Too many 'gates' spoil the news

It seems these days that every time there is a scandal it is referred to as some kind of 'gate'. There's been loads in the past.

Obviously the first was "Watergate": the "Watergate tapes" revealed conversations which took place in Republican US President Nixon's office, implicating him in attempts to cover up a break-in at the offices of the Democratic National Committee, located in the Watergate building in Washington DC.

A couple of others include:

"Squidgygate" - tapes of the Duchess of York and some bloke who's name escapes me cavorting in some way or another.
"Bloodgate" - the use of the fake blood capsules by Harlequins rugby union team to con the match officials into allowing a player substitution.

If I could be bothered I could come up with a few more, I'm sure - maybe somebody could add some in the comments.

Now there's "Crashgate". This is the story that Formula One team Renault ordered one of their drivers to crash in order to slow down the rest of the field, in order to give a major advantage to their other driver, who went on to win the GP. Later, it transpired that there were tape recordings of the conversations held between the pit crew, team bosses and the driver who crashed. Renault have subsequently stated that they will not contest allegations of race-fixing, so it seems that the tapes are pretty damning.

For me, there's a few lessons to be learned here:

1. It's not a real 'gate' if there's no tape recording
2. If you're going to plan anything dodgy, try not to make a tape recording that can link you to the conspiracy
3. If you work in the media, strictly observe all cliches, no matter how much they gate [sic]