By Ron Borges
First it was stolen hand signals. Then it was destruction of evidence. Now it’s filming closed practice sessions and open denials. Where does it all stop? Maybe not where the NFL and the Patriots’ would like it to stop.
“Spygate II, The Encore’’ has not yet jumped the tracks on NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell and Patriots’ coach Bill Belichick but it’s starting to careen out of their control and if that continues that is where the real problems could begin.
To this point, Goodell has unwisely treated this as the NFL treats most things – as a PR problem. He says he acted swiftly when the first charges were leveled at Belichick for cheating, although we now have learned he acted so swiftly that he fined him four days BEFORE the Patriots had produced the notes and tapes he was seeking. How do you mete out your punishment before you know what was done?
“Did they know the scope of the wrongdoing before the penalty was imposed?’’ asks Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter. “The answer is no.’’
Then, it turns out, Goodell had his minions, including an attorney who should have known better named Jeff Pash, destroy the evidence while they were still in Foxboro, a move Goodell still defends as “the right thing to do.’’ How is destroying evidence ever the right thing to do?
That action now calls into question the alleged “leaking’’ of a portion of one of those tapes to FOX-TV news maven Jay Glazer. At the time, Goodell was supposedly outraged at the leak. A witch hunt was launched netting no culprit. Yet now we learn the tapes were actually destroyed by Pash and NFL vice-president Ray Anderson while they were in Foxboro at the instruction of Goodell. What that means, if Goodell is now to be believed, is that either the Patriots leaked it to make themselves look foolish or Goodell’s associates did it because if they destroyed the tapes in Foxboro as he now says, no one else would have had access to them to leak them.
It seems a safe bet it wasn’t Belichick who leaked them to Glazer so who did? If Goodell is telling the truth it had to be either Pash, Anderson, the commissioner himself or one of his underlings because, according to Goodell’s story, no one else would have ever had their hands on them because they never got to New York.
Or did they?
No wonder Sen. Specter said of Goodell’s explanation last week, “The words absurd and ridiculous keep coming to my mind because he says it with a straight face.’’
What Goodell keeps saying are the kinds of things you say when you don’t have the high ground. He says, for example, that no one wants to talk with Matt Walsh, the Patriots’ former videographer who claims to have tapes and other information on the cheating scandal, more than he does yet he refuses to grant him the kind of immunity from a previously signed confidentiality agreement with the Patriots that would fully protect Walsh once Belichick said the simplest thing, like “He’s lying.’’
Having read both the league’s offer and the one proposed by Walsh’s attorney it is clear the NFL has no intention of providing Walsh with real immunity because as written all the Patriots have to do is what Belichick did in Monday’s Boston Globe and deny his allegations. After that the NFL’s “immunity’’ deal would not protect Walsh from the team suing him.
The simple, and larger, fact is this: if the league really wanted to talk with Walsh and the Patriots are so sure they have nothing to fear why not ask owner Robert Kraft to release Walsh from the non-disclosure agreement he was forced to sign when he was let go?
“Matt Walsh is an important guy and they have made it (the limited immunity deal) so conditional,’’ Specter told ESPN.com. “All they have to do is say, ‘We’re not going to sue you.’ It’s not a big deal.’’
If it is a big deal maybe Goodell should ask the Patriots why? While he’s at it, he might also ask why an employee so low on the organizational totem pole that Belichick told the Globe he couldn’t identify him in a lineup was forced to sign such an agreement in the first place? Eric Mangini didn’t have to and he quite obviously knew where at least one body was buried since he’s the guy who got this ball rolling in the first place.
When Specter asked the commissioner why a former FBI agent now working in league security named Dick Farley was allegedly investigating Walsh’s background at the same time the league claimed it wanted so desperately for him to come forward and cooperate, he admitted Farley worked for the NFL but, according to Specter, then told the Senator, “We didn’t know he was investigating him.’’
What is this the LAPD? You got employees destroying evidence in an investigation before you’ve seen it and a rogue investigator out digging into Walsh’s background without your permission and you, as high commissioner, don’t know anything about it?
Let us return to Sen. Specter’s point of view, “The words absurd and ridiculous keep coming to my mind because he says it with a straight face.’’
Rumors have been circulating of late that part of what the Patriots turned over was evidence of other team’s cheating ways as well as their own and that when Goodell heard about it he panicked and ordered all tapes and notes be destroyed. Why would he do that? Follow the money.
Perhaps because the league’s broadcasting contracts with its various television partners allegedly stipulate that the competition on the field must be real. If one team is illegally taping an opponent’s defensive signals or its practices to gain an unfair advantage over another, what does that say about the integrity of the competition? Goodell doesn’t know but he doesn’t want to be asked about it by lawyers for NBC, FOX or ESPN.
Belichick did come out Monday and emphatically deny ever having ordered or watched a tape of an opponent’s walkthrough, as Walsh allegedly claims he filmed the day before Super Bowl XXXVI, telling the Globe, “In my entire coaching career, I’ve never seen another team’s practice film prior to playing that team. I have never authorized, or heard of, or even seen in any way, shape, or form any other team’s walkthrough. We don’t even film our own. We don’t even want to see ourselves do anything, that’s the pace that it’s at. Regardless, I’ve never been a part of that.”
