ARTICLE: NFL can blame itself for scandal's timing

[DallasFanSince86]

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.

Agreed

 

[Bob Sacamano]

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.).

wth?

even if you don't contribute to the accident, it's called malicious intent

jailable

 

[Bob Sacamano]

why can't some person 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.

the only person defending the Pats is Nors

 

[tyke1doe]

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.

With all due respect, your conclusions are too simplistic.

First, the NCAA is NOT the NFL.

Second, just because one thinks it wouldn't be appropriate to strip the Pats of a Super Bowl victory does not mean one is a Pats apologist.

But if that's the way you simplify this debate, so be it.

 

[tyke1doe]

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.

First, I find it interesting that you highlighted the term "may." That seems to indicate your uncertainty in how the illegal taping and its effect.

Second, you DO care about precedence, otherwise you wouldn't be arguing that they should be stripped of their victory. You think the precedence should be this: caught cheating, forfeit the game. I'm sorry you can't see that in your counter argument.

Third, I would disagree that logic and morals dictate that someone lose just as I would disagree that logic and morals dictate that a company should forfeit its profits (lose) if an employee lies or cheats on his resume.
The punishment has to fit the crime as much as possible.

But I do agree that logic and morals dicates that someone should be punished for cheating. And that was done.

Fourth, you're comparing individual acts of cheating with a team act in which cheating may not have been the entire focus of the effort. Sorry, it's not that simplistic.

 

[Gangsta Spanksta]

First, I find it interesting that you highlighted the term "may." That seems to indicate your uncertainty in how the illegal taping and its effect.

Second, you DO care about precedence, otherwise you wouldn't be arguing that they should be stripped of their victory. You think the precedence should be this: caught cheating, forfeit the game. I'm sorry you can't see that in your counter argument.

Third, I would disagree that logic and morals dictate that someone lose just as I would disagree that logic and morals dictate that a company should forfeit its profits (lose) if an employee lies or cheats on his resume.
The punishment has to fit the crime as much as possible.

But I do agree that logic and morals dicates that someone should be punished for cheating. And that was done.

Fourth, you're comparing individual acts of cheating with a team act in which cheating may not have been the entire focus of the effort. Sorry, it's not that simplistic.

I asterisked *may* because I wasn't talking about the Jets game, which we know they cheated in. I was talking about the new allegations that the Pats cheated in their Super Bowl against the Rams, which as of yet is unproven. Anyway, the logical link should have been made, considering I was talking about taking the championship away.

Second, I don't believe in precedence in this case. First off, I believe it should be: You cheat, you lose -- as simple as that. Second off, this is not a courtroom setting; things like precedence aren't as important. Third off, even if precedence mattered, someone has to set it at sometime.

Finally, I previously stated there is a difference between an organization cheating and an individual on a team cheating. This is different from individual sports: the reason being is group punishment vs. individual punishment. The question here is about the Patriots organization cheating, not some player on the team taking performance enhancing drugs on his own.

 

[Kangaroo]

I want to add the people that through out about the NCAA taking games away. You realize among fans that is the biggest joke ever. It gets made fun of all the time on sports radio; tv; fans etc etc. Everyone knows going back and ripping the game away years after the fact is a joke.

There is a reason why the NCAA is viewed like it is.

 

[arglebargle]

Geez, much carrying on.

If this super bowl cheating gets proven, then Belicheat gets fired by Kraft, to 'clean the house' and banned by the leaque for x number of years. No wins are taken away (just too messy that, deserved or not). Belicheat becomes the Pete Rose of the NFL.

The Giants winning probably helps this to come about. And no one in the NFL front office wanted this happening during the regular season, so I think they just postponed it til the off season.

Sad thing is, they probably did not need to do it. But hubris will take you down.....

 

[Rack]

You being a reporter (like you claim ) and trying to critique this w/o any knowledge of anything regarding the situation, is comedy.

Please don't come into threads acting the all knowing power? That schtick is getting REALLY old.

And no - you would never come back and apologize, no matter the outcome, like you claim. So please don't even go there.

So do us a favor. Stick to addressing spelling errors and grammar errors of posters on the boards here and leave the national scene to those who may know a bit more.

Thank you.

Dallas

Owned.


Yeah I'm getting tired of his schtick as well. He's . that close to joining the 50 or so members on my ignore list.

 

[Kangaroo]

Owned.


Yeah I'm getting tired of his schtick as well. He's . that close to joining the 50 or so members on my ignore list.

Ok rack just to see if I can get on the ignore list

I rox u suxur

 

[TellerMorrow34]

Man 50 or so huh? And I thought I was being harsh having 2 already.

 

[tyke1doe]

Owned.


Yeah I'm getting tired of his schtick as well. He's . that close to joining the 50 or so members on my ignore list.

Wow, I didn't know it was so easy to own folks now days. I thought slavery was over.

Of course, I didn't mention anything about being a reporter in this thread. But why should I stand in the way of a poster bringing a grudge from one thread to another. Talk about petty.

Oh, and for the record, go ahead and put me on your ignore list. I won't cry. I promise.
If you don't have the restraint and self control to ignore my comments without the help of computer tools and if it so troubles you that someone has a differing opinion than yours, maybe you do need all the help you can get and electronic ignore functions may be your salvation.

 

[TellerMorrow34]

They are mine for the two people whose posts I dont even want to have to bother to skim past.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

oh no, someone brought up the ignore feature

now you've gone too far

 

[tyke1doe]

I asterisked *may* because I wasn't talking about the Jets game, which we know they cheated in. I was talking about the new allegations that the Pats cheated in their Super Bowl against the Rams, which as of yet is unproven. Anyway, the logical link should have been made, considering I was talking about taking the championship away.

Even so, you still are conveying uncertainty about the effects of the taping on the Pats Super Bowl victory over the Rams.

Second, I don't believe in precedence in this case. First off, I believe it should be: You cheat, you lose -- as simple as that.

First, whether you believe it or not, a precedence was set. Even if it were, "you cheat, you lose," then that's the precedent.

Second, you believe it should be "you cheat, you lose." But apparently the Commissioner doesn't. And so here we are.

Second off, this is not a courtroom setting; things like precedence aren't as important.

Uh, setting a precedence isn't merely a legal concept. Any violation that requires a punishment sets a precedence.

So if a player fails the league's drug testing policy and is punished, that becomes a precedence. And that punishment becomes the standard to judge whether subsequent violations are treated in the same manner.

If they are not, and if someone complains, the issue of "fairness" is raised based on the precedent that was set by the initial penalty.

Third off, even if precedence mattered, someone has to set it at sometime.

Yes, and the Commissioner did that with his punishment. And his precedent is this: You get caught violating the league's policy with respect to unauthorized taping, your franchise gets stripped of a draft choice, your coach gets fined, and your owner gets fined.

Finally, I previously stated there is a difference between an organization cheating and an individual on a team cheating. This is different from individual sports: the reason being is group punishment vs. individual punishment. The question here is about the Patriots organization cheating, not some player on the team taking performance enhancing drugs on his own.

I'm sorry, but I don't follow your argument or its conclusion.

 

[tyke1doe]

oh no, someone brought up the ignore feature

now you've gone too far

LOL!

Ooooo, I'm quaking in my shoes.

Please don't put me on ignore. Ppplllleeeaaasseee!

I'll be a good boy and post only opinions that you approve of.

Please don't shun me. Your attention to my posts are ssssooo important I can't stomach the thought that one poster out of the thousands of posters in this community wouldn't read my offerings.



Some of you guys are rich.

P.S. This is not directed at you, Bob.

I owe, I owe so off to ignore I go.

 

[Rack]

Ok rack just to see if I can get on the ignore list

I rox u suxur

:blind:

 

[5Stars]

Let's see here. A few days ago someone told the police that I had drugs in my house. The police came and asked me to give them all the drugs I had. I had coke, weed, crank, pills, speed, tons of the stuff!

So to satisfy the police I gave them all I had! 4 weed seeds and 2 old valium pills that I got 8 years ago.

They were satisfied and just gave me a misdeameaner ticket that I paid $50.00 and I was exonerated.

I am so like Belichick! (I even gained an unfair advantage from the dealer down the corner and around the block)...