Kentucky attorney sues NFL over Spygate

[Kiwon]

There is always a greasy lawyer/extortionist who will shameleesly pounce on any situation for money and publicity. They are disgusting parasites.

It's a particularly neat touch that they are seeking class-action status for this case.

Trial lawyers.....looking out for the interests of the little guy....(in addition to money, publicity, and, don't forget, influence).

"..Matthew Bergman of Vashon, Washington, has given more than $400,000 in his name to Democrats.

In the 2008 cycle alone he donated $78,300 to various campaigns. Bergman's law firm's website says he also specializes in 'identifying viable asbestos defendants, locating evidence and developing legal theories to hold offending companies accountable.'

In 2004, his firm split a $4.3 billion payout from Halliburton with seven other law firms. $30 million of that was delivered to their firm's asbestos victim clients."

$4,270,000,000 to lawyers. $30,000,000 to victim clients. Nice.

Article link

[vince]

Now come the frivolous lawsuits. If this doesn't underscore how overblown and stupid this whole "scandal" is, then there's no hope for you.

From comments on this thread and others, I can see that some fall into that category. Carry on with your lynch mob.

There's the patented personally-attacking, dismiss-the-facts, self-righteous, those-who-disagree-with-me-are-retarded post of the week.

Why is it, Idle, that the NFL and the Patriots are so EAGER to sweep the apparent FACT that they have been illegally obtaining information about opponents' strategic approaches before games for the last eight years under the rug? Any idea?

If you're correct, and everyone for whom there's any "hope" obviously understands that thinking such transgressions of the rules of the game are serious are "overblown," "stupid," and "frivolous" in their thinking, why the possible attempted cover up and lies?

Perhaps, since you're the hope dispenser, you'll understand better than those who aren't fortunate enough to receive your anointment of hope, so I'll ask you this.

How big (or small) of an advantage would it be for a quarterback to know on virtually every play what the defense is going to do on that play before it's run? If that went on for 8 years, do you think it would present an unfair advantage to that team? Do you think such advantage would have any impact on the earnings of those players who didn't advance into and/or through the playoffs as far as they might otherwise have? Any bonus money throughout the league riding on that type of thing? Any legal money been won or lost in Vegas based on speculation of the results of what was presented as a fair competition?

If there may exist credible evidence that would illuminate the extent to which any of these accusations either happened or did not, wouldn't that be worth investigating?

[vince]

There is always a greasy lawyer/extortionist who will shameleesly pounce on any situation for money and publicity. They are disgusting parasites.

It's a particularly neat touch that they are seeking class-action status for this case.

Trial lawyers.....looking out for the interests of the little guy....(in addition to money, publicity, and, don't forget, influence).

"..Matthew Bergman of Vashon, Washington, has given more than $400,000 in his name to Democrats.

In the 2008 cycle alone he donated $78,300 to various campaigns. Bergman's law firm's website says he also specializes in 'identifying viable asbestos defendants, locating evidence and developing legal theories to hold offending companies accountable.'

In 2004, his firm split a $4.3 billion payout from Halliburton with seven other law firms. $30 million of that was delivered to their firm's asbestos victim clients."

$4,270,000,000 to lawyers. $30,000,000 to victim clients. Nice.

Article link

1. Of what relevance is the attorney's political affiliation?
2. Does the fact that this attorney's firm deals extensively with asbestos cases somehow discredit them or prove that they are greasy extortionists?
3. Your conclusion about the amount of money that went to attorneys in the case you reference is completely incorrect. There were clients that were represented by seven different firms that were part of the case. It is not known what percentage of the group this firm represented. The fact that this firm's clients were allocated $30 million of the award says nothing whatever about how many clients the other firms represented (except that it was a big percentage), what their allocations were, how much the attorneys fees were or how those fees were structured in the attorney-client agreement before the case was accepted.

[vince]

x x

[Kiwon]

There is always a greasy lawyer/extortionist who will shameleesly pounce on any situation for money and publicity. They are disgusting parasites.

It's a particularly neat touch that they are seeking class-action status for this case.

Trial lawyers.....looking out for the interests of the little guy....(in addition to money, publicity, and, don't forget, influence).

"In 2004, his firm split a $4.3 billion payout from Halliburton with seven other law firms. $30 million of that was delivered to their firm's asbestos victim clients."

$4,270,000,000 to lawyers. $30,000,000 to victim clients. Nice.

Article link

1. Of what relevance is the attorney's political affiliation?
2. Does the fact that this attorney's firm deals extensively with asbestos cases somehow discredit them or prove that they are greasy extortionists?
3. Your conclusion about the amount of money that went to attorneys in the case you reference is completely incorrect. There were clients that were represented by seven different firms that were part of the case. It is not known what percentage of the group this firm represented. The fact that this firm's clients were allocated $30 million of the award says nothing whatever about how many clients the other firms represented (except that it was a small percentage), what their allocations were, how much the attorneys fees were or how those fees were structured in the attorney-client agreement before the case was accepted.

Vince, you're reading too much into 1 and 2. I did not highlight either of the things you mentioned. That information is part of the article.

On comment 3 you are correct. I did not read the article carefully enough. The $30 million was the payout from one firm. The difference in the amount going to lawyers versus clients is what I put in bold. However, like I said I had the math wrong. Good catch.

Now, what do you think about a class action status for this case? Outrageous or justified?

[vince]

First, the facts of the case, as they are ultimately presented, will determine whether a lawsuit is justified, whether class action or not. At this point, I think it appears justified that a suit is brought, as it appears, based on the little evidence we already know, that fraud and violations of unfair trade practices and the consumer protection act may in fact have occurred. It would be "frivolous" and "stupid" if there was serious doubt that what the suit alleges to have happened did in fact occur. Based on what's known at this point, it very well could have happened as accused. This is not a frivolous lawsuit. There is sound basis and it has important ramifications.

As to the class action, the facts of every case would be the same for each individual. Further, it would be incredibly inefficient to have 70,000 consumers each sue independently for $400 each for being defrauded. That's the very definition of why a class-action suit is taken, so it is perfectly justified.

In the end, there is so much money that flows through the NFL that it is absolutely vital for the teams and league to zealously uphold the integrity of the game. It's pretty clear that hasn't been done here. Now they (understandably from a business perspective) want to cover it up and minimize their financial exposure from such transgressions.

As a fan, I want to have this exposed to its fullest extent, so I can maintain my highest trust that the games - and the game itself - I have invested in are on the up and up. That's our right as consumers.

My guess is that there will be a lot of money exchanging hands in this case in exchange for the Patriots and NFL not having to admit guilt and continue to sweep it under the rug.

Fortunately for the future of the game, this lawsuit and Spechter's actions are serving to expose this. It's likely that all of this will have a positive impact on the league's and teams' future actions to uphold and protect the integrity of the game. Those who actively diminish the importance of upholding the integrity of the game are (to the extent that they are persuasive) aiding its undermining. Fortunately, based on what I have read throughout the Internet, most people are not doing that in this case.

[Patler]

It's not just the fans, either. The suit appears to include at least one player. The players, too, make for a nice class in a class action. Each losing Super Bowl player can argue that he was defrauded out of the value of a Super Bowl ring and the difference between the losers' share and the winners' share of the Super Bowl payment. Those damages are clear. Others can argue the loss of endorsement opportunities that go to the winners, notoriety, etc.

The differences in winners' and losers shares' have been around $35,000 recently. The values of the rings in recent years, at the time of presentations to the players, have been in the range of $10,000 to $15,000. Three Super Bowl losers have claims for this alone at around $8 million plus interest on the cash, and maybe appreciation on the values of the rings.

[the_idle_threat]

Like I said, vince, there's no hope for you. I can't stop you from enjoying your lynching. You desparately want this to be a huge scandal. Meanwhile, the league and the Patriots---who, unlike you, actually know what happened exactly---want people to stop making a huge deal out of nothing. Go ahead and call that a cover up if you want. And you know you want to. But maybe they're just calling for cooler heads to prevail.

For one thing, try to distinguish between "illegal" and against league rules. There's a difference, and it's a pretty big one. Nobody broke any laws here.

Obviously, lots of videotaping goes on at practices and games; otherwise we would not see games on TV, and teams would have no film to watch later. The league rule apparently disallows some kinds of taping. Big whoop. Nevermind the fact that these signals were apparently in plain sight to be taped. Do you think nobody could have gotten an advantage just by watching, but not taping? Do you think nobody ever actually did so? You're naive if you think this is anything more than a small incremental step in the old game of signal stealing. It's been around forever, and not just in football. It's slap-on-the-wrist stuff, not class-action lawsuit stuff.

