I need help with this fallacy

Despite comments to the contrary, it is a quite well-constructed sentence, whose object is to make the reader squint just a tad bit, until realizing the point is to do exactly that. I am a lover of puns, both audio and video, and maybe me logical tuning fork has gotten out of whack over the years, but I'm a firm (OK, I'm seventy-three, so maybe not so firm) believer in logically constructed but totally irrational sentences.

"English has been very, very good to me."

It's wordplay, a joke. It's assumed real meaning is that Amanda is seen on the court wiping tears from her eyes, but the wording is intentionally ambiguous such that it could also be read to mean that Amanda is wiping her tears literally on the flooring of the court, hence the splinters.

First, the article assumes that Amanda was grief-stricken. The story say nothing about anyone actually asking her how she felt. Second, Amanda was seen, per the news, but by who? We need details. Third, author claims that "we can only conclude" when the text makes no mention of Amanda specifically wiping her tears on the basketball court with her hands. Perhaps she had a part-time job as custodian and used a mop, or maybe she did a Mary Magdalene and used her hair. Maybe she wanted to impress her girlfriend and used her tongue. Point being, we just don't know!!! All opinion, no facts.