AP story on Specter/Goodell gives blatantly false information

[pats1]

http://beta.profootballtalk.com/2008/02/13/ap-story-raises-questions/

AP STORY RAISES QUESTIONS
Posted by Mike Florio on February 13, 2008, 10:18 a.m.

For once, we have to agree (albeit reluctantly) with something that we heard on Mike & Mike in the Morning on ESPN Radio.​

Discussing the brilliantly-timed Wednesday meeting between NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell and Senator Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) regarding the Spygate scandal, Mike Greenberg expressed confusion regarding an Associated Press item that was printed in USA Today, and that showed up on many sports-related web sites on Tuesday evening.​

Addressing the aftermath of the signal-taping incident that resulted in a $500,000 fine against Pats coach Bill Belichick, a $250,000 fine against the team, and the loss of a first-round pick in the 2008 draft, Dave Goldberg of the AP writes: “The tapes and notes dated as far back as 2002 and the NFL said in October that Belichick acknowledged to Goodell that there had been spying since he became New England’s coach in 2000.”​

Greenberg and on-air partner Mike Golic expressed confusion as to the assertion that the NFL said in October that Belichick admitted to spying dating all the way back to 2000.​

We agree. As far as we can tell, the NFL didn’t say anything about Spygate in October, and we can recall no assertion by the league or admission by Belichick that he had been videotaping defensive coaching signals since his first year with the Patriots. The entire issue was dead until the days preceding the Week Fifteen game between the Pats and the Jets. Then, Spygate disappeared until two days before the Super Bowl, when the names Arlen Specter and Matt Walsh became inextricably linked to the controversy.​

A cynical mind might think that the NFL is pushing the issue in this regard in order to subtly persuade Specter (and the general public) that the Spygate investigation was more comprehensive and thorough than Specter has described it to be.​

And if anyone out there has a link to any item in which the NFL plainly states that Belichick admitted to spying that extends back to 2000, send it in.​

​

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Um, pats1, what exactly is your point?

 

[Keegs]

i was listening to that whole segment this morning.

Greeny must have repeated the quote about 6 times.

It was incredibly annoying.

Just when you thought he wouldn't say it again, he said it again with a tone like "I bet the pats cheated in every superbowl".

Finally Mike Golic came out and said that it doesn't make much sense since the NFL only collected 6 tapes and already said that no superbowls were "tainted".

 

[upstater1]

i was listening to that whole segment this morning.

Greeny must have repeated the quote about 6 times.

It was incredibly annoying.

Just when you thought he wouldn't say it again, he said it again with a tone like "I bet the pats cheated in every superbowl".

Finally Mike Golic came out and said that it doesn't make much sense since the NFL only collected 6 tapes and already said that no superbowls were "tainted".

Despite what Pats1 thinks, the quote makes perfect sense.

It's not my problem that Mike Golic has difficult reading.

The same article says they had 6 tapes that were all recent, but notes dating back which speak to previous tapings.

Idiots.

 

[BradyManny]

My interpretation of this: AP blows. Mike & Mike blow. Specter blows.

 

[PATSNUTme]

Pats1 posted an article for information. He didn't make any point or say what he thinks.

 

[pats1]

Read the relevant quote from the AP article:

The punishment went beyond the confiscated Jets tapes. The tapes and notes dated as far back as 2002 and the NFL said in October that Belichick acknowledged to Goodell that there had been spying since he became New England's coach in 2000.

That is false information, unless this AP writer is revealing new information.

 

[pats1]

Um, pats1, what exactly is your point?

Either the AP is blatantly lying or they know something the public has to this point not known.

 

[DarrylS]

My interpretation of this: AP blows. Mike & Mike blow. Specter blows.

I wish I could take a nap, wake up and it would all go away.. deep down there are a lot of comparable skeletons in every NFL franchises closet, we got caught and our coach is taking a bullet for many.

 

[Disco Volante]

Is the hearing going on right now, or later in the day?

 

[Patsfanin Philly]

Is the hearing going on right now, or later in the day?

i don't think there's hearing ( that's Clemens, Pettite, his trainer and the HGh/Steroids issue). There is a meeting between spector and Goodell behind closed doors until somebody talks to the press

 

[JoePats]

Is the hearing going on right now, or later in the day?

It's not a hearing. Goodell is meeting with Specter in his office.

 

[Disco Volante]

Haha I have no idea why I wrote "hearing".

I've been watching this Clemens one for the last 3 hours and it replaced the correct word in my mind.

