Specter: Patriots Cheated in '04 Against Steelers

[03EBZ06]

The only reason Specter got involve was because he felt Goodell didn't do enough of investigation and there were some unanswered questions and was concerned with the method of investigation, not because of Goodell's lack of authority.

 

[peplaw06]

Oh, I'm keeping up, thank you. I'm stride for stride with you.

Must be fun being so oblivious.

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.

It doesn't contradict my argument at all. Not even close.

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?

The reason Specter is interviewing Goodell is BECAUSE Goodell has sole authority. He's the only guy who can investigate, and he did a piss poor job of it. The Senate is only involved because it gives the NFL special status. This is a desperation move from you.

I should have known you wouldn't answer my question. Consider me done with this thread until you do so.

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

Do you really think that Specter should have investigated from the word "go" in this investigation? If so, that says even more about you.

He's not investigating the Pats. He's investigating a possible cover up on the part of the Commish. Yet another fail.

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.

Are you this insensible in real life?

Your argument was that the rule book didn't spell out the powers the Commish had in investigating, so he couldn't go searching the Pats offices. My counter was that the rule book says sole authority, it doesn't spell out everything the Commish can or cannot do in investigating. It did not say that the Commish could ask the cheater to turn over evidence of cheating, but he did that. Therefore your entire premise is rubbish.

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?

Another instance of you trying to turn one of my points around to try to back your argument. What a bogus tactic.

And the answer again is, when the investigator is being lazy or if there's a cover up going on. I thought we'd gone over this.

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.

When did they say that? Was it before or after Walsh's name popped up and Specter got involved?

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

Not exactly, but they do have a vested interest in the league. And anything that brings the integrity of the league into question could ultimately hurt their bottom line. Little did they know that the Commish would end up doing what he tried to prevent by destroying the evidence.

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?

So another "white flag" post I guess? I've answered your question. Now will you do the same?

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 after he got Vick's side of the story, he sent his own team of investigators to Virginia to "tag along" with the state/federal investigators. He definitely didn't ask Vick for his side, take it as completely true, punish him (or make a statement saying he wouldn't dole out punishment), then destroy any evidence Vick provided him. That would be preposterous.

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.

I can surmise what was on the tapes because they were destroyed. Destruction of evidence in an ongoing investigation automatically draws speculation of cover-ups. How do you not understand that?

And while Goodell was definitely "thorough" in his destruction of the tapes, the fact that he never personally interviewed a guy who used to work in the Pats video department, tells me all I need to know.

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.

That's beside the point. The point is that your notion that the status of the property has anything to do with it is ridiculous. If that mattered, then they wouldn't be able to do it in the first place. Leave it to you to completely miss this one and totally mangle a response. Yet again, your incompetence is showing.

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.

What does spelling it out have anything to do with it? If the status as private was so sanctimonious, as you contend, it shouldn't even be an issue.

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.

lulz....

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

Not difficult for me. It's only difficult for you because you don't understand what your own argument is.

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.

You should really take some kind of internet crash course on Constitutional rights. I'm willing to bet that 5 minutes in, you'll recognize how completely out of your element you are.

So let's get to your little scenario. Yes they CAN search your wallet. If they wanted to use the evidence they found against you in court, then it would be inadmissible. But they can search your wallet. If you refuse to let them, they can fire you. If they can get to your wallet without you knowing, search it, and find the microchip, then they can take it.

Then I guess you could sue them for violating your constitutional rights. That is when you would be laughed out of the courtroom.

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.

Wrong.

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.

lol.... i'm not demeaning myself. I'm demeaning you. That's hyperbole, or an exaggeration, to show you how meaningless your distinction between company and private property is.

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.

You've explained what you believe to be the difference. I just think you're mistaken.

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.)

The existence of a policy is irrelevant. The point is if your private property were so protected, there wouldn't BE a policy.

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?

You've mixed and mangled these concepts so badly that even I -- in my incredible discerning powers -- can't undo this. But of course I'll give it a shot.

Specter is conducting an investigation under his senate powers, into whether Goodell -- and thus the league -- investigated properly. Specter is not investigating the Pats cheating. There's a difference.

Specter is involved because Goodell has sole authority to investigate, therefore the buck stops with him. Specter believes that Goodell didn't use all the means available to him to investigate this matter.

Specter is not overstepping his authority. And he's not operating under the NFL rule book. The NFL rule book doesn't apply to him.

You should really ask yourself these questions before you continue in this debate, because it's clear you don't get it.

1) Have you ever heard of a Commissioner of a league going to get a search warrant to investigate cheating by one of the league members?

