FOX Sports is reporting Pats taped practice (1 Viewer)

[fatness]

NFL commissioner Roger Goodell has said he's offered Walsh a deal whereby "he has to tell the truth and he has to return anything he took improperly" in return for indemnity.

This is the NFL offer, as reported. What does Mr. Walsh need beyond what has been offered? The lawyer calling this "highly conditional" is curious. Again, if you have the goods and the truth, why is this not an acceptable offer?

Both sides agree Walsh telling the truth has to be part of it.Walsh's lawyer says the NFL hasn't offered indemnity. The NFL says they have. What is likely here is that the NFL has said "we won't sue you or try to have you prosecuted." And that Walsh's attorney wants the NFL to also include protection from lawsuits by the Patriots, any individual coaches or players or fans, or anyone else; and defense against criminal charges if any arise.Walsh isn't going to give the NFL the tapes and information if all they'll do is say "thanks, we won't sue or prosecute you", and leave him wide open as a target for anyone else.

 

[SeniorVBDStudent]

NFL commissioner Roger Goodell has said he's offered Walsh a deal whereby "he has to tell the truth and he has to return anything he took improperly" in return for indemnity.

This is the NFL offer, as reported. What does Mr. Walsh need beyond what has been offered? The lawyer calling this "highly conditional" is curious. Again, if you have the goods and the truth, why is this not an acceptable offer?

Both sides agree Walsh telling the truth has to be part of it.Walsh's lawyer says the NFL hasn't offered indemnity. The NFL says they have. What is likely here is that the NFL has said "we won't sue you or try to have you prosecuted." And that Walsh's attorney wants the NFL to also include protection from lawsuits by the Patriots, any individual coaches or players or fans, or anyone else; and defense against criminal charges if any arise.Walsh isn't going to give the NFL the tapes and information if all they'll do is say "thanks, we won't sue or prosecute you", and leave him wide open as a target for anyone else.

Weak. Walsh hasn't got jack.

 

[GregR_2]

The reason so many people think Walsh is a true story is:

1) Patriots were caught illegally videotaping opponents

2) Walsh was a video guy for the Pats

3) Walsh is going to hand over the tapes once the lawyers finish all the stipulations as I think Walsh probably can't talk about the inner workings of his past employer without legal consequences

Pretty clear cut...he has tapes now what is on them is the question. But he isn't going to come forward like this if he didn't have the tapes. That's pretty much a point to agree on don't you think?

What could get the Pats in serious hot water is that they said the disclosed everything. If Walsh has something new...it's a huge problem for the organization as it will show they covered up, hid or destroyed evidence.

The question is what stipulation needs to be worked out beyond telling the truth. If he is the star witness with the goods, why is telling the truth a condition that is not acceptable?



I would think that he wouldn't come forward without having something, but then again, I would have thought Roger Clemens would have backed off his "I didn't do it" statements before he perjured himself in front of Congress. Sometimes you get the story ahead of where you want it to be.

I'm waiting for this to play out. I will believe when he comes forward and produces something. Then I'll draw my conclusions from the facts as we know them, rather than speculation.

It isn't an issue about truth as much as it is about good faith vs bad faith. He wants to be protected if what he offers is in good faith, i.e. if he honestly believes it to be true. According to his lawyers this is standard in these type of agreements, but wasn't included in the NFL's offer.He is not asking, that I've seen, to be protected if he offers something in bad faith, i.e. knowingly lies or is dishonest.

So as a hypothetical, if Walsh was told that employee X took some role in the matter and tells the NFL as much (in good faith), but it turns out employee X wasn't involved, Walsh would not be protected by the current NFL offer in a defamation of character lawsuit. He wants protection in that sort of instance.

If Walsh knew employee X did not play a role in it, but knowingly lied and said he did, then if that was shown in the defamation of character lawsuit he would not be protected even by the agreement his side is seeking from the NFL.

 

[Road Warriors]

The reason so many people think Walsh is a true story is:

1) Patriots were caught illegally videotaping opponents

2) Walsh was a video guy for the Pats

3) Walsh is going to hand over the tapes once the lawyers finish all the stipulations as I think Walsh probably can't talk about the inner workings of his past employer without legal consequences

Pretty clear cut...he has tapes now what is on them is the question. But he isn't going to come forward like this if he didn't have the tapes. That's pretty much a point to agree on don't you think?

What could get the Pats in serious hot water is that they said the disclosed everything. If Walsh has something new...it's a huge problem for the organization as it will show they covered up, hid or destroyed evidence.

The question is what stipulation needs to be worked out beyond telling the truth. If he is the star witness with the goods, why is telling the truth a condition that is not acceptable?



I would think that he wouldn't come forward without having something, but then again, I would have thought Roger Clemens would have backed off his "I didn't do it" statements before he perjured himself in front of Congress. Sometimes you get the story ahead of where you want it to be.

I'm waiting for this to play out. I will believe when he comes forward and produces something. Then I'll draw my conclusions from the facts as we know them, rather than speculation.

It isn't an issue about truth as much as it is about good faith vs bad faith. He wants to be protected if what he offers is in good faith, i.e. if he honestly believes it to be true. According to his lawyers this is standard in these type of agreements, but wasn't included in the NFL's offer.He is not asking, that I've seen, to be protected if he offers something in bad faith, i.e. knowingly lies or is dishonest.

So as a hypothetical, if Walsh was told that employee X took some role in the matter and tells the NFL as much (in good faith), but it turns out employee X wasn't involved, Walsh would not be protected by the current NFL offer in a defamation of character lawsuit. He wants protection in that sort of instance.

If Walsh knew employee X did not play a role in it, but knowingly lied and said he did, then if that was shown in the defamation of character lawsuit he would not be protected even by the agreement his side is seeking from the NFL.

Solid explanation. I would hope, with all the hoopla, that what Walsh has to offer is more than some second hand account that may or may not be true, even if he believes it to be true. IMO, if he doesn't have absolute, direct knowledge and proof of wrongdoing, this entire process is suspect.

 

[Road Warriors]

NFL commissioner Roger Goodell has said he's offered Walsh a deal whereby "he has to tell the truth and he has to return anything he took improperly" in return for indemnity.

This is the NFL offer, as reported. What does Mr. Walsh need beyond what has been offered? The lawyer calling this "highly conditional" is curious. Again, if you have the goods and the truth, why is this not an acceptable offer?

Both sides agree Walsh telling the truth has to be part of it.Walsh's lawyer says the NFL hasn't offered indemnity. The NFL says they have. What is likely here is that the NFL has said "we won't sue you or try to have you prosecuted." And that Walsh's attorney wants the NFL to also include protection from lawsuits by the Patriots, any individual coaches or players or fans, or anyone else; and defense against criminal charges if any arise.Walsh isn't going to give the NFL the tapes and information if all they'll do is say "thanks, we won't sue or prosecute you", and leave him wide open as a target for anyone else.

I could be wrong here, but I believe the NFL offer would cover both league action and anything from the Patriots, as well. Does anyone have any information to the contrary on that?

 

[David Yudkin]

NFL commissioner Roger Goodell has said he's offered Walsh a deal whereby "he has to tell the truth and he has to return anything he took improperly" in return for indemnity.

This is the NFL offer, as reported. What does Mr. Walsh need beyond what has been offered? The lawyer calling this "highly conditional" is curious. Again, if you have the goods and the truth, why is this not an acceptable offer?

Both sides agree Walsh telling the truth has to be part of it.Walsh's lawyer says the NFL hasn't offered indemnity. The NFL says they have. What is likely here is that the NFL has said "we won't sue you or try to have you prosecuted." And that Walsh's attorney wants the NFL to also include protection from lawsuits by the Patriots, any individual coaches or players or fans, or anyone else; and defense against criminal charges if any arise.Walsh isn't going to give the NFL the tapes and information if all they'll do is say "thanks, we won't sue or prosecute you", and leave him wide open as a target for anyone else.

I could be wrong here, but I believe the NFL offer would cover both league action and anything from the Patriots, as well. Does anyone have any information to the contrary on that?

I am not sure that there could be an agreement that covers everything 100%. For example, if Walsh said he taped the Rams as instructed by Tom Brady and it turns out to be untrue, even if the NFL and NE had an agreement I am not sure that Brady couldn't sue him.I think Walsh is looking for someone to cover his legal fees and penalties 100% no matter what happens from whomever would come after him.

 

[Sinn Fein]

NFL commissioner Roger Goodell has said he's offered Walsh a deal whereby "he has to tell the truth and he has to return anything he took improperly" in return for indemnity.

This is the NFL offer, as reported. What does Mr. Walsh need beyond what has been offered? The lawyer calling this "highly conditional" is curious. Again, if you have the goods and the truth, why is this not an acceptable offer?

Both sides agree Walsh telling the truth has to be part of it.Walsh's lawyer says the NFL hasn't offered indemnity. The NFL says they have. What is likely here is that the NFL has said "we won't sue you or try to have you prosecuted." And that Walsh's attorney wants the NFL to also include protection from lawsuits by the Patriots, any individual coaches or players or fans, or anyone else; and defense against criminal charges if any arise.Walsh isn't going to give the NFL the tapes and information if all they'll do is say "thanks, we won't sue or prosecute you", and leave him wide open as a target for anyone else.

I could be wrong here, but I believe the NFL offer would cover both league action and anything from the Patriots, as well. Does anyone have any information to the contrary on that?

The issue revolves around "truth" The Patriots say Walsh is lying - they could sue - even if he is telling the truth. It is very costly to defend a lawsuit brought by an NFL team.The longer this drags out, the worse it is on the NFL and Patriots. They need to simply say - we give you full immunity - see what Walsh has, and then give their side of the story and let the chips fall where they may.Of course, with the NFL's track record, it might not be a great idea to turn over all the evidence!!

 

[GregR_2]

The reason so many people think Walsh is a true story is:

1) Patriots were caught illegally videotaping opponents

2) Walsh was a video guy for the Pats

3) Walsh is going to hand over the tapes once the lawyers finish all the stipulations as I think Walsh probably can't talk about the inner workings of his past employer without legal consequences

Pretty clear cut...he has tapes now what is on them is the question. But he isn't going to come forward like this if he didn't have the tapes. That's pretty much a point to agree on don't you think?

What could get the Pats in serious hot water is that they said the disclosed everything. If Walsh has something new...it's a huge problem for the organization as it will show they covered up, hid or destroyed evidence.

The question is what stipulation needs to be worked out beyond telling the truth. If he is the star witness with the goods, why is telling the truth a condition that is not acceptable?



I would think that he wouldn't come forward without having something, but then again, I would have thought Roger Clemens would have backed off his "I didn't do it" statements before he perjured himself in front of Congress. Sometimes you get the story ahead of where you want it to be.

I'm waiting for this to play out. I will believe when he comes forward and produces something. Then I'll draw my conclusions from the facts as we know them, rather than speculation.

It isn't an issue about truth as much as it is about good faith vs bad faith. He wants to be protected if what he offers is in good faith, i.e. if he honestly believes it to be true. According to his lawyers this is standard in these type of agreements, but wasn't included in the NFL's offer.He is not asking, that I've seen, to be protected if he offers something in bad faith, i.e. knowingly lies or is dishonest.

So as a hypothetical, if Walsh was told that employee X took some role in the matter and tells the NFL as much (in good faith), but it turns out employee X wasn't involved, Walsh would not be protected by the current NFL offer in a defamation of character lawsuit. He wants protection in that sort of instance.

If Walsh knew employee X did not play a role in it, but knowingly lied and said he did, then if that was shown in the defamation of character lawsuit he would not be protected even by the agreement his side is seeking from the NFL.

Solid explanation. I would hope, with all the hoopla, that what Walsh has to offer is more than some second hand account that may or may not be true, even if he believes it to be true. IMO, if he doesn't have absolute, direct knowledge and proof of wrongdoing, this entire process is suspect.

I completely agree that I want whatever comes out to be definitive. Even with thinking BB is a scumbag of a person, I'd just as soon not have a team stoop to the level of cheating that taping other team's practices/walk throughs/etc would entail. If the Pats (or any team) have done that I want them caught. But I'd prefer that no one including BB have done it... and I'd rather the matter get cleared up either way than be left with more doubt.

 

[fatness]

I could be wrong here, but I believe the NFL offer would cover both league action and anything from the Patriots, as well. Does anyone have any information to the contrary on that?

I may be wrong on that as well. I posted that right before I found the 2 different indemnity provisions (one proposed by the NFL, one proposed by Walsh's lawyer) on the right hand side of This ESPN articleAccording to that article, and according to some analysis at PFT, the difference between the 2 seems to center on whether Walsh testifies "in good faith", and not on whom the action would be coming from.

As we see it, the sticking point is the league's insistence on "truthfulness" from Mr. Walsh. But truthfulness is in the eye of the beholder. As to Roger Clemens, Andy Pettitte technically isn't being "truthful" regarding Pettitte's Congressional testimony that Clemens admitted to using HGH. Though Clemens isn't inclined to call his good friend Pettitte a liar, Clemens could have taken that approach, if he had so elected.

In this case, a reasonable reading of the indemnity language exchanged by the parties could cause a reasonable person to believe that the NFL and/or the Patriots are prepared to label anything and everything Walsh says as untruthful, even if he genuinely and in good faith believes his statement. Indeed, the Pats already have denied flatly any cheating in conjunction with Super Bowl XXXVI. So if Walsh says that he videotaped the Rams' walk-through (and if he doesn't have the tape to back it up), his version would instantly be called "untruthful" by the entity whose interests would be most clearly affected if what Walsh says is true.

In our view, "good faith" is the key. Walsh is willing to sacrifice indemnity upon a finding that any alleged untruthfulness was the product of bad faith on his part. In other words, he can be sued -- successfully -- if there's a finding that his statements to Senator Specter are made in bad faith. It's not full indemnity, and it exposes Walsh to litigation based on a contention that he's a disgruntled employee who stole sensitive materials in the hopes of later selling them to other teams, blackmailing the Patriots, and/or simply causing trouble when the opportunity to do so ever might arise.

But he would be shielded from a pissing match over who's right and who's wrong, with the NFL and/or the Pats potentially taking the position that if Walsh is simply incorrect it necessarily means that he's lying, and thus exposed to liability for his words, or his past actions in retaining club property.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Why are some arguing that the cheating didn't make that much of an impact, or that everyone else is doing it? How does that validate cheating. Cheating is wrong period. If everyone else is doing it and you get busted....well your bad....If I steal a bag of candy from Walmart they have the right to punish me no matter how cheap the candy was. It doesn't matter if 10 other folks stole and got away with it...if I do it and get caught I may have to pay the consequences.Cheating is cheating period........

Fair enough. But this violation isn't stealing, assault or murder. I'd liken it to jaywalking. You are allowed to cross the street, but you if you choose not to cross in the crosswalk, you've violated a law. I really like the analogy, because jaywalking is rarely enforced, everyone brushes it aside as no big deal. But occasionally, you may find an enforcment officer that sees the infraction and issues the ticket. The Patriots violation was the method in which the collected the information. As Goodell has stated, when looking through the notes collected by the Patriots, that he couldn't tell if the information was obtained legally or not. If it is possible that these detailed notes of other coaches can be obtained legally, then the information was not the violation... just the method of collecting it.Think of it this way, a cop tells you to stop crossing the street out of the crosswalk. You then cross the street out of the crosswalk right in front of him. What's going to happen?

do you get dizzy with all this spinning

Let me try that analogy. Having money is legal because you can get it from having a job.Bank robberies also produce money.Not really a big deal since money possession is legal, but sometimes hypersensitive types still insist on enforcing the letter of the law.

 

[Road Warriors]

Why are some arguing that the cheating didn't make that much of an impact, or that everyone else is doing it? How does that validate cheating. Cheating is wrong period. If everyone else is doing it and you get busted....well your bad....If I steal a bag of candy from Walmart they have the right to punish me no matter how cheap the candy was. It doesn't matter if 10 other folks stole and got away with it...if I do it and get caught I may have to pay the consequences.Cheating is cheating period........

Fair enough. But this violation isn't stealing, assault or murder. I'd liken it to jaywalking. You are allowed to cross the street, but you if you choose not to cross in the crosswalk, you've violated a law. I really like the analogy, because jaywalking is rarely enforced, everyone brushes it aside as no big deal. But occasionally, you may find an enforcment officer that sees the infraction and issues the ticket. The Patriots violation was the method in which the collected the information. As Goodell has stated, when looking through the notes collected by the Patriots, that he couldn't tell if the information was obtained legally or not. If it is possible that these detailed notes of other coaches can be obtained legally, then the information was not the violation... just the method of collecting it.Think of it this way, a cop tells you to stop crossing the street out of the crosswalk. You then cross the street out of the crosswalk right in front of him. What's going to happen?

do you get dizzy with all this spinning

Let me try that analogy. Having money is legal because you can get it from having a job.Bank robberies also produce money.Not really a big deal since money possession is legal, but sometimes hypersensitive types still insist on enforcing the letter of the law.

Nice try... but not really that close an analogy, IMO. See, in my analogy, the action is the same... crossing the street. In one location, its legal. In another, its not.I don't believe there are any times or ways that bank robbery is legal. HTH.Is the violation the location of the camera or not? If it is, this is overblown. If its not, and I've misread the rules, please point me to the clearly stated rule violated that states "You can not videotape opponents coach's signals" with no additional conditions.

 

[JohnnyU]

NFL commissioner Roger Goodell has said he's offered Walsh a deal whereby "he has to tell the truth and he has to return anything he took improperly" in return for indemnity.

This is the NFL offer, as reported. What does Mr. Walsh need beyond what has been offered? The lawyer calling this "highly conditional" is curious. Again, if you have the goods and the truth, why is this not an acceptable offer?

Both sides agree Walsh telling the truth has to be part of it.Walsh's lawyer says the NFL hasn't offered indemnity. The NFL says they have.

What is likely here is that the NFL has said "we won't sue you or try to have you prosecuted." And that Walsh's attorney wants the NFL to also include protection from lawsuits by the Patriots, any individual coaches or players or fans, or anyone else; and defense against criminal charges if any arise.

Walsh isn't going to give the NFL the tapes and information if all they'll do is say "thanks, we won't sue or prosecute you", and leave him wide open as a target for anyone else.

Weak. Walsh hasn't got jack.

Sorry if this has already been posted -NFL Headlines

Walsh has tapes, willing to turn them over

Michael Levy, the attorney for former Patriots employee Matt Walsh, said his client is willing to turn over videotapes he made for the team if the NFL guarantees legal protection.

Currently, Levy and the NFL are not seeing eye-to-eye on the finer points of Walsh's legal protection. Meanwhile, Former Ram's player Willie Gary has filed a $100 million dollar lawsuit against the Patriots organization for taping the Rams practices before the 2002 Super Bowl. This story is not going away any time soon. Feb. 16 - 8:52 am et

 

[Filthy]

The question is what stipulation needs to be worked out beyond telling the truth. If he is the star witness with the goods, why is telling the truth a condition that is not acceptable?

From the article, that condition is acceptable to him. Dave Goldberg's article for Associated Press

"Under our proposal, Mr. Walsh is only protected if he in good faith is truthful. And he will be," Levy told The Associated Press on Friday in a telephone interview from his office at the Washington law firm of McKee Nelson.

The question is what protection is Walsh asking for through his lawyer that the NFL will not provide:

"The NFL's proposal is not full indemnification. It is highly conditional and still leaves Mr. Walsh vulnerable. I have asked the NFL to provide Mr. Walsh with the necessary legal protections so that he can come forward with the truth without fear of retaliation and litigation. To best serve the interest of the public and everyone involved, I am hopeful that the NFL will do so promptly."

Then there's the second issue of the NFL wanting all his tapes turned over. I assume that means they'll be destroyed. I'm not sure if Walsh (or the public or Congress) wants that to happen.

Bingo! Fantastic point. Goddell wants ALL that material to be destroyed then it's anyone's guess what will be released to the public this time. Last time it was 'just 2006'. If the Rams walkthrough is on those tapes, I can guarantee you we'll NEVER know if Goddell and the NFL alone gets the material.

Anyone want to venture a guess why this guy held onto this material for so long? A couple things come to mind. Either he saw it as a money making opportunity in the future because he KNEW it was illegal (tell all book about the Pats or just extortion of BB) or for insurance in case some unforeseen problem arose.

Either way, Kraft HAS to be considering letting BB go and cut his losses.

 

[Pygmy Marmoset]

Why are some arguing that the cheating didn't make that much of an impact, or that everyone else is doing it? How does that validate cheating. Cheating is wrong period. If everyone else is doing it and you get busted....well your bad....If I steal a bag of candy from Walmart they have the right to punish me no matter how cheap the candy was. It doesn't matter if 10 other folks stole and got away with it...if I do it and get caught I may have to pay the consequences.Cheating is cheating period........

Fair enough. But this violation isn't stealing, assault or murder. I'd liken it to jaywalking. You are allowed to cross the street, but you if you choose not to cross in the crosswalk, you've violated a law. I really like the analogy, because jaywalking is rarely enforced, everyone brushes it aside as no big deal. But occasionally, you may find an enforcment officer that sees the infraction and issues the ticket. The Patriots violation was the method in which the collected the information. As Goodell has stated, when looking through the notes collected by the Patriots, that he couldn't tell if the information was obtained legally or not. If it is possible that these detailed notes of other coaches can be obtained legally, then the information was not the violation... just the method of collecting it.Think of it this way, a cop tells you to stop crossing the street out of the crosswalk. You then cross the street out of the crosswalk right in front of him. What's going to happen?

I think of it more as the SEC. You're allowed to do all of the information gathering that you'd like to in trying to decide which securities to invest in. But when you engage in insider trading, you should be drawn and quartered publicly, even though most - if not all - of the information is just the same as what you'd get if you went ahead and put in all the research time to ferret it out without resorting to illegal means.

 

[kevinray]

Why are some arguing that the cheating didn't make that much of an impact, or that everyone else is doing it? How does that validate cheating. Cheating is wrong period. If everyone else is doing it and you get busted....well your bad....If I steal a bag of candy from Walmart they have the right to punish me no matter how cheap the candy was. It doesn't matter if 10 other folks stole and got away with it...if I do it and get caught I may have to pay the consequences.Cheating is cheating period........

Fair enough. But this violation isn't stealing, assault or murder. I'd liken it to jaywalking. You are allowed to cross the street, but you if you choose not to cross in the crosswalk, you've violated a law. I really like the analogy, because jaywalking is rarely enforced, everyone brushes it aside as no big deal. But occasionally, you may find an enforcment officer that sees the infraction and issues the ticket. The Patriots violation was the method in which the collected the information. As Goodell has stated, when looking through the notes collected by the Patriots, that he couldn't tell if the information was obtained legally or not. If it is possible that these detailed notes of other coaches can be obtained legally, then the information was not the violation... just the method of collecting it.Think of it this way, a cop tells you to stop crossing the street out of the crosswalk. You then cross the street out of the crosswalk right in front of him. What's going to happen?

I think of it more as the SEC. You're allowed to do all of the information gathering that you'd like to in trying to decide which securities to invest in. But when you engage in insider trading, you should be drawn and quartered publicly, even though most - if not all - of the information is just the same as what you'd get if you went ahead and put in all the research time to ferret it out without resorting to illegal means.

I think the advantage of insider trading is significantly greater then the spygate situation. In business and the stock exchange early information can mean millions and significantly reduces the risk of the stock exchange. It heavily favors people close to the information and those wealthy enough to obtain it making the normal everyday person the one who winds up taking the hit and potentially losing faith in the system. In the spygate situation there is no perceivable difference in the information gathered via illegal and legal means and the timing of when the information is used is also equal in both cases (after the game). I think that the equality of the time and information between the two significantly affects the percieved advantage gained.The reason why people are drawn and quartered by the SEC is because it’s so hard to make a case for insider trading that when one sticks the penalties make a statement to deter others from taking advantage of the gains that are possible.

 

[Pygmy Marmoset]

I think the advantage of insider trading is significantly greater then the spygate situation. In business and the stock exchange early information can mean millions and significantly reduces the risk of the stock exchange. It heavily favors people close to the information and those wealthy enough to obtain it making the normal everyday person the one who winds up taking the hit and potentially losing faith in the system. In the spygate situation there is no perceivable difference in the information gathered via illegal and legal means and the timing of when the information is used is also equal in both cases (after the game). I think that the equality of the time and information between the two significantly affects the percieved advantage gained.The reason why people are drawn and quartered by the SEC is because it’s so hard to make a case for insider trading that when one sticks the penalties make a statement to deter others from taking advantage of the gains that are possible.

