slickvick Posted February 14, 2008 Share Posted February 14, 2008 http://www.yahoo.com/s/808909 Not that this is a big surprise,but does Belichick get canned over this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted February 14, 2008 Share Posted February 14, 2008 "I have nothing to hide," Goodell said. Then why destroy the tapes? Goodell is full of crap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh-mongus Posted February 14, 2008 Share Posted February 14, 2008 Specter said it to Goodell, BJ should edit the subject. No edit necessary... Specter said Goodell gave him that information during the 1-hour, 40-minute meeting Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted February 14, 2008 Share Posted February 14, 2008 Specter said it to Goodell, BJ should edit the subject. The way I read the article, Specter was saying what Goddell told him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_the_swammi Posted February 14, 2008 Share Posted February 14, 2008 Specter said it to Goodell, BJ should edit the subject. Bill Belichick has been illegally taping opponents’ defensive signals since he became the New England Patriots’ coach in 2000, according to Sen. Arlen Specter, who said NFL commissioner Roger Goodell told him that during a meeting Wednesday. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
budlitebrad Posted February 14, 2008 Share Posted February 14, 2008 Anyone else want to correct me? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eggman Posted February 14, 2008 Share Posted February 14, 2008 What happened to the initial meeting between Goodell and Belachick? Wasn't it reported that Goodell gave BB the chance to come clean with EVERYTHING and if he didn't he would be penalized further? All we got out of that was the taping of the Jets, right? Goodell needs to get a handle on this quickly. We're talking about the integrity of the game here......it's not like this is the Cardinals who haven't won squat for the last 40 years....this is the team of the 2000 decade with 3 Lombardi's on the shelf. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted February 14, 2008 Share Posted February 14, 2008 wow. those of you wondering why goodell would destroy the evidence, try and sweep it under the rug, etc., it is pretty simple really. same reason the league always rushes to the defense of its refs when they make a bonehead, game-turning call, and support them with some novel interpretation of a rule that never existed before. it is very strongly in the league's interest for the integrity of its past results NOT to be called into question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whiskey Pimp Posted February 14, 2008 Share Posted February 14, 2008 What happened to the initial meeting between Goodell and Belachick? Wasn't it reported that Goodell gave BB the chance to come clean with EVERYTHING and if he didn't he would be penalized further? All we got out of that was the taping of the Jets, right? Goodell needs to get a handle on this quickly. We're talking about the integrity of the game here......it's not like this is the Cardinals who haven't won squat for the last 40 years....this is the team of the 2000 decade with 3 Lombardi's on the shelf. I thought the Pats sent over all tapes and all were destroyed. That sounds like more than just the Jets game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Posted February 14, 2008 Share Posted February 14, 2008 I thought the Pats sent over all tapes and all were destroyed. That sounds like more than just the Jets game. That was a condition of the agreement. Goodell said if any more evidence was found later more punishment could be handed down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted February 14, 2008 Share Posted February 14, 2008 wow. those of you wondering why goodell would destroy the evidence, try and sweep it under the rug, etc., it is pretty simple really. same reason the league always rushes to the defense of its refs when they make a bonehead, game-turning call, and support them with some novel interpretation of a rule that never existed before. it is very strongly in the league's interest for the integrity of its past results NOT to be called into question. DING, DING, DING! We have a winner! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whiskey Pimp Posted February 14, 2008 Share Posted February 14, 2008 That was a condition of the agreement. Goodell said if any more evidence was found later more punishment could be handed down. I know but what I mean is weren't those tapes they handed over the ones since 2000 that Goodell was telling Specter about? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted February 14, 2008 Share Posted February 14, 2008 bye bye anti trust excemption Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sturphy Posted February 14, 2008 Share Posted February 14, 2008 bye bye anti trust excemption Thought that was just Baseball? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Posted February 14, 2008 Share Posted February 14, 2008 I know but what I mean is weren't those tapes they handed over the ones since 2000 that Goodell was telling Specter about? They were supposed to be, but I guess we'll see. As far as losing an anti trust exception I doubt it. This congress is so divided I doubt they can do anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patriots Posted February 14, 2008 Share Posted February 14, 2008 Everyone knew about this already. He was told to stpp taping last season and he got this year. The reason the for the fine was because he had already been told to stop. If I am wrong about this than someone can correct me. That is just how I saw the whole thing. Thanks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimC Posted February 14, 2008 Share Posted February 14, 2008 Anyone else want to correct me? Yer ugly too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjpro11 Posted February 14, 2008 Share Posted February 14, 2008 I know but what I mean is weren't those tapes they handed over the ones since 2000 that Goodell was telling Specter about? 'how could they only have 6 tapes like goodell said, if they have been doing this for 8 years? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whiskey Pimp Posted February 14, 2008 Share Posted February 14, 2008 'how could they only have 6 tapes like goodell said, if they have been doing this for 8 years? I have no idea how much goes on a tape or anything but doing it for 8 years doesn't mean they've taped every game for 8 years. I guess we'll wait to see if any more come out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
budlitebrad Posted February 14, 2008 Share Posted February 14, 2008 Yer ugly too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted February 14, 2008 Share Posted February 14, 2008 Thought that was just Baseball? Specter has questioned the quality of the NFL's investigation into the matter and raised the possibility of congressional hearings if he wasn't satisfied with Goodell's answers. Specter also raised the threat of Congress canceling the league's antitrust exemption and reiterated that in the meeting with Goodell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted February 14, 2008 Share Posted February 14, 2008 Walsh told The Associated Press last week during the Pro Bowl in Hawaii that he couldn't talk about allegations that he taped a walkthrough practice by the St. Louis Rams before the 2002 Super Bowl. New England, a two-touchdown underdog, won that game 20-17. Goodell said he has offered Walsh a deal whereby "he has to tell the truth and he has to return anything he took improperly" in return for indemnity. Specter said he, too, wanted to talk to Walsh and perhaps offer a different deal. Good thinking Specter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Beatings Posted February 14, 2008 Share Posted February 14, 2008 Remember when the Giants stole the radio signals of the Vikings during the 2001 NFC Championship game? I do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted February 14, 2008 Share Posted February 14, 2008 Everyone knew about this already. He was told to stpp taping last season and he got this year. The reason the for the fine was because he had already been told to stop. If I am wrong about this than someone can correct me. That is just how I saw the whole thing. Thanks So you are saying its ok that he cheated because the league told him to stop Seriously, as a Pats fan how does this make you feel about what your team has done since an admitted cheater has arrived as your HC and that he has been cheating since his feet hit the ground? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patriots Posted February 14, 2008 Share Posted February 14, 2008 So you are saying its ok that he cheated because the league told him to stop Seriously, as a Pats fan how does this make you feel about what your team has done since an admitted cheater has arrived as your HC and that he has been cheating since his feet hit the ground? I am just saying that is old news that he has been taping all along. And it doesn't make me feel any better or worse that they cheated. its not me or my family or friends that did it. I enjoyed their superbowls but if they get taken away it does not effect me in the least. Clemens cheated as well but they are not going to take his cy youngs away. He just won't get in the HOF. I think BB is a good coach but not someone I would want to associate myself with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.