Specter: Patriots Cheated in '04 Against Steelers

[Bob Sacamano]

Someone just pulled this one out of their ***.

it's just as good as

"I don't know what it is, but Goodell is hiding it"

 

[theogt]

it's just as good as

"I don't know what it is, but Goodell is hiding it"

Really? Because one is based on the thought that his actions were irrational. And the other is an irrational thought based on his actions.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

And the other is an irrational thought based on his actions.

that would be you guys

the point is that neither of us know what Goodell's true intentions were

 

[tyke1doe]

This is nothing like Clemens and McNamee. It would only be comparable had Clemens previously tested positive for steroids.

Again, you miss the point (why am I not surprised).

The point, counselor, is this:

Right now Clemens/McNamee is a he said/he said argument.
But if it can be proven - through evidence - that Clemens lied, he faces perjury (punishment) because he will have lied under oath.

That's what that phrase means!!!

You know, post after post I have read from you, and I keep thinking, "he can't be this dense." But now I'm convinced you are in fact this dense.

Please, spare me the condescension, Pepelaw. It's unbecoming you, and it reeks of immaturity.

You know as well as I do that people can draw conclusions from he said/she said comments.

While he said/he said is not an argument of evidence, people draw conclusions based on who they think is more credible.

If you can't understand that point, then maybe you need to check your own "density."

Specter isn't going to impose any more punishment on the Pats. Congress doesn't have that specific authority to punish just one team. That's left to the Commish through the CBA.

I don't think I said Congress was going to punish the Pats. I think I said if any further information comes from this, the Commissioner will hand down a harsher punishment.

And you can't unilaterally say that nothing more will come of Spygate if Walsh doesn't have tapes. The tapes are NOT the end all be all.

To Goodell they are. And since you acknowledge he is the one who doles out the punishment, no tapes, no additional punishment.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

you don't think Goodell was trying to make the season the focus, and not spy-gate? I'm trying to look at all options instead of choosing to stick w/ Goodell is an idiot, or he's Hitler

Then why would you destroy the evidence? According to Goodell he was worried about "security issues" which makes no sense when the NFL has the tapes and just has to lock them up.

If Goodell really wanted to focus on the season and investigate the matter later, anybody with above room temperature IQ would have kept the tapes locked up and THEN do the investigation when the season is over.




YAKUZA

 

[tyke1doe]

Yes, but it's blatantly obvious that Goodell had NO intention of investigating the matter to begin with, much less to investigate it further.

If he had NO intention of investigating the matter to begin with, why were the Patriots stripped off a draft choice and Belchick and Kraft both fined?

It wasn't until Specter wanted to bring him forward to ask him about why he destroyed the tapes.....which Goodell's excuse doesn't make any sense and shows that Goodell didn't care to investigate the matter....that Goodell dropped the line that if additional info surfaces, he would issue harsher fines.

Uh, you're wrong. Note the date of the article.

If Pats don't comply with Goodell's order, more sanctions likely coming
By Chris Mortensen
ESPN.com

Updated: September 16, 2007, 11:11 AM ET

NFL commissioner Roger Goodell has ordered the New England Patriots to turn over all videotape, files and notes relating to all their activity that resulted in the disciplinary action of coach Bill Belichick and the franchise, according to sources familiar with the details of Goodell's private communication with the team, ESPN's Chris Mortensen has learned.


If the Patriots are not compliant, the commissioner is prepared to impose even greater sanctions, the sources said.

Goodell alluded to the league's position when he made his decision public to discipline the Patriots when he stated that the NFL would "review" and "monitor" the team's videotaping procedures, effective immediately. Privately, the commissioner was more specific in his demands and expectations with Patriots owner Robert Kraft when the two men spoke Thursday, sources said.

The action is being taken because Belichick all but conceded to the commissioner that his interpretation of the rules allowed him to use videotape of opposing team hand signals for future games but not on game day, sources said. The commissioner rejected that interpretation and was aware that there had been other incidents involving the Patriots in recent years.

If Goodell discovers that Belichick and the team has copied the files without disclosure to the NFL, the consequences will be significant, sources said.

