For as much amusement can be extracted from some of the techniques that New England Patriots attorney Daniel Goldberg invoked in writing The Wells Report in Context, which was the organization’s attempt to rebut the findings of investigator Ted Wells, whose data was used by the league to issue its discipline, there really is one legitimately fundamental error in its defense, all jokes aside.
Put simply, Goldberg’s screed asks us to accept the testimony of a variety of parties, particularly the most interested parties, on face value, while scrutinizing all of the testimony that contradicts his narrative of the organization’s innocence.