Specter: Patriots Cheated in '04 Against Steelers

[tyke1doe]

You dont' think the NFL benefits from possibly getting more evidence of cheating? LOL.

First, that's definitely not going to benefit the NFL.

Second, we don't know that. We don't know whether Walsh is telling the truth. So you can't simply assume that they're getting more evidence of cheating. They may not be getting anything more concrete than they already have.

So if both standards have the same consequences for the NFL why accept one and not the other? Of course they're different. The litigation could be very expensive for Walsh. He wants the NFL to back him up. But the NFL wants an easy "out".

And yet all this time Walsh was out there, and he didn't approach Goodell to share this information with him. And now he wants to spill his guts?

So, we're back to your point being meaningless.

If you're going to look at it that way, then your point is also meaningless because you don't know whether the Pats will sue or not.

You present a hypothetical, and I'm presenting a hypothetical. Neither of us knows what will happen because it hasn't occurred yet.

It is my position that if Walsh is telling the truth about the tapes - after the Pats vehemently denied having taped the walk through - that it would be stupid and a PR blunder of enormous proportions for them to sue Walsh.

Coud they still do so? Yes.

Now, your position is that they'll find some "inaccurate statement" to sue him over, even though he may be telling the truth about the tape.

Do you have any evidence to back up your position?

Er, no.

You are merely offering an opinion. So let's watch out for those boomeranging "meaningless" quips because if my statement is meaningless, you'd better duck.

Sure it benefits them. They get to investigate evidence of cheating.

Of course, if Walsh is telling a lie, the NFL still will have to go through a process to withdraw its indemnity, costing more time and money, I presume.

You presume that he has evidence to reveal that the Pats cheated. And that's a reasonable presumption.

But one can also presume he's just blowing hot air and seized an opportunity - afforded him by the Super Bowl stage - to tell or embellish his story for ESPN.

 

[theogt]

First, that's definitely not going to benefit the NFL.

Second, we don't know that. We don't know whether Walsh is telling the truth. So you can't simply assume that they're getting more evidence of cheating. They may not be getting anything more concrete than they already have.

Of course it won't benefit the NFL to acknowledge that the cheating may be worse than they disclosed and that they didn't pursue the investigation sufficiently. Glad you can acknowledge that now.

And yet all this time Walsh was out there, and he didn't approach Goodell to share this information with him. And now he wants to spill his guts?

Funny, I thought it was the NFL's duty to investigate cheating.

If you're going to look at it that way, then your point is also meaningless because you don't know whether the Pats will sue or not.

You present a hypothetical, and I'm presenting a hypothetical. Neither of us knows what will happen because it hasn't occurred yet.

It is my position that if Walsh is telling the truth about the tapes - after the Pats vehemently denied having taped the walk through - that it would be stupid and a PR blunder of enormous proportions for them to sue Walsh.

Coud they still do so? Yes.

Now, your position is that they'll find some "inaccurate statement" to sue him over, even though he may be telling the truth about the tape.

Do you have any evidence to back up your position?

Er, no.

You are merely offering an opinion. So let's watch out for those boomeranging "meaningless" quips because if my statement is meaningless, you'd better duck.

Actually, their reluctance to release him from his confidentiality agreement is pretty strong evidence that they're ready and willing to sue. It's that possibility that Walsh is seeking protection from. Of course it's just a possibility. It's possible that I might die tomorrow. It's only a possibility. But that's why I buy life insurance. Protection.

Of course, if Walsh is telling a lie, the NFL still will have to go through a process to withdraw its indemnity, costing more time and money, I presume.

You presume that he has evidence to reveal that the Pats cheated. And that's a reasonable presumption.

But one can also presume he's just blowing hot air and seized an opportunity - afforded him by the Super Bowl stage - to tell or embellish his story for ESPN.

So your argument is basically that the NFL shouldn't investigate cheating because there's a possibility that they may have to defend someone for disclosing that information. That's crap. The benefit here clearly outweighs any potential cost.

That is, unless you don't want more evidence against the Patriots to come out. And I think we can all guess how Mr. Goodell feels about that one.