Chris Mortensen covers the NFL for ESPN.

What Goodell did means that he's not very bright or he's a liar who tried to sweep this under the rug. As it appears that the Pats' violations are much more serious, that makes Goodell look either more stupid or more of a cover up artist.

No, it doesn't.

First, Goodell already said he had word that the Pats taped games as far back as 2001. But knowing that they did and proving that they did are two different animals. They had proof that the Pats taped the Jets game.

Second, you think after the Pats got caught taping the Jets game by the league they couldn't have gone on a "destroy" mission of their own?

Third, Goodell had the Pats turn over all illegal tapes. The Pats did. Now, they may have had other tapes, but that's why Goodell said - as the article implies - if he discovers that other tapes exist, he will be even harsher in his punishment because it will indicate that the Pats lied about the existence of other tapes. Therefore, he destroys the tapes he received from the Pats and then reserves the right to punish them further if tapes do appear.

Fourth, I don't think Goodell, as commissioner, has subpoena powers (maybe Pepelaw can address this) so he can't just go into the Patriots organization and legally demand that they turn over tapes. Remember, this isn't a legal proceeding where an investigator would have subpoena powers.

Either way, the league and the fans can't afford to have a commissioner who is either this dumb or this much of a crook.

I think that's just a silly opinion to say Goodell is a crook. He may not have handled the tape situation the best, but I can understand his reasoning.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

that would be you guys

the point is that neither of us know what Goodell's true intentions were

Yes, but it doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to figure out that chances are he closed the investigation.






YAKUZA

 

[peplaw06]

Again, you miss the point (why am I not surprised).

:laugh2:

I don't think you even know what your point is.

Right now Clemens/McNamee is a he said/he said argument.
But if it can be proven - through evidence - that Clemens lied, he faces perjury (punishment) because he will have lied under oath.

What does that have to do with anything in the context of this conversation?

Oh and guess what... Clemens - McNamee isn't even a he said/he said argument anymore. It's a he said/they said... they being McNamee and Pettitte.

Please, spare me the condescension, Pepelaw. It's unbecoming you, and it reeks of immaturity.

Oh please, you've been condescending since day 1 of your "debating" with me. Immaturity?? The constant use of the word "counselor" and intentional misspelling of my s/n, which for some reason you apparently think is funny.... think that's mature?

I only let it go because I'm not a whiner. But if you want to call me out for returning fire, then what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Need a Kleenex? How 'bout some vasoline? My guess is you need both, but more of the latter.

While he said/he said is not an argument of evidence, people draw conclusions based on who they think is more credible.

It's cute watching you struggle with the simplest of concepts.... Like watching a baby horse trying to stand up.

I don't think I said Congress was going to punish the Pats. I think I said if any further information comes from this, the Commissioner will hand down a harsher punishment.

This is your comment...

At issue here isn't just getting to the bottom of Spygate and how extensive it was, but assigning appropriate punishment.

We're talking about why Congress is getting involved. It ain't to try to further punish the Pats. It's to see whether Goodell acted properly.

And Goodell may indeed end up issuing further punishment. But it's embarrassing for the league that it will have taken Congressional involvement for that to come about.

To Goodell they are. And since you acknowledge he is the one who doles out the punishment, no tapes, no additional punishment.

The tapes are the end all be all to Goodell? How do you know that? has he ever said that? Are you saying he would disregard any information that came from Walsh if he didn't have tapes. Yeah, that'll end the speculation that there's a cover-up.

 

[peplaw06]

If he had NO intention of investigating the matter to begin with, why were the Patriots stripped off a draft choice and Belchick and Kraft both fined?

Probably to try to ease the public scrutiny. It worked... for about 6 months.

First, Goodell already said he had word that the Pats taped games as far back as 2001. But knowing that they did and proving that they did are two different animals. They had proof that the Pats taped the Jets game.

So let me get this straight? Goodell has word that they taped back since 2001... then he refuses to interview the guy who worked for the Pats, even though he knew about him, because he didn't think anything was there? Couldn't that guy possibly help him prove this?

