Amani Toomer is not the first person to say that the three Super Bowls the Patriots won are tainted because of Spygate. He won’t be the last to say it, either. Many people have said the Patriots have to prove they can win a championship without videotaping opponents’ signals, whether videotaping led directly to their wins in Super Bowls 36, 38, and 39 or not. There are even people who believe the Pats went 18-1 rather than 19-0 because they could not videotape their opponent. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but Toomer’s logic about the Patriots needing an asterisk next to their three Super Bowl victories is ridiculous. I’ll let you listen before sharing my opinion. Here is the clip of Toomer on The Jim Rome Show discussing the Patriots’ legacy:
Toomer saying the Patriots cheated is one thing. If you believe they only won three Super Bowls because they broke the rules, that’s fine. It’s at the 1:10 mark that his reasoning becomes absurd. If the Patriots cheated to win three Super Bowls, they cheated to win three Super Bowls. How does it make sense that winning one in the “post Spygate” era with a completely different team would validate the first three?
I’m not saying the first three are invalid, but Toomer’s assertion that winning on Sunday would mean the Patriots could argue they “probably would have won (the others) anyway” is just idiotic. You either believe the Patriots won as a result of cheating, or you don’t. Whether they win or lose Super Bowl 46 should not influence your opinion.
