"So there was no Super Bowl walk-through tape, but there reportedly was a Super Bowl walk-through spying, albeit in person -- by Walsh, relayed to the Pats. Not cheating necessarily, but iffy. Roger Goodell's declaration that "there was no tape" comes across as the NFL's version of "I did not have sex with that woman" -- technically true, but arguably misleading. Given Goodell's history with the destruction of evidence, I don't expect anything less than him portraying this in the best light possible for the league. However, I just don't buy it -- why wouldn't he disclose that Walsh told him he personally spied on the Rams, unless he felt like it was something to hide." My reply: Wow. I'm impressed at how you implied there was some more "spying" when Walsh, who was in full Pats gear and just setting up, witnessed Marshall Faulk lining up for kick returns. There's nothing "iffy" about it. He was there, in plain view and in an official capacity. What's he supposed to do: not tell his employers? Even better is how you neglected to mention that Walsh stated that no tapes were used in-game, an admission that effectively negates eight months of "cheating" and "tainted titles" talk. I haven't been to this blog in months, so thanks for reminding me why that is. Unbelievable. Is there any integrity left in the sports "journalism" world?