Later in that same article the rule in question was quoted and explained thusly: “The rule states: “Any use by any club at any time, from the start to the finish of any game in which such club is a participant, of any communications or information-gathering equipment, other than Polaroid-type cameras or field telephones, shall be prohibited, including without limitation videotape machines, telephone tapping, or bugging devices, or any other form of electronic devices that might aid a team during the playing of a game.”
Later the article said, “Belichick felt the Patriots’ actions were in compliance with NFL rules saying, “My interpretation was that you can’t utilize anything to assist you during that game. What our camera guys do is clearly not allowed to be used during the game and has never been used during that game that it was shot.”
Belichick went on to say, “I respect the integrity of the game and always have and always will. I regret that any of this, or to whatever extent it has in any way brought that into question or discussion or debate. The decision was made by the commissioner, the practice was immediately stopped, and we’re not doing it.
“Just going back over the whole taping incident, if I contacted the league and asked them about the practice, I’m sure they would have told me - as they have done - that it is not permissible. Then I could have avoided all of this.’’
Only one problem, they did. How he and the Globe forgot that is anyone’s guess but let us look at two salient points.
First, the rules on game day videotaping also state that: “…all video for coaching purposes must be shot from locations “ENCLOSED ON ALL SIDES WITH A ROOF OVERHEAD.”
How could Belichick mistakenly have thought there was a roof over the head of the guy he had doing that taping on the sidelines? Perhaps if he was in a domed stadium he might have been able to “misinterpart” that part of the rule as well but he was not, unless something has changed at Giants Stadium that we are not aware of.
Belichick also says if he’d asked the league they would have told him what he was doing was illegal and he “could have avoided all of this.’’ Well, unfortunately for his argument, they did.
Or did he misremember the memo sent to all head coaches and general managers on Sept. 6 that re-emphasized the videotaping rules for the sole purpose of avoiding just such a denial.
In that memo, Anderson, the league’s executive vice president of 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.”
What’s to misinterpret? Was he thinking, “We’re so much better than the Jets, I didn’t think it was really going to be much of a game?’’
If someone can read that memo from Anderson and the full rules on videotaping and still utter what Belichick is quoted saying in the Globe then one has to wonder about the veracity of the rest of his denial.
Belichick said if he’d called and asked the league they would have told him it wasn’t legal and he wouldn’t have done it. Fine, but the inconvenient fact is they wrote him a letter WITHOUT HIM CALLING TO ASK and told him it was illegal and he did it any way. Yet he’s still arguing on Monday that it was merely a misinterpretation.
Which brings us back to Sen. Specter’s quite prescient comment on most everything about the handling of this matter to date: “The words absurd and ridiculous keep coming to my mind because he says it with a straight face.’’
34 responses so far ↓
1 Addie Endelman // Feb 19, 2008 at 11:03 am
Do you know for a fact that Mangini never signed a non-disclosure agreement while with the Patriots?
2 Ron Borges // Feb 20, 2008 at 7:29 pm
Yes, as a matter of fact I do. romeo didn’t either. Nor did Charlie Weis.
3 cblooz // Feb 21, 2008 at 11:34 am
Well Ron I will agree that its high time that this issue gets resolved one way or another and I think its becoming clearer that the NFL acted as swiftly as they did primarily because they (Goodell) feared that “cheating” of other teams could have been revealed which would cause this to go on and on which no professional league (look at MLB as the wrong way to handle the steroid issue) wants to have headlines over and over.
But Ron being the good reporter that you have proven to be over the years you have to wonder out loud about Sen. Spector. You are painting a picture of a Senator going the extra mile to get to the “truth” when he himself has admitted this is primarily about his Eagles losing the Superbowl to the Pats. So, if this involved the Bills or the Bears he would not be pounding the table . As the recent hearings with Clemens have proved Congress has no business with these sort of issues. This is an NFL issue to solve whatever the outcome.
I for one want everything exposed, including any information about other teams that Goodell might have found. I also want this Matt Walsh character to turn over everything he has.
But Ron do all of us a favor and write on of your columns in which you quiz anonymous players , coaches and GMS (past and present) and give us their take on this WHOLE issue. That would be good reading for all of us.
As for putting Spector on a pedestal-please spare us-for instance if Sen Kennedy launched an investigation into the Series in which the Yanks defeated the Sox a few years ago based on his knowledge now that some of those players were using steroids would be embarrassing and an enormous waste of time based on the issues in this country.
Ron, you may well get your wish and have Belicheck lose his reputation and possibly his job over this issue but if he does then the whole NFL will look bad too.
4 Ron Borges // Feb 21, 2008 at 8:03 pm
Dear C - I’d hardly say anything I wrote about Spector put him on a “pedestal.” The fact he’s the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, gives him every right to look into the NFL because of its anti-trust exermption, which allows them to effectively run a monopoly in a country where monopoly is just supposed to be a board game.
As for the NFL’s “investigation” I think it’s pretty obvious Goodell wanted no part of any investigation so how can you say you want to leave it in his hands and at the same time say you want the whole issue aired? Seems a bit of a contradiction.
As for dragging me into it at the end of your missive, how did I have anything to do with this beyond commenting on it? I have no “wish” for Bill Belichick BTW one way or the other. But if he loses his reputation or his job over this issue that’s on him. The only way the whole NFL looks bad to me is if they A) do nothing if he did do it or B) crucify him as a sacrificial lamb for something he didn’t do. Only way to clarify any of that is to let the truth come out, which doesn’t happen all that often these days once the accusations start flying.
