Cheating Patriots coach faces more scrutiny

[Fenian_Bastard]

Can we all start ripping him on the Warren Commission again?

 

[Herbert Anchovy]

 

[DemoChristian]

Am I a pervert because I thought that was something other than a bullet for a second?

 

[goalmouth]

It bears repeating: Goodell showed little savvy in his first test as commissioner.

 

[Smasher_Sloan]

Am I a pervert because I thought that was something other than a bullet for a second?

That's actually low on the list of reasons you're a pervert.

 

[schiezainc]

It bears repeating: Goodell showed little savvy in his first test as commissioner.

I would say his first test was the Pacman Jones fiasco, his second test was Michael Vick and maybe you can argue that his third was this.

On all three counts, I think he did a great job.

And I'm offically leaving this thread now because no matter what the fork happens in this, douche-faced anti-Patriots fans will come here and argue that "Oh, no, the punishment isn't enough".

Why not just NCAA it and wipe out everything related to the Pats first three superbowls? This way, you assholes who are only crying about this because your beloved teams lost to New England can finally move on with your life.

-SchiezaInc out-

 

[Smasher_Sloan]

Arlen Specter is a grandstanding tool.

 

[Fenian_Bastard]

It bears repeating: Goodell showed little savvy in his first test as commissioner.

I would say his first test was the Pacman Jones fiasco, his second test was Michael Vick and maybe you can argue that his third was this.

On all three counts, I think he did a great job.

And I'm offically leaving this thread now because no matter what the fork happens in this, douche-faced anti-Patriots fans will come here and argue that "Oh, no, the punishment isn't enough".

Why not just NCAA it and wipe out everything related to the Pats first three superbowls? This way, you assholes who are only crying about this because your beloved teams lost to New England can finally move on with your life.

-SchiezaInc out-

Rack him.

 

[outofplace]

It bears repeating: Goodell showed little savvy in his first test as commissioner.

I would say his first test was the Pacman Jones fiasco, his second test was Michael Vick and maybe you can argue that his third was this.

On all three counts, I think he did a great job.

And I'm offically leaving this thread now because no matter what the fork happens in this, douche-faced anti-Patriots fans will come here and argue that "Oh, no, the punishment isn't enough".

Why not just NCAA it and wipe out everything related to the Pats first three superbowls? This way, you assholes who are only crying about this because your beloved teams lost to New England can finally move on with your life.

-SchiezaInc out-

Translation: Anybody who disagrees with you on this issue is a "douche-faced anti-Patriots fan"

Damn disappointing from a fellow BSG fan.

 

[zagoshe]

It bears repeating: Goodell showed little savvy in his first test as commissioner.

I would say his first test was the Pacman Jones fiasco, his second test was Michael Vick and maybe you can argue that his third was this.

On all three counts, I think he did a great job.

And I'm offically leaving this thread now because no matter what the fork happens in this, douche-faced anti-Patriots fans will come here and argue that "Oh, no, the punishment isn't enough".

Why not just NCAA it and wipe out everything related to the Pats first three superbowls? This way, you assholes who are only crying about this because your beloved teams lost to New England can finally move on with your life.

-SchiezaInc out-

FanBoy Loser rant.....nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Dangerous_K]

Fact: New England Patriots fans did not exist until 2004. Prior to that, they were called Red Sox fans.

Thanks for the brain power, Dangerous. I even think you may have gotten the order of the teams confused.

It was a joke, fanboi.

 

[Genco_Olive_Oil]

Most importantly, however, is what you would have liked Goodell to have done differently during Week 2. How do you define an in-depth investigation? He learned that the Patriots violated a rule in Week 1 and imposed punishments he deemed justified. Should he have extended his investigation to the 2001, 2003 and 2004 seasons? If so, had it been a team that hadn't won three Super Bowls, would you want the investigation to span the same amount of years?

I actually like what Goodell did in Week 2. He saw a timebomb and moved to diffuse it quickly. He got the evidence and dished out a quick, tough punishment. He did the Patriots a favor, making sure Spygate didn't hang over the franchise, and he did the NFL a favor in trying to move on ASAP. For that, he did his part as commish to look out for the league's best interests.