The timing is the issue here, too. Being able to assimilate and disseminate the information quickly because you have it on tape makes wins more likely. Makes halftime adjustments more likely. I believe the NFL should also use this situation as a deterrent. When it's very hard to make a case stick - and it must be here, if "everyone" does it, as Patriots fans are asserting - the penalties need to be astronomical. Bannings and huge fines should ensue.

 

[kevinray]

The question is what stipulation needs to be worked out beyond telling the truth. If he is the star witness with the goods, why is telling the truth a condition that is not acceptable?

From the article, that condition is acceptable to him. Dave Goldberg's article for Associated Press

"Under our proposal, Mr. Walsh is only protected if he in good faith is truthful. And he will be," Levy told The Associated Press on Friday in a telephone interview from his office at the Washington law firm of McKee Nelson.

The question is what protection is Walsh asking for through his lawyer that the NFL will not provide:

"The NFL's proposal is not full indemnification. It is highly conditional and still leaves Mr. Walsh vulnerable. I have asked the NFL to provide Mr. Walsh with the necessary legal protections so that he can come forward with the truth without fear of retaliation and litigation. To best serve the interest of the public and everyone involved, I am hopeful that the NFL will do so promptly."

Then there's the second issue of the NFL wanting all his tapes turned over. I assume that means they'll be destroyed. I'm not sure if Walsh (or the public or Congress) wants that to happen.

Bingo! Fantastic point. Goddell wants ALL that material to be destroyed then it's anyone's guess what will be released to the public this time. Last time it was 'just 2006'.

I'm sorry but that’s the worst bunch of logic I've seen in a while. Goodell is not just going to destroy the tapes, not after all the flack he's gotten. If you want to think that then that’s fine but I really can't understand how you could come to that conclusion after all that has happened.

 

[kevinray]

I think the advantage of insider trading is significantly greater then the spygate situation. In business and the stock exchange early information can mean millions and significantly reduces the risk of the stock exchange. It heavily favors people close to the information and those wealthy enough to obtain it making the normal everyday person the one who winds up taking the hit and potentially losing faith in the system.

In the spygate situation there is no perceivable difference in the information gathered via illegal and legal means and the timing of when the information is used is also equal in both cases (after the game). I think that the equality of the time and information between the two significantly affects the percieved advantage gained.

The reason why people are drawn and quartered by the SEC is because it’s so hard to make a case for insider trading that when one sticks the penalties make a statement to deter others from taking advantage of the gains that are possible.

The timing is the issue here, too. Being able to assimilate and disseminate the information quickly because you have it on tape makes wins more likely. Makes halftime adjustments more likely. I believe the NFL should also use this situation as a deterrent. When it's very hard to make a case stick - and it must be here, if "everyone" does it, as Patriots fans are asserting - the penalties need to be astronomical. Bannings and huge fines should ensue.

I'm not sure where you're getting some of this. The NFL looked into whether the Pats reviewed film during the games and concluded they didn’t. If they had it would have had a clear affect on each game they played and there would have been a lot more outrage on the part of the league. So the tapes didn't affect half time adjustments. I can't tell if you're confused about the legality of filming coaches. It’s not illegal to film coaches for game film and if you want further explanation about it you should see this thread.thread

I do think the NFL made an example of the patriots and I don't have a problem with that. They penalized them pretty heavily for putting a camera in an improper area and I don't think anyone will do that for a while.

 

[Anarchy99]

Sure it is overstating it. But you can't honestly tell me you don't think it's a distinct and definite advantage to know even some of the other team's defensive signals.

Here's a newsflash -- teams can change their signals. They do it all the time.

If you really believe it's that easy, you're crazy.Teams may change calls between seasons, but to do so in season is to ask for a lot of confusion. Do you know how big an NFL playbook is? Do you realize how big of an impact changing one call is?

And nevermind that EVEN IF they did so between games, to think that they could do so between halves is ludicrous. And what Belichick has often been praised for is his halftime adjustments. Perhaps those stolen signals helped a bit.

Teams don't change the PLAYBOOK, they change the code to get to the plays. Temas have explained that they have some sort of numbering system that changes from quarter to quarter and the defensive captain then looks on a cheat sheet on his wrist to decipher what play it is. So the plays are exactly the same, only the coding system makes it much more difficult to intercept and translate.

 

[fatness]

I'm sorry but that’s the worst bunch of logic I've seen in a while. Goodell is not just going to destroy the tapes, not after all the flack he's gotten. If you want to think that then that’s fine but I really can't understand how you could come to that conclusion after all that has happened.

It's a reasonable guess as to what he'd do because:1. He did it before.

2. He and the NFL may regard Walsh as an opponent, not someone who could help them. (The NFL had a former FBI agent investigate Walsh.)

3. If the tapes were delivered and destroyed, it could end up with the league's word vs. Walsh's word as to what was on them, without any proof.

4. Goodell may think there's less harm in taking a bashing for destroying the tapes than in revealing what the tapes showed.

5. He did it before.

 

[kevinray]

I'm sorry but that’s the worst bunch of logic I've seen in a while. Goodell is not just going to destroy the tapes, not after all the flack he's gotten. If you want to think that then that’s fine but I really can't understand how you could come to that conclusion after all that has happened.

It's a reasonable guess as to what he'd do because:1. He did it before.2. He and the NFL may regard Walsh as an opponent, not someone who could help them. (The NFL had a former FBI agent investigate Walsh.)3. If the tapes were delivered and destroyed, it could end up with the league's word vs. Walsh's word as to what was on them, without any proof.4. He did it before.

Like I said you guys can believe it if you want, but its ridiculous. He at least a reason to destroy the first bunch of tapes. He didn't want them to be leaked to the public because that would defeat the purpose of taking them away. You can disagree with that but it is a reason. He would have no reason to destroy a Walsh tape after all that has happened. I can’t imagine anything on the tape that would get him in less trouble then if he destroyed it. If he destroyed those tapes Spector would destroy him and he wouldn't need any evidence to do it beyond the fact that Goodell destroyed the tape. You can believe if you want but it would never happen.

 

[Class Dismissed]

I'm sorry but that’s the worst bunch of logic I've seen in a while. Goodell is not just going to destroy the tapes, not after all the flack he's gotten. If you want to think that then that’s fine but I really can't understand how you could come to that conclusion after all that has happened.

It's a reasonable guess as to what he'd do because:1. He did it before.2. He and the NFL may regard Walsh as an opponent, not someone who could help them. (The NFL had a former FBI agent investigate Walsh.)3. If the tapes were delivered and destroyed, it could end up with the league's word vs. Walsh's word as to what was on them, without any proof.4. He did it before.

Like I said you guys can believe it if you want, but its ridiculous. He at least a reason to destroy the first bunch of tapes. He didn't want them to be leaked to the public because that would defeat the purpose of taking them away. You can disagree with that but it is a reason. He would have no reason to destroy a Walsh tape after all that has happened. I can’t imagine anything on the tape that would get him in less trouble then if he destroyed it. If he destroyed those tapes Spector would destroy him and he wouldn't need any evidence to do it beyond the fact that Goodell destroyed the tape. You can believe if you want but it would never happen.

1) There's an 18 minute gap at a critical juncture in the tapes, so sorry.2) I woke up this morning, AND THEY WERE GONE!......I hope some other team didn't get this material, THAT's why we destroyed them in the first place.3) We accidently erased them, here are the blanks, so sorry.4) They must of been lost in transit, here is the FEDEX Tracking number. Good Luck.5) The tapes Mr. Walsh gave us were actually of Season 6 of Saved By The Bell, he's a homosexual and a LIAR, see you in court, ######.

 

[Class Dismissed]

Why don't the Patriots just release him from his agreement?

 

[kevinray]

I'm sorry but that’s the worst bunch of logic I've seen in a while. Goodell is not just going to destroy the tapes, not after all the flack he's gotten. If you want to think that then that’s fine but I really can't understand how you could come to that conclusion after all that has happened.

It's a reasonable guess as to what he'd do because:1. He did it before.2. He and the NFL may regard Walsh as an opponent, not someone who could help them. (The NFL had a former FBI agent investigate Walsh.)3. If the tapes were delivered and destroyed, it could end up with the league's word vs. Walsh's word as to what was on them, without any proof.4. He did it before.

