It has been widely reported that several months ago, the New England Patriots were heavily penalized by the NFL for, in violation of NFL rules, videotaping the New York Jets' play calling in the first half of the first game of the season.
The NFL made clear that this action did not affect the outcome of any game this season. The question is, did it affect other games in previous seasons? Or did past similar actions affect games this season?
What has gone less reported is the fact that the New York Jets also previously videotaped the Patriots, and that many other teams have also done such videotaping. And what is clear is that the same information could be acquired without violating league rules, by using binoculars and pad-and-pencil, so the advantage of using videotape is at best marginal anyway.
But this has not prevented people from wondering aloud whether the Patriots "cheated" to beat other teams in past years, including the last two teams the Patriots beat to win their last Super Bowl in early 2005 (both from Pennsylvania): the Pittsburgh Steelers in the AFC Championship, and the Philadelphia Eagles in the Super Bowl.
But especially the Steelers.
It was a widely practiced activity, and it provided no significant advantage. But, a rule is a rule, and the league wanted to not only enforce the rule, but prevent it from happening again, so they fined the coach half a million dollars, the team a quarter million, and took away the team's first-round draft pick. It's the biggest penalty for a team or coach in league history.
So, most fans recognize the complaining for what it is: sour grapes. Even most Eagles fans and players just shrugged it off and joked about it.
But not the Steelers.
The coach, players, and fans of the Steelers have been very vocal in claiming that the Patriots "must have known" what plays were being called, and strongly implying that the Patriots "cheated," despite no evidence of this existing.
So, they want evidence. But how to get it? Or if you can't get it, at least imply that it might have existed at some point, but there's a coverup, in order to discredit your opponent and try to make yourself feel better about getting beat 41-27 in the title game?
Simple: have your Senator raise the issue in a congressional hearing. And do it two days before the Patriots are set to play in the Super Bowl for the title of Best Team in History, as the only team ever to go 19-0.
So that's what they did. Seantor Arlen Specter (R-Heinz Field) is trying to use whatever means at his disposal to discredit the Patriots' devastating win three years ago over the Steelers and their previously undefeated quarterback, Ben Roethlisberger (hey, I spelled that correctly from memory!).
It's really one of the more descpiable things I've seen in politics. Politics in sports is bad enough (cf. the steroids hearings), but trying to discredit one team in favor of your home team is just incredible. Is it too much to ask of our Senators to act like adults?
I have nightmares of Senators John Kerry (D-MA) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME) facing off against Senators Specter and Dick Lugar (R-IN) over the credibility of the Patriots' championships. Is this really what our Senate is supposed to be doing?
Granted, I am a lifelong Patriots fan. And it's not like Seahawks fans like the Steelers, either. But most people would recognize this as ridiculous no matter which team was their favorite.
My pick for tomorrow: Patriots over the Giants, 34-17.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at February 02, 2008 11:09 AM | Email ThisOne kinda has to conclude that they were destroyed because public disclosure would have been embarrassing. Transparency called for disclosure, instead destroying them allowed the NFL to push the whole thing under the rug, dictate how "serious" the situation really was, punish it and say "all's well that ends well".
Specter maybe has better things to do, but the NFL deserves a major black eye for destroying those tapes without any independent review.
Posted by: Cecil on February 2, 2008 11:22 AMespn.com is reporting that there are many other allegations floating around the patriots taping practices. furthermore, goodell's decision to destroy the tapes and imposing a harsh sentence, without a full presentation of the evidence fosters the rumor-mongering. there is not doubt that this patriots team is great, perhaps the best ever (although i would take the 84 niners anyday), but the 'secretive' nature of the process employed (which is well within the rights of the nfl) does not help the patriots.
plus, specter is a schmuck and has a propensity for bad theories (see single bullet theory and jfk).
go giants!
Posted by: dinesh on February 2, 2008 11:22 AMIf you think NOT releasing the tapes gives the league a black eye, releasing the tapes would have been far worse.
dinesh: no, there are no other allegations. You're wrong, as usual. There is nothing more than wishful thinking on the part of people who don't want to believe they got beat fair and square.
