syhuang Posted November 28, 2010 Share Posted November 28, 2010 (edited) Scarnecchia was employed by the Jets during the Pats/Jets spygate game. While Scarnecchia was not a cheatriots employee in 2007, his first offense was when he was part of the cheatriots' video operations before he left cheatriots in 2004. Steve Scarnecchia’s first offense was involvement with Patriots Edited November 28, 2010 by syhuang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geno Smith's Arm Posted November 28, 2010 Share Posted November 28, 2010 Yes it was they should have suspended Belicheat for a year if not banned him from the game of Football for life. The guy cheated for 7+ years underminned and threw into question the honor of the game for over half a decade and all he gets fined is half a million and a late 1st round pick? But the Pats* are in tight with the league so not only did the league slap them on the wrist BUT they also helped them cover it up in that they completely destroyed the tapes and notes they took. You are on the right track, but any organization that had success like they did would have gotten the same treatment. It's not because the Pats are "in tight with the league". If it had been the Bills of the 90's (or the 49ers, or Cowboys) it would have been handled in a similar fashion (I believe). It would make the whole league look bad. They HAD to downplay it. I still think that the Herschel Walker trade was a backdoor agreement between Mike Lynn and Jerry Jones (a new owner at the time), that the league approved of or at least turned a blind eye to, knowing that Jones was committed to the growth of the NFL, and "America's Team". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted November 28, 2010 Share Posted November 28, 2010 You'd have to ask Sir Roger. While you're at it, you can ask him why he didn't levy a fine against the Pats the first time they were caught doing it. You should stick to making fun of your other favorite crusade, if not kids with progeria. Actually, I was mocking your favorite Bill, TO, doc. I'm sure you knew that but you threw in the made up part to make some point or other. Wow--don't see that often! Well, this news basically removes any and all remaining doubt that the pats* were in fact cheating. Its fun to watch WEO get all pissy trying to defend his cheating pats*. Was there any doubt that they were cheating? I love how the Broncos video taping sealed the deal for you. The Broncos were caught cheating in one game. They didn't cheat their way to 3 super bowls, and weren't caught filming the opposing practice during one of the super bowls, chowderhead. Go ahead and justify it anyway you need to. But you just admitted that the pats* were cheating for all those years. Hate to break it to you Bluto, especially when you were on a roll, but the pats were never "caught filming the opposing practice during one of the super bowls" because it never happened. That was a hoax that a Boston paper fell for and retracted. There was no tape, Mr. Van Winkle. Guess you missed that. Even the most fervent of the conspiracist (doc) had to acknowledge that one. The best part is how you guys think pointing out these facts is equivalent to "defending" pats cheating. Box of rocks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kkspike Posted November 28, 2010 Share Posted November 28, 2010 Tree don't fall far from the nuts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted November 28, 2010 Share Posted November 28, 2010 (edited) Actually, I was mocking your favorite Bill, TO, doc. I'm sure you knew that but you threw in the made up part to make some point or other. Wow--don't see that often! Really? You were mocking TO? Wow--don't see that often! Interestingly enough, you felt the need to apologize for that "joke." Is that because it was in poor taste, or because it was dumb (a theme, given your "joke" in this thread), considering the facial you've been taking with the "monster" comment after game 4? Edited November 28, 2010 by Doc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NyQuil Posted November 28, 2010 Share Posted November 28, 2010 The NCAA would have revoked every win the Pats had that season, including the SB. Thats a real punishment, and was the proper course of action IMO. That might not be the best example if its decided Newton was an ineligible player after they play Oregon for the National Championship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted November 28, 2010 Share Posted November 28, 2010 Really? You were mocking TO? Wow--don't see that often! Interestingly enough, you felt the need to apologize for that "joke." Is that because it was in poor taste, or because it was dumb (a theme, given your "joke" in this thread), considering the facial you've been taking with the "monster" comment after game 4? I thought some tender hearts would be offended. I knew you wouldn't be, but would pretend to be. Facial? That would be a way to describe what happened to the man who, unbelievably, argued that TO's "production" as "our leading receiver" wouldn't be replaced by another Bill once TO was released (someone's going to catch those passes!). Mocking TO? Guilty as charged. Good pick up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CardinalScotts Posted November 28, 2010 Share Posted November 28, 2010 A $500K fine and loss of a first-round draft pick ain't exactly a "slap on the wrist". JMHO... Linky: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3018338 yeah where is krafty going to come up with 500K on the spot. Oh nevermind......... they do it because it works gives them an advantage - much like steroids no on takes them for the pleasant side effects Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts