FWST LBOH: Media gives cheating Patriots a break

[LittleBoyBlue]

I agree and have said that many times. If it was my call to make the Pats would have forfeited the Jets game what does not change is the 17 wins they put up since then and a trip to the SB which is what I'm talking about in regards to results.

Ok so we agree. Sort of.

17 wins in a row is GREAT... OUTSTANDING.... no sarcasm there... BUT.... my issue is that the keep the undefeated season when GAME 1 was the "caught cheating" game.


If Karma really exists... if things that go around really come around... then the Pats will lose the SB to the "other" NY team. 1st game to last game rectification. Justice.

And THAT Justice will make my life miserable here in NY.

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

Uh, caught filming game tapes = lost of a first round draft choice.

You were saying?

THEY DID NOT LOSE what they gained. They gained a victory in a game they were caught cheating. Unfair competitive advantage, unfair credit for victory. A W in the Win column.

I am not trying to change your mind but the stance you are taking is weak.
Peplaw said it best.

They were punished. You're arguing they should have been punished harsher. But there's nothing to suggest that the Patriots would have lost had they not had the illegal tapes.

Unlike steroids, it is commonly known that steroids give one a competetive advantage physically.

Not a harsher penalty.... just a penalty that fit the crime. Forfeit of W

You assume correctly.

Not suprising that you think so. Any peripheral-ness to you?

Be careful tyke1doe

 

[tyke1doe]

You have no point. We can't know if I had the answers to a test in my pocket, got 100% on it as a result, only to get caught later as I walked out of the classroom by the principal, because I may have never used it, helped me on the test. That's not going to prevent me from getting suspended or expelled, unless I'm probably a Pats fan and Goodell was the principal.

Yeah they've been "punished". But, unlike you, other Pats fans, and many members of the media, most people think they weren't punished enough, and that they've been given a free pass in the media as a result. "Pretty steep" is a subjective term that the majority of people will not agree with, especially considering that there was no precedent. But, when we look at it from an objective perspective, 250K is relatively insignicant for a multimillionare who got a mulimillion dollar extension as a result, 500K is paltry for a billionaire, and the loss of a first round draft pick for the team is minute when the team already has one, and it happens to be the 7th pick in the draft compared to the one they lost which will most likely be the 32nd pick in the draft.

A slap on the wrist when you consider the fact that cheating may have helped them with three SBs.

They have tarnished their legacy, and only the biggest Pats homers don't see it.

Wow.

Your analogies get more convulted with every post. But this much I'm able to glean: You keep saying I have no point, but then you keep reiterating my point.

Because we DON'T know if it resulted in wins, you can't punish the Pats for that. You punish them for the violation, and that's what Godell did.

As for "pretty steep" being subjective, you're right. But that's why we have a commissioner for the NFL. He's suppose to make those decisions, especially when a team violates HIS directive. And I can equally argue that fans that hate the Pats and their dominance are also jaded with respect to punishment.

But you don't get to make that call. Unless, you qualify to be a league commissioner. And I doubt very seriously that you are.

As for what most people think, most people want old West justice and mob rule. What exactly does that mean? Most people make bad decisions every day. Clearly, morality by majority isn't exactly an established principle.

And, once again, there is no precedence for this situation. So saying it is "unfair" has no basis in fact, merely opinion.


Moreover, Belichick is not a billionaire. And $500,000 is significant to a millionaire because that's half a million.

As for the 1st round draft pick itself, Godell didn't know the Pats would go to the Super Bowl. Sorry, but you can't decide "Dang, they're going to the Super Bowl so let me amend my punishment."

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

Wow.

Your analogies get more convulted with every post. But this much I'm able to glean: You keep saying I have no point, but then you keep reiterating my point.

Because we DON'T know if it resulted in wins, you can't punish the Pats for that. You punish them for the violation, and that's what Godell did.

As for "pretty steep" being subjective, you're right. But that's why we have a commissioner for the NFL. He's suppose to make those decisions, especially when a team violates HIS directive. And I can equally argue that fans that hate the Pats and their dominance are also jaded with respect to punishment.

But you don't get to make that call. Unless, you qualify to be a league commissioner. And I doubt very seriously that you are.

As for what most people think, most people want old West justice and mob rule. What exactly does that mean? Most people make bad decisions every day. Clearly, morality by majority isn't exactly an established principle.

And, once again, there is no precedence for this situation. So saying it is "unfair" has no basis in fact, merely opinion.


Moreover, Belichick is not a billionaire. And $500,000 is significant to a millionaire because that's half a million.

