Kentucky attorney sues NFL over Spygate

[Joemailman]

I agree with the KyPack. The Commish needs to go. The problem is getting 32 NFL owners, many of whom have an ego the size of Mount Everest, to admit they made a big mistake in hiring the guy. I'm afraid the situation will have to get worse before they'll act.

[packinpatland]

Will all 120,000+ 'owners' of the Packers get to vote?

[b bulldog]

The owners around the league really need to apply pressure to the commish to get something done here.

[GrnBay007]

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.

I agree. When Goodell came in he was cheered on by the fans for the tough stance he took on substance use and the thugs getting arrested. It APPEARS he was in over his head when this whole spygate thing started. If I had to guess at certain mistakes that may have been made, I would say he should have handled the situation more slowly, there should have been a more thorough investigation done from day one of when they were actually caught and from the looks of things he should have had someone with more expertise assisting him with all this. (and maybe there was...we don't know) But to destroy evidence that quickly gave the fans the impression he was just trying to sweep this mess under the rug and forget it. Fans don't forget that quickly Goodell. He should know that.

[vince]

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.

Somehow, despite the fact that you haven't given me any "hope," I somehow think I'll be OK. I am not desparate about anything idle. This is what it is, and we'll see what happens with this. As a result, I'm confident the NFL will take additional steps to ensure this type of thing doesn't happen again, which is good for everyone.

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.

If what's been reported is true, and this Walsh guy has taped numerous tapes over many years. How can you possibly not see that what happened here is being covered up? If the allegations are true, and the league has come to find out about it, then both the Patriots and the league are making a concerted effort to keep the acts from being made public. If that's not the very definition of a cover up, please tell me what is.

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.

That's not what the legal experts for the wronged players and fans are saying. I think I'll give them a tad more credibility than you.

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.

IMO, this is NOT an incremental step from stealing a coach's signs during a game. This is the premeditated and organized cataloguing of other team's signs and the attempt at predetermining with relative certainty what the opponents are going to do before they do it IN ORDER TO GAIN AN UNFAIR ADVANTAGE in a competition that has millions of dollars at stake. This flies directly in the face of all common definitions of the preservation of a fair playing field, and must be dealt with squarely.

Should the rest of the teams start doing the same, since you believe this is nothing more than an incremental movement of the line between legal and illegal that you keep moving to encompass the Patriots actions here?

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?

If you are willing to stipulate that the game was not played on a level playing field from the start, then they absolutely did NOT receive what the league presented they were buying. This is the crux of their suit. Their money ($30 million) was received by the league with the understanding that the customers were receiving a fair competion. In my view, if this occurred, they have a right to ask for their money back. That's what they're doing here. THIS IS WHY THE LEAGUE IS COVERING IT UP.

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.

Brush up on your law in this area, idle. They have no such burden. Damages could be awarded if they can prove that Patriots cheated them out of competing on a level playing field. That, IN AND OF ITSELF, is the burden here for them. The players were guaranteed that by contract with the league. It is impossible to prove that the cheating caused the loss, but they don't have to prove that in order to have been defrauded.

The only way they win a suit like this is if they get a jury of biased, self-righteous blowhards like you.

You have proven in this exchange without a doubt who, in FACT, is the self-righteous blowhard. I have done nothing but present facts, state my opinions from those facts, and respond to your personal accusations.

Overall, thanks for the post Idle. Your opinions are as valid as mine and everyone else's, but please stop denigrating the exchange with personal attacks. Nobody appreciates them here.

[RashanGary]

My understanding is that in a civil case, the only burden on the plaintiff is to present a preponderance of evidence, not "beyond a reasonable doubt" like in a criminal case. This is why people are not convicted criminally, but decided against in a civil suite that follows to pay damages.

We'll see how the evidence unfolds, but it looks like they might have a case. As a avid NFL fan, I really want to see this thing unfold because I rate what happens based on the teams I've seen and I want to have a proper perspective for what Bellichick, Brady and the Pats have accomplished. Also, as a fan of winning without cheating, I think there is justice to the Dungy's, Coughlins, Mannings and Favres of our era who won through effort and ability, not cheating.

