Nearly six months after the incident, the
Boston Herald reported, citing an unnamed source, that the Patriots had also videotaped the
St. Louis Rams' walk-through practice prior to
Super Bowl XXXVI in
February 2002,
[7] an allegation denied by Belichick
[6] and later retracted by the Herald. Meanwhile, Matt Walsh, a Patriots video assistant in 2001 who was fired after the team's
2002 season, told the media the same week that he had information and materials regarding the Patriots' videotaping practices, but demanded an
indemnity agreement before speaking with the NFL.
[8]
The NFL reached a deal with Walsh on April 23, 2008 and arranged a meeting between Goodell and Walsh.
[9] Prior to the meeting, Walsh sent eight videotapes, containing opponents' coaches' signals from the 2000 through 2002 seasons, in accordance with the agreement.
[10] Goodell and Walsh met on May 13, 2008, at which time Walsh told Goodell he and other Patriots employees were present at the Rams' walkthrough to set up video equipment for the game but that there was no tape of the walkthrough made; as a result, Goodell told the media no additional penalties would be brought against the Patriots.
[11] Less than 24 hours later, the
Herald issued an apology for the article about the alleged walkthrough tape.
[12]
NFL/Walsh indemnity agreement[edit]
On March 9, 2008, the NFL announced that they were close to a deal with Walsh and his attorney that would indemnify Walsh against any legal or financial damages if NFL investigators were to interview him.
[46] By the start of the NFL's owners meetings on March 31, 2008, with the NFL not having yet reached any agreement with Walsh, Kraft said the "damaging allegation made by a newspaper" was something that he believed "never happened."
[47] Kraft added that Walsh, who he did not remember from his time with the Patriots, never signed any confidentiality statement with the team.
[47]
On April 23, 2008, the NFL announced they had reached an indemnity agreement with Walsh and had arranged a May 13, 2008 meeting between Walsh and Goodell.
[9] Under the terms of the deal, Walsh was required to share any information he may have in regards to the Patriots' activities during Walsh's employment with the team from
1997 until
2003,
[9] and also to turn over any tapes and other items in his possession to the NFL by a May 8, 2008 deadline.
[48] The Patriots and the NFL promised not to sue Walsh and also agreed to indemnify Walsh for any legal expenses involved with the interview process, so long as he complied with the terms of the agreement.
[9] Moreover, the agreement stipulated that the NFL would preserve the evidence turned over by Walsh, and that Walsh could retain copies, but could not release those copies to third parties without NFL permission.
[9]
May 13, 2008 meetings[edit]
Walsh sends tapes in advance[edit]
In compliance with the May 8 deadline, Walsh sent eight separate videotapes to the league offices in advance of the meeting:
[10][49]
- One tape from the Miami Dolphins game on September 24, 2000
- Two tapes, one offensive signals and one defensive signals, from the Dolphins game on October 7, 2001
- One tape from the Buffalo Bills game on November 11, 2001
- One tape from the Cleveland Browns game on December 9, 2001
- Two tapes from the January 27, 2002, AFC Championship Game against the Pittsburgh Steelers
- One tape, from a "third camera", from the San Diego Chargers game on September 29, 2002
Levy told
The New York Times that Walsh did not have a tape of the Rams' Super Bowl XXXVI walkthrough nor was the source for the original
Boston Herald article that made the allegation, as had been speculated by some in the media.
[10] While the Patriots withheld from comment, NFL Senior Vice President of Public Relations Greg Aiello told
The Boston Globe that the received tapes were consistent with what the league already knew and what the Patriots had admitted to when interviewed after the September 2007 incident.
[50] Meanwhile, Specter issued a statement in response to Aiello's comments, saying "I think it is very unfortunate that the NFL has already started its ‘nothing new’ spin before watching the tapes or finding out what Mr. Matt Walsh has to say. Let’s see where the evidence leads."
[51] Specter also scheduled a meeting with Walsh and Levy in Washington D.C. on May 13, 2008, after Walsh's meeting with Goodell in
New York City earlier that day.
[52]
Walsh and Goodell meet[edit]
On the morning of May 13, 2008, Walsh, Goodell, and other officials and lawyers met for more than three hours in the NFL offices in New York City.
[53] During the meeting, a contingent of media were shown clips from the videotapes that were sent to the NFL by Walsh, almost all of which contained shots of coaches' signals, the scoreboard, and an upper-level end zone view of the play.
[54]
Goodell then held a press conference, in which he reiterated the NFL's prior statement that Walsh's main information on the Patriots' practices were consistent with what the league already knew and had disciplined the team for.
[11] Walsh told Goodell in the meeting that there was no tape of the Rams' walkthrough before Super Bowl XXXVI, that nobody asked Walsh to tape it, and that Walsh was not aware of anyone else who had taped it.
[11] When the Rams held the walkthrough, Walsh said he and other Patriots employees were in the stadium setting up video equipment for the game wearing team apparel.
[11] After the press conference, NFL outside counsel Gregg Levy told a group of reporters that Walsh, when interviewed, said he told then-Patriots defensive assistant
Brian Daboll afterwards about the use of the Rams'
Marshall Faulk as a kick returner and the movement of a
tight end in an offensive formation in the walkthrough.
[55] Daboll then asked Walsh to diagram the formation.
[56] The NFL later re-interviewed Daboll, who did not recollect the conversation; the NFL also noted that even if a conversation occurred, it would not have been against the rules, as Walsh was authorized to be at the stadium, did not act in a clandestine manner, and was not instructed to observe the practice.
[57]
Walsh also told Goodell during the morning interview that the Patriots had, against league rules, used a player on injured reserve during a practice in 2001, and that Walsh had scalped Super Bowl tickets for certain players also during that time.
