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

[5thRing-Hunt]

He attributed it to "a league source".

It's gotten to the point where Adam Schefter is about the only person who I trust when he quotes "sources". these sources should be man or woman enough to put their name to a quote.

 

[Ring 6]

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".

so now you have moved to mincing words rather than focussing on the point, which is that you used that as an indication the league was out to get the Patriots.
You win the battle of rhetoric, I misspoke. That doesn't change the fact that it is as weak as it gets as proof the league is out to get the Patriots.

 

[Ring 6]

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."

I'm going to reiterate what I am saying one more time, then drop this.
I am not debating Spygate. I am saying that GIVEN THE RULING the punishment was commensurate.
You keep coming back to details of Spygate. They screwed up the ruling.

 

[Ring 6]

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

I don't believe that is true. The tax laws are the tax laws. Congress doesn't sign off on your status as not for profit. The NFL meets the rules, if they choose to declare themselves that way.

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.

Congress has leverage because of the Anti-Trust exemption. The tax classification is meaningless for government leverage, and even if it were a method of leverage, it still is meaningless because they have the MUCH more powerful Anti-Trust issue.

 

[YOUGOTMOSSED]

I'm going to reiterate what I am saying one more time, then drop this.
I am not debating Spygate. I am saying that GIVEN THE RULING the punishment was commensurate.
You keep coming back to details of Spygate. They screwed up the ruling.

I can't find the official NFL statement on the ruling, just this: 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."

SO the ruling, strictly speaking, was this: videotaping opposing coaches is not illegal in the NFL but there are designated areas allowed by the league to do such taping. The Patriots were videotaping the Jets' coaches from their own sideline which is not allowed. It gave them no competitive advantage during the game.
Fine- Belichick $500,000; Patriots- $250k and a loss of a 1st round pick

I have all that right, don't I?

So no. I don't think your point that "the punishment was commensurate with the ruling" is a valid one.

 

[Kontradiction]

It's gotten to the point where Adam Schefter is about the only person who I trust when he quotes "sources". these sources should be man or woman enough to put their name to a quote.

Agreed. They definitely should be man or woman enough to lose their (likely) lucrative jobs.

 

[farn]

I hate "it didn't really deflate, but rather the pressure inside the football changed"gate. I may be retired by the time Well$ shares his finding$.

 

[Danger Zone]

I can't find the official NFL statement on the ruling, just this: 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."

SO the ruling, strictly speaking, was this: videotaping opposing coaches is not illegal in the NFL but there are designated areas allowed by the league to do such taping. The Patriots were videotaping the Jets' coaches from their own sideline which is not allowed. It gave them no competitive advantage during the game.
Fine- Belichick $500,000; Patriots- $250k and a loss of a 1st round pick

I have all that right, don't I?

So no. I don't think your point that "the punishment was commensurate with the ruling" is a valid one.

Somewhere there are a couple articles that go into a little more detail about what Matt Walsh testified before Arlen Specter.

In them he is very honest and clear that Belichick never once asked him for the tape before/during the halftime of a game. He stated that more often than not, days would go by before anyone would ask for it.

He also stated for what little worth it was, that he often stood next to a Jet's cameraman who was doing exactly the same thing he was.

 

[Danger Zone]

Also, if anyone is interested, I highly recommend the site: http://yourteamcheats.com/

It is a pretty exhaustive collection of all the cheating done by every team in the NFL over the years. Patriots when compared to other teams, end up actually below average.

I highly recommend taking a look at it and giving him some traffic.

 

[Ring 6]

I can't find the official NFL statement on the ruling, just this: 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."

SO the ruling, strictly speaking, was this: videotaping opposing coaches is not illegal in the NFL but there are designated areas allowed by the league to do such taping. The Patriots were videotaping the Jets' coaches from their own sideline which is not allowed. It gave them no competitive advantage during the game.
Fine- Belichick $500,000; Patriots- $250k and a loss of a 1st round pick

I have all that right, don't I?

