PDA

View Full Version : Patriots might have violated Federal law with cheating



McClintic Sphere
02-06-2008, 10:26 AM
http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_ylt=ApKMuAr1S6O1Hj8_sHSf3nFDubYF?slug=spygat ecouldsparkespiona&prov=tsn&type=lgns


By Mike Florio - SportingNews (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/sports/tsn/nfl/article/SIG=10tmms2oa;_ylt=AlRrbmE9XdjQ7u.RtAvgyDM.ubYF/*http://www.sportingnews.com)

...a possibility exists that the federal government will launch an investigation into whether the Patriots took any action that violated the Economic Espionage Act.

Signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1996, the Economic Espionage Act makes the theft of trade secrets a federal offense. Without getting into the nuts and bolts of the applicable legal mumbo-jumbo, 18 U.S.C. 1832 makes it a criminal act to steal, take, carry away or obtain by fraud or deception what 18 U.S.C 1839 defines as a "trade secret."

It's a broad definition, and, as a practical matter, the question of whether a pro football team's game plan constitutes a "trade secret" under this law is something that would be sorted out after a grand jury hands up indictments.

Belichick, ex-Patriots videographer Matt Walsh and employees throughout the Patriots' organization could be required to testify under oath. And like the investigation into the Valerie Plame situation, there could be prosecutions for perjury even if there ultimately is no actual prosecution for the theft of trade secrets.

And that's the most potentially damaging aspect of any investigation that might be launched by United States Attorneys in Louisiana (site of Super Bowl 36), Texas (Super Bowl 38) and/or Florida (Super Bowl 39). It's not that Belichick or others might face up to 10 years in prison or that the organization might have to pay up to $5 million in fines. It's that such an investigation would provide an unwelcome vehicle for the truth to come out. . . .

Ownagedood
02-06-2008, 12:28 PM
Yay.

Slick Pinkham
02-06-2008, 12:38 PM
Michael Holly, radio host on WEEI Boston and former beat reporter for the Patriots, today on the air reported that, according to multiple sources both now with the Patriots and formerly with the Patriots, there was no taping of the Rams walk-through.

No tape exists now, and no tape ever did exist.

His sources were identified as past members of the video department (including a direct supervisor of Matt Walsh), a member of the offensive coaching staff from 2001 no longer with the team, and team personnel who were with the team in 2001.

Holly had unrivaled access to the Patriots from 2001-2004 as he researched his New York Times best-selling book "Patriot Reign" so the quality of his sources is not in question.

The Patriots, in addition to issuing their strong denial, will cooperate fully because they know there is no tape, never was a tape, and any perjury that Matt Walsh might commit will be directly contradicted by multiple supervisors and co-workers.

Asked whether the Patriots would pursue slander or libel charges against the media outlets that reported this story, Holly's sources within the legal department of the Patriots state that it is unlikely, since all stories by the Herald reporter Tomase and others have always qualified their allegations, i.e. said the Patriots "may" have taped the walk-through, as opposed to making definitive statement known to be in error and for the purpose of harming the Patriots. The three criteria: (unqualified untruth, known to be untrue, for the purpose of inflicting harm) typically make it very hard to pursue libel or slander cases.

If this does go before a Senate committee, and Matt Walsh or anyone else perjures himself, however, the franchise will coorperate fully with investigators on any federal charges that follow.

McClintic Sphere
02-06-2008, 12:44 PM
So a jock-sniffing beat reporter, who has made his living through getting access from the Patriots and writing a book about their 'championships'*, is claiming a comprehensive denial.

Forgive me if I give his claims absolutely no credibility.

If Belichick learned anything from his mentor, Nixon, it was GET RID OF THE DAMN TAPE!

Gyron
02-06-2008, 01:01 PM
I have to agree with MS here. Just because a beat reporter who did NOT work and who madea lot of money writing about the patriots championships(and is probably still getting royalties off those books) for the patriots says its not true doesn't mean a thing.

Especially since his book is pretty much worthless if it is proven to be true.