[11] While Goodell said that the use of the injured reserve player in a practice would normally result in a team fine, he would not levy additional fines against the team or Belichick after issuing $750,000 worth in fines collectively after the initial incident in September 2007.
[11] Walsh also told Goodell he was not aware of the Patriots bugging locker rooms, manipulating communications systems or crowd noise, or placing microphones on players to record signals or audibles; all were allegations made against the Patriots at one point or another.
[58]
Further, Walsh revealed to Goodell that the tapes of the signals stayed with Walsh throughout the game, were not processed during halftime, and were given to Patriots Football Research Director
Ernie Adams after the game.
[53] Goodell, who acknowledged in September 2007 that the tapes gave the Patriots no competitive advantage while the game was underway,
[20] reiterated the fact that the tapes were not processed during halftime in his post-meeting press conference, but said he had never accepted Belichick's interpretation of the rules as not prohibiting tapes that are not used within the same game.
[53]
Later in the day, the Patriots released the following statement:
[59]
"We want to address the allegation that the Patriots taped the Rams’ walkthrough prior to Super Bowl XXXVI. For the past three-and-a-half months, we have been defending ourselves against assumptions made based on an unsubstantiated report rather than on facts or evidence. Despite our adamant denials, the report ran on February 2, 2008, the day before Super Bowl XLII. That game was the second-most watched program in television history and it is unfortunate that today’s news will not also reach an audience of that size. We hope that with Matt Walsh's disclosures, everyone will finally believe what we have been saying all along and emphatically stated on the day of the initial report: 'The suggestion that the New England Patriots recorded the St. Louis Rams' walkthrough on the day before Super Bowl XXXVI in 2002 is absolutely false. Any suggestion to the contrary is untrue.'"
Walsh and Specter meet[edit]
After meeting with Goodell in New York City, Walsh and Michael Levy traveled to Washington D.C. to meet with Specter. Due to a late arrival and an expected lengthy meeting, Specter's office postponed their scheduled press conference until May 14, 2008.
[60]
The day after meeting with Specter, Walsh was interviewed by
The New York Times in Michael Levy's offices. Walsh told the newspaper that he discussed with video director Jimmy Dee alibis to use if he was questioned by opposing teams as to his activity while videotaping signals, such as shooting down-and-distance markers in place of the scoreboard, but noted that he never had to use one.
[56] Specter also released a floor statement following the meeting that mentioned Walsh turning his Patriots sweater inside-out and being issued a generic, not team, credential for the 2002 Patriots-Steelers AFC Championship game.
[61] Walsh also noted that he was surprised when he heard of Belichick's comments that Belichick "couldn't pick Walsh out of a lineup," because Belichick had spoken with Walsh on more than one occasion, and Bill's former wife Debbie gave Walsh a sweater for Christmas in 2001.
[56]
In a May 16, 2008 interview with
Armen Keteyian of
CBS News, Belichick responded to Walsh's comments, saying that Walsh "had a way of embellishing stories," that the two "really didn't have much of a relationship" and "very rarely saw or talked to each other," and that he didn't think he would recognize him prior to his publicity.
[62] Belichick said that Walsh's claim that the Patriots were deceptive in going about their videotaping was "never the case," and noted that Walsh was in full Patriots gear because Belichick "felt like what [the Patriots] were doing was OK."
[62]
Still, Belichick said that the team's continuation of the videotaping practice following the Ray Anderson memo in 2006 was a "mistake" that Belichick took responsibility for.
[62] Belichick regretted for not going to the league to check on the legality of their practice following the receiving of the memo, but instead allowed his interpretation of the Constitution and Bylaws to "override it."
[62] Belichick added that if the team was intentionally risking breaking the rules, they wouldn't have conducted the practice as indiscreetly as they did, which Belichick evidenced by opposing coaches waving at the camera recording the signals, and by the fact that regular game videotapes, that were sent to each team, clearly showed Walsh videotaping in Patriots gear.
[62] Belichick also expounded on the process that went into using the videotapes, explaining how Adams was sometimes able to glean information from them, but the signals were only part of a "mosaic" of other elements of game planning and preparation.
[62] In response to the notion that videotaping the signals gave the team an advantage over just observing and recording them by hand, Belichick stated that while most teams, including the Patriots, protected their signals by frequently changing them or using a wristband system, teams were able to decipher signals without tape, as they were available to everyone to see, and that the Patriots taped them for convenience and as a better studying method.
[62]
The Boston Herald apologizes[edit]
In their May 14, 2008, issue the
Boston Herald published an apology to the Patriots and their fans for publishing the February 2, 2008, story that cited an unnamed source in alleging the Patriots had taped the Rams' walkthrough prior to Super Bowl XXXVI.
[12] The newspaper said that while they believed their source to be credible, they never viewed a videotape of the walkthrough, or talked to anyone that had. Thus, they wrote, they should not have published the story, which they deemed to be false, "in the absence of firmer verification."
[12] The next day,
Boston Herald Editor-in-Chief Kevin Convey took full responsibility for the publication of the story, while standing behind the work of Tomase and the
Herald's sports department.
[63]
In an interview with
CNBC the same day, Kraft said he was bothered that there would still be people throughout the country who would not see the retraction, and that he felt vindicated after the "damaging" story "put a cloud over [the team] for three-and-a-half months."
[64] Kraft added that he believed there was no other team in sports history who had gone through such scrutiny as the Patriots did following the initial incident in September 2007, and that the Patriots have done a full audit of their organizational procedures, with lawyers now helping the team administer the NFL rulebook, which Kraft realized "was beyond the scope of a coaching staff, or personnel people, to administe[r] properly."
[64]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_National_Football_League_videotaping_controversy
