Arlen Specter to call Goodell to Congress over Spygate
Morgoth
Posts: 3,950 ✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, wants NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell to explain why the league destroyed evidence related to spying by the New England Patriots, The New York Times reported.
Specter said Goodell would be called before the committee to address both the league's antitrust exemption in relation to its television contract and the destruction of the tapes that revealed spying by the Patriots early in the 2007 season.
"That requires an explanation," Specter said. "The NFL has a very preferred status in our country with their antitrust exemption. The American people are entitled to be sure about the integrity of the game. It's analogous to the CIA destruction of tapes. Or any time you have records destroyed."
Specter said he wrote to Goodell about the tapes on Nov. 15 and again after more than a month passed without a response.
"The irony is that we have been in contact with the senator's office several times in recent weeks," Joe Browne, the NFL's executive vice president for internal affairs, told the paper, "The issue of these letters was not discussed."
Specter called Browne's response "untrue."
"It's the same old story," the senator said. "What you did is never as important as the cover-up. This sequence raises more concerns and doubts."
"It's premature to say whom we're going to call or when," Specter said. "It starts with the commissioner. He had the tapes, and he made the decision as to what the punishment could be. He made the decision to destroy them."
Specter said it had not been decided when Goodell would be called before the committee.
Specter, an avid football fan who often calls Philadelphia sports radio stations, said he was concerned about the integrity of sports.
"I don't think you have to have a law broken to have a legitimate interest by the Congress on the integrity of the game." he said: "What if there was something on the tapes we might want to be subpoenaed, for example? You can't destroy it. That would be obstruction of justice.
"It's premature to make any suggestions until you know a lot more about the matter. We need to know what's on those tapes."
Specter said Goodell would be called before the committee to address both the league's antitrust exemption in relation to its television contract and the destruction of the tapes that revealed spying by the Patriots early in the 2007 season.
"That requires an explanation," Specter said. "The NFL has a very preferred status in our country with their antitrust exemption. The American people are entitled to be sure about the integrity of the game. It's analogous to the CIA destruction of tapes. Or any time you have records destroyed."
Specter said he wrote to Goodell about the tapes on Nov. 15 and again after more than a month passed without a response.
"The irony is that we have been in contact with the senator's office several times in recent weeks," Joe Browne, the NFL's executive vice president for internal affairs, told the paper, "The issue of these letters was not discussed."
Specter called Browne's response "untrue."
"It's the same old story," the senator said. "What you did is never as important as the cover-up. This sequence raises more concerns and doubts."
"It's premature to say whom we're going to call or when," Specter said. "It starts with the commissioner. He had the tapes, and he made the decision as to what the punishment could be. He made the decision to destroy them."
Specter said it had not been decided when Goodell would be called before the committee.
Specter, an avid football fan who often calls Philadelphia sports radio stations, said he was concerned about the integrity of sports.
"I don't think you have to have a law broken to have a legitimate interest by the Congress on the integrity of the game." he said: "What if there was something on the tapes we might want to be subpoenaed, for example? You can't destroy it. That would be obstruction of justice.
"It's premature to make any suggestions until you know a lot more about the matter. We need to know what's on those tapes."
Currently completing the following registry sets: Cardinal HOF's, 1961 Pittsburgh Pirates Team, 1972 Pittsburgh Pirates Team, 1980 Pittsburgh Pirates Team, Bill Mazeroski Master & Basic Sets, Roberto Clemente Master & Basic Sets, Willie Stargell Master & Basic Sets and Terry Bradshaw Basic Set
0
Comments
GLENDALE, Ariz. – The New England Patriots were caught videotaping the New York Jets' sideline – a violation of NFL rules – in the first half of the first quarter of the first game in this perfect season.
NFL security immediately confiscated the tape of the Jets' defensive signals. The Patriots never viewed, never studied and never benefited from it. While they were strongly punished for the action – a couple of big fines and the loss of a first-round draft pick – one thing Patriots owner Robert Kraft said this week about the lasting impact of the scandal is true.
"We all know it had no impact on any game this season," Kraft said Tuesday.
Presuming the Patriots didn't continue to spy – and there is no indication they did – then all talk about asterisks or tainted titles should they defeat the New York Giants on Sunday in Super Bowl XLII is off-base.
It might be a stroke of good luck to their legacy that they were caught early in the season (if it was in October, it would be different), but it's a fact. Logic dictates that all 18 victories this season are clean.
But what Kraft was uninterested in addressing or applying the same standard of logic to was all those victories from prior seasons, including the three Super Bowl titles of the Bill Belichick era.
Unless you're naïve enough to believe the first time Belichick tried this stunt was the one he got caught (not to mention ignore multiple specific charges), the sanctity of past glory has to come into doubt.
"We're here this week celebrating," Kraft said, offering a non-answer to the questions about the previous seasons. "I try to talk about something I know something about."