And if you were the one who took part in the taping and wanted to keep your connections with the organization whether you work there now or not, wouldn't you be saying it never happened? To protect your interests as well as the interests of current friends or collegues....

What would be interesting and the only way it will ever be proven is if this Walsh guy has any actual eveidence. Otherwise its all just heresay and will never be proven.

But the cloud and doubts will always be in the back of everyone's minds that isn't a Patriots fan. The damage has been done either way.

Slick Pinkham
02-06-2008, 01:08 PM
Forgive me if I give his claims absolutely no credibility.

You may choose to discredit an entire lineup of named sources in favor of a single "possible" unnamed source; that is your perogitive.

You are certainly allowed to display a blind pathological hatred of the Patriots and to disregard all evidence that is contrary to your preconceived notion of the truth.

Young
02-06-2008, 01:09 PM
Who knows who is telling the truth and who isn't? Truth be told we will probably never know for sure.

Slick Pinkham
02-06-2008, 01:14 PM
Just because a beat reporter who did NOT work and who made a lot of money writing about the Patriots championships(and is probably still getting royalties off those books) for the patriots says its not true doesn't mean a thing.

I agree with you 100%!!!!!!

If Michael Holley is saying he merely thinks that this did not happen, then I would have no reason to believe him.

:eek:

But... What Michael Holley is INSTEAD saying is that former coaches, former video employees, current employees, and the former supervisor of Matt Walsh are all THEMSELVES ready and willing to testify under oath that the taping did not happen.

That is a thousand times stronger statement than Holley saying "I don't think that this happened"

McClintic Sphere
02-06-2008, 02:25 PM
How would all of these people know if as Walsh alleges, only a very small cadre was entre nous? This Adams character, who goes way back with Belichick, and BB were apparently amongst the only others who knew.

Everyone else is just hoping like hell that the whole Potemkin village that they have erected doesn't come crashing around them.

Moses
02-06-2008, 02:40 PM
You may choose to discredit an entire lineup of named sources in favor of a single "possible" unnamed source; that is your perogitive.

You are certainly allowed to display a blind pathological hatred of the Patriots and to disregard all evidence that is contrary to your preconceived notion of the truth.
Pathetic isn't it? Of course, what do I really expect on a Colts message board? Every team has its trolls.

Trader Joe
02-06-2008, 02:54 PM
Obviously Colts fans aren't the only ones who think this sounds fishy...If someone is willing to write an article saying that the Pats could be guilty of breaking a federal law then they obviously have some issue with it.
The ONLY people who don't think there might be something up right now are you Pats fans. Which I can't say I blame you if allegations started coming out that the Colts cheated right before a Super Bowl I'd be pretty defensive too.

McClintic Sphere
02-06-2008, 02:55 PM
Yeah, I really hate how Mike Florio from the Sporting News has ruined this board with his trolling articles trying to stain the sterling reputation of the Patriots, who may be the most universally disliked team in the history of American sports.

Shade
02-06-2008, 03:02 PM
Even I think "violating trade secrets" is a bit over-the-top here.

I'm really interested in finding out what Walsh supposedly knows. He's "the guy" in all of this, and if he has actual physical proof to support his claims...

Watch out.

Man, what with the MLB and steroids, NBA and ref scandals, and now NFL and cheating, this is becoming a sad state of affairs for the major sports corporations.

National Tetherball League, anyone?

Since86
02-06-2008, 03:07 PM
Pathetic isn't it? Of course, what do I really expect on a Colts message board? Every team has its trolls.

Colts trolls on a Colts forum? Wow, that's a first.

This story isn't going to go away. Miami and GB both said they kicked a Pats employee off the sideline for illegal videotaping last season. However PT wanted to spin it months ago, it still rings true.

The taping went further back than the first game of this season, and the NFL commish has egg all over his face for destroying the videotapes. Why destroy evidence if you're quoted as saying you reserve the right to reopen the case and hand out more punishments whenever?

