How does “Super Genius” Mark Madden know that former Miami Dolphins coach Brian Flores has “not enough evidence” to prove his case against National Football League team owners and managers (“Brian Flores’ case has merit, but proving guilt will be challenging,” Feb. 4, TribLIVE)? To my knowledge, no one has reported the evidence on which Flores’ lawsuit is based, nor the evidence that defendants possess. If Flores has more persuasive evidence in support of his claims than defendants have in support of their denials, and a sound legal foundation, he will win.
For one hypothetical example, might Flores have memorialized the times he was offered bonuses to lose games, or maybe recorded those conversations? Or might he have told someone else about those offers on the dates they were made, or shortly afterward? Or might someone else have overheard them?
Does Madden’s IQ tell him how credible Flores and his witnesses will appear to members of a jury compared to the credibility of witnesses who might testify for defendants? Can Madden know how well defendants will respond to cross-examination under oath, and how consistently each of the accused wrongdoers will answer tough questions?
Finally, why do editors publish absurd provocations and unsupported claims by a sports writer that would not merit ink if submitted by a real-world professional journalist?
Ken Lawrence
Spring Mills