Name or eMail
Password
Forgot your password?Reset it
This issue has been approved by whereIstand editors.
This page shows the dialogue between users and editors regarding the merits of this issue. If you have comments about the issue's wording, relevance, etc., write them here. Only registered whereIstand members can edit an issue. Users must register in order to participate in all aspects of the whereIstand community.
whereIstand editor
725 Opinions
64 Followers
Set as news: False
whereIstand admin
705 Opinions
69 Followers
Set as news: True
previous version of issue
Should Arlen Specter investigate the NFL's destruction of video evidence from Spygate?
288 Opinions
14 Followers
Good issue and I think "Spygate" is OK to use as long as "NFL" is also mentioned. (There haven't been any other NFL spying debacles, right?)
This is fine. I think it should produce a nice debate.
550 Opinions
11 Followers
Yeah, I like this issue as well. "Spygate" is fine to use. People know what it is, at least if they're at all in tune with sports.
whereIstand member
107 Opinions
2 Followers
its gonna be the talk of NFL writers once the giants win dies down...it plays right in to the bigger story of last night's game (the Pats loss) -- this offseaosn will have a lot of talk about the Pats and their "fall from perfection" and this will be a big player in the inevitable discussions.
285 Opinions
28 Followers
I like the issue... and while I agree with King that it isn't a "national security" issue, aren't Congressmen supposed to fight for the greater good and well-being of our country? Potential cheating in professional sports going unpunished or uninvestigated seems irresponsible since these teams / leagues set the standard and example for kids everywhere (maybe another issue to discuss on the site???)
My opinion aside though, I think people will weigh-in on this for sure.
Do you think 'Spygate' is okay to use here? At this point, its a term completely associated with the Patriots video spying. type Spygate into your google search bar and you can see for yourself.
Len Pasquerelli says no:
Specter should stick with politics
So does Peter King
If I'm a Pennsylvania citizen, I'm furious that the most important politician in my state is spending time planning a hearing at which Roger Goodell will have to appear to justify why he destroyed the tapes. I'm furious because this is football, not national security. It's absurd that Specter would think this is important enough to put the full force of the U.S. government into attacking it.
Obviously, Specter thinks they should. So does Jay Mariotti:
This explains why Sen. Arlen Specter, the highest-ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, wants a few more answers from Goodell. Scoff, if you will, at the concept of Congress getting involved in a football ethics debate when the world is filled with more critical problems. But not until Congress put baseball on steroids watch three years ago did the earth move, kick-starting a chain reaction that turned the public against juicers, emboldened investgators and journalists and led to the Mitchell Report and perjury indictment of Barry Bonds. Obviously, he didn't do nearly enough homework to know. Enter Congress.
This explains why Sen. Arlen Specter, the highest-ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, wants a few more answers from Goodell. Scoff, if you will, at the concept of Congress getting involved in a football ethics debate when the world is filled with more critical problems. But not until Congress put baseball on steroids watch three years ago did the earth move, kick-starting a chain reaction that turned the public against juicers, emboldened investgators and journalists and led to the Mitchell Report and perjury indictment of Barry Bonds.
Obviously, he didn't do nearly enough homework to know. Enter Congress.
You must be signed in to participate on whereIstand.com.
Register now to take stands, follow people and issues, request opinions and interact with other whereIstand members.