It smells like a cover-up. I don't know how far back it goes, but obviously it goes further back than you want to believe. The league is made out to be fools if God's team cheated their way to wins.

McClintic Sphere
02-06-2008, 03:09 PM
The legal language might seem a bit of a stretch, but if you consider that it is the economic espionage act and then you stop to think how much money may have been lost to the Rams in revenue due to that loss and then consider how much the Pats gained, it might not seem that overblown.

Moses
02-06-2008, 03:27 PM
Colts trolls on a Colts forum? Wow, that's a first.
Calling Tom Brady a homo is trolling. Yes, he did that. Of course, the post was deleted soon after by a mod because it was out of line.

Gyron
02-06-2008, 03:35 PM
Calling Tom Brady a homo is trolling. Yes, he did that. Of course, the post was deleted soon after by a mod because it was out of line.

Were you calling me a troll as well? I know I didn't post anything like that......

avoidingtheclowns
02-06-2008, 03:38 PM
No tape exists now

to be perfectly fair, that could very well be because the tapes were destroyed by the league.

avoidingtheclowns
02-06-2008, 03:39 PM
Calling Tom Brady a homo is trolling. Yes, he did that. Of course, the post was deleted soon after by a mod because it was out of line.

to be fair, gisele bundchen is fairly manly... i can see where there could be confusion

McClintic Sphere
02-06-2008, 03:45 PM
I did not call Tom Brady a homo. I merely posted an ad he did which, quite frankly, left his sexuality in quite a bit question.

Slick Pinkham
02-06-2008, 04:01 PM
to be perfectly fair, that could very well be because the tapes were destroyed by the league.

If you are going to cut and paste parts of sentences to alter their meaning, you deserve to get called out on it.


No tape exists now, and no tape ever did exist.

Journalism 101

You have a hot story.
You have 1 source, but he refuses to be directly quoted & refuses to even be named.

Do you

a) run with the story anyway
b) only run with the story when you have a 2nd, corroborating source

Responsible journalists and their editors choose b)

Jerks like Bob Kravitz, John Tomase or the Herald, Fish of espn, etc. choose a)




I am on record as saying that if this story about taping the 2001 SB walk-through is true, Belichick should be fired and the rings taken away.

Serious claims about major offenses require serious evidence, though, and now we have opposing reports.

Holly had unprecedented access to the organization for years and has inside contacts. The book he wrote was not some glowing tribute to the organization. It was a complete warts-and-all inside look at how a football operation is run, an account that angered Belichick due to fact that his off-color language and sometimes crude comments were complete and unedited.

The conflicting account is by the Boston version of Bob Kravitz.

Answer me this, if Bob Kravitz ran some scathing story of bad deeds done by the Pacers, with no sources, and then another media guy close to the Pacers (say Mark Boyle) said that multiple people within the Pacers organization swear to him that Kravitz is full of crap, and would be willing to testify to that in court, who would you believe?

Moses
02-06-2008, 04:22 PM
Were you calling me a troll as well? I know I didn't post anything like that......
Of course not.


I did not call Tom Brady a homo. I merely posted an ad he did which, quite frankly, left his sexuality in quite a bit question.
So why was the post deleted? Oh, that's right. It was out of line and very trollish and had absolutely nothing to do with the thread it was posted in.

avoidingtheclowns
02-06-2008, 04:22 PM
If you are going to cut and paste parts of sentences to alter their meaning, you deserve to get called out on it.

yikes dude, i was just kidding. chill.

i also said gisele was kinda manly. for the record, i was kidding again. no need to call me out on that too.

Slick Pinkham
02-06-2008, 04:48 PM
sorry...

no problem

Putnam
02-06-2008, 04:51 PM
You are certainly allowed to display a blind pathological hatred of the Patriots . . . .



Sign me up for that, too.

grace
02-06-2008, 05:07 PM
Sign me up for that, too.

Me three.

You know we should really stop blaming the Patriots for cheating. It's really the fault of the rest of the coaches in the league who knew what they were doing and let them get away with it.

James Bond
02-06-2008, 05:09 PM
Until further evidence is presented I think that we can all agree.

If it did happen, they should be punished, (to what extent i'm sure people will disagree).

If it didn't then there will always be doubts in non-patriots minds, (but that happens when controversy happens in any sport).

But still. We should all wait, till presented with more evidence, not just this annoying, Well he said its true! and Well, he's a dumb head and this guy says it's false!

The argument is getting nowhere fast.

McClintic Sphere
02-06-2008, 05:21 PM
Of course not.


So why was the post deleted? Oh, that's right. It was out of line and very trollish and had absolutely nothing to do with the thread it was posted in.

Dunno. Ask the mods. Perhaps some ultrasensitive Patsy fan complained. . . but if you want to see some hardcore group trolling, go over to the RATS Colt's board and look through the archives from the past, oh, six years or so and you will see a group that has absolutely no qualms whatsoever about trolling, and that is ON THE COLT'S BOARD, which of course, I'm pretty sure this is as well. The Patsy fan, with his love of the meaningless regular season blowout, and their general bandwagonishness have contributed as much to the dislike of the team as the boorishness of the coach. That and the fact their roster is filled with 'roided up mercs.

True story. I went to the Boston Herald Pat's board on the night before Brady's initial start, when he replaced an injured Bledsoe, which not many remember was against the Colt's. I did not tell anyone I was a Colt's fan. I did not even state I was a fan of another team. I merely attempted to get some, any, type of discussion going about the Pat's, to find some info about the team. No one there, no one cared. Couldn't get any inside info at all. I think they had around 19,000 season ticket holders at that time, in one of the largest sports markets in the country. So to me, just about all of the so called die hard NE fans are a bunch of phonies.

Slick Pinkham
02-06-2008, 05:36 PM
I went to the Boston Herald Pat's board

I have been a Patriots fans for 20 years and I was not aware that the Boston Herald has ever had a Patriots board. They don't have one now, that I am aware of.

The Globe does (boston.com), and patsfans.com, and others, but not the Herald.

McClintic Sphere
02-06-2008, 05:56 PM
I have been a Patriots fans for 20 years and I was not aware that the Boston Herald has ever had a Patriots board. They don't have one now, that I am aware of.

The Globe does (boston.com), and patsfans.com, and others, but not the Herald.

Sorry about your chronic condition but I'm pretty sure it was the Herald. I had searched for all Patriots message boards and that was the only one out there. They had a little phone icon you would click to submit your message. But regardless of what paper it was, no one gave a rip about the Patriots.

Slick Pinkham
02-06-2008, 06:19 PM
When I returned to Indiana for a few years in the late 80s ('88-'91), nobody gave a rip about the Colts either.

The "Lord Help Our Colts" songs were pretty funny on Bob and Tom, though

A friend of mine was a Lilly intern and lived a few blocks from the Hoosier Dome and we got free tickets a couple of times and there was plenty of elbow room. The place seemed not too loud for sure.

Sollozzo
02-06-2008, 06:47 PM
When I returned to Indiana for a few years in the late 80s ('88-'91), nobody gave a rip about the Colts either.

The "Lord Help Our Colts" songs were pretty funny on Bob and Tom, though

A friend of mine was a Lilly intern and lived a few blocks from the Hoosier Dome and we got free tickets a couple of times and there was plenty of elbow room. The place seemed not too loud for sure.



And the Indianapolis market is also a lot smaller than the Boston market. Indy is one of the smallest markets in major sports. The 9 county region in Indiana is just shy of 2 million people. Meanwhile Boston has over 4 million people, and if you count their namesake of New England, they represent 14 million people.

Not to mention the time period you're talking about is the late 80's, which would have just been a few years since the Colts initially arrived. The Pats meanwhile have been in NE since 1960.

You have to build a fanbase up somehow. The Colts have done that now. Indy has also built 2 stadiums in 25 years, so I think we're supporting the team just fine.