Like I said you guys can believe it if you want, but its ridiculous. He at least a reason to destroy the first bunch of tapes. He didn't want them to be leaked to the public because that would defeat the purpose of taking them away. You can disagree with that but it is a reason. He would have no reason to destroy a Walsh tape after all that has happened. I can’t imagine anything on the tape that would get him in less trouble then if he destroyed it. If he destroyed those tapes Spector would destroy him and he wouldn't need any evidence to do it beyond the fact that Goodell destroyed the tape. You can believe if you want but it would never happen.

1) There's an 18 minute gap at a critical juncture in the tapes, so sorry.2) I woke up this morning, AND THEY WERE GONE!......I hope some other team didn't get this material, THAT's why we destroyed them in the first place.3) We accidently erased them, here are the blanks, so sorry.4) They must of been lost in transit, here is the FEDEX Tracking number. Good Luck.5) The tapes Mr. Walsh gave us were actually of Season 6 of Saved By The Bell, he's a homosexual and a LIAR, see you in court, ######.

Those are all really cute responses, and if you want to be delusional and believe that they are more likely to occur then him not destroying the tape then more power to you. Goodell would be crazy to destroy the Walsh tape. Beyond that obvious fact we are talking about future events so you guys can come up with all the crazy happenings you want. Facts are he'd be nuts to get rid of it, he'd probably lose his job over it, cause irrevocable damage to the league he loves, and cause far more damage then if the video shows the Patriots cheated and affected a Superbowl. But its far more fun to assume he’d destroy it right?

 

[The Goat]

NFL commissioner Roger Goodell has said he's offered Walsh a deal whereby "he has to tell the truth and he has to return anything he took improperly" in return for indemnity.

This is the NFL offer, as reported. What does Mr. Walsh need beyond what has been offered? The lawyer calling this "highly conditional" is curious. Again, if you have the goods and the truth, why is this not an acceptable offer?

Both sides agree Walsh telling the truth has to be part of it.Walsh's lawyer says the NFL hasn't offered indemnity. The NFL says they have.

What is likely here is that the NFL has said "we won't sue you or try to have you prosecuted." And that Walsh's attorney wants the NFL to also include protection from lawsuits by the Patriots, any individual coaches or players or fans, or anyone else; and defense against criminal charges if any arise.

Walsh isn't going to give the NFL the tapes and information if all they'll do is say "thanks, we won't sue or prosecute you", and leave him wide open as a target for anyone else.

Weak. Walsh hasn't got jack.

While I have generally steered clear of this, trying to not let my anti-Pats venom spread into this thread, I feel this deserves at least one reply.O RLY?

 

[NY/NJMFDIVER]

Why don't the Patriots just release him from his agreement?

Because they had him videotape the Rams practice.

 

[Pat Patriot]

NFL commissioner Roger Goodell has said he's offered Walsh a deal whereby "he has to tell the truth and he has to return anything he took improperly" in return for indemnity.

This is the NFL offer, as reported. What does Mr. Walsh need beyond what has been offered? The lawyer calling this "highly conditional" is curious. Again, if you have the goods and the truth, why is this not an acceptable offer?

Both sides agree Walsh telling the truth has to be part of it.Walsh's lawyer says the NFL hasn't offered indemnity. The NFL says they have.

What is likely here is that the NFL has said "we won't sue you or try to have you prosecuted." And that Walsh's attorney wants the NFL to also include protection from lawsuits by the Patriots, any individual coaches or players or fans, or anyone else; and defense against criminal charges if any arise.

Walsh isn't going to give the NFL the tapes and information if all they'll do is say "thanks, we won't sue or prosecute you", and leave him wide open as a target for anyone else.

Weak. Walsh hasn't got jack.

While I have generally steered clear of this, trying to not let my anti-Pats venom spread into this thread, I feel this deserves at least one reply.O RLY?

There is no such thing as a "Walsh Tape". According to reports in 2002 Walsh was no longer working in the videotape department. He had been promoted to scouting where he was subsequently fired a year or two later.If there is a tape or tapes to produce, produce them. Until then, it is a ridiculous rumor.

 

[Class Dismissed]

I'm sorry but that’s the worst bunch of logic I've seen in a while. Goodell is not just going to destroy the tapes, not after all the flack he's gotten. If you want to think that then that’s fine but I really can't understand how you could come to that conclusion after all that has happened.

It's a reasonable guess as to what he'd do because:1. He did it before.2. He and the NFL may regard Walsh as an opponent, not someone who could help them. (The NFL had a former FBI agent investigate Walsh.)3. If the tapes were delivered and destroyed, it could end up with the league's word vs. Walsh's word as to what was on them, without any proof.4. He did it before.

Like I said you guys can believe it if you want, but its ridiculous. He at least a reason to destroy the first bunch of tapes. He didn't want them to be leaked to the public because that would defeat the purpose of taking them away. You can disagree with that but it is a reason. He would have no reason to destroy a Walsh tape after all that has happened. I can’t imagine anything on the tape that would get him in less trouble then if he destroyed it. If he destroyed those tapes Spector would destroy him and he wouldn't need any evidence to do it beyond the fact that Goodell destroyed the tape. You can believe if you want but it would never happen.

1) There's an 18 minute gap at a critical juncture in the tapes, so sorry.2) I woke up this morning, AND THEY WERE GONE!......I hope some other team didn't get this material, THAT's why we destroyed them in the first place.3) We accidently erased them, here are the blanks, so sorry.4) They must of been lost in transit, here is the FEDEX Tracking number. Good Luck.5) The tapes Mr. Walsh gave us were actually of Season 6 of Saved By The Bell, he's a homosexual and a LIAR, see you in court, ######.

Those are all really cute responses, and if you want to be delusional and believe that they are more likely to occur then him not destroying the tape then more power to you. Goodell would be crazy to destroy the Walsh tape. Beyond that obvious fact we are talking about future events so you guys can come up with all the crazy happenings you want. Facts are he'd be nuts to get rid of it, he'd probably lose his job over it, cause irrevocable damage to the league he loves, and cause far more damage then if the video shows the Patriots cheated and affected a Superbowl. But its far more fun to assume he’d destroy it right?

The NFL is in full blown cover up mode, I think it would be delusional NOT to think that it is well within the realm of possibilities that they would destroy the tapes.Eric Holder is the attorney handling this for the NFL, Eric Holder, former Deputy Attorney General who facilitated the Fugitive Marc Rich Pardon. Who would of thought THAT would of ever happened, and that there would be no consequences.

 

[Pat Patriot]

I'm sorry but that’s the worst bunch of logic I've seen in a while. Goodell is not just going to destroy the tapes, not after all the flack he's gotten. If you want to think that then that’s fine but I really can't understand how you could come to that conclusion after all that has happened.

It's a reasonable guess as to what he'd do because:1. He did it before.2. He and the NFL may regard Walsh as an opponent, not someone who could help them. (The NFL had a former FBI agent investigate Walsh.)3. If the tapes were delivered and destroyed, it could end up with the league's word vs. Walsh's word as to what was on them, without any proof.4. He did it before.

Like I said you guys can believe it if you want, but its ridiculous. He at least a reason to destroy the first bunch of tapes. He didn't want them to be leaked to the public because that would defeat the purpose of taking them away. You can disagree with that but it is a reason. He would have no reason to destroy a Walsh tape after all that has happened. I can’t imagine anything on the tape that would get him in less trouble then if he destroyed it. If he destroyed those tapes Spector would destroy him and he wouldn't need any evidence to do it beyond the fact that Goodell destroyed the tape. You can believe if you want but it would never happen.

1) There's an 18 minute gap at a critical juncture in the tapes, so sorry.2) I woke up this morning, AND THEY WERE GONE!......I hope some other team didn't get this material, THAT's why we destroyed them in the first place.3) We accidently erased them, here are the blanks, so sorry.4) They must of been lost in transit, here is the FEDEX Tracking number. Good Luck.5) The tapes Mr. Walsh gave us were actually of Season 6 of Saved By The Bell, he's a homosexual and a LIAR, see you in court, ######.

Those are all really cute responses, and if you want to be delusional and believe that they are more likely to occur then him not destroying the tape then more power to you. Goodell would be crazy to destroy the Walsh tape. Beyond that obvious fact we are talking about future events so you guys can come up with all the crazy happenings you want. Facts are he'd be nuts to get rid of it, he'd probably lose his job over it, cause irrevocable damage to the league he loves, and cause far more damage then if the video shows the Patriots cheated and affected a Superbowl. But its far more fun to assume he’d destroy it right?

