Flamingo kid
Everybody's hands go UP!
I love you.
Senator Arlen Specter
- Thread starter Flamingo kid
- Start date
cassiusclay
EOG Master
Re: Senator Arlen Specter
LAST LIVING MEMBER OF THE WARREN COMMISSION...
LAST LIVING MEMBER OF THE WARREN COMMISSION...
Flamingo kid
Everybody's hands go UP!
Re: Senator Arlen Specter
No way, Goodell is in the Patriots corner, destroying documents speaks volumes.
No way, Goodell is in the Patriots corner, destroying documents speaks volumes.
mr merlin
EOG Master
Re: Senator Arlen Specter
I think Goodall should tell Spector to fuck off. The nfl is a private orgainazation which makes their own rules. He can do whatever he wants with those tapes and is only acting in the best interests of the game. Hell, the NFL could say they are going to become like wrestling and encourage cheating if hey wanted. These 2 bit senators and congressman are way too full of themselves in my opinion.
I think Goodall should tell Spector to fuck off. The nfl is a private orgainazation which makes their own rules. He can do whatever he wants with those tapes and is only acting in the best interests of the game. Hell, the NFL could say they are going to become like wrestling and encourage cheating if hey wanted. These 2 bit senators and congressman are way too full of themselves in my opinion.
roseman
EOG Dedicated
Re: Senator Arlen Specter
In the greater scheme of things, this is pretty embarrassing as a country that our leaders are focusing on this and the clemens crap. Its great for places like this and a sports bar or at the water cooler at work, but on Capital Hill? How about getting more money for teachers, ending the shit in IRAQ, fixing the economy..nope, lets worry about sports and how my team is doing.
In the greater scheme of things, this is pretty embarrassing as a country that our leaders are focusing on this and the clemens crap. Its great for places like this and a sports bar or at the water cooler at work, but on Capital Hill? How about getting more money for teachers, ending the shit in IRAQ, fixing the economy..nope, lets worry about sports and how my team is doing.
Flamingo kid
Everybody's hands go UP!
Re: Senator Arlen Specter
I agree that we are not doing enough in other areas, which is embarrassingly obvious. But, can there be a bigger picture here? After all, if children of America are watching what happens to anyone who cheats, won't it be more likely that they won't cheat themselves? Maybe they'll not only NOT cheat in sports, but maybe they'll grow up to be honest citizens? Hopefully parents of young children are making them watch what's going on with Clemens, Bonds and Belichick and saying, "see little Jimmy, if you are dishonest that can happen to YOU'.
I know that if i was forced to watch one of my heroes dragged thru the mud when i was a little kid, i'd be mortified and terrified that if i did ANYTHING against the law or broke any moral rules, i'd be embarrassed beyond belief.
I have to imagine that SOME children are watching this stuff and thinking, "im never going to take steroids or cheat on my taxes"
So, if some kids are 'scared straight' maybe this Capitol Hill stuff isn't as bad as advertised?
I agree that we are not doing enough in other areas, which is embarrassingly obvious. But, can there be a bigger picture here? After all, if children of America are watching what happens to anyone who cheats, won't it be more likely that they won't cheat themselves? Maybe they'll not only NOT cheat in sports, but maybe they'll grow up to be honest citizens? Hopefully parents of young children are making them watch what's going on with Clemens, Bonds and Belichick and saying, "see little Jimmy, if you are dishonest that can happen to YOU'.
I know that if i was forced to watch one of my heroes dragged thru the mud when i was a little kid, i'd be mortified and terrified that if i did ANYTHING against the law or broke any moral rules, i'd be embarrassed beyond belief.
I have to imagine that SOME children are watching this stuff and thinking, "im never going to take steroids or cheat on my taxes"
So, if some kids are 'scared straight' maybe this Capitol Hill stuff isn't as bad as advertised?
Flamingo kid
Everybody's hands go UP!
Re: Senator Arlen Specter
The NFL actually gets an Anti trust exemption and are allowed to operate as a monopoly......i'm no lawyer (although i'm sure some of my extremely sharp posts have convinced many here otherwise) but i'd have to imagine that monopolies have different 'rules' they have to adhere to in order to maintain their anti trust exemption. Maybe a real lawyer here can explain to us the higher standard the NFL must meet in this regard.
