Article: Goodell would give indemnification to Walsh for materials from Pats' days

[VietCowboy]

well, those were probably the ones they didn't have time to throw into the wood chipper once good old Commish showed up....

I guess we should be surprised they even had that many

yep, just saw a law and order yesterday where there was a conversation that was like...they are getting a subpoena for all our documents. you will hand over all documents...meanwhile the video shot pans out, showing that everyone in the office is literally feeding tons of documents through a shredder....

 

[tyke1doe]

I've never seen an open investigation produce such little amounts of information. We didn't hear anything about this for the better part of 6 months, until the Senate got involved.

But it wasn't even the Senate's involvement that produced the additional information. It was ESPN, who found Walsh. And Walsh only agreed to share his information if ESPN paid his legal fees. ESPN, rightfully, declined.

And I like how you say, the case "will remain closed but pending..." WTH does that mean? Not to mention what you're saying completely contradicts what Goodell is saying. If it's an open investigation, then it doesn't need re-opening.

Maybe I phrased it the wrong way, but I think you know what it means. Goodell made his decision based on the information he had. But if new information surfaced he would reopen the case, which he has.

It's not that hard to understand.

OK, now we're re-opening the case again, you know the one that's been open all along.

This shows the weakness of your argument. You hang your hat on semantics. Oh and let me offer the obligatory smilie.
Look, Goodell said if any additional information surfaces the case would be reopened. Whether it was opened, closed, half-way open or half-way closed, the bottom line still remains the same.

And how convenient that he decides to "re-open" the case after ESPN and the Senate find out about Matt Walsh. It's like he got caught with his hand in the cookie jar. "Oh ****, they found out about Walsh... Case re-opened."

It's not a matter of convenience. Matt Walsh is no longer an employee of the New England Patriots. And he SHOULDN'T have tapes that are the property of the New England Patriots, no matter if they are illegal.

Goodell, rightfully, started with the New England Patriots and told the organization to destroy the tapes it had because they were illegal made. The organization is responsible for making sure that no one else had access to those tapes.

Why would Goodell interview an ex-employee unless he knew that employee had tapes? The employee isn't suppose to have any data which is the property of the New England Patriots. That's why, IMO, Goodell is now granting indemnification to Walsh for "materials" from the Pats days.

OK, so let's get this straight. He pursued this angle before. But since the Pats only provided him tapes from 2006 to 2007, there was no evidence supporting the claim that Walsh had knowledge of their practices? Yeah, I know I always expect the alleged rule breaker to turn over ALL evidence implicating them in said rule breaking.

But, here again, you miss a basic fundamental point. Walsh is an ex-employee. As an ex-employee you're not suppose to have company property. Game film, practice film and whatever else is associated with the NFL and the New England Patriots ARE NOT suppose to be in the possession of an ex-employee. That's like an ex-employee in the NFL front offices making copies of games of old for his own personal collection. You're not suppose to do that. So, I would assume, Goodell is not looking into that because he didn't expect for an ex-employee to have in his personal files information and property that belonged to the New England Patriots.

And now that someone else has found out about Walsh, the case can be reopened? But I thought he already pursued this angle??

He's only investigating what's on the tapes, not that Walsh claims the Pats taped the Rams Super Bowl walk-through. He (Goodell) already knew that.

I don't care if they strip them of their trophies. But I can tell you that in the minds of just about every fan on the face of this planet, those titles won't mean diddley.

No one can stop what fans feel or think, so I'm really not interested in what people feel. Some Cowboys fans feel we are a better team than the Giants.
But borrowing and slightly altering a phrase from "Unforgiven" ... "Feelings got nothing to do with it."

That's good enough for me. They deserve to be hit hard[er] on this.

I don't have any problems with that either. My whole point in this discussion, initially, is that you can't strip them of their titles because of the time factor and because there are too many variables that result in a win.

lol... again, let's put the onus on the accused to bring forth all evidence that they in fact did it. I don't think anyone's assuming it without having reason to believe. He's implied that he has proof.

And set the accused up for even more harsher penalties if they didn't. You have heard of the phrase, "providing one with enough rope to hang one's self" haven't you?

Again, if it's not closed, why does it need "re-opening?"