5 cblooz // Feb 22, 2008 at 10:15 am
C’mon Ron I never said you had anything to do with this particular issue. But your disdain for Belicheck is well documented although you sometimes thinly disguise it with off hand comments or sarcasm.
You are one that seems to think that the NFL is incapable of investigating the case not me-I just don’t want the Congress to get involved since I think they are more inept than the NFL’s own people. The best solution would be to have an independent committee look into it and believe it or not Ron I would love to have you on the panel. Goodell’s wish to have this go away is because I think he is well aware that other teams
could be implicated which just drags the issue out. Lets agree this has been a trial by fire for him and if he had to do it over again probably would have handled it differently.
I do find it amusing that you did ignore my comment about Spector having personal motivation for this issue rather than a wider focus which as a Senator he should have. I think that Lahey is giving him the go-ahead, for now, out of respect that he is a ranking Senator rather than the fact that there is a real national issue here.
Sadly you are correct also that the “truth” will never come out-at least not right now. Memoirs and bios 20 or 30 years from now may shed more light on the situation.
6 jholl25 // Feb 22, 2008 at 8:01 pm
Ron,
I have wondered if the harshness of the penality Goodell imposed on the Pats added legs to this story. Did you think small fine might have made this a non story?
7 Ron Borges // Feb 23, 2008 at 4:05 am
<p>why won’t the truth come out if you feel the NFL is capable of doing a fair investigation? Or don’t you? I don’t. Actually, they’re capable but their agenda gets in the way.<br />
As for Specter, the fact that he may or may not have a personal motivation is a red herring. The simple fact is this: either Belichick cheated or he didn’t. Either he knew what he was doing or he didn’t. All this ohter stuff about Specter’s motivation or the argument that it’s widespread are issues raised to cloud the real issue - he did it or he didn’t.<br />
Heard local talk radio yesterday claiming even Bill Polina” says move on. They left out the fact thqat former Rams’ coach Mike Martz said, on the same day, they should press on and that the talk that filming a walkthrough would glean no usable info was ridiculous.<br />
Lastly, we have BB’s denial and his argument that these hand signal filming were of little import and the next day we have a NY Times piece quoting an ex-Pats player saying he showed them film of the Tampa coaches signals the week before they played them in the season opener. So why was he wasting the players time and his own on something that was of no use?</p>
8 jholl25 // Feb 23, 2008 at 9:03 am
I think the reason the NFL doesn’t want the truth to come out is filming of coach’s signals was a lot more common practice more teams than they want known. If I understand the rule correctly, there are areas of the stadium where the Pats could have taped the exact same signals? It’s just hard for me to believe that as much of a “genius” that Belichick is, he invented taping signals and no one else thought to do it too.. I think Belichick said it was about a 1 on a 1 to 100 scale? It probably is. It’s just he thinks if he can find that 1 it will help his team down th road.
9 baby armed assassin // Feb 23, 2008 at 4:53 pm
You’ve got him right where you want him Ron.
Where has it been proven that Matt Walsh has a nondisclosure agreement?
I wish all of your ramblings could still be in the Globe. It helps the short sellers.
10 Ron Borges // Feb 24, 2008 at 6:29 pm
Dear baby,
I don’t have “him” any where except out of my life, which is where I want him.
As for Walsh, no one said it’s been proven or disproven that Matt Walsh has a nondisclosure agreement. It’s what he has said he has and many have written he has and you know it. When has it been proven that he doesn’t? When has it been proven that the Pats didn’t tape that walkthrough? You can play that game all night long. When has it been proven that Marion Jones did HGH and ‘roids? She passed every drug test she ever took. Do you think she didn’t do it?
All I hope for is that a real look into this is taken and Belichick is either exonerated or proven guilty. So I ask you this, one day in the Globe coach Bill is quoted saying the tapes of hand signals were or little or no import to him. Two days later in the NY Times a former Patriot player says he showed them film of those very same meaningless hand signals before the opener in Tampa his first season in New England. So which is it? Unimportant but he thought he’d waste their time any way? Important but he disremembered that he once thought it was important enough to show his players? Proven? Unproven?
Oh, I know. All a figment of Eric Mangini’s imagination.
I close with this. If the Patriots have nothing to fear from Matt Walsh, as you think, then why not just come out publicly and say they won’t sue him. Let him tell whatever his story is. If he’s lying they can easily refute it and if he isn’t they have nothing to fear because the truth is always on their side. Seems pretty simple to me. Apparently not so simple to you. What are you, and they, afraid of from Matt Walsh?
11 Ron Borges // Feb 24, 2008 at 6:30 pm
Jholl,
If everybody is cheating, as you surmise, tghen get it out and get it over with. Clean up the mess and move on.
12 baby armed assassin // Feb 25, 2008 at 7:19 am
His attorney is asking for a blanket immunity that would hold him harmless for making untruthful statements and the NFL balked. Why would the Patriots give up their legal rights to seek redress if it’s been proven that they’ve been defamed in some way by Walsh? Not a very bright way to run a business.
13 cblooz // Feb 25, 2008 at 7:55 am
Ron you keep going on and on that I don’t want the truth to come out but keep ignoring the fact that I don’t think that Congress can do it! G-damn did you watch the congressional hearing for Roger-it was a joke.
So that leaves the NFL or some enterprising reporter to uncover real facts/video/photos etc.