Also, as an NFL fan, you ought to be OUTRAGED that this cheating scandal was brushed under the rug and not investigated fully. Get rid of the cheaters, the crooked refs and the mafia who runs the NFL and lets let the players decide the games on the field. Lets clean up the scum (belichick) that is growing at the bottom of the NFL pond.
The NFL actually gets an Anti trust exemption and are allowed to operate as a monopoly......i'm no lawyer (although i'm sure some of my extremely sharp posts have convinced many here otherwise) but i'd have to imagine that monopolies have different 'rules' they have to adhere to in order to maintain their anti trust exemption. Maybe a real lawyer here can explain to us the higher standard the NFL must meet in this regard.
Also, as an NFL fan, you ought to be OUTRAGED that this cheating scandal was brushed under the rug and not investigated fully. Get rid of the cheaters, the crooked refs and the mafia who runs the NFL and lets let the players decide the games on the field. Lets clean up the scum (belichick) that is growing at the bottom of the NFL pond.
seattle slew
EOG Senior Member
Re: Senator Arlen Specter
Whenever someone wonders why the NFL is on record as opposed to any legalized gambling in the U.S., read the statement below. It's that simple.
Whenever someone wonders why the NFL is on record as opposed to any legalized gambling in the U.S., read the statement below. It's that simple.
dirty
EOG Master
Re: Senator Arlen Specter
You are Not wrong... Baseball is the ONLY sport that has a Anti-Trust Exemption :cheers:cheers:cheers
You are Not wrong... Baseball is the ONLY sport that has a Anti-Trust Exemption :cheers:cheers:cheers
dirty
EOG Master
Re: Senator Arlen Specter
For those that don't believe...Many more sources if needed as well
Baseball's antitrust exemption: Q & A
<hr noshade="noshade" size="1" width="100%"> By Darren Rovell
ESPN.com
Q: What is the antitrust exemption and how did baseball get it?
A: Any business that operates across state borders -- and therefore participates in interstate commerce -- is subject to antitrust legislation. Attempts to control trade and monopolize may be deemed illegal by federal circuit courts under the Sherman and Clayton acts.
Baseball has been exempt from these antitrust laws since 1922, when the Supreme Court ruled in its favor in Federal Baseball Club of Baltimore, Inc. v. National Baseball Clubs. The Supreme Court determined even though there was scheduling of games across state lines, those games were intrastate events since the travel from one state to another was "not the essential thing," Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote in the decision.
Baltimore, a member of the Federal League that operated as a major league in 1914-15, had sued the National and American Leagues, charging the Federal League's inability to sign players was due to antitrust violations.
At the time of the 1922 ruling, the National and American Leagues were merely umbrella organizations. They arranged the schedules and set the rules, but the business was entirely local in the sense that there was no revenue sharing, no radio or television and no national sponsors or licensing deals.
By virtue of the exemption, coupled with decades of reluctance of various courts to overrule, baseball is the only sport, or business for that matter, that has an exemption to the extent that it does.
Q: What does the exemption do?
A: There are several aspects to the exemption, but the primary issue right now is this means a team can't move unless MLB allows it to move.
Q: Things have changed since 1922. Why does the exemption still exist?
A: The exemption was not considered again by the Supreme Court until 1953 in Toolson v. New York Yankees, Inc. George Toolson, a Yankee minor leaguer, sued over the reserve clause (which binds a player to one organization), claiming it blocked his path to the major leagues. In the decision, the Supreme Court did not deny that baseball was not interstate commerce. Instead, the court ruled that when the Sherman Act was enacted in 1890, Congress didn't intend it to include baseball -- that the Sherman Act was more closely directed to the monopolies and trusts of the robber barons like John D. Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie.
Q: Why don't other sports have the antitrust exemption?
A: For 18 years after Toolson, in case after case, judges admitted that the baseball exemption was flawed, but it was never overruled. Exemptions for boxing, football and basketball were denied in the higher courts, while hockey and golf antitrust exemptions were also denied in the lower courts.
In 1972, Curt Flood's case -- which also challenged baseball's reserve system -- reached the Supreme Court and although it was again acknowledged that baseball's antitrust exemption was "an anomaly," the Court ruled that it is up to Congress to change baseball's antitrust exemption. Bills were introduced before and after Flood v. Kuhn (1972), but none ever became a law. In 1998, Congress passed the Curt Flood Act of 1998, which said challenges to league rules that restrict player movement or compensation would be subject to antitrust laws. (Although the Supreme Court ruled two years earlier that unionized employees may not file antitrust suits.)