I think it'll be close..a FG or so
Posted by: Duffman on February 2, 2008 12:09 PMWhy it was the Pittsburgh Steelers, who were the beneficiaries of several questionable calls by the officials.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 2, 2008 12:13 PMGo Giants!
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 2, 2008 12:15 PMIf one knowingly destroys evidence that could be used in a future legal proceeding, it cannot be destroyed - well it can, but it would be a crime to do so.
And I can think of a number of potential crimes associated with what was done, albeit you'd have to stretch a bit, but you really don't know what was on the tape: Conspiracy, Fraud, Industrial Espionage (which includes a provision on surveyance), and that doesn't even go into potential gambling law violations that could pop up. I think breaking state gambling laws is still a federal crime.
Either way, it had to be pretty clear that recording the trade secrets of the opposition for the purpose of gaining a competitive advantage was something that the federal industrial espionage act frowned upon, and that potential evidence should not have been destroyed so quickly.
Posted by: Doug on February 2, 2008 12:21 PMNo, Doug, that's not true. Otherwise, destroying anything ever would be a crime, because obviously, we know that anything could be used in a future legal proceeding. It is not "knowingly" and "could." The standard is much higher than that. Indeed, people even regularly destroy things like book purchase/borrowing records, financial records, and so on that could be used in a future legal proceeding, and they do it fully legally (in the case of financial records, there's specific statutes that govern it, but those time limits do not extend to the full potential limit for use of those records in legal proceedings).
And I can think of a number of potential crimes associated with what was done
Nope. None of this has anything to do with any law. It is only about NFL rules.
Posted by: pudge on February 2, 2008 02:16 PM
You're not making any sense. If the person who caused the spoilage of evidence had reason to believe that someone may have broken the law or that there maybe civil action related to that evidence, that person is guilty of a federal crime.
If a person destroys information because they believe if that information could result in a civil action or criminal proceding, then they are also guilty of a crime.
The Senators are rightfully realizing that from the public information available to them that one business enterprise conspired in a way that cost another business enterprise millions of dollars. They also realize that conspiracy included electronic eavesdropping and espionage.
The commissioner and his attorneys would have to stupid not to see that that occured. Hence the Senators read of court interpretations on spoilage of evidence is also correct, that when it occurs it is positive proof towards there being a criminal act that is being covered up.
Doug: THERE IS NO REASON TO BELIEVE THAT ANY LAW WAS BROKEN OR THAT ANY LAWSUIT IS LIKELY TO OCCUR.
NONE.
AT ALL.
PERIOD.
The commissioner and his attorneys would have to stupid not to see that that occured.
It didn't.
Posted by: pudge on February 2, 2008 02:52 PMLet's say that the NFL had a specific rule that no player could shoot another player dead while on the football field. Now let's say that a player did do that. The NFL then decides to destroy all the film of that occurence because the NFL fined the guilty player $1 million and suspended him for one year.
Is that only a NFL rules issue?
I will remind you Pudge that there has already been at least one lawsuit filed in relation to this and there will be many more before it's done.
Posted by: Doug on February 2, 2008 03:03 PMBut it's clearly not illegal for him to delete the Sound Politics database. You have to have specific claims/allegations/etc. of legal wrongdoing to compel someone to not delete "evidence." Someone could come by later and sue you for defamation, and claim Stefan broke the law by deleting the database. But he had no reason to think anyone would sue anyone, and had no obligation to not delete the database. This sort of thing happens all the time and is perfectly legal.
And no such such thing exists. There is NO REASON to believe anything happened that would, or was likely to, result in legal action. That still remains true today. No one has any allegations of anything that happened that would reasonably result in any legal action.
You're just making things up. None of this has anything to do with the law. The "lawsuit" filed by an idiot in New Jersey is frivolous and has no merit. Again, note that just because this idiot filed a lawsuit doesn't mean the league had any reason to think that there was a legal issue involved, or that there actually IS a reasonable legal issue involved.
Let's say that the NFL had a specific rule that no player could shoot another player dead while on the football field. Now let's say that a player did do that. The NFL then decides to destroy all the film of that occurence because the NFL fined the guilty player $1 million and suspended him for one year.
Is that only a NFL rules issue?
