Competition Commitee wants answers

[PatriotsReign]

The "competition committee" can go F themselves. They're the eminence grise behind this fiasco.

Pony brother...I was just about to write who gives a flying fugh about the competition committee? Those hypocritical, two-faced losers. Can you imagine the nerve? So, "The competion committee wants answers"....and??

 

[Rob0729]

The draft is coming and the competition committee has it's eye

on that #7 pick. They'd like nothing better than drive a stake

thru Belichick's heart.

Actually, I think the opposite. I think the committee member saw that by not trying to force Walsh to talk has allowed Levy and Specter to paint a picture of the NFL and the Patriots trying to stop Walsh from talking. This isn't good for anyone in the league.

I think the committee member asking Goodell to take a more aggressive stance is to throw it back on Walsh, Levy, and Specter. Now the league and the Patriots look as if they have nothing to hide. If Walsh doesn't come to the table soon, people may doubt what he has is anything and wonder why he needs blanket indemity if he plans to be truthful.

You look in the media and the tide has been turning in this saga. A lot of writers have come out in the Patriots and NFL's defense this past week where as most were clearly on the opposite side.

I honestly think this unnamed committee member had the league's best interest in mind, if true. I don't think it was to get the Patriots, but to save the league from a long drawn out drama that could last into next season.

 

[FootballFanetic]

Actually, I think the opposite. I think the committee member saw that by not trying to force Walsh to talk has allowed Levy and Specter to paint a picture of the NFL and the Patriots trying to stop Walsh from talking. This isn't good for anyone in the league.

I think the committee member asking Goodell to take a more aggressive stance is to throw it back on Walsh, Levy, and Specter. Now the league and the Patriots look as if they have nothing to hide. If Walsh doesn't come to the table soon, people may doubt what he has is anything and wonder why he needs blanket indemity if he plans to be truthful.

You look in the media and the tide has been turning in this saga. A lot of writers have come out in the Patriots and NFL's defense this past week where as most were clearly on the opposite side.

I honestly think this unnamed committee member had the league's best interest in mind, if true. I don't think it was to get the Patriots, but to save the league from a long drawn out drama that could last into next season.

I agree that that's what it looks like (especially to non-Pats fans). The Competition Committee just realizes the obvious that this isn't going away until people hear from Walsh directly with whatever he has or doesn't have. This is in the Pats' interest as much as the League's. The sooner we hear from Walsh, the better--even Pats fans should understand that.

I guess as a non-Pats fan I keep wondering why everyone here on this board thinks this should just go away without ever hearing from Walsh. That makes no sense to me--the cloud over the Pats won't go away until he speaks. The fact that we're all still here talking about it and every 5th thread on your own board is about Spygate just shows that. He will either (a) have no physical evidence and either say he was misquoted and has nothing or allege things we already know (like BB cheated for years by taping defensive signals), which is no big deal considering Specter forced that one out there already in Feb. (remember, the League itself didn't admit the extent of the taping until Specter got involved, so rag on Specter all you want, but he did bring that fact to light) or allege new things, which, without additional evidence becomes a "he said, he said" and we'll need to see whose evidence is more credible or (b) have additional physical evidence to be looked at (to wit, the Rams tape or something similar), in which case it's a very different ball game.

I get ragged on here on this issue as a non-Pats fan, but I defy anyone here to disagree with this analysis (other than perhaps my last comment on the "very different ballgame" part, which is my view, since I don't believe that there's much of a "he said, he said" in such a case, which many of you disagree with, so we don't need to rehash that).

 

[tdw777]

...I guess as a non-Pats fan I keep wondering why everyone here on this board thinks this should just go away without ever hearing from Walsh.)

I can speak for all pats fans..but some of wish he would speak. We just don't think he has anything new to add.

 

[blackglass3]

I agree that that's what it looks like (especially to non-Pats fans). The Competition Committee just realizes the obvious that this isn't going away until people hear from Walsh directly with whatever he has or doesn't have. Amen. This is in the Pats' interest as much as the League's. Very good point. The sooner we hear from Walsh, the better--even Pats fans should understand that. I don't speak for every Pats fan, but this most of us agree on. Walsh needs to crap or get off the pot.