The NFL is in full blown cover up mode, I think it would be delusional NOT to think that it is well within the realm of possibilities that they would destroy the tapes.Eric Holder is the attorney handling this for the NFL, Eric Holder, former Deputy Attorney General who facilitated the Fugitive Marc Rich Pardon. Who would of thought THAT would of ever happened, and that there would be no consequences.

There are no consequences for pardons. The President has absolute power.

 

[Class Dismissed]

I'm sorry but that’s the worst bunch of logic I've seen in a while. Goodell is not just going to destroy the tapes, not after all the flack he's gotten. If you want to think that then that’s fine but I really can't understand how you could come to that conclusion after all that has happened.

It's a reasonable guess as to what he'd do because:1. He did it before.2. He and the NFL may regard Walsh as an opponent, not someone who could help them. (The NFL had a former FBI agent investigate Walsh.)3. If the tapes were delivered and destroyed, it could end up with the league's word vs. Walsh's word as to what was on them, without any proof.4. He did it before.

Like I said you guys can believe it if you want, but its ridiculous. He at least a reason to destroy the first bunch of tapes. He didn't want them to be leaked to the public because that would defeat the purpose of taking them away. You can disagree with that but it is a reason. He would have no reason to destroy a Walsh tape after all that has happened. I can’t imagine anything on the tape that would get him in less trouble then if he destroyed it. If he destroyed those tapes Spector would destroy him and he wouldn't need any evidence to do it beyond the fact that Goodell destroyed the tape. You can believe if you want but it would never happen.

1) There's an 18 minute gap at a critical juncture in the tapes, so sorry.2) I woke up this morning, AND THEY WERE GONE!......I hope some other team didn't get this material, THAT's why we destroyed them in the first place.3) We accidently erased them, here are the blanks, so sorry.4) They must of been lost in transit, here is the FEDEX Tracking number. Good Luck.5) The tapes Mr. Walsh gave us were actually of Season 6 of Saved By The Bell, he's a homosexual and a LIAR, see you in court, ######.

Those are all really cute responses, and if you want to be delusional and believe that they are more likely to occur then him not destroying the tape then more power to you. Goodell would be crazy to destroy the Walsh tape. Beyond that obvious fact we are talking about future events so you guys can come up with all the crazy happenings you want. Facts are he'd be nuts to get rid of it, he'd probably lose his job over it, cause irrevocable damage to the league he loves, and cause far more damage then if the video shows the Patriots cheated and affected a Superbowl. But its far more fun to assume he’d destroy it right?

The NFL is in full blown cover up mode, I think it would be delusional NOT to think that it is well within the realm of possibilities that they would destroy the tapes.Eric Holder is the attorney handling this for the NFL, Eric Holder, former Deputy Attorney General who facilitated the Fugitive Marc Rich Pardon. Who would of thought THAT would of ever happened, and that there would be no consequences.

There are no consequences for pardons. The President has absolute power.

Not for Rich, not for Clinton, but there very well could of been for Holder who afterwards thought his career was finished, especially after he testified in Congress about his role in it.

 

[Pat Patriot]

I'm sorry but that’s the worst bunch of logic I've seen in a while. Goodell is not just going to destroy the tapes, not after all the flack he's gotten. If you want to think that then that’s fine but I really can't understand how you could come to that conclusion after all that has happened.

It's a reasonable guess as to what he'd do because:1. He did it before.2. He and the NFL may regard Walsh as an opponent, not someone who could help them. (The NFL had a former FBI agent investigate Walsh.)3. If the tapes were delivered and destroyed, it could end up with the league's word vs. Walsh's word as to what was on them, without any proof.4. He did it before.

Like I said you guys can believe it if you want, but its ridiculous. He at least a reason to destroy the first bunch of tapes. He didn't want them to be leaked to the public because that would defeat the purpose of taking them away. You can disagree with that but it is a reason. He would have no reason to destroy a Walsh tape after all that has happened. I can’t imagine anything on the tape that would get him in less trouble then if he destroyed it. If he destroyed those tapes Spector would destroy him and he wouldn't need any evidence to do it beyond the fact that Goodell destroyed the tape. You can believe if you want but it would never happen.

1) There's an 18 minute gap at a critical juncture in the tapes, so sorry.2) I woke up this morning, AND THEY WERE GONE!......I hope some other team didn't get this material, THAT's why we destroyed them in the first place.3) We accidently erased them, here are the blanks, so sorry.4) They must of been lost in transit, here is the FEDEX Tracking number. Good Luck.5) The tapes Mr. Walsh gave us were actually of Season 6 of Saved By The Bell, he's a homosexual and a LIAR, see you in court, ######.

Those are all really cute responses, and if you want to be delusional and believe that they are more likely to occur then him not destroying the tape then more power to you. Goodell would be crazy to destroy the Walsh tape. Beyond that obvious fact we are talking about future events so you guys can come up with all the crazy happenings you want. Facts are he'd be nuts to get rid of it, he'd probably lose his job over it, cause irrevocable damage to the league he loves, and cause far more damage then if the video shows the Patriots cheated and affected a Superbowl. But its far more fun to assume he’d destroy it right?

The NFL is in full blown cover up mode, I think it would be delusional NOT to think that it is well within the realm of possibilities that they would destroy the tapes.Eric Holder is the attorney handling this for the NFL, Eric Holder, former Deputy Attorney General who facilitated the Fugitive Marc Rich Pardon. Who would of thought THAT would of ever happened, and that there would be no consequences.

There are no consequences for pardons. The President has absolute power.

Not for Rich, not for Clinton, but there very well could of been for Holder who afterwards thought his career was finished, especially after he testified in Congress about his role in it.

How did that work out for him if he is now working for the NFL? I would say he landed on his feet and guys like Eric Holder always land on their feet.

 

[SeniorVBDStudent]

NFL commissioner Roger Goodell has said he's offered Walsh a deal whereby "he has to tell the truth and he has to return anything he took improperly" in return for indemnity.

This is the NFL offer, as reported. What does Mr. Walsh need beyond what has been offered? The lawyer calling this "highly conditional" is curious. Again, if you have the goods and the truth, why is this not an acceptable offer?

Both sides agree Walsh telling the truth has to be part of it.Walsh's lawyer says the NFL hasn't offered indemnity. The NFL says they have.

What is likely here is that the NFL has said "we won't sue you or try to have you prosecuted." And that Walsh's attorney wants the NFL to also include protection from lawsuits by the Patriots, any individual coaches or players or fans, or anyone else; and defense against criminal charges if any arise.

Walsh isn't going to give the NFL the tapes and information if all they'll do is say "thanks, we won't sue or prosecute you", and leave him wide open as a target for anyone else.

Weak. Walsh hasn't got jack.

While I have generally steered clear of this, trying to not let my anti-Pats venom spread into this thread, I feel this deserves at least one reply.O RLY?

Really.Prove me wrong.

 

[goldenchild]

From Fanball.com

Patriots: SpyGate protection sought by WalshThe NewsThe AP Wire reports that the lawyer for former New England Patriots employee Matt Walsh is assisting his client -- who is in search of protection and guarantees against expected lawsuits concerning SpyGate. Walsh is willing to turn over tapes in his possession that contain footage of the St. Louis Rams' walkthrough practice the day before they played the Patriots in the 2002 Super Bowl with conditions. Walsh is reportedly looking for the NFL to guarantee him protection from lawsuits or other legal action.Our ViewThis is just the first chapter of SpyGate, and for those who thought Roger Clemens was on the hot seat this past week, Patriots head man Bill Belichick could find himself in a similar situation... and soon.

Rut Roh

 

[Das Boot]

From Fanball.com

Patriots: SpyGate protection sought by Walsh

The News

The AP Wire reports that the lawyer for former New England Patriots employee Matt Walsh is assisting his client -- who is in search of protection and guarantees against expected lawsuits concerning SpyGate. Walsh is willing to turn over tapes in his possession that contain footage of the St. Louis Rams' walkthrough practice the day before they played the Patriots in the 2002 Super Bowl with conditions. Walsh is reportedly looking for the NFL to guarantee him protection from lawsuits or other legal action.

