com/news/tom-bra...223250553.html .

I mean, huh? "More than probable"? "Generally aware"?

...make no mistake — Wells’s use of the words “more probable than not” was very deliberate. That is the exact standard the NFL uses to determine guilt in its “Policy on Integrity of the Game & Enforcement of Competitive Rules.”

From rule No. 4 in the policy: “The standard of proof required to find that a violation of league rules has occurred shall be a preponderance of the evidence. This is the degree of evidence that is of greater weight or more convincing than the evidence which is offered in opposition to it. It means that, as a whole, the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not.”

Wells wasn’t being wishy-washy. In the eyes of Wells and the NFL, the Patriots are guilty. “More probable than not” is the standard for commissioner Roger Goodell to impose discipline.