HOME | CATALOG | DOWNLOADS | LINKS | EDITORIALS | DISCUSSION | CONTACT

Cameragate, or What should happen to ...

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | User List | Help/Instructions | Log Out | Edit Profile | Register
Night Shade Message Boards » Shepard, Lucius » Pro Football. the Draft, etc. » Cameragate, or What should happen to Billy B and his Patsies? « Previous Next »

  Thread Last Poster Posts Pages Last Post
  Start New Thread        

Author Message
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Minz
Posted on Thursday, September 13, 2007 - 08:29 am:   

I think Billichek should be suspended for at least a few games. I think they should give up at least a couple of draft picks, including a first rounder. And I think the NFL should implement the audio system of signals for defensive side of the ball (like they do with offense), and the Pats should foot the bill to implement the system.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Lucius
Posted on Thursday, September 13, 2007 - 08:37 am:   

Why not execute him? It's bullshit. It gives you no in-game competitive advantage whatsoever, this according to a number of players, and everybody does it. I'm sure the asshole goodell will be harsh in order to solidify his image as Cotton Mather, but it's bs.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Dave G.
Posted on Thursday, September 13, 2007 - 12:23 pm:   

If you're dumb enough to let your signals be stolen, then let the competitive market reign, I say. Besides, stealing the Jets' defensive signals is like an art thief breaking into a Thomas Kinkade showroom.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Lucius
Posted on Thursday, September 13, 2007 - 12:28 pm:   

:-)

This guy on espn pointed out that you could steal signals a lot more surreptiously than with a video camera--if Bellicheck's so wily, you'd think he'd realize that. Hell, I did. And, too, it's ok to steal signals, but not to use hi tech to do so? Come on.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Dave G.
Posted on Thursday, September 13, 2007 - 12:54 pm:   

Wasn't there some kind of a flap a couple years ago about the Eagles eavesdropping on radio transmissions or something?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Dave G.
Posted on Thursday, September 13, 2007 - 01:03 pm:   

Here's what I don't understand, guys. Anything that can be FILMED with a camera can be plainly observed by the eye. Would it be cheating to have someone on the Pats' sideline watching the defensive staff signalling? If that's not cheating, why would it be cheating to film it? If it's happening out in the open, how can it be cheating to observe it?

This sounds like sour grapes hair-splitting to me.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Minz
Posted on Thursday, September 13, 2007 - 01:36 pm:   

On the other hand, Goodell expressly forbid it--it was instruction #1 given by the commish to the league this year, and while all 32 teams received the instruction, it was understood that he was basically warning the Pats not to do it. But they did anyway. That level of sheer stupidity deserves to be punished, especially since it was against the Jets. I mean, it was the Jets fer crissake. What were the signals: don't rush the quarterback? Wait until a count of five mississippi before you do?

Also, if Goodell is going to crack the whip so harshly on players that violate league rules, how can he not come down like a ton of bricks on the Pats. They were specifically told not to do this at the start of the season, told it was illegal, but they did it anyway.

And, in truth, it's tough to chalk it up to stupidity--more like hubris. You're told you can't, and in game 1, against a weak opponent, you do it anyway, daring the league to do something.

And, as for whether it has a bearing on the game, if stealing signals is that meaningless, then why do coaches waste their time covering their mouths when they speak into their mikes? Before there were mikes, why did you have two guys signalling in the plays every down in order to obfuscate? Signal stealing gives you an edge, let's you know what to expect. And by filming it, you couple that with the stills, and during halftime, you can match signals to sets, and voila, you've got a heads up on what the D's doing. When to read a blitz and call for max protect. Know when they're masking zone coverage as man-for-man. Etc. Can you honestly believe that doesn't help a team? Puh-lease.

And even if you actually believe this doesn't help a team, despite a preponderance of at least circumstantial evidence that it does, the commissioner expressly told all the teams it was not allowed. They did it. They deserve to be punished. Or do we simply say the rules don't apply. No more penalties. No more league rules. Do whatever the heck you like. C'mon, it's a no brainer. The commissioner has to spank him--this infraction effects the integrity of how the game is played. Compared to lowlife scumbag pulling crap off the field, this is a much worse infraction. In terms of integrity of the game, about the only thing worse would be deliberately shaving points.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Lucius
Posted on Thursday, September 13, 2007 - 02:01 pm:   

It doesn't help. To burn it onto a disc, to get the coaches to analyze it, to transfer the info to the coordinaters, and then to drum it into the players heads all during a halftime...Please. It ain't happening.

