Possible lie Walsh Made to the Commissioner with NYT as the smoking gun

[Rob0729]

Ok, I think I found the lie that might be the smoking gun to nulify the indemnity agreement between Walsh and the NFL.

When Walsh met with Goodell he said that the reason he did not denounce the Tomase story and claim he did not have the tape and nor was he was the source of the story was because he claimed that since he refused to speak to reporters about other stuff he had that he wanted to stay consistent and not say anything to anyone about anything. But is that really the case?

From Arlen Specter's speech on the Senate floor today:

Walsh was told by a former offensive player that a few days before the September 11, 2000 regular season game against Tampa Bay, he (the offensive player) was called into a meeting with Adams, Bill Belichick and Charlie Weis, then the offensive coordinator for the Patriots, during which it was explained how the Patriots would make use of the tapes. The offensive player would memorize the signals and then watch for Tampa Bay’s defensive calls during the game. He would then pass the plays along to Weis, who would give instructions to the quarterback on the field. This process enabled the Patriots to go to a ‘no-huddle’ offensive, which would lock in the defense the opposing team had called from the sideline, preventing the defense from making any adjustments. When Walsh asked whether the tape he had filmed was helpful, the offensive player said it had enabled the team to anticipate 75 percent of the plays being called by the opposing team.

http://www.boston.com/sports/footba...nt_on_patriots_videotaping_1210805084/?page=1

From the New York Times dated February 22, 2008:

The Patriots’ pattern of illicitly videotaping the signals of opposing N.F.L. coaches began in Coach Bill Belichick’s first preseason with the team in 2000, a former Patriots player said. The information was put to use in that year’s regular-season opener against the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, Belichick’s debut as New England’s coach.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/22/s...National Football League/New England Patriots

Isn't the primary rule of the indemnity agreement that Walsh couldn't knowingly tell a lie to Commissioner Goodell. I can't see how he forgot to tell Goodell that he forgot that he told the Times this story. It seems too much of a coincidence that the Times got this tidbit of information that was the primary point of their article and that Walsh would have this as his only real example of the Patriots using the taping of signals as a competitive advantage.

 

[cmasspatsfan]

Re: Possible Lie Walsh Made to the Commission with NYT as the smoking gun

Im not so confident that sphincter got things accurate, he was all over the place and stuttering and muttering and we know he got some facts wrong.

We'll see though, good catch

 

[Rob0729]

Re: Possible Lie Walsh Made to the Commission with NYT as the smoking gun

Im not so confident that sphincter got things accurate, he was all over the place and stuttering and muttering and we know he got some facts wrong.

We'll see though, good catch

I know Specter was all over the place, but no one has reported anything about a meeting between Adams, Weis, and the player. The Times only stated that a player stated that the Patriots used the videotape from the preseason game for the opener with no details. Specter had to get it from somewhere.

Considering we haven't heard about this player anywhere other than from the Times before this, you gotta think that the alleged player probably didn't just speak to Walsh and then only go to the Times. Since the Times were one of the news sources closest to Walsh and his attorney, it is logical to think that Walsh was the source for the Times story.

 

[khayos]

There is a can of worms that Goodell didn't want to tamper with and he did by his ruling against the Pats. It goes downhill from here.

 

[DaBruinz]

Ok, I think I found the lie that might be the smoking gun to nulify the indemnity agreement between Walsh and the NFL.

When Walsh met with Goodell he said that the reason he did not denounce the Tomase story and claim he did not have the tape and nor was he was the source of the story was because he claimed that since he refused to speak to reporters about other stuff he had that he wanted to stay consistent and not say anything to anyone about anything. But is that really the case?

From Arlen Specter's speech on the Senate floor today:



http://www.boston.com/sports/footba...nt_on_patriots_videotaping_1210805084/?page=1

From the New York Times dated February 22, 2008:



http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/22/s...National Football League/New England Patriots

Isn't the primary rule of the indemnity agreement that Walsh couldn't knowingly tell a lie to Commissioner Goodell. I can't see how he forgot to tell Goodell that he forgot that he told the Times this story. It seems too much of a coincidence that the Times got this tidbit of information that was the primary point of their article and that Walsh would have this as his only real example of the Patriots using the taping of signals as a competitive advantage.

Rob - there is no lie in what you posted. Read your quotes again. The Times says A FORMER PATRIOTS PLAYER told them. Where as, Specter said that a Former player told Walsh.

One is the player actually telling the Times directly. One is Walsh telling Specter what the player told him.

In all honesty, I think that Specter lied and attributed the story to Walsh when it really came from the Times. Specter was getting his sources and quotes all screwed up today.

 

[Rob0729]

Rob - there is no lie in what you posted. Read your quotes again. The Times says A FORMER PATRIOTS PLAYER told them. Where as, Specter said that a Former player told Walsh.

One is the player actually telling the Times directly. One is Walsh telling Specter what the player told him.

In all honesty, I think that Specter lied and attributed the story to Walsh when it really came from the Times. Specter was getting his sources and quotes all screwed up today.

