FanNation - The Republic of Sport

------>

So what I wrote wasn't worthy of a vote Lami? Thanks for reading the whole argument.

Not 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?"

Go Oso!

oso is one articulate guy

Commish 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

Oso, you would make a better Commish, but Kidd made the better TD this time.

FYI 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

What 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??

you didn't pick up on the sarcasm.

Lami | 02/04/08, 01:37 PM

Oh. My bad. I can be dense at times. LOL

Goodell, 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?

See......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?

What 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?

Can you say habeus corpus?

Packers1 | 02/04/08, 03:09 PM

<----Not without tripping over my blue tounge.

You 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.

It 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'.

Oso,
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.

Oso,
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.

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?

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.

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 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.