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

[Dan 66]

Slight course correction. When the original tapes were examined, several playoff games were "outed," including AFC Championship games. Owners of those followed the party line and stated that they weren't looking for retribution. Good guys, those.

 

As you were.

[ralphster 274]

I won this thread.

 

You've made yourself look like an unrequited jacka$s in front of the dwindling amount of people who post on this bored. I've seen other posts you've made over the years and previously thought you had a clue and offered the occasional real insight on ff. Now I just think you're a delusional BB fanboy with your head in the sand.

 

Let me save you the trouble of replying:

 

PROOF OR NO CHEATING, YOU ARE MR DUMB PANTS HAHA! I AM GREAT!

 

Let's talk about anything other than the Pats.

 

edited

[tikigods 76]

PROOF OR NO CHEATING, YOU ARE MR DUMB PANTS HAHA! I AM GREAT!

 

Let's talk about anything other than the Pats.

 

edited

 

Why don't you look at the title of this thread and go fock yourself.

 

You're welcome.

[tikigods 76]

Slight course correction. When the original tapes were examined, several playoff games were "outed," including AFC Championship games. Owners of those followed the party line and stated that they weren't looking for retribution. Good guys, those.

 

As you were.

 

Is that your ass you're talking out of or do you have a legitimate source you're quoting from?

 

You may want to brush your teeth because the mouth you're talking out of smells like sh1t.

[murf74 461]

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.

 

So you are now pretty much admitting superbowl 2 and 3 are worth debating on cheating?

 

There is no new evidence, it was all destroyed ny Goodell within like 4 days of receiving it. Since there are multiple games in question and he never let anyone see which games it has lead to a dark SHADOW hanging over the Bill I Cheat era prior to his admitted CHEATiNG

[murf74 461]

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.

 

Well that was a random driveby with absolutely no substance. Good thing there is drug testing to prove no Steelers were illegal or cheated. Unlike Pats who admitted they cheated

 

Thanks for playing Jags fan, skins fan, pats fan, dolphins fan, etc

[tikigods 76]

So you are now pretty much admitting superbowl 2 and 3 are worth debating on cheating?

 

Why would I debate that when you don't even have proof they cheated during the first one?

 

Was this before or after Rothlisberger raped that woman? Rapists shouldn't be allowed Super Bowl titles either.

[murf74 461]

Pats' tapes are gone, but questions remain

 

The league acted in a hurry to dispose of damning documents, but has not revealed what was in the tapes and notes, nor said why there was a rush to get rid of them.

 

The lack of answers leaves several questions hanging out there. Chief among them: Is it possible the Patriots' tapes showed some evidence of New England cheating in a Super Bowl?

 

This weekend, in an e-mail exchange with NFL spokesman Greg Aiello, I asked twice whether the Patriots' documents contained evidence of cheating in the Super Bowl, and Aiello twice declined to either confirm or deny the existence of such evidence .

 

As a matter of logic, refusing to deny something is not the same as admitting it. But if the Patriots' tapes and documents contained no indication of cheating in the Super Bowl, it would be strongly in the NFL's interest to publicize this. Instead, the New England documents were shredded within roughly 48 hours of the NFL receiving them

 

I asked Aiello whether he meant there is no evidence now of New England cheating in a Super Bowl -- that is, after the destruction of the files -- or whether examination of the materials positively affirmed no cheating. He did not reply .

 

I asked whether the materials had been inspected by anyone conversant with the game plans and signals the Rams, Panthers and Eagles used against Bill Belichick's Patriots in the Super Bowl; football signs and terminology are cryptic, so it would help to have a skilled eye. Aiello wouldn't answer that . I asked who had ordered the tapes and notes destroyed, and he wouldn't answer that, either.

 

Aiello said the heavy penalties assessed the Patriots on Sept. 13 were for "the totality of the conduct" in multiple instances of sign-stealing over several years, not for "one tape seized at the end of one quarter of one game," meaning the tape taken from the Patriots in their season opener at the New York Jets.

