In Response to Re: Russ vs. JimmyJack and UnderRoos
What is this timeline you are babbling about? Like I said, it's very telling why you didn't answer the questions I asked of you. What is very disturbing is you asked why Goodell destroyed the tapes and don't want to know why. lol You just can't make this up, folks. Did mommy drop on your head as a child once or twice? More than twice?
Posted by russgriswold
As I stated clearly before Russ, the questions you ask are irrelevant, therefore, they go unanswered.
Let's start at the beginning, since, you have obviously confused yourself :)90% of non-Pats fans HATE NE.
Posted by russgriswold
Is this a fact, generalisation, figure of speech, or hyperbole?
Obviously, you tried to pass this off as fact. Then you changed your mind and tried to pass it off as a generalisation or figure of speech. Except, all three would be wrong. The correct answer is hyperbole - (which a different poster correctly defined). Basically, you were using it as a way of overexagerating your opinion. The fact is, they didn't "cheat".
Posted by russgriwold
Well, if we follow the definitions from dictionary.com: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cheat
4. to practice fraud or deceit:
5. to violate rules or regulations
And we ask the simple question: Did the Patriots violate a rule? and if the answer is yes, then Patriots cheated. It doesn't matter how many times you write it or say it out loud Russ - it's NOT going to change the fact that Roger Goodell/NFL determined that the Patriots violated the rule. This becomes easy fodder for people to talk about. If it happened to the Colts, we would be using it against them all the time."Yes, they broke a portion of a rule. They were punished, but the media prodded a non-story for SIX MORE MONTHS."
Posted by Russgriswold
So, if they broke a rule, then by the definition previously used - the Patriots cheated. Cheating part way is still cheating....lol :)"The media continued to lie about Spygate for 8 months"
Posted by Russgriswold.
Did they? Hmmm, interesting. I agree that the media covered not only the original story but also subsequent related stories for a long time. But are they really lies? I don't believe there is any proof to say one way or the other about the lies you mentioned. Hence, a timeline - which explains why the coverage lasted so long. Like I said before - which you completely ignored - a series of event happened in a linear fashion - these events occurred over time.http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3225539
Sept. 9, 2007: NFL security officials confiscate a camera and videotape from 26-year-old Patriots' video assistant Matt Estrella on the New England sidelines when it was suspected he was recording the Jets' defensive signals during New England's 38-14 victory in the season-opening game at Giants Stadium. Clubs had been reminded of the prohibition against taping sideline signals in a Sept. 6, 2006, directive from league headquarters: "Videotaping of any type, including but not limited to taping of an opponent's offensive or defensive signals, is prohibited on the sidelines, in the coaches' booth, in the locker room or at any other locations accessible to club staff members during the game.''
Sept. 11, 2007: League sources tell ESPN's Chris Mortensen that NFL commissioner Roger Goodell has determined that the Patriots violated league rules when they videotaped the Jets' defensive signals, and is considering severe sanctions in light of his earlier stern warnings to all teams about competitive violations. … New England owner Robert Kraft is quoted from comments made at a charity appearance that day, saying, "When you're successful in anything, a lot of people like to try to take you down and do different things. We understand that." … Reports surface that the Patriots had been caught videotaping once before. In November 2006 during a game in Green Bay, the Packers caught Estrella shooting unauthorized video and told him to stop.
Sept. 12, 2007: The New York Daily News quotes an anonymous source who says Jets coach Eric Mangini was aware of New England's surveillance methods from his earlier tenure as a Patriots assistant coach. … Patriots' coach Bill Belichick issues a short statement that says in part, "Although it remains a league matter, I want to apologize to everyone who has been affected, most of all ownership, staff and players. Following the league's decision, I will have further comment." When pressed for further information, Belichick walks out of his weekly news conference.
Sept. 13, 2007: Goodell issues an "emergency" order mandating that New England must turn over all videotape and sign-stealing material in violation of league policy. At the same time, before receiving the requested tapes and materials, Goodell fines Belichick the NFL maximum of $500,000, and the Patriots are ordered to pay $250,000 for spying on an opponent's defensive signals. In addition, Goodell orders the team to give up its first-round draft choice in 2008 if it reaches the playoffs this season, or its second- and third-round picks if it misses the postseason. In a written response accepting responsibility, Belichick says in part, "As the commissioner acknowledged, our use of sideline video had no impact on the outcome of last week's game. We have never used sideline video to obtain a competitive advantage while the game was in progress. Part of my job as head coach is to ensure that our football operations are conducted in compliance of the league rules and all accepted interpretations of them. My interpretation of a rule in the Constitution and Bylaws was incorrect." Neither Goodell's statement nor Belichick's response mentions the videotaping practice extending into the past.
Sept. 14, 2007: On ESPN Radio's Mike & Mike show, Mortensen reports the league might not close the book on the controversy and might continue to "review" it. Mortensen suggests that the videotaping of the Sept. 9 game against the Jets could be the tip of the iceberg, and that the Patriots' practices could include jamming the radio frequency in opponents' head-sets, and miking the Pats' defensive linemen to hear the offense's audibles and the cadence between the center and the quarterback. … Mortensen also reports that Belichick has privately told Goodell he has been taping opponents' signals since he became the Pats' head coach in 2000.
