Specter: Patriots Cheated in '04 Against Steelers

[tyke1doe]

No the point is once again, you've misapplied terms typically reserved for the legal realm. You're only making it worse.

:laugh2:

Exactly. Search warrants are reserved for the legal world. So any arguments that Goodell could just march into Patriots headquarters and access tapes highlights my point that he doesn't have power to do so.

Thank you for supporting my argument.

Oh, and the obligatory. :laugh2:

Yeah, sounds like a kosher set of circumstances there.

I could care less about Jewish dietary concerns, I'm speaking merely about what we know versus what we don't know.

Not if the investigator is hiding information. Most investigations give at least some indication that they are actually investigating something. When you don't hear anything out of an "investigation" after the only evidence is destroyed, speculation about a "cover-up" is instantly at play.

You don't generally hear anything of an ongoing investigation unless you asked. And even if you do, you're simply going to get "there is an ongoing investigation" and little more. You're not going to get any details of that investigation. I've covered cops, and when I've inquired into certain investigations all I get is "an investigation is ongoing." That's how it works.
Goodell says he's been pursuing and evaluating information as it's presented to him. That sounds like an ongoing investigation to me.

You might wanna read that article that theo posted from Florio. Specifically the part about the lawyer destroying the evidence and what that means to most lawyers.

I don't doubt that lawyers (and journalists for that matter) believe there's a cover-up going on. I've acknowledged in another thread that I don't begrudge anyone who thinks so.

But, here again, all I'm saying is that I can understand why the tapes were destroyed, particularly the Jets tape and specifically the tapes which covered the later 2006 and the 2007 preseason.

 

[tyke1doe]

Which is just laughable in this whole context. Bellichek was punished with the 'steepest' fine in the history of the NFL before Goodell even got the tapes and destroyed them. The idea of there being a steep fine was a concoction by the NFL to downplay this whole event. Goodell 'punished' Bellichek without even looking at the evidence. How can you claim that the punishment was enough, when there wasn't even an 'investigation' into the tapes until after the punishment?

Now, he is saying that he pursued all these various leads after the fact, but couldn't find anything?

You expect us to believe you were interested in pursuing the matter further, when you GET the evidence and destroy it AFTER the punishment?

The guy is straight lying....

The punishment is because of illegal taping of the JETS game.

The league caught the Jets red-handed. Whether the Patriots taped games in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 or 2007 is irrelevant to the punishment the Pats received for being caught by the league for taping the Jets game, and that after Goodell told all 32 clubs that this type of taping was against league policy.

Or, put another way. Let's assume that the Pats never taped a game except for the Jets game. Would the penalty have been any less? NO!

Could the punishment be more severe if it's discovered that the Pats still have illegal tapes? YES!

Why?

Because the Pats swore that they not only didn't tape the Rams walk-through but that they turned over all such tapes.

Why is that so hard to understand?

 

[superpunk]

The punishment is because of illegal taping of the JETS game.

The league caught the Jets red-handed. Whether the Patriots taped games in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 or 2007 is irrelevant to the punishment the Pats received for being caught by the league for taping the Jets game, and that after Goodell told all 32 clubs that this type of taping was against league policy.

Or, put another way. Let's assume that the Pats never taped a game except for the Jets game. Would the penalty have been any less? NO!

Aiello said the heavy penalties assessed the Patriots on Sept. 13 were for "the totality of the conduct" in multiple instances of sign-stealing over several years, not for "one tape seized at the end of one quarter of one game," meaning the tape taken from the Patriots in their season opener at the New York Jets.

Why is that so hard to understand?

Probably because you're wrong.

 

[tyke1doe]

Aiello said the heavy penalties assessed the Patriots on Sept. 13 were for "the totality of the conduct" in multiple instances of sign-stealing over several years, not for "one tape seized at the end of one quarter of one game," meaning the tape taken from the Patriots in their season opener at the New York Jets.

Well, let me read that story, and I'll get back with you.

 

[khiladi]

The punishment is because of illegal taping of the JETS game.

