ARTICLE: NFL can blame itself for scandal's timing

[VietCowboy]

I cut the brake lines on somebody's car. They crashed into a tree and died. I don't think I should go to jail for murder because you can't prove that the lack of brakes caused the accident. They could have gotten into an accident either way. There are a lot of factors that go into driving (awareness, spatial logic, coordination, etc.).

why can't some people who defend the patriots can't explain why videotape if there's no advantage? why...?

Why would I risk bringing in a cheat sheet to a test when I know that cheat sheet isn't going to help gain an advantage?! that's dumb, and if anything, we all know billicheat is no dummy.

 

[Kangaroo]

I guess we just looking at cheating in different ways.

The way I look at it if you cheat on your tax's its considered stealing for monitory gains and you can go to jail for that.

If you cheat to win the biggest gain on earth you actually get 2 types of monitory games.

1st and formost the winners share (which is more than the losers share) of the Super bowl winnings and secondly gained endorcements, which would be harder to prove unless their is a guarantee, like the old "I'm going to Disneyworld" ads.

Remember that civil lawsuits are different than criminal, I'm not an expert but I think it has to do with only proving 51% vs beyond reasonable doubt, but there are plenty of lawyers here who I hope can clear that up

This is still not the black socks nothing the Patriots did was something that could destroy a game because it still did not guarantee the outcome of the game. This was not fixing a game (al;a wrestling) which is the core of football; baseball etc.

The Patriots tried to get an advantage and unfair one at that. That is not even close to the same thing even with the cheat sheet the outcome was not guaranteed they win. Did they gain and edge yes but this is not something that oh my all of football is going to collapse because of this. Fixing games can cause that this in no way would cause that.

Was it wrong and should they be reprimanded for it yes but please this is on the same levels of kickers who use to microwave balls

 

[Gangsta Spanksta]

But the question then comes, isn't the punishment the Pats received sending the same message that cheating will not be tolerated?

I think that message can be accomplished by other means then taking a victory away from the Pats.

That's our disagreement here, not that I condone cheating. But, rather, I'm not certain whether it - in and of itself - resulted in a win.

And when you talk about stripping a victory from a team, particularly a Super Bowl victory, then you have to have some very, very strong evidence.

But if that happens, which I doubt it will, I'll say I was wrong.

Perhaps that's the problem: you worried about what message to send. This wouldn't be about any message, if true; it would be about rectifying a wrong. You also have the argument backwards. Whether the pats should have their Super Bowl victory taken back has nothing to do with whether it is possible to prove that cheating was the sole factor for them winning. It should be up to the patriots to prove that they would have won the super bowl despite cheating, and then it is even questionable if that matters. I think it should be when a football organization -- not a player -- conspires to cheat, then the game this conspiracy took place should be forfeit.

 

[tyke1doe]

Perhaps that's the problem: you worried about what message to send. This wouldn't be about any message, if true; it would be about rectifying a wrong.

With all due respect, this makes no sense.

When you rectify a wrong, you are inherently sending a message.

Second, I'm not worried about the message. All I'm saying is that you can still punish the Patriots without stripping them of a win. That still sends a message that cheating will not be tolerated.

You also have the argument backwards. Whether the pats should have their Super Bowl victory taken back has nothing to do with whether it is possible to prove that cheating was the sole factor for them winning. It should be up to the patriots to prove that they would have won the super bowl despite cheating, and then it is even questionable if that matters.

Again, with all due respect, that makes little sense either. How can the Patriots prove they would have won the Super Bowl sans cheating?

They can't. So that's really irrelevant.

I think it should be when a football organization -- not a player -- conspires to cheat, then the game this conspiracy took place should be forfeit.

And if that's the case, then maybe a policy needs to be established to state that. But I doubt it would for the very reasons I've articulated. If it were so cut-and-dry, then it would be policy, i.e., you cheat, you forfeit the game.
But I doubt that's going to occur because it still has to be determined how cheating "benefits" in such a way that ensures a victory. And that is more difficult to do.

Now, if from this the NFL establishes a policy that if a team cheats, it forfeits a game, I wouldn't have a problem with that because the policy is clearly stated beforehand, and a team(s) would be aware of the consequence of violating said policy.

But that's different than making an assessment or argument that cheating itself resulted in winning, which seems to be the implication behind opinions that the Pats should have their Super Bowl victories voided.

 

[burmafrd]

Some of you are missing a very salient point: THE PATS WERE CAUGHT CHEATING. So from THAT POINT ON the burden of proof is THEIRS to show that they did not cheat or benefit from that cheating. THERE IS NO reasonable doubt or presumption of innocence. THEY already have lost that.
So Tyke and the rest of the Patsy's apologists need to realize that they are already behind the 8 ball.