Q: What part of the exemption is now being threatened?
A: If enacted, a bill called the "Fairness in Antitrust in National Sports (FANS)" sponsored Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., and Minnesota democratic senators Paul Wellstone and Mark Dayton, would strip the antitrust exemption only in regards to Major League Baseball's efforts to control relocation and contraction. It can be interpreted that baseball is allowed to restrict teams from moving to other cities and has the right to fold teams at will, even if another market is a viable one. However, antitrust experts say an antitrust challenge might actually reveal that baseball is not protected in this area, since it has never been explicitly challenged in court. If that is true, it's not necessary that the bill becomes a law, since court precedence would take its place.
In Piazza v. Major League Baseball (1993), Vince Piazza sued baseball after it blocked San Francisco Giants owner Bob Lurie from selling the team to Piazza, who planned to move it to St. Petersburg, Fla. MLB then approved a sale, for $15 million less, to Peter Magowan that kept the team in San Francisco. A federal judge ruled that baseball's restrictions on team relocation were not protected by the exemption. However, the judge then ordered a trial to further explore whether he was incorrect about the scope of baseball's exemption. On the eve of trial, Piazza reportedly received a $6 million settlement from MLB and the hearing never happened.
Q: So, other leagues are subject to antitrust lawsuits?
A:. Yes. If an owner wants to move a team to another city and the league stops him from doing so, the owner can bring an antitrust claim. Raiders owner Al Davis won an antitrust lawsuit in 1982 after the league wouldn't allow him to move from Oakland to Los Angeles. The NFL lost and Davis moved. The threat, and in some cases the actual filing, of antitrust lawsuits led to more movement among NFL teams, such as the Los Angeles Rams to St. Louis and the Cleveland Browns to Baltimore. Since the last MLB team moved in 1971 (the Washington Senators became the Texas Rangers), there have been seven NFL moves, seven NBA moves and nine NHL moves.
Q: Why does MLB want to keep the exemption?
A: If the exemption is repealed, teams can sue if they are not granted the right to move at will. Like other leagues, Major League Baseball might still charge a relocation fee, either to compensate another owner in a nearby market or to compensate the league for moving into a potential expansion market.
Commissioner Bud Selig said baseball will open its books at Thursday's hearing in order to convince Congress that the game is in bad economic shape and needs to keep the exemption. Therefore, baseball could go forward with contraction without an antitrust challenge.
Rep. Conyers has asked Selig to show in detail the financial records of the Florida Marlins, Kansas City Royals, Minnesota Twins, Montreal Expos and Tampa Bay Devil Rays.
Q: Speaking of the Twins and Expos, what part of the exemption deals with contraction?
A: By eliminating teams, the owners would eventually be sharing their revenues among fewer partners. While contraction might be a violation of the Collective Bargaining Agreement -- baseball's permanent arbitrator Shyam Das is currently hearing the Players' Association grievance on this issue -- and perhaps even labor law, the exemption makes it impossible for such a move to be considered an antitrust violation.
If the exemption is removed and there is a challenge, the owners -- as in every antitrust case -- will have to prove that their action to eliminate teams is somehow better for the competitive business of the sport. A plaintiff challenging contraction, in an antitrust suit, would allege that contraction constitutes an agreement among all the teams in the league to limit output (two fewer teams to watch) and limit competition (28 instead of 30 teams competing for the same players). And the plaintiff would argue that the anticompetitive effects exceed any positive effects on competition. If they are successful, the agreement would violate the Sherman Act that prohibits unreasonable restraint of trade.
Q: Who would benefit if this part of the exemption is taken away?
A: Any owner who believes that he can move to another market and increase the value of his franchise. Expos owner Jeffrey Loria could simply sue if he wasn't allowed to move his team to Washington D.C. That move would likely increase the value of his franchise by at least $100 million.
(Loria's case is complicated. He would have to have a stadium lease in the U.S. in order to go through with a suit, because he can't sue under U.S. antitrust laws in a Canadian court. Consider as well Loria's rumored purchase of the Marlins. If he could freely move the Expos -- to a more viable market than South Florida -- why would he want the Marlins?)
Another example is if current Twins owner Carl Pohlad wanted to sell his team, he could get a higher price, since a new ownership group would have the ability to move to another market.
