NFL Wants Ability to Destroy Whatever Walsh Turns Over

[MR NFLFAN]

His lawyer has said he has tapes--don't believe me, go look it up. Was in all the stories about 2 weeks ago. Whether it's the SB tape, we'll see. Whoa be you and the Pats* if he does as noted above.

Even if you want to use his lawyer even he hasn't stated Walsh possesed a Rams walk thru tape. I have "tapes"..Tapes of past NE games, tapes of Nascar races..etc.
If you go back and read any article with DIRECT quotes from walsh he dances around answering anything and is mostly concerned with himself and whats in it for him.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3226465
At one point, when the discussion turned to potential evidence, he said, "I'd use it if they came after me. The last thing I need is for people to make a case against me."

During an afternoon tour of the golf course where he works, Walsh stopped and pointed out Black Rock, a cliff where a nightly ritual features a lone figure lifting a torch to salute the sky before plunging into the dark waters, home to the occasional small shark. He used that scene as an analogy to the risk he'd face coming forward with his story.

"That guy is taking a chance jumping into shark-infested waters," Walsh said, motioning toward the cliff. "There'd be nothing to come out of it for me. Be a helluva risk."

He said he does not feel an ethical urge to do what some might perceive as the right thing, to help set the record straight -- either by exposing the Patriots or by depicting them as simply doing what every other team does.

"I'll be honest with you: I can't really be guilted into anything," he said. "Maybe after this whole thing, you don't think I have a conscience because of the people I was exposed to and what they had me doing.

"Really, I just [have] no incentive to really talk to anybody, no reason to do it. For me, personally, I haven't really been able to see the gain in doing it."

Walsh said that during his tenure in New England, no taping was done without (jimmy) Dee's knowledge.

And then this from the globes piece yesterday
http://www.boston.com/sports/footba...03/10/to_some_a_vindictive_videotaper/?page=2

According to individuals familiar with the inquiry by the Patriots, every employee who could have been involved in taping the Rams, including video director Jimmy Dee, assured chief executive Robert Kraft that no one, including Walsh, did so unless the person acted without authorization, used his own video equipment, and never mentioned or showed the recording to anyone else in the organization.

A league source said NFL investigators found two practical reasons why the Patriots could not have used their video equipment to tape the Rams the day before the Super Bowl. First, the team's video crew did not take any battery packs to the Superdome because they planned only to set up the equipment, not to use it. Second, the league confirmed there was no electrical power available at the camera positions in the stadium.

Walsh and his lawyer have not publicly addressed the allegation about the Patriots taping the Rams, but the lawyer has informed the NFL that Walsh possesses materials, presumably videotapes, from his time with the team.

On the press, for anyone following the story it's no secret that the Globe has been carrying the Pats* water on this via Mr. Reiss. for ex., he's the guy they gave the exclusive BB interview with a couple of weeks ago--you only do that to a friendly media outlet (think George Bush and Fox News if you will.) One that doesn't ask pesky questions (like the Globe didn't in that case).

I'm not really sure what you're suggesting? Are you trying to say that the Globe fabricated information printed in their own investigation of Matt Walsh?
You do realize that even if a local paper was team friendly that printing lies would surely leave the globe open for a law suit against the paper?

 

[MattM]

Even if you want to use his lawyer even he hasn't stated Walsh possesed a Rams walk thru tape. I have "tapes"..Tapes of past NE games, tapes of Nascar races..etc.
If you go back and read any article with DIRECT quotes from walsh he dances around answering anything and is mostly concerned with himself and whats in it for him.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3226465
At one point, when the discussion turned to potential evidence, he said, "I'd use it if they came after me. The last thing I need is for people to make a case against me."

During an afternoon tour of the golf course where he works, Walsh stopped and pointed out Black Rock, a cliff where a nightly ritual features a lone figure lifting a torch to salute the sky before plunging into the dark waters, home to the occasional small shark. He used that scene as an analogy to the risk he'd face coming forward with his story.

"That guy is taking a chance jumping into shark-infested waters," Walsh said, motioning toward the cliff. "There'd be nothing to come out of it for me. Be a helluva risk."

He said he does not feel an ethical urge to do what some might perceive as the right thing, to help set the record straight -- either by exposing the Patriots or by depicting them as simply doing what every other team does.

