Specter: Patriots Cheated in '04 Against Steelers

[SultanOfSix]

And I would say you don't either.

This is clear, though. The NFL is not bound by the same legal requirements and procedures that the government is with respect to an investigation into violations of NFL policy, unless those violations are of a criminal nature.

Do you dispute this?

If you say I don't know, then I'm sure I know what I'm talking about.

What the hell is your point in contrasting the NFL and the government as not being bound by the same legal requirements, whatever the hell that means? What the hell does that have to do with anything?

 

[SultanOfSix]

oh, so I'm a Pat fan now? ok
um, Goodell isn't the one under investigating for cheating, the Pats are, I really don't know what you're accusing him of being guilty of

Reading problems, eh? Being a Pats defender doesn't make you a Pats fan.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Reading problems, eh? Being a Pats defender doesn't make you a Pats fan.

don't you have to have some kind of rooting interest in something in order to defend it? and please show me where I defended the Pats

thanks

again, what is Goodell trying to hide? it can't be the fact that the Pat's cheated, which is the whole issue

 

[SultanOfSix]

don't you have to have some kind of rooting interest in something in order to defend it? and please show me where I defended the Pats

thanks

Obviously tyke doesn't supposedly have one as he has claimed. The point is you and him have seemingly consistently supported each other throughout this thread with your various rationalizations. So, it's just effectively guilt by association.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Obviously tyke doesn't supposedly have one as he has claimed. The point is you and him have seemingly consistently supported each other throughout this thread with your various rationalizations. So, it's just effectively guilt by association.

well that's just stupid, and since you brought up court, if a lawyer is defending a racist, pedophile, does that make him one too?

the only thing we're arguing here is if Goodell is trying to somehow protect himself from nothing, the Pats are a distant 2nd in the discussion

 

[SultanOfSix]

well that's just stupid, and since you brought court, if a lawyer is defending a racist, pedophile, does that make him one too?

No. But it does make him a racist, pedophile's defender. You're the one who equated defending a team to rooting for it, not me.

the only thing we're arguing here is if Goodell is trying to somehow protect himself from nothing, the Pats are a distant 2nd in the discussion

I don't even know what that means.

 

[5Stars]

Because if the issue is truth, why would Walsh want total indemnity?

Some suspect he really is blowing smoke. I don't know whether he is or isn't. But it would seem to me if he's ready to tell the truth and that he has tapes that expose the Patriots, that along should warrant him accepting the NFL's indemnity offer.

What? It's the Pats that have to offer him that, not the NFL!

Now, tell me why the Patriots won't release that indemnity?

Are they worried? If not...

(stupid cowboy fans)

:laugh2:

 

[Bob Sacamano]

No. But it does make him a racist, pedophile's defender. You're the one who equated defending a team to rooting for it, not me.

but he isn't guilty by association

what have I said that makes you assume that I'm defending the Pats? the only thing I'm defending is Goodell from baseless claims

I don't even know what that means.

it means exactly what it reads, Goodell is covering up nothing, he has no need to cover up anything

 

[tyke1doe]

Stop it!

Did you even read my rebuttles to you?

Stop what?

You said I'm not thinking. You didn't say, "Well, I see it differently than you."

This debate has become not a matter of honest disagreement but one of "if you don't accept how I see it you're irrational/not-thinking/ignorant/an imbecile/dumb/arrogant/egotistical" add your own insult.

It's really funny if not juvenile that posters are so frustrated that others don't agree with them or see things differently than they that they must resort to name-calling.

It speaks of desparation.

But, carry on.

 

[tyke1doe]

If he has tapes, why is there an issue of truth at all?

Exactly. Why can't he just hand over the tapes. Even if he testifies that the Pats filmed the walk through, wouldn't the tapes corroborate any verbal testimony? Remember, the Pats said they did not tape the Rams walk-through.

This seems like just a tactic by the league. Walsh wants full immunity. If he gets sued for lying, the litigation could be costly and the NFL could have a loophole to back out of their indemnity agreement, even if it turns out that he wasn't lying.

He does have full immunity as long as he tells the truth. If he lies, why would the NFL want to protect him?
Besides, wouldn't the burden be on the NFL to prove his lying, especially if he has tapes to validate his claims?