So no. I don't think your point that "the punishment was commensurate with the ruling" is a valid one.

Here are some of Goodells words:

The act was deemed by NFL CommissionerRoger Goodell to be in violation of league rules, causing him to say when penalizing the Patriots that this episode represents a calculated and deliberate attempt to avoid long-standing rules designed to encourage fair play and promote honest competition on the playing field.

I'm not sure how you get that calculated attempt to avoid rules to encourage fair play and promote honest competition on the playing field is not calling it cheating.

I will stand by my interpretation that this means he considered it cheating and the punishment was commensurate with his (ill-advised) opinion of the violation.

 

[Armchair Quarterback]

Somewhere there are a couple articles that go into a little more detail about what Matt Walsh testified before Arlen Specter.

In them he is very honest and clear that Belichick never once asked him for the tape before/during the halftime of a game. He stated that more often than not, days would go by before anyone would ask for it.

He also stated for what little worth it was, that he often stood next to a Jet's cameraman who was doing exactly the same thing he was.

As well as he had possession of them the entire game.

 

[YOUGOTMOSSED]

Here are some of Goodells words:

The act was deemed by NFL CommissionerRoger Goodell to be in violation of league rules, causing him to say when penalizing the Patriots that this episode represents a calculated and deliberate attempt to avoid long-standing rules designed to encourage fair play and promote honest competition on the playing field.

I'm not sure how you get that calculated attempt to avoid rules to encourage fair play and promote honest competition on the playing field is not calling it cheating.

I will stand by my interpretation that this means he considered it cheating and the punishment was commensurate with his (ill-advised) opinion of the violation.

It's the part where he concedes that the violation of the rule gave no competitive advantage. So, why have this rule and why punish it's violation so harshly? Fair questions, I think.

Since he concedes that no advantage was obtained, all that talk about "avoiding rules . . . fair play . . . honest competition" seems like empty rhetoric at best and rationalization at worse.

 

[Ring 6]

It's the part where he concedes that the violation of the rule gave no competitive advantage. So, why have this rule and why punish it's violation so harshly? Fair questions, I think.

But he didn't say that. BB said that Goodell told him it gave them no competitive advantage IN THAT GAME. No one ever claimed it did, but a lot of people claimed it gave them a competitive advantage in repeat matchups. Goodell clearly felt so.
I mean really, read Goddell's words, you can't tell me he didn't consider this cheating.

Since he concedes that no advantage was obtained, all that talk about "avoiding rules . . . fair play . . . honest competition" seems like empty rhetoric at best and rationalization at worse.

But he didn't concede that. He told BB he agreed that none was obtained IN THAT GAME. A 'calculated attempt to avoid rules designed to promote fair play and honest competition' is hardly rhetoric or conceding nothing serious happened.
Again, Goodells assessment of the issue was wrong, but when his conclusion is the team made a calculated effort to avoid rules that promote fair play and honest competition the penalty is very consistent with that (incorrect) finding.

 

[VectorPrime]

How can anyone say the Patriots violated a "long standing rule" with Spygate in 2007 when the rule was enacted in 2006? Not what I would call long standing.

 

[YOUGOTMOSSED]

But he didn't say that. BB said that Goodell told him it gave them no competitive advantage IN THAT GAME. No one ever claimed it did, but a lot of people claimed it gave them a competitive advantage in repeat matchups. Goodell clearly felt so.
I mean really, read Goddell's words, you can't tell me he didn't consider this cheating.


But he didn't concede that. He told BB he agreed that none was obtained IN THAT GAME. A 'calculated attempt to avoid rules designed to promote fair play and honest competition' is hardly rhetoric or conceding nothing serious happened.
Again, Goodells assessment of the issue was wrong, but when his conclusion is the team made a calculated effort to avoid rules that promote fair play and honest competition the penalty is very consistent with that (incorrect) finding.