The league caught the Jets red-handed. Whether the Patriots taped games in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 or 2007 is irrelevant to the punishment the Pats received for being caught by the league for taping the Jets game, and that after Goodell told all 32 clubs that this type of taping was against league policy.

Or, put another way. Let's assume that the Pats never taped a game except for the Jets game. Would the penalty have been any less? NO!

Could the punishment be more severe if it's discovered that the Pats still have illegal tapes? YES!

Why?

Because the Pats swore that they not only didn't tape the Rams walk-through but that they turned over all such tapes.

Why is that so hard to understand?

You just make up crap as you go along. Even the very article you quoted states the following:

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.

Notice where even you highlighted that the Patriots taping signals goes back to other years, and Goodell was aware of it. In fact, that is the very reason it states that he got such a stiff penalty.

 

[tyke1doe]

You just make up crap as you go along. Even the very article you quoted states the following:

I'm not making crap up. I'm just going based on what I've read.

But I read superpunk's link, and I was wrong. Per Aiello's statement, the penalty was assessed based on the Pats' "totality of conduct."

So does mean I'm arguing merely to protect my "Super Ego."

 

[peplaw06]

Exactly. Search warrants are reserved for the legal world. So any arguments that Goodell could just march into Patriots headquarters and access tapes highlights my point that he doesn't have power to do so.

Thank you for supporting my argument.

I don't understand how someone, who supposedly deals with words on a daily basis, can struggle as much as you do with such simple ones.

I could care less about Jewish dietary concerns, I'm speaking merely about what we know versus what we don't know.

Being intentionally obtuse doesn't become you.

You don't generally hear anything of an ongoing investigation unless you asked. And even if you do, you're simply going to get "there is an ongoing investigation" and little more. You're not going to get any details of that investigation. I've covered cops, and when I've inquired into certain investigations all I get is "an investigation is ongoing." That's how it works.
Goodell says he's been pursuing and evaluating information as it's presented to him. That sounds like an ongoing investigation to me.

Did we even get "there is an ongoing investigation" in this instance. Link?

I think Goodell said he reserved the right to re-open the investigation. Doesn't sound like it's ongoing to me.

And a high profile case like this, where Senate is involved... there is going to be much more news that the casual "there is an ongoing investigation." You're going to hear exactly who they're interviewing at the very least. I know we didn't hear that as it was supposedly "ongoing."

But, here again, all I'm saying is that I can understand why the tapes were destroyed, particularly the Jets tape and specifically the tapes which covered the later 2006 and the 2007 preseason.

Coming from a guy who doesn't understand what a search warrant or a subpoena are, what "he said, she said" means, what the difference is between an ongoing and closed investigation... shall I go on?

You probably think you understand why Goodell destroyed the tapes, just like you think you know what all those terms mean.

 

[tyke1doe]

I don't understand how someone, who supposedly deals with words on a daily basis, can struggle as much as you do with such simple ones.

Journalists struggle with words just as lawyers struggle with simplicity.
Besides, we're talking about concepts. The concept here is that Goodell doesn't have the right or authority to march into the Pats office and seize all the tapes they have. You know, that would take, uh, a search warrant.

Being intentionally obtuse doesn't become you.

You mean my joke is intentionally obtuse?

Did we even get "there is an ongoing investigation" in this instance. Link?
I think Goodell said he reserved the right to re-open the investigation. Doesn't sound like it's ongoing to me.

I've already provide you with Goodell's comments that he's been getting leads over six months. I've provided it numerous times. Search for yourself.

And a high profile case like this, where Senate is involved... there is going to be much more news that the casual "there is an ongoing investigation." You're going to hear exactly who they're interviewing at the very least. I know we didn't hear that as it was supposedly "ongoing."

Agreed.

Coming from a guy who doesn't understand what a search warrant or a subpoena are, what "he said, she said" means, what the difference is between an ongoing and closed investigation... shall I go on?

You probably think you understand why Goodell destroyed the tapes, just like you think you know what all those terms mean.