The integrity of the game? Stop, minz. You're cracking me up. This is the NFl, you're talking about, right? The same league that's ignoring it's damaged vets? You might as well say, the integrity of the corporation.

Dave, yep. The iggles. Just goes to show.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Dave G.
Posted on Thursday, September 13, 2007 - 03:09 pm:   

Minz, I agree. Coaches cover their mouths so the guys across the way can't see what they're signalling. That makes sense to me. But doing it in plain view, then trying to enforce a "no peeking" rule seems ludicrous.

In SI, Dr. Z's big gripe was that they were doing it with electronic gear. Again, I don't follow the logic.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Lucius
Posted on Thursday, September 13, 2007 - 03:40 pm:   

Dr Z's an old fart. I love it when sportswriters turn moralist.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Lucius
Posted on Thursday, September 13, 2007 - 03:41 pm:   

I love it when Sportswriters turn moralist.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Lucius
Posted on Thursday, September 13, 2007 - 05:42 pm:   

750K and one of two first round picks. I feel the Pats will survive. It hurts, but then they never rely too much on the draft. It's ridiculous, but the Witchfinder General keeps his rep.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Minz
Posted on Thursday, September 13, 2007 - 07:48 pm:   

Okay, explain this to me: If it's of no use to do this, that videotaping the other teams signals offers no help whatsoever, why in the world would you do it? Why have someone making the videotape after the commissioner expressly forbade it, if it doesn't give you a competitive advantage? Why risk it? There's absolutely no reason whatsoever, unless it actually has a practical useful application.

There should've been a suspension, plain and simple. Guys who get into trouble at 2am in a nightclub face suspensions, but someone who gets caught redhanded cheating during actual play gets nothing. If I'm in the NFLPA, I'm screaming BS Hipocrisy at the top of my lungs...

Oh, and if they don't make the playoffs, it becomes a second round pick. WTF? The punishment shouldn't be relativistic. Pathetic. And here I thought Goodell might be consistent. Instead, there's a double standard, one for cheating players, and one for cheating coaches. In other words, they let the players inside the house as long as they mind their manners, but they're held to a different standards to the ones who live inside the house. Been a long time since Emancipation, but some things never change.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Lucius
Posted on Thursday, September 13, 2007 - 09:19 pm:   

Because, in the paranoid world of NFL coaches, they'll try anything to get an advantage, even shit they know does nothing, becuase everyone else is doing it. The fact is, signals can be stolen--but stealing doesn't do shit. Otherwise the evil Pats would have won every super bowl forever.

Suspension wouldn't have done anything. Bellichek's got a dozen coaches capable of implementing a game plan. And he was fine a half million, which is a couple or three game checks...The punishment way to severe, but who cares.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Dave G.
Posted on Friday, September 14, 2007 - 05:55 am:   

Assuming that stealing signals gives a competitive advantage, so what? Isn't the answer for other teams to hire smarter coaches who can catch on to what opponents are doing?

What kills me is that, if decoding an opponents' signals is illegal, then by extension, so should be calling audibles based on players' stances or gestures or remarks. Isn't that also a form of predicting what an opponent is going to do by decoding his actions? But QBs who can audiblize are called smart and rewarded for their intelligence!

I just don't get what makes videotaping in and of itself so evil. Like I said, if you can do it visually, what's the harm in doing it by videotape?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Lucius
Posted on Friday, September 14, 2007 - 09:14 am:   

You got it. It's a totally bogus deal.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Dave G.
Posted on Friday, September 14, 2007 - 10:54 am:   

A friend of mine explained that coaching staffs try to gain an advantage by taping signals and matching them up against the game film. But a)this would be of no use against non-divisional opponents you only meet once a season; and b) this would be of no use against teams that changed up their signals from one meeting to the next. Is b) standard procedure, do you know?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Robert Brown
Posted on Friday, September 14, 2007 - 10:59 am:   

What a ridiculous controvery! I suppose game film is next, so as not to allow those with better work habits to gain advantage over the goldbrickers.

I spit on the NFL.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Lucius
Posted on Friday, September 14, 2007 - 11:30 am:   

B is indeed a standard procedure. Several coaches and players have commented on this practice.