[RashanGary]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=0EU1O-hGxgg

This is a really profound piece. I think it really does a nice job putting all of his in perspective.

[the_idle_threat]

vince, your "I know you are, but what am I" response to the blowhard comment above shows that you're not above the fray as much as you claim to be. I agree that I've gone too far down the JSO vitriol road here, and I need to check myself. I will try to do that. But don't forget to do the same.

Let's be clear about what I'm claiming in this thread, and what I'm not claiming.

I'm claiming that this whole big deal with lawsuits and congressional hearings and fan outrage is a huge overreaction (and in the case of the lawsuits, exploitation of that overreaction by greedy lawyers) to a minor wrong.

I'm not claiming that the taping was A-OK and all other teams should go ahead and do it (although I DO think that other teams were doing it or some variation of it---and only the Pats got caught & punished). Obviously, the league has looked at the issue and has explicitly said it is not allowed within its rules. The league imposed a fine and took away a draft pick. I think that was plenty punishment enough.

I don't buy that there's a cover up of some bigger issue. So the tapes were destroyed. The league office---which has reason to believe it is the highest authority on its own rules---ruled on the issue, issued a punishment, and considered it closed. So they should have saved the tapes in case there was an appeal? An appeal to whom---the U.S. Supreme Court? This was a business ruling on a business policy, not a ruling in a court of law. There are no appeals.

If you get written up at work, maybe you can appeal it up the chain of command, but once you reach the top at your company, you're out of appeals. The commissioner's office is the "top" of the NFL. There are no appeals from there.

So the league office considered the issue closed, and they still had these tapes of other teams' signals that they obviously weren't gonna return to the Pats, and they didn't necessarily want falling into anyone else's hands. What else to do but dispose of them---i.e. destroy them?

Put them away, some of you say, but why would they think they needed to do that? The issue was closed as far as they were concerned, and again, there are no appeals. They surely didn't see this media firestorm coming. Maybe that lack of foresight makes them inept, as KYPack claims (and I could agree with that, I suppose), but it doesn't make them the author of some grand cover up or conspiracy.

So now we get this Walsh guy, who wants legal immunity for lying, and claims he has all these old tapes at home, "just in case." Sounds like a real credible character to me.

If Walsh's allegations are true (even though he wants immunity for lying); If what's being reported is true (but reporters don't have any first hand knowledge---but what they do have is a great deal of dislike for Belichick because he's unfriendly to the media, which is the factor that's keeping this in the news, IMO); If the Pats actually gained a big enough advantage from this to determine the outcome of games (which is purely speculative); If, If, If ... then maybe there's a cover up. But in reality, there are just a lot of Ifs. And the league hasn't even said it's unwilling to reopen the issue to consider new evidence. So where's the cover up?

Regarding the lawsuits, I still maintain they're frivolous. The plaintiffs' attorneys claim that the Pats committed all kinds of wrongs, including legal violations. But that's standard overlawyering. They throw everything but the kitchen sink into the complaint, start discovery, and then amend the complaint or concede some claims later when more facts emerge. So there's no reason to believe---solely from the allegations in the complaint---that the defendants actually committed any or all of those wrongs. They're accusations. (Now for any of you lawyers out there, I know about Federal Rule 11 and local/state rules to the same effect regarding frivolous claims, but if you're aware of this rule, then you're also surely aware of how impotent it has been in its application. There are still frivolous lawsuits filed all the time.)

I stated my argument on the Super Bowl fans' lawsuit, and I stand by it. Even if all the allegations about the Pats' taping and its effect are true (and that's a big IF), those patrons received an evening of entertainment in exchange for their money, which is what they signed up for. All this high-minded "fair competition" stuff is post-hoc rationalization for wanting their money back now that they already had their good time. Who wouldn't want to have their cake and eat it too? It's a bogus claim. Giving anyone a refund after they've already enjoyed the party is unjust enrichment.

Regarding the players' claim, they are claiming civil damages based upon losing the game (e.g. difference between winners' and losers' shares, value of Super Bowl rings). Therefore, they have to prove the Pats caused thoses losses---i.e. cheated them out of the win. If something else might have caused the damages (i.e. caused them to lose) then the Pats do not have to pay for the damages they did not cause. It's basic tort law.

If a "level playing field" was a reasonable and contractual expectation that could give rise to a lawsuit, then where were the lawsuits after (1) the Super Bowl HGH allegations that came out a few years back---anybody remember Bill Romanowski?---or (2) the Broncos were punished for salary cap violations they allegedly committed in Elway's final Super Bowl seasons? There were no lawsuits, because there was no big media controversy in either case like we have here. These suits are not about valid legal claims---they're about exploiting a high-profile situation and hoping for quick settlements by a deep pocket that probably wants to avoid more bad publicity.

These lawsuits are about opportunism, which plaintiffs' attorneys are quite good at. Same goes for the Congressional hearings and Congressmen/women. That's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it unless and until further credible evidence comes out to bolster the claims. I'm not willing to just believe or assume the worst. Some folks are, and as I've said all along, I can't stop you from forming a lynch mob.

[vince]

vince, your "I know you are, but what am I" response to the blowhard comment above shows that you're not above the fray as much as you claim to be. I agree that I've gone too far down the JSO vitriol road here, and I need to check myself. I will try to do that. But don't forget to do the same.

Fair enough Idle. I'll keep my ego in check as well. You obviously put a lot of effort and detail into that response, and I appreciate that. While there's a tendency for opinions to become polarized, your opinions here definitely have merit.

Obviously, I want to see this play out in public, as does IMO the majority of the public, so as to expose the situation and ensure that it end it's occurrence once and for all. I also want to know the facts here, as we've heard just enough to expect the worst. If this is true, I believe this will (and should) have serious ramifications on the Patriot legacy as it has been understood up to this point in history.

[MJZiggy]

If Walsh's allegations are true (even though he wants immunity for lying); If what's being reported is true (but reporters don't have any first hand knowledge---but what they do have is a great deal of dislike for Belichick because he's unfriendly to the media, which is the factor that's keeping this in the news, IMO); If the Pats actually gained a big enough advantage from this to determine the outcome of games (which is purely speculative); If, If, If ... then maybe there's a cover up. But in reality, there are just a lot of Ifs. And the league hasn't even said it's unwilling to reopen the issue to consider new evidence. So where's the cover up?

But you have to answer the ifs before you just dismiss the whole thing as frivolous and overblown. The media do dislike Belichick, but the media aren't the ones bringing suit and in the other cases you mentioned, a suit likely could have been brought. Don't know if it would have been successful or not, but we don't know whether this one will be either. If there's no liability, none will be assessed, the plaintiffs lose and we all go on with life (grumbling how it should have gone the other way) but there's a possibility that there actually is more to this and even if it's not likely, don't you want to see them find out more surely?

[packinpatland]

All this just makes that little '*' get bigger.

[the_idle_threat]

If Walsh's allegations are true (even though he wants immunity for lying); If what's being reported is true (but reporters don't have any first hand knowledge---but what they do have is a great deal of dislike for Belichick because he's unfriendly to the media, which is the factor that's keeping this in the news, IMO); If the Pats actually gained a big enough advantage from this to determine the outcome of games (which is purely speculative); If, If, If ... then maybe there's a cover up. But in reality, there are just a lot of Ifs. And the league hasn't even said it's unwilling to reopen the issue to consider new evidence. So where's the cover up?

But you have to answer the ifs before you just dismiss the whole thing as frivolous and overblown. The media do dislike Belichick, but the media aren't the ones bringing suit and in the other cases you mentioned, a suit likely could have been brought. Don't know if it would have been successful or not, but we don't know whether this one will be either. If there's no liability, none will be assessed, the plaintiffs lose and we all go on with life (grumbling how it should have gone the other way) but there's a possibility that there actually is more to this and even if it's not likely, don't you want to see them find out more surely?

