They swept it under the rug because they knew that this form of cheating has been wide spread throughout the past couple of decades in the NFL. Countless coaches,players,etc have already admitted as such. That would make the NFL look so bad it would compare to the steroids era etc
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
FOX Sports is reporting Pats taped practice (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter Mik789fl
- Start date
Banger
Footballguy
I believe this has to do with the rumors that the Pats taped the Rams pregame walk through of endzone formations/plays prior to the super bowl. Apparently, a former video tech for the Pat's recently claimed he had a copy of a tape and Spector wants to speak with him.
Mike and the Mad Dog are talking about this right now. The NFL said to Mike on Sunday that they knew about this guy 3 months ago and he had nothing and they totally minimized the situation. Now 3 days later the NFL apparently wants to talk with the guy before he talks to Spector. Interesting.
Mike and the Mad Dog are talking about this right now. The NFL said to Mike on Sunday that they knew about this guy 3 months ago and he had nothing and they totally minimized the situation. Now 3 days later the NFL apparently wants to talk with the guy before he talks to Spector. Interesting.
All OCs cover their mouths so other teams don't steal plays
Legend Tom Landry got caught watching a practice with binoculars
Lombardi or Brown used to have players wear different numberred jerseys in practice to confuse anyone watching
There's a level of dirt better left un-dug here. Pats got their punishment, best to move on.
Legend Tom Landry got caught watching a practice with binoculars
Lombardi or Brown used to have players wear different numberred jerseys in practice to confuse anyone watching
There's a level of dirt better left un-dug here. Pats got their punishment, best to move on.
mad sweeney
Footballguy
Doing great! Seeing the Patriots lose was even better than watching my favorite team win the SuperBowl!
phthalatemagic
Footballguy
Bri said:
why snip?Bri said:
SeniorVBDStudent
Footballguy
Can we just change the thread title to Big Daddy Kane / Syrus ongoing rhetoric thread and give it a stickie?
TIA.
BTW, welcome back BDK from your hiatus.
TIA.
BTW, welcome back BDK from your hiatus.
yeah, I thought Specter wanted to know why they destroyed evidence in that one, no?Bri said:That was for the previous cheating not the new cheating
jonessed
Footballguy
Yes. I also believe he wants to know what actually went on in the investigation and why Walsh was never contacted.yeah, I thought Specter wanted to know why they destroyed evidence in that one, no?Bri said:That was for the previous cheating not the new cheating
phthalatemagic
Footballguy
I thought you you were supposed to laugh at the punchline?why snip?Bri said:
phthalatemagic
Footballguy
Kyzersosik
Footballguy
The Cowboys haven`t won a playoff game in what, 10 or 12 years, and you`d rather see the Patriots lose than Dallas win the Super Bowl
Serenity Now
Footballguy
The patriots didn't destroy the tapes. The NFL did. I imagine that Goodell regrets that now. On the other hand I saw some of the confiscated tape on tv several times after the fact. There wasn't anything earth shaking about it. Closeup of the coaches signalling, wobbly shift up to the scoreboard, rinse and repeat. Up, down, up, down. Meh.
Oh btw, Don Shula admitted to having done precisely the same thing.
If this were happening to any other team, it wouldn't be such a big deal.
Oh btw, Don Shula admitted to having done precisely the same thing.
If this were happening to any other team, it wouldn't be such a big deal.
gocolts
Footballguy
phthalatemagic
Footballguy
Love it when Pat fans resort to the "but everyone does it" argumentOh btw, Don Shula admitted to having done precisely the same thing.
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
Here's my question in all of this mess - when was the letter sent to the league stating that using recording devices to steal signals was not allowed? That is what got the Patriots the punishment in the first place, correct? I thought it was sent out this offseason.
If that is the case, what can really be done about anything in the past? What if we find out they were using taping in the past (ie for the Rams or Eagles SBs)- can't really go back and punish them more if there wasn't a specific rule about it, right? That's on the same lines as punishing a player from the 80s for juicing up.
If that is the case, what can really be done about anything in the past? What if we find out they were using taping in the past (ie for the Rams or Eagles SBs)- can't really go back and punish them more if there wasn't a specific rule about it, right? That's on the same lines as punishing a player from the 80s for juicing up.