You also give Walsh a lot of credit but how can anyone when the guy has not spoken publicly or showed any evidence yet.
I don’t know if everyone is cheating Ron and by the way either do you and unless its proven for sure that they did I don’t think you will ever write the column that says lets move on from this topic because its over.
Finally stop making out EEI as the voice of the people. Its an entertainment station-nothing more-it does NOT speak for the people as you continually surmise-talk to some average jimmy and joes Ron not everyone loves BB or the way they do things-take a poll of season ticket holders who are pissed that almost a month after losing the SB people are still talking about spygate when they should be talking about the draft-if you don’t think fans blame BB for this mess you are so out of touch with what true fans in this area feel right now.
14 Ron Borges // Feb 25, 2008 at 9:43 am
baby boy,
It’s really quite simple, which is why I know your obtuseness is feigned. If Walsh lies the Patriots don’t need to sue him, from which they would gain nothing more than some used golf clubs and, apparently, some old videos and used footballs. All they’d need to do is reveal their clear proof that he is not telling the truth and that would be the end of both Matt Walsh and this story.
There is no blanket immunity from someone coming forward with clear, contradictory evidence that Walsh is lying, if they have it. For example, did Brian McNamee have to sue Roger Clemens to “prove” he was telling the truth about Canseco’s party once the kid came across with the pictures of Clemens at said party? No. A day later Clemens’ lawyers were backpedaling like Asante Samuel, saying “Opps, maybe he was.” Haven’t heard much from Roger since on that matter.
Same would apply in this case. If Walsh is lying or has no proof of whatever it is he claims to have on the Patriots, it shouldn’t be too difficult - nor require a lawsuit - to establish that.
One has to wonder, then, just what you’re afraid of.
15 Ron Borges // Feb 25, 2008 at 9:51 am
Dear C,
Take a valium my man. “Real” fans, like yourself, may indeed be miffed at Bill or Walsh or whomever. Good. They should be.
I have never said i believe or disbelieve Walsh. What I’ve said is the NFL and the Patriots seem to be bending over backwards to make sure he DOESN’T revel whatever it is he claims to have. Why would that be?
I did watch the hearing and while much of it was grandstanding it led, if nothing else, to that now 21 year old guy coming forward and saying “Wait a minute, Roger. You were at the party. I took your picture.” another brick removed from the wall of deceit. Wouldn’t have happened without that hearing. Same is true of Knoblach and pettite coming forward. perhaps you forgot both refused to speak with the Mitchell Committee. Had no choice when subpoenaed by the committee. now we haver Specter saying Pats and jets are refusing to speak with him. What is undeniable is no one in either case is going to cooperate with any real investigation unless compelled to do so.
again, you keep implying everyone in the NFL is cheating because ONE guy got caught. Seems a bit of a reach to me. and if EVERYONE is cheating how come the smartest guy got caught and not the dumb coaches many Pats fans seem convinced are littered on NFL sidelines everywhere but Foxborough? How does the smartest guy get caught in what you imply you believe may be a wide-spread problem but no one else? Unlucky?
Congress may not be the best venue for this exploration but the NFL investigating itself makes as much sense as Pac_Man appealing to the guy who suspended him to get his suspension lifted.
16 baby armed assassin // Feb 25, 2008 at 5:14 pm
The only reason the Patriots got caught is because Mangini dropped the dime, like all rats do.
I don’t know why you’re comparing this to the steroid investigation in baseball. That has grounds as a legal matter, given that steroids are a controlled substance. Specter has no standing on the matter unless the games are being fixed, because of contractual issues in the league’s agreements with the networks. That’s the only avenue that would give Specter the ability to hold hearings on any matter related to this. Since that’s not the case, all we’re really left with is the bluster of a jilted Eagles fan with respect to an internal league matter.
17 Ron Borges // Feb 26, 2008 at 7:12 am
How is a guy a “rat” for turning in a cheat? Don’t do things that are not only illegal but which you’ve been told via memo from the V.P. of the league not to do and nobody can rat you out can they?
And why is a guy a rat for protecting his team from a guy trying to illegally get an edge on him? If it had been the other way around you’d be one of the people saying how smart and focused bill belichick was for protecting his team from a cheat.
As for Specter his committe most definitely has standing. If you’re running a league that allows illegal videotaping that could influence the outcome or, worse, videotaping of an opponent’s practice if that ends up being the case, they have every right to find out because, if true, it would be perpetrating a fraud upon the public. Worse, if true and the league knew it was going on and did nothing, the networks could hammer them for relief. Not to mention the anti-trust exemption the NFL gets that allows them to unconstitutionally share their revenue, thus making it nearly impossible for a competing league to flourish. That only exists because of the protection given it by the committe on which Specter is the ranking Republican. So I’d say he’s a little more than a Eagles fan.
18 baby armed assassin // Feb 26, 2008 at 12:16 pm
Fraud? You can’t be serious. That’s laughably naive. Legally, Specter only has standing to use the anti-trust exemption if the contest is fixed and the game is not on the up and up. That’s not what’s happening here. For example, if the NFL had a Tim Donaghy issue that’s committing a fraud upon the public. Videotaping the opponent to gain an edge against league rules, is no different from breaking down tape to gain an edge, players taking PEDs to gain an edge, or a DL stepping on an opponent’s fingers in a pile to gain an edge.
Come on Ron, try to elevate your thinking a bit beyond simple outrage.
19 urnze // Feb 26, 2008 at 3:10 pm
In response to:
“As for Walsh, no one said it’s been proven or disproven that Matt Walsh has a nondisclosure agreement. It’s what he has said he has and many have written he has and you know it. When has it been proven that he doesn’t?”
ESPN has reported that Walsh in fact does not have a confidentiality agreement.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3259486
“An attorney for the Patriots told ESPN.com that Walsh did not have a confidentiality agreement with the franchise or anything else that might prevent his cooperation.”
Of course, much of the scrutiny in Spygate, part deux, has been centered on Belichick. Walsh has been represented by most, though not all, media sources as the key to incriminating Belichick beyond public perception. Perhaps this desire to unearth a presumed truth has led to a lack of critical research on Matt Walsh. I am not contending that Belichick should not be scrutinized but rather that responsible researchers would scrutinize all parties. I am surprised to write this, but Florio over at profootballtalk.com has done the best writing on this subject.
This was of particular interest:
“Other questions about Walsh should be asked. Such as, for example, how he found — and how he can afford — a Washington, D.C. lawyer who specializes in white-collar crime and government investigations. Could it be that Senator Specter hooked Walsh up with Michael Levy, and/or that Levy is handling the matter at no charge as a “favor” to the Senator?” (POSTED 3:41 p.m. EST, February 18, 2008; MAYBE THE MEDIA SHOULD EYEBALL WALSH)
Read through his blog. For a football writer who did little to impress me throughout the season, his recent writing on Walsh and Spygate, part deux has been refreshing.
20 urnze // Feb 26, 2008 at 3:15 pm
Jimmy Johnson confessed to taping signals. He claimed to have learned it from a Kansas City scout. Of course, that was back when it was, um, legal.
21 cmartin75 // Feb 27, 2008 at 8:12 am
Ron, Great article. Why has it become easier to get an interview with Whitey Bulger than Matt Walsh? I’m surprised he hasn’t woken up sleeping with the fishes messing with a cartel like the NFL.
NFL has a serious problem on their hands if this story develops even more legs. It’s bad enough you have to sit through 3 hours of commercials to watch a game, now you have to worry about the games being on the up and up.
So much for the model franchise crap we’ve been hearing about for the last 7 years. It’s about time someone blew the cover off this lid.
And how about Krafty Bob? Where is his role in all this? Does anyone believe he’s just a naive owner? And don’t go crying for the 750,000 dollar fine he and Belichick got, cause Krafty’s “Greatest Fans In the World” (as he likes to refer to em as), absorbed it in Parking fees when he jacked up the parking to 60.00 for the playoffs games. Let’s see, if they have just 6,000 parking spaces that’s 60.00 x 12,000 = 720,000. So much for the Fans argument “who care’s it’s not my money.” Open your eyes you stupid fools.
22 locutus // Feb 27, 2008 at 10:41 am
Did you ever wonder why Walsh has the tapes he claims to have? How did he retain possession of them, if they are actually Patriots property?
And how does anyone ‘force’ a fired employee to sign a non-disclosure? Waterboarding? I doubt it.
No wonder he is looking for legal protection. If he has any tapes, either he stole them from the Patriots, or he made the tapes on his own, without authorization.
23 lcorbeil // Feb 27, 2008 at 3:48 pm
Ron,
If you are so concerned about the integrity of the league why dont you also look at what other teams are doing/have done? The fact that the sole focus is on the Pats even though others have admitted doing it (and named others they learned it from) calls your objectivity into question.
How many times does Jimmy Johnson have to say the Cowboys did the same thing before some one asks Jerry Jones what he knew?
What about the other coaches who have coached with Jimmy? The coaches and organizations he names? There is no reporting going on here…just a witch hunt.
http://www.bostonherald.com/blogs/sports/patriots/
http://cowboysblog.dallasnews.com/
Q: How about the spying thing Jimmy. You’re a coach does that bother you what Belichick did?
JJ: Oh please. I’ve said it on our show. Eighteen years ago a scout for the Chiefs told me what they did, and he said what you need to do is just take your camera and you go and zoom in on the signal caller and that way you can sync it up. The problem is that if they’re not on the press box side you can’t do it from the press box, you have to do it from the sideline. This was 18 years ago.
Q: You think the NFL came down too hard on them?
JJ: No, no, I said it on the show. He was wrong for doing it for the simple reason that the league knew this was going on not just in New England but around the league. And the league sent out the memorandum to all of the teams saying you cannot do this. And so that’s when Bill Belichick was wrong. After he got the memorandum saying don’t do it any more, he did it.
Q: Did you ever steal signals?
JJ: Oh in a heartbeat, yeah. Yes I did.
Q: Via video, Jimmy? Or no?
JJ: Oh yeah, I did it with video and so did a lot of other teams in the league. Just to make sure that you could study it and take your time, because you’re going to play the other team the second time around. But a lot of coaches did it, this was commonplace.
Q: But did you do it by taping the signal caller?
JJ: Yeah.
Q: Oh you did.
JJ: That’s what I’m saying. I was saying one of Marty Schottenheimer’s scouts, Mark Hatley, who has passed away now, Mark told me that’s how they did it, and Howard Mudd their offensive line coach with Kansas City, who now coaches for Tony Dungy, he was the best in the entire league at stealing signals.
Q: Where’d you put your guy who was videotaping? Where was he?
