FOX Sports is reporting Pats taped practice (1 Viewer)

[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.

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

I think the burden of proof is on YOU to produce a link that looks anything like Goodell saying that we are confident that there was never any videotaping by the Patriots or by any other team outside of the 6 videotapes surrendered by the Patriots. You are the one making this inference, when in fact there are multiple acknowledgements by Goodell and others that said activity was commonplace and that therefore there was nothing to "cover up".Supporting statements regarding the commonplace nature of videotaping would include, as examples, from Goodell's superbowl press conference:

"I think I've said before and I've repeated here, I'm not sure that there is a coach in the league that doesn't expect that their signals are being intercepted by opposing teams. That's why they go to great lengths. I think it was coach (Bill) Parcells earlier this season who said, 'Any coach that doesn't expect his signals to be stolen is stupid.' It's pretty simple but teams understand that it's a risk and they prepare for that. I don't believe it affected the outcome of any games."

...and...

"This incident is now almost five or six months old and I think we've been very forthright in it, and I don't believe it affected the outcome of any game. Coaches prepare for people being able to intercept their signals and they make modifications and changes. Andy Reid is a very smart coach and I'm sure he did the same."

LINK

 

[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.

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.

Your argument would be more compelling if Goodell had reacted to the Week 1 2007 transgression by saying "That's OK Bill; I don't mind that you blatently disregarded our guidance memo." Quite the contrary, severe sanctions were imposed. The notion of a lifetime ban for violating a league guidance memo is patently ridiculous.

 

[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.

Your argument would be more compelling if Goodell had reacted to the Week 1 2007 transgression by saying "That's OK Bill; I don't mind that you blatently disregarded our guidance memo." Quite the contrary, severe sanctions were imposed. The notion of a lifetime ban for violating a league guidance memo is patently ridiculous.

Ok Fine.. it's only the penalty that was being debated here then and not the rest in that person's post, you made it like he was wrong on everything he said when you said "I would submit that you are patently wrong on all three points."

 

[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.

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.

Your argument would be more compelling if Goodell had reacted to the Week 1 2007 transgression by saying "That's OK Bill; I don't mind that you blatently disregarded our guidance memo." Quite the contrary, severe sanctions were imposed. The notion of a lifetime ban for violating a league guidance memo is patently ridiculous.

Ok Fine.. it's only the penalty that was being debated here then and not the rest in that person's post, you made it like he was wrong on everything he said when you said "I would submit that you are patently wrong on all three points."

If his point had only been that the Patriots should have been penalized for what happened in Week 1 of 2007, you would get no argument from me.That was not his point.

He said:

"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."

My point is that these comments are an over-simplistic representation of the reality of "illegal" videotaping around the NFL at least from 2000-2006. In particular,

1. The practice was commonplace.

2. This is a known and commonly acknowledged fact.

3. Ergo, the notion of a lifetime ban for what has transpired, in consideration of ALL the relevent information, is patently wrong.

 

[Dodge]

I think this whole subject is stupid. It's done with. The pats were fined and punished. Let it go and move on.

 

[BusMan]

So, what about Specter indicating that the Patriots videotaped the Steelers in 2004? Does this fall under the "stuff already turned over from the Pats to Goodell and subsequently destroyed" category?

This doesn't seem to be going away.

 

[SeniorVBDStudent]

So, what about Specter indicating that the Patriots videotaped the Steelers in 2004? Does this fall under the "stuff already turned over from the Pats to Goodell and subsequently destroyed" category?

This doesn't seem to be going away.

This "news" came from what Goodell freely acknowledged to Spector in their meeting, and is not inconsistent with the prior handover of videotapes from the Patriots to Goodell. At no time in any of this recent history did Goodell or anyone from the Patriots make any statements remotely resembling the notion that videotaping activity was restricted to those games in which tapes were produced. To the contrary, what was said was that, yes, the patriots had been videotaping, and further that they were not alone in such videotaping, but they were alone in having handed over "evidence" of such activity.

Goodell also freely acknowledged that Belichick told him that the Patriots were already videotaping when he arrived there at 2000, so at this point we know that such activity was practiced openly by Parcells, Johnson, Switzer, and presumeably others.

This is not new information.

 

[BusMan]

So, what about Specter indicating that the Patriots videotaped the Steelers in 2004? Does this fall under the "stuff already turned over from the Pats to Goodell and subsequently destroyed" category?

This doesn't seem to be going away.

This "news" came from what Goodell freely acknowledged to Spector in their meeting, and is not inconsistent with the prior handover of videotapes from the Patriots to Goodell. At no time in any of this recent history did Goodell or anyone from the Patriots make any statements remotely resembling the notion that videotaping activity was restricted to those games in which tapes were produced. To the contrary, what was said was that, yes, the patriots had been videotaping, and further that they were not alone in such videotaping, but they were alone in having handed over "evidence" of such activity.



Goodell also freely acknowledged that Belichick told him that the Patriots were already videotaping when he arrived there at 2000, so at this point we know that such activity was practiced openly by Parcells, Johnson, Switzer, and presumeably others.

This is not new information.

Could I get a link for this?

 

[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.

Your argument would be more compelling if Goodell had reacted to the Week 1 2007 transgression by saying "That's OK Bill; I don't mind that you blatently disregarded our guidance memo." Quite the contrary, severe sanctions were imposed. The notion of a lifetime ban for violating a league guidance memo is patently ridiculous.

Ok Fine.. it's only the penalty that was being debated here then and not the rest in that person's post, you made it like he was wrong on everything he said when you said "I would submit that you are patently wrong on all three points."

If his point had only been that the Patriots should have been penalized for what happened in Week 1 of 2007, you would get no argument from me.That was not his point.

He said:

"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."

My point is that these comments are an over-simplistic representation of the reality of "illegal" videotaping around the NFL at least from 2000-2006. In particular,

1. The practice was commonplace.

2. This is a known and commonly acknowledged fact.

3. Ergo, the notion of a lifetime ban for what has transpired, in consideration of ALL the relevent information, is patently wrong.

Goodel knew the rampant rumors that the Pats were doing a wee bit more than other teams....

Supposedly the whole reason for the Warning was a direct reponse to the Pats and what they were doing.

So, I only disagree with the lifetime ban part.

 

[massraider]

So, what about Specter indicating that the Patriots videotaped the Steelers in 2004? Does this fall under the "stuff already turned over from the Pats to Goodell and subsequently destroyed" category?

This doesn't seem to be going away.

This "news" came from what Goodell freely acknowledged to Spector in their meeting, and is not inconsistent with the prior handover of videotapes from the Patriots to Goodell. At no time in any of this recent history did Goodell or anyone from the Patriots make any statements remotely resembling the notion that videotaping activity was restricted to those games in which tapes were produced. To the contrary, what was said was that, yes, the patriots had been videotaping, and further that they were not alone in such videotaping, but they were alone in having handed over "evidence" of such activity.

Goodell also freely acknowledged that Belichick told him that the Patriots were already videotaping when he arrived there at 2000, so at this point we know that such activity was practiced openly by Parcells, Johnson, Switzer, and presumeably others.

This is not new information.

You know what is as ridiculous as the notion of a lifetime ban? The assumptions in this post of yours.

 

[SeniorVBDStudent]

I'm not making any assumptions that I know of. I have no interest in posting links for those of you who want to call my statements into question. The information is readily available. I'm done. Have a nice day.

 

[David Yudkin]

So, what about Specter indicating that the Patriots videotaped the Steelers in 2004? Does this fall under the "stuff already turned over from the Pats to Goodell and subsequently destroyed" category?

This doesn't seem to be going away.

Let's try this again . . .- Goodell takes over and sends out a memo to all teams that it has come to his attention that videotaping/signal stealing has been occurring in the NFL and that the league will no longer tolerate it. The memo indicated that there would be penalties for offenders from that point forward (ie the start of the 2007 season).

- The Pats use video recording equipment against the Jets. The league investigates the matter directly with NE, who admit to having performed similar practices since BB arrived in 2000. They turn over whatever info/intel/tapes/material still in their possession (which is only 6 tapes from 2006). But apparently they did not deny doing it and they seem to have communicated with Goodell that this had been going on for 7 years.

- As a point of comparison, any additional information on the pats' prior practices is the equivalent of a junkie saying he did a lot of drugs including cocaine, crystal meth, and amphetamines. Then it comes out that he was abusing prescription drugs. Is that really a revelation at that point?

- Goodell determines that the Pats violated the rules, handed out their punishment, and sternly told them that any further trangressions would be met with stiffer fines and penalties. IMO (still) that involves NEW violations from 2007 on (past the initial Game 1 incident with the Jets) and past his edict to "cease and desist."

- People are considering new information to the public (which in actuality is information on PAST transgressions) to be classified as "new" and therefore are waiting for more penalties. IMO, this is drawing the wrong conclussion. I suspect that Goodell is only interested in additional infractions above and beyond the Week 1 incident from the 2007 season (ie if the Pats continued to break the rules after the Jets game). Anything else uncovered from before that will land in the "been there, done that" category and IMO the league will not do more than they already have.

- Basically, Specter at this point is essentially trying to usurp Goodell's authority to govern his own organization the way he sees fit. At some point, Goodell will say he took into account all the Patriots' trangressions to level the stiff fines/lost draft pick penalty that he invoked.

- IMO, this is similar to the Clemens investigation in that a ton of players were involved with PEDs, yet the focus is on one player in what has been a league wide issue.

- For this to gain a lot of traction, I would think that Congress would need to attack this as a league wide issue (teams videotaping other teams, stealing signals, and cheating), as that is what prompted the memo to all teams indicated the league was done with the petty games and one upmanship of other teams in the hopes of gaining a competitive advantage.

- Not to beat a dead horse, but people are kidding themselves if they think that there were not other teams in the league trying to manipulate the system and bend the rules in many areas (signal stealing, cap management, watching closed practices, picking the brains of a team's former players or coaches, etc.). From what I can tell, similar practices have been going on for years. By comparison, if the speed limit is 55, perhaps the Pats got caught doing 75 when other teams were going 72. The Pats got the ticket, but does that make the other franchises innocent? I realize that the Patriots at the moment are the only ones that got ticketed, but I don't think that all 31 other teams have never gone more than 55.

- I again am not condoing what the Patriots did. Their biggest problem is they were under more scutiny than other teams as they were winning more and they got caught. For example, if the Lions were accused of doing what the Patriots did, I doubt there would have been as much of an uproar over their infractions and they would be the butt of a running joke with the punchline "they were so bad that they couldn't even cheat to win games."

