Walsh Agt.

[MattM]

From a posting I just made on a Pats board (where they're flipping out, as you'd imagine)---

 

After reading the Agt. itself last night, some thoughts:

 

1. It's clear that both sides contemplate Walsh having tapes--there's no doubt about that now;

 

2. Section 1(a) also contemplates the idea that Walsh may have given materials to others and needs to get that back--Tomasse perhaps, or some third party to back his story up to Tomasse so that the Herald could run the story without fear of being sued? Any journalists out there able to answer whether that would be "normal" to do so without disclosing it in the article? (In my best Mr. Scott impersonation here, "I'm a lawyer, Cap'n, not a journalist!");

 

3. Under 1(b), and as has been reported elsewhere, it looks like Walsh can talk to third parties about what he's turning over, but there are restrictions on his ability to let others see his lawyer's copy of the materials he gets to keep (at least for a little while--there's another provision saying he needs to turn those materials over to the League at some point);

 

4. Under section 2 Walsh will be talking to the NFL not just about videotaping, but also about "any other violations" of which he has personal knowledge (audiotaping perhaps?);

 

5. The possibility of Congressional hearings is contemplated in section 3(a);

 

6. What to me may be the most important nugget here is also in 3(a), namely the Agt. goes into detail on when Walsh was presumed to be working for the Pats and actions he took will be presumed to be their actions--including taping activities relating to Pats games (the "Covered Videotaping Action" defn.) It then goes on to say that things outside those listed activities (which, to my reading, may arguably not include taping a Rams practice) need to be proved by Walsh to have been Pats actions by a preponderance of the evidence. The fact that this is even in here leads me to even more strongly suspect that on May 13 among the items turned over will be a SB 36 walkthrough tape.

 

7. I also found that section on rehabilitating reputations (4(b)) interesting, but am not quite sure what's contemplated by it. It is pretty powerful, however, due to the statement that it trumps the rest of the Agt.

 

For those of you taking comfort from the Pats strong denials--go back and re-read that denial. They say that the "NE Patriots" didn't tape the walkthrough--that will be their argument, it was Walsh as a lone gunmen. And the rest of world outside New England will have a good old laugh at that, I suspect, as will the Commissioner. As noted before, in that case, my suspicion is that BB may have coached his last NFL game and the loss of a first round draft pick this year will be made to look like a slap on the wrist.

 

I originally thought that this may be to the Pats benefit when I saw the timing of this--i.e., if they're doing all this this week, the week of the draft, then the League thinks Walsh has nothing. But when the fact that they plan to do this in the NFL season "dead zone" of the period between the draft and spring training, I now think just the opposite. The delay here IMHO has been the NFL trying to position what they know to be a smelly problem into a media period when it will do them the least harm.

[ganesh]

I originally thought that this may be to the Pats benefit when I saw the timing of this--i.e., if they're doing all this this week, the week of the draft, then the League thinks Walsh has nothing. But when the fact that they plan to do this in the NFL season "dead zone" of the period between the draft and spring training, I now think just the opposite. The delay here IMHO has been the NFL trying to position what they know to be a smelly problem into a media period when it will do them the least harm.

 

On the contrary, it could also mean these NFL beat writers have nothing to write about except spy gate, causing more damage to the league....

[MattM]

On the contrary, it could also mean these NFL beat writers have nothing to write about except spy gate, causing more damage to the league....

 

I disagree--I think what they wanted most of all was to keep this (and by this, I mean the actual allegations that will come out of whatever Walsh ends up having) out of the discussion during draft weekend. The timing of this allows the Commish to say to any questions on it, "The Agt's resolved and we'll talk in a couple of weeks. Next question", rather than have to suffer further embarrasing questions about why it's taking so long to get it done (ie., sweeping it under the rug yet again), but at the same time pushing off the actual dirt until a period when football fans are most likely to be tuned out. The columnists can write what they want, but if folks' attention is elsewhere then the damage is minimalized. Of course, for us die hards, we'll listen whenever the story breaks, but for the casual fan, this is the best the League can hope for. All of this points in my eyes to an increased likelihood that there are embarrassing things that are going to come out of this, both for NE and by association, the League. Anyone else notice in Goodell's comment last week the statement that Walsh says he has "new" evidence of Patriot wrongdoing for which further punishment may be warranted (i.e., more than the taping of D signals that we already knew about). In light of all that's gone on the last two days on this, I think that that's more likely to be the case. We'll find out either way in a few weeks time. Where's Hollywood Donahoe when you need him?

[scribo]

From a posting I just made on a Pats board (where they're flipping out, as you'd imagine)---

 

After reading the Agt. itself last night, some thoughts:

 

2. Section 1(a) also contemplates the idea that Walsh may have given materials to others and needs to get that back--Tomasse perhaps, or some third party to back his story up to Tomasse so that the Herald could run the story without fear of being sued? Any journalists out there able to answer whether that would be "normal" to do so without disclosing it in the article? (In my best Mr. Scott impersonation here, "I'm a lawyer, Cap'n, not a journalist!");

I am a reporter, and I can safely say I have looked at certian evidence over the years to ensure I wasn't being duped by a source but agreed to not report that I actually saw the evidence. Although, I would think Tomasse's story would have been a lot better if he was able to say he had obtained the tape, but I am sure he would do what he had to in order to get permission to report the info that such a tape may exist. Further, Tomasse's editors (and maybe even the publisher) most likely would have wanted to see the tape before allowing it to be reported. That said, I think it would be stupid of Walsh to have actually handed over his only copy of such a tape to the journalist. If I was Walsh, I would have made a copy, secure the original and then take the copy to the journalist and always keep that copy in my sight.

[In-A-Gadda-Levitre]

On the contrary, it could also mean these NFL beat writers have nothing to write about except spy gate, causing more damage to the league....

You have to admit, assuming Walsh has something besides innuendo, this is big, big news for an NFL beat reporter. Whatever damage the NFL incurs is probably limited to the Cheatriots. I might be missing something, but unless the NFL does a massive coverup (unlikely since Walsh gets copies and is able to share them), there's limited collateral damage.

 

Let's say they cheated enough to give them a sizable advantage towards one or more of their Super Bowl victories. The league might say turn around and say the loser is now the victor by default. Not a good thing, but doesn't exactly inflict huge damages in the league's reputation, again limited to the Cheatriots. More likely there will be huge fines and BB is suspended, etc.

 

UNLESS somehow it turns out that this is a widespread practice. Now that's a different story and whatever happens is probably justifiable.

[ACor58]

It doesn't matter what Walsh has, it will never see the light of day. Walsh could turn over a significant amount of evidence, and in the process, the NFL will make this matter disappear. They have to, for the good of the game.

 

If the Patriots did cheat, it is not within the best interest of the league to expose them.

[stuckincincy]

From a posting I just made on a Pats board (where they're flipping out, as you'd imagine)---

 

After reading the Agt. itself last night, some thoughts:

 

 

My thought is that Walsh will be making a trip to the Caymans sometime in the future to check the status of his anonymously-funded account.

[ACor58]

My thought is that Walsh will be making a trip to the Caymans sometime in the future to check the status of his anonymously-funded account.

 

Exactly!