JJ: My guy was up with my camera crew in the press box. So you’d just put an extra camera up with your camera crew in the press box who zoomed in on the signal callers. That’s the best way to do it, but anyway you can’t always do that because the press box camera crew might be on the same side as the opposing team. If they’re on the same side as the opposing team that’s when you need to do it from the sideline.
24 johnny1022 // Feb 27, 2008 at 4:53 pm
Ron- I didn’t realize that you had established your own website and am glad to see you are still active in Boston sports circles. We so much need good reporting and independence as newspapers struggle in an internet-connected world.
Below is the updated version of a posting I made to a Globe discussion board a while back. I didn’t get much of a reaction other than the expected personal attacks. I realize that portions of this read like a conspiracy theory, but much of it is based on Spygate articles and information that has been published elsewhere. I also know that you know a lot more about the NFL radio frequency stuff than I do, so I’m very interested in your comments and corrections. The fact that many of these “loose ends” and questions haven’t been addressed in the media or elsewhere convinces me that we are in the early stages of uncovering a cover up.
=========================
The allegation most assiduously avoided by the Patriots and the NFL was the one regarding the Patriots use of an alternative radio frequency (as opposed to the one specified by the NFL) to communicate between the coaches and the quarterback. As Deep Throat instructed journalists to “follow the money” open up the Watergate investigation, “following the radio frequency” might be the same in Spygate.
The NFL pre-assigns a private frequency to each team so that the other team cannot hear the communications, but more importantly because they want to monitor such team communications for any other evidence of cheating or unauthorized use of the radio system (eg, only one player, the QB, is permitted to have a receiver in their helmet).
The possibility (unsubstantiated, but heavily rumored and traced to individuals close to the Patriot organization, including Doug Flutie) that the Patriots were communicating on another frequency (unavailable to the NFL) was key to the concealment of their scheme for stealing the other teams defensive signals AND communicating them to their QB. The conspiracy of silence around this allegation, after it was reported several times (including Chris Mortensen of ESPN) raises suspicion that the NFL was covering up what was really happening. The NFL, by controlling the frequencies, was in a perfect position to substantiate and follow up on this potential violation of NFL rules in many games, yet it seems as if the Patriots use of their own frequency was dismissed as a technical snafu or misunderstanding. Also note that the NFL’s radio frequency was supposedly disabled 15 seconds prior to the the start of each play to prevent last second communications. Who knows if one of the reasons the Pats tampered with frequencies was to circumvent this limitation. After all, if defensive signals were intercepted, those last 15 seconds would be critical in order to react and complete the communications back to the QB.
Oh yeah, and why hasn’t their been any public comment on Dan LaBatard’s (Miami Herald) allegation that Doug Flutie expressed surprised to a number of friends that the radio transmissions to Brady with defensive sets and data continued on his own headset right up to the time the ball was snapped?
Of course, we don’t know that any of this really happened. So far a lot of smoke, but no fire. Yet the radio communication angle really needs to be explored much more deeply and TRANSPARENTLY. It makes the videotaping violations all the more egregious, since the electronics gave the coaches much greater leverage to benefit from their cheating. I have to smile when I see the naivete of many of the silly comments that “Everyone was taping or stealing signals”. Maybe everyone was stealing signals, but everyone wasn’t tampering with radio frequencies. It was exactly that violation that would have allowed the Patriots to benefit from the defensive signals in a unique and much more dishonest way.
The other interesting point in all of this involves the alleged problems with jammed radio frequencies in games involving the Patriots. I wouldn’t assume that the Patriots were so blatant in their cheating that they actually tried to interfere with the other team QB communications. Some of the radio problems were reported to affect the Patriots as well. However, what if the signal jamming was done to cover up the Patriots use of another frequency? What if they responded to any question of another frequency by saying THEIR OWN and the other teams radios were down and that is why they took it upon themselves to use another band? Perhaps the NFL prematurely dismissed the jamming allegations, which were raised far before the Spygate story ever broke, giving them another reason for their defensiveness and possible coverup.
Before anyone accuses me of dreaming up Spy vs. Spy scenarios, let’s also hear a little more about Bill’s prep school buddy Ernie Adams. Why doesn’t the Boston press, Belichick or Kraft ever really talk about the guy? Why do players smile, then say they don’t know what he does? If you read the extensive ESPN.com piece on him (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/eticket/story?page=adams ), you will see that surreptitious behavior has been part of the “Patriot Way” for years, and Ernie has been the embodiment of much of it.
Until the radio frequency angle is fully explored and aired, the public will have no real confidence in what has happened and Senator Spector will be dragged into the coverup himself. There are eerie parallels between this matter and the baseball steroids scandal where league officials conspire silently with the real offenders in protecting the IMAGE of the game. Somewhere in the process, the INTEGRITY of the game is forgotten and left unprotected. And then there’s that pesky antitrust exemption, which gives people like Arlen Specter the right to ask pesky questions.
It’s not the questions that are wrong, it’s the fact that there have been very few answers. This could be easily put to bed if Robert Kraft were to initiate a full and complete REAL press conference with Roger Goodell. Hey, even bring in Doug Flutie to dispel the rumors involving him; he has a lot of street cred with fans. Instead, Kraft hides in silence behind Cheatin’ Bill as he conducts one of his classic cameo press appearances with very little Q&A. Really, did RK really think Bill’s carefully parsed words would make this all go away?
