FOX Sports is reporting Pats taped practice (1 Viewer)

[The foo]

Third-hand gossip from Dan Le Batard talking about Doug Flutie's "amazement" of being tipped the defensive plays through his helmet...

i've heard second hand about doug flutie being amazed when he got there that the plays were being piped into his helmet warning brady what was coming.....we've tried to talk to flutie on our radio show about it but he hangs up on my producer.....

Yes, this is third-hand information, but why wouldn't the league seek out former players in investigating this? Doug Flutie should have as much insight as anyone on this outside Belicheck, Adams and their video guys. And there shouldn't be any issues with the NFLPA since Flutie is retired.(Sorry if the link is a honda.)

It may not be a honda but it's totally irrelevant. Stealing another team's signals and telling your QB what play is coming on it's own isn't against the rules. Flutie probably had zero idea how that information was obtained, so "investigating" that would be pointless.

Blinders...Engaged....

 

[crowe1130]

Blinders...Engaged....

As usual on this board (some notable exceptions notwithstanding), it's all about whose jersey hangs in your closet. Could you imagine Patriot fan response if this story had been a little different? Suppose for a moment that instead, Tony Dungy had someone tape New England's last practice before the AFC title game last season. What are the chances they'd still be calling it irrelevant? Or saying, "oh well, everyone does it?" Or my favorite, "there's no real advantage gained?"And it isn't just Pats fans. Impartiality is obsolete when it comes to sports fans in general, and NFL fans in particular.[/soapbox]

 

[massraider]

It has now been confirmed with video evidence that the NFL did not destroy the tapes because of the taping of the RAM's walk through, but because they reveal a very sophisticated computer system used by the Patriots that flew under the NFL's radar for years. Apparently it uses a very efficient artificial intelligence program that Kraft paid a hefty sum of money for, that can analyze the video tape and can make recommendations with very little human input. Although the NFL tapes have been destroyed, a video provided by a disgruntled employee has surfaced on the Internet that shows the system in use. The NFL destroyed tapes because if more teams discovered this software it could literally destroy the sanctity of the game.

The NFL has been flooding youtube with requests to stop posting the video all day, but every time they shut it down, it pops up somewhere else. The following link may not be good for very long, but a few of you can at least see the tape for yourself.

OK< that's pretty awesome.

 

[freelander]

Blinders...Engaged....

As usual on this board (some notable exceptions notwithstanding), it's all about whose jersey hangs in your closet. Could you imagine Patriot fan response if this story had been a little different? Suppose for a moment that instead, Tony Dungy had someone tape New England's last practice before the AFC title game last season. What are the chances they'd still be calling it irrelevant? Or saying, "oh well, everyone does it?" Or my favorite, "there's no real advantage gained?"And it isn't just Pats fans. Impartiality is obsolete when it comes to sports fans in general, and NFL fans in particular.[/soapbox]

That's just not a believable scenerio for anyone to consider even hypothetically... Dungy has more class in his left pinky than BB and his team combined.

 

[switz]

Who knows if he actually had a tape, but he WAS the one doing taping at that time, so if there was one, he woud've been the one taping.

So no one else in all of New Orleans owns a video camera?

Whether someone else does or not, Walsh was still the videotape assistant, and if he was taping there'd be no reason to "buy one."Really, the whole context of this situation leads me to believe if Walsh has a tape, it's not one he bought. If he was interested in giving NE a black eye, why wouldn't he have spoken up earlier? Why wouldn't he have come forward? That's the type of things he would do if he was going to buy a tape to make NE look bad.But he didn't. And IF he has a tape, he's been very unwilling to bring it out. Why bother buying a tape, if you don't want anyone to know you have it?See, it goes against all logic to think he bought a tape.Sure that may be what Pats fans want to believe, but it is illogical in light of all the surrounding information.

 

[GregR_2]

Since I know there is still occasional argument about how far back the Pats videotaping stretched, noticed this bit in an ESPN article that I hadn't heard before that should put the arguments about the timing of it to rest.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3244157

As reported by ESPN in September 2007, Belichick privately admitted to Goodell that videotaping opposing team's defensive signals had been his standard practice since he became the New England coach in 2000. Belichick argued that he believed he was within the letter of the rule, as long as he did not use the material on game day.

 

[Class Dismissed]

Since I know there is still occasional argument about how far back the Pats videotaping stretched, noticed this bit in an ESPN article that I hadn't heard before that should put the arguments about the timing of it to rest.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3244157

As reported by ESPN in September 2007, Belichick privately admitted to Goodell that videotaping opposing team's defensive signals had been his standard practice since he became the New England coach in 2000. Belichick argued that he believed he was within the letter of the rule, as long as he did not use the material on game day.

I'd like a link to that September article, because I don't recall that being reported. Neither does Mike & Mike on ESPN

 

[Class Dismissed]

Senator Specter Says the Patriots Taped the Steelers Twice During 2004 Season

Posted Feb 13th 2008 7:39PM by Ryan Wilson

Filed under: Patriots, Steelers, AFC East, AFC North, NFL Fans, Featured Stories

Well, it looks like Senator Arlen Specter didn't get around to talking about the NFL's antitrust exemption during today's meet-and-greet with commissioner Roger Goodell. As Michael David Smith wrote earlier, Specter learned that the Patriots have been videotaping opponents since 2000, something that wasn't clear when the league concluded its investigation in September.

In a post-meeting press conference, Specter elaborated. The senator said that "there were notes showing that the Steelers games had been taped." Specifically, two contests during the 2004 season: one on Oct. 31, and the other, the AFC Championship, on Jan. 27.

A couple of things worth pointing out: Pittsburgh smoked the Patriots in the first meeting, 34-20, sacking Tom Brady four times and picking him off twice. Three months later, the two teams met in the conference finals. Unsurprisingly (in hindsight), the Patriots won 41-27, and Brady, sacked just twice in the rematch, finished 14 of 21 for 207 yards with two touchdowns and no interceptions.

Did New England gain an advantage from having videotaped Pittsburgh during the teams' first meeting? There isn't enough evidence to say that, yes, unequivocally the Patriots won because they had the Steelers' defensive signals. But it would also be naïve to suggest that having access to that information had no bearing on the outcome. If that were true, Matthew Estrella (and Matt Walsh before him) wouldn't have had a job.

Either way, this doesn't do much for the Patriots' legacy as one of the best teams in NFL history, and it doesn't do much for Roger Goodell's credibility.

I also wonder if Bill Cowher might want to reconsider his earlier thoughts on the Steelers' other AFC Championship game against the Patriots.

http://sports.aol.com/fanhouse/2008/02/13/...rs-twice-durin/

 

[Class Dismissed]

Specter: Belichick Was Taping Since 2000

By LAURIE KELLMAN – 1 hour ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — Bill Belichick has been illegally taping opponents' defensive signals since he became the New England Patriots' coach in 2000, according to Sen. Arlen Specter, who said NFL commissioner Roger Goodell told him that during a meeting Wednesday.

"There was confirmation that there has been taping since 2000, when Coach Belichick took over," Specter said.

Specter said Goodell gave him that information during the 1-hour, 40-minute meeting, which was requested by Specter so the commissioner could explain his reasons for destroying the Spygate tapes and notes.

"There were a great many questions answered by Commissioner Goodell," Specter, the senior Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, told reporters after the meeting. "I found a lot of questions unanswerable because of the tapes and notes had been destroyed."

Goodell said Belichick told him he believed the taping was legal; Goodell said he did not concur.

