Belichick Busted... (1 Viewer)

Why shouldn't they.. It's no different than an investor having insider trading secrets! Regardless what people think the NFL is a business and is accountable to laws just like any other business.. I think he should do Martha Stewart, Paris Hilton type time.. but he don't get to whine his way out of a sell time, and should have to coach the inmates just like Burt Rynolds.. :p


What law was broken?
 
Why shouldn't they.. It's no different than an investor having insider trading secrets! Regardless what people think the NFL is a business and is accountable to laws just like any other business.. I think he should do Martha Stewart, Paris Hilton type time.. but he don't get to whine his way out of a sell time, and should have to coach the inmates just like Burt Rynolds.. :p

Spygate is nothing even remotely close to insider trading. This is more like one VP of a company stealing the presentation of another VP of the same company and passing it off as his own to the boss. Something to handle internally, not by Congress.
 
Spygate is nothing even remotely close to insider trading. This is more like one VP of a company stealing the presentation of another VP of the same company and passing it off as his own to the boss. Something to handle internally, not by Congress.
Maybe if it would have been handled internally in the right way, people would have been satisfied, Goodell tried to sweep this under the rug fast, before it became a big deal, now it is going to become an even bigger stink.
I'm not sure how to feel about this, on one hand i don't like the government getting involved in the NFL, on the other hand the NFL does really piss me off with certain things at times, like terrible officiating, and then you have team that was caught cheating and gets a slap on the wrist, it chips away at the integrity of the NFL.
 
The argument can go on and on but does anyone think that the NFL doesn't have lawyers who haven't thought about the very same thing? And does anyone think those lawyers haven't brought this to the attention of the NFL? Because if the NFL, much like MLB, is working with Congress, it suggests to me that it is because they have no other choice. Maybe the commerce clause was never meant to give this much power to the federal government, but it has. Maybe the big leagues aren't actually monopolies, but they get pseudo-monopoly treatment through their anti-trust exemptions. No amount of rabble-rousing or nay-saying is going to change that :)

But frankly, I am surprised that this many sports fans (not legal experts, but just sports fans) do not want this to happen. I doubt that anyone is opposed to having a clean game - whether it be video taping, steroids or ref scandals. Since the big leagues have yet to show the ability or inclination to police themselves, I'm glad that SOMEBODY has stepped up to do it for them. I enjoy the media circus that follows it around because the big leagues apparently need the negative PR to actually do something about it.

Don't tell me "oh every team does it" (specifically, the taping). I don't care if every team is cheating; I don't like it no matter how many people are doing it. Its wrong, its against the rules, and the NFL has decided it would be in our best interest to not know and to trust them to clean it up. Well their "cleaning it up" almost gave us a perfect season (don't tell me they stopped cheating at that point, no one knows what they did because the NFL slapped them on the wrist and turned away). [Edit: Also, the NFL couldn't wash away the knowledge already gleaned from the taping, just ensure that the Pats couldn't go back and re-check if they wanted to.] "Self policing" has placed us in the middle of a Patriots dynasty run. Sports are supposed to be about settling things on the field, but the NFL has shown no desire to actually ensure that was going on.
 
Last edited:
But, what it means in this case is clear. It's not like we are talking about a truly different set of facts. Monopolies existed when it was written and the founders were aware of interstate commerce. If they wanted Congress to have power over such things, they would have said it. The document should only be interpreted when the language does not clearly apply to a certain set of facts, that is not the case here. The founders never intended the "Commerce among the States" Clause, wrongly called the "Interstate Commerce Clause" to be used for all of the things it is used for now. Certainly, they never would have predicted it would be used to give the Feds general police power. It was mostly expanded beyond all recognition to help the civil rights movement in Loving v. Virginia. Unfortunately, that precedent was seized on later to create the ever expanding power of the Federal government. The really sad part is that most Americans don't even realize the limited power that the Federal Government is supposed to have. They just assume that the Feds have the power to make any law they want.

No, the problem is Americans are eager to have an omnipresent Federal government in their lives because politicians continue to promise they can "fix" social ills through government regulation.

There are a lot of people who crave the power to "reform" institutions they do not like, so they color their speeches by pointing out all of the wrongs/weaknesses of said institution, then say be voting for person X that he/she will fix it, and the sky will be bluer, the air cleaner, the sun brighter... etc.

And people buy into that, because no one wants dirty air, water etc... and the weaknesses/faults of any institution are put on such display (and the problems are determined to be so large) that it will take an equally large organization (in this case, the Federal government) to deal with it.

Take a good look at how the debate involving health insurance is being framed, and you can see this argument is action.

But before this veers off into something better suited for the EE board, St Widge is right, Specter really has no grounds to even be doing this, but the NFL is willing to go along with this inquiry because of the PR aspect.

The NFL does not want it to appear that they have a tainted product, therefore they welcome such an inquiry to dispell the inevitible ad hoc conspiracy theories that would arise if they chose to ignore Specter.

Godell, essentially called his bluff. If Specter has evidence that Godell hasn't seen, then produce it, and we'll deal with it. If Specter is unhappy because of the destruction of the evidence already seen, there isn't anything he can do about it, other than take Godell's word what was on the tapes/notes.

The destruction of the tapes/notes were all under the legal rights of Godell as head of a private organization, and none of these items were evidence of a criminal activity that violated any laws -just rules the league itself created.

Specter offered no new evidence, so the matter will go away.
 
What law was broken?


I'd say that question sums up the role of Congress right there.
"Someone" is suggesting there should be such laws, and Specter is obliging.
I don't like it either; we should be hearing from more, Congress wise, than Specter on the issue or hear from no one.
That said, if the NFL got to the point where I felt a game was not fair, I'd rather my money be wasted in Congress than on an unfair game.
Fortunately, I'm not there yet.
 
Specter offered no new evidence, so the matter will go away.

Actually because of Specter talking to Goodell, we now know that it wasn't just a few games this year that were taped, but games dating back to 2000.

That means every Superbowl the Pats played in, every playoff game, every big division showdown.

That is new. The Pats are cheaters. Every thing they have achieved since 2000 should have an asterisk next to it.
 
I can see why Specter is doing this. The NFL has an anti-trust exemption from the feds. One of the things the anti-trust laws are to prevent is the exact kind of "good ol boy" network that the NFL has become. They do what they want, how they want, when they want, without regard to collateral consequences. Destroying the tapes was a prime example of this. Let the gov't get involved, it's in their jurisdiction.
Whoops...my bad!!! I didn't read far enough into the thread!!!:covri:
 
Did Tagliabue and Goodell know about the possibility that this was going on with the Patriots years ago? Why would they destroy these tapes, when it affects the whole league...not just the Patriots?
 
By the way, I don't bring this up often, but DW used to work @ NFL league HQ in New York....she says Roger Goodell is a major arrogant jerk....most people can't stand him....so it's no surprise that his ego would cause him to destroy these tapes and wonder why anyone would dare question his judgement on the matter..........
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

    Back
    Top Bottom