In the meantime, Goodell has destroyed the tapes, Kraft remains eerily quiet, and many of the owners hope the whole think will die. Please spare me the attack comments and get upset with Kraft and Belichick, which is where the real blame lies. (No pun intended.) No one really needs to see the allegations proved in court. After all, it’s a silly little game and we just want to know what happened and feel better about the hometown team.
PS- We really do miss Will McDonough in this town! Thank goodness Ron is still around and willing to take the heat.
25 Ron Borges // Feb 27, 2008 at 7:52 pm
Johnny1022,
You should be covering this stuff not me. You have asked the right questions and brought up the correct issues. Many of the Pats’ opponents in recent years have talked among themselves and off the record to some reporters about the curious frequency with which their radio system has gone down, most often on third down, in foxboro even though they have a state of the art stadium compared to other stadiums they say it is far too frequent. I agree with the question you raise about why the Pats were using a frequency not authorized by the NFL. It was never explored and if you’re waiting for the local media to do it you’ll have a long wait.
People rather content themselves with saying “everybody’s doing it” when everybody is not doing it. When things get too hot they say, “Jimmy Johnson said he did it 18 years ago” or whatever. If he did, nail him too.
But you don’t see Jimmy Johnson saying he ever taped an opposing team’s practice now do you?
One of the folks says ESPN.com reporting that an unnamed Patriot attorney (do they have no names?) said Walsh didn’t have a nondisclosure agreement with the Patriots. that’s fine but when did the statement of a lawyer become PROOF of anything? I think there’s some lawyers right now in Texas who say roger clemens is telling the truth and everybody else is lying. Is that PROOF? I think not.
I think your sentiments are all well taken and explained and I agree. just get to the bottom of all this. If he’s guilty punish him. If he isn’t exonerate him.
I do ask this though, belichick was quoted in the globe saying the hand signal business was such a low priority it wasn’t until weds. or thursday of the next week that anyone got to it. Two days later a former Patriot is quoted in the NY Times saying Belichick showed them video of the Tampa coaches’ signals before their season opener. That doesn’t sound to me like a low priority item. Why waste the players’ time?
Lastly, the real point in all this was well enumerated by ex-rams coach Mike martz at the combine when he said that the issue is not whether or not belichick used any of this to get an edge, the issue is he was allegedly cheating in an attempt to get an edge whether what he got from those films provided one or not.
Some of these posts remind me of that nutty congressman dan burton from Ill, reprimanding from mcnamee for “lie after lie after lie.” haven’t heard much from dan burton since those pictures of roger at the canseco’s party surfaced have we?
fact is, if kraft, pats, or NFL wanted to really investigate this matter it could easily be done. It’s obvious they don’t. why? More importantly, I was told this week by a league official that they will “never” indemnify Matt Walsh. Wonder why?
26 cblooz // Feb 28, 2008 at 9:27 am
Ron is there a happy medium with you? You keep saying guys like me are saying since everyone does it leave the Pats alone.
I have never said such a thing nor have many of the other people who blog on this page. YOU are one that keeps putting words into our mouths and then turn it around back to the Pats must be the only ones who have done it since they got caught. You also keep talking about letting BB be exonorated-well thats not happenning Ron-he already has admitted taping the defensive coaches.
I think its naive to think that the Pats are the only ones who have ever done something to get a competitive edge. Call it cheating when all is said and done it is. You have to admit that the Pats are a target of a lot of teams-without question because of BB and his antics-which again you conveniently ignore that many of us dislike about him. Lets put it this way Ron if this were the SF giants it would not get nearly as much attention. But forget what we know right now Ron do YOU think that other teams in the recent past have engaged in some sort of cheating? And in my opinion that includes stomping on someone when they are down or engaging in Jack Tatum type behavior on the field as much as utilizing electronic methods.
I also find it curious that you have failed to mention at all the connection of Spector to Comcast which is an important piece of information to weigh when judging his motives.
As far as your comment on Dan Burton goes-we didn’t hear from him before the hearing why in God’s name should we hear from him now?
27 baby armed assassin // Feb 28, 2008 at 7:32 pm
“One of the folks says ESPN.com reporting that an unnamed Patriot attorney (do they have no names?) ”
poor reporting. It’s an industry wide issue
28 lcorbeil // Feb 28, 2008 at 8:02 pm
RB - ” When things get too hot they say, “Jimmy Johnson said he did it 18 years ago” or whatever. If he did, nail him too.”
If you truly want him (or the Cowboys) nailed for cheating then why dont you write something on the topic?? The truth is you don’t care - thats why. You and every other hack who ever got their panties in a wad over something BB said or did is looking for vengeance.
If you are vindictive then so be it. That’s your right. I can half a$$ respsect that. The problem I have is when you act like this all about getting to the bottom of it “for the good of the game.” Total BS . You and your ilk would have conducted a league wide investigation on this stuff if that were the case.
Jimmy Johnson threw the media a hanging curve with this thing and none of you swung because you’re all looking for the BB (pun intended)!!
29 SlackerWriter // Mar 1, 2008 at 1:29 pm
So you quote BB in 2008 about “low priority” and use as a counter-example that it was used in 2000 for the season opener.
That’s weak.
According the NY Times article, that was the first time is was used. You know that.
But you write “That doesn’t sound to me like a low priority item.” You use as an example, of the priority of the practice, one game - the first time it was used 8 years ago.
