February 14, 2008

I think the implication is pretty obvious. Standing on ceremony isn't going to make the Pats hate go away. I'd just let this thread be.

posted by yerfatma at 03:55 PM on February 14, 2008

As of this writing, the sports media isn't making too huge a deal about this, though that might be because their scandal telescopes are focused on The Rocket. That said, if this does turn out to be true, I no longer know whether I should be pissed off or whether I should be disappointed or whether I should shrug and say meh. The fact that the commissioner has not taken a more serious, public stance on this suggests to me that the NFL doesn't consider it to be that big a deal. Or that they're trying to bury it. Or that Specter is talking out of his ass. Long story short, if its cheating, it should be punished, period. Claiming "I didn't know" doesn't remove the unfair advantage. The NFL saying "water under the bridge" also doesn't remove the unfair advantage. I say this as a big Patriots fan. I'm not going to make "everyone else does it" excuses because, frankly, that doesn't matter. Against the rules is against the rules. If everyone else is doing it, everyone else should be punished, too. But I haven't seen any proof that everyone else is doing it.

posted by Joey Michaels at 03:57 PM on February 14, 2008

Agreed. While applicable here, it shouldn't be in quotations if it doesn't appear in the piece. Fixed.

posted by justgary at 04:38 PM on February 14, 2008

I'm still uncomfortable with Congress getting involved with professional sports. The doofus brigage at the Clemens hearing was an absolute debacle and I can see this shaping up the same way.

posted by curlyelk at 05:50 PM on February 14, 2008

Where did you get the word "cheating", Clevelander32? It doesn't appear in that article. The word cheating does not appear in the article. However, the words ''illegally taping'' do. (Words 5 & 6 of the article.) If I'm illegally taping something, I'm probably doing something wrong. If I'm doing something wrong, it probably means I'm cheating, doesn't it?

posted by tommybiden at 06:27 PM on February 14, 2008

That it's cheating is a given.

posted by aerotive at 07:32 PM on February 14, 2008

It is amazing in todays world how so few individuals can ruin so many fans love of sports. Belichick and Clemens are perfect examples

posted by brownindian at 07:53 PM on February 14, 2008

The "Hoodie" admits to doing this improper filming since he took over for the Pats in 2000. He turns an average franchise into a dynasty and nobody thinks there is anything wrong with this? If I believed that this was giving him a HUGE advantage, I'd be more concerned. However, it still takes talented players for a team to win, regardless of any slight advantage that might be gained through any form of subterfuge. As well, this assumes that none of the other teams were doing the same thing. You know, this sort of rings a bell with some other recent major sports "scandal". Hmm... I just can't seem to put my finger on it.

posted by grum@work at 08:34 PM on February 14, 2008

The fact that the commissioner has not taken a more serious, public stance on this suggests to me that the NFL doesn't consider it to be that big a deal. Or that they're trying to bury it. The fact that he DESTROYED the tapes tells me it's the latter. The other thing I am really confused with is the fact that they wanted to talk to the video assistant and then it went to giving him immunity "if he turns over any materials he has to the NFL for protection". I would rather it be turned over to the Judiciary Committee Amen to that. Because the second he hands over anything to the NFL it will end up in a burning trash can with a prompt response "we saw all we needed to see". As well, this assumes that none of the other teams were doing the same thing. You know, this sort of rings a bell with some other recent major sports "scandal". Hmm... I just can't seem to put my finger on it. Except in that "other sports scandal" it wasn't against the rules for the supposed infringer's at the time they were doing it. In this one it certainly was. To me the bigger issue was video taping of the walkthru prior to the Rams SB. Man, if that info comes out as proven, it really hits the fan at that point. On the Saturday before the game, the Rams walk through all their formations and their first 15 plays of the game. They also practice all their goaline plays. The following day the Rams, who couldn't be contained all year long, suddenly struggle all first half, and struggle in redzone opportunities all game, and lose by 3. To me, that is HUGE. Again, if proven, that plainly shows a SB win by cheating and could never be undone in my mind. Think the Rams might have scored 3 more points if the opposing team wouldn't have known the first 15 plays they were running? Or what plays they would run out there on 3rd and Goal? I read somewhere that if more info is actually presented, Bill could be suspended for a year due to the visibility of this and the questions of a double standard by Goodall between players/coaches. Can you imagine the 08 Pats, a year after the SB, being run by a different coach?

