Here's a great interview with Matt Walsh.
It certainly speaks to a pattern of behavior, doesn't it?
I have to agree with the senator, and say that there's an apparent effort to not be forthcoming with information on the part of the NFL. I would like to see an independent investigation...
Incidentally, the meeting with the commish also included an attorney for the Patriots. So, it was not quite a "conversation" between the two as much as it was a quasi-deposition with the interests of the Patriots well represented.
Its no wonder Specter thinks there might be a conflict of interest there.
Of course today, the media have downplayed it all as "yesterday's news" and have told us "its finally over."
I think not.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
The NFL - as seems to often be the case - is covering its tail. Spygate came up, and the media focused on "stealing signals" and videotaping. The commish and some of his cronies interviewed "about 150 people" in the course of the alledged internal investigation. They had videos - evidence - that they destroyed.
And the commish handed down fairly stiff penalties to the Patriots and that assmunch of a head coach, based on all of this.
Then came reports of a new viedotape of a walkthrough, and Matt Walsh. Matt had additional evidence of taping that he provided, and he met with the commish. He did not have the tape of said walkthrough, but did provide information that was not "in evidence."
And the commish said that was that. There was nothing new, and effectively said it was over.
....except that I believe that the videos of signal stealing that are the focus of the media are only smoke covering a larger fire. And that larger fire is about the "other" things the Patriots were doing.
Stealing signals is bad enough, and it may help to win *some* games when you play in some situations (like when you play an opponent with the same coach and same players again within a year). But, if there is - as some have suggested - a pattern of things like using electronic surveillance, that's a different issue.
Why was the penalty so severe? What else was out there that might help the Patriots?
And even the commissioner's statement yesterday was vague as to the content of the tapes. He didn't say the tapes and related evidence showed nothing new. He said "The fundamental information that Matt provided was consistent with what we disciplined the Patriots for last fall."
Yes, I'm sure that's true. But, there's more to this in your carefully chosen words. What else did he tell you?
And if you fined the Patriots for what you saw over the past 3 years, and then Bellicheat himself said there was more and you see more, you say that's enough, they've been punished? Huh? Why? Because there's more to it, and you don't want to let the real truth out there?
Like I said with PacMan - it wasn't about the situation he was in. It was about how the hell he came up with $83,000 in cash in today's modern life when it comes to money laundering and anti-terrorism. And like Michael Vick - it wasn't about dog fighting. It was about him racketeering as he bankrolled the operation.
The NFL would rather you not know that.
Arlen Specter was not as quick to dismiss the issue. In fact, he called for an independent investigation. The NFL says its over. And because its a bunch of prviate owners - who don't even have to show the government their books - it might be....except that there's this little matter called anti-trust that weighs heavily and will make the owners snap to attention when someone asks questions.
Here's to hoping we continue to inch toward the truth. I still say it will not end well....
at 3:04 PM