 

This right here is the link I present to you proving without a doubt that the NFL never denied when asked directly that material collected did not include NFL games.

 

SHADOWs of darkness surround those superbowls, the NFL when asked directly wouldn't comment. If they contained no superbowls it would have been flat out proclaimed, instead of no comment.

 

When given the chance to clear the Pats, the NFL gave no comment!!!!!!!1

 

Check mate

[jaxjag 43]

Pats' tapes are gone, but questions remain

 

This right here is the link I present to you proving without a doubt that the NFL never denied when asked directly that material collected did not include NFL games.

 

SHADOWs of darkness surround those superbowls, the NFL when asked directly wouldn't comment. If they contained no superbowls it would have been flat out proclaimed, instead of no comment.

 

When given the chance to clear the Pats, the NFL gave no comment!!!!!!!1

 

Check mate

 

The Tuck Rule... The Immaculate Reception...

 

Pats haven't won since Spygate... Steelers haven't won since NFL cracked down on dirty hits...

 

Patriots Sbs are tainted because of Spygate... Steelers SBs are tainted because of PEDs and bad officating...

 

Its just a matter of perspective...

 

It's like a mirror Murf.. I see now why you are so fixated...

 

Eighteen men who played football for the Pittsburgh Steelers have died since 2000, the Los Angeles Times reports.

 

The former players have fallen to heart attacks, accidents, disease and suicide over the past six years. The Times said 16 of the 77 NFL players from the 1970s and 1980s who have died since 2000 were Steelers - more than one in five.

 

Four of the deaths were unusual:

 

Former Steelers lineman Steve Courson, 50, was killed last year when a large tree he was cutting down outside his Pennsylvania home fell on him.

 

Former linebacker David Little, 46, was bench-pressing weights in his Miamia home last year when he suffered a heart attack. The barbell he was lifting rolled across his neck and suffocated him.

 

Former offensive guard Terry Long, 45, committed suicide in Pittsburgh last year by drinking antifreeze.

 

Former offensive tackle Justin Strzelczyk, 36, was killed in a high-speed chase on the New York Thruway in 2004. With police in pursuit, the pickup truck Strzelczyk was driving collided with a tanker truck.

 

"It's just an anomaly that we can't explain. From an emotional standpoint it just makes you sad and makes you feel like the time we spent together was even more precious," former Steelers star receiver John Stallworth told the Times.

 

The newspaper said there was speculation that steroid abuse may have played a role in some of the deaths, but no hard evidence to that effect.

 

mmm... Check Mate???

[tikigods 76]

This right here is the link I present to you proving without a doubt that the NFL never denied when asked directly that material collected did not include NFL games.

 

SHADOWs of darkness surround those superbowls, the NFL when asked directly wouldn't comment. If they contained no superbowls it would have been flat out proclaimed, instead of no comment.

 

When given the chance to clear the Pats, the NFL gave no comment!!!!!!!1

 

Check mate

 

Link to evidence that they cheated in the Super Bowl?

 

I can find fifty links to suggestions and questions about bigfoot, if I wanted to but it doesn't prove sh1t.

[tikigods 76]

'The suggestion that the New England Patriots recorded the St. Louis Rams' walkthrough on the day before Super Bowl XXXVI in 2002 is absolutely false. Any suggestion to the contrary is untrue.'"

[murf74 461]

The Tuck Rule... The Immaculate Reception...

 

Pats haven't won since Spygate... Steelers haven't won since NFL cracked down on dirty hits...

 

Patriots Sbs are tainted because of Spygate... Steelers SBs are tainted because of PEDs and bad officating...

 

Its just a matter of perspective...

 

It's like a mirror Murf.. I see now why you are so fixated...

 

Eighteen men who played football for the Pittsburgh Steelers have died since 2000, the Los Angeles Times reports.

 

The former players have fallen to heart attacks, accidents, disease and suicide over the past six years. The Times said 16 of the 77 NFL players from the 1970s and 1980s who have died since 2000 were Steelers - more than one in five.

 

Four of the deaths were unusual:

 

Former Steelers lineman Steve Courson, 50, was killed last year when a large tree he was cutting down outside his Pennsylvania home fell on him.

