‘I’ll never be over being cheated out of the Super Bowl’

[Smileseers 54]

Your focking team won a Super Bowl over Seattle because a REF cheated.

knave

[Dan 66]

Are you fvcking retarded?

 

I'm actually seriously asking you.

 

Goodell and the NFL said the Patriots did not cheat in the Super Bowl and you're saying....what exactly? They did even though there is absolutely nothing you can produce that said they did?

 

If you're going to continue to fondle my prostate, I expect a kiss afterwards.

 

TIA.

 

Do you even open the possibility to yourself that you might be wrong? It's tiresome watching you verbally accost everyone that you disagree with. In this, you can be proud, I suppose. You're in a class by yourself.

 

You clearly don't want a discussion; you want to abuse. For humor's sake, I'll do this for you once, and give you a benefit of the doubt. If a person is caught cheating, he is a cheater. At that moment, there is nothing that he can SAY that can erase that fact, and restore what reputation he had before that moment. So, in order to find the truth, we examine EVERYTHING. But here is the problem. The solution is to get all the information that the cheater will give you. As we know, we cannot trust the cheater, but we are in a position to HAVE to. So, first item to consider is that we do not know that everything was given from the Patriots to the NFL office.

 

Now the head of this organization has to deal with the fallout of having a cheater. Marketing that affects not only this one piece, but every other piece, is in the balance with what happens next. A decision has to be made as to what should be shown or revealed to the public. Do we expose the greatest industry in sports to criticism and doubt? Or do we put this away as quickly as possible, hoping to limit the damage to what couldn't be contained?

 

What we know:

*There was cheating.

*There were multiple occasions; this was a trend, not a singular incident.

*There were a lot of tapes.

*These tapes were all destroyed. Very few people were ever privy to their content. NO ONE without a stake in the findings was allowed access to these tapes.

 

Let's add one more piece of very critical understanding into this. It is impossible to prove the lack of existence. In this case, cheating. Yet Roger Goodell comes out and declares that there was absolutely, unequivocally no cheating in the Super Bowl? That's a strong statement to make on something that no one can ensure, and in light of the allegations that were at hand, a foolhardy one.

 

Now, given what we know, and the basic behavioral understanding of persons in these situations, what can we conclude?

 

Cover up? We don't know, do we? But there is certainly a conversation to be had regarding it, given the tangibles. In answer to your next question, yes, I do think that it's possible that Roger Goodell lied to us. Shocking, I know. But I'm going to leave that door open, given the FACT that he did so much to obscure full disclosure.

 

That's all, though. I'm more than wiling to continue a conversation with you, but I'm probably not going to respond again, given that this is likely just to result in another obscene verbal assault designed only to deflect the conversation away from facts and argument.

 

Enjoy your day.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

I'm sorry. Exactly what was he supposed to say? Or are you going to pretend that he employs no spin or diplomacy in anything he does? This is the heart of weak arguing that drives NFL fans nuts. You are being deliberately naive . . . but only on this point, because it suits your argument.

 

I am not sure if you have noticed, but Goodell has not exactly been lenient with his punishments or diminishing in his explanations of the transgressions of those he is punishing. Are you really saying that Goodell gave the Pats a free pass and has slammed everyone else since then?

[Houston Texans 10]

Oh look, Captain Cries-A-Lot.

 

Still butt hurt over the Patriots beating the fvck out of your team....TWICE.

 

 

Go put a tampon in your bagina, tough guy.

Still butt hurt over the Giants, Ravens, Jets, Giants again, & Ravens again beating the fvck out of your team in the playoffs since BB admitted to cheating.

 

 

Go back to taking it in the pooper from BB, tough guy.

[Houston Texans 10]

Are you really saying that Goodell gave the Pats a free pass and has slammed everyone else since then?

Are you really saying that the largest fine for a HC in the history of the NFL, along with another $250,000 fine of the Patriots, AND the forfeiture of a 1st round pick is a "free pass?"

Also, consider that AFTER Spygate, in 2010, the Broncos and their HC, Josh McDaniels were fined for videotaping a 49er's walkthough. The fines? $50K for the Broncos, and $50K for McDaniels.

 

So, BB "mis-interpreted" the rules, and he and the Pats were fined $750K and lost a 1st-round pick; after that happened, the Broncos did the same thing (so they couldn't claim they "mis-interpreted" the rule), and they were fined only $100K. But the Pats got a "free pass?"

