More SpyGate... and now it gets serious

Is it possible that Goodell destroyed the tapes so that there wouldn't be a risk of them leaking out and teams figuring out how to do the same thing and not get caught?

 

Doesn't excuse what he said/wrote. He lost any credibility with me the day I read it.

 

Why?

 

Because it's not going to happen. And to suggest it is a waste of keystrokes and oxygen. It's a ton of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

 

Well it all comes from the fact that the Commissionator and Bobby Kraft are good friends aren't they?

 

With Easterbrook, I think it comes down to what you believe defines us: Our actions or our words?

Easterbrook said a dumb thing. He was trying to make a point about greed, and imply that Jews should be even more sensetive about using violent images to make money considering their history as a people. It was stupid, the way he said it was stupid, but he was trying to make a moral point, not a racist one.

As someone who makes it a specific point to attend religious services with Jewish people, and has for years, I think Easterbrook's actions speak for themselves.

I respect that he has no credibility in your eyes, Doc. I'm not going to try to make you like him. What I will say, though, is that even idiots like Jim Rome are right sometimes. The messenger doesn't negate the message.

The big elephant in the room here is also gambling. Billions of dollars were wagered on that Rams/Pats Super Bowl. If the outcome was tainted, I think that a lot of people would be interested. We're talking about the biggest sporting event in the world. Let's not just scoff at the idea and quote MacBeth like 'what's done is done.' If we can't guarantee that the one basic truth of sports is that two entities meet on an equal playing field, why watch?

 

You make very interesting points, as always, DD. If you write something on the subject, or come across something by someone else, PM me a link. I'll definitely read it. But I refuse to read anything by Easterbrook anymore; it's just the way I feel.

 

The central point in my discussion about another subject on the boards. One that many people around here cannot seem to grasp.

 

Well, I can't argue with that logic.

It's not going to happen so don't suggest or throw it out as an option.

Hockeybeat claims it is a waste of keystrokes so don't bother.

It's sound and fury, nothing more.

If there is nothing in the NFL bylaws/contracts/bible that would prevent the commish from taking such action, if they have conclusive proof the Cheaters -- sorry, I mean Pats -- acted in such a way, hammer them.

And I don't want to hear about precedent or the option being a waste of time.

Suspensions, fines and penalties are nice little slaps after the fact. But they would not change the fact that the Pats profited from cheating -- if the report is true.

If athletes in other sports can lose titles for using illegal drugs, no reason a team can't lose a title for cheating in this manner.

None.

There I go again, wasting keystrokes with sound and fury.

 

From an AP story.....


-------
New England did not have a walkthrough Saturday. The Giants held one at the Arizona Cardinals' practice facility.

A walkthrough is done without pads or helmets, giving teams a chance to practice their formations.

-------------

Hmmm..... I wonder why the fuck the Pats didn't have a walkthrough. Perhaps they know how damaging it can be to engage in such an exercise.

 

What was the NFL's official stance on video taping and espionage prior to this season? There's very little that the NFL can do, other than a combination of suspension (Belichick), stripping the Pats of draft picks, fining the organization and putting an asterisk next to the Pats' championship years in the record books.

 

EDIT: Corrected a million typos, and acknowledge that Double Down had already covered much of this.

What Easterbrook wrote that got him canned from Page 2 in 2003:

"Set aside what it says about Hollywood that today even Disney thinks what the public needs is ever-more-graphic depictions of killing the innocent as cool amusement. Disney's CEO, Michael Eisner, is Jewish; the chief of Miramax, Harvey Weinstein, is Jewish. Yes, there are plenty of Christian and other Hollywood executives who worship money above all else, promoting for profit the adulation of violence. Does that make it right for Jewish executives to worship money above all else, by promoting for profit the adulation of violence? Recent European history alone ought to cause Jewish executives to experience second thoughts about glorifying the killing of the helpless as a fun lifestyle choice."

I'm not an Easterbrook fan; I used to skim his overlong columns when I was reading everything on page 2 five years ago. I liked that he liked Laetitia Casta. And since the Raiders were good at the time, I read everything about the NFL I could, as a good fanboy should. I dont read him now.

But . . . while the above is poorly presented (an understatement on my part), I believe the point he was clumsily making was his perception of the absurdity of Jewish movie execs greenlighting a film that glorifies violence, since he feels they should know better based on the horrible violence that has been done to the Jews over the centuries, and obviously recently.

Is it a point I agree with? Nope, especialy as it pertains to Kill Bill, which ultimately has violence that leans more toward comic book-y stuff than "innocents"dying. Is it a stupid point, a guy reaching for a "WOW!" point when there is none to be made? Yup. It's a major stretch on Easterbrook's part.

But is it "anti-Semitic" on its face? Not from my reading of it. Maybe someone can cite "a Jewish FRIEND!!" who hates what Easterbrook wrote, and that is fair enough. But the main reason I dislike the passage is because a dude who makes damn good money writing for multiple outlets including ESPN.com completely mangled what he thought he was trying to say.

For full disclosure, his clumsy apology:

"Twenty minutes after I pressed "send," the entire world had read it. When I reread my own words and beheld how I'd written things that could be misunderstood, I felt awful. To anyone who was offended I offer my apology, because offense was not my intent. But it was 20 minutes later, and already the whole world had seen it... My attempt to connect my perfectly justified horror at an ugly and corrupting movie to the religious faith and ethnic identity of certain executives was hopelessly clumsy...accusing a Christian of adoring money above all else does not engage any history of ugly stereotypes. Accuse a Jewish person of this and you invoke a thousand years of stereotypes about that which Jews have specific historical reasons to fear. What I wrote here was simply wrong, and for being wrong, I apologize."

Now you be the judge.

As to the Patsies . . . the more I think about it, the bigger proponent I am of stripping them of an entire draft. They won't declare war by stripping a title; this is the best punishment.