Doug, the actions you described are violations of criminal law. The actions that happened in real life, are, in fact, not.
Note that what you described actually has happened, twice, in Vancouver: not death, but criminal assault and battery. Twice in the last several years, hockey players have been hauled into criminal court for what happened on the ice. In both cases, the suspect attacked another player from behind and causes that player's head to slam into the ice, causing serious bodily harm. And while some people said "it should be dealt with by the NHL," most people agreed that what happened in both cases went above and beyond what is expected out there on the ice, and that it was reasonable for the local law to get involved.
Contrast that to a normal hockey fight. Should we arrest two people for fighting on the ice? Of course not.
But what happened in this case isn't even as bad as a hockey fight: in almost any other context, the hockey fight would be illegal. What the Patriots did WAS NOT ILLEGAL IN ANY WAY.
You keep talking about some pretend civil suit, but under that reasoning EVERYTHING THAT EVER HAPPENS in professional sports is just as likely to result in civil suits. For example, we could sue the Yankees because so many of their players took steroids in their World Series wins. But that isn't going to happen. That doesn't happen. And that is a far bigger deal than this stupid videotaping "controversy."
Or hell, we could sue the Yankees for "stealing" the catcher's signals. Or because they used too much pine tar on their bats. Or cork. Or how about suing the Patriots for the last game in Foxboro Stadium, when they took the tarp off the field early so there would be more snow on the ground? Or maybe for when they used a snowplow on the field to clear a spot so they could kick a field goal?
How about suing the 49ers for lying in the 90s about how their headsets didn't work, so that the Giants couldn't use THEIR headsets, giving the Niners -- who had planned out their first several plays in advance -- a clear advantage?
This is where your logic inevitably carries us. This is where the lawsuit from that moron in New Jersey will lead to if the court doesn't properly recognize that it has absolutely no merit. It is not reasonable.
If the Giants win - Great ! If the Patriots win and make it 19-0 for the season, I guess that they were a bonafide special team. Their coach does not have the best PR skills, but he is without a doubt an effective coach and Hall of Fame material. I am still fuming about the crappy officiating in the 2006 Super Bowl where the Seahawks were robbed. However, even if the calls went right, realistically the Seahawks would probably not have won.
Posted by: KS on February 2, 2008 03:25 PMIf so, then so could thousands of other things that happen in professional sports every year.
You're not making any sense whatsoever.
Posted by: pudge on February 2, 2008 03:26 PMAnd that is precisely the question the NFL does NOT want to answer. And I don't blame them: it would cause a witch hunt and endless revisionism, replaying game after game, and in the end, for what purpose?
And again, it's not just about this act. Many teams have done similar violations of rules over the years, and far worse, whether it is steroids, or extra "advantages" in motor sports, or pads that are too big for hockey goalies, or stealing signs in baseball, or ... the list is endless.
To try to turn this mere rules violation into a legal issue is to attempt to open the floodgates to utterly destroy all professional sports.
Posted by: pudge on February 2, 2008 03:33 PMDoug: no. There was no crime committed here, period.
Posted by: pudge on February 2, 2008 03:46 PMI'm not saying this whole thing is worth Spectre or any other senator's time, but the fact that we shield the NFL from anti-trust means they are held to a higher standard.
The tapes were destroyed because they were bad bad bad for football and the public confidence in it. Well, maybe anti trust status is bad bad bad for consumers. It's a give and take. In this case the tapes were destroyed and if the worst is that the NFL faces a black eye being called to the carpet for it I have no tears for the nfl. Either way it certainly isn't a garden variety grandstand, there is merit in calling them to account.
Posted by: Cecil on February 2, 2008 06:47 PMYes, I never said this is not relevant. My point is not that this is absolutely no business of Congress', but that Specter is only doing it because the Pittsburgh Steelers and its fans are a bunch of whiners.
The tapes were destroyed because they were bad bad bad for football and the public confidence in it.
No, not the tapes themselves. There's no reason to think there's anything of significance in the tapes themselves. But they would be USED by people to try to call everything into question, regardless of what was on them.
Well, maybe anti trust status is bad bad bad for consumers.
