PDA

View Full Version : This cant be good for the Pats



BostonFinFan13
03-09-2008, 09:19 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3285441

jetsman
03-09-2008, 09:25 PM
The NFL is desperate to get their hands on Walsh's evidence so they can destroy it.They could care less whether they can find more evidence of the Cheatriots gaining an unfair advantage,all they care about is getting the evidence destroyed before someone like Arlen Specter gets his hands on it.The NFL does not want their image or integrity blemished any further.:shakeno:

TomBradyWoot
03-10-2008, 12:55 AM
The NFL is desperate to get their hands on Walsh's evidence so they can destroy it.They could care less whether they can find more evidence of the Cheatriots gaining an unfair advantage,all they care about is getting the evidence destroyed before someone like Arlen Specter gets his hands on it.The NFL does not want their image or integrity blemished any further.:shakeno:
Or they don't want evidence of the Jets and any other teams cheating getting out as well. I understand Robert Kraft is very influential, some argue the most powerful owner in the league but definitely top 2 or 3, but why would Goodell screw over the other owners in the league - whom he ultimately works for - for one guy?

Aqua4Ever04
03-10-2008, 01:34 AM
I think the best penalty would be to remove championship banners. Also, forfeit their week 1 win over the Jets.

LtDan
03-10-2008, 01:37 AM
The NFL is desperate to get their hands on Walsh's evidence so they can destroy it.They could care less whether they can find more evidence of the Cheatriots gaining an unfair advantage,all they care about is getting the evidence destroyed before someone like Arlen Specter gets his hands on it.The NFL does not want their image or integrity blemished any further.:shakeno:
You mean the NFL doesn't want the PATS image or integrity blemished anymore right??

MattM
03-10-2008, 10:34 PM
Or they don't want evidence of the Jets and any other teams cheating getting out as well. I understand Robert Kraft is very influential, some argue the most powerful owner in the league but definitely top 2 or 3, but why would Goodell screw over the other owners in the league - whom he ultimately works for - for one guy?

Money talks--especially if that's the owner that got him the job (which it was).

feelthepain
03-10-2008, 11:20 PM
Or they don't want evidence of the Jets and any other teams cheating getting out as well. I understand Robert Kraft is very influential, some argue the most powerful owner in the league but definitely top 2 or 3, but why would Goodell screw over the other owners in the league - whom he ultimately works for - for one guy?


Pat fans always in denial. Ya know pre-spygate every time most Pat fans would post it was to gloat and act all superior with every word and comment. Now every post is full of excuses. Just face facts, sure everyone cheats, but the cheating that in NE has done since BB took over is unrivalled. I know this really throws a wrench in Pat fans ability to call their team one of the best ever, but that's BB fault, blame him. Let this be a lesson, you'll reap what you sew! This is the payback for all the BS Pat fans have dished out since 2001, it's Dolphin Jet and Bill fans payback. We don't need excuses, just bow out gracefully.

TomBradyWoot
03-10-2008, 11:38 PM
It doesn't matter if Dolphins, Jets, and Bills fans say "Pats*", as I've stated before that isn't in the record books and never will be in the record books. Nothing about the history will change, just YOUR view on it. I do find it interesting how my opinion is just a farse and a cop out because I stated that Goodell wouldn't screw over 29 other owners that he works for, for just one guy (whether he got him the job or not - because they could easily remove him if everybody else disagreed with his handlings of the situation), but you don't really have a legit response to it.

TomBradyWoot
03-10-2008, 11:41 PM
Money talks--especially if that's the owner that got him the job (which it was).


Please show me where Bob Kraft got Goodell the job.

feelthepain
03-11-2008, 12:01 AM
It doesn't matter if Dolphins, Jets, and Bills fans say "Pats*", as I've stated before that isn't in the record books and never will be in the record books. Nothing about the history will change, just YOUR view on it. I do find it interesting how my opinion is just a farse and a cop out because I stated that Goodell wouldn't screw over 29 other owners that he works for, for just one guy (whether he got him the job or not - because they could easily remove him if everybody else disagreed with his handlings of the situation), but you don't really have a legit response to it.

No one, and I mean NO ONE, believes the Pats earned a thing. That's good enough for me. If you choose to believe it still counts because there's no *, that up to you. But the luster is long gone. As for Kraft, I could care less. He knows the truth and he doesn't want the truth out there so IMO he's just as guilty. Crash and burn. This isn't smack, it's just my personal feelings about a team that spent more time trying to find a way to win without earning it then they did about winning with heart, passion and integrity.

dantheman#1fan
03-11-2008, 12:11 AM
i think that they nevr would have got perfect.....if they were cheating they should have been put down for a lose....but i guess if they lost the super bowl then it dont matter cause they nvr wwent perfect

TomBradyWoot
03-11-2008, 09:47 AM
i think that they nevr would have got perfect.....if they were cheating they should have been put down for a lose....but i guess if they lost the super bowl then it dont matter cause they nvr wwent perfect


Now that is a well thought out response.:up:

TomBradyWoot
03-11-2008, 09:48 AM
No one, and I mean NO ONE, believes the Pats earned a thing. That's good enough for me. If you choose to believe it still counts because there's no *, that up to you. But the luster is long gone. As for Kraft, I could care less. He knows the truth and he doesn't want the truth out there so IMO he's just as guilty. Crash and burn. This isn't smack, it's just my personal feelings about a team that spent more time trying to find a way to win without earning it then they did about winning with heart, passion and integrity.


So you mean to tell me, that through ALL the practices in training camp, all the workouts, all the practices during the season and all the hard work the players put it isn't earned because of a camera? CAMERAS WIN CHAMPIONSHIPS!!!! LOL @ you.

feelthepain
03-11-2008, 10:17 PM
So you mean to tell me, that through ALL the practices in training camp, all the workouts, all the practices during the season and all the hard work the players put it isn't earned because of a camera? CAMERAS WIN CHAMPIONSHIPS!!!! LOL @ you.


NOBODY RESPECTS ANYTHING THE PATS HAVE DONE!! Live under whatever rock you choose, it's the way it is and always will be.

MattM
03-11-2008, 10:45 PM
Please show me where Bob Kraft got Goodell the job.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/2006-08-08-goodell-commissioner_x.htm

There you go--a link to one of the articles announcing his appointment. Kraft was one of the main owners on the search committee and is quoted several times in the article singing Roger G's praises. It was well-known at the time that Goodell was the "big market" owners' choice (led by their Grand Poobah, Krafty Bob). Roger has ever since been carrying the Pats* water faithfully.....

Brassmonki14120
03-12-2008, 12:14 AM
So you mean to tell me, that through ALL the practices in training camp, all the workouts, all the practices during the season and all the hard work the players put it isn't earned because of a camera? CAMERAS WIN CHAMPIONSHIPS!!!! LOL @ you.

Yeah the coaches played dirty but who doesn't. The players earned the right to be called Champions.

TomBradyWoot
03-12-2008, 01:12 AM
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/2006-08-08-goodell-commissioner_x.htm

There you go--a link to one of the articles announcing his appointment. Kraft was one of the main owners on the search committee and is quoted several times in the article singing Roger G's praises. It was well-known at the time that Goodell was the "big market" owners' choice (led by their Grand Poobah, Krafty Bob). Roger has ever since been carrying the Pats* water faithfully.....
Oh that link, the one that opens with a picture of Tagliabue handing a ball to Goodell, signaling "handing over the reigns" so to speak, and in that picture are other guys. Jerry Richardson (CAR owner) and Dan Rooney (PIT owner) and Robert Kraft.

Oh wait, Kraft isn't there.

But I see here it is, where Kraft is the one who told Goodell he was getting the job.

Oh wait, that wasn't Kraft. It was Rooney.

I must've missed it, as I read further I see where Kraft is the one who told Levy he wasn't getting the job.

Oh wait, that wasn't Kraft, either. It was Richardson.

I finally see him quoted. After John Mara, Al Davis, Pat Bowlen, Carmen Policy, Jim Irsay, some former Jets PR director, Matt Millen, and another story by Policy. Then Kraft is quoted as saying him getting the job is like him buying the Patriots. But the article goes on. It talks about how the owners wanted an inside man, and the committee was headed by Richardson and Rooney. Then Kraft comes up again, talking about how OF THE NEW OWNERS, he's one of the most influential. That was only his second quote of the article, for the record.

And that's about it from that article. So please, as I asked, show me where it says Robert Kraft got Goodell the job.

late again
03-12-2008, 04:04 AM
There was a point in time back when this spying incident first came to light when I wondered, too about the relationship between Kraft and Goodell. I did a little reading and this is what I found.
intern to COO

Goodell's career in the NFL began in 1982 as an administrative intern (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intern) in the league office in New York (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York) under then-Commissioner Pete Rozelle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pete_Rozelle) - a position secured through an extensive letter-writing campaign to the league office and each of its then 28 teams. In 1983, he joined the New York Jets (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Jets) as an intern, but returned to the league office in 1984 as an assistant in the public relations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_relations) department.
In 1987, Goodell was appointed assistant to the president of the American Football Conference (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Football_Conference) (Lamar Hunt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamar_Hunt)), and under the tutelage of Commissioner Paul Tagliabue (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Tagliabue) filled a variety of football and business operations roles, culminating with his appointment as the NFL's Executive Vice President (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vice_President) and Chief Operating Officer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_Operating_Officer) in December 2001.
As the NFL's COO, Goodell took responsibility for the league's football operations and officiating, as well as supervised league business functions. He headed NFL Ventures, which oversees the league's business units, including media properties, marketing and sales, stadium development and strategic planning.
Goodell was heavily involved in the negotiation of the league's current collective bargaining (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_bargaining) agreement. He had worked extensively with Tagliabue since the latter became commissioner in 1989.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Goodell#_note-cbc1) He has played an extensive role in league expansion, realignment, and stadium development, including the launch of the NFL Network (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NFL_Network) and securing new television agreements as well as the latest collective bargaining agreement with the National Football League Players Association (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Football_League_Players_Association).

NFL commissioner

Goodell's selection as Commissioner following the retirement of Paul Tagliabue came as no surprise, but it was not a fait accompli (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_French_phrases_used_by_English_speakers#F). Tagliabue initiated a substantive, wide ranging search for his successor, appointing a committee headed by owners Jerry Richardson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Richardson) of the Carolina Panthers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carolina_Panthers) and Dan Rooney (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Rooney) of the Pittsburgh Steelers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittsburgh_Steelers).
Goodell was one of five finalists, joining Gregg Levy (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gregg_Levy&action=edit&redlink=1), Frederick Nance (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frederick_Nance&action=edit&redlink=1), Robert Reynolds (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Reynolds_%28athlete%29&action=edit&redlink=1), and Mayo Shattuck III (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayo_Shattuck_III). With 22 votes from the owners being needed to make a choice, Goodell, who oddsmakers had installed as a prohibitive 2:5 favorite to be selected, only garnered 15 votes to Levy's 13, with three votes scattered among the other candidates and the Oakland Raiders (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oakland_Raiders) abstaining.
On the second and third ballots, Goodell and Levy were the only candidates to receive votes (Goodell 17, Levy 14). Goodell increased his lead to 21-10 after the fourth ballot, falling one vote shy of election, but on the fifth round of voting two owners swung their votes to him to achieve the necessary two-thirds majority.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Goodell#_note-Maske) The Oakland Raiders (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oakland_Raiders) abstained from the voting in each round.
Goodell was chosen on August 8 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_8), 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006), to succeed Paul Tagliabue and assumed office on September 1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_1)—the date Tagliabue set to leave office.

So what I found out is that Goodell got his start with the Jets and he was seemingly the most qualified for the job.

MR NFLFAN
03-12-2008, 04:40 AM
Its obvious that poster is a very angry bills fan. He's knee deep in conspiracy theories when it comes to anything NE related. He seems to think that Kraft and Belichick control Goodell, the league and even the press. I think he might even believe they control the weather too.

feelthepain
03-12-2008, 06:36 AM
Yeah the coaches played dirty but who doesn't. The players earned the right to be called Champions.

How do you know the players didn't know BB and staff were cheating? You don't, it's not like the integrity with that entire organization is beyond question. In fact it's just the opposite. The cheating has taken any credibility with that team and tossed it out the window. The amount of cheating that team has done since the arrival of BB is staggering. The BB Cheatriots will always be known as a "team" that didn't earn a damn thing.

See as a Pat fan you can try to hide behind Roger Goodells desire to protect the NFL, but everyone else who's not a Pat fan knows what really happened in NE. They cheated, plain and simple. Now Pat fans are making every excuse they can to salvage their teams rep. Problem is Pat fans are the only ones who believe the Pats have an ounce of integrity. So hang on to that for all it's worth, but don't expect anyone else to.

MR NFLFAN
03-12-2008, 08:42 AM
How do you know the players didn't know BB and staff were cheating? You don't, it's not like the integrity with that entire organization is beyond question. In fact it's just the opposite. The cheating has taken any credibility with that team and tossed it out the window. The amount of cheating that team has done since the arrival of BB is staggering. The BB Cheatriots will always be known as a "team" that didn't earn a damn thing.

See as a Pat fan you can try to hide behind Roger Goodells desire to protect the NFL, but everyone else who's not a Pat fan knows what really happened in NE. They cheated, plain and simple. Now Pat fans are making every excuse they can to salvage their teams rep. Problem is Pat fans are the only ones who believe the Pats have an ounce of integrity. So hang on to that for all it's worth, but don't expect anyone else to.


Don't forget the cheerleaders Good possibility they were in on it too.

:sidelol:

Phin-o-rama
03-12-2008, 09:03 AM
Don't forget the cheerleaders Good possibility they were in on it too.

:sidelol:


you laugh it off, but you are on here all day every day kicking and screaming and stamping your little feet and holding your breath till you turn blue trying to defend the team that you hold so dear (since 2001)....

honest question here...Have you accepted the fact that for as long as the NFL is around, anytime the Patriots Spynasty of the 2000-2010 era is mentioned, it will go hand in hand with a huge cheating scandal that has cast complete doubt over every one of their achievments?

http://www.finheaven.com/clear.gif

feelthepain
03-12-2008, 10:14 AM
Don't forget the cheerleaders Good possibility they were in on it too.

:sidelol:

Not likely, they couldn't do anything to change the outcome.

feelthepain
03-12-2008, 10:20 AM
you laugh it off, but you are on here all day every day kicking and screaming and stamping your little feet and holding your breath till you turn blue trying to defend the team that you hold so dear (since 2001)....

honest question here...Have you accepted the fact that for as long as the NFL is around, anytime the Patriots Spynasty of the 2000-2010 era is mentioned, it will go hand in hand with a huge cheating scandal that has cast complete doubt over every one of their achievments?



The only thing Pat fans want to remember is a world where their team is respected for their "*huge achievements" . Unfortunately for them, there is no such thing . But that's not their teams fault, it's everyone else!!

shula_guy
03-12-2008, 11:45 AM
Or they don't want evidence of the Jets and any other teams cheating getting out as well. I understand Robert Kraft is very influential, some argue the most powerful owner in the league but definitely top 2 or 3, but why would Goodell screw over the other owners in the league - whom he ultimately works for - for one guy?

Woot I respect that you defend your teams actions and stand by them. I do however wonder if the shoe's were revers and your team was victim to unfair play against you, if you would still hold this same mantra of everyone else is doing it too so that makes it fair.

I really think its insignificant who Godell is trying to protect. He is obstructing the truth. This is the issue. Frankly if this was the Dolphins in the middle of this mess I would be still calling for Godells head and wanting the truth to come out no matter how it would fare for my team and depending on the facts I might even walk away from them as a fan.

Personally if it comes out that everyone is flagarantly cheating and the NFL as a whole is covering it up I may wealk from football as a whole.

This is shamefull and your defenses of it are shamefull. IMO

Not trying to insult you, just think not looking at the big picture. It's unfolding to be an ugly picture at this point.

Personally Im still pissed at the Dolphins for using the illeagle video tape of the patriots that a fan sent to them, maybe they did not break the rules but they certainly violated the spirit of them and I as a Dolphin Fan am ashamed of my team in regaurds to that particular incident and dont count it as victory.

Phin-o-rama
03-12-2008, 11:55 AM
perhaps we did it because saban KNOWS Bill's tactics, and used a similar form of it against them....we shut them out 21-0 with the information we had. imo, that shows how potent it CAN be...

HaRdKoReXXX
03-12-2008, 12:11 PM
perhaps we did it because saban KNOWS Bill's tactics, and used a similar form of it against them....we shut them out 21-0 with the information we had. imo, that shows how potent it CAN be...

Yeah maybe they got beat at their own game. Some might argue BB didnt employ the tactics because he and Saban are friends. So maybe the playing field was level for that shalacking.

Brassmonki14120
03-12-2008, 01:09 PM
How do you know the players didn't know BB and staff were cheating?

So all the guys they lost in free agency, were traded or just cut over all the Dynasty years are just keeping quiet? lol

The Pats won, they were the best team in the league for years. There is no arguing that. Get over it.

The Pats could tell every team in the league what play they were going to run on every down and it still wouldn't matter because if you can't get to Brady he's gonna complete the pass. No-one is able to cover Moss and no-one can stop Welker from grabbing everything that's thrown to him over the middle.

You can cry all you want but the Patriots owned the league for years and it wasn't because of videotaping, they may lose a step this season but they are still the most dangerous team in the league.

MR NFLFAN
03-12-2008, 02:06 PM
Woot I respect that you defend your teams actions and stand by them. I do however wonder if the shoe's were revers and your team was victim to unfair play against you, if you would still hold this same mantra of everyone else is doing it too so that makes it fair.

I really think its insignificant who Godell is trying to protect. He is obstructing the truth. This is the issue. Frankly if this was the Dolphins in the middle of this mess I would be still calling for Godells head and wanting the truth to come out no matter how it would fare for my team and depending on the facts I might even walk away from them as a fan.

Personally if it comes out that everyone is flagarantly cheating and the NFL as a whole is covering it up I may wealk from football as a whole.

This is shamefull and your defenses of it are shamefull. IMO

Not trying to insult you, just think not looking at the big picture. It's unfolding to be an ugly picture at this point.

Personally Im still pissed at the Dolphins for using the illeagle video tape of the patriots that a fan sent to them, maybe they did not break the rules but they certainly violated the spirit of them and I as a Dolphin Fan am ashamed of my team in regaurds to that particular incident and dont count it as victory.


How do you know Goodell hasn't told the truth and how will we ever know? Maybe you and I don't agree with him destroying the tapes but that doesn't mean he covered anything up.

I myself don't believe he did. I think he asked the Patriots to turn over any more tapes of defensive signals and I believe thats exactly what he recieved.
He met with Belichick who told him his understanding of the rule and that he had always interrupted the rule that way. I think Goodell felt the leagues image had suffered enough already by the leaked tape and wanted to make sure nothing else was leaked so he destroyed them. I think his silence was nothing more than what past commisioners have done. Review the infraction hand down the penality and move on. I think he felt he had told us all we needed to know.
The NFL is big business its franchises are their product and the fans are its customers. I don't know of any other business that airs their dirty laundry in the public. Why do we somehow feel that the NFL would or should?



Tell me what your thoughts are, Do you believe Goodell is covering something up? If you do what do you think he could be covering up?

TomBradyWoot
03-12-2008, 02:27 PM
perhaps we did it because saban KNOWS Bill's tactics, and used a similar form of it against them....we shut them out 21-0 with the information we had. imo, that shows how potent it CAN be...


You're so right. I think we should stop holding practices and stop gameplanning. The video tape will win the game for you, or in Miami's case the tape recorder.:up:

feelthepain
03-12-2008, 02:54 PM
So all the guys they lost in free agency, were traded or just cut over all the Dynasty years are just keeping quiet? lol

I'm sure the ex-players make it known when their new teams play the Pats. Maybe this is also why so many reports are finally making their way to the surface from so many different directions about the extent of cheating the Pats were doing. As for the coaches, they don't have tell the players how they get their information, they just tell the players where to be and when. If you want to live in some little fantasy land where the players didn't know anything then so be it. I believe they knew and they participated.

Phin-o-rama
03-12-2008, 03:49 PM
You're so right. I think we should stop holding practices and stop gameplanning. The video tape will win the game for you, or in Miami's case the tape recorder.:up:



http://www.finheaven.com/clear.gif

feelthepain
03-12-2008, 11:18 PM
You're so right. I think we should stop holding practices and stop gameplanning. The video tape will win the game for you, or in Miami's case the tape recorder.:up:


Yes well you have to find some way to deflect the heat, right? But you just keep trying to displace the blame. It was everyone and everything but the coaching staff, players and owner in NE, that you know for sure!:rolleyes:

Brassmonki14120
03-13-2008, 01:32 AM
If you want to live in some little fantasy land where the players didn't know anything then so be it.
Fantasy land is where they put asterisks next to the Super Bowl Champions name.

They better team won those Championships and no amount of snivelling is going to take that away from them, get over it.

TomBradyWoot
03-13-2008, 01:49 AM
Yes well you have to find some way to deflect the heat, right? But you just keep trying to displace the blame. It was everyone and everything but the coaching staff, players and owner in NE, that you know for sure!:rolleyes:
You guys are just so ignorant you refuse to even read what is written. MRNFLFAN, late again, nor myself have posted that everything the Pats did is okay and Goodell is protecting the NFL and that's fine almighty with us. They got caught after Goodell sent out a memo telling all teams what they were doing is illegal and not to do it, and did it anyways. They deserved to get caught and the punishment. And if you really don't believe losing a first round pick is nothing special, then we'll gladly take our second round pick back from last year for the Wes Welker trade. Look at it as you just giving up your second round pick this year, for absolutely nothing, and then tell me you still believe it isn't a justifiable punishment. Especially with a CB deep class and the Pats hurting there.

We're simply telling you that you're simple minded belief that the Pats are the only team that does it, is just that. I mean I don't know what more you need than for Jimmy Johnson to come out and flat out say he's done the same exact thing and that he also wasn't the only one. Or Herm Edwards to wave to the camera. And why have the Pats done it so well for 3 years, but not the other 4? Or how about this season when they won 17 games AFTER spygate broke. (I didn't even include the first game where the taping was stopped before halftime, couldn't be used, and the Jets obviously knew about it and thus would've changed their defensive signals before the game)

You're all spending your time trying to find conspiracy theories about how the NFL is just hiding the Pats and Kraft and Belichick instead of just taking what Goodell says. That Belichick told him all he knew, he got rid of the stuff after Glazer got hold of a tape, and if Belichick didn't tell him everything he's going to get a huge punishment.

You can say the Pats and Belichick have no integrity all you want I don't see why you feel the need to bash Goodell all the same. He's done a good job overall as commissioner. He inherited what is known to be a pretty bad CBA from the owners standpoint, a league where players and coaches were being arrested every day, and teams were cheating left and right. He's stepped in with a better personal conduct policy, and now he's trying to put out ways in order to help stop the cheating. If you didn't think other teams are cheating in various ways, that should really change your mind. Then again, if you're still blinded by your Pats hate that you think nobody else is doing it, I guess it wouldn't matter you'll still believe Goodell only said that to protect the Pats.

You're so quick to believe the the Pats taped the Super Bowl 36 walkthrough. Why? Because Belichick cheated? Okay, then why take Matt Walsh at his word? Because he lies on his resume but since he's a former gopher who couldn't find another NFL job after being canned by the Pats (and then NFL Europe ended) he's credible all of a sudden?

I'm not saying the Pats didn't tape it, but I'm not saying they did either. God forbid I wait until he speaks to assess guilt. Which is been our major point. You're all just jumping to conclusions based on your beliefs that everything that's going to come out the Pats have done - regardless of the source or if it makes any sense. And if by some chance something comes out that shows what you thought isn't true, you blame Goodell and some conspiracy theory.

Jets81
03-14-2008, 09:08 AM
I think the best penalty would be to remove championship banners. Also, forfeit their week 1 win over the Jets.

No way man! I don't want a week one forfeit, the seasons over and done and it benefits the Jets on no way. Perfection until it counted the most, karma (and the Giants) showed up and ***** slapped the Patriots in the Super Bowl.

Aside of that, they've already lost a draft pick so the team has payed the price. If anything happens from here on out it should be to Belichick directly imo.

HaRdKoReXXX
03-14-2008, 09:18 AM
You guys are just so ignorant you refuse to even read what is written. MRNFLFAN, late again, nor myself have posted that everything the Pats did is okay and Goodell is protecting the NFL and that's fine almighty with us. They got caught after Goodell sent out a memo telling all teams what they were doing is illegal and not to do it, and did it anyways. They deserved to get caught and the punishment. And if you really don't believe losing a first round pick is nothing special, then we'll gladly take our second round pick back from last year for the Wes Welker trade. Look at it as you just giving up your second round pick this year, for absolutely nothing, and then tell me you still believe it isn't a justifiable punishment. Especially with a CB deep class and the Pats hurting there.

We're simply telling you that you're simple minded belief that the Pats are the only team that does it, is just that. I mean I don't know what more you need than for Jimmy Johnson to come out and flat out say he's done the same exact thing and that he also wasn't the only one. Or Herm Edwards to wave to the camera. And why have the Pats done it so well for 3 years, but not the other 4? Or how about this season when they won 17 games AFTER spygate broke. (I didn't even include the first game where the taping was stopped before halftime, couldn't be used, and the Jets obviously knew about it and thus would've changed their defensive signals before the game)

You're all spending your time trying to find conspiracy theories about how the NFL is just hiding the Pats and Kraft and Belichick instead of just taking what Goodell says. That Belichick told him all he knew, he got rid of the stuff after Glazer got hold of a tape, and if Belichick didn't tell him everything he's going to get a huge punishment.

You can say the Pats and Belichick have no integrity all you want I don't see why you feel the need to bash Goodell all the same. He's done a good job overall as commissioner. He inherited what is known to be a pretty bad CBA from the owners standpoint, a league where players and coaches were being arrested every day, and teams were cheating left and right. He's stepped in with a better personal conduct policy, and now he's trying to put out ways in order to help stop the cheating. If you didn't think other teams are cheating in various ways, that should really change your mind. Then again, if you're still blinded by your Pats hate that you think nobody else is doing it, I guess it wouldn't matter you'll still believe Goodell only said that to protect the Pats.

You're so quick to believe the the Pats taped the Super Bowl 36 walkthrough. Why? Because Belichick cheated? Okay, then why take Matt Walsh at his word? Because he lies on his resume but since he's a former gopher who couldn't find another NFL job after being canned by the Pats (and then NFL Europe ended) he's credible all of a sudden?

I'm not saying the Pats didn't tape it, but I'm not saying they did either. God forbid I wait until he speaks to assess guilt. Which is been our major point. You're all just jumping to conclusions based on your beliefs that everything that's going to come out the Pats have done - regardless of the source or if it makes any sense. And if by some chance something comes out that shows what you thought isn't true, you blame Goodell and some conspiracy theory.

I got a better idea. How bout you wait until this whole thing is over before you make anymore crybaby rants? :boohoo:

Then if Walsh is a liar who has no more incriminating evidence you can come in here and gloat all you want... about how your team only cheated a lil bit. :woot:

Itsdahumidity
03-14-2008, 09:18 AM
You guys are just so ignorant you refuse to even read what is written. MRNFLFAN, late again, nor myself have posted that everything the Pats did is okay and Goodell is protecting the NFL and that's fine almighty with us. They got caught after Goodell sent out a memo telling all teams what they were doing is illegal and not to do it, and did it anyways. They deserved to get caught and the punishment. And if you really don't believe losing a first round pick is nothing special, then we'll gladly take our second round pick back from last year for the Wes Welker trade. Look at it as you just giving up your second round pick this year, for absolutely nothing, and then tell me you still believe it isn't a justifiable punishment. Especially with a CB deep class and the Pats hurting there.

We're simply telling you that you're simple minded belief that the Pats are the only team that does it, is just that. I mean I don't know what more you need than for Jimmy Johnson to come out and flat out say he's done the same exact thing and that he also wasn't the only one. Or Herm Edwards to wave to the camera. And why have the Pats done it so well for 3 years, but not the other 4? Or how about this season when they won 17 games AFTER spygate broke. (I didn't even include the first game where the taping was stopped before halftime, couldn't be used, and the Jets obviously knew about it and thus would've changed their defensive signals before the game)

You're all spending your time trying to find conspiracy theories about how the NFL is just hiding the Pats and Kraft and Belichick instead of just taking what Goodell says. That Belichick told him all he knew, he got rid of the stuff after Glazer got hold of a tape, and if Belichick didn't tell him everything he's going to get a huge punishment.

You can say the Pats and Belichick have no integrity all you want I don't see why you feel the need to bash Goodell all the same. He's done a good job overall as commissioner. He inherited what is known to be a pretty bad CBA from the owners standpoint, a league where players and coaches were being arrested every day, and teams were cheating left and right. He's stepped in with a better personal conduct policy, and now he's trying to put out ways in order to help stop the cheating. If you didn't think other teams are cheating in various ways, that should really change your mind. Then again, if you're still blinded by your Pats hate that you think nobody else is doing it, I guess it wouldn't matter you'll still believe Goodell only said that to protect the Pats.

You're so quick to believe the the Pats taped the Super Bowl 36 walkthrough. Why? Because Belichick cheated? Okay, then why take Matt Walsh at his word? Because he lies on his resume but since he's a former gopher who couldn't find another NFL job after being canned by the Pats (and then NFL Europe ended) he's credible all of a sudden?

I'm not saying the Pats didn't tape it, but I'm not saying they did either. God forbid I wait until he speaks to assess guilt. Which is been our major point. You're all just jumping to conclusions based on your beliefs that everything that's going to come out the Pats have done - regardless of the source or if it makes any sense. And if by some chance something comes out that shows what you thought isn't true, you blame Goodell and some conspiracy theory.

This article was probably posted since the date is Feb. 26th, but I don't think you read it:

Does Goodell want to know what Walsh has on tape?
"...Goodell had insisted that destroying the evidence in Spygate I before he’d even seen it wasn’t all that unusual. He sounded like he could move right into management with the LAPD."

"...He says he acted swiftly when the first charges were leveled at Bill Belichick for cheating, although we now have learned he acted so swiftly he fined Belichick four days before the Patriots produced the notes and tapes he sought. How do you punish someone before you know what he did?"

"...Goodell had his minions, including an attorney named Jeff Pash, who should have known better, destroy the evidence while they were in Foxborough, a move Goodell defends as “the right thing to do.” How is destroying evidence the right thing to do?"

http://www.profootballweekly.com/PFW/Commentary/Columns/2008/borges2301.htm


If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...

shula_guy
03-14-2008, 02:06 PM
How do you know Goodell hasn't told the truth and how will we ever know? Maybe you and I don't agree with him destroying the tapes but that doesn't mean he covered anything up.

I myself don't believe he did. I think he asked the Patriots to turn over any more tapes of defensive signals and I believe thats exactly what he recieved.
He met with Belichick who told him his understanding of the rule and that he had always interrupted the rule that way. I think Goodell felt the leagues image had suffered enough already by the leaked tape and wanted to make sure nothing else was leaked so he destroyed them. I think his silence was nothing more than what past commisioners have done. Review the infraction hand down the penality and move on. I think he felt he had told us all we needed to know.
The NFL is big business its franchises are their product and the fans are its customers. I don't know of any other business that airs their dirty laundry in the public. Why do we somehow feel that the NFL would or should?



Tell me what your thoughts are, Do you believe Goodell is covering something up? If you do what do you think he could be covering up?

Honestly I dont know if he has or has not been completly truthful or not. The reason I dont know this is because he deystroyed the evidence that would either justify or condem his actions.

That holds the appearance of him covering something up. I dont know that he is, but I certainly do question why he felt the need to deystroy materials.

If the matter was serious enough to hand out fines and take away draft picks. A reasonable person might consider that there would be questions revolving around exactly what happened, and that person would keep everything well documented to show how and why they came to the conclusions that they came to, and handed out the fines they did.

That IMO is reasonable actions from someone who is not hiding anything, but when someone deystroys evidence, it implies that they are doing something nefarious and have a hidden agenda that they are protecting.

MR NFLFAN
03-14-2008, 06:32 PM
This article was probably posted since the date is Feb. 26th, but I don't think you read it:

Does Goodell want to know what Walsh has on tape?
"...Goodell had insisted that destroying the evidence in Spygate I before he’d even seen it wasn’t all that unusual. He sounded like he could move right into management with the LAPD."

"...He says he acted swiftly when the first charges were leveled at Bill Belichick for cheating, although we now have learned he acted so swiftly he fined Belichick four days before the Patriots produced the notes and tapes he sought. How do you punish someone before you know what he did?"

"...Goodell had his minions, including an attorney named Jeff Pash, who should have known better, destroy the evidence while they were in Foxborough, a move Goodell defends as “the right thing to do.” How is destroying evidence the right thing to do?"

http://www.profootballweekly.com/PFW/Commentary/Columns/2008/borges2301.htm


If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...


"...He says he acted swiftly when the first charges were leveled at Bill Belichick for cheating, although we now have learned he acted so swiftly he fined Belichick four days before the Patriots produced the notes and tapes he sought. How do you punish someone before you know what he did?"

But he did know what belichick did when he handed down the punishment...Lets Get the facts right.
Right after the jets tape surfaced Goodell met with Belichick. Belichick claimed he misinterrupted the meaning of the rule and that he had always understood the rule that way. That was an admission that he had videotaped since becoming a head coach which the commisioner had stated later in his PC after his meeting with Senator Specter. Therefore he knew that belichick had used video taping all along so the punishment wasn't handed down before he knew what belichick had done. He knew entirely what had been done by belichick at the time of the fines and draft pick penality because Belichick told him. The commisioner also stated if anything arose above and beyond what belichick had told him additional fines would be brought.

IMO the destruction of those tapes was done soley to insure nothing wound up on fox sports again. I think that tape leaking bothered Goodell perhaps as much as belichick's taping of signals did.

Itsdahumidity
03-14-2008, 10:17 PM
[I]But he did know what belichick did when he handed down the punishment...Lets Get the facts right.
Right after the jets tape surfaced Goodell met with Belichick. Belichick claimed he misinterrupted the meaning of the rule and that he had always understood the rule that way. That was an admission that he had videotaped since becoming a head coach which the commisioner had stated later in his PC after his meeting with Senator Specter. Therefore he knew that belichick had used video taping all along so the punishment wasn't handed down before he knew what belichick had done. He knew entirely what had been done by belichick at the time of the fines and draft pick penality because Belichick told him. The commisioner also stated if anything arose above and beyond what belichick had told him additional fines would be brought.

IMO the destruction of those tapes was done soley to insure nothing wound up on fox sports again. I think that tape leaking bothered Goodell perhaps as much as belichick's taping of signals did.



http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2008/03/nfl_a_specter_200-1.jpg

“The words ‘absurd’ and ‘ridiculous’ keep coming to my mind because he says it with a straight face.”




“Did they know the scope of the wrongdoing before the penalty was imposed?’’ asks Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter. “The answer is no.’’





"NFL commissioner Roger Goodell has changed his story more times than John Kerry changes his mind."

"First, it was nothing. Now it’s quite something. First “we’’ discovered it, then the Jets discovered it. First the Patriots “admitted it.’’ Then he remembered the Jets had a videotape of it before anyone admitted it so that probably made denying it a little difficult, even for Bill Belichick."

http://www.ronborges.com/

MR NFLFAN
03-14-2008, 11:05 PM
http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2008/03/nfl_a_specter_200-1.jpg




“The words ‘absurd’ and ‘ridiculous’ keep coming to my mind because he says it with a straight face.”




“Did they know the scope of the wrongdoing before the penalty was imposed?’’ asks Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter. “The answer is no.’’





"NFL commissioner Roger Goodell has changed his story more times than John Kerry changes his mind."




"First, it was nothing. Now it’s quite something. First “we’’ discovered it, then the Jets discovered it. First the Patriots “admitted it.’’ Then he remembered the Jets had a videotape of it before anyone admitted it so that probably made denying it a little difficult, even for Bill Belichick."




http://www.ronborges.com/






Scope of wrong doing? Well lets see at the time to present date NE video taped "D" signals which they admitted. Tell me what other evidence has Specter brought forward other than hunches and accusations. Its too bad he didn't persue the assination of President Kennedy with such vigor. Lets get to actual facts. Specter doesn't how the Video tapes were used or even if they were used to gain an advantage. If they were used he doesn't know which teams they were used against or which plays they were used on. At this point I'd be surprised if he could count his nads and come up with the same number twice hell I be surprised if he could find his nads.



You should do a little research on single bullet Arlen before you base all you so called "facts" on him, he's quite a piece of work.

Member of the Warren commision after the Kennedy assination
Inventor of the single gunman theory..... tried to intimidate witnesses who testified they heard 4 gun shots to change their testimony to say they only heard 3 shots. The man has a history of manipulating witnesses and the media to conform to his theories.

You'd be better off quoting stories written by Skip Bayless than
Ron Borges poster child of Blichick haters. Belichick slammed the door in that jackasses face the first week he became HC in NE. Since then he's written nothing but trash about belichick.

Ron Borges :sidelol:

MR NFLFAN
03-14-2008, 11:26 PM
The Truth about Arlen Specter


The Single Bullet Theory


In Dallas Texas on November 22, 1963, two women, Jean Hill and Mary Moorman were standing on the south side of Elm Street in Dealey Plaza as Kennedy's motorcade passed. They were two of the closest eyewitnesses to President Kennedy when he was struck with the fatal head shot. Jean Hill would later be questioned by Warren Commission attorney Arlen Specter. Hill recalled her encounter with Specter with journalist/author Jim Marrs:



"He kept trying to get me to change my story, particularly regarding the number of shots. He said I had been told how many shots there were and I figured he was talking about what the Secret Service told me right after the assassination. His inflection and attitude was that I knew what I was supposed to be saying, why wouldn't I just say it. I asked him, 'Look, do you want the truth or just what you want me to say?' He said he wanted the truth, so I said, 'The truth is that I heard between four and six shots.' I told him, 'I'm not going to lie for you.' So he starts talking off the record. He told me about my life, my family, and even mentioned that my marriage was in trouble. I said, 'What's the point of interviewing me if you already know everything about me?' He got angrier and finally told me, 'Look, we can even make you look as crazy as Marguerite Oswald [Lee Oswald's mother] and everybody knows how crazy she is. We could have you put in a mental institution if you don't cooperate with us.'



http://www.geocities.com/zrrifle99/ (http://www.geocities.com/zrrifle99/)


Does that sound like a man who was interested in the truth? If he would try to manipulate a witnesses testimony over the assination of one of America's most beloved Presidents what lengths do you think he go to discredit Commisioner Goodell? It doesn't end with the Kennedy assination either.

TomBradyWoot
03-15-2008, 12:03 AM
I got a better idea. How bout you wait until this whole thing is over before you make anymore crybaby rants? :boohoo:

Then if Walsh is a liar who has no more incriminating evidence you can come in here and gloat all you want... about how your team only cheated a lil bit. :woot:
Like the Dolphins did under Jimmy Johnson? No problem. :woot::woot::woot::woot::woot::woot::woot::woot:

TomBradyWoot
03-15-2008, 12:08 AM
This article was probably posted since the date is Feb. 26th, but I don't think you read it:

Does Goodell want to know what Walsh has on tape?
"...Goodell had insisted that destroying the evidence in Spygate I before he’d even seen it wasn’t all that unusual. He sounded like he could move right into management with the LAPD."

"...He says he acted swiftly when the first charges were leveled at Bill Belichick for cheating, although we now have learned he acted so swiftly he fined Belichick four days before the Patriots produced the notes and tapes he sought. How do you punish someone before you know what he did?"

"...Goodell had his minions, including an attorney named Jeff Pash, who should have known better, destroy the evidence while they were in Foxborough, a move Goodell defends as “the right thing to do.” How is destroying evidence the right thing to do?"

http://www.profootballweekly.com/PFW/Commentary/Columns/2008/borges2301.htm


If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...
It's also been reported now, that Belichick signed his little contract saying this is what he knew, and this is all he knew, and if anything else came up Goodell was going to punish him further and suspend him for a full year.

So really, he didn't NEED to see the tapes and information to fine Belichick, the organization, and take away the draft pick. That punishment was for being caught doing something the NFL specifically forbade and for what Belichick admitted he had done previously. If those notes and tapes produced by the Pats showed more than what Belichick had signed he admitted to - then Goodell would've suspended Belichick for a year.

So really, he did everything the right way.

MR NFLFAN
03-15-2008, 02:35 AM
This article was probably posted since the date is Feb. 26th, but I don't think you read it:

Does Goodell want to know what Walsh has on tape?
"...Goodell had insisted that destroying the evidence in Spygate I before he’d even seen it wasn’t all that unusual. He sounded like he could move right into management with the LAPD."

"...He says he acted swiftly when the first charges were leveled at Bill Belichick for cheating, although we now have learned he acted so swiftly he fined Belichick four days before the Patriots produced the notes and tapes he sought. How do you punish someone before you know what he did?"

"...Goodell had his minions, including an attorney named Jeff Pash, who should have known better, destroy the evidence while they were in Foxborough, a move Goodell defends as “the right thing to do.” How is destroying evidence the right thing to do?"

http://www.profootballweekly.com/PFW/Commentary/Columns/2008/borges2301.htm


If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...

This quote is from your article link of the Borges story:


Then, it turns out, Goodell had his minions, including an attorney named Jeff Pash, who should have known better, destroy the evidence while they were in Foxborough, a move Goodell defends as “the right thing to do.” How is destroying evidence the right thing to do?


That action now calls into question the alleged “leaking” of a portion of one of those tapes to Fox-TV news maven Jay Glazer. At the time, Goodell was supposedly outraged, yet now we have learned that the tapes were destroyed by Pash and NFL vice president Ray Anderson while they were in Foxborough at the instruction of Goodell. What that means, if Goodell is to be believed, is that either the Patriots leaked it to make themselves look bad or Goodell’s office did it because if they destroyed the tapes in Foxborough, no one else would have ever had access to them.


Typical Borges style.
Borges has twisted the leaked tape in with those tapes turned in later and destroyed in foxborough. The leaked tape was a portion of the tape from the Jets game in sept. not the tapes destroyed in Foxborough and he left out probably the most likely party of the leak, the NY jets. The jets tape supposedly traveled thru 3 hands. The pats video tape guy...the jets security and GM and then the league officals.


What can you expect from a reporter who retired (fired) from the Boston Globe for plagiarism.

Boston Globe Suspends Ron Borges for Plagiarism

http://sports.aol.com/fanhouse/2007/03/06/boston-globe-suspends-ron-borges-for-plagiarism/ (http://sports.aol.com/fanhouse/2007/03/06/boston-globe-suspends-ron-borges-for-plagiarism/)

Itsdahumidity
03-15-2008, 10:47 AM
It's also been reported now, that Belichick signed his little contract saying this is what he knew, and this is all he knew, and if anything else came up Goodell was going to punish him further and suspend him for a full year.

So really, he didn't NEED to see the tapes and information to fine Belichick, the organization, and take away the draft pick. That punishment was for being caught doing something the NFL specifically forbade and for what Belichick admitted he had done previously. If those notes and tapes produced by the Pats showed more than what Belichick had signed he admitted to - then Goodell would've suspended Belichick for a year.

So really, he did everything the right way.

So we have one Taintriots fan saying Goodell saw all of the evidence and then fined them, and another saying Goodell didn't see the tapes before he acted. Which is it?

Let me get this straight TomBradyWoot. Goodell decided to take the cheater at his word that he would be honest and turn over everything, ignoring the fact that it's the cheater's dishonesty that's at the forefront. Do you know how stupid that sounds?

How about not relying on what the offender says and do a REAL investigation. Goodell can send an ex-FBI agent to back check Walsh but don't want him anywhere near the Taintriot org? Please.

Hey nflfan Borges asked an all important question that all non-Taintriots fans ask with each passing day - "Does Goodell want to know what Walsh has on tape?" It doesn't matter what went on at Borges' former job plus, why should we care?

Specter's politics are not relevant to this scandal. Borges & Specter both can come to my house look me in the eye and spit on my floor, but how would that change what the cheater did, what Goodell did & didn't do and how your Spynasty will be viewed?

Always remember, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

You like links how about these:

www. denial . com

www. deflect . com

www. divert . com

www. excuses . com

Real quick what do the fans of the 39 other SB winners have in common?

- They will never have to defend their teams trophies.

MR NFLFAN
03-15-2008, 11:39 AM
So we have one Taintriots fan saying Goodell saw all of the evidence and then fined them, and another saying Goodell didn't see the tapes before he acted. Which is it?

Let me get this straight TomBradyWoot. Goodell decided to take the cheater at his word that he would be honest and turn over everything, ignoring the fact that it's the cheater's dishonesty that's at the forefront. Do you know how stupid that sounds?

How about not relying on what the offender says and do a REAL investigation. Goodell can send an ex-FBI agent to back check Walsh but don't want him anywhere near the Taintriot org? Please.

Hey nflfan Borges asked an all important question that all non-Taintriots fans ask with each passing day - "Does Goodell want to know what Walsh has on tape?" It doesn't matter what went on at Borges' former job plus, why should we care?

Specter's politics are not relevant to this scandal. Borges & Specter both can come to my house look me in the eye and spit on my floor, but how would that change what the cheater did, what Goodell did & didn't do and how your Spynasty will be viewed?

Always remember, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

You like links how about these:

www. denial . com

www. deflect . com

www. divert . com

www. excuses . com

Real quick what do the fans of the 39 other SB winners have in common?

- They will never have to defend their teams trophies.


Weak as usual.

Itsdahumidity
03-15-2008, 11:48 AM
Weak as usual.

Please, you already got ethered in several threads. This is just gravy. Keep wasting time on the periphery while us grown-ups in the real world debate the issues.

MR NFLFAN
03-15-2008, 12:07 PM
Please, you already got ethered in several threads. This is just gravy. Keep wasting time on the periphery while us grown-ups in the real world debate the issues.


Specters politcs are very relevant to his whole argument. He States he needs to investigate this because of the nfls antitrust agreement but this doesn't violate that agreement. That is the only reason the goverment should get involved.
Specter has a clear history of trying to manipulate facts.
Borges steals someone elses work and passes it off as his own.

Then you try to pass off the BS line that.... none of that matters?

Remember you posted this
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck......

MattM
03-15-2008, 12:37 PM
One thing folks who attack Specter conveniently forget is that he's not running for office, but retiring in 2010 after his term expires, thus all of this is not about "grandstanding to his base" to get more votes. I also think the Comcast stuff is way overblown as well, since as Specter noted, while they are indeed his largest donor, their donations plus those of their law firm (which I'm sure has other clients than Comcast that they're funneling money for there) still have only contributed in aggregate about $500,000 OVER THE LAST 20 YEARS to him and his campaign, which, by political standards, is not a ton. For ex., he's raised in aggregate at least $25 million over that time, making their combined donation less than 2% of his total (once again, for argument's sake crediting the full $200-300k that Comcast's firm gave him as Comcast money, which we know isn't completely the case).

I honestly believe that what it comes down to with him is that he's a disgruntled Eagles fan who is pissed off that they lost that SB to a team that potentially had an unfair advantage. He's kind of like an everyfan, except he's got the power to do something about it. Heck, I know if I were in his shoes, I'd be investigating the referees who've worked some of the Pats* games over the years and their financial transactions, along with Mike Pereira (the NFL's head of officials). Anyone who watched this year's Ravens game or the 2006 season opener against Buffalo know exactly what I mean.....

MR NFLFAN
03-15-2008, 02:15 PM
One thing folks who attack Specter conveniently forget is that he's not running for office, but retiring in 2010 after his term expires, thus all of this is not about "grandstanding to his base" to get more votes. I also think the Comcast stuff is way overblown as well, since as Specter noted, while they are indeed his largest donor, their donations plus those of their law firm (which I'm sure has other clients than Comcast that they're funneling money for there) still have only contributed in aggregate about $500,000 OVER THE LAST 20 YEARS to him and his campaign, which, by political standards, is not a ton. For ex., he's raised in aggregate at least $25 million over that time, making their combined donation less than 2% of his total (once again, for argument's sake crediting the full $200-300k that Comcast's firm gave him as Comcast money, which we know isn't completely the case).

What has him running for re-election have to do with this? He's primarily IN office because business such as comcast and their law firm shelled out hindreds of thousands of dollars to put him there and now you try and tell us they don't want some return on those contributions? Right well I've got a nice bridge to sell you then. It doesn't matter what his intentions are after 2010 were talking about 2008 and in 2008 he's clearly in a position to look after the hand that fed him. Is the senate judicary commitee a commitee of one? So where are the other members on this? The fact that Specter has those ties to comcast is reason enough that he should step away from this just for the sake of ethics. If some great injustice was done wouldn't some other member of the commitee be capable of finding that out?
This is a judicary commitee and any judge hearing a case with ties to a defendant such as specter has would quickly recuse himself from said case on the mere fact he's not imparcial in the matter. Have you ever been called to jury duty? If you are chosen to sit on a jury the judge will ask you if you know the defendant, if you know the defendants family or attorney or have any connection with any of them. Why do you suppose they hold juriors to that standard? Perhaps Specter has no other interest in this other than the integrity of the game then why not let someone else from that commitee fight this battle? I myself don't believe he's only interested in the integrity of the game. Both the senate and the house have too much history of greasing the palms of those who pony up with large campaign contributions and thats a fact thats been widely known for decades and he talks about integrity.

I don't believe the goverment has a place in this investigation period. Unless some federal law was broken here and there was no federal law or civil law broken they simply don't belong involved in this. I posted a link to the so called antitrust exemptions called the Football Broadcasting act of 1961 and it has nothing to do with the matter at hand. The fact that Specter uses that red herring itself to get involved reflects badly on his true intentions and his over all interest in this case.
He asked for an explaination from the commisioner which he received but he doesn't believe him and just as the senator has done in the past he will now try and manipulate witnesses to support his case, a case he doesn't even belong involved in. He did it on the warren commision and he did it with the Anitia Hill investigations.
I for one don't buy your expalination that he's just a big disgruntled eagles fan trying to find out if his team lost because of some unfair advantage. His team choked plain and simple. Nothing the Patriots did made Mcnabb blow chunks and the eagles ran that last 2 min offense down by 3 with no sense of urgency like they had another quarter left to play. Those things were obvious to anyone who watched the game so why doesn't he think those things played a huge part of their loss? Even Andy Reid and the Eagles FO don't believe that cheating was the reason they lost...so why isn't any of that testimony good enough for Specter? One reason comes to mind he's after something else and he grabs at anything he can to fan the flames. Defend him all you want but his history or underhanded manipulation has been documented in matters much bigger than this.




I honestly believe that what it comes down to with him is that he's a disgruntled Eagles fan who is pissed off that they lost that SB to a team that potentially had an unfair advantage. He's kind of like an everyfan, except he's got the power to do something about it. Heck, I know if I were in his shoes, I'd be investigating the referees who've worked some of the Pats* games over the years and their financial transactions, along with Mike Pereira (the NFL's head of officials). Anyone who watched this year's Ravens game or the 2006 season opener against Buffalo know exactly what I mean.....

Kind of like every fan? Yeah right.. I know when I want to attend a SB I just have my secretry call the league and have them send me over some free tickets...Don't you?
Did you watch the Patriots/Eagles SB on TV?
Didn't you wonder why with time winding down and the eagles down by 3 points they acted like they had all kinds of time? Even the announcers made light of the fact the Eagles dragged their feet during the two minute offense.
Down by three they certainly had a chance to win that game or at the very least tie it.
The accusations of the rams walk thru taping were made and Martz and warner stated they ran thru the red zone plays yet every time the rams actually made it into the red zone they scored. Well I guess NE must just be bad cheaters then.
Its easy to make accusations but the game tapes don't bear the friut of those accusations.
The Ravens game wasn't poor officiating. Every penality during the last drive was correct. Watson was mauled, Neil did leave before the snap, the ravens DC did signal time out and the Ravens players did melt down on the unsportsman like call. Its all on replay to be seen. The fact is the Ravens made mistakes and the biggest mistake is they played well for 58 minutes of a 60 minute game then they did some stupid things.

One last thing
I would also like to point out the opening day game in 06 patriots/bills on the first offensive play Spikes dam near ripped Brady's head off grabbing the face mask to cause the strip and bills first score which by the way is also on replay but it was a non call.... but I don't hear you complaining about that.

feelthepain
03-15-2008, 05:52 PM
I don't believe the goverment has a place in this investigation period. Unless some federal law was broken here and there was no federal law or civil law broken they simply don't belong involved in this. I posted a link to the so called antitrust exemptions called the Football Broadcasting act of 1961 and it has nothing to do with the matter at hand. The fact that Specter uses that red herring itself to get involved reflects badly on his true intentions and his over all interest in this case.
He asked for an explaination from the commisioner which he received but he doesn't believe him and just as the senator has done in the past he will now try and manipulate witnesses to support his case, a case he doesn't even belong involved in. He did it on the warren commision and he did it with the Anitia Hill investigations.
I for one don't buy your expalination that he's just a big disgruntled eagles fan trying to find out if his team lost because of some unfair advantage. His team choked plain and simple. Nothing the Patriots did made Mcnabb blow chunks and the eagles ran that last 2 min offense down by 3 with no sense of urgency like they had another quarter left to play. Those things were obvious to anyone who watched the game so why doesn't he think those things played a huge part of their loss? Even Andy Reid and the Eagles FO don't believe that cheating was the reason they lost...so why isn't any of that testimony good enough for Specter? One reason comes to mind he's after something else and he grabs at anything he can to fan the flames. Defend him all you want but his history or underhanded manipulation has been documented in matters much bigger than this.


Of course you don't, you have so much to lose if Specter is right. Why not get off everyone who threatens your ability to trash talk and accept the possibility Specter could be right and Pat fans will have to move on post SB cheating NE.??

Seriously, there's already proof NE cheated they were fined heavily. Do you really expect everyone to ignore the possibility there's more? I'm really tired of NE fans acting like poor NE. BB is guilty as hell, the man is an obvious jerk. He always act's as if he's doing the world a favor by saying a word or two to the media. Every time he gets to mid field after a game "win or lose" he shoves people out of his way like nobody has a right to be on the field but him. It's no wonder 95% of the population want to see his *** crash and burn.

Here's a little fun reading for anyone interested in how everyone but NE fans feel about the cheatriots!

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/7902338/There-has-to-be-more-to-the-Spygate-story

Enjoy I know I did!!:hi5:

shula_guy
03-17-2008, 03:23 PM
So let me see if have this correct?

1. Because Spector was on the Warren commision and accepts campagine donations from comcast and it`s lawyers, he is not crediable and we should not trust him.

2. Because Walsh was fired from the Pats, we should not trust him.

3. Because a reporter was accused of plagerisim we should trust him either.

But we should trust Roger Godell and the Patriots because they are telling us too.

Sorry but that is a really weak argument and looks more like a smear camphaign then an attempt to find the truth.

MR NFLFAN
03-17-2008, 08:50 PM
So let me see if have this correct?

Not exactly


1. Because Spector was on the Warren commision and accepts campagine donations from comcast and it`s lawyers, he is not crediable and we should not trust him.

Rather than waste my time reapeating what I've already posted I suggest you go back and actually look at the linlks included with my post.
Specifically "the truth about Arlen Specter" and The "Football Broadcasting Act of 1961" That is the antitrust exemption law that Specter uses to threaten the NFL with. Look at that law and see if you can find where it has been violated.
Read those two articles and then see if your statement about why you shouldn't trust Specter still looks right.


2. Because Walsh was fired from the Pats, we should not trust him.

Being fired is one thing but the fact that the guy is also a thief looking for blanket indemnity. Yes he wants to be able to tell his story with absolutely no legal repercussions what so ever even if he lies. We know the Patriots never had any confidentiality agreement with Walsh so why does this guy need the blanket indemnification? What else has this guy done that would require such sweeping protection? Don't any of these things even raise a question in your mind? They sure do mine.


3. Because a reporter was accused of plagerisim we should trust him either.

Accused? Well i guess theres another link I posted here you should read. Its a fact not an accusation, he stole someone elses work almost completely word for word. Do a simple google search on Ron Borges plagerism its well known.


But we should trust Roger Godell and the Patriots because they are telling us too.

You words not mine. I've said that the commisioner should hold Wlsh to a burden of reasonable proof and I stand by that. You can choose to trust who you want but I'm afraid there are no saints involved in this issue.


Sorry but that is a really weak argument and looks more like a smear camphaign then an attempt to find the truth.

I'm sorry but what I find weak is that you make these one sentence statements in light of the Links to the stories I've provided in this thread. Everything I posted in this thread is verifable and I did included links to the sources and you insinuate that I am just trying to smear those involved.

It is a fact that no part of the antitrust exemption was violated.
It is a fact that Specters two biggest campaign contributors are Comcast and their legal firm.
It's a fact that both senators and house of reps looks after the hand that feeds them.
If the law he uses as an excuse to involve himself wasn't violated along with no other federal or cival law then he has no business in this matter. It tends to show improper ethics when your A** is tied to a company thats been involved in a well known legal battle with the league. At the very least he should have had another member handle this and stepped aside just because of his apparent appearence of a conflict of interest, any judge would have certainly done that. This all is a kick in the pants to his true intentions and his crediablity and it sure looks dirty.