 

[peplaw06]

There's still no proof that he has "sole" authority to march into the Pats offices and take what he wants.

So you have no more knowledge that he can do it than I do he can't. But I make an assumption that he doesn't have the power; otherwise he would have exercised it, just as you assume he does have the power to do so and didn't. But that's your interpretation of his powers, duties and responsibilities to investigate a matter.

First of all, I have proof. I showed it to you.

Do you not know the difference between an assumption and proof? I have shown you a rule in the NFL rulebook that says the Commish has sole authority to investigate. That's proof. You have said he needs a search warrant simply because you don't know any better, and you assume that he can't go in there without one. You have no proof, you're making an assumption. You have shown me nothing that contradicts what I provided to you. My burden has been met, what about yours?

Furthermore, if he doesn't have the power to do that then search and seizure is what he would need (and he wouldn't likely get that anyway), otherwise he would have to take the "word" of the Patriots that they gave up all their tapes.

And that was the point of the "search and seizure" reference anyway, my calling it a "subpoena" notwithstanding.

You still don't know what you're talking about. Search and seizure is what he would need? What does that even mean?

And you knew enough about my description to know what I was talking about, even if I got the term wrong.

Yes, I do have that power to sometimes decipher the incoherent. That, or I corrected you and you adopted it as what you meant after you had been shown to be wrong. Good tactic. You're wrong, I correct you... "That's what I meant, and you know it." Impressive for a junior high debate team.

Let me approach this a different way.

Please no....

So are you telling me that if Walsh says he taped the Rams for 30 minutes and he only taped them 25 minutes, that the NFL could revoke the indemnity it offered him?

Yes. Good so far.

Who gets to judge that? I would assume that the NFL's indemnity proposal would be a contract to be judged by the courts or an arbitrator.

Basically what would happen is the NFL wouldn't indemnify him, saying he breached the agreement. Then WALSH would have to take them to Court to enforce the indemnity contract. So instead of incurring one set of legal fees, he incurs two to try to get his money back. Sounds fair huh?

And are you telling me that a judge/arbitrator would consider your example a lie sufficient enough to allow the NFL to withdraw its indemnity agreement with Walsh?

A court might consider that enough, it might not. That's beside the point. The point is Walsh would have to spend the legal fees to enforce it, because if the NFL says he breached, they can say "so sorry."

 

[theogt]

WALSH TO TALK SOON?
Posted by Mike Florio on February 20, 2008, 7:10 p.m.

The impasse between the NFL and the lawyer for former Pats employee Matt Walsh could be resolved soon.

“The lawyers are still talking and we’re anxious to speak to him,” NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell told the Associated Press on Wednesday. “We’re anxious to get an agreement to get him to come forth. We hope to be able to talk to him shortly.”

The issue has been whether and to what extent Walsh will be protected against potential civil liability to the Patriots, both for the taking of any property from the franchise or for what he might say about his activities now. The league has tried to hinge indemnity on “truthfulness” from Walsh, an amorphous concept that allows the NFL to leave Walsh exposed if the league merely disagrees with what Walsh says, even if he genuinely believes that he is telling the truth.

Walsh’s lawyer, Michael Levy, has proposed a requirement that Walsh act in good faith when speaking about the situation. We believe that this a reasonable position; if the league or the Pats think that he is intentionally lying, and if they can prove it, then they can take the position that Walsh’s words are tainted by bad faith.

As we’ve previously said, the Spygate II matter can’t be resolved until Walsh talks, and shows whatever it is that he has.

Also, the AP story possibly contains a slip of the tongue regarding what it is that Walsh knows and/or what he will claim that he did. The AP item states plainly that Walsh taped the Rams’ final walk-through practice prior to Super Bowl XXXVI. But there has been no statement from Walsh nor no report to this effect; the Boston Herald article from February 2 doesn’t cite Walsh as the source, or as the person who supposedly taped the practice.

It could be that the author of the AP article was told on background that Walsh taped the practice — and that the writer forgot that this specific contention has not yet been made.

