Can Goodell Ban Jay Glazer From NFL facilities Until he Confesses?

[WTE]

I'm not sure if Goodell has legal authority to ban Jay Glazer from NFL facilities until he tells him who leaked him the tape, but if he can, he should.

I think the person who leaked him the tape ~cough Polian~ wouldn't want to hurt Glazer's livlihood so he would likely own up for Glazer.

Anybody know if Goodell can legally prevent Glazer from entering all NFL facilities?

 

[Grizzafted]

Absolutely not. We shouldn't punish journalists for not revealing their sources.

 

[Rob0729]

I don't think it will need to get that far. Found this in Tom Curran's current article:

The first is that the NFL made copies of the offending tape for the competition committee members and that's how one landed in the hands of Fox. A league source said Tuesday that the NFL guaranteed New England only one copy would be made of the tape and that that copy was going to the league office. But after that promise, the Jets were allowed to copy the tape and that's how it got out.

http://www.nbcsports.com/portal/sit...0VgnVCM2000006fc3d240RCRD&cpsextcurrchannel=1

 

[upstater1]

I don't think it will need to get that far. Found this in Tom Curran's current article:



http://www.nbcsports.com/portal/sit...0VgnVCM2000006fc3d240RCRD&cpsextcurrchannel=1

Then Greg Aiello is a liar because he was 100% clear that no copies were made for use outside the office. If any copies were made, it was not done with approval.

 

[upstater1]

Absolutely not. We shouldn't punish journalists for not revealing their sources.

Um, that's a noble idea, but a private entity can do whatever it wants in relation to reporters. It's not citing him for contempt in a court of law. He's protected. But there's nothing that says he should retain his access. They can easily pull his credentials if they want to.

That being said, if Glazer is worth his salt as a reporter, he would never agree to reveal his sources.

 

[SVN]

I don't think it will need to get that far. Found this in Tom Curran's current article:



http://www.nbcsports.com/portal/sit...0VgnVCM2000006fc3d240RCRD&cpsextcurrchannel=1

two more interesting quotes

• The extent to which the Patriots are being vilified for "cheating" is out of control. The act of taping the Jets' signals was against the rules. The location of the camera was against the rules. But cheating?The transgression is egregious because they went against an edict specifically aimed at them. They jaywalked in front of a cop who told them not to jaywalk. So it was aggravated jaywalking.

• Another rumor circling is that the Patriots taped the St. Louis Rams walkthrough prior to Super Bowl XXXVI. Given that this was the first post-9/11 Super Bowl and the stadium was lined with AK-47 toting National Guardsmen, that would be an aggressive move by New England. And since the final walkthrough is the one where the team picture is taken, teams often let players bring their families in to cavort on the field and there is a ton of support staff in the stadium setting up for the game. Teams aren't walking through their first 25 plays.

 

[BelichickFan]

On the practice taping thing - first, the Rams got a FG fairly quickly, it was the 2nd and 3rd qtr when they really bogged down. But second, the Broncos were accused (or caught, not sure) of taping Chargers practices and barely a word was mentioned.

 

[MrBigglesWorth]

Absolutely not. We shouldn't punish journalists for not revealing their sources.

they should be punished because of it's possession of confidential league material and they are the ones who spin stories out of control.

the media shoould be held accountable to give accurate information than rushing to beat fellow media people which then provides inaccurate information and defames people beyond a reasonable degree they should be.

 

[LA Pats Fan]

Yes Glazer can be barred from NFL stadiums - at least he can be barred from the special privilages given to reports (press credentials).

However, Glazer has the right to and is professionally bound to protect his source.

To ban him would hurt the NFL more than help

2) If the NFL guaranteed the tape would not be public and the NFL failed to do so, then could the Patriots seek to return some if not all the penalties.

The NFL did violate it's agreement - if not a rule.

If this were a court wouldn't the evidance be thrown out of court because of improper handling?

 

[PromisedLand]

I don't think it will need to get that far. Found this in Tom Curran's current article:

The first is that the NFL made copies of the offending tape for the competition committee members and that's how one landed in the hands of Fox. A league source said Tuesday that the NFL guaranteed New England only one copy would be made of the tape and that that copy was going to the league office. But after that promise, the Jets were allowed to copy the tape and that's how it got out.

http://www.nbcsports.com/portal/sit...0VgnVCM2000006fc3d240RCRD&cpsextcurrchannel=1

You neglected to mention that your excerpt was found under the heading, "Two more videogate rumors are zipping around". Let's try to hold ourselves to higher standards of integrity than the people who are vilifying us.