I've already addressed this. Whether it was closed or never closed, Goodell left enough wiggle room to "continue" the investigation. Does continue work for you?

Well he has issued punishment. That implies some type of closure. You usually don't get different stages of punishment. What are they going through a gradual punishment, or some type of punishment phase in? This year you'll lose $750k and #31, next year who knows? Depends on how I feel about it then.

Watch out, counselor. This is not a courtroom where there are legally prescribed punishments for crimes.

The punishment is based on what Goodell felt would be appropriate for the violation of the policy. And if more serious allegations are revealed and proven, then they will merit more serious punishment.

But this shouldn't be a foreign concept to you. The "phase in" punishment is an element of the league's drug testing policy, which offers punishments in the range of a four-week suspension to a full-year suspension to a life-time ban for subsequent violations. Simply put, when "newer information," i.e., another violation of the drug policy, is proven, a more severe punishment is meted out.

Again, remember, we're not in a court of law, counselor.

Then he states that he has always reserved the right to re-open it. That definitely sounds like it's been closed to me. But maybe I'm being too literal there.

It's not a matter of being too literal. It's a matter of where you place your "literal" emphasis. You place it on your opinion that it was a "closed" case. I place it on Goodell's statement that he could "reopen" the case.

I just love that he only states that he has reserved the right to re-open it after outside sources find out about this Walsh character and Senate calls him down to Washington. So believable.

He stated that from the beginning. Let me see if I can find a link to it.

Second, let's assume that Walsh's revelations don't amount to anything. That would seem to work more in Goodell's favor and validate his claim.

So the jury is still out.

I'm embarrassed for you.

Well, I appreciate your concern. But I'm a big boy and can handle myself. You let me worry about how I should feel, if that's okay with you?

 

[burmafrd]

Tyke, we get it without you slobbering all over the pats.

 

[Vtwin]

You guys can argue the legalities of every aspect of the "case" all you want but the bottom line is that the fandome has already ruled on the case and it appears has decided the Pats are guilty and that the NFL fumbled the ball on the investigation. Both the Pat's and the NFL did nothing to help themselves and everything to hurt themselves by not offering a complete and SINCERE apology in the case of the Pats or by creating a situation that reeks of a cover-up in the case of the NFL.Doesn't really matter what the "truth" is. The league has painted itself into a corner and should be taking advantage of every opportunity to dispel the notion that they burned the evidence in an effort to maintain some semblance of credibility.The whole thing stinks and the stench is getting worse.

 

[tyke1doe]

yep, just saw a law and order yesterday where there was a conversation that was like...they are getting a subpoena for all our documents. you will hand over all documents...meanwhile the video shot pans out, showing that everyone in the office is literally feeding tons of documents through a shredder....

But you know that Spygate is not a criminal matter, right?

 

[tyke1doe]

Tyke, we get it without you slobbering all over the pats.

I'm merely having a discussion with one of our esteemed posters - pepelaw. We just have a disagreement, which is the reason why he rebuts my argument and I his.

If you believe I'm slobbering all over the Pats, then I'll leave you to your simplistic conclusions.

You can either ignore my posts or put me on ignore. It won't hurt my feelings in the least any more than your assertions that I'm a closet Patriots fan.

 

[tyke1doe]

You guys can argue the legalities of every aspect of the "case" all you want but the bottom line is that the fandome has already ruled on the case and it appears has decided the Pats are guilty and that the NFL fumbled the ball on the investigation. Both the Pat's and the NFL did nothing to help themselves and everything to hurt themselves by not offering a complete and SINCERE apology in the case of the Pats or by creating a situation that reeks of a cover-up in the case of the NFL.Doesn't really matter what the "truth" is. The league has painted itself into a corner and should be taking advantage of every opportunity to dispel the notion that they burned the evidence in an effort to maintain some semblance of credibility.The whole thing stinks and the stench is getting worse.

I don't have a problem with this perspective. But I do want to highlight one point.
You, rightfully, pinpointed the ire among NFL "fandome." But I wouldn't necessary conclude that that "fandome" or everyone who belongs to that group operates without bias. Fan comes from the word "fanatic" which is described as an "excessive enthusiasm and often intense uncritical devotion" to a cause.
There are many fans who, because of their allegience to their teams, hate the Patriots.
So they see this as a cover-up. They want the Patriots to suffer the maximum penalty possible which, in their minds, would be to strip them of their Super Bowl wins.