I agree with that, but only because I don't think something like professional football should have any trust laws applied to it in the first place. There's absoultely no need.
Either way it certainly isn't a garden variety grandstand, there is merit in calling them to account.
This is worse than the graden-variety grandstand, because Specter is trying to bring down another team -- and the whole league in the process -- just because the Steelers got their butts kicked and they and their fans can't accept that fact. Whatever potential merits of the interest in general, none of those have anything to do with Specter's interest.
Posted by: pudge on February 2, 2008 08:00 PMHowever, this seems like a pretty stupid rule. If its in plain sight, then it should be up for grabs. Observing the other team to learn how to predict what they do is part of the game, and a savvy team will use the fact that other teams are watching to their advantage. Football is the 'military' sport and as a good strategist will tell you, if you think the enemy has cracked your code, use that to confuse and misdirect them.
Had the Pat's broken into the Jets locker room, bribed a player, hacked the computer, etc, then thats a different story. But videoing the other team when they are on the field should not IMO be against the rules.
Posted by: Giffy on February 2, 2008 10:03 PMBut hey, if you're a Seantor from Pennsylvania, I guess your perspective is different.
Posted by: pudge on February 2, 2008 10:25 PMIt's one thing for Congress to get their hands dirty with the steroids issue in baseball -- steroids are illegal.
Whatever Goodell did in handling the issue with the Patriots is his own business -- what is a Senator doing on ESPN? What right does this man have to grill Goodell and tell him how to do his job?
This is one of the most depressing and ridiculous political moves I've ever seen. Absolutely pathetic.
Posted by: JM Tohline on February 3, 2008 07:34 AMSecond, who he is personally a fan of is irrelevant, since he represents Steelers fans.
Third, the Patriots didn't get punished for "cheating" but for violating rules. There's a difference.
Fourth, many players and coaches have come forward and talked about the same and similar things happening on many other teams.
Fifth, I *never said* the Steelers accused the Patriots of cheating. I said they *wondered aloud* whether they did, and *strongly implied* that they did.
Sixth, I said up front that the question is which games were affected.
Seventh, no, there IS NO "evidence would show no games were affected." You can't have evidence of a negative like that.
Eighth, no, the Steelers fans and players and coaches -- Cowher was going on about it all season on his new job -- have been whining. And the Patriots and their fans have barely mentioned any of it.
Ninth, EVEN IF there was "spying," it is not significant enough to cause any "taint" in the mind of any rational fan or student of the game, as this issue is a whole lot of nothing.
Posted by: pudge on February 3, 2008 08:04 AMBut an antitrust exemption they have, so the Congress has a legitimate interest in most of what the league does. However, that doesn't mean they should waste our tax dollars by getting involved in every minute detail -- and this issue is EXTREMELY minute -- nor should a Senator try to help his state's home team to the detriment of a hated rival, JUST BECAUSE that team is a hated rival, which is clearly the only motivation Specter has here.
Posted by: pudge on February 3, 2008 08:08 AM1. Yes, and they have players who flat out say the game should be forfeit to them, but you're more concerned about what Steelers say about their game.
Second, who he is personally a fan of is irrelevant, since he represents Steelers fans.
2. It is relevant since you turned this into an anti-Steeler screed. He also represents Eagles, Bills, Browns, Cowboys, Jets and Patriot fans that live there. My point being without bringing in the Steelers you'd most likely get the response of "Why is a Pats fan whining about spygate on a sound politics forum?"
Third, the Patriots didn't get punished for "cheating" but for violating rules. There's a difference.
3. I guess it depends on what your definition of "is" is.
Fourth, many players and coaches have come forward and talked about the same and similar things happening on many other teams.
4. Yet, as I previously noted no other team has been fined or lost draft picks over it.
Fifth, I *never said* the Steelers accused the Patriots of cheating. I said they *wondered aloud* whether they did, and *strongly implied* that they did.
5. Ya and I describe someone as 200 lbs overweight rather than a fat pig.
Sixth, I said up front that the question is which games were affected.
6. I don't take issue with that.
Seventh, no, there IS NO "evidence would show no games were affected." You can't have evidence of a negative like that.
