<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (blackadder @ Feb 3 2008, 02:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ehmunro @ Feb 3 2008, 02:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>At the end of the day, we know what was destroyed, we've all seen the footage. No evil conspiracies involved. No matter how much embittered Dolphins fans continue to scream "Conspiracy!!!".</div> We do? We have? To reiterate, I said it was better than any conspiracy theory. The mere fact that Goddell is taking the word of the Pats organization as substantial enough screams that something just ain't right IMO. <u>Maybe</u>, that is is the very definition of a cover up? To me, its like a Parole board (Goddell) listening only to an inmate (the Pats) saying they are rehabilitated and granting freedom & absolution. Now, it seems there are other victims (Rams & Eagles)as well as witnesses (Matt Walsh) ponying up and speaking out. Yet, the Judicial system (Specter) wants an inquiry and is being stonewalled by the Parole board & prisoner. </div> The practise didn't become illegal until 2006. The Patriots did not play in the 2007 Superbowl. Eric Mangini had the video assistant pinched in game one of this year. This pretty much tells us what the Patriots turned over. Eighteen games worth of video at the max. We know exactly what was on those tapes, we saw the one tape that was leaked. The rest of the footage would have been more of the same. I suppose Goodell might have decided to make the rule change retroactive, as a certain former NFL head coach that sat in charge of the Competition Committee used to do every time someone outsmarted him, but that would have opened a can of worms. Because there's no way to justify picking on one team in that case, and then he'd have to come down on everyone. Much easier by far to make an example of the one team for violating the September 2006 directive.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ehmunro @ Feb 3 2008, 02:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (DolfanDale @ Feb 2 2008, 05:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Your just trying to discredit my argument because you don't have a better one. I'm sure your only doing that because your a totally objective and unbias Patriots fan.</div> You don't have an argument to discredit. You're simply repeating Greg Easterbrook's mendacious charges. Easterbrook, in his continuous "Cover up!!!" nonsense, has chosen to ignore the fact that the league demanded the sideline footage for destruction so that the Patriots couldn't continue to use it. He simply pretended that the NFL never said what it made clear. He even went on, in the initial article and in his hilarious campaign since, to charge that the NFL destroyed Superbowl video as part of their nefarious cover-up, despite the fact that Patriots haven't actually been in the Superbowl since the practise outlawed. Or maybe he's just pretending that Goodell arrived prior to the 2006 season. Either way it amounts to the same thing. At the end of the day, we know what was destroyed, we've all seen the footage. No evil conspiracies involved. No matter how much embittered Dolphins fans continue to scream "Conspiracy!!!". </div> 1. I've been saying, on these very boards, that this whole investigation stinks for a lot longer than yesterday when the new Super Bowl cheating story broke. It's just looking more and more like I was right on the money. 2. Is there a single person reading this thread that actually thinks that the NFL's filming policy came from a memo from Roger Goodell. Show me that person and I'll show you a moron. I would think that the NFL Rules Committee would have a say in anything that involves insuring fair play. Bringing up the memo, just emphasises that Belicheat has no excuse for saying that he didn't know about the rule. 3. BA is dead on in his post above. Why would anyone believe that a cheater would turn over incriminating evidence just because he was told to do so? That's just outright stupid. I don't know if this is a deep conspiracy. It could be as simple as Roger Goodall not having the guts to stand up to Robert Kraft. I just know that the suspicions that I have been voicing for a long time are starting, slowly but surely, to be proven to have real substance.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (DolfanDale @ Feb 3 2008, 03:12 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>1. I've been saying, on these very boards, that this whole investigation stinks for a lot longer than yesterday when the new Super Bowl cheating story broke. It's just looking more and more like I was right on the money. 3. BA is dead on in his post above. Why would anyone believe that a cheater would turn over incriminating evidence just because he was told to do so? That's just outright stupid.</div> The NFL punished the Patriots for violating the directive, they demanded verification that the Patriots had eliminated the footage from their digital library and the original copies of the tapes for destruction. The NFL investigators were satisfied that the Patriots eliminated the footage from the video library and then destroyed the videos just like they said they would when they made the initial statement about the other tapes. If the NFL were really trying to "cover up" they wouldn't have made their intentions public and mentioned any other video footage. For the "evil geniuses" you're claiming them, you seem to be simultaneously making them out to be Laurel & Hardy. Now, if you're merely charging that the Patriots still have copies of the sideline footage, have you any evidence to support it?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ehmunro @ Feb 3 2008, 03:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (blackadder @ Feb 3 2008, 02:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ehmunro @ Feb 3 2008, 02:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>At the end of the day, we know what was destroyed, we've all seen the footage. No evil conspiracies involved. No matter how much embittered Dolphins fans continue to scream "Conspiracy!!!".