Our View

This is just the first chapter of SpyGate, and for those who thought Roger Clemens was on the hot seat this past week, Patriots head man Bill Belichick could find himself in a similar situation... and soon.

Rut Roh

Call me crazy, but that sounds like cheating.

 

[Das Boot]

By the way, get ready for the Pats apologists to start shifting the argument from the Pats didn't tape the walk through to the Pats didn't view the tapes before the SB.

Then the next step beyond that one is denying that a competitive advantage was gained from viewing the tapes.

 

[Das Boot]

From SI.com:

• If the Patriots routinely video-taped their opponents' signals dating from the start of New England's Bill Belichick era in 2000, with Belichick maintaining to NFL commissioner Roger Goodell that he thought such practices were legal, what, pray tell, did the Pats head coach think that memo the league sent out Sept. 6, 2006, was all about?

You know the one I'm talking about. In it, the NFL's executive vice president of football operations, Ray Anderson, stated rather flatly that "Videotaping of any type, including but not limited to taping of an opponent's offensive or defensive signals, is prohibited on the sidelines, in the coaches' booth, in the locker room, or at any other locations accessible to club staff members during the game.''

Not a lot of wiggle room there, is there? If Belichick read that and still thought he could make his case for the legality of his team's taping, he probably thought Roger Clemens came off as utterly convincing in this week's congressional hearing.

 

[Das Boot]

Hmmm... if the Spygate tapes (the 1st ones) had no competitive value, why does Goodell claim he had to destroy them so quickly to keep them out of competitor's hands?



Goodell also told Specter that that he doesn't regret destroying the Spygate tapes or the notes.

"I think it was the right thing to do," Goodell said.

Still, Specter wants to know why penalties were imposed on Belichick before the full extent of the wrongdoing was known and the tapes destroyed in a two-week span. Asked if he thinks there was a coverup, Specter demurred.

"There was an enormous amount of haste," Specter said.

He scoffed at the reasons Goodell gave for destroying the tapes and notes, particularly about trying to keep them out of competitors' hands and because Belichick had admitted to the taping.

 

[PMENFAN]

From Fanball.com

Patriots: SpyGate protection sought by WalshThe NewsThe AP Wire reports that the lawyer for former New England Patriots employee Matt Walsh is assisting his client -- who is in search of protection and guarantees against expected lawsuits concerning SpyGate. Walsh is willing to turn over tapes in his possession that contain footage of the St. Louis Rams' walkthrough practice the day before they played the Patriots in the 2002 Super Bowl with conditions. Walsh is reportedly looking for the NFL to guarantee him protection from lawsuits or other legal action.Our ViewThis is just the first chapter of SpyGate, and for those who thought Roger Clemens was on the hot seat this past week, Patriots head man Bill Belichick could find himself in a similar situation... and soon.

Rut Roh

So, without any new information, the story has moved from Matt Walsh refusing to disclose or share what he has to him having a tape of the St. Louis walk through? Time to #### or get off the pot Mr. Walsh. Your bluff was called several days ago, and you continue to bluff. You've got nothing but a desire to be noticed.

 

[PMENFAN]

From SI.com:• If the Patriots routinely video-taped their opponents' signals dating from the start of New England's Bill Belichick era in 2000, with Belichick maintaining to NFL commissioner Roger Goodell that he thought such practices were legal, what, pray tell, did the Pats head coach think that memo the league sent out Sept. 6, 2006, was all about?You know the one I'm talking about. In it, the NFL's executive vice president of football operations, Ray Anderson, stated rather flatly that "Videotaping of any type, including but not limited to taping of an opponent's offensive or defensive signals, is prohibited on the sidelines, in the coaches' booth, in the locker room, or at any other locations accessible to club staff members during the game.''Not a lot of wiggle room there, is there? If Belichick read that and still thought he could make his case for the legality of his team's taping, he probably thought Roger Clemens came off as utterly convincing in this week's congressional hearing.

My counter to this is if they thought they were breaking the rules, wouldn't they use hidden cameras of some sort, not a guy standing in the side open with a cam corder? the actions correlate with the admission. And, the actions and admissions completely counter the conspiracy theorists desires.

 

[Road Warriors]

From Fanball.com

Patriots: SpyGate protection sought by WalshThe NewsThe AP Wire reports that the lawyer for former New England Patriots employee Matt Walsh is assisting his client -- who is in search of protection and guarantees against expected lawsuits concerning SpyGate. Walsh is willing to turn over tapes in his possession that contain footage of the St. Louis Rams' walkthrough practice the day before they played the Patriots in the 2002 Super Bowl with conditions. Walsh is reportedly looking for the NFL to guarantee him protection from lawsuits or other legal action.Our ViewThis is just the first chapter of SpyGate, and for those who thought Roger Clemens was on the hot seat this past week, Patriots head man Bill Belichick could find himself in a similar situation... and soon.

Rut Roh

Out of curiosity... Would claiming to have this tape publicly violate his Non Disclosure agreement he signed when leaving the Pats back in 2003? Hasn't he just opened himself up to the lawsuit he is trying to avoid?

 

[PMENFAN]

Hmmm... if the Spygate tapes (the 1st ones) had no competitive value, why does Goodell claim he had to destroy them so quickly to keep them out of competitor's hands?



Goodell also told Specter that that he doesn't regret destroying the Spygate tapes or the notes.

"I think it was the right thing to do," Goodell said.

Still, Specter wants to know why penalties were imposed on Belichick before the full extent of the wrongdoing was known and the tapes destroyed in a two-week span. Asked if he thinks there was a coverup, Specter demurred.

"There was an enormous amount of haste," Specter said.

He scoffed at the reasons Goodell gave for destroying the tapes and notes, particularly about trying to keep them out of competitors' hands and because Belichick had admitted to the taping.

the reason I heard from Goddell was that he didn't want the tapes getting out, like the Jets tape did. If any new tapes hit the media, he'sd know there were additional tapes. What Mr. Spector, and others, need to realize is that the Commissioner is the ultimate authority on all issues NFL. Spectors blatant attempt to embarrass the league is an unprecedented abuse of his office. I fully suspect it's got far more to do with the Comcast/NFL battle than Spygate.

If Matt Walsh had this information, and it was pertinent, why not come forward? Had he somehow not heard of it? Confidentiality agreements do not allow one to break league rules.

Consider Ms. Watkins had a CA at Enron, yet she somehow escaped legal battles with the 7th largest company in the country as Enron went down the tubes, because of her exposure.

Matt Walsh, like Arlen Spector, has nothing othat than the desire to have his name out there.

 

[Road Warriors]

From SI.com:

• If the Patriots routinely video-taped their opponents' signals dating from the start of New England's Bill Belichick era in 2000, with Belichick maintaining to NFL commissioner Roger Goodell that he thought such practices were legal, what, pray tell, did the Pats head coach think that memo the league sent out Sept. 6, 2006, was all about?

You know the one I'm talking about. In it, the NFL's executive vice president of football operations, Ray Anderson, stated rather flatly that "Videotaping of any type, including but not limited to taping of an opponent's offensive or defensive signals, is prohibited on the sidelines, in the coaches' booth, in the locker room, or at any other locations accessible to club staff members during the game.''

Not a lot of wiggle room there, is there? If Belichick read that and still thought he could make his case for the legality of his team's taping, he probably thought Roger Clemens came off as utterly convincing in this week's congressional hearing.

This is the crux of the rule... location of the camera. Thats the wiggle room you ask about. I understand you don't agree, but to strenghten your case, please explain how this memo is written, where it says it's illegal to tape signals unconditionally.

 

[kevinray]

From SI.com:• If the Patriots routinely video-taped their opponents' signals dating from the start of New England's Bill Belichick era in 2000, with Belichick maintaining to NFL commissioner Roger Goodell that he thought such practices were legal, what, pray tell, did the Pats head coach think that memo the league sent out Sept. 6, 2006, was all about?You know the one I'm talking about. In it, the NFL's executive vice president of football operations, Ray Anderson, stated rather flatly that "Videotaping of any type, including but not limited to taping of an opponent's offensive or defensive signals, is prohibited on the sidelines, in the coaches' booth, in the locker room, or at any other locations accessible to club staff members during the game.''Not a lot of wiggle room there, is there? If Belichick read that and still thought he could make his case for the legality of his team's taping, he probably thought Roger Clemens came off as utterly convincing in this week's congressional hearing.