- I still believe that the league has done about as much as they are willing to do and their actions indicate that they really don't think this is as big a deal as the media, Specter, and others are making it. I really don't see Congress getting the gumption or having the authority to really press the issue and compel Goodell to change his decision and force him to have a "redo" on the outcome.

- Maybe I am completely misreading the league's position on this, but I don't think that there is such an outcry by people (a la Michael Vick) that this will go very far. But I have been wrong before and maybe I'll be wrong again.

 

[BusMan]

So, what about Specter indicating that the Patriots videotaped the Steelers in 2004? Does this fall under the "stuff already turned over from the Pats to Goodell and subsequently destroyed" category?

This doesn't seem to be going away.

Let's try this again . . .- Goodell takes over and sends out a memo to all teams that it has come to his attention that videotaping/signal stealing has been occurring in the NFL and that the league will no longer tolerate it. The memo indicated that there would be penalties for offenders from that point forward (ie the start of the 2007 season).

- The Pats use video recording equipment against the Jets. The league investigates the matter directly with NE, who admit to having performed similar practices since BB arrived in 2000. They turn over whatever info/intel/tapes/material still in their possession (which is only 6 tapes from 2006). But apparently they did not deny doing it and they seem to have communicated with Goodell that this had been going on for 7 years.

- As a point of comparison, any additional information on the pats' prior practices is the equivalent of a junkie saying he did a lot of drugs including cocaine, crystal meth, and amphetamines. Then it comes out that he was abusing prescription drugs. Is that really a revelation at that point?

- Goodell determines that the Pats violated the rules, handed out their punishment, and sternly told them that any further trangressions would be met with stiffer fines and penalties. IMO (still) that involves NEW violations from 2007 on (past the initial Game 1 incident with the Jets) and past his edict to "cease and desist."

- People are considering new information to the public (which in actuality is information on PAST transgressions) to be classified as "new" and therefore are waiting for more penalties. IMO, this is drawing the wrong conclussion. I suspect that Goodell is only interested in additional infractions above and beyond the Week 1 incident from the 2007 season (ie if the Pats continued to break the rules after the Jets game). Anything else uncovered from before that will land in the "been there, done that" category and IMO the league will not do more than they already have.

- Basically, Specter at this point is essentially trying to usurp Goodell's authority to govern his own organization the way he sees fit. At some point, Goodell will say he took into account all the Patriots' trangressions to level the stiff fines/lost draft pick penalty that he invoked.

- IMO, this is similar to the Clemens investigation in that a ton of players were involved with PEDs, yet the focus is on one player in what has been a league wide issue.

- For this to gain a lot of traction, I would think that Congress would need to attack this as a league wide issue (teams videotaping other teams, stealing signals, and cheating), as that is what prompted the memo to all teams indicated the league was done with the petty games and one upmanship of other teams in the hopes of gaining a competitive advantage.

- Not to beat a dead horse, but people are kidding themselves if they think that there were not other teams in the league trying to manipulate the system and bend the rules in many areas (signal stealing, cap management, watching closed practices, picking the brains of a team's former players or coaches, etc.). From what I can tell, similar practices have been going on for years. By comparison, if the speed limit is 55, perhaps the Pats got caught doing 75 when other teams were going 72. The Pats got the ticket, but does that make the other franchises innocent? I realize that the Patriots at the moment are the only ones that got ticketed, but I don't think that all 31 other teams have never gone more than 55.

- I again am not condoing what the Patriots did. Their biggest problem is they were under more scutiny than other teams as they were winning more and they got caught. For example, if the Lions were accused of doing what the Patriots did, I doubt there would have been as much of an uproar over their infractions and they would be the butt of a running joke with the punchline "they were so bad that they couldn't even cheat to win games."

- I still believe that the league has done about as much as they are willing to do and their actions indicate that they really don't think this is as big a deal as the media, Specter, and others are making it. I really don't see Congress getting the gumption or having the authority to really press the issue and compel Goodell to change his decision and force him to have a "redo" on the outcome.

- Maybe I am completely misreading the league's position on this, but I don't think that there is such an outcry by people (a la Michael Vick) that this will go very far. But I have been wrong before and maybe I'll be wrong again.

Thanks, David. I just wasn't aware of the bolded part above.

 

[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

I think the burden of proof is on YOU to produce a link that looks anything like Goodell saying that we are confident that there was never any videotaping by the Patriots or by any other team outside of the 6 videotapes surrendered by the Patriots. You are the one making this inference, when in fact there are multiple acknowledgements by Goodell and others that said activity was commonplace and that therefore there was nothing to "cover up".Supporting statements regarding the commonplace nature of videotaping would include, as examples, from Goodell's superbowl press conference:

"I think I've said before and I've repeated here, I'm not sure that there is a coach in the league that doesn't expect that their signals are being intercepted by opposing teams. That's why they go to great lengths. I think it was coach (Bill) Parcells earlier this season who said, 'Any coach that doesn't expect his signals to be stolen is stupid.' It's pretty simple but teams understand that it's a risk and they prepare for that. I don't believe it affected the outcome of any games."

...and...

"This incident is now almost five or six months old and I think we've been very forthright in it, and I don't believe it affected the outcome of any game. Coaches prepare for people being able to intercept their signals and they make modifications and changes. Andy Reid is a very smart coach and I'm sure he did the same."

LINK

Your Link is from the 2008 Super Bowl Press Conference, that's my point, thanks for making it. When the punishment was handed down in September, there was not any reference to the Patriots have been doing this since 2000, there was not any reference to the Steelers being taped in October of 2004 and the that notes were used in the AFC Championship Game. Hell, Goodell didn't even acknowledge that in his Super Bowl Press Conference. This may not be new information to Goodell but it IS new information to the public record.

Here is the Point, do you honestly think that if that information was disclosed at the time the punishment was handed down that the Press would of let it go? That the fans would of let it go? That people would of found the punishment acceptable? I remind you there were some in the press who thought a suspension was warranted just on the taping of the Jets game alone.

The NFL promised us a thorough investigation, then burned the tapes, and said nothing to see here, move along. Now it's hitting the fan.

 

[Renegade of the Gridiron]

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?

Goodell said this during his interview on Mike and Mike the friday before Super Bowl sunday. He had mentioned that such practices are known to happen in the league, and that in one of the tapes recovered by the NFL there was a coach that was actually waiving at the camera acknowledging that he knew what was going on.

 

[Road Warriors]

...Your Link is from the 2008 Super Bowl Press Conference, that's my point, thanks for making it. When the punishment was handed down in September, there was not any reference to the Patriots have been doing this since 2000, there was not any reference to the Steelers being taped in October of 2004 and the that notes were used in the AFC Championship Game. Hell, Goodell didn't even acknowledge that in his Super Bowl Press Conference. This may not be new information to Goodell but it IS new information to the public record.Here is the Point, do you honestly think that if that information was disclosed at the time the punishment was handed down that the Press would of let it go? That the fans would of let it go? That people would of found the punishment acceptable? I remind you there were some in the press who thought a suspension was warranted just on the taping of the Jets game alone. The NFL promised us a thorough investigation, then burned the tapes, and said nothing to see here, move along. Now it's hitting the fan.

I think the NFL misjudged the PR hit, and they could have had all this go away rather quickly had they handled it differently.Lets say, after their investigation, the League comes out with:1. We understand there has been a practice of taping opposing coaches, which is against league rules. We have recently reiterated this to all 32 teams. NE has been found to have violated that rule, despite our insistence that we will now enforce it.2. NE and Coach Belichick have turned over all materials they have collected. It consists of 6 videotapes dating back to 2006 and notes dating back to 2000. 3. NFL Films shows a 20 sec clip of a coach flashing signals, then panning up to the clock, rinse & repeat. Include a shot that has the opponents coach waving to the camera.Admit the offense, show a bit of the evidence, including the complicit nature of the opposition knowing it happens, punish the organization and the public outcry would have gone away. The American sports fan is a very forgiving group, especially if you fess up. Ask Andy Pettite or Jason Giambi... in the midst of a storm, these guys are mostly ignored, because they just fessed up. Deny, or try to cover it up, and you get this... See Roger Clemens. I do think the information is not NEW to the NFL, but the extended dates are new to the general public.

 

[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?

Goodell said this during his interview on Mike and Mike the friday before Super Bowl sunday. He had mentioned that such practices are known to happen in the league, and that in one of the tapes recovered by the NFL there was a coach that was actually waiving at the camera acknowledging that he knew what was going on.

Again, at the Super Bowl, he did not constantly state this, and he did bury this, that's why he never responded to Arlen Specters letters in October. There is a reason that this all came out at the SUper Bowl and Greg Easterbrook states it. If you truly are interested, I encourage you to read it.

NFL can blame itself for scandal's timing

The second act of the "Spygate" scandal began late in Super Bowl week. I'd like to drop my Tuesday Morning Quarterback persona and offer some observations on why these events are happening now and what they mean.

First, the timeline: The initial incident happened in September. After the New England Patriots were caught violating league rules by filming the New York Jets' sideline during a Week 1 game, NFL commissioner Roger Goodell stripped New England of a first-round draft choice, fined the team $250,000, fined coach Bill Belichick $500,000 and issued a harsh statement saying the Patriots' actions constituted a "calculated and deliberate attempt to avoid long-standing rules designed to encourage fair play and promote honest competition."

Belichick responded with a brief apology that referred only to sideline taping during games. Then, the first of many strange things happened. Goodell went on national television and implied the Patriots were dragging their feet about his order to hand over other cheating materials; he threatened them with more penalties. And then, the second of many strange things happened. Four days later, the NFL announced it had destroyed all cheating materials and refused to say what had been destroyed.

From that moment in late September until Friday, the NFL never answered the questions of exactly what the Patriots did and why the evidence was destroyed. People, including me, put these questions to NFL spokesman Greg Aiello and to Goodell, but were told the league would not reveal what was in the destroyed evidence. In December, The New York Times pressed the NFL to say what was in the destroyed materials, and again, the league refused. At his annual state of the league address Friday, Goodell made his first public comments about the destroyed evidence.

So, if you are a New England supporter, or simply a sports fan, wondering, "Why is all this coming out right before the Super Bowl?" the answer is, "Because the NFL would not answer the questions until Goodell was in front of the media this week." Some of this information might have emerged weeks or months ago, had the NFL not acted as if there were something to hide on the tapes.

ESPN and other outlets have been working on Spygate stories for weeks or longer, and all competing to be first with any further revelations. I can assure you there was no attempt to time this to the Super Bowl. Far from it.

Flash back to September. After the league made its strange decision to destroy the materials, then refused to say what they contained, several media figures, including me, did this Journalism 101 exercise: Current scandal involves current taping by the Patriots. Are there any former Patriots video officials from New England's Super Bowl runs? That led to a former New England scout and video department official named Matt Walsh, who now lives in Hawaii. Simultaneously, the NFL grapevine was alive with rumors -- caution, rumors -- that the Patriots were guilty not just of taping sidelines during games but rather of much more serious transgressions. The primary rumor, which was reported Saturday by the Boston Herald, was that the Patriots secretly taped the St. Louis Rams' private walk-through before Super Bowl XXXVI, that the Pats knew some of the Rams' plays and formations in advance.

Taping from the sidelines during games, although forbidden, is regarded as a minor violation of the rules. Secret taping of a Super Bowl opponent's practice, if true, would be much more serious.

Throughout the fall, I, as well as other journalists, had many conversations with Walsh. He would not say he taped the Rams' walk-through, but he would not deny it, either. He would not go on the record about what he knows.

Late in Super Bowl week, Walsh agreed with ESPN and the Times to go on the record as saying he knows damaging information about the Patriots that he will reveal if asked by the NFL. Walsh further noted that, although the NFL announced it had investigated New England's videotaping practices, the league had never spoken to him. People are right to be skeptical about Walsh's saying he knows something damning but not revealing it. Walsh says he fears legal retaliation by the Patriots because he signed a non-disclosure agreement when he left the team. He has been advised by an attorney that he will be on firmer ground if he reveals what he knows only at the request of the NFL or Congress.

Simultaneously, the Times learned that Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania -- the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, which has some jurisdiction over the NFL's precious antitrust exemption -- wants to hold hearings on why the material collected in the NFL's investigation was destroyed.

Think Congress has no business investigating sports? Most NFL teams play in publicly subsidized stadiums, and NFL games are aired over public airwaves controlled by federal licenses. The licenses, among other things, prohibit any pre-arrangement or artifice in what is presented as live competition. If a Super Bowl were affected by cheating, that would be a legitimate matter of concern to Congress. Plus, the recent lesson learned via baseball and steroids was that Major League Baseball did not clean up its own house until Congress put some pressure on.

At his annual Super Bowl news conference Friday, Goodell was peppered with questions about why the New England materials were destroyed. This was painful to watch; the NFL is an image-based enterprise, yet painted itself into a public relations corner by acting in a high-handed, suspicious way. If Goodell had been forthright about the tapes in the first place, perhaps no one would be spoiling the Super Bowl party.

At the news conference, Goodell disclosed several things the NFL previously had refused to discuss. He said that only six tapes and some notes had been turned over to the league by the Patriots, not voluminous materials, as had been assumed; that the tapes all contained only in-game film of opponents' sidelines; and that the oldest tape was from the 2006 regular season, with nothing before that year. Goodell went on to say several times that attempting to steal sideline signals during games is common in football and, although not encouraged, is viewed as an occupational hazard in the sport. Goodell also asserted the Patriots' questionable activities did not alter the outcome of any game.

Goodell's remarks were puzzling in several respects. First, if the Patriots were guilty only of occasional sideline taping, this would seem to merit a letter of reprimand. So why were the Patriots hit with the harshest fine in NFL history? When the scandal first broke, Goodell used extremely strong language about New England's sins. Now, he was implying the whole thing was no big deal.

Next, Goodell did not clarify whether the league had asked only for sideline tapes taken during games or whether this was all the Patriots volunteered. If New England gave the league only video taken from the sidelines during games, plus notes developed from such videos, there would be no evidence of really serious cheating, such as clandestine taping of other teams' walk-throughs.

Finally, Goodell declared that the materials the league destroyed contained no evidence of Super Bowl cheating. But the material went back only to 2006. The Patriots' Super Bowl wins came in 2002, 2004 and 2005. Of course the material contained no evidence of Super Bowl cheating! Did the league ask just for materials dating to 2006, or was that all the Patriots volunteered? Either way, it is more than curious that the league inspected one tape from this season and the rest, materials from a year when the Patriots did not appear in a Super Bowl.

Saturday morning, the Boston Herald ran a story asserting the Patriots secretly taped the Rams' private walk-through before Super Bowl XXXVI. The Herald cited an unnamed source and did not name Walsh as the person behind the camera.

Also Saturday, Mike Fish reported on ESPN that St. Louis' walk-through was devoted to red zone plays -- all new plays and new formations the Rams had not shown during the season. Going into that Super Bowl, the Rams' "Greatest Show on Turf" was the league's highest-scoring team. In that game, St. Louis was held to a field goal in the first half. The Rams kept getting bogged down, as if New England knew what plays were coming. If the Patriots secretly taped the Rams' walk-through, then stopped the red zone plays the Rams showed in that walk-through, then won that Super Bowl by three points, then logic says New England materially benefited from cheating in the Super Bowl. If true, this would be the worst sports scandal since the Black Sox.

Let's put that in capital letters: IF TRUE. We don't yet know whether the Super Bowl allegations are true. Then again, we are into only the second day of information going on the record and the league finally answering some questions about the subject.

The Patriots, for their part, are denying the allegations.

"The suggestion that the New England Patriots recorded the St. Louis Rams' walk-through on the day before Super Bowl XXXVI is absolutely false," Patriots spokesman Stacey James said. "Any suggestion to the contrary is untrue."

Here's another unanswered question. If the materials the Patriots turned over and the league destroyed really were just six sideline videos and some notes, that's pretty innocuous. So why didn't the NFL reveal what was destroyed? If the materials really were minor stuff, why the months of "No comment"?

When news of the second act of Spygate hit the sports world Friday, there was considerable backlash. Many radio and TV analysts initially reacted angrily, as if to say, "This is our private universe. In our private universe, everything is perfect. Keep reality out." But if you love athletic competition, if you want sports to be important and generate lots of money and attention, the games must be honest. Any indication of dishonesty should be deeply unsettling.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story...mp;sportCat=nfl

 

[{Syrus}]

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?

Goodell said this during his interview on Mike and Mike the friday before Super Bowl sunday. He had mentioned that such practices are known to happen in the league, and that in one of the tapes recovered by the NFL there was a coach that was actually waiving at the camera acknowledging that he knew what was going on.

Just because some coaches knew it was going on doesn't mean bellicheck gets a free pass here, DUH! It's like some kid at school seeing another kid cheat on a test but not telling the teacher but instead saying to himself, "this cheating kid will get what's coming to him one day."

 

[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.

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

I think the burden of proof is on YOU to produce a link that looks anything like Goodell saying that we are confident that there was never any videotaping by the Patriots or by any other team outside of the 6 videotapes surrendered by the Patriots. You are the one making this inference, when in fact there are multiple acknowledgements by Goodell and others that said activity was commonplace and that therefore there was nothing to "cover up".Supporting statements regarding the commonplace nature of videotaping would include, as examples, from Goodell's superbowl press conference:

"I think I've said before and I've repeated here, I'm not sure that there is a coach in the league that doesn't expect that their signals are being intercepted by opposing teams. That's why they go to great lengths. I think it was coach (Bill) Parcells earlier this season who said, 'Any coach that doesn't expect his signals to be stolen is stupid.' It's pretty simple but teams understand that it's a risk and they prepare for that. I don't believe it affected the outcome of any games."

...and...

"This incident is now almost five or six months old and I think we've been very forthright in it, and I don't believe it affected the outcome of any game. Coaches prepare for people being able to intercept their signals and they make modifications and changes. Andy Reid is a very smart coach and I'm sure he did the same."

LINK

Your Link is from the 2008 Super Bowl Press Conference, that's my point, thanks for making it. When the punishment was handed down in September, there was not any reference to the Patriots have been doing this since 2000, there was not any reference to the Steelers being taped in October of 2004 and the that notes were used in the AFC Championship Game. Hell, Goodell didn't even acknowledge that in his Super Bowl Press Conference. This may not be new information to Goodell but it IS new information to the public record.

Here is the Point, do you honestly think that if that information was disclosed at the time the punishment was handed down that the Press would of let it go? That the fans would of let it go? That people would of found the punishment acceptable? I remind you there were some in the press who thought a suspension was warranted just on the taping of the Jets game alone.

The NFL promised us a thorough investigation, then burned the tapes, and said nothing to see here, move along. Now it's hitting the fan.

You keep trying to make the inference that nobody knew that sideline videotaping outside of the scope of the tapes that the Patriots handed over is "news" or a "revelation". This makes no sense. If it wasn't common knowledge that this was prevalent around the league why would the commissioner's office have bothered to send out a guidance memo to 32 teams? Why didn't they just send a guidance memo addressed to Bill Belichick? You are also trying to create the inference that there was something sinister about Goodell not being forthcoming with every scrap of information and rumor that he had at the time. This also makes no sense. Would you rather have had Goodell come out and re-gurgitate every credible or dubious story he had ever come across regarding any of this? Would it have been better for the league if he had commissioned a Mitchell Report to investigate videotaping practices around the league? For what period of time? Would he also include an exhaustive study of salary cap manipulation?

In his role as league administrator, Goodell decided to put an end to what had been going on. I'm not arguing that the Pats never did anything wrong; I'm not even denying that they may have been the most egregious of the violators. I am saying that that you are misinterpreting reality, regardless of what your motivations may be.

 

[{Syrus}]

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

I think the burden of proof is on YOU to produce a link that looks anything like Goodell saying that we are confident that there was never any videotaping by the Patriots or by any other team outside of the 6 videotapes surrendered by the Patriots. You are the one making this inference, when in fact there are multiple acknowledgements by Goodell and others that said activity was commonplace and that therefore there was nothing to "cover up".Supporting statements regarding the commonplace nature of videotaping would include, as examples, from Goodell's superbowl press conference:

"I think I've said before and I've repeated here, I'm not sure that there is a coach in the league that doesn't expect that their signals are being intercepted by opposing teams. That's why they go to great lengths. I think it was coach (Bill) Parcells earlier this season who said, 'Any coach that doesn't expect his signals to be stolen is stupid.' It's pretty simple but teams understand that it's a risk and they prepare for that. I don't believe it affected the outcome of any games."

...and...

"This incident is now almost five or six months old and I think we've been very forthright in it, and I don't believe it affected the outcome of any game. Coaches prepare for people being able to intercept their signals and they make modifications and changes. Andy Reid is a very smart coach and I'm sure he did the same."

LINK

Your Link is from the 2008 Super Bowl Press Conference, that's my point, thanks for making it. When the punishment was handed down in September, there was not any reference to the Patriots have been doing this since 2000, there was not any reference to the Steelers being taped in October of 2004 and the that notes were used in the AFC Championship Game. Hell, Goodell didn't even acknowledge that in his Super Bowl Press Conference. This may not be new information to Goodell but it IS new information to the public record.

