So.....it's "coming out," or is it already out? I'd feel better if someone else spent their own money and then reported back. I did find it interesting, though, that the guy who provides the glowing review on the author's website is the same guy running around these days saying that Barack Obama is an Indonesian citizen who never attended class at Columbia University.
Sure I'm sure. I dont' think you're as sure about it as I am sure about what I'm sure of! In the immortal words of gery Kasparov (sic): Check and Mate my friend! No need to debate this any longer, surely. :beer:
Hey! I just read that in the toilet of the Cabaret strip club in Danvers Mass. It must be true. ...And if he wasn't in class, what was he doing? We all know what Columbia is famous for, and I don't mean coffee!
Haha, I knew I was going to get these responses. Whether it was "cheating" or not, and whether it provided an "advantage" or not, Mangini obviously felt that it was and did. Either that or he had a really sudden, convenient change of heart immediately after switching teams. Belichick claims to have "interpreted" the wording of the rules differently than the league. Many people obviously won't accept that, but either way Mangini hasn't even left himself with that excuse. He is a hypocritical scumbag no matter which way you chew it.
And to answer your question more directly, it just depends on your definition of cheating. The Patriots filmed from a location where they were prohibited from filming, based on the fact that it was not enclosed with a roof. That sentence summarizes all of spygate, no matter how much people want to talk about "stealing signals", burning tapes, and anything else. I won't tell you that it was not cheating, but I will ask you this -- if that is cheating, then where exactly is the line? When an ineligible receiver catches a pass, that is a rule violation, is it not? Is that cheating? When Calvin Pace was punished for using performance enhancing drugs (which we cannot accurately determine how long he had been using), would that justify me saying "The Jets are cheaters, and have been cheating for years!"? If not, then failure to report Favre's injury surely would, no? The league determined that a member of a team had violated the rules, and the team was punished accordingly. It happens very regularly in the NFL. The difference with spygate is that the team in question had a history of unparalleled success for that era, and the media was able to hype up the incident to the point where most fans wouldn't be able to accurately describe what rules the Patriots actually violated. Because of those two factors, fans of opposing teams still console themselves by telling each other that the Patriots cheated their way to success.
I disagree on your big point. The success isn't the biggest component. Its one but the biggest one is what I am writing, in my opinion of course. The reason that Spygate is brought up is because the way of the evidence was handled. We give you X amount days to provide everything you have. We trust you after breaking the rules we specifically said not to, to hand over everything you illegaly taped. Then after receiving this, we are going to burn and destroy it. Not file it away, not show it to the public, burn it. So basically the NFL gave the Patriots, the offender, a few days to hand over any illegal stuff and then they destroyed it. Not the best image. Again none of that is evidence on what kind of impact the tapes had, but you can see how that looks and sounds shady? It was handled poorly. The NFL wanted to end the talk quickly, but in doing so created a myth, a legend, something they can never go back now and say "see not a big deal". The second reason it stays which is 100% completely unfair is that the Patriots haven't won a Super Bowl. It is terrible logical thinking in my opinion. But think about the Pats before and after in the playoffs and Brady's performance. Post Spygate, 2 amazing games (Jax and Den), a bunch of so-so games, and some terrible ones (NYJ, NYG x2, BALx2, SD). Is this fair logical reasoning, no. Is it the simplest reasoning yes. Is it better to say the Pats struggles have come from teams getting better and their defense and run game becoming nonexistant at times, yes. Is it easier to say that, nope. Then of course applying my explanation to your PED or failing to report the injury you see why there is a difference? Now I do have my own conspiracy theories on how the Pats bend or even shatter the rules, but I have no proof or logical facts so I don't go running my mouth on it. Also I haven't really followed the Bounty scandal, but the NFL hasn't released the evidence right? So now the NFL looks like they don't have accurate evidence. Burning/not releasing makes you seem like you have something hide even if you don't. Whether you follow politics or not, parties have made campaigns based on people not releasing their birth certificate or taxes. Hiding/not releasing, or worse destroying has a negative connotation. Feel free to reply and disagree
No idea. We don't even know where other tapes were recorded from, where they were located, what they might have held back or destroyed before they handed stuff to the NFL. I would have much rathered the NFL release the tapes after the season and be "Here are the tapes. Watch them, nothing that could be used to immediately affect the game they are in"