I quote Itsdahumidity
"If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck......"

I suppose your ducks must be different huh?

Itsdahumidity
03-22-2008, 12:33 PM
You still yapping?


Rather than waste my time reapeating what I've already posted

Don't you mean our time? I think we all know you can't stop repeating.




I quote Itsdahumidity
"If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck......"

I suppose your ducks must be different huh?

Using my quote again? Damn, I'm embarrassed for you - for your lack of creativity.



SPECTER TO LIMBAUGH: “THERE WAS FILMING”

Specter: “Walsh’s lawyer let me see them on a promise of confidentiality, and I believe an objective and fair reading of those letters is that the NFL is discouraging Walsh from coming forward."

"...they’re going to have to show those letters — and when they do, they’re going to have to change their tune and let Walsh testify, because those reports are looking pretty strong, but there was filming for the 2002 Super Bowl.”

http://www.profootballtalk.com/category/rumor-mill/

MR NFLFAN
03-22-2008, 09:57 PM
Honest Arlen a man after the truth :sidelol:


Jean Hill to Arlen specter
"I asked him, 'Look, do you want the truth or just what you want me to say?" He said he wanted the truth, so I said, "The truth is that I heard between four and six shots."


Arlen Specter to Jean Hill
"Look, we can even make you look as crazy as Marguerite Oswald [Lee Oswald's mother] and everybody knows how crazy she is. We could have you put in a mental institution if you don't cooperate with us."





Specter questions Anita Hill (during the Senate confirmation hearings for Judge Thomas:)
He used a familiar cross-examination tactic--a tactic common in sexual harassment cases. He ridiculed my reaction to Thomas' behavior, suggesting that I was being oversensitive, even to the point of misrepresenting my testimony....
With every question he asked, it became clearer that despite any declaration to the contrary, he viewed me as an adversary. Rather than seeking to elicit information, his questioning sought to elicit a conclusion that he had reached before the hearing began."

Conuficus
03-22-2008, 10:13 PM
It must be hard to accuse a man of acting a certain way only because of his perspective or allegiance. Especially when your argument is based on the same thing you are purporting the other man is doing; lacking perspective and obeying his allegiances.

SpaceMountain16
03-22-2008, 11:15 PM
So Spector is attacking the Patriots because he receives campaign donations from Comcast? Who has very little to do with the Eagles?

What?

MR NFLFAN
03-22-2008, 11:52 PM
So Spector is attacking the Patriots because he receives campaign donations from Comcast? Who has very little to do with the Eagles?

What?

Actually Specter is attacking the the commisioner. I know its tough for some of you to grasp the idea that a senator would look after a special interest group that donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to put them in office but Specters after the NFL to sell broadcast rights to the large cable companies so they can package the NFLN in tier channels and charge extra for it. He uses the the leagues antitrust exemptions agreement as a red herring to try and build support from the other crooks in washington so he can pressure the league to give in to his campaign contributors. Its really pretty simple all you have to do is follow the money.

The Myth
03-23-2008, 06:39 PM
So Spector is attacking the Patriots because he receives campaign donations from Comcast? Who has very little to do with the Eagles?

What?
What is wrong with you? What part of the fact that Spector is using this to attack the NFL did you not understand. And why is he doing it you say.
Because Comcast is in a legal fight with the NFL and Comcast gives Spector millions for his campaign. If you paid just a little more attention you night have been able to understand what is really going on. Spector doesn't really give a rats A$$ about the Patriots it is all about getting the NFL to cave into Comcast about the NFL Network package.

SpaceMountain16
03-23-2008, 06:51 PM
What is wrong with you? What part of the fact that Spector is using this to attack the NFL did you not understand. And why is he doing it you say.
Because Comcast is in a legal fight with the NFL and Comcast gives Spector millions for his campaign. If you paid just a little more attention you night have been able to understand what is really going on. Spector doesn't really give a rats A$$ about the Patriots it is all about getting the NFL to cave into Comcast about the NFL Network package.

I wasn't being obnoxious, i just didn't understand it. Now i see it's an issue of the Comcast-NFL legal battle. I had heard people bury Spector because he's an Eagles fan and was bitter at the Patriots, so when someone tried to connect comcast to spector i assumed they meant because of their minimal connections to the Eagles and his being an Eagles fan.

Now i understand a little more.

MR NFLFAN
03-23-2008, 10:30 PM
I wasn't being obnoxious, i just didn't understand it. Now i see it's an issue of the Comcast-NFL legal battle. I had heard people bury Spector because he's an Eagles fan and was bitter at the Patriots, so when someone tried to connect comcast to spector i assumed they meant because of their minimal connections to the Eagles and his being an Eagles fan.

Now i understand a little more.

Hell must have frozen over huh? :winkwink:

shula_guy
03-24-2008, 11:38 AM
Not exactly



Rather than waste my time reapeating what I've already posted I suggest you go back and actually look at the linlks included with my post.
Specifically "the truth about Arlen Specter" and The "Football Broadcasting Act of 1961" That is the antitrust exemption law that Specter uses to threaten the NFL with. Look at that law and see if you can find where it has been violated.
Read those two articles and then see if your statement about why you shouldn't trust Specter still looks right.



Being fired is one thing but the fact that the guy is also a thief looking for blanket indemnity. Yes he wants to be able to tell his story with absolutely no legal repercussions what so ever even if he lies. We know the Patriots never had any confidentiality agreement with Walsh so why does this guy need the blanket indemnification? What else has this guy done that would require such sweeping protection? Don't any of these things even raise a question in your mind? They sure do mine.



Accused? Well i guess theres another link I posted here you should read. Its a fact not an accusation, he stole someone elses work almost completely word for word. Do a simple google search on Ron Borges plagerism its well known.



You words not mine. I've said that the commisioner should hold Wlsh to a burden of reasonable proof and I stand by that. You can choose to trust who you want but I'm afraid there are no saints involved in this issue.



I'm sorry but what I find weak is that you make these one sentence statements in light of the Links to the stories I've provided in this thread. Everything I posted in this thread is verifable and I did included links to the sources and you insinuate that I am just trying to smear those involved.

It is a fact that no part of the antitrust exemption was violated.
It is a fact that Specters two biggest campaign contributors are Comcast and their legal firm.
It's a fact that both senators and house of reps looks after the hand that feeds them.
If the law he uses as an excuse to involve himself wasn't violated along with no other federal or cival law then he has no business in this matter. It tends to show improper ethics when your A** is tied to a company thats been involved in a well known legal battle with the league. At the very least he should have had another member handle this and stepped aside just because of his apparent appearence of a conflict of interest, any judge would have certainly done that. This all is a kick in the pants to his true intentions and his crediablity and it sure looks dirty.

I quote Itsdahumidity
"If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck......"

I suppose your ducks must be different huh?


Firstoff I used fast one line sentences because there is no point in rexplaining things that have already been hammered over and over.

You seem to be impling that Im uneducated about this situation and am appling some sort of bias double standard towards your team.

In truth the only thing I was doing was pointing out to you that from your perspective we should not trust anyone who says anything bad about your team because all those dogs have fleas but your guys hands are squeaky clean until proven otherwise. It dosnt matter to you how it looks because noone has provided proof but you are fast to discredit accusers without any proof of wrong doing on thier part.

Oh well it really dosnt matter I guess I really dont think you can objectivily look at it considering its your beloved team in the center of it all.

MR NFLFAN
03-24-2008, 03:48 PM
Firstoff I used fast one line sentences because there is no point in rexplaining things that have already been hammered over and over.

You seem to be impling that Im uneducated about this situation and am appling some sort of bias double standard towards your team.

In truth the only thing I was doing was pointing out to you that from your perspective we should not trust anyone who says anything bad about your team because all those dogs have fleas but your guys hands are squeaky clean until proven otherwise. It dosnt matter to you how it looks because noone has provided proof but you are fast to discredit accusers without any proof of wrong doing on thier part.

Oh well it really dosnt matter I guess I really dont think you can objectivily look at it considering its your beloved team in the center of it all.



No I'm not implying you're uneducated and I appologize if my post came off that way to you.

When I post something here I always try and provide links to my sources. After reading your one liners I felt you hadn't looked at a one of those links perhaps you had and just don't believe them, I don't know. I've never said that anyone including Belichick or the Pats were squeaky clean and even though I don't believe the goverment should be involved in this case if the fans feel they truly should be involved then we should at least have someone on that judicary commitee whos not knee deep in conflicts of interest. If Specter is only after the truth then I would think the percieved ideas of conflict of interest would be enough for him to step away and let someone else take this one. That is what any fair and honest judge would do and the man is an attorney after all so why is he so unwilling to even admit that from the outside looking in his involvement definately smells fishy. He's quick to accuse the commisioner of destroying evidence to cover something up when in fact his own involvement, ties to comcast along with his stubborness to have someone else from the senate take over implies he's doing the same thing. If we're after the truth doesn't it make sense to have investigative and judicary people involved that don't have conflicts of interest in the matter?
Would you want a suit filed against you to be heard by a judge who owes his position in part to the plaintiff? I sure wouldn't. Specters involvement is simply unethical in this case and he knows it. Thats why I've said all along you have to follow the money in this and in following the money Specter isn't the man from that commitee that should be involved. If such an injustice occured and if that injustice violated the antitrust exemptions that the league enjoys then where are the other members of that judicary committee in this? Don't those members seem to care? Why is Specter the only one?
In light of the Senators ties to comcast along with his past history to manipulate witnesses testimony to agree with his preconcieved conclusions those are just as good questions as why the commisioner destroyed those tapes. Many here are just hell bent of penalizing the Patriots and they don't really seem to care about the truth as long as it ends in more punishment for Belichick or the franchise.
Investigate all you want just put it into the hands of someone with an ounce of integrity

SpaceMountain16
03-24-2008, 04:11 PM
Hell must have frozen over huh? :winkwink:

perhaps it was just the playing surface the froze over, since Belichick has been watering it down for years.

HaRdKoReXXX
03-24-2008, 05:31 PM
perhaps it was just the playing surface the froze over, since Belichick has been watering it down for years.

:lol:.

Any new news on the Pats cheating scandal? Or has Goodell completely swept it under the rug?

MR NFLFAN
03-24-2008, 07:48 PM
:lol:.

Any new news on the Pats cheating scandal? Or has Goodell completely swept it under the rug?

Yeah the lawyers are close to an agreement....still. :D

late again
03-24-2008, 11:49 PM
Yeah the lawyers are close to an agreement....still. :D

No Really.. the check is in the mail. I mean it this time....really...no I'm serious this time. :rolleyes2:

MattM
03-29-2008, 11:24 AM
We all know this ain't going away until we hear what Walsh has to say, no matter how long that may take.....

MR NFLFAN
03-29-2008, 02:37 PM
We all know this ain't going away until we hear what Walsh has to say, no matter how long that may take.....