Also, using the threat of a possible antitrust suit could also provide leverage for negotiating a new ballpark in a team's existing market.
Q: How long until this legislation could actually be enacted?
A: It's not going to happen in the next couple months. If the Das hearing or the Minnesota Court of Appeals can't stop contraction from occurring, it is possible that Congress might speed up the process.
Q: If this legislation passes, what other parts of the antitrust exemption could be taken away and what would that do?
A: While it's unlikely that other aspects would be challenged any time soon, it's worth noting the exemption allows baseball to exert ultimate authority on terms of minor league contracts and the reserve clause and the amateur draft.
If the exemption didn't apply to the minor leagues, it's possible baseball could revert to the free minor league system that existed in the first few decades of the 20th century. This would mean minor league teams would exist independent of affiliation with major league franchises. Major league teams would have to purchase or trade for their players from minor league teams or directly from college programs.
The amateur draft could also be abolished, because an amateur player could sue for his right to freedom of movement or that the draft artificially holds down signing bonuses. This would potentially increase the size of bonus payments for the top prospects since bidding wars would develop.
Darren Rovell, who covers sports business for ESPN.com, can be reached at Darren.rovell@espn.com.
ESPN.com: MLB - Baseball's antitrust exemption: Q & A
For those that don't believe...Many more sources if needed as well
Baseball's antitrust exemption: Q & A
<hr noshade="noshade" size="1" width="100%"> By Darren Rovell
ESPN.com
Q: What is the antitrust exemption and how did baseball get it?
A: Any business that operates across state borders -- and therefore participates in interstate commerce -- is subject to antitrust legislation. Attempts to control trade and monopolize may be deemed illegal by federal circuit courts under the Sherman and Clayton acts.
Baseball has been exempt from these antitrust laws since 1922, when the Supreme Court ruled in its favor in Federal Baseball Club of Baltimore, Inc. v. National Baseball Clubs. The Supreme Court determined even though there was scheduling of games across state lines, those games were intrastate events since the travel from one state to another was "not the essential thing," Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote in the decision.
Baltimore, a member of the Federal League that operated as a major league in 1914-15, had sued the National and American Leagues, charging the Federal League's inability to sign players was due to antitrust violations.
At the time of the 1922 ruling, the National and American Leagues were merely umbrella organizations. They arranged the schedules and set the rules, but the business was entirely local in the sense that there was no revenue sharing, no radio or television and no national sponsors or licensing deals.
By virtue of the exemption, coupled with decades of reluctance of various courts to overrule, baseball is the only sport, or business for that matter, that has an exemption to the extent that it does.
Q: What does the exemption do?
A: There are several aspects to the exemption, but the primary issue right now is this means a team can't move unless MLB allows it to move.
Q: Things have changed since 1922. Why does the exemption still exist?
A: The exemption was not considered again by the Supreme Court until 1953 in Toolson v. New York Yankees, Inc. George Toolson, a Yankee minor leaguer, sued over the reserve clause (which binds a player to one organization), claiming it blocked his path to the major leagues. In the decision, the Supreme Court did not deny that baseball was not interstate commerce. Instead, the court ruled that when the Sherman Act was enacted in 1890, Congress didn't intend it to include baseball -- that the Sherman Act was more closely directed to the monopolies and trusts of the robber barons like John D. Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie.
Q: Why don't other sports have the antitrust exemption?
A: For 18 years after Toolson, in case after case, judges admitted that the baseball exemption was flawed, but it was never overruled. Exemptions for boxing, football and basketball were denied in the higher courts, while hockey and golf antitrust exemptions were also denied in the lower courts.
In 1972, Curt Flood's case -- which also challenged baseball's reserve system -- reached the Supreme Court and although it was again acknowledged that baseball's antitrust exemption was "an anomaly," the Court ruled that it is up to Congress to change baseball's antitrust exemption. Bills were introduced before and after Flood v. Kuhn (1972), but none ever became a law. In 1998, Congress passed the Curt Flood Act of 1998, which said challenges to league rules that restrict player movement or compensation would be subject to antitrust laws. (Although the Supreme Court ruled two years earlier that unionized employees may not file antitrust suits.)
Q: What part of the exemption is now being threatened?