 

Former linebacker David Little, 46, was bench-pressing weights in his Miamia home last year when he suffered a heart attack. The barbell he was lifting rolled across his neck and suffocated him.

 

Former offensive guard Terry Long, 45, committed suicide in Pittsburgh last year by drinking antifreeze.

 

Former offensive tackle Justin Strzelczyk, 36, was killed in a high-speed chase on the New York Thruway in 2004. With police in pursuit, the pickup truck Strzelczyk was driving collided with a tanker truck.

 

"It's just an anomaly that we can't explain. From an emotional standpoint it just makes you sad and makes you feel like the time we spent together was even more precious," former Steelers star receiver John Stallworth told the Times.

 

The newspaper said there was speculation that steroid abuse may have played a role in some of the deaths, but no hard evidence to that effect.

 

mmm... Check Mate???

Dude Steelers took roids in 70s when they were totally legal like a protein shake and commonplace and everyone knows that

 

Patriots cheated by doing something illegal and everyone knows it

 

You idiot

[Houston Texans 10]

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"?

God, you're dense. Occam's razor doesn't require evidence; only that the conclusion that requires the fewest assumptions is the most likely. The evidence was destroyed by the Goodell and the NFL (who then lied about what was on the tapes). Then the NFL gave HUGE penalties for this incident (which didn't fit the relatively minor infraction they claim existed). My assumption is based on the huge penalty (which would be fitting for cheating in a much bigger game), coupled with the cover-up and deception of the NFL, and the fact that the Pats haven't been able to win a SB since they were caught cheating. So, you might want to work on your knowledge of the english language, because there is nothing unfounded, superfluous or unnecessary.

 

As for the link, how's this, dumbass? absolutely no video recordings allowed. It took me all of 5 seconds to find that. Maybe take your head out of the sand (or your ass), and face the facts: The Pats cheated.

[Houston Texans 10]

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.

I love how you don't understand English. I never said because the Pats cheating wasn't impossible, it's reasonable to expect that it happened. What I said is that when you look at these facts:

1-the huge penalty the NFL imposed would be fitting for cheating in a much bigger game but not for the relatively trivial infraction the NFL claimed occured

2-the NFL's cover-up (destruction of the tapes) and deception (Goodell contradicting himself about what was really on the tapes)

3-the Pats haven't been able to win a SB since they were caught cheating

it's reasonable to assume the Pats were cheating in the years before they were caught, including the SuperBowls. Why would they make the effort to cheat in pre-season and relatively meaningless regular season games, but stop in the playoffs & SuperBowls?

 

Seriously, what do you think is more realistic:

 

A) The Pats cheated in the pre-season & regular season, but stopped when the games really matter (playoffs/SuperBowls)

 

OR

 

The Pats cheated in the pre-season, regular season, post-season, AND SuperBowls, until they got caught

 

Gee, that's a toughie.

[parrot 789]

God, you're dense. Occam's razor doesn't require evidence; only that the conclusion that requires the fewest assumptions is the most likely. The evidence was destroyed by the Goodell and the NFL (who then lied about what was on the tapes). Then the NFL gave HUGE penalties for this incident (which didn't fit the relatively minor infraction they claim existed). My assumption is based on the huge penalty (which would be fitting for cheating in a much bigger game), coupled with the cover-up and deception of the NFL, and the fact that the Pats haven't been able to win a SB since they were caught cheating. So, you might want to work on your knowledge of the english language, because there is nothing unfounded, superfluous or unnecessary.

 

You are introducing unfounded assumptions unnecessarily, that's the whole basis of the Razor. If you don't understand that much you really shouldn't even bring it up.

 

As for the link, how's this, dumbass? absolutely no video recordings allowed. It took me all of 5 seconds to find that. Maybe take your head out of the sand (or your ass), and face the facts: The Pats cheated.

