Arlen Specter - You da man. (Cheatriots)

[Nors]

iTS PERFECTLT LEGAL TO TAPE SIGNALS FROM THE PRESS BOX.

With zoom technology really kinda stupid Pats felt a need to bring a camera on the field. Jimmy Johnson said he did it but quit because it didn't work.

Apparantly BB and his genius friend were smart enough to "count" signals. Kudo's

Shula even said he would have been embarassed if he was so stupid as to get his signals stolen.

Its now 18-0 without "spygate". Whats up with that?

 

[tyke1doe]

Well good for you. 2 DUIs and you're only 12? Off to a great start.



The point is the pronouncement of a sentence isn't the end of the story. Especially when the sentence is handed down after 3 days of a "investigation" where the evidence is destroyed. It smacks of a conspiracy or a cover up. But it's easy to explain why you feel this way... when Daddy Goodell's reputation is at stake, you're always there to give him a virtual hug.

I'd love to stay here all night on a Friday while punk, theo and I are the Alan Dershowitz to your Vin Deisel, but there's drinking to be done and girls to be hit on.

Holla.

Didn't you say to me in another thread to be careful about employing legal terms in a non-legal matter?

 

[Bob Sacamano]

want a mulligan?

edit: sorry, you're right

I'm just a lil aggressive tonight, that's all

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Didn't you say to me in another thread to be careful about employing legal terms in a non-legal matter?

he resorts to them when the wheels fall off his argument

and still fails

he must run really fast, chasing them ambulances, because I can't figure out what else he's capable of doing in a law firm

 

[Bob Sacamano]

the only issue here is in the manner in which Goodell handled the tapes

he should have taken them to the proper authorities

 

[SultanOfSix]

"There was no indication that it benefited them in any of the Super Bowl victories," crappy *** commissioner quotes.

I see. So, even though the league deemed it cheating prior to your sorry *** institution as commish, and by definition, cheating gives a team an "unfair" advantage and is against the rules, there is no indication that their cheating benefited them. They just did it for the fun of it, right commish?

Let's say that we give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that it never helped them in their 3 SB victories (hard to believe seeing that they won them by a combined average of a little over three points), what about the victories leading up to the SBs, huh? Or are they deemed irrelevant like tape burning?

 

[Rampage]

Here is what Goodell said:



Goodell's comments confirm my arguments in earlier threads. Those being:

1. There was no way it could be determined that the Pats won Super Bowls - or games for that matter - by cheating. Yes, it can be determined that they cheated, hence the punishment. But

2. The reason they were destroyed was to send a clear message that not only would video taping not be tolerated but that the Patriots should not benefit from any tapes already made.

Be that as it may, apparently, the tapes in question were simply from the last part of the 2006 season and the exhibition season of 2007.
Forget the exhibition season. Teams run vanilla offenses anyway. As for the later part of the 2006 season, exactly what would they tell us, Pepe?

Create a worse-case scenario for me, if you don't mind.





I'm glad you discovered the bolding function. It really adds umph! to your point doesn't it?

Second, sorry, counselor, but it's not the same. You're comparing an active issue that occurs weekly, i.e., injuries in the NFL, to an inactive issue - illegal video taping, assuming no one is still doing it - that has legs only because people are upset that Goodell ordered the tapes destroyed.

It wouldn't make any difference whether fans oppose the release of injury reports. Players are getting injured and the NFL sees that it's in its best interest to publish those reports. But what makes this situation an "active" one is not that teams are still filming illegally, but that fans don't like the fact that Goodell ordered the tapes destroyed.

They're simply not the same issues.


And Goodell ordered them destroyed because, from my understanding, Jay Glazer got a copy of one. That is why Goodell felt justified in having them destroyed.

that's really gonna show them it won't be tolerated. they wouldn't benefit from the tapes maybe if he raided the place. instead he gave them a date to hand them over which they probably made copies with the time they had before they had to turn them in.

 

[tyke1doe]

I see. So, even though the league deemed it cheating, and by definition, cheating gives a team an "unfair" advantage and is against the rules, there is no indication that their cheating benefited them. They just did it for the fun of it, right commish?