Sadly, I can't seem to find the official NFL statement on "spygate" online anywhere but I specifically recall that part because it was key. The Belichick quote confirms that it was not just a figment of my imagination.

We're speculating what Goodell's state of mind was when he brought the hammer down. The way I see it it had to be one of the following.

Scenario 1- Belichick admits he disregarded what he thought was a BS rule and Goodell brings the hammer down on him for being an arrogant *******. Possible but it seems a bit over the top.

Scenario 2- Goodell was convinced it was cheating and was hell bent on sticking it to the Pats. Apparently, a more rational individual got hold of Goodell, explained that this doesn't give anyone an edge, and convinced him to mention that in the statement. This resulted in a fuddled statement with a clear disconnect between the ruling, the penalty, and all the "fire and brimstone" rhetoric.

Scenario 2 seems more likely to me and, if true, demonstrates that Goodell is ill-suited for these kind of decisions.

 

[flasox27]

But he didn't say that. BB said that Goodell told him it gave them no competitive advantage IN THAT GAME. No one ever claimed it did, but a lot of people claimed it gave them a competitive advantage in repeat matchups. Goodell clearly felt so.
I mean really, read Goddell's words, you can't tell me he didn't consider this cheating.


But he didn't concede that. He told BB he agreed that none was obtained IN THAT GAME. A 'calculated attempt to avoid rules designed to promote fair play and honest competition' is hardly rhetoric or conceding nothing serious happened.
Again, Goodells assessment of the issue was wrong, but when his conclusion is the team made a calculated effort to avoid rules that promote fair play and honest competition the penalty is very consistent with that (incorrect) finding.

Correct me if I am wrong , you are stating that the ruling itself is wrong but because he is commissioner he can mete any punishment. Let add to the contrary, the punishment he as meted on a biased basis and capricious manner is the root of the problem. The prior punishments for manipulating the salary cap by the 49ers and Broncos which certainly are a calculated effort to avoid rules that promote fair play and honest competition warranted only the loss of a third round pick. The fact that Jets did the same thing against the Pats did not even get any punishment based on the obviously specious response by the league that the Pats had granted them permission. When a Jets player on the sideline actually tripped an opposing player during a game, which certainly qualifies under Goodell's rules of unfair play, the Jets only received a fine not loss of a draft pick and finally a text book case of tampering by the Jets is only subject to a fine not the loss of draft picks which every other case merited. I would suggest that defending the actions of the POS commissioner is a fools errand which even the subservient owner of the Pats has ultimately realized although too late to be of benefit to his team or its fans.

 

[Danger Zone]

But he didn't say that. BB said that Goodell told him it gave them no competitive advantage IN THAT GAME. No one ever claimed it did, but a lot of people claimed it gave them a competitive advantage in repeat matchups. Goodell clearly felt so.
I mean really, read Goddell's words, you can't tell me he didn't consider this cheating.


But he didn't concede that. He told BB he agreed that none was obtained IN THAT GAME. A 'calculated attempt to avoid rules designed to promote fair play and honest competition' is hardly rhetoric or conceding nothing serious happened.
Again, Goodells assessment of the issue was wrong, but when his conclusion is the team made a calculated effort to avoid rules that promote fair play and honest competition the penalty is very consistent with that (incorrect) finding.

I'm sorry, any team that uses the same signals game to game, let alone when playing the same team a second time around deserves losing a competitive advantage.

Being dumb should not be rewarded or protected.

 

[flasox27]

I'm the one who said that Goodell isn't paying Wells, the league, I.e.. The owners are the ones footing the bill. This originally came up when another poster claimed that Wells Report wouldn't matter because Goodell was just going take it and alter however he wants and then issue it, and my response was that the owners were the ones paying for the report and any one of them so wants full access to an unedited report will get because ultimately they are the ones paying for it. Basically I think the idea that Goodell can take the original report and rewrite it to his satisfaction and then issue it to support sanctions against the Patriots is rubbish, the report will stand on its own and Goodell won't be adding or redacting anything. IMO the report is going to fully exonerate the Patriots because I don't think they can manufacture wrongdoing when there is no evidence to support it.