A mere momentary brain fart. I understand the concepts, that's all you need to be concerned with. You know what I was talking about, hence, you providing the correct term - for which I thank you. But the concept is this: Goodell has to trust the Pats to turn over the tapes because he doesn't have the powers of search and seizure at his disposal.

Shall I go on?

But I'm sure you will. You simply cannot resist arguing with me.

So much for rationality, huh?

 

[5Stars]

Journalists struggle with words just as lawyers struggle with simplicity.
Besides, we're talking about concepts. The concept here is that Goodell doesn't have the right or authority to march into the Pats office and seize all the tapes they have. You know, that would take, uh, a search warrant.



You mean my joke is intentionally obtuse?



I've already provide you with Goodell's comments that he's been getting leads over six months. I've provided it numerous times. Search for yourself.



Agreed.



A mere momentary brain fart. I understand the concepts, that's all you need to be concerned with. You know what I was talking about, hence, you providing the correct term - for which I thank you. But the concept is this: Goodell has to trust the Pats to turn over the tapes because he doesn't have the powers of search and seizure at his disposal.

Shall I go on?

But I'm sure you will. You simply cannot resist arguing with me.

So much for rationality, huh?

:laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2:


"Honest, honey! I did not cheat! That condom wraper is NOT MINE...I promise...please believe me...don't leave me"!!


Wow...just wow...

 

[tyke1doe]

:laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2:


"Honest, honey! I did not cheat! That condom wraper is NOT MINE...I promise...please believe me...don't leave me"!!


Wow...just wow...

Was there any other way for Goodell to get those tapes a part from a search warrant?

I don't think the issue is the trustworthiness of the Pats but the inability of Goodell to do anything but trust the Pats to turn over the information.

 

[5Stars]

Was there any other way for Goodell to get those tapes a part from a search warrant?

I don't think the issue is the trustworthiness of the Pats but the inability of Goodell to do anything but trust the Pats to turn over the information.

Yes, he had to trust the Pats as you say...however! Why did he have to destroy them...that reeks of something very strange, to say the least.

My only thoughts are, if someone is not guilty of doing something, then come clean, don't hide anything, bring it out in the open and clear your name. Now, unless there are copies, that's impossible unless Walsh has something to say...and even then the Pats won't release him from his contract or whatever the hell it is that is keeping him from talking.

Also, where is Belicheat at...how come noone has heard a peep from him? He should have nothing to hide, right?

Regardless, the damage is done, and had Goodelll NOT destroyed those tapes and notes, the damage might have been reversed...as of today, no way.

 

[tyke1doe]

Yes, he had to trust the Pats as you say...however! Why did he have to destroy them...that reeks of something very strange, to say the least.

My only thoughts are, if someone is not guilty of doing something, then come clean, don't hide anything, bring it out in the open and clear your name. Now, unless there are copies, that's impossible unless Walsh has something to say...and even then the Pats won't release him from his contract or whatever the hell it is that is keeping him from talking.

Also, where is Belicheat at...how come noone has heard a peep from him? He should have nothing to hide, right?

Regardless, the damage is done, and had Goodelll NOT destroyed those tapes and notes, the damage might have been reversed...as of today, no way.

Belichick hardly speaks to the press anyway and reluctantly when he has to. I doubt he's going to say anything when not demanded to do so. He's probably out of the country now anyway, licking his wounds from a Super Bowl beat-down.

But I acknowledge your point. I want to take this discussion away from questioning or criticizing anyone who feels there's a cover-up. I just don't think there is. I think there are reasons to destroy the tapes. But I could be wrong. We'll see what Walsh has. That's the next big revelation in this incident.

 

[peplaw06]

The concept here is that Goodell doesn't have the right or authority to march into the Pats office and seize all the tapes they have. You know, that would take, uh, a search warrant.

No. It. Would. Not.

You show me where he's required to have a search warrant for investigating teams under his authority as Commissioner.

What I do know is this section of the NFL Rule Book doesn't say a single thing about search warrants.

http://www.nfl.com/rulebook/unfairacts

Commissioner’s Authority

The Commissioner has sole authority to investigate and to take appropriate disciplinary or corrective measures if any club action, nonparticipant interference, or emergency occurs in an NFL game which he deems so unfair or outside the accepted tactics encountered in professional football that such action has a major effect on the result of a game.

No Club Protests

The authority and measures provided for in this section (UNFAIR ACTS) do not constitute a protest machinery for NFL clubs to dispute the result of a game. The Commissioner will conduct an investigation under this section only to review an act or occurrence that he deems so unfair that the result of the game in question may be inequitable to one of the participating teams. The Commissioner will not apply his authority under this section when a club registers a complaint concerning judgmental errors or routine errors of omission by game officials. Games involving such complaints will continue to stand as completed.

Penalties for Unfair Acts

The Commissioner’s powers under this section (UNFAIR ACTS) include the imposition of monetary fines and draft choice forfeitures, suspension of persons involved, and, if appropriate, the reversal of a game’s result or the rescheduling of a game, either from the beginning or from the point at which the extraordinary act occurred. In the event of rescheduling a game, the Commissioner will be guided by the procedures specified above ("Procedures for Starting and Resuming Games" under EMERGENCIES). In all cases, the Commissioner will conduct a full investigation, including the opportunity for hearings, use of game videotape, and any other procedures he deems appropriate.

If you'll notice it says in the first sentence there that the Commish "has sole authority." Know what that means? It means he can do what he wants, when he wants, in investigating under this section.

If someone had to issue a search warrant, he wouldn't have sole authority. He would have to get someone else to sign off on it.

Like I said, completely out of left field, and completely wrong.

 

[5Stars]

Belichick hardly speaks to the press anyway and reluctantly when he has to. I doubt he's going to say anything when not demanded to do so. He's probably out of the country now anyway, licking his wounds from a Super Bowl beat-down.

But I acknowledge your point. I want to take this discussion away from questioning or criticizing anyone who feels there's a cover-up. I just don't think there is. I think there are reasons to destroy the tapes. But I could be wrong. We'll see what Walsh has. That's the next big revelation in this incident.

See, this is what I don't understand about your stance. What good was it to destroy something that cannot tarnish an investigation or a person's reputation? Why hide something if there is nothing wrong?

 

[tyke1doe]

No. It. Would. Not.

You show me where he's required to have a search warrant for investigating teams under his authority as Commissioner.

What I do know is this section of the NFL Rule Book doesn't say a single thing about search warrants.

http://www.nfl.com/rulebook/unfairacts



If you'll notice it says in the first sentence there that the Commish "has sole authority." Know what that means? It means he can do what he wants, when he wants, in investigating under this section.

If someone had to issue a search warrant, he wouldn't have sole authority. He would have to get someone else to sign off on it.

Like I said, completely out of left field, and completely wrong.

Wow. You really are missing the point aren't you?

Yes, the Commissioner has the authority to launch an investigation. But that says nothing about his ability to march into the Pats office and seize property, i.e., tapes.

And as a lawyer, you ought to know that what is not said is as important in defining his authority as what is said.

But the point of this whole exchange is Goodell asking the Pats to turn over their tapes. You (I'm assuming it was you suggesting this) seem to think that Goodell was gullible in trusting the Pats to turn over all their tapes. But what other choice did he have? I contend that he didn't have the ability to walk into the Pats offices and confiscate material. That's why he had to ask.

Again, please don't think investigative powers in law enforcement and the legal world correspond to investigative powers in the NFL. (You've already implied they do not.) There's nothing to suggest that that's the case, your citing of the NFL notwithstanding.

 

[tyke1doe]

See, this is what I don't understand about your stance. What good was it to destroy something that cannot tarnish an investigation or a person's reputation? Why hide something if there is nothing wrong?

Here's my reason:

1. The tapes were illegally obtained.
2. They shouldn't have existed to begin with.
3. Destroying them sends the message that they should not be used at all.
4. You eliminate the possibility of anyone else getting their hands on those tapes or them being leaked to the press.