I, however, see it differently. And this is what guides my thinking in this situation.

1. Roger Goodell, as commissioner of the NFL, has been invested with the power and authority to investigate violations and render punishment. NFL violations are not subject to criminal or civil proceedings. He is the judge, jury and executioner, unlike the criminal or civil process.

2. Goodell came into the league trying to deal with lingering problems and has had to "feel" his way through the process. Is everything he's doing right? Probably not. I don't understand why Wade Wilson was given a five-game suspension. But I don't conclude that because Wilson's penalty seems unfair that I must question every Goodell decision or read conspiracy into it.

3. The Spygate issue was the first time that Goodell had to deal with an issue of this magnitude. There is no guideline for how to deal with this. No prescribed penalties.

4. IMO, the destroying of the tapes was not so much to cover up the matter as it was to make sure that the Patriots would no longer use or benefit from those tapes. They were illegal, and they shouldn't have existed to begin with. Now maybe he (Goodell) could have ordered them placed in a safety deposit box so no one could gain access to them. But what if someone else has copies of those tapes? Jay Glazer got a copy.
Moreover, by not ordering them destroyed, one could always make the argument - "well you told us not to illegally tape, you didn't say anything about benefiting from the tapes we already have."
No, you order them all to be destroyed and put the burden on the New England Patriots that because of their illegal action, they are responsible if any of these other tapes surface because they were the ones who initiated this illegal procedure.
That's a reasonable argument, as far as I'm concerned. But if you see conspiracy everywhere, then I can see why this makes no sense to you.

At any rate, we'll see what the Walsh claims reveal.

 

[peplaw06]

But it wasn't even the Senate's involvement that produced the additional information. It was ESPN, who found Walsh. And Walsh only agreed to share his information if ESPN paid his legal fees. ESPN, rightfully, declined.

The point remains that for 6 months there was no information provided by Goodell that indicated that an investigation was ongoing. It's only re-opened or "continued" when someone else finds out some information.

Maybe I phrased it the wrong way, but I think you know what it means. Goodell made his decision based on the information he had. But if new information surfaced he would reopen the case, which he has.

It's not that hard to understand.

No, it's not hard to understand. Goodell made a decision based on the [limited] information he had, while he refused to pursue the Walsh angle.

A guy who worked in the video department for the Pats in the recent past (a time from which allegations reached back to), and is no longer employed by them, and this is the first we've heard of him. There was no indication that Goodell even spoke to him, much less interviewed him, until after the fact... when ESPN leaked his name. THEN Goodell says, "oh yeah I looked into that, but didn't think he had any information."

This shows the weakness of your argument. You hang your hat on semantics. Oh and let me offer the obligatory smilie.

:laugh1:

Yeah, the fact that YOU can't differentiate between open and closed investigations shows the weakness of MY argument.

Look, Goodell said if any additional information surfaces the case would be reopened. Whether it was opened, closed, half-way open or half-way closed, the bottom line still remains the same.

So we agree it was a closed investigation. Good.

It's not a matter of convenience. Matt Walsh is no longer an employee of the New England Patriots. And he SHOULDN'T have tapes that are the property of the New England Patriots, no matter if they are illegal.

Whether he should or shouldn't have the tapes is irrelevant. If he does, it has to be pursued by the league. Even if he doesn't, he should at least be interviewed in any investigation regarding wrong-doing if he worked for the organization in the department where he would see such things.

Goodell, rightfully, started with the New England Patriots and told the organization to destroy the tapes it had because they were illegal made. The organization is responsible for making sure that no one else had access to those tapes.

And here's the difference between normal thinking people and people trying to cover something up. They made the tapes illegally, why would you trust them to turn over/destroy everything now?

Why would Goodell interview an ex-employee unless he knew that employee had tapes? The employee isn't suppose to have any data which is the property of the New England Patriots. That's why, IMO, Goodell is now granting indemnification to Walsh for "materials" from the Pats days.

Oh I don't know, maybe because he could have information?? You don't just pursue angles where only hard evidence is available in a thorough investigation. You pursue ALL angles. The actual videotapes aren't the only evidence that can prove that the Pats cheated.