Let me address a few points. The league office is paying for the investigation jointly conducted by Pash of the League office and Wells. The league office is run by Goodell who has been authorized by the owners to conduct the business of the league which includes this investigation. Consequently, the report goes to Goodell who will then release it and use it as he sees fit. This is unlike the Rice incident in which the investigation answered directly to the owners Mara and Rooney. Since Kraft did not pay for the investigation, he will have no more access to the report than any other owner. If he thinks he has allies among the other owners to force the release of the report, I just refer to people who approved Goodell's destruction of the exculpatory tapes in the camera placement incident, Rooney and Mara. After white washing the Rice incident to protect Kraft's former best buddy, do you really think they are going to permit the Shield to be harmed if a plot to harm a franchise by a corrupt league office is revealed. Consequently, I predict that the investigation will not find any evidence of deliberate actions by the Pats but since the ball was measured below acceptable pressure, a fine of $25,000 based on a rules violation will be imposed. The public and media will cheer Goodell for punishing the evil Pats. Kraft will grudgingly accept the ruling and life goes on.

 

[Ring 6]

Correct me if I am wrong , you are stating that the ruling itself is wrong but because he is commissioner he can mete any punishment. Let add to the contrary, the punishment he as meted on a biased basis and capricious manner is the root of the problem. The prior punishments for manipulating the salary cap by the 49ers and Broncos which certainly are a calculated effort to avoid rules that promote fair play and honest competition warranted only the loss of a third round pick. The fact that Jets did the same thing against the Pats did not even get any punishment based on the obviously specious response by the league that the Pats had granted them permission. When a Jets player on the sideline actually tripped an opposing player during a game, which certainly qualifies under Goodell's rules of unfair play, the Jets only received a fine not loss of a draft pick and finally a text book case of tampering by the Jets is only subject to a fine not the loss of draft picks which every other case merited. I would suggest that defending the actions of the POS commissioner is a fools errand which even the subservient owner of the Pats has ultimately realized although too late to be of benefit to his team or its fans.

Whoa, hold on.
You are taking all of my comments out of context.
Let me clarify.

1) I was responding ONLY TO a claim that the league is out to get the Patriots as evidenced by a harsh punishment for something the league knew was no big deal. The claim that said it is bad for the Patriots that the league changed its tax classification because they only did it so they can punish the Patriots unjustly and no one can stop them.
2) There should have been no punishment, because the violation was minor
3) The commissioner totally mishandled his ruling on the violation. He was incompetent.
4) Given his incompetent conclusion the penalty was consistent with what he incorrectly believed the violation was.

Once again, he punished the Patriots for an act he considered to be a deliberate and calculated attempt to avoid rules that were designed to promote fair play and even competition.
Read that again, and ignore whether you agree or disagree with the conclusion.
If another team was found to make a deliberate and calculated attempt to avoid rules resulting in unfair play and a competitive advantage on the field, and received the punishment we received I would consider it fair.

You have to separate disagreeing with the ruling from disagreeing with the punishment.

I am in the difficult position here of separating the 2 and creating posts like yours from people who aren't reading what I am saying and take it as defending Goodell.

The purpose of this discussion was to separate a terrible decision about events so it isn't used to support the conspiracy theory that the league sits around trying to find ways to punish the Patriots for something that isn't wrong.

 

[Ring 6]

I'm sorry, any team that uses the same signals game to game, let alone when playing the same team a second time around deserves losing a competitive advantage.

Being dumb should not be rewarded or protected.

Once again, I am explaining the conclusion that the penalty was based upon, and I disagree with the conclusion.