- Joined
- Nov 14, 2006
- Messages
- 49,631
- Reaction score
- 28,352
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.
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.
Last edited: