It's official: Specter is abusing his red challenge subpoena privileges.

Specter came up with the single-bullet theory, so he isn't quick to give in to conspiracies.

"It certainly isn't a government agency nor is it even a publicly-held company."

Considering how much tax money is used to fund new stadiums that could be better used on a city's infrastructure, I don't see why the government shouldn't look into it. It took Congress' involvement to get MLB to begin to clean itself up. btw, Green Bay is publicly held, so are the rules going to be different if they come under suspicion?

"They paid a fairly hefty price for their transgressions."

Disagree. The dollar amount is a mere blip in Kraft's ledger, and if they were being penalized a draft pick, it should be the higher one.

"Maybe that's why Goodell keeps stiff-arming Specter"

How often do the innocent stiff-arm authority figures? People who act like they have something to hide usually do.

Just because you are willing to keep your head in the sand based on Goodell's word, who obviously has a stake in the outcome, doesn't mean others don't have a valid concern about the integrity of sports and its erosion.

The Packers are a publicly-held non-profit organization, with shareholders (over 4 million) but the league is not a public entity, which is my point. Congress getting involved in illegal steroids, in context, creates all sorts of issues, including public health issues. And whether or not you or me thinks the Patriots paid a high enough price, the point is that they were docked a first round pick and Belichick personally was fined $500,000, a fair amount of money. My point, ultimately, is not that anyone needs to take Goodell's word on this, it's just that it's not the business of a U.S. Senator to grind a personal ax with the league and use his office to do so. It's an abuse of power and anyone should have the right to stand up to it.

"Considering how much tax money is used to fund new stadiums that could be better used on a city's infrastructure, I don't see why the government shouldn't look into it."

Shouldn't it be the local government's jurisdiction then, since it's local tax dollars (I think) that go toward these stadiums?

"The Packers are a publicly-held non-profit organization, with shareholders (over 4 million) but the league is not a public entity, which is my point."

Yes, but since you used "publicly held" as the standard, it prompted my question.

"Belichick personally was fined $500,000"

Have you seen a checkstub because I would need some proof before I believe that one?

"Shouldn't it be the local government's jurisdiction then"

They certainly should have a say in the matter, and while I am not a lawyer, I would think that since the antitrust exemption was granted at the federal level, they should have some oversight into how the NFL conducts its business. The NFL could always give back the exemption if they don't like how they are being treated.

I have no idea if the Patriots cheated or how serious an offense it was, but I see no reason why Goddell's word should be trusted if he refuses to allow it to be verified since he has a stake in the outcome. If there's nothing to hide, then show people and stop allowing it to drag on.

you are critical of a sports talk host's knowledge then call matt walsh -mike walsh?

This guy is wrong. First, his self promoting comments on sports talk radio hosts having nothing more than the casual fans knowledge are ridiculous. That is the point! Fans usually don't have intimate knowledge of the sports they watch and sports talk shows break down information so the fan can understand it.

Second his comments on Jets season tickets being a bad investment make me laugh. Last I checked, the Browns play in Cleveland and except for last year, they have been awful for some time.

Finally, the argument that the NFL is not a public company is the argument of a man with short sight. To that I ask:

1. How many people watched the Superbowl last year?
2. How many public businesses would be affected should the integrity of the game crumble the same level as the word of Roger Clemens?

Travis: I'd agree in theory that sports talk show hosts should be able to break down a particular sport based on their intimate knowledge, but most can't, at least at the local level. The national hosts tend to be better, but not always. Second, not to get into a whole this team is better than that team sort of thing, the Jets winning percentage since 1960 (when they began) is .454. The Browns winning percentage since 1946 is .564. In fact, by quick glance, only three franchises (the Bears, the Cowboys and the Dolphins) have higher winning percentages. The only point is that the Jets would have to go undefeated for the next 4 1/2 seasons just to get to .500 as a franchise. That may not seem like a lousy investment to you, but I suspect others might see it otherwise. Finally, whether or not the public is interested in what the NFL does is not the same as the NFL being a public company.

While I appreciate your ability to put whatever spin you would like on the Brown's v. Jet's investment. Let us be slightly more realistic with the time frame we use. In the last 10 seasons the Jets have had 4 winning seasons and the Browns 2. Furthermore, the Patriot's have a win/loss percentage of .512, which is also less than the Brown's. Did those season ticket holders make a bad investment? Finally, who has more Lombardi trophies, the Jets or the Browns? Hell even Tampa with thier .393 win/loss percentage have a championship.

Travis: the worth of any investment is in the eye of the beholder. I didn't suggest in the original piece that the Browns were a better investment anyway. Whether or not you or me or anyone thinks the Jets season tickets are a good investment really isn't the point anyway. Simply making that investment doesn't give an individual like Greenberg any special privileges into the NFL front offices, which was his point.

exactly lenny. gary, edit your post. MATT walsh is his name. maybe bloggers dont have to be as smart as radio guys. they can say anything they want without getting facts correct because no one reads them. sadly i wish i had the last 3 minutes of my life back

Lenny/Skip: It was an editing error for which I take full responsibility. I'll work on getting it corrected. We're all well aware his name is Matt Walsh, but you two are correct for pointing out the error.

Gary - you nailed it!! Nice job.

Just follow the money...

Spector is the best Senator that Comcast money can buy and they, along with ESPN, are all about the Comcast versus NFL Network war.

Walsh is just a pawn in their bigger game hungting.

"Disagree. The dollar amount is a mere blip in Kraft's ledger, and if they were being penalized a draft pick, it should be the higher one."

The fines were far larger, and the draft pick higher, than the penalties given the Broncos for their violation of the salary cap, which was just as damaging if not more so.

As for why the Pats didn't lose the #7 pick--which I'm sure a lot of people would _love_ to see--the way I understand it, NFL rules forbid them from taking it away, since the Patriots acquired it by trading away their own first in 2007; it'd be like going back in time, in essence. [The NFL also prohibits the Commissioner--or anyone else, for that matter--from declaring a forfeit unless a team refuses/is unable to take the field.]

i'm with you gary. everyone is missing the point here, that people like Sen. Specter have far more significant work they should be doing than digging into the taping issue beyond what the league has already done.

You're all edited up, too.