Ouchie-Z-Clown
I'm better than Mulli!
Who assumed they would? Literally no one.People on record is what I mean by documented evidence. My point was that we have no idea how many people are on record. Assuming it's just 2 or 3 is just as dumb as assuming it's 70. Nobody should be "buying into" either scenario. As I stated I can't see the ESPN legal team knowing that they are going to get their pants sued off potentially would allow this to fly without reviewing the sources of the report in the first place. That is just insane.
Also, I don't agree it's fair to see that at all. Just because they didn't provide a detailed list of everyone that provided any info doesn't mean anything. The article would have been a mile long and some people simply may not have wanted their names in the story to be published. I know if I made a statement, I would wait for investigators from the NBA to contact me but I sure as hell wouldn't want my name out there to get harassed either.
Assuming they would is falling into an old investigation ploy. When I was a fraud investigator, we often would throw around numbers or suggestions about witnesses or evidence without tipping our hat on what we really had because we know it could jeopardize further investigation.
Also, you’re tipping hat again by saying the article would be a mile long - that only happens if it is a ton of people. You seem pretty convinced it’s a ton of people making negative statements.