With every attempt you make to spin this, I become more convinced that I'm right.

Third, Goodell had the Pats turn over all illegal tapes. The Pats did. Now, they may have had other tapes, but that's why Goodell said - as the article implies - if he discovers that other tapes exist, he will be even harsher in his punishment because it will indicate that the Pats lied about the existence of other tapes. Therefore, he destroys the tapes he received from the Pats and then reserves the right to punish them further if tapes do appear.

How can you say conclusively, "The Pats did [turn over all illegal tapes]," then in the next sentence say "Now they may have had other tapes"? Does that really make sense to you when you type it?

And yeah that plan sounds perfect... let's allow the Pats to turn over the tapes on their own. When they turn over 6 (!!!!!) tapes, that buys them time to destroy the rest, decreasing the chances that Goodell ever discovering that other tapes exist. If you believe that the Pats only had 6 tapes in their "library," I've got a nice piece of land with your name on it. It's got a great view of the Nebraska mountains.

Fourth, I don't think Goodell as commissioner has subpoena powers (maybe Pepelaw can address this) so he can't just go into the Patriots organization and legally demand that they turn over tapes. Remember, this isn't a legal proceeding where the investigator would have subpoena powers.

Are you serious? The commissioner doesn't have to have subpoena power to force a team under his charge to follow his rules or the rules of the league.

I think that's just a silly opinion to say Goodell is a crook. He may not have handled the tape situation the best, but I can understand his reasoning.

I fully understand how you can understand his reasoning. You're irrational.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

If he had NO intention of investigating the matter to begin with, why were the Patriots stripped off a draft choice and Belchick and Kraft both fined? .

I'm talking about the extent of the Patriots cheating. Goodell's actions dictate that he was only interested in investigating the cheating against the Jets. Goodell later said that he believed it was isolated to just the Jets game :bang2:

The rational way of investigating the Patriots would be to have the NFL look into the Patriots possibly doing this beforehand. Instead, from Goodell and his stooges mouths, the NFL basically asked the Pats to turn themselves in.

you're wrong. Note the date of the article.

Yes, then the Pats "turned in the evidence" and the case was closed. He had zero intention of finding out if the Pats cheated outside of the Jets game because in his mind the Patriots "complied" with the NFL. Goodell himself said that he believed it was an isolate incident to the Jets game and then destroyed the tapes.

I could only take it that Goodell felt that the case was closed because in his mind, it was an isolated incident...the Pats "complied" with what they were looking for...and he destroyed the tapes.

Sounds every bit like Goodell thought the case was closed and had no intention of investigating it any futher.

Because if he did have the intention of looking at this further, he would've kept the tapes just in case more evidence came along so he could use that against the Pats.

It's kind of one of those things that anybody with half of brain does.

If Goodell isn't a crook, then he's too stupid to be the commissioner and the league should start looking elsewhere.






YAKUZA

 

[tyke1doe]

Then why would you destroy the evidence? According to Goodell he was worried about "security issues" which makes no sense when the NFL has the tapes and just has to lock them up.

It makes no sense if you're fixed on forcing his actions into what you think.

Here are the issues:

1. Jay Glazer already got a copy of the tape. So much for security.
2. Goodell doesn't know whether copies of the tape exist so security really isn't going to do you any good if copies exist.
3. The Pats (who could have destroyed the tapes prior to receiving the memo from Goodell to turn over all their tapes) gave Goodell what they said they had.
4. Goodell knows that the Pats have been taping other teams. So let's say he receives only tapes from the 2006 and 2007 season. He says, "Okay, this is all you have?" The Pats say, "Yes." And Goodell says, "Okay, these are going in the fire." He has put the Patriots on notice that if anything else surfaces, they are responsible because they said those were all the tapes. It is the Pats responsibility if Walsh has a copy of other tapes because they told Goodell that all they had was what they gave him.

That makes sense to me.

If Goodell really wanted to focus on the season and investigate the matter later, anybody with above room temperature IQ would have kept the tapes locked up and THEN do the investigation when the season is over.