 

You are really about half a d!ck, you you know that? Maybe you should have spent more than 5 seconds. Your link is from an ESPN article, not from any kind of NFL source documents. People at ESPN are just as capable of being dumb and misinformed as people like yourself. Please quote or link the NFL rules that back up those statements, or STFU. Have fun. It's a tip that they don't exist.

[Houston Texans 10]

You are introducing unfounded assumptions unnecessarily, that's the whole basis of the Razor. If you don't understand that much you really shouldn't even bring it up.

 

 

 

You are really about half a d!ck, you you know that? Maybe you should have spent more than 5 seconds. Your link is from an ESPN article, not from any kind of NFL source documents. People at ESPN are just as capable of being dumb and misinformed as people like yourself. Please quote or link the NFL rules that back up those statements, or STFU. Have fun. It's a tip that they don't exist.

Why don't you STFU or provide a link, from an NFL source, that says it's legal to tape defensive signals from the sidelines? Or is this whole Spygate thing completely fabricated by ESPN? I mean, did I imagine that the NFL fined the Pats 3/4 of a million dollars and took a 1st round pick from them FOR FILMING FROM THE SIDELINES?

[parrot 789]

Why don't you STFU or provide a link, from an NFL source, that says it's legal to tape defensive signals from the sidelines? Or is this whole Spygate thing completely fabricated by ESPN? I mean, did I imagine that the NFL fined the Pats 3/4 of a million dollars and took a 1st round pick from them FOR FILMING FROM THE SIDELINES?

 

You want me to provide a link that something is legal? Seriously, you can't be this dumb. If something is not in the rules as illegal, it's legal by default.

 

In part 2, you answered your own question; the Patriots were fined for WHERE they filmed from, not what they filmed (based on a very crappily worded rule that would never hold up in a court of law). They could have been filming hot chicks in the stands (and there is a fair amount of that on the tapes btw) and it would have been punished the same. So again, your statement that the NFL bans the taping of signals has no basis in fact.

[Houston Texans 10]

You are introducing unfounded assumptions unnecessarily, that's the whole basis of the Razor. If you don't understand that much you really shouldn't even bring it up.

 

 

 

You are really about half a d!ck, you you know that? Maybe you should have spent more than 5 seconds. Your link is from an ESPN article, not from any kind of NFL source documents. People at ESPN are just as capable of being dumb and misinformed as people like yourself. Please quote or link the NFL rules that back up those statements, or STFU. Have fun. It's a tip that they don't exist.

Don't they?

page 105, section V, subsection A

No video recording devices of any kind are permitted to be in use in the coaches booth, on the field, or in the locker room during the game.

 

I'm not sure, but would the NFL policy manual for member clubs count as "any kind of NFL source document?"

Well, would it, ######?

[parrot 789]

[/b]

Don't they?

page 105, section V, subsection A

No video recording devices of any kind are permitted to be in use in the coaches booth, on the field, or in the locker room during the game.

 

I'm not sure, but would the NFL policy manual for member clubs count as "any kind of NFL source document?"

Well, would it, ######?

 

Again, that give locations from WHERE taping can, or cannot, be done. It says nothing about what can, or cannot, be taped. I don't think you understand your own argument.

[Houston Texans 10]

You want me to provide a link that something is legal? Seriously, you can't be this dumb. If something is not in the rules as illegal, it's legal by default.

 

In part 2, you answered your own question; the Patriots were fined for WHERE they filmed from, not what they filmed (based on a very crappily worded rule that would never hold up in a court of law). They could have been filming hot chicks in the stands (and there is a fair amount of that on the tapes btw) and it would have been punished the same. So again, your statement that the NFL bans the taping of signals has no basis in fact.

Holy crap, you're dumber than bricks. Because I forgot to post the words "from the sidelines" in one of my posts, you're trying to make your argument? The rule is what the rule is, whether you think it's crappily worded or not. You can't film from the sidelines, the Pats filmed from the sidelines, they cheated.

 

BTW-they didn't just film hot chicks in the stands, and if that's all they had filmed, they wouldn't have been punished as severely as they were, just as they wouldn't have been punished as severely as they were if they only taped 6 games.