As for the 1st round draft pick itself, Godell didn't know the Pats would go to the Super Bowl. Sorry, but you can't decide "Dang, they're going to the Super Bowl so let me amend my punishment."

The Patriots... by their own doing... should have not have the opportunity to go undefeated. 1st game forfeited.


I know you love analogies.
If I go into your house and steal your TV.... and get caught...can I keep the TV?

 

[khiladi]

You keep arguing in circles. I've already answered you.

They destroyed the tapes to send a clear message that what was done was wrong and so the Pats couldn't use copies of the tapes anymore.

Because there was no way to determine how these tapes may have impacted other games and no way to determine whether they actually led to a Patriots win, they weren't useful.

Me, arguing in circles? How did you answer me? When does any legal system in the world burn the evidence? How can you verify the integrity of a court proceeding if the very court ends up burning the evidence after declaring it's verdict on the matter?

Interesting...

you argue that there is no way to determine that the Pats could have benefitted from the tapes,and at the same time you say that destroying the tapes sends a clear message to the Pats that they did wrong and that they won't be able to use the tapes anymore...

So then what is the point in burning the tapes if one cannot establish any guilt for them in the first place?

What message are you sending to the Pats, when guilt for them can't even be established regarding the unfair advantage they may or may not have gotten through the tapes?

 

[tyke1doe]

THEY DID NOT LOSE what they gained. They gained a victory in a game they were caught cheating. Unfair competitive advantage, unfair credit for victory. A W in the Win column.

I am not trying to change your mind but the stance you are taking is weak.
Peplaw said it best.

Uh, peplaw also knows, as a lawyer, that you couldn't go into court and argue that the cheating resulted in a win, because that's not something that could be proven. Or in legal terms, this case doesn't come close to beyond a reasonable doubt, especially given how bad the Jets were this year and how good the Patriots were this year.

Not a harsher penalty.... just a penalty that fit the crime. Forfeit of W

Nope, because you don't know whether it actually resulted in the win. You can't penalize people for that which you don't know. Sorry.

Not suprising that you think so. Any peripheral-ness to you?

Be careful tyke1doe

Ah, nothing says, "I'm right" like a well-placed graphic/illustrate.

 

[SultanOfSix]

Wow.

Your analogies get more convulted with every post. But this much I'm able to glean: You keep saying I have no point, but then you keep reiterating my point.

Because we DON'T know if it resulted in wins, you can't punish the Pats for that. You punish them for the violation, and that's what Godell did.

As for "pretty steep" being subjective, you're right. But that's why we have a commissioner for the NFL. He's suppose to make those decisions, especially when a team violates HIS directive. And I can equally argue that fans that hate the Pats and their dominance are also jaded with respect to punishment.

But you don't get to make that call. Unless, you qualify to be a league commissioner. And I doubt very seriously that you are.

As for what most people think, most people want old West justice and mob rule. What exactly does that mean? Most people make bad decisions every day. Clearly, morality by majority isn't exactly an established principle.

And, once again, there is no precedence for this situation. So saying it is "unfair" has no basis in fact, merely opinion.


Moreover, Belichick is not a billionaire. And $500,000 is significant to a millionaire because that's half a million.

As for the 1st round draft pick itself, Godell didn't know the Pats would go to the Super Bowl. Sorry, but you can't decide "Dang, they're going to the Super Bowl so let me amend my punishment."

Read my post again before thinking my analogies are convoluted because apparently you can't even distinguish between who I said was fined 250K and who was fined 500K, and whether I said the punishment was "unfair" or not.

You've made ridiculous excuses for Bellicheat and the Pats.

 

[tyke1doe]

The Patriots... by their own doing... should have not have the opportunity to go undefeated. 1st game forfeited.


I know you love analogies.
If I go into your house and steal your TV.... and get caught...can I keep the TV?

No, because we know that that is my TV and you stole it.

Beyond reasonable doubt.

Next irrelevant analogy, please.

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

No, because we know that that is my TV and you stole it.

Beyond reasonable doubt.

Next irrelevant analogy, please.

Ok... I am in your house and spraypaint all over the walls... but when you come home I put the can down.

Can you prove I did it?

 

[tyke1doe]

Me, arguing in circles? How did you answer me? When does any legal system in the world burn the evidence? How can you verify the integrity of a court proceeding if the very court ends up burning the evidence after declaring it's verdict on the matter?

Uh, is this matter under legal dispute?

Is it subject to a court of law?

NO!

