Specter: Pats video practices dates to 2000, includes 2004 Steelers games

[PromisedLand]

One measly comment from any one of the 3 NE Senators on that committee sure would be nice.

Something like: "I wouldn't dream of wasting the taxpayers' money on this nonsense."

I know Kennedy only pays attention to sports involving Yachts; but come on Senators Leahy and Whitehouse! Throw us a fricken bone here

Sorry to say, but Ted Kennedy is not the one you want defending accusations of cheating. He has too many skeletons in his own closet.

 

[Buchanty]

Yes, it's been illegal for a long time, this is why I never understood why some posters had the idea it only became illegal after that 2006 memo.

No, that memo was only issued because he wanted to make sure teams stopped violating a rule that was already on the books. For some reason a number of teams believed there was a loophole in the rule, and they used that perceived loophole in an attempt to circumvent the rules.

Then why was the use of videotape and audiotape by the Dolphins in 2006 against the Pats (unfortunately blanked 21-0 as a result) condoned by the NFL? By their own actions the NFL confused the issue, or is it a case of some videotaping is against the rules while other videotaping is not. Again an explanation is needed and still not forthcoming.

 

[RayClay]

Steelers? Wasn't that the team that won Super Bowls because of steroids?

 

[upstater1]

Yes, it's been illegal for a long time, this is why I never understood why some posters had the idea it only became illegal after that 2006 memo.

No, that memo was only issued because he wanted to make sure teams stopped violating a rule that was already on the books. For some reason a number of teams believed there was a loophole in the rule, and they used that perceived loophole in an attempt to circumvent the rules.

Show me the rule. I have yet to see any rule which addresses the stealing of signals.

Here's my understanding of it. There's a rule that addresses videotaping from the sidelines. The rule says nothing about stealing signals. The first time the two were mentioned together was in the 2006 memo. Belichick, by his own admission, violated the rule. But only in 2006 did the league say that stealing signals was illegal (even though in that same year, the league said it was OK for the Dolphins to do it, long after it sent out that memo). To this day, there is no league rule against stealing signals.

Correct m if I'm wrong.

 

[Dino 6 Rings]

Steelers? Wasn't that the team that won Super Bowls because of steroids?

see, now that's just uncalled for.

 

[makewayhomer]

Steelers? Wasn't that the team that won Super Bowls because of steroids?

enough with the Steelers comparisons. there was no NFL rule against steroids back then. they broke no rule.

 

[BPF]

enough with the Steelers comparisons. there was no NFL rule against steroids back then. they broke no rule.

I saw a show on steroids last night (National Geographic) and a Dr on that show stated that a person who smokes, doesn't eat right and only works out once a week would be faster and stronger than the most disciplined athlete who didn't take steroids. There was no MLB rule against steroids when Bonds and Clemens started taking them either. What's your point??

 

[BSR]

enough with the Steelers comparisons. there was no NFL rule against steroids back then. they broke no rule.

It doesn't matter if there wasn't an NFL rule, they were a controlled substance and hence illegal.

 

[Dino 6 Rings]

The point is, that this is part of the "haters" point about Pats fans. Whenever a question is asked about the Pats or any allegations are made, instead of defending the issue, Pats fans tend to point toward other allegations against other teams, and attack, instead of answering the questions they are asked about a particular situation.

I'm pretty sure it was the Raiders that had players Die from steriod usage. Not the Steelers.

I have been defending the Pats, on my board, and on this board as a Steeler fan in regards to "Spygate". But when someone tries to throw my team, under the bus, that is just uncalled for. Did NFL players use steriods in the 70s, probably, just like most people snorted coke, smoked weed, or danced the Disco Duck in the clubs and now won't admit it. Its not relavant to this topic, and is only a method of deflection to avoid answering a quesiton honestly, and is seen as proof, the Pats fans are hiding something or feel bad about something, so much they have to point the attention somewhere else.

 

[Dino 6 Rings]

And the comment "didn't they win the superbowl because of steriods" is freaking childish and has zero basis in a football discussion. They didn't win because of steriods, they won with Team Work, Hard Work, great coaching, big plays by HOF players at all levels in all positions on the Team.