"I'll be honest with you: I can't really be guilted into anything," he said. "Maybe after this whole thing, you don't think I have a conscience because of the people I was exposed to and what they had me doing.

"Really, I just [have] no incentive to really talk to anybody, no reason to do it. For me, personally, I haven't really been able to see the gain in doing it."

Walsh said that during his tenure in New England, no taping was done without (jimmy) Dee's knowledge.

And then this from the globes piece yesterday
http://www.boston.com/sports/footba...03/10/to_some_a_vindictive_videotaper/?page=2

According to individuals familiar with the inquiry by the Patriots, every employee who could have been involved in taping the Rams, including video director Jimmy Dee, assured chief executive Robert Kraft that no one, including Walsh, did so unless the person acted without authorization, used his own video equipment, and never mentioned or showed the recording to anyone else in the organization.

A league source said NFL investigators found two practical reasons why the Patriots could not have used their video equipment to tape the Rams the day before the Super Bowl. First, the team's video crew did not take any battery packs to the Superdome because they planned only to set up the equipment, not to use it. Second, the league confirmed there was no electrical power available at the camera positions in the stadium.

Walsh and his lawyer have not publicly addressed the allegation about the Patriots taping the Rams, but the lawyer has informed the NFL that Walsh possesses materials, presumably videotapes, from his time with the team.









I'm not really sure what you're suggesting? Are you trying to say that the Globe fabricated information printed in their own investigation of Matt Walsh?
You do realize that even if a local paper was team friendly that printing lies would surely leave the globe open for a law suit against the paper?

No, I'm saying that there's definitely a way to spin a story how you'd like it to read (ie., propaganda) and that's what a lot of the Globe article read like--just look at the choice of adjectives and emphasis in the story, for ex. You can selectively state or emphasize some facts over others. In terms of legal action, there are definitely ways you can couch that--using words like "allegedly" can carry you far in that regard, never mind who it is doing the "alleging."

PR firms get paid big bucks to do just this--apparently some journalists may be willing to take some cash on the side as well.....

On some of the other points you've selectively highlighted (see "propaganda" discussion above), what else do you expect now that the Pats* have taken their time to get their stories all straight--after all, if those involved don't hang together, they'll all hang separately, right? Not a surprise that the folks Walsh is accusing of being involved are now denying any responsibility. It's also clear as day that over the last two weeks (again, after taking a couple of weeks to get their stories and strategy straight--notice, no immediate denials in early Feb.) the strategy has become "let's paint this guy as a "lone gunman", so if he has anything we can deny we were involved", which will be a truly laughable defense if it comes to that. That doesn't really fly in terms of the likelihood of a camera guy doing this on his own. Check out this Peter King (usually a Pats* knob gobbler since he grew up rooting for them, but surprisingly unforgiving on Spygate) piece on that point:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/peter_king/02/26/ryan/index.html

It's towards the back.

 

[MR NFLFAN]

No, I'm saying that there's definitely a way to spin a story how you'd like it to read (ie., propaganda) and that's what a lot of the Globe article read like--just look at the choice of adjectives and emphasis in the story, for ex. You can selectively state or emphasize some facts over others. In terms of legal action, there are definitely ways you can couch that--using words like "allegedly" can carry you far in that regard, never mind who it is doing the "alleging."

PR firms get paid big bucks to do just this--apparently some journalists may be willing to take some cash on the side as well.....

On some of the other points you've selectively highlighted (see "propaganda" discussion above), what else do you expect now that the Pats* have taken their time to get their stories all straight--after all, if those involved don't hang together, they'll all hang separately, right? Not a surprise that the folks Walsh is accusing of being involved are now denying any responsibility. It's also clear as day that over the last two weeks (again, after taking a couple of weeks to get their stories and strategy straight--notice, no immediate denials in early Feb.) the strategy has become "let's paint this guy as a "lone gunman", so if he has anything we can deny we were involved", which will be a truly laughable defense if it comes to that. That doesn't really fly in terms of the likelihood of a camera guy doing this on his own. Check out this Peter King (usually a Pats* knob gobbler since he grew up rooting for them, but surprisingly unforgiving on Spygate) piece on that point:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/peter_king/02/26/ryan/index.html

It's towards the back.

