Arlen Specter - You da man. (Cheatriots)

[superpunk]

But the simple-minded who can't think through these issues and separate their hatred for the Patriots and what is appropriate in this case can't do that.

So it becomes "defending the Pats" to them.

Just as easy as claiming anyone who finds fault with the commissioner's process is just "jealous of the Pats" or "bitter".

Hypocrisy...thy name is...

 

[theogt]

What is the legal violation?

Joseph McCarthy conducted congressional hearings also, dragging people thought to be communist sympathizers before Congress under the pretext of defending the nation from Communism.

Just because you have the authority to call someone before Congress doesn't mean it's not an abuse of authority to do so, especially when there is no legal reason to do so.

I fail to see one.

Why do you think there has to be a legal violation?

 

[tyke1doe]

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

I didn't go on. I merely stated that I thought it was a bad analogy. You challenged my description, hence, here we are.

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.

No, there is not.

If the CIA destroys tapes and it becomes a matter of investigation, it is because Congress is looking into whether the CIA violated any constitutional laws.

The NFL destroying tapes doesn't come any where close to a violation of constitutional law.

And since we know that private companies shred documents all the time, it is an inappropriate analogy because it presents an image that is false, namely what the CIA did and what the NFL did is analogous.

That's wrong on so many fronts it's ridiculous.

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

Of course, you don't. You appear to be simple-minded in this situation.

There are nuances in life, whether you like them or not. Two situations may appear to be the same, but they are totally different.

And to not recognize the differences is to be simplistic in one's understanding of the issue at hand.

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

Police have a "right" to stop me even if I'm not breaking the law.

There is a "right" that comes with the authority.

Second, Specter has a "right" to call an inquiry as a senator. I don't know if he has the "right" to call one here. I'll listen and read forthcoming legal commentaries and editorials to determine whether he's within his "right" to do so.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

I don't care if it's the Pats or the Jets, I contend there isn't a legal basis for Specter to call this inquiry.

Do you remember our discussion about run-on sentences? Your sentence above qualifies. It needs either a period or a semicolon between "Jets" and "I."

I only mention it because you exhibit such concern over the grammatical errors of others.

 

[theogt]

Police have a "right" to stop me even if I'm not breaking the law.

There is a "right" that comes with the authority.

Second, Specter has a "right" to call an inquiry as a senator. I don't know if he has the "right" to call one here. I'll listen and read forthcoming legal commentaries and editorials to determine whether he's within his "right" to do so.

Oh really? You don't know? Because it seemed pretty clear from the beginning that you thought he was over-stepping his boundaries.

 

[NEFAN1961]

Specter, (a long-time,avid Eagles fan) has, by his timing,just assured an absolute BLOW OUT VICTORY by the Pats....

 

[superpunk]

Specter, (a long-time,avid Eagles fan) has, by his timing,just assured an absolute BLOW OUT VICTORY by the Pats....

Yes, we know. The Pats thrive off the "Them-against-the-world-that-would-dare-hold-them-accountable-for-their-actions" mentality, and all that other crap.

 

[bbgun]

Certainly the US Government has better things to do with its time, no? After all, league rules were violated here, not US laws. Is Specter running for something?

 

[wileedog]

Certainly the US Government has better things to do with its time, no? After all, league rules were violated here, not US laws. Is Specter running for something?

Given the governments track record lately, maybe we are better off if they spend their time screwing around with sports.

 

[YosemiteSam]

Just a senator grandstanding.

Congress has no involvement in this issue.

Combine legallized gambling on NFL games with the fact that the NFL has an antitrust exemption, and you damn skippy it can involve all kinds of government!

Maybe you just don't know what the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary which Mr. Specter is a part of.

The United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary (informally Senate Judiciary Committee) is a standing committee of the United States Senate, the upper house of the United States Congress. The Judiciary Committee is charged with conducting hearings prior to the Congressional confirmation of U.S. Supreme Court justices, court of appeals judges, and district court judges. In recent years, this role has made the committee increasingly a point of contention, with numerous party-line votes and standoffs over which judges should be approved. The committee also has a broad jurisdiction over matters relating to federal criminal law.

Considering this involves cheating in a sport that is actively bet on. It can have serious repercussions on the state of the NFL. The last thing the NFL wants, it to have regulations and have its antitrust exemption revoked!

What can the government do? Well, Microsoft has paid out in excess of $6.8B in antitrust fines as of July 2006.

 

[YosemiteSam]

Certainly the US Government has better things to do with its time, no? After all, league rules were violated here, not US laws. Is Specter running for something?

It's deeper than that. The NFL is bet on by gamblers. Cheating is an absolute no-no in the eyes of the government.

 

[WoodysGirl]

GOODELL EXPLAINS DESTRUCTION

Posted by Mike Florio on February 1, 2008, 3:52 p.m.

NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell addressed during his annual “state of the league” press conference the question posed recently by Senator Arlen Specter (R-Pa.).​

Why did the NFL destroy the materials surrendered by the Patriots in the wake of the Spygate scandal? Because the original tape that gave rise to the brouhaha had landed in the hands of Jay Glazer of FOX.​

“We thought we had locked it up. And it got out, five days later,” Goodell said.​

It’s not a surprise, because it’s really the only semi-plausible explanation that could be offered for intentionally destroying evidence. If/when Goodell is getting grilled by U.S. Senators on the issue, however, he can expect a few of them to be perplexed by the notion that the league office is so unable to secure sensitive information that the better approach is to shred it.
A summary of the rest of the remarks is right here.​

Permalink | Comments Back to Top

MEET MATT WALSH

Posted by Mike Florio on February 1, 2008, 12:31 p.m.

Buried in the Friday New York Times article regarding the desire of Senator Arlen Specter are the first on-the-record comments regarding Spygate from Matt Walsh.​

Who’s Matt Walsh, you ask? He was an employee of the New England Patriots from 1996 through 2003, spending most of his time there in the video department.​

Matt Walsh is now an assistant golf pro in Hawaii. And the Times sent a reporter all the way there to interview him.​

As talk goes among some of the folks we know in the NFL media, Walsh knows something. Something big.​

We’re not reporting at this time that Walsh knows anything. But we know for a fact that multiple members of the media were chasing Walsh in the wake of Spygate, trying to get him to talk on the record about what he knows. One came fairly close, but it ultimately didn’t happen.​

Why? Because Walsh is scared. And rightfully so. He’s scared of getting sued into Mike Tyson-style bolivian.​

“After speaking to my lawyers and whatnot, I can’t really talk to you about anything,” Walsh told the Times. “And I can’t show you anything. If someone wanted me to talk and tell them things, I would craft an agreement where they would agree from now until the end of my existence to pay for any legal fees that came up in regards to this, whether I’m sued by the Patriots, the [NFL], anybody else.”​

Wow.​

Folks, guys don’t say things like that when they don’t know anything, or when they don’t think that what they know is important.​

And though we don’t know what Walsh knows, we know what a couple of writers think that he knows. If they’re right, and if Walsh talks, it could have huge ramifications.​

We know that our bread is partially buttered by the NFL, and we appreciate the relationship. But every owner, G.M., coach, and player is a steward of a game that hopefully will continue for centuries after we’re all gone. So we’re committed to holding today’s stewards of the game accountable for their actions, even if it makes said stewards of the game upset with us. One way or another, Walsh needs to have a forum to tell what he knows. He might collapse like a wet cracker under cross examination, or his story might be flimsier than a kite made out of Kleenex. But this guy has a story to tell, and it needs to be heard.​

“If I ever got brought in for a deposition or something, then I would just face the whole gauntlet of questions,” Walsh said. “There would be things I’d be forced to answer that some people haven’t taken responsibility for.”​

 

[tyke1doe]

Considering this involves cheating in a sport that is actively bet on. It can have serious repercussions on the state of the NFL. The last thing the NFL wants, it to have regulations and have its antitrust exemption revoked!

What can the government do? Well, Microsoft has paid out in excess of $6.8B in antitrust fines as of July 2006.

But you're missing a crucial point and missing a link.

To the first point, the NFL does not encourage betting. If the NFL did, then you would have a more valid point because it could be argued that the Pats' close victories skewed betting lines. But since the NFL is in no way connected with Vegas betting, then you can't make the betting argument.

Second, if it were shown that Goodell is somehow connected with illegal betting, then that's another matter altogether.

 

[superpunk]

http://beta.profootballtalk.com/2008/02/01/goodell-explains-destruction/

“If I ever got brought in for a deposition or something, then I would just face the whole gauntlet of questions,” Walsh said. “There would be things I’d be forced to answer that some people haven’t taken responsibility for.”​

Oh snap.

