Pats tape shows 8 minutes of Bengals sideline footage

[Jus Rob]

Should of never destroyed the first tapes! Should be released to the public. How many other times did they not get caught?

[1of10Charnatives]

4 minutes ago, mav1234 said:

You can't take an action like banning a coach without direct evidence that he was involved.  As of right now, there is only speculation he is.  There is reason to believe, from his past actions, he could be - maybe even likely is - involved.  But you can't ban him for that.  

Sure you can. This isn’t a legal matter in a court of law.  Goodell has broad authority to enforce league rules, especially when violations threaten the integrity of the game. Goodell isn’t bound to any “beyond a reasonable shadow of a doubt” standard, only his own judgement, and in this case using his discretion to ban BB for life would be entirely justified just on protecting the integrity of the game.  Common sense tells anyone who’s not a complete Pats homer that of course he knew. His track record makes believing otherwise dangerously naive.

Now whether Gooddell will or would actually do so is another matter, but he could if he were inclined and he would be completely justified.

[trueblade]

Just now, 1of10Charnatives said:

Sure you can. This isn’t a legal matter in a court of law.  Goodell has broad authority to enforce league rules, especially when violations threaten the integrity of the game. Goodell isn’t bound to any “beyond a reasonable shadow of a doubt” standard, only his own judgement, and in this case using his discretion to ban BB for life would be entirely justified just on protecting the integrity of the game.  Common sense tells anyone who’s not a complete Pats homer that of course he knew. His track record makes believing otherwise dangerously naive.

Now whether Gooddell will or would actually do so is another matter, but he could if he were inclined and he would be completely justified.

Gooddell is also one of a handful of people on the planet to have seen the original Spygate tapes. That history will likely factor in.

[1of10Charnatives]

Just now, trueblade said:

Gooddell is also one of a handful of people on the planet to have seen the original Spygate tapes. That history will likely factor in.

We can only hope. Personally I’m not inclined to put a lot of faith in him to do the right thing, but he would have a strong reason to do it if inclined.

[LinvilleGorge]

Destroying the original tapes was always super fishy. There's no reason to destroy them other than to prevent the full scope of the cheating ever coming to light.

[1of10Charnatives]

1 minute ago, LinvilleGorge said:

Destroying the original tapes was always super fishy. There's no reason to destroy them other than to prevent the full scope of the cheating ever coming to light.

Yup.

[Mr. Scot]

31 minutes ago, mav1234 said:

He is a complete dick.  The way he refuses to allow staff to seek other positions is insane.  But it isn't a reason to ban him.

You can't take an action like banning a coach without direct evidence that he was involved.  As of right now, there is only speculation he is.  There is reason to believe, from his past actions, he could be - maybe even likely is - involved.  But you can't ban him for that.  All we know right now is that a single video was made by Patriots contractors that were not at all hiding who they were, that video filmed sidelines and thus broke rules, and that only 1 of the 2 teams in the game consented to a filming crew at all.  We believe there is more here, and if there is, I think it will come out.  And when it does, there must be swift action taken against the repeat offenders.

Actually, the Personal Conduct policy doesn't require proof, just a credible belief that something might have happened.

[SmokinwithWilly]

15 minutes ago, 1of10Charnatives said:

Sure you can. This isn’t a legal matter in a court of law.  Goodell has broad authority to enforce league rules, especially when violations threaten the integrity of the game. Goodell isn’t bound to any “beyond a reasonable shadow of a doubt” standard, only his own judgement, and in this case using his discretion to ban BB for life would be entirely justified just on protecting the integrity of the game.  Common sense tells anyone who’s not a complete Pats homer that of course he knew. His track record makes believing otherwise dangerously naive.

Now whether Gooddell will or would actually do so is another matter, but he could if he were inclined and he would be completely justified.

I wonder if it could be a legal matter in a court of law at some point. A lot of betting happens on NFL games, and if the NFL/Goodell knowingly covered up cheating, which could affect the outcome of games, it could be a problem. 

[mav1234]

1 minute ago, Mr. Scot said:

Actually, the Personal Conduct policy doesn't require proof, just a credible belief that something might have happened.

Okay, keep expecting Belicheck to get banned for the belief something might have happened.  I'll be waiting to see if more evidence is found first.

[BudFox]

Genius.  It's a set up for a bigger payoff. I don't think the Bengals were the real target.  It's going to be the Bills next week at Pittsburgh.  

You set the precedent at the Browns/Bengals game.  They get noticed on purpose.  Either no one cares and they move on to their real target, the Bills.  Or they get noticed and play like bumbling dolts, seemingly no way they would be that bold.  Powers that be brush it off and with the footage confiscated, they get to go to Pittsburgh to "re-film" the segment. 

[Bronn]

Further proof that the NFL is going to allow the Ravens to be the AFC team vs. Brees and the Saints in the Super Bowl.

They'll make right with the Saints from the PI stuff last year, and give Brees his storybook ending, and will do exactly to Lamar Jackson's career what they did to Cam Newton's.

Wait and see.

[outlaw4]

"We're onto Cincinnati" takes a new twist now.

[kungfoodude]

24 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

Destroying the original tapes was always super fishy. There's no reason to destroy them other than to prevent the full scope of the cheating ever coming to light.

You know for a fact that the evidence was so damning that if the media and public had gotten wind it would have been a scandal of historic proportions for the NFL. It would have clearly exposed how little integrity that there was at the time.

[LinvilleGorge]

1 minute ago, kungfoodude said:

You know for a fact that the evidence was so damning that if the media and public had gotten wind it would have been a scandal of historic proportions for the NFL. It would have clearly exposed how little integrity that there was at the time.

Probably so. There would probably have been a public outcry to completely destroy the Pats entire organization.