But if liability is "not likely," why make the defendant spend the time and money answering the claim, and why waste the court's time and taxpayer dollars? Courts are way overburdened with cases as it is, and some of those other cases actually have merit. Where the plaintiffs' allegations are "not likely," it's unfair to make defendants and the courts go through with handling the case.

Anyone can file a lawsuit if they can dream up a theory of liability. But lawsuits are acts of aggression---declarations of war. They're not about fact-finding---they're about winning the dispute. Once the suits are filed, the defendants have no choice but to be dragged into an expensive and time-consuming mess.

My point is that the lawsuits above don't meet the threshold: they're based upon weak arguments and are not "likely" enough to prevail that they deserve to be heard. The legal system makes judgements like this all the time.

And the sad part is, the plaintiffs (and their lawyers) might secretly agree with me and don't even care. They have an opportunity to snap at the heels of a deep pocket who wants this media-created story to blow over already. They might get a settlement out of the deal in exchange for shutting up and going away, even before they have to prove a thing. Also, they know that if the cases get thrown out (on summary judgement or even on a 14(b)(6) motion---failure to state a claim), the legal system often does little or nothing to penalize them for taking a shot.

I don't believe these lawsuits are about "the facts" coming to light. I think they are parasitic upon---and therefore are bad for---the NFL.

Now with regard to "the facts" coming to light, which I consider an entirely separate issue from the lawsuits: I do think the NFL would be wise to reopen its investigation if that is warranted. But they've already said they're willing to do that. Meanwhile, the "new evidence" is pretty much this Walsh guy's story and his supposed archive of tapes. They're willing to talk to him, but I don't fault them for scoffing at Walsh's insistence that he can lie with impunity or otherwise he won't talk at all. Does that not strike you as shady?

The PFT guy made a very bad case for why Walsh would want such immunity: because the NFL would sue him right away for lying, even if he wasn't lying. PFT guy ignores the fact that in such a suit, the NFL (plaintiff) would bear the burden of proving Walsh is lying---if they can't do that then they lose. Perhaps the case even gets thrown out of court right up front if they don't have enough evidence. Then the NFL is looking at a P.R. nightmare---they filed an abusive suit to silence the kid and further the so-called "cover up," etc. Even if the NFL has made some ham-handed decisions so far in this whole affair, I don't see them filing a frivolous lawsuit. This situation is way too high-profile.

But what if the NFL can show that Walsh is lying? Then, maybe Walsh is actually lying . If that's the case, then why should he have immunity? In that case, "the facts" he supposedly brings to light are not facts at all and add nothing to the understanding of this situation, and the NFL is well within its rights to sue him for fueling this firestorm.

PFT guy mentions releasing Walsh from his confidentality agreement as some sort of solution, but that has nothing to do with the above situation. The league---according to PFT guy---would sue Walsh for lying, NOT for breach of confidentiality. How would waiving the confidentaility agreement change this?

In the most likely scenario, Walsh wants to be released from the confidentiality agreement AND released from liability for lying, because then he could go public (to an eager media and a bloodthristy public) with whatever story he wants.

[MJZiggy]

But if reopening the investigation to bring the facts to light is warranted, isn't that an admission that the base of the suit is possible and therefore warranted as well? I think they should have at least waited with the suit to see if the NFL reopens and if they do what comes of it. This could press them to find out the facts in a hurry though, don't you think? That said, it does smack of parasitic behavior...

I think it matters less what Walsh says and more what the tapes he has contain. Lying or not, video evidence is tough to dispute.

[the_idle_threat]

But if reopening the investigation to bring the facts to light is warranted, isn't that an admission that the base of the suit is possible and therefore warranted as well?

My last post was largely about how possible does not equal warranted. All kinds of legal theories are possible, but not all of them warrant dragging a defendant into court.

Also, I believe there are two logical leaps in your question.

(1) Reopening the investigation to hear new evidence

leaps to

(2) admitting there was greater wrongdoing than previously thought,

which leaps to

(3) admitting greater wrongdoing is enough to make the lawsuits warranted.


