If Walsh did tape the walk through it does not matter if it altered the Pats game plan and it does not matter who won or lost. If they did tape the walk through this would be a violation of an NFL rule in effect causing an unfair advantage, ergo unfair or deceptive trade practice. Hence a violation of the law. While the NFL is exempt from the Sherman Antitrust Act there are other laws in place to cover this. This violation could also cause the NFL to lose their antitrust exemption. This could cause salaries to skyrocket because the salary cap is only legal due to the exemption. Before you accuse others sounding like 7 year olds put as little more thought into your statements.
Ok. But these people aren't suing the NFL for "allowing" a team to cheat and then advertising that the game is clean. They are suing the Patriots for doing the cheating by claiming: ""More importantly, their careers would have been advanced if they were winners instead of losers." , so if this was a lawsuit involving false advertising it would make much more sense to direct it at the NFL as a whole instead of the Patriots organization. Breaking NFL rules is equivalent to deceptive trade practice? In absolute terms, yes I suppose that is true but very very misleading. Is everyone going to start suing other teams that had PED users? Like it or not, cheating of many forms goes on all the time and using this logic every single MLB sports team that has had a PED user (all of them) would be facing lawsuits. So instead of going by the blanket terms of "cheating" when deciding what would validate a lawsuit, you have to look at to what extent the fairness of the competition was swayed. Things the people filing would have to do to make this case valid: 1) Prove the Walsh taping broke NFL rules 2) Actually find the Walsh tape 3) Prove Walsh was ordered by the Pats to tape the walkthrough and 4) Prove that without a doubt, this tape influenced the outcome of the game to a point beyond speculation I really don't see this going anywhere in court.
Pats sued in Federal Court for fraudulent win against Rams Mods - if this was already posted please merge or delete. TBTF http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/20/sports/football/20nfl.html?ref=football Walsh?s lawyer, Michael Levy of the Washington-based McKee Nelson firm, spoke with lawyers for the N.F.L. He also talked to lawyers who filed a civil-action lawsuit against the Patriots last week. The civil-action lawyers said they spoke to a lawyer from Senator Arlen Specter?s office. . . . . The lawsuit filed in New Orleans, site of the 2002 Super Bowl, claims the Patriots fraudulently won the championship. It was filed on behalf of the former Rams safety Willie Gary, two Super Bowl ticket holders and a Rams seat-license holder, representing three classes of plaintiffs, all with ties to the Rams. Hugh Campbell, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said the suit would be amended to include all N.F.L. players and team employees, fans and seat-license holders who may have been affected by the Patriots? illicit practices. ?I think we?re all trying to get to the same ultimate goal, and that is to get the information,? Campbell said.
HAH, I see the Jets helmet all by its lonesome on the upper right. Ostracize the whistle-blower, why dontcha. :lol:
Even the tape, if it exists, doesn't prove the case. You still have to show that the tape somehow affected the outcome of the game. That's much more nebulous of an issue. It seems to me, if I were an attorney, that even if the plaintiff put someone on the stand that said "Yes, we watched the tape and decided......", all the defense has to do is put a person or two up there that says "We did not make any decisions based on the tape", or even as far out as "We never watched the tape. We never even knew there was such a tape. We had no idea it existed." Case closed. You would need a real convincing witness, or multiple witnesses to show a preponderance of evidence that the tape was used to form a game plan. Having said all of that, you NEED the tape, because otherwise whatever is alleged to be on the tape is just hearsay, you would need to show that the tape could be used, and that it existed. Without it, you have no case. Furthermore, the tape is a video of a walkthrough. It would be a tough argument to show that a gameplan was formed on video of a walkthrough. That's like trying to use a tape of the guys playing catch on the sideline with the football.
It doesn't matter if they win the case, if there is a tape, it will prove the Pats* are cheaters and they will never be talked about without the cheating being brought up.
You are under the ill conceived notion that the taping had to benefit the Pats. That is not the issue, the issue is that taping the walk through is not allowed so if they did tape it then they are guilty of cheating. Now if we back up a little to your premise of whether or not it benefitted the Pats. First off, why would they tape it if it did not benefit them to do so. This would be akin to utilizing an ineligible player that sucked, there would be no benefit to doing so but if you got caught doing it you would be guilty none the less. Secondly, if Walsh is the one that taped it and he testifies about what he taped it is not hearsay, it is direct testimony. If his mother got up and said that Walsh told him this and that was on the tape, that would be hearsay.
Damn you. And I had this simple school analogy cooked up to make it simple for them, too. You just had to go spell it out for them first. :sad:
