FanDuel - WFBC

February 01, 2008

Senator Wants SpyGate Testimony Before Congress: Sen. Arlen Specter, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee and an avid Philadelphia Eagles fan, wants NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell to explain to Congress why the league destroyed evidence related to spying by the New England Patriots. "The NFL has a very preferred status in our country with their antitrust exemption," Specter said. "The American people are entitled to be sure about the integrity of the game. It's analogous to the CIA destruction of tapes. Or any time you have records destroyed."

posted by rcade to football at 11:05 AM - 52 comments

Leave it to Specter to try and pull something like this. Hey Arlen, the NFL is a non gov corporation, they do not have to explain ANYTHING to you. How did we get to this point in the United States where the U.S. Senate wants the NFL to explain why they did an internal action? Did he ever think that maybe they DID destroy the tapes for the betterment of the game?

posted by B10 at 11:29 AM on February 01

Immunity for telecommunications companies who spy on us? Awesome NFL dealing with NFL matters? Despicable Arlen Specter? Jackass

posted by kokaku at 11:37 AM on February 01

If the NFL wants to run their business anyway they choose, they can lobby to have their antitrust exemption repealed. Then, they can run their business the same as any other company. Of course, the NFL would never do that because it would cost them tons and tons of money. They couldn't negotiate television packages and each team would have to negotiate their own. So, since the U.S. government decided to give them this huge financial windfall, the NFL has to explain some of its inner workings. I don't see the problem with that.

posted by bperk at 11:42 AM on February 01

It doesn't seem to me that antitrust legislation extends to every facet of an organization's business...just, gosh, those that might somehow have something to do with the establishment of a trust. I'm damned if I can see how this has anything to do with such.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 11:46 AM on February 01

I'm so glad there's nothing else that these morons should be working on. IMHO, this and the steroid crap is driven by a childlike desire to bask in the radiated glow of celebrity heroes and garner some non-CSPAN TV facetime.

posted by sfts2 at 11:48 AM on February 01

Professional sports leagues have monopolies and federal anti-trust exemptions making them unique, so I support Congress' efforts to clean up the steriod and HGH mess. These drugs are illegal, harmful and serve as a bad example to high school and college athletes. But Spygate is another matter. It's like stealing signs in baseball.

posted by Shotput at 11:50 AM on February 01

I don't have as much problem with Congressional oversight over sports as some members here. But Specter's timing is grandstanding of the highest order. You have to wonder how an avid NFL fan could crap on the league like this during Super Bowl week.

posted by rcade at 11:50 AM on February 01

You have to wonder how an avid NFL fan could crap on the league like this during Super Bowl week. I think he bet on the Pats and just wants to give them some more bulletin board material for the game. "Us against the world" becomes much more believable when the feds are after you.

posted by cjets at 11:56 AM on February 01

I agree rcade. It's kinda of like Scott Boras leaking that A-Rod is leaving the Yanks during the World Series.

posted by Shotput at 12:15 PM on February 01

In related news, Greg Easterbrook just nominated Specter for Chief Justice. It doesn't seem to me that antitrust legislation extends to every facet of an organization's business I know what you mean, but I don't think Congress claims that; I believe they're fairly forthright about the fact they're threatening to take away the exemption when they ask for hearings. It's not a legal claim, it's a cudgel.

posted by yerfatma at 12:20 PM on February 01

In reality, what harm has the NFL caused its fans by destroying the tapes? And, you don't think that all of the data that NE gave them wasn't already put onto a flash drive somewhere? We are foolish to believe that NE isn't still benefiting from the information they obtained. In other news approx 75 killed and 150 wounded in Baghdad today....enjoy our "bread and ciruses".

posted by Hannibal at 12:46 PM on February 01

Yeah, a few minutes worth of film on the Jets is really going to help the Patriots this weekend against the Giants.

posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 12:56 PM on February 01

The American people are entitled to be sure about the integrity of the game. It's analogous to the CIA destruction of tapes. Or any time you have records destroyed." Absolutely. It's just like the CIA destorying tapes, or the White House deleting emails. I applaud my Southern neighbours. You guys are the tits.

posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 01:07 PM on February 01

I know this is a little off topic, but I think it would be fun to hear who everybody thinks is going to win Sunday. In SB XX, my Bears won and were followed by the Giants winning the next year. Last year my Bears got Grossman'ed and we got our butt kicked. The Giants followed us again this year, so I wonder if history repeats itself in reverse. My guess is Pats over the Giants by 10, 31-21.