Robert, I join you in your expectoration.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Minz
Posted on Friday, September 14, 2007 - 02:08 pm:   

Stealing signals is _not_ illegal. _Videotaping_ signals is illegal. And it can make a big difference in the game as it's being played. You already have gameplanned for the team you're playing, you know their sets, you know their favorite blitzes, etc. It's a chess match guessing when and where they'll be using them. By videotaping the signals from the two or three guys signalling the plays, someone can analyze them against the stills and the actual plays, and by halftime, you know exactly what signals mean this blitz, that coverage, etc. All it would take is having the right offensive call on a few plays to counteract an allout blitz, or catch them with single coveragee on the right guy, and that could be the whole ballgame. Granted, players still have to make the play, but it totally can effect the outcome.

And the key issue here is that the commissioner expressly forbade it, and yet the Pats did it anyway. Wilson gets a five-game suspension for using banned drug as treatment for a disease (and um, how in the friggin world can a coach taking steroids mean a single thing to how the game is played?), but Billy B doesn't even get one game for cheating in how the game is played.

You can harp on its efficacy as a way of cheating; I disagree, but so what. That's not the issue.

You can say it shouldn't be illegal; again, I'd disagree, but so what. That's not the issue.

The issue is quite simply, the commissioner of the NFL expressly pointed out that it is illegal to videotape the other team's signals, and the Pats did that. No suspension for Billy B marks the commissioner as a complete hypocrit. A coach who takes a banned substance (and um, I don't believe coaches sign the NFLPA agreement) and he's suspended five games. A coach cheats in a manner that the league expressly warned about, and he gets nothing. That fine is a joke. Billy B can do one commercial selling Sony Videocameras, and he'll make his money back. Goodell can try and say he's bringing discipline to the NFL, but all he's doing is trying to eliminate the bad boys image. He's a total useless hypocrit. Don't know why I actually ever believed any different. If Goodell were actually serious about cleaning up the league, Billy B would be out for the year. Then, I guarantee, nobody would be even thinking about doing this again.

And I suppose all of you are okay with good ol' Lumpy Bonds as well. Ugh.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Minz
Posted on Friday, September 14, 2007 - 02:15 pm:   

I now I go to ESPN.com (was in the city on biz today, and just got back), and see Wilson speaks up for himself...and he's absolutely right, IMNSHO

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3019472
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Lucius
Posted on Friday, September 14, 2007 - 02:34 pm:   

Gooddell a hypocrite? What a shocker.

Yeah, I heard wilson's thing, and he's right. He shouldn't have been punished either. I think it's all a pile of dogshit.

Do I care about baseball? I hope the entire sport, except for Ichiro, takes steroids and dies. Bonds is an asshole...and people don't care about him. Nobody did when he passed Aaron, and they care even less now. Bonds' punishment is that the public will always think he's an asshole.

I don't understand why you're so up in arms about this. Do you hate the pats or are you carrying a grudge from the last time they played the pats?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Minz
Posted on Friday, September 14, 2007 - 03:19 pm:   

I don't like cheaters. Period. The Pack is a complete non-factor--even if the Pats'd left the coaches at home last year, they probably would've beat the Packers.

I guess the biggest reason is that I once had a lot of respect for Billy B and his team. They seemed to do it right, and had success. I didn't like the team, per se, but I respected them. Not anymore. I think this taints every win. Obviously, it would've been a nonfactor in many of them, but who's to know? It easily could've been a factor in the SB against Philly. Ditto the AFC champ against Raiders. Basically any tight game they won, where the offense called just the right play for just the right d, you have to say to yourself, did they cheat to come up with that call? We'll never know. It's all in doubt.

And apologist Pats fans need not take part in this discussion. Same with fans of rival teams. This isn't emotional team loyalty to me at all.

I respected the heck out of them, but no more. Forever will be cheaters in my book, and nothing can be said to change that. And mealy-mouthed apologists can keep their excuses to themselves. It was illegal to film the other team signals, and they undeniably did it. I sincerely hope, and expect, this'll keep Billy B outta the HoF, as it should.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Lucius
Posted on Friday, September 14, 2007 - 03:57 pm:   

Well, I'm not a mealy mouthed apologist, though you may not think so, but in my view Bellichek and Vince Lombardi are the same fucking guy, arrogant, bellicose, and acerbic, and he would have done the same. The old bastard probably cheated all he could.