2) Who would the Commissioner go to to get such a warrant?

3) What do you have to prove to get a search warrant?

I think if you really delve into these key points, and spend some time with these, you'll understand how crazy your entire argument has been. I really want you to go google these and bring some answers. Because if you can't tell me the answers to these questions -- especially the last two -- then it will be obvious to everyone that you're way out of your element. Well it's already obvious to me, but for those 5 people still reading this beating of a thread.

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.

That's about all that lawyers and reporters have in common. The key difference is I can comprehend the words I use.

 

[tyke1doe]

Must be fun being so oblivious.

Not as funny as your obvious attempts to be convincing when you believe the issue is sssooo clear-cut.
Sounds like you're trying to convince yourself.

It doesn't contradict my argument at all. Not even close.
The reason Specter is interviewing Goodell is BECAUSE Goodell has sole authority. He's the only guy who can investigate, and he did a piss poor job of it. The Senate is only involved because it gives the NFL special status. This is a desperation move from you.

:laugh2:

Well, if Goodell is the ONLY guy who can investigate, why is the Senate now involved? It appears that SOLE isn't really SOLE if understood by other principles and factors that have an impact on our understanding of the term, now does it?

I should have known you wouldn't answer my question. Consider me done with this thread until you do so.

I think you said that before. Why should I think you're going to be truthful now?

Do you really think that Specter should have investigated from the word "go" in this investigation? If so, that says even more about you.

What difference does that make? SOLE means SOLE. That's what your argument was previously. So now SOLE does not mean SOLE.

Actually, I knew you were going to make that argument, which is why I even raised it.

And here lies the principle/concept behind the argument you're trying to make.

Sole authority must be interpreted (there's that pesky word again) within a context. But other factors/principles shape our understanding of the word. Goodell has sole authority to investigate matters within the NFL, but because the Senate/government grants the NFL the right to operate outside of anti-trust laws, it has the right to intervene.

Similarly, we have to understand the role and duties of an investigation within a context because other principles/factors shape our understanding of what that sole authority can or can't do. As sole authority to investigate, Goodell has to be mindful of other laws and principles which govern his authority. So he can't just go into the Pats offices and seize property because that's not in his power to do so.

And sole authority to investigate also doesn't mean he could demand players to strip and pee on the spot because there are other principles/factors which govern how we interpret his sole authority.

He's not investigating the Pats. He's investigating a possible cover up on the part of the Commish. Yet another fail.

Not even close, counselor.

First, you argued that the COMMISSIONER HAS SOLE AUTHORITY TO INVESTIGATE MATTERS WITHIN THE NFL. Now you're expanding that sole authority to others. You are the one who argued exclusive powers under SOLE AUTHORITY, not I.

Second, Specter's investigation doesn't just include the commissioner. It also includes the Patriots. He wants to know how extensive the cheating was, even though Goodell has already said that the league knew the Pats were cheating for several years. He seems to be more upset about the punishment the NFL assigned. But, regardless, it still involves the Pats not just the NFL.

Nice of you to limit the argument to suit your own purposes.

Are you this insensible in real life?

If that question is insensible to you, then I should ask are you this obtuse in real life?

Your argument was that the rule book didn't spell out the powers the Commish had in investigating, so he couldn't go searching the Pats offices. My counter was that the rule book says sole authority, it doesn't spell out everything the Commish can or cannot do in investigating. It did not say that the Commish could ask the cheater to turn over evidence of cheating, but he did that. Therefore your entire premise is rubbish.

I'm sure you're familiar with rubbish.

No, my point is that he merely asked them to turn over the evidence because that's a part of investigation, and the most basic form of investigation.

I assumed that if he had the power to search the Pats offices that he would have done that, since it was within his powers. And I made my deduction based on simple constitutional rights. You can't search private property without a search warrant or unless someone gives you permission.

And as my examples have shown, even if I have a wallet with stolen information at work, my employer DOES NOT have the right to search my wallet.

That's the point. But you're so hell-bent in trying to prove you're right, you miss a very obvious and fundamental principle here.

Don't get mad at me if you can't make sense of what I'm saying. And, as a lawyer, you should know I'm correct.

Another instance of you trying to turn one of my points around to try to back your argument. What a bogus tactic.

And the answer again is, when the investigator is being lazy or if there's a cover up going on. I thought we'd gone over this.

You suspect there's a cover-up. You have not PROVEN there's a cover-up. So I wouldn't be so cock-sure that your point is valid.

When it has been proven that there's been a cover-up, I'll concede your point. But my point still stands. If Goodell had the power to search the Pats' facilities, why didn't he? That is a valid question whether you like it or not.