I guess as a non-Pats fan I keep wondering why everyone here on this board thinks this should just go away without ever hearing from Walsh.As I said above and we have all stated, this has been going on since September with Walsh...PFT first reported an unknown "bombshell" about SB XXXVI would come out when the rest of the camera stuff happened. Walsh needs to stop dangling it out there and just get on with it. That makes no sense to me--the cloud over the Pats won't go away until he speaks. The fact that we're all still here talking about it and every 5th thread on your own board is about Spygate just shows that. He will either (a) have no physical evidence and either say he was misquoted and has nothing or allege things we already know (like BB cheated for years by taping defensive signals This comment is complete garbage and shows your troll-ishness, IMHO. BB didn't "cheat for years". The memo/reminder came out in 2006. Years before that it was not enforced...just ask Herm Edwards, who waved at it. So, if anything, BB "cheated" for one year (2006) and 10 minutes of the 2007 season), which is no big deal considering Specter forced that one out there already in Feb. (remember, the League itself didn't admit the extent of the taping until Specter got involved, so rag on Specter all you want, but he did bring that fact to light Wrong again. The league said there were 6 tapes they destroyed back when this whole thing happened. What the hell did you all think was on the other tapes? Specter repeated information that HE didn't know.) or allege new things, which, without additional evidence becomes a "he said, he said" and we'll need to see whose evidence is more credible or (b) have additional physical evidence to be looked at (to wit, the Rams tape or something similar), in which case it's a very different ball game. Totally agree with you on this one.

I get ragged on here on this issue as a non-Pats fan, that is not the reason why I was ragging you but I defy anyone here to disagree with this analysis I just did(other than perhaps my last comment on the "very different ballgame" part, which is my view, since I don't believe that there's much of a "he said, he said" in such a case, which many of you disagree with, so we don't need to rehash that).

Replies in red.

 

[RayClay]

This is, of course, assuming that PFT isn't just making #@%# up.

Damn, you stole my post.

 

[flasox27]

Fanetic
The Pats fans would love to hear Walsh talk, but you can't compel him because it isn't a criminal case. As I said the League wants it over whether Goodell wants to play games with Walsh to keep it alive or not.
Avery simple solution is to give Walsh a drop dead date and if he doesn't talk by them, the case is closed.
What you and the rest of the Pats haters don't grasp is that your prayers that Walsh has something aren't going to be answered and we really don't care what you think.:rocker:

 

[Boston Jay]

The Competition Committee can stick Matt Walsh up their collective butts for all I care.

 

[castlelong1]

I agree that that's what it looks like (especially to non-Pats fans). The Competition Committee just realizes the obvious that this isn't going away until people hear from Walsh directly with whatever he has or doesn't have. This is in the Pats' interest as much as the League's. The sooner we hear from Walsh, the better--even Pats fans should understand that.

I guess as a non-Pats fan I keep wondering why everyone here on this board thinks this should just go away without ever hearing from Walsh. That makes no sense to me--the cloud over the Pats won't go away until he speaks. The fact that we're all still here talking about it and every 5th thread on your own board is about Spygate just shows that. He will either (a) have no physical evidence and either say he was misquoted and has nothing or allege things we already know (like BB cheated for years by taping defensive signals), which is no big deal considering Specter forced that one out there already in Feb. (remember, the League itself didn't admit the extent of the taping until Specter got involved, so rag on Specter all you want, but he did bring that fact to light) or allege new things, which, without additional evidence becomes a "he said, he said" and we'll need to see whose evidence is more credible or (b) have additional physical evidence to be looked at (to wit, the Rams tape or something similar), in which case it's a very different ball game.

I get ragged on here on this issue as a non-Pats fan, but I defy anyone here to disagree with this analysis (other than perhaps my last comment on the "very different ballgame" part, which is my view, since I don't believe that there's much of a "he said, he said" in such a case, which many of you disagree with, so we don't need to rehash that).

So you are blind or can't read? Patriot fans think he has nothing. Therefore he can't come forward with "it." Can you understand that?

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

Otherwise, there is nothing he can do, except offer immunity in exchange for his testimony.

Every state is different, but, by and large, a judge cannot offer a witness immunity in order to compel him to waive his 5th amendment privilege. Only the authority with the right to prosecute can (e.g., the federal govt, state govt, or county govt depending on how the state's criminal authority is conferred). Typically, a prosecutor offers immunity and the judge enters an order accordingly.