 

[tyke1doe]

GOODELL EXPLAINS DESTRUCTION

Posted by Mike Florio on February 1, 2008, 3:52 p.m.

NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell addressed during his annual “state of the league” press conference the question posed recently by Senator Arlen Specter (R-Pa.).​

Why did the NFL destroy the materials surrendered by the Patriots in the wake of the Spygate scandal? Because the original tape that gave rise to the brouhaha had landed in the hands of Jay Glazer of FOX.​

“We thought we had locked it up. And it got out, five days later,” Goodell said.​

It’s not a surprise, because it’s really the only semi-plausible explanation that could be offered for intentionally destroying evidence. If/when Goodell is getting grilled by U.S. Senators on the issue, however, he can expect a few of them to be perplexed by the notion that the league office is so unable to secure sensitive information that the better approach is to shred it.
A summary of the rest of the remarks is right here.​

Permalink | Comments Back to Top

MEET MATT WALSH

Posted by Mike Florio on February 1, 2008, 12:31 p.m.

Buried in the Friday New York Times article regarding the desire of Senator Arlen Specter are the first on-the-record comments regarding Spygate from Matt Walsh.​

Who’s Matt Walsh, you ask? He was an employee of the New England Patriots from 1996 through 2003, spending most of his time there in the video department.​

Matt Walsh is now an assistant golf pro in Hawaii. And the Times sent a reporter all the way there to interview him.​

As talk goes among some of the folks we know in the NFL media, Walsh knows something. Something big.​

We’re not reporting at this time that Walsh knows anything. But we know for a fact that multiple members of the media were chasing Walsh in the wake of Spygate, trying to get him to talk on the record about what he knows. One came fairly close, but it ultimately didn’t happen.​

Why? Because Walsh is scared. And rightfully so. He’s scared of getting sued into Mike Tyson-style bolivian.​

“After speaking to my lawyers and whatnot, I can’t really talk to you about anything,” Walsh told the Times. “And I can’t show you anything. If someone wanted me to talk and tell them things, I would craft an agreement where they would agree from now until the end of my existence to pay for any legal fees that came up in regards to this, whether I’m sued by the Patriots, the [NFL], anybody else.”​

Wow.​

Folks, guys don’t say things like that when they don’t know anything, or when they don’t think that what they know is important.​

And though we don’t know what Walsh knows, we know what a couple of writers think that he knows. If they’re right, and if Walsh talks, it could have huge ramifications.​

We know that our bread is partially buttered by the NFL, and we appreciate the relationship. But every owner, G.M., coach, and player is a steward of a game that hopefully will continue for centuries after we’re all gone. So we’re committed to holding today’s stewards of the game accountable for their actions, even if it makes said stewards of the game upset with us. One way or another, Walsh needs to have a forum to tell what he knows. He might collapse like a wet cracker under cross examination, or his story might be flimsier than a kite made out of Kleenex. But this guy has a story to tell, and it needs to be heard.​

“If I ever got brought in for a deposition or something, then I would just face the whole gauntlet of questions,” Walsh said. “There would be things I’d be forced to answer that some people haven’t taken responsibility for.”​

I don't think the tapes are an issue here. I think it's more the speculation that the Pats sabotage opponent's headsets. If that's the case, then that's a more serious claim.

 

[tyke1doe]

Do you remember our discussion about run-on sentences? Your sentence above qualifies. It needs either a period or a semicolon between "Jets" and "I."

I only mention it because you exhibit such concern over the grammatical errors of others.

I'm using journalistic grammar.

Thanks for the correction.

 

[tyke1doe]

The Authority on Cheating has arrived.​

Thank you for announcing my presence even if it several posts too late.

Now before my authority.

 

[YosemiteSam]

But you're missing a crucial point and missing a link.

To the first point, the NFL does not encourage betting.

That has absolutely no barring on the issue at hand.

If I decide I don't support the law that says I have to drive 55 mph or less, I am able to skirt speeding tickets? I don't think so.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

Great stuff about the Walsh guy.

And what a weak excuse by Goodell. We destroyed them because Jay Glazer got a tape? That tape showed nothing -- just the signal, then the clock, etc. If every tape were the same as that one, they wouldn't even care if it got shown.

Nope, it's obvious that other tapes showed a lot more than that. Especially with this Walsh guy surfacing.

 

[Vintage]

What I find most interesting about this whole thing is that the owners aren't saying much.

That's saying something. Not sure what its saying...but its definately saying something.