Arlen Specter - You da man. (Cheatriots)

[tyke1doe]

Brilliant rebuttal counselor but your objection is still over ruled on a number of points:

1. Most of the steroids being distributed to MLB players were prescribed by licensed physicians and only in a few cases were they given by someone not licensed to prescribe them. The fact that they should NOT have been prescribed is why congress was involved in the first place. For criminal prosecution they are not going after the players but those people distributing them. The issue being discussed in the hearings is not that they were illegal but that they were used to influence the outcome of games.

You basically affirmed my point. If they SHOULD NOT have been prescribed, then that means that they were prescribed ILLEGALLY.

The possibility of illegality is what allowed Congress to get involved in the issue. It really wasn't looking to bring criminal actions against the players, but used the illegal aspect to conduct the investigation.

I ask you what is the illegal grounds which allows Specter to call Godell?

I argue there is none.

Also, steroids and HGH are not specifically illegal but are "controlled substances" meaning they can only be distributed by someone licensed to prescribe them. My doctor can prescribe them to me and nothing would be said about it but because they are specifically "illegal" for most athletes is the issue here because they are considered "performance enhancing" and therefore constitute cheating.

I've already explain that. If they are not prescribed properly, then they are prescribed illegally, i.e., not according to the rules of the Federal Drug Administration.

2. If I thought that what Belichick did was illegal from a criminal statute then I would have recommended jail time, not banning from the league.

But the question is what legal pretense does Specter use to call Godell before the Senate Judiciary Committee? In baseball, there was one. Here, there's not one. And that's the point I'm trying to make.

3. Professional sports is treated as a special case by the federal government and therefore the rules that govern most businesses do not necessarily apply to them, the NFL in particular. Because of this, the federal government can and frequently does get involved in anything that seems fishy among the professional sports leagues.

Next...

But listen to what you're saying. You're saying that the federal government can call an inquiry even if that situation doesn't involve violation of any federal laws or rules.

Is that the type of country you want to live in?

Even though professional sports is a "special case," it operates within the context of American society and has to follow federal rules with respect to anti-trust laws. That's what governs the NFL.

It's dangerous the position you're taking, with all due respect. Because what you're suggesting is that any time the federal government has a question about what the NFL is doing and the Commissioner doesn't respond because he doesn't think it's in the scope of the government's responsibility, a senator can drag him before Congress.

You do remember the Joseph McCarthy hearings don't you? I don't think you want to return to those days.

 

[Kangaroo]

spygate again?

If you think the pats need to cheat to win, watch more football. There is nobody else like them.

Let it go already.

And if specter wants to make himself useful, go take care of gamblers and steroid abusers and doctors who are giving them to athletes.

Sypgate is the last thing a specter should be worried about.

We go on about Spygate and ignore the fact Rodney Harrison was using HGH is probably still is

 

[theogt]

Then why didn't you use the appropriate word?

Uhh...because I was typing quickly on the internet? Could you be any more of a tool?

So, in essence, you're saying that this is merely an attempt at grandstanding?

If Specter knows this is not a violation of antitrust, then why a judicial inquiry?

Simply to get an answer from Godell?

So if an executive refuses to answer a senator, we should hold judicial inquiries?

What don't you get? He thought there was a problem with Goodell destroying the tapes, and he's letting it be known.

With all due respect, I disagree. He offered an analogy and a specific one at that. He wants us to believe that destroying CIA tapes is the same as destroying NFL tapes. If he didn't, he wouldn't have used the analogy.
But it's not the same because CIA tapes and documents are government documents.

Second, he makes a point of criticizing the destruction of documents. But documents are destroyed all the time. You have to determine when and why documents should not be destroyed, which he doesn't distinguish in his example.

Thus, it is a very poor example.

I don't really care if you think it's a poor analogy or not. No one can claim that it's not a similar situation in certain respects. Bringing up particular issues with the analogy are pointless unless you think those issues are relevant to the discussion. I don't see how these are.

What is the purpose of a judicial inquiry? I would hope it is to uncover wrongdoing or illegality. If not, it's just a waste of taxpayers money to hold one only to hear Godell say, "We had the tapes destroyed so they could never been in circulation again."

Is that how you want your tax dollars spent, especially when we've already determined that the Pats cheated and cheat in previous years?

I don't.

The term is "congressional inquiry." Also, his name is Goodell.