 

[DefenseRules]

If BB was videotaping signals in 2000. It sure didn't help Bledsoe or our record. Didn't we end the season 5 and 11?

 

[allworldrussfrancis]

If BB was videotaping signals in 2000. It sure didn't help Bledsoe or our record. Didn't we end the season 5 and 11?

Agreed.

I would think he has been doing this for a long time, as have other coaches. If I recall, the official rules prohibit the use of videotaping for in game use (i.e., using the signals taped during the game in that game). This was Belichick's defense - that he was not using the tapes for in-game use. However, I recall that the Commissioner sent a memorandum in 2006 that specifically prohibited the use of sideline video and this is what got Belichick in trouble, despite the fact that he could still claim that if you read the league rules and the memo together, they only prohibit the "in-game" use of sideline video. Belichick lost that defense. However,the fact that they turned in tapes dating back to 2006 is not surprising as I do not believe the prohibition applied pre-2006. In which case, whether they were doing this back in 2000 is irrelevant (except for the media bozos who will claim it taints our SBs).

 

[upstater1]

Here's a new story that says Specter wants the NFL to idemnify Walsh.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3244157

It's pretty funny to think that Specter now wants Walsh to reveal stolen trade secrets publicly, while last week he broached prosecuting the Patriots for stealing trade secrets.

What a hypocrite.

Also, this article shows that Chris Mortenson reported on BB and Goodell's conversation way back in the fall.

What in the world are Sando, Mike & Mike thinking? Maybe they should toss this to their colleagues first before making fools of themselves to the world?

 

[BPF]

Here's a new story that says Specter wants the NFL to idemnify Walsh.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3244157

It's pretty funny to think that Specter now wants Walsh to reveal stolen trade secrets publicly, while last week he broached prosecuting the Patriots for stealing trade secrets.

What a hypocrite.

Also, this article shows that Chris Mortenson reported on BB and Goodell's conversation way back in the fall.

What in the world are Sando, Mike & Mike thinking? Maybe they should toss this to their colleagues first before making fools of themselves to the world?

No contradiction in stories. Tapes are from 2006 and 2007 and notes date back further. No "blatantly false" info given, probably poor coverage of Goodells comments in Sept 2007 by some to smart to listen media member. Wonder why no one jumped on Tomase's story for giving "blatantly false" info with his walkthough bs story.

As pointed out above, Mort reported this earlier.

 

[eom]

i was listening to that whole segment this morning.

Greeny must have repeated the quote about 6 times.

It was incredibly annoying.

Just when you thought he wouldn't say it again, he said it again with a tone like "I bet the pats cheated in every superbowl".

Finally Mike Golic came out and said that it doesn't make much sense since the NFL only collected 6 tapes and already said that no superbowls were "tainted".

what did rush limbaugh have to say about it?

how can you even listen to those 2 a-holes?
do yourself a favor and get sirius radio and listen to the nfl network.

 

[pats1]

Also, this article shows that Chris Mortenson reported on BB and Goodell's conversation way back in the fall.

No contradiction in stories. Tapes are from 2006 and 2007 and notes date back further. No "blatantly false" info given, probably poor coverage of Goodells comments in Sept 2007 by some to smart to listen media member. Wonder why no one jumped on Tomase's story for giving "blatantly false" info with his walkthough bs story.

Let's take a closer look:

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/2008-02-12-goodell-specter_N.htm

The punishment went beyond the confiscated Jets tapes. The tapes and notes dated as far back as 2002 and the NFL said in October that Belichick acknowledged to Goodell that there had been spying since he became New England's coach in 2000.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3244157

As reported by ESPN in September 2007, Belichick privately admitted to Goodell that videotaping opposing team's defensive signals had been his standard practice since he became the New England coach in 2000.

There's contradictions even in those two stories. Was it September or October? Was it a private confession perpetuated by "unnamed sources," or was it a public release by the NFL?

I've searched and searched for any article that has the NFL publicly saying that Belichick did engage in the practice since 2000. Haven't found anything. Nor have I found ESPN's article dealing the matter.

Or is it this:

http://www.projo.com/patriots/content/sp_fbn_goodell02_02-02-08_AO8S1OB_v5.3482570.html

Goodell asked for, and received without resistance, notes, videotapes and files dating back to 2000, when Belichick took over the Patriots. He destroyed the evidence without much explanation as to what information was contained in the materials.

And that's a totally different story. Asking for and receiving are two different things.

 

[fourthandmiles]

When did the rule take effect? If it was in 2005 then tapes before then were allowed.

Does anyone know?