Keep Bellicheck out of the hall, for stealing signals? Good Christ! You've lost it, man. He's first ballot. Stealing signals is something every team has done in baseball, football, any game where signals exist. I'm not a Pats fan, but I lke the way they play and this taints nothing. It's absurd, media-driven absurdity, and you appear to have swallowed the whole hook. You wouldn't keep Pete Rose out of the Hall for gambling on baseball, yet you'd keep Bellichek out for stealing signals. Either you've gone off the deep end or you have an agenda.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Minz
Posted on Friday, September 14, 2007 - 05:55 pm:   

Well, I may be a little sleep deprived from a new baby in the house, and the new job, and all the work I'm doing on the house, and I may have been trying to get your goat just a wee bit, but I am very disappointed in this. Not to mention the hubris and sheer stupidity. I mean, Goodell warned them specifically not to do this, and then he went ahead and did it anyway. He should be suspended for the sheer gall alone.

And I will admit, I was clearly caught up in the heat of the moment on that last post: this shouldn't keep him out of the Hall, but I'd take some satisfaction in him not being a first ballot (fat chance of that--by the time he's eligible, this will all be chalked up to his ultra-competitive spirit, blah, blah, blah, because upteen other scandals will have long since come and gone, and nobody will care.)

In the spirit of the devil's advocate: Do you think Pete Rose's gambling had any effect on the results of games? I honestly don't. This might have. And no matter what Billy B does after this, there'll always be at least a shadow of doubt that he cheated to get there--and again, I point to his sheer stupidity and hubris to risk his legacy and cast that shadow of doubt (and he has noone to blame but himself) for what? One lousy game against the lousy Jets. It's like he's some addict, thinking he's untouchable and invincible.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Lucius
Posted on Friday, September 14, 2007 - 06:14 pm:   

Yeah, Pete's such an integrity guy. Do you really think that Pete didn't bet against the Reds. Say he'd been on a losing streak, a big one--there'd be a hell of a temptation for him to make a bet and influence the game. I notice that most of the people who think the camera influenced the game are AFC guys, and most of the guys who don;t think it influenced them are guys who never had to play the Pats regularly, and thus didn't bear a grudge. I'll give you Bellichek's an arrogant SOB, but so are all of them and I betcha every damn one cheats. That doesn't make it right, but it establishes a culture.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Minz
Posted on Friday, September 14, 2007 - 06:55 pm:   

I guess I feel like Charlie Hustle deserves to get in as a player, regardless of what he did as a manager. He didn't cheat the game as a player.


Now you know I'm not an AFC guy, haven't given a rats patootie about an AFC team since Houston moved to Tennessee (and truthfully, it was when Bum and Earl were down in Houston that I was a big fan). While I hated Elway, I don't even care about the Broncos either way now that he's done, and the Pats, heck the only time the Packers played them when it really mattered, we beat them. So I'm cool with them.

And if every one of them are trying to cheat, then all the more reason to come down like a ton of bricks, and set the tone. Clean up your act because the league is watching. Of course, I'm enough of a realist to know that if they really would've spanked him, it could've become open season on exposing past indiscretions for lots of folks in the league.

But I'm all for it. Bring out the dirty laundry, air it out and clean it up.

And it irks me that Billy B gets a free pass when Wilson is getting five games for taking meds for himself (if that's what it really was). And it pisses me off even more that the coach gets a free pass when the players, the guys actually spilling their guts on the field, risking body and mind to play the game, face much more severe sanctions--a mostly for stuff that happens off the field, and has no bearing on the actual integrity of the gameplay whatsoever (I'm all for zero tolerance on performance enhancing stuff). If you're gonna spank the players, then the guys in charge should be held to an even higher standard.

