You and the rest of Patsie Nation might be ready to bury this, but I don't think the Senator from PA sees it the same way. He's going to want his pound of flesh. TBTF
Walsh still has to meet with Goodell and Specter. I find it interesting that the NFL is already trying to sweep this under the rug before he even meets with the Commissioner. Perhaps he knows who has the walk-thru. Perhaps he can explain how the videotapes were used, and more importantly, if they were used during games. That won't come out until his meetings.
No smoking gun? It's funny, you lose a 1st round draft pick, your team gets a huge fine and Belichick gets the largest fine a coach has ever gotten and you are still delusional enough to believe there is no smoking gun... fucking classic! This isn't the smoking gun we were waiting for, it was the conviction. And we're not going to get it, probably for reasons which we won't know for a very long time, but mainly because a bunch of rich old men are afraid that the image of their cash cow might get damaged and they might lose out on some money. The owners don't want anything to come of this, so nothing will. You can thank the owners of the National Football League because they are the fat-pocketed uncles that are bailing your team of cheats out of the slammer.
I posted this in another thread on the same topic: Here's why you can't count on the NFL to regulate itself: It, like the Pats, has a vested interest in saying "nothing new here." The commish, his lackey spokesman Greg Aiello, and many of the owners primarily want to protect the NFL as a business. That is why they would love it if everyone "moved on" and forgot about this. Think about this in another context. Would anyone here think it would be a good idea for McDonald's, for example, to be the only entity to assess punishments against one of its franchises for illicit behavior? Of course not, because it would be transparently clear that the company would be primarily concerned with protecting its brand. That's why Specter is getting involved. He knows the fix is in if he doesn't keep on this issue. All of you who are saying "nothing's new here" need to stop drinking the NFL/Belly Kool-Aid. Do you accept similar spin from politicians when they try to cover up their misdeeds? I hope not. There IS something new here. Walsh HANDED them to the NFL; they are the tapes that further document the extent of the Pats' cheating, including in the playoffs. TBTF
Now I want to see the Pats get nailed more than anybody but I have to wonder how much Specter would be involved if they didn't beat the Eagles in the SB and the Steelers in the AFC title game? I remember reading that Specter didn't even know about spygate until the Pats played the Eagles and that was what week 10? I blame the NFL for trying to cover this up and of course the media refuses to do thier job because they won't call the NFL out on this because today most newspaper guys are more interested in being friends with the players than having journalistic integrity. Look at Peter King for crying out loud; he's having dinner at Brett Favre's house, he and Belly are close personal friends. As for Specter I look at this as a political move. It is an election year and I don't know if Arlen is up for relection or not but one way to get to voters in a football crazy state like PA is to make yourself out to the champion of both PA football teams. I'm sure if he wishes he could get Penn State involved in this somehow too.
First of all Goodell doesn't have to inform the fans or media if he doesnt want to. the nfl is not a public company. Its an association comprised of 32 members. If they choose to take care of their dirty laundry in house thats their prerogative, and when Goodell closes this. Spector will not be able to go after the Pats because it will become a league issue
The Times has continued to cover this story. These two articles have been published in the last two days. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/10/sports/football/10nfl.html?_r=1&ref=football&oref=slogin http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/11/sports/football/11nfl.html?ref=football
This right here should be enough to put to rest the "misinterpretation" BS that the Pats have been trying to sell to the NFL and its fans. From the Times article: The N.F.L.’s game operations manual is clearer. Under videotaping policies, in a section titled “miscellaneous rules and regulations,” it reads: “No video recording devices of any kind are permitted to be in use in the coaches’ booth, on the field, or in the locker room during the game.” Where's the wiggle room for interpretation there? Case closed; Belly's a cheating scumbag. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/10/sports/football/10nfl.html?_r=1&ref=football&oref=slogin
More evidence that this "dynasty" is rotten to the core. Again from the NYT: If a persistent problem is identified, the league’s eight-member competition committee suggests changes to rules. In discussions of changes since 2000, one team, the New England Patriots, has surfaced more than any other, according to a longtime N.F.L. team executive with direct knowledge of the meetings. The committee heard accusations that the Patriots had taped opposing coaches’ signals, placed microphones on defensive players to steal quarterbacks’ audible signals and manipulated clocks and coach-to-quarterback radio systems. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/11/sports/football/11nfl.html?ref=football TBTF
Um, you do know that the NFL has a "limited antitrust exemption" from Congress, and that is why the Commish is paying attention to what the Senator from PA has to say. Otherwise, why would Goodell pay attention to what Specter thinks? Because he wants to be a good American citizen? Even before the Pats cheating scandal started, Specter had threatened to "revisit" the NFL's exemption, but he has kept the heat on the NFL in more recent days: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3162011 And read the last paragraph here: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/stories/2001-12-05-antitrust-explanation.htm So in point of fact, Specter can go after the NFL and it isn't just a "league issue." That doesn't mean that he will, but he does have the power to make the NFL answer for what it does.