When did they say that? Was it before or after Walsh's name popped up and Specter got involved?

After. It was on the NFL Network Friday and was aired repeatedly.

Not exactly, but they do have a vested interest in the league. And anything that brings the integrity of the league into question could ultimately hurt their bottom line. Little did they know that the Commish would end up doing what he tried to prevent by destroying the evidence.

The league is going to stand regardless of this scandal.
Second, many of these teams stand to gain if this situation is exposed because it safeguards the game.
Third, the Commissioner explained to them why he took the approach that he did. And they acknowledged they understood why. You can speculate all you want, but I have to take their word for it until proven otherwise.

So another "white flag" post I guess? I've answered your question. Now will you do the same?

Read into it what you wish.

And after he got Vick's side of the story, he sent his own team of investigators to Virginia to "tag along" with the state/federal investigators. He definitely didn't ask Vick for his side, take it as completely true, punish him (or make a statement saying he wouldn't dole out punishment), then destroy any evidence Vick provided him. That would be preposterous.

And you scolded me for comparing state/federal powers/investigations with an NFL commissioners powers/investigation. :laugh2:

You have something legally to work with with respect to state/federal investigations. You know. Warrants, charges, guilty pleas, etc.

Different situations, totally.

I can surmise what was on the tapes because they were destroyed. Destruction of evidence in an ongoing investigation automatically draws speculation of cover-ups. How do you not understand that?

And while Goodell was definitely "thorough" in his destruction of the tapes, the fact that he never personally interviewed a guy who used to work in the Pats video department, tells me all I need to know.

But surmise/speculation isn't evidence, is it counselor?

Second, I can understand your suspicions. I've already acknowledged that, or is this another one of those situations where you claim I've said something for the first time as if I'm "waving the white flag."

But my point is that because the tapes shouldn't have existed to begin with and because the tapes were of the 2006/2007 games and because they were leaked to the press, I can understand why he would destroy the tapes.

Third, aside from the tapes, what would Walsh have told Goodell that he didn't already know? It was known that the Pats taped games as far back as the Rams Super Bowl. What has not been pinpointed as of now is the video evidence. Walsh says he has that. But Goodell wouldn't have suspected that he had Patriots property, which is why Goodell and Walsh are now trying to work out an arrangement for him to return tapes he acquired "improperly."

That's beside the point. The point is that your notion that the status of the property has anything to do with it is ridiculous. If that mattered, then they wouldn't be able to do it in the first place. Leave it to you to completely miss this one and totally mangle a response. Yet again, your incompetence is showing.

You're desperate, counselor. Sorry, but name-calling aint gonna win this debate for you.

It's not besides the point, and anyone with half a brain or who just isn't so arrogant that he misses the point would understand.

If I give you permission to search my wallet, then you can search my wallet. It's not a violation of my privacy. But if I don't give you permission to search my wallet, it is a violation of my privacy.

NFL players give their permission to subject themselves to drug testing when they enter the league. Therefore, the parameters of how they can be tested and where they can be tested is clearly defined and agreed upon so that it is not an invasion of their privacy. The NFL cannot go outside those boundaries, i.e., requiring them to strip and pee in a cup right before they go out of the field, for example. Why? Because it's not spelled out, and even in a policy which to some degree violates a player's privacy, the player still retains a certain aspect of privacy outside the clearly, defined boundaries of the NFL's drug policy.

This is not rocket science. And if you have half the intellectual capacity I think you do, you understand my point.

But stubborness is hard to shake. And so you will argue even though you know CLEARLY, if you're a lawyer, that what I'm talking about makes sense.

Not difficult for me. It's only difficult for you because you don't understand what your own argument is.

Oh, I understand perfectly.

And it's quite simple, as I've explained above.

Let him who has ears hear.

You should really take some kind of internet crash course on Constitutional rights. I'm willing to bet that 5 minutes in, you'll recognize how completely out of your element you are.

So let's get to your little scenario. Yes they CAN search your wallet. If they wanted to use the evidence they found against you in court, then it would be inadmissible.

You're funny and purposely obtuse.

Well, of course, my boss CAN search my wallet "forcibly" or through intimidation just like the police CAN search my home without a search warrant.

But that is not a search based on constitutional rights. That's a search based on intimidation and abuse of authority. And the fact that you even ADMIT that it would be inadmissible in court argues MY POINT that it not legally acceptable to do so.

I'm out of my element.

A lawyer just told me my boss can search my wallet and then that evidence not be admissible in court, yet we're talking about what legally can and can't be done.

But they can search your wallet. If you refuse to let them, they can fire you.