This gets back to our arguments earlier. And it appears that the commissioner has the same perspective as I do. I guess the commissioner is lacking logic too.

Let's say that we give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that it never helped them in their 3 SB victories (won by a combined average of a little over three points), what about the victories leading up to the SBs, huh? Or are they deemed irrelevant like tape burning?

First, the only tapes destroyed were the tapes of games late in the 2006 season (when the Pats did not win the Super Bowl) and the 2007 preseason.

Second, how do you PROVE that the Pats won because they cheated?

You can't. That's the point you can't get through your thick skull.

Yes, they cheated. Yes, they gained an "unfair advantage." But because there's no way to measure how much of an "unfair advantage" they received and nor prove how that unfair advantage directly relates to a win, you punish them because they violated league rules and you punish them because videotaping they way the they did it violates the league's sense of fair play and honesty in competition.

Simply put, you're punishing them because they violated the spirit of fair play and competition and not because the cheating resulted in winning. That's something you can't prove.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

give it up, tyke

we're Cowboy fans, we love conspiracy theories lol

 

[tyke1doe]

that's really gonna show them it won't be tolerated. they wouldn't benefit from the tapes maybe if he raided the place. instead he gave them a date to hand them over which they probably made copies with the time they had before they had to turn them in.

And if they did and it's discovered, they will face even harsher sanctions.

So your point is what exactly?

 

[Chocolate Lab]

As a fan of the GAME, I want to know if the integrity of the game was violated.

And it doesn't even have to do with gambling (I don't gamble). I pay a lot of money every year for my Sunday Ticket. If the integrity of the game has been violated and the Pats cheated their way to 3 superbowl wins, I'd want my money back. I know I won't get it, but I guarantee you I'll cancel my sunday ticket.

And that's the REAL reason those tapes were destroyed.

Which most of us know, but some just won't admit.

 

[Rampage]

And if they did and it's discovered, they will face even harsher sanctions.

So your point is what exactly?

that they got caught and got a slap on the wrist. meanwhile our qb coach gets caught taking a drug for a personel problem and is suspended for 5 games? wow that makes sense. maybe the commish has some good buddies in new england.

 

[SultanOfSix]

There was no argument between me and you. It was an argument between what you invented and your ownself.

Who gives a crap if the commish has the same view as you? Is this some moral victory for you? Do you think the people who think the Pats got off too easily agree with the commish? Or are you just really this stupid?

Second, how do you PROVE that the Pats won because they cheated?

Who gives a crap? How do you prove I cheated on a test if the teacher finds the answers to it my pocket after I've taken it?

It's irrelevant. The test is declared null and void, and I'm suspended. Your arguments are so stupid.

 

[tyke1doe]

that they got caught and got a slap on the wrist.

Slapped on the wrist is subjective.

Losing a first-round draft pick and having your coach fined $500,000 were both precedent-setting moves.

So I don't know how you quantify penalties in any way that suggests this is a slap on the wrist, especially when you don't have a similar situation with which you can compare it.

meanwhile our qb coach gets caught taking a drug for a personel problem and is suspended for 5 games? wow that makes sense. maybe the commish has some good buddies in new england.

I have no problems saying I thought Wade Wilson's suspension was too harsh. But I don't feel compelled to equate the two situations either.

 

[Rampage]

Slapped on the wrist is subjective.

Losing a first-round draft pick and having your coach fined $500,000 were both precedent-setting moves.

So I don't know how you quantify penalties in any way that suggests this is a slap on the wrist, especially when you don't have a similar situation with which you can compare it.




I have no problems saying I thought Wade Wilson's suspension was too harsh. But I don't feel compelled to equate the two situations either.

why not? cleary what wade did was not as bad as what belicheat did but he got a much harsher punishment.

 

[tyke1doe]

There was no argument between me and you. It was an argument between what you invented and your ownself.

Well, apparently it wasn't invented by myself if Goodell reached the same conclusion as I did.

And, granted, I offered my argument before Goodell even addressed the issue. So I must have been thinking along the right lines.