1. Page 105 of the Game Operations manual: "No video recording devices of any kind are permitted to be in use in the coaches' booth, on the field, or in the locker room during the game." It later says: "All video shooting locations must be enclosed on all sides with a roof overhead." 2. A memo from Ray Anderson, NFL head of football operations, to head coaches and GMs on Sept. 6, 2006 said: "Video taping of any type, including but not limited to taping of an opponent’s offensive or defensive signals, is prohibited on the sidelines, in the coaches’ booth, in the locker room, or at any other locations accessible to club staff members during the game." So you can see that taping signals is not against the rules. It's a matter of location, and a matter of not using the tapes for the game at hand. So if the Pats were taping signals from the endzone box, or upper press box, and just using them for future games then it is legal. Now I know people argue that they did, in fact, use the tapes for the games at hand. Maybe they did, but where is the proof? NFL officials monitor locker rooms, and clubhouse activities use to prevent this sort of thing, among other things. Maybe the Pats are not nearly as sinister as the media is making them out to be. I hate the Pats as much as the next guy, but I think the media has overblown this situation and it's been further dragged along by a politician who has other interests at heart. Now they did, in fact, break the no video taping on the sideline rule, but I don't think that's nearly as sinister as we all make it out to be. For sure not worth the biggest penalty ever imposed on any team. Also the title of this thread is wrong. Walsh was not a coach. He was a video assistant.
you quoted me saying the same thing. If spector wants to pursue this it will be against the league as a whole not the pats. When the government goes after a company for tax evasion they go after the entire company not just the tax dept.
Spector has never wanted to go after the Pats. Going after the anti trust exemption is about 1000 times bigger than going after the Pats for cheating. It is not the leagues perogative to take care of things in house if they want to keep the exemption, they are going to need to toe the line to keep the heat off them and if that includes tossing Beli to the wolves they will do it.
spector doesnt have the clout to go after the nfl. sure he will piss and moan about but at the end of the day thats all it will be. he will never get the backing of the other senators for it. reason being the average person doesnt give a crap about spygate, but they do care about is recession, a collapsing housing market, 4.00/ gl gas prices. you have to remember message board posters probably make up less than 1% of nfl fans
So, one of the most powerful Senators around doesn't have the clout to go after the NFL's antitrust exemption? Besides you are missing that the antitrust discussion first came up in regards to television contracts not spygate. The incoming chair of the Senate Judiciary Committe has also questioned antitrust exemptions in sports. So there goes your theory about other Senators not backing him up. More news for you, in times of a bad economy the populace will turn their focus to other things to take their mind off it, mainly sports. This has been shown time and again. So you will have more people with an interest in what happens with the antitrust exemption because they may be able to see more games if the exemption is taken away.
what and you dont think the nfl and all the networks have enough money and lobbyists to squish that, both sides are making a fortune off the nfl., and if the only reason is about the tv contracts why hasnt he done it yet?
Somebody call Belly and Kraft. NotaCheesehead has found the loophole to get them off the hook! Wow, Specter is going to be so disappointed! Are you *seriously* arguing that the rules below allow a team to tape signals? It says "video taping of any kind . . . is prohibited" and yet you say taping signals isn't against the rules. WTF? The locations in the rule are there to specify *all possible places* that taping might be done from by a member of a team's staff, not to say where it is ok to tape signals from otherwise. What do you think "or any other location accessible to club staff members" means other than you can't tape signals from ANYWHERE in a stadium? Give us all a break with this Patsy troll crap.
Hey man you almost finally get it. the rule states no video taping of any kind. the rule has nothing to due with what they were taping. they could have been taping the cheerleaders and they still would be breaking the same rule. But the harshness of the penalty was probably for what they were taping. If they were taping the cheerleaders they probably would have just been fined