The lawsuits are frivolous. It's lawyers smelling blood in the water, plain and simple.

In order to sue, plaintiffs must show damages. What are the 70,000 Super Bowl fans gonna show as damages? They were there to be entertained. Even if we assume the facts in their favor, were they less entertained at that Super Bowl, in hindsight, if the Pats had an unfair advantage? Of course not. In fact, the Pats were underdogs going into the game. If the plaintiffs are to be believed, and the taping made the Pats more competitive, those fans enjoyed a more competitive and entertaining Super Bowl than was expected. No damages. It's a stupid lawsuit.

With regard to the players, they have damages because they lost, but they still have to show that the taping is what caused the loss. There are two problems with proving that.

First, the degree to which this taping might help a team is speculative. You assume that Brady knew everything ahead of time and gained a huge advantage because you are assuming the worst. It's a huge stretch to think they had all or even a large portion of any team's signals, and an even larger stretch to believe that Brady memorized all of them for every opponent. Get serious.

Second, A million things go into a win or a loss in a football game. Sure, the Pats were underdogs in that Super Bowl, but ya know, any given Sunday? Underdogs win all the time in football, as we Packer fans are all-too-aware. Proving that whatever advantage the Pats might have gained from this taping (which is an unknown) was the thing that caused them to win---as opposed to a number of other factors---is impossible. The only way they win a suit like this is if they get a jury of biased, self-righteous blowhards like you.

The league is a deep pocket, and lawyers love suing deep pockets. Especially with class-action lawsuits. These lawsuits are junk.

[MJZiggy]

The people who bet on the game have damages...as does Vegas in general if there's any question as to the integrity of the game. If some idiot bet his whole life savings on the Pats losing and there was any advantage gained (remember this is about the taping of the walk through as much as signal stealing, and I'm pretty sure Tom is bright enough to remember them for one game at a time), then his homelessness becomes his own fault but they become contributors to it.

I find the idea fascinating and not just because of my intense dislike for the cheater.

[RashanGary]

Destroying the evidence is extremely suspicious to me. Why would you have to destroy evidence in a case of wrong doing rather than saving it in case of an appeal? What if BB disagreed a coule days later? The league already destroyed huge amounts of evidence. It just reaks of a league affraid of what might happen if people knew what was going on.

If they hadn't destroyed all of that evidence, I'd be less suspicious, but the NFL looks like they think it's a big enough deal to hide what happened.

As far as the lynching goes, I'm also happy to join on the lynch mob and if you don't like it then don't read it.

[Patler]

The people who bet on the game have damages...as does Vegas in general if there's any question as to the integrity of the game. If some idiot bet his whole life savings on the Pats losing and there was any advantage gained (remember this is about the taping of the walk through as much as signal stealing, and I'm pretty sure Tom is bright enough to remember them for one game at a time), then his homelessness becomes his own fault but they become contributors to it.

I find the idea fascinating and not just because of my intense dislike for the cheater.

That's exactly right, which potentially makes the Patriots actions violations of laws, not just league rules. People undertake legalized gambling with certain beliefs as to how the contest will be run, especially as to following established league rules. If someone violates those rules, to give themselves a significant competitive advantage, laws can be broken.

It is not surprising the the Patriots and the NFL want to downplay this, especially the NFL. Their credibility is at stake. Without that, they can become professional wrestling!

[packinpatland]

Destroying the evidence is extremely suspicious to me. Why would you have to destroy evidence in a case of wrong doing rather than saving it in case of an appeal? What if BB disagreed a coule days later? The league already destroyed huge amounts of evidence. It just reaks of a league affraid of what might happen if people knew what was going on.

If they hadn't destroyed all of that evidence, I'd be less suspicious, but the NFL looks like they think it's a big enough deal to hide what happened. By their actions, the NFL also seems to be siding with those who think this is a pretty big deal.

As far as the lynching goes, I'm also happy to join on the lynch mob and if you don't like it then don't read it.