There's a legit excuse for the Colts having some weak support in the late 80's. There's no excuse for the Pats ever having poor support. And I agree with MS, it is a little curious how the Pats fans have popped up all over the place (yes, I know you've been one for 2 decades) over the past 6 or so years.

GrangerRanger
02-06-2008, 06:49 PM
You may choose to discredit an entire lineup of named sources in favor of a single "possible" unnamed source; that is your perogitive.

You are certainly allowed to display a blind pathological hatred of the Patriots and to disregard all evidence that is contrary to your preconceived notion of the truth.

There is no evidence that they did or didn't. But, seriously, if cheat once you've cheated before. Who would steal signals from a 5-11 team like the Jets? Bill is a cheater and always has been. Even if he didn't tape the final walkthrough, if he taped a sh*tty preseason game of the Jets, what makes anyone think that he wouldn't tape a game that matters?

rexnom
02-06-2008, 07:02 PM
I still stand where I've always stood...I don't really "trust" anyone since so many seem to have so much to gain from different angles.

However, it is very suspicious how Goddell handle this whole thing. Very poor job on his part.

Bball
02-06-2008, 10:00 PM
So with the specter of a possible fed investigation looming, there are denials being issued? Well, I'm glad that's closed. Obviously, with a potential federal investigation on tap, these people would've all lined up to admit to this.

Michael Vick had nothing to do with dogfighting either (when the story initially broke).

We know spygate was real which is what gives this latest allegation some legs. And the NFL's lax handling of spygate is why this can get legs and really walk.

It's going to take more than denials without substance before I would be convinced there's no fire for all this smoke.

-Bball

DisplacedKnick
02-06-2008, 11:52 PM
I dunno whether the Pats broke a league rule or anything but it would be pretty hard to call something a team was going to reveal at a game next Sunday on TV in front of millions of people a trade secret.

I think this reporter's reaching so hard he may need his arm snapped back into its socket.

If this goes through you'll see federal agents arresting a runner on 2nd base the next time he steals a catcher's signals.

Slick Pinkham
02-07-2008, 10:30 AM
It's going to take more than denials without substance before I would be convinced there's no fire for all this smoke.

-Bball

Would you like it if the allegations had some substance too? Like someone, even one person, going on the record, by name, and saying this is what I saw and this what I did?

Not that the allegations or outrage are at all similar, but here was an awful lot of smoke around those Duke LaCrosse players too. They even had a long history of wild partying...

There is a reason to demand proof of guilt, rather than proof of innocence.

The strong statements from the Patriots lead me to believe that if Matt Walsh is the "unnamed source" then they have evidence to discredit him, such as showing he was elsewhere when the walkthrough occurred.

The commish yesterday said for the first time that, with regard to the taping of the walkthrough, "we have evidence to the contrary":

http://www.profootballtalk.com/rumormill.htm

GOODELL SPEAKS ON SPYGATE II

NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell spoke with Adam Schefter of NFL Network regarding the new Spygate controversy, which engulfed the league in the days prior to the Super Bowl.

The allegation? According to the Boston Herald, the Patriots taped the Rams' final walk-through prior to Super Bowl XXXVI.

The response? Goodell told Schefter that the league had no evidence to support the contention and that, in reality, the league has evidence to the contrary.

McClintic Sphere
02-07-2008, 11:04 AM
Would you like it if the allegations had some substance too? Like someone, even one person, going on the record, by name, and saying this is what I saw and this what I did?



There is the matter of them already having been caught red-handed, despite an explicit, written warning from league offices emphasizing the illegality of it:

http://www.playersbehavingbadly.com/sitebuilder/images/Pats_Camera_Cheater2-431x374.jpg

Slick Pinkham
02-07-2008, 11:38 AM
ummm...

We are not talking about taping the Jets from an illegal location.



That happened. It was admitted and punished.



MS, Are you unable to get it through your head that taping the Rams practice in 2001 is a separate and more important charge?

If I have proof that you were were exceeding the speed limit by 30 mph on I-465 in 2007, is that sufficient to assume it is true that you committed vehicular homicide in 2001, if an unnamed source tells me it is true?

avoidingtheclowns
02-07-2008, 12:44 PM
If I have proof that you were were exceeding the speed limit by 30 mph on I-465 in 2007, is that sufficient to assume it is true that you committed vehicular homicide in 2001, if an unnamed source tells me it is true?

i'd buy that

McClintic Sphere
02-07-2008, 01:14 PM
ummm...

We are not talking about taping the Jets from an illegal location.



That happened. It was admitted and punished.



MS, Are you unable to get it through your head that taping the Rams practice in 2001 is a separate and more important charge?

If I have proof that you were were exceeding the speed limit by 30 mph on I-465 in 2007, is that sufficient to assume it is true that you committed vehicular homicide in 2001, if an unnamed source tells me it is true?

I don't know why you would make that comparison. Yes, the stage was bigger but the crime was almost exactly the same. Certainly not the difference between speeding and killing someone.

At the time of the Jets game the Patriots had already had 2 'video assistants' removed from games and had a league-issued written warning given to them due the constant complaints of other teams. And they still blatantly disregarded it. And you are saying it is some type of stretch to assume they would have been unwilling to do it in a game six years prior when they felt they could get away with it? Also, the notion that Goodell could prove the negative that they did not tape the Ram's practice seems on face preposterous.

idioteque
02-07-2008, 01:30 PM
There's a legit excuse for the Colts having some weak support in the late 80's.

The Colts were having problems selling out the Dome in 2003.

Almost all teams have fair weather fans. NE and Indy both do. The only franchises that have great fans supporting the team through thick and thin, as far as I know, are Washington and Oakland.

Slick Pinkham
02-07-2008, 02:08 PM
The only franchises that have great fans supporting the team through thick and thin, as far as I know, are Washington and Oakland.

the Dolphins sold out every game this year, again.

Don't ask me why. People in FL sure do love their football.

Sollozzo
02-07-2008, 05:11 PM
The Colts were having problems selling out the Dome in 2003.

Almost all teams have fair weather fans. NE and Indy both do. The only franchises that have great fans supporting the team through thick and thin, as far as I know, are Washington and Oakland.

Really? You might want to re-think that.

Colts filled to a 94.2% rate in 2003, compared to an 87.3% capacity for the Raidahs. Colts averaged 56,767 fans in a stadium with a capacity 57,890. The Raiders that year averaged 55,007 in a stadium with a capacity of 63,026.

Yes, the Colts averaged more fans in 2003 than the Raiders despite the fact that Indy has a stadium that is 5,000 smaller than Oakland and plays in a market that is a lot smaller. Explain to me again just how loyal those Raiders fans are.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/attendance?year=2003

Colts filled the dome to a higher capacity that year than Pitt, SD, Chicago, Oakland, among others. And Indy plays in a tiny metropolitan area compared to most NFL cities yet has to fill a stadium that is barely smaller than any of those cities.

Moses
02-07-2008, 05:47 PM
Really? You might want to re-think that.

Colts filled to a 94.2% rate in 2003, compared to an 87.3% capacity for the Raidahs. Colts averaged 56,767 fans in a stadium with a capacity 57,890. The Raiders that year averaged 55,007 in a stadium with a capacity of 63,026.

Yes, the Colts averaged more fans in 2003 than the Raiders despite the fact that Indy has a stadium that is 5,000 smaller than Oakland and plays in a market that is a lot smaller. Explain to me again just how loyal those Raiders fans are.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/attendance?year=2003

Colts filled the dome to a higher capacity that year than Pitt, SD, Chicago, Oakland, among others. And Indy plays in a tiny metropolitan area compared to most NFL cities yet has to fill a stadium that is barely smaller than any of those cities.
If I was a hardcore Falcon fan, I wouldn't pay to go see them right now.(But that's also because I'm a broke college student) I'd rather spend my money on things that I will actually enjoy. I think the problem is that nobody really wants to pay a bunch of money to see their favorite team lose. You can call that being a fair weather fan, but I don't think that is what makes you one.