 

What's much more likely is the stiff punishment the Pats received was due to the fact that their cheating was much more expansive than what you believe it to be.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

Are you really saying that the largest fine for a HC in the history of the NFL, along with another $250,000 fine of the Patriots, AND the forfeiture of a 1st round pick is a "free pass?"

Also, consider that AFTER Spygate, in 2010, the Broncos and their HC, Josh McDaniels were fined for videotaping a 49er's walkthough. The fines? $50K for the Broncos, and $50K for McDaniels.

 

So, BB "mis-interpreted" the rules, and he and the Pats were fined $750K and lost a 1st-round pick; after that happened, the Broncos did the same thing (so they couldn't claim they "mis-interpreted" the rule), and they were fined only $100K. But the Pats got a "free pass?"

 

What's much more likely is the stiff punishment the Pats received was due to the fact that their cheating was much more expansive than what you believe it to be.

 

Apparently, sarcasm and hyperbole go way over your head.

 

The Pats were punished hard for Spygate and, given how Goodell has typically had a heavy hand in punishments, it is entirely possible that people are making a bigger deal out of it than is really necessary. Your example of the Broncos taping apparently shows that you did not read Goodell's reason for the low fine on McDaniels. Perhaps you can read up on that and let me know if you still think that it is "the same thing".

[Dan 66]

I am not sure if you have noticed, but Goodell has not exactly been lenient with his punishments or diminishing in his explanations of the transgressions of those he is punishing. Are you really saying that Goodell gave the Pats a free pass and has slammed everyone else since then?

 

Not suggesting anything of the sort, and I'm not sure where you come up with the insinuation. The Bountygate scandal should really make us question more, not less. He didn't lay all the cards on the table then, either. And this is my point. We don't know. And why don't we know? Because Goodell destroyed the evidence.

 

Hitting the Patriots hard doesn't mean that he doesn't care about this going away. He certainly does, and probably should. I've always felt that destroying the tapes was mishandling the situation, and frankly, Patriots' fans should be more ticked than anyone . . . IF the Patriots are guilty of nothing further. Goodell left that door open for there to be question marks forever. Not me, not any other fan. Goodell. Getting up and making statements after that does nothing to credibility.

[Houston Texans 10]

Apparently, sarcasm and hyperbole go way over your head.

 

The Pats were punished hard for Spygate and, given how Goodell has typically had a heavy hand in punishments, it is entirely possible that people are making a bigger deal out of it than is really necessary. Your example of the Broncos taping apparently shows that you did not read Goodell's reason for the low fine on McDaniels. Perhaps you can read up on that and let me know if you still think that it is "the same thing".

Apparently, logic goes way over your head.

 

I know that Goodell concluded that McDaniels didn't order the taping, but logic dictates that the punishment for the NE incident (which supposedly only involved 6 games) would not have been so much more severe than the Denver incident, if there weren't more to it than Goodell was willing to admit, especially when you consider that NE could make an argument that they didn't know the taping was cheating, whereas Denver couldn't do so, since they had the Spygate example as a precedent.

 

Perhaps you can take off your Patriot blinders, and explain why the punishment for NE was so much more severe than that for Denver?

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

Apparently, logic goes way over your head.

 

I know that Goodell concluded that McDaniels didn't order the taping, but logic dictates that the punishment for the NE incident (which supposedly only involved 6 games) would not have been so much more severe than the Denver incident, if there weren't more to it than Goodell was willing to admit, especially when you consider that NE could make an argument that they didn't know the taping was cheating, whereas Denver couldn't do so, since they had the Spygate example as a precedent.

 

Perhaps you can take off your Patriot blinders, and explain why the punishment for NE was so much more severe than that for Denver?

 

Three reasons why Denver was not punished the same as the Patriots:

1. McDaniels and the Broncos did not know it was being done and, when McDaniels found out about the tape, he did not even watch it

2. The team told the league about the incident, albeit 2 weeks after it happened

3. This was a one-time event and not a pattern of behavior

[Houston Texans 10]

Three reasons why Denver was not punished the same as the Patriots:

1. McDaniels and the Broncos did not know it was being done and, when McDaniels found out about the tape, he did not even watch it

2. The team told the league about the incident, albeit 2 weeks after it happened

3. This was a one-time event and not a pattern of behavior

4. The Patriots had also used this behavior to win SuperBowls.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

4. The Patriots had also used this behavior to win SuperBowls.

 

That is the best that you have? No response to the 3 actual items?

[parrot 789]

BB cheated, and knew he cheated, but is too stubborn to come flat out and say "I cheated," so he says "I misinterpreted" the rules. PED users cheats, know he cheats, but is too stubborn to come flat out and say "I cheated," so he says "I used a supplement that I didn't know wasn't allowed." Both cheated, both admitted they cheated, but neither actually used the word cheated.

 

Wow, can't believe I had to explain that to you, but hey, at least your mom is letting you use the big-boy computer now.

 

Repeating the same meaningless, irrelevant babble over and over doesn't explain anything, sorry.

[edjr 6,602]

Why do you bother

[Houston Texans 10]

Repeating the same meaningless, irrelevant babble over and over doesn't explain anything, sorry.

Sticking your head in the sand, and pretended that the Patriots never got caught cheating, doesn't change the fact that they did cheat, sorry.

[tikigods 76]

Still butt hurt over the Giants, Ravens, Jets, Giants again, & Ravens again beating the fvck out of your team in the playoffs since BB admitted to cheating.

 

 

Go back to taking it in the pooper from BB, tough guy.

 

Exactly how many Super Bowls have the Texans won?

 

You're a focking turd burglar.

[Houston Texans 10]

Exactly how many Super Bowls have the Texans won?

The same amount as the Pats have won since they were forced to stop cheating.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

The same amount as the Pats have won since they were forced to stop cheating.

 

How many AFC Championship games? How many playoff games?

[Houston Texans 10]

How many AFC Championship games? How many playoff games?

I've never denied that the Pats are a good team. Hell, they've won their division what 6 of the last 7 years? But, without cheating, they are just another good team, not a great one. And if you have to cheat, you really aren't great, are you?

 

The FACTS are:

 

1) They seemed to be better than everyone else in the beginning of the 2000's, winning 3 SBs in 5 years.

 

2) They got caught cheating, admitted that they had broken the rules (cheated), and were forced to stop.

 

3) The punishment for their cheating was very stiff, much more severe than it should have been, if the infractions only involved 6 regular season games, and the illegal film was not used during those games

 

4) Since they were forced to stop cheating, they have been unable to "finish the job" & win a SB, something they were able to do with ease previously

 

Any reasonable person would look at those facts and say: The Patriots were cheating during their SB seasons/games.

 

ETA-I'm not a Texans fan, I'm a Redskins fan, so your weak attempt to divert attention from the fact that the Pats had to cheat to win their SuperBowls would still work, but it still would't change the fact that the Patriots aren't good enough to win a Championship without cheating.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

I've never denied that the Pats are a good team. Hell, they've won their division what 6 of the last 7 years? But, without cheating, they are just another good team, not a great one. And if you have to cheat, you really aren't great, are you?

 

The FACTS are:

 

1) They seemed to be better than everyone else in the beginning of the 2000's, winning 3 SBs in 5 years.

 

2) They got caught cheating, admitted that they had broken the rules (cheated), and were forced to stop.

 

3) The punishment for their cheating was very stiff, much more severe than it should have been, if the infractions only involved 6 regular season games, and the illegal film was not used during those games

 

4) Since they were forced to stop cheating, they have been unable to "finish the job" & win a SB, something they were able to do with ease previously

 

Any reasonable person would look at those facts and say: The Patriots were cheating during their SB seasons/games.

 

ETA-I'm not a Texans fan, I'm a Redskins fan, so your weak attempt to divert attention from the fact that the Pats had to cheat to win their SuperBowls would still work, but it still would't change the fact that the Patriots aren't good enough to win a Championship without cheating.

 

Twice, they were one drive away from another SB title within 10 years winning 3 SB's in 4 years. They are still a great team. IF they had won those 2, then they would be a dynasty. I think that you would have a hard time finding several teams that have had a better run since Week 1 of 2007.

 

You still are basing everything on your personal feelings and conjecture as opposed to being reasonable.