Regardless, if Walsh will claim that he taped the practice, and if he has a tape, why does he need indemnity or any other protection? Won’t the tape speak for itself?

Several members of PFT Planet believe that, if Walsh has compelling evidence of previously undisclosed cheating, the team will claim that he was acting alone. Others believe that Walsh might have been doing the bidding of “director of football research” Ernie Adams, the shadowy figure who serves as Bill Belichick’s right-hand man.

 

[tyke1doe]

First of all, I have proof. I showed it to you.

Do you not know the difference between an assumption and proof? I have shown you a rule in the NFL rulebook that says the Commish has sole authority to investigate. That's proof. You have said he needs a search warrant simply because you don't know any better, and you assume that he can't go in there without one. You have no proof, you're making an assumption. You have shown me nothing that contradicts what I provided to you. My burden has been met, what about yours?

No, you don't have proof that he can walk into an office and take the Pats property. Where is that spelled out?

That's merely your interpretation. You make an assumption that he could do that. I'd like to see it spelled out where his "authority" means he has powers to search a team's complex. A team complex isn't owned by the NFL, but the team itself.

You still don't know what you're talking about. Search and seizure is what he would need? What does that even mean?

Uh, it means that in order to go into the Pats office and get documents, tapes, etc., he would have to have some power that officially allows him to do that.
The only power that approximates that, that I know of, is the power legally to search one's premise via the search warrant process. But he doesn't have that power, which is why he asked, IMO, the Pats to turn over their tapes.

Or to go back to your analogy earlier in this thread, when you asked me whether my boss can search my work computer/emails, I said, "Yes, he could because that's his property."
But if I stole a file from work and took it home, my boss wouldn't have the power or authority to search my home (even if he had the sole authority to investigate matters at work) because even if the stolen file is his property, he can't come into my house. Only the authorities armed with a legal search warrant could do that or unless I gave them or my boss permission.

Yes, I do have that power to sometimes decipher the incoherent. That, or I corrected you and you adopted it as what you meant after you had been shown to be wrong. Good tactic. You're wrong, I correct you... "That's what I meant, and you know it." Impressive for a junior high debate team.

It must not have been all that incoherent if you knew what I was talking about. And you did know what I was talking about because the concept was pretty clear to you.

By the way, incoherent isn't misapplying a word any more than using it's instead of its (something I like needling others about though I have done it myself) is incoherent. It's merely using the wrong word or term. But as long as the message is clear, pointing it out is merely being a stickler about the finer points of grammar, not an indictment on one's ability to communicate a particular message clearly.

Please no....

Ah, yes. Since you've proceed to answer.

Basically what would happen is the NFL wouldn't indemnify him, saying he breached the agreement. Then WALSH would have to take them to Court to enforce the indemnity contract. So instead of incurring one set of legal fees, he incurs two to try to get his money back. Sounds fair huh?

A court might consider that enough, it might not. That's beside the point. The point is Walsh would have to spend the legal fees to enforce it, because if the NFL says he breached, they can say "so sorry."

Okay. Well, thank you for that explanation. Now that was a bit more clearer than the other posts.

I still contend that I doubt the NFL would withdraw indemnity merely because Walsh says he taped a session for 25 minutes when it was actually 30 minutes. That would appear not only incredibly petty, but it would backfire on the NFL in terms of negative PR.

But I'm interested in how this is going to all play out. If Walsh has the tapes he say he does, then I'm ready to offer mea culpas. But we shall see.

 

[tyke1doe]

Of course it won't benefit the NFL to acknowledge that the cheating may be worse than they disclosed and that they didn't pursue the investigation sufficiently. Glad you can acknowledge that now.

My original point on this matter was why would the NFL assume that Walsh would possess tapes that were the property of the Pats, especially since he was/is no longer an employee with the Pats.

But I was under the impression that the fine and penalty that the league imposed was for the Jets game. I read superpunk's link where Aiello says it was for the Jets game and previous spying attempts. So I stood corrected on that matter and have since change my position.