Here is the Point, do you honestly think that if that information was disclosed at the time the punishment was handed down that the Press would of let it go? That the fans would of let it go? That people would of found the punishment acceptable? I remind you there were some in the press who thought a suspension was warranted just on the taping of the Jets game alone.

The NFL promised us a thorough investigation, then burned the tapes, and said nothing to see here, move along. Now it's hitting the fan.

You keep trying to make the inference that nobody knew that sideline videotaping outside of the scope of the tapes that the Patriots handed over is "news" or a "revelation". This makes no sense. If it wasn't common knowledge that this was prevalent around the league why would the commissioner's office have bothered to send out a guidance memo to 32 teams? Why didn't they just send a guidance memo addressed to Bill Belichick? You are also trying to create the inference that there was something sinister about Goodell not being forthcoming with every scrap of information and rumor that he had at the time. This also makes no sense. Would you rather have had Goodell come out and re-gurgitate every credible or dubious story he had ever come across regarding any of this? Would it have been better for the league if he had commissioned a Mitchell Report to investigate videotaping practices around the league? For what period of time? Would he also include an exhaustive study of salary cap manipulation?

In his role as league administrator, Goodell decided to put an end to what had been going on. I'm not arguing that the Pats never did anything wrong; I'm not even denying that they may have been the most egregious of the violators. I am saying that that you are misinterpreting reality, regardless of what your motivations may be.

You're a Pats fan and your bias is clear. No matter what, Bill Billicheat and his prior championships will always be tainted in the eye of public opinion. And God Bless those SuperBowl Champion Giants!!!!!!!

 

[Road Warriors]

...Again, at the Super Bowl, he did not constantly state this, and he did bury this, that's why he never responded to Arlen Specters letters in October. There is a reason that this all came out at the SUper Bowl and Greg Easterbrook states it. If you truly are interested, I encourage you to read it.- snip of Easterbrook -

As you advised to ignore ESPN/Mortenson reporting on the NFL because of bias, I'd advise against using Easterbrook as an objective source on the Pats. The reach he makes to put this issue under the purview of Congress ( using the airwaves? ) is honestly laughable, IMO.Specter's next move will be telling. If he convenes his committee to investigate, it will be bad for the NFL. If he goes on sports talk shows and holds press conferences, IMO, he's grandstanding.

 

[SeniorVBDStudent]

You're a Pats fan and your bias is clear. No matter what, Bill Billicheat and his prior championships will always be tainted in the eye of public opinion. And God Bless those SuperBowl Champion Giants!!!!!!!

The Giants are a great team, and their SB victory will go down as one of the greatest stories ever in the NFL.

 

[fatness]

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.

They had to burn the transcripts so no one could gain a competitive advantage from them. Trust me.

 

[GregR_2]

So, what about Specter indicating that the Patriots videotaped the Steelers in 2004? Does this fall under the "stuff already turned over from the Pats to Goodell and subsequently destroyed" category?

This doesn't seem to be going away.

Let's try this again . . .- Goodell takes over and sends out a memo to all teams that it has come to his attention that videotaping/signal stealing has been occurring in the NFL and that the league will no longer tolerate it. The memo indicated that there would be penalties for offenders from that point forward (ie the start of the 2007 season).

- The Pats use video recording equipment against the Jets. The league investigates the matter directly with NE, who admit to having performed similar practices since BB arrived in 2000. They turn over whatever info/intel/tapes/material still in their possession (which is only 6 tapes from 2006). But apparently they did not deny doing it and they seem to have communicated with Goodell that this had been going on for 7 years.

This is incorrect and since people keep getting confused, let's take a moment to set this straight. The Pats turned over tapes which only had 2006 games on them, and turned over notes made from illegal tapes which predated 2006.The league seems to me to have gone out of their way to make it known the TAPES turned over only covered 2006 games. It was also reasonably widely reported that the Pats would make notes from tapes and then reuse the tapes to record another game. But it wasn't widely reported how far back it went.

Why the league didn't address how far back the NOTES went, I don't know. Obviously from what came of Specter's talk with Goodell they go back at least to 2004. And seeing as we now know Bellichick has been doing this since 2000, one could reasonably speculate they may back that far though the league still hasn't come out and said what the notes evidences shows outright that I've seen.

I personally would speculate the league was a big disingenuous in the way they categorized the tapes and not the notes and tapes, to make it appear like the taping didn't go as far back as it did. Just look at the posts on the board here about whether this whole thing tainted the Pats past accomplishments... neither side speaks from a position of having been conclusively informed by the league and/or media that the taping definitely went back to 2000.

- As a point of comparison, any additional information on the pats' prior practices is the equivalent of a junkie saying he did a lot of drugs including cocaine, crystal meth, and amphetamines. Then it comes out that he was abusing prescription drugs. Is that really a revelation at that point?

- Goodell determines that the Pats violated the rules, handed out their punishment, and sternly told them that any further trangressions would be met with stiffer fines and penalties. IMO (still) that involves NEW violations from 2007 on (past the initial Game 1 incident with the Jets) and past his edict to "cease and desist."

- People are considering new information to the public (which in actuality is information on PAST transgressions) to be classified as "new" and therefore are waiting for more penalties. IMO, this is drawing the wrong conclussion. I suspect that Goodell is only interested in additional infractions above and beyond the Week 1 incident from the 2007 season (ie if the Pats continued to break the rules after the Jets game). Anything else uncovered from before that will land in the "been there, done that" category and IMO the league will not do more than they already have.

If you're referring to it now being made public the taping went back to 2000, and someone calling for a new punishment based on that, then I'd agree.If you're referring to the alleged taping of the Rams SB walk through, that would be incorrect. The Pats were punished for recording coaches on the sideline during games. The NFL says they were aware of the rumor of the walk through taping, and the Pats told them they did not do it. The Pats were not punished for taping the SB walk through. If it is determined that they did indeed tape the SB walk through, then they are guilty of that as a totally different violation than what they were punished for, and they would also be guilty of lying to the commissioner about it.

Obviously they would and should get further punishments for those if they are true, as those would be 2 new violations that the original punishment was not directed at.

- Basically, Specter at this point is essentially trying to usurp Goodell's authority to govern his own organization the way he sees fit. At some point, Goodell will say he took into account all the Patriots' trangressions to level the stiff fines/lost draft pick penalty that he invoked.

I think a lot can be said about part of Specter's motivations in regards to his own career. But as for what role, if any, Congress should be playing... the stuff coming out about Matt Walsh calls into question the NFL's investigation... obviously, as the NFL is now reopening the matter and wanting to talk to him. It also calls into question in a lot of people's minds why the NFL didn't talk to him the first time if they heard rumors of the taping and he would have been the guy who did it. How do you not at least try to question him?Congress has, by law, granted the NFL and other pro sports exemptions from anti-trust related to broadcast of their games, which are supposed to be games of true athletic competition. The broadcast license stipulates this (which is why Vince McMahon has to call the WWE "sports entertainment" and not "sports").

If you have the appearance of, at best, a slip shod investigation into a matter that would involve cheating around a Super Bowl, or at worst, the NFL sweeping evidence of it under the rug and not thoroughly investigating, is pressure from Congress for the NFL to go do a thorough investigation that they failed to do on their own, a good or bad thing?

That's up to the individual to decide ultimately, but I don't agree with the way you've characterized what is going on. Goodell has the authority to govern his organization the way he saw fit and he did. When new information surfaced that questions whether the NFL conducted itself in a manner which was appropriate for an organization that is supposed to be broadcasting fair and level competition, and someone from Congress steps in to get them to do what they should have the first time around, that is ultimately Goodell and the NFL's fault. If they had done a thorough job then there wouldn't be any question as to the legitimacy of the game they are broadcasting. This isn't Congress trying to usurp the NFL's authority, but instead make sure on the public's behalf that they behaved in a responsible, ethical manner when events begin to call into question whether they did.

 

[Renegade of the Gridiron]

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?

Goodell said this during his interview on Mike and Mike the friday before Super Bowl sunday. He had mentioned that such practices are known to happen in the league, and that in one of the tapes recovered by the NFL there was a coach that was actually waiving at the camera acknowledging that he knew what was going on.

Just because some coaches knew it was going on doesn't mean bellicheck gets a free pass here, DUH! It's like some kid at school seeing another kid cheat on a test but not telling the teacher but instead saying to himself, "this cheating kid will get what's coming to him one day."

I wasnt implying that. But i think its naive to think that this is something that only the Patriots were doing. I realize to date that the Patriots are the only team to have been caught (ironically by a coach that benefited from the system prior to being a HC), but if Congress or the NFL opens a full investigation on Spygate i really think they should look into the practices of every NFL team. The NFL will never do this because of the fear of what they will find out. The NFL is a business where each team has a lot at stake. Anytime you have a situation like this you can bet that several teams are really pushing the line to get a competitve advantage over every other team. Im sure there are several other teams that are doing or have done the same things that the Patriots got caught doing.

I know this is different, but a couple of years ago didnt the Broncos get caught doing something against the rules regarding the signing of players. I vaguely remember something, dont know the details off hand. Bottom line is teams are willing to do anything to get a competitive advantage.

 

[Angry Beavers]

How happy is Goodell, the Pats and the NFL that there was this little hearing in DC yesterday involving baseball, effectively making this 2nd or even 3rd page news....

How exactly did Goodell arrange for that?

 

[GregR_2]

...

At his annual Super Bowl news conference Friday, Goodell was peppered with questions about why the New England materials were destroyed. This was painful to watch; the NFL is an image-based enterprise, yet painted itself into a public relations corner by acting in a high-handed, suspicious way. If Goodell had been forthright about the tapes in the first place, perhaps no one would be spoiling the Super Bowl party.

At the news conference, Goodell disclosed several things the NFL previously had refused to discuss. He said that only six tapes and some notes had been turned over to the league by the Patriots, not voluminous materials, as had been assumed; that the tapes all contained only in-game film of opponents' sidelines; and that the oldest tape was from the 2006 regular season, with nothing before that year. Goodell went on to say several times that attempting to steal sideline signals during games is common in football and, although not encouraged, is viewed as an occupational hazard in the sport. Goodell also asserted the Patriots' questionable activities did not alter the outcome of any game.

Goodell's remarks were puzzling in several respects. First, if the Patriots were guilty only of occasional sideline taping, this would seem to merit a letter of reprimand. So why were the Patriots hit with the harshest fine in NFL history? When the scandal first broke, Goodell used extremely strong language about New England's sins. Now, he was implying the whole thing was no big deal.

