FWST LBOH: Media gives cheating Patriots a break

[Doomsday101]

Not at all, I was just pointing how how ludicrous it is to claim that it's ok they cheated and got caught based on a claim that others are doing it. My 11 year old uses that all the time.

And worse, they are now mad at the people who claim they actually cheated and got caught. Uh, you cheated and got caught, remember?

I agree and as I said I think the punishment should have been more however I don't think what they did had anything to do with the remainder of their season the 15 other game and playoff games. As for mad I don't think the Pats care after all there is nothing they can ever say or do to change some people’s minds.

 

[tyke1doe]

You can't, because they destroyed the 'evidence'. How is that so hard to comprehend?

Your whole argument is predicated on a fundamental logical flaw, and that is:

The NFL punished the Patriots fairly.

Isn't that what the article is questioning?

How can you prove the NFL punished the Patriots fairly? You can't.... Because the tapes are burned. So when you say:



Your just being incredibly foolish.

First, the correct word is "you're" as in "you are just being incredibly foolish."

Second, no, I'm not being incredibly foolish.

I'll explain:

"Fairness" in almost any issue involving justice and punishment will be questioned. To suggest that it's a "fundamental logical flaw" to argue this without determining fairness is to invalidate any system of justice which assigns punishment, because all people don't agree on what "fairness" is.

So we have to evaluate the situation based on:
a.) precedence
b.) actual impact

a.) There is no precedence to compare this situation to, so we can't say that it's "unfair" based on any similar situation.
b.) actual impact. It can't be known what the actual impact Spygate had on the Pats victories. We could say that it gave them an "unfair advantage" but how do you quantify that into wins and losses? You can't. And, really, "unfair advantage" only matters if the Pats won. If they lost, it didn't create that much of an "unfair advantage" to help them.

We don't have any situations that we compare this situation to to determine whether the punishment was "fair." We can merely speculate or offer our opinions.

So what Godell did is that he assigned a penalty to the Patriots, namely stripping the team of a 1st round draft pick.

Now, he could have also suspended Belichick. And maybe he should have, for one game. I'll buy that.

But what does examining the other tapes do, practically?

Does it help the league determine how extensive the practice was?
No, because the league knows the Pats had a library of tapes on other teams. That information was already known.

Does it help the league determine whether the Pats would have won or loss with that knowledge? No, because that can't be known.

Will it allow the league to invalidate the Pats wins in the past? No, because that too can't be determined.

Now, what is accomplished by destroying the tapes?

1.) It sends a clear message that this will not be tolerated.
2.) It sends a clear message that if you indeed use these past tapes, you will be in violation of the league's clear mandate.
3.) It prevents the Pats from using existing film to evaluate other teams. And if they do use copied tapes, they will be in direct violation of the league's order.

I'm sorry, but I have yet to see anyone make a clear and reasonable argument as to why the league should not have ordered the tapes destroyed.

I see a bunch of what ifs, but that's all.

 

[tyke1doe]

Its a shame really.... we dont know the full extent of the cheating... how much of a competitive advantage they gained?

What we do know is.... when it came down to it... in the SB.... when the result of the game was in the balance they won by THREE points in each SB.

Would you say the slightest competitive advantage gained by cheating could have been the difference in winning or losing in SB?

I would say there is a real good argument for it. There is no denying that it is at least arguable.

But if you're going to punish someone further, you have to have more than "a real good argument." You have to have evidence.

The evidence, in this case, is that the Pats violated a clear directive of the league not to videotape games. And they were punished accordingly.

 

[tyke1doe]

Yes dear, I cheated on you with my secretary. But everyone does that, so it's ok.

What a country!

Wow.

I'm always amazed at the logic that is displayed here. Comparing signal-stealing (which the league allows, by the way, just not via video camera) with adultery and murder.

And, please, let's stick to the topic.

No one said that cheating was right. Nice, straw man.

We're talking about punishment, and posters calling for the Pats to be punished more severely because they cheated.

Or to use your analogy, I guess we should give the death penalty to the man who cheated on his secretary or lock him up for 10 years.

Yes, what a country.

 

[tyke1doe]

So what the Pats did compares to killing and now cheating on a wife? Do you people even know what the Pats were found guilty of? :laugh2:

At least some people have sense around here.

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

But if you're going to punish someone further, you have to have more than "a real good argument." You have to have evidence.

The evidence, in this case, is that the Pats violated a clear directive of the league not to videotape games. And they were punished accordingly.

Evidence??

We talkn bout evidence? Evidence??

Evidence??

You mean like the evidence that was destroyed?



The argument goes.....you nor I can know how much they gained by cheating... you dont what they used in the Jets game or in the past.

Caught cheating should mean you forfeit the game. Period.

 

[tyke1doe]

And let me ask a question, and I know we cannot really answer it, but give your honest opinion.

If the Cowboys had been caught cheating in the exact same way, do you think the penalty would have been the same, the league would have destroyed all the evidence and the media would have already forgotten it?

Who the heck knows?

But what does that have to do with anything?

We don't know what the league would have done because there is no precedence in this situation.

