Spygate will make the Pats lose a trophy...

[Tony Oday]

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/7749384/Report:-Pats-employee-filmed-Rams

Watch this is going to get VERY bad if they actually investigate this.

[Tony Oday]

eek double post this was already started...sorry

[twoseven]

This is no different than the steroids issue. Just because you didn't get caught doesn't mean you never cheated. Hundreds and hundreds of baseball players are going to get away with many years of cheating simply because nobody could catch them. Hence Mitchell's reccommending we just move on, wiser and more aware of what to look for in the future with a severe system of penalty now in place and eyes more open to their game.

Going after ghosts of the past is a waste of resources and it demonizes ONLY those that get nabbed. It will not punish those that cheated without being caught, and you know full well it happened more than once in nearly 100 years of pro football. I sincerely hope the NFL is not going to play this game. Going after the Pats and pretending no other teams have attempted to or did indeed succesfully secure an edge that would be considered cheating seems naive to me. Come up with a system to prevent future forms of cheating and attach the most severe penalties you can think of. But, for the love of Pete, leave what happened in the past in the past.

[Bretsky]

This is no different than the steroids issue. Just because you didn't get caught doesn't mean you never cheated. Hundreds and hundreds of baseball players are going to get away with many years of cheating simply because nobody could catch them. Hence Mitchell's reccommending we just move on, wiser and more aware of what to look for in the future with a severe system of penalty now in place and eyes more open to their game.

Going after ghosts of the past is a waste of resources and it demonizes ONLY those that get nabbed. It will not punish those that cheated without being caught, and you know full well it happened more than once in nearly 100 years of pro football. I sincerely hope the NFL is not going to play this game. Going after the Pats and pretending no other teams have attempted to or did indeed succesfully secure an edge that would be considered cheating seems naive to me. Come up with a system to prevent future forms of cheating and attach the most severe penalties you can think of. But, for the love of Pete, leave what happened in the past in the past.

GOOD COMMON SENSE REASONING HERE

[packinpatland]

B.........you're total 'in-loveness' with the Pats overwhelms me.

[MJZiggy]

This is no different than the steroids issue. Just because you didn't get caught doesn't mean you never cheated. Hundreds and hundreds of baseball players are going to get away with many years of cheating simply because nobody could catch them. Hence Mitchell's reccommending we just move on, wiser and more aware of what to look for in the future with a severe system of penalty now in place and eyes more open to their game.

Going after ghosts of the past is a waste of resources and it demonizes ONLY those that get nabbed. It will not punish those that cheated without being caught, and you know full well it happened more than once in nearly 100 years of pro football. I sincerely hope the NFL is not going to play this game. Going after the Pats and pretending no other teams have attempted to or did indeed succesfully secure an edge that would be considered cheating seems naive to me. Come up with a system to prevent future forms of cheating and attach the most severe penalties you can think of. But, for the love of Pete, leave what happened in the past in the past.

GOOD COMMON SENSE REASONING HERE

That's nice thinking, but it happened this season. It isn't in the past quite yet...

[Bretsky]

B.........you're total 'in-loveness' with the Pats overwhelms me.

As it your jaded hatred

This topic is about as worn out as the 72 Dolphins; yet the media and others continue to dwell

[twoseven]

This is no different than the steroids issue. Just because you didn't get caught doesn't mean you never cheated. Hundreds and hundreds of baseball players are going to get away with many years of cheating simply because nobody could catch them. Hence Mitchell's reccommending we just move on, wiser and more aware of what to look for in the future with a severe system of penalty now in place and eyes more open to their game.

Going after ghosts of the past is a waste of resources and it demonizes ONLY those that get nabbed. It will not punish those that cheated without being caught, and you know full well it happened more than once in nearly 100 years of pro football. I sincerely hope the NFL is not going to play this game. Going after the Pats and pretending no other teams have attempted to or did indeed succesfully secure an edge that would be considered cheating seems naive to me. Come up with a system to prevent future forms of cheating and attach the most severe penalties you can think of. But, for the love of Pete, leave what happened in the past in the past.

GOOD COMMON SENSE REASONING HERE

That's nice thinking, but it happened this season. It isn't in the past quite yet...

The link on this string is referencing something that happened in 2002, events taking place on the eve of SB 36 when Brady won his first Super Bowl over the Rams 20-17.

[packinpatland]

B.........you're total 'in-loveness' with the Pats overwhelms me.

As it your jaded hatred

This topic is about as worn out as the 72 Dolphins; yet the media and others continue to dwell

Just out of curiosity, why do you dislike the Bears or Vikings?

Having to live in this 'hallowed' area, would make anyone jaded.

[BF4MVP]

18-1

[MJZiggy]

This is no different than the steroids issue. Just because you didn't get caught doesn't mean you never cheated. Hundreds and hundreds of baseball players are going to get away with many years of cheating simply because nobody could catch them. Hence Mitchell's reccommending we just move on, wiser and more aware of what to look for in the future with a severe system of penalty now in place and eyes more open to their game.

Going after ghosts of the past is a waste of resources and it demonizes ONLY those that get nabbed. It will not punish those that cheated without being caught, and you know full well it happened more than once in nearly 100 years of pro football. I sincerely hope the NFL is not going to play this game. Going after the Pats and pretending no other teams have attempted to or did indeed succesfully secure an edge that would be considered cheating seems naive to me. Come up with a system to prevent future forms of cheating and attach the most severe penalties you can think of. But, for the love of Pete, leave what happened in the past in the past.

GOOD COMMON SENSE REASONING HERE

That's nice thinking, but it happened this season. It isn't in the past quite yet...

The link on this string is referencing something that happened in 2002, events taking place on the eve of SB 36 when Brady won his first Super Bowl over the Rams 20-17.

This article is suggesting that the Patriots have been cheating SINCE 2002. It was discovered this year and affects THIS year. Not the past yet. And if Arlen has his way about it, it won't be the past for quite some time. (even thought I still think Congress has much better things to do right now) If the NFL was somehow complicit in sweeping this thing under the rug, it's gonna get messy, like it or not.

And B, you'd understand the jaded hatred better if you spent some time living in enemy territory.

[twoseven]

This is no different than the steroids issue. Just because you didn't get caught doesn't mean you never cheated. Hundreds and hundreds of baseball players are going to get away with many years of cheating simply because nobody could catch them. Hence Mitchell's reccommending we just move on, wiser and more aware of what to look for in the future with a severe system of penalty now in place and eyes more open to their game.

Going after ghosts of the past is a waste of resources and it demonizes ONLY those that get nabbed. It will not punish those that cheated without being caught, and you know full well it happened more than once in nearly 100 years of pro football. I sincerely hope the NFL is not going to play this game. Going after the Pats and pretending no other teams have attempted to or did indeed succesfully secure an edge that would be considered cheating seems naive to me. Come up with a system to prevent future forms of cheating and attach the most severe penalties you can think of. But, for the love of Pete, leave what happened in the past in the past.

GOOD COMMON SENSE REASONING HERE

That's nice thinking, but it happened this season. It isn't in the past quite yet...

The link on this string is referencing something that happened in 2002, events taking place on the eve of SB 36 when Brady won his first Super Bowl over the Rams 20-17.

This article is suggesting that the Patriots have been cheating SINCE 2002. It was discovered this year and affects THIS year. Not the past yet. And if Arlen has his way about it, it won't be the past for quite some time. (even thought I still think Congress has much better things to do right now) If the NFL was somehow complicit in sweeping this thing under the rug, it's gonna get messy, like it or not.

And B, you'd understand the jaded hatred better if you spent some time living in enemy territory.

I realize this story was discovered this year, but it happened 6 years ago, hence my talking about it in the past tense. Unless there's more to the article, there appears to be no video, just an unnamed surce that claims to have recorded footage? How did it go unnoticed back then to begin with? Why does it come up now and not five months ago, when it would have been expected, I would think? The only big news stories going on today are that (1) these same Pats are playing in the SB tomorrow with immortal history on the line and (2) Specter is running for Senate again, I think. Interesting timing.

The article suggesting the Patriots 'have been cheating since 2002' is basically the reason why I say things would be better left in the past if there's no rock solid proof of action, which there does not seem to be. A final walkthrough practice is filmed (allegedly), an annonymous source makes a call to the Boston Herald, they publish a story that goes unnoticed until 6 years later and five months after the same allegations were made and dealt with by the NFL, the story is broken just days before the Pats play. The reaction for some is that the Pats have been cheating for six years running now. Even the string subject title suggests that the Pats could lose their SB 36 trophy because of this alleged act. It seems the same kind of reaction that took place in baseball throughout the entire steroid saga, lots of specualtion with very little if any proof, unfortunately. The fans are then left to throw accusations around before any real proof emerges and guilty until proven innocent seems to be the thought process. Everything the Patriots have done in the last 6 years comes into question, yet the only solid proof to this point in all of it involves the first 5 plays of the NYJ game in week one.