Next, Goodell did not clarify whether the league had asked only for sideline tapes taken during games or whether this was all the Patriots volunteered. If New England gave the league only video taken from the sidelines during games, plus notes developed from such videos, there would be no evidence of really serious cheating, such as clandestine taping of other teams' walk-throughs.

Finally, Goodell declared that the materials the league destroyed contained no evidence of Super Bowl cheating. But the material went back only to 2006. The Patriots' Super Bowl wins came in 2002, 2004 and 2005. Of course the material contained no evidence of Super Bowl cheating! Did the league ask just for materials dating to 2006, or was that all the Patriots volunteered? Either way, it is more than curious that the league inspected one tape from this season and the rest, materials from a year when the Patriots did not appear in a Super Bowl.

Here's another example of what I was talking about where I think the league was intentionally disingenuous. Why say that the tapes only go back to 2006 and contain nothing before that year, but not mention that you know taping went on before that and you even have the notes from that taping as evidence of it?That isn't a statement you make if your goal is really to clarify for the public what went on. That's a statement you make if you want your message to be that none of the Patriots Super Bowls were affected. So you talk about evidence that only includes 2006, but omit the mention of the evidence that predates it that would have happened during Super Bowl years.

I think it is this kind of misleading statement made to the public, combined with the Matt Walsh situation, that is what prompted a Senator to get involved to get the NFL to come clean.

 

[David Yudkin]

Congress has, by law, granted the NFL and other pro sports exemptions from anti-trust related to broadcast of their games, which are supposed to be games of true athletic competition. The broadcast license stipulates this (which is why Vince McMahon has to call the WWE "sports entertainment" and not "sports"). If you have the appearance of, at best, a slip shod investigation into a matter that would involve cheating around a Super Bowl, or at worst, the NFL sweeping evidence of it under the rug and not thoroughly investigating, is pressure from Congress for the NFL to go do a thorough investigation that they failed to do on their own, a good or bad thing? That's up to the individual to decide ultimately, but I don't agree with the way you've characterized what is going on. Goodell has the authority to govern his organization the way he saw fit and he did. When new information surfaced that questions whether the NFL conducted itself in a manner which was appropriate for an organization that is supposed to be broadcasting fair and level competition, and someone from Congress steps in to get them to do what they should have the first time around, that is ultimately Goodell and the NFL's fault. If they had done a thorough job then there wouldn't be any question as to the legitimacy of the game they are broadcasting. This isn't Congress trying to usurp the NFL's authority, but instead make sure on the public's behalf that they behaved in a responsible, ethical manner when events begin to call into question whether they did.

My open ended, theoretical question is what is Specter really trying to do here? Show that Goodell used poor judgment in how he handled the matter? If so, then what? Is Congress going to dole out their own punishment to the Pats, the league, or Goodell?If Goodell states that the Patriots admitted to improprieties (which they seem to have done), what law obligates him to come forward with any evidence to appease Congress or the general public?As I stated earlier, there seems to have been a problem in teams trying to gain an advantage in any way they could and teams other than NE may have been trying to bend the rules. If that is the case, then Goodell may have been more willing to look the other way on this or been less concerned about things that happened before his watch.Since the other big Congressional news involves steroids, what would happen if Congress went after the Yankees and openly questioning whether their titles were won illegitmately because they had several players cited for steroid use. But let's say that ONLY the Yankees were the ones under scrutiny for a league wide issue. But that ISN'T happening because the rhetoric is that so many other players were doing it that you can't single out the Yankees.Again, I certainly have no idea what other NFL franchises were doing, but IMO it's starting to look like a witch hunt against the Patriots. To be clear, the Patriots organization got caught, perhaps abusing or bending the rules more than other teams. For that they should have been punished (and they were). But how many times have we seen coaches cover their mouthes when talking because they KNOW opponents (both the team they were facing and others) were trying to gain an advantage by lip reading, stealing defensive signals, acquiring names of plays, etc. I think teams know as common knowledge that these things go on, and it's a fine line as to what is legal or not. It appears that the Patriots have been stepping over that line (at least in the past). Who knows what other teams have done . . . and where is the investigation of those teams?To the best of my knowledge, the penalties for breaking the rules are not clearly defined and it appears to me that it is at the discression of the commissioner as to what justice shall be served.Does it really help the league any if they came out with an itemized agenda citing a reference to everything the Patriots did? How about if the Patriots then came out with all the dirt that they have on 31 other teams? How about if the 31 other teams then cast aspersions about what they have on 31 other teams?I am reminded of a line from The Sting where Robert Shaw gets caught cheating in a poker game even though he knew Paul Newman cheated (and won). His response was, "What was I supposed to do - call him for cheating better than me, in front of the others?" That's essentially where I think we are at.Sadly, I think if the Patriots get taken down anymore than they have, I think we will see a backlash and a feeding frenzy implicating more teams and more rules violations across muliple areas of the rules. Is that really good for the game, especially since it's coming of a record SB audience and IIRC their best revenue year ever?

 

[Banger]

...

At his annual Super Bowl news conference Friday, Goodell was peppered with questions about why the New England materials were destroyed. This was painful to watch; the NFL is an image-based enterprise, yet painted itself into a public relations corner by acting in a high-handed, suspicious way. If Goodell had been forthright about the tapes in the first place, perhaps no one would be spoiling the Super Bowl party.

At the news conference, Goodell disclosed several things the NFL previously had refused to discuss. He said that only six tapes and some notes had been turned over to the league by the Patriots, not voluminous materials, as had been assumed; that the tapes all contained only in-game film of opponents' sidelines; and that the oldest tape was from the 2006 regular season, with nothing before that year. Goodell went on to say several times that attempting to steal sideline signals during games is common in football and, although not encouraged, is viewed as an occupational hazard in the sport. Goodell also asserted the Patriots' questionable activities did not alter the outcome of any game.

Goodell's remarks were puzzling in several respects. First, if the Patriots were guilty only of occasional sideline taping, this would seem to merit a letter of reprimand. So why were the Patriots hit with the harshest fine in NFL history? When the scandal first broke, Goodell used extremely strong language about New England's sins. Now, he was implying the whole thing was no big deal.

Next, Goodell did not clarify whether the league had asked only for sideline tapes taken during games or whether this was all the Patriots volunteered. If New England gave the league only video taken from the sidelines during games, plus notes developed from such videos, there would be no evidence of really serious cheating, such as clandestine taping of other teams' walk-throughs.

Finally, Goodell declared that the materials the league destroyed contained no evidence of Super Bowl cheating. But the material went back only to 2006. The Patriots' Super Bowl wins came in 2002, 2004 and 2005. Of course the material contained no evidence of Super Bowl cheating! Did the league ask just for materials dating to 2006, or was that all the Patriots volunteered? Either way, it is more than curious that the league inspected one tape from this season and the rest, materials from a year when the Patriots did not appear in a Super Bowl.

Here's another example of what I was talking about where I think the league was intentionally disingenuous. Why say that the tapes only go back to 2006 and contain nothing before that year, but not mention that you know taping went on before that and you even have the notes from that taping as evidence of it?That isn't a statement you make if your goal is really to clarify for the public what went on. That's a statement you make if you want your message to be that none of the Patriots Super Bowls were affected. So you talk about evidence that only includes 2006, but omit the mention of the evidence that predates it that would have happened during Super Bowl years.

I think it is this kind of misleading statement made to the public, combined with the Matt Walsh situation, that is what prompted a Senator to get involved to get the NFL to come clean.

I agree. Now I wonder if "6 tapes" means 6 games as I initially took it to mean or does it mean that there could be 5 games on each tape and on those 6 tapes, it could encompass 30 games. Goddell definitely tried to sweep it under the rug and kept himself unavailable for comment hoping that everyone would move on and forget about it.

 

[twitch]

I'll provide 2 separate links here to pieces written by respected sports journalists LONG BEFORE spygate was even a thought that may shed light on WHY the intentions of Arlen Specter's witchhunt should really be called into play.

CHEATING in the NFL By Don Banks, SI.com

This article, released in July of '07, highlights the fairly common practice of video taping coaching signals. That particular cheating technique was #1 on the list, and Banks committs by far more time to this method of cheating than any other. Specter needs to give Banks a call and invite him to the Capitol for a little talk as well. While he's at it, maybe he'll make some time for Jon Gruden. Btw, why have I not read this article anywhere since September??

Dolphins and Tapegate quickly dismissed. By John Clayton, ESPN.com

This piece just covers one isolated game between NE and Miami of '06 in which Miami bought a video tape revealing Tom Brady's cadence tendencies and audio, which supposedly Miami players felt was instrumental in winning that game 21-0. Nothing came of it. No NFL sanctions. No crying from the Patriots or Belichick. It came and went pretty quietly. How different might that situation have been played out had NE been the guilty party instead of a 6-10 Miami team that few people care about?? Exactly.

Bottom line. I have no problem if Arlen Specter wants to sick the Senate's watchdogs on the NFL and the New England Patriots. But dont stop there. Let 'em dig real deep. Let them do what Specter suggests Goodell failed to do. Dont stop with one team. Go after everyone. Let's see how much dirt really exists throughout the league.

When you (or your wife) clean the house, do you stop with just the living room or the den?? or do you only clean out a small corner of the kitchen? No, you clean the whole damn house. Is that what everyone wants? Right. Me neither.

Good day, fellas.

 

[David Yudkin]

There is an article recapping what we already know in the Boston Globe LINK,

It states what I believed to have been the get-out-of-jail-free card for New England barring an extreme case of additional impropriety (read as: grave breaking of the rules IN THE PAST):

The NFL has stated that the penalties were for the totality of the Patriots' actions, not just those during the Jets game.

So it seems like the cumulative actions of the team were the justification for the penalty the Pats received. So it again may be that anything new (meaning old) that comes out could be beating a dead horse. The league could easily say that the doled out the stiffest penalty ever in NFL history and that was ample punishment for the Pats' trangressions.

 

[Workhorse]

...

At his annual Super Bowl news conference Friday, Goodell was peppered with questions about why the New England materials were destroyed. This was painful to watch; the NFL is an image-based enterprise, yet painted itself into a public relations corner by acting in a high-handed, suspicious way. If Goodell had been forthright about the tapes in the first place, perhaps no one would be spoiling the Super Bowl party.

