FanDuel - WFBC

February 14, 2008

Where did you get the word "cheating", Clevelander32? It doesn't appear in that article.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 03:46 PM on February 14

I think the implication is pretty obvious. Standing on ceremony isn't going to make the Pats hate go away. I'd just let this thread be.

posted by yerfatma at 03:55 PM on February 14

cheating: to deprive of something valuable by the use of deceit or fraud 2: to influence or lead by deceit, trick, or artifice. Does the article have to say cheating for your confirmation llb? What would your word be to assess Belichick behavior? Misguided, not informed .......

posted by Nakeman at 03:56 PM on February 14

As of this writing, the sports media isn't making too huge a deal about this, though that might be because their scandal telescopes are focused on The Rocket. That said, if this does turn out to be true, I no longer know whether I should be pissed off or whether I should be disappointed or whether I should shrug and say meh. The fact that the commissioner has not taken a more serious, public stance on this suggests to me that the NFL doesn't consider it to be that big a deal. Or that they're trying to bury it. Or that Specter is talking out of his ass. Long story short, if its cheating, it should be punished, period. Claiming "I didn't know" doesn't remove the unfair advantage. The NFL saying "water under the bridge" also doesn't remove the unfair advantage. I say this as a big Patriots fan. I'm not going to make "everyone else does it" excuses because, frankly, that doesn't matter. Against the rules is against the rules. If everyone else is doing it, everyone else should be punished, too. But I haven't seen any proof that everyone else is doing it.

posted by Joey Michaels at 03:57 PM on February 14

Agreed. While applicable here, it shouldn't be in quotations if it doesn't appear in the piece.

posted by wfrazerjr at 04:09 PM on February 14

Agreed. While applicable here, it shouldn't be in quotations if it doesn't appear in the piece. Fixed.

posted by justgary at 04:38 PM on February 14

I think a long walk on a short pier might be appropriate here....or fifty lashes with a wet noodle

posted by shudacudawuda at 05:34 PM on February 14

I'm still uncomfortable with Congress getting involved with professional sports. The doofus brigage at the Clemens hearing was an absolute debacle and I can see this shaping up the same way.

posted by curlyelk at 05:50 PM on February 14

I'm not going to make "everyone else does it" excuses because, frankly, that doesn't matter. That's the crux of the issue, in my opinion. If Belichick was doing something everybody else was doing, then let's see some proof of that. So far, though, Belichick's the only one accused of regularly videotaping defensive signals. This makes him look like a cheater. Commissioner Goodell isn't doing him or the NFL any favors by keeping so much under wraps. Put everything on the table -- Belichick and anyone else who might have done it -- and let people see the full context.

posted by rcade at 05:50 PM on February 14

Where did you get the word "cheating", Clevelander32? It doesn't appear in that article. The word cheating does not appear in the article. However, the words ''illegally taping'' do. (Words 5 & 6 of the article.) If I'm illegally taping something, I'm probably doing something wrong. If I'm doing something wrong, it probably means I'm cheating, doesn't it?

posted by tommytrump at 06:27 PM on February 14

Well, that sucks.

posted by blarp at 06:50 PM on February 14

That it's cheating is a given.

posted by aerotive at 07:32 PM on February 14

Am I loosing my mind or why isn't this a much bigger deal??? The "Hoodie" admits to doing this improper filming since he took over for the Pats in 2000. He turns an average franchise into a dynasty and nobody thinks there is anything wrong with this? The other thing I am really confused with is the fact that they wanted to talk to the video assistant and then it went to giving him immunity "if he turns over any materials he has to the NFL for protection". I would rather it be turned over to the Judiciary Committee. I believe there is a lot more to the whole thing than Goodell wishes us to think and he knows it could blow the lid off of Spygate. I believe that New England is a proud franchise and I like the owner and fans. But, this is about much bigger issues. It is about the game and the desire of one man to circumvent the rules. If Bill Belichick has been doing this since 2000, he would have "Knowingly" cheated the entire time he was there. The rule is laid out quite simply and he is a very intelligent man. HE knows that what he did was wrong. The audacity of mortals to question him.

posted by Mickster at 07:43 PM on February 14

It is amazing in todays world how so few individuals can ruin so many fans love of sports. Belichick and Clemens are perfect examples

posted by brownindian at 07:53 PM on February 14

So far, though, Belichick's the only one accused of regularly videotaping defensive signals. This makes him look like a cheater. Or a goat.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 08:14 PM on February 14

The "Hoodie" admits to doing this improper filming since he took over for the Pats in 2000. He turns an average franchise into a dynasty and nobody thinks there is anything wrong with this? If I believed that this was giving him a HUGE advantage, I'd be more concerned. However, it still takes talented players for a team to win, regardless of any slight advantage that might be gained through any form of subterfuge. As well, this assumes that none of the other teams were doing the same thing. You know, this sort of rings a bell with some other recent major sports "scandal". Hmm... I just can't seem to put my finger on it.

posted by grum@work at 08:34 PM on February 14

All the teams do it, the Pats just got caught..........Get over it

posted by Bxboy at 08:57 PM on February 14

The fact that the commissioner has not taken a more serious, public stance on this suggests to me that the NFL doesn't consider it to be that big a deal. Or that they're trying to bury it. The fact that he DESTROYED the tapes tells me it's the latter. The other thing I am really confused with is the fact that they wanted to talk to the video assistant and then it went to giving him immunity "if he turns over any materials he has to the NFL for protection". I would rather it be turned over to the Judiciary Committee Amen to that. Because the second he hands over anything to the NFL it will end up in a burning trash can with a prompt response "we saw all we needed to see". As well, this assumes that none of the other teams were doing the same thing. You know, this sort of rings a bell with some other recent major sports "scandal". Hmm... I just can't seem to put my finger on it. Except in that "other sports scandal" it wasn't against the rules for the supposed infringer's at the time they were doing it. In this one it certainly was. To me the bigger issue was video taping of the walkthru prior to the Rams SB. Man, if that info comes out as proven, it really hits the fan at that point. On the Saturday before the game, the Rams walk through all their formations and their first 15 plays of the game. They also practice all their goaline plays. The following day the Rams, who couldn't be contained all year long, suddenly struggle all first half, and struggle in redzone opportunities all game, and lose by 3. To me, that is HUGE. Again, if proven, that plainly shows a SB win by cheating and could never be undone in my mind. Think the Rams might have scored 3 more points if the opposing team wouldn't have known the first 15 plays they were running? Or what plays they would run out there on 3rd and Goal? I read somewhere that if more info is actually presented, Bill could be suspended for a year due to the visibility of this and the questions of a double standard by Goodall between players/coaches. Can you imagine the 08 Pats, a year after the SB, being run by a different coach?

posted by bdaddy at 09:25 PM on February 14

All the teams do it, the Pats just got caught..........Get over it Really? I am in my forties and I have never heard of this stuff from the NFL about illegal video taping until this year. Please educate me with facts supporting your assertion that "All teams do it".

posted by danjel at 09:42 PM on February 14

Given the recent work of these Congressional committees, I think this comic sums it up nicely.