Pulease. Then people would have been crying over delayed justice or stripping the Pats of a first round pick that the Commissioner knows would have been pick No. 31 in the draft.

What we know is that the NFL caught the Pats illegally taping the Jets game. That is why the punishment was handed out, because of that game.

As I've illustrated with the article above, Goodell reserved the right to hand down additional punishment if any other tapes surfaced. If anybody should be sweating, it's not Goodell. It's the Patriots. Goodell suggested as far back as September, that if the Pats lied about the existence of other tapes, he would hammer them even further. He didn't just conjure this up because Specter initiated an investigation.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Yes, but it doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to figure out that chances are he closed the investigation.






YAKUZA

I don't think Goodell is that stupid to think that destroying a couple of tapes was going to make people forget about this forever, the word was out, there is no degrees of cheating, no matter if you only have 2 tape of team's walk-throughs and defensive signals, or 200, cheating is cheating, suggesting that Goodell is somehow trying to mask the extent of the Pat's cheating is bordering on Roswell conspiracy

it makes more sense that he was trying to bury spy-gate during the season so that it wasn't the whole focus of it, Lord knows the Pats get enough already, and did get enough, w/ their pursuit of perfection, I think Goodell closed the investigation during the season to possibly visit it after

 

[tyke1doe]

:laugh2:

I don't think you even know what your point is.

Oh, I know what my point is. But nice try at diversion.

What does that have to do with anything in the context of this conversation?

Oh and guess what... Clemens - McNamee isn't even a he said/he said argument anymore. It's a he said/they said... they being McNamee and Pettitte.

Nothing, other than it was an example of He said/He said vs. He said/Evidence.

Oh please, you've been condescending since day 1 of your "debating" with me. Immaturity?? The constant use of the word "counselor" and intentional misspelling of my s/n, which for some reason you apparently think is funny.... think that's mature?

Actually, counselor is a term befitting your title as a lawyer. That's why I use it. But if you have your feelings on your sleeves, I can see why you would take offense. It wasn't intended as an offense.

As for my misspelling of your s/n, I'm sorry, I didn't know I was misspelling it. That was an honest mistake.

But back to condescending, I think you understand what I'm talking about. He said/he said is exactly that, but that doesn't mean people can't draw conclusions and infer credibility from he said/he said. You know this, counselor.

I only let it go because I'm not a whiner. But if you want to call me out for returning fire, then what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Need a Kleenex? How 'bout some vasoline? My guess is you need both, but more of the latter.

I don't even know what your later paragraph even means. But I can give as good as I can take. So don't worry about me. I figure you'd rather discuss than toss implied insults. Maybe I was wrong.

It's cute watching you struggle with the simplest of concepts.... Like watching a baby horse trying to stand up.

Yes, people can't draw conclusions from He said/He said or determine that one party is more credible than the other.

Watching you choke on gnats and swallow camels is about as amusing as you watching a baby horse trying to stand up.

This is your comment... We're talking about why Congress is getting involved. It ain't to try to further punish the Pats. It's to see whether Goodell acted properly.

And Goodell may indeed end up issuing further punishment. But it's embarrassing for the league that it will have taken Congressional involvement for that to come about.

I've initially said Congress doesn't have any business in this issue anyway.

But Specter already thinks Goodell didn't act properly. So? He talks to Goodell and he reiterates what he thought initially, i.e., he's not buying Goodell's reason for destroying the tape.

So what more does that tell us that we didn't already know?

The tapes are the end all be all to Goodell? How do you know that? has he ever said that? Are you saying he would disregard any information that came from Walsh if he didn't have tapes. Yeah, that'll end the speculation that there's a cover-up.

And you quizzed me about understanding He said/He said.

Without the tapes, it amounts to what Walsh says versus what the Pats say.

 

[theogt]

POSTED 8:37 p.m. EST, February 14, 2008
OTHER TEAMS SITTING ON MORE SPYGATE EVIDENCE?