And yes, I am the guy who does believe players should be held accountable for their offfield stuff. If your livelihood is generated from income from the public, especially when it hinges on your public performance (entertainer, politician, athlete) then you're answerable to the public for any behavior that becomes public. (People should be able to live private lives, but if you mess up and end up in legal trouble, that's fair game.) But compared to getting caught redhanded cheating? That's waaaay more significant to me. That's effecting the integrity of the game. And just because most people are doing it, that's no defense. if it's illegal, you get caught, you get a real punishment, one that outweighs getting busted for being stupid at 2am outside some club.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Lucius
Posted on Friday, September 14, 2007 - 07:09 pm:   

The thing is. cheating has been for years an accepted part of sports--you know that's true, and it's only since the media has gotten so pervasive and simplistical moral that there's been this hiue and cry. Gaylord Perry, a self-proclaimed cheater during his career, is a HOFer. Cheaters by the score are HOFers. Now, prompted by the media generated public outrage, a commissioner is seeking to make his bones by going Cotton Mather. It's a joke. The games have never had any intergrity. Everytime you use that phrase I'm gonna repeat that. Never. The pro games are corporate, and corporations are by nature corrupt. It's silly to wax wroth about this shit. Let it go, man. He's been punished, way to severely to my mind. The one thing I agree with you on is Wilson. His punishment too was way out of line. Let the healing begin. Football tomorrow.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Minz
Posted on Saturday, September 15, 2007 - 09:50 am:   

You know, now that I've had a chance to get some sleep, I'm feeling a little more level-headed. Now I know Billy B doesn't deserve the HoF. The two more recent SBs were close games (3 pt wins), where Pats Offense didn't score at all until the second quarter, and the majority of the points came in the second half. How can you not have doubts about them? Unless you're a homer. Billy B should be done for the year. Minimum.

And in no small way I am sick of Pats fans sounding like this:
http://www.youtube.com/user/Fitzy01821

their "championships" will always come with an asterisk, and there's no amount of rationalization that can change that. If "everyone" cheats, prove it. Show me multiple instances of the team violating league rules to get an edge. And that's one more team that deserves severe sanctions. If you want to curtail the cheating, make the punishment severe enough to actually make a difference. 3/4 of a million and one draft pick to win 3 SB championships? Why not cheat?

And here's my new theme song (except on Saturdays):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0EU1O-hGxgg
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Lucius
Posted on Saturday, September 15, 2007 - 10:08 am:   

You're obsessed, man. A real hater. You better start hating on the Citadel. It's 3-3 after the first quarter. More Big 10 power.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Minz
Posted on Tuesday, October 02, 2007 - 08:33 am:   

One more damning shot over the bow, though I suspect given the NFL's heavyhand in this, we may never see another article about this. But it is heartening at least someone among the sports media remembers what it means to be a reporter...

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=easterbrook/070925&sportCat=nfl
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Lucius
Posted on Tuesday, October 02, 2007 - 08:46 am:   

Gee, I wonder what the pats are doing now? Maybe they've pledged themselves to Satan? I noticed last night, before making the first of his nine catches, that Moss was consulting a tiny video screen affixed to his wrist. More Patriot treachery. Unthinkable! The integrity of the game! Blither, blither, blither.

A damning shot would be a shot that damns. This is merely innuendo. The media making a feeble attempt to keep a non-story alive.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Minz
Posted on Tuesday, October 02, 2007 - 09:57 am:   

Were you saying the same things about the Watergate gang when they were in coverup mode? Are we supposed to believe Barry Bonds, a health nut and workout freak, when he said he had no idea it was steroid cream he was applying to his body? When are sports fans going to get off their duffs and say "enough?"

And how does what they're doing now have anything to do with whether they cheated during any of their Super Bowl wins, all of which were tight games, two of which the Pats pulled out in the second half, where stealing signals of defenses blitzes would've given a distinct advantage? If there was no evidence of cheating during the Super Bowl, Aiello would've said that. His attempt at obfuscation and spin speaks volumes. He would be right at home with the Bush White House. heck, he's better at it than Bushie's boys...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Lucius
Posted on Tuesday, October 02, 2007 - 10:44 am:   

