Since 2000? Can it really be a dynasty if one of its key foundations is that of cheating? What happens to those Super Bowls that were won in that time frame?"There's no doubt it had an impact on the games," Specter added. "It is hard to tell what games were involved with the destruction of the notes and the tapes. No really valid reason was given for the destruction of the notes and the tapes."
Um, isn't that reason obvious? The NFL is completely covering up the entire situation because this is a nightmare scenario for the biggest cash cow in professional sports. Why would they possibly destroy the tapes so quickly? So that no one else can find out the truth of what's going on, that's why.
Is video taping defensive play calling cheating? Yes. What's worse though, the cheating or the cover up that's going on in the league office? I'd definitely have to say that the cover up is far worse than the actual act.
The tapes needed to be made public so that the Patriots can truly get the punishment that they deserve. Instead, the NFL brushed everything under the rug as fast as possible so that they could protect their precious image. Suck it NFL!Goodell needs to be fined about $10 million for his role in this. Belichick should be fired for his part. Robert Kraft should be fined $100 million. The Patriots should lose an entire draft, not just one pick. Basically, send that organization back to the stone age. They've gotten to where they are now based on cheating, and what the NFL is telling us is that it's great.
Breaking news! This just in. In describing the Patriots and "Spy-Gate," NFL tells ESPN, "Good for them!"
Oh, because of this run you've made $1 Billion, but we'll fine you $19. Great! What kind of a freaking stance is that? Be a man and bring the pain. The Patriots have made a fortune because of this run. They've made this run in part because of cheating. Therefore, as punishment for the cheating, they really need to be hit where it hurts. In the gonads. Err... I mean, in the pocketbook and in the draft.
SUCK IT NFL! SUCK IT PATRIOTS!
11 comments:
My favorite part of this developing story is how Goodell said, "We've offered Matt Walsh legal protection...and made several calls, but we can't get a hold of him."
Like they're trying to stop by and see how Walsh and his wife have been..."Hi, you've reached Matt Walsh's cell phone. If this is the commish, I'm on a long vacation...beeeeeeep."
Whatever, a-holes.
"Is video taping defensive play calling cheating? Yes."
Erm, I don't think so, Tim. (I'm Al Borland! :-D) Nice try, though. I know everybody seems to hate the Pats over here, but let's try to get the facts straight and not let clouded vision get in the way, okay? ;-)
Videotaping opposing teams is legal. The question revolves around where it's done and the purposes for its usage. It has to be done from, to paraphrase, "enclosed areas with an overhead roof," i.e., the stands. In the first week of the season, the Pats' video guy was on the sidelines. Belichick thought he could get away with it because he was not using the footage during the game (they played the Jets later that year) and let's face it, he is arrogant and thinks he knows better than everyone else. You know what? He was wrong. But is there proof that they had a guy on the sidelines or anywhere else non-kosher during any other time that they have been using the video? Until there is, please reserve judgment.
I would recommend that you all go back to what Jaws said before the Super Bowl, and how he had the backup quarterback pick up the opponent's defensive signals during a playoff game, and his team (which was the Rams at that time) won. Every team spies on the others. Got it? Good. :-D
Besides, this is just a bread-and-circus (well, the "circus" part, anyway; I'm still hungry) coming from Congress. There are other, more pressing concerns in this country, and they spend their time berating Clemens, McNamee, and Goodell? Jeez. That's disgraceful! (Inner Howard Cosell Alert!) It seems like they have delegated too much authority to administrative agencies, but that's another story. ;-)
--Eric
Eric,
You have a point that this stuff happens a lot, but does that make it right?
And why destroy the tapes/evidence? And now Goodell says that he'll look into any new information/developments that come up? That's probably because he knows all the evidence is GONE. Hmmm... if I'm an NFL owner of a different team, I'd be pissed right now. They're the ones losing out by not being able to scritinize the notes/tapes and know for sure.
Gittle -- it may be you who keeps chiming in to tell us the Pats didn't cheat... I can't remember. But we've been told in our comments more than once that Belichick simply "misunderstood" the rules. Right.
So if I get caught with a prostitute, can I say, "Oh, but I misunderstood!"
Ignorance is not an excuse. When you get stopped for speeding, saying you didn't know the limit is never a good idea.
If something is against the rules... and then you do it anyway... then it is, by definition, cheating.
As for your Jaws comparison, it's not legit at all. Having your backup QB steal signals during a game is a far cry from videotaping a walkthrough the day before the Super Bowl! The walkthrough is intended to be private and sometimes you walk through your scripted plays... or the formations you hope to surprise the opponent with!
Yes, everyone steals signals... but doing it via videotaping -- in the manner the Pats did it -- is NOT allowed. And to suggest they misinterpreted is just...well... you accuse us of having clouded vision b/c we don't like the Pats. I think it's fair to say you're wearing rose-colored, Belichick-loving glasses b/c you obviously support the Pats.
Fair?
BP, it depends on the situation. If they followed the guidelines in using video for coaching purposes, then it's right. If not, then it's wrong. Plain and simple. So if it's not cheating, it's not wrong.