So the conspiracy theory lives on. Everyone is lying or is "taking some cash on the side" including all 30 some odd people interviewed? Now that is laughable indeed. I hope you're not laying awake at night to dream this theory up.

Can you even admit that Walsh is a thief or do think these materials he allegedly has just kind of fell into his nap sack by accident?

If he's this believable choir boy just trying to come clean and set the record straight I'd like to hear his reason for stealing these alleged materials back 5 years ago? These actions certainly paint the man as some kind of extortionist/blackmailer because I can't think of any other good reason he would need anything like that.

If you subscribe to this massive conspiracy and cover up which you continually emphsize in your post I'd think any reasonable person would also have to flip the coin and ask those questions also.

Its a fact he was fired from the Patiots and we have heard from Pioli as to why he was which Walshs attorney denied. If he wasn't fired for secretly taping conversations he had with Pioli then what was the real reason he was fired? Ever hear an explaination offered by either walsh or his attorney? Why? What are they hiding? I mean if he was late too often or missed a lot of time or even couldn't run a video camera I don't see those as something to hide.

In everything I've read from you, you try and paint everything said by either the patriots org or the local papers or even ex coworkers of walshs as either lies, propaganda or bought and paid for stories. If all these people are willing to do these acts of cover up and propaganda for money why is it so hard for you to admit its also possible that is what walsh was after in all this. Perhaps this is why we haven't seen anything yet? Perhaps he doesn't really have anything the league doesn't already know about but figured he could spin it like he does and make a quick buck by selling his silence? I don't see that as any more of a stretch than your huge conspiracy theory.

After all of this may God help Matt Walsh if he has no Walk thru tape.

 

[jimmy42jack0]

so ok mr nflfan...say that walsh does have a tape...and its just as disasterous as possible for the organization...what do you think would be a fair punishment for everyone involved including the commissioner...so basically...what do you think the end result will be in say 3 or 4 months time

 

[MR NFLFAN]

so ok mr nflfan...say that walsh does have a tape...and its just as disasterous as possible for the organization...what do you think would be a fair punishment for everyone involved including the commissioner...so basically...what do you think the end result will be in say 3 or 4 months time

It's not up to me to decide what a fair punishment should or would be or am I concerned about it. Whatever happens, happens and the team will have to deal with it.
I haven't ever posted that I felt the original punishment received was unfair or unjust and should this turn out bad for NE I'm not going to then either. What I am concerned about is that the commisioner will use a reasable burden of proof before making a ruling that will have severe consquences against ANY team. I hope and feel that commisioner Goodell will do just that.

I know it won't matter to many fans what the commisioners finding is, even if nothing new comes out in their mind it will just be part of another conspiracy.

3 or 4 months time who knows what the end result will be but i do know what I'd like to see. I'd like to see the league crack down on all the little BS ways of cheating that have gone on forever in the league. NE was caught stealing signals with video tape other have cheated in other ways but in my mind cheating is cheating and it doesn't belong in the NFL PERIOD. Perhaps if this is what it takes to finally clean up the league then it will not all be for nothing.

I think Belichick made a mistake and feel the commisioner made an even bigger one but I understand his reasoning and i don't believe he covered anything up. I think the fox airing of the tape is what really prompted him to destroy what the Patriots gave him not that their was evidence of other types of cheating. I don't believe he was doing anything more than any other CEO would have done he was trying to practice damage control for his business. The league has dealt with many different cheating stunts in the past but they have done it in house and I believe that Goodell wanted to handle this the same way.

Finally I think Arlen Specter got involved in this for his own special interest and that interest wasn't fair and honest games. A Senator and attorney with ties to comcast as deep as Specter has should have turned this over to someone else on the senate judicary committee and stepped back because the man obviously has a conflict of interest which was brought to his attention and he adamently denies. Either way it would have shown us fans a commitment only to fair and honest games if he had. It really has turned into a witch hunt and a media circus and hopefully what will eventually come out of all this is truely fair and honest games league wide.

Thats the best I can do for now. I'm not declaring anyone innocent or guilty or laying out a sentence until I see some further evidence. For now I'm going to keep the horse ahead of the cart.