I think those are valid reasons, though they might not satisfy those who believe in a cover-up.

 

[peplaw06]

Wow. You really are missing the point aren't you?

How am I missing the point? I'm not the one making up fictional requirements for the Commissioner.

Yes, the Commissioner has the authority to launch an investigation. But that says nothing about his ability to march into the Pats office and seize property, i.e., tapes.

It says he has "sole authority to investigate." If he had to get permission to investigate, then he wouldn't have sole authority.

And as a lawyer, you ought to know that what is not said is as important in defining his authority as what is said.

You are the king of random dumb remarks. What is not said is as important as what is said? I can't believe I've wasted so much time debating with an imbecile.

But the point of this whole exchange is Goodell asking the Pats to turn over their tapes. You (I'm assuming it was you suggesting this) seem to think that Goodell was gullible in trusting the Pats to turn over all their tapes. But what other choice did he have? I contend that he didn't have the ability to walk into the Pats offices and confiscate material. That's why he had to ask.

The only option Goodell had, even though he has sole authority to investigate, was to ask them to provide evidence that they cheated??? This is the most pollyannish, ridiculous comment I've ever heard. And that's saying something, because you have an encyclopedia of these kinds of comments.

Again, please don't think investigative powers in law enforcement and the legal world correspond to investigative powers in the NFL.

I don't

(You've already implied they do not.)

Then what was the point of what you just said?

There's nothing to suggest that that's the case, your citing of the NFL notwithstanding.

Huh? I hope your editor isn't reading this stuff.

 

[SultanOfSix]

Here's my reason:

1. The tapes were illegally obtained.
2. They shouldn't have existed to begin with.
3. Destroying them sends the message that they should not be used at all.
4. You eliminate the possibility of anyone else getting their hands on those tapes or them being leaked to the press.

I think those are valid reasons, though they might not satisfy those who believe in a cover-up.

Let's replace tapes with "drugs" just for fun.

1. The drugs were illegally obtained.
2. They shouldn't have existed to begin with.
3. Destroying them sends the message that they should not be used at all.
4. You eliminate the possibility of anyone else getting their hands on those drugs or them being leaked to the press.

 

[tyke1doe]

How am I missing the point? I'm not the one making up fictional requirements for the Commissioner.

I've already explained how. I don't think you'd grasp it at this point anyway.

It says he has "sole authority to investigate." If he had to get permission to investigate, then he wouldn't have sole authority.

But sole authority to investigate does not mean he has the power of search and seizure. It just means he is the only person who can conduct an investigation. That he has and that he did.

You are the king of random dumb remarks. What is not said is as important as what is said? I can't believe I've wasted so much time debating with an imbecile.

Because you can't help yourself. You're very frustrated so you lash out like a child. And yet you can't pull yourself away from the conversation even though you have said you would do so on numerous occasions.

Be that as it may, yes, having "sole authority" does not mean that Goodell has the power to go into the Pats office and seize tapes. That's why he asked the Pats to turn over the tapes. That's not hard to understand.

The only option Goodell had, even though he has sole authority to investigate, was to ask them to provide evidence that they cheated??? This is the most pollyannish, ridiculous comment I've ever heard. And that's saying something, because you have an encyclopedia of these kinds of comments.

So what other option did he have other than to ask the Pats to turn over the tapes? Are you saying he could go into their office and seize the tapes?

You're on the clock?

I hope your editor isn't reading this stuff.

He's not.
And yea, you got another gratuitous shot in that doesn't have anything to do with this issue.
Give yourself a hand. Oh, I'll give you one myself.
Feel better?
Good.
Anymore quips?
Or is this the place where you swear off engaging me in conversation only to continue your own display of irrational behavior?
Remember what how Einstein defined "insanity."

 

[theogt]

Ok, not sure if this is common knowledge by now, but I was listening to NFL Radio on the drive home and the announced that Walsh's attorney said that he has tapes and will reveal them if the league promises to indemnify him (which apparently they haven't done yet, despite what I thought Goodell said).