Really, the only reason I even entered this discussion is because I didn't think it was practical to void the Pats' Super Bowl victories based on cheating because of the myriad elements that go into winning a football game.

Funny, I thought it was the NFL's duty to investigate cheating.

Uh, yeah, it is. But even police officers ask potential witnesses to come forward with information during an investigation, especially if those witnesses have critical information to a particular case.

Actually, their reluctance to release him from his confidentiality agreement is pretty strong evidence that they're ready and willing to sue. It's that possibility that Walsh is seeking protection from. Of course it's just a possibility. It's possible that I might die tomorrow. It's only a possibility. But that's why I buy life insurance. Protection.

I don't think it's "strong evidence" that they will sue. I think it's strong evidence that they have something to hide. Remember, the Pats said they didn't tape the Rams walk-through. Now either they're telling the truth or they're lying. If they are lying and Walsh has proof, I can see why they would not want to lift the confidentiality agreement.

Now, I agree that the Pats should lift the confidentiality agreement. But here's what I don't get. If they lift the confidentiality agreement, Walsh gets to testify. So on what grounds would the Pats have to sue him?

So your argument is basically that the NFL shouldn't investigate cheating because there's a possibility that they may have to defend someone for disclosing that information. That's crap. The benefit here clearly outweighs any potential cost. That is, unless you don't want more evidence against the Patriots to come out. And I think we can all guess how Mr. Goodell feels about that one.

No, I'm saying that the NFL shouldn't put itself in a position where it has to cover for a person who may knowingly lie. And, sorry, but I don't see the NFL not protecting Walsh because he says he taped a game for 25 minutes and he actually taped it for 30 minutes. I'm not saying that they won't, but I just don't see it. That would be too transparent.

I would like to believe that the NFL/Goodell isn't that dumb that he would risk the wrath of football fans across the country by pulling a stunt like that.

 

[theogt]

My original point on this matter was why would the NFL assume that Walsh would possess tapes that were the property of the Pats, especially since he was/is no longer an employee with the Pats.

But I was under the impression that the fine and penalty that the league imposed was for the Jets game. I read superpunk's link where Aiello says it was for the Jets game and previous spying attempts. So I stood corrected on that matter and have since change my position.

Really, the only reason I even entered this discussion is because I didn't think it was practical to void the Pats' Super Bowl victories based on cheating because of the myriad elements that go into winning a football game.



Uh, yeah, it is. But even police officers ask potential witnesses to come forward with information during an investigation, especially if those witnesses have critical information to a particular case.



I don't think it's "strong evidence" that they will sue. I think it's strong evidence that they have something to hide. Remember, the Pats said they didn't tape the Rams walk-through. Now either they're telling the truth or they're lying. If they are lying and Walsh has proof, I can see why they would not want to lift the confidentiality agreement.

Now, I agree that the Pats should lift the confidentiality agreement. But here's what I don't get. If they lift the confidentiality agreement, Walsh gets to testify. So on what grounds would the Pats have to sue him?



No, I'm saying that the NFL shouldn't put itself in a position where it has to cover for a person who may knowingly lie. And, sorry, but I don't see the NFL not protecting Walsh because he says he taped a game for 25 minutes and he actually taped it for 30 minutes. I'm not saying that they won't, but I just don't see it. That would be too transparent.

I would like to believe that the NFL/Goodell isn't that dumb that he would risk the wrath of football fans across the country by pulling a stunt like that.

What a lengthy 'white flag' post.

 

[tyke1doe]

What a lengthy 'white flag' post.

Read it as you wish.

 

[The Patriot]

You guys write to much

 

[zrinkill]

look who's back!

 

[peplaw06]

No, you don't have proof that he can walk into an office and take the Pats property. Where is that spelled out?

That's merely your interpretation. You make an assumption that he could do that. I'd like to see it spelled out where his "authority" means he has powers to search a team's complex. A team complex isn't owned by the NFL, but the team itself.

Why don't you tell me how a position can have sole authority if it has to get clearance from some other place? The rule book isn't going to spell out every single thing the commish can do to investigate cheating. It says sole authority. Tell me how else it would work with him having sole authority.