 

[makewayhomer]

It doesn't matter if there wasn't an NFL rule, they were a controlled substance and hence illegal.

not true...steroids weren't a controlled substance or illegal in the 1970's

 

[makewayhomer]

there was no MLB rule against steroids when Bonds and Clemens started taking them either. What's your point??

not true. Fay Vincent expressly included steroids as a prohibited substance in MLB's drug policy in 1991. (though no players were disciplined, it was expressly against the rules to take them)

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

Once again makewaymoron

The Steelers cheated. They should have known in the future steriods would be banned.

Didn't the Steelers get the first 1980's steriods memos. or is it 2006?

 

[BPF]

not true. Fay Vincent expressly included steroids as a prohibited substance in MLB's drug policy in 1991. (though no players were disciplined, it was expressly against the rules to take them)

Maybe I should have said "enforceable rules against." I know if there were no speeding fines for going over the speed limit I would driving 100 mph everyday.

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

Steroids were added to Federal Contolled substances Laws in 1990, and then futher amendments in 2004 covered "designer" steroids:

anabolic steroids were added to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act in the Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 1990...

The act was amended by the Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 2004, which added prohormones to the list of controlled substances, with effect from January 20, 2005.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anabolic_steroid

Baseball's collective bargaining agreements even in the 90s did ban use of Federally-recognized controlled substances. I'm not as sure about football, but it is probbaly the case too.

Using before 1990 was not a federal offense and presumably not illegal in any way except it had been banned in the Olympics.

The Ben Johnson case in 1988 was the impetus for federal criminalization of steroid use and posession.

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

You might want to go talk to Mike Webster about health and steriods.

Oh wait, he's dead. Had problems with steriods.

Want to talk about freezing the field against Oakland for an AFCCG? How about completely bogus calls against Houston in the AFCCG?

Obviously you don't understand the problem.

 

[BSR]

not true...steroids weren't a controlled substance or illegal in the 1970's

O.K., technically not a "controlled substance" but only available through a prescription. In either case, the use by a professional sports team for a non-medical use would have been illegal. Your being obtuse. If it was an accepted practice, then people wouldn't be reluctant to admit it.

 

[SVN]

Seriously...I wish Spector never named my team in his statement.

The Pats beat the Steelers in 04 because Burress couldn't catch an effing fade pass and Ben through to a TE he thought was open, but his rookie eyes didn't notice the very good veteran D-back sitting on the play who then takes the pick to the house to seal the game away.

Also, I'm pretty sure Bettis got stuffed on a 4th and short early in the same game, which was a huge boost to the Pats defense and helped swing momentum their way.

Knowing our defenisive signals did Not give the Pats the win. Better execution did.

do you think bettis or someone will start talking like marshall faulk now ignoring all the facts you pointed out above. i think its coming soon.

 

[Dino 6 Rings]

"At least one Steelers player from that era has admitted using steroids. Steve Courson, a part-time starter on Pittsburgh's last Super Bowl title team in 1979, has blamed a heart condition on steroid use. Courson has also said that teammates such as Jack Ham and Jack Lambert adamantly refused to use them.

Haslett on Wednesday estimated half the league's players, and all its linemen, took steroids in the 1980s before they were banned by the league. The league began testing for steroids in 1987, but players weren't suspended for using them until 1989. The league started using random, year-round drug testing in 1990."

Haslett wasn't on the Superbowl teams and the guy that did admit to taking them was a Part time starter, maybe he felt he needed to use them to get an edge on the full time starters. The Allegations are what they are, but this do not taint the superbowls won from 74 - 80.

In the 80s...lets see, Giants, with their Coke induced linebacker, 9ers with their 4 superbowls in the 80s, Bears with their 46 defense, and skins with their "Hogs" up front. That's the 80s.

 

[Dino 6 Rings]

You might want to go talk to Mike Webster about health and steriods.

Oh wait, he's dead. Had problems with steriods.

Want to talk about freezing the field against Oakland for an AFCCG? How about completely bogus calls against Houston in the AFCCG?

Obviously you don't understand the problem.

I understand the problem, you just hate the Steelers and allow your hatred of the Steelers blury your perspective of fact and fiction.

Which I'm fine with. Be a hater. The world needs them.

And Webster had head injuries after playing center from 74-1990. Steriods weren't the problem in his life.