>Accept that T.O. admitted freely that he did spit at Hall.

True, but my example was based in part on T.O.'s follow up response the next day after realizing the implications of just glossing over the accusation right after the game. Had he any credibility, he may have been taken more seriously. Instead, he has to live with his sorry history and significant character flaws.

>>For arguement sake, let's look at a no-name respected receiver who does his job, and serves his community and team well. He is being closeley guarded by a pro-bowl caliber corner during a game where both are constantly jawing at each each other after every play, blah, blah, blah. "Spittle" gets exchanged because of endless banter and one player takes it for deliberate spit while the other just got carried away with words with "P's" in them and does not realize what happened. Later he finds out what happened, apologizes and is truly embarassed by the incident. For THIS receiver, the explanation is plausible, likely and the deed is basically forgiven.
>>
>>Since this is T.O. and because of his history in wrecking his 2 previous teams, his credibility is zilch. Do not take this as an excuse for T.O. because he is reaping what he has sewn and deserves no "benefit of the doubt" even if the "spit" was an accidental result of mindless banter. Too bad he is too stupid to figure out credibility and respect are earned, and he will never get the benefit of the doubt because of his history.