That it was used the first time really tells you nothing about the priority.
For example, let’s say someone purchased a certain paper to read about football and opened to the Sports pages. Soon, they grew tired of a certain writer for not providing information on the game of football and read other sections first. Is their priority still reading a certain sportswriter because they started there years ago?
30 umassjsp // Mar 1, 2008 at 8:59 pm
Ron you should do a podcast for the website as well…great stuff. The NFL has 2 major PR problems….Spygate and the NFL Network feud with the cable companies. Kraft has a big piece of Spygate on his plate as well. They need to bring in their best boot lickers to spin this so they can find an exit strategy. Maybe Kraft should just clean out the front office. I also think it would be good time to change the team name back to the Boston Patriots so he can get a fresh start but also sell a ton more merchandise. Who the hell wants something that says NEW ENGLAND…..that would be like the Giants selling shirts saying TRI STATE GIANTS. BB could have fallen on his sword at the beginning of Spygate but instead he acted like the spoiled kid who wanted to get back at his parents. He ran up scores, ordered “eff you” touchdowns and stonewalled the media. He played a bluff and now Specter and Walsh are calling him on it. I dont know how this story will end but maybe the NFL suspending BB will take the ball out of Krafty Bobs court. Ron keep the blogs coming. You should go on the Dave Dameshek show on ESPN Radio…I listen to his podcasts and he does a lot on Spygate. You would be a great guest for his show. Have a great weekend….Scott from Barnstable
31 bostonfan // Mar 2, 2008 at 9:19 am
I don’t get it. BB is a cheat and will always be associated with cheating and that is all there is to it. How can anyone defend what he has done? If a child gets caught for stealing a section of a test and defends it by saying “I’m not really cheating because I’ve already study that part of the test.” Hello, what are we teaching our children by making excuses for BB.
32 Sike Mando // Mar 3, 2008 at 11:39 am
UMASSJSP wrote:
“I also think it would be good time to change the team name back to the Boston Patriots so he can get a fresh start but also sell a ton more merchandise. Who the hell wants something that says NEW ENGLAND…..that would be like the Giants selling shirts saying TRI STATE “GIANTS.”
At least the “New England” Patriots actually play in “New England.” Unlike the “New York” Giants.
33 johnny1022 // Mar 7, 2008 at 1:10 pm
Regarding: Goodell Seeks Harsher Spying Penalties
(http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iE760V_yag52xy_fMMHMB6AwY4ggD8V8NGR80)
Here we go again, another case in point that Spygate is really all about the radio communications. (See comment #24 above).
I read with great interest that the new procedures implemented by the NFL addressed communication devices. “Competition committee members also suggested Friday that the memo is less about Spygate than it is about finding a way to keep up with advances in technology.
“When we met with commissioner, the discussion was how we proceed in an era when technology is expanding exponentially,” Indianapolis Colts president Bill Polian said. “The question is how do we keep on top of that. This is far less about what happened in the past and how we deal with it in the future.”
… Enforcement would include spot checks of team offices, including locker rooms, coaches’ booths and in-stadium communication systems and equipment as well as “enhanced monitoring of team practices.”
I mean the defensiveness relative to the unanswered questions regarding radio communications is stunning. These guys can’t help from falling over themselves. To paraphrase what Polian was really saying: “We are focusing on the future, because we were asleep at the switch regarding the Patriot’s past use of technology.”
Here’s my theory which gains credibility with each statement or media dodge by the NFL. The Patriots and the NFL set up the videotaping as their “firewall” against the media firestorm resulting from the cheating. As outlined in my earlier post, I believe that the last second radio communications via the QB radio set is what really gave power to the intercepted signals (with a power assist from Ernie Adams who was monitoring it all). Most of that communication took life during the 15 seconds preceding the rundown of the play clock. While those communications would ordinarily be precluded by the shut off of the official NFL radio frequency for those 15 seconds, the Patriots were using another frequency that could not be shut off and could not be monitored by NFL technicians. In this context, the stolen defensive signals take on a whole new dimension which the NFL certainly didn’t want to address publicly.
Oh yeah, and the Patriots were still a step ahead of the NFL technology whizzes. That’s why they set up a their own “firewall”, in case anyone caught on to their cheating. Let’s mess with the authorized frequencies from time to time. Sure, the NFL might have to turn off BOTH teams’ official frequencies from time to time as a result of such interference. That’s only fair and isn’t it also great SUBTERFUGE and firewall protection if the use of alternative frequencies is ever questioned. The Pats could simply say that the NFL’s frequencies weren’t reliable and our techs simply wanted to make sure the other team wasn’t getting an unfair advantage.
Sounds speculative? You’re damn right, and I’m sure parts of it are off the mark. However, I wonder whether it would seem all that Machiavellian to Ernie Adams and Sneaky Bill.
The press needs to keep working on this and I have confidence that they will. The NFL isn’t going to make it an easy story, but their and the Patriot’s bungling are undoubtedly cultivating it to become a bigger one.
34 the patriot film // Jul 15, 2008 at 7:26 pm
[…] denials. Where does it all stop? Maybe not where the NFL and the Patriots?? would like it to stop.http://ronborges.com/2008/02/18/football-spygate-takes-another-wonderous-turn/The Patriot 2000 … PATRIOT, the … User Comments: While it&aposs definitely no Braveheart, […]
You must log in to post a comment.