I like the way SI's Don Banks put it:

"• If the Patriots routinely video-taped their opponents' signals dating from the start of New England's Bill Belichick era in 2000, with Belichick maintaining to NFL commissioner Roger Goodell that he thought such practices were legal, what, pray tell, did the Pats head coach think that memo the league sent out Sept. 6, 2006, was all about?

You know the one I'm talking about. In it, the NFL's executive vice president of football operations, Ray Anderson, stated rather flatly that "Videotaping of any type, including but not limited to taping of an opponent's offensive or defensive signals, is prohibited on the sidelines, in the coaches' booth, in the locker room, or at any other locations accessible to club staff members during the game.''

Not a lot of wiggle room there, is there? If Belichick read that and still thought he could make his case for the legality of his team's taping, he probably thought Roger Clemens came off as utterly convincing in this week's congressional hearing."

[RashanGary]

First, the degree to which this taping might help a team is speculative. You assume that Brady knew everything ahead of time and gained a huge advantage because you are assuming the worst. It's a huge stretch to think they had all or even a large portion of any team's signals, and an even larger stretch to believe that Brady memorized all of them for every opponent. Get serious.

Defensive signals can be looked at as a mini sign language. A sign language designed to communicate a pretty narrow array of information (in relation to someone who speaks in sign language). People learn full human language in signs, why do you think Tom Brady isn't capable of learning 1% of that (esspecially over the course of the last 7 or 8 years)

2nd, there are 32 teams, but I think it woudl be very likely that many DC's came from similar backrounds and use similar signals. Brady doesn't have to know every signal of 32 teams. He might need to know 6 or 7 language concepts and then brush up on the details of each before the game. I don't know about you Idle, but I piece things together in concept groups and it makes learning very doable. Do you really have to memorize every detail of everything you learn or do you think you're an intelligent person who's capable of more? I give you more credit than you give Tom Brady and I give Tom Brady more credit that that too.

3rd, he doesn't even need the full signal. He needs to know where the pressure is coming from and through normal tape study and common sense you can deduct what will happen from there. Example, if brady were given the MLB in the A gap and the SLB outside the tackle as the blitz of the currrent play, he could think about how this team usually covers with this blitz. He could also look at the formation and make deductions as to the few options they even have to cover his guys. Just a little info (like who's blitzing) can go a really, really long way, both in setting the protection and in anticipating the coverage in a way that most QB's have to decipher as the ball is snapped (in a matter of 1 or 2 seconds while Brady gets 15 seconds and he's just sitting there, not running for his life)


I don't know if you've thought about this or not, but Bellicheat and Brady obviously thought it helped enough to keep doing it (even after the league memo directly stating it's not tolerated) and thought it helped enough to do it in the first place for the last 8 years including post seasons when if they could have been preparing for all sorts of football related information. Instead they took the time out of their busy week to study this useless, non-factor stuff. I love your arrogant tone as if to say this donsn't matter while ignoring the common sense evidence that disagrees with everything you say.

[RashanGary]

Brett Favre and Mike McCarthy were both asked if it would help knowing the blitz before the play and both had the same suprised tone that Idle has right now with those who think it's a big deal.

The both said (and they looked shocked by the way) "yeah it would help, it would help the quarterback a lot"

Obviously nobody got the idle memo saying this stuff doesn't matter.

[KYPack]

Whoa, I didn't realize there was such a divide on this issue!

I'm down on the NFL and their handling of Spygate. Roger Goodell came in like the new sheriff in town and has parlayed that image into his calling card. And it obscures the fact that he is an incompetent boob, who shouldn't be commissioner.

He has made many missteps in his early reign and Spygate points out that they need to get somebody doing that gig that knows what in the hell they are doing.

He has hammered players and everybody applauds. But the players are just glorified paycheck guys who are basically working for a living for a short run. When it came time to show some authority and defend the integrity of the NFL by penalizing a team, Goodell fumbled by running a quickie cover-up, which is now coming apart at the seams.

Not only was his handling of the manner quick, it was amateurish. Proof of that are the Specter investigation and this law suit. Neither Specter or the lawsuit are noble causes, but they are the kind of things that crop up when you don't handle things right in the investigation and penalty phase.

Goodell presided over a royal fuck-up and now the league will pay for his lack of expertise. The NFL is the world's premier sports league. They may need to make a quick change at the top to retain that status.