There's always been a rule against it. Roger Goodell made a specific point to reemphasize the rule this past off-season because of complaints coming in from teams, this was talked about at the owners off-season meetings and letters were sent.Here's my question in all of this mess - when was the letter sent to the league stating that using recording devices to steal signals was not allowed? That is what got the Patriots the punishment in the first place, correct? I thought it was sent out this offseason. If that is the case, what can really be done about anything in the past? What if we find out they were using taping in the past (ie for the Rams or Eagles SBs)- can't really go back and punish them more if there wasn't a specific rule about it, right? That's on the same lines as punishing a player from the 80s for juicing up.
Sheriff66
Footballguy
Exactly.There's always been a rule against it. Roger Goodell made a specific point to reemphasize the rule this past off-season because of complaints coming in from teams, this was talked about at the owners off-season meetings and letters were sent.Here's my question in all of this mess - when was the letter sent to the league stating that using recording devices to steal signals was not allowed? That is what got the Patriots the punishment in the first place, correct? I thought it was sent out this offseason. If that is the case, what can really be done about anything in the past? What if we find out they were using taping in the past (ie for the Rams or Eagles SBs)- can't really go back and punish them more if there wasn't a specific rule about it, right? That's on the same lines as punishing a player from the 80s for juicing up.
Workhorse
Footballguy
Michael Holley, who wrote a book on the Patriots and has extensive contacts in the Patriots organization, was on WEEI today saying that he has MULTIPLE sources within the organization that say this thing with Walsh is a total farce and he doesn't have any proof whatsoever of his "allegations" and that it's 100% untrue.
David Yudkin
Footballguy
As I see things, the "second strike" clause would be invoked heading forward, not heading backward. Basically, from my perspective the edict was to "cease and desist" on any form of signal stealing, video taping, communications tampering, etc. So as I see it, the past is the past and NE and BB would only be punished for transgressions from the Jets game forward.
I think his point is that Walsh's comments aren't "new information". In fact, several reporters said they heard rumors for several months, but never had any corroboration. We still have no "new information" beyond the original rumors, other than Walsh himself being the one to fuel them.lol, calm down Patriot guy...You'd think someone just attacked your Grandma or something. Walsh claims he has something so we should hear what he has to say no? I think your starting to sound a bit paranoid. Maybe your afraid of what he has to say? Just because I don't have sworn testimony about what he said or the Superbowl tapes in my hand doesn't mean it's not new info. Ya get me?
I disagree. Without vouching for the validity of Walsh's accusations, which are still very much in doubt in my mind, if those accusations are true, and Belichick was a knowing participant, Goodel will come down hard on him. It will be like the Vick situation - if Belichick and/or the Patriots said: "Here are all of the tapes we have - we didn't tape anyone else" and there are more tapes - then Goodel will suspend Belichick indefinitely, and will probably take the #7 pick in the draft.
David Yudkin
Footballguy
If the Commish asked if he got everything that they had and the Pats gave it to them and NE promised to stop doing anything even remotely questionable, then I don't see this as a major issue.IIRC, the NFL has already said that they have known about this for months and did not find any corroborating evidence to support it. Why wouldn't the NFL have gone to Walsh directly? It's not like they didn't know he existed . . .
Ghost Rider
Footballguy
Maybe the NFL doesn't want the rumor to be true (which is obvious, as if were true, that would taint at least one Super Bowl winner from this decade), so they did the bare minimum of investigating, but enough so they can say, "we already investigated this rumor, and there was no evidence."
Last edited by a moderator:
Iwannabeacowboybaby!
Footballguy
I don't know why they wouldn't go to him, but he said himself he was surprised nobody contacted him.
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
This Ash wednesday I would like to analogize to absolution within the Catholic Church. The Commish invited Bekicheck to share with him his sins and to get absolved of them. The price of absolving those sins, the penance, was a meaningless fine and the lost of a draft pick. That price, however, only paid for the sins put forward. If it turns out there were unconfessed sins those are not covered by the absolution. In fact if it turns out Belicheck was in fact unrepetent as exhibited by him not coming completely clean he is then absolved of nothing. Everything is back on the table. he will then have to pay for all he has done and for the additional sin of having li3ed to the commish. Deceit of god, as if such a thing wre really possible, is among the highest of sins, and in the NFL Goodell is god, not belicheck, no matter how meglamaniacal Belicheck may be.
Um, I meant, the Pats were going to unleash the proverbial Heck. 14 points of pure Heck.
I'm still waiting for the second quarter to startUm, I meant, the Pats were going to unleash the proverbial Heck. 14 points of pure Heck.
burd
Footballguy
sounds like a poorly run investigation or worse yet ... "selective investigating". I think the NFL didn't want to turn over too many stones for fear of finding out that this issue is worse than originally reported and would cause people to question the integrity of the game, especially if it involved the Superbowl. As soon as it was reported that the league destroyed the tapes, i had a feeling something was up. People are essentially lazy and it's much easier to put something in storage than to go through all the hoops to find out from "the powers that be" if it's ok to destroy the tapes. Bottom line .. someone with some level of authority decided that the best thing to do was to destroy the tapes. Why destroy evidence? Usually the answer is "coverup".
David Yudkin
Footballguy
The bottom line for me is that the NFL did not like the negative press this story would have had over the league for as long as it was a major news item. So they made every attempt to bury it as quickly as possible. We as fans may not agree with that, but the NFL as businessmen would see that as the best outcome even if it meant leaving stones unturned.I suspect that the league's position on this will not change. They don't want people probing their underbelly and dirty laundry. I also believe that the league will say that "we run our league as we see fit and thanks for your concern, but we can handle it."At this stage, the LEAGUE will start to be taking the heat more than the Patriots will, and I don't see the league caving in to cowtail to the media, the government, or anyone else. I don't see how anyone can force the league to do anything at this point . . . even if there may be more evidence. As long as they stand by the frameowrk of "we researched and investigated to our satisfaction, we made a determination, and this matter is done," I can't see how anyone could force them to change their perspective. I also think that this would open up the potention for inbreeding and finger pointing, with the Pats ratting out other teams on what they know about their unscrupulous actions. Teams pitted against other teams would be REALLY bad for the NFL's P.R.Again, if they CHANGE their perspective, the LEAGUE will look worse off than the Pats would. While I don't think it is impossible that something could come out of the latest round of allegations, I would be surprised if it did.
burd
Footballguy
agreed. the league isn't afraid of the media or government. i do think that the league's worst fear is bad press. if these allegations are true and the league knew about them, then i'd think that the league's fear of looking bad was the reason why the tapes were destroyed and why the league pretty much tried to bury the story until Congress started asking questions.
fatness
Footballguy
The league's credibility is already questionable in the minds of a growing number of fans. If evidence comes to light of other cheating going on, especially cheating involving a Super Bowl, and the league doesn't investigate it fully and respond fully, they're going to look like they're run by Vince McMahon.David Yudkin said:
Mookie Blaylock
Footballguy
If by "bad press" and "fear of looking bad" you mean fear of being correctly accused of corruption, I totally agree.burd said:
Witness the most watched Superbowl in history
This isnt even close to the radarscreens of the vast majority of football fans.
mad sweeney
Footballguy
He's got a big fat check stub and new confidentiality agreement signed by Walsh to keep his mouth shut, get rid of anything he has, and let this go away. Now that's evidence!!
Workhorse
Footballguy
Meanwhile, back in the realm of REALITY, apparently Michael Holley said that the Pats had given Goodell "information" about this allegation months ago when the rumor first hit the league office. The Patriots apparently gave the commissioner evidence that contradicts Walsh's claims. That's why both the Pats and Goodell have been denying this story from the start and they are telling the truth when they say they knew about this allegation a long time ago.
Boston
Footballguy
Holley stated on WEEI today that he has heard from multiple sources that this is a dead issue. He said that he checked in with different sides (i.e. Patriot sources and sources that have no reason to help the Patriots) and he was 100% sure that nothing more was going to come out. Holley is a guy who I have the utmost respect for and by no means is he a homer. He has zero issues taking shots at the home team when they earn it. I was very surprised by how adamant he was because quite frankly if anything does come out he will lose some credibility because he didn't leave the door open for something unknown and damaging to the Patriots to surface.
TheWick
Footballguy
Jim Thomas the rams beat reporter for the Post Dispatch was on the radio this afternoon and stated that he couldn't divulge what he knew but after talking to all his sources around the league he was 98% certain the Pats did tape the practice and acted like something would happen very soon to prove it.