And please stop saying that the media has already forgotten it. Spygate has been a topic of discussion throughout the season, and I guarantee you it will be one of the angles mentioned during Media Week.

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

Who the heck knows?

But what does that have to do with anything?

We don't know what the league would have done because there is no precedence in this situation.

And please stop saying that the media has already forgotten it. Spygate has been a topic of discussion throughout the season, and I guarantee you it will be one of the angles mentioned during Media Week.

Yeah its been a topic of discussion on how the Patriots are dealing with it and using it for motivation.... how they are being portrayed as victims....

You hit the nail on the head with that one.

 

[tyke1doe]

Evidence??

We talkn bout evidence? Evidence??

Evidence??

You mean like the evidence that was destroyed?



The argument goes.....you nor I can know how much they gained by cheating... you dont what they used in the Jets game or in the past.

Caught cheating should mean you forfeit the game. Period.

According to whose standard? Yours? The league's?

Where does it say in the NFL rule book that if you're caught cheating/videotaping a team's signal you forfeit the game?
Where in the NFL rule book has this been addressed, violation and penalty?

You're merely giving your opinion. I guess adding PERIOD somehow makes it more official.

"you nor I can know how much they gained by cheating"

Exactly, which it's stupid to make a big deal about destroying evidence.
Evidence is used to arrive at a particular conclusion. The tapes, themselves, were evidence that the Pats cheated. They were punished because they violated a written order by Godell not to do so.

Everything before that time, is irrelevant because any ambiguity about the league's policy - which might have been argued previously - was cleared up when Godell sends word to all 32 teams that videotaping will not be allowed.

 

[tyke1doe]

Yeah its been a topic of discussion on how the Patriots are dealing with it and using it for motivation.... how they are being portrayed as victims....

You hit the nail on the head with that one.

I guess you haven't heard Ditka or Tom Jackson or Emmitt Smith chime in on the issue throughout the season.

Second, no one is portraying the Pats as victims. That's even laughable to suggest.

Third, the scandal has nothing to do with the Patriots now because they haven't benefited from the practice - as much as we can tell - since that time.

But keep trying. One of your arguments may gain some traction.

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

According to whose standard? Yours? The league's?

Marion Jones - cheater = lost gold medal
Boxers - take steroids = lost their decision and/or title

THATS the way it should be. (I capitalized the word for you )

Just because the entire sportsworld hasnt adopted something like this yet.... doesnt mean it wont... doesnt mean it shoudnt.

That game should have been a no contest. They should not have been awarded a win in a game they were caught cheating in. 25 mins into their game they were tied at 7-7. Pats go up 14-7 right before half. Game was close.

But keep trying. One of your arguments may gain some traction.

Am I to assume that you think your argument holds more water than the contrary? tsk tsk

 

[EPL0c0]

I never understood this either. They were caught cheating. It takes the league weeks to decide on all kinds of other league problems but the whole cheatgate was rapped up in 10 days? Just never sat right with me.

I bet that if Philips had been caught doing the same thing that it would be a story every weekend of the season.

Just doesn't seem right.

on-field cheating is the worse thing you could do. IT's worse than any off-the-field crap, even rape and murder b/c thats' personal to the player involved...this involved a team, the league. league officials and its fans.

I still think Bilicheck and the organization got off light (especially compared to Wade Wilson). They should have had ALL 2007 picks taken away (including those traded for). But, that's Goodell's legacy...a legacy of being soft on cheating.

 

[superpunk]

But, that's Goodell's legacy...a legacy of being soft on cheating.

Well, yeah.

Unless you're a QB coach with a weak willy.

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

on-field cheating is the worse thing you could do. IT's worse than any off-the-field crap, even rape and murder b/c thats' personal to the player involved...this involved a team, the league. league officials and its fans.

I still think Bilicheck and the organization got off light (especially compared to Wade Wilson). They should have had ALL 2007 picks taken away (including those traded for). But, that's Goodell's legacy...a legacy of being soft on cheating.

Yeah Belichick should have been suspended for compromising the integrity of the game. Maybe they lose a game without the coach?

If this would have happened to a team that didnt have the recent history of success that they have had then he would have been suspended. Mangini should have protested the game.

 

[peplaw06]

But if you're going to punish someone further, you have to have more than "a real good argument." You have to have evidence.

The evidence, in this case, is that the Pats violated a clear directive of the league not to videotape games. And they were punished accordingly.

Tyke... I'm sure you know this, but sounds like you need to be reminded.

There's this thing called "circumstantial evidence." It's when you can't really get direct evidence or proof, but you surmise it from the...... wait for it.....

circumstances... (hence the name )

Now, let's play out an analogy that has already been touched on in this thread.

Barry Bonds under suspicion that steroids aided him in his assault on the home run record. Back in 2001, let's say there was a blood test taken on Barry Bonds. That blood test could tell us all we need to know about whether Barry was on enough steroids to kill a horse or not.

That blood test was sent to the MLB offices for review.... and was destroyed. Bonds was subsequently punished, being suspended for 10 games.

Now, what do you think that blood test revealed to the league? Why was it destroyed?