[Houston Texans 10]

Twice, they were one drive away from another SB title within 10 years winning 3 SB's in 4 years. They are still a great team. IF they had won those 2, then they would be a dynasty. I think that you would have a hard time finding several teams that have had a better run since Week 1 of 2007.

 

You still are basing everything on your personal feelings and conjecture as opposed to being reasonable.

So prior to Spygate, they had some edge that allowed them to close out other teams in tight games. After Spygate, they have been unable to do so, despite being in the same type of situation? Yeah, there's NO WAY that could because they don't have any kind of illegal knowledge of the opposing team's signals, formations, play calls, etc. That's so unbelievable.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

So prior to Spygate, they had some edge that allowed them to close out other teams in tight games. After Spygate, they have been unable to do so, despite being in the same type of situation? Yeah, there's NO WAY that could because they don't have any kind of illegal knowledge of the opposing team's signals, formations, play calls, etc. That's so unbelievable.

 

The difference between pre-Spygate and post-Spygate is playmaking by their defense. Since teams call in their plays via communications to the QB's helmet, how exactly are they supposed to be have that edge?

 

Remember, teams still tape the opposition, just not from the sidelines, so they already know signals, formations and play-calls in certain situations. Is it really that hard to fathom?

[Houston Texans 10]

The difference between pre-Spygate and post-Spygate is playmaking by their defense. Since teams call in their plays via communications to the QB's helmet, how exactly are they supposed to be have that edge?

 

Remember, teams still tape the opposition, just not from the sidelines, so they already know signals, formations and play-calls in certain situations. Is it really that hard to fathom?

Knowing what play is being run is a HUGE advantage for a defense, and knowing what defense is being run is a HUGE advantage for an offense. You're grasping at some very flimsy straws by trying to suggest otherwise.

 

You can try to come up with all kinds of convoluted excuses for the Patriots failing to achieve the success after they had to stop cheating as they were able to while they were cheating, but according to Occam's razor, the theory with the fewest assumptions should be believed. Your rationale requires many huge assumptions to be made; it's much simpler to believe that when the Patriots had to stop cheating, they didn't have the edge they needed to be a great team.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

Knowing what play is being run is a HUGE advantage for a defense, and knowing what defense is being run is a HUGE advantage for an offense. You're grasping at some very flimsy straws by trying to suggest otherwise.

 

You can try to come up with all kinds of convoluted excuses for the Patriots failing to achieve the success after they had to stop cheating as they were able to while they were cheating, but according to Occam's razor, the theory with the fewest assumptions should be believed. Your rationale requires many huge assumptions to be made; it's much simpler to believe that when the Patriots had to stop cheating, they didn't have the edge they needed to be a great team.

 

You are the one making the assumptions. Holy crap.

 

Your assumption is that the Patriots defense knows the offensive play that is being run. How the fock do you get to that? The offensive play is called in with no hand signals from the sideline. It is relayed into the helmet of the QB who calls the play and then the offense executes. Are the Pats stealing the helmet signals too?

 

On offense, you are assuming that the Patriots can tape the signals from a game, interpret them during the same game, adjust your offensive play call and then relay the information to the players on the offense before a play clock expires. If you think that it matters in the next game, then you have to assume that no other team can tape the other team during the game (they can) and that the other team is dumb enough to not change their signals from game to game (they aren't).

 

Your entire argument is based on assumptions with no basis in fact.

[Houston Texans 10]

You are the one making the assumptions. Holy crap.

 

Your assumption is that the Patriots defense knows the offensive play that is being run. How the fock do you get to that? The offensive play is called in with no hand signals from the sideline. It is relayed into the helmet of the QB who calls the play and then the offense executes. Are the Pats stealing the helmet signals too?

 

On offense, you are assuming that the Patriots can tape the signals from a game, interpret them during the same game, adjust your offensive play call and then relay the information to the players on the offense before a play clock expires. If you think that it matters in the next game, then you have to assume that no other team can tape the other team during the game (they can) and that the other team is dumb enough to not change their signals from game to game (they aren't).

 

Your entire argument is based on assumptions with no basis in fact.

You are assuming that the Patriots didn't cheat to win their SuperBowls. What facts do have to make that assumption? None.

 

And, as you pointed out, why tape a team since no NFL team is dumb enough to not change their signals, calls, etc from 1 game to the next? The only reason would be because the Patriots were using them IN THE SAME GAME. Thanks for pointing out that fact for me.

