I haven’t followed the Patriots spycam story super closely, so maybe there is some GQ-type reason that’s been enunciated but: Why would Congress have any business investigating or putting the NFL on the spot about what would appear to be an internal rule violation?
Clemens having to testify, I can understand on two grounds: there are (I think) federal laws against steroid trafficking, and baseball enjoys an antitrust exemption that arguably could give Congress some oversight.
But filming someone’s walk through? Sneaky, yes (though there’s a long tradition in football of sending a guy up a tree to catch a glimpse of the opponent’s practice). Probably a violation of NFL rules, yes. But where in the world could the federal government get authority to call anyone on the carpet about this? And if doing so, why blame Goodell for his internal disciplinary acts rather than make the cheater himself, Belichek, defend what happened?
Just like the steroid “scandal”, it is just a distraction. It provides Congress with the appearance of being tough on something or doing something, in reality, however, it is just running the clock and accomplishes nothing of any real consequences.
The fact that missing NFL tapes deserve more investigation than missing CIA tapes is a flat out joke and a spit in the face of the intelligence of all Americans. Nixon got caught up for missing 18 minutes of a conversation; this administration is missing over 400 days worth of emails and all Congress does is flip on Sportcenter.
Hmm, the state of Pennsylvania has two state of the art stadiums. The NFL has discussed the idea of having a Super Bowl in a outdoor stadium in a Northern city.
Think Congress has no business investigating sports? Most NFL teams play in publicly subsidized stadiums, and NFL games are aired over public airwaves controlled by federal licenses. The licenses, among other things, prohibit any pre-arrangement or artifice in what is presented as live competition. If a Super Bowl were affected by cheating, that would be a legitimate matter of concern to Congress. Plus, the recent lesson learned via baseball and steroids was that Major League Baseball did not clean up its own house until Congress put some pressure on.
While I don’t want to dismiss the point from lieu’s quote, professional sports use and abuse of steroids (and only a fool would think it is just baseball) deals with breaking national controlled substance laws. There are actual crimes occurring, though we might debate whether or not they should be crimes.
The Patriots taping did not violate (to the best of my knowledge) any laws. Instead, it violated rules that the NFL set for the league (which can also be debated concerning their need). Specter’s original statement was about the destruction of ‘evidence’ by the NFL - evidence of what, I don’t know. However, if the investigation veers down the path of Superbowl 36 and the allegations of the illegal taping of the Rams walkthru, then there might be something if it turns out the Patriots (Bellicheck) were behind it. The league has said that they’ve investigated this claim, and found it without merit.
In addition to using the CIA analogy, this speaks volumes to how Specter is just blowing smoke out of his ass. While the money the team and Bellicheck were fined is miniscule (in the overall scheme of football finances), the loss of a first round draft pick is a very significant penalty.
"Senator, you have demanded my appearence before your committeee today to answer questions about football. At this time I would like to remind you that you work for me and other taxpayers and not the other way around. So I will take the opportunity to ask you questions instead.
"Why have you let the President issue signing statements that challenge the letter and spirit of laws enacted by Congress?
"The President lied about the threat Iraq posed when he stood before Congress during his Constitutional duty to advise on “The State of the Union”. Why haven’t you censured him for contempt of Congress and/or started impeachment proceedings?
"How do you expect our children and grandchildren to pay for the mounting debts you are passing on to them?
“Once you have addressed these issues I will be glad to answer your questions about a game played by men wearing short pants, tring to carry an oddly shaped ball across a line.”
Why is he asking for an explanation of the inexplicable?
Could be he’s still sore about his hometown Iggles coughing it up vs. the Pats in the Supe a couple of years ago, and was looking for a way to embarrass Belichick in what most of us had expected to be his moment of ultimate glory.
You forgot to mention the butt-slapping. Always mention the butt-slapping.
flurb, I think, nailed it. The anti-trust exemption is not a reason to talk, but a tool to compel the NFL to talk. There are no trust issues here.[sup]1[/sup]
[sup]1[/sup]Trust being used, of course, in regards to business issues and not the trust lost by cheating. I know that at least one person reading this would not have gotten that and would have remarked. I hate explaining sarcasm.