7. I'll make the point a little more clear: you accuse the Steelers of complaining of cheating without any proof, when the league conveniently destroyed any proof.
Eighth, no, the Steelers fans and players and coaches -- Cowher was going on about it all season on his new job -- have been whining. And the Patriots and their fans have barely mentioned any of it.
8. Cowher is no different than a fan at this point and as I said I'm not going to debate what random fans of any team says. Players said after that game the Patriots were calling out the Steelers plays. Now 2 1/2 years later it comes out that the Pats have been cheating and some players start to wonder is that how they did it. Is that really surprising? I've heard plenty of Pats fans complaining about this being made into a big deal. They've got only the Patriots and the Commissioner to blame for that.
Ninth, EVEN IF there was "spying," it is not significant enough to cause any "taint" in the mind of any rational fan or student of the game, as this issue is a whole lot of nothing.
9. On what do you base this since no unbiased group looked at the evidence. Lets see on the 13th of Sept Goodell declares the Patriots guilty of "a calculated and deliberate attempt to avoid long-standing rules designed to encourage fair play and promote honest competition on the playing field. (cheating)
On the 16th, on national tv, Goodell declares the Patriots still haven't complied with his order to surrender all illegal materials. On the 20th we find out the league has taken the Pats word that they turned over all materials, that there was nothing to see and that said materials were destroyed. What rational fan wouldn't say "WTF Chuck?" I think even a Pats fan would agree that it was a dumb move to destroy the material. You've got no way now to make any case that no advantage was gained.
I'm sure they thought this would have been redundant, but now we seem to have forgotten what the Constitution is all about.
We need a separation of sport and state.
Congress has no authority to intervene here. The league sets the rules, and as long as the league is a private entity, and doesn't violate anyone's rights, the government has no authority to meddle.
The government is really out of control.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on February 3, 2008 10:04 AM- Congress announces investigations into rampant rules violations by NFL players.
"NFL referees refuse to call holding penalties as often as they occur. Is there collaboration or conspiracy?"
- Congress announces investigations into rampant rules violations by NFL referees.
"NFL coaches refuse to throw the challenge flag on plays sure to be overturned."
- Congress announces investigations into incompetent coaches.
"The Congress has rules that allow them to amend the record to change what they said into what they had wanted to say."
Even with all the jabbering in Congressional halls, crickets can be heard.
As long as the NFL has an antitrust exemption congress has a right to intervene. Thats the main reason Goodell will be there, to discuss their exemption. Since he's there, why not ask about the Pats. Though realistically he's not gonna get any different answer than the NFL has already given.
Posted by: Dave on February 3, 2008 10:52 AMDoug: no, you cannot.
Posted by: pudge on February 3, 2008 11:59 AMYes, and [the Eagles] have players who flat out say the game should be forfeit to them, but you're more concerned about what Steelers say about their game.
I only heard one Eagles player say that, and he seemed to me to be obviously joking.
you turned this into an anti-Steeler screed
No, the Steelers and their fans turned this into an anti-Patriots screed.
My point being without bringing in the Steelers you'd most likely get the response of "Why is a Pats fan whining about spygate on a sound politics forum?"
I wouldn't have brought it up if not for the Steelers and their fans being whiners, because then Specter wouldn't have brought it up.
I guess it depends on what your definition of "is" is.
No, it doesn't. If the Patriots were punished for "cheating" then so is every player who ever gets so much a five-yard penalty. Offsides: cheating.
Yet, as I previously noted no other team has been fined or lost draft picks over it.
Yes, but how is this a relevant point to anything I said?
Fifth, I *never said* the Steelers accused the Patriots of cheating. I said they *wondered aloud* whether they did, and *strongly implied* that they did.
Ya and I describe someone as 200 lbs overweight rather than a fat pig.
So now YOU are saying the Steelers accused the Patriots of cheating?
I'll make the point a little more clear: you accuse the Steelers of complaining of cheating without any proof, when the league conveniently destroyed any proof.
So? There is not only no proof, there WAS no evidence of any kind that in any way related to the 2004 season. The league never possesed anything related to the 2004 season.
Cowher is no different than a fan at this point
Shrug. He was the coach of the team in question.