A source tells us that there's a strong belief in league circles that multiple NFL teams are aware of evidence that might or might not have been turned over to the the league by the Patriots in connection with the Spygate scandal, and that such evidence could be disclosed if one or more of said teams conclude that the league isn't doing enough to investigate the situation.

Of course, it's unclear whether the league is aware of such evidence because it's unclear what the league has. Or, more accurately, had.

One thing that isn't unclear is that there were indeed reports last year that the Pats' practice of videotaping defensive coaching signals dated back to 2000. We now recall Chris Mortensen of ESPN explaining this fact, and also pointing out that Pats coach Bill Belichick claimed that he believed that the practice fell within the scope of the rules.

With that said, we still can't recall an affirmative statement from the league in Octboer 2007 (as reported by the AP on Tuesday) that the taping dated back to 2000. If we were cynics, we might think that the league engaged in a deliberate P.R. ploy to put the word out in this regard a day before the meeting between Commissioner Roger Goodell and Senator Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), so that Goodell's disclosure to Specter -- and subsequent disclosure to the public -- that the taping dated back to 2000 wouldn't be mistakenly met with dropping jaws.

It's a good thing we're not cynics.

But even if that's what happened, we can't say we blame the league for refreshing everyone's memory before giving Specter a nugget that he might have otherwise been able to paint as new information.

 

[tyke1doe]

Probably to try to ease the public scrutiny. It worked... for about 6 months.

Yeah, because it's not like everyone stopped complaining about Goodell's "lax" punishment over those 6 months?

So let me get this straight? Goodell has word that they taped back since 2001... then he refuses to interview the guy who worked for the Pats, even though he knew about him, because he didn't think anything was there? Couldn't that guy possibly help him prove this?

If there is new information that is credible, new material that could be credible that would help us," Goodell said, "yes, we'll look at it.

"We've had people come to us over the last six months with material that we pursued and it didn't lead to anything."

Among the things the league wants to talk to Walsh about is a recent Boston Herald report that a member of the Patriots' video staff taped the St. Louis Rams' pregame walk-through before Super Bowl XXXVI.

"We were aware of this before," Goodell said. "We pursued it and weren't able to get any information that was credible. We were aware of some of the rumors and we pursued some of them and we continue that. From Day 1, I said if we feel there is new information that's inconsistent with what we've been told [by the Patriots], I reserve the right to reopen it.


"The staffs are talking about making sure [Walsh] has the ability to talk and what information he might have."

With every attempt you make to spin this, I become more convinced that I'm right.

I'm not surprised that you think you're right.

How can you say conclusively, "The Pats did [turn over all illegal tapes]," then in the next sentence say "Now they may have had other tapes"? Does that really make sense to you when you type it?

I'm merely going by what the Commissioner said. He said he told the Pats to turn over the illegal tapes. He said they did.
Now maybe the Pats didn't turn over all the tapes (I don't know, but let's assume they didn't) but that puts them under greater scrutiny because if that's the case, they will have lied to Goodell.
That's the point I was trying to make.

And yeah that plan sounds perfect... let's allow the Pats to turn over the tapes on their own. When they turn over 6 (!!!!!) tapes, that buys them time to destroy the rest, decreasing the chances that Goodell ever discovering that other tapes exist. If you believe that the Pats only had 6 tapes in their "library," I've got a nice piece of land with your name on it. It's got a great view of the Nebraska mountains.

I find this comment interesting in light of a point you attempt to make below.

Are you serious? The commissioner doesn't have to have subpoena power to force a team under his charge to follow his rules or the rules of the league.

He did force the team to follow his rules and the rules of the league - hence ordering them to turn over the tapes and penalizing the Patriots.
But he can't go storming into the Patriots office without a subpoena. I don't know if he has that power anyway. And, yes, that would make a difference.

And I find it interesting that you, on the one hand, chastize Goodell for allowing the Patriots to simply comply with his order to hand over the tapes and then expect the Pats to just hand over everything without a subpoena, as if Goodell had the authority to barge into their offices and confiscate all tapes.

Furthermore, NFL teams have libraries full of tapes. Having tapes of games isn't illegal. The issue is taping signals during a game. We're not talking about merely game tapes. We're talking about tapes where you see illegal filming of signals during a game.