posted by Shotput at 01:08 PM on February 01

Good Good, more congress and sports. That definitely is more important than petty stuff like the war and economy. When will congress take a vote on removing their heads from their ass and start to care about things in this country that actually matter.

posted by Debo270 at 01:14 PM on February 01

Yeah, a few minutes worth of film on the Jets is really going to help the Patriots this weekend against the Giants. They NFL also took other tapes from the year before, and there have been accusations for a couple of years by various teams that this was going on, but they never caught them red handed.

posted by Hannibal at 01:16 PM on February 01

Congress knows they have no chance or ability to solve the real problems facing U.S. citizens these days, so they may as well spend their time sticking their noses into the NFL, which is so crucial to humanity. Their only reason for doing this is to get some attention paid to themselves. The steroid hearings were the only time Congressional hearings were actually paid attention to. Plus, they can meet some big stars, take some pictures, get some autographs for the kids. Maybe if Goodell takes New England's other first round pick in next years draft everyone will be satisfied.

posted by dyams at 01:22 PM on February 01

dyams, Yeah, that is pretty much the answer i was looking for. SAD BUT TRUE!!!!!

posted by Debo270 at 01:26 PM on February 01

Plus, they can meet some big stars, take some pictures, get some autographs for the kids. If Arlen Specter asks for Tom Brady's autograph, I hope Brady turns Vince Wilfork loose on him. "Let me introduce you to a friend of mine..."

posted by lil_brown_bat at 01:50 PM on February 01

When will congress take a vote on removing their heads from their ass It would never get that far. Some wizened old prune of a jackass (maybe Specter) would filibuster it, causing the heads to remain firmly implanted in the rectal area. Members of the house would draft a weak resolution, largely split along party lines, recommending a committee to investigate the possibility of a $6 billion dollar bill to relieve some of the pain of the anal areas affected by head insertion, but mostly it would be pork-laden, paying farmers in Kansas an additional $2 billion to not grow the corn that could be used to make lubricant. George W. would blame the stall on Iran, proceeding to bomb them back to the stone age (in Iran, about 17 years back.)

posted by tahoemoj at 01:56 PM on February 01

I hope Brady turns Vince Wilfork loose on him. Which no doubt would lead to a fine under NFL rules.

posted by YukonGold at 02:01 PM on February 01

We are foolish to believe that NE isn't still benefiting from the information they obtained. Actually, it's foolish to believe that they are. Even the most generous analysis in support of your argument is still far-fetched. So let's say that over the course of the past five years the Patriots taped and dissected the signals of every team in the league, based on their signals in the games they played against the Pats. This information would only remain useful going forward, assuming they have stopped taping but still retain secret copies of the material they turned over to the NFL, if none of the teams changed their signals or plays in future games and the signals could be deciphered based on past tape. What do you think the odds are of that? The fact is, as Commissioner Goodell clarified at a press conference today, six tapes were destroyed dating back to 2006, and a key motivation was that the Jets tape was leaked to the media. Anyone is welcome to believe any conspiracy theory they want to - conspiracy theories are a common symptom of a feeling of extreme powerlessness, and I can understand why the 2007 Patriots team would inspire that emotion in fans of other teams. As for the whole "how dare Congress waste its time on this" argument, this is a totally specious point that betrays a total lack of understanding about how the US government works. Believe it or not, a committee hearing can be held on relatively-less-important topics like steroids in baseball or the so-called "Spygate" without derailing or delaying the government's ability to address topics such as the war, the economy, and so forth. It isn't an either-or proposition. (If you want to get irritated about something Congress is doing, why don't you try the robbing-Peter-to-pay-Paul economic stimulus package that looks like little more than an attempt to prop up an economy damaged by heedless borrowing and spending with...more heedless borrowing and spending. If you have no idea what I'm talking about, I really don't want to hear your ill-informed complaints about the US government.)

posted by Venicemenace at 02:47 PM on February 01

posted by yerfatma at 02:51 PM on February 01

Anyone is welcome to believe any conspiracy theory they want to - conspiracy theories are a common symptom of a feeling of extreme powerlessness, and I can understand why the 2007 Patriots team would inspire that emotion in fans of other teams. Speaking of conspiracy theories: Arlen Specter was the junior counsel for the Warren Commission and is generally credited as the man who came up with the "single bullet" (or "Magic Bullet") theory explaining how Oswald was the only assassin. Not that I believe that that was a conspiracy either but that's a whole 'nother kettle of fish.