A: If enacted, a bill called the "Fairness in Antitrust in National Sports (FANS)" sponsored Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., and Minnesota democratic senators Paul Wellstone and Mark Dayton, would strip the antitrust exemption only in regards to Major League Baseball's efforts to control relocation and contraction. It can be interpreted that baseball is allowed to restrict teams from moving to other cities and has the right to fold teams at will, even if another market is a viable one. However, antitrust experts say an antitrust challenge might actually reveal that baseball is not protected in this area, since it has never been explicitly challenged in court. If that is true, it's not necessary that the bill becomes a law, since court precedence would take its place.
In Piazza v. Major League Baseball (1993), Vince Piazza sued baseball after it blocked San Francisco Giants owner Bob Lurie from selling the team to Piazza, who planned to move it to St. Petersburg, Fla. MLB then approved a sale, for $15 million less, to Peter Magowan that kept the team in San Francisco. A federal judge ruled that baseball's restrictions on team relocation were not protected by the exemption. However, the judge then ordered a trial to further explore whether he was incorrect about the scope of baseball's exemption. On the eve of trial, Piazza reportedly received a $6 million settlement from MLB and the hearing never happened.
Q: So, other leagues are subject to antitrust lawsuits?
A:. Yes. If an owner wants to move a team to another city and the league stops him from doing so, the owner can bring an antitrust claim. Raiders owner Al Davis won an antitrust lawsuit in 1982 after the league wouldn't allow him to move from Oakland to Los Angeles. The NFL lost and Davis moved. The threat, and in some cases the actual filing, of antitrust lawsuits led to more movement among NFL teams, such as the Los Angeles Rams to St. Louis and the Cleveland Browns to Baltimore. Since the last MLB team moved in 1971 (the Washington Senators became the Texas Rangers), there have been seven NFL moves, seven NBA moves and nine NHL moves.
Q: Why does MLB want to keep the exemption?
A: If the exemption is repealed, teams can sue if they are not granted the right to move at will. Like other leagues, Major League Baseball might still charge a relocation fee, either to compensate another owner in a nearby market or to compensate the league for moving into a potential expansion market.
Commissioner Bud Selig said baseball will open its books at Thursday's hearing in order to convince Congress that the game is in bad economic shape and needs to keep the exemption. Therefore, baseball could go forward with contraction without an antitrust challenge.
Rep. Conyers has asked Selig to show in detail the financial records of the Florida Marlins, Kansas City Royals, Minnesota Twins, Montreal Expos and Tampa Bay Devil Rays.
Q: Speaking of the Twins and Expos, what part of the exemption deals with contraction?
A: By eliminating teams, the owners would eventually be sharing their revenues among fewer partners. While contraction might be a violation of the Collective Bargaining Agreement -- baseball's permanent arbitrator Shyam Das is currently hearing the Players' Association grievance on this issue -- and perhaps even labor law, the exemption makes it impossible for such a move to be considered an antitrust violation.
If the exemption is removed and there is a challenge, the owners -- as in every antitrust case -- will have to prove that their action to eliminate teams is somehow better for the competitive business of the sport. A plaintiff challenging contraction, in an antitrust suit, would allege that contraction constitutes an agreement among all the teams in the league to limit output (two fewer teams to watch) and limit competition (28 instead of 30 teams competing for the same players). And the plaintiff would argue that the anticompetitive effects exceed any positive effects on competition. If they are successful, the agreement would violate the Sherman Act that prohibits unreasonable restraint of trade.
Q: Who would benefit if this part of the exemption is taken away?
A: Any owner who believes that he can move to another market and increase the value of his franchise. Expos owner Jeffrey Loria could simply sue if he wasn't allowed to move his team to Washington D.C. That move would likely increase the value of his franchise by at least $100 million.
(Loria's case is complicated. He would have to have a stadium lease in the U.S. in order to go through with a suit, because he can't sue under U.S. antitrust laws in a Canadian court. Consider as well Loria's rumored purchase of the Marlins. If he could freely move the Expos -- to a more viable market than South Florida -- why would he want the Marlins?)
Another example is if current Twins owner Carl Pohlad wanted to sell his team, he could get a higher price, since a new ownership group would have the ability to move to another market.
Also, using the threat of a possible antitrust suit could also provide leverage for negotiating a new ballpark in a team's existing market.
Q: How long until this legislation could actually be enacted?
A: It's not going to happen in the next couple months. If the Das hearing or the Minnesota Court of Appeals can't stop contraction from occurring, it is possible that Congress might speed up the process.