 

[shula_guy]

All this assumed that he has a tape even though remember he has never said so.It was a rumour from boston hearld so if the tape does not exist then what happens.?

If Walsh does not have legitimate evidence to turn over then he should face criminal charges.

I want the truth as much as the rest of the fans but If I'm in a situation where its one mans word vs anothers you bet each of those individuals credibility are at issue. Call it what you want (i.e. defelction..whatever) but to me if you have shown a past history of deceit and lies I'm not going to just take you at your word. If you want to be believed you'll have to provide someone that can corroborate your story.
I also believe his intentions and how he came to posses the so-called alleged tape/tapes could directly tie into their authenticity. Why do you think the NFL has spent the last 30 days doing a back ground check on Mr walsh? Does that tell you they have confidence that he's a truthful man, because it doesn't make me feel that way.

First he does not need someone who can corrobate his story, he needs to be able to authenticate his materials that he is presenting. He will never be able to corroborate his story unless he secretly taped a conversation which may be the case btw.

The NFL has investigated him looking for dirt to discredit him. It really has nothing to do about the accusations being made it's about saving face for them.

I'll Finish this post later!!!!!

 

[shula_guy]

So anyone who accuses you of something is to believed as long as its not in a courtroom? I think you are wrong about this being tried in the court of public opinion and find your assertions that therefore it doesn't require any burdon of proof as a very simplistic view. Anything less than a reasonable burdon of proof applied to Walsh could very well make this a courtroom case.

That is not what I was saying at all. What I am saying is that unlike in a courtroom, where someone is considered innocent until proven guilty. It is not the case in public oppinion, Barry Bonds is a good example of this. He has not failed any steroids test yet public oppinion has condemned him through his actions and responses or lack of respones to questions he has been asked. Noone can prove he is guilty but there is an asterisk on his ball in the hall of fame.

 

[MR NFLFAN]

If Walsh does not have legitimate evidence to turn over then he should face criminal charges.





First he does not need someone who can corrobate his story, he needs to be able to authenticate his materials that he is presenting. He will never be able to corroborate his story unless he secretly taped a conversation which may be the case btw.

The NFL has investigated him looking for dirt to discredit him. It really has nothing to do about the accusations being made it's about saving face for them.

I'll Finish this post later!!!!!

I'm not sure what you mean by authenticating his materials but I think its going to take more than that.

Think about this.
We know that Walsh had access to video equiptment and the proper access credentials to the super dome. So if he wanted to make a tape on his own for whatever reason he certainly had the means to do so. I'm not saying he did merely acknowledging that fact that it would have been possible.

Showing up with a tape of the rams walk thru doesn't authenticate that Belichick ordered the taping or even knew about a taping.
Walsh wasn't in a director position so if Belichick indeed did order the taping someone above Walsh would have known and then handed the assignment downward.
So What happens if he does produce a walk thru tape and Walsh's boss the director of the video tape dept states he was never ordered to tape a walk thru nor did he authorized walsh to tape a walk thru? I'd like to know what you feel the burden of authentication is?
Weather the tape is a tape of the rams walk thru doesn't answer the question of who authorized the video taping, isn't that what were after?

I ask this question because the director of the video dept has already stated he was never asked by belichick or anyone one else to tape the rams walk thru and that he never asked Walsh or anyone else to tape a walk thru.
Were not even sure there is a tape of a walk thru as Walsh has never stated specifically what his material is.

Authentication is not going to be as easy as walking in there with a tape of a walk thru IMO. That is why I prefer to use the term a reasonable burden of proof, unlike a court of law which would require proof beyond a reasonable doubt. I also disagree with your assessment that because this isn't a court of law that one should not be considered innocent until proven guilty. If you want to accuse me of something then the burden is up to you to prove your accusations.

 

[shula_guy]

I'm not sure what you mean by authenticating his materials but I think its going to take more than that.

Think about this.
We know that Walsh had access to video equiptment and the proper access credentials to the super dome. So if he wanted to make a tape on his own for whatever reason he certainly had the means to do so. I'm not saying he did merely acknowledging that fact that it would have been possible.