[Houston Texans 10]

Again, that give locations from WHERE taping can, or cannot, be done. It says nothing about what can, or cannot, be taped. I don't think you understand your own argument.

No, I don't think you understand my argument.

 

It is illegal to tape ANYTHING from the sidelines during a game. Since signals would fall under that umbrella of ANYTHING, it is illegal to tape signals from the sidelines during a game.

 

Why is that so hard for you to understand?

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

No, I don't think you understand my argument.

 

It is illegal to tape ANYTHING from the sidelines during a game. Since signals would fall under that umbrella of ANYTHING, it is illegal to tape signals from the sidelines during a game.

 

Why is that so hard for you to understand?

 

I think that his point is that teams were allowed to film the games from certain spots (other than the sidelines, coaches booths) and they were allowed to tape the other team's defensive signals from those (allowed) spots. It sounds like you believe the difference between those locations and the sidelines is enough to make or break a SB season.

[parrot 789]

Holy crap, you're dumber than bricks. Because I forgot to post the words "from the sidelines" in one of my posts, you're trying to make your argument? The rule is what the rule is, whether you think it's crappily worded or not. You can't film from the sidelines, the Pats filmed from the sidelines, they cheated.

 

So, because you can't translate a complete thought, I'm dumb?

 

You said

 

"the NFL bans taping defensive signals"

 

That is patently wrong. You should just admit that and try to save some face here, or keep dancing around it and continue looking like a jack@ss.

 

The problem with the rule as stated, is that it never specifically says that cameras are not allowed on the sidelines. It says "the field" and in many other NFL rules, the term "the field" refers to the playing field. That's the "gray area" that Belichick talked about when he explained why he DIDN'T feel they had cheated.

 

BTW-they didn't film hot chicks in the stands, and if that's all they had filmed, they wouldn't have been punished as severely as they were, just as they wouldn't have been punished as severely as they were if they only taped 6 games.

 

They did film hot chicks in the stands, as per Jay Glazer, who actually has copies of some of the tapes. Are you beginning to see how much more I know about this issue than you yet?

 

No one is suggesting that's all they filmed, but even if it had been they would have been in the same apparent violation of camera placement rules as they were with recording signals. It didn't matter what they filmed, it mattered where they filmed. That's the point.

[Houston Texans 10]

So, because you can't translate a complete thought, I'm dumb?

Yes, you're dumb. I've posted more than once in this thread (as have you). Just because one of the posts didn't contain the words "from the sidelines" doesn't mean I can't translate a complete thought, rather that I assumed I was dealing with people of average intelligence who could follow a conversation. If I referred to "the NFL" in one post, then subsequently referred to "the league," someone of average intelligence would be able to make the connection. I guess my mistake was assuming you had average intelligence. I won't make that mistake again.

 

The problem with the rule as stated, is that it never specifically says that cameras are not allowed on the sidelines. It says "the field" and in many other NFL rules, the term "the field" refers to the playing field. That's the "gray area" that Belichick talked about when he explained why he DIDN'T feel they had cheated.

Holy ######. You're really grasping at straws, aren't you? You really think that BB, or anyone else thought that the league memo was referring to having video recording devices, ON THE ACTUAL PLAYING FIELD? What, was the free safety going to be out there with a camcorder, taping the huddle? Good grief man, are you serious? Just give it up already.

 

They did film hot chicks in the stands, as per Jay Glazer, who actually has copies of some of the tapes. Are you beginning to see how much more I know about this issue than you yet?

No, but I am beginning to suspect that you are either in elementary school, or have serious issues with reading comprehension. I said that that isn't all they filmed, or they wouldn't have been punished as severely as they were.

 

No one is suggesting that's all they filmed, but even if it had been they would have been in the same apparent violation of camera placement rules as they were with recording signals. It didn't matter what they filmed, it mattered where they filmed. That's the point.

No, it's not the point. It's what YOU are trying to make the point, because you know that you can't argue that the Patriots didn't cheat, and you can't make a convincing argument why they stopped being able to win SuperBowls after they were forced to stop cheating.