At the news conference, Goodell disclosed several things the NFL previously had refused to discuss. He said that only six tapes and some notes had been turned over to the league by the Patriots, not voluminous materials, as had been assumed; that the tapes all contained only in-game film of opponents' sidelines; and that the oldest tape was from the 2006 regular season, with nothing before that year. Goodell went on to say several times that attempting to steal sideline signals during games is common in football and, although not encouraged, is viewed as an occupational hazard in the sport. Goodell also asserted the Patriots' questionable activities did not alter the outcome of any game.

Goodell's remarks were puzzling in several respects. First, if the Patriots were guilty only of occasional sideline taping, this would seem to merit a letter of reprimand. So why were the Patriots hit with the harshest fine in NFL history? When the scandal first broke, Goodell used extremely strong language about New England's sins. Now, he was implying the whole thing was no big deal.

Next, Goodell did not clarify whether the league had asked only for sideline tapes taken during games or whether this was all the Patriots volunteered. If New England gave the league only video taken from the sidelines during games, plus notes developed from such videos, there would be no evidence of really serious cheating, such as clandestine taping of other teams' walk-throughs.

Finally, Goodell declared that the materials the league destroyed contained no evidence of Super Bowl cheating. But the material went back only to 2006. The Patriots' Super Bowl wins came in 2002, 2004 and 2005. Of course the material contained no evidence of Super Bowl cheating! Did the league ask just for materials dating to 2006, or was that all the Patriots volunteered? Either way, it is more than curious that the league inspected one tape from this season and the rest, materials from a year when the Patriots did not appear in a Super Bowl.

Here's another example of what I was talking about where I think the league was intentionally disingenuous. Why say that the tapes only go back to 2006 and contain nothing before that year, but not mention that you know taping went on before that and you even have the notes from that taping as evidence of it?That isn't a statement you make if your goal is really to clarify for the public what went on. That's a statement you make if you want your message to be that none of the Patriots Super Bowls were affected. So you talk about evidence that only includes 2006, but omit the mention of the evidence that predates it that would have happened during Super Bowl years.

I think it is this kind of misleading statement made to the public, combined with the Matt Walsh situation, that is what prompted a Senator to get involved to get the NFL to come clean.

The league memo specifically prohibiting teams from videotaping coaching signals was sent to all teams in September 2006.

 

[{Syrus}]

Why say that the tapes only go back to 2006 and contain nothing before that year, but not mention that you know taping went on before that and you even have the notes from that taping as evidence of it?

Because to go back prior to 2006 would bring into question the Patriots Superbowl wins. By limiting it to 2006 you avoid that problem. Now every Superbowl win is in question and considered tainted. Goodell was trying to save the image of the league and "the perfect season."

 

[Banger]

My open ended, theoretical question is what is Specter really trying to do here? Show that Goodell used poor judgment in how he handled the matter? If so, then what? Is Congress going to dole out their own punishment to the Pats, the league, or Goodell?

Spector is trying to have the league answer questions that it never answered. The NFL gets preferential treatment from congress so they are holding the league accountable on it's policing of their organization. Yes, it's grand standing and yes they have better things to do but we've learned more in the past few days about this than we have in months thanks to Spector asking a few questions. It'll be interesting to see if in fact Walsh does have a tape of SB vs. the Rams because that would be HUGE. That's not taping and deciphering defensive signals and moves into a whole new realm of cheating. That all remains to be seen though at this point.

 

[{Syrus}]

I'll provide 2 separate links here to pieces written by respected sports journalists LONG BEFORE spygate was even a thought that may shed light on WHY the intentions of Arlen Specter's witchhunt should really be called into play.

CHEATING in the NFL By Don Banks, SI.com

This article, released in July of '07, highlights the fairly common practice of video taping coaching signals. That particular cheating technique was #1 on the list, and Banks committs by far more time to this method of cheating than any other. Specter needs to give Banks a call and invite him to the Capitol for a little talk as well. While he's at it, maybe he'll make some time for Jon Gruden. Btw, why have I not read this article anywhere since September??

Dolphins and Tapegate quickly dismissed. By John Clayton, ESPN.com

This piece just covers one isolated game between NE and Miami of '06 in which Miami bought a video tape revealing Tom Brady's cadence tendencies and audio, which supposedly Miami players felt was instrumental in winning that game 21-0. Nothing came of it. No NFL sanctions. No crying from the Patriots or Belichick. It came and went pretty quietly. How different might that situation have been played out had NE been the guilty party instead of a 6-10 Miami team that few people care about?? Exactly.

Bottom line. I have no problem if Arlen Specter wants to sick the Senate's watchdogs on the NFL and the New England Patriots. But dont stop there. Let 'em dig real deep. Let them do what Specter suggests Goodell failed to do. Dont stop with one team. Go after everyone. Let's see how much dirt really exists throughout the league.

When you (or your wife) clean the house, do you stop with just the living room or the den?? or do you only clean out a small corner of the kitchen? No, you clean the whole damn house. Is that what everyone wants? Right. Me neither.

Good day, fellas.

How bout them Patriots*.

 

[Philo Beddoe]

I'll provide 2 separate links here to pieces written by respected sports journalists LONG BEFORE spygate was even a thought that may shed light on WHY the intentions of Arlen Specter's witchhunt should really be called into play.

CHEATING in the NFL By Don Banks, SI.com

This article, released in July of '07, highlights the fairly common practice of video taping coaching signals. That particular cheating technique was #1 on the list, and Banks committs by far more time to this method of cheating than any other. Specter needs to give Banks a call and invite him to the Capitol for a little talk as well. While he's at it, maybe he'll make some time for Jon Gruden. Btw, why have I not read this article anywhere since September??

Dolphins and Tapegate quickly dismissed. By John Clayton, ESPN.com

This piece just covers one isolated game between NE and Miami of '06 in which Miami bought a video tape revealing Tom Brady's cadence tendencies and audio, which supposedly Miami players felt was instrumental in winning that game 21-0. Nothing came of it. No NFL sanctions. No crying from the Patriots or Belichick. It came and went pretty quietly. How different might that situation have been played out had NE been the guilty party instead of a 6-10 Miami team that few people care about?? Exactly.

Bottom line. I have no problem if Arlen Specter wants to sick the Senate's watchdogs on the NFL and the New England Patriots. But dont stop there. Let 'em dig real deep. Let them do what Specter suggests Goodell failed to do. Dont stop with one team. Go after everyone. Let's see how much dirt really exists throughout the league.

When you (or your wife) clean the house, do you stop with just the living room or the den?? or do you only clean out a small corner of the kitchen? No, you clean the whole damn house. Is that what everyone wants? Right. Me neither.

Good day, fellas.

Nice job Twitch. It is amazing how much people hate the Pats when their own teams are probably doing much worse.

 

[GregR_2]

Congress has, by law, granted the NFL and other pro sports exemptions from anti-trust related to broadcast of their games, which are supposed to be games of true athletic competition. The broadcast license stipulates this (which is why Vince McMahon has to call the WWE "sports entertainment" and not "sports").

If you have the appearance of, at best, a slip shod investigation into a matter that would involve cheating around a Super Bowl, or at worst, the NFL sweeping evidence of it under the rug and not thoroughly investigating, is pressure from Congress for the NFL to go do a thorough investigation that they failed to do on their own, a good or bad thing?

That's up to the individual to decide ultimately, but I don't agree with the way you've characterized what is going on. Goodell has the authority to govern his organization the way he saw fit and he did. When new information surfaced that questions whether the NFL conducted itself in a manner which was appropriate for an organization that is supposed to be broadcasting fair and level competition, and someone from Congress steps in to get them to do what they should have the first time around, that is ultimately Goodell and the NFL's fault. If they had done a thorough job then there wouldn't be any question as to the legitimacy of the game they are broadcasting. This isn't Congress trying to usurp the NFL's authority, but instead make sure on the public's behalf that they behaved in a responsible, ethical manner when events begin to call into question whether they did.

My open ended, theoretical question is what is Specter really trying to do here? Show that Goodell used poor judgment in how he handled the matter? If so, then what? Is Congress going to dole out their own punishment to the Pats, the league, or Goodell?If Goodell states that the Patriots admitted to improprieties (which they seem to have done), what law obligates him to come forward with any evidence to appease Congress or the general public?

As I stated earlier, there seems to have been a problem in teams trying to gain an advantage in any way they could and teams other than NE may have been trying to bend the rules. If that is the case, then Goodell may have been more willing to look the other way on this or been less concerned about things that happened before his watch.

Since the other big Congressional news involves steroids, what would happen if Congress went after the Yankees and openly questioning whether their titles were won illegitmately because they had several players cited for steroid use. But let's say that ONLY the Yankees were the ones under scrutiny for a league wide issue. But that ISN'T happening because the rhetoric is that so many other players were doing it that you can't single out the Yankees.

Again, I certainly have no idea what other NFL franchises were doing, but IMO it's starting to look like a witch hunt against the Patriots. To be clear, the Patriots organization got caught, perhaps abusing or bending the rules more than other teams. For that they should have been punished (and they were). But how many times have we seen coaches cover their mouthes when talking because they KNOW opponents (both the team they were facing and others) were trying to gain an advantage by lip reading, stealing defensive signals, acquiring names of plays, etc. I think teams know as common knowledge that these things go on, and it's a fine line as to what is legal or not. It appears that the Patriots have been stepping over that line (at least in the past). Who knows what other teams have done . . . and where is the investigation of those teams?

To the best of my knowledge, the penalties for breaking the rules are not clearly defined and it appears to me that it is at the discression of the commissioner as to what justice shall be served.

Does it really help the league any if they came out with an itemized agenda citing a reference to everything the Patriots did? How about if the Patriots then came out with all the dirt that they have on 31 other teams? How about if the 31 other teams then cast aspersions about what they have on 31 other teams?

I am reminded of a line from The Sting where Robert Shaw gets caught cheating in a poker game even though he knew Paul Newman cheated (and won). His response was, "What was I supposed to do - call him for cheating better than me, in front of the others?" That's essentially where I think we are at.

Sadly, I think if the Patriots get taken down anymore than they have, I think we will see a backlash and a feeding frenzy implicating more teams and more rules violations across muliple areas of the rules. Is that really good for the game, especially since it's coming of a record SB audience and IIRC their best revenue year ever?

Not meaning this as an insult, but if you think Specter's involvement is about going after the Patriots and not about going after the NFL for a slipshop investigation and even making misleading statements to the public, you're viewing this with some homer-colored glasses.I don't care what team it is. If the same kind of allegations were made about the Giants listening in on the Patriots radio signals during the last SB, and the NFL handled it the exact same way and didn't even talk to the Giants staffers who would have actually done it, the same exact thing should happen.