Here's what we do know about the past: After New England was caught in September, stories emerged of at least four previous spying incidents from seasons past being brought to the league's attention. That likely played a part in commissioner Roger Goddell sending out a summer memo specifically reminding teams of the filming rule.
Included was a reported charge that the Patriots filmed the sideline of the Detroit Lions during a regular-season game in 2006. That begs the common sense question: If Belichick would employ such tactics to beat a pathetic Lions team that finished the season 3-13, then why wouldn't he use it in a Super Bowl?
The Patriots beat the Philadelphia Eagles 24-21 in Super Bowl XXXIX and Eagles players have now expressed questions about how that game played out. Cornerback Sheldon Brown specifically wondered if it was just a coincidence that every time the Eagles blitzed Tom Brady on the decisive fourth-quarter drive, New England called the perfect anecdote, a screen pass. Or did the Patriots, indeed, know the Eagles' defensive signals?
"I was like, 'Man, I never saw that many screens,' " Brown told the Associated Press. "Something's not right about that."
Said safety Brian Dawkins, "Now there's always going to be questions about the situation; was it great adjustments at halftime or what?"
Pittsburgh's Hines Ward brought up questions about the Patriots' two AFC championship game victories over the Steelers this decade. Others have complained about other games.
The Patriots' players have always insisted that they knew nothing about the filming and that is certainly believable. If Belichick was doing it, there would be no reason for him to have told them.
Understandably, the players resent the implication that any of their Super Bowls are tainted and considering there is no NFL investigation, not to mention the near impossibility of proving a negative, they can only shrug their shoulders in frustration.
One man that would know, Belichick, has said little to nothing about previous seasons.
"That's all been discussed," he said this week, even if it hasn't.
Kraft casually mentioned a New England talking point that there was more to the story than has been reported – the unspecified, muddy-the-water assertion that suggests it was really just the result of a rule misinterpretation not malicious intent.
"I'm not sure all the facts are out on that," Kraft said without giving them.
But if New England isn't willing – or able under NFL authority – to get "all the facts" out, then what are fans operating in the court of public opinion supposed to do? They can only go with what we know.
Besides, are people really to believe New England was willing to accept such a harsh penalty from the league – not to mention the shot at its legacy – if there are facts that somehow support its innocence?
Retroactive questions about unspecified charges are, almost by definition, unfair. Maybe New England did, coincidentally, call the right plays against the Eagles. Maybe this was just a misunderstanding. One thing this season has proven is the Patriots don't need to resort to nefarious means to be historically great.
But the reason the debate has been raised is because of what Belichick did in September. This situation is his creation.
While in New England there is near lock-step, group-think rejecting the notion that anything is amiss, for many fans across the country the debate (and hate) remain.
This is the bed the Patriots made for themselves, these are the doubts, fair or unfair, that will always linger.
Win Sunday and New England should be considered the undisputed, just and worthy Super Bowl champion; for some fans, though, it will be for the first time.
the time to research it, afterall the economy is doing great, businesses are doing great and the dollar is at an all time high!
JS
"We all know it had no impact on any game this season," Kraft said Tuesday.
Presuming the Patriots didn't continue to spy – and there is no indication they did – then all talk about asterisks or tainted titles should they defeat the New York Giants on Sunday in Super Bowl XLII is off-base.
It might be a stroke of good luck to their legacy that they were caught early in the season (if it was in October, it would be different), but it's a fact. Logic dictates that all 18 victories this season are clean.
ENOUGH SAID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
<< <i>Yeah but if you read further the article is questioning the previous SB victories not this years. It doesn't matter anyway how can you tell how much this would affect the game? If they stole all the defensive signals wouldnt the team switch signals like the do sometimes in BB when a runner get's to second. >>
I hear ya, but to speculate on the "Previous" Super Bowl wins is taking it to far IMO- yes I am biased but its not certain that other teams have not done the same thing.
Edit- I am sure coordinators combat this by throwing out many false signals anyways.
One area where I think there might be a case for cheating and is harder for a team to change is if a team could figure out the on field audibles like when a linebacker signals for a coverage change or a blitz package on the fly (not what was signaled in but was audibled to based on the offense formation) then the offense can always out audible your audible and have the right play called. I think this is what the Eagles were alluding too.
If you read into why it's a big deal is that teams change their audibles weekly so teams can't look at recent game films and figure out their signals and how they match their audibles. If you were to film them at the right angles during the game, look at it at halftime and then relay the info to the QB during the second half, you would get an advantage. Whether this was done or not has never been shared with us. It is the only thing I can think of that would give you and advantage.
No, not so much. It's a multi billion dollar industry with a special exemption granted to them by federal law. If Exxon had destroyed tapes relating to one of their oil fields, you bet Congress would call them to testify and everyone would think it's fine. This is no different. It's not a game anymore, folks, it's bidness. Big bidness.
Ron
Buying Vintage, all sports.
Buying Woody Hayes, Les Horvath, Vic Janowicz, and Jesse Owens autographed items
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.