1. Stricter testing WAS put in place after the last round of congressional testimony...the one where they were concerned with the game at large instead of one man. So much so that George Mitchell himself urged MLB not to look to the past to go after the people named in his report. 2. Everyone KNEW baseball had a significant steroid problem. Whether Roger did it or not. If Roger didn't do it....if you had watched his testimony and were sure he didn't do it....would you now think that MLB really didn't have a big problem with it since he didn't do it?? Of course not. 3. Congress needs authority to act. It has zilch in the way of authority here. 4. They have changed on their own. Football enacted strict testing for steroids without Congress calling everyone on the carpet, for example. It's not good enough to say, "if not Congress, who?" Congress isn't the solution to all problems. They're empowered under the Constitution to do the jobs allotted to them. This ain't one of them. My question is who holds Congress accountable? I'm far more concerned with that than whether or not a coach was taping practices. Please. 5. The stadiums are publicly subsidized by state and municipal governments. Not the federal government.
I guess the country is going to come to a screeching halt because one congressman interviewed Roger Goodell for an hour.
1. Yeah, this strict: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=assael_shaun&id=3246071 2. There wasn't enough done the first time. 3. What do you mean? They had enough authority to hold a hearing and most of what was said in that hearing can be used in a criminal court against either Clemons or McNamee. It's not like nothing came out of it. 4. The NFL fortified them AFTER MLB was embarrassed, they didn't want to be next. I would prefer to know that there was more to their cheating than taping the opposing sideline in one game and I think taping practices is a big deal and could have easily affected the outcome of a Super Bowl. 5. What about the public airwaves? Or the fact that we assume sporting competitions are fair and when they're not the culprits are exposed and properly punished?
JumpMan -- You're never going to convince me this is a good use of Congress' time and taxpayer dollars. I'm clearly not gonna convince you the other way.
I'm not sure where I stand on this. On one hand it is entertainment and it would seem that Congress does have more pressing issues to cover. On the other hand, the NFL is a huge, huge multi-billion dollar business that is essentially a monopoly. I think the government does have an interest in making sure they keep things clean.
I think when you add the gambling aspect to it . .. it starts getting worse If I bet . . and lost because belechek Cheated. . . How is that right? Also Because these games cross state lines. . . does that not make it federal? Rocket River
But... I'm confused. Does the NFL have an antitrust exemption or not? I've seen others point out that Congress should not have oversight like they do for baseball for this reason.
Curiouser and Curioser http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/7803236/Walsh's-lawyer-asks-NFL-for-protection?MSNHPHMA Walsh's lawyer asks NFL for protectionAssociated Press Updated: February 15, 2008, 7:41 PM EST 38 comments RSS digg blog email print NEW YORK (AP) - The lawyer for former New England Patriots employee Matt Walsh said his client is willing to turn over videotapes he made for the team if the NFL guarantees Walsh protection from lawsuits or other legal action. Attorney Michael Levy said that to date, the NFL's initial proposals are not sufficient protection for Walsh, who is said to have taped the St. Louis Rams' walkthrough practice the day before they played the Patriots in the 2002 Super Bowl. The Patriots won 20-17. Must-read:Kriegel: The site of tragedy for Jr. Rosenthal: 2008 MLB preview Daytona 500: Get all the latest Sign up for Fantasy baseball! Must-see:Congressman blasts Clemens Watch the Super Bowl commercials For more videos, click here. Must-know:Retired hoopster to save Kidd deal? For all of today's rumors, click here. Top headlines:Sampson probe deadline: 1 week Falcons cut 4-time Pro Bowl TE Kobe has torn finger ligament For all of today's top stories, click here. Worth a thousand words:Westminster Dog Show Bud Shootout in Daytona For more photos, click here. "Under our proposal, Mr. Walsh is only protected if he in good faith is truthful. And he will be," Levy told The Associated Press on Friday in a telephone interview from his office at the Washington law firm of McKee Nelson. "The NFL's proposal is not full indemnification. It is highly conditional and still leaves Mr. Walsh vulnerable. I have asked the NFL to provide Mr. Walsh with the necessary legal protections so that he can come forward with the truth without fear of retaliation and litigation. To best serve the interest of the public and everyone involved, I am hopeful that the NFL will do so promptly." NFL commissioner Roger Goodell has said he's offered Walsh a deal whereby "he has to tell the truth and he has to return anything he took improperly" in return for indemnity. "No one wants to talk to Matt Walsh more than we do," NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said Friday. "But his demand to be released from all responsibility even if his comments are not truthful is unprecedented and unreasonable. The NFL and the Patriots have assured Mr. Walsh's lawyer that there will be no adverse consequences for his client if Mr. Walsh truthfully shares what he knows. Why does he need any more protection than that?" Walsh, now a golf pro in Maui, did video work for the Patriots when they won the first of their three Super Bowl after the 2001 season. Goodell said Walsh was not interviewed as part of the NFL's investigation into "Spygate," which involved the NFL confiscating tapes from a Patriots employee who recorded the New York Jets' defensive signals from the sideline during the opening game of the 2007 season. As a result of that investigation, New England coach Bill Belichick was fined $500,000 and the team was fined $250,000 and forfeited its 2008 first-round draft choice. Six confiscated tapes and other documents pertaining to the Patriots' taping were subsequently destroyed by the league. Goodell has defended the destruction of the tapes. Levy, who is continuing to negotiate with the NFL on Walsh's behalf, also objected to NFL security's investigation of his client. "Sending a former FBI agent to investigate his professional and personal life has not left Mr. Walsh feeling confident that the National Football League simply wants to encourage him to come forward with whatever information he has," Levy said. Goodell met this week with Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter and disclosed for the first time that the taping may have gone back to 2000, when Belichick first became coach of the Patriots. The commissioner said Belichick told him in their meeting last September that he believed the taping was legal. "We agreed to disagree," the commissioner said. Specter, the senior Republican on the Senate Judiciary committee, said after the meeting that he would continue to investigate the taping episodes. He has said he also would like to speak with Walsh. Goodell said he could reopen the investigation. "If there is new information that is credible, new material that could be credible that would help us, yes, we'll look at it," he said. But Eric Holder, a partner in Covington & Burling, the NFL's outside law firm, suggested the NFL might remain reluctant to meet Walsh's current terms. "No responsible investigator would offer blanket immunity to a potential witness without a commitment that the witness will be truthful," Holder said. "Any witness who refuses to make that commitment doesn't deserve immunity."