No, I wasn't saying the same thing, but then I hated Nixon and Bonds long before they were suspected of criminal activity--and that's the point I'm trying to make: You hate Bellichick and the Pats success. There's no point in denying it--it's clear. Another salient difference, Watergate was a crime, this is not. And Nixon had committted far more serious crimes against the American people. All Bellichick did was look for an edge, like every other team in football...and baseball and basketball, etc. If you prosecute every cheater in sports, you're not going to have sports. Is that what you want? Do you conceive of sports without cheating. That's just naive. Admit you hate the Pats and, in fact, everything not Green Bay, home of pedophile tight ends and drug-abusing QBs (real illegalities)--and we have a basis for discussion. I don't know whether his stealing signals had anything to do with the Super Bowls, and neither do you. I don't know if the bad call in the 13th inning changed the outcome of the Rockies-Pods game, and neither do you. I don't know if there's evidence of SB cheating and neither do you. I'm sure that the NFL burned the videos because not doing so would have led to a situation in which every team narked on the other and there would be no NFl. Me, I'd rather have the NFL. If the Pats win the Super Bowl this year, they'll cheat--but they won't use video's....Does that make it better? If GB wins the division, they'll cheat, too...even if they lose, they'll cheat. That's just the way it is and always has been. It's your right to hate the pats, but this harping on the videos is silly. IMO.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Dave G.
Posted on Wednesday, October 03, 2007 - 06:03 am:   

Goodell shredding the docs was dumb; it's just going to provide fodder for every conspiracy nut out there. Not saying you're a nut, Minz. I'm just saying...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Lucius
Posted on Wednesday, October 03, 2007 - 06:14 am:   

"Not saying you're a nut, Minz...."

Oh, no! :-)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Minz
Posted on Wednesday, October 03, 2007 - 07:36 am:   

I prefer the term "fanatic," but that's alright. i've always been more of an Almond Joy kinda guy.

And I did _not_ hate the Pats before this scandal broke. Not a lick. (Look at past posts--though I'll doubt you'll find much, other than my handicapping their chances of winning). And if you want to stop cheating, then show zero tolerance. I'll hang onto my righteous indignation and continue to demand more from pro sports than they're willing to give. Call it naivete, but if enough fans would actually demand culpability, we'll get more of it.

And I don't buy the everybody cheats copout. Prove it. And if you can, great, punish them too.

FYI, Chmura never played another down after he was arrested. Same for Lofton back in 80s, and in his case, it turns out his accuser was a total nutjob, but the Packers had already shipped him off to the Raiders by the time the legal mess was sorted out. Why? Because Green Bay fans are the owners, and they actually do hold their team to certain standards.

I'll be curious to see whether we bring in Ricky Williams for a look...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Minz
Posted on Wednesday, October 03, 2007 - 07:47 am:   

And it's disingenous to claim that you have to be a conspiracy nut to claim the NFL acted suspiciously. Nobody's inventing signs of a coverup--the bare facts speak volumes all on their own. Why did they destroy it so quickly? If the evidence weren't damning, it would've made much more sense to let everyone see it and clear the air. And don't tell me the NFL doesn't understand that completely. Aeillo's comments are so very carefully chosen double-speak--he knows he's handling a hand grenade, and refuses to say anything that could be proven to be a lie. It doesn't take a conspiracy nut to see it is clearly a coverup. It does take a homer to invent the conspiracy excuse, so somehow they can cling to the idea that their hometeam deserved the championships they stole. That's the facts of the case. Caught cheating to win. Plain and simple. Add the asterisk to the record books. Swallow your bitter pill and move on. Even the NCAA has enough integrity to vacate wins if a team is caught cheating...and we rip on them constantly. So who's got the doublestandard here?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Lucius
Posted on Wednesday, October 03, 2007 - 08:35 am:   

"Because Green Bay fans are the owners, and they actually do hold their team to certain standards.

I'll be curious to see whether we bring in Ricky Williams for a look"

See anything contradictory in those statements? :-)

Prove that anyone's cheating? Obviously impossible. Just as you can't prove more that that Aiello's doing more than yellow journalism.

You're right. Zero tolerance. But when has that ever been practiced?

I don't know why they destroyed it so quickly--nor do you. You're making assumptions based on your hate of the pats. I ain't buying it. There won't any asterisk. If there is, it'll be in your head with all the moths and bats. :-) And I'm not a pats fan. I hate Bellichick for what he did in Cleveland.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Robert Brown
Posted on Wednesday, October 03, 2007 - 08:36 am:   

It's just the Superbowl. Who cares who won last year? I hope the Clowns get one, and the Prancing Ponies (the Browns and Lions to the rest of you) get one, and I hope they both get one without an asterisk, but I'll take an asterisk if it takes an asterisk for them to win.

Why? Because I'm a fan(atic).

The NFL is all mercenary now. There are no more home teams, it's corporately owned teams in corporately owned stadiums with players playing for as much money as they can pry from the cold, dead fingers of the stiffs who would run the franchises like plantations if they could.