I don't know Matt it seems the competition commitee, owners and the league have already moved on. Even the single bullet senator has disappeared. Maybe its time you contacted Michael Moore perhaps he can make another of his rediculou documentaries all about videogate. :up:

Cowboys fan
03-29-2008, 03:10 PM
This definitely seems to be a heated argument in the AFC East. I will say however, that if Pats fans think that the luster of their team was only lost within their division, that is wrong. They are viewed a lot more poorly all across the league. It doesn't matter if it is true or not. That blemish is there regardless. Thats what happens when you get caught with a camera on the sidelines. It opens up a whole lot of doors and assumptions. It doesn't matter how many are true, if any are true. The reputation is damaged. Still, seeing fans throw insults at each other won't resolve the situation any. I say let Walsh come forward. If he truly has nothing of significance, then the NE organization shouldn't be sweating. If the Pats are trying desperately to keep walsh from coming forward, then that will say they did something louder than anything else until a tape is produced. I say let dogs lie till Walsh is allowed to speak. Seriously, if they are getting this much flak just with the AFCE, whats its gonna be like when the rest of the league jumps in if that tape turns out to be real.

MR NFLFAN
03-29-2008, 03:34 PM
This definitely seems to be a heated argument in the AFC East. I will say however, that if Pats fans think that the luster of their team was only lost within their division, that is wrong. They are viewed a lot more poorly all across the league. It doesn't matter if it is true or not. That blemish is there regardless. Thats what happens when you get caught with a camera on the sidelines. It opens up a whole lot of doors and assumptions. It doesn't matter how many are true, if any are true. The reputation is damaged. Still, seeing fans throw insults at each other won't resolve the situation any. I say let Walsh come forward. If he truly has nothing of significance, then the NE organization shouldn't be sweating. If the Pats are trying desperately to keep walsh from coming forward, then that will say they did something louder than anything else until a tape is produced. I say let dogs lie till Walsh is allowed to speak. Seriously, if they are getting this much flak just with the AFCE, whats its gonna be like when the rest of the league jumps in if that tape turns out to be real.

We haven't even established if there even is a walk thru tape let alone weather its real. To date neither Walsh or his lawyer are on record as stating he specifically has a Rams walk thru tape. So far the Boston Hearld is the only paper on record stating Walsh has a tape of a Rams pre SB walk thru but the Hearld writer reported his information was from an anonymous source. I doesn't seem to me that the league is too interested in working out a deal with Walsh and that makes me wonder that perhaps he doesn't have squat. I'd have to think that through negotiations between lawyers the league would want to know specifically what the evidence consisted of even if it was off the record before they offer to cover all the guys legal expenses.

MattM
03-30-2008, 06:09 PM
We haven't even established if there even is a walk thru tape let alone weather its real. To date neither Walsh or his lawyer are on record as stating he specifically has a Rams walk thru tape. So far the Boston Hearld is the only paper on record stating Walsh has a tape of a Rams pre SB walk thru but the Hearld writer reported his information was from an anonymous source. I doesn't seem to me that the league is too interested in working out a deal with Walsh and that makes me wonder that perhaps he doesn't have squat. I'd have to think that through negotiations between lawyers the league would want to know specifically what the evidence consisted of even if it was off the record before they offer to cover all the guys legal expenses.

No, quite the contrary. As Specter said a couple of weeks ago, what it means is that the League wants to sweep this under the rug even further. He challenged the League to make available its corresp with Walsh which he said pretty much showed the League really doesn't want Walsh to come forward. At that same time he also made a cryptic statement that implied there is strong evidence a tape does exist. Still, no one will know for sure until Walsh speaks. Hopefully that will happen soon. As the Cowboy dude said, if the Pats have nothing to hide here, why not let Walsh speak? What are you all so afraid of? I mean, if you want your reputation back, we need to hear from Walsh on what he has or doesn't have, plain and simple. Anything less and that cloud remains.....

FWIW, here's an article re: the Specter interview on Rush Limbaugh--

http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/03/21/specter-to-limbaugh-there-was-filming/

MR NFLFAN
03-30-2008, 08:58 PM
Like I said Matt perhaps its time you called Michael Moore. He and Specter can make a documentary together.

Itsdahumidity
04-18-2008, 09:16 AM
I see goodell is still stalling:

Walsh talks may be near

It has been more than two months since the name Matt Walsh entered the local sports lexicon, and we may finally be close to knowing what light, if any, he can shed on the Patriots [team stats]’ videotaping practices.

- John Tomase (taintriots fans fav writer)


“I have never met Matt but I’m hoping to meet him some time in the near future,” Goodell told those in attendance in comments relayed by the Dallas Morning News. “He’s indicated he has evidence and new information that would lead to further disciplinary action. I’m anxious to meet with him. I hope that’ll happen some time in the next couple weeks.”

- goodell




http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/football/patriots/view.bg?articleid=1088014&srvc=patriots&position=1

TomBradyWoot
04-18-2008, 11:59 AM
how is he stalling? He's said in the media the whole time that he wants to hear from this guy. There's nothing stopping him from talking. There's no agreement.

MR NFLFAN
04-18-2008, 04:53 PM
I see goodell is still stalling:

Walsh talks may be near

It has been more than two months since the name Matt Walsh entered the local sports lexicon, and we may finally be close to knowing what light, if any, he can shed on the Patriots [team stats]’ videotaping practices.

- John Tomase (taintriots fans fav writer)


“I have never met Matt but I’m hoping to meet him some time in the near future,” Goodell told those in attendance in comments relayed by the Dallas Morning News. “He’s indicated he has evidence and new information that would lead to further disciplinary action. I’m anxious to meet with him. I hope that’ll happen some time in the next couple weeks.”

- goodell




http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/football/patriots/view.bg?articleid=1088014&srvc=patriots&position=1



Call it what you want but the league isn't going to give Walsh a kitchen sink indemnity. It just isn't going to happen. There is no way the league is going to open itself to cover any and all legal cost Walsh could possibly face. I'm sure goodell wants to see what he has but it certainly isn't worth what it could potientially cost the NFL and the commisioner isn't stupid.

Patriots-Lifer
04-21-2008, 03:31 PM
Like I said Matt perhaps its time you called Michael Moore. He and Specter can make a documentary together.
Sorry but Moore has shied away from doing pieces of complete fiction. He requires there be at least some truth in it.

Itsdahumidity
04-23-2008, 03:12 PM
Call it what you want but the league isn't going to give Walsh a kitchen sink indemnity. It just isn't going to happen. There is no way the league is going to open itself to cover any and all legal cost Walsh could possibly face. I'm sure goodell wants to see what he has but it certainly isn't worth what it could potientially cost the NFL and the commisioner isn't stupid.


Tick, tock. Tick, tock.

WALSH DEAL IS IN PLACE

WALSH GETS ONGOING ACCESS TO HIS MATERIALS

"...after Walsh surrenders to the league whatever tangible evidence that he has in his possession, he’ll still have access to it."

WALSH WINS THE “TRUTH” SKIRMISH

"The indemnification commitment Walsh receives in paragraph 3(a) applies even if there is “alleged untruthfulness” in Walsh’s disclosures to the NFL, unless there is “intentional untruthfulness."

Tick, tock. Tick, tock.

"Perchance, he for whom this bell tolls may be so ill, as that he knows not it tolls for him."
-Meditation #17 By John Donne

Tick, tock. Tick, tock.

http://www.profootballtalk.com/category/rumor-mill/

TarHeelFinFan
04-23-2008, 03:19 PM
Fantasy land is where they put asterisks next to the Super Bowl Champions name.

They better team won those Championships and no amount of snivelling is going to take that away from them, get over it.
I'm not so sure the better team did win each of the Pats' Super Bowls. The overwhelming consensus for the Pats' first Super Bowl win in this run was that the Rams were a better team. The Pats also barely won that game. It's tough to tell who was better between the Pats and Carolina Panthers. The Pats barely won. It's also debatable whether or not the Pats were better than Philly. The Pats barely won. They won all three of those Super Bowls by a COMBINED 9 points. 3 points a piece. Many in the closing minutes. I'd say any little advantage made a difference in those games. Including illegal advantages.

MR NFLFAN
04-23-2008, 05:49 PM
Tick, tock. Tick, tock.

WALSH DEAL IS IN PLACE

WALSH GETS ONGOING ACCESS TO HIS MATERIALS

"...after Walsh surrenders to the league whatever tangible evidence that he has in his possession, he’ll still have access to it."

WALSH WINS THE “TRUTH” SKIRMISH

"The indemnification commitment Walsh receives in paragraph 3(a) applies even if there is “alleged untruthfulness” in Walsh’s disclosures to the NFL, unless there is “intentional untruthfulness."

Tick, tock. Tick, tock.

"Perchance, he for whom this bell tolls may be so ill, as that he knows not it tolls for him."
-Meditation #17 By John Donne

Tick, tock. Tick, tock.

http://www.profootballtalk.com/category/rumor-mill/



There lies the end of the NFL's indemnity...not exactly a kitchen sink deal

unless there is “intentional untruthfulness."

I'm sure the NY lawyers will make a mint defending that clause

MattM
04-23-2008, 09:42 PM
There lies the end of the NFL's indemnity...not exactly a kitchen sink deal

unless there is “intentional untruthfulness."

I'm sure the NY lawyers will make a mint defending that clause

Unless he has the tape we all think he has--then that alone will speak all that anyone will need to hear and "the laughter heard 'round the world" will be upon us if the Pats try to spin that it was Walsh acting alone.....

I've read the agreement on the way home tonight. This should be a lot of fun on May 13 (unless you're a Pats* fan, that is):up:

#1dolphinsfan
04-23-2008, 10:00 PM
To bad it is to late to take away there other first round pick

MR NFLFAN
04-24-2008, 01:07 AM
Patriots statement (http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/reiss_pieces/2008/04/patriots_statem.html)


The Patriots released the following statement today:
"The New England Patriots are pleased to learn that Matt Walsh is finally willing to come forward to meet with the NFL. We are eagerly anticipating his honest disclosures to Commissioner Goodell next month and the return of all the materials he took during his time of employment. We fully expect this meeting to conclude the league’s investigation into a damaging and false allegation that was originally levied against the team on the day before this year’s Super Bowl.
It is important to note that there has never been a confidentiality agreement restricting Matt Walsh and no legal protections were ever necessary for him to speak to the NFL, to media outlets or to anyone else regarding his employment with the Patriots. He demanded to be released from responsibility for his statements, and after a frustrating and lengthy negotiation period, a settlement has finally been reached. Walsh has been granted a significant number of privileges through this agreement, none of which the Patriots or the NFL were obligated to give.
At all times, we cooperated fully with the league’s investigation and stand by our initial public statement from Saturday, Feb. 2, 2008: “The suggestion that the New England Patriots recorded the St. Louis Rams’ walkthrough on the day before Super Bowl XXXVI in 2002 is absolutely false.”

TarHeelFinFan
04-24-2008, 12:19 PM
Patriots statement (http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/reiss_pieces/2008/04/patriots_statem.html)


The Patriots released the following statement today:
"The New England Patriots are pleased to learn that Matt Walsh is finally willing to come forward to meet with the NFL. We are eagerly anticipating his honest disclosures to Commissioner Goodell next month and the return of all the materials he took during his time of employment. We fully expect this meeting to conclude the league’s investigation into a damaging and false allegation that was originally levied against the team on the day before this year’s Super Bowl.
It is important to note that there has never been a confidentiality agreement restricting Matt Walsh and no legal protections were ever necessary for him to speak to the NFL, to media outlets or to anyone else regarding his employment with the Patriots. He demanded to be released from responsibility for his statements, and after a frustrating and lengthy negotiation period, a settlement has finally been reached. Walsh has been granted a significant number of privileges through this agreement, none of which the Patriots or the NFL were obligated to give.
At all times, we cooperated fully with the league’s investigation and stand by our initial public statement from Saturday, Feb. 2, 2008: “The suggestion that the New England Patriots recorded the St. Louis Rams’ walkthrough on the day before Super Bowl XXXVI in 2002 is absolutely false.” You're in for a rough ride for the next couple of months. How do you think Bilicheck wet from being horrible and getting canned in Cleveland, to making your once mediocre franchise the preeminent team in the NFL?