 

The point is that filming from the sidelines is illegal, and the NFL didn't make that practice illegal because they wanted teams to stop filming hot chicks in the stands. They made it illegal because they felt it was giving a competitive advantage to teams. So, make your ignorant comments about filming hot chicks all you want, but the Pats cheated, and according to Goodell, that cheating went back to 2000. Why in the hell would the Pats cheat during regular season and pre-season games, but not in the playoffs and SuperBowls? The answer is "they wouldn't;" and therefore, the simplest assumption to make is that they cheated during their SuperBowls.

[Houston Texans 10]

I think that his point is that teams were allowed to film the games from certain spots (other than the sidelines, coaches booths) and they were allowed to tape the other team's defensive signals from those (allowed) spots. It sounds like you believe the difference between those locations and the sidelines is enough to make or break a SB season.

What I believe isn't relevant. The NFL believed that it was a big enough issue to forbid the practice. The Patriots did so anyway (going back to 2000, according to Goodell, so during ALL of their SB winning seasons), and were punished for it, severely. Since they've been forced to stop the practice, they haven't been able to win a single SB. You, evidently (and Parrot), choose to believe that's a coincidence. I (and many others without Patriots-tinted homer glasses) do not.

[parrot 789]

No, it's not the point. It's what YOU are trying to make the point, because you know that you can't argue that the Patriots didn't cheat, and you can't make a convincing argument why they stopped being able to win SuperBowls after they were forced to stop cheating.

 

You're just spewing drivel not even worthy of retort at this point, but I will address this last point before kicking your a$$ to the curb: the Patriots won three SuperBowls by three points, lost one by four points, and lost another by three. Games that close can turn on a handful of plays, or fewer throughout the games. In the first three, more of those plays went the Patriots way, in the last two they didn't. The helmet catch is the best example of this truism. Most football fans understand this. Nothing more than that is required by thinking people to understand how those games went the other way.

[Houston Texans 10]

the Patriots won three SuperBowls by three points, lost one by four points, and lost another by three. Games that close can turn on a handful of plays, or fewer throughout the games. In the first three, more of those plays went the Patriots way, in the last two they didn't. The helmet catch is the best example of this truism. Most football fans understand this. Nothing more than that is required by thinking people to understand how those games went the other way.

Excellent! You've finally realized the error of your ways. Since games that close can turn on a handful of plays, illegaly taping your opponents signals, alignments, etc can give you the edge in those handful of plays, allowing them to "go your way." Which would explain why, when the Patriots weren't able to cheat, those plays didn't go your way.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

Excellent! You've finally realized the error of your ways. Since games that close can turn on a handful of plays, illegaly taping your opponents signals, alignments, etc can give you the edge in those handful of plays, allowing them to "go your way." Which would explain why, when the Patriots weren't able to cheat, those plays didn't go your way.

 

I think that I have it all down now. Clearly, the Pats were no longer able to cheat so they couldn't win any more Super Bowls. Based on your logic, we can only assume that the Ravens, Packers, Steelers and, most definitely, the Giants have been cheating and they just haven't been caught yet.

 

That explains why the Saints haven't won since they were caught cheating as well.

[Houston Texans 10]

I think that I have it all down now. Clearly, the Pats were no longer able to cheat so they couldn't win any more Super Bowls. Based on your logic, we can only assume that the Ravens, Packers, Steelers and, most definitely, the Giants have been cheating and they just haven't been caught yet.

 

When, exactly, did the Ravens, Packers, Steelers, & Giants get caught cheating, admit to cheating, and get HUGE penalties for cheating?

 

Let me know when you find that information, umm-kay?

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

When, exactly, did the Ravens, Packers, Steelers, & Giants get caught cheating, admit to cheating, and get HUGE penalties for cheating?

 

Let me know when you find that information, umm-kay?

 

Reading comprehension not your strong suit, huh?

 

Clearly, the Pats were no longer able to cheat so they couldn't win any more Super Bowls. Based on your logic, we can only assume that the Ravens, Packers, Steelers and, most definitely, the Giants have been cheating and they just haven't been caught yet.