posted by grum@work at 09:49 PM on February 14

To me the bigger issue was video taping of the walkthru prior to the Rams SB. Geez, if this is true I'm going to be one pissed off SOB. I lost 500 hundred dollars on that game.

posted by Nakeman at 10:12 PM on February 14

To me the bigger issue was video taping of the walkthru prior to the Rams SB. Only person to gain from this conversation. Mike Martz.

posted by BoKnows at 10:18 PM on February 14

If the fine was 100,000.00 and a first rounder for getting caught once, what's the fine now? Due to the size of the fine for 1 infraction, how do they punish this? I think the 04/05 Superbowl is a pretty good example of what kind of advantage could have been gained. They score 7 points in the 1st half, they go in for halftime, discuss the taped signals and defenses, then they come out and score on their 1st drive of the 2nd half and go on to score a total of 17 points in the 2nd half. Could Specter have a point here?

posted by sportsblitz at 10:22 PM on February 14

I wanna know how a Belichick can tape other teams offensive, defensive plays; not know it's illegal and still be called a genius. Genius, my ass. That prick owes me 500 bucks.

posted by Nakeman at 10:27 PM on February 14

I wonder if we're missing the underlying current here? When the 1st spygate came out, there was mention of a memo sent out by the league that said spying on other teams' signals was bad (duh)... Now, with spygate sequels (prequels?) threatening to come out in such numbers that they would rival the Friday the 13th franchise, we get THIS gem from Goodell: "He said that's always been his interpretation since he's been the head coach," the commissioner said. "We are going to agree to disagree on the facts." WHAT THE F**K IS GOING ON HERE??? If I send a memo saying don't do X to my employees, and one does it anyway and says, "Sorry boss, I just don't see it that way..." the absolute LAST thing you'd hear from me is, "Well... We're just going to agree to disagree..." And this is coming from the self-described tough guy sheriff- the wannabe Joe Arpaio of the NFL??? Does this wizard think that Belichick's behavior is less damaging to the NFL image than Michael Vick or Pacman Jones?

posted by don-peyote at 12:32 AM on February 15

So far, though, Belichick's the only one accused of regularly videotaping defensive signals. This makes him look like a cheater. Or a goat. Or someone who misheard or misunderstood what the rules were. There seems to be a lot of that going around these days. Especially involving people who have been involved in professional sports franchises from the New England region of the United States of America. Do you think it could be something in the water?

posted by tommytrump at 02:15 AM on February 15

*

posted by GoBirds at 04:33 AM on February 15

"The fact that the commissioner has not taken a more serious, public stance on this suggests to me that the NFL doesn't consider it to be that big a deal. Or that they're trying to bury it. Or that Specter is talking out of his ass." Specter has been talking out of his ass for years.

posted by GoBirds at 04:40 AM on February 15

Hey, don't blame Clemens on us. He and the Sox were through long before he started pumpin' the roids into his bum.

posted by Joey Michaels at 05:13 AM on February 15

From the NFL's point of view: put out an entertaining product and make millions of dollars, or try to maintain the integrity of the game...I wonder which way they are leaning?

posted by whitedog65 at 05:40 AM on February 15

Specter has been talking out of his ass for years. And let's not forget who his #1 campaign contributor is, either. Hey, don't blame Clemens on us. He and the Sox were through long before he started pumpin' the roids into his bum. No kidding. If he'd been doing it back then, Duquette would have never come up with that "Twilight of his career" stuff.

posted by yerfatma at 06:03 AM on February 15

Im not trying to defend bellicheck here, but why is nobody outraged that senator spector is wasting taxpayer dollars investigating the nfl, for something congress didnt care about until he learned that his beloved eagles might have been affected?

posted by elijahin24 at 06:03 AM on February 15

That's effected. And he uses capital letters. Or should I say "Capitol"?

posted by GoBirds at 06:07 AM on February 15

Especially involving people who have been involved in professional sports franchises from the New England region of the United States of America. Do you think it could be something in the water? Geographic fun fact for ya, tommy -- despite their name, the Yankees are not in fact located in New England.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 07:45 AM on February 15

Im not trying to defend bellicheck here, but why is nobody outraged that senator spector is wasting taxpayer dollars investigating the nfl, for something congress didnt care about until he learned that his beloved eagles might have been affected? Comment icon posted by elijahin24 at 6:03 AM CST on February 15 That's effected. And he uses capital letters. Or should I say "Capitol"? Oh, kill me now.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 07:45 AM on February 15

Let's not stray from the issue here. This is about Bill Belichick "confessing" that he has been doing this since he took over in 2000. The rule is very simple, do not videotape opposing teams signals. He claims he didn't understand the ruling, that's poo-poo. It's an insult to our intelligence. I am sure that I can read the rule and make a good interpretation from it. As for the Senator getting involved. I say good for him. I could care less if he were an Eagles fan or not. If this did occur, and I was an Eagles fan, a Ram's fan or whatever, I would be very pissed. I can only imagine the questions as I watched them shut down the "greatest show on turf". The seemed to be especially good at the beginning of game as well as in the red zone. I am really disturbed by this. I am glad that it is being looked at. I don't think the NFL has given a sufficient answer as to why they would destroy such evidence without having experts or other coaches look at the tapes to see how they could have benefited. I think to destroy them after he already dished out the punishment of nearly 1 million dollars between the coach and owner, plus a first rounder was indicative of the seriousness. Now you see Goodell laughing and looking like a real arrogant ass when discussing it - uh, I was afraid that other teams might be able to use this or I was afraid it would help other teams..... Bullshit. That is a copout. I believe that after he gave the fines, he then recieved the tapes and notes two weeks later. He then destroyed them in 2 days time after getting the tapes. It shows of cover-up. And to say he wanted to talk to Matt Walsh, to "if he has anything that belongs to the league that he took, all he has to do is to turn the tapes over to the league"..... yeah right. They will take less than two days to destroy this time. I think that Goodell is trying to protect the league and that is all. I am all for Spector getting involved. I believe that someone needs to in this case. All Goodell can say is "I am sure it had no affect on the outcome of the game with Philadelphia" as if he were poking fun at the Senator. If I were the Senator, I would be talking to the "video assistant" really fast.

posted by Mickster at 08:06 AM on February 15

If I believed that this was giving him a HUGE advantage, I'd be more concerned. However, it still takes talented players for a team to win, regardless of any slight advantage that might be gained through any form of subterfuge. The Patriots won 3 Super Bowls by 3 points. A slight advantage could be the difference between a dynasty and a team that can't ever win it all.

posted by bender at 08:22 AM on February 15

Did anyone think the Patriots just started taping this year? It was only a matter of time before the obvious came out.

posted by dbt302 at 08:28 AM on February 15

I keep hearing that everybody does it, but where's the evidence? I have yet to read a single allegation about another coach in the league taping defensive signals. If Belichick were found to have taped the Rams walkthrough, I wonder how that would play with Vegas, since the Patriots won as heavy underdogs in that Super Bowl. Do sportsbooks have any leverage to pressure the NFL to get its house in order?