And I think the purpose of his statements is very clear.

 

[Chief]

Just a senator grandstanding.

Congress has no involvement in this issue.

Exactly.

And Arlen Specter is a hypocritical joke. He was on the Warren Commission and his arrogance and behavior during his portion of the so-called "investigation" reveals what an embarrassment he is.

Him yelling cover up and complaining about destroyed evidence is pathetic.

 

[Randy White]

Cheap publicity stunt. And I like Specter, who is a moderate RePUKEblican.

I guess the DemoCRAPS and RePUKEblicans have nothing better to do such as making sure our troops overseas are being taking care of.

 

[theebs]

I just wish someone could beat the Patriots on the football field just so people didn't have to resort to internet messageboard wars and political grandstanding by slimey politicians for their consolation prizes.

Me too, but it wont happen this year.

Hopefully someone will beat them next year.

 

[tyke1doe]

Uhh...because I was typing quickly on the internet? Could you be any more of a tool?

Well, there is the edit function. It's an effective "tool" on this forum, even moreso than I.

What don't you get? He thought there was a problem with Goodell destroying the tapes, and he's letting it be known.

And abusing his authority, I might add.

I don't really care if you think it's a poor analogy or not. No one can claim that it's not a similar situation in certain respects. Bringing up particular issues with the analogy are pointless unless you think those issues are relevant to the discussion. I don't see how these are.

Obviously, you do care if it is a poor analogy. Otherwise, you wouldn't be spending so much time trying to debunk my criticism of it. I said I thought it was a poor analogy. You didn't have to respond. But you did.

And, yes, I do think the analogy is relevant because the reason why we're even having this Congressional hearing is because he thinks the tapes should not have been destroyed. And he's using as his reason for calling the hearing the fact that CIA tapes shouldn't be destroyed.

That's why it's relevant. He knows he just can't call inquiries because he feels like it. So he's trying to justify the inquiry, rather poorly, I might add.

I'm sorry if you don't see the relevance.

The term is "congressional inquiry." Also, his name is Goodell.

So if it is called a "congressional" inquiry. That doesn't mean it has the power to act in such a fashion.

Oh, and thanks for the "Goodell" correction. Godell must have been a Freudian type.

And I think the purpose of his statements is very clear.

But you just said that his analogy was irrelevant.

He may want an inquiry. But the question is does he have the right to call one and on what grounds can he call one. That's where his reasoning comes into question, especially when he makes a bogus comparison between CIA tapes and NFL tapes, and tapes taken by a particular franchise not the NFL as a whole at that.

 

[theogt]

I just wish someone could beat the Patriots on the football field just so people didn't have to resort to internet messageboard wars and political grandstanding by slimey politicians for their consolation prizes.

I just wish people had the wherewithal to recognize that this isn't about beating the Patriots. If the Falcons had cheated and the tapes were destroyed, it would have still been a remarkably stupid decision. It's just that a high profile team makes this a higher profile issue.

 

[khiladi]

Spoken like a true apologist.

Just wanted to see how it felt to just disregard someone's opinion by declaring them "bitter", "homer", "apologist", or any blanket statement that suggests their opinion is invalid because they're just jealous losers.

I was surprised - I didn't enjoy it as much as you seem to.

But the Senator is an Eagles fan....

 

[theebs]

I just wish people had the wherewithal to recognize that this isn't about beating the Patriots. If the Falcons had cheated and the tapes were destroyed, it would have still been a remarkably stupid decision. It's just that a high profile team makes this a higher profile issue.

Its always about beating the patriots.

Do you think the owners didnt get an adequate amount of info on the tapes?

I think they did and this is why no big deal has been made by the other owners, the people who could actually behind close doors get something done.

 

[khiladi]

First, there is a difference between destroying government documents and destroying personal or private documents. And last time I checked, the NFL wasn't a governmental entity.

Neither was Arthur ANderson and Enron...

 

[theogt]

Well, there is the edit function. It's an effective "tool" on this forum, even moreso than I.

Very rarely do I go back and read my posts for grammatical errors. Often I have better things to do.

And abusing his authority, I might add.

No, he's not.

Obviously, you do care if it is a poor analogy. Otherwise, you wouldn't be spending so much time trying to debunk it.

I'm not trying to debunk the analogy.

I said I thought it was a poor analogy. You didn't have to respond. But you did.