"He said that's always been his interpretation since he's been the head coach," the commissioner said. "We are going to agree to disagree on the facts."

Specter, from Pennsylvania, wants to talk to other league officials about what exactly was taped and which games may have been compromised.

"We have a right to have honest football games," he said.

Goodell noted that "we were the ones that disclosed" the Patriots' illegal taping of the New York Jets' defensive signals in Week 1 of last season. Further, Goodell said, they had an admission by Belichick.

"I have nothing to hide," Goodell said.

Goodell also told Specter that that he doesn't regret destroying the Spygate tapes or the notes.

"I think it was the right thing to do," Goodell said.



Still, Specter wants to know why penalties were imposed on Belichick before the full extent of the wrongdoing was known and the tapes destroyed in a two-week span. Asked if he thinks there was a coverup, Specter demurred.

"There was an enormous amount of haste," Specter said.

He scoffed at the reasons Goodell gave for destroying the tapes and notes, particularly about trying to keep them out of competitors' hands and because Belichick had admitted to the taping.

"What's that got to do with it? There's an admission of guilt, you preserve the evidence," Specter said. As for keeping the tapes out of the hands of others: "All you have to do is lock up the tapes."

Belichick was fined $500,000 and the team was fined $250,000 because of the Spygate incident. The Patriots also forfeited a first-round draft pick.

Specter has questioned the quality of the NFL's investigation into the matter and raised the possibility of congressional hearings if he wasn't satisfied with Goodell's answers. Specter also raised the threat of Congress canceling the league's antitrust exemption and reiterated that in the meeting with Goodell.

Goodell also said he has not heard from Matt Walsh, the former Patriots employee who performed some videotaping duties for the team.

Walsh told The Associated Press last week during the Pro Bowl in Hawaii that he couldn't talk about allegations that he taped a walkthrough practice by the St. Louis Rams before the 2002 Super Bowl. New England, a two-touchdown underdog, won that game 20-17.



Goodell said he has offered Walsh a deal whereby "he has to tell the truth and he has to return anything he took improperly" in return for indemnity. Specter said he, too, wanted to talk to Walsh and perhaps offer a different deal.

Goodell also said he reserves the right to reopen the investigation if more information is uncovered.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j9pfCVi...0jXKKwD8UPPRDO0

 

[NY/NJMFDIVER]

Specter: Belichick Was Taping Since 2000

By LAURIE KELLMAN – 1 hour ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — Bill Belichick has been illegally taping opponents' defensive signals since he became the New England Patriots' coach in 2000, according to Sen. Arlen Specter, who said NFL commissioner Roger Goodell told him that during a meeting Wednesday.

"There was confirmation that there has been taping since 2000, when Coach Belichick took over," Specter said.

Specter said Goodell gave him that information during the 1-hour, 40-minute meeting, which was requested by Specter so the commissioner could explain his reasons for destroying the Spygate tapes and notes.

"There were a great many questions answered by Commissioner Goodell," Specter, the senior Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, told reporters after the meeting. "I found a lot of questions unanswerable because of the tapes and notes had been destroyed."

Goodell said Belichick told him he believed the taping was legal; Goodell said he did not concur.

"He said that's always been his interpretation since he's been the head coach," the commissioner said. "We are going to agree to disagree on the facts."

Specter, from Pennsylvania, wants to talk to other league officials about what exactly was taped and which games may have been compromised.

"We have a right to have honest football games," he said.

Goodell noted that "we were the ones that disclosed" the Patriots' illegal taping of the New York Jets' defensive signals in Week 1 of last season. Further, Goodell said, they had an admission by Belichick.

"I have nothing to hide," Goodell said.

Goodell also told Specter that that he doesn't regret destroying the Spygate tapes or the notes.

"I think it was the right thing to do," Goodell said.



Still, Specter wants to know why penalties were imposed on Belichick before the full extent of the wrongdoing was known and the tapes destroyed in a two-week span. Asked if he thinks there was a coverup, Specter demurred.

"There was an enormous amount of haste," Specter said.

He scoffed at the reasons Goodell gave for destroying the tapes and notes, particularly about trying to keep them out of competitors' hands and because Belichick had admitted to the taping.

"What's that got to do with it? There's an admission of guilt, you preserve the evidence," Specter said. As for keeping the tapes out of the hands of others: "All you have to do is lock up the tapes."

Belichick was fined $500,000 and the team was fined $250,000 because of the Spygate incident. The Patriots also forfeited a first-round draft pick.

Specter has questioned the quality of the NFL's investigation into the matter and raised the possibility of congressional hearings if he wasn't satisfied with Goodell's answers. Specter also raised the threat of Congress canceling the league's antitrust exemption and reiterated that in the meeting with Goodell.

Goodell also said he has not heard from Matt Walsh, the former Patriots employee who performed some videotaping duties for the team.

Walsh told The Associated Press last week during the Pro Bowl in Hawaii that he couldn't talk about allegations that he taped a walkthrough practice by the St. Louis Rams before the 2002 Super Bowl. New England, a two-touchdown underdog, won that game 20-17.



Goodell said he has offered Walsh a deal whereby "he has to tell the truth and he has to return anything he took improperly" in return for indemnity. Specter said he, too, wanted to talk to Walsh and perhaps offer a different deal.

Goodell also said he reserves the right to reopen the investigation if more information is uncovered.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j9pfCVi...0jXKKwD8UPPRDO0

On point one, I would say it was the Jets who revealed that, and the fact that their video guy made such a scene as he was being escorted away necessitated you making this public. On point two, given that the video tape was destroyed, I don't see how you can remotely state that. You obviously had SOMETHING to hide, whether it was big or small, we'll never know.

Goodell seems like a good, if not image conscious, man. The Pac Man sanctions were stern and strong, but also delayed and on the heels of public protest, so I can't get a full read on the guy yet. This is as big a bomb as has been drops in the lap of any commish, and boy did Tags skate out at the right time.

 

[brednbuddah]

If this matter is reinvestigated and BB is found guilty of taping the 2002 walk through and any other accusations, how can you do anything to the guy other than fines, suspensions and the like? you certainly can't take back Championships. ok, so the image of the patriots success since BB took over is tarnished, but so what. The guy claims what he did was legal. he was warned, did it again and was penalized. I certainly don't condone the act(s), but it's not like they can ban him from the NFL and erase his accomplishments.

 

[{Syrus}]

Bill Bellicheat should be banned for life.

 

[{Syrus}]

A player using Vaseline on his jersey is one thing, a HEAD COACH knowingly cheating is completely unacceptable and a life ban is in place here for Bill Bellicheat.

 

[NY/NJMFDIVER]

If this matter is reinvestigated and BB is found guilty of taping the 2002 walk through and any other accusations, how can you do anything to the guy other than fines, suspensions and the like? you certainly can't take back Championships. ok, so the image of the patriots success since BB took over is tarnished, but so what. The guy claims what he did was legal. he was warned, did it again and was penalized. I certainly don't condone the act(s), but it's not like they can ban him from the NFL and erase his accomplishments.

It would be interesting if the Ram, Eagle and Panther organizations got together and sued the NFL for the balance between the winners and losers share of their respective bowls. We're talking a 25-40 thousand dollar split. The records are unrecoverable, as are the legacies, but some cold hard cash might do the trick. Its an irascible situation, and I'm sure unity will be stressed for the league, but cold hard cash is the only reasonable redress at this point.

 

[{Syrus}]

The * is definitely in place for the three Pariots' championships. They have been recording since Bellicheat became head coach.