I understand how that contributes to the fact that spygate is continuously brought up, but if that were in fact the "big point", then most of that anger would be directed at the league and commissioner. The Patriots complied with Goodell's request to hand over all video evidence that they had. After that, everything was in his hands. Almost every time that spygate is brought up however, it is in the context of "do the Patriots deserve an asterisk for their Superbowls?", or "were the penalties levied against the Patriots harsh enough", or even worse "look at this startling new 'analysis' of spygate, which actually contains no new information" like in the case of this book. The commissioner's handling of the case is rarely the focus of attention. I understand that you are not actually trying to make this argument, but it would be crazy for anyone to seriously believe it. At best, it is used as self-justification to reinforce what people naturally want to believe. Why would video taping from a different location affect our performance in playoff games, where we have been less successful, but not in regular season games where I believe our win % has actually increased? No, not really. The league makes no attempt to be transparent in their handling of PED infractions. They say that the player failed a test for a vague category called "Performance Enhancing Drugs", which presumably includes half of the chemicals known to man. Then the player goes on to talk about how he used the wrong hair gel or some shit, and everyone moves on knowing that they learned nothing about what actually happened. Yet that is your biggest concern regarding spygate? Not knowing the full truth? Calvin Pace blamed his positive test on dietary supplements. Should I be angry demanding proof of what actually happened, or should I just assume that the punishment was fair and move on with my life? The recent developments regarding Bountygate just reinforce to me that Goodell's handling of various incidences has been inconsistent, and often affected by the publicity and hype surrounding it. When the media starts latching on to a story like "Bountygate", Goodell feels compelled to respond in a way that makes him look like a tough disciplinarian, even if the evidence is lacking or the punishment doesn't match the crime. I would argue that Spygate was another example of this.
Fair enough, I'll work backwards. I do think Goodell overreacted on Spygate (including the destruction of evidence) but I don't think it was media, it was more him being pissed that the Pats just broke something the league specifically said don't do. I mean its basic emotion, but he isn't supposed to let that emotion cross over into his decisions. Another reason for the cross up is that the punishment was severe but the NFL tried to say it wasn't a big advantage. It's one or the other basically. The Calvin Pace thing would work if the someone came and said I saw Calvin take these "insert supplement/whatever". The NFL then asks Calvin to hand over any supplements like these he is taking. The NFL doesn't tell you what they were, destroys them, then hands out a 10 game suspension. That would be an equivalent thing to Spygate. Unusually high punishment for something that shouldn't without telling or showing people why. The drugs thing falls under a due process they do. This didn't. Let me know if this is worded poorly, but I believe this would the appropriate equivalent process to what Spygate was. Oh and they specifically sent a memo to all players saying to avoid this supplement and Calvin took it anyways. Also, we have to find out that Calvin has been doing this bending of the rules for years but wasn't caught even though NFL players are tested. There would have to be a history of failed or iffy drug results he handed over and was destroyed that nobody in the public saw. I don't think anybody seriously believes it, but it's the really cheap and short way to make a point. Obviously posting online, most people are going to fall back on look at their lack of super bowls vs super bowls post and pre an event that probably has little to impact on their lack/wealth of super bowls. It is brought up that way because what is more compelling? If I were to write a book on Spygate could I sucker more people into buying if I said, "Should the Patriots be asterisked?" or "The League mishandled Spygate investigation". It's the basic headlines trap. Is "QB controversy at NYJ camp as both QB's take first team snaps" or "Tebow takes WC snaps with first team" more compelling? The whole reason it stays along is because of the uncertainity on what was on those tapes. I think I also misread your point. I was trying to explain why Spygate lingers around and that is because the complete mishandling of it not just because the Patriots success before it. Because I mean, you have to concede it was handled terribly? I think Goodell's excuse for destroying the tapes was if anymore came out he knew the Patriots didn't hand everything over or started taping again? That is a terrible excuse because a) you believe that the Patriots did hold back or are going to start taping again b) if you locked the tapes up and they got out, you could just go to the safe and see if the tape was taken. Destruction was not the only way to make sure they didn't get out. Also to tack on, the drug policy isn't unclear. Just what constitutes PEDs is unclear. The policy is somewhere online because it was a CBA point. It has some rigorous testing including testing multiple times a year I believe.
A requirement for all Patriot fans is to answer abyzmul's question. Your admitting the patriots cheated correct? Stop beating around the bush
I understand that the difference between these two scenarios is the fact that spygate has the appearance of information being hidden, whereas with PED testing it is simply a policy that they will never disclose that information. My point was that we are frequently just left to trust that Goodell is being impartial in the way he handles many things, because there are many incidences where we won't know the full truth. It isn't unclear, but the abundance of "Performance Enhancing" drugs in our daily lives makes it difficult for an average fan to understand what a positive result could actually mean. We hear them being blamed on dietary supplements, sexual supplements, hair products, natural body chemistry, otc drugs to treat legitimate conditions, unusual diets, pretty much everything. I agree that it was handled poorly. His official explanation was that he didn't want to make the tapes available for teams to use for preparation of future games, and that they were irrelevant since the Patriots had already admitted guilt. I don't think it had anything to do with the potential of additional material being uncovered. Walsh was very anti-Patriots, and he even agreed with Belichick on what was taped, when it happened, etc. So why did he destroy the evidence? I don't know, but you have to remember that some of the videos were leaked to the media in the middle of the league's "investigation". I'm sure that didn't sit well with Goodell, especially when people started connecting the fact that the company his wife worked for was the first one to mysteriously receive it. It made the league executives look loose-lipped and unprofessional, and also cast some suspicion on Goodell himself. If he already had all of the information that he needed from the tapes, one natural reaction would be to make sure it didn't happen again. I'm not saying that is definitely why the tapes were burned, but it sounded like it could have been a factor. I can also see a situation where he felt like the media was getting out of control. The discussions quickly turned from videotaping locations to concepts that were easier to grasp and sounded more scandalous, like "stealing signals" and "spying". Aside from the fact that those accusations were misleading or untrue, they were also far more embarrassing to the league. Destroying the tapes rather than feeding the media with them would obviously represent a huge failure to quiet the controversy, but I don't think it is outside of the realm of possibility that it was the intent. I don't think he ever wanted things to progress to the point where he had to explain to the fans that every single team in the sacred NFL steals signals from the opposing team in every single game they watch.
Spygate... turning Pats fans into lawyers since 2006. That was the least direct way you could ever have attempted to answer my question. And you really didn't.
No, they did not cheat IMO. They committed an infraction of the rules because they were taping signals from the sideline. Recording of any kind in that area was restricted. If taping signals were illegal then it would have been cheating. They would have been within the rules had they been taping from another area. Stealing signs is not illegal. Every team in the league was trying to steal signs. Though the folks on here don't believe it, what the pats did, could not be any help to them during that game. They were taping with a hand held camcorder. No way they could get any info off of them during the game. I mentioned earlier how Scouts Inc. explained the way the tapes were used. I know you guys don't want to buy anything that makes the Pats seem less dirty. Understandable. That's my final statement on this. flame away if you wish.
By this definition? "Act dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage, esp. in a game or examination." Yes. But all cheating is not created equal. By definition, any player who commits a penalty is cheating. Any coach who tries to trip an opposing player is cheating. Players who take PEDs are cheating. Stealing signals is, in itself, not cheating, but how the Patriots conducted it is. I think the real issue lies in how much the Patriots could have gained by recording signals. Patriots fans will always want to minimize it, while fans of rival teams will always want to make it out to be one of the most heinous acts in sports history. I go by what I see. The Patriots did not drop off the face of the earth after Spygate. They went 18-1 and have had sustained success since then. Brady has had the best statistical seasons of his career, and has won two MVPs post-Spygate. The Patriots have failed to win a Super Bowl, there's no denying that, but I think that's a sham of an excuse. Anyone who watched those two games knows that they both came down to a play or two. If NE had taken some kind of immediate nose-dive in the wake of Spygate, that would have been one thing. But they went out and set offensive records and nearly completed what would have been, hands down, the best season in the history of the NFL. That's not a Pats fan being a homer. Just the facts.
