What was on the tapes doesn’t really even matter. We’ll never know because Goodell destroyed them. Why?
Sweeping it under the rug also refers to the fact that they knew about the Patriots (and maybe other teams) illegally videotaping before Mangini’s complaint.
Even *after *the league-wide memo regarding video recording was issued, the Packers busted New England illegally videotaping their practice.
First of all, as I said, the tapes were shown before they were destroyed. And Jay Glazer has copies. He apparently shows them at parties. They’re apparently not very interesting (that is, they don’t show anything that we didn’t already know).
As to the rest, I really have no idea what you’re talking about. The reason the Patriots were penalized is because they continued the practice after the memo was sent (and the Packers caught them recording during a game, not a practice). The reason they sent the memo was so that teams would stop it. Of course they knew. How any of that is “sweeping under the rug” is beyond me.
I’m confused by the line of argument you are advancing, fachverwirrt. 1) The tapes are boring and reveal nothing noteworthy. 2) The tapes were shown publicly. 3) A copy of the tapes is widely known to exist. 4) Therefore, the tapes had to be destroyed in order to prevent them from being leaked.
It doesn’t follow for me.
The line of argument I’m advancing is 1) 1) The tapes are boring and reveal nothing noteworthy (to clarify this point, I certainly believe that they show that the Patriots improperly videotaped opponents’ sidelines after specifically being told to stop). 2) The tapes were shown publicly. 3) A copy of the tapes is widely known to exist. 4) I have no idea why Goodell destroyed the tapes. But given items 1-3 (and my opinion that if the Patriots had been guilty of further wrongdoing, they wouldn’t have just blithely turned over evidence of it, especially as they were only asked to turn over materials related to the violation in question), I am struggling to see any evidence of “sweeping things under the rug”.
I’ll certainly stipulate that it was probably a bad idea to destroy the tapes.
Fair enough. That makes sense. Thanks for clarifying.
I don’t know if what Jay Glazer has and what was shown to the public is the totality of what Roger Goodell had in his possession. Destroying the tapes was essentially brushing the issue under the rug. Nothing to see here, trust me, move along.
FWIW, Matt Light thinks Kraft’s deal, causing his sudden turnaround, is that Brady’s suspension be rescinded.
Also,
I suspect we’re just not going to agree on this, but I can think of a few reasons that Goodell may have destroyed the tapes.
-
Having already suffered a leak, he wanted to make sure there were no further leaks, at least from his office. If Glazer wants to share copies, that’s on him (and if, indeed, there was more than what Glazer got his hands on, that decision actually seems sound, since there was obviously a leak in his office).
-
The tapes, being improperly obtained material that presumably yielded a competitive advantage, should be destroyed so that nobody can gain an advantage. This one’s weak, given the fact that they were played for the media, and the fact that defensive coordinators, not generally being stupid, change their signals fairly routinely, especially if they know there are tapes of them.
-
He wanted to redirect attention and rhetoric back on gameplay and away from violations and punishments, and thought (erroneously) that by destroying the tapes he was signalling that he and his office considered the matter closed and so should everyone else.
No, I’m just trying to get you to define what you mean by your claim Goodell isn’t long for the commissioner’s chair. I’ve got a hundred bucks that says he finishes his contract without being dismissed.
Not to rip open this wound any further, but just to clear this up New England was never found guilty of taping practices. The Packers incident you are referring to took place during a game, and a year before the Jets filed charges.
"It was so obvious, the Pats were busted several times before Spygate erupted, including a year earlier, during a 35-0 thrashing of Green Bay.
The Packers spotted Pats video assistant Matt Estrella — who was also shooting the video during the Jets game the next season — shooting unauthorized video from the sidelines. He was asked to leave — then was spotted doing it from a tunnel, which got him booted from Lambeau Field."
http://nypost.com/2014/10/12/they-are-cheaters-spygate-the-nfl-scandal-that-started-it-all/
Not sure it makes much difference, but ok they illegally videotaped the Packers during a game, not a practice. I actually thought it was a walkthrough, but I stand corrected. Although this was before the Jets complaint, I’m pretty sure it was still after the league issued a memo regarding illegal videotaping.
You are correct, the Packers game was after the league wide memo.
The reason I differentiate between in-game taping, and taping a practice is due to the accusation made in the Boston Herald the day before the the first NE/Giants Superbowl (Feb 2008) that New England had taped the Rams’ walk through before they played in the Super Bowl in 2002. That story was later retracted by the Herald which admitted that their reporter had never seen such a tape, nor confirmed its existence with a second source. The NFL has also never found any existence of the Patriots of ever taping a practice. But the story still lives on, as evidenced by your repeating it here seven years later.
Don’t we see enough of this “If you’re not willing to bet actual money on it, then you must not actually believe it, huh?” stuff on this board already? I’m surprised to see it from you too, though.
You’re the one who posted: “Anybody who wants to both define numbers and wager on them is welcome” and now you’re calling out RickJay for taking you up on your own proposition?
Deep end. Off.
RickJay brought up wagering first. To be fair.
It makes a difference, because videotaping opponents during games after the memo was issued is the entire point of Spygate. It’s not evidence of a cover up or anything, just another game that the Patriots taped. Which they never denied.
Sally Jenkins (who covers the R-words for the WaPo but lives in NYC, btw) discusses Goodell’s job performance, and prospects, and specific performance in this case, far more contemptuously than anything that’s been said in this thread. Just an example of good sportswriting from a veteran at the trade.
Anyone who would like to reconsider their views is invited to say so at any time.
No thanks. My opinion of you and your consistent inability to engage in actual debate has only been reinforced by your posts.
I had forgotten the bit about Favre. $50k fine with no suspension for texting pictures of his anatomy to a Jets employee. Actually, the punishment was for not cooperating with the investigation, which pretty much means he did it. Pretty weak punishment, though.
This thread suddenly got very quiet.