Showing up with a tape of the rams walk thru doesn't authenticate that Belichick ordered the taping or even knew about a taping.
Walsh wasn't in a director position so if Belichick indeed did order the taping someone above Walsh would have known and then handed the assignment downward.
So What happens if he does produce a walk thru tape and Walsh's boss the director of the video tape dept states he was never ordered to tape a walk thru nor did he authorized walsh to tape a walk thru? I'd like to know what you feel the burden of authentication is?
Weather the tape is a tape of the rams walk thru doesn't answer the question of who authorized the video taping, isn't that what were after?

I ask this question because the director of the video dept has already stated he was never asked by belichick or anyone one else to tape the rams walk thru and that he never asked Walsh or anyone else to tape a walk thru.
Were not even sure there is a tape of a walk thru as Walsh has never stated specifically what his material is.

Authentication is not going to be as easy as walking in there with a tape of a walk thru IMO. That is why I prefer to use the term a reasonable burden of proof, unlike a court of law which would require proof beyond a reasonable doubt. I also disagree with your assessment that because this isn't a court of law that one should not be considered innocent until proven guilty. If you want to accuse me of something then the burden is up to you to prove your accusations.

I agree with your entire post here. I think it is a little slippery to say if a genuine tape is produced that it wasnt ordered by someone in charge but I do agree you must be able to prove that it was. That is a very tricky thing and you bring up a solid point and I do agree to the term "reasonable proof"

I did not intend to imply that people are considered guily without just cause. What I was trying to say is if it appears like someone is guilty of something, generally public oppinion will fall that way, weather or not it has seal tight evidence to back it up. Is it fair? no! But that is how it is with stuff like this. The fact that evidence was deystroyed will be viewed by many as a guilty plea by the commineer unless he can provide a very convincing explination which he has not done so far.

 

[MR NFLFAN]

I agree with your entire post here. I think it is a little slippery to say if a genuine tape is produced that it wasnt ordered by someone in charge but I do agree you must be able to prove that it was. That is a very tricky thing and you bring up a solid point and I do agree to the term "reasonable proof"


I did not intend to imply that people are considered guily without just cause. What I was trying to say is if it appears like someone is guilty of something, generally public oppinion will fall that way, weather or not it has seal tight evidence to back it up. Is it fair? no! But that is how it is with stuff like this. The fact that evidence was deystroyed will be viewed by many as a guilty plea by the commineer unless he can provide a very convincing explination which he has not done so far.

Good post. shula_guy

It's unfortunate that the commisioner destroyed the tapes at least before some independant party verified their contents. I'm sure in hind sight if he had to do it all over again he'd have had that evidence verified. I didn't expect him to make the tapes public but at the very least he should have made a public statement after all the evidence he had asked for had been turned over with a way to verify he was indeed being truthful. He made a mistake plain and simple on this which leads the public to hold a cloud of doubt over him and his intentions. I'm sure the commisioner wasn't the only one to view those tapes by most likely they were viewed by another member of the league office so it wouldn't help the commisioner's case even if he produced a witness because that person has obvious conflicts of interest.


At this point everyone has their opinion as to what was on those destroyed tapes with Senator Specter fanning the flames of a cover up when the man has not one shred of evidence that a cover up occured. Maybe he doesn't agree with Goodells reasoning for destroying the tapes but then again Senator specter isn't trying to run the big business known as the NFL and as such I can't think of any other billion dollar business that airs their dirty laundry in public.

I feel the public thru the media has been played like a violin by the senator who has an obvious conflict of interest in the matter too boot. With his deep ties to comcast and the well known legal feud between comcast and the NFL he should have turned this matter over to another member of the senate judiciary committee for the sake of ethics. As long as those ties exsist with the Senator and cable giant comcast it will raise just as many questions about senator Specters intentions also. Is he really after fair and honest games or just trying to position himself to strike a deal on behalf of one of his largest campaign contributors? It all stinks in my mind and I hope that there is someway for everything to come out in this which leads to a fair a just ruling one way or the other so we can put it rest.

 

[GreenMts]

There was no federal or civil law broken so why does he think he's entitled to view anything? Just more of the same old Grandstanding from the Senator.....
Its too bad he hasn't put as much time and energy into fixing the social securty system. Your tax dollars at work as usual.

It's his business b/c of the NFLs antitrust exemption - you heard of that, right?