Players said after that game the Patriots were calling out the Steelers plays.
And there is absolutely no evidence the Patriots violated any rules, nor is there any evidence that any evidence ever existed. It's poor sportsmanship, it's whining, and it's pathetic.
Ninth, EVEN IF there was "spying," it is not significant enough to cause any "taint" in the mind of any rational fan or student of the game, as this issue is a whole lot of nothing.
On what do you base this since no unbiased group looked at the evidence.
Right. The tapes also could have shown the second JFK shooter. We don't know!
All we know is that there signals from the opposing team were being videotaped. There is no reason to think it was anything more than that. And THAT IS NOT A BIG DEAL. You can do the same basic thing with binoculars, and NOT break league rules. Signal-stealing is always a part of the game; it is just this MEANS of stealing signals that was against the rules.
It was Ron Jaworksi who said this morning on ESPN that if you lose because the other team is stealing your signals, then you are "stupid." He proudly proclaimed himself as the beneficiary of stolen signals on more than one occasion in his pro QB career. Shall we say his career is tainted too?
Posted by: pudge on February 3, 2008 11:59 AMWOW! so says pudge!
Plain and simple..."spying" is CHEATING. No more, no less. So I guess some CHEATING is ok as long as it's your team that's doing the cheating. This is a game of "inches" and we all know how many games come down to one or two plays. It would not take much at all to tip the score in a large number of NFL games!
This isn't about just NE! Letting this go un-investigated hurts the integrity of the game!
Posted by: der on February 3, 2008 12:33 PMFine. "spying" is cheating. By the exact same logic, so are illegal formation, pass interference, holding, and personal foul.
Now that you have called every pro football player a cheater, what's your point?
Posted by: pudge on February 3, 2008 12:41 PMClearly, though, when it comes to cheating in order to win whether it's steriods or the NFL, some of us view that us unforgiveable, and won't listen to a policy person's rationalizing away of the situation.
Evidence was destroyed, Evidence that supposedly showed at a minimum recorded espionage that may have cost one business owner hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars. There are concerns out there that this might be more widespread than what is currently known, i.e. that it may have cost individuals and other business owners millions of dollars. You might think that is just part of the game, but you wouldn't stand for it if it was Democrats taking bribes or taping conversations in the political world, now would you?
Posted by: Doug on February 3, 2008 12:52 PMOffsides, holding, etc. are infractions that don't break any law. Whereas industrial espionage and destroying evidence is a felony.
Posted by: Doug on February 3, 2008 12:58 PMThis action was poor sportsmanship and a violation of NFL RULES.
Cite the specific Federal law that was broken.
Signs are also "stolen" when someone with binoculars writes them down and communicates them to the team. When these notes are destroyed, is it also a case of "Whereas industrial espionage and destroying evidence"?
You have approved of making a Federal case out of this. What is the specifc law?
Posted by: SouthernRoots on February 3, 2008 01:29 PMMy guess is that there isn't a federal prosecutor around that will take this up, with the NFL exemption, unless the Senate asks for it. They smell a rat and wouldn't dig into it unless they think this is more deep than just a NFL rules' violation.
Posted by: Doug on February 3, 2008 01:53 PMTo listen to a self-described conservative say that it's okay to cheat in order to win, that just doesn't sit so well
I never said any such thing, and you cannot provide any example of me ever doing so. I have been absolutely consistent in saying that -- no matter whether you call what the Patriots did "cheating" -- that they broke the rules and should be held accountable for it.
Oh, and one more thing:
You might think that is just part of the game, but you wouldn't stand for it if it was Democrats taking bribes or taping conversations in the political world, now would you?
Do I think that running the government of the people, by the people, and for the people is the same as professional football? No, sir, I do not. And I think you're probably the only person here who believes that comparison is rational. I also do not believe that a bar fight is the same as a hockey fight, or that stealing second base is the same as stealing a wallet.
For once Bruce I wholeheartedly agree.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 3, 2008 02:03 PM* Bad sportsmanship.
* Cheating.
* Violation of NFL rules.
* Over $750,000 in fines and penalties.
Case closed.
Congress needs to prioritize its work better and tackle the real issues of the day. I hear that 44 million Americans are without healthcare.