Sept. 16, 2007: In an NBC television interview at halftime of New England's Sunday night game against the San Diego Chargers, Kraft says he didn't know his team was using a sideline camera in the game against the Jets. During the interview, Kraft is asked if anything else might have been done that would incur further penalties. "I know of nothing else that could be in this category," he says. ESPN's Mortensen reports that sources tell him Goodell has ordered the Patriots to turn over all videotape, files and notes relating to all their activity that resulted in the disciplinary action. If the Patriots are not compliant, the commissioner is prepared to impose even greater sanctions, Mortensen's sources say. Privately, the commissioner was more specific in his demands and expectations with Kraft when the two men spoke on Sept. 13, Mortensen's sources say.
Sept. 17, 2007: In an Associated Press report, Belichick says he will comply with league request to turn over notes and videotapes but refuses to confirm that there is additional video, saying it is a league issue. Within the next three days, New England turns over materials.
Sept. 20, 2007: The NFL announces New England is in compliance with the request for tapes and other documents.
Sept. 22, 2007: The AP reports that the NFL has received and destroyed all materials it requested from the New England Patriots concerning videotaping of opponents' sidelines, but discloses nothing about the contents. A league spokesman says the team is unlikely to face any further sanctions. Asked if there is evidence of the Patriots using the tactics in their Super Bowl wins, spokesman Greg Aiello declines to comment.
Nov. 15, 2007: Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., writes to Goodell, expressing concern about the league's destruction of tapes.
Dec. 19, 2007: After more than a month without a response, Specter writes to Goodell again.
Jan. 31, 2008: [+] Enlarge
Mike Fish/ESPN.com, AP Photo/Paul SancyaFormer Patriots video assistant Matt Walsh (left) sent eight game tapes to NFL commissioner Roger Goodell. The tapes arrived at the NFL office May 8.
In a letter to Specter, Goodell responds that the tapes and notes were destroyed to ensure that the Patriots "would not secure any possible competitive advantage as a result of the misconduct that had been identified. The Patriots have separately certified to me in writing that we received all tapes, all notes, and that no other material exists relating to the taping of defensive signals.''
Feb. 1, 2008: A New York Times story makes public Specter's interest in wanting an explanation from Goodell about the league's destruction of evidence related to the Patriots' spying. In public comments, Specter, a lifelong Philadelphia Eagles fan, says Goodell's explanation "absolutely makes no sense at all.'' The Times story introduces Matt Walsh as a former New England video assistant who says, "I'd like to see a resolution to the situation, so I don't have to field media calls, especially after being out of the league for more than four years." … ESPN.com's Mike Fish profiles Walsh as being in position to further pull back the curtain on the Patriots' taping history. "If I had a reason to want to go public or tell a story, I could have done it before this even broke," Walsh tells Fish. "I could have said everything rather than having [Eric] Mangini be the one to bring it out."
Feb. 1, 2008: At his annual Super Bowl news conference, Goodell says the evidence from the Patriots destroyed by the league consisted of six tapes from the 2006 season and 2007 preseason. Asked twice how far back the Patriots began to tape their opponents' signals, Goodell doesn't give a specific answer. There is no mention from Goodell that the practice dated back to 2000. Of the 38 questions posed to Goodell, 10 are related to Spygate. Among other things, Goodell reveals the reason the league destroyed the tapes turned over by the Patriots: "They were totally consistent with what the team told me. There was no purpose for them." Goodell also says he believes the Patriots gained no advantage from taping: "I think it probably had a limited effect, if any effect, on the outcome on any game. … There was no indication that it benefited them in any of the Super Bowl victories." And Goodell says the league did not inform the teams that had been taped: "We didn't. We didn't see any need to."
Feb. 2, 2008: The Boston Herald reports that an unnamed source has claimed a Patriots employee secretly videotaped the St. Louis Rams' walk-through the day before Super Bowl XXXVI. The Herald story doesn't name the employee. The Patriots issue a statement denying the information in the Herald story: "The suggestion that the New England Patriots recorded the St. Louis Rams' walkthrough on the day before Super Bowl XXXVI in 2002 is absolutely false. Any suggestion to the contrary is untrue."
Feb. 6, 2008: At the Pro Bowl in Hawaii, Goodell acknowledges that the league had heard rumors about the alleged Super Bowl walk-through taping. "We were aware of this before," Goodell says. "We pursued it and weren't able to get any information that was credible. We were aware of some of the rumors and we pursued some of them and we continue that. From Day 1, I said if we feel there is new information that's inconsistent with what we've been told [by the Patriots], I reserve the right to reopen it." Asked why the Patriots turned over six tapes, Goodell says, "That's what they had. My guess is they taped over some of those from time to time. … Their notes were reflective of that."