 

[tyke1doe]

Some of you are missing a very salient point: THE PATS WERE CAUGHT CHEATING. So from THAT POINT ON the burden of proof is THEIRS to show that they did not cheat or benefit from that cheating. THERE IS NO reasonable doubt or presumption of innocence. THEY already have lost that.
So Tyke and the rest of the Patsy's apologists need to realize that they are already behind the 8 ball.

It's probably not a good idea to bring legal terms into this discussion, particularly if you're going to misapply those terms. (I think someone once told me that.)

First, no one has missed the salient point that you suggest they have. There is NO DISPUTE that the Patriots cheated. No dispute. So let's jettison that straw man.

Second, the burden of proof standard has already been reached. The tapes prove that the Patriots cheated. That is the evidence. Without the evidence, the burden of proof would rest with the league and the Patriots' accusers.

Third, there is a difference between a guilty verdict and a sentencing. Burden of proof is a standard one uses when one is trying to determine whether one is guilty or not guilty. But we've already established that. The Pats are guilty.
Now, we are at the sentencing phase. And reasonable doubt doesn't enter into the discussion, and it's quite the misappropriation of terminology to say that the Patriots need to prove that they didn't benefit from cheating, as if they could.

But in a sentencing hearing, what you're trying to do is determine the extent of the punishment. And in determining punishment, you take into consideration a multitude of factors.

And that's where we are.

Some say the Patriots should forfeit their Super Bowls. Some say the Patriots shouldn't forfeit their Super Bowls.

And that hasn't been decided, so I'm not hardly behind the eight ball. But I know it sounds good to suggest that those who have a different opinion of this issue are Patsy's apologists. That line gets great mileage.

 

[VietCowboy]

regardless of whether cheating helped the patriots, they tried to gain an unfair advantage. let's give a pretty good example from academic cheating which I will prove the link.

first off, can we ALL agree that people lie on resumes? Yes? okay, maybe not an outright lie, but fudging the truth. some, even outright lie about their work experiences and educational background to GAIN AN UNFAIR ADVANTAGE. who is to say that after getting the job that those LIES on the RESUME was what had gotten the applicant the job?

Now, let's say they got the job. Years later, they've been found out. Let's look up "lied resume" on google news: http://news.google.com/archivesearch?hl=en&q=lied+resume&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tab=wn

look at how many resignations and firings occurred after someone was exposed for lying.

In fact, one of the most successful college admission dean of MIT was founded to have lied on her resume 28 years after getting the job: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/26/AR2007042602333.html

she quit, even though she was proved to be highly competent in her position.

so I say to you....if the Pats cheated in the Superbowl, why shouldn't they give up their title or have that title stripped? If they cheated in a game, why should they give up that game, or have that game stripped from them?

 

[YosemiteSam]

Footnote: The Giants held a final walk-through for Super Bowl XLII on Saturday, but the Patriots did not.

Thats the difference between winning and losing. ...unless your walk through is taped.

 

[YosemiteSam]

regardless of whether cheating helped the patriots, they tried to gain an unfair advantage. let's give a pretty good example from academic cheating which I will prove the link.

first off, can we ALL agree that people lie on resumes? Yes? okay, maybe not an outright lie, but fudging the truth. some, even outright lie about their work experiences and educational background to GAIN AN UNFAIR ADVANTAGE. who is to say that after getting the job that those LIES on the RESUME was what had gotten the applicant the job?

Now, let's say they got the job. Years later, they've been found out. Let's look up "lied resume" on google news: http://news.google.com/archivesearch?hl=en&q=lied+resume&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tab=wn

look at how many resignations and firings occurred after someone was exposed for lying.

In fact, one of the most successful college admission dean of MIT was founded to have lied on her resume 28 years after getting the job: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/26/AR2007042602333.html

she quit, even though she was proved to be highly competent in her position.

so I say to you....if the Pats cheated in the Superbowl, why shouldn't they give up their title or have that title stripped? If they cheated in a game, why should they give up that game, or have that game stripped from them?

I hear ya and am with ya.

 

[tyke1doe]

regardless of whether cheating helped the patriots, they tried to gain an unfair advantage. let's give a pretty good example from academic cheating which I will prove the link.

first off, can we ALL agree that people lie on resumes? Yes? okay, maybe not an outright lie, but fudging the truth. some, even outright lie about their work experiences and educational background to GAIN AN UNFAIR ADVANTAGE. who is to say that after getting the job that those LIES on the RESUME was what had gotten the applicant the job?

Now, let's say they got the job. Years later, they've been found out. Let's look up "lied resume" on google news: http://news.google.com/archivesearch?hl=en&q=lied+resume&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tab=wn

look at how many resignations and firings occurred after someone was exposed for lying.

In fact, one of the most successful college admission dean of MIT was founded to have lied on her resume 28 years after getting the job: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/26/AR2007042602333.html

she quit, even though she was proved to be highly competent in her position.

so I say to you....if the Pats cheated in the Superbowl, why shouldn't they give up their title or have that title stripped? If they cheated in a game, why should they give up that game, or have that game stripped from them?

Good question, and I'll try to answer.

Lying on resumes has become such an issue that the accepted penalty in the industry is that a person generally either resigns or is fired. That has become the accepted way to deal with such an issue.

Lying on resume is nothing new, however. It has been a historic problem, and many people have gotten away with it. But the reason why it's treated so severely is because it's done so often, and the widespread questions about unethical business practices also demand such a punishment.

Here, we're talking about a precedent issue, i.e., a team cheating by taping games. There is no "industry" standard to judge that because it has never occurred previously.

Now, if the league from this point on establishes a standard that if you cheat, then you forfeit a game, then I have no problems with that.

Second, you can't compare an individual to a team. If we were to use a straight apple-to-apple comparison, we would say that because a job candidate lied on his resume and was later discovered, then the company he worked for should forfeit all profits it gained during his tenure. But that would be silly wouldn't it? The profits of that company are dependent on other factors beyond the lying of that employee on his resume. Hence, the employee is punished not the entire company, though, in some ways the company does suffer by having to go through the process of replacing an employee.

Similarly, it would be a bit far-fetched, IMO, to say because a coach cheated and cued his players on signals of the other team (which coaches do only legally now) the entire team should forfeit a win. There are too many other factors that contribute to the success of a team and whether that team wins a game. It's just too complicated to pinpoint.

In this particular case, Belichick was punished by a $250,000/$500,000 fine.

Now if you are advocating that Belichick should have been suspended, I have no problems with that argument. I think he should have been suspended.

That would have been a more apt individual-to-individual comparison.

 

[visionary]

But you can't strip them of the win because there's no way to prove that by taping they won the game.

Furthermore, the portion alleged to have been taped - the Rams walk through of their red zone plays - had nothing to do with the last minute drive executed by Brady and the Pats, which led to the last-minute field goal.

I have to disagree with the logic of these statements and will make a couple of points:

1. if someone is caught cheating during an exam, the onus is not on the authorities to show that the specific way in which they were cheating would have impacted the exam, the onus is on the test taker to show that it did not. cheating is cheating, you have to retake the exam. the pats were caught cheating during the jets game, they should have had to forfeit that game and should have been 0-1 to start the season.

2. the other argument people often use is that the patriots are great anyway, how much impact could the cheating have had. this is a perfect example of flawed circular logic. first of all we dont know for how long they have been cheating so this may have affected their performance from the beginning, secondly (again going back to the exam analogy) just because someone usually comes first does not mean that they should not be punished for current transgressions. it does not matter if you are supposedly much better than the other competitors or that you would have come first anyway, what matters is that you were cheating to get there and should be made to suffer the consequences, to forfeit the current exam and be made to take the exam again under controlled circumstances where it is ensured that you cannot cheat. this is because if you cheat that erodes the sanctity and integrity of the whole process and other people involved in the process (who are trying to do things the right way) suffer.

3. also, no matter how good we believe they were/are, if the patriots were cheating that in itself implies that they themselves did not believe they were better or they would not have had to resort to cheating.

4. you could also argue that once the scrutiny is in place (ie this super bowl) the pats failed. they lost to a much "inferior" opponent. was it because they were unable to cheat this time around?

5. it is also coming out that the people who supposedly did the investigation (the NFL commisioners office) did a poor and incomplete job.

all valid questons that should not be brushed under the rug as if "nothing" happened if the integrity of the game is to be restored.

let the evidence come out and the chips fall where they may.
Full disclosure, that is what I would advocate

Sorry for the long post.

just my .02

 

[tyke1doe]

I have to disagree with the logic of these statements and will make a couple of points:

1. if someone is caught cheating during an exam, the onus is not on the authorities to show that the specific way in which they were cheating would have impacted the exam, the onus is on the test taker to show that it did not. cheating is cheating, you have to retake the exam. the pats were caught cheating during the jets game, they should have had to forfeit that game and should have been 0-1 to start the season.

You just introduced a problem in your own argument.

You can retake an exam. You can't replay the Super Bowl.

There are just different dynamics involved in the two scenarios. And that's why simplistic solutions are problematic.

Second, cheating is cheating, true. But all penalties are not the same.

Let me use a very crude analogy. Killing is killing. But we don't view all killing the same way. We look at them different based on the context and assign punishments accordingly.

2. the other argument people often use is that the patriots are great anyway, how much impact could the cheating have had. this is a perfect example of flawed circular logic. first of all we dont know for how long they have been cheating so this may have affected their performance from the beginning,

Right. And because we don't know we can't say that definitely. Therefore, you can't, IMO, strip them of the victory because you don't know whether the cheating resulted in that victory.

secondly (again going back to the exam analogy) just because someone usually comes first does not mean that they should not be punished for current transgressions.

Please, people. No one is arguing that the Pats shouldn't have been punished for cheating. They were.

it does not matter if you are supposedly much better than the other competitors or that you would have come first anyway, what matters is that you were cheating to get there and should be made to suffer the consequences,

I agree. They should have been punished for cheating, regardless whether it can be proven that it benefited them or not. Correct.

to forfeit the current exam and be made to take the exam again under controlled circumstances where it is ensured that you cannot cheat. this is because if you cheat that erodes the sanctity and integrity of the whole process and other people involved in the process (who are trying to do things the right way) suffer.

But since there's no way to do that (because we don't possess the ability to go back in time and re-create the same exact dynamics) then that's not a reasonable solution.

3. also, no matter how good we believe they were/are, if the patriots were cheating that in itself implies that they themselves did not believe they were better or they would not have had to resort to cheating.

I don't think it necessarily says that. Remember, taping signals isn't illegal. It's when and where you tape them. And as we've already discovered many teams do it. So I wouldn't say that those who cheated didn't believe they were better. They probably are just trying to gain an advantage and be overly prepared. It could suggest that also.

4. you could also argue that once the scrutiny is in place (ie this super bowl) the pats failed. they lost to a much "inferior" opponent. was it because they were unable to cheat this time around?

I wouldn't call the Giants and inferior opponent. The Giants, down the stretch, beat the three teams with the best records in the NFL - Dallas, Green Bay and New England. They proved to be the best team down the stretch.

all valid questons that should not be brushed under the rug as "nothing" if the integrity of the game is to be restored.

I think the integrity of the game is still intact because of the punishment issued and because we have no knowledge that this is continuing either with the Patriots or other teams.

let the evidence come out and the chips fall where they may.
Full disclosure, that is what I would advocate

Well, that's where this appears to be going.

Sorry for the long post.

just my .02

No need to apologize, my friend. We all have been blessed with an ability to type.

 

[visionary]

You just introduced a problem in your own argument.

You can retake an exam. You can't replay the Super Bowl.

There are just different dynamics involved in the two scenarios. And that's why simplistic solutions are problematic.

Second, cheating is cheating, true. But all penalties are not the same.

Let me use a very crude analogy. Killing is killing. But we don't view all killing the same way. We look at them different based on the context and assign punishments accordingly.



Right. And because we don't know we can't say that definitely. Therefore, you can't, IMO, strip them of the victory because you don't know whether the cheating resulted in that victory.



Please, people. No one is arguing that the Pats shouldn't have been punished for cheating. They were.



I agree. They should have been punished for cheating, regardless whether it can be proven that it benefited them or not. Correct.




But since there's no way to do that (because we don't possess the ability to go back in time and re-create the same exact dynamics) then that's not a reasonable solution.



I don't think it necessarily says that. Remember, taping signals isn't illegal. It's when and where you tape them. And as we've already discovered many teams do it. So I wouldn't say that those who cheated didn't believe they were better. They probably are just trying to gain an advantage and be overly prepared. It could suggest that also.



I wouldn't call the Giants and inferior opponent. The Giants, down the stretch, beat the three teams with the best records in the NFL - Dallas, Green Bay and New England. They proved to be the best team down the stretch.



I think the integrity of the game is still intact because of the punishment issued and because we have no knowledge that this is continuing either with the Patriots or other teams.



Well, that's where this appears to be going.



No need to apologize, my friend. We all have been blessed with an ability to type.

i appreciate your comments and think there are valid arguments both ways.
that is why my stance is that a competent and impartial body should investigate this thoroughly and then a more rational decision based on facts can be made.

 

[tyke1doe]

i appreciate your comments and think there are valid arguments both ways.
that is why my stance is that a competent and impartial body should investigate this thoroughly and then a more rational decision based on facts can be made.

Fair enough.

And thank you for understanding that people can have differing opinions on this without dismissing the other person's logic (which I am guilty of doing).