 

[MR NFLFAN]

It's his business b/c of the NFLs antitrust exemption - you heard of that, right?

Well many would disagree with you but Yes I have heard of it and I don't see where the antitrust agreement has been violated in anyway by what happened. Its actually called the sports broadcasting act of 1961.
Heres a copy of it Perhaps you should read it and pin point what part has been violated.
http://www.law.indiana.edu/fclj/pubs/v47/no3/cox.html

Specter uses it as a red herring to threaten the NFL yet I don't see what part of the sports broadcast act of 1961 has been violated. That just leads one to wonder why a senator who's top two campaign contributors (# 2 comcast and #1 the law firm that represent comcast) should even be allowed to be involved in this to begin with. With the legal feud over the last couple of years between cable providers (Comcast included) over broadcast rights to the NFLN clearly it would leave the appearence of a definate conflict of interest of what Senator Specters real motive in this investigation is. Is he after the truth or is this a power play to manipulate the NFL into an agreement that would allow the cable companies to market the NFLN as a pay for tier service? I would think that just the chance of such an underhanded practice could happen would have caused the senator to step away from this and have another member of the senate judicary commitee asigned to this matter.
Why has Specter fought this fight alone? Where are the concerns of the other members of the senate judicary commitee?
I know you all like to make senator specter seem all noble and eveything but the man has a history of manipulating witness in most everything he been involved in. It makes me wonder especially when you follow the money.

 

[Satchboogie]

There was no federal or civil law broken so why does he think he's entitled to view anything? Just more of the same old Grandstanding from the Senator.....
Its too bad he hasn't put as much time and energy into fixing the social securty system. Your tax dollars at work as usual.

Since when did Boston or any Patsie fan care about how tax dollars are spent. You people didn't seem to be too concerned when Boston was stealing and wasting Billions of US tax dollars on that joke you call the Big Dig. Any money Spector spends on investigating this issue will pale in comparison to the money Boston and the State of Mass stole from US taxpayers because of poor engineering and lazy union workers.

As for Spector saving social security. They have tried. Private Accounts. But your boy Teddy thinks that government knows how to handle my money better than I do.

 

[MR NFLFAN]

Since when did Boston or any Patsie fan care about how tax dollars are spent. You people didn't seem to be too concerned when Boston was stealing and wasting Billions of US tax dollars on that joke you call the Big Dig. Any money Spector spends on investigating this issue will pale in comparison to the money Boston and the State of Mass stole from US taxpayers because of poor engineering and lazy union workers.

As for Spector saving social security. They have tried. Private Accounts. But your boy Teddy thinks that government knows how to handle my money better than I do.

Here's a little hint for you NE is actually made up of six states and along with those six states the Patriots also have many fans nationwide.
Since when are all pats fans from Boston? Nice try to deflect the subject but I'm not from Mass. nor am I living in Mass.
So back to he original statement which you seem to think wasn't correct. Exactly what law was broken and why is the goverment even involved? I've read the Football Broadcasting act of 1961 the so-called anti trust law and fail to see what that has to do with breaking the video taping rule.

 

[MattM]

I agree with your entire post here. I think it is a little slippery to say if a genuine tape is produced that it wasnt ordered by someone in charge but I do agree you must be able to prove that it was. That is a very tricky thing and you bring up a solid point and I do agree to the term "reasonable proof"

I did not intend to imply that people are considered guily without just cause. What I was trying to say is if it appears like someone is guilty of something, generally public oppinion will fall that way, weather or not it has seal tight evidence to back it up. Is it fair? no! But that is how it is with stuff like this. The fact that evidence was deystroyed will be viewed by many as a guilty plea by the commineer unless he can provide a very convincing explination which he has not done so far.

I've said about all I can on this topic, but one last thing to Mr. NFL Fan--if Walsh does have a walkthrough tape of the Rams SB (which no one but Walsh currently knows whether he does or not), the Pats* can spin it all they want but no one outside of Boston will believe that he was acting alone in producing it. End of story. If the Commissioner "chooses to believe" the Pats* that Walsh was a "lone gunman" in such a case, there will be heck to pay with the NFL fanbase all over the League and it will show the League is about as straight as the WWF.....