 

[phthalatemagic]

Yudkin is pretty serious Patriots defense mode here. Pretty funny.

 

[brednbuddah]

If this matter is reinvestigated and BB is found guilty of taping the 2002 walk through and any other accusations, how can you do anything to the guy other than fines, suspensions and the like? you certainly can't take back Championships. ok, so the image of the patriots success since BB took over is tarnished, but so what. The guy claims what he did was legal. he was warned, did it again and was penalized. I certainly don't condone the act(s), but it's not like they can ban him from the NFL and erase his accomplishments.

It would be interesting if the Ram, Eagle and Panther organizations got together and sued the NFL for the balance between the winners and losers share of their respective bowls. We're talking a 25-40 thousand dollar split. The records are unrecoverable, as are the legacies, but some cold hard cash might do the trick. Its an irascible situation, and I'm sure unity will be stressed for the league, but cold hard cash is the only reasonable redress at this point.

I hear what you're saying, but the NFL would have to prove that the information taped clearly determined the outcome of a given play/game. The best I think they'd be able to prove is that it gave the Patriots an unfair advantage, which would clearly be enough to fine BB/Pats, but there's no way you could compensate any team that was taped. Otherwise, the Jets would've received something in return with the ruling erarlier in the season (spygate).

 

[duece2626]

Patriots | Belichick's been taping since 2000

Wed, 13 Feb 2008 19:07:11 -0800

The Associated Press reports New England Patriots head coach Bill Belichick has been illegally taping since 2000, according to Senator Arlen Specter, who said NFL commissioner Roger Goodell told him that during a meeting Wednesday, Feb. 13. "There was confirmation that there has been taping since 2000, when Coach Belichick took over," Specter said.

 

[NY/NJMFDIVER]

If this matter is reinvestigated and BB is found guilty of taping the 2002 walk through and any other accusations, how can you do anything to the guy other than fines, suspensions and the like? you certainly can't take back Championships. ok, so the image of the patriots success since BB took over is tarnished, but so what. The guy claims what he did was legal. he was warned, did it again and was penalized. I certainly don't condone the act(s), but it's not like they can ban him from the NFL and erase his accomplishments.

It would be interesting if the Ram, Eagle and Panther organizations got together and sued the NFL for the balance between the winners and losers share of their respective bowls. We're talking a 25-40 thousand dollar split. The records are unrecoverable, as are the legacies, but some cold hard cash might do the trick. Its an irascible situation, and I'm sure unity will be stressed for the league, but cold hard cash is the only reasonable redress at this point.

I hear what you're saying, but the NFL would have to prove that the information taped clearly determined the outcome of a given play/game. The best I think they'd be able to prove is that it gave the Patriots an unfair advantage, which would clearly be enough to fine BB/Pats, but there's no way you could compensate any team that was taped. Otherwise, the Jets would've received something in return with the ruling erarlier in the season (spygate).

The money is basically negligable and really a symbolic gesture. That kind of cash isn't making or breaking anyone's life but the gesture would speak a lot about other teams perceptions of the Pats and how they've been dealt with and punished, as well as illustrating how widespread this is. If the party line of the Pat nation "everyone does it" is true, I wouldn't expect this, but the extent and breadth is more extensive than we've been lead to believe, I could see some teams wanting their pound of flesh. I would put this at a less than 10 percent chance of happening, but that would really be something. Specter's got this ball a rollin, and there looks like enough blood on the tracks to grease those wheels, so I'm betting Goodell tries to head this off at the pass, throw Congress a bone that he's "law and order" and suspend Belicheck for one to five years based if Walsh brings so much as a Madden 05 webcam shot in. After this fiasco today, I don't think he wants any part of having Congress open and step in the NFL's #####. A swift sacrafice might suffice keeping heat off.

 

[Road Warriors]

If this matter is reinvestigated and BB is found guilty of taping the 2002 walk through and any other accusations, how can you do anything to the guy other than fines, suspensions and the like? you certainly can't take back Championships. ok, so the image of the patriots success since BB took over is tarnished, but so what. The guy claims what he did was legal. he was warned, did it again and was penalized. I certainly don't condone the act(s), but it's not like they can ban him from the NFL and erase his accomplishments.

It would be interesting if the Ram, Eagle and Panther organizations got together and sued the NFL for the balance between the winners and losers share of their respective bowls. We're talking a 25-40 thousand dollar split. The records are unrecoverable, as are the legacies, but some cold hard cash might do the trick. Its an irascible situation, and I'm sure unity will be stressed for the league, but cold hard cash is the only reasonable redress at this point.

I hear what you're saying, but the NFL would have to prove that the information taped clearly determined the outcome of a given play/game. The best I think they'd be able to prove is that it gave the Patriots an unfair advantage, which would clearly be enough to fine BB/Pats, but there's no way you could compensate any team that was taped. Otherwise, the Jets would've received something in return with the ruling erarlier in the season (spygate).

The money is basically negligable and really a symbolic gesture. That kind of cash isn't making or breaking anyone's life but the gesture would speak a lot about other teams perceptions of the Pats and how they've been dealt with and punished, as well as illustrating how widespread this is. If the party line of the Pat nation "everyone does it" is true, I wouldn't expect this, but the extent and breadth is more extensive than we've been lead to believe, I could see some teams wanting their pound of flesh. I would put this at a less than 10 percent chance of happening, but that would really be something. Specter's got this ball a rollin, and there looks like enough blood on the tracks to grease those wheels, so I'm betting Goodell tries to head this off at the pass, throw Congress a bone that he's "law and order" and suspend Belicheck for one to five years based if Walsh brings so much as a Madden 05 webcam shot in. After this fiasco today, I don't think he wants any part of having Congress open and step in the NFL's #####. A swift sacrafice might suffice keeping heat off.

Interesting note from ESPN

Specter is "unable" to offer Walsh any indemnification, according to an aide, "because theoretically Walsh has stolen property and a confidentiality agreement with the Patriots."

This really speaks to how little "real" authority Specter has here. He has not brought this to the Senate, or his judiciary committee, but appears to be using his position as a senator to threaten the NFL and Goodell with the Anti Trust exemptions. Without taking a position on the merits of his case, this looks like Specter is either overstepping his bounds as a Senator or trying to bully ( or embarrass ) the NFL.

 

[AhrnCityPahnder]

Senator Specter Says the Patriots Taped the Steelers Twice During 2004 Season

http://sports.aol.com/fanhouse/2008/02/13/...rs-twice-durin/

Well, it looks like Senator Arlen Specter didn't get around to talking about the NFL's antitrust exemption during today's meet-and-greet with commissioner Roger Goodell. As Michael David Smith wrote earlier, Specter learned that the Patriots have been videotaping opponents since 2000, something that wasn't clear when the league concluded its investigation in September.

In a post-meeting press conference, Specter elaborated. The senator said that "there were notes showing that the Steelers games had been taped." Specifically, two contests during the 2004 season: one on Oct. 31, and the other, the AFC Championship, on Jan. 27.

A couple of things worth pointing out: Pittsburgh smoked the Patriots in the first meeting, 34-20, sacking Tom Brady four times and picking him off twice. Three months later, the two teams met in the conference finals. Unsurprisingly (in hindsight), the Patriots won 41-27, and Brady, sacked just twice in the rematch, finished 14 of 21 for 207 yards with two touchdowns and no interceptions.

Did New England gain an advantage from having videotaped Pittsburgh during the teams' first meeting? There isn't enough evidence to say that, yes, unequivocally the Patriots won because they had the Steelers' defensive signals. But it would also be naïve to suggest that having access to that information had no bearing on the outcome. If that were true, Matthew Estrella (and Matt Walsh before him) wouldn't have had a job.

