Florio: Source Says that Wells Report takings so long because investigation turned to the NFL

[SHOWTIME15]

Greggggggg Easterbrook, unlike his brother Frank, is a blithering moronic idiot.

For example, he gibbers about how the NFL is tax-exempt and either disingenuously or ignorantly (or maybe both!) believes that tax isn't paid on the billions of TV, merchandising, etc. revenues. Which is blatantly 100% false.

judge frank easterbrook?

 

[QuantumMechanic]

judge frank easterbrook?

Correct. Current CA7 judge Frank Easterbrook is Gregggggggggg's non-moron brother.

 

[TeamFirst]

We wouldn't be New England Patriots fans without. some real crazy conspiracy theories, like nfl giving up exempt status to somehow screw the Patriots.

I wonder how some of you conspiracy theorists live in the real world.

 

[shmessy]

Maybe I missed it but I don't think Mehta ever attributed that comment to a source, and it seemed like it was him trying to be cute.


.

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/f...d-100k-revis-tampering-case-article-1.2201989

........“The Jets shouldn’t be too deflated over the decision,” a league source said. “It won’t change the positive air around the team.”........

 

[YOUGOTMOSSED]

What about the Saints? Look, we can as Patriot fans say Spygate was nothing, but the league absolutely viewed it as an attempt to cheat. While their conclusion was wrong, from the perspective of how serious they thought it was, the punsihment was not out of line with any other punishments they have given.
I'm not defending how they handled it, I'm saying its naive to think they saw it as no big deal but took the opportunity to screw the Patriots because they have it out for them.
.

"not out of line with other punishments they have given"? Are you serious?
It's not so much the harshness of the penalties, it's the wild inconsistencies in how punishment is meted out that scream bias. The best example of this is Goodell's recent decision on the Jets tampering.
How can you possibly reconcile Goodell's $100k fine against the Jets with his own precedent (his prior rulings against the 49'ers and Lions)? There's no rational conclusion to draw from this other than bias. Is there?

 

[shmessy]

What does Government oversight have to do with Deflategate?
.

See "Senator Arlen Specter" and "Spygate",

 

[Ring 6]

See "Senator Arlen Specter" and "Spygate",

He compelled NFL personnel to go to Washington to testify about it in 2008.

Because of the AntiTrust exemption.
But that's not what you are saying. You are implying they gave up the tax classification so that they could stick it to the Patriots unfairly and no one could complain. Can we agree that is simply not supported by the facts?

 

[Ring 6]

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/f...d-100k-revis-tampering-case-article-1.2201989

........“The Jets shouldn’t be too deflated over the decision,” a league source said. “It won’t change the positive air around the team.”........

"A league source' is commonly used to describe employees of teams.

 

[Dr Pain]

"not out of line with other punishments they have given"? Are you serious?
It's not so much the harshness of the penalties, it's the wild inconsistencies in how punishment is meted out that scream bias. The best example of this is Goodell's recent decision on the Jets tampering.
How can you possibly reconcile Goodell's $100k fine against the Jets with his own precedent (his prior rulings against the 49'ers and Lions)? There's no rational conclusion to draw from this other than bias. Is there?

100% correct, they tampered with a player under contract that unlike the other two examples, they ended up signing. Miraculously a Jets beat writer had the details of the resulting contract while Revis was still a Patriots player.

 

[Ring 6]

"not out of line with other punishments they have given"? Are you serious?
It's not so much the harshness of the penalties, it's the wild inconsistencies in how punishment is meted out that scream bias. The best example of this is Goodell's recent decision on the Jets tampering.
How can you possibly reconcile Goodell's $100k fine against the Jets with his own precedent (his prior rulings against the 49'ers and Lions)? There's no rational conclusion to draw from this other than bias. Is there?

My comments were not about the tampering issues.
My comments were that if Spygate were considered cheating and a competitive advantage, the punishment would not be out of line with other punishments.
Lets be clear, and stay within context.
Those comments were in response to an implicaiton that the league thought it was no big deal but gave a heavy punishment just because it was the Patriots.
As I said the assumption part was horribly wrong, but given the assumption the punishment fit.
In other words, the judgment of the severity of the offense was atrocious, but given that the punishment fits.It makes the difference between incompetent investigation which it was, and a good investigation and punishment that was unjust based upon the investigation.

 

[shmessy]

"A league source' is commonly used to describe employees of teams.

I directly answered your question:

Andy JohnsonPost #275;

"Maybe I missed it but I don't think Mehta ever attributed that comment to a source, and it seemed like it was him trying to be cute."

 

[shmessy]

Because of the AntiTrust exemption.
But that's not what you are saying. You are implying they gave up the tax classification so that they could stick it to the Patriots unfairly and no one could complain. Can we agree that is simply not supported by the facts?

The government routinely investigates tax-exempt organizations. I contract out to two such ones. There is a far more thorough oversight if one is tax-exempt.

 

[Dr Pain]

The government routinely investigates tax-exempt organizations. I contract out to two such ones. There is a far more thorough oversight if one is tax-exempt.

Anyone can look up a non profit's IRS form 990 online and see what they spend and pay. I use Guidestar

 

[YOUGOTMOSSED]

My comments were not about the tampering issues.
My comments were that if Spygate were considered cheating and a competitive advantage, the punishment would not be out of line with other punishments.
Lets be clear, and stay within context.
Those comments were in response to an implicaiton that the league thought it was no big deal but gave a heavy punishment just because it was the Patriots.
As I said the assumption part was horribly wrong, but given the assumption the punishment fit.
In other words, the judgment of the severity of the offense was atrocious, but given that the punishment fits.It makes the difference between incompetent investigation which it was, and a good investigation and punishment that was unjust based upon the investigation.

I understand that, your point seems to be that the league is impartially meting out punishment as it sees fit and to suggest otherwise is crazy conspiracy talk. The recent tampering ruling strongly suggests otherwise.

But okay, let's restrict the discussion to spygate. Weren't other coaches freely admitting to doing the same thing Belichick was? Wasn't there video evidence of other teams doing the exact same thing? If this was such a big deal, why no action (or even an investigation) of other instances?

 

[Ring 6]

I directly answered your question:

Andy JohnsonPost #275;

"Maybe I missed it but I don't think Mehta ever attributed that comment to a source, and it seemed like it was him trying to be cute."

I know, and I responded to your answer.
I do not believe that quote came from league offices, you are free to believe whatever you want.

 

[Ring 6]

The government routinely investigates tax-exempt organizations. I contract out to two such ones. There is a far more thorough oversight if one is tax-exempt.

Thats not necessarily true. The government investigates organizations that get government money, many of which are not for profit. Note that organizations are not 'tax-exempt' they are either for profit, not for profit or non profit. The not for profit status is not what creates oversight. I don't know what types of companies you are referring to but regulation exists in many industries that has nothing to do with tax classification, and I am not aware of any regulation or oversight that is because of tax classification.

 

[Ring 6]

I understand that, your point seems to be that the league is impartially meting out punishment as it sees fit and to suggest otherwise is crazy conspiracy talk. The recent tampering ruling strongly suggests otherwise.

But okay, let's restrict the discussion to spygate. Weren't other coaches freely admitting to doing the same thing Belichick was? Wasn't there video evidence of other teams doing the exact same thing? If this was such a big deal, why no action (or even an investigation) of other instances?

You are missing my point.
The fact that the Patriots were found guilty of anything was wrong.
Once they were found guilty of what was judged to be cheating to create a competitive advantage, the punishment was consistent with the ruling.
For example if I am arrested for murder and have the greatest proof ever that I couldn't have committed the crime but am found guilty any way and given life in prison, the sentence wasn't unfair, the ruling was.

 

[shmessy]

Anyone can look up a non profit's IRS form 990 online and see what they spend and pay. I use Guidestar

Exactly. And the government can also use leverage to judge whether a 501c3 can remain one or not.

The NFL, by taking itself out of the running, just took that leverage away from the government and is now able to make its dealings far more private.

 

[shmessy]

I know, and I responded to your answer.
I do not believe that quote came from league offices, you are free to believe whatever you want.

You wrote (bold and underlines mine):

"Maybe I missed it but I don't think Mehta ever attributed that comment to a source, and it seemed like it was him trying to be cute."

So, it is plain to see from his article that he DID indeed attribute it to a source. Whether or not he made up the source is arguable. But he certainly claimed he had a source. Your post stated that you did not think "Mehta ever attributed that comment to a source."

He attributed it to "a league source".

 

[YOUGOTMOSSED]

You are missing my point.
The fact that the Patriots were found guilty of anything was wrong.
Once they were found guilty of what was judged to be cheating to create a competitive advantage, the punishment was consistent with the ruling.
For example if I am arrested for murder and have the greatest proof ever that I couldn't have committed the crime but am found guilty any way and given life in prison, the sentence wasn't unfair, the ruling was.

Not really a great example of anything but an injustice.

I have a clear understanding of murder. It's taking a life without legal justification.
"cheating" is a little more subjective. Is taking advantage of a vague rule "cheating"? What's the distinction between gamesmanship and cheating? It really depends on who you ask, thus it's subjective.

Contrary to popular opinion, the Patriots weren't convicted of "cheating." They admittedly disobeyed a memo regarding camera placement and were fined. If I recall correctly, Goodell's own statement on this admits it gave them no competitive advantage. If that the case, I don't understand how anyone can reasonable construe this as "cheating" or accurately state that the Patriots were convicted of "cheating."