I think the proof would lie within the TV ratings for that area. If a lot less people tuned in to the Raiders recently in the Oakland area versus when they were a playoff contender, then they have quite a few fair weather fans. Still though, nobody wants to pay money to see their favorite team get embarrassed.

Since86
02-07-2008, 05:58 PM
TV ratings for the area don't mean squat unless you sell out, because they're blacked out.

In 2003 I was watching more Bengals games than I was Colts because I couldn't watch them if I wasn't there.

Sollozzo
02-07-2008, 06:02 PM
How many blackouts did the Colts get exactly in 03? I thought it was 1, 2 max? But maybe I'm wrong?

Moses
02-07-2008, 06:05 PM
TV ratings for the area don't mean squat unless you sell out, because they're blacked out.

In 2003 I was watching more Bengals games than I was Colts because I couldn't watch them if I wasn't there.
Valid point. And I actually changed my mind about the importance of game attendance. If the Browns, Texans, etc can sell out their home stadium as often as they did, any team with good fans can.

Slick Pinkham
02-07-2008, 06:45 PM
Trust me, living in the Miami TV area, I was HOPING for local blackouts on many occasions this year, and never got a single one.

idioteque
02-07-2008, 07:37 PM
Really? You might want to re-think that.

Colts filled to a 94.2% rate in 2003, compared to an 87.3% capacity for the Raidahs. Colts averaged 56,767 fans in a stadium with a capacity 57,890. The Raiders that year averaged 55,007 in a stadium with a capacity of 63,026.

Yes, the Colts averaged more fans in 2003 than the Raiders despite the fact that Indy has a stadium that is 5,000 smaller than Oakland and plays in a market that is a lot smaller. Explain to me again just how loyal those Raiders fans are.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/attendance?year=2003

Colts filled the dome to a higher capacity that year than Pitt, SD, Chicago, Oakland, among others. And Indy plays in a tiny metropolitan area compared to most NFL cities yet has to fill a stadium that is barely smaller than any of those cities.

Maybe I shoulda checked those stats first, lol. Good find.

Yet the fact we had any blackouts in 2003, when you have a QB like Manning and you're winning most of your games, that's still silly.

Bball
02-07-2008, 11:24 PM
The allegation? According to the Boston Herald, the Patriots taped the Rams' final walk-through prior to Super Bowl XXXVI.

The response? Goodell told Schefter that the league had no evidence to support the contention and that, in reality, the league has evidence to the contrary.

Why is a Boston newspaper making this up or running on flimsy evidence as you'd have us believe?

-Bball

Slick Pinkham
02-08-2008, 08:58 AM
Why is a Boston newspaper making this up

It's the Boston HERALD.

Think NY Daily News, think Weekly World News, think of a paper where Bob Kravitz would have to "dumb things down" in order to write.

To run a credible story, you need verification. If they had more than one unnamed source, I would think that they would say "two unnamed sources" or "multiple unnamed sources".

For all we know, their single unnamed source is "bat boy"

The Herald has a good baseball guy and they occasionally get the Red Sox stories early (e.g. Schilling's shoulder) but they are a tabloid that mostly focuses on catchy headlines and scandals.

McClintic Sphere
02-08-2008, 09:14 AM
It wouldn't surprise me one bit if it really was bat boy, who turned out to be an illigitimate spawn of Belicheat's from one of the tawdry affairs he's had with a married woman and had been working in the cheatriot's video department for years and was using the latest in surveillance technology supplied by none other than Dick Cheney.

And no I don't think I'm being a bit paranoid.

Slick Pinkham
02-08-2008, 09:29 AM
in the spirit of your attitude:

http://xs124.xs.to/xs124/08064/colts254.gif

McClintic Sphere
02-08-2008, 09:45 AM
That may be the worst attempt at graphics I have ever seen. That does not in any way resemble a turd. This is what a real turd looks like:

Flushed Away: part deux, the Manning Chronicles
http://www.free-times.com/Image/21.06/sidelinebelichick.jpg