Not only do they use HGH, they also steal signals. And.....it was a fumble. In what surely has Vandelay's panties wetter than a dishrag, the Patriots have been cited by the NFL for violating league policies pertaining to videotaping opposing teams' coaches. Let me just say first and foremost, if it is decided that they broke the rules -- I hope the Patriots are given the maximum penalty. How stupid can you be to have your team's video assistant pointing a video camera at the defensive playcallers the entire game without thinking anyone would notice -- knowing full well it's against the rules? They are either very dumb, or very brazen (or perhaps both). Secondly, if this is a no-no, why does the NFL allow teams to have their own video equipment down on the field?
So my challenge to the AofG faithful is, what do you think the penalty should be (serious or non-serious)? Be creative.
I mean, I'm not FBI but my guess would be that the cameraman can be seen on the sidelines from videotape if this did in fact take place in other games. I'd think it'd be easy to find out about the stealing of radio frequencies from the FCC and regarding the headsets shutting off during momentum changing drives? I have no idea. Subpoena people maybe? That's probably going overboard but there are more Pats haters out there than me and if they don't disprove it, people are going to chose to believe what they want.
Posted by: Art Vandelay | September 14, 2007 at 12:43 PM
"So because they are rich, you have to find a customized punishment that will affect that particular person instead of the crime itself? What do you do then? No hanging out with Jon Bon Jovi for 12 months? No extra-marital affairs for two years?"
Suspensions when clearly warranted.
You want to keep it as money, how about doing a percentage of salary instead.
Posted by: jackie | September 14, 2007 at 02:01 PM
Jackie,
11.9% of his annual pre-tax salary do it for you? That's what he paid. After taxes, it works out to about 20%. I'd say that's plenty ouchy.
Posted by: TMan | September 14, 2007 at 02:16 PM
"You want to keep it as money, how about doing a percentage of salary instead."
Absurd. In order for that to work, it would have to be a team matter. The NFL would fine the organization a percentage of it's value and then the team would decide how much to dock the personnel responsible, since they are responsible for paying their personnel. Otherwise, you'd have Joe Minimum committing something far more egregious than Bill Bubbletits but paying much less of a penalty because of his lack of accomplishments.
Posted by: Jack Klompus | September 14, 2007 at 02:20 PM
"Jackie,
11.9% of his annual pre-tax salary do it for you? That's what he paid. After taxes, it works out to about 20%. I'd say that's plenty ouchy."
Belicheat (that's for you Klompus) didn't pay nothing. Uncle Bob surely bailed him out.
"Otherwise, you'd have Joe Minimum committing something far more egregious than Bill Bubbletits but paying much less of a penalty because of his lack of accomplishments."
Does nothing to change my opinion. My whole point is that for the same crime, perpetrator should suffer same percentage of salary doc. Success has nothing to do with it.
Posted by: jackie | September 14, 2007 at 02:25 PM
"I mean, I'm not FBI but my guess would be that the cameraman can be seen on the sidelines from videotape if this did in fact take place in other games."
That's silly. How would you know what was being filmed? Teams are in fact allowed videographers on the sidelines. The only thing you could prove is whether or not the videographer was authorized to be shooting footage. At which point, you have to determine what the unauthorized videographer was filimg, then what was being done with the footage.
"Subpoena people maybe?"
I think that'd end up uncovering more teams than the Patriots.
"there are more Pats haters out there than me and if they don't disprove it, people are going to chose to believe what they want."
First off, who cares what people believe. Secondly, it's not up to the Patriots to disprove past allegations unless they're being investigated for them. Thirdly, even if the Pats were able to disprove it -- haters have no intention of accepting it anyway. So big deal.
Posted by: Jack Klompus | September 14, 2007 at 02:33 PM
First off, who cares what people believe.
...and that's a good attitude to have and probably the best way for a Pats fan to come to peace with this. I do believe that you're very much in the minority though. You think the Massholes up here really don't care if people think their rings are tainted?
I think that'd end up uncovering more teams than the Patriots.
So be it then. If Goodell cares as much about the integrity of the league as he claims, he'd be more interested in exposing all the cheaters than sweeping this under the rug.
Posted by: Art Vandelay | September 14, 2007 at 02:52 PM
Damn funny stuff.
