Specter: Patriots Cheated in '04 Against Steelers

[Bob Sacamano]

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.

please, don't throw percentages around, unless you actually did the math, they're all made up

and what exactly is Goodell covering up?

 

[SultanOfSix]

please, don't throw percentages around

and what exactly is Goodell covering up?

Did you read what I wrote?

I have no idea, but that's the default position until a "rational" explanation is given. The burden is on him to give a substantial enough reason otherwise.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Did you read what I wrote?

I have no idea, but that's the default position until a "rational" explanation is given. The burden is on him to give a substantial enough reason otherwise.

oh, so if you have no idea, it must be an evil conspiracy

gotcha

"the terrorists have entered our imagination!"

and who exactly does Goodell have to unburden himself to? you?

 

[SultanOfSix]

oh, so if you have no idea, it must be an evil conspiracy

gotcha

"the terrorists have entered our imagination!"

Boy, some people have problems reading and assuming illogical positions.

My lack of knowledge of what he is "hiding" (if he is) doesn't prohibit me from assuming the most likely default position, which somehow got turned into a strawman, not surprisingly.

 

[tyke1doe]

Did you read what I wrote?

I have no idea, but that's the default position until a "rational" explanation is given. The burden is on him to give a substantial enough reason otherwise.

And who determines "substantial enough reason"?

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Boy, some people have problems reading and assuming illogical positions.

My lack of knowledge of what he is "hiding" (if he is) doesn't prohibit me from assuming the most likely default position, which somehow got turned into a strawman, not surprisingly.

how convenient

yet you try to pass off this "default" bullchition, that contains no proof, as fact

 

[Bob Sacamano]

And who determines "substantial enough reason"?

still no rational explanation from the supposed rational members of the board

trying to cast doubt is cool, I should try it

 

[peplaw06]

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.

Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining. You're being facetious, and you know it.

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

That's not all. It's what Walsh said, what the destroyed tapes said, what other teams say, what Mangini says, etc.

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

It wasn't creating headlines until the week before the Super Bowl. What fans say on message boards means little in the grand scheme of things.

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.

Do you know what a subpoena is? Hint: it's not a search warrant.

But Goodell doesn't have to have either FYI.

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.

This little tangent into whether Goodell has subpoena power is completely out of left field. Not to mention the fact that again you have misapplied terms used in the legal world. I thought I warned you about that.

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.

Is there a point somewhere in this paragraph?

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.

You're right... it is irrational to try to reason with the irrational. I guess I didn't want to believe that you were completely irrational. Oh well, guess I was wrong on that one. The good thing is that I can bring myself back to rationality rather easily. You? I'm not so sure.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

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

Yes, you are irrational if you can't see given the Pats success, in particularly this year, why a person in Goodell's position may be motivated to try and sweep this under the rug.

Whether or not you believe the Pats cheated or it made a difference, the fact is that it has put a sizeable dent in the game's intregrity in many fans' eyes. I'm not saying it's a definite thing with Goodell, but it's not a stretch to think that Goodell wanted to sweep this under the rug in hopes that if he did it wouldn't hurt the integrity of the game.

Either that or he's just stupid.




YAKUZA

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Yes, you are irrational if you can't see given the Pats success, in particularly this year, why a person in Goodell's position may be motivated to try and sweep this under the rug.

for forever, or just for the season?

Whether or not you believe the Pats cheated or it made a difference, the fact is that it has put a sizeable dent in the game's intregrity in many fans' eyes. I'm not saying it's a definite thing with Goodell, but it's not a stretch to think that Goodell wanted to sweep this under the rug in hopes that if he did it wouldn't hurt the integrity of the game.

Either that or he's just stupid.




YAKUZA

I think he did it so that the focus during the season wouldn't be on Spy-gate, I've already admitted that Goodell probably wanted this to go away, but for only the season, you can't just make something like this disappear from people's minds forever, no matter how hard you try

I don't think he's evil, or stupid, trying to make money? yes

 

[Yakuza Rich]

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.

Glazer having a tape should give almost no reason for destroying the tape. Let's say Glazer decides to doctor the tape or take the tape out of context and show it to the public, then that provides reason as to why Goodell should've kept the tape so he can then show the public what was really on the tape.

We do know that Goodell said that he believed it was an isolated incident. Perhaps he meant something different, but to me if he thought that there were other incidents that he couldn't prove, he would've commented that they are still investigating the incident. Instead he thought the case was shut and refused to answer questions from the press about it up until Specter became involved.

If he's not a liar and if he's not stupid, then he's incredibly naive.



YAKUZA

 

[DCfaninDC]

1. Jay Glazer already got a copy of the tape. So much for security.

So now people should believe a guy who can keep an eye on some TAPES.

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.

Both points imply one thing, no one except for the Pats know if that was all. I am sure Goodell destroyed all the tapes and have no back-up copies to save his *** and the NFL's in case he ithey are accused of something.

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.

Even if Goodell didn't ask the Pats if there were more tapes and the Pats confirming it, who else could be held responsible?