 

[Rob0729]

You neglected to mention that your excerpt was found under the heading, "Two more videogate rumors are zipping around". Let's try to hold ourselves to higher standards of integrity than the people who are vilifying us.

What did I do wrong? The Rams Super Bowl rumor has no relevance to this thread. I provided a link so I was not hiding the rumor. This thread is about finding out who leaked the tape, not further allegations against the Patriots.

 

[primetime]

two more interesting quotes

The real question in that Curran article is why were the Guardsmen toting AK-47s, a Russian assault rifle?

The answer, of course, is those weren't Guardsmen. Belichick hired a militia to make sure things didn't, cough, get out of hand.

(He probably meant M-16, but still... pretty big mistake to make)

 

[Grizzafted]

the stadium was lined with AK-47 toting National Guardsmen

The National Guard doesn't carry AK47s.

Whoops beat me to it Prime.

 

[Grizzafted]

they should be punished because of it's possession of confidential league material and they are the ones who spin stories out of control.

the media shoould be held accountable to give accurate information than rushing to beat fellow media people which then provides inaccurate information and defames people beyond a reasonable degree they should be.

This wasn't an inaccurate article with false sources. It was a scoop. A tape. No ambiguity. This is the NFL's fault.

Greg Easterbrook, however, is blackballed from here on out in my book.

 

[upstater1]

they should be punished because of it's possession of confidential league material and they are the ones who spin stories out of control.

the media shoould be held accountable to give accurate information than rushing to beat fellow media people which then provides inaccurate information and defames people beyond a reasonable degree they should be.

It's only confidential once it's in the league's hands. The media owes nothing to the league at all. It's their job to get documents out to the public. In short, this videotape has no copyright hold on it or expectation of privacy. Once Goodell went on his rampage, the whole story became newsworthy, and so the tape became fair game for any media source. Glazer did absolutely nothing wrong.

 

[WTE]

That being said, if Glazer is worth his salt as a reporter, he would never agree to reveal his sources.

True, but if Goodell is serious about finding the source he should use all the resources available to him. Plus, as I mentioned, Glazer wouldn't have to come forward and admit anything. If the person who leaked the tape has any amount of decency they would fess up once they hear Glazer's been banned.

The Patriots need to ensure Goodell's office has tight controls over security before they release the rest of the tapes and notes the Commish has demanded.

 

[upstater1]

True, but if Goodell is serious about finding the source he should use all the resources available to him. Plus, as I mentioned, Glazer wouldn't have to come forward and admit anything. If the person who leaked the tape has any amount of decency they would fess up once they hear Glazer's been banned.

The Patriots need to ensure Goodell's office has tight controls over security before they release the rest of the tapes and notes the Commish has demanded.

Excellent point about the leak having a responsibility to protect Glazer. Somehow, if it truly is Polian, then I think Glazer is sunk.

 

[MrBigglesWorth]

Excellent point about the leak having a responsibility to protect Glazer. Somehow, if it truly is Polian, then I think Glazer is sunk.

how is glazer sunk?

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

Um, that's a noble idea, but a private entity can do whatever it wants in relation to reporters. It's not citing him for contempt in a court of law. He's protected. But there's nothing that says he should retain his access. They can easily pull his credentials if they want to.

That being said, if Glazer is worth his salt as a reporter, he would never agree to reveal his sources.

You'e have a really complicated law-school question here for municipally owned stadiums, as well as nasty state action questions depending on how the NFL chose to enforce it as a tresspass under state law if the guy actually showed up and was denied admission. One they use the police it gets difficult.

NFL can deny him a credential. What can they do if he buys a ticket to a municipal stadium?

 

[dryheat44]

I don't see what difference it would make. Glazer would say fcuk off, and Fox would put him on the baseball beat and shift someone else to football. With all the hundreds of millions Fox is paying the NFL for broadcast rights, do you think the Commish would seriously sanction Fox?