Q: If this legislation passes, what other parts of the antitrust exemption could be taken away and what would that do?
A: While it's unlikely that other aspects would be challenged any time soon, it's worth noting the exemption allows baseball to exert ultimate authority on terms of minor league contracts and the reserve clause and the amateur draft.
If the exemption didn't apply to the minor leagues, it's possible baseball could revert to the free minor league system that existed in the first few decades of the 20th century. This would mean minor league teams would exist independent of affiliation with major league franchises. Major league teams would have to purchase or trade for their players from minor league teams or directly from college programs.
The amateur draft could also be abolished, because an amateur player could sue for his right to freedom of movement or that the draft artificially holds down signing bonuses. This would potentially increase the size of bonus payments for the top prospects since bidding wars would develop.
Darren Rovell, who covers sports business for ESPN.com, can be reached at Darren.rovell@espn.com.
ESPN.com: MLB - Baseball's antitrust exemption: Q & A
Flamingo kid
Everybody's hands go UP!
Re: Senator Arlen Specter
So, you would rather have dishonest NFL than an honest NFL? I don't get it.:+clueless
So, you would rather have dishonest NFL than an honest NFL? I don't get it.:+clueless
mr merlin
EOG Master
Re: Senator Arlen Specter
Not at all, belicheck cheated, was caught and payed a very stiff penalty. What i'm saying is that its none of spector's or any other "politician's" business what goodall does about it.
Flamingo kid
Everybody's hands go UP!
Re: Senator Arlen Specter
I'm not sure this was a stiff penalty. 500k for these guys is peanuts. Kraft payed the fine i'm sure. Also, you get tax writeoffs or something, so its less than 500k. The draft pick wasn't that severe because it was obvious right away that it wasn't going to be a top 20 selection.
I'm not sure this was a stiff penalty. 500k for these guys is peanuts. Kraft payed the fine i'm sure. Also, you get tax writeoffs or something, so its less than 500k. The draft pick wasn't that severe because it was obvious right away that it wasn't going to be a top 20 selection.
Flamingo kid
Everybody's hands go UP!
Re: Senator Arlen Specter
This is really good news for the Patriots. After all, if they truly did nothing wrong, they should want an independent investigation. When we get Matt Walsh in front of congress under oath and ask him if he taped the Rams walkthrough, he can say no he didn't and then we can all be done with this.
At that point, the Patriots can be vindicated.
As a Pats fan, why would you NOT want to be vindicated?
As it stands now, everyone thinks you cheated and the NFL brushed this under the rug. Except for a few delusional Pats fans, everyone thinks you are cheating scum who wasn't able to win fair and square. You might have been able to win fair and square, but we'll never know for sure now will we?
Anyway, lets get this investigation on the road, and we can vindicate these Pats like Jose Canseco.
This is really good news for the Patriots. After all, if they truly did nothing wrong, they should want an independent investigation. When we get Matt Walsh in front of congress under oath and ask him if he taped the Rams walkthrough, he can say no he didn't and then we can all be done with this.
At that point, the Patriots can be vindicated.
As a Pats fan, why would you NOT want to be vindicated?
As it stands now, everyone thinks you cheated and the NFL brushed this under the rug. Except for a few delusional Pats fans, everyone thinks you are cheating scum who wasn't able to win fair and square. You might have been able to win fair and square, but we'll never know for sure now will we?
Anyway, lets get this investigation on the road, and we can vindicate these Pats like Jose Canseco.
Re: Senator Arlen Specter
What investigation? There is NOT going to be another investigation....it's over....GET OVER IT! You seem to be oblivious to the truth. The truth is that the Pats admitted they broke the rule about taping opponents' defensive signals and they paid the fine and if they are caught again they will be punished more severely. Left unsaid but still just as true is that the Pats can and will continue to tape opponents games and watch, but not tape, their defensive signals to try and learn what their signals mean. The tapes themselves are not important; they aren't selling the tapes; what is important is learning what the defensive signals mean and they can still do this, although admittedly it was easier when they taped them and had them on record. The Pats offensive coordinator still can radio in to his QB what defense the opponents plan to use. This is not cheating....this is what every team in the league should be doing. If the NFL wants to get rid of this practice all they have to do is use a radio helmet for the defense just like they do for the offense. This is much ado about nothing!