Feb. 13, 2008: During a 1-hour, 40-minute meeting with Goodell, Specter says the commissioner told him Belichick had been taping the sidelines since 2000. "There was confirmation that there has been taping since 2000, when Coach Belichick took over," Specter says.
Feb. 15, 2008: Specter tells ESPN.com's Mike Fish he is not swayed by the answers he received from Goodell and will continue his investigation. Specter says, "You have answers and positions where [Goodell] is saying that with the destruction of tapes that, 'We did the right thing. We're absolutely sure.' Well, that is absurd. … Goodell says things that don't make sense.'' Among other things, Specter says he learned that the tapes, as well as the notes, turned over by the Patriots in September were destroyed in Foxborough, Mass., rather than in the league's New York offices, and that NFL executives Jeffrey Pash and Ray Anderson reviewed the materials and received an OK from Goodell to destroy the evidence. Specter says he is particularly concerned about how the taping might have affected New England's games involving teams from his home state in the 2004 postseason, including Pittsburgh, which lost the AFC title game to New England after the Steelers had won a regular-season game in late October of that season. … Steelers officials issue a statement that reads: "We consider the tapes of our coaching staff during our games against the New England Patriots to be a non-issue. In our opinion, they had no impact on the results of those games. The Steelers fully support the manner in which commissioner Goodell handled the situation and the discipline that he levied against those who violated league rules. We are confident that the commissioner has taken appropriate action in his investigation of this matter, and will do so again if new information arises which requires further investigation and/or discipline."
Feb. 17, 2007: Belichick tells the Boston Globe he has never seen another team's practice film prior to a game, never taped a walk-through during his coaching career and couldn't pick Walsh out of a lineup. As for the taping of opposing coaches' signals, Belichick said, "I misinterpreted the rule . . . I take responsibility for it. Even though I felt there was a gray area in the rule and I misinterpreted the rule, that was my mistake and we've been penalized for it.'' Feb. 22, 2008:
At the league meetings, the NFL's Competition Committee issues strong support for Goodell's handling of Spygate. … In Washington, in an interview with ESPN.com's Fish, Specter accuses the league of stonewalling his investigation. Specter reveals his staff has been rebuffed in efforts to speak with members of the New England Patriots and New York Jets. He also says Kansas City Chiefs quarterback Damon Huard, a former backup to Tom Brady in New England, refused to speak with him during a phone call.
March 9, 2008: A former video assistant with Cleveland tells ESPN.com that the Browns taped defensive signals -- although not from the sideline -- when Belichick was head coach there in the '90s. Fish also reports that an NFL investigator has been inquiring about Matt Walsh with Walsh's former bosses at a Cape Cod, Mass., golf club where he worked after leaving the Patriots.
March 31-April 1, 2008: Kraft reportedly apologizes for the Pats' past taping practices to the league's owners and head coaches in a private session at the league's meetings in West Palm Beach, Fla., and Kraft and Belichick both address the media there. Kraft says Walsh didn't sign a confidentiality agreement when he left the Patriots in 2003 and says, "I think we've covered the subject. We broke a rule the first week of the season. We were penalized very heavily, and look what happened after that game. To me, that says more than anything. Players work very hard and coaches work very hard, and I think they accomplished something remarkable. I think everything stands on its own after that." Belichick says, "We've been forthright and true. I've answered every question twice that they've come to us with, made everybody in our organization accessible that they wanted to talk to. We've complied with everything they've asked of us." In addition, Belichick says, "I re-read that [videotaping] rule; I still interpreted it, obviously, incorrectly, that as long as it wasn't used in that game, that it was OK. I paid a price for that mistake. It was my mistake."
April 1, 2008: At the league's meetings, a rule is passed that allows headsets to be installed in the helmets of defensive players for sideline-to-field communications.
April 23, 2008: Walsh and the NFL reach an agreement for Walsh to meet with league officials and turn over any videotapes he might have to support his allegations. In a release announcing the agreement, the NFL wrote that Goodell had determined "the Patriots had violated league rules by videotaping opposing coaches' defensive signals'' throughout Belichick's tenure as head coach.
May 8, 2008: Eight videotapes containing footage of six games between 2000 and 2002 involving five teams arrive from Walsh at NFL offices in New York. A tape of the Rams' walk-through before Super Bowl XXXVI is not among the evidence turned over by Walsh. May 13, 2008:
Walsh meets for more than three hours in New York with NFL commissioner Roger Goodell. Commissioner says at a news conference afterward that no new information was revealed.
Russ, it doesn't take a genius to understand that since the different events happened over a period of time - that the media coverage will also occur over a period of time to correlate with each event.
All of Tiger's skeletons came out over about a months time. If another woman made a claim tomorrow - do you believe it would NOT be covered in the news?
Was it really a conspiracy, Russ? I don't expect you to change your mind.
Now, if you want to really impress all of us....provide actual proof (meaning data from a known source that can be shared with us) to support your statements. I've just done so. Now it's your turn.