Can't wait to see you spin this one.

Uh, it means that in order to go into the Pats office and get documents, tapes, etc., he would have to have some power that officially allows him to do that.

Sole authority to investigate. That does it. Show me something that indicates otherwise other than your assumptions. We've gone over your misspeaking/ wrong assumptions ad nauseum. Why should I give anything you say any credence now?

The only power that approximates that, that I know of, is the power legally to search one's premise via the search warrant process. But he doesn't have that power, which is why he asked, IMO, the Pats to turn over their tapes.

Once again, the search warrant requirements only applies to government or state actors. The Pats facilities are not private. They have to operate under the NFL's rules, and the NFL can inspect them. This isn't a residence. This is an office. It's like your boss searching your email, it's like your regional supervisor coming into your specific branch and inspecting the premises.

Or to go back to your analogy earlier in this thread, when you asked me whether my boss can search my work computer/emails, I said, "Yes, he could because that's his property."
But if I stole a file from work and took it home, my boss wouldn't have the power or authority to search my home (even if he had the sole authority to investigate matters at work) because even if the stolen file is his property, he can't come into my house. Only the authorities armed with a legal search warrant could do that or unless I gave them or my boss permission.

We're not talking about a private residence. We're talking about a corporate office of a member of a national corporation. It's like Sam Walton coming to your neighborhood Wal Mart and looking the place over.

If Belichick had the copies of the tapes at his house, you might have a point.

Okay. Well, thank you for that explanation. Now that was a bit more clearer than the other posts.

I bet you're still gonna find a way to argue this.

I still contend that I doubt the NFL would withdraw indemnity merely because Walsh says he taped a session for 25 minutes when it was actually 30 minutes. That would appear not only incredibly petty, but it would backfire on the NFL in terms of negative PR.

Well looky here. We got a brand new "contention." Your prior one has crashed and burned, and now you turn to "bad PR." Yeah we all know how the NFL is worried about bad PR. That's why we're here in the first place.

But I'm interested in how this is going to all play out. If Walsh has the tapes he say he does, then I'm ready to offer mea culpas. But we shall see.

Translation:

No matter how much sense you guys make, and how little I make, I'm not giving in until tapes are produced. How surprising.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

WALSH TO TALK SOON?

let's hope so, all of this ducking crap stuff is ghey

 

[The Patriot]

look who's back!

So, have you guys signed Moss yet? Maybe then Romo won't be so terrible.

 

[InDakWeTrust]

So, have you guys signed Moss yet? Maybe then Romo won't be so terrible.

Are you just here to talk crap? I guess we can sling it too...

Maybe Brady would have won the SB if he didnt have a pothead WR to throw to...

 

[theogt]

So, have you guys signed Moss yet? Maybe then Romo won't be so terrible.

Yes, Romo obviously sucks.

 

[tyke1doe]

Why don't you tell me how a position can have sole authority if it has to get clearance from some other place? The rule book isn't going to spell out every single thing the commish can do to investigate cheating. It says sole authority. Tell me how else it would work with him having sole authority.
Can't wait to see you spin this one.

Exactly, to the bolded part.
It does not spell out whether he can authorize a search of a private facility either.
And when have you known one to have "sole authority" conducting an investigation and not use powers available to them, including the ability to search and seize documents/material critical to an investigation?
Furthermore, Goodell is still operating with his authority by merely requesting the Pats turn over the tapes. He doesn't lose the responsibility of being the "sole authority" to investigate matters because he doesn't have the power to search their premises.

Sole authority to investigate. That does it. Show me something that indicates otherwise other than your assumptions. We've gone over your misspeaking/ wrong assumptions ad nauseum. Why should I give anything you say any credence now?

I could care less whether you give me credence or not. I'm merely offering a reason why Goodell would not seize the material if he had the power to do so as opposed to merely asking the Patriots "politely" to turn over tapes.