But, here again, you miss a basic fundamental point. Walsh is an ex-employee. As an ex-employee you're not suppose to have company property. Game film, practice film and whatever else is associated with the NFL and the New England Patriots ARE NOT suppose to be in the possession of an ex-employee.

Again, irrelevant. If you suspect he might have them, you seek him out, I don't care if he's supposed to or not. If you suspect he might only have information, personal knowledge, then you pursue that too. Unless all your concerned about is destroying the tapes and don't care about the extent to which they cheated.

That's like an ex-employee in the NFL front offices making copies of games of old for his own personal collection. You're not suppose to do that. So, I would assume, Goodell is not looking into that because he didn't expect for an ex-employee to have in his personal files information and property that belonged to the New England Patriots.If all you want to do is get the tapes and destroy them, then I agree, don't interview Walsh. But why wouldn't you want to know everything they did?

This is completely bogus. Let's say the NFL was being investigated by the feds. They had evidence in league offices that proved they broke the law, but that evidence was destroyed. Later you find out that an ex-employee may have some evidence of the laws being broken. Do you immediately discount this guy because he's not SUPPOSED to have the stuff? I'll make it easy for you, you don't. You seek this guy out. Unless you don't WANT all the information.

He's only investigating what's on the tapes, not that Walsh claims the Pats taped the Rams Super Bowl walk-through. He (Goodell) already knew that.

Why? Is he purposely refusing to be thorough? And you wonder why we think there's a cover up?

No one can stop what fans feel or think, so I'm really not interested in what people feel. Some Cowboys fans feel we are a better team than the Giants.
But borrowing and slightly altering a phrase from "Unforgiven" ... "Feelings got nothing to do with it."

It's not just fans. It's writers, ex-players, everybody. You think it might have some effect on Belichick's status with the Hall of Fame voters if they believed that he cheated in winning Super Bowl??

I don't have any problems with that either. My whole point in this discussion, initially, is that you can't strip them of their titles because of the time factor and because there are too many variables that result in a win.

And I don't care if you take titles away. I just want the truth.

And set the accused up for even more harsher penalties if they didn't. You have heard of the phrase, "providing one with enough rope to hang one's self" haven't you?

Ha. So Goodell purposely did this to see if the Pats would turn over all of the information? Wow you sure do give him a lot of credit.

I've already addressed this. Whether it was closed or never closed, Goodell left enough wiggle room to "continue" the investigation. Does continue work for you?

Why has it taken 6 months to hear any information about the case if it was "continuing?" Your spinning of your last post hasn't made it any better.

Watch out, counselor. This is not a courtroom where there are legally prescribed punishments for crimes.

The punishment is based on what Goodell felt would be appropriate for the violation of the policy. And if more serious allegations are revealed and proven, then they will merit more serious punishment.

I'm eagerly awaiting the link that you say proves this... that he planned on continuing the investigation and levying additional punishment if new evidence came out.

But this shouldn't be a foreign concept to you. The "phase in" punishment is an element of the league's drug testing policy, which offers punishments in the range of a four-week suspension to a full-year suspension to a life-time ban for subsequent violations. Simply put, when "newer information," i.e., another violation of the drug policy, is proven, a more severe punishment is meted out.

The key word there is that those are for subsequent violations. You said it yourself. These current allegations are prior to the most recent violations. Obviously you can't punish someone for a subsequent violation, or something they're going to do in the future. You fail again.

Again, remember, we're not in a court of law, counselor.

Who cares? Legal principles can still apply.

It's not a matter of being too literal. It's a matter of where you place your "literal" emphasis. You place it on your opinion that it was a "closed" case. I place it on Goodell's statement that he could "reopen" the case.

Again, this is embarrassing for you.

He stated that from the beginning. Let me see if I can find a link to it.

Still waiting.

Second, let's assume that Walsh's revelations don't amount to anything. That would seem to work more in Goodell's favor and validate his claim.

Why would you assume that?