[Houston Texans 10]

Reading comprehension not your strong suit, huh?

No, I read just fine. You're comparing apples to oranges. There is no reason to suspect those teams of cheating, just as there was no reason to suspect the Patriots of cheating, BEFORE THEY WERE CAUGHT & ADMITTED TO IT.

 

So, if you want to make a apples to apples comparison, the Saints are the best one (notice I didn't include them in my response). However, the Saints didn't demonstrate a sustained level of SB success before they were caught, while the Patriots did. Furthermore, the Saints haven't demonstrated nearly as long a SB drought as the Pats have.

[R8RMick 242]

Raiders would've still had to go play in Pittsburgh the next week, where incidentally the Pats won as well. Their kicker hit a 45 yarder with snow swirling down sideways to send it into overtime. I have already forgotten about the Tuck Game.

[tikigods 76]

I'm a trolling moron. Sorry for being so stupid...and angry that my team was beaten by a superior Patriots team.

 

I totally agree after wadding through those 8 posts of drivel.

[Houston Texans 10]

I am Bill Belichick's closeted gay lover, and even I know that the Patriots had to cheat to win their SuperBowls. As soon as he got caught, and couldn't cheat any more, he was no more successful than Andy Reid.

 

Wow, tikigods, I'm surprised you finally came clean. Good for you, the first step is admitting you have a problem.

[tikigods 76]

Wow, tikigods, I'm surprised you finally came clean. Good for you, the first step is admitting you have a problem.

 

You're a hopeless interweb troll. I almost feel bad for you. Sometimes I forget what it was like to be a 13 year old, pimple faced kid.

[Houston Texans 10]

I am a hopeless interweb troll. I almost feel like I'm not a complete waste of oxygen when I post on the internet; that's why I post so much stupid stuff. It helps me forget what it is like to be a 13 year old, pimple faced kid.

 

That's okay; one day you'll have a better life, with someone to love you.

 

Of course, you'll probably have to pay her $3.99 a minute over the phone, and she'll actually be a 400 lb man named Harry, but beggars can't be choosers.

[tikigods 76]

That's okay; one day you'll have a better life, with someone to love you.

 

Of course, you'll probably have to pay her $3.99 a minute over the phone, and she'll actually be a 400 lb man named Harry, but beggars can't be choosers.

 

 

You kill me, Clearasil Kid.

 

While you're searching around Club Penguin for a date, can you find that link to the Patriots cheating in the Super Bowl?

 

I'll hang up and wait for your response.

 

Thank you in advance.

[jaxjag 43]

Dude Steelers took roids in 70s when they were totally legal like a protein shake and commonplace and everyone knows that

 

Patriots cheated by doing something illegal and everyone knows it

 

You idiot

 

So, in the interest of gaining an advantage, these guys put something into their body that killed them?

 

And I'm an idiot?

 

Other roid allegations are much more recent "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."

 

Once a cheater, always a cheater.

[murf74 461]

So, in the interest of gaining an advantage, these guys put something into their body that killed them?

 

And I'm an idiot?

 

Other roid allegations are much more recent "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."

 

Once a cheater, always a cheater.

 

Again good thing the Steelers and the rest of the nfl is tested for these substances.

 

Sooooo cheaters can be found and exposed. It keeps my team with a clean slate unlike your Pats who cheat with tapes and guys like Rodney Harrison get busted for HGH or roids, the real deal not some A.D.D. drug that unruly kids take...oh you forgot didnt you

 

You silly clown

[jaxjag 43]

Again good thing the Steelers and the rest of the nfl is tested for these substances.

 

Sooooo cheaters can be found and exposed. It keeps my team with a clean slate unlike your Pats who cheat with tapes and guys like Rodney Harrison get busted for HGH or roids, the real deal not some A.D.D. drug that unruly kids take...oh you forgot didnt you

 

You silly clown

 

Testing only goes so far.

 

Steeler's slate is far from clean - PEDs, dirty hits, SBs tainted by bad calls...

 

You borderline illiterate.