Once again, the search warrant requirements only applies to government or state actors. The Pats facilities are not private. They have to operate under the NFL's rules, and the NFL can inspect them. This isn't a residence. This is an office. It's like your boss searching your email, it's like your regional supervisor coming into your specific branch and inspecting the premises.

But your boss or regional supervisor doesn't have the right to inspect your brief case or your purse even if it's on company property.
And last time I checked Gillette Stadium, the home of the Pats offices, is a private stadium. It is not owned by the NFL.

We're not talking about a private residence. We're talking about a corporate office of a member of a national corporation. It's like Sam Walton coming to your neighborhood Wal Mart and looking the place over.

But what you're not getting is that if I as an employee have my personal belongs on company property - wallet, purse, brief case - Sam Walton does not have the right to search my belongings even if they reside on company property.

Now, he may ask to search my belongings, and I may submit because I fear what he may do if I refuse - i.e., fire me. But he doesn't have that right.

If Belichick had the copies of the tapes at his house, you might have a point.

If Belichick has copies of the tapes in a stadium locker, I still would have a point because the stadium doesn't belong to the NFL. The NFL doesn't own the stadium. In fact, the NFL doesn't even own the franchise. It is merely associated with the franchise. The owner is the man who shelled out the money to own the team - as Al Davis painfully taught the NFL.

I bet you're still gonna find a way to argue this.

But of course.

Well looky here. We got a brand new "contention." Your prior one has crashed and burned, and now you turn to "bad PR." Yeah we all know how the NFL is worried about bad PR. That's why we're here in the first place.

It's only new to you because you haven't been reading. I've said that a few pages ago in this thread and a few others.

Translation:

No matter how much sense you guys make, and how little I make, I'm not giving in until tapes are produced. How surprising.

It's called having all the evidence in hand before I make a decision - something you should know about, counselor.

 

[The Patriot]

Are you just here to talk crap? I guess we can sling it too...

Maybe Brady would have won the SB if he didnt have a pothead WR to throw to...

Hey you lost to Eli too. So let's just put it behind us and forget it ever happened. Sooner or later people will remember that Eli isn't very good.

 

[Rampage]

Hey you lost to Eli too. So let's just put it behind us and forget it ever happened. Sooner or later people will remember that Eli isn't very good.

just like your coach when he's not cheating

 

[peplaw06]

Exactly, to the bolded part.

Why don't you just answer the question?

It does not spell out whether he can authorize a search of a private facility either.

That's my point, try to keep up. He has sole authority. If someone else had to give him permission, he wouldn't have sole authority. It also doesn't say that he can "ask them to turn over evidence of cheating," but he did that, didn't he?

And when have you known one to have "sole authority" conducting an investigation and not use powers available to them, including the ability to search and seize documents/material critical to an investigation?

In only two instances, when they're being lazy or when they're trying to cover something up.

Furthermore, Goodell is still operating with his authority by merely requesting the Pats turn over the tapes.

This is not a realistic way to investigate. When else have you EVER heard of an investigation where the investigator asked the accused to turn over all evidence proving he did it, and actually get it?

He doesn't lose the responsibility of being the "sole authority" to investigate matters because he doesn't have the power to search their premises.

If he doesn't have the power, tell me who does according to the rule book, and explain to me how that jibes with "sole authority." Here's another pointed question. I'll be awaiting your astute answer.

I could care less whether you give me credence or not. I'm merely offering a reason why Goodell would not seize the material if he had the power to do so as opposed to merely asking the Patriots "politely" to turn over tapes.

If the Commish is worried about being polite to the Pats, then that's just more evidence of favorable treatment. He wasn't polite to Wade Wilson, Michael Vick, Pacman, Tank Johnson, or Chris Henry.

The latter 4 of those had outside criminal investigations going on, and Goodell was much more thorough than he was with the Pats.

But your boss or regional supervisor doesn't have the right to inspect your brief case or your purse even if it's on company property.
And last time I checked Gillette Stadium, the home of the Pats offices, is a private stadium. It is not owned by the NFL.

Please. If you think it's as simple as each team technically owning private property, then you gots problems.