 

Here are the facts on which I base my assumption:

 

Fact-NFL teams CONSTANTLY use data during a game. After every offensive series, you see the QB looking at photos & talking to the booth about what they are seeing. It wouldn't be difficult, at all, to couple that data (that we know they gather/use) with the taping of signals, play calls, etc to get an illegal advantage. YOU are making the ridiculous assumption that it would be impossible to do so.

 

Fact-The NFL forbids taping from the sidelines because they recognize it would give teams a competitive advantage. YOU are making the ridiculous assumption that the NFL is wrong, in this regard.

 

Fact-The NFL fined BB and the Patriots a huge amount of money, AND took a 1st round pick from them, then claimed that they had received all of the tapes the Patriots had, which covered 6 tapes, from the 2006 season, and the 2007 pre-season.6 tapes, from 2006 season & 2007 pre-season

 

Fact-Goodell told Senator Specter that BB has been illegaly taping opponents defensive signals since the 2000 season. Illegaly taping since 2000

 

Fact-It's impossible that the Patriots turned over all their tapes, since Goodell said there were only 6 tapes, all from the 2006 season & 2007 season, AND Goodell said he knew they had been taping since the 2000 season.

 

Assumption-Since the NFL bans taping defensive signals, AND BB admits to cheating by doing so, AND the NFL punished the Patriots far too harshly for what they claimed the infraction was, AND Goodell lied at least once about this issue, AND the Patriots were always able to "get the job done" in the SuperBowl before they were caught cheating, I make 1 assumption that the lack of cheating has been the difference in their subsequent inability to win another championship.

 

So, that's many facts, with one assumption, while your "logic" is based on many assumptions that are obviously false (why tape, they can't use that info during games; why tape, there are no signals to tape; etc).

 

Nice try, though, thanks for playing.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

You are assuming that the Patriots didn't cheat to win their SuperBowls. What facts do have to make that assumption? None.

 

And, as you pointed out, why tape a team since no NFL team is dumb enough to not change their signals, calls, etc from 1 game to the next? The only reason would be because the Patriots were using them IN THE SAME GAME. Thanks for pointing out that fact for me.

 

Here are the facts on which I base my assumption:

 

Fact-NFL teams CONSTANTLY use data during a game. After every offensive series, you see the QB looking at photos & talking to the booth about what they are seeing. It wouldn't be difficult, at all, to couple that data (that we know they gather/use) with the taping of signals, play calls, etc to get an illegal advantage. YOU are making the ridiculous assumption that it would be impossible to do so.

 

Fact-The NFL forbids taping from the sidelines because they recognize it would give teams a competitive advantage. YOU are making the ridiculous assumption that the NFL is wrong, in this regard.

 

Fact-The NFL fined BB and the Patriots a huge amount of money, AND took a 1st round pick from them, then claimed that they had received all of the tapes the Patriots had, which covered 6 tapes, from the 2006 season, and the 2007 pre-season.6 tapes, from 2006 season & 2007 pre-season

 

Fact-Goodell told Senator Specter that BB has been illegaly taping opponents defensive signals since the 2000 season. Illegaly taping since 2000

 

Fact-It's impossible that the Patriots turned over all their tapes, since Goodell said there were only 6 tapes, all from the 2006 season & 2007 season, AND Goodell said he knew they had been taping since the 2000 season.

 

Assumption-Since the NFL bans taping defensive signals, AND BB admits to cheating by doing so, AND the NFL punished the Patriots far too harshly for what they claimed the infraction was, AND Goodell lied at least once about this issue, AND the Patriots were always able to "get the job done" in the SuperBowl before they were caught cheating, I make 1 assumption that the lack of cheating has been the difference in their subsequent inability to win another championship.

 

So, that's many facts, with one assumption, while your "logic" is based on many assumptions that are obviously false (why tape, they can't use that info during games; why tape, there are no signals to tape; etc).

 

Nice try, though, thanks for playing.

 

I love how you confuse my comments with others and then tell me I am assuming. I never said that things were impossible, but I did say that you assume that if something is not impossible, then it is reasonable to expect that it happened.

 

It is not impossible that you work for the NFL and have inside knowledge of the situation. However, I am willing to bet that you have no clue what you are talking about.