What investigation? There is NOT going to be another investigation....it's over....GET OVER IT! You seem to be oblivious to the truth. The truth is that the Pats admitted they broke the rule about taping opponents' defensive signals and they paid the fine and if they are caught again they will be punished more severely. Left unsaid but still just as true is that the Pats can and will continue to tape opponents games and watch, but not tape, their defensive signals to try and learn what their signals mean. The tapes themselves are not important; they aren't selling the tapes; what is important is learning what the defensive signals mean and they can still do this, although admittedly it was easier when they taped them and had them on record. The Pats offensive coordinator still can radio in to his QB what defense the opponents plan to use. This is not cheating....this is what every team in the league should be doing. If the NFL wants to get rid of this practice all they have to do is use a radio helmet for the defense just like they do for the offense. This is much ado about nothing!
Re: Senator Arlen Specter
I think we're already passed that stage of "progress."
As Willy Loman (who?) said, "When a deposit bottle is broken, you don't get your nickel back."
I think we're already passed that stage of "progress."
As Willy Loman (who?) said, "When a deposit bottle is broken, you don't get your nickel back."
Blackcloud
EOG Dedicated
Re: Senator Arlen Specter
I thought Specter was always on the side of the coverup? :+clueless
I thought Specter was always on the side of the coverup? :+clueless
Flamingo kid
Everybody's hands go UP!
Re: Senator Arlen Specter
No, i just want the Pats vindicated. Whatever it takes to show they didn't cheat is fine by me.
No, i just want the Pats vindicated. Whatever it takes to show they didn't cheat is fine by me.
Flamingo kid
Everybody's hands go UP!
Re: Senator Arlen Specter
Its not over, it will never be over. Never. There are always going to be questions lingering about dishonesty. Lets get this investigation on the road and prove, once and for all, what really went on.
Its not over, it will never be over. Never. There are always going to be questions lingering about dishonesty. Lets get this investigation on the road and prove, once and for all, what really went on.
crazyl
2
Re: Senator Arlen Specter
Anybody who doesn't realize every team in this league has at some point in time stolen defensive signals is a goddamn idiot. It's a joke that this has blown up so much, they lost a first round draft pick, the coach was fined $500,000, the organization was fined $250,000- lets move on. No new evidence was handed over.
Anybody who doesn't realize every team in this league has at some point in time stolen defensive signals is a goddamn idiot. It's a joke that this has blown up so much, they lost a first round draft pick, the coach was fined $500,000, the organization was fined $250,000- lets move on. No new evidence was handed over.
Re: Senator Arlen Specter
Reading is not your strong suit...
What investigation? There is NOT going to be another investigation....it's over....GET OVER IT! You seem to be oblivious to the truth. The truth is that the Pats admitted they broke the rule about taping opponents' defensive signals and they paid the fine and if they are caught again they will be punished more severely.
....what exactly is your strong suit?
Reading is not your strong suit...
What investigation? There is NOT going to be another investigation....it's over....GET OVER IT! You seem to be oblivious to the truth. The truth is that the Pats admitted they broke the rule about taping opponents' defensive signals and they paid the fine and if they are caught again they will be punished more severely.
....what exactly is your strong suit?
Flamingo kid
Everybody's hands go UP!
Re: Senator Arlen Specter
Getting in your dome.
Im not going away and this isn't going away. Get use to it.
I'm not even going to mention that Rodney Harrison cheating with drugs either.
Getting in your dome.
Im not going away and this isn't going away. Get use to it.
I'm not even going to mention that Rodney Harrison cheating with drugs either.
Re: Senator Arlen Specter
You don't have to go away, in fact, I kinda like having you around here....as idiotic as you are, you actually raise the IQ level around here.
But if "this" refers to the investigation you keep mentioning, then you are wrong....it's already gone away. There will be not be another investigation. You can stay here and shout it over and over again like Chicken Little shouting, "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!", but that will not make the sky fall nor another investigation ensue.
Getting in your dome.
Im not going away and this isn't going away. Get use to it.
I'm not even going to mention that Rodney Harrison cheating with drugs either.
You don't have to go away, in fact, I kinda like having you around here....as idiotic as you are, you actually raise the IQ level around here.
But if "this" refers to the investigation you keep mentioning, then you are wrong....it's already gone away. There will be not be another investigation. You can stay here and shout it over and over again like Chicken Little shouting, "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!", but that will not make the sky fall nor another investigation ensue.