Either way, this doesn't do much for the Patriots' legacy as one of the best teams in NFL history, and it doesn't do much for Roger Goodell's credibility.

I also wonder if Bill Cowher might want to reconsider his earlier thoughts on the Steelers' other AFC Championship game against the Patriots.

 

[NY/NJMFDIVER]

If this matter is reinvestigated and BB is found guilty of taping the 2002 walk through and any other accusations, how can you do anything to the guy other than fines, suspensions and the like? you certainly can't take back Championships. ok, so the image of the patriots success since BB took over is tarnished, but so what. The guy claims what he did was legal. he was warned, did it again and was penalized. I certainly don't condone the act(s), but it's not like they can ban him from the NFL and erase his accomplishments.

It would be interesting if the Ram, Eagle and Panther organizations got together and sued the NFL for the balance between the winners and losers share of their respective bowls. We're talking a 25-40 thousand dollar split. The records are unrecoverable, as are the legacies, but some cold hard cash might do the trick. Its an irascible situation, and I'm sure unity will be stressed for the league, but cold hard cash is the only reasonable redress at this point.

I hear what you're saying, but the NFL would have to prove that the information taped clearly determined the outcome of a given play/game. The best I think they'd be able to prove is that it gave the Patriots an unfair advantage, which would clearly be enough to fine BB/Pats, but there's no way you could compensate any team that was taped. Otherwise, the Jets would've received something in return with the ruling erarlier in the season (spygate).

The money is basically negligable and really a symbolic gesture. That kind of cash isn't making or breaking anyone's life but the gesture would speak a lot about other teams perceptions of the Pats and how they've been dealt with and punished, as well as illustrating how widespread this is. If the party line of the Pat nation "everyone does it" is true, I wouldn't expect this, but the extent and breadth is more extensive than we've been lead to believe, I could see some teams wanting their pound of flesh. I would put this at a less than 10 percent chance of happening, but that would really be something. Specter's got this ball a rollin, and there looks like enough blood on the tracks to grease those wheels, so I'm betting Goodell tries to head this off at the pass, throw Congress a bone that he's "law and order" and suspend Belicheck for one to five years based if Walsh brings so much as a Madden 05 webcam shot in. After this fiasco today, I don't think he wants any part of having Congress open and step in the NFL's #####. A swift sacrafice might suffice keeping heat off.

Interesting note from ESPN
Specter is "unable" to offer Walsh any indemnification, according to an aide, "because theoretically Walsh has stolen property and a confidentiality agreement with the Patriots."This really speaks to how little "real" authority Specter has here. He has not brought this to the Senate, or his judiciary committee, but appears to be using his position as a senator to threaten the NFL and Goodell with the Anti Trust exemptions. Without taking a position on the merits of his case, this looks like Specter is either overstepping his bounds as a Senator or trying to bully ( or embarrass ) the NFL.

I think you nailed it and thats exactly whats going on. Two wrongs don't necessarily make a right, but a league thats really made every correct choice in building its image for 50 years is really between a rock and hard place. Baseball has shot itself in the foot several times fighting what for them was the good fight. Strikes, drug cases, the PEDs just to name a few, whereas the NFL has always managed to dodge damaging publicity. They definately COULD basically tell Specter to go F himself in several regards, but I think their prudence as a 30 team organism will preclude that. Is Bill Belichek the kind of guy in the kind of situation the NFL wants to make their stand against the government for.In regard to Walsh, with the vagaries this situation is, we would need a lot more particulars, however, I'm certain any term in a contract which violates or forces a party to violate a law is void and not subject to civil or criminal sanction. We don't know that a law has been broken, but I'm sure Specter will go through loop holes to retrofit something as vague as "conspiracy" in regard to this offense to make it viable for this guy to come forward.

But I can very much see the arguement that the NFL still has the hammer in these proceedings. Will they swing it is the question.

 

[mad sweeney]

If this matter is reinvestigated and BB is found guilty of taping the 2002 walk through and any other accusations, how can you do anything to the guy other than fines, suspensions and the like? you certainly can't take back Championships. ok, so the image of the patriots success since BB took over is tarnished, but so what. The guy claims what he did was legal. he was warned, did it again and was penalized. I certainly don't condone the act(s), but it's not like they can ban him from the NFL and erase his accomplishments.

It would be interesting if the Ram, Eagle and Panther organizations got together and sued the NFL for the balance between the winners and losers share of their respective bowls. We're talking a 25-40 thousand dollar split. The records are unrecoverable, as are the legacies, but some cold hard cash might do the trick. Its an irascible situation, and I'm sure unity will be stressed for the league, but cold hard cash is the only reasonable redress at this point.

I hear what you're saying, but the NFL would have to prove that the information taped clearly determined the outcome of a given play/game. The best I think they'd be able to prove is that it gave the Patriots an unfair advantage, which would clearly be enough to fine BB/Pats, but there's no way you could compensate any team that was taped. Otherwise, the Jets would've received something in return with the ruling erarlier in the season (spygate).

The money is basically negligable and really a symbolic gesture. That kind of cash isn't making or breaking anyone's life but the gesture would speak a lot about other teams perceptions of the Pats and how they've been dealt with and punished, as well as illustrating how widespread this is. If the party line of the Pat nation "everyone does it" is true, I wouldn't expect this, but the extent and breadth is more extensive than we've been lead to believe, I could see some teams wanting their pound of flesh. I would put this at a less than 10 percent chance of happening, but that would really be something. Specter's got this ball a rollin, and there looks like enough blood on the tracks to grease those wheels, so I'm betting Goodell tries to head this off at the pass, throw Congress a bone that he's "law and order" and suspend Belicheck for one to five years based if Walsh brings so much as a Madden 05 webcam shot in. After this fiasco today, I don't think he wants any part of having Congress open and step in the NFL's #####. A swift sacrafice might suffice keeping heat off.

Interesting note from ESPN
Specter is "unable" to offer Walsh any indemnification, according to an aide, "because theoretically Walsh has stolen property and a confidentiality agreement with the Patriots."This really speaks to how little "real" authority Specter has here. He has not brought this to the Senate, or his judiciary committee, but appears to be using his position as a senator to threaten the NFL and Goodell with the Anti Trust exemptions. Without taking a position on the merits of his case, this looks like Specter is either overstepping his bounds as a Senator or trying to bully ( or embarrass ) the NFL.

I think you nailed it and thats exactly whats going on. Two wrongs don't necessarily make a right, but a league thats really made every correct choice in building its image for 50 years is really between a rock and hard place. Baseball has shot itself in the foot several times fighting what for them was the good fight. Strikes, drug cases, the PEDs just to name a few, whereas the NFL has always managed to dodge damaging publicity. They definately COULD basically tell Specter to go F himself in several regards, but I think their prudence as a 30 team organism will preclude that. Is Bill Belichek the kind of guy in the kind of situation the NFL wants to make their stand against the government for.In regard to Walsh, with the vagaries this situation is, we would need a lot more particulars, however, I'm certain any term in a contract which violates or forces a party to violate a law is void and not subject to civil or criminal sanction. We don't know that a law has been broken, but I'm sure Specter will go through loop holes to retrofit something as vague as "conspiracy" in regard to this offense to make it viable for this guy to come forward.

But I can very much see the arguement that the NFL still has the hammer in these proceedings. Will they swing it is the question.

32 teams. They added a team in Houston and Cleveland a few years ago.

 

[Frenchy Fuqua]

Hines Ward, when the whole Spygate thing broke:

"When we played them in the championship game, it seemed like they were a step ahead of us all the time," Hines Ward said yesterday. "You never know how long they've been doing this stuff. I heard they close part of their practices off to the media and that kind of thing. You hate to see it come to putting an asterisk by their championships, but I haven't heard of any other team doing something like this. I wouldn't put it past them.

"It is a crime and hopefully, [the penalty] will be stiff enough that no one else will try it."

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07256/817097-13.stm

 

[Road Warriors]

If this matter is reinvestigated and BB is found guilty of taping the 2002 walk through and any other accusations, how can you do anything to the guy other than fines, suspensions and the like? you certainly can't take back Championships. ok, so the image of the patriots success since BB took over is tarnished, but so what. The guy claims what he did was legal. he was warned, did it again and was penalized. I certainly don't condone the act(s), but it's not like they can ban him from the NFL and erase his accomplishments.

It would be interesting if the Ram, Eagle and Panther organizations got together and sued the NFL for the balance between the winners and losers share of their respective bowls. We're talking a 25-40 thousand dollar split. The records are unrecoverable, as are the legacies, but some cold hard cash might do the trick. Its an irascible situation, and I'm sure unity will be stressed for the league, but cold hard cash is the only reasonable redress at this point.

I hear what you're saying, but the NFL would have to prove that the information taped clearly determined the outcome of a given play/game. The best I think they'd be able to prove is that it gave the Patriots an unfair advantage, which would clearly be enough to fine BB/Pats, but there's no way you could compensate any team that was taped. Otherwise, the Jets would've received something in return with the ruling erarlier in the season (spygate).

The money is basically negligable and really a symbolic gesture. That kind of cash isn't making or breaking anyone's life but the gesture would speak a lot about other teams perceptions of the Pats and how they've been dealt with and punished, as well as illustrating how widespread this is. If the party line of the Pat nation "everyone does it" is true, I wouldn't expect this, but the extent and breadth is more extensive than we've been lead to believe, I could see some teams wanting their pound of flesh. I would put this at a less than 10 percent chance of happening, but that would really be something. Specter's got this ball a rollin, and there looks like enough blood on the tracks to grease those wheels, so I'm betting Goodell tries to head this off at the pass, throw Congress a bone that he's "law and order" and suspend Belicheck for one to five years based if Walsh brings so much as a Madden 05 webcam shot in. After this fiasco today, I don't think he wants any part of having Congress open and step in the NFL's #####. A swift sacrafice might suffice keeping heat off.

Interesting note from ESPN
Specter is "unable" to offer Walsh any indemnification, according to an aide, "because theoretically Walsh has stolen property and a confidentiality agreement with the Patriots."This really speaks to how little "real" authority Specter has here. He has not brought this to the Senate, or his judiciary committee, but appears to be using his position as a senator to threaten the NFL and Goodell with the Anti Trust exemptions. Without taking a position on the merits of his case, this looks like Specter is either overstepping his bounds as a Senator or trying to bully ( or embarrass ) the NFL.

I think you nailed it and thats exactly whats going on. Two wrongs don't necessarily make a right, but a league thats really made every correct choice in building its image for 50 years is really between a rock and hard place. Baseball has shot itself in the foot several times fighting what for them was the good fight. Strikes, drug cases, the PEDs just to name a few, whereas the NFL has always managed to dodge damaging publicity. They definately COULD basically tell Specter to go F himself in several regards, but I think their prudence as a 30 team organism will preclude that. Is Bill Belichek the kind of guy in the kind of situation the NFL wants to make their stand against the government for.In regard to Walsh, with the vagaries this situation is, we would need a lot more particulars, however, I'm certain any term in a contract which violates or forces a party to violate a law is void and not subject to civil or criminal sanction. We don't know that a law has been broken, but I'm sure Specter will go through loop holes to retrofit something as vague as "conspiracy" in regard to this offense to make it viable for this guy to come forward.

But I can very much see the arguement that the NFL still has the hammer in these proceedings. Will they swing it is the question.

I'm pretty sure that even if Specter were to retrofit something, you can't go back. If the activity at the time was legal, but a later law made it illegal, you can't go back to every instance before the law and prosecute. I don't think there is any real chance that Congress gets involved here. Understand that this whole dance right now is Arlen Specter, not the US Senate. There is a big difference, IMO. Specter is using his position as Senator to call meetings with Goodell, to push, in the media, an agenda, but at the end of the day, I don't think he really will ever bring this in front of the US Gov.

 

[Road Warriors]

Hines Ward, when the whole Spygate thing broke:

"When we played them in the championship game, it seemed like they were a step ahead of us all the time," Hines Ward said yesterday. "You never know how long they've been doing this stuff. I heard they close part of their practices off to the media and that kind of thing. You hate to see it come to putting an asterisk by their championships, but I haven't heard of any other team doing something like this. I wouldn't put it past them.

"It is a crime and hopefully, [the penalty] will be stiff enough that no one else will try it."

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07256/817097-13.stm

Could you quote the statute the video of defensive coaches signals violates, Mr. Ward?

 

[Renegade of the Gridiron]

One thing keeps popping into my head when i think about the Patriots 2007-2008 season, and thats *.

Me too and that's because lazy, thoughtless people keep bringing it up. Makes me realize how poorly some school systems teach problem solving skill.1. Class, a team was caught filming the first half of the first game of the year. Those films were confiscated and never used by the team. The team that was caught filming went on to win 18 straight games. How did they do this? a) They were a well coached team with players driven to excellence. b) The act of filming one team for a half and not seeing that film gave them magical powers.For some, sadly, the obvious answer is b.

Although I agree with you in the most part, I think you are being a bit naive to think that they turned over all the tapes and notes. And if they did, they still learned some important tendencies for coaches/coordinators in certain situations that they can always use. I'm not a Pats fan or hater for that matter, I don't think they deserve the * as they have proven to be a great, great team. But to say that cause they turned over everything they didn't gain anything even this year, that's a little absurd.

A team could learn important tendencies of coaches/coordinators in certain situation simply by watching game films. Coaches usually have their philosophies and over the course of their career, more times than not they are going to fall back on those tendencies when a similar situation presents itself. If that werent the case, then noone would call Schottenheimer coaching style as "Marty Ball", etc. I know this is a complicated issue, but if you watch many games of a team you will pick up these tendencies without even stealing their signs. To prove my point last year i went to a Jets game and the season ticket holders around me were correctly calling out the plays that the Jets would run in certain situations. These are normal people, who just watch football on Sundays. Could you imagine what a coach or player who does this for a living could pick up in game study.

 

[David Yudkin]

Yudkin is pretty serious Patriots defense mode here. Pretty funny.

I'm not defending the Pats. I'm only stating that I think the league wants this to go away. Goodell is basically saying that BB said that NE had been taping things since he got to NE in 2000.I'm not sure what "new evidence" could come to light given that BB has already said he had videotaped opponents for 7 years. Goodell and the league handed out the punishment they did . . . and as far as I could tell their edict was stop doing it FROM THAT POINT FORWARD or else.Given that BB seems to have admitted to have been doing this for years, I don't see the league now coming out and handing out more punishment when BB already admitted to videotaping his entire career in NE.I'm not condoning what the Patriots did. However, I will say that if people think that there are 31 other franchises that are 100% squeaky clean, I think that is extremely unlikely.If people want to squabble over the punishment handed down by the league, that's another thing. But at this point I think Goodell truly believes that htis is a done deal and it's time to move on. If Congress wants to complain about his actions and the sanctions he took, that's their problem. IMO, Goodell at some point will state "our league, our rules."