[parrot 789]

Knowing what play is being run is a HUGE advantage for a defense, and knowing what defense is being run is a HUGE advantage for an offense. You're grasping at some very flimsy straws by trying to suggest otherwise.

 

You can try to come up with all kinds of convoluted excuses for the Patriots failing to achieve the success after they had to stop cheating as they were able to while they were cheating, but according to Occam's razor, the theory with the fewest assumptions should be believed. Your rationale requires many huge assumptions to be made; it's much simpler to believe that when the Patriots had to stop cheating, they didn't have the edge they needed to be a great team.

If poor old Occam were here, he would throw up at your tortured use of his razor. There's not one shred of evidence that the Patriots ever used the tapes as the game was being played, so your assumption that they were is unfounded, superfluous, and unnecessary to explain their past success. I award you no points.

 

Also, maybe you'd like to provide a link to where the "NFL bans taping defensive signals"?

[tikigods 76]

I'm still waiting for that link that shows the Patriots cheating to win a Super Bowl.

 

Focking hacks.

[murf74 461]

I'm still waiting for that link that shows the Patriots cheating to win a Super Bowl.

 

Focking hacks.

 

I am still waiting for a link that shows which games they did cheat in.

 

That is only way we know for sure...did they cheat in arc championship games? Superbowl?

 

What proof do you have they didnt? Goodells word after he bur ned the evidence?

[tikigods 76]

I am still waiting for a link that shows which games they did cheat in.

 

That is only way we know for sure...did they cheat in arc championship games? Superbowl?

 

What proof do you have they didnt? Goodells word after he bur ned the evidence?

 

Doofus...I'm not the one claiming the Patriots cheated in the Super Bowl, you and your band of toothless goons are claiming it. If you've got nothing, then STFU and stop crying like little girls.

[murf74 461]

Doofus...I'm not the one claiming the Patriots cheated in the Super Bowl, you and your band of toothless goons are claiming it. If you've got nothing, then STFU and stop crying like little girls.

 

NOBODY knows...there will always be a shadow cast because nobody can say for sure not eve you because NOBODY was notified which games the cheating took place in.

 

All we know is for sure there were multiple games. You can pretend that in those multiple games were no playoffs or superbowl....but you don't know I don't know, Goodelll made sure nobody knows

[tikigods 76]

NOBODY knows...there will always be a shadow cast because nobody can say for sure not eve you because NOBODY was notified which games the cheating took place in.

 

All we know is for sure there were multiple games. You can pretend that in those multiple games were no playoffs or superbowl....but you don't know I don't know, Goodelll made sure nobody knows

 

Sure we do. Goodell said the Patriots taped some games, he specifically outlined which games. He said they did not tape the walkthrough of the Rams.

 

Are you also implying we didn't walk on the moon, too? I mean, I wasn't there so obviously NOBODY knows if it happened.

 

Was there a shooter in the grassy knoll in Dallas? I mean the Zapruter film is only a snip it of that day.

 

Did the Holocaust really happen?

 

You people kill me.

[murf74 461]

Sure we do. Goodell said the Patriots taped some games, he specifically outlined which games. He said they did not tape the walkthrough of the Rams.

 

Are you also implying we didn't walk on the moon, too? I mean, I wasn't there so obviously NOBODY knows if it happened.

 

Was there a shooter in the grassy knoll in Dallas? I mean the Zapruter film is only a snip it of that day.

 

Did the Holocaust really happen?

 

You people kill me.

 

Some games.... not some regular season games only.....so after further review, analysis stands. Full black shadow cast over Pats.

 

Don't blame me blame Goodell for hiding and destroying evidence...and blame bill who cheated

[tikigods 76]

Some games.... not some regular season games.....so after further review, analysis stands. Full black shadow cast over Pats.

 

Don't blame me blame Goodell for hiding and destroying evidence...and blame bill who cheated

 

Why would I blame Goodell? He said the Patriots didn't cheat in the Super Bowl. This thread is about Faulk crying he was cheated out of a Super Bowl, which means he and the rest of you are idiots because you have no proof there was cheating in the Super Bowl.

 

Continue digging up conspiracies. You can post them in the link with the Patriots cheating in the Super Bowl. I'd imagine you Internet trolls could dig up an Elvis at Wendy's or Area 51 link to go with that Super Bowl cheating link.

 

I'll hang up and listen.