posted by rcade at 08:47 AM on February 15

I keep hearing that everybody does it, but where's the evidence? No idea, but that's kind of an unfair standard to hold other commenters to. It's not as though we're going to be able to produce anything. And it's not like the NFL is going to be quick to produce tapes showing similar league-wide activity. It's no conversation for logicians, surely, but there has to be a reason everyone covers their mouths with the playsheets, right? As for Vegas, major pro sports leagues make a big effort to pretend they don't exist. How would a sportsbook have any pressure on anything outside Vegas? Besides, it's not as though they lose money because of one side cheating; the line's set to make betting even, not based solely on who Vegas thinks will win.

posted by yerfatma at 09:00 AM on February 15

If the taping was giving the Pats such an advantage, where was that advantage the second half of Super Bowl XLII? I have never seen the Pats D play like that. You can take this for what is it is worth coming from SI but this shows that coaches have always been trying to get an advantage. (it is somewhat slanted against the Pats tho) I believe the NFL is keeping a low profile about this because if all the "tricks", for the lack of a better word, that teams possibly use would come out, it would really tear up the NFL in the eyes of the fans. And fans = $$$$.

posted by steelergirl at 09:10 AM on February 15

I believe the NFL is keeping a low profile about this because if all the "tricks", for the lack of a better word, that teams possibly use would come out, it would really tear up the NFL in the eyes of the fans. And fans = $$$$. That's what I'd like to know: what are the possible reasons for a Goodell coverup? I don't really buy the "he wanted an undefeated season because it would boost NFL revenues" argument -- the tapes were destroyed long before a possible undefeated season was more than a glimmer in the most optimistic eye. So, if coverup it was...why? Why would the NFL not want to land on Belichick in the way that certain parties clearly want them to?

posted by lil_brown_bat at 09:29 AM on February 15

So, if coverup it was...why? Because SportsFilter should only be subjected to one major sports controversy at a time. Goodell was thinking of Selig. Thats all.

posted by BoKnows at 09:52 AM on February 15

I don't know what the NFL is doing here, but I don't see how they are helping the Pats by dragging this out. It all sounds very shady. The stigma of a cover-up is much worse than allegations of taping. It damages the integrity of the game much more than one team trying to get an advantage. Specter said he was concerned to learn from Walsh's attorney that an NFL security representative, Dick Farley, had been investigating Walsh. Specter said: "I confronted them on that, and Goodell says, 'Yeah, he [Farley] works for us. Yeah, he is a security guy, but we didn't know he was investigating him.' "

posted by bperk at 10:05 AM on February 15

I bet Specter's bookie knows the real reason he's going after the Pats. This isn't like game-throwing or ref-bribing. It's about the integrity of a coach, not the integrity of the game. It doesn't require a big conspiracy to steal signs. Sure, it's affected the outcome of the Pats' games over the last several years, and in that time they've been dominant winners. Call it "performance enhancing information." If there's only evidence of one coach using it, then it's a problem with his team, not the integrity of the sport as a whole. But a heap of money gets bet on NFL games, and a heap of money's been lost over the years on games the Pats cheated in. Sure, the NFL pretends that isn't the case, but "12-point underdogs" means betting. Is Congress afraid Vegas (and non-Vegas, local bookies) will take the matter into their own hands? I mean, that's a very powerful, very entrenched system for Bill Belicheck to be fucking with. Maybe when Congress steps in, the investigation acquires a necessary veneer of respectability. Maybe the [organizations in charge of most non-Vegas and some Vegas bookmaking] thought they'd investigate, themselves. There's a lot of money at stake. That's a lotta hypotheticals! Maybe Specter just wants his name in the paper. Congress wastes time with sports every now and then. I think it's almost always about betting; the game must be preserved because people make a lot of money off of people losing a lot of money on it, and if they don't trust the game to be fair, they might not keep betting. But it's just a team stealing signs. It's not like refs are taking bribes; I have trouble watching Italian soccer anymore because I reasonably suspect the match is fixed. I'll watch the NFL next year, and as usual, I'll root for a team so hapless you know they ain't cheating: the Washington Redskins.

posted by Hugh Janus at 10:40 AM on February 15

No idea, but that's kind of an unfair standard to hold other commenters to. It's not as though we're going to be able to produce anything. All I'm asking is for somebody to produce links. I haven't read any stories in the media about other coaches videotaping signals. Absent that, it seems fair to conclude that Belichick was doing something unusual.

posted by rcade at 10:59 AM on February 15

Especially involving people who have been involved in professional sports franchises from the New England region of the United States of America. Geographic fun fact for ya, tommy -- despite their name, the Yankees are not in fact located in New England. Where did you get that I stated that the New York Yankees are located in New England, lil_brown_bat? It doesn't appear in that statement.

posted by tommytrump at 11:01 AM on February 15

That's what I'd like to know: what are the possible reasons for a Goodell coverup? I don't really buy the "he wanted an undefeated season because it would boost NFL revenues" argument -- the tapes were destroyed long before a possible undefeated season was more than a glimmer in the most optimistic eye. So, if coverup it was...why? Why would the NFL not want to land on Belichick in the way that certain parties clearly want them to? Why would Goodell coverup? Maybe because taping is done by other teams, and it was the Pats that got caught? Maybe trying to steal signs/get info any way possible is more prevelant that he would care to admit? Maybe some coaches who are thought highly of would turn out to have clay feet? Tony Dungy, for example. I don't think the Pats have to worry about revenue. Yes, the tapes were destroyed long before a perfect season was considered. But who are the certain parties that want the NFL to land on Belichick? Specter? Quite frankly, I think politics should stay out of the NFL, but then you have that monopoly/antitrust thing, which I admit is way over my head. Or maybe, just maybe, upon reviewing the confiscated tapes, Goodell came to this conclusion. The taping(s) since 2000 have given the Pats such an advantage that their SB wins and some regular season wins could be called into question and considered for revocation? I don't think that would happen, and the Pats have enough talent to win, and Bill is a decent coach, tapes or not. I wish this would just go away. They got fined, lost a first round draft pick, and lost the most important game of the season. That punishment suits me. Also lbb, I might not be expressing myself to the best of my ability. I have been having some health probs. Or maybe Goodell is trying to salvage the integrity of the game?

posted by steelergirl at 11:02 AM on February 15

Oh, kill me now. I'm gonna leave it alone, lbb.

posted by elijahin24 at 11:38 AM on February 15

Where did you get that I stated that the New York Yankees are located in New England, lil_brown_bat? It doesn't appear in that statement. So, exactly what "people who have been involved in professional sports franchises from the New England region of the United States of America" were you talking about?

posted by lil_brown_bat at 11:39 AM on February 15

Also lbb, I might not be expressing myself to the best of my ability. I have been having some health probs. Um....what issue, exactly, are you taking with what I wrote? It wasn't some kind of criticism of you.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 11:40 AM on February 15

So, exactly what "people who have been involved in professional sports franchises from the New England region of the United States of America" were you talking about? Bill Belichick and Roger Clemens. Bill Belichick is the head coach of the New England Patriots right? i'm pretty sure I've got that one right. The New England Patriots do play in New England, right? I might be confused though. I always had thought that Roger Clemens had played a few games early in his career for the Boston Red Sox. Maybe I misremebered that. Boston is in the New England region of the United States of America isn't it? I'm sure that is what my grade 5 social studies teacher told us. Maybe I misheard her. Please feel free to continue to expand my geographical knowledge at your convinience. I'm always ready to learn new things.