(1) By reopening the league investigation to review new evidence, the NFL is not acknowledging further wrongdoing. It's just keeping an open mind and reviewing evidence. Certainly that's the right thing to do, and they have said all along they will do it.

(2) If the NFL took the next step and increased the punishment on Belichick and/or the Pats based upon the new evidence, then that would be admitting further wrongdoing. But there's no reason to believe that will happen just yet. Goodell has already stated that he knows Belichick did some taping in previous seasons, so this "new evidence"---to the extent it's true---might very well be redundant to the evidence Goodell had previously.

(3) The lawsuits need more help than the NFL acknowledging further wrongdoing by the Pats before they are warranted. A civil lawsuit is not appropriate every time someone does something unethical or wrong. It's only appropriate when that unethical or wrong conduct (i.e. breach of duty) harms another person. There has to be an injured party to bring the lawsuit. That plaintiff bears the responsibility of showing there was unethical or wrong behavior, and also must show they suffered damages and the "wrong" caused those damages.

The problem with these lawsuits is not really in proving that the Pats broke the rules. This has already been shown---the Pats have been punished for it. Finding out that they might have broken the rules more than previously thought doesn't really add much to that part of the equation.

The problem is with linking the rule-breaking to causation and damages. My previous posts above establish how I believe it's the causation and/or damages arguments that are severely lacking in these cases.

I think they should have at least waited with the suit to see if the NFL reopens and if they do what comes of it. This could press them to find out the facts in a hurry though, don't you think?

Only if lawsuits were actually about finding out the real story. Lawsuits are about winning, not about bringing the whole story to light. In litigation, facts are disputed and slanted by both parties---it is hard to know what to believe. IMO, litigation will just confuse the issues rather than clarify them. Especially junk litigation like this, where the plaintiffs have big gaps in causation and damages and are bound to float some implausible legal theories to make a case.

That said, it does smack of parasitic behavior...

Yes it does ...

I think it matters less what Walsh says and more what the tapes he has contain. Lying or not, video evidence is tough to dispute.

The tapes are meaningless without Walsh's testimony. Even if they contain the footage he says they contain, Walsh will have to testify to that fact, and also that he made the tapes at the Pats' bidding and for their benefit. Is it possible that he taped things he was not directed to tape, perhaps for his own reasons? Why, again, did he save the tapes? His testimony will be huge if the tapes are to be considered. If he is exposed as a liar, it calls into question what can be deduced from the footage.

[Patler]

The PFT guy made a very bad case for why Walsh would want such immunity: because the NFL would sue him right away for lying, even if he wasn't lying. PFT guy ignores the fact that in such a suit, the NFL (plaintiff) would bear the burden of proving Walsh is lying---if they can't do that then they lose. Perhaps the case even gets thrown out of court right up front if they don't have enough evidence. Then the NFL is looking at a P.R. nightmare---they filed an abusive suit to silence the kid and further the so-called "cover up," etc. Even if the NFL has made some ham-handed decisions so far in this whole affair, I don't see them filing a frivolous lawsuit. This situation is way too high-profile.

But what if the NFL can show that Walsh is lying? Then, maybe Walsh is actually lying . If that's the case, then why should he have immunity? In that case, "the facts" he supposedly brings to light are not facts at all and add nothing to the understanding of this situation, and the NFL is well within its rights to sue him for fueling this firestorm.

PFT guy mentions releasing Walsh from his confidentality agreement as some sort of solution, but that has nothing to do with the above situation. The league---according to PFT guy---would sue Walsh for lying, NOT for breach of confidentiality. How would waiving the confidentaility agreement change this?

In the most likely scenario, Walsh wants to be released from the confidentiality agreement AND released from liability for lying, because then he could go public (to an eager media and a bloodthristy public) with whatever story he wants.

The point you are missing is that Walsh would be virtually defenseless in any action brought by the NFL. He would never be able to afford a lawyer to defend the action in the manner the NFL would run it. Any lawsuit from the NFL would effectively shut him up for ever.