NY Times article on Belichick cheating

by Brad Wells on Feb 22, 2008 10:10 AM EST in NFL General

The NY times has finally come out and written an article on the potential scandal sending waves through the NFL. One of the interesting points of the article, and a point lost to PFT's Mike Florio, is the Times is calling these latest revelations "New Claims of Cheating," which is exactly what they ware. Some people, like Florio, seem to think this is incorrect:

But this really isn't "new." It has been established that Pats coach Bill Belichick began the practice when he joined the team in 2000. Belichick contends that he interpreted the rules to permit the practice.

So that's it. Those are the "new cheating charges."

Ah yes, but back in September 2007, when "Spygate" broke and Commissioner Goodell handed down his punishment, it was assumed by the media and fans that Belichick was punished for taping only the Jets season opener. No one knew (though many suspected) that Belichick had been doing this since 2000.

Goodell knew, but did not share that information with fans until Arlen Specter MADE HIM.

Therefore, since none of us knew Billy Boy was doing this since the Bill Clinton Administration, these are indeed "new" allegations. And I guarantee that if fans and media knew back in September the Belichick was doing this since 2000, they would have screamed bloody murder that Bill got off with only a fine and a lost pick.

Everyone would have screamed for suspension, and rightly so.

So, I applaud the Times for doing what many aren't: These allegations are new. They might not be new to Roger Goodell, but they are to us because Goodell hid them from us. We (the fans) didn't know about them until a US Senator forced the NFL Commissioner to tell us. And while people in the NFL, like the Competition Committee, are happily satisfied with the punishment and want to "move on," the people who pay to watch this league are not.

If Belichick cheated from Sept. 2000-Sept. 2007, the punishment he and the Patriots received from Commissioner Goodell was so Mickey Mouse it isn't even funny.

The other thing to come out of the Times article is how moronic the argument is that taping doesn't affect the game, a position shared by the Rooneys in Pittsburgh. Folks, when people say this, they are simply carrying water for someone. Of course it helps! Mike Martz, current OC of the 49ers and one-time HC of the St. Louis Rams, and Lovie Smith (current HC of the Bears and one-time DC for the Rams) said this about illegal taping:

[Martz] took exception to the theory that the Patriots could not have gleaned much information from taping the walkthrough. He said indeed they could, but added that was not the point.

"For somebody to say that, it's kind of disgusting," Martz said. "The whole point is if they really cheated. To say he took some steroids and it did help or it didn't help, that's never the point. The point is, to all these high school coaches and high school kids and college kids, that if they did cheat, that's the point."

Martz said he assumed the walkthrough report was false. A similar sentiment was voiced by Chicago Bears Coach Lovie Smith, the Rams' defensive coordinator that season.

"It's just hard for me to fathom anyone would do anything like that," Smith said. "I'm sure, if there's something to it, No. 1, it will come out later. Time has a way of taking care of all things."

Martz was asked if he wanted the N.F.L. to continue investigating the walkthrough. "Of course," he said. "I was involved in that. I was responsible for a lot of people in that game."

So, if I hear one more damn time an excuse from someone saying "Well, I want to hear football people tell me this is a competitive advantage," I'm going to beat them over the head with these quotes... and then with a baseball bat.

Tweet Comment 9 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Martz is right

How much if any some benefitted from cheating is irrelevant. By cheating they TRIED to gain an unfair advantage. And in a game that was decided by a late, long field goal, even enough information to turn one or two plays could have been the difference in that game...

by bluegirl on Feb 22, 2008 11:41 AM EST reply actions

here's a great article explaining why

the spygate story is dead from a legal standpoint. It explains why Matt Walsh will never tell his story of the Pats cheating

You non lawyers might have a hard time comprehending this, but its a great read as to why it will never happen.

by Terry @ Stampede Blue on Feb 22, 2008 2:55 PM EST reply actions

ghaigha

LOL No freakin way you read that. I bet by the time you got through the first paragraph you thought about shooting yourself.

Besides, it can and will happen. Want to know why? Well I've got two words for you: Arlen Specter. k thx bye

by KingRichard on Feb 22, 2008 3:27 PM EST up reply actions

I read it very easily

considering I'm in that business King Dick. Now you on the other hand, I'm not so sure.

What power does Spector have to make Walsh talk?? Try none.

by Terry @ Stampede Blue on Feb 22, 2008 4:34 PM EST up reply actions

If Walsh didn't want to talk

he would have kept his mouth shut like he had been doing since they fired him.

my blog <http://shakennbaken.blogspot.com>

by shake n bake on Feb 22, 2008 5:01 PM EST up reply actions

Yes, but . . .

What about the class action suit that has been filed? My thought is that the attorneys in that suit could get anything Walsh has through third party discovery, and, basically being under a court order, he wouldn't be exposed to any liability.

The Shogun of Harlem

by shonuff on Feb 22, 2008 5:35 PM EST up reply actions

off topic

Since the diary on it is long dead, I'll put it here

Hey Terry, what was that you said about Zach Thomas again?

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3260529&campaign=rss&source=ESPNHeadlines

my blog <http://shakennbaken.blogspot.com>

by shake n bake on Feb 23, 2008 3:51 PM EST reply actions

I'm shocked and don't like it

Thomas might have been a stud and tackling machine is his prime but now he's an over the hill, undersized, concussion prone LB not worth the money Jerry Jones is paying him.

The only positive I see from this is that he will provide very much needed leadership on defense and in the locker roon.

by Terry @ Stampede Blue on Feb 23, 2008 5:28 PM EST up reply actions