posted by tommytrump at 12:04 PM on February 15

I thing this is the highest form of cheating. The integrity and security of having a closed practice or pre game run through is crutial. When I think back to the SB with the Pats and Rams I realize how much of an effect knowing the information had on the game, it sickens me. I agree this diminishes the accomplishments of the Pats significantly. Think of all the close games that they won with an unfair advantage. Without those wins we may just have a good team not a dynasty. How many times were teams like the Colts beaten in a crutial playoff game by just a few points. All the difference in the world in my opinion. Even more reason to hate the Pats and savor their SB loss this year. I guess they couldn't cheat with all the scrutiny on them. It was probably the difference between their usual victory and this years defeat by a relatively average team.

posted by Atheist at 12:06 PM on February 15

The years Clemens were alleged to have used, he was 2 years removed from Boston. I'm sorry, I really don't see the correlation, Tommy.

posted by jerseygirl at 12:42 PM on February 15

I'm sorry, I really don't see the correlation, Tommy. No, but you did know what he meant, right? It seemed pretty obvious. Think of all the close games that they won with an unfair advantage. And then the 17 in a row they ran off after that. Weird.

posted by yerfatma at 01:11 PM on February 15

Think of all the close games that they won with an unfair advantage. I don't know at this point whether or not those tapes ever even gave the Pats an advantage. That is the problem with Goodell's actions. We are left assuming that they must have given an unfair advantage, which is unfortunate. I wish Goodell had been a little bit more process-oriented in his deliberation. Everyone criticized Tagliabue for waiting until all the facts were in before punishing (and normally not punishing) players for accusations. Goodell has trended very differently, and you can see now why that is not a good idea in every case. Instead of rushing to make a decision, he could have had a more thorough investigation that ended this forever instead of letting it be dragged out again in the week leading up to the Super Bowl and now with congressional inquiries.

posted by bperk at 01:24 PM on February 15

Let's face the fact that we DO know, which is that one coach (not the entire NFL) admitted that he was doing this illegal taping since he became coach in 2000. I believe this is all about him, not the Patriots. The team is full of talent and team players. I like the players and the way they band together. But, this isn't about them, it is about their coach. Now, in the SB victories over the Rams, Panthers, and Eagles, they were all very close games. In fact, one might argue that any of those could have gone to either team. But, any advantage no matter how small we might consider it, it still an advantage in an otherwise equal playing field. Any advantage could give you the necessary 3 pts. you would need to sneak out a victory. If anyone could give me a really good and rational explanation of "WHY" the tapes were destroyed, I might be a bit more able to let this go. There is no valid explanation I could have thought of. I know they say they reserve the right to go back and revisit this issue, but why would they destroy the evidence that Belichick admitted to? He confessed he did it. You would keep the proof and lock it up - not throw it away. Goodell cannot really explain other than to say "yep, he cheated so let's burn those tapes so they can't be used to help another team"?

posted by Mickster at 01:26 PM on February 15

My impression of the major characters in our little drama, and perhaps their motivation so far: Arlen Spector: Playing to the grandstands in an effort to get some notice. With the presidential primaries in full swing and the Mitchell Report in the news, with the Super Bowl about to be played, he saw an opportunity to gain major headlines. His rationale for believing that the Patriots taped the Rams in 2001 is that an underdog beat a heavily favored team. Did he watch the same game I did on February 3 of this year? By his reasoning, the NY Giants should be under a cloud of suspicion of how they cheated. We're all pretty sure that didn't happen. He should look long and hard at the Bozo act during the Waxman hearings of this week. Roger Goodell: If there's one thing this guy ain't, that's stupid. He came down pretty hard on The Hood, but some think not hard enough. He knows that you could probably infer everything from unfair competitive advantage to child porn from the tapes and notes. He also knows that if he lets it happen, every team in the league will be under suspicion. Thus, he has the tapes and notes destroyed, sending the message to anyone else with such things lying around that the same thing ought to be done with any similar evidence. Bill Belichick: There's an edge to be had here. The thing is that the league has said it's illegal. I'll do it, and invoke the old "plausible deniability" play. I'll just say that I thought I could tape things as long as I didn't use them in the game I was taping. this play was stopped for a 5-yard loss, and was flagged for illegal procedure to boot. Matt Walsh: There's a book deal in this somewhere. If I can keep the wolves away long enough, I can come up with a way to quit booking tee times and selling Titleists for the rest of my life. I have a confidentiality agreement with the Patriots. Maybe I can say they're going to come after me, and I can work a stall in the guise of an indemnification agreement. Then I can get my book deal before they find out I really don't have a lot more to add to all this. What people don't understand is that if the league really wanted me to talk, they'd tell Bob Kraft to lay off me or suffer some severe consequences. If the Senate subpoenas me, a confidentiality agreement is out the window, because as long as I don't hang myself, I'm compelled to testify by force of law.

posted by Howard_T at 02:03 PM on February 15

That's what I'd like to know: what are the possible reasons for a Goodell coverup? Is it really that hard to guess? Instead of a bunch of people saying "It was only 1 half of the very first game of the year!" (which is an argument I've heard believe it or not) you could be looking at YEARS of games where outcomes were affected by this, including 3 SUPER BOWLS! Three freakin' superbowls which could have been won as a direct result of cheating. That is a HUGE black eye for the sport, right up there with the Sox scandal, like it or not. The integrity of the game would be in question. The modern-day dynasty (the Steelers of the 70s, the 49ers of the eighties, the Cowboys of the 90s, and the Pats of the NOW) may very well owe 3 of it's championships that qualify them as that dynasty to cheating. As someone mentioned earlier...if they lost 1 or 2 of those..would we be looking at them more like the Bills? So no way Goodall wants or needs this info to come out. He'll burn every scrap presented to him if he knows he can get away with hit.

posted by bdaddy at 02:24 PM on February 15

His rationale for believing that the Patriots taped the Rams in 2001 is that an underdog beat a heavily favored team. Did he watch the same game I did on February 3 of this year? Sorry, but his rationale for believing the Patriots taped the Rams in 2001 is that the man who actually did the taping at the time has privately told people he did and publicly hinted to everyone that he did. This becomes all the more believable given the coach himself has admitted to doing similar this year.

posted by bdaddy at 02:26 PM on February 15

I might be confused though. I always had thought that Roger Clemens had played a few games early in his career for the Boston Red Sox. Maybe I misremebered that. Yes, from 1984-1986. He also pitched for Toronto in '97-'98, Yankees in '99-'03, the Rastros in '04-'06, and (again) Yankees in '07. It's three seasons vs. ten seasons, so I think the "involved in professional sports franchises from the New England region of the United States of America" is a bit tenuous.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 02:27 PM on February 15

I don't know at this point whether or not those tapes ever even gave the Pats an advantage. That is the problem with Goodell's actions. We are left assuming that they must have given an unfair advantage, which is unfortunate. If making the tapes is against the rules, then whether or not they produced an advantage is irrelevant. You punish the crime, not the result. If Belichick broke the rules to get these tapes and they weren't even useful, then shame on him for being stupid.