Props to you.

 

[Scotman]

why can't some people who defend the patriots can't explain why videotape if there's no advantage? why...?

Why would I risk bringing in a cheat sheet to a test when I know that cheat sheet isn't going to help gain an advantage?! that's dumb, and if anything, we all know billicheat is no dummy.

But what if the Judge/Jury investigating the accident access a stiff punishment, do not reveal the evidence and then burn the car so that no further investigations may occur.

Edited to add this: Sorry VietCowboy...I quoted the wrong response. See, I had a clever response but not enough smarts to even click on the one I was trying to poke fun at.

 

[VietCowboy]

But what if the Judge/Jury investigating the accident access a stiff punishment, do not reveal the evidence and then burn the car so that no further investigations may occur.

if that is the case, then the party levied the punishment could and should appeal. at the appeal, with no evidence, the punishment/verdict should be overturn. the fact that the Pats accepted their punishment is telling.

 

[burmafrd]

Tyke, you have been arguing the Pats side in virtually every single post- so frankly you ARE a Pats apologist.
Glad to see that you agree the pats cheated and had been cheating for a while.
The NCAA takes away every game a ineligible player appeared in from that teams win column.
So there is precedent there to take away the Pats SB wins.
Frankly what should happen is that the Commish says" Unless you can prove that your cheating did not effect the games, you will be stripped of them"
Then its up to the Pats to prove otherwise. That seems fair to me.

 

[superpunk]

Frankly what should happen is that the Commish says" Unless you can prove that your cheating did not effect the games, you will be stripped of them"
Then its up to the Pats to prove otherwise. That seems fair to me.

Actually, that's not a bad idea. The Pats are in the wrong. The burden of proof should fall on them.

They can't change the result of the super bowls though. It would have to be....New England won, but we're pretending like the game never happened, and they don't get any trophies. That's not fair to the Rams, Eagles and Panthers, though. Or any of the teams that the Pats narrowly beat to get into the super bowl, like the Raiders, Colts, and others.

 

[Gangsta Spanksta]

With all due respect, this makes no sense.

When you rectify a wrong, you are inherently sending a message.

It makes a lot of sense. It has everything to do with rectifying a wrong, and nothing to do with sending a message. I don't see why you are so hung up on the message. If someone gets millions in court from a drunk driver that crippled them, it would be about rectifying a wrong, not the message it sends.

Second, I'm not worried about the message. All I'm saying is that you can still punish the Patriots without stripping them of a win. That still sends a message that cheating will not be tolerated.

No the message *that* is sending is: you can get a ring with cheating, as long as you pay some sort of price for it. Someone might way the pro and the cons and decide the ring maybe worth the penalty.

Again, with all due respect, that makes little sense either. How can the Patriots prove they would have won the Super Bowl sans cheating?
They can't. So that's really irrelevant.

Again, it makes a lot of sense, and to disqualify it because of a cheater's inability to prove how little damage his cheating did is ludicrous. Who F'ing cares what the Patriots would be able to prove, if they cheated? That's why you shouldn't do it in the first place.

And if that's the case, then maybe a policy needs to be established to state that. But I doubt it would for the very reasons I've articulated. If it were so cut-and-dry, then it would be policy, i.e., you cheat, you forfeit the game.
But I doubt that's going to occur because it still has to be determined how cheating "benefits" in such a way that ensures a victory. And that is more difficult to do.

People got banned from Baseball just for hanging around known gamblers. This argument is stupid. This is as if someone cheated playing monopoly, and gets caught after he wins. By your argument, he still should be the winner, unless the other players can prove that he wouldn't have won, if he wasn't cheating. You cheat, you should be ready to pay the ultimate price. Period.

 

[Gangsta Spanksta]

Here, we're talking about a precedent issue, i.e., a team cheating by taping games. There is no "industry" standard to judge that because it has never occurred previously.

I think you are always focusing in on the wrong things. What message does this send? What is the precedent here? I say who cares to both of those question. The message and the precedence are not the most important things. What is important is that what the patriots *may* have done *may* have cost someone the super bowl. This is a wrong that has to would need be justified. Who cares if it is unknown if the patriots may have won anyway? Who's fault is it that we will never know? The patriots created that unknown. But I don't even see why you would care if they may have won anyway. I don't see why that is important. Logic and Morales dictated that if someone is caught cheating in a game, they should automatically be the losers. Do you let someone stay the winner of a poker game, after it is discovered he had one card up he sleeves? How do we know if taking steroids made that running win the olympics? Why even bother thinking up the fact that someone may have won without the cheating that they did? You cheat, you lose; that's good enough for me.