 

[Vtwin]

4. IMO, the destroying of the tapes was not so much to cover up the matter as it was to make sure that the Patriots would no longer use or benefit from those tapes. They were illegal, and they shouldn't have existed to begin with. Now maybe he (Goodell) could have ordered them placed in a safety deposit box so no one could gain access to them. But what if someone else has copies of those tapes? Jay Glazer got a copy.
Moreover, by not ordering them destroyed, one could always make the argument - "well you told us not to illegally tape, you didn't say anything about benefiting from the tapes we already have."
No, you order them all to be destroyed and put the burden on the New England Patriots that because of their illegal action, they are responsible if any of these other tapes surface because they were the ones who initiated this illegal procedure.
That's a reasonable argument, as far as I'm concerned. But if you see conspiracy everywhere, then I can see why this makes no sense to you.

At any rate, we'll see what the Walsh claims reveal.

This is a reasonable theory although neither of us can possibley know for sure the motivation behind the league's decision to destroy the tapes.My only point is that neither entity here has done much of anything to help themselves against the perception that all is not right. In the end, perception is reality. I'm not a conspiracy theorist. Nor do I want the game I have followed forever to be discredited with a cheating scandal that calls past Super Bowl victories in question.I also live in northern New England in what was Giants country until 2001 when the noveau Pat's fans started coming out of the woodwork. I am not one of those guys who covers his butt by having two "favorite" teams but I have found myself rooting for the Pats once the Cowboys were out as they are the local team and I know some long suffering true blue Pats fans and I was happy for them.Having said all that, I was rooting hard for the Giants this Super Bowl simply because of the bad taste this whole season has left in my mouth concerning the Pat's and the way the league handled things.I still feel dirty.

 

[peplaw06]

1. Roger Goodell, as commissioner of the NFL, has been invested with the power and authority to investigate violations and render punishment. NFL violations are not subject to criminal or civil proceedings. He is the judge, jury and executioner, unlike the criminal or civil process.

2. Goodell came into the league trying to deal with lingering problems and has had to "feel" his way through the process. Is everything he's doing right? Probably not. I don't understand why Wade Wilson was given a five-game suspension. But I don't conclude that because Wilson's penalty seems unfair that I must question every Goodell decision or read conspiracy into it.

3. The Spygate issue was the first time that Goodell had to deal with an issue of this magnitude. There is no guideline for how to deal with this. No prescribed penalties.

Is it really so hard to see why some believe that there's a cover up?

First of all, ever since Goodell took office he has operated under the motto of dealing harshly with law breakers and rule breakers. He comes in trying to clean up the game so to speak.

He lays it to all of the criminals and alleged criminals. Pacman, Vick, Tank, Chris Henry, all of em. Then he let Wade Wilson have it.

Then this comes along, something that IMO (and apparently you agree) is a bigger threat to the integrity of the game, and he seems to have taken it easy on them.

It doesn't jibe with his MO. That's where the suspicion comes from.

It's no secret I didn't like the way he handled those prior situations, and then when you add what look like favorable treatment, then it really hits the fan.

 

[tyke1doe]

The point remains that for 6 months there was no information provided by Goodell that indicated that an investigation was ongoing. It's only re-opened or "continued" when someone else finds out some information.

Uh, that's incorrect.

NFL commissioner Roger Goodell is willing to pursue any believable information in the Spygate case.

Goodell said Wednesday the league has been in touch with representatives of former New England Patriots assistant coach Matt Walsh, now a golf pro in Maui. Walsh, who did video work for the Patriots when they won their first Super Bowl after the 2001 season, was not interviewed as part of the NFL's investigation into New England illegally taping opposing coaches in the last two years.

"If there is new information that is credible, new material that could be credible that would help us," Goodell said, "yes, we'll look at it.


"We've had people come to us over the last six months with material that we pursued and it didn't lead to anything."

That seems to suggest:

1. That people have been coming forward since September with information but it hasn't panned out and
2. That the investigation was ongoing.

No, it's not hard to understand. Goodell made a decision based on the [limited] information he had, while he refused to pursue the Walsh angle.

Yes, he made a decision based on the information he had. I don't know whether it's accurate to say he refused to pursue the Walsh angle.
He has been pursuing various leads, but none have yielded anything different than what he already knows/knew.

A guy who worked in the video department for the Pats in the recent past (a time from which allegations reached back to), and is no longer employed by them, and this is the first we've heard of him. There was no indication that Goodell even spoke to him, much less interviewed him, until after the fact... when ESPN leaked his name. THEN Goodell says, "oh yeah I looked into that, but didn't think he had any information."