posted by bender at 02:27 PM on February 15

Is it really that hard to guess? I can guess; I was more interested in hearing other people's guesses. I have to say that I don't consider your guess a very compelling one. I don't see any reason why Goodell would not throw NE under the bus...if it was an isolated thing. Makes him look like the squeaky clean avenger coming down hard on the renegade coach/organization, no? If, OTOH, a closer look does reveal more widespread practices of that sort, that the NFL has winked-and-nodded at for years...well, that reflects directly on the NFL. And that's something that the NFL might want to cover up.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 02:29 PM on February 15

He came down pretty hard on The Hood, but some think not hard enough. He knows that you could probably infer everything from unfair competitive advantage to child porn from the tapes and notes. All I can say is what have you got in your pipe? Child porn? You must be kidding....

posted by Mickster at 02:37 PM on February 15

No idea, but that's kind of an unfair standard to hold other commenters to. It's not as though we're going to be able to produce anything. which makes it a WEAK argument. It's that users perception of which he has know real knowledge one way or the other that can confirm/deny it. It's like telling your mom "but everybody else does it!" because you know your mom has no clue what Johnny's mom lets him do.

posted by bdaddy at 02:37 PM on February 15

Arlen Spector: Playing to the grandstands in an effort to get some notice. Howard, check my link above. It might be that Specter isn't playing to the grandstands but trying to help Comcast strong-arm the NFL.

posted by yerfatma at 02:40 PM on February 15

lbb: And you know, BB worked for the New York Jets right before coming to New England. And Clemens, of course, pitched for New York. It only stands to reason that there is a message about New York in all of this. Also, BB worked under Parcels, who then went to Texas, where Clemens was pitching. Egads! Texas is just as dirty as New York and Boston!

posted by Joey Michaels at 02:42 PM on February 15

I don't see any reason why Goodell would not throw NE under the bus...if it was an isolated thing. An isolated thing that would nullify roughly 7 years of NFL history? Think the NFL wants to hear people saying "asterisks!" everytime the Pats are mentioned? Or when Tom Brady is being introduced into the HOF people asking "would you be in here if you went 0-4 in your Superbowls?". Like I said, it really questions the integrity of the last 6 or 7 years given as the team in question won 3 championships during that span. If Belichick broke the rules to get these tapes and they weren't even useful, then shame on him for being stupid. That to me is the clear answer to anyone who question whether there was any real competitive advantage. The fact that the man was doing it and risking getting caught, pretty much implies he was getting some benefit out of it. And it certainly wasn't to "catalog" a team like the Packers who he wasn't even going to play again the following year and who would probably have a different coaching staff and personel by the time he did.

posted by bdaddy at 02:45 PM on February 15

One reason the tapes were destroyed might be to prevent them from being compared to the actual game film. For example- if the Pats had tape of the Rams pre game run through and knew the first 15 plays or had film of the goaline situations, and you could compare those tapes to the actual game film, you could then demonstrate how the Pats knew what was coming and show that by comparing the game film to what was known in advance by the Pats. If the Rams did in the game what the Pats had illegal film of and those plays were stuffed, well that would be pretty damning to the integrity of the game and everything accomplished by the Pats since the practice of illegal taping began. Bellichek a genius or cheater? It is starting to look like he is a genius at cheating.

posted by Atheist at 02:49 PM on February 15

I always had thought that Roger Clemens had played a few games early in his career for the Boston Red Sox. Maybe I misremebered that. Yes, from 1984-1986. He also pitched for Toronto in '97-'98, Yankees in '99-'03, the Rastros in '04-'06, and (again) Yankees in '07. It's three seasons vs. ten seasons, so I think the "involved in professional sports franchises from the New England region of the United States of America" is a bit tenuous. Lets not let selective memory get too involved here, this isn't a congressional hearing, you know. Just wanted to point out that Clemens was with the Sox from 84-96, closer to thirteen years than three. So thirteen seasons vs. ten makes his connection to NE a bit less tenuous, eh?

posted by tahoemoj at 03:13 PM on February 15

As for Goodell's actions I think Howard_T hit it spot on when he wrote: Thus, he has the tapes and notes destroyed, sending the message to anyone else with such things lying around that the same thing ought to be done with any similar evidence. I look at how NASCAR has changed over the years. There is a long standing process of teams "bending" the rules a bit to get an advantage. Each year NASCAR has to come out with new rules changes to counter what the teams come up with. Biggests example being the CoT putting all teams on a level playing field at the ground level. Now that Bill B. has admitted to tapeing since 2000 I hope the NFL comes out with new sanctions against him. If not then I loose even more respect for the league. I kinda feel sorry for the players who go thru all that practice time and film watching only to find out their coach has so little faith in their ability that he feels the need to cheat.

posted by Folkways at 03:18 PM on February 15

Furthermore, think of the marketing possibilities! All the Pats wins for the last seven seasons are erased. The standings are adjusted accordingly, with many new teams entering the playoffs. Of course, countless NFLers have to be brought out of retirement to replay the playoff games, which would be played in the offseason. Such a grueling spectacle would have to be played out during the offseason, one per year for the next seven years, so some of the players would be in their late forties towards the end... And the Bengals still wouldn't be involved, so, meh...

posted by tahoemoj at 03:19 PM on February 15

Also lbb, I might not be expressing myself to the best of my ability. I have been having some health probs. Um....what issue, exactly, are you taking with what I wrote? It wasn't some kind of criticism of you. posted by lil_brown_bat at 11:40 AM CST on February 15 Sorry, I did not think you were criticizing me, lbb, not at all. It is just lately getting stuff from my brain to paper (or computer screen) is difficult for me.

posted by steelergirl at 03:43 PM on February 15

Sorry, I did not think you were criticizing me, lbb, not at all. It is just lately getting stuff from my brain to paper (or computer screen) is difficult for me. And I thought you placed your comment in order to avoid the wrath of her smug and condescending retorts.

posted by danjel at 03:53 PM on February 15

Ah come on, danjel, I know Ms. Bat is a die hard Pats fan. But my opinion is the "Spygate" fiasco is getting blown WAY out of perspective. They got punished, can it be let go? I wish I could sometimes retort with her laser like precison and rapier like wit. I don't always agree with her, but she always has my respect.

posted by steelergirl at 04:07 PM on February 15

They got punished, can it be let go? There are people in this country still fighting the Civil War (on one side, anyway). Although no one's died over this Patriots thing yet, I'd still give it at least two decades before some folks can move on.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 04:18 PM on February 15

Make their fans sit through eighteen rotten years of shitty teams that are the laughing stock of the NFL. Kind of like the Bengals. Make them draft studs like Klingler and Carter and Smith and Wilkinson. Hell, make them use the Cincinnati scouting team of the nineties to draft. That'll show 'em. Now if I could just remember what we were being punished for... Is having the dumbest ownership in sports a crime?

posted by tahoemoj at 04:32 PM on February 15

Aaaaand, inevitably: Ex-Rams player sues Pats for SB XXXVI loss

posted by Skot at 04:54 PM on February 15

Is having the dumbest ownership in sports a crime? You've met the ownership group of the Toronto Maple Leafs? Hell, a previous owner of the Leafs spent 3 years in prison, including time at Kingston Penitentiary, a maximum security facility. On the other hand, maybe the Leaf ownership is stupid like a fox, they haven't won since 1967(or even appeared in the Stanley Cup Final), and still sell out every home game, with the most expensive ticket prices in the league.