posted by bdaddy at 09:25 PM on February 14, 2008

Given the recent work of these Congressional committees, I think this comic sums it up nicely.

posted by grum@work at 09:49 PM on February 14, 2008

To me the bigger issue was video taping of the walkthru prior to the Rams SB. Only person to gain from this conversation. Mike Martz.

posted by BoKnows at 10:18 PM on February 14, 2008

I wanna know how a Belichick can tape other teams offensive, defensive plays; not know it's illegal and still be called a genius. Genius, my ass. That prick owes me 500 bucks.

posted by Nakeman at 10:27 PM on February 14, 2008

So far, though, Belichick's the only one accused of regularly videotaping defensive signals. This makes him look like a cheater. Or a goat. Or someone who misheard or misunderstood what the rules were. There seems to be a lot of that going around these days. Especially involving people who have been involved in professional sports franchises from the New England region of the United States of America. Do you think it could be something in the water?

posted by tommybiden at 02:15 AM on February 15, 2008

"The fact that the commissioner has not taken a more serious, public stance on this suggests to me that the NFL doesn't consider it to be that big a deal. Or that they're trying to bury it. Or that Specter is talking out of his ass." Specter has been talking out of his ass for years.

posted by GoBirds at 04:40 AM on February 15, 2008

From the NFL's point of view: put out an entertaining product and make millions of dollars, or try to maintain the integrity of the game...I wonder which way they are leaning?

posted by whitedog65 at 05:40 AM on February 15, 2008

Im not trying to defend bellicheck here, but why is nobody outraged that senator spector is wasting taxpayer dollars investigating the nfl, for something congress didnt care about until he learned that his beloved eagles might have been affected?

posted by elijahin24 at 06:03 AM on February 15, 2008

Especially involving people who have been involved in professional sports franchises from the New England region of the United States of America. Do you think it could be something in the water? Geographic fun fact for ya, tommy -- despite their name, the Yankees are not in fact located in New England.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 07:45 AM on February 15, 2008

Let's not stray from the issue here. This is about Bill Belichick "confessing" that he has been doing this since he took over in 2000. The rule is very simple, do not videotape opposing teams signals. He claims he didn't understand the ruling, that's poo-poo. It's an insult to our intelligence. I am sure that I can read the rule and make a good interpretation from it. As for the Senator getting involved. I say good for him. I could care less if he were an Eagles fan or not. If this did occur, and I was an Eagles fan, a Ram's fan or whatever, I would be very pissed. I can only imagine the questions as I watched them shut down the "greatest show on turf". The seemed to be especially good at the beginning of game as well as in the red zone. I am really disturbed by this. I am glad that it is being looked at. I don't think the NFL has given a sufficient answer as to why they would destroy such evidence without having experts or other coaches look at the tapes to see how they could have benefited. I think to destroy them after he already dished out the punishment of nearly 1 million dollars between the coach and owner, plus a first rounder was indicative of the seriousness. Now you see Goodell laughing and looking like a real arrogant ass when discussing it - uh, I was afraid that other teams might be able to use this or I was afraid it would help other teams..... Bullshit. That is a copout. I believe that after he gave the fines, he then recieved the tapes and notes two weeks later. He then destroyed them in 2 days time after getting the tapes. It shows of cover-up. And to say he wanted to talk to Matt Walsh, to "if he has anything that belongs to the league that he took, all he has to do is to turn the tapes over to the league"..... yeah right. They will take less than two days to destroy this time. I think that Goodell is trying to protect the league and that is all. I am all for Spector getting involved. I believe that someone needs to in this case. All Goodell can say is "I am sure it had no affect on the outcome of the game with Philadelphia" as if he were poking fun at the Senator. If I were the Senator, I would be talking to the "video assistant" really fast.

posted by Mickster at 08:06 AM on February 15, 2008

Did anyone think the Patriots just started taping this year? It was only a matter of time before the obvious came out.

posted by dbt302 at 08:28 AM on February 15, 2008

I keep hearing that everybody does it, but where's the evidence? No idea, but that's kind of an unfair standard to hold other commenters to. It's not as though we're going to be able to produce anything. And it's not like the NFL is going to be quick to produce tapes showing similar league-wide activity. It's no conversation for logicians, surely, but there has to be a reason everyone covers their mouths with the playsheets, right? As for Vegas, major pro sports leagues make a big effort to pretend they don't exist. How would a sportsbook have any pressure on anything outside Vegas? Besides, it's not as though they lose money because of one side cheating; the line's set to make betting even, not based solely on who Vegas thinks will win.

posted by yerfatma at 09:00 AM on February 15, 2008

I believe the NFL is keeping a low profile about this because if all the "tricks", for the lack of a better word, that teams possibly use would come out, it would really tear up the NFL in the eyes of the fans. And fans = $$$$. That's what I'd like to know: what are the possible reasons for a Goodell coverup? I don't really buy the "he wanted an undefeated season because it would boost NFL revenues" argument -- the tapes were destroyed long before a possible undefeated season was more than a glimmer in the most optimistic eye. So, if coverup it was...why? Why would the NFL not want to land on Belichick in the way that certain parties clearly want them to?

posted by lil_brown_bat at 09:29 AM on February 15, 2008

I don't know what the NFL is doing here, but I don't see how they are helping the Pats by dragging this out. It all sounds very shady. The stigma of a cover-up is much worse than allegations of taping. It damages the integrity of the game much more than one team trying to get an advantage. • Specter said he was concerned to learn from Walsh's attorney that an NFL security representative, Dick Farley, had been investigating Walsh. Specter said: "I confronted them on that, and Goodell says, 'Yeah, he [Farley] works for us. Yeah, he is a security guy, but we didn't know he was investigating him.' "

posted by bperk at 10:05 AM on February 15, 2008

No idea, but that's kind of an unfair standard to hold other commenters to. It's not as though we're going to be able to produce anything. All I'm asking is for somebody to produce links. I haven't read any stories in the media about other coaches videotaping signals. Absent that, it seems fair to conclude that Belichick was doing something unusual.

posted by rcade at 10:59 AM on February 15, 2008

That's what I'd like to know: what are the possible reasons for a Goodell coverup? I don't really buy the "he wanted an undefeated season because it would boost NFL revenues" argument -- the tapes were destroyed long before a possible undefeated season was more than a glimmer in the most optimistic eye. So, if coverup it was...why? Why would the NFL not want to land on Belichick in the way that certain parties clearly want them to? Why would Goodell coverup? Maybe because taping is done by other teams, and it was the Pats that got caught? Maybe trying to steal signs/get info any way possible is more prevelant that he would care to admit? Maybe some coaches who are thought highly of would turn out to have clay feet? Tony Dungy, for example. I don't think the Pats have to worry about revenue. Yes, the tapes were destroyed long before a perfect season was considered. But who are the certain parties that want the NFL to land on Belichick? Specter? Quite frankly, I think politics should stay out of the NFL, but then you have that monopoly/antitrust thing, which I admit is way over my head. Or maybe, just maybe, upon reviewing the confiscated tapes, Goodell came to this conclusion. The taping(s) since 2000 have given the Pats such an advantage that their SB wins and some regular season wins could be called into question and considered for revocation? I don't think that would happen, and the Pats have enough talent to win, and Bill is a decent coach, tapes or not. I wish this would just go away. They got fined, lost a first round draft pick, and lost the most important game of the season. That punishment suits me. Also lbb, I might not be expressing myself to the best of my ability. I have been having some health probs. Or maybe Goodell is trying to salvage the integrity of the game?

posted by steelergirl at 11:02 AM on February 15, 2008

Where did you get that I stated that the New York Yankees are located in New England, lil_brown_bat? It doesn't appear in that statement. So, exactly what "people who have been involved in professional sports franchises from the New England region of the United States of America" were you talking about?

posted by lil_brown_bat at 11:39 AM on February 15, 2008

So, exactly what "people who have been involved in professional sports franchises from the New England region of the United States of America" were you talking about? Bill Belichick and Roger Clemens. Bill Belichick is the head coach of the New England Patriots right? i'm pretty sure I've got that one right. The New England Patriots do play in New England, right? I might be confused though. I always had thought that Roger Clemens had played a few games early in his career for the Boston Red Sox. Maybe I misremebered that. Boston is in the New England region of the United States of America isn't it? I'm sure that is what my grade 5 social studies teacher told us. Maybe I misheard her. Please feel free to continue to expand my geographical knowledge at your convinience. I'm always ready to learn new things.

posted by tommybiden at 12:04 PM on February 15, 2008

The years Clemens were alleged to have used, he was 2 years removed from Boston. I'm sorry, I really don't see the correlation, Tommy.

posted by jerseygirl at 12:42 PM on February 15, 2008

Think of all the close games that they won with an unfair advantage. I don't know at this point whether or not those tapes ever even gave the Pats an advantage. That is the problem with Goodell's actions. We are left assuming that they must have given an unfair advantage, which is unfortunate. I wish Goodell had been a little bit more process-oriented in his deliberation. Everyone criticized Tagliabue for waiting until all the facts were in before punishing (and normally not punishing) players for accusations. Goodell has trended very differently, and you can see now why that is not a good idea in every case. Instead of rushing to make a decision, he could have had a more thorough investigation that ended this forever instead of letting it be dragged out again in the week leading up to the Super Bowl and now with congressional inquiries.

posted by bperk at 01:24 PM on February 15, 2008

My impression of the major characters in our little drama, and perhaps their motivation so far: Arlen Spector: Playing to the grandstands in an effort to get some notice. With the presidential primaries in full swing and the Mitchell Report in the news, with the Super Bowl about to be played, he saw an opportunity to gain major headlines. His rationale for believing that the Patriots taped the Rams in 2001 is that an underdog beat a heavily favored team. Did he watch the same game I did on February 3 of this year? By his reasoning, the NY Giants should be under a cloud of suspicion of how they cheated. We're all pretty sure that didn't happen. He should look long and hard at the Bozo act during the Waxman hearings of this week. Roger Goodell: If there's one thing this guy ain't, that's stupid. He came down pretty hard on The Hood, but some think not hard enough. He knows that you could probably infer everything from unfair competitive advantage to child porn from the tapes and notes. He also knows that if he lets it happen, every team in the league will be under suspicion. Thus, he has the tapes and notes destroyed, sending the message to anyone else with such things lying around that the same thing ought to be done with any similar evidence. Bill Belichick: There's an edge to be had here. The thing is that the league has said it's illegal. I'll do it, and invoke the old "plausible deniability" play. I'll just say that I thought I could tape things as long as I didn't use them in the game I was taping. this play was stopped for a 5-yard loss, and was flagged for illegal procedure to boot. Matt Walsh: There's a book deal in this somewhere. If I can keep the wolves away long enough, I can come up with a way to quit booking tee times and selling Titleists for the rest of my life. I have a confidentiality agreement with the Patriots. Maybe I can say they're going to come after me, and I can work a stall in the guise of an indemnification agreement. Then I can get my book deal before they find out I really don't have a lot more to add to all this. What people don't understand is that if the league really wanted me to talk, they'd tell Bob Kraft to lay off me or suffer some severe consequences. If the Senate subpoenas me, a confidentiality agreement is out the window, because as long as I don't hang myself, I'm compelled to testify by force of law.

posted by Howard_T at 02:03 PM on February 15, 2008

His rationale for believing that the Patriots taped the Rams in 2001 is that an underdog beat a heavily favored team. Did he watch the same game I did on February 3 of this year? Sorry, but his rationale for believing the Patriots taped the Rams in 2001 is that the man who actually did the taping at the time has privately told people he did and publicly hinted to everyone that he did. This becomes all the more believable given the coach himself has admitted to doing similar this year.

posted by bdaddy at 02:26 PM on February 15, 2008

I don't know at this point whether or not those tapes ever even gave the Pats an advantage. That is the problem with Goodell's actions. We are left assuming that they must have given an unfair advantage, which is unfortunate. If making the tapes is against the rules, then whether or not they produced an advantage is irrelevant. You punish the crime, not the result. If Belichick broke the rules to get these tapes and they weren't even useful, then shame on him for being stupid.

posted by bender at 02:27 PM on February 15, 2008

He came down pretty hard on The Hood, but some think not hard enough. He knows that you could probably infer everything from unfair competitive advantage to child porn from the tapes and notes. All I can say is what have you got in your pipe? Child porn? You must be kidding....

posted by Mickster at 02:37 PM on February 15, 2008

Arlen Spector: Playing to the grandstands in an effort to get some notice. Howard, check my link above. It might be that Specter isn't playing to the grandstands but trying to help Comcast strong-arm the NFL.

posted by yerfatma at 02:40 PM on February 15, 2008

I don't see any reason why Goodell would not throw NE under the bus...if it was an isolated thing. An isolated thing that would nullify roughly 7 years of NFL history? Think the NFL wants to hear people saying "asterisks!" everytime the Pats are mentioned? Or when Tom Brady is being introduced into the HOF people asking "would you be in here if you went 0-4 in your Superbowls?". Like I said, it really questions the integrity of the last 6 or 7 years given as the team in question won 3 championships during that span. If Belichick broke the rules to get these tapes and they weren't even useful, then shame on him for being stupid. That to me is the clear answer to anyone who question whether there was any real competitive advantage. The fact that the man was doing it and risking getting caught, pretty much implies he was getting some benefit out of it. And it certainly wasn't to "catalog" a team like the Packers who he wasn't even going to play again the following year and who would probably have a different coaching staff and personel by the time he did.

posted by bdaddy at 02:45 PM on February 15, 2008

I always had thought that Roger Clemens had played a few games early in his career for the Boston Red Sox. Maybe I misremebered that. Yes, from 1984-1986. He also pitched for Toronto in '97-'98, Yankees in '99-'03, the Rastros in '04-'06, and (again) Yankees in '07. It's three seasons vs. ten seasons, so I think the "involved in professional sports franchises from the New England region of the United States of America" is a bit tenuous. Lets not let selective memory get too involved here, this isn't a congressional hearing, you know. Just wanted to point out that Clemens was with the Sox from 84-96, closer to thirteen years than three. So thirteen seasons vs. ten makes his connection to NE a bit less tenuous, eh?

posted by tahoemoj at 03:13 PM on February 15, 2008

Furthermore, think of the marketing possibilities! All the Pats wins for the last seven seasons are erased. The standings are adjusted accordingly, with many new teams entering the playoffs. Of course, countless NFLers have to be brought out of retirement to replay the playoff games, which would be played in the offseason. Such a grueling spectacle would have to be played out during the offseason, one per year for the next seven years, so some of the players would be in their late forties towards the end... And the Bengals still wouldn't be involved, so, meh...

posted by tahoemoj at 03:19 PM on February 15, 2008

Sorry, I did not think you were criticizing me, lbb, not at all. It is just lately getting stuff from my brain to paper (or computer screen) is difficult for me. And I thought you placed your comment in order to avoid the wrath of her smug and condescending retorts.

posted by danjel at 03:53 PM on February 15, 2008

They got punished, can it be let go? There are people in this country still fighting the Civil War (on one side, anyway). Although no one's died over this Patriots thing yet, I'd still give it at least two decades before some folks can move on.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 04:18 PM on February 15, 2008

Aaaaand, inevitably: Ex-Rams player sues Pats for SB XXXVI loss

posted by Skot at 04:54 PM on February 15, 2008

Make their fans sit through eighteen rotten years of shitty teams that are the laughing stock of the NFL. Hi, I got to enjoy the Hugh Millen era and the ownership of Victor Kiam. Pretty sure out debts were paid in advance.

posted by yerfatma at 07:28 PM on February 15, 2008

If we're comparing terrible owners I'd like to introduce William Clay Ford Sr, the genius who has kept Matt Millen employed for seven years and counting (and heads a franchise that has never won a Super Bowl).

posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 08:03 PM on February 15, 2008

Matt Millen And he played so well with the Raiders. Guess that on field experience doesn't carry over to being behind a desk.

posted by steelergirl at 09:44 PM on February 15, 2008

Of course, one might argue that playing the 1985 Bears in that Super Bowl was punishment enough. If that one is a 10 year-old me with a Squish the Fish mimeograph, definitely.

posted by yerfatma at 10:56 PM on February 15, 2008

Although no one's died over this Patriots thing yet, I'd still give it at least two decades before some folks can move on. That's an easy statement for a Patriots fan. Not so easy if you support any of the teams that the Patriots beat over the last 8 years. Especially if your team was involved in a super bowl or playoff game. You can put me in the camp as the "some folks" that can't just move on. Or drop it. Or forget it.

posted by BoKnows at 08:05 AM on February 16, 2008

Congratulations to them but winning 3 SB's by a total of 9 points is a real stretch not a dynasty. It's time to move on...... Move on if you want. Suppose you lost some money on a bet and found out later, some alledged cheating was uncovered. Maybe you wouldn't be so dammed anxious to forget Belichick indescretion. I'm of the opinion if these allegations are true there be a substancial penalty involved and jail time because this is fraud.

posted by Nakeman at 05:18 PM on February 16, 2008

That's an easy statement for a Patriots fan. It's an easy statement for anyone with the wit to see that some people will make this their casus belli for at least a couple of decades. All you need is the eyes to see other issues that have hung around that long, and it's a no-brainer. My being a Pats fan has doodly squat to do with it.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 06:02 PM on February 16, 2008

It's an easy statement for anyone with the wit to see that some people will make this their casus belli for at least a couple of decades. That's pretty much the same thing you said before. I just can't help but to read it as: It's an easy statement for anyone (Patriots fan) with the wit to see that some people (non-Patriots fan) will make this their casus belli for at least a couple of decades. You have been a very strong supporter of the Patriots, and that's all fine and dandy. I just feel that statement would mean more if it came from someone without that strong fan connection. Plus, this isn't a story that has been lingering for 5 years. Some of the revelations (SuperBowl taping) is quite new. The Jets game scandal was in September. So this story has a grand total of 4-5 months of coverage/discussion. I don't know if this story will go on for decades. Frankly, niether do you. But let's not suggest that the people "with the wit" as you say, are the majority.

posted by BoKnows at 07:34 PM on February 16, 2008

Gambling is also illegal, in MOST places and can carry jail time So what! Gambling is illegal only if government doesn't get their share. We in St. Louis have plenty of casinos that are LEGAL here. As far as betting on football games, and getting cheated because of impropriated by one coach, doesn't diminish the fact the better was wronged. And you can bet, (pun intended) if it was the 60's and the mob lost alot of money due to the cheating. Belichick would be sleeping with the fishes. The only reason we are hearing about it now is because of this overzealous senator. The reason for the renewal of shit is beacause it no longer a isolated incident. The jerk (Belichick) has been doing illegal taping for approx. 8 years and why didn't football commissioner tell the public from the beginning it was going on this long. To cover it up, that's why, and there's no way the commisioner is going to lie to a United States Senator and be found out later and face some serious problems down the road.

posted by Nakeman at 10:03 AM on February 17, 2008

If this is proven then Bellicheat should be banned from football for life. Then they should tape a hundred dollar bill to his forehead and leave him at the E. St. Louis Metro Link station at 3 a.m..

posted by budman13 at 11:20 AM on February 17, 2008

The Pats on the other hand got busted. Fessed up. Got fined and punished. Now a senator wants to extract his pound of flesh. Pats got fined for taping the Jets. No one said anything about the Rams and the Superbowl until a Senator "asked" about it. I dont think this is a case double jeopardy. Convicted of one crime now evidence of another crime surfaces type thing. Thats not to say that the Commish didnt know how far and wide it was when he punished the Pats, he just "forgot" to tell the public until the Congressional inquiry.

posted by firecop at 01:40 PM on February 17, 2008

Which part, the whining or the suggestion Belichick's live should be put at risk?

posted by yerfatma at 06:13 PM on February 17, 2008

This is exactly the problem, everybody wants to go to extremes. Lets ban him from the game and put him in danger. Hey, ive got an idea, lets send him to the Anbar province of Iraq, wearing pats gear, with a loudspeaker over which we can broadcast the campaign speeches of the presidential candidates (particularly McCain, and Guliani) translated into arabic! yeah! That'll teach them! Look, he cheated. He admitted it. He was punished. Did he deserve more punishment than he got? maybe. Is everyone punished as much as they should be? no. I am not a pats fan. I just think people are so eager to tear down anyone who reaches the top of their league and holds it long enough to be called a dynasty. Im sorry if your team isnt there. Im sorry if your team lost out because of cheating, but i dont think we need to ban anyone from the game, and certainly dont need to put anyones life at risk. lets come back to earth, shall we?

posted by elijahin24 at 09:36 PM on February 17, 2008

elijahin, I am not a Pats fan either. I just happen to hate it when the people who are elected to run this country get involved in the entertainment business further than they should. Lets face it, without casting stones at either party or its candidates, it is an election year. There is a war still going on in Iraq, who the hell knows what will happen to Social Security, and none of that touches the health care problems. I just happen to be of the thought that these "bored" senators and congressmen need to pay attention elsewhere. However if they can't it doesn't say much for their constituents, or their opponents! We in St. Louis have plenty of casinos that are LEGAL here. If you really lost that $500.00 to a sportsbook casino in St. Louis, then it is your own fault. Isn't the old saying "Never go into a casino with more than you are prepared to lose?" By the way, if it was the 60's the mob would've known about the tapes ahead of the spreads.

posted by jojomfd1 at 10:17 PM on February 17, 2008

if it was the 60's the mob would've known about the tapes ahead of the spreads. I can tell you all certainty if the bent noses found out about cheating and they lost a great deal of money, somebody would be in big trouble. I don't care how long it took to find out about the cheating. Isn't the old saying "Never go into a casino with more than you are prepared to lose?" By the way, if it was the 60's the mob would've known about the tapes ahead of the Ya, your right , however I expect a fair game. As everybody in the universe does, expect you, with that tired cliche.

posted by Nakeman at 10:32 PM on February 17, 2008

Which part, the whining or the suggestion Belichick's live should be put at risk? Fatty, you do realize what we are talking about here. The minute this man decided to cheat on a football game he forfeited his life. How could you possibly defend him? You sir are worse than Hitler.

posted by HATER 187 at 11:09 PM on February 17, 2008

Good Lord, Nake, you lost a bet. It's over. Regardless of what the NFL, or Congress, or anybody else does or says, you're never getting that money back. Quit yer goddamn whining and move on. And, before you cook up one of your lame replies, I'm not a Pats fan; in fact, I fucking hate the Patriots, always have, and always will. However, at this rate, I'd feel sorry for them before I'd feel sorry for you. By the way, you don't have to read shit on this site. If you see a thread, and it's about the Patriots, or Bill Belichick, then don't read it! Go to another thread, if it's gonna get yer panties in a wad, but don't come into a thread that is clearly about BB and the Pats, then whine that you've "had to read" this, or that, or the other thing.

posted by The_Black_Hand at 11:09 AM on February 18, 2008

Bob Irsay begged the city of Baltimore to help improve the dump they played in for years with no success. Lets face it the stadium was falling down for many years before they moved. Baltimore was one of the first teams to get a franchise after the Colts left and won a Super Bowl long before Indianapolis, so I think the Irsay's did them a service. Do you really think Baltimore didn't know Irsay was going to leave? What is ironic about the move is that the Colts are getting ready to move into their 2nd new stadium in Indianapolis since the move. Granted the RCA Dome is one of the worst stadiums in the league, but in "84" it was like a palace compared to the stadium in Baltimore.

posted by sportnut at 01:30 PM on February 18, 2008

Just don't make shit up You know, I've had it with you. I lost 500 hundred bucks on a private bet and not at a casino. I've been to a casino exactly two times since they opened and was for a function for my business. I noted the casino to explain to you that gambling is legal in St. Louis and Missouri. Why your bringing McGwire into this thread is beyond me and it seems your one of those guys that bring up old arguements to prove some childish point. I lost the money and could afford it with no regrets based on a fair game and with no shadow of impropriatity attached based on taping the other team. If you think that the game was fair and I don't have a legitimate complaint, then please explain to me why? And in similar circumstances you would not be upset. That is, if you can even affort to lose your rent money for the month.

posted by Nakeman at 07:55 PM on February 18, 2008

the whole casino establishment is Saint Louis/Missouri is pretty questionable as far as it's legality. Probably not your best argument. Sorry, you lost your Tell me at what time the police are going to shut down the casinos in St. Louis because there is a question of the legality. I like to tape the Untouchable busting up of the establishments. You can email me with the time.

posted by Nakeman at 08:25 PM on February 18, 2008

You know, I've had it with you. I lost 500 hundred bucks on a private bet and not at a casino. Well then this is different, and the whole casino thing should have never been brought into this thread. That puts us back to here. There is no "childish" point to make at all. Just tired of the whining about the bet, and you lying to back up your point of view. At least Belichick told the truth when confronted with what he did.

posted by jojomfd1 at 03:21 AM on February 19, 2008

That is, if you can even affort to lose your rent money for the month. Even if you had an argument, or anything coherent to say, by including this little bit of asshattery at the end, you pretty much lose any chance of being taken seriously. Do you know for a fact that jojo rents? And if he does, how do you know how much he pays a month? Or are you just being an ass, because you have no backup? jojo can back up his arguments; I've seen him do it before. You, not so much. Steelergirl, check out "The Crays." Wicked gangster movie, British-style.

posted by The_Black_Hand at 06:11 AM on February 19, 2008

Actually, I turned on the TV, and watched "A Bronx Tale".

posted by BoKnows at 08:20 AM on February 19, 2008

Or are you just being an ass, because you have no backup? jojo can back up his arguments; I've seen him do it before. You, not so much. Your opinion is not appreciated or wanted. Jojo a big boy and take care of himself. I'm sure he doesn't need your help. I feel hosed about the alledged taping of the Rams at the Super Bowl. That's all. Jojo wanted to take me to task because(according to him) gambling is illegal. I informed him in St. Louis is was not against the law. Then he responded it was all a farce and I probably made up shit. Well, I'm sorry if you don't know when somebody in so many word calls you a liar. I personally would not call anybody's explanation, shit, unless face to face. If that was his intention, he can email me, and we can take from there and leave the other members out of it. The reason for the little quip at the end was to inform jojo I do not appreciate being called a liar. This is the second time he done it and I' will not let it go this time. For some reason he always take issue with me and my opinions. That' my final entry on this matter. Jojo knows my email address.

posted by Nakeman at 04:52 PM on February 19, 2008

I hold out hope that eventually, sanity will prevail. But I'm not going to hold my breath. (P.S. has anyone actually seen a walkthrough? This is players in their street clothes milling around with people in the stands. It's not a dress rehersal or even a practice. And no one has their first 15 plays written in stone. If the first few fail, it's time to adjust the plan.) And rcade - weren't the Jets recently accused of taping? I believe someone FPP'ed it, but my computer is desparately slow today to search.

posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 06:29 PM on February 19, 2008

TBH, so "The Krays" are worth a look? Will have to check it out.

posted by steelergirl at 10:31 PM on February 19, 2008