Angus
Active Member
- Messages
- 5,097
- Reaction score
- 20
Slimy film is left all over Patriots
By Bryan Burwell
ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH
05/14/2008
Roger Goodell tried to make it easy for us. With the simple gesture of a furrowed brow and the sly evoking of a parental prerogative, the glib and telegenic NFL commissioner attempted to make the unsettling mess of Spygate go away with a few words.
Essentially, he told us what parents have been telling disagreeable kids for centuries: It's over because I said it's over. "I don't know where else I would turn," Goodell said after a 3 1/2 hour meeting with former New England Patriots employee Matt Walsh.
The commish said there were no new bombshells to drop, no surprisingly salacious tidbits to spread, no more blame to thrust upon the slightly tarnished legacy of the Patriots' dynasty or their Machiavellian head coach Bill Belichick.
However, just like those disagreeable kids, I'm not in the mood to quickly dismiss anything just yet, particularly after Tuesday's press briefing where the smooth and polished commissioner spoke to a room full of inquisitors in New York and tried once again to minimize the colossal damage to the NFL's integrity that the Patriots created with the Spygate scandal.
If that scandal has come to an end, it's not because the story no longer has legs. It's only because Goodell wants it to go away. But we have tapes that conclusively tell a story that the team broke the rules. We have a coach and an organization that has lied before, and deserves our suspicions that they probably are lying again when they say they didn't understand rules so clear-cut and simply worded that only a fool would misinterpret them. And so now we're supposed to believe that the genius Belichick can read the most elaborate offenses and defenses in football but can't read simple English in the NFL rulebook?
What makes no sense is the suggestion by Belichick that he misinterpreted the rule. In September 2006, the NFL sent out a memo to all teams concerning the elevated suspicions that teams were bending the rules about video spying. Ray Anderson, the NFL's senior vice president for football operations, wrote, "Videotaping of any type, including but not limited to taping of an opponent's offensive or defensive signals, is prohibited on the sidelines, in the coaches' booth, in the locker room, or at any other locations accessible to club staff members during the game."
How exactly can you misinterpret that?
So why should we believe him when he now says he never used any of the confiscated tapes improperly (during the same game they were taken)? Why should we believe him when he says the tapes were intended to be used only against division rivals on their second meeting of the season when there were tapes of the Pittsburgh Steelers, San Diego Chargers and Cleveland Browns, none of whom play in the AFC East?
Listening to the various versions of Belichick's truth is like listening to boxing promoter Bob Arum when he said famously many years ago, "Yesterday, I was lying. Today, I'm telling the truth."
But there are other disturbing questions in this story that need to be asked and answered. I don't doubt the Boston Herald's original honest efforts in reporting that the Patriots videotaped the Rams' walk-through before the 2002 Super Bowl. Their reporting wasn't fabricated. They didn't create this story out of thin air. So was Walsh (assuming he was the source) embellishing the story then, or is he lying now when he told the commissioner there were no videos of that walk-through?
Yes, you better believe somebody's lying, and it's probably more than one somebody. And even if the Rams were foolish enough to allow Walsh, who was fully dressed in Patriots gear, to roam their sidelines during that Saturday walk-through and have access to their final pregame preparation, please don't try to blame the victims for the scandal.
This story is not over, not one little bit, no matter how much the commissioner and the Patriots want it to go away. It won't ruin their accomplishments, it won't turn Belichick into a phony genius, but it will leave an indelible mark that can't be ignored, forever distorting the dynastic legacy of the Patriots once-proud name.
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/sp...329907A791EE9DE38625744900112A1F?OpenDocument
By Bryan Burwell
ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH
05/14/2008
Roger Goodell tried to make it easy for us. With the simple gesture of a furrowed brow and the sly evoking of a parental prerogative, the glib and telegenic NFL commissioner attempted to make the unsettling mess of Spygate go away with a few words.
Essentially, he told us what parents have been telling disagreeable kids for centuries: It's over because I said it's over. "I don't know where else I would turn," Goodell said after a 3 1/2 hour meeting with former New England Patriots employee Matt Walsh.
The commish said there were no new bombshells to drop, no surprisingly salacious tidbits to spread, no more blame to thrust upon the slightly tarnished legacy of the Patriots' dynasty or their Machiavellian head coach Bill Belichick.
However, just like those disagreeable kids, I'm not in the mood to quickly dismiss anything just yet, particularly after Tuesday's press briefing where the smooth and polished commissioner spoke to a room full of inquisitors in New York and tried once again to minimize the colossal damage to the NFL's integrity that the Patriots created with the Spygate scandal.
If that scandal has come to an end, it's not because the story no longer has legs. It's only because Goodell wants it to go away. But we have tapes that conclusively tell a story that the team broke the rules. We have a coach and an organization that has lied before, and deserves our suspicions that they probably are lying again when they say they didn't understand rules so clear-cut and simply worded that only a fool would misinterpret them. And so now we're supposed to believe that the genius Belichick can read the most elaborate offenses and defenses in football but can't read simple English in the NFL rulebook?
What makes no sense is the suggestion by Belichick that he misinterpreted the rule. In September 2006, the NFL sent out a memo to all teams concerning the elevated suspicions that teams were bending the rules about video spying. Ray Anderson, the NFL's senior vice president for football operations, wrote, "Videotaping of any type, including but not limited to taping of an opponent's offensive or defensive signals, is prohibited on the sidelines, in the coaches' booth, in the locker room, or at any other locations accessible to club staff members during the game."
How exactly can you misinterpret that?
So why should we believe him when he now says he never used any of the confiscated tapes improperly (during the same game they were taken)? Why should we believe him when he says the tapes were intended to be used only against division rivals on their second meeting of the season when there were tapes of the Pittsburgh Steelers, San Diego Chargers and Cleveland Browns, none of whom play in the AFC East?
Listening to the various versions of Belichick's truth is like listening to boxing promoter Bob Arum when he said famously many years ago, "Yesterday, I was lying. Today, I'm telling the truth."
But there are other disturbing questions in this story that need to be asked and answered. I don't doubt the Boston Herald's original honest efforts in reporting that the Patriots videotaped the Rams' walk-through before the 2002 Super Bowl. Their reporting wasn't fabricated. They didn't create this story out of thin air. So was Walsh (assuming he was the source) embellishing the story then, or is he lying now when he told the commissioner there were no videos of that walk-through?
Yes, you better believe somebody's lying, and it's probably more than one somebody. And even if the Rams were foolish enough to allow Walsh, who was fully dressed in Patriots gear, to roam their sidelines during that Saturday walk-through and have access to their final pregame preparation, please don't try to blame the victims for the scandal.
This story is not over, not one little bit, no matter how much the commissioner and the Patriots want it to go away. It won't ruin their accomplishments, it won't turn Belichick into a phony genius, but it will leave an indelible mark that can't be ignored, forever distorting the dynastic legacy of the Patriots once-proud name.
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/sp...329907A791EE9DE38625744900112A1F?OpenDocument
:
I want to know the truth, hell my tax dollars might as well contribute to one of my self interest.
