Courtesy of a friend.... This is a word for word transcript of Goodell's comments in his press conference. Q: There are still a lot of unanswered questions. You've never said why did they do it when they're such a good team, how long were they doing it? What advantage did they get out of it? What did they do with the information? Did it help them win any games? Did you find out the answers to those questions? A: Well first off, the answers to why they did it, I think that'd have to be addressed by the New England Patriots. That's not something that I was really concerned with. As far as it relates to what we found, it was totally consistent with what the team told us. As a matter of fact, many of you saw it because one of the tapes was leaked. It's very clearly the coach making signals, and it shows the down and distance. It's not exciting. It's limited. I believe there were six tapes, and in fact in one of the tapes one of the coaches was waving at the camera indicating that they understood they were being taped. So I think as far as the actual effectiveness, of taping signals, as you all know, taking signals from opposing football teams, or in other sports, is something that's done and it's done quite widely, and teams prepare for that. There isn't a team that doesn't go into a game because of the complex nature in the way they handle either their wristbands, different coaches sending signals in...one live, one not, they all protect against that. So I think it probably had a limited effect, if ANY effect on the outcome of any games.
http://blogs.usatoday.com/sportsscope/2008/02/live-goodells-a.html 12:00 p.m. No indication that Spygate benefited Patriots in any of the Super Bowl victories. "I'm not sure there's a coach in the league that doesn't expect their signals aren't being intercepted in some way," he says. 11:32 a.m. "I don't think it taints their accomplishments." Goodell says to question of whether Spygate diminishes Patriots accomplishments. Goodell said he will meet with Sen. Arlen Specter about destroying the tapes from Spygate. He reasoning: "they were totally consistent with what the team told me."
Well, I think the guy that is responsible for destroying the evidence is a completely credible source on what the evidence showed. I mean, nothing suspicious there at all.
I'll admit saying that he was "just trying to make a name for himself" was an inescapably dumb thing to say...but hey I was in a rush and didn't bother to look at the name up and assumed it wasn't someone that prominent. But...it stills seems pretty silly and it's not a coincidence that this came out Super Bowl week. I'll admit I'm not happy BB didn't listen to Goodelll (even though these memos were always ignored under Tagliabue without punishment) 1) Because it means that there will always be whispers that the dynasty is tainted even though it probably didn't help him at all and 2) because it cost a first-round pick this year. Many here keep saying that the Pats got off easy, but I really don't see how. Given the quality of this years draft and the Pats draft history it can reasonably be assumed that this whole ordeal lost the Pats one dependable, solid to possibly very good player for 4-5 years, a hefty price. If there was something deeper to all this then why wouldn't Goodell have suspended BB or thrown out heavier punishments? I don't get why this keeps coming up, they got punished, they clearly aren't doing it anymore b/c the league has an eye on them, it's done. The only two things keeping it going is the suckitude of stupid gloating Pats fans and the jealousy some opposing fans, which when they come together form a huge cloud of suckitude that results in no real discussion.
What would you expect him to say? There are major questions about the integrity of the game involving a team that is shooting to win thier 4th SB in the last 7 years. Even if it was I don't think Goodell would come out and say yeah by videotaping the opposing coaches helped this team win multiple football games and win in the playoffs. I know for a fact that last year at the NBA AS Game here in Las Vegas David Stern insulted a local radio personaility because he asked him if there was any possibilty that there could be fixes in the NBA. This was 6 months before the Donaghy BS and Stern ripped this guy. Guess who looks like a horses ass? Not the radio guy
What they discovered once the evidence was gathered was that the Patriots stole signals with videotape from their own sideline against the Jets in Week 1. The other tapes that were seized weren't evidence, the Patriots had already been punished. They were taken as further punishment so that NE couldn't benefit from them. Why would they have held onto them once they had them, especially after the Jets tape was leaked? Q: Do you people seriously think the league would "cover up" for them after giving them an unprecedented punishment over a minor matter of camera placement? Really?
But we don't know that, do we? The big question - and this is a GENUINE question, not one manufactured just in the name of rivalry - is: What did the videotape show and how were they used? No one has ever come out and explained that in exacting detail. The Patriots: It's a league matter. The league has spoken. We're moving on. The Public: Umm. . . well. . . duhhh. . . of course YOU are. The League: We've looked at everything. We're satisfied that no competitive advantage was gained. We've punished the team harshly. We've destroyed all the tapes. The Public: So, now, wait a friggin' second. You've punished the team harshly, and claim that no competitive advantage was gained, but this was super-secret stuff that needed to be DESTROYED, lest anyone, y'know, actually SEE it to verify??!! In the words of Homer Simpson: There must be something else. Something much…more…else.
And additionally, everyone from the patriots side of things REFUSES to acknowledge all the espionage acquisations from other teams prior to spygate. Lions, Jaguars, Packers, and others have all maintained their were suspicious circumstances during their games.And this was before it was COOL to do so. When you combine that w/ all this evidence being DESTROYED...sonethin just aint stirrin the kool aid. Mr. Welsh, paging Mr. Welsh...
I don't really see anything suspicious there. The league punished them for breaking the rule against the Jets, then they told them to turn over all tapes from previous instances (the rumored Lions and Packers tapes) and told them they'd be punished again if they didn't. NE complied and the league was satisfied. They never said that it was part of a different investigation or that the tapes were evidence for something else. So why wouldn't they destroy them once they had them all? What would be the point of just keeping them laying around or releasing them when everyone already knew that the Pats were guilty of breaking the rule? If the league hadn't punished them severely then I could see people being dubious, but they've been pretty consistent throughout this whole thing. It seems like people just assumed that demanding they turn over all tapes was part of another investigation when the league never said it was. The fact that they threatened further punishment if the Patriots made or kept copies of the tapes suggests that they just simply didn't want NE to have them rather than the tapes being "evidence".
What could there possibly be on there? If the one from the Jets game is any indicator the tape shows the down, the score, and the opposing coaches signals. Really, what the hell else can they be showing? I would think that Goodell wanted to just destroy all of the evidence because 1) he didn't want to have them keep being leaked and 2) because symbolically it makes a statement that it's done. I agree it seems odd that all of the evidence was destroyed, but I can't think of anything on those tapes that would make America go "omg! the nfl is a sham!"
Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law - Cite This Source - Share This Main Entry: spo?li?a?tion Pronunciation: "spO-lE-'A-sh&n Function: noun 1 : the destruction, alteration, or mutilation of evidence esp. by a party for whom the evidence is damaging.