As for the Commish, I have no idea what his motivations are when it comes to the tapes. But he said that when it happened, not just now. Obviously, he reserves the right to review anything that comes to his attention. However, what he needs to say right now is that videotaping is legal, there is no evidence that the Pats did not operate as prescribed aside from that time, and until then, there is nothing to declare. However, if he does have evidence that they had a video guy in a restricted area before this season, then he needs to state that, and I will stand corrected.
--Eric
J-Money, I do love the Pats. I'm a die-hard. I have been a die-hard since the 1-15 year (that seems recent, but remember, I am 24). However, I don't have unconditional love for Belichick. I have admiration for his story and read "The Education of a Coach" (RIP David Halberstam), but he is quite gruff. I get a kick out of his press conferences, but he couldn't do it the way Parcells did.
I see the point you're trying to make. But you're still wrong. In part, at least.
"Yes, everyone steals signals... but doing it via videotaping...is NOT allowed."
No, that's not true. Teams can videotape to their utmost desires. The only thing is that it has to be in the prescribed areas. That didn't happen in this case. I'm not excusing Bill Belichick for what he did. Far from it. He was wrong, and he got punished. But until there's proof that every other videotaping episode wasn't in the stands, this is much ado about nothing.
No, "cheating" is breaking the rules to gain an unfair advantage, which would have happened if they used the footage during the game. There's no proof that they did. Remember, they played the Jets later that year, and they played them three times last year!
I don't know what to think about the walkthrough thing. It seems like a "he said, she said" affair. Somebody says the Pats taped the Rams' walkthrough, and then I hear a report that the Rams were taping/spying on the Pats at the same time! I need to see more information before I make a judgment on that one. If that were the case, it would not be illegal, but it would be real disappointing. Actually, that would be the understatement of the year. ;-)
That's my story, and I'm sticking to it. Got it? Oh, and if you're accusing me of being a die-hard Pats fan, I plead no lo contendere. Still, it is imperative that everyone examine all aspects of the situation.
Yes it is Eric.
Okay gittle, I think we understand your argument. Belichick didn't cheat because you are a Pats fan.
No, Matt. You're twisting around what I am saying. You don't get it, do you? On second thought, I take that back. You do get it. You're just trying to get me going, and that's been your M.O. for the past few years within these settings. That's cool. I don't have a problem with that. It's what makes this banter fun, innit?
You know what? I'm going to step back for a bit, because if you do get me going, I'm not going to be able to function properly for the rest of the day. So, deep breath, and I'll catch you all later. :-D
--Eric
>>>No, "cheating" is breaking the rules to gain an unfair advantage, which would have happened if they used the footage during the game. There's no proof that they did. Remember, they played the Jets later that year, and they played them three times last year!
What? That is pretty twisted logic, man. So if Roger Clemens took steroids while smiling in public but then went 0-14 for the season, he wouldn't be cheating because he didn't "gain an unfair advantage"?
In the games Gaylord Perry lost when he threw a ball with vaseline on it, was he actually NOT cheating because he didn't win?
If Jeff Gorden attached a turbine engine to his car and went 350 MPH but crashed on the last lap in a fiery wreck, would he not have cheated since he didn't win the race?
More from you:
"But until there's proof that every other videotaping episode wasn't in the stands, this is much ado about nothing."
I don't follow. Nobody's saying EVERY single time the Pats taped someone they did it illegally. What people are saying is that they DID do some illegal taping. Not that everything they do is cheating. Nobody ever said that. The Pats did something illegal, by league rules. You said it yourself... they did it outside the "prescribed area" and that's not allowed.
As for the official definition of "cheat," there are several... but one is "To practice trickery or fraud." That's according to Webster's (not Gittle's).
By the way, have you signed the petition for the league to reply the last 90 seconds of the Super Bowl yet?
Eric,
I think your desire to support something noble and worthy is admirable. That said, simply because you have talked yourself out of believing that there has been any wrong doing by your favorite team's coach doesn't mean that there hasn't been any wrong doing.
I think you also need to see that no one's indicting the fans of said team. One of my best friends is a huge Patriots fan as well as a Belichick apologist. He really believes that Belichick is not that bad of a guy and is not a cheater...But I can tell you that most outside of the Patriots fanbase think that 1. Belichick is a bad guy and 2. he is a cheater.
Fans want to root for a winner, especially an overwhelming, dominant winner that took a lousy franchise and made it into a money-making monster that other teams in the league envy. I get all that...but I also get that without rules, standards and enforcement, the world would be run by the Kelvin Sampsons & Bill Bellichicks of the world- people who are so arrogant to believe that breaking the "unimportant" rules is inconsequential as long as they are doing what they're hired to do: Win.
Rules are rules. The Patriots thought the Colts piped in noise to the Dome...CBS proved that wasn't the case. The Colts, Packers, Steelers, Rams & Jets all have expressed that they thought the Patriots cheated by using electronic espionage. The Patriots were caught doing so and are now being investigated for other instances where it occurred.
I think here's the deal- if you break a rule, small or large and show remorse, people might believe that you're not a cheater. Conversely, if you break just a "lil" rule, but think it wasn't a big deal and try to deny that it ever occurred despite evidence that says otherwise, you will be viewed as a cheater.
Thus is the case for both Belichick and Sampson.
Post a Comment