The Packers are different, and I respect them for that. I've never had no beef with the Packers. But they got theirs, and I want mine. Romeo, cheat if ya gotta. Same goes for whicheve coach Detroit has next year, and the year after that.

Some GB fans still hold Favre's drug use against him, BTW. I lived in Wisconsin for many years, and say what you want about Backpackers (they're all nuts about the Pack up there) but they have a modicum of integrity to their unwavering, slavering worship of all things green and cheese.

Congrats, Minz, on your team's surprising success this year. I've been surprised, at least.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Lucius
Posted on Wednesday, October 03, 2007 - 08:49 am:   

Now you'll get his head all swole up.

Never fear, Minz--I detest Brett not because he's a doper (who isn't?), but because he's a fake-humble, lying-ass redneck. :-)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Minz
Posted on Tuesday, October 09, 2007 - 04:43 am:   

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/more/10/08/jonesmedals.ap/index.html

So _that's_ what should happen when someone gets caught redhanded while cheating. Hmmm... you listening Commenabler Goodell?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Lucius
Posted on Tuesday, October 09, 2007 - 06:50 am:   

Write this down five hundred times-

Using steroids is illegal; cheating at football is not.

Get off it, man. It's getting to be like my aunt muttering about Eisenhauer beating Adlai Stevenson thirty years after the fact.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Dave G.
Posted on Tuesday, October 09, 2007 - 06:54 am:   

I could have felt some sympathy for Jones if they had not shown that Today show clip of her smirking smugly, saying "I was blessed with a special talent and a great work ethic," as if to say that her accusers were just sore losers. And what was that bit about her being involved in a bank fraud?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Lucius
Posted on Tuesday, October 09, 2007 - 07:30 am:   

You and Minz work it out, okay? I was thrilled by Marion Jones running and, considering she was running against what likely was 7 other steroid filled ladies, my attitude is so what? We're in an era where everyone's doing it, and I see no reason Jones has to give her medals back. Legalize rhoids for professional athletes. If they want to take the risk, cool. It no more of a risk than playing NFL football, which takes about ten, fifteen years off your lifespan.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Dave G.
Posted on Tuesday, October 09, 2007 - 07:46 am:   

No qyestion it's a sticky issue. One extreme is a zero-tolerance policy, inept requlators racing around two steps behind steroid labs, occasionally catching a sloppy or lazy abuser and making an example out of her. The other is athletics as an extension of the pharmaceutical business, each team or nation having the backing of a complex of laboratories strugging to kick out the best drugs, with athletes as the guinea pigs.

The question is: is it too late to stamp the steroid genie back into its bottle?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Lucius
Posted on Tuesday, October 09, 2007 - 08:38 am:   

Absolutely it's too late. It's not even about steroids anymore, it's about HGH and designer drugs and it's gone into chemical realms that the cops can't keep up with--they're about 7-10 years behind the curve...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Dave G.
Posted on Tuesday, October 09, 2007 - 09:04 am:   

Q: how do we safeguard the athletes? Or, more precisely, do we even care? Or will it be like horse racing, horses bred with spindly bones, dosed with Lasiq, only the inevitable tragedies greeted with media overkill and crocodile tears?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Lucius
Posted on Friday, October 12, 2007 - 08:54 am:   

It should hearten you to know, Jim, that one other soul feels as you do: Skip Bayless. That's sound company.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Dave_g
Member
Username: Dave_g

Post Number: 1410
Registered: 07-2006
Posted on Friday, February 15, 2008 - 01:05 pm:   

Watch out, gang. Snarlin' Arlen Specter is on the case now...And Belichick doesn't have any political cover.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Lucius
Moderator
Username: Lucius

Post Number: 7083
Registered: 12-2004
Posted on Saturday, February 16, 2008 - 06:38 am:   

But Robert Kraft does.

This stuff would make me Embarrassed to be Human if Specter were a human. What a bunch of shit. An eagle fan lashes out. Jesus.

Add Your Message Here
Post:
Username: Posting Information:
This is a private posting area. Only registered users and moderators may post messages here.
Password:
Options: Enable HTML code in message
Automatically activate URLs in message
Action:

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | User List | Help/Instructions | Log Out | Edit Profile | Register

| Moderators | Administrators |