Thomas is an old school dude not a young homer type writer. He wouldn't spout off like this if he didn't know something serious.
I don't know what any of this means but I'd bet we'll no real soon.
Thomas is an old school dude not a young homer type writer. He wouldn't spout off like this if he didn't know something serious.
I don't know what any of this means but I'd bet we'll no real soon.
fatness
Footballguy
What Goodell was saying 3 days ago: Link
What Goodell is saying today: Boston Herald, today
They haven't even questioned Walsh yet.
David Yudkin
Footballguy
Goodell willing to pursue Spygate info
NFL commissioner Roger Goodell, left, shakes hands with Indianapolis Colts' Peyton Manning during an AFC practice for the Pro Bowl football game Wednesday, Feb. 6, 2008, in Kapolei, Hawaii. (AP Photo/Ronen Zilberman)
By Barry Wilner / AP Football Writer / February 6, 2008
HONOLULU—NFL commissioner Roger Goodell is willing to pursue any believable information in the Spygate case.
"If there is new information that is credible, new material that could be credible that would help us," Goodell said, "yes, we'll look at it.
"We've had people come to us over the last six months with material that we pursued and it didn't lead to anything."
Goodell said he didn't know if there might be more information available.
Sen. Arlen Specter, with whom Goodell said he expects to meet in the next week or so, questioned the thoroughness of the NFL's investigation that led to a $500,000 fine for coach Bill Belichick, a $250,000 fine for the Patriots organization, and the loss of this year's first-round draft pick. Specter also wondered why Goodell had the six tapes turned over by the Patriots destroyed, along with notes the team gave Goodell.
Walsh, who did not return phone messages and an e-mail from The Associated Press, reportedly videotaped the St. Louis Rams' walkthrough the day before the February 2002 Super Bowl against New England.
"We were aware of this before," Goodell said. "We pursued it and weren't able to get any information that was credible. We were aware of some of the rumors and we pursued some of them and we continue that. From Day 1, I said if we feel there is new information that's inconsistent with what we've been told (by the Patriots), I reserve the right to reopen it.
"The staffs are talking about making sure (Walsh) has the ability to talk and what information he might have."
Goodell spoke during the AFC team practice for the Pro Bowl. He was asked if the league received any information about other teams taping opposing coaches' signals.
"We had and pursued it and found nothing credible," Goodell said.
Asked why the Patriots turned over six tapes, he replied: "That's what they had. My guess is they taped over some of those from time to time ... their notes were reflective of that."
Taping over previous video is not unusual for NFL teams.
"We asked for all the tapes and anything that could've been done that was inconsistent with our policy," he added.
He also mentioned a possible rotation of sites for the Pro Bowl. Honolulu has it on Sunday and again next February. After that, the NFL has no agreements with any venue.
"I think that's viable," he said of a rotation, "and that's an alternative, obviously. Hawaii is important to us and has been great to us."
He also said staging the Pro Bowl the week before the Super Bowl -- without Super Bowl participants, of course -- was a consideration. Any such change would require approval from the NFL Players Association.
Goodell also mingled with several players, spending about 10 minutes talking to Ravens safety Ed Reed, then chatting with Peyton Manning and Derek Anderson before heading back to league headquarters in New York.
NFL commissioner Roger Goodell, left, shakes hands with Indianapolis Colts' Peyton Manning during an AFC practice for the Pro Bowl football game Wednesday, Feb. 6, 2008, in Kapolei, Hawaii. (AP Photo/Ronen Zilberman)
By Barry Wilner / AP Football Writer / February 6, 2008
HONOLULU—NFL commissioner Roger Goodell is willing to pursue any believable information in the Spygate case.
"If there is new information that is credible, new material that could be credible that would help us," Goodell said, "yes, we'll look at it.
"We've had people come to us over the last six months with material that we pursued and it didn't lead to anything."
Goodell said he didn't know if there might be more information available.
Sen. Arlen Specter, with whom Goodell said he expects to meet in the next week or so, questioned the thoroughness of the NFL's investigation that led to a $500,000 fine for coach Bill Belichick, a $250,000 fine for the Patriots organization, and the loss of this year's first-round draft pick. Specter also wondered why Goodell had the six tapes turned over by the Patriots destroyed, along with notes the team gave Goodell.