posted by tommytrump at 05:00 PM on February 15

Make their fans sit through eighteen rotten years of shitty teams that are the laughing stock of the NFL. Hi, I got to enjoy the Hugh Millen era and the ownership of Victor Kiam. Pretty sure out debts were paid in advance.

posted by yerfatma at 07:28 PM on February 15

Although no one's died over this Patriots thing yet, I'd still give it at least two decades before some folks can move on. I'm still mad about the Patriots cocaine inspired run to the Super Bowl in the 1985 playoffs. Of course, one might argue that playing the 1985 Bears in that Super Bowl was punishment enough.

posted by cjets at 07:56 PM on February 15

If we're comparing terrible owners I'd like to introduce William Clay Ford Sr, the genius who has kept Matt Millen employed for seven years and counting (and heads a franchise that has never won a Super Bowl).

posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 08:03 PM on February 15

If we're comparing terrible owners I'd like to introduce Leon Hess The Jets owner who, in 1995, introduced the new Jets head coach by saying "I'm 80 years old. I want results now!" The coach? Rich Kotite, who proceeded to go 4-28 over the next two seasons (including the 1-15 debacle in 1996.)

posted by cjets at 08:32 PM on February 15

Matt Millen And he played so well with the Raiders. Guess that on field experience doesn't carry over to being behind a desk.

posted by steelergirl at 09:44 PM on February 15

The whole thing is just a waste of taxpayers dollars.Hasn't the government got anything better to do than to butt in on the NFL?He got caught,paid his fine,the team paid theirs.Enough said.Get on with the offseason.Training camp opens in July.Season opens in Sept.Stop beating a dead horse!!

posted by Ghastly1 at 10:01 PM on February 15

Of course, one might argue that playing the 1985 Bears in that Super Bowl was punishment enough. If that one is a 10 year-old me with a Squish the Fish mimeograph, definitely.

posted by yerfatma at 10:56 PM on February 15

New England has been cheating along time, and the leauge knew about it and did nothing. I am so glad they got beat in the super bowl game, I guess they came up one tape short

posted by Awwgood at 10:57 PM on February 15

Although no one's died over this Patriots thing yet, I'd still give it at least two decades before some folks can move on. That's an easy statement for a Patriots fan. Not so easy if you support any of the teams that the Patriots beat over the last 8 years. Especially if your team was involved in a super bowl or playoff game. You can put me in the camp as the "some folks" that can't just move on. Or drop it. Or forget it.

posted by BoKnows at 08:05 AM on February 16

Maybe I'm way off base here but here goes anyway. MLB is granted monopoly and antitrust exemptions by congress. Because of this, the politicians have their boots (not foot) in the door prying out the steroid problems. Baseball itself was ignoring the situation and wasn't going to do anything so the presence of congress here seems fitting to me. The Pats on the other hand got busted. Fessed up. Got fined and punished. Now a senator wants to extract his pound of flesh. I don't believe the NFL has the same obligatory situatin that MLB has with congress. I never liked the Pats and probably never will. They called them dynasty. I never bought that either. Congratulations to them but winning 3 SB's by a total of 9 points is a real stretch not a dynasty. It's time to move on......

posted by Creeker at 12:17 PM on February 16

Congratulations to them but winning 3 SB's by a total of 9 points is a real stretch not a dynasty. It's time to move on...... Move on if you want. Suppose you lost some money on a bet and found out later, some alledged cheating was uncovered. Maybe you wouldn't be so dammed anxious to forget Belichick indescretion. I'm of the opinion if these allegations are true there be a substancial penalty involved and jail time because this is fraud.

posted by Nakeman at 05:18 PM on February 16

Sure, you can say it's just a game, but is it really? It's a career for several thousand people, from NFL staff to players to marketers to vendors and more. This is not some issue to just blow off. Cheating can easily change the outcome of games, which cost a lot of people a lot of money. If you got cheated out of a job promotion that paid 20% more would you say "just forget about it and move on?".

posted by whitedog65 at 05:37 PM on February 16

That's an easy statement for a Patriots fan. It's an easy statement for anyone with the wit to see that some people will make this their casus belli for at least a couple of decades. All you need is the eyes to see other issues that have hung around that long, and it's a no-brainer. My being a Pats fan has doodly squat to do with it.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 06:02 PM on February 16

Whitedog, that is the first legitimate argument i have heard in favor of high level involvment in this situation. I still think that the government should stay out of sports, but your argument is a reasonable one.

posted by elijahin24 at 07:31 PM on February 16

It's an easy statement for anyone with the wit to see that some people will make this their casus belli for at least a couple of decades. That's pretty much the same thing you said before. I just can't help but to read it as: It's an easy statement for anyone (Patriots fan) with the wit to see that some people (non-Patriots fan) will make this their casus belli for at least a couple of decades. You have been a very strong supporter of the Patriots, and that's all fine and dandy. I just feel that statement would mean more if it came from someone without that strong fan connection. Plus, this isn't a story that has been lingering for 5 years. Some of the revelations (SuperBowl taping) is quite new. The Jets game scandal was in September. So this story has a grand total of 4-5 months of coverage/discussion. I don't know if this story will go on for decades. Frankly, niether do you. But let's not suggest that the people "with the wit" as you say, are the majority.

posted by BoKnows at 07:34 PM on February 16

If anyone could give me a really good and rational explanation of "WHY" the tapes were destroyed, I might be a bit more able to let this go. There is no valid explanation I could have thought of. I know they say they reserve the right to go back and revisit this issue, but why would they destroy the evidence that Belichick admitted to? He confessed he did it. You would keep the proof and lock it up - not throw it away. Goodell cannot really explain other than to say "yep, he cheated so let's burn those tapes so they can't be used to help another team"? This is what Senator Sphincter, oops, I mean Spector would love to know too. Yerfatma is dead on with the article he linked to above about Spector's contributors. It is no more than that, otherwise he would have done something sooner. Now that there's a chance the Pats got one over on the Eagles, you better bet He'll be following up with this. For the notoriety from his constituents, if not for anything else. Move on if you want. Suppose you lost some money on a bet and found out later, some alledged cheating was uncovered. Maybe you wouldn't be so dammed anxious to forget Belichick indescretion. I'm of the opinion if these allegations are true there be a substancial penalty involved and jail time because this is fraud. Cheating can easily change the outcome of games, which cost a lot of people a lot of money. If you got cheated out of a job promotion that paid 20% more would you say "just forget about it and move on?". Gambling is also illegal, in MOST places and can carry jail time. This is not a NEW admission by BB. He told Goddell all these things when he got busted during week one! The only reason we are hearing about it now is because of this overzealous senator. Job promotions can be changed much easier than outcomes of professional sporting events. Demote the first candidate during their probationary period, promote the other candidate. Kind of a rough example.

