Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="leftytg, post: 1856066, member: 2651"]
it was obvious to anyone who wasn't dug in defending Shafer.  You are being disingenuous and revisionist in framing your argument.  Everyone acknowledged they were not the doctor examing Dungey.  Nobody was claiming ironclad, first hand knowledge of the actual diagnosis.  Those claiming he surely had a concussion said so because it was obvious based on the circumstantial evidence, that is to say based on the severity of the hit, how recent the CMU one was and Dungey's affect and demeanor in the immediate aftermath made it highly probable that a concussion had occurred.  Which, by the way, is exactly what it ended up being.  There was an actual doctor making actual informed observations on why what he saw closely correlated with a concussion, and some people wouldn't even consider it.  Given all the factors at hand, it was entirely reasonable to presume a concussion had happened until being told otherwise.

Like it or not, we make judgments and come to conclusions based on circumstantial evidence all the time.  Our entire legal system depends on it.  Insisting on a standard of actual, concrete knowledge before believing something is true is unrealistic - especially on a message board.   I mean, if you really want to play this game - why is the info from Dungey's father considered "concrete"?  Afterall, he isn't under oath.  He wouldn't be the first person to lie to the media.  For that matter, you seem to accept the article's assertion that there was a second concussion.  Why do you assume it is from Dungey's father?  The article just asserts there was a concussion after the Louisville game, no direct quote is attributed.  If you are going to insist on "concrete", that article doesn't get you there.
[/QUOTE]

Verification

What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?