Bottom line: Any time you're under oath, you can invoke the 5th amendment, although, if you do, it is presumed that the answer would have been incriminating.

In a suit against the Herald, Walsh could easily invoke the 5th amendment without much repercussion, because the suit wouldn't be against him. However, the downside of invoking the 5th amendment is that it tends to make prosecutors or police believe a crime has been committed, which they then may decide to investigate.

 

[flasox27]

Based on what Pioli said about Walsh taping conversations, I would think the last place Walsh wants to be is in a court house in Mass.

 

[Fencer]

Bottom line: Any time you're under oath, you can invoke the 5th amendment, although, if you do, it is presumed that the answer would have been incriminating.

In a suit against the Herald, Walsh could easily invoke the 5th amendment without much repercussion, because the suit wouldn't be against him. However, the downside of invoking the 5th amendment is that it tends to make prosecutors or police believe a crime has been committed, which they then may decide to investigate.

You might want to reword the bolded part.

 

[JDSal45]

He can not be forced to give testimony that would cause him harm...otherwise known as immunity from giving testimony that would incriminate himself. If I rob a bank and get arrested, I can't be forced to take the stand by the prosecutor.

As a lawyer I think the words you use "that would cause him harm" is too broad. I think what you mean is that would cause him harm in the form of exposure to criminal prosecution. That would be true. But, the right against self-incrimination does not protect you from having to testify against yourself in a way that could cause some type of civil liability (which is certainly "harm" if you're hit with a judgment), but only protects against being compelled to implicate yourself criminally. Its a definite distinction and the reason why what you wrote is too broad. I don't know if Walsh has a valid right in this case or not, nor do I make any comment on it....but merely saying he can't be compelled to damage himself (in any way) isn't entirely accurate.

J D Sal

 

[PatriotsReign]

I agree that that's what it looks like (especially to non-Pats fans). The Competition Committee just realizes the obvious that this isn't going away until people hear from Walsh directly with whatever he has or doesn't have. This is in the Pats' interest as much as the League's. The sooner we hear from Walsh, the better--even Pats fans should understand that.

I guess as a non-Pats fan I keep wondering why everyone here on this board thinks this should just go away without ever hearing from Walsh. That makes no sense to me--the cloud over the Pats won't go away until he speaks. The fact that we're all still here talking about it and every 5th thread on your own board is about Spygate just shows that. He will either (a) have no physical evidence and either say he was misquoted and has nothing or allege things we already know (like BB cheated for years by taping defensive signals), which is no big deal considering Specter forced that one out there already in Feb. (remember, the League itself didn't admit the extent of the taping until Specter got involved, so rag on Specter all you want, but he did bring that fact to light) or allege new things, which, without additional evidence becomes a "he said, he said" and we'll need to see whose evidence is more credible or (b) have additional physical evidence to be looked at (to wit, the Rams tape or something similar), in which case it's a very different ball game.

I get ragged on here on this issue as a non-Pats fan, but I defy anyone here to disagree with this analysis (other than perhaps my last comment on the "very different ballgame" part, which is my view, since I don't believe that there's much of a "he said, he said" in such a case, which many of you disagree with, so we don't need to rehash that).

Seriously brother, there is no cloud. Pats fans see sunny skies. How could we not after all our success since 2000? I swear I have never, ever felt there has been any cloud over the Patriots and I'd bet most Patriots fans would agree with me. When I first heard the rumor about "Filming the walk-through", all I thought is, "yeah, right". I still firmly believe that.

What fans like you must accept is that this story (or any other) will not be satisfied to YOUR liking. You have no right to expect that, just like you and the media never had a right to view the original tapes that Goodel destroyed. just get over it.

If you see a cloud hanging over the Pats, that's fine. But Walsh is only the product of rumor & speculation, nothing more. This is not like someone has been accused of any crime here buddy. There has not been ANYTHING to suggest anything he has to say is worth hearing. So I'll step up and speak for most Patriot fans and say that we could care less if anyone ever hears from Walsh. We really don't care what fans of "other" teams think. It is obvious to us that if we beat your team year after year, you are influenced by your frustration.

I have work counterparts all over the U.S. who hated the Patriots and Belichik even before spygate. So why would I care if they now felt their feelings were legitimate. Spygate in no way justified their prior hatred, and I know you must agree.