Sometimes you can't have direct evidence of every little thing. Take an affair for example... usually only two people can prove that it happened. Or Roger Clemens for that matter. That's when you have to look at circumstantial evidence. And the legal world couldn't operate without the existence of circumstantial evidence.

Calling people conspiracy theorists (aka... nuts) if they believe that Bonds tests were positive for steroids, or that the tapes that the Pats had were evidence of cheating, after they were destroyed is naive at best.

 

[khiladi]

First, the correct word is "you're" as in "you are just being incredibly foolish."

Second, no, I'm not being incredibly foolish.

I'll explain:

"Fairness" in almost any issue involving justice and punishment will be questioned. To suggest that it's a "fundamental logical flaw" to argue this without determining fairness is to invalidate any system of justice which assigns punishment, because all people don't agree on what "fairness" is.

So then, they have no need to burn the tapes, because whatever they rule is 'fair'....

Yes, your logic is flawed, because you are arguing from the perspective of the absolute sovereignity of the one making the ruling, i.e. he is above the law of evidence. There is a system of checks-and-balances employed in all legal proceedings to protect against an abuse of power by those who are in charge of making the rules and judging the cases. If fairness was subjective, than why would the checks-and-balances be in place regarding judicial proceedings?

You are essentially arguing that the NFL cannot be judged for 'fairness', because they define what fairness is. They have absolutely no accountability to the evidence, when they stamp their judgements on teams and players. That is dictatorship, not justice.

No legal system ever burns the evidence that was used to convict a person. By allowing for the burning of evidence, one has eliminated the checks-and-balances that can prevent the mis-application of justice. One has absolutely no way of ensurity the integrity of the court-proceedings when the evidence is burned WHy do you think state officials can over-turn rulings of certain judges in specific situations? Why do you think their is an appeal in the judicial system? Do you think they do it on whim or evidence?

What you have essentially said is that the NFL can rule however they want because fair is being subjective... they define what fair is, and they don't have to answer to the evidence... they can just burn it...

If a team cheats in a game, knows the plays being called, then that affects the integrity of the game as a whole. The play isn't limited to one player testing positive for HGH, but it extends to every single player on the field. You would know where the holes are in their zones, where a team plans on sending an extra man in on a blitz, if they are going to press and slide a LB over to help, and so on...

 

[khiladi]

Tyke... I'm sure you know this, but sounds like you need to be reminded.

There's this thing called "circumstantial evidence." It's when you can't really get direct evidence or proof, but you surmise it from the...... wait for it.....

circumstances... (hence the name )

Now, let's play out an analogy that has already been touched on in this thread.

Barry Bonds under suspicion that steroids aided him in his assault on the home run record. Back in 2001, let's say there was a blood test taken on Barry Bonds. That blood test could tell us all we need to know about whether Barry was on enough steroids to kill a horse or not.

That blood test was sent to the MLB offices for review.... and was destroyed. Bonds was subsequently punished, being suspended for 10 games.

Now, what do you think that blood test revealed to the league? Why was it destroyed?

Sometimes you can't have direct evidence of every little thing. Take an affair for example... usually only two people can prove that it happened. Or Roger Clemens for that matter. That's when you have to look at circumstantial evidence. And the legal world couldn't operate without the existence of circumstantial evidence.

Calling people conspiracy theorists (aka... nuts) if they believe that Bonds tests were positive for steroids, or that the tapes that the Pats had were evidence of cheating, after they were destroyed is naive at best.

 

[SultanOfSix]

What's your point tyke?

I'm not going to answer every invented argument that you came up with because they're all irrrelevant.

The Pats cheated. Cheating implies gaining an "unfair" advantage against the competition in their pursued goal. In the NFL, that is winning games. No one can prove that cheating helped the Pats win games now. That would require them to go over all of their games played over a period of multiple years, analyze every play with knowledge of the signals they had due to the videotapes and come to a conclusion. That would take several months, let alone less than a week than it took for them to hand over all of the materials and have it destroyed. So, how am I going to prove that video taping signals allowed them to win games when the evidence has been destroyed and I don't have access to the materials?

Are you really this silly?

 

[ScipioCowboy]

And because it can't be proven. You can't prove any of what you've said and even if they were videotaping other teams' signals, you still have to execute. And there's no direct-correlation that you can prove that the videotaping, per se, resulted in a win.

You're missing the larger issue. The extent to which videotaping signals impacts a game's outcome is completely secondary.

The overriding issue here is that Belichik knowingly and willfully cheated. This point is not debatable. It's well-documented and undeniable.

Belichik blantantly disregarded a league-wide edict only a day after it was distributed. In doing so, he demonstrated a willingness to violate league rules, to disregard the standards that maintain fair competition and competitive balance, if he believe he can gain an advantage.

He's brought his character into serious question, and neither he nor his team seem particularly remorseful about it.

 

[cajuncocoa]

And let me ask a question, and I know we cannot really answer it, but give your honest opinion.

If the Cowboys had been caught cheating in the exact same way, do you think the penalty would have been the same, the league would have destroyed all the evidence and the media would have already forgotten it?

Oh, of course!! </sarcasm>