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.