Perhaps Senator Spectre should get on the phone and give Hill and Barry a call and see if they can't gen up a bill to address this issue, why should we have to wait for another year for Hill or Barry to do anything - they're in Congress now. If they believe they have they answer, it will need ot be made a bill anyway, so why the delay?
By the way, I feel Doug is stretching it for some strange reason. Make up your own minds. Read the Industrial Espionage Act of 1996
Are these signals "Trade Secrets"? Were they reasonably protected from the public? Do they have an independant value? Does NFL films or any of the networks have these signals on tape or film? Are they hiding them?
Sour grapes.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on February 3, 2008 02:30 PM1.I've heard more, and they seem to be no more serious or joking about it than Steeler players.
No, the Steelers and their fans turned this into an anti-Patriots screed.
2. No, you brought this whine here.
I wouldn't have brought it up if not for the Steelers and their fans being whiners, because then Specter wouldn't have brought it up.
3. Your reasoning about Specters motivation makes no sense, much like the explanation for destroying the evidence.
No, it doesn't. If the Patriots were punished for "cheating" then so is every player who ever gets so much a five-yard penalty. Offsides: cheating.
4. Offsides: cheating 5 yard penalty. Video taping other teams sidelines from the field: cheating $750,000 fine loss of first round draft pick.
Yet, as I previously noted no other team has been fined or lost draft picks over it.
Yes, but how is this a relevant point to anything I said?
5. You claimed other teams did this, so it is relevant to ask why only the Patriots were punished. Are you really this dense?
So now YOU are saying the Steelers accused the Patriots of cheating?
6. No, I'm saying YOU are saying the Steelers accused them of cheating.
So? There is not only no proof, there WAS no evidence of any kind that in any way related to the 2004 season. The league never possesed anything related to the 2004 season.
7. You know this how? Do you work for the commisioners office?
Players said after that game the Patriots were calling out the Steelers plays.
And there is absolutely no evidence the Patriots violated any rules, nor is there any evidence that any evidence ever existed. It's poor sportsmanship, it's whining, and it's pathetic.
8. Any possible evidence was destroyed. It was poor sportsmanship to cheat by videotaping to begin with, and whining and pathetic to parse definitions like they have.
Right. The tapes also could have shown the second JFK shooter. We don't know!
9. Thats right we don't know. Maybe they were just ogling cheerleaders. Nixon would be proud.
All we know is that there signals from the opposing team were being videotaped. There is no reason to think it was anything more than that. And THAT IS NOT A BIG DEAL. You can do the same basic thing with binoculars, and NOT break league rules. Signal-stealing is always a part of the game; it is just this MEANS of stealing signals that was against the rules.
9a. Yes, supporters of the team that was cheating are unanimous that its not a big deal even though the fine and loss of draft pick suggests otherwise. If its no different than using binoculars, then why cheat and use video cameras? If there was nothing more to it, then why destroy the evidence?
It was Ron Jaworksi who said this morning on ESPN that if you lose because the other team is stealing your signals, then you are "stupid." He proudly proclaimed himself as the beneficiary of stolen signals on more than one occasion in his pro QB career. Shall we say his career is tainted too?
9b. It may be stupid to get your signals stolen, that doesn't negate that you cheated to get them.
Posted by: Dave on February 3, 2008 04:56 PMThat said its always a great game when the Patriots are in the SB. Hats off to both teams.
Posted by: Dave on February 3, 2008 07:16 PMann: if you're joking, then that's very funny. :-)
The Giants had a good win. Some people blamed the Patriots defense, but that's utter nonsense: the Patriots gave up an average of 17 points every game this season. I said they would give up 17 points today. They gave up 17 points. So how is the defense at fault? Sure they could have played a little better, but no, the fault/credit goes to the Patriots offense/Giants defense, holding the Patriots under 20 points for the first time all season. They put Brady under pressure, and prevented him from moving the ball down the field when he needed to.
And that's all I am going to say on that, because Bob in SeaTac is right.
Posted by: pudge on February 3, 2008 09:39 PMCongratulations, you got half the score right.
Posted by: RBW on February 4, 2008 09:37 AM