The teams are part of the league and have to abide by its rules. If this distinction meant anything, why don't they just roid up all their players then refuse to allow them to test? Isn't the testing done on private property? How could they be forced to take a piss test on their private property? Probably because the league has the power to make them, don't ya think?

But what you're not getting is that if I as an employee have my personal belongs on company property - wallet, purse, brief case - Sam Walton does not have the right to search my belongings even if they reside on company property.

Goodell wouldn't be searching purses and wallets. He would be looking for evidence of the Pats videotaping other teams signals and walkthroughs. Purses and wallets are personal property that are brought onto the premises. The videotapes, computers storing the videos, etc. are company property that stays on the company premises for the most part.

If Belichick has copies of the tapes in a stadium locker, I still would have a point because the stadium doesn't belong to the NFL. The NFL doesn't own the stadium. In fact, the NFL doesn't even own the franchise. It is merely associated with the franchise. The owner is the man who shelled out the money to own the team - as Al Davis painfully taught the NFL.

By all means, lets just carry HGH and steroids in every locker room. And lets juice all the players. He can't do anything about it. It's just a loose association.

 

[tyke1doe]

Why don't you just answer the question?
That's my point, try to keep up. He has sole authority. If someone else had to give him permission, he wouldn't have sole authority.

Oh, I'm keeping up, thank you. I'm stride for stride with you.
What's really ironic - and something you may have totally missed - is that the Senate inquiry kind of contradicts your point about "sole authority" with respect to our disagreement.

As the sole authority to investigate Spygate, Goodell did so. Yet Senator Specter calls for another inquiry, another "investigation" if you will. So does Goodell have sole authority to investigate the matter or not?
If he has "sole authority" to investigate the matter and by your interpretation sole authority means he alone has the power and authority to investigate, then why is Specter involved, prompting Goodell to conduct a "further" investigation? And why is Specter even involved at the Senate level if Goodell has the "sole authority" to investigate the matter? And why is he wanting to conduct an "investigation" since Goodell is the "sole authority" who can do that?

A day after meeting with NFL commissioner Roger Goodell in Washington, Sen. Arlen Specter said he will continue his investigation into the Patriots' Spygate case. Specter said he remains troubled by a number of issues surrounding the league's handling of the evidence.

Specter (R-Pa.) told ESPN.com that Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) offered support yesterday for his inquiry into the Patriots' illegal videotaping practices. Specter said Leahy is "prepared to have the committee pay for people who travel and investigate." Leahy sat in on a part of Wednesday's session with Goodell and league counsel, Specter said.

"I'm determined to go forward," said Specter, the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee. "You have answers and positions where [Goodell] is saying that with the destruction of tapes that, 'We did the right thing. We're absolutely sure.'

I guess "sole authority" doesn't mean what you think it means if Specter can investigate too, now does it?

It also doesn't say that he can "ask them to turn over evidence of cheating," but he did that, didn't he?

Uh, no. But asking for information would be the most basic form of acquiring information unless he's suppose to read minds for the answers.

In only two instances, when they're being lazy or when they're trying to cover something up.
This is not a realistic way to investigate. When else have you EVER heard of an investigation where the investigator asked the accused to turn over all evidence proving he did it, and actually get it?

Exactly. And tell me under those situations where you've EVER heard of an investigator not getting all the information from the accused and having the power to search the premise for the information but doesn't?

As for the investigation being a lazy one, I guess you didn't hear from the competition committee members (NFL coaches and general managers) who met with Goodell and were convinced he performed a thorough investigation.

But what do they know. They're on Goodell's payroll.

If he doesn't have the power, tell me who does according to the rule book, and explain to me how that jibes with "sole authority." Here's another pointed question. I'll be awaiting your astute answer.

Just as soon as you answer me why if the Commissioner has "sole authority" to investigate the matter that Specter is sticking his nose in this and conducting his own investigation?

If the Commish is worried about being polite to the Pats, then that's just more evidence of favorable treatment. He wasn't polite to Wade Wilson, Michael Vick, Pacman, Tank Johnson, or Chris Henry.

