Many on this board are quick to accuse Tomasse completely made up the story with zero basis and to be vindictive. Given the totality of the facts, I doubt that is the case. I tend to think he took the available facts and made a reasonable inference. An inference that was totally unprofessional, worthy of him being fired, but nonetheless reasonable. Assume from a reliable source within the Patriots (Drew Bledsoe, maybe) he had the following facts: 1. Walsh was present at the Rams walk-thru. 2. Walsh was employed at the time at the time to do taping. 3. Walsh often did the covert taping of opposing coaches. 4. The Patriots were aware of at least one of the Rams plays based on observations of the Rams walk-thru. 5. Walsh claimed to have evidence of spying beyond what was already reported. Humm, a reasonable conclusion might be that he taped the walk-thru. Reasonable conclusion. But irresponsible journalism, to label the taping as a fact. Had he simply reported Walsh was a cameraman who was present at the walk-thru, the entire world would have jumped to the same conclusion. What Tomasse did was jump to the conclusion and then report it as a fact, not as an inference. To be clear, I believe Tomasse should be fired, as should the editor who allowed the story to run. But for shoddy journalism, not for an attempt to deceive. What the difference you ask. Lack of malice.