But documents are routinely shredded in all sorts of businesses and personal situations.

you argue that there is no way to determine that the Pats could have benefitted from the tapes,and at the same time you say that destroying the tapes sends a clear message to the Pats that they did wrong and that they won't be able to use the tapes anymore...

So then what is the point in burning the tapes if one cannot establish any guilt for them in the first place?

Good question. Apparently, as I understand it, the rule about video taping games was not as clear as it is now. So Godell issues a written directive he sends to all 32 teams that this is not allowed. Anything from that point violates the league's policy. The Pats are caught cheating. They get penalized.

The issue isn't trying to uncover how that happened in the past, especially since it's common knowledge around the league that stealing signals/cheating is common practice - even St. Jimmy Johnson did it. The issue is to make sure it doesn't happen anymore.
That's why the punishment was handed out in such a way.

What message are you sending to the Pats, when guilt for them can't even be established regarding the unfair advantage they may or may not have gotten through the tapes?

I don't even know what you mean.

The Pats were punished because they lose a 1st round pick. You don't think that was harsh enough. The issue has nothing to do with the message it sends the Patriots. They were punished. The issue, rather, is whether you think they were punished enough. And I dare say that that has to do with the fact that the Pats are winning.

If the Pats had not made the playoffs, this wouldn't even be an argument. They're poised to win the Super Bowl (though I hope they don't) and that's why the renewed anger.

 

[tyke1doe]

Ok... I am in your house and spraypaint all over the walls... but when you come home I put the can down.

Can you prove I did it?

Interesting that you used such an analogy.

I had a young man - down and out - who I had befriended. I let him in my apartment one morning because he needed some food. While I wasn't looking he unlatches my window from inside the apartment. Later, while I'm at work, he steals my television, my watch and a lot of other things.

I file a police report because I know he did it. The police come to my house and take fingerprints. But because I let him in my house, the police say it would be difficult to accuse him of burglary because he could argue that the fingerprints were made while I voluntarily let him in my apartment.

Now back to your analogy, if you were an uninvited guest in my house and you spraypainted the inside of my house, I would have a strong case against you.

And based on the technical advances in forensic science, they would probably be able to find traces of spraypaint on your clothing, linking you to the crime.

That would be more than circumstantial evidence.

So even now your analogy doesn't work.

But keep trying.

 

[tyke1doe]

Read my post again before thinking my analogies are convoluted because apparently you can't even distinguish between who I said was fined 250K and who was fined 500K, and whether I said the punishment was "unfair" or not.

You've made ridiculous excuses for Bellicheat and the Pats.

I stand corrected.

Even so, that's still a penalty. I doubt any millionaire wants to lose $250,000.

But the issue isn't that they weren't penalized or punished. That much is clear. They were.

 

[dboyz]

This is an interesting debate.

I think tyke1doe often makes good points, but I don't agree that it is necessary to show that New England won games because they cheated. Just like it is not necessary to show that a holding penalty affected the play in order for it to be holding. No if you hold you get called because it is against the rules. A holding penalty may have been away from the play and had no real impact on the outcome, but it's still holding, a yellow flag and ten yards.

In this case, New England cheated, intentionally violated the rules in a significant way. I think we can all agree with that. For that reason, IMO, they should have had to forfeit the Jets game. The only party that could come close to proving if it impacted the game would be New England. We could force them to prove they didn't cheat, which wouldn't be bad.

BTW, tyke1doe, your reference to beyond a reasonable doubt is off point. That's the standard of proof in a criminal case, basically when someone could go to jail. This isn't about jail time, so is irrelevant.

I will say the cheating should not have had an impact after game 1 if the other teams have any brains and what the Patriots have done this year is very impressive.

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

Interesting that you used such an analogy.

I had a young man - down and out - who I had befriended. I let him in my apartment one morning because he needed some food. While I wasn't looking he unlatches my window from inside the apartment. Later, while I'm at work, he steals my television, my watch and a lot of other things.

I file a police report because I know he did it. The police come to my house and take fingerprints. But because I let him in my house, the police say it would be difficult to accuse him of burglary because he could argue that the fingerprints were made while I voluntarily let him in my apartment.

Now back to your analogy, if you were an uninvited guest in my house and you spraypainted the inside of my house, I would have a strong case against you.

And based on the technical advances in forensic science, they would probably be able to find traces of spraypaint on your clothing, linking you to the crime.

That would be more than circumstantial evidence.

So even now your analogy doesn't work.

But keep trying.

LMAO


No no no... you have no evidence to test. Its been destroyed.

Yeah I left that out... knowing you would go there... forensic science.... but I destroyed all of the evidence and wore a body suit that I burned before you got there.

OR...

I was standing next to the person who actually did the spraypainting.


Go ahead... twist and turn your way outta that one:laugh2:

 

[ScipioCowboy]

Who's debating that? Certainly not I.

But you guys keep changing the issue because, IMO, it's more easy to defend.

Who's "you guys?" I'm not part of any faction or group here.

I'm responding to a specific statement of yours: "And there's no direct-correlation that you can prove that the videotaping, per se, resulted in a win." You reiterate this point in a more recent post when you make this statement: "I disagree with the opinion that the tapes could have yielded anything more to warrant a more severe punishment."

In my opinion, the actual benefits of the videotaping are almost a non-issue. Regardless of whether or not the "videotaping, per se, resuted in a win," Belichick still knowingly and willfully cheated. In my opinion, this undeniable fact should be the paramount issue in this discusion, not the benefits of the cheating. Clearly, Belichick believed that illegally videotaping opponent signals provided enough of a competitive advantage to warrant ignoring a league-wide edict less than 2 days after it had been distributed.

And I imagine that defending arguments does become far "more easy" when you generalize the entirety of your opposition into one group and manufacture an argument for them.

There's even a name for this: strawman-building. It's an established propaganda technique.

And you raise suspicions of strawman-building when you respond to points I haven't even made.

So what? They were punished. Are they suppose to lay over and let teams beat them as a form of pentance?

I've made no such claim. I'm simply commenting on the seeming lack of remorse from Belichick.

My primary concern here is integrity. Winning is meaningless without integrity.

 

[khiladi]

Uh, is this matter under legal dispute?

Is it subject to a court of law?

NO!

But documents are routinely shredded in all sorts of businesses and personal situations.

SO what... We are dealing with a matter of arbitration and a case of cheating. We are not talking about burning documents, but burning evidence. It is a totally different context.

Good question. Apparently, as I understand it, the rule about video taping games was not as clear as it is now. So Godell issues a written directive he sends to all 32 teams that this is not allowed. Anything from that point violates the league's policy. The Pats are caught cheating. They get penalized.

The issue isn't trying to uncover how that happened in the past, especially since it's common knowledge around the league that stealing signals/cheating is common practice - even St. Jimmy Johnson did it. The issue is to make sure it doesn't happen anymore.

No, that is the issue. Now your operating under the presumption that taping did not give the team an unfair advantage, because it is common practice. So basically, the league mandate according to you was instituted because stealing signals was NOT giving people an unfair advanatge? It is interesting that you say we cannot argue that the taping of the signals give people an unfair advatange, but you can declare that the taping of signals did NOT give people an unfair advantage. That just wreaks of hypocrisy and a zeal to defend the Patriots and Bellicheat no matter what...

Further, Jimmy was not doing what Bellichek was doing. That is a common defense mechanism of those defending Bellichek. First of all, there was no illegal madate at the time. Second, Jimmy was not taping from the sidelines, and even today the the league still allows taping from certain boxes, but not from the field. Third, Jimmy was building a library, but he stopped doing it because he found that it was useless. Fourth, technology jumped leaps and bounds within the last decade. Bellichek was doing it real-time, and the accusations against Bellichek were that he was using the knwoledge to make half-time adjustments. The Eagles stated that in the 2nd half it seemed as if the Patriots knew all their plays.

That's why the punishment was handed out in such a way.

So it is YOUR assumption that they only punished the Patriots the way they did, because they rules the tapes didn't give them an unfair advanatge. They only punished them that way, because other teams do it. What logic is that? Do you even understand that it is the very nature of the ruling we are disputing?

I don't even know what you mean.

The Pats were punished because they lose a 1st round pick. You don't think that was harsh enough. The issue has nothing to do with the message it sends the Patriots. They were punished. The issue, rather, is whether you think they were punished enough. And I dare say that that has to do with the fact that the Pats are winning.

They have the 7th round pick in the draft. What I say is that the 3 Super Bowls that the Pats won by a combined less then 10 points has everything to do with them gaining an unfair advantage. They just magically and easily moved down the field in the second half when they needed a play to win, despite not being able to the first half.

If the Pats had not made the playoffs, this wouldn't even be an argument. They're poised to win the Super Bowl (though I hope they don't) and that's why the renewed anger.

[/quote]

That is irrelevant to whether they are guilty or not. And of course it has to do with their record. The league and media have made it a point to point out that the Patriots never needed spy-gate to win. They are using the future performance to claim they were not guilty in for their past performance.

 

[tyke1doe]

LMAO


No no no... you have no evidence to test. Its been destroyed.