posted by cjets at 03:00 PM on February 01

I think the destruction of the tapes goes along with the NFL desire to keep total control of the magnificent PR machine that exists within itself. The spygate is just an unneeded opening of the can of worms that may expose each and every teams' self enhancing tactics, such as Indianapolis piping in artificial crowd noise to drown out the oppositions signal calling and who knows what the other franchises are doing for 'home field' advantage. The commissioner probably acted at the request of the owners to let sleeping dogs lie rather than expose any deep rooted realities that may in any way tarnish the NFL's sparkling image.

posted by jaygolf at 03:03 PM on February 01

Which no doubt would lead to a fine under NFL rules. Only if he wasn't wearing regulation NFL-approved socks when he did it.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 03:43 PM on February 01

How do you spell stupid, Sen. Arlen Specter. Don't understand why he's doing this. Grandstanding is the least of my complaints. Have Congress take some action on steriods for football and baseball and leave spygate alone. This is the dumbest thing I ever heard and a massive waste of time. Don't these guys have better things to do with their time.

posted by Nakeman at 03:55 PM on February 01

As long as the NFL profits from the anti-trust laws, they are required to abide by them - all of them. Not just the parts they like. It has made the NFL more profitable than other sports. As I have read, Sen. Specter made this request two months ago - in November. The commissioner just simply ignored him and I believe that is why he is throwing it out now - prior to the NFL State of the Union, Superbowl, etc... And, yes I think he is granstanding by doing so. But, if you are protecting the other teams from an unfair advantage - which is what this was, you have to follow the rules and turn over all of the records to the Congressional Committee. I believe that destroying the tapes just hurt the NFL more than if they would have turned them over. Roger Godell stood in front of cameras and told the nation that New England got caught cheating and they paid the maximum fine and lost a first round draft choice - unprecedented in the history of the league. Godell said that he had them destroyed so that the Patriots wouldn't have any advantage. How so? And, I agree with Hannibal that they are still on a flash drive somewhere in the Hoodie's office. If they truly confiscated all the tapes and files, how exactly could this help the Pats, or for that reason harm any other team. I just think that the Senator is correct in asking for the hearing. If you are going to benefit from the Anti-Trust exemption, you have to play by the rules. You can't have it both way. I believe the bias of the senator is certainly questionable, but why else would they destroy them before anyone else could see the evidence. If they had an advantage by the tapes (read article on ESPN about Ernie Adams?) then they violated the act regardless. The only thing I have a question with is the timing. I hate it that he is an Eagles fan and this comes up two days before what could be history (19-0), but laws are black and white. You either did or didn't violate it. My pick is the Pats by at least 14 pts by the way.

posted by Mickster at 04:14 PM on February 01

I agree with Hannibal that they are still on a flash drive somewhere in the Hoodie's office. Is "flash drive" aughts-speak for something untoward? Why the media specificity? "He put something in my drink and then he totally flash drived me."

posted by yerfatma at 04:18 PM on February 01

The only thing I have a question with is the timing The economy is going in the dumper and these guys are messing around with something that's already be addressed by the NFL. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there wasn't a congressional hearing on the the Pete Rose gambling affair. MLB made their decision and that was the end of the incident. NFL addressed the situation and that should be good enough for Sen. Specter. Name one federal law that was broken to warrant this investigation. NFL rule was broken, however no laws were broken as far as I concerned. Destruction of tapes is a illegal if it relates to a crime being broken, not some rule where punishment has already metered out.

posted by Nakeman at 04:57 PM on February 01

I would suggest that you do an internet search and look it up. I did so because I felt the same way at first. But, after I read it I see what the fuss is about. If you reap the benefits of this law, you must play by their rules. It is really quite simple. And yes, if they did receive an advantage - as admitted by Godell, then it falls into their jurisdiction.

posted by Mickster at 05:11 PM on February 01

As long as the NFL profits from the anti-trust laws, they are required to abide by them - all of them. So, bring me up to speed on this, because I'm not an antitrust lawyer: in what way does destroying videotapes establish a trust, or violate the provisions of the NFL anti-trust exemption?

