Misleading title he never once disagreed with the report
Huh? Strike two.I highly doubt that being Canadian would cause a lawyer to be so stupid as to manufacture evidence against his clients when dealing with a matter that has potential for seven-plus figure civil litigation.
You keep finding more obscure (and bizarre) ways of saying Ted Wells was employed by the NFL and his report reflects that. About a hundred posts ago, I told you I get that, so please proceed with the rest of the story - you know, the one that a lot of people want to run with - i.e. somehow this is all part of a plot by Martin and his parents (with Wells, or the NFL or someone) for a big shakedown.I'm sure Ted Wells was just devastated that he was able to reach conclusions which pinned blame squarely on several employees who were members of a powerful trade union while simultaneously absolving of blame -- and even praising -- his client, under whose nose this behavior occurred.
The title doesn't say he disagreed with the report.
Well if he so calledly is ripping the report it damn sure doesn't mean he agrees with it.
He disagreed with nothing in the report that he didn't read. He basically said he did not like all the attention the phins were getting and was never around when any of the events happened.
I agree with Denny, for what it's worth.
It's just that he should've read the report. It's actually his duty as a union
rep on the team. He doesn't have to agree or disagree. He has to be informed on what he's
speaking about is all.
Again, the title doesn't say he disagreed with the report findings, which is where I think you are confused. I believe his problem with the Wells report is that the Wells report was even done. I can't speak any further into Denney's reasoning so if you need more info on his thought process I suggest you try to get into contact with him.