peplaw06;1956188 said:
Seriously tyke? This reach is longer than Muhammad Ali's.
Well, seeing how Ali doesn't have much of a reach now, I don't think this image works in your favor.
The tapes are secondary to information when Walsh is concerned. Goodell should have thoroughly interviewed Walsh simply because he had information. Whether or not Goodell believed he had tapes is no excuse.
I disagree. But we've already argued this in previous threads.
But that was unprecedented... Goodell punishing a coach. He hadn't done it before. He had an explanation for that one... coaches held to a higher standard... that was believable, because it was unprecedented. When you compare that with how Belichick (a coach) was punished for something that actually hurt the integrity of the game, then THAT'S when it became completely suspect. He didn't hold that coach to a higher standard.
And I don't disagree. I've said previously that a suspension would have been in order, and I wouldn't have had a problem with that. Besides I really have never argued against a harsher punishment except with respect to the difficulty of stripping the Patriots of their Super Bowl wins.
Yes... but like I said Walsh's credibility (if his testimony was opposed to Belichick's like we all suspect) is instantly higher because Belichick has already been caught.
But I focusing more on what Specter can do with that testimony. Without evidence, it will be more on the order of Clemens and his trainer. One says one thing, the other denies. We may believe the trainer but as far as punishment, the evidence won't support it even if the suspicions remain.
Then why point out it's "he said/he said"? When you say that you imply that no one is more credible.
And no, a true "he said he said" doesn't have one side more credible than the other. That's the meaning of the term. You can't determine what's true because all you have is two people's opposing testimony and both are equally credible.
I don't think I said no one is more credible. I think I said without the tapes it will be a he said/he said.
At issue here isn't just getting to the bottom of Spygate and how extensive it was, but assigning appropriate punishment. It has already been mentioned that the Pats spying went back to 2001. So if Walsh has tapes, then that will work to his favor in terms of further punishing the Pats (which Goodell said/hinted he would do if Walsh's claims are true). If Walsh doesn't have tapes, then nothing is going to come of his claims, especially when he says he has more and it's later discovered that he didn't.
EVERYBODY'S convinced the Pats cheated!!
That's not in dispute. Even I am convinced they cheated.
Where Specter got involved was with Goodell's handling of the investigation. If Specter hears from Walsh, with or without tapes, the point of the inquiry is to see what the extent of the cheating was, and if Goodell acted properly in the investigation and punishment. Walsh can testify to what, if any, contact Goodell had with him, and how thoroughly Goodell investigated the matter.
I really don't understand how you could miss the point so consistently.
I'm not missing that point. I'm merely saying that it won't really amount to anything in the long run. We already know that the Pats cheated. We already know (and knew before Specter's inquiry) that the Pats cheated as far back as 2001.
If Walsh doesn't produce any tapes or is found to be a liar since he has claimed he has evidence, do you think those who question Goodell's handling of this affair are going to cut him slack? No.
Hence, my comment ...
tyke1doe said:
Specter can question Walsh all he wants, but if he doesn't have any evidence - i.e., the tapes - then it's going to be simply he said he said.
But I'm waiting for these tapes Walsh is suppose to have. Will he go Royal Flush or is he just bluffing?
We'll soon find out.
I think you keep creating a scenario in which you think I'm missing the point. I'm not. The issue here is more than just what Walsh knows or the extent of the Pats cheating ways (which we know went back as far as 2001) but additional punishment.
That's what I'm talking about. And that's what others are hoping for too when they suggest that the Pats should have to forfeit their Super Bowl wins.