The bottom line is that they wouldn't have destroyed the tapes if the didn't feel like they can be used against them. All the reasons above and that I have heard before do not makes sense. With new technology and encryption, he could have saved the data digitally and then keep it in a safe. Also, the Pats could have very easily made copies and gave the original to Goodell.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

for forever, or just for the season?



I think he did it so that the focus during the season wouldn't be on Spy-gate, I've already admitted that Goodell probably wanted this to go away, but for only the season, you can't just make something like this disappear from people's minds forever, no matter how hard you try

I don't think he's evil, or stupid, trying to make money? yes

If he's trying to make money by sweeping it under the rug for a season then it stands to reason that he felt it would probably be beneficial if he could sweep it under the rug for eternity.

Regardless of whether or not you think people will forget (and many people often due with time), it's not unreasonable to think Goodell thought otherwise. We are not too far away from a Dallas trainer talking about knowing Atlanta and Dallas players who took steroids and HGH. Do you ever hear that being talked about now?

Anyway, my opinion is that I could see your point if he kept the tapes. That would've told me that he was possibly investigating after the season and could then use those tapes if new evidence came along. Instead, he destroyed the evidence and his reasoning is either stupid or not true.





YAKUZA

 

[Bob Sacamano]

If he's trying to make money by sweeping it under the rug for a season then it stands to reason that he felt it would probably be beneficial if he could sweep it under the rug for eternity.

that, I just can't get into, that stands for whoever to believe what they may

We are not too far away from a Dallas trainer talking about knowing Atlanta and Dallas players who took steroids and HGH. Do you ever hear that being talked about now?

either the guy was full of crap, or they're trying to hide a big ring of active players using HGH, involving some star NFL players, I hope it's the former

Anyway, my opinion is that I could see your point if he kept the tapes. That would've told me that he was possibly investigating after the season and could then use those tapes if new evidence came along. Instead, he destroyed the evidence and his reasoning is either stupid or not true.

YAKUZA

again, it stands for whoever to believe what they want to believe

and it's not like Belichick and the Pats released all of the tapes to him anyways

I just wonder if this would be an issue at all if Goodell just went ahead and taken both 1st round picks away and suspended Belicheat 5 games

 

[tyke1doe]

Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining. You're being facetious, and you know it.

Well, I'm sorry you feel that way. I can only tell you the truth. What you choose to believe is another matter.

That's not all. It's what Walsh said, what the destroyed tapes said, what other teams say, what Mangini says, etc.

Wait a second. I thought the "destroyed" tapes were of the late 2006 and 2007 season? Now the destroyed tapes are of the Super Bowl walk-through of the Rams?
Sorry, but the Pats have said they didn't tape the walk-through and Walsh seems to allege they did.

It wasn't creating headlines until the week before the Super Bowl. What fans say on message boards means little in the grand scheme of things.

You say "public scrutiny." I thought fans on message boards and people in general constituted the "public."

Spygate has been an issue since September. It hardly went away and was mentioned by cast members on ESPN, by players and by fans on message boards and at watering holes throughout the country.

Do you know what a subpoena is? Hint: it's not a search warrant.

But Goodell doesn't have to have either FYI.

My bad. I meant search warrant.

And you may say that Goodell didn't need either, but without it, he can't just barge into the Patriots headquarters, especially if he thought the Patriots were so nefarious that they would discard evidence before he had asked for it.

Again, its funny that you would criticize Goodell for trusting the Pats to turn over tapes and then in the same breath argue Goodell could just waltz into the Patriots offices and take what he wants without the power to do so.

This little tangent into whether Goodell has subpoena power is completely out of left field. Not to mention the fact that again you have misapplied terms used in the legal world. I thought I warned you about that.

Yes, I used the wrong term.

No, it's not out of left field.

Is there a point somewhere in this paragraph?

Just this: How was Goodell suppose to know which tapes were which if he had the authority to barge into the Patriots office and seize tapes?

You're right... it is irrational to try to reason with the irrational. I guess I didn't want to believe that you were completely irrational. Oh well, guess I was wrong on that one. The good thing is that I can bring myself back to rationality rather easily. You? I'm not so sure.

Just so long as you admit to bouts of irrationality, I'm okay with that.
Besides, you know I can emerge from irrationality too because we have agreed on the issue of the Rooney Rule in other threads, unless you were being totally irrational on that subject too.

 

[tyke1doe]

Yes, you are irrational if you can't see given the Pats success, in particularly this year, why a person in Goodell's position may be motivated to try and sweep this under the rug.

But when Spygate occurred and Goodell issued his punishment, the Pats were 1-0 like 15 other teams in the NFL.
So now Goodell is clairvoyant and sees that the Pats would be 16-0 when he issued his ruling?
And you talk about irrationality?

Whether or not you believe the Pats cheated or it made a difference, the fact is that it has put a sizeable dent in the game's intregrity in many fans' eyes. I'm not saying it's a definite thing with Goodell, but it's not a stretch to think that Goodell wanted to sweep this under the rug in hopes that if he did it wouldn't hurt the integrity of the game.

Either that or he's just stupid.