 

[SultanOfSix]

but he isn't guilty by association

what have I said that makes you assume that I'm defending the Pats? the only thing I'm defending is Goodell from baseless claims

it means exactly what it reads, Goodell is covering up nothing, he has no need to cover up anything

Ok, so you're not a Pats defender. You're a Goodell defender.

The question of whether he is covering up something is what is in dispute, and the claims made against him aren't baseless. The fact still remains that covering up something is the default position until proven otherwise because it's already been established that destroying evidence is something that is not done if it proves innocence or is inconclusive.

He has to cover his *** now that he's being investigated by the government.

 

[tyke1doe]

Obviously tyke doesn't supposedly have one as he has claimed. The point is you and him have seemingly consistently supported each other throughout this thread with your various rationalizations. So, it's just effectively guilt by association.

:laugh2:

First, we're defending the Pats. Now, we're defending Goodell. Now we're back to defending the Pats.

I really could care less if the NFL suspends Belichick for life, personally. I would be more than happy if the Pats didn't win another Super Bowl this decade and, personally, that's what I'm hoping for because for selfish reasons I don't want to see the Pats win four Super Bowls as team of the decade when the Cowboys only won only three.

Having said that, I am merely arguing that I understand why Goodell would order the tapes destroyed.

But you guys seem so frustrated that someone would dare hold that opinion. It's quite amusing the venom, simplistic conclusions and childishness displayed simply because a few posters disagree with the notion of a cover-up or conspiracy theory.

Now, could there be one? Of course. I don't rule that out. And it is, indeed, a possibility. But I can understand why Goodell would want the tapes destroyed beyond trying to cover up the excessive cheating of the Pats.

 

[theogt]

Exactly. Why can't he just hand over the tapes. Even if he testifies that the Pats filmed the walk through, wouldn't the tapes corroborate any verbal testimony? Remember, the Pats said they did not tape the Rams walk-through.



He does have full immunity as long as he tells the truth. If he lies, why would the NFL want to protect him?
Besides, wouldn't the burden be on the NFL to prove his lying, especially if he has tapes to validate his claims?

Did you not read my post? He could end up screwed even if he is telling the truth. Senator Spector also commented on the inadequacy of the league's indemnity offer. The laegue simply doesnt want his tapes.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Ok, so you're not a Pats defender. You're a Goodell defender.

The question of whether he is covering up something is what is in dispute, and the claims made against him aren't baseless. The fact still remains that covering up something is the default position until proven otherwise because it's already been established that destroying evidence is something that is not done when if it proves innocence or is inconclusive.

wouldn't to disprove your claim mean that there is something in your claim to disprove? all you've given me is some default bull-crap that you made up

unless you have a list of what makes something a default conspiracy theory, I'll be glad to read it

He has to cover his *** now that he's being investigated by the government.

they're asking him for tapes, and the Government hasn't even stepped into this yet

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Now, could there be one? Of course. I don't rule that out. And it is, indeed, a possibility. But I can understand why Goodell would want the tapes destroyed beyond trying to cover up the excessive cheating of the Pats.

but that's not the default position! you have to disprove nothing, w/ something!

 

[tyke1doe]

If you say I don't know, then I'm sure I know what I'm talking about.

What the hell is your point in contrasting the NFL and the government as not being bound by the same legal requirements, whatever the hell that means? What the hell does that have to do with anything?

You offered the drug analogy. And I offered an example of drugs being disposed in a way which does not comport with legal procedures.

Don't get mad at me if you keep offering examples easy to shoot down.

 

[5Stars]

Stop what?


But, carry on.

Don't get mad...

I at least learned some new words! That's kool....




(stupid cowboy fans)...:

 

[tyke1doe]

but that's not the default position! you have to disprove nothing, w/ something!

People can have their conspiracies all they want. I'll "grant" them their conspiracies. That doesn't mean I have to believe them.

 

[tyke1doe]

Don't get mad...

I at least learned some new words! That's kool....




(stupid cowboy fans)...:

You didn't know the word "mad" before I introduced it?

 

[5Stars]

Good for you...