posted by lil_brown_bat at 06:14 PM on February 01

From what I read, these laws are aimed at keeping one organization from gaining an advantage over another. In this case it would be one team over the others. It further states that you are not allowed to destroy evidence that would prove that a competitive advantage existed, or that improper conduct took place. Godell himself said by news conference as well as the maximum and unprecedented fines that the Patriots had gained a competitive advantage. In breaking news - as if you probably hadn't heard.... a former video assistant by the name of Matt Walsh has come forward and told an ESPN reporter that he has evidence from when he was with the team. He worked in that capacity from 1996-2003. He indicated that the evidence (films he has) would embarrass the NFL as well as the Patriots. One last thing. When Godell levied the fines and punishment, he said that if further evidence was revealed, he could add punishment. So, he claims he only had received 6 tapes. He also claimed he destroyed them all. But, if what this new source is claiming is true, he says it goes back much further than the 2006 season. This is information I just watched on ESPN, and you can go to their website and in the upper right hand corner is the article. You can listen to part of it on there.

posted by Mickster at 06:40 PM on February 01

I don't know anything about anti trust laws, but if I get a letter from a U.S. Senator I'm not going to let it gather dust for two months. Goodell is to blame for the timing and public nature of this hearing request.

posted by curlyelk at 07:20 PM on February 01

"The American people are entitled to be sure about the integrity of the game. It's analogous to the CIA destruction of tapes. Or any time you have records destroyed." The analogous to the CIA tapes thing really irks the shit out of me. Football = entertaining game where burly men in tight pants chase a ball, fall on top of each other and gyrate their asses in the end zone. CIA = Central Intelligence Agency of the US government responsible for gathering foreign intelligence, and providing the White House with information in regards to national security. Antitrust agreement or not, it's a game. Same goes for the steroids issue. A little fucking perspective please.

posted by jerseygirl at 07:51 PM on February 01

From what I read, these laws are aimed at keeping one organization from gaining an advantage over another. Not unless they've undergone a rather radical change lately. Antitrust laws are designed to prevent a business entity from forming a monopoly or creating some other kind of situation that allows them to control the supply and prices of some commodity. The objective was not to ensure fairness among business competitors, but to prevent a business from gaining sole control of a market and thus being in a position to sweat the consumer for whatever they wanted. They are, in essence, a form of consumer protection law. You can see why the NFL and MLB and so on would need to have an exemption to conduct business in their usual way, but it's a bit different than the traditional application, when a trust was gaining control of something more vital like oil or railroads. In any case, even if we were to grant that the Patriots' tapes gave them some kind of competitive advantage, I don't see how you can contort the definition of a "trust" to say that the NFL's destruction of tapes somehow contributed to their establishment of a football monopoly. They had no more and no less of a monopoly the day after the tapes were destroyed than they did the day before.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 07:59 PM on February 01

I have a short, stern message for Congress: Get your ugly butts out of sports NOW! Barry Bonds, Rafael Palmeiro, Miguel Tejada, Chuck Knoblauch, Roger Clemens, ... who's next? Will it ever end? What a pathetic waste of time by Congress, when they have far more important things to discuss. The government should not be trying to legislate morality in sports. Enough already!

posted by TerpFan at 09:09 PM on February 01

a former video assistant by the name of Matt Walsh has come forward and told an ESPN reporter that he has evidence from when he was with the team. Actually, that is an exaggeration. Here's a quote from that ESPN story: Despite suggestions that he could be a player in expanding the Spygate probe, Walsh repeatedly has refused to provide ESPN.com with any evidence of wrongdoing by the Patriots. He also has refused to confirm that he has tapes in his possession...He refused to provide evidence of potential wrongdoing unless ESPN agreed to pay his legal fees related to his involvement in the story, as well as an indemnification agreement that would cover any damages found against him in court. ESPN denied his requests. And while I won't say anything right now, for fear my family in New England might be harmed as a result of what I might or might not know, if you leave $10,000,000 in unmarked bills in a briefcase by the statue of Kevin White outside Faneuil Hall at precisely midnight, I will tell you what I won't admit to knowing. Helluva whistleblower you got there, Easterbrook.