TomBradyWoot
04-24-2008, 03:49 PM
You're in for a rough ride for the next couple of months. How do you think Bilicheck wet from being horrible and getting canned in Cleveland, to making your once mediocre franchise the preeminent team in the NFL?



Drafting quality players, having stable ownership and some guy named Tom Brady.

MR NFLFAN
04-24-2008, 04:24 PM
You're in for a rough ride for the next couple of months. How do you think Bilicheck wet from being horrible and getting canned in Cleveland, to making your once mediocre franchise the preeminent team in the NFL?

If you think ANY coach can take a team as far as Belichick has by video taping some defensive signals and then trying to sort out what the real signal was and who the real signal caller was then I've got a nice used bridge you'd be interested in. The team stated any allogations of a walk thru taping are absolutely false and I intend to stand by my team. We'll see what comes out but you might want to think about what to cry about next should Walsh not produce a walk thru tape. :boohoo:

MattM
04-24-2008, 09:24 PM
If you think ANY coach can take a team as far as Belichick has by video taping some defensive signals and then trying to sort out what the real signal was and who the real signal caller was then I've got a nice used bridge you'd be interested in. The team stated any allogations of a walk thru taping are absolutely false and I intend to stand by my team. We'll see what comes out but you might want to think about what to cry about next should Walsh not produce a walk thru tape. :boohoo:



After reading the Agt. itself last night, some thoughts:

1. It's clear that both sides contemplate Walsh having tapes--there's no doubt about that now;

2. Section 1(a) also contemplates the idea that Walsh may have given materials to others and needs to get that back--Tomasse perhaps, or some third party to back his story up to Tomasse so that the Herald could run the story without fear of being sued? A journalist on the Bills board says that this would not be unheard of, actually;

3. Under 1(b), and as has been reported elsewhere, it looks like Walsh can talk to third parties about what he's turning over, but there are restrictions on his ability to let others see his lawyer's copy of the materials he gets to keep (at least for a little while--there's another provision saying he needs to turn those materials over to the League at some point);

4. Under section 2 Walsh will be talking to the NFL not just about videotaping, but also about "any other violations" of which he has personal knowledge (audiotaping perhaps? like the fact that the Pats had two extra frequencies on their headsets than the three the NFL allows--gee, I wonder what the other two were for?);

5. The possibility of Congressional hearings is contemplated in section 3(a);

6. What to me may be the most important nugget here is also in 3(a), namely the Agt. goes into detail on when Walsh was presumed to be working for the Pats and actions he took will be presumed to be their actions--including taping activities relating to Pats games (the "Covered Videotaping Action" defn.) It then goes on to say that things outside those listed activities (which, to my reading, may arguably not include taping a Rams practice) need to be proved by Walsh to have been Pats actions by a preponderance of the evidence. The fact that this is even in here leads me to even more strongly suspect that on May 13 among the items turned over will be a SB 36 walkthrough tape.

7. I also found thr section on rehabilitating reputations (4(b)) interesting, but am not quite sure what's contemplated by it. It is pretty powerful, however, due to the statement that it trumps the rest of the Agt.

For those of you Pats fans taking comfort from the Pats strong denials--go back and re-read that denial. They say that the "NE Patriots" didn't tape the walkthrough--that will be their argument, it was Walsh as a lone gunman. And the rest of world outside New England will have a good old laugh at that, I suspect, as will the Commissioner (see the article from the AP tonight saying that Goodell has said that a SB tape is a different animal entirely from what they were punished for in the fall). As noted before, in that case, my suspicion is that BB may have coached his last NFL game and the loss of a first round draft pick this year will be made to look like a slap on the wrist.

I originally thought that the announcement of an Agt. yesterday may be to the Pats benefit when I saw the timing of this--i.e., if they're doing all this this week, the week of the draft, then the League thinks Walsh has nothing. But when the fact that they plan to do this in the NFL season "dead zone" of the period between the draft and spring training, I now think just the opposite. The delay here IMHO has been the NFL trying to position what they know to be a smelly problem into a media period when it will do them the least harm.

Mr. NFLFan, weren't you one of the folks saying this would all get buried? Well, perhaps not, huh?

MR NFLFAN
04-25-2008, 01:26 AM
After reading the Agt. itself last night, some thoughts:

1. It's clear that both sides contemplate Walsh having tapes--there's no doubt about that now;

2. Section 1(a) also contemplates the idea that Walsh may have given materials to others and needs to get that back--Tomasse perhaps, or some third party to back his story up to Tomasse so that the Herald could run the story without fear of being sued? A journalist on the Bills board says that this would not be unheard of, actually;

3. Under 1(b), and as has been reported elsewhere, it looks like Walsh can talk to third parties about what he's turning over, but there are restrictions on his ability to let others see his lawyer's copy of the materials he gets to keep (at least for a little while--there's another provision saying he needs to turn those materials over to the League at some point);

4. Under section 2 Walsh will be talking to the NFL not just about videotaping, but also about "any other violations" of which he has personal knowledge (audiotaping perhaps? like the fact that the Pats had two extra frequencies on their headsets than the three the NFL allows--gee, I wonder what the other two were for?);

5. The possibility of Congressional hearings is contemplated in section 3(a);

6. What to me may be the most important nugget here is also in 3(a), namely the Agt. goes into detail on when Walsh was presumed to be working for the Pats and actions he took will be presumed to be their actions--including taping activities relating to Pats games (the "Covered Videotaping Action" defn.) It then goes on to say that things outside those listed activities (which, to my reading, may arguably not include taping a Rams practice) need to be proved by Walsh to have been Pats actions by a preponderance of the evidence. [B]The fact that this is even in here leads me to even more strongly suspect that on May 13 among the items turned over will be a SB 36 walkthrough tape.

7. I also found thr section on rehabilitating reputations (4(b)) interesting, but am not quite sure what's contemplated by it. It is pretty powerful, however, due to the statement that it trumps the rest of the Agt.

For those of you Pats fans taking comfort from the Pats strong denials--go back and re-read that denial. They say that the "NE Patriots" didn't tape the walkthrough--that will be their argument, it was Walsh as a lone gunman. And the rest of world outside New England will have a good old laugh at that, I suspect, as will the Commissioner (see the article from the AP tonight saying that Goodell has said that a SB tape is a different animal entirely from what they were punished for in the fall). As noted before, in that case, my suspicion is that BB may have coached his last NFL game and the loss of a first round draft pick this year will be made to look like a slap on the wrist.

I originally thought that the announcement of an Agt. yesterday may be to the Pats benefit when I saw the timing of this--i.e., if they're doing all this this week, the week of the draft, then the League thinks Walsh has nothing. But when the fact that they plan to do this in the NFL season "dead zone" of the period between the draft and spring training, I now think just the opposite. The delay here IMHO has been the NFL trying to position what they know to be a smelly problem into a media period when it will do them the least harm.

Mr. NFLFan, weren't you one of the folks saying this would all get buried? Well, perhaps not, huh?

No actually I said the league wouldn't give Walsh a complete kitchen sink indemnity and this is still not a kitchen sink indemnity. As I've come to know your act, you're always counting the chickens before the eggs hatch. Funny how nothing really changes huh.

satz
04-25-2008, 08:35 AM
After reading the Agt. itself last night, some thoughts:

1. It's clear that both sides contemplate Walsh having tapes--there's no doubt about that now;

**** What tapes maybe the same as before .then what happens no one knows for sure. from the text of audio tapes and scott pilloi statement what if they are just audio tapes?.

2. Section 1(a) also contemplates the idea that Walsh may have given materials to others and needs to get that back--Tomasse perhaps, or some third party to back his story up to Tomasse so that the Herald could run the story without fear of being sued? A journalist on the Bills board says that this would not be unheard of, actually;


***** Tomase only reported as a rumour which recanted after 2 weeks saying the rumour was false .so i am very doubtfull that he saw anything to recant the story. He came on TV and refers to the story as the rumour reported by herald and said he does not thing the rumour is true --- SportsNight show . Bizzare he calls his own story false .


3. Under 1(b), and as has been reported elsewhere, it looks like Walsh can talk to third parties about what he's turning over, but there are restrictions on his ability to let others see his lawyer's copy of the materials he gets to keep (at least for a little while--there's another provision saying he needs to turn those materials over to the League at some point);

****You do a book deal to claim crap your are going to be seued.

4. Under section 2 Walsh will be talking to the NFL not just about videotaping, but also about "any other violations" of which he has personal knowledge (audiotaping perhaps? like the fact that the Pats had two extra frequencies on their headsets than the three the NFL allows--gee, I wonder what the other two were for?);

*****Audio tape is illegal so even if NFL picks up the $$$ for lawyer fees he can be procecuted for breaking a law. As far as headsets go the headsets are provided by NFL and NFL technical people work on it. A team is not allowed to mess with this. In case of loss in communication or anyother issue only NFL employee can work on this system. No local team can have non NFL issues communication device for a game on the sidelines.:sidelol:.


5. The possibility of Congressional hearings is contemplated in section 3(a);

*****Wish happens as audio taping becomes a over extension of the patriots act the republican passed .this will be the best out come with election all the republican will jump the minute non magistrate audio taping is brought out as evidence. :sidelol:


6. What to me may be the most important nugget here is also in 3(a), namely the Agt. goes into detail on when Walsh was presumed to be working for the Pats and actions he took will be presumed to be their actions--including taping activities relating to Pats games (the "Covered Videotaping Action" defn.) It then goes on to say that things outside those listed activities (which, to my reading, may arguably not include taping a Rams practice) need to be proved by Walsh to have been Pats actions by a preponderance of the evidence. The fact that this is even in here leads me to even more strongly suspect that on May 13 among the items turned over will be a SB 36 walkthrough tape.

*********
a) NFL did not allow power for camera`s in the stadium on the day of walkthrough.wonder how he used the camera.
b) This after 9/11 was the most like fort knox and i remember every reporter constantly complaining that they had very limited access to every thing and also harassed by national gaurd .Yet a guy with a assitance card who had no business was hanging out and no one even saw / questioned him.

7. I also found thr section on rehabilitating reputations (4(b)) interesting, but am not quite sure what's contemplated by it. It is pretty powerful, however, due to the statement that it trumps the rest of the Agt.

For those of you Pats fans taking comfort from the Pats strong denials--go back and re-read that denial. They say that the "NE Patriots" didn't tape the walkthrough--that will be their argument, it was Walsh as a lone gunman. And the rest of world outside New England will have a good old laugh at that, I suspect, as will the Commissioner (see the article from the AP tonight saying that Goodell has said that a SB tape is a different animal entirely from what they were punished for in the fall). As noted before, in that case, my suspicion is that BB may have coached his last NFL game and the loss of a first round draft pick this year will be made to look like a slap on the wrist.

I originally thought that the announcement of an Agt. yesterday may be to the Pats benefit when I saw the timing of this--i.e., if they're doing all this this week, the week of the draft, then the League thinks Walsh has nothing. But when the fact that they plan to do this in the NFL season "dead zone" of the period between the draft and spring training, I now think just the opposite. The delay here IMHO has been the NFL trying to position what they know to be a smelly problem into a media period when it will do them the least harm.

Mr. NFLFan, weren't you one of the folks saying this would all get buried? Well, perhaps not, huh?


Check my responses.again seems like after 104 days since walsh said "Nothing" we are arguing. I realized one more fun fact the amout on network /internet traffic spend on this. when included with all the database space on the forums around the country would added up to millions ..... weird.