 

[crowe1130]

If the league knew the Patriots had been cheating since 2000, why did it require the team to only turn over evidence from 2006 forward? Or am I misremembering what they turned over?

And can I get a refund on the small fortune I paid to go see that Steelers-Patriots title game? If you want to put pressure on the league, let's get a ball like that rolling.

 

[Class Dismissed]

If this matter is reinvestigated and BB is found guilty of taping the 2002 walk through and any other accusations, how can you do anything to the guy other than fines, suspensions and the like? you certainly can't take back Championships. ok, so the image of the patriots success since BB took over is tarnished, but so what. The guy claims what he did was legal. he was warned, did it again and was penalized. I certainly don't condone the act(s), but it's not like they can ban him from the NFL and erase his accomplishments.

It would be interesting if the Ram, Eagle and Panther organizations got together and sued the NFL for the balance between the winners and losers share of their respective bowls. We're talking a 25-40 thousand dollar split. The records are unrecoverable, as are the legacies, but some cold hard cash might do the trick. Its an irascible situation, and I'm sure unity will be stressed for the league, but cold hard cash is the only reasonable redress at this point.

I hear what you're saying, but the NFL would have to prove that the information taped clearly determined the outcome of a given play/game. The best I think they'd be able to prove is that it gave the Patriots an unfair advantage, which would clearly be enough to fine BB/Pats, but there's no way you could compensate any team that was taped. Otherwise, the Jets would've received something in return with the ruling erarlier in the season (spygate).

The money is basically negligable and really a symbolic gesture. That kind of cash isn't making or breaking anyone's life but the gesture would speak a lot about other teams perceptions of the Pats and how they've been dealt with and punished, as well as illustrating how widespread this is. If the party line of the Pat nation "everyone does it" is true, I wouldn't expect this, but the extent and breadth is more extensive than we've been lead to believe, I could see some teams wanting their pound of flesh. I would put this at a less than 10 percent chance of happening, but that would really be something. Specter's got this ball a rollin, and there looks like enough blood on the tracks to grease those wheels, so I'm betting Goodell tries to head this off at the pass, throw Congress a bone that he's "law and order" and suspend Belicheck for one to five years based if Walsh brings so much as a Madden 05 webcam shot in. After this fiasco today, I don't think he wants any part of having Congress open and step in the NFL's #####. A swift sacrafice might suffice keeping heat off.

Interesting note from ESPN
Specter is "unable" to offer Walsh any indemnification, according to an aide, "because theoretically Walsh has stolen property and a confidentiality agreement with the Patriots."This really speaks to how little "real" authority Specter has here. He has not brought this to the Senate, or his judiciary committee, but appears to be using his position as a senator to threaten the NFL and Goodell with the Anti Trust exemptions. Without taking a position on the merits of his case, this looks like Specter is either overstepping his bounds as a Senator or trying to bully ( or embarrass ) the NFL.

ESPN (Mortensen) Claims that they reported that Bellicheck has been cheating since 2000, in September 2007, I don't recall that, and a simple link would prove it. My recollection and the recollection of others is that this wasn't made public until 2008 when this whole thing blew up in the NFL's face at the Super BowlThe last people I would count on to report this accurately is ESPN, the NFL is their cash cow.

ESPN is reporting this morning that Goodell will reopen the investidation should any additional information come forward. Well, the league is on record in September saying that there were only 6 tapes that this went back to 2006, implying that this just started in 2006

NOW the league has confirmed that this went back to 2000, and the League's Attorney has told Specter that the Patriots recorded the Steelers in October of 2004 and used those notes in the AFC Championship game later that season. Did they report this in September 2007? Why the hell did the league say that it only went back to 2006 in September?

Specter played the Anti Trust card in yesterdays meeting. That's authority. The league can't cover this up anymore.

Look at the 2 press conferences from yesterday, and you tell me who looks shaken.

NFL Network Wrap Up

http://www.nfl.com/videos?videoId=09000d5d806aca26

Specters full press conference

http://www.redlasso.com/ClipPlayer.aspx?id...0f-dcc11c080cfc

 

[David Yudkin]

ESPN is reporting this morning that Goodell will reopen the investidation should any additional information come forward. Well, the league is on record in September saying that there were only 6 tapes that this went back to 2006, implying that this just started in 2006.

Just because the NFL said the Pats only had tapes going back to 2006 does not automatically mean that the investigation only went back to 2006. Goodell is saying that BB even admitted to doing things as far back as 2000. IMO, all that means is they no longer have the tapes or the tapes got taped over.If the Pats told the league what they have been doing for 7 years and they received a "cease and desist" order and they have since complied with that, I can see how Goodell would say that there is not really new evidence if BB has already said that he was taping things since he's been in NE.

 

[Road Warriors]

...

ESPN (Mortensen) Claims that they reported that Bellicheck has been cheating since 2000, in September 2007, I don't recall that, and a simple link would prove it. My recollection and the recollection of others is that this wasn't made public until 2008 when this whole thing blew up in the NFL's face at the Super Bowl

The last people I would count on to report this accurately is ESPN, the NFL is their cash cow.

ESPN is reporting this morning that Goodell will reopen the investidation should any additional information come forward. Well, the league is on record in September saying that there were only 6 tapes that this went back to 2006, implying that this just started in 2006

NOW the league has confirmed that this went back to 2000, and the League's Attorney has told Specter that the Patriots recorded the Steelers in October of 2004 and used those notes in the AFC Championship game later that season. Did they report this in September 2007? Why the hell did the league say that it only went back to 2006 in September?

Specter played the Anti Trust card in yesterdays meeting. That's authority. The league can't cover this up anymore.

Look at the 2 press conferences from yesterday, and you tell me who looks shaken.

NFL Network Wrap Up

http://www.nfl.com/videos?videoId=09000d5d806aca26

Specters full press conference

http://www.redlasso.com/ClipPlayer.aspx?id...0f-dcc11c080cfc

Specter has been threatening the NFL with the AntiTrust card since sticking his nose into the issue. But, IIRC, he is currently not acting on behalf of the US Senate, but rather using his position as a Senator as leverage to push this along. He has not brought this up under the jurisdiction of the Senate, as yet. Until he actually does that, the AntiTrust card is nothing more than a threat, and IMO, a fairly hollow one. The fact he himself admits he can't offer indemnity to Matt Walsh on the matter means he fully realizes this is a League matter and that Congress really has no business getting involved. We'll see how this plays out, but I'd expect nothing much more to happen.

 

[Banger]

Just when I was hoping all this Pats talk would calm down....

 

[Class Dismissed]

ESPN is reporting this morning that Goodell will reopen the investidation should any additional information come forward. Well, the league is on record in September saying that there were only 6 tapes that this went back to 2006, implying that this just started in 2006.

Just because the NFL said the Pats only had tapes going back to 2006 does not automatically mean that the investigation only went back to 2006. Goodell is saying that BB even admitted to doing things as far back as 2000. IMO, all that means is they no longer have the tapes or the tapes got taped over.If the Pats told the league what they have been doing for 7 years and they received a "cease and desist" order and they have since complied with that, I can see how Goodell would say that there is not really new evidence if BB has already said that he was taping things since he's been in NE.

What it does mean is that the NFL covered it up, until their hand was called. And the extent of this cheating is far more than the league has led it's fans to believe.