That's plausible, that he could have swept this under the rug to protect the integrity of the game.
But here's why I would question that conclusion: If he were trying to sweep everything under the rug why would he ...

1. Issue a punishment,
2. Acknowledge that the Pats were rumored to have cheated previously,
3. Indicate if he found additional information he would continue the investigation,
4. Aggressively monitor the Pats and their video taping program,
5. Continue to assess claims that the Pats cheated in other contests.

Add to that the only tapes we know were destroyed, according to Goodell, are tapes of games late in the 2006 season and 2007 preseason games.

Of course, this suggests that if the Pats had a more extensive library collection but only gave up tapes of the 2006 and 2007 season, then they are either lying, destroy them themselves or the tapes they have aren't conclusive enough to determine if they indeed were illegal.

Those alternate points lead me to reasonably believe that there isn't a cover-up going on as you suggest.

 

[tyke1doe]

So now people should believe a guy who can keep an eye on some TAPES.

Huh?

Both points imply one thing, no one except for the Pats know if that was all. I am sure Goodell destroyed all the tapes and have no back-up copies to save his *** and the NFL's in case he ithey are accused of something.

Proof please?

Even if Goodell didn't ask the Pats if there were more tapes and the Pats confirming it, who else could be held responsible?

Goodell asked the Pats to turn over all their illegal tapes, or that's what I would assume for news stories.

But if they didn't turn over all their tapes, and it was found out, then Goodell could issue further sanctions. You must have missed the Chris Mortensen story I offered on the other page.

The bottom line is that they wouldn't have destroyed the tapes if the didn't feel like they can be used against them. All the reasons above and that I have heard before do not makes sense. With new technology and encryption, he could have saved the data digitally and then keep it in a safe. Also, the Pats could have very easily made copies and gave the original to Goodell.

Which is why Mortensen writes this 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.

So here we have the commissioner ordering the Patriots to turn over all the tapes.
I guess if he had the legal power to execute a search of the Patriots' premise, he could have round them up himself. But he didn't.
So he tells them to turn over all tapes.
They turn over the tapes, or so they say.
They are now on notice that, based on their actions, they have no more illegal tapes and not only that, but no copies exist.
Now, if any other copies surface, they will prove to be liars, and Goodell can take further actions against them.

Makes sense to me, and, fortunately, I have the above story to support my perspective on this argument.

 

[tyke1doe]

Glazer having a tape should give almost no reason for destroying the tape. Let's say Glazer decides to doctor the tape or take the tape out of context and show it to the public, then that provides reason as to why Goodell should've kept the tape so he can then show the public what was really on the tape.

With all due respect, this makes no sense whatsoever.
First, why would you even assume that Glazer would doctor a tape?
Second, why would Goodell be pressed to show the tape was doctored when the tape was illegal anyway?
Third, if the purpose is to get rid of an illegal tape, there would be no need to show the "real" "authentic" tape.

We do know that Goodell said that he believed it was an isolated incident. Perhaps he meant something different, but to me if he thought that there were other incidents that he couldn't prove, he would've commented that they are still investigating the incident. Instead he thought the case was shut and refused to answer questions from the press about it up until Specter became involved.

First, law enforcement rarely, if ever, discloses the details of an investigation. All you're going to know about is that an investigation is ongoing, but the details of that, you're not going to know.

Second, Goodell said he has been reviewing leads over the past six months. You say that he's just saying that because of Specter's inquiry. And I would believe you IF not for the Chris Mortensen article I cited repeatedly.

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.

This article, written in September, gives credibility to the notion that Goodell was continuing to investigate this issue. That he didn't tell us about it (or more precisely, tell us the details about an ongoing investigation) isn't uncommon with respect to the secretive nature of investigations.

If he's not a liar and if he's not stupid, then he's incredibly naive.

He may have been very naive with respect to public reaction. I'll give you that.

 

[Blake]

With all due respect, this makes no sense whatsoever.
First, why would you even assume that Glazer would doctor a tape?
Second, why would Goodell be pressed to show the tape was doctored when the tape was illegal anyway?
Third, if the purpose is to get rid of an illegal tape, there would be no need to show the "real" "authentic" tape.



First, law enforcement rarely, if ever, discloses the details of an investigation. All you're going to know about is that an investigation is ongoing, but the details of that, you're not going to know.

Second, Goodell said he has been reviewing leads over the past six months. You say that he's just saying that because of Specter's inquiry. And I would believe you IF not for the Chris Mortensen article I cited repeatedly.



This article, written in September, gives credibility to the notion that Goodell was continuing to investigate this issue. That he didn't tell us about it (or more precisely, tell us the details about an ongoing investigation) isn't uncommon with respect to the secretive nature of investigations.



He may have been very naive with respect to public reaction. I'll give you that.

Your one of those that likes to hear themselves talk aren't you

 

[CanadianCowboysFan]

down comes the mighty empire.............


its a damn shame what this will do to Brady's legacy as one of the greats ......or will it have any effect? he is no doubt one of the best ever...right?

easy to be great when you know what is coming at you

this might also explain how Mumbles became the great coach in New England after being an abject failure in Cleveland