</div> We do? We have? To reiterate, I said it was better than any conspiracy theory. The mere fact that Goddell is taking the word of the Pats organization as substantial enough screams that something just ain't right IMO. <u>Maybe</u>, that is is the very definition of a cover up? To me, its like a Parole board (Goddell) listening only to an inmate (the Pats) saying they are rehabilitated and granting freedom & absolution. Now, it seems there are other victims (Rams & Eagles)as well as witnesses (Matt Walsh) ponying up and speaking out. Yet, the Judicial system (Specter) wants an inquiry and is being stonewalled by the Parole board & prisoner. </div> The practise didn't become illegal until 2006. The Patriots did not play in the 2007 Superbowl. Eric Mangini had the video assistant pinched in game one of this year. This pretty much tells us what the Patriots turned over. Eighteen games worth of video at the max. We know exactly what was on those tapes, we saw the one tape that was leaked. The rest of the footage would have been more of the same. I suppose Goodell might have decided to make the rule change retroactive, as a certain former NFL head coach that sat in charge of the Competition Committee used to do every time someone outsmarted him, but that would have opened a can of worms. Because there's no way to justify picking on one team in that case, and then he'd have to come down on everyone. Much easier by far to make an example of the one team for violating the September 2006 directive. </div> How does anyone know for certain what was on those tapes? It seems that is jumping to conclusions like Goddell did by accepting what the Pats said at face value w/o digging a bit deeper. Color me controversial but maybe he came down on <u>only the Pats</u> because (I know this might be hard to accept) there is concrete and substantial proof that <u>only the Pats</u> did something wrong.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ehmunro @ Feb 3 2008, 03:26 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (DolfanDale @ Feb 3 2008, 03:12 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>1. I've been saying, on these very boards, that this whole investigation stinks for a lot longer than yesterday when the new Super Bowl cheating story broke. It's just looking more and more like I was right on the money. 3. BA is dead on in his post above. Why would anyone believe that a cheater would turn over incriminating evidence just because he was told to do so? That's just outright stupid.</div> Now, if you're merely charging that the Patriots still have copies of the sideline footage, have you any evidence to support it? </div> My friend; Dale's not stupid and neither am I. Stop trying to obfuscate by using the old which came first the chicken or the egg argument.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (blackadder @ Feb 3 2008, 03:44 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>How does anyone know for certain what was on those tapes? It seems that is jumping to conclusions like Goddell did by accepting what the Pats said at face value w/o digging a bit deeper. Color me controversial but maybe he came down on <u>only the Pats</u> because (I know this might be hard to accept) there is concrete and substantial proof that <u>only the Pats</u> did something wrong.</div> OK, here's the deal for you "nefarious conspiracy" people, if you're claiming that there's evil evidence that was destroyed, what the hell was it? What else were the Patriots taping from the sidelines? We saw the tape that was leaked, it was sideline footage of the Jets' defensive coordinator, defensive formations, and the scoreboard (to illustrate down/yardage). What else were they going to find when the NFL requested all the sideline footage shot since September of '06. That was what was requested for destruction and that's what the Patriots provided for that very purpose. Logically speaking, the only "damning evidence" that could possibly be on them would be say footage of the Colts' video assistant shooting the Patriots defensive signals.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (blackadder @ Feb 3 2008, 03:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>My friend; Dale's not stupid and neither am I. Stop trying to obfuscate by using the old which came first the chicken or the egg argument.</div> I'm not. There are two charges that keep getting thrown around in these forums. First, Easterbrook's idiotic "evil conspiracy!!!" nonsense, I've addressed that repeatedly. The NFL was very clear about what they wanted, and went public with their request so that everyone would know what they were going to do. They wanted verification that New England had eliminated the sideline footage shot since September of '06 from their video library and wanted the original videos for destruction. Greg Easterbrook always ignores those salient facts when he starts spinning his idiotic conspiracy theories. Intelligence, logic, and common sense aren't his stock in trade (witness his regular moronic and crypto-racist commentary on the NBA for evidence of his retardation). The other charge getting thrown around here is the one that DFD and BF keep lobbing, the claim that the Patriots still have the footage. Fine, care to cite any evidence of that whatsoever? Anything? The NFL investigators were satisfied that the footage was deleted from the digital library and that they were destroying the original videos. If you're saying that the NFL should have gone on a fishing expedition to eradicate all "cheating", the commissioner can't very well single out a single team. Then he'd have to investigate everyone. And that's just not something that would be conducive for his long term job security. His options were to punish one team for violating a directive, or to hold a Grand Inquisition. He chose the former path as the path of least resistance. He certainly doesn't want to have to check the Hickdome for the boom mikes that the Colts use to dial up crowd noise, or investigate Shanahan's use of video spies to tape other team's practises. Or even investigate Bill Polian's memos to officials in advance of Colts' games. The fishing expedition was a guarantee that his contract wouldn't be renewed. If you're saying that the NFL should only have conducted the fishing expedition against the Patriots you're essentially admitting that this is personal for you and you want the Patriots punished for being more successful than your team. In the end the NFL made its intentions clear, and then carried them out.