I was going to add a new thread, but instead I'll just respond to this one. I have a couple of questions, but mostly I want to know why nobody in the media has asked any questions about Walsh? It all goes back to Goodell's press conference after his interview with Walsh.
Quote:
|
"At the end we asked a number of general questions: Is there anything else we should ask? Is there anything else we should know? Are there any other areas of violations we should cover? And I think he was very satisfied that he was thorough, and so was his attorney."
|
Next stop, interview with Senator Spector. Specter talked about a meeting that Walsh described between an offensive player (Specter wouldn't name him, because Walsh hadn't give him permission), Charlie Weis, and BB, where they discussed the tapes, how they'd be used, and how things would be signaled into the player.
I would think the media would want to know if Walsh also discussed this with Goodell, given that Goodell did not mention it. If Walsh did not, doesn't that mean he lied to Goodell, and therefore violated his indemnity agreement? There were a few other things mentioned by Specter (e.g., watching the walk-through) that most likely were talked about in detail with Goodell but Specter blew out of proportion. Given that so many are accusing Goodell of a cover up, wouldn't they want to know whether or not Goodell knew about this?
An interview with HBO and Walsh talked about instructions about being evasive, hiding what he was doing, coming up with a cover story. Again, Goodell did not mention this. If Walsh said this to Goodell, is Goodell really dumb enough to think he's not going to repeat it? I doubt it. And Specter surely would have mentioned it if Walsh had mentioned it to him. Now he suddenly remembers this tidbit for the HBO interview? In addition he questions that Belichick "couldn't pick him put of a lineup" yet he previously referred to him as the "man behind the curtain" with whom he had no direct contact. Which is it?
On now to that bastion of unbiased reporting, the New York Times. My question is, what new crumbs will Walsh drop here? In the HBO interview, he actually revealed quite a bit, going on about how the Patriots were trying to smear him. Yes, they hired private investigators to check up on his past, but how did they smear him? By explaining that he was fired?
What I really want to know is why nobody has called out the possibility that Walsh is not credible? Didn't happen in the Specter press conference and doesn't appear to have happened in the HBO interview; I know it won't be in the NYT piece. How is it that additional news is coming out after the Goodell iinterview? The major contention in getting this all set up was that Walsh be truthful, Goodell asked him those questions above, and now he seems to be suddenly "remebering" additional facts just hours later. Or are these as accurate as his resume? And given his history for revenge - see his days at Springfield College, for the transgression of sitting on his bed - how is it that not one of these reporters is asking about that, and his motive for revenge against the employer that fired him, and in his mind tried to smear his name?
How is it that not one single reporter is asking those questions? Sorry for the long ramble, but I'm really not understanding the coverage of this event.
Wait a minute
Linear Mode