 

[{Syrus}]

Not only were the Patriots trounced in the Superbowl (haha) but they'll be lucky to escape the off-season with a shred of dignity and respect around the league. As it is, fans and many players have little respect for these clowns in NE.

 

[David Yudkin]

My open ended, theoretical question is what is Specter really trying to do here? Show that Goodell used poor judgment in how he handled the matter? If so, then what? Is Congress going to dole out their own punishment to the Pats, the league, or Goodell?

Spector is trying to have the league answer questions that it never answered. The NFL gets preferential treatment from congress so they are holding the league accountable on it's policing of their organization. Yes, it's grand standing and yes they have better things to do but we've learned more in the past few days about this than we have in months thanks to Spector asking a few questions. It'll be interesting to see if in fact Walsh does have a tape of SB vs. the Rams because that would be HUGE. That's not taping and deciphering defensive signals and moves into a whole new realm of cheating. That all remains to be seen though at this point.

As I outlined earlier, Walsh having a tape does not in itself prove a whole lot unless they can connect it to the Pats directly. Let's just again say hypothetically that Walsh has the tape and says he gave it to the Pats. Let's also say that the Pats claim he recorded it on his own and said he would sell it to them for $100K (or maybe they don't know the source) and they never saw it before.I'm not saying that is likely, but there would still be a lot of questions to be answered even if such a tape exists.

 

[David Yudkin]

Congress has, by law, granted the NFL and other pro sports exemptions from anti-trust related to broadcast of their games, which are supposed to be games of true athletic competition. The broadcast license stipulates this (which is why Vince McMahon has to call the WWE "sports entertainment" and not "sports").

If you have the appearance of, at best, a slip shod investigation into a matter that would involve cheating around a Super Bowl, or at worst, the NFL sweeping evidence of it under the rug and not thoroughly investigating, is pressure from Congress for the NFL to go do a thorough investigation that they failed to do on their own, a good or bad thing?

That's up to the individual to decide ultimately, but I don't agree with the way you've characterized what is going on. Goodell has the authority to govern his organization the way he saw fit and he did. When new information surfaced that questions whether the NFL conducted itself in a manner which was appropriate for an organization that is supposed to be broadcasting fair and level competition, and someone from Congress steps in to get them to do what they should have the first time around, that is ultimately Goodell and the NFL's fault. If they had done a thorough job then there wouldn't be any question as to the legitimacy of the game they are broadcasting. This isn't Congress trying to usurp the NFL's authority, but instead make sure on the public's behalf that they behaved in a responsible, ethical manner when events begin to call into question whether they did.

My open ended, theoretical question is what is Specter really trying to do here? Show that Goodell used poor judgment in how he handled the matter? If so, then what? Is Congress going to dole out their own punishment to the Pats, the league, or Goodell?If Goodell states that the Patriots admitted to improprieties (which they seem to have done), what law obligates him to come forward with any evidence to appease Congress or the general public?

As I stated earlier, there seems to have been a problem in teams trying to gain an advantage in any way they could and teams other than NE may have been trying to bend the rules. If that is the case, then Goodell may have been more willing to look the other way on this or been less concerned about things that happened before his watch.

Since the other big Congressional news involves steroids, what would happen if Congress went after the Yankees and openly questioning whether their titles were won illegitmately because they had several players cited for steroid use. But let's say that ONLY the Yankees were the ones under scrutiny for a league wide issue. But that ISN'T happening because the rhetoric is that so many other players were doing it that you can't single out the Yankees.

Again, I certainly have no idea what other NFL franchises were doing, but IMO it's starting to look like a witch hunt against the Patriots. To be clear, the Patriots organization got caught, perhaps abusing or bending the rules more than other teams. For that they should have been punished (and they were). But how many times have we seen coaches cover their mouthes when talking because they KNOW opponents (both the team they were facing and others) were trying to gain an advantage by lip reading, stealing defensive signals, acquiring names of plays, etc. I think teams know as common knowledge that these things go on, and it's a fine line as to what is legal or not. It appears that the Patriots have been stepping over that line (at least in the past). Who knows what other teams have done . . . and where is the investigation of those teams?

To the best of my knowledge, the penalties for breaking the rules are not clearly defined and it appears to me that it is at the discression of the commissioner as to what justice shall be served.

Does it really help the league any if they came out with an itemized agenda citing a reference to everything the Patriots did? How about if the Patriots then came out with all the dirt that they have on 31 other teams? How about if the 31 other teams then cast aspersions about what they have on 31 other teams?

I am reminded of a line from The Sting where Robert Shaw gets caught cheating in a poker game even though he knew Paul Newman cheated (and won). His response was, "What was I supposed to do - call him for cheating better than me, in front of the others?" That's essentially where I think we are at.

Sadly, I think if the Patriots get taken down anymore than they have, I think we will see a backlash and a feeding frenzy implicating more teams and more rules violations across muliple areas of the rules. Is that really good for the game, especially since it's coming of a record SB audience and IIRC their best revenue year ever?

Not meaning this as an insult, but if you think Specter's involvement is about going after the Patriots and not about going after the NFL for a slipshop investigation and even making misleading statements to the public, you're viewing this with some homer-colored glasses.I don't care what team it is. If the same kind of allegations were made about the Giants listening in on the Patriots radio signals during the last SB, and the NFL handled it the exact same way and didn't even talk to the Giants staffers who would have actually done it, the same exact thing should happen.

All I'm saying is that if Congress wants to open the league up to scrutiny, it should be calling for a LEAGUE WIDE investigation on rules infractions and internal investigations.To that end, I think there have probably been more complaints and allegations against other teams and other incidents that got swept under the rug. Is it in the best interest of the league to delve into every potential infraction? (I'm not saying it is or it isn't).

To put the spin the other direction, would it be a beneift to the general public if there were thorough investigations into potential infractions by Congressmen and Senators?

I'm not suggesting that getting Congress involved as a whole may not be a bad thing, but like with the Clemens situation it boils down to an isolated investigation pointing at one offender for what could be a much bigger issue.

 

[Banger]

My open ended, theoretical question is what is Specter really trying to do here? Show that Goodell used poor judgment in how he handled the matter? If so, then what? Is Congress going to dole out their own punishment to the Pats, the league, or Goodell?

Spector is trying to have the league answer questions that it never answered. The NFL gets preferential treatment from congress so they are holding the league accountable on it's policing of their organization. Yes, it's grand standing and yes they have better things to do but we've learned more in the past few days about this than we have in months thanks to Spector asking a few questions. It'll be interesting to see if in fact Walsh does have a tape of SB vs. the Rams because that would be HUGE. That's not taping and deciphering defensive signals and moves into a whole new realm of cheating. That all remains to be seen though at this point.

As I outlined earlier, Walsh having a tape does not in itself prove a whole lot unless they can connect it to the Pats directly. Let's just again say hypothetically that Walsh has the tape and says he gave it to the Pats. Let's also say that the Pats claim he recorded it on his own and said he would sell it to them for $100K (or maybe they don't know the source) and they never saw it before.I'm not saying that is likely, but there would still be a lot of questions to be answered even if such a tape exists.

and that's why they want to talk to Walsh, something that the NFL neglected to do even though they knew of the allegations. I find it VERY HARD to believe that the Pats were caught taping other in season games but given the chance to get red zone plays in the super bowl that they wouldn't be interested in that info. Wouldn't taping a closed door walk through on the eve of a Super Bowl by an opposing teams employee be against the rules? I would think so. Even if they never watched the tape (which is a ridiculous notion) the mere fact that they taped a closed session would be EXTREMELY suspect and I'd imagine against the rules.

 

[twitch]

I'll provide 2 separate links here to pieces written by respected sports journalists LONG BEFORE spygate was even a thought that may shed light on WHY the intentions of Arlen Specter's witchhunt should really be called into play.

CHEATING in the NFL By Don Banks, SI.com

This article, released in July of '07, highlights the fairly common practice of video taping coaching signals. That particular cheating technique was #1 on the list, and Banks committs by far more time to this method of cheating than any other. Specter needs to give Banks a call and invite him to the Capitol for a little talk as well. While he's at it, maybe he'll make some time for Jon Gruden. Btw, why have I not read this article anywhere since September??

Dolphins and Tapegate quickly dismissed. By John Clayton, ESPN.com

This piece just covers one isolated game between NE and Miami of '06 in which Miami bought a video tape revealing Tom Brady's cadence tendencies and audio, which supposedly Miami players felt was instrumental in winning that game 21-0. Nothing came of it. No NFL sanctions. No crying from the Patriots or Belichick. It came and went pretty quietly. How different might that situation have been played out had NE been the guilty party instead of a 6-10 Miami team that few people care about?? Exactly.

Bottom line. I have no problem if Arlen Specter wants to sick the Senate's watchdogs on the NFL and the New England Patriots. But dont stop there. Let 'em dig real deep. Let them do what Specter suggests Goodell failed to do. Dont stop with one team. Go after everyone. Let's see how much dirt really exists throughout the league.

When you (or your wife) clean the house, do you stop with just the living room or the den?? or do you only clean out a small corner of the kitchen? No, you clean the whole damn house. Is that what everyone wants? Right. Me neither.

Good day, fellas.

How bout them Patriots*.

I dont care what others say, your contributions to society are far more relevant then their appearance suggests. Keep up the good work.

 

[{Syrus}]

I'll provide 2 separate links here to pieces written by respected sports journalists LONG BEFORE spygate was even a thought that may shed light on WHY the intentions of Arlen Specter's witchhunt should really be called into play.

CHEATING in the NFL By Don Banks, SI.com

This article, released in July of '07, highlights the fairly common practice of video taping coaching signals. That particular cheating technique was #1 on the list, and Banks committs by far more time to this method of cheating than any other. Specter needs to give Banks a call and invite him to the Capitol for a little talk as well. While he's at it, maybe he'll make some time for Jon Gruden. Btw, why have I not read this article anywhere since September??

Dolphins and Tapegate quickly dismissed. By John Clayton, ESPN.com

This piece just covers one isolated game between NE and Miami of '06 in which Miami bought a video tape revealing Tom Brady's cadence tendencies and audio, which supposedly Miami players felt was instrumental in winning that game 21-0. Nothing came of it. No NFL sanctions. No crying from the Patriots or Belichick. It came and went pretty quietly. How different might that situation have been played out had NE been the guilty party instead of a 6-10 Miami team that few people care about?? Exactly.

Bottom line. I have no problem if Arlen Specter wants to sick the Senate's watchdogs on the NFL and the New England Patriots. But dont stop there. Let 'em dig real deep. Let them do what Specter suggests Goodell failed to do. Dont stop with one team. Go after everyone. Let's see how much dirt really exists throughout the league.