Walsh, who did not return phone messages and an e-mail from The Associated Press, reportedly videotaped the St. Louis Rams' walkthrough the day before the February 2002 Super Bowl against New England.
"We were aware of this before," Goodell said. "We pursued it and weren't able to get any information that was credible. We were aware of some of the rumors and we pursued some of them and we continue that. From Day 1, I said if we feel there is new information that's inconsistent with what we've been told (by the Patriots), I reserve the right to reopen it.
"The staffs are talking about making sure (Walsh) has the ability to talk and what information he might have."
Goodell spoke during the AFC team practice for the Pro Bowl. He was asked if the league received any information about other teams taping opposing coaches' signals.
"We had and pursued it and found nothing credible," Goodell said.
Asked why the Patriots turned over six tapes, he replied: "That's what they had. My guess is they taped over some of those from time to time ... their notes were reflective of that."
Taping over previous video is not unusual for NFL teams.
"We asked for all the tapes and anything that could've been done that was inconsistent with our policy," he added.
He also mentioned a possible rotation of sites for the Pro Bowl. Honolulu has it on Sunday and again next February. After that, the NFL has no agreements with any venue.
"I think that's viable," he said of a rotation, "and that's an alternative, obviously. Hawaii is important to us and has been great to us."
He also said staging the Pro Bowl the week before the Super Bowl -- without Super Bowl participants, of course -- was a consideration. Any such change would require approval from the NFL Players Association.
Goodell also mingled with several players, spending about 10 minutes talking to Ravens safety Ed Reed, then chatting with Peyton Manning and Derek Anderson before heading back to league headquarters in New York.
I'm sure he's a good writer, and that he is ultra-wired in to the Pats. This much says that the Pats think it's a dead issue. But how credible can the other outside sources be if they are saying it's dead even though Goodell hasn't yet interviewed Walsh?
... The Patriots apparently gave the commissioner evidence that contradicts Walsh's claims.
Something sounds strange here. What has Walsh claimed? that he has evidence? so the Pats are producing "evidence" that Walsh has no evidence? Is it that Walsh claims he has tape of the Rams walkthrough? (which I'm not sure is what he is saying) - so that Pats gave the commissioner evidence that shows that Walsh does not have the tapes?
Does it seem strange to anyone else that the Pats, found guilty of cheating, are believed at their word that the produced tapes dating back only to 2006 represent the entire "video library"? In most cases where there is smoke there is fire...
Something sounds strange here. What has Walsh claimed? that he has evidence? so the Pats are producing "evidence" that Walsh has no evidence? Is it that Walsh claims he has tape of the Rams walkthrough? (which I'm not sure is what he is saying) - so that Pats gave the commissioner evidence that shows that Walsh does not have the tapes?
Does it seem strange to anyone else that the Pats, found guilty of cheating, are believed at their word that the produced tapes dating back only to 2006 represent the entire "video library"? In most cases where there is smoke there is fire...
Sabertooth
Footballguy
Couldn't the gov't threaten the antitrust status?
GregR_2
Footballguy
Yes, they could.To be clear, the anti-trust status in question is based on the Sports Broadcast Act of 1961. The NFL had lost a lawsuit on the grounds that the teams pooling the rights to broadcast their games and selling those exclusively to CBS was a violation of anti-trust law.The 1961 legislation was made to reverse that ruling by permitting certain joint broadcasting agreements among the major professional sports. Congress could pass a new bill that would override or repeal that Act.ETA: Also worth noting that the anti-trust exemption baseball has is different. It came about through a Supreme Court ruling in 1922 that though teams travel across state lines to play the games, the games themselves are instrastate events. However, when other sports were involved in similar cases, the courts have rejected this argument for the other sports. In a later ruling the Supreme Court called baseball's status and anomaly, but wouldn't overrule it, instead saying it was up to Congress to change baseball's status. So as I understand it, the NFL's anti-trust is specifically about anti-trust in the sale of broadcast rights, while baseball is immune to all anti-trust laws.
Last edited by a moderator:
Road Warriors
Footballguy
Seems like it would be one hellacious stretch for Congress to alter the act that gives the NFL negotiating rights to its broadcasts over an internal policy matter. Seems like Specter is trying to leverage a scandal into a better negotiating position for his Comcast boys.
Similar threads