I fully understand how you can understand his reasoning. You're irrational.

And yet you continue to argue with me. Doesn't say too much about your rationality either, unless you're trying desparately to prove something.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

And yet you continue to argue with me. Doesn't say too much about your rationality either, unless you're trying desparately to prove something.

it's funny how we're irrational, but they have yet to give us a rational explanation as to why, and what, Goodell is "hiding"

very rational

"the terrorists have entered our imagination!":laugh2:

 

[tyke1doe]

I'm talking about the extent of the Patriots cheating. Goodell's actions dictate that he was only interested in investigating the cheating against the Jets. Goodell later said that he believed it was isolated to just the Jets game :bang2:

He only had evidence that it occurred in the Jets game because Mangeni (spelling?) ratted out Belichick and the league caught the Pats video guy violating the league policy.

Again, I don't think we fans know what exactly an illegally made tape vs. a legally made tape looks like. I know Jay Glazer aired one on the FOX program, but I don't remember what that shot looked like. So I think there's a lot of guess work as to this issue.

I remember Goodell saying he saw some tapes and couldn't determine whether they were illegal tapes or not.

The rational way of investigating the Patriots would be to have the NFL look into the Patriots possibly doing this beforehand. Instead, from Goodell and his stooges mouths, the NFL basically asked the Pats to turn themselves in.

Again, I think we're presuming a lot of things here.

First, I asked the question about subpoena powers because unless Goodell has subpoena powers and an enforcement branch to execute search warrants and confiscate team materials, that just doesn't sound plausible or feasible.

Second, Goodell does serve at the pleasure of the owners. Even though he runs the league, he doesn't have the same authority a police investigator has in gathering or collecting evidence.

Third, I don't quite understand your point. Look into it beforehand? The incident came to the attention of the league when Mangeni (spelling?) brought it to the league's attention, and the league caught the Pats with their hands in the cookie jar. How would the league have looked into it beforehand when there was a particular incident that brought this transgression to light?

Yes, then the Pats "turned in the evidence" and the case was closed. He had zero intention of finding out if the Pats cheated outside of the Jets game because in his mind the Patriots "complied" with the NFL. Goodell himself said that he believed it was an isolate incident to the Jets game and then destroyed the tapes.

I could only take it that Goodell felt that the case was closed because in his mind, it was an isolated incident...the Pats "complied" with what they were looking for...and he destroyed the tapes.

Sounds every bit like Goodell thought the case was closed and had no intention of investigating it any futher.

Because if he did have the intention of looking at this further, he would've kept the tapes just in case more evidence came along so he could use that against the Pats.

It's kind of one of those things that anybody with half of brain does.

If Goodell isn't a crook, then he's too stupid to be the commissioner and the league should start looking elsewhere.

That's not what the Chris Mortensen story indicates. I remember Peplaw asking me for a link to the story of Goodell suggesting he would impose further penalties. I had to search to find the story and did so. Granted, it's an on-background story, but it was offered in September and appears consistent with Goodell's actions (both in evaluating information that has been coming to him throughout the season and his statement to impose further sanctions/penalties against the Pats if hard evidence surfaces.)

 

[tyke1doe]

it's funny how we're irrational, but they have yet to give us a rational explanation as to why, and what, Goodell is "hiding"

very rational

"the terrorists have entered our imagination!":laugh2:

LOL.

Folks like to toss the "irrational" line as if it's a trump card.

Then, again, whether JFK's or MLK's assassination or Roswell or the Pentagon and World Trade Center attacks, Americans love a good cover-up and conspiracy theory.

 

[SultanOfSix]

it's funny how we're irrational, but they have yet to give us a rational explanation as to why, and what, Goodell is "hiding"

Actually, it's Goodell who has yet to provide a rational explanation for why he destroyed evidence, which in 99% of all cases is what is done when a conspiracy needs to be covered up. Therefore, the default position is to assume the most likely reason unless a very strong reason is given otherwise, which Goodell has failed to do.

 

[VietCowboy]