I swear the reading comprehension skills of some people on this site drives me crazy. No where in that memo does it say you can't tape opponents signals. Really look at it. It places restrictions on where you can film. I don't know how the Pats couldn't have realized the memo and original rule wouldn't allow placing a camera in the stands. They willfully disobeyed an NFL rule for camera positioning, and were punished for it. Please Please Please understand that. Its legal to film opponents signals if the cameras in the proper place and at this point its laughable that people don't understand that.Now the big issue is going to be the Walsh tape. If it has what he says it has on it then it would have had a clear impact on the game. I'm waiting for legal protection issues to get taken care of and for more news to come out before speculating on the aftermath that would come but it would be a big issue.

 

[Ghost Rider]

My counter to this is if they thought they were breaking the rules, wouldn't they use hidden cameras of some sort, not a guy standing in the side open with a cam corder? the actions correlate with the admission. And, the actions and admissions completely counter the conspiracy theorists desires.

So, you're argument is basically, "If they were going to cheat, they wouldn't have done it out in the open where everyone could see it," right? If so, that would be like a MLB steroids user coming out and saying, "If I had cheated and used steroids, I wouldn't have been that stupid as to had someone else inject me with them; I would have done them where no one else saw what I was doing." See what I mean? When teams or players cheat, they are not thinking of the consequences. Arrogance can often causes players or teams trying to gain an advantage to take foolish risks.

 

[GregR_2]

From SI.com:

• If the Patriots routinely video-taped their opponents' signals dating from the start of New England's Bill Belichick era in 2000, with Belichick maintaining to NFL commissioner Roger Goodell that he thought such practices were legal, what, pray tell, did the Pats head coach think that memo the league sent out Sept. 6, 2006, was all about?

You know the one I'm talking about. In it, the NFL's executive vice president of football operations, Ray Anderson, stated rather flatly that "Videotaping of any type, including but not limited to taping of an opponent's offensive or defensive signals, is prohibited on the sidelines, in the coaches' booth, in the locker room, or at any other locations accessible to club staff members during the game.''

Not a lot of wiggle room there, is there? If Belichick read that and still thought he could make his case for the legality of his team's taping, he probably thought Roger Clemens came off as utterly convincing in this week's congressional hearing.

This is the crux of the rule... location of the camera. Thats the wiggle room you ask about. I understand you don't agree, but to strenghten your case, please explain how this memo is written, where it says it's illegal to tape signals unconditionally.

No, that isn't the wiggle room Belichick claimed that the article is referring to. BB's claim was that it was ok to do the things specifically said to not be allowed in the memo, so long as he didn't use the tape during the game it was recorded in.SI is essentially saying the memo is very explicit, and there's no mention that the rest of the memo doesn't apply if you don't use the tape until after. Thus, "not a lot of wiggle room."

The "but it's legal to tape legally" shtick is something that kevinray keeps bringing up which doesn't seem to have anything to do with the matter at hand. Yes, it's legal to tape signals legally. But that isn't what they did that is drawing the criticism and drew the punishment, so it doesn't seem pertinent to keep bringing it up.

SI has no clue about kevinray's attempt to create some other type of wiggle room, so obviously wouldn't be referencing it in their article, right? They are referring to the Pats' "interpretation" offered by BB.

 

[fatness]

What Mr. Spector, and others, need to realize is that the Commissioner is the ultimate authority on all issues NFL.

You're kidding, right?

 

[Road Warriors]

From SI.com:

• If the Patriots routinely video-taped their opponents' signals dating from the start of New England's Bill Belichick era in 2000, with Belichick maintaining to NFL commissioner Roger Goodell that he thought such practices were legal, what, pray tell, did the Pats head coach think that memo the league sent out Sept. 6, 2006, was all about?

You know the one I'm talking about. In it, the NFL's executive vice president of football operations, Ray Anderson, stated rather flatly that "Videotaping of any type, including but not limited to taping of an opponent's offensive or defensive signals, is prohibited on the sidelines, in the coaches' booth, in the locker room, or at any other locations accessible to club staff members during the game.''

Not a lot of wiggle room there, is there? If Belichick read that and still thought he could make his case for the legality of his team's taping, he probably thought Roger Clemens came off as utterly convincing in this week's congressional hearing.

This is the crux of the rule... location of the camera. Thats the wiggle room you ask about. I understand you don't agree, but to strenghten your case, please explain how this memo is written, where it says it's illegal to tape signals unconditionally.

No, that isn't the wiggle room Belichick claimed that the article is referring to. BB's claim was that it was ok to do the things specifically said to not be allowed in the memo, so long as he didn't use the tape during the game it was recorded in.SI is essentially saying the memo is very explicit, and there's no mention that the rest of the memo doesn't apply if you don't use the tape until after. Thus, "not a lot of wiggle room."

The "but it's legal to tape legally" shtick is something that kevinray keeps bringing up which doesn't seem to have anything to do with the matter at hand. Yes, it's legal to tape signals legally. But that isn't what they did that is drawing the criticism and drew the punishment, so it doesn't seem pertinent to keep bringing it up.

SI has no clue about kevinray's attempt to create some other type of wiggle room, so obviously wouldn't be referencing it in their article, right? They are referring to the Pats' "interpretation" offered by BB.

I get you. The original rule in the books is this:

No video recording devices of any kind are permitted to be in use in the coaches' booth, on the field, or in the locker room during the game.

with the bolded part being the aspect that BB was using as his "letter of the law" reasoning.The memo removed that aspect in a direct sense ( although the final clause of the memo "accessible to club staff members during the game." could be spun that way )

In any case, it's irrelevant to the specific violation and ruling against the Pats, as they did violate the rule. I expect that BB thought he had a lawyer's chance of skating based on the wording of the rule, but knew he was skating the edge.

 

[AB in DC]

If Walsh or anyone else is honestly worried that Goddell will destroy any tapes, why can't Walsh just make a copy of them first? How hard would it be for Walsh's lawyer to make a backup copy of anything he gives to Goddell? I'd think any competent lawyer would make sure that he can protect his client no matter what happens.

 

[{Syrus}]

If Walsh or anyone else is honestly worried that Goddell will destroy any tapes, why can't Walsh just make a copy of them first? How hard would it be for Walsh's lawyer to make a backup copy of anything he gives to Goddell? I'd think any competent lawyer would make sure that he can protect his client no matter what happens.

Look, if the NFL and Pats are squeaky clean they have absolutely nothing to worry about. But they look pretty worried to me. No matter how many times you post on this board it's not going to help their situation, as hard as it is for you to understand that.

 

[GregR_2]

If Walsh or anyone else is honestly worried that Goddell will destroy any tapes, why can't Walsh just make a copy of them first? How hard would it be for Walsh's lawyer to make a backup copy of anything he gives to Goddell? I'd think any competent lawyer would make sure that he can protect his client no matter what happens.

I don't know that concern that the NFL will destroy the tapes is specifically part of the delay. The actual parties involved are discussing the lack of protection for offering something in good faith (which means he honestly believes it is true). The PFT article was good (boy I don't say that often) in giving an example of why that would be important for Walsh to want to be covered on. Otherwise the NFL and/or Patriots could just dispute if something was true and use that as grounds to get out of the indemnity agreement and sue him, even if he believed what he said was the truth. Of course destroying the video tapes could potentially factor into such a situation, but I'd have to imagine a court wouldn't take kindly to the NFL destroying the tapes and then claiming Walsh was untruthful about their contents and suing after they destroyed the evidence. So I'm not sure Walsh and his lawyers would consider that something specific to worry about.

So, having now said that I think the issue you're discussing is one that came up in the SP and isn't really the stumbling block to Walsh and the NFL... I'm not sure if the NFL's agreement would allow Walsh to keep a copy or not.

A relevant part of the NFL's offer:

"The commitment is conditioned upon Mr. Walsh's promptly returning to the League Office, after he has been interviewed by Senator Specter or his staff, any and all documents or other items that he may have taken improperly from the Patriots during the period of his employment there, or which are otherwise the property of the Patriots, and his confirming, in writing, that all such documents or items have been returned.

I'll leave it to an actual lawyer to discuss whether a copy of a tape that was property of the Patriots would also then be considered the property of the Patriots, and would have to be returned as part of the agreement. I would guess it would though, similar to how I believe a copy of the SB broadcast doesn't change that the NFL owns the broadcast.