peplaw06;1937579 said:
I still don't buy that argument, no matter how many times you've repeated it. If this story about the Pats videotaping the Rams walkthrough the day before the Super Bowl is true, and they won by 3 points, how can you say that they didn't win the game by cheating?
First, you don't have to buy it. Hence, our disagreement.
Second, I can't say they didn't win by cheating. But neither can you say they won by cheating. That's my point, counselor.
lol. the way to send a clear message is to destroy the evidence? ridiculous. And wouldn't simply keeping the tapes prevent the Pats from benefiting from them? Seems more reasonable than immediately destroying all of the evidence, and keeping everything hush hush.
That presumes that there aren't any other tapes out there. But by destroying them, you send the message that they should not be used. And if the Pentagon Papers could be leaked, these tapes could be leaked also.
You don't have personal knowledge of what years the tapes were from... I don't trust Goodell on the matter. He's in damage control mode.
Well, if he's lying then that would make him look even worse if he said he only destroyed six tapes, and it's later revealed that he destroyed dozens of tapes.
I'll give him the benefit of the doubt until it's determined - if ever - that he's lying.
Now there's this story about the taping of the Rams walkthrough. That would be the tip of the iceberg of a "worst case scenario."
Wasn't it known already that the Pats' taping went all the way back to 2001?
I'm not COMPARING anything. All I was doing was pointing out that your excuse for injury reports being released -- "to be as forthcoming as possible" -- is lame. It's clear that the league isn't concerned with being as forthcoming as possible.
It is with respect to injury reports. And it's not an excuse. It is the reason why the NFL releases injury reports, i.e., to be as transparent as possible with regards to injuries. Don't you think other teams pay attention to that information too? It's not just for the benefit of gamblers.
Now, you're sounding ridiculous.
That makes zero sense. Somebody outside the league got a copy of a tape... therefore, I will destroy all others. Why? To make sure none of the others are leaked perhaps? Yeah, that's being forthcoming.
It makes perfectly good sense. Glazer's tape didn't really show that much. The tapes aren't for the public. They were illegally obtained. So he had them destroyed. And there are as many reasons why that was a good idea as your one-trick pony explanation that he had something to hide.
Second, I find it interesting that you're conflating two issues, i.e., the injury report, and the league wanting to be forthcoming with injuries, and this issue.
You mean to tell me that a person can't be forthcoming in one aspect of life and not in another?
I don't think so. I said be careful using legal terms when they don't apply, or when you don't know what they mean. I don't have a problem with either.
Well, this is not a legal case nor a court case. So, again, I find it interesting that you try to inject legal discussion in this situation.
There mere fact that the government gives the big professional leagues special treatment under the law gives them the authority to get involved IMO. There doesn't have to be a "guise."
I'm glad you said, IMO. But what is the legal basis for the government doing so? In the case of steroids, it was a public health issue. What is the legal basis for this inquiry? If the government can just call hearings because it gives the league special treatment, then it can certainly abuse its power. And we're not wanting examples of the government abusing its power just because it has a certain amount of authority.
Now whether they should get involved is another issue entirely.... one for the political forum.
And that's the $100,000 question. Of course, I could argue that if it shouldn't then it is abusing its authority.
That wasn't the only issue with steroids. The integrity of these leagues is essential to their existence.
LOL! If Congress were concerned about the integrity of the league, it would investigate cheating as a whole, which happens frequently and historically in the NFL and all sports, or the bad calls by officials, which has also plagued the league historically.
No, counselor. Steroids gave the government a reason to get involved in baseball. The concern about integrity was intricately linked to the steroid issue. All issues of integrity - or the lack thereof - don't warrant congressional inquiries.
If the leagues don't have integrity, the fact that they have anti-trust exemptions opens the government up to scrutiny. Why would the government reward an organization who clearly cannot operate on the up and up? That in turn would bring the integrity of the government (no matter how much, if any, you think it has) and its relationship with these leagues into question.
With all due respect, you're stretching a bit.
First, Congress intervened in the baseball situation because baseball didn't take care of the problem itself. Goodell did take care of this situation.
Second, steroids didn't just impact one player or one team, which hardly would have merited a congressional inquiry. It impacted all of baseball. Spygate involves one team, namely the Patriots. And even though other teams may "cheat," there is no evidence that what the Patriots did is widespread throughout the league.
The issue was not singular to the franchise. It concerns the entire league. It directly affects the teams who were cheated on, and it tarnishes the integrity of the game.
Concerns being the operative word. But since it's not being done anymore, is it still an active concern that requires congressional hearings?
Second, it is no longer "tarnishing" the image of the game because it isn't being done anymore, to our knowledge. Regardless what the Senate hearings reveal, people are going to still have their opinions. Some will think this tarnishes the league. Some won't have those thoughts.
But the league can't help that. What it
CAN do is punish the offenders - which it did - and make sure it doesn't happen in the future.
That's how you restore the integrity of the game.
I notice you didn't put "sufficiently" in front of "punished the Patriots." Yes Goodell has punished them. As a result, they could very likely win the Super Bowl, still be considered by some as the best team ever (despite being caught for cheating this season), and have the #7 pick in the draft. You show 'em Roger.
At least he's tuff on all teh thugzzorz!!1111!!!!!!one!!
fixed
I didn't put "sufficiently" because it's subjective. Some people feel if you don't put a murderer to death you haven't "sufficiently" punished him.
I'm not dealing with subjectives because they're too loose and flexible. I'm dealing with reality. And the reality of the situation is that the Pats were punished.
At the time, the Commissioner didn't know the Pats would advance to the Super Bowl.
And, remember, there is no precedence with this situation. Some people were going to gripe regardless.
But I agree with the Commissioner in this regard (and I paraphrase): Since there is no way to prove with certainty that the Pats won because of cheating, then you can't strip them of any wins.
And let's be honest, that's what many people want. They want the Commissioner to forfeit one, some or all the games the Pats were caught illegally taping.
But, as I said before, if you can't prove that the taping resulted in a win, you can't take such a drastic measure. You can fine them or take other actions - such as taking away a draft pick. But I don't see making the Pats forfeit games.
Now, if he does that, then I guess I'll be wrong. But as of right now, I think the Commissioner and I are on the same page. And I don't even like the Pats.