Where did the Times say the former player told them? They said that a former player said that the Patriots used the tape in the opener, but nowhere does it say the player spoke directly to the Times or that the actual player was the source of the story. I really think it is too much of coincidence that the Times has the same story that Walsh told. The player in question only spoke to Walsh and the NYT?

Usually when a player speaks directly to a newspaper, there is text that say "The player told the Times", but there is no text like that at all.

 

[The_Bloke]

Seeing as the Pats lost the opening game to Tampa Bay, and finished that season at 5-11, one would think that Belichick would have scrubbed that taping system if it even existed.

Senator Sphincter doesn't have all his marbles in the right place.

 

[The_Bloke]

There is a can of worms that Goodell didn't want to tamper with and he did by his ruling against the Pats. It goes downhill from here.

Commissioner "Jets" Goodell is in his glory and he never wants this to end.

 

[Rob0729]

I could be wrong, but if this player spoke directly to the Times, you would think the Times would have had as much information as Walsh supposably gave Specter. The fact that the Times left out all details on how they used the the tape in that game could mean they got the information second hand from what they considered a credible source or in other words Walsh.

 

[DaBruinz]

Where did the Times say the former player told them? They said that a former player said that the Patriots used the tape in the opener, but nowhere does it say the player spoke directly to the Times or that the actual player was the source of the story. I really think it is too much of coincidence that the Times has the same story that Walsh told. The player in question only spoke to Walsh and the NYT?

Usually when a player speaks directly to a newspaper, there is text that say "The player told the Times", but there is no text like that at all.

Read the quote again. "The Patriots’ pattern of illicitly videotaping the signals of opposing N.F.L. coaches began in Coach Bill Belichick’s first preseason with the team in 2000, a former Patriots player said." That is the same as "a former player told the Times".

Also, since it was written by people who work for the Times, they don't have to say "A player told the Times." Its a given because they are the ones writing the article.

No where does it say anything about Walsh. You're grasping for straws here. There were other incriminating things that Specter attributed to Walsh that contradicted what the Commissioner said yesterday. And its been talked about in several threads.

 

[DaBruinz]

I could be wrong, but if this player spoke directly to the Times, you would think the Times would have had as much information as Walsh supposably gave Specter. The fact that the Times left out all details on how they used the the tape in that game could mean they got the information second hand from what they considered a credible source or in other words Walsh.

Or they purposely left out information that could implicate their source.

As I said, you're grasping for straws on this one. There were plenty of other things that people (including myself) pointed out in the following thread:

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/showthread.php?t=82687

Now, if you want to say that Walsh told Specter of a process of how the tapes were actually used during the game, which is something that Specter said, then you'd have a point. Or if you wanted to mention that Specter said Walsh told him he did give tapes to Adams and Jimmy Dee during the games, it would be another point. But on the one where Walsh supposedly told the Times about this back in February, its just not there with what you've provided.

 

[Rob0729]

Read the quote again. "The Patriots’ pattern of illicitly videotaping the signals of opposing N.F.L. coaches began in Coach Bill Belichick’s first preseason with the team in 2000, a former Patriots player said." That is the same as "a former player told the Times".

Also, since it was written by people who work for the Times, they don't have to say "A player told the Times." Its a given because they are the ones writing the article.

No where does it say anything about Walsh. You're grasping for straws here. There were other incriminating things that Specter attributed to Walsh that contradicted what the Commissioner said yesterday. And its been talked about in several threads.

I did read that. But that still could be that a former player told Walsh and gave it to the Times as a unnamed source. If that was the case, they would have written it exactly as they did. Many times information from confidential sources are written this way. Because technically it isn't wrong. And based on how the Times have manufacturered and twisted information on this story, I wouldn't put it past them to deliberately position second hand information to make it look like they got the information first hand.

I still can't believe that this player told both Walsh and the Times the same story. It is just illogical. I don't see this as grasping at straws. At the very least, this is a monumental coincidence. Either that or this offensive player is going around blabbing to everyone and the Times are the only ones who wanted to report it. It seems strange that a player would only blab to a low level employee of the Patriots and the Times.

 

[Rob0729]

Or they purposely left out information that could implicate their source.

As I said, you're grasping for straws on this one. There were plenty of other things that people (including myself) pointed out in the following thread:

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/showthread.php?t=82687

Now, if you want to say that Walsh told Specter of a process of how the tapes were actually used during the game, which is something that Specter said, then you'd have a point. Or if you wanted to mention that Specter said Walsh told him he did give tapes to Adams and Jimmy Dee during the games, it would be another point. But on the one where Walsh supposedly told the Times about this back in February, its just not there with what you've provided.

It is more likely that Specter screwed up those points than Walsh saying these things. In his statement on the Senate floor he stated:

According to Walsh, he first filmed an opponents’ signals during the August 20, 2000 pre-season game against the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. After Walsh filmed a game, he would provide the tape for Ernie Adams, a coaching assistant for the Patriots, who would match the signals with the plays.

That is consistent with what Goodell said. Specter quoted Schlereth (although he couldn't name him in his press conference).

Specter's press conference he screwed up a lot but the written statement that he gave on the Senate floor is clearer. He states in that statement about how Walsh told him about the preparation using the tape.