Yeah I left that out... knowing you would go there... forensic science.... but I destroyed all of the evidence and wore a body suit that I burned before you got there.

OR...

I was standing next to the person who actually did the spraypainting.


Go ahead... twist and turn your way outta that one:laugh2:

I'll say this one last time:

1. We're not talking about a court of law so any discussions about "destroying evidence" is irrelevant. If this were subject to a court of law, then you may have a point but even then ...

2. Stealing someone's television and proving that theft is different from stealing signals and proving that that theft resulted in a win. One involves a direct cause-and-effect relationship; the other does not and is subject to more variables.

But these are very simple points, if one wants to understand them.

If one does not want to understand them, they offer irrelevant analogies and litter their post with a few :laugh2: and offers them as if that wins the debate.

Carry on.

 

[tyke1doe]

This is an interesting debate.

I think tyke1doe often makes good points, but I don't agree that it is necessary to show that New England won games because they cheated. Just like it is not necessary to show that a holding penalty affected the play in order for it to be holding. No if you hold you get called because it is against the rules. A holding penalty may have been away from the play and had no real impact on the outcome, but it's still holding, a yellow flag and ten yards.

In this case, New England cheated, intentionally violated the rules in a significant way. I think we can all agree with that. For that reason, IMO, they should have had to forfeit the Jets game. The only party that could come close to proving if it impacted the game would be New England. We could force them to prove they didn't cheat, which wouldn't be bad.

BTW, tyke1doe, your reference to beyond a reasonable doubt is off point. That's the standard of proof in a criminal case, basically when someone could go to jail. This isn't about jail time, so is irrelevant.

I will say the cheating should not have had an impact after game 1 if the other teams have any brains and what the Patriots have done this year is very impressive.

Actually, the reason I brought up "reasonable doubt" is because the court analogy was offered by the opponents to my argument.

They're the ones talking about "destroying evidence" and referencing court proceedings, i.e., "Have you ever heard of destroying evidence in a trial."

I agree with you: This isn't a court trial or a legal matter. Unfortunately, those who employ it don't see how abstract and irrelevant their argument is because this is not a matter subject to a court.

But I can play that game too.

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

I'll say this one last time:

1. We're not talking about a court of law so any discussions about "destroying evidence" is irrelevant. If this were subject to a court of law, then you may have a point but even then ...

2. Stealing someone's television and proving that theft is different from stealing signals and proving that that theft resulted in a win. One involves a direct cause-and-effect relationship; the other does not and is subject to more variables.

But these are very simple points, if one wants to understand them.

If one does not want to understand them, they offer irrelevant analogies and litter their post with a few :laugh2: and offers them as if that wins the debate.

Carry on.

More spin than a no spin zone.


Thank you though... I needed some humor for the day. You done good kid. (no smiley emoticon for you... one year!)

 

[tyke1doe]

Who's "you guys?" I'm not part of any faction or group here.

I'm responding to a specific statement of yours: "And there's no direct-correlation that you can prove that the videotaping, per se, resulted in a win." You reiterate this point in a more recent post when you make this statement: "I disagree with the opinion that the tapes could have yielded anything more to warrant a more severe punishment."

In my opinion, the actual benefits of the videotaping are almost a non-issue. Regardless of whether or not the "videotaping, per se, resuted in a win," Belichick still knowingly and willfully cheated. In my opinion, this undeniable fact should be the paramount issue in this discusion, not the benefits of the cheating. Clearly, Belichick believed that illegally videotaping opponent signals provided enough of a competitive advantage to warrant ignoring a league-wide edict less than 2 days after it had been distributed.

Here's the problem. You're jumping into a discussion in midstream.

I have no problem with what you've just said.

There is no dispute that Belichick knowingly and willfully cheated.

Second, you contradicted yourself. If the actual benefits of the videotaping are a "non issue" then how can you disagree with my statement that anything revealed in them could have warranted harsher punishment?

As it stands, you are merely offering my point, in a different way.

I'm saying, they were punished for cheating and all this carping about harsher punishment is whining because we can't determine whether the Pats received an unfair advantage - which only makes any difference if you win - by the tapes.

And I imagine that defending arguments does become far "more easy" when you generalize the entirety of your opposition into one group and manufacture an argument for them.

There's even a name for this: strawman-building. It's an established propaganda technique.

And you raise suspicions of strawman-building when you respond to points I haven't even made.

I wouldn't say it was a strawman in as much as I'm arguing with many posters who have different opinions and may assign an opinion to the wrong poster.