posted by jojomfd1 at 02:06 AM on February 17

Gambling is also illegal, in MOST places and can carry jail time So what! Gambling is illegal only if government doesn't get their share. We in St. Louis have plenty of casinos that are LEGAL here. As far as betting on football games, and getting cheated because of impropriated by one coach, doesn't diminish the fact the better was wronged. And you can bet, (pun intended) if it was the 60's and the mob lost alot of money due to the cheating. Belichick would be sleeping with the fishes. The only reason we are hearing about it now is because of this overzealous senator. The reason for the renewal of shit is beacause it no longer a isolated incident. The jerk (Belichick) has been doing illegal taping for approx. 8 years and why didn't football commissioner tell the public from the beginning it was going on this long. To cover it up, that's why, and there's no way the commisioner is going to lie to a United States Senator and be found out later and face some serious problems down the road.

posted by Nakeman at 10:03 AM on February 17

An easy solution to these betting problems would be to not bet on football games.

posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 10:16 AM on February 17

If this is proven then Bellicheat should be banned from football for life. Then they should tape a hundred dollar bill to his forehead and leave him at the E. St. Louis Metro Link station at 3 a.m..

posted by budman13 at 11:20 AM on February 17

Does advantage have anything to do with the whole story. If they cheated ,they cheated. Having some sort of advantage should not weigh into the conversation at all. If you cheat and win you are still a cheater. If you cheat and lose you are a dumb ass cheater. What difference does it make. Because everybody was doing it, should that give the team who got caught a free pass. I still think the team that got caught is stupid. I guess this is the new attitude in our society today If you cheat and don't get caught it's ok. Why does everything have to be so complicated. To many theories, but I guess alot of theories is what makes this thread so interesting. To those who are profound please forgive my simple mind.

posted by sportnut at 12:50 PM on February 17

The Pats on the other hand got busted. Fessed up. Got fined and punished. Now a senator wants to extract his pound of flesh. Pats got fined for taping the Jets. No one said anything about the Rams and the Superbowl until a Senator "asked" about it. I dont think this is a case double jeopardy. Convicted of one crime now evidence of another crime surfaces type thing. Thats not to say that the Commish didnt know how far and wide it was when he punished the Pats, he just "forgot" to tell the public until the Congressional inquiry.

posted by firecop at 01:40 PM on February 17

If this is proven then Bellicheat should be banned from football for life. Then they should tape a hundred dollar bill to his forehead and leave him at the E. St. Louis Metro Link station at 3 a.m.. posted by budman13 at 11:20 AM CST on February 17 I second that opinion.

posted by Nakeman at 04:56 PM on February 17

Which part, the whining or the suggestion Belichick's live should be put at risk?

posted by yerfatma at 06:13 PM on February 17

Which part, the whining or the suggestion Belichick's live should be put at risk? Both, your probably a Patriots fan, not very objective or have a sense of fair play. Winning to you is probably -the ends justify the means.

posted by Nakeman at 08:28 PM on February 17

This is exactly the problem, everybody wants to go to extremes. Lets ban him from the game and put him in danger. Hey, ive got an idea, lets send him to the Anbar province of Iraq, wearing pats gear, with a loudspeaker over which we can broadcast the campaign speeches of the presidential candidates (particularly McCain, and Guliani) translated into arabic! yeah! That'll teach them! Look, he cheated. He admitted it. He was punished. Did he deserve more punishment than he got? maybe. Is everyone punished as much as they should be? no. I am not a pats fan. I just think people are so eager to tear down anyone who reaches the top of their league and holds it long enough to be called a dynasty. Im sorry if your team isnt there. Im sorry if your team lost out because of cheating, but i dont think we need to ban anyone from the game, and certainly dont need to put anyones life at risk. lets come back to earth, shall we?

posted by elijahin24 at 09:36 PM on February 17

elijahin your right. I'm not very objective. I've had to read on this sight about the genius of Bill Belichick. Not one of those members has said a word about their so call genius since this story broke. It's easy to complain about bitching when your team or coach is being attacked. Instead of admitting the facts of the case, they try and justify by accusing the accuser. I blame the commissioner for his withholding the information given to Sen. Specter and the shadow cast over the Patriots win against the Rams in 2002.

posted by Nakeman at 10:06 PM on February 17

elijahin, I am not a Pats fan either. I just happen to hate it when the people who are elected to run this country get involved in the entertainment business further than they should. Lets face it, without casting stones at either party or its candidates, it is an election year. There is a war still going on in Iraq, who the hell knows what will happen to Social Security, and none of that touches the health care problems. I just happen to be of the thought that these "bored" senators and congressmen need to pay attention elsewhere. However if they can't it doesn't say much for their constituents, or their opponents! We in St. Louis have plenty of casinos that are LEGAL here. If you really lost that $500.00 to a sportsbook casino in St. Louis, then it is your own fault. Isn't the old saying "Never go into a casino with more than you are prepared to lose?" By the way, if it was the 60's the mob would've known about the tapes ahead of the spreads.

posted by jojomfd1 at 10:17 PM on February 17

I've had to read on this sight about the genius of Bill Belichick. You chose to read about it, you could have skipped those threads even easier than participating.

posted by jojomfd1 at 10:23 PM on February 17

if it was the 60's the mob would've known about the tapes ahead of the spreads. I can tell you all certainty if the bent noses found out about cheating and they lost a great deal of money, somebody would be in big trouble. I don't care how long it took to find out about the cheating. Isn't the old saying "Never go into a casino with more than you are prepared to lose?" By the way, if it was the 60's the mob would've known about the tapes ahead of the Ya, your right , however I expect a fair game. As everybody in the universe does, expect you, with that tired cliche.

posted by Nakeman at 10:32 PM on February 17

You would be the only one to walk into a casino and expect a fair game, thats the best one I've heard from you yet. However, I still think this sportsbook at your casino in St. Louis is a farce, and ranks up there with you seeing McGwire's contract! You really need to look here, it may help. Either that or the whole I lost money thing is just an excuse to complain about Belichick, which is fine complain away. Just don't make shit up.

posted by jojomfd1 at 10:57 PM on February 17

Which part, the whining or the suggestion Belichick's live should be put at risk? Fatty, you do realize what we are talking about here. The minute this man decided to cheat on a football game he forfeited his life. How could you possibly defend him? You sir are worse than Hitler.

posted by HATER 187 at 11:09 PM on February 17

If we're comparing terrible owners I'd like to introduce Three words for you, Art Fuckin' Modell. How many of you have sites like that for an owner.

posted by jojomfd1 at 12:55 AM on February 18

Good Lord, Nake, you lost a bet. It's over. Regardless of what the NFL, or Congress, or anybody else does or says, you're never getting that money back. Quit yer goddamn whining and move on. And, before you cook up one of your lame replies, I'm not a Pats fan; in fact, I fucking hate the Patriots, always have, and always will. However, at this rate, I'd feel sorry for them before I'd feel sorry for you. By the way, you don't have to read shit on this site. If you see a thread, and it's about the Patriots, or Bill Belichick, then don't read it! Go to another thread, if it's gonna get yer panties in a wad, but don't come into a thread that is clearly about BB and the Pats, then whine that you've "had to read" this, or that, or the other thing.