[murf74 461]

Why would I blame Goodell? He said the Patriots didn't cheat in the Super Bowl. This thread is about Faulk crying he was cheated out of a Super Bowl, which means he and the rest of you are idiots because you have no proof there was cheating in the Super Bowl.

.

Continue digging up conspiracies. You can post them in the link with the Patriots cheating in the Super Bowl. I'd imagine you Internet trolls could dig up an Elvis at Wendy's or Area 51 link to go with that Super Bowl cheating link.

 

I'll hang up and listen.

Lol you are trying to simplify this to pure walkthru taping not in game cheating of which they got busted for. And there are 2 other superbowl you are ignoring.

 

Shadow

[tikigods 76]

Lol you are trying to simplify this to pure walkthru taping not in game cheating of which they got busted for. And there are 2 other superbowl you are ignoring.

 

Shadow

 

So you're now saying the Patriots cheated against the Eagles and Panthers? Was Bigfoot holding the camera or was this the footage they found in Roswell, New Mexico?

 

Can't wait to see this link.

[murf74 461]

So you're now saying the Patriots cheated against the Eagles and Panthers? Was Bigfoot holding the camera or was this the footage they found in Roswell, New Mexico?

 

Can't wait to see this link.

 

LOL I just realized you never considered the possibility of cheating in other 2 superbowl and thought everyone was only taking about Rams

 

Oh priceless, man priceless

[tikigods 76]

LOL I just realized you never considered the possibility of cheating in other 2 superbowl and thought everyone was only taking about Rams

 

Oh priceless, man priceless

 

Why would anyone even consider they cheated in those Super Bowls when they didn't cheat in the first one and you have no evidence of any Super Bowl cheating...period?

 

You desperation reeks like the armpits of an Occupy Wall Street protester.

[murf74 461]

Why would anyone even consider they cheated in those Super Bowls when they didn't cheat in the first one and you have no evidence of any Super Bowl cheating...period?

 

You desperation reeks like the armpits of an Occupy Wall Street protester.

 

Really? Is this the first time you heard someone bring up possibility of cheating in other 2 superbowl? Now come on are you really telling me this is the first you had this brought up?

 

OMG do you live under a rock Patrick?

[jaxjag 43]

 

Really? Is this the first time you heard someone bring up possibility of cheating in other 2 superbowl? Now come on are you really telling me this is the first you had this brought up?

 

OMG do you live under a rock Patrick?

 

First time here in a few days and the first thread listed has Murf still rambling about the Patriots.

 

Murf, get a life. Why don't we talk about the Steelers instead?

 

A doctor who worked 22 years for the Steelers faces 185 counts relating to his practices since leaving the team.

 

According to the Cleveland Plain Dealer, Dr. Richard Rydze faces charges in Northern Ohio of conspiracy to distribute steroids, HGH, and painkillers.

 

Prosecutors contend that Rydze distributed the substances from September 2007 through March 2011 “for unauthorized uses such as bodybuilding and athletic performance enhancement.” While the steroids portion of the case doesn’t overlap with Rydze’s time with the Steelers, he’s accused of obtaining more than 21,000 Vicodin tablets from February 2005 through October 2011.

 

In 2009, ESPN tried to make a smoke-fire connection between Rydze and the Steelers, without evidence that Rydze ever gave steroids or any other banned substance to Steelers players. The curiously-timed report came as the Steelers were migrating through a playoff tournament that resulted in their most recent Super Bowl win. Alas, ESPN ultimately declined to make its reporter, Mike Fish, available to answer basic questions about the story.

 

It’ll be interesting to see whether and to what extent ESPN dusts off the story in the hopes of raising questions about whether Rydze was giving steroids or HGH to Steelers players.

 

Maybe they’ll wait for Pittsburgh’s next postseason game.

[tikigods 76]

 

Really? Is this the first time you heard someone bring up possibility of cheating in other 2 superbowl? Now come on are you really telling me this is the first you had this brought up?

 

OMG do you live under a rock Patrick?

 

I love the approach to spin this into something you may have a chance to debate on. Has there been some new evidence that has surfaced proving the Patriots cheated in a Super Bowl I'm unaware of that is now makes it definitive they cheated in a Super Bowl?

 

I'm guessing you are the Recliner Pilot-Lite of the mange board.

 

I won this thread.