Put Bellicheck and members of his staff on a lie detector and question them on the grounds of knowingly deceiving using illegal methods, year after year, specifically the use of video footage obtained illegally. If they fail, drop the hammer on them without mercy, and I will apologize for suggesting forgetfulness of past crimes. But, if they pass and no actual video proof is provided, then what? My fear is that it wouldn't matter, article's like that one posted in the link above have very powerful effects on the public mindset. If a source comes forth tomorrow claiming the 96' Packers used a similar technique of filming opponents, but NO actual physical proof is there, just an accusation, I wonder what the prevailing attitude of GBP fans would be. I imagine the rest of the NFL's fans would not be very understanding.

[MJZiggy]

The mindset of guilty until proven innocent in the baseball steroid case is far different than this one. In baseball, the case became a witchhunt accusing people who had no evidence of using steroids. You can't compare that situation to this one because the Pats were caught red handed--twice. If a player that's been caught violating the substance abuse policy twice for the same chemical is found to have it a third time, do you say people are using a guilty until proven innocent mindset? Not from reactions on the topic that I've read. If Robinson gets busted for an unnamed substance, the whole world will say 'he's been drinking again and should be thrown out of the league. And the people who are coming forward are suggesting that they have proof if the league (or Congress) should ask for it. And IF the Pats have been cheating for 6 years, maybe everything they've done in that time should be called into question. You yourself in your post have said that proof already exists. They were caught taping the NYJ game and produced a whole lot of film that the Commish had destroyed. The fact that there was anything to destroy is proof that it was going on.

I (and I'm sure multitudes of others would LOVE to get Belichick on a lie detector.

If a source came along and claimed that the 96 Packers had used a similar technique, I doubt anyone believes them because the Commissioner's office never had to destroy anything of theirs...

[packinpatland]

Yea sure, like this is going to happen....

"Put Bellicheck and members of his staff on a lie detector..."

Because a 'story' comes out, after the fact, and in a 'convenient' time as far as the Pats and SB goes, doesn't make it any less credible.

Tell me why were the Pats taping the Packers last year?.........if not to use the info during the game? Not like the two teams meet up twice a year, or every other year, for that matter.

Living here, in NE, does have some advantages (besides incredible folliage, wonderful beaches, maple syrup, lobster, clam 'chowda'..........sorry, I digress), you hear 'things', that aren't necessarily fodder for the national press. One thing that even some Pat fans agree on, Belicheck is not a 'man of integrity' off the field. So, it makes one wonder when charged (and found guilty) with something like cheating, if in fact, that's all he's done wrong.

[twoseven]

The mindset of guilty until proven innocent in the baseball steroid case is far different than this one. In baseball, the case became a witchhunt accusing people who had no evidence of using steroids. You can't compare that situation to this one because the Pats were caught red handed--twice. If a player that's been caught violating the substance abuse policy twice for the same chemical is found to have it a third time, do you say people are using a guilty until proven innocent mindset? Not from reactions on the topic that I've read. If Robinson gets busted for an unnamed substance, the whole world will say 'he's been drinking again and should be thrown out of the league. And the people who are coming forward are suggesting that they have proof if the league (or Congress) should ask for it. And IF the Pats have been cheating for 6 years, maybe everything they've done in that time should be called into question. You yourself in your post have said that proof already exists. They were caught taping the NYJ game and produced a whole lot of film that the Commish had destroyed. The fact that there was anything to destroy is proof that it was going on.

I (and I'm sure multitudes of others would LOVE to get Belichick on a lie detector.

If a source came along and claimed that the 96 Packers had used a similar technique, I doubt anyone believes them because the Commissioner's office never had to destroy anything of theirs...

Guilty until proven innocent happens when there is no actual proof of the next violation. That is what I am claiming because I am under the assumption based on what I have read that what happened in 2002 is still just alleged. Do they have the tape in question in their possesion? If not, where is the proof that they did what has been accused, other than a phonecall from a still unnamed source, and how could this be construed as 'caught red handed?'