posted by The_Black_Hand at 11:09 AM on February 18

we're comparing terrible owners I'd like to introduce Three words for you, Art Fuckin' Modell. How many of you have sites like that for an owner. posted by jojomfd1 at 12:55 AM CST on February 18 I think their are still fans in Baltimore who could point to the late Robert Irsay and his sneaky, middle of the night move of the Colts to Indy in 1984. Modell might be slime, but he gave Cleveland warning and moved in broad daylight

posted by steelergirl at 11:30 AM on February 18

Bob Irsay begged the city of Baltimore to help improve the dump they played in for years with no success. Lets face it the stadium was falling down for many years before they moved. Baltimore was one of the first teams to get a franchise after the Colts left and won a Super Bowl long before Indianapolis, so I think the Irsay's did them a service. Do you really think Baltimore didn't know Irsay was going to leave? What is ironic about the move is that the Colts are getting ready to move into their 2nd new stadium in Indianapolis since the move. Granted the RCA Dome is one of the worst stadiums in the league, but in "84" it was like a palace compared to the stadium in Baltimore.

posted by sportnut at 01:30 PM on February 18

I nominate Bill Bidwell. My god, the Cardinals just suck year in and year out with no relief in sight. They moved from St. Louis, (Thank God) and now have a brand new stadium in Arizona. Just no players to put there.......again.

posted by RamsNut at 02:37 PM on February 18

Just don't make shit up You know, I've had it with you. I lost 500 hundred bucks on a private bet and not at a casino. I've been to a casino exactly two times since they opened and was for a function for my business. I noted the casino to explain to you that gambling is legal in St. Louis and Missouri. Why your bringing McGwire into this thread is beyond me and it seems your one of those guys that bring up old arguements to prove some childish point. I lost the money and could afford it with no regrets based on a fair game and with no shadow of impropriatity attached based on taping the other team. If you think that the game was fair and I don't have a legitimate complaint, then please explain to me why? And in similar circumstances you would not be upset. That is, if you can even affort to lose your rent money for the month.

posted by Nakeman at 07:55 PM on February 18

I noted the casino to explain to you that gambling is legal in St. Louis and Missouri. Asterisk! Boat in a Moat! Although not related to the thread, Nakeman, the whole casino establishment is Saint Louis/Missouri is pretty questionable as far as it's legality. Probably not your best argument. Sorry, you lost your money, I feel pretty strongly about the taping incident too, but a bet is a bet. Win some, lose some. But gees man, relax.

posted by BoKnows at 08:08 PM on February 18

the whole casino establishment is Saint Louis/Missouri is pretty questionable as far as it's legality. Probably not your best argument. Sorry, you lost your Tell me at what time the police are going to shut down the casinos in St. Louis because there is a question of the legality. I like to tape the Untouchable busting up of the establishments. You can email me with the time.

posted by Nakeman at 08:25 PM on February 18

Tell me at what time the police are going to shut down the casinos in St. Louis because there is a question of the legality. You know that's not going to happen, Nakeman. So do I. The casino's were able to find a loophole in the laws surrounding St. Louis, the state of Missouri, and gambling. That's why the casinos (all of them) are in the Mississippi river and on "moats" bordering the Missouri river. (I'm on your side regarding the SuperBowl taping. I too, think it's BS. My point was to correct you about gambling being legal in St. Louis. It's not, the laws surrounding the land on or bordering the rivers has a different set of statutes.) Thanks for your email offer, and the continuing references to old gangster movies, I'm going to BlockBuster.

posted by BoKnows at 08:33 PM on February 18

You know, I've had it with you. I lost 500 hundred bucks on a private bet and not at a casino. Well then this is different, and the whole casino thing should have never been brought into this thread. That puts us back to here. There is no "childish" point to make at all. Just tired of the whining about the bet, and you lying to back up your point of view. At least Belichick told the truth when confronted with what he did.

posted by jojomfd1 at 03:21 AM on February 19

Thanks for your email offer, and the continuing references to old gangster movies, I'm going to BlockBuster. posted by BoKnows at 8:33 PM CST on February 18 If you haven't already seen them, I recommend "Goodfellas" and "Casino".

posted by steelergirl at 05:59 AM on February 19

That is, if you can even affort to lose your rent money for the month. Even if you had an argument, or anything coherent to say, by including this little bit of asshattery at the end, you pretty much lose any chance of being taken seriously. Do you know for a fact that jojo rents? And if he does, how do you know how much he pays a month? Or are you just being an ass, because you have no backup? jojo can back up his arguments; I've seen him do it before. You, not so much. Steelergirl, check out "The Crays." Wicked gangster movie, British-style.

posted by The_Black_Hand at 06:11 AM on February 19

TBH, I've always been partial to the original, "The Piranha Brothers".

posted by yerfatma at 07:51 AM on February 19

Actually, I turned on the TV, and watched "A Bronx Tale".

posted by BoKnows at 08:20 AM on February 19

I'll have to check that out, fatty. I just remember being very impressed by the Kemp Brothers from Spandau Ballet in the title roles. And, of course, it was "The Krays," with a K, instead of a C.

posted by The_Black_Hand at 04:46 PM on February 19

Or are you just being an ass, because you have no backup? jojo can back up his arguments; I've seen him do it before. You, not so much. Your opinion is not appreciated or wanted. Jojo a big boy and take care of himself. I'm sure he doesn't need your help. I feel hosed about the alledged taping of the Rams at the Super Bowl. That's all. Jojo wanted to take me to task because(according to him) gambling is illegal. I informed him in St. Louis is was not against the law. Then he responded it was all a farce and I probably made up shit. Well, I'm sorry if you don't know when somebody in so many word calls you a liar. I personally would not call anybody's explanation, shit, unless face to face. If that was his intention, he can email me, and we can take from there and leave the other members out of it. The reason for the little quip at the end was to inform jojo I do not appreciate being called a liar. This is the second time he done it and I' will not let it go this time. For some reason he always take issue with me and my opinions. That' my final entry on this matter. Jojo knows my email address.

posted by Nakeman at 04:52 PM on February 19

Ah, TBH, it's available right now: Part 1 Part 2

posted by yerfatma at 05:27 PM on February 19

I hold out hope that eventually, sanity will prevail. But I'm not going to hold my breath. (P.S. has anyone actually seen a walkthrough? This is players in their street clothes milling around with people in the stands. It's not a dress rehersal or even a practice. And no one has their first 15 plays written in stone. If the first few fail, it's time to adjust the plan.) And rcade - weren't the Jets recently accused of taping? I believe someone FPP'ed it, but my computer is desparately slow today to search.

posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 06:29 PM on February 19

P.S. has anyone actually seen a walkthrough? I've been to a few wedding rehearsals, does that count?

posted by BoKnows at 06:32 PM on February 19

TBH, so "The Krays" are worth a look? Will have to check it out.

posted by steelergirl at 10:31 PM on February 19

has anyone actually seen a walkthrough? I was thinking the same thing: the Pats 2004 final walkthrough before the Superbowl was held in their hotel's ballroom. Important stuff. weren't the Jets recently accused of taping? The Pats threw a taper out or something, but it later turned out he was in compliance with the rules (if I'm thinking of the same incident).

posted by yerfatma at 06:33 AM on February 20

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