- Oct 31, 2007
- 40,628
- 47,210
Sigh. They are not remotely the same.
One makes no positive claims, it relies entirely on somebody's trust of the claimant. The second makes a positive claim that can be corroborated by other evidence independent of the speaker's credibility. Even the implication that a claim can be corroborated adds significant credibility.
The Blackhawks already have independent corroboration from the NHLPA that whatever the actual reason was is valid. If they make even a vague alternative claim, the NHLPA's agreement more or less proves the alternative claim and puts the rumor to rest. But if they don't make any alternative claim about what happened, they're asking us to believe that the only narrative we have of what happened is not true on the basis of trust in them alone. Which nobody should or will.
We only have that narrative because some f***head on Twitter said "Hey, this would be funny if it were true." How is that, in any way, more trustworthy than the organization?