I responded because you went on about it and I was pointing out that it was irrelevant to the discussion.

And, yes, I do think the analogy is relevant because the reason why we're even having this Congressional hearing is because he thinks the tapes should not have been destroyed. And he's using as his reason for calling the hearing the fact that CIA tapes shouldn't be destroyed.

That's why it's relevant. He knows he just can't call inquiries because he feels like it. So he's trying to justify the inquiry, rather poorly, I might add.

I'm sorry if you don't see the relevance.

There's sufficient similarity between the CIA destroying tapes and the NFL destroying tapes to make the analogy useful, even if you don't think it's a perfect one.

So if it is called a "congressional" inquiry. That doesn't mean it has the power to act in such a fashion.

Was this in English?

But you just said that his analogy was irrelevant.

You're clearly confused. And I don't have the time to clear things up for you.

He may want an inquiry. But the question is does he have the right to call one and on what grounds can he call one. That's where his reasoning comes into question, especially when he makes a bogus comparison between CIA tapes and NFL tapes, and tapes taken by a particular franchise not the NFL as a whole at that.

Yes, he clearly has the right to inquire. Do you dispute that?

 

[theogt]

Its always about beating the patriots.

Do you think the owners didnt get an adequate amount of info on the tapes?

I think they did and this is why no big deal has been made by the other owners, the people who could actually behind close doors get something done.

I think it's entirely possible that other forms of cheating are going on and I think it's also possible that other teams were also cheating. And I think it's possible that, because of those possibilities, Goodell attempted to sweep the whole ordeal under the rug.

 

[theebs]

I think it's entirely possible that other forms cheating is going on and I think it's also possible that other teams were also cheating. And I think it's possible that, because of those possibilities, Goodell attempted to sweep the whole ordeal under the rug.

I also agree with this.

I can only imagine what goes on behind the scenes with some teams.

 

[theogt]

I also agree with this.

I can only imagine what goes on behind the scenes with some teams.

Given the recent history with both baseball and basketball, he might have felt it was necessary to straighten things out. Or at least have Goodell explain more fully what's up. Because, let's face it, destroying the tapes was shady, regardless of who was involved.

 

[Maikeru-sama]

Exactly.

And Arlen Specter is a hypocritical joke. He was on the Warren Commission and his arrogance and behavior during his portion of the so-called "investigation" reveals what an embarrassment he is.

Him yelling cover up and complaining about destroyed evidence is pathetic.

I guess solving more important societal problems doesn't garner nearly enough exposure.

Sadly, the masses will clamour for this out of spite and jealousy, while failing to realize how much of their tax dollars are being wasted if a Congressional Hearing indeed gets underway.

 

[khiladi]

Given the recent history with both baseball and basketball, he might have felt it was necessary to straighten things out. Or at least have Goodell explain more fully what's up. Because, let's face it, destroying the tapes was shady, regardless of who was involved.

And money and betting is involved in the game. And Fantasy Football is a household tradition now... And millions of dollars are poured into advertising, and Networks battle over the rights to broadcats NFL games...

 

[ilovejerry]

I really don't care. If the NFL needs cleaned up - if this cluster-**** of a commissioner needs to be removed, because he continues to screw up a sport that means a TON to a huge percentage of Americans, \\\Unfortunately it means more to corporate America and the almighty $$$$$$ then us poor slobs who are addicted to it

 

[ilovejerry]

That's exactly why Belichick should have been banned for life. He is responsible for a franchise worth a billion dollars and he cheated. He should be held to a much higher standard than the average person should be, not a lesser one.

The guy cheated, plain and simple, and the punishment handed down will in no way deter him, or anyone else, from doing it in the future.

I agree with that statement but hypocrisy is in all sports , what about morally. what he did how do you explain to your children that he cheated in sports ? Is he a role model ? differences for players and coaches... what about his infidelity? once a cheat always a cheat. "hey Billy call you girlfriend will ya" Cheating puke !!!!

 

[aikemirv]

Do you guys really believe the evidence has been destroyed?

I really don't. How does the NFL enforce their punishment if there is no evidence? The Patriots could then appeal the fine to an arbitrator I would think and without any evidence there is no way a fine or punishment could be upheld.

Obviously we don't know how the punishment and the agreement to it by the Patriots went down but I find it truly hard to believe that there are no tapes of what the Patriots did sitting somewhere locked away.