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ehmunro @ Feb 3 2008, 04:16 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (blackadder @ Feb 3 2008, 03:44 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>How does anyone know for certain what was on those tapes? It seems that is jumping to conclusions like Goddell did by accepting what the Pats said at face value w/o digging a bit deeper. Color me controversial but maybe he came down on <u>only the Pats</u> because (I know this might be hard to accept) there is concrete and substantial proof that <u>only the Pats</u> did something wrong.</div> OK, here's the deal for you "nefarious conspiracy" people, if you're claiming that there's evil evidence that was destroyed, what the hell was it? What else were the Patriots taping from the sidelines? We saw the tape that was leaked, it was sideline footage of the Jets' defensive coordinator, defensive formations, and the scoreboard (to illustrate down/yardage). What else were they going to find when the NFL requested all the sideline footage shot since September of '06. That was what was requested for destruction and that's what the Patriots provided for that very purpose. Logically speaking, the only "damning evidence" that could possibly be on them would be say footage of the Colts' video assistant shooting the Patriots defensive signals. </div> There's a lot that I would like to address, but let's keep it simple and tackle this one issue that I'm tired of talking about. Elmunro, you keep saying that videotaping wasn't illegal until 2006 as though Goodall's memo was the big mandate rather than a simple reminder and warning. I keep looking for an article that says Goodall is only interested in material from 2006 to present and I can't find a single one. I can find lots of articles that wonder how far back the videotaping goes. This article talks about the Eagles concerns regarding their Super Bowl with the Patriots and mentions the Pats possible having material on the Steelers since 2001. This article talks about Goodall ordering the Pats to turn over materials but doesn't mention any magic date of 2006. Here's a link to a page where you can listen to Roger Goodell tell "Mike and Mike" that he wants to get to the bottom of the new allegations. Why would Goodell give a crap about a Super Bowl that occured before 2006? So, I double dog dare you to provide a quote with a link to a legitmate source that says it doesn't matter what the Patriots videotaped before 2006. It's put up or pipe down time.
I've never said that I know for a fact evidence was destroyed and quite frankly that was never my argument. This would not be the 1st time that evidence has disappeared. Hell! Maybe Hillary Clinton can act as legal counsel for the Pats if things don't work out for her in the next 9 months. lol. My whole point of contention is that this issue is being whitewashed by Goddell IMO. Rather than possibly tarnish the image if the league. He has based his whole point of view by hearing only one side which laughingly is that of the alleged gulity party. Will the 2008 Super bowl rank up there or "down there" (I'll bet Dale gets that reference) with the 1919 World Series when this is all said & done? If I were Tom Brady, I'd be very cautious about meeting w/ Specter. Though, if things don't work out TB can change his his name to Joe Jackson when he goes into Witness relocation.
Well, the interest in the 2002 Superbowl has absolutely zilch to do with sideline videotaping, so I'm not sure why you're claiming that it does. The AOL Clubhouse blog post you cited quotes Goodell as saying that they're going to look into accusations that the Patriots taped a closed practise, but reiterates the point that they only did what they publicly stated they were going to do ahead of time (i.e. destroy the videos themselves and ensure they'd been deleted from the library).
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ehmunro @ Feb 3 2008, 06:42 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Well, the interest in the 2002 Superbowl has absolutely zilch to do with sideline videotaping, so I'm not sure why you're claiming that it does. The AOL Clubhouse blog post you cited quotes Goodell as saying that they're going to look into accusations that the Patriots taped a closed practise, but reiterates the point that they only did what they publicly stated they were going to do ahead of time (i.e. destroy the videos themselves and ensure they'd been deleted from the library).</div> That's fair enough, but your still dodging the point. Where is a quote and a link that says 2006 is the magic year? The double dog dare is still on. What have you got? You got nothing. Prove me wrong.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ehmunro @ Feb 2 2008, 07:09 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Dolphandale is just pissed that another team is going to go undefeated and the Dolphins will no longer be the last to have accomplished the feat.</div> Waaaah, it looks like the Dolphins are still the only undefeated superbowl winners! Champaign is popping in south Florida! Oh, and Don Shula's original statement about this year's Pat's was so correct, they need to have an asterick on their season. Losing in the Superbowl was real justice.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider @ Feb 4 2008, 02:15 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ehmunro @ Feb 2 2008, 07:09 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Dolphandale is just pissed that another team is going to go undefeated and the Dolphins will no longer be the last to have accomplished the feat.</div> Waaaah, it looks like the Dolphins are still the only undefeated superbowl winners! Champaign is popping in south Florida! Oh, and Don Shula's original statement about this year's Pat's was so correct, they need to have an asterick on their season. Losing in the Superbowl was real justice. </div> Citing the Yoda-like wisdom of Mark Jackson - "The ball doesn't lie."
