Goodell's Ideal Response to Mr. Specter
Joe Kidd said 02/04, 12:47 PM
My good sir,
We have already investigated these supposed allegations and already have decided amongs ourselves the punishment... We thank you for your concern but this matter is resolved.
What they did was not illegal, just an infraction of NFL rules, therefore I find no need for the United States Senate to get involved. You're a senator from Penn. if I am correct.
Why don't you worry about unemployent in your state? Or how the housing crisis is affecting your home state rather than worry about sports related topics.
Your job is not to investigate NFL Team infractions, that is my job. So stop trying to put your big fat old face in the news and go actually work for your state.
The tapes are destroyed because the matter was resolved. There is no need for boring old men trying to make political campaigns to get involved.
Thank you once again for your concern. Good bye
(At which time, Goodell body tackles the man)
Oso's back-Sort of said 02/04, 01:16 PM
Don't tackle the old codger!
The letter Sen. Specter sent to the NFL office to Goodell specifically requested tapes that pertained to Super Bowl 39 when the Pats played the Eagles in 2005. The tapes destroyed were from 2006 to the preseason of 2007.
Goodell does not posess the video or information that the *good* Senator wishes to see for his personal amusement. As such, Specter is wasting everyone's time and the taxpayers $.
Furthermore, the destruction of the six videotapes was a security measure for the league which was taken after footage was leaked by Fox.
Specter's supposition of obstruction of justice is ridiculous and baseless becasue there was no Federal or any other investigation going on when the tapes were issued.
Goodell needs to stick to his plan and let the Senator know he will have his top people investigate the matter thoroughly.
Finally, the Commissioner should ask the Senator what possible link could there be between a team videotaping signals and the NFL's anti-trust exemption.
Could it be that the Congressman would like to have a share of the broacast rights that will inevitably come from his 2nd biggest supporter Comcast Cable?
Joe Kidd said 02/04, 01:20 PM
You agree with me, but just in other words.
Oso's back-Sort of said 02/04, 01:27 PM
Fantastic argument. No. I don't agree.
You're saying he should, in essence, go pound sand and play in traffic.
I'm saying:
1) Goodell needs to supply the reason why he is unable to comply with a ridiculous request.
2) He needs to at the very least say he will investigate it on his own.
3) He also needs to go on the offensive and have Specter explain his own statements of the obstruction of justice allegations.
4) Commish also needs to bring to light the Senator's motivations for linking Videogate to Anti-trust issues.
When he does this, Specter will have little choice but to either back off or try to hold his own little inquisition and hire Mitchell to make damaging but inconclusive reports about teams all over the NFL.
If Goodell can expose or shame the Senator enough, he might back off.
Joe Kidd said 02/05, 02:10 PM
Forfeited Turn
Oso's back-Sort of said 02/05, 02:34 PM
1) Meet the committee on the Hill and address why the Senator only wanted information on the Eagles if he was interested in the integrity of the *entire* league.
2) Start an all out investigation with an independent investigator who will report directly to the NFL. Request *all* video tapes in the posession of the NE Patriots. Go to Scott Walsh in HI and gather what info. he has on the subject.
If the Pats refuse or drag their feet on the video and notes, Goodell can say their investigation is in progress. If Walsh has something to say, Goodell can either share or say the investigation is "ongoing" and he will share the report when it is finished.
3) Make the Season Pass up for bids for any carrier, whether it's cable, dish, or an independent channel. This is one of the bones of contention that makes politicians and TV networks itchy on repealing the exemption.
4) Make the NFL Network a seperate entity under the parent company of the NFL or completely independent. Think of it as ABC and ESPN both owned by Disney, but they compete for the same packages. The NFLN can buy a seperate package like ESPN does for MNF.
These will keep the gov't. off the NFL's back.
Faces at the U.S. Open
Terms under which this service is provided to you. Read our privacy guidelines.
© 2008 STATS LLC
Comments (30)
------>
Cain-Willis. In & Out... | 02/04/08, 01:06 PM
Report Offensive CommentSo what I wrote wasn't worthy of a vote Lami? Thanks for reading the whole argument.
Oso's back-Sort of | 02/04/08, 01:19 PM
Report Offensive CommentNot sure what you wanted said if you think my argument is an agreement. Was someone supposed to say, "Thank you Senator. May I have another?"
Oso's back-Sort of | 02/04/08, 01:28 PM
Report Offensive CommentGo Oso!
Porkins: Pisses Excellence | 02/04/08, 01:36 PM
Report Offensive Commentoso is one articulate guy
b-dawk | 02/04/08, 01:47 PM
Report Offensive CommentCommish needs to suspend Billcheck until all alegations are looked into...Suspend him WITH pay....Kinda the same way the Police suspend people who are under investigation for using thier firearms....
Kinda the same way he suspended Vick until the water cleared up....If further actions are warranted, which im sure they are, take them AFTER the indefinate suspension
Goodell: Welcome Back Peters! | 02/04/08, 01:53 PM
Report Offensive CommentOso, you would make a better Commish, but Kidd made the better TD this time.
Swayze Bandwagon Fan *BBF | 02/04/08, 02:17 PM
Report Offensive CommentFYI all, it's precisely because the NFL has anti-trust exemptions that the the Senate can get involved in these investigations.
These exemptions allow the NFL to act as a legal monopoly, but with that privilege also comes responsibility. Since they must have congressional approval to receive such an exemption, they are also subject to congressional scrutiny. Specter is entirely within his rights AND responsibilities to investigate such allegations, you might even say, "He's just doing his frickin' job.
Goodell: You can't suspend someone merely for allegations,without any evidence of wrong-doing. You'd have people charging every head coach in the league with something, if accusations were all it took to sideline them. You're Vick example doesn't work, there was a mountain of evidence against him
Packers1 | 02/04/08, 02:26 PM
Report Offensive CommentWhat other HC has been accused of cheating?? None that Ive heard of.....Ive never heard of a HC cheating in the history of the NFL....Have YOU??
Goodell: Welcome Back Peters! | 02/04/08, 02:30 PM
Report Offensive Commentyou didn't pick up on the sarcasm.
Lami | 02/04/08, 01:37 PM
Oh. My bad. I can be dense at times. LOL
Oso's back-Sort of | 02/04/08, 03:08 PM
Report Offensive CommentGoodell, I take it your response was for me. No, off the top of my head I can't think of any. Still doesn't change the fact that you cannot suspend Belichick for mere allegations. What a can of worms that would turn out to be. Frankly, they've got the whole off-season now to conduct any investigations. What purpose would be served in suspending him at this point?
FYI, I'm far from any kind of fan of BB's, actually I deplore him as an arrogant jerk totally lacking in sportsmanship. But this is America and a man has rights. Can you say habeus corpus?
Packers1 | 02/04/08, 03:09 PM
Report Offensive CommentSee......The term indefininate is such an ugly term. What I mean is Goodell TELLS Billicheat to take a month or 2 off, WITH PAY until he gets this whole mess figured out. Does that sound better?
Goodell: Welcome Back Peters! | 02/04/08, 03:14 PM
Report Offensive CommentWhat other HC has been accused of cheating?? None that Ive heard of.....Ive never heard of a HC cheating in the history of the NFL....Have YOU??
Goodell says, Thanks Eli | 02/04/08, 02:30 PM
How does that pertain to this TD or Congress' role in this issue?
If an investigation is needed, then Goodell and the NFL needs to hold it.
There were no laws broken. There was no investigation by any legal body at the time, so there goes the Obstruction case.
Specter has his own interests at heart in the Eagles and Comcast. Congress has 0 right to meddle in the NFL's affairs.
It's a trumped up bogus affair, and it also smacks of a bit of magician's misdirection as well.
I know how you feel about 'Spygate' Goodell. You have reason to since they're your team's rivals, and you want to see a further investigation. I wouldn't object to finding out the truth either.
But do you really want to see another pointless Mitchell report where creedence is given to a half-baked investigation?
Oso's back-Sort of | 02/04/08, 03:14 PM
Report Offensive CommentCan you say habeus corpus?
Packers1 | 02/04/08, 03:09 PM
<----Not without tripping over my blue tounge.
Oso's back-Sort of | 02/04/08, 03:16 PM
Report Offensive CommentYou should make a TD out of that Goodell. It has merits for both sides and if done right would be a barnburner.
What would the point of a suspension in the offseason be? To keep any shredding or destruction of materials? Other employees could be instructed to do so if necessary, if that were a necessity.
Oso's back-Sort of | 02/04/08, 03:18 PM
Report Offensive CommentIt sounds better, but it still would amount to a suspension and could leave matters open to a Belichick lawsuit. I realize where you're trying to come from, and I don't disagree with you in principle. I'm no lawyer, but I believe for Goodell to do that would leave him and the NFL on pretty shaky legal ground.
Actually, I agree with Specter, I thought it pretty shady that Goodell had the tapes destroyed from this year. It just smacks of cover-up. Could be Goodell who needs a short 'suspension'.
Packers1 | 02/04/08, 03:21 PM
Report Offensive CommentOso,
As in my previous post, the NFL's anti-trust exemption gives Congress every right to investigate allegations of wrong-doing in the league. whether or not Specter has alterior motives is not for me to say but as head of the judiciary committee he is well within his rights AND responsibilities.
Packers1 | 02/04/08, 03:26 PM
Report Offensive CommentOso,
As in my previous post, the NFL's anti-trust exemption gives Congress every right to investigate allegations of wrong-doing in the league. whether or not Specter has alterior motives is not for me to say but as head of the judiciary committee he is well within his rights AND responsibilities.
Packers1 | 02/04/08, 03:26 PM
Let me see if I understand you correctly then. Because the NFL was afforded the right to negotiate TV rights for all 32 teams under the 1961 Sports Broadcasting Act, now everytime TO sneezes or some unnamed source states someone cheated, Congress can now open up a blue ribbon panel on the situation? Ridiculous.
What does the allegation that the Patriots were filming other teams (just like all other teams do, just in a non-sanctioned spot) have to do with an anti-trust exemption?
Yes one has video tape, and the other allows us to see videotape. Other than that I am at a loss.
Oso's back-Sort of | 02/04/08, 03:57 PM
Report Offensive CommentWhat does the allegation that the Patriots were filming other teams (just like all other teams do, just in a non-sanctioned spot) have to do with an anti-trust exemption?
First of all, I'm not sure that ALL other teams do.
Secondly, the very fact that the NFL has the anti-trust exemption places them under Congressional oversight. If not, they would have free reign to do whatever they wanted because they are a monopoly. They have no competition, if they
weren't answerable to Congress, they wouldn't be answerable to anybody and could just make up the rules as they went along with no one to naysay them.
That just comes with the territory of having such an exemption.
We're not talking about UNNAMED sources here, they have names and there are specific allegations, with witnesses. This is a bit more serious than TO having a cold, maybe you should ease up on your analogies.
Packers1 | 02/04/08, 04:24 PM
Report Offensive CommentSince they must have congressional approval to receive such an exemption, they are also subject to congressional scrutiny. Specter is entirely within his rights AND responsibilities to investigate such allegations, you might even say, "He's just doing his job."
Packers1 | 02/04/08, 03:09 PM
The NFL's exemption and that of the MLB are two entirely different animals.
MLB is a monopoly as an entire sport as ruled by the late Oliver Wendall Holmes.
The NFL only has a monopoly on it's broadcasting rights. Other entities are more than welcome to try and compete with the NFL. They've tried and failed of course (see USFL and XFL). But they're welcome to do so.
The point being that the NFL has it's anti-trust exemption by legislation rather than by a judicial ruling.
Oso's back-Sort of | 02/04/08, 04:25 PM
Report Offensive CommentAdd a comment
Remember to keep it clean. Bad words will get filtered, and offensive comments will be removed. More Guidelines