posted by Venicemenace at 10:37 PM on February 01

So, bring me up to speed on this, because I'm not an antitrust lawyer: in what way does destroying videotapes establish a trust, or violate the provisions of the NFL anti-trust exemption? So, when I give the 5-cent version of a subparagraph to explain the part you asked about, you become an Anti-Trust Attorney??? You obviously know more than you let on, so read the subparts for yourself. It will explain how this applies and yes, sports does matter. When the Sherman Anti-Trust Act was passed, granted it was for monopolies like telephone and cable corporations. But, the NFL (a multi-billion dollar industry) asked for and was granted this status. Therefore, they are subject to all parts of the law, not just the ones we wish to play with. I know you are a smart person as I have read your previous threads. But, this is about the legal system and destroying the evidence is a violation of that law - period. And as for the comment by Venicemenace, you did the same thing, pull a tiny excerpt out of a four-six page story. And you say mine was an exaggeration. The guy is obviously worried about many issues: family in New England, 401K, Legalities of being sued just to name a few. He gave a good analogy about nothing to gain, but everything to loose. Would you want immunity and legal expenses to cover you and an 8-month old baby and your wife? Read or post the entire article, not the parts that can make you sound as though you are certain this is a money motive. It's obvious this thread is going nowhere fast. You can say politics has no place in sports, but I don't want my kids taking steroids. MLB didn't clean it up, so Congress had no choice. Too many kids die each year. Should we leave it to the billionaires to do the right thing? Wait until you have kids playing sports and they start to ask you the questions. As for Matt Walsh, I really couldn't give a rat's about him. I am certain he will get a subpoena now. Only time will tell how this whole thing ends. But, I doubt you will hear the end of it soon. I am out of here...... good luck

posted by Mickster at 11:41 PM on February 01

but I don't want my kids taking steroids. MLB didn't clean it up, so Congress had no choice. I'm pretty sure that MLB has absolutely NOTHING to do with your kids taking steroids. They don't tell them to use them, they don't sell them to your kids and they don't finance anyone else's business that tells them or sells them, either. Should we leave it to the billionaires to do the right thing? Wait until you have kids playing sports and they start to ask you the questions. Why do the "billionaires" have to do something? Why can parents do something? The easiest thing to do when kids start asking questions is to be informed and to answer them. Why is this so hard for you to understand? It's like watching people freak out about video games and children, or the internet and children, or television and children. Why can't people just take responsibility for raising their own children without crying for government help?

posted by grum@work at 09:09 AM on February 02

You seem to misunderstand the comments I wrote. I DID take action with my kids, and I have kept my sons informed and off steroids. But, being into sports puts them in discussions with other athletes that are cheating. Then they bring home questions like, "Do they really cause your testicles to look like raisins?", or "I was told you can do them for 6 months and quit and you won't have any problems". I have to refute those ideas and explain that it isn't the truth. So, I take full responsibility for my actions with my kids. But, to say this problem doesn't exist in society is pure denial. It would be nice if parents did a better job of policing their children and the use of drugs, but it isn't reality. My point is this. It has been a problem for years and MLB trainers (according to the Mitchell Report) would even warn players that were about to be tested. I am saying that if you leave it to the owners to police themselves, they want homeruns and no-hitters. It sells tickets. It would be nice if parents did control this, but like anything (alcohol or cigarettes as an example), you tell them not to and they do it behind your back. Peer pressure is much more powerful than adult pressures at the age of experimentation. I'm not into the subliminal messages or blaming violence on TV for childhood aggression. But, for the sake of the topic at hand - MLB proves they didn't do anything about it. You have a novel idea, but it doesn't work. I have been at schools and had to call a parent because their kid had drugs on them. When the parents come to the school and smell of pot - what do you do? You have given too much credit for the parents of today to think they are doing the right things.