Who gives a crap if the commish has the same view as you? Is this some moral victory for you? Do you think the people who think the Pats got off too easily agree with the commish? Or are you just really this stupid?

It suggests that I can properly analysis situations and give some reason as to why Goodell came to the conclusion that he did.

It's called insight and foresight. But people such as yourself call it stupidity.

Who gives a crap? How do you prove I cheated on a test if the teacher finds the answers to it my pocket after I've taken it?

She can't prove that you cheated on the test. So if she accused you of cheating with out any other evidence than merely finding the answers in your pocket, she would be wrong to punish you UNLESS she said, "Under no circumstances should you bring the test answers in this class while you take the test."

Otherwise, you could always argue that you had studied the answers prior to taking the test.

Or let's say that you stole the test answers from the teacher, and she found them in your pocket. She can't say that you cheated on the test because, unless she saw you looking at the answers during the test, she would have no way to prove that.

But should could invalidate your test merely because you stole the test answers or had the answers in your possession when you weren't suppose to.

It's irrelevant. The test is declared null and void, and I'm suspended. Your arguments are so stupid.

They're stupid because you are simple-minded and can't think beyond your own examples.

I just provided you a situation where you having the test answers in your pocket would not warrant a suspension and a situation where it would.

But I can understand why deciphering nuances would appear stupid to one such as yourself.

 

[SultanOfSix]

She can't prove that you cheated on the test. So if she accused you of cheating with out any other evidence than merely finding the answers in your pocket, she would be wrong to punish you UNLESS she said, "Under no circumstances should you bring the test answers in this class while you take the test."

I am laughing so hard right now.

This is the most ridiculous justification I've every heard. When has a teacher ever said anything remotely similar to "Under no circumstances should you bring the test answers in this class while you take the test" as a disclaimer prior to an exam?

Honestly. You take the cake when it comes to the most asinine arguments.

Oh yeah, and you're a tremendous obfuscator.

 

[tyke1doe]

why not? cleary what wade did was not as bad as what belicheat did but he got a much harsher punishment.

Here are the differences, IMO:

1. Wade is a coach and what he did benefited only himself. (Although, admittedly, that could be an argument for why he should receive a lesser punishment.)
2. I'm not sure if coaches are subject to the NFL's drug testing policies, but it isn't uncommon for players to receive multiple game suspensions.
3. Belichick was fined more than Wade, the Pats owner was fined and the Patriots lost a draft pick.

Now, I have no problems with arguments that suggest that Belichick should have been suspended for one game. I personally thought he should have.

And I also believe that Wilson's punishment was too harsh. So I can't really argue forcifully with you on this issue.

I believe Wilson got a bump wrap. But I can't carry that situation to this one.

I'm not going to knock you if you do. Personally, I wish someone would ask the commissioner that question. If I had an audience with him, I would.

 

[tyke1doe]

I am laughing so hard right now.

This is the most ridiculous justification I've every heard. When has a teacher ever said anything remotely similar to "Under no circumstances should you bring the test answers in this class while you take the test" as a disclaimer prior to an exam?

I guess you missed it, but you offered the analogy. And I offered that scenario because it more appropriately fits the Spygate situation.

Goodell had specifically told the Pats and all other teams that such videotaping was illegal. Hence, that point of my analogy.

Of course, I don't know very many teachers that "find" answers in their student's pockets, especially in this day and age when teachers are careful about any improper contact with students that can be misconstrued.

But I guess that "ridiculous" observation escaped you as well.

Honestly. You take the cake when it comes to the most asinine arguments.

Oh yeah, and you're a tremendous obfuscator.

Believe me, from you, I take that as the highest compliment.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

I am laughing so hard right now.

This is the most ridiculous justification I've every heard. When has a teacher ever said anything remotely similar to "Under no circumstances should you bring the test answers in this class while you take the test" as a disclaimer prior to an exam?

Honestly. You take the cake when it comes to the most asinine arguments.

Oh yeah, and you're a tremendous obfuscator.

you have me laughing too, cuz I've never heard a teacher do that either

what tyke1doe should have said, was that w/ the test answers in your pocket, it's up to the school whether to suspend you, or make you re-take the test