When you (or your wife) clean the house, do you stop with just the living room or the den?? or do you only clean out a small corner of the kitchen? No, you clean the whole damn house. Is that what everyone wants? Right. Me neither.

Good day, fellas.

How bout them Patriots*.

I dont care what others say, your contributions to society are far more relevant then their appearance suggests. Keep up the good work.

Weak. All season you acted ridiculous, now you plan on doing it all off-season. Patriots are tarnished and makes those wins in the past look questionable at best now. I love it.

 

[Kit Fisto]

How's everyones glass house holding up? Be careful what you wish for, haters.

 

[duece2626]

All I'm saying is that if Congress wants to open the league up to scrutiny, it should be calling for a LEAGUE WIDE investigation on rules infractions and internal investigations.

I don't recall any other teams getting caught redhanded and fined for videotaping. Just because 1 team is cheating, doesn't mean everyone else is.

 

[twitch]

I'll provide 2 separate links here to pieces written by respected sports journalists LONG BEFORE spygate was even a thought that may shed light on WHY the intentions of Arlen Specter's witchhunt should really be called into play.

CHEATING in the NFL By Don Banks, SI.com

This article, released in July of '07, highlights the fairly common practice of video taping coaching signals. That particular cheating technique was #1 on the list, and Banks committs by far more time to this method of cheating than any other. Specter needs to give Banks a call and invite him to the Capitol for a little talk as well. While he's at it, maybe he'll make some time for Jon Gruden. Btw, why have I not read this article anywhere since September??

Dolphins and Tapegate quickly dismissed. By John Clayton, ESPN.com

This piece just covers one isolated game between NE and Miami of '06 in which Miami bought a video tape revealing Tom Brady's cadence tendencies and audio, which supposedly Miami players felt was instrumental in winning that game 21-0. Nothing came of it. No NFL sanctions. No crying from the Patriots or Belichick. It came and went pretty quietly. How different might that situation have been played out had NE been the guilty party instead of a 6-10 Miami team that few people care about?? Exactly.

Bottom line. I have no problem if Arlen Specter wants to sick the Senate's watchdogs on the NFL and the New England Patriots. But dont stop there. Let 'em dig real deep. Let them do what Specter suggests Goodell failed to do. Dont stop with one team. Go after everyone. Let's see how much dirt really exists throughout the league.

When you (or your wife) clean the house, do you stop with just the living room or the den?? or do you only clean out a small corner of the kitchen? No, you clean the whole damn house. Is that what everyone wants? Right. Me neither.

Good day, fellas.

How bout them Patriots*.

I dont care what others say, your contributions to society are far more relevant then their appearance suggests. Keep up the good work.

Weak. All season you acted ridiculous, now you plan on doing it all off-season. Patriots are tarnished and makes those wins in the past look questionable at best now. I love it.

Now, now. You dont honestly think anything a mouth-puncher like yourself has to say is gonna worry anyone, do you? Ive been fairly tame since NE throttled Dallas back in week whatever it was. The winning began to speak for itself after a while. I may have been pretty vocal early on because of the overpowering hate that me and all of my fellow NE fans encountered before probably the Colts game. Beyond that, which was more than half of the season, I reeled it in quite a bit. You obviously havent read much of what Ive had to say for a couple of months. But to the 'mouth punchers' of the world, who's teams probably took it on the chin pretty good earlier this year, I guess I should apologize. It was all in fun. Just like youre having now. So have your fun.

 

[SeniorVBDStudent]

I'll provide 2 separate links here to pieces written by respected sports journalists LONG BEFORE spygate was even a thought that may shed light on WHY the intentions of Arlen Specter's witchhunt should really be called into play.

CHEATING in the NFL By Don Banks, SI.com

This article, released in July of '07, highlights the fairly common practice of video taping coaching signals. That particular cheating technique was #1 on the list, and Banks committs by far more time to this method of cheating than any other. Specter needs to give Banks a call and invite him to the Capitol for a little talk as well. While he's at it, maybe he'll make some time for Jon Gruden. Btw, why have I not read this article anywhere since September??

Dolphins and Tapegate quickly dismissed. By John Clayton, ESPN.com

This piece just covers one isolated game between NE and Miami of '06 in which Miami bought a video tape revealing Tom Brady's cadence tendencies and audio, which supposedly Miami players felt was instrumental in winning that game 21-0. Nothing came of it. No NFL sanctions. No crying from the Patriots or Belichick. It came and went pretty quietly. How different might that situation have been played out had NE been the guilty party instead of a 6-10 Miami team that few people care about?? Exactly.

Bottom line. I have no problem if Arlen Specter wants to sick the Senate's watchdogs on the NFL and the New England Patriots. But dont stop there. Let 'em dig real deep. Let them do what Specter suggests Goodell failed to do. Dont stop with one team. Go after everyone. Let's see how much dirt really exists throughout the league.

When you (or your wife) clean the house, do you stop with just the living room or the den?? or do you only clean out a small corner of the kitchen? No, you clean the whole damn house. Is that what everyone wants? Right. Me neither.

Good day, fellas.

How bout them Patriots*.

I dont care what others say, your contributions to society are far more relevant then their appearance suggests. Keep up the good work.

Weak. All season you acted ridiculous, now you plan on doing it all off-season. Patriots are tarnished and makes those wins in the past look questionable at best now. I love it.

I beg to differ. The only thing tarnished and weak around here is your alleged contribution to humanity.

 

[Stillers Jr.]

I'll provide 2 separate links here to pieces written by respected sports journalists LONG BEFORE spygate was even a thought that may shed light on WHY the intentions of Arlen Specter's witchhunt should really be called into play.

CHEATING in the NFL By Don Banks, SI.com

This article, released in July of '07, highlights the fairly common practice of video taping coaching signals. That particular cheating technique was #1 on the list, and Banks committs by far more time to this method of cheating than any other. Specter needs to give Banks a call and invite him to the Capitol for a little talk as well. While he's at it, maybe he'll make some time for Jon Gruden. Btw, why have I not read this article anywhere since September??

Dolphins and Tapegate quickly dismissed. By John Clayton, ESPN.com

This piece just covers one isolated game between NE and Miami of '06 in which Miami bought a video tape revealing Tom Brady's cadence tendencies and audio, which supposedly Miami players felt was instrumental in winning that game 21-0. Nothing came of it. No NFL sanctions. No crying from the Patriots or Belichick. It came and went pretty quietly. How different might that situation have been played out had NE been the guilty party instead of a 6-10 Miami team that few people care about?? Exactly.

Bottom line. I have no problem if Arlen Specter wants to sick the Senate's watchdogs on the NFL and the New England Patriots. But dont stop there. Let 'em dig real deep. Let them do what Specter suggests Goodell failed to do. Dont stop with one team. Go after everyone. Let's see how much dirt really exists throughout the league.

When you (or your wife) clean the house, do you stop with just the living room or the den?? or do you only clean out a small corner of the kitchen? No, you clean the whole damn house. Is that what everyone wants? Right. Me neither.

Good day, fellas.

:( How bout them Patriots*.

I dont care what others say, your contributions to society are far more relevant then their appearance suggests. Keep up the good work.

Weak. All season you acted ridiculous, now you plan on doing it all off-season. Patriots are tarnished and makes those wins in the past look questionable at best now. I love it.

I beg to differ. The only thing tarnished and weak around here is your alleged contribution to humanity.

Wow, personal attack...interesting.

 

[Tau837]

There is an article recapping what we already know in the Boston Globe LINK,

It states what I believed to have been the get-out-of-jail-free card for New England barring an extreme case of additional impropriety (read as: grave breaking of the rules IN THE PAST):

The NFL has stated that the penalties were for the totality of the Patriots' actions, not just those during the Jets game.

So it seems like the cumulative actions of the team were the justification for the penalty the Pats received. So it again may be that anything new (meaning old) that comes out could be beating a dead horse. The league could easily say that the doled out the stiffest penalty ever in NFL history and that was ample punishment for the Pats' trangressions.

The penalty imposed already was for their cumulative DISCLOSED actions. If it turns out that the Pats cheated in the past in some manner that they did not disclose to the league earlier this year, then they most certainly can receive additional punishment. And if they were asked about such a cheating incident and lied about it, then I would expect that additional punishment to be even harsher.Personally, I don't make much of a distinction between filming defensive signals on the sidelines in 2006 vs. 2004. But if they taped the Rams' final Super Bowl walkthrough, they deserve much harsher punishment than was handed out already.

 

[PhD]

My open ended, theoretical question is what is Specter really trying to do here? Show that Goodell used poor judgment in how he handled the matter? If so, then what? Is Congress going to dole out their own punishment to the Pats, the league, or Goodell?

Spector is trying to have the league answer questions that it never answered. The NFL gets preferential treatment from congress so they are holding the league accountable on it's policing of their organization. Yes, it's grand standing and yes they have better things to do but we've learned more in the past few days about this than we have in months thanks to Spector asking a few questions. It'll be interesting to see if in fact Walsh does have a tape of SB vs. the Rams because that would be HUGE. That's not taping and deciphering defensive signals and moves into a whole new realm of cheating. That all remains to be seen though at this point.

As I outlined earlier, Walsh having a tape does not in itself prove a whole lot unless they can connect it to the Pats directly. Let's just again say hypothetically that Walsh has the tape and says he gave it to the Pats. Let's also say that the Pats claim he recorded it on his own and said he would sell it to them for $100K (or maybe they don't know the source) and they never saw it before.I'm not saying that is likely, but there would still be a lot of questions to be answered even if such a tape exists.

This seems to be minimizing the fact that Walsh was a Patriot employee. If he was a friend or some guy off the street who happened to have a good angle to see a practice then maybe. But this is a guy with a Patriot employee tag doing a job (videotaping the opponent) that was either asked of him or according to his belief that it would put him in good favor with the boss. All this of course asuming that he even did it in the first place.Let's review facts, speculations and judgements:fact - Walsh was hired by the Pats to videotape teams.speculation #1 - Walsh has a tape of the Rams that he videotaped during superbowl preparations judgment: If speculation #1 is found to be true, then I believe (whether or not this is circumstantial evidence) that the Pats are held responsible for his actions since he is their employee performing job-related duties. speculation #2 - If a tape was in the possession of the Pats, they used it to prepare for the Rams.judgment: consider that the Pats have already admitted to taping teams to gain an advantage. They did so before Goodell told them not to. They disagreed with Goodell that it was illegal to do so. They continued to do it after Goodell clarified that it needed to be stopped. I would find it hard to believe that they refrained at a time before they were caught and penalized.