Nice apple-to-orange comparison, counselor. Uh, Wilson, Vick, Pacman, Johnson and Henry didn't have anything to "turn over." They either admitted to their transgressions or there was documentation via arrest records or criminal charges that "indicted" them. And in many of those cases, Goodell was "polite" by having a meeting with them and seeking their side of the story.

And you were telling me to keep up?

The latter 4 of those had outside criminal investigations going on, and Goodell was much more thorough than he was with the Pats.

Yes, and criminal investigations mean they had an arrest record. The information was there and available for Goodell to see.

As for how "thorough" Goodell was, you don't know. You're not privy to the information he had. You didn't see the tapes. You didn't evaluate what was on them. You don't know the information on them that led to Goodell's decision. And, as I mentioned above, the competition committee members were convinced the investigation was a thorough one.

Please. If you think it's as simple as each team technically owning private property, then you gots problems.

The teams are part of the league and have to abide by its rules. If this distinction meant anything, why don't they just roid up all their players then refuse to allow them to test? Isn't the testing done on private property? How could they be forced to take a piss test on their private property? Probably because the league has the power to make them, don't ya think?

Wow. Talk about a reach. You're getting desperate counselor, desperate or frustrated, one of the two.

Uh, drug testing is SPELLED OUT according to NFL policy. And if you know anything about drug testing policies, they are pretty specific about how they're to be administered. Even public and private schools (which I'm more familiar with with respect to drug testing) which have drug testing policies spell out specifically when and where they are to be administered and who is to do the testing.

But I can guarantee you as sure as the league understands about unions and lawyers, if those drug-testing policies weren't clear and spelled out, the NFL couldn't test athletes on private property. In fact, I betcha that the right to test on private property doesn't mean that the NFL can make an athlete take a piss test at their private homes.

I guess maybe "private property" is sort of like "sole authority" which gives the NFL the right to test an athlete anywhere just because he's an athlete, plays in the NFL and has agreed to be tested.

Goodell wouldn't be searching purses and wallets. He would be looking for evidence of the Pats videotaping other teams signals and walkthroughs. Purses and wallets are personal property that are brought onto the premises. The videotapes, computers storing the videos, etc. are company property that stays on the company premises for the most part.

Sigh.

You're a lawyer. This shouldn't be difficult unless you're purposely being obtuse.

Let's say I stole a company microchip, and I put it in my wallet. The company knows someone has stolen its property, and company officials want to search for it. Can they search company desks? Of course, because they belong to the company. Can they search company computers? Of course, because they belong to the company. Can they search my wallet? Uh, NO! Why? Because that's my personal property.
Even if the Patriots had video tapes but lock those tapes away in, let's say, Belichick's personal locker. The league can't search that locker, regardless whether the tape belongs to it or not.

By all means, lets just carry HGH and steroids in every locker room. And lets juice all the players. He can't do anything about it. It's just a loose association.

I take at face value that you're a lawyer. So please don't demean yourself or your intellect with exaggerations like the above. We were having such a pleasant conversation.

First, I've explained to you the difference between personal/private property and company property and why the NFL can't search personal/private property even in a company setting.

Second, your silly example doesn't work because the NFL has a CLEAR policy with respect to steroid use and drugs. And I'm betting that policy is spelled out very detailed as to when testing is conducted and where it is conducted and who conducts it. (As an aside, your example is more fittingly applied to baseball because baseball, heretofore, didn't have such a policy, as I understand it. And that's exactly what was happening.)

Third, I've disputed your assessment of "sole authority" with the very reason why we're still having this conversation, i.e., Specter wants to conduct an "investigation" himself. So if Commissioner Roger Goodell has "sole authority" to conduct an investigation, is Specter ...

a.) overstepping his authority and acting out of line or
b.) is "sole authority" open to interpretation, which, of course, would also raise the question as to whether "sole authority" means he has search and seizure powers?

I guess I should expect another lengthy reply. One thing is certain about lawyers and reporters is that they love to use lots of words.