I just wish in the weeks that followed he did more to address whether the Patriots did anything more than what was reported. Had he (even privately) closed some of the loose ends that existed in the weeks that followed, loose ends the NYT, the Boston Herald, Arlen Spector and others tried to tie up. And in that sense Goodell tried to sweep it under the rug. He dealt with it in Week 2, then attempted to pretend nothing else was there to look at. Had he been more forthcoming, had he released the original tapes rather than choose to destroy them, maybe he wouldn't have had to endure this past week.

I'd say the biggest fine in the history of the NFL pretty much obviates the "everybody does it" defense.

It does? Even though I wonder how you can draw that parallel, I'll give it to you and respond with this: So what? How does that fine and forfeiture of a first-round draft pick in September automatically mean that something is not right with the events of yesterday's meeting? I understand it raises our suspicions, as it rightfully should, but I don't know if there's anything more to be found. A negative cannot be proven. What happened in September happened in September; Matt Walsh did not reveal any information that Commissioner Goodell was not already informed of during yesterday's meeting. Do we just let random people come forth with accusations now?

The penalties already levied are only part of the reason to think there is more. The Patriots did enough that the NFL was forced to penalize them.

The real reason for suspicion is the destruction of evidence. As I have stated many times, that was a mistake from a PR perspective. That is where the impression of a cover-up comes from, at least in my mind.

Certainly I understand that point. It was a terrible PR move for the Commissioner to destroy those tapes. Maybe Goodell chose to do so because the tapes contained extremely damaging information. If he did, shame on him. Yet we don't know. We will never know now. As the cliche goes, however, it is innocent until proven guilty and we can only trust what Goodell is telling us (for better or for worse). By saying that the destruction of the tapes signifies a larger pattern of cheating, we are further punishing the Patriots for the Commissioner's stupid decision. I would like the tapes to still exist, because I hate that this story will continue on and on.
[/quote]

The destruction of evidence is not proof of guilt, but it is absolutely fair reason to call for a deeper investigation.


[/quote]

O.K., I don't know if I agree with that, but let's operate on that premise, that the destruction of the tapes and additional evidence serves as an indication that Goodell swept this underneath the rug and that there were larger examples of cheating.

It's a perfectly reasonable deduction, but most people are taking this and running to a perfectly unreasonable and unfair conclusion. Most people who take this view, from those on this board and in the overall media, argue that the destruction of the videotapes is proof that the Patriots and Belichick are guilty of additional infractions.

But that's not fair. Goodell destroyed the tapes. We can't convict Belichick and the Patriots simply because of Goodell's forkup---and I think that's what many people are doing.

And say Goodell shredded the evidence because he wanted to protect the league from further controversy and the other owners fell in line with the Commish and toted the company line. If so, we cannot only assume that the Patriots were involved in these other examples. If you believe this conspiracy theory is true---and to take that viewpoint you have to make a lot of assumptions---then the next reasonable assumption is that there were many other teams guilty of similar infractions.

To that I am sure you will say, "Only the Pats were caught."

That is a fact, indeed, but to believe in this conspiracy theory, you have to reject many other facts that verify the Patriots innocence in further examples of rule infractions. Walsh informed Goodell yesterday that in 2001 he learned that Jets head coach Herm Edwards filmed the Patriots' coaches in the same way as Belichick. But I don't have any faith in Walsh's credibility, whether that is on the Patriots' infractions or those of Herm's.

You know what I think is going on? I think we keep searching for one particular something, and when that something is not unturned, then we change the object of our search.

I may want the Patriots to win and you may even label me a fanboi in order to try and refute my arguments. Yet objectivity is not a one-way street. People like Mark Fish are just as compromised as I. John Tomase is just as compromised as I. He had a motivation---to be first with a story that was poorly sourced but incredibly juicy. If you are motivated in any way, then you are not objective. And everyone involved in this story, from Specter, Goodell and Belichick to the fans and media, have a motivating interest.