True. But I've already acknowledge that point. If you refuse, they can fire you. Or if the Pats refused, Goodell could hand down even harsher penalties.

Try to keep up, please.

If they can get to your wallet without you knowing, search it, and find the microchip, then they can take it.

How are they going to do that if my wallet is on me?

How are they going to search the Pats office without the Pats knowing?

And how are they going to defend stealing the chip from my wallet before a judge, who will determine whether he will allow illegally acquired material to be entered as evidence?

I think you'd better take a refresher course on constitutional rights yourself. Or at least understand the context we're waging this conversation in, i.e., what legally the Commissioner can or can't do.

Then I guess you could sue them for violating your constitutional rights. That is when you would be laughed out of the courtroom.

You already argued my point for me. The information wouldn't be admissible in court. That means that they LEGALLY weren't suppose to take that chip from my wallet.

You've mixed and mangled these concepts so badly that even I -- in my incredible discerning powers -- can't undo this. But of course I'll give it a shot.

:laugh1:

The same incredible discerning powers that on the one hand says that an employer can search my wallet but in the same breath say that the information acquired from my wallet would be inadmissible in court. How, oh, how does a lawyer miss that contradiction and remove it from our context of what a Commissioner can or can't legally do?

But hey, let me hear how you argue your way out of this one.

Specter is conducting an investigation under his senate powers, into whether Goodell -- and thus the league -- investigated properly. Specter is not investigating the Pats cheating. There's a difference.

Semantics, my good friend. Semantics.

He IS investigating the Pats cheating, which is why he wants to interview not only Goodell but others too. He wants to know how extensively the Pats cheated.

Specter is involved because Goodell has sole authority to investigate, therefore the buck stops with him. Specter believes that Goodell didn't use all the means available to him to investigate this matter.

The buck stops with Goodell, yet Specter is investigating.

Specter isn't just saying, "I don't like how you handled that." He is conducting his own investigation. But if so, then Goodell isn't the sole authority who can investigate matters.

Specter is not overstepping his authority. And he's not operating under the NFL rule book. The NFL rule book doesn't apply to him.

But the rule book doesn't apply to police officers either. And yet when players are caught using drugs (which, remember, is a criminal offense) police don't step into the matter to investigate. And that's because the NFL has a certain amount of leverage, privilege and authority to police itself. And our society understands that.
Or when Albert Haynesworth deliberately steps on Andre Gurode's face and causes an injury, the state could have stepped in and pressed charges based on the clear video evidence. But it did not. Why? Because the NFL has a certain amount of leverage, privilege and authority to police itself.

You want to give me another example to shoot down.

You should really ask yourself these questions before you continue in this debate, because it's clear you don't get it.

I guess by saying that over and over again, somehow you'll convince yourself it's true.

1) Have you ever heard of a Commissioner of a league going to get a search warrant to investigate cheating by one of the league members?

We haven't heard that much about cheating in a league period. And those cheating incidents we have heard of involved individuals so there would be no need for the NFL to search for anything.

Next.

2) Who would the Commissioner go to to get such a warrant?

He wouldn't have the power to do that because he's not investigating a criminal matter. I assume he would take the "no" request for information as non-compliance with his ability and authority to investigate and mete out a penalty accordingly.

Next.

3) What do you have to prove to get a search warrant?

See answer above.

I think if you really delve into these key points, and spend some time with these, you'll understand how crazy your entire argument has been. I really want you to go google these and bring some answers. Because if you can't tell me the answers to these questions -- especially the last two -- then it will be obvious to everyone that you're way out of your element. Well it's already obvious to me, but for those 5 people still reading this beating of a thread.

Beatings? Out of my element?

Says the lawyer who has the audacity to suggest that a boss could search your private property and then in the same breath say that it would be inadmissible in court. And then thinks he has proven his argument.

But I can see you're puffed up on your knowledge and pride yourself in "winning" Internet debates that you think you've really given me a thrashing.

Me? I'm just amused at how worked up you've gotten over this issue, and, despite saying several times you're through, you seem compelled to continue to answer. I wonder why? Oh, it's because of your "incredible ability" to decipher the incoherent. Or is it that you just can't stand that I make a point, challenge you on it and have as much endurance as you do?
It must be frustating.

That's about all that lawyers and reporters have in common. The key difference is I can comprehend the words I use.

Kind of like comprehending the term "sole" when it really doesn't mean "sole" and kind of like arguing someone can search your personal belongings even though that evidence won't be admissible in court? We're talking about what can or can't be done legally, and you give an example of an "illegal" search as a touche.

This from a lawyer.

Funny.