Spectacle's Constituency Speaks - Page 2 - New England Patriots Forums

***fgssand*** · 05-15-2008, 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NE Fan

I wonder why everyone here questions Spector's credibility just for being on the board of Comcast but I will bet none of you questioned Senator Mitchell's credibility when he was ON THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE RED SOX. Mitchell was actually on the board of directors of one of the teams he was supposed to be investigating. If that doesn't scream conflict of interest I dont know what does. So lets all be thankful that we got lucky with the Mitchell Report because you can bet if Randy Levine or Lonn Trost (both members of the Yankees board) were doing a report, Papi and Schill's names would have appeared several times. Somehow I think being against the entire NFL (like Spector might be because of Comcast's dispute with NFL network) is much better than being biased for his own team and against a specific team like Mitchell.

I think steroids is a very serious issue - I know that misinterpreting a rule pales in comparison.

If there is any steroid abuse still going on with Red Sox, or previous abuse needs to be dealt with then - I hope they throw the book at them

Thanks for playing

NE Fan · 05-15-2008, 01:26 PM

Funny, I didn't see any prominent Yankees on the list except for Clemens, which was obvious, and Pettite, which was somewhat of a surprise but given his relationship with Clemens not that shocking. You make it sound as if Mitchell dropped Arod or Jeter in there and further there's no evidence of Schilling or Ortiz doing roids.

I am just saying that Pats/Red Sox fans (I assume most Pats fans are also Red Sox fans) should consider themselves lucky that of the two controversies, they got the home team treatment from one of them. I think everyone would agree that steroids stuff is much worse than Spygate so if I had to choose which Senator I would rather have watching my back, I would take Mitchell any day of the week. Lets be thankful for that otherwise we might have had to hear talk of tainted World Series too.

kolbitr · 05-15-2008, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NE Fan

Funny, I didn't see any prominent Yankees on the list except for Clemens, which was obvious, and Pettite, which was somewhat of a surprise but given his relationship with Clemens not that shocking. You make it sound as if Mitchell dropped Arod or Jeter in there and further there's no evidence of Schilling or Ortiz doing roids.

I am just saying that Pats/Red Sox fans (I assume most Pats fans are also Red Sox fans) should consider themselves lucky that of the two controversies, they got the home team treatment from one of them. I think everyone would agree that steroids stuff is much worse than Spygate so if I had to choose which Senator I would rather have watching my back, I would take Mitchell any day of the week. Lets be thankful for that otherwise we might have had to hear talk of tainted World Series too.

Where do you (NYYfans?) people come from? First of all, Mitchell was not a senator when he oversaw that report, and had not been for over a decade. This is not the same as Specter using the pulpit of the Senate for grandstanding for a lobbying firm against a single team, and you ought to know that. Second, Mitchell's investigation basically came down to the information provided to him from a single source--McNamee. The only damage to the Yankees was done by info provided to him concerning Clemens and Pettitte, who were his clients. This was nothing like a witch hunt, and the names mentioned were from all over the league. Third, there has been nearly zero questioning of the Yankees' WS wins; in fact, the only real casualty of the entire affair seems to have been Clemens' professional career, his personal life, and his future. I have not seen any outrage along the lines of "*26 WS" and the like on ESPN message boards. The reasons for this we can pretty well guess at...

Do not come on here with libel about players you dislike and pretend to be objective. Whether or not Mitchell's position was appropriate or not has been debated ad nauseam on baseball message boards, and should not derail this discussion.

fourthandmiles · 05-15-2008, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KontradictioN

I'd love to see a huge scandal involving Specter and a prostitute/money laundering/trafficking/extortion and watch him go down in flames in front of the press. Now THAT would be poetic justice.

Gotta include crazy gambling debts (those late season Dolphins games are always a little fishy aren't they) and something completely off the wall like trying to buy a majority stake in Franklin Sporting goods. You know the place that makes lopsided footballs and basketballs? Then something like he also tried to make Franklin the Official supplier of footballs to the NFL. Something that would show what fool he is.

FirstAndGoal · 05-15-2008, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NE Fan

I wonder why everyone here questions Spector's credibility just for being on the board of Comcast but I will bet none of you questioned Senator Mitchell's credibility when he was ON THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE RED SOX. Mitchell was actually on the board of directors of one of the teams he was supposed to be investigating. If that doesnt scream conflict of interest I dont know what does. So lets all be thankful that we got lucky with the Mitchell Report because you can bet if Randy Levine or Lonn Trost (both members of the Yankees board) were doing a report, Papi and Schill's names would have appeared several times. Somehow I think being against the entire NFL (like Spector might be because of Comcast's dispute with NFL network) is much better than being biased for his own team and against a specific team like Mitchell.

Wow, you're a "special" kind of idiot. You must be a Jets fan. ROFL