That's your quote not Goodell's.

Second, why would Goodell think that an ex-employee had New England Patriots property?

Third, at issue here isn't oral testimony but video documentation. So what if Walsh says he taped walk-throughs. The Patriots could always deny that. But video tapes? That would be evidence. But why would Goodell automatically suspect that a former employee has New England Patriots property in his personal files?

Yeah, the fact that YOU can't differentiate between open and closed investigations shows the weakness of MY argument.

But I think you understood my point. Maybe I should have used the word "inactive" but even that wouldn't have been the appropriate description because it appears that the case was very much active.

At any rate, yes, your radar-like focus on the word I used beyond the actual point, i.e., the case is still open, suggests a weakness in your tactic.

So we agree it was a closed investigation. Good.

You know what I mean. Let's stop playing games.

Whether he should or shouldn't have the tapes is irrelevant. If he does, it has to be pursued by the league. Even if he doesn't, he should at least be interviewed in any investigation regarding wrong-doing if he worked for the organization in the department where he would see such things.

If being the operative word, counselor.

Goodell wouldn't necessarily suspect that Walsh has tapes because as a former employee he's not suppose to have property of the New England Patriots or the NFL.

Now that the league knows that he does, and we're not even sure he does, then the league plans to investigate. Remember, Walsh wouldn't disclose anything to ESPN without legal protection. ESPN did not give him that. Goodell is. So Goodell is saying, "Okay, show us what you've got, and we're not going to hold against you the fact that you have property of the NFL."

Why would he go in assuming that Walsh did when that's not generally the case?

And here's the difference between normal thinking people and people trying to cover something up. They made the tapes illegally, why would you trust them to turn over/destroy everything now?

Well, there are a lot of people who destroy things, and they're not trying to cover up anything. Corporations destroy documents all the time, as do people who destroy personal records when they no longer have use for them.

As for why do you "trust" them? I don't think it's an issue of trust as it is a matter of sending a message that this is not acceptable and if you don't do it or you pull this stunt again, you will face even greater punishment.

Oh I don't know, maybe because he could have information?? You don't just pursue angles where only hard evidence is available in a thorough investigation. You pursue ALL angles. The actual videotapes aren't the only evidence that can prove that the Pats cheated.

But the initial issue was taping as it relates to NY Jets game.
I can see where Goodell wanted to make a quick decision with respect to the taping in that incident. Can you imagine if he had delayed a decision until later? Then you have Patriots fans complaining about Goodell trying to derail their season, and you have some arguing delayed justice.

As for pursuing all angles, again, who's to say that he isn't? Again, he's said information has been provided to the league the past six months, but nothing has been conclusive.
As for Walsh's testimony, sorry, but you need the videotapes; otherwise, it becomes he-said, she-said. And as I've stated before, why would Goodell suspect that a former employee has league/Patriots property among his personal collection?
And you're a lawyer. You know how without actual evidence a lawyer can cast doubts on a witness' oral testimony.

Again, irrelevant. If you suspect [/b]he might have them, you seek him out, I don't care if he's supposed to or not.

:laugh1:

You know you just argued my point don't you. Uh, he didn't suspect that he had them. That's my point. Why would you suspect that a former employee has within his personal library property which belongs to the league and the Patriots?

If you suspect he might only have information, personal knowledge, then you pursue that too. Unless all your concerned about is destroying the tapes and don't care about the extent to which they cheated.

If Goodell wasn't concerned about the extent of cheating, he wouldn't have continued to evaluate information that has come to him.

This is completely bogus. Let's say the NFL was being investigated by the feds. They had evidence in league offices that proved they broke the law, but that evidence was destroyed. Later you find out that an ex-employee may have some evidence of the laws being broken. Do you immediately discount this guy because he's not SUPPOSED to have the stuff? I'll make it easy for you, you don't. You seek this guy out. Unless you don't WANT all the information.

What do you mean by "later"?
Goodell has "later" discovered that an ex-employee may have some evidence. That's why he is going to look into it. This employee isn't claiming that he did the taping. He's claiming that he has evidence of the taping.
And if we're playing the conspiracy game, I wonder why this ex-employee didn't come out until now? If he had this information, why not just blow the lid off this investigation a few months ago?

Why? Is he purposely refusing to be thorough? And you wonder why we think there's a cover up?

Because there was no reason to assume that Walsh basically stole NFL/Patriots property, that's why.

But let's see what Walsh has to reveal. I remain "open."

It's not just fans. It's writers, ex-players, everybody. You think it might have some effect on Belichick's status with the Hall of Fame voters if they believed that he cheated in winning Super Bowl??

I was merely responding to your "feelings" point not who has a right to have such feelings.

And I don't care if you take titles away. I just want the truth.

Fair enough. But if there's nothing to Walsh's allegations, I would think that supports Goodell's claims that he has investigated the matter and the information brought to him was either inconclusive or didn't bring to light anything the league/Goodell didn't already know.

Ha. So Goodell purposely did this to see if the Pats would turn over all of the information? Wow you sure do give him a lot of credit.

The Patriots were responsible for the illegal taping. They are responsible for dealing with it. Goodell gave what he thought was an appropriate punishment. If the Patriots, by their duplicity, get into further trouble, that's on the Patriots, and the organization will be punished accordingly.

Why has it taken 6 months to hear any information about the case if it was "continuing?" Your spinning of your last post hasn't made it any better.

Because Goodell said he has investigated leads, but they didn't produce anything.

Second, isn't not strange to you that this information would break during the Super Bowl?

You're not going to hear much about continuing investigations even in law enforcement. You'll hear about it only when there's a break in the case or when there's some anniversary when the media decides the time element is right.

If the Patriots hadn't made the Super Bowl, I doubt we would have heard this. This story, IMO, was purposely timed for the Super Bowl. And, rightly so, because that's when it would get major, major play.

I'm eagerly awaiting the link that you say proves this... that he planned on continuing the investigation and levying additional punishment if new evidence came out.

I'm searching for it. I remember that's what I heard when I was discussing it in September.

The key word there is that those are for subsequent violations. You said it yourself. These current allegations are prior to the most recent violations. Obviously you can't punish someone for a subsequent violation, or something they're going to do in the future. You fail again.

As if saying I "fail" actually means I "fail."

But I did underline "allegations" because that's the operative word.

The Patriots were punished for violating the league's policy, and that with respect to the NY Jets game. The league caught the Patriots spying during the game. That was enough evidence to penalize the Pats for that violation.

These violations have to do with the Rams walk-through. Though there were rumors that the Pats had taped those walk-throughs, apparently, there was no evidence to support that. But Walsh claims he has evidence.

Or, let me use a legal example. Let's say steal something from a store and were caught on tape doing so. You are convicted for that crime. But let's say, two weeks prior, you murdered someone at the store, but there wasn't sufficient enough evidence to charge you with that crime. It doesn't make any difference whether you were convicted of stealing, if enough evicence exists, you can be charged with murder. And if guilty, you will face a punishment for that crime.

Yeah, tell me again how I've "failed."

Who cares? Legal principles can still apply.

Uh, not in the case of your argument. You were arguing against "phase in" punishment. That's not a legal concept, but it is a non-legal concept.

You used a legal argument which did not apply, counselor.

Again, this is embarrassing for you.

Let me worry about what's embarrassing. I don't need you to adopt shame for me.

Why would you assume that?

Because it validates his claim that for the past six months he has evaluated claims and information but found it inconclusive or no different than what the league already knows.

 

[tyke1doe]

peplaw, our responses and rebuttals are getting so long, I'm going to simply focus on certain points. One of our replies is almost covering an entire page.

 

[tyke1doe]

This is a reasonable theory although neither of us can possibley know for sure the motivation behind the league's decision to destroy the tapes.My only point is that neither entity here has done much of anything to help themselves against the perception that all is not right. In the end, perception is reality. I'm not a conspiracy theorist. Nor do I want the game I have followed forever to be discredited with a cheating scandal that calls past Super Bowl victories in question.I also live in northern New England in what was Giants country until 2001 when the noveau Pat's fans started coming out of the woodwork. I am not one of those guys who covers his butt by having two "favorite" teams but I have found myself rooting for the Pats once the Cowboys were out as they are the local team and I know some long suffering true blue Pats fans and I was happy for them.Having said all that, I was rooting hard for the Giants this Super Bowl simply because of the bad taste this whole season has left in my mouth concerning the Pat's and the way the league handled things.I still feel dirty.

Fair enough.

I receive your concerns in the spirit you've offered them.

 

[tyke1doe]

Is it really so hard to see why some believe that there's a cover up?

First of all, ever since Goodell took office he has operated under the motto of dealing harshly with law breakers and rule breakers. He comes in trying to clean up the game so to speak.

He lays it to all of the criminals and alleged criminals. Pacman, Vick, Tank, Chris Henry, all of em. Then he let Wade Wilson have it.

Then this comes along, something that IMO (and apparently you agree) is a bigger threat to the integrity of the game, and he seems to have taken it easy on them.

It doesn't jibe with his MO. That's where the suspicion comes from.

It's no secret I didn't like the way he handled those prior situations, and then when you add what look like favorable treatment, then it really hits the fan.

And I have no problems with your skepticism. Don't get me wrong. I'm not arguing with you because I don't think you have a right to be suspicious. But I can also understand the reason behind destroying the tapes - not because there was this grand conspiracy to cover-up Spygate but because the tapes shouldn't have existed to begin with, and Goodell was merely taking care of a situation that shouldn't have been.

He has brought a level of scrutiny upon himself (especially with the Wade Wilson punishment which I believe was excessive). But I guess I'm leary of conspiracy theories until proven otherwise. And I can understand why Goodell might want to have those tapes destroyed. That's all I'm saying.

 

[khiladi]

I'm still waiting for the evidence from 6 months ago, that Goodell said the case would still remain open, pending new evidence.

Anything stated after the fact, when the **** hit the fan isn't evidence, but trying to cover yourself.

 

[superpunk]

I'm still waiting for the evidence from 6 months ago, that Goodell said the case would still remain open, pending new evidence.

Anything stated after the fact, when the **** hit the fan isn't evidence, but trying to cover yourself.

It was in a national TV interview immediately after the punishment was handed out. it was on Monday Night Football, I think.

 

[khiladi]

It was in a national TV interview immediately after the punishment was handed out. it was on Monday Night Football, I think.

One of the things I find intriguing is that when SPy-gate originally came to the fore-front, Goodell was so gung-ho about pursuing the matter. The investigation took a measly few days, and Goodell mysteriously disappeared until Specter showed up.

Another point I find interesting is the claim that the tapes were destroyed because of the fear that more of them would be leaked. But the actual leaking happened immediately after the Patriots-Jets game, and had little relevance to when the NFL could have actually secured them.

Also, the NFL claimed that they were aware of the rumors of the taping of the walk-through against the Rams, and that they investigated. And yet, Walsh claims that they never even contacted him. What type of investigation is that, when you don't even contact a member of the video department?

 

[peplaw06]

And I have no problems with your skepticism. Don't get me wrong. I'm not arguing with you because I don't think you have a right to be suspicious. But I can also understand the reason behind destroying the tapes - not because there was this grand conspiracy to cover-up Spygate but because the tapes shouldn't have existed to begin with, and Goodell was merely taking care of a situation that shouldn't have been.

Destruction of evidence material to an "ongoing" investigation is always going to raise scrutiny. No "but"s about it. And rightfully so.

Did Goodell ever explain it like this? I thought he said that he destroyed them because he didn't want them leaked??

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

If he says that he did it, that's not hearsay.

I know it will turn into a "he said, she said" kind of thing, but i think Walsh is going to have instant credibility. The Pats have already been caught taping other teams signals. If Walsh testifies that he taped the Rams or whatever, there's already evidence there that backs him up in a sense.

Let me ask you something Pep... being that this your field....

The evidence was destroyed..... but if it wasnt... couldnt they use this guy to corroborate some, any of it... IF it wasnt destroyed?

 

[peplaw06]

Let me ask you something Pep... being that this your field....

The evidence was destroyed..... but if it wasnt... couldnt they use this guy to corroborate some, any of it... IF it wasnt destroyed?

Yep...

If it wasn't destroyed, they really wouldn't NEED him to corroborate it, but he definitely could.

If ALL of the evidence was destroyed, then that is when his testimony would become more important. I doubt if all the evidence was destroyed, but if it was then he's about as strong of a witness as you can get.