Goodell’s admission that at least some Pats’ videotaping went all the way back to 2000 opened the doors wide for this.
“I’m determined to go forward,” said Specter, the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee. “You have answers and positions where [Goodell] is saying that with the destruction of tapes that, ‘We did the right thing. We’re absolutely sure.’
“Well, that is absurd . . . Goodell says things that don’t make sense.”
Among the issues that continue to trouble Specter are:
• Goodell’s imposition of a penalty — the loss of a first-round draft pick, a $500,000 fine to coach Bill Belichick and a $250,000 to the team — before the Patriots had turned over evidence, including notes dating to 2002 and six tapes from the 2006 season and 2007 preseason, requested by the league. The Patriots were caught videotaping defensive signals from the sidelines in their Sept. 9 season opener against the New York Jets. The commissioner imposed his penalty on Sept. 13, four days before New England provided the tapes and notes.
“Did they know the scope of the wrongdoing before the penalty was imposed?” asked Specter, a former Philadelphia district attorney. “The answer is no.”
• Specter said it was unsettling to learn that the tapes, as well as notes, turned over by the Patriots in September had been destroyed in Foxboro rather than in the league’s New York offices. … Specter said the league’s suggestion that the material, particularly the notes dating to the 2002 season, was destroyed because it might have afforded a competitive advantage is unbelievable.
• Specter believes the NFL hasn't gone far enough in its offer of legal protection to former Patriots video assistant Matt Walsh, who has told ESPN.com that he has potentially embarrassing information about the team's taping practices.
The league has offered to indemnify Walsh against exposure to a lawsuit from the Patriots, but the proposal stipulates that Walsh must tell the truth and return anything he took improperly. Under those conditions, the team could still file suit against Walsh even after he turns over evidence to the Patriots and league.
“Matt Walsh is an important guy, and they have made it so conditional,” Specter said. “All they got to do is say, ‘We’re not going to sue you.’ It is not a big deal.” …
• Specter said he was concerned to learn from Walsh's attorney that an NFL security representative, Dick Farley, had been investigating Walsh.
Specter’s got a number of valid points, and this investigation is going to take a while. Goodell better hope its over before the start of NFL preseason.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Your comments are appreciated, as is at least a modicum of politeness.
Comments are moderated, so yours may not appear immediately.
Due to various forms of spamming, comments with professional websites, not your personal website or blog, may be rejected.