I forgot how hot Tara Reid used to be.
Posted by: Art Vandelay | September 14, 2007 at 02:57 PM
"Does nothing to change my opinion. My whole point is that for the same crime, perpetrator should suffer same percentage of salary doc. Success has nothing to do with it."
So if both you and some redneck trailer trash each got pulled over for going 90 mph in a 55 zone, you think it's acceptable that your ticket is $100 more because your salary is 4 times as much as his?
Posted by: Jack Klompus | September 14, 2007 at 03:00 PM
Damn funny stuff.
I forgot how hot Tara Reid used to be.
That's a great link.
But if you want to skip the song and just look at the Tara Reid pic, she's at about 1:52.
Posted by: Steve | September 14, 2007 at 03:05 PM
"So if both you and some redneck trailer trash each got pulled over for going 90 mph in a 55 zone, you think it's acceptable that your ticket is $100 more because your salary is 4 times as much as his?"
Bad example. I've got no license. In any event, if you are truly concerned with all citizens abiding the driving laws and there was a practical way to enforce that, yup, that would be the better solution.
Alimony comes to mind.
Posted by: jackie | September 14, 2007 at 03:14 PM
Wade Wilson's points to the commish are pretty damn valid here.
Goodell is either clueless or a giant pussy. He's a big man when talking about protecting the brand when it comes to Pacman Jones and Tank Johnson and Chris Henry, or when going on and on about how coaches and management are to be held to a higher standard when fining Wade Wilson 1/3 of his salary and suspending him for five games. All suspended and fined for actions away from the field, of course.
But, when given direct evidence that his league's marquee coach on arguably it's marquee team is caught doing something that is clearly against the rules and directly affects the integrity of the game on the field, he comes up with a "punishment" of no suspension, relatively tiny fines, and draft pick whacking (limited whacking) to a team lousy with picks in 2008? Then has the temerity to express surprise to Chris Mortenson that people are outraged over how easy Belicheat got off?
The commish is a capricious assholes.
Fair? Here's what should have happened, at a minimum:
4-game suspension without pay
Leave the fines as is
Strip NE of all of their 2008 first day picks (with the exception of the 1st rounder they had previously obtained from SF)
Oh, and FF the game last week. I don't know why the commish took that off the table as quick as he did.
You want to send a message? You want to walk the walk that goes with all of his bullying talk? You do the above.
You want to show yourself to be an officious toadying prick? You do what Goodell just did.
Posted by: tennbengal | September 15, 2007 at 09:09 AM
Damn TB. Nice post. That was strong. Couldn't agree with you more.
Posted by: Art Vandelay | September 15, 2007 at 12:28 PM
Gotta give the Pats credit though. They didn't let it be a distraction and the Chargers were just overmatched. They'll get theirs on 12/9.
Posted by: Art Vandelay | September 17, 2007 at 10:36 AM
Somebody needs to investigate Romeo Crennel now. Derek Anderson turned into Peyton Manning yesterday.
Posted by: Jack Klompus | September 17, 2007 at 11:22 AM
Um, Klompus?
As a Bengals fan, I can assure you, the issue yesterday had NOTHING to do with Romeo Crennel all of a suddent getting clever...
The Bengals are the suxor when it comes to defense, and all aspects related to same.
Posted by: membengal | September 17, 2007 at 11:28 AM
Suddent. Fuck.
Is there any way to edit for dumbass typos? Or typos of any type, dumbass or otherwise?
Posted by: membengal | September 17, 2007 at 11:29 AM
"As a Bengals fan, I can assure you, the issue yesterday had NOTHING to do with Romeo Crennel all of a suddent getting clever..."
Yes, I am aware of that. I read your piece over at the Frog and thought I'd toss some chum in the water.
By the way, that Gump spot killed me.
Posted by: Jack Klompus | September 17, 2007 at 11:50 AM
There aren't many things funnier than bengal when he's pissed off at the Bengals. Good times.
I really wish you'd stop trying to reverse hex the Stillers though.
Posted by: Art Vandelay | September 17, 2007 at 02:34 PM
What's he got against Ben and Jerry?
Posted by: daveNYC | September 17, 2007 at 11:38 PM