ON MATT WALSH
RG: We’re just waiting to talk to Matt Walsh and we finally got an appointment on his schedule for May 13. So we’ll see him on May 13 and see what he has.
Q: If you read the agreement about ten times, it sounds like you sort of know what Matt Walsh has?
RG: No, they’ve not been required nor have they provided us with anything that they have. We’ve read what you have read in the newspapers and other individuals have said that he has evidence of walk-throughs and other things. We are anxious to see if that is the case, but we don’t have any indication if has or doesn’t have.
Q: Gregg Levy or Ray Anderson don’t have any indication?
RG: Ray Anderson has never been involved with it and it has just been Gregg and Mike Levy. They are supposed to submit it to us, I think, by the end of next week.
Q: Why have you and other league officials said multiple times since Super Bowl week that you have done your investigation and that everything is already out there. If you felt that there is nothing new to know, why did it take so long to come to an agreement with Walsh?
RG: You’ll have to ask Mr. Levy that. He’s the one who asked for the restrictions. They have been the ones asking for protection, while everyone else we have spoken to, which is well over 50 individuals, never asked for any conditions. He was free to speak and he could have spoken any time.
Q: You have said that all the transgressions are out there and you are comfortable that you know everything that has happened?
RG: No. I’ve never said that. No, I’ve said repeatedly from day one: if there is any new information, I reserve the right to go back and look at it. We have looked at every one of the rumors and there is nothing new factually, from day one, that has been supported by any evidence. When you reported about Matt Walsh is when I first really learned about him and we’ve been trying to determine what evidence he has. You seem to indicate that he has more information and that is what I want to know.
Q: What about the stipulation in the agreement that he not speak to any other third parties before he is interviewed with the NFL?
RG: That is because I would like to see what he has. As soon as I am done here I am walking out to a media press conference, and anything he has he can tell you.
Q: Why is it important that you know first?
RG: Because it is a violation of NFL rules. If what you reported is correct, that he has a walk-through, then I want to see that. If he has that, then I will be the first to be out there telling you. I don’t know that. You’ve reported it, so we’ll see. He has spoken to plenty of people out there; he just hasn’t spoken to us. So I would like for him to come in here and sit right across from me at this table. He asked for conditions, and we are trying to meet them, and we are doing things that we probably wouldn’t do in most cases. We certainly didn’t do them in the other 50 cases.
Q: Don’t most teams typically have dozens, if not hundreds or thousands of videos in their library?
RG: I don’t know the answer to that question. They frequently re-tape over them after a certain point in time because they become unimportant.
Q: And you watched six? Is that right?
RG: We watched everything they had in their video library with respect to illegal videotaping.
Q: According to them?
RG: Yes, as they testified, but they recycle tapes. At a certain point of time, it turns into notes and then they use it from their notes and not from the video.
Q: How far would you go in punishing a team, if they taped a walk-through or something you deemed so reprehensible?
RG: That’s a hypothetical question, which I can’t answer. Taping a walk-through is much different than what I punished them for. That is a different violation and I would take that very seriously. So, if they have that, then that is something that would cause me to reevaluate the discipline. However, they were not disciplined for that, but only for taping defensive signals, and that was the only violation we have any evidence of. We will find out what Mr. Walsh has in a couple of weeks, and then you will know and I will know.
Q: Back to Matt Walsh, you said you interviewed how many people? Fifteen or fifty?
RG: Fifty, over fifty.
Q: And Walsh was the only one who refused to cooperate? Is that right, he wouldn’t tell…
RG: I wouldn’t say refused to cooperate; he just asked for conditions.
Q: He was the only one?
RG: Yes.
Q: Did you interview other former Patriots videographers who are no longer in the league?
RG: Yes. Either no longer in the league or with other clubs.
Q: They all shared whatever they did without stipulations?
RG: That’s what they’ve told us, yes.