 

[Class Dismissed]

...

ESPN (Mortensen) Claims that they reported that Bellicheck has been cheating since 2000, in September 2007, I don't recall that, and a simple link would prove it. My recollection and the recollection of others is that this wasn't made public until 2008 when this whole thing blew up in the NFL's face at the Super Bowl

The last people I would count on to report this accurately is ESPN, the NFL is their cash cow.

ESPN is reporting this morning that Goodell will reopen the investidation should any additional information come forward. Well, the league is on record in September saying that there were only 6 tapes that this went back to 2006, implying that this just started in 2006

NOW the league has confirmed that this went back to 2000, and the League's Attorney has told Specter that the Patriots recorded the Steelers in October of 2004 and used those notes in the AFC Championship game later that season. Did they report this in September 2007? Why the hell did the league say that it only went back to 2006 in September?

Specter played the Anti Trust card in yesterdays meeting. That's authority. The league can't cover this up anymore.

Look at the 2 press conferences from yesterday, and you tell me who looks shaken.

NFL Network Wrap Up

http://www.nfl.com/videos?videoId=09000d5d806aca26

Specters full press conference

http://www.redlasso.com/ClipPlayer.aspx?id...0f-dcc11c080cfc

Specter has been threatening the NFL with the AntiTrust card since sticking his nose into the issue. But, IIRC, he is currently not acting on behalf of the US Senate, but rather using his position as a Senator as leverage to push this along. He has not brought this up under the jurisdiction of the Senate, as yet. Until he actually does that, the AntiTrust card is nothing more than a threat, and IMO, a fairly hollow one. The fact he himself admits he can't offer indemnity to Matt Walsh on the matter means he fully realizes this is a League matter and that Congress really has no business getting involved. We'll see how this plays out, but I'd expect nothing much more to happen.

I encourage you to watch the video of Specter's press conference, rather than relying on reporting of Chris Mortenson.

 

[Snotbubbles]

Spector was on 610WIP this morning some of the things he said:

-He tried to get Matt Walsh to speak with him but he was too scared. Spector said the NFL gave him immunity from legal prosecution but put so many restrictions and limitations on what Walsh was and was not allowed to say and/or distribute to Spector that Walsh was too scared to talk for fear of prosecution.

-Spector also questioned Goodell as to why he levied a punishment on the Patriots before he even knew the exent to and length of how they were cheating.

-Spector questioned why the tapes were destroyed and Goodell responded that "he didn't want anyone to gain an unfair advantage from the tapes" to which Spector responded "how could a team gain an unfair advantage from tapes they don't have access to?"

All in all, Spector's tone seemed to indicated that he believed that this whole Spygate situation was a cover up.

 

[SeniorVBDStudent]

ESPN (Mortensen) Claims that they reported that Bellicheck has been cheating since 2000, in September 2007, I don't recall that, and a simple link would prove it. My recollection and the recollection of others is that this wasn't made public until 2008 when this whole thing blew up in the NFL's face at the Super Bowl

The last people I would count on to report this accurately is ESPN, the NFL is their cash cow.

ESPN is reporting this morning that Goodell will reopen the investidation should any additional information come forward. Well, the league is on record in September saying that there were only 6 tapes that this went back to 2006, implying that this just started in 2006

NOW the league has confirmed that this went back to 2000, and the League's Attorney has told Specter that the Patriots recorded the Steelers in October of 2004 and used those notes in the AFC Championship game later that season. Did they report this in September 2007? Why the hell did the league say that it only went back to 2006 in September?

Specter played the Anti Trust card in yesterdays meeting. That's authority. The league can't cover this up anymore.

Look at the 2 press conferences from yesterday, and you tell me who looks shaken.

It's fairly obvious that you are not looking at this situation objectively and without bias.The reason that you don't recall any prior statements about "Belichick cheating since 2000" is that Goodell's prior public statements concerned the existence of videotapes in the possession of the Patriots organization. As Goodell also alluded to at that time, there was no implied statement being made about whether or not ANY of the 32 teams around the league had violated videotaping location rules outside the scope of the videotapes that the Patriots handed over. For you to attempt to "spin" this as "new" information coming to light is disengenuous.

 

[SeniorVBDStudent]

ESPN is reporting this morning that Goodell will reopen the investidation should any additional information come forward. Well, the league is on record in September saying that there were only 6 tapes that this went back to 2006, implying that this just started in 2006.

Just because the NFL said the Pats only had tapes going back to 2006 does not automatically mean that the investigation only went back to 2006. Goodell is saying that BB even admitted to doing things as far back as 2000. IMO, all that means is they no longer have the tapes or the tapes got taped over.If the Pats told the league what they have been doing for 7 years and they received a "cease and desist" order and they have since complied with that, I can see how Goodell would say that there is not really new evidence if BB has already said that he was taping things since he's been in NE.

What it does mean is that the NFL covered it up, until their hand was called. And the extent of this cheating is far more than the league has led it's fans to believe.

GOODELL HAS CONSISTENTLY STATED THAT SUCH VIDEOTAPING WAS COMMONPLACE AROUND THE LEAGUE AND THAT VIDEOTAPES SHOWED OPPOSING DEFENSIVE COACHES WAVING AT THE CAMERAS. ARE YOU A MORON, OR NOT?

 

[Banger]

ESPN is reporting this morning that Goodell will reopen the investidation should any additional information come forward. Well, the league is on record in September saying that there were only 6 tapes that this went back to 2006, implying that this just started in 2006.

Just because the NFL said the Pats only had tapes going back to 2006 does not automatically mean that the investigation only went back to 2006. Goodell is saying that BB even admitted to doing things as far back as 2000. IMO, all that means is they no longer have the tapes or the tapes got taped over.If the Pats told the league what they have been doing for 7 years and they received a "cease and desist" order and they have since complied with that, I can see how Goodell would say that there is not really new evidence if BB has already said that he was taping things since he's been in NE.

What it does mean is that the NFL covered it up, until their hand was called. And the extent of this cheating is far more than the league has led it's fans to believe.

GOODELL HAS CONSISTENTLY STATED THAT SUCH VIDEOTAPING WAS COMMONPLACE AROUND THE LEAGUE AND THAT VIDEOTAPES SHOWED OPPOSING DEFENSIVE COACHES WAVING AT THE CAMERAS. ARE YOU A MORON, OR NOT?

link?

 

[Stillers Jr.]

Senator Specter Says the Patriots Taped the Steelers Twice During 2004 Season

I just vomited on myself.

 

[Banger]

Senator Specter Says the Patriots Taped the Steelers Twice During 2004 Season

This is exactly why Goddell destroyed the tapes and tried to squash any talk of it. He didn't want people to question the validity of the Pats wins. Looks like the genie is out of the bottle.

 

[Banger]

Let's say that there is a tape of the Rams pre-SB walk through. Just because there is a tape does not prove that . . .A) It came from anyone from NEB) Anyone involved with the team taped itC) Anyone from the team asked for itD) That it was ever in the possession of NEE) That it ever was even viewed by anyone from the PatsEven if Walsh were the one that taped it, who is to say that he didn't tape it on his own and then tried on his own to give it to the Pats?I'm not saying one way or another that the Pats did or did not do anything, only that there could still be a million questions as to what the tape might or might not reveal (if there was such a tape).

David, I really respect your opinion but I believe you're really grasping at straws here.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

If the Pats told the league what they have been doing for 7 years and they received a "cease and desist" order and they have since complied with that, I can see how Goodell would say that there is not really new evidence if BB has already said that he was taping things since he's been in NE.

I haven't followed this closely since I don't have a dog in the fight, but wasn't the 'cease and desist' order given BEFORE the 2007 season?It puts things in a vastly different light in my book if Goodell ALREADY KNEW the Pats had been cheating since 2000 when he issued the warning to all teams before the 2007 season.If that's how it went down Bellichek should be banned for life.

 

[redman]

Spector was on 610WIP this morning some of the things he said:

-He tried to get Matt Walsh to speak with him but he was too scared. Spector said the NFL gave him immunity from legal prosecution but put so many restrictions and limitations on what Walsh was and was not allowed to say and/or distribute to Spector that Walsh was too scared to talk for fear of prosecution.

-Spector also questioned Goodell as to why he levied a punishment on the Patriots before he even knew the exent to and length of how they were cheating.

-Spector questioned why the tapes were destroyed and Goodell responded that "he didn't want anyone to gain an unfair advantage from the tapes" to which Spector responded "how could a team gain an unfair advantage from tapes they don't have access to?"

All in all, Spector's tone seemed to indicated that he believed that this whole Spygate situation was a cover up.

Specter is right. The NFL tried to sweep this under a rug to avoid a scandal that would potentially undercut this decade's football dynasty. Goodell's explanations have been ludicrous.

 

[Bri]

I hate that this is a politician and a lawyer that we're trying to get easy to understand facts from. I feel like we'll always wonder what was really said(word for word) and what they didn't tell us.

I thought the commission stuff meant transcripts would be available to the press so I find this bothersome.

 

[Class Dismissed]

ESPN is reporting this morning that Goodell will reopen the investidation should any additional information come forward. Well, the league is on record in September saying that there were only 6 tapes that this went back to 2006, implying that this just started in 2006.

Just because the NFL said the Pats only had tapes going back to 2006 does not automatically mean that the investigation only went back to 2006. Goodell is saying that BB even admitted to doing things as far back as 2000. IMO, all that means is they no longer have the tapes or the tapes got taped over.If the Pats told the league what they have been doing for 7 years and they received a "cease and desist" order and they have since complied with that, I can see how Goodell would say that there is not really new evidence if BB has already said that he was taping things since he's been in NE.

What it does mean is that the NFL covered it up, until their hand was called. And the extent of this cheating is far more than the league has led it's fans to believe.

GOODELL HAS CONSISTENTLY STATED THAT SUCH VIDEOTAPING WAS COMMONPLACE AROUND THE LEAGUE AND THAT VIDEOTAPES SHOWED OPPOSING DEFENSIVE COACHES WAVING AT THE CAMERAS. ARE YOU A MORON, OR NOT?

Prove me wrong.Link?

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

Let's say that there is a tape of the Rams pre-SB walk through. Just because there is a tape does not prove that . . .A) It came from anyone from NEB) Anyone involved with the team taped itC) Anyone from the team asked for itD) That it was ever in the possession of NEE) That it ever was even viewed by anyone from the PatsEven if Walsh were the one that taped it, who is to say that he didn't tape it on his own and then tried on his own to give it to the Pats?I'm not saying one way or another that the Pats did or did not do anything, only that there could still be a million questions as to what the tape might or might not reveal (if there was such a tape).

you better hope Walsh dont have a tape.

 

[SeniorVBDStudent]

If the Pats told the league what they have been doing for 7 years and they received a "cease and desist" order and they have since complied with that, I can see how Goodell would say that there is not really new evidence if BB has already said that he was taping things since he's been in NE.

I haven't followed this closely since I don't have a dog in the fight, but wasn't the 'cease and desist' order given BEFORE the 2007 season?It puts things in a vastly different light in my book if Goodell ALREADY KNEW the Pats had been cheating since 2000 when he issued the warning to all teams before the 2007 season.If that's how it went down Bellichek should be banned for life.

That's an interesting perspective. Your conclusion seems to be based on the notion that the Patriots were the only team to have ever videotaped defensive coaches from the sideline, that this was a revelation, and that violating a league guidance memo in Week 1 of the 2007 season is the basis for a lifetime ban. I would submit that you are patently wrong on all three points.

 

[Reaper]

If the Pats told the league what they have been doing for 7 years and they received a "cease and desist" order and they have since complied with that, I can see how Goodell would say that there is not really new evidence if BB has already said that he was taping things since he's been in NE.

I haven't followed this closely since I don't have a dog in the fight, but wasn't the 'cease and desist' order given BEFORE the 2007 season?It puts things in a vastly different light in my book if Goodell ALREADY KNEW the Pats had been cheating since 2000 when he issued the warning to all teams before the 2007 season.

If that's how it went down Bellichek should be banned for life.

That's an interesting perspective. Your conclusion seems to be based on the notion that the Patriots were the only team to have ever videotaped defensive coaches from the sideline, that this was a revelation, and that violating a league guidance memo in Week 1 of the 2007 season is the basis for a lifetime ban. I would submit that you are patently wrong on all three points.

Not really, that was accepted already.I think his conclusion is based on the notion that, YES, we agree that teams have stepped over the line with their actions and videotaping to certain degrees in the past, BUT.... WE"RE STOPPING IT NOW, THE NEXT PERSON WHO DOES IT WILL BE DEALT WITH HARSHLY...

And BAM, day 1 of the season there's Bellichik taping what he's not supposed to be - He might as well looked into the camera himself and flashed a sign that said "Screw you Goodell" and then gave the finger. Heck, maybe he did!!!!

Maybe he was wrong in that post above but, certianly not patently on all 3 points.

Bellichik opened himself up to all this BS talk we have today..... A cease and desit order was given BASED on past actions pretty much by the Pats themselves, according to all the rumors at that point.

 

[Class Dismissed]

ESPN (Mortensen) Claims that they reported that Bellicheck has been cheating since 2000, in September 2007, I don't recall that, and a simple link would prove it. My recollection and the recollection of others is that this wasn't made public until 2008 when this whole thing blew up in the NFL's face at the Super Bowl

The last people I would count on to report this accurately is ESPN, the NFL is their cash cow.

ESPN is reporting this morning that Goodell will reopen the investidation should any additional information come forward. Well, the league is on record in September saying that there were only 6 tapes that this went back to 2006, implying that this just started in 2006

NOW the league has confirmed that this went back to 2000, and the League's Attorney has told Specter that the Patriots recorded the Steelers in October of 2004 and used those notes in the AFC Championship game later that season. Did they report this in September 2007? Why the hell did the league say that it only went back to 2006 in September?

Specter played the Anti Trust card in yesterdays meeting. That's authority. The league can't cover this up anymore.

Look at the 2 press conferences from yesterday, and you tell me who looks shaken.

It's fairly obvious that you are not looking at this situation objectively and without bias.The reason that you don't recall any prior statements about "Belichick cheating since 2000" is that Goodell's prior public statements concerned the existence of videotapes in the possession of the Patriots organization. As Goodell also alluded to at that time, there was no implied statement being made about whether or not ANY of the 32 teams around the league had violated videotaping location rules outside the scope of the videotapes that the Patriots handed over. For you to attempt to "spin" this as "new" information coming to light is disengenuous.

Fine, I'm not infallible, It's just that I can't seem to fnd a link to that information, and Mike and Mike doesn't recall hearing about it either. I very well could be wrong, but I'm sure having a hard time finding what you say Goodell said at the time it happened. It's not form lack of trying. I just can't find it.Google Search Goodell + Patriots statements 09/01/2007-09/30/2008