posted by Mickster at 09:51 AM on February 02

So, when I give the 5-cent version of a subparagraph to explain the part you asked about, you become an Anti-Trust Attorney??? You obviously know more than you let on, so read the subparts for yourself. It will explain how this applies and yes, sports does matter. When the Sherman Anti-Trust Act was passed, granted it was for monopolies like telephone and cable corporations. But, the NFL (a multi-billion dollar industry) asked for and was granted this status. Therefore, they are subject to all parts of the law, not just the ones we wish to play with. I know you are a smart person as I have read your previous threads. But, this is about the legal system and destroying the evidence is a violation of that law - period. Mickster -- the antitrust exemption applies to professional sports in that the ability to keep out competitors (by limiting the number of teams), the ability of the league to negotiate TV rights on a league-wide basis, and certain other "collusive" actions are exempted from antitrust laws that would otherwise prohibit them. The antitrust law here would not apply specifically to the destruction of the videotapes, as there is no provision of the antitrust law that specifically covers competition within an approved monopoly. As yerfatma said above, the antitrust law here applies in the sense that this is a club for Congress to use against professional sports leagues when the Congress wants to make a point. You can say politics has no place in sports, but I don't want my kids taking steroids. MLB didn't clean it up, so Congress had no choice. Too many kids die each year. Should we leave it to the billionaires to do the right thing? Wait until you have kids playing sports and they start to ask you the questions. This argument would make more sense if there was really some sort of steroid epidemic or if steroid use had not been decreasing before Congress got involved in trying to regulate MLB's PED policies. But studies suggest otherwise. (It's particularly interesting to me that Sweden, which doesn't have the scourge of roided up MLB players corrupting America's youth, has a very similar rate of PED use among adolescents as the U.S.) The "for the children" argument is attractive for selling papers and grandstanding on TV, but it just doesn't seem to hold water when you consider the facts. If anything, any "steroid epidemic" in American youth should be examined in the context of the primacy of sports in American culture, the "professionalization" of youth sports, and the competitive and other pressures placed on adolescents by parents, coaches and others in contemporary American sporting culture.

posted by holden at 10:18 AM on February 02

Yeah, lbb wasn't being disingenuous, your explanation is just off-base. Anti-trust applies to monopolies in an industry, e.g., no other football leagues, not the individual members of the monopoly.

posted by yerfatma at 10:26 AM on February 02

It is clear that none of those who have posted here are experts on anti-trust law as it applies to sports. Maybe there is an anti-trust lawyer reading this that can clear it up for the laymen? It seems to me a Senior Member of the Judiciary Committee would know if it was a possible violation of the anti-trust law or not.

posted by Familyman at 04:34 PM on February 02

I don't know whether the new information is true or not, or if the congressional hearing are warranted or not, but I've got to question the timing of this whole event. Why come out the Friday before the Superbowl unless you intention is to effect the outcome of the game?

posted by Joey Michaels at 07:12 AM on February 03

I don't think it is intended to effect the outcome of the game nor do I think it will. I believe the timing is to get the attention of the commissioner.

posted by Familyman at 07:19 AM on February 03

I think that they would get the attention of the commissioner regardless of whether or not they announced their intentions right before the Super Bowl. The timing of this is completely unneccesary.

posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 08:39 AM on February 03

Seriously. This announcement would have just as much - in fact, even more - impact after the Superbowl. Announcing it before the game is just bizarre.

posted by Joey Michaels at 09:18 AM on February 03

It seems to me a Senior Member of the Judiciary Committee would know if it was a possible violation of the anti-trust law or not. The league has an anti-trust exemption, which means it isn't subjected to anti-trust laws. But the issue here has nothing to do with that. Specter's using the exemption as justification for Congressional oversight.

posted by rcade at 10:23 AM on February 03

The Honorable Mr. Specter seems to be upset that his name has not been in the news for several months now. His colleagues in the Senate, Clinton, Edwards, McCain, Obama, and Thompson, as well as a few stray Governors, have hogged all of the headlines. What a shame, Senator Specter. I guess you had to come up with some tenuous connection between video tapes and anti-trust law to see if somehow you could rewrite the ending of Super Bowl XXXIX. Please stop wasting valuable Senate time and resources (read "my tax money") and concentrate on pending legislation. In short, get a life!

posted by Howard_T at 01:38 PM on February 03

Conspiracy Theory: Who stands to benefit from this? Well, FOX does. There is a writer's strike going on. They have limited new programing. The ratings were already looking to be high, but by making this an event of national importance, Specter assured higher rating for FOX sports reports and for the event itself. FOX and their sponsors make a bunch of money at a time when they especially need it. A senator that they've been friendly to gets an assurance of more support from them in the future. Break out the tin foil hat!

posted by Joey Michaels at 05:28 PM on February 03

The whole reason Specter is involved is because of his on going fight with Comcast Cable. IF any of you really did any research, you would know where this whole thing started.

posted by Debo270 at 09:44 AM on February 04

You're not logged in. Please log in or register.