Bill Belichick says ‘move along nothing here’ on Spygate

New England Patriots head coach Bill Belichick continues to insist there is nothing further to be uncovered about Spygate.

“I think they’ve addressed everything they possibly can address. … We addressed so many questions so many times from so many people I don’t know what else the league could ask.”

Considering NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell is moving at tortoise pace on offering an immunity deal to former Pats assistant coach/video gofer Matt Walsh, we of course have no way of knowing if what Belichick claims is true. Goodell confirmed for the first time that the NFL spoke again with Belichick and other Patriots employees after the Super Bowl.

“We followed up on other things because certain things had been tossed out.”

Walsh, through his lawyer, Michael Levy, has been negotiating with the NFL for legal protection, from lawsuits by the Pats or the league, to come forward to talk. Levy and the league reported three weeks ago that they were close to an agreement to do that, but talks have been sporadic since, the story notes.

Meanwhile, the Belichick spin-o-meter continues to run at full tilt:

“I barely knew Matt Walsh. He was hired before I became the coach.”

He conceded he should have contacted Ray Anderson, the NFL’s vice president for football operations, after a memo from Anderson in 2006 that laid down the specifications for intelligence gathering.

“What I should have done … I should have called the league and asked for a clarification,” he said. “That was my mistake.”

He said that in one respect, Spygate did the Patriots a favor.

“We’ve taken it as a positive and reorganized our operations to make sure a situation like this never comes up again,” he said. “Our operation is more efficient, more streamlined. Look at the results of this season. That would confirm it.”

Well, then, does the loss to the Giants disprove anything?




That said, it’s time to once again run our “if Kurt Warner sues the Patriots” poll:

Free polls from Pollhost.com

If Kurt Warner sues, he should get

Nothing $100,000 $500,000 $1 million $2-3 million $4-5 million more

Bill Belichick, Kurt Warner, criminal liability and civil suits

As I blogged here earlier, Bill Belichick may have violated federal law if the Patriots videotaped the St. Louis Rams’ final walk-through practice before the 2002 Super Bowl. (The Economic Espionage Act, signed into law in 1996, criminalizes theft of “trade secrets,” which the Rams’ signals might or might not be.)

Would Belichick, other Patriots’ coaches, owner Robert Craft or the Patriots as a corporation be prosecuted if this is true? That’s a toughie.

Neither NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell nor the Rams would ever prefer charges. The feds would probably leave the case alone if Congress were satisfied Goodell had done enough to come clean and clean up.

Could an individual, i.e. former Rams quarterback Kurt Warner, prefer charges? Since the stolen trade secret the law covers would have to be considered as belonging to the St. Louis Rams as a team and not Warner as an individual, I’d have to say no.

On the other hand, Warner’s already mentioned loss of earnings from not winning back-to-back Super Bowls. Does he have grounds to sue?

I’d say, “Hell, yes.”

Next question is, is this a state or federal suit? I’m sure Warner would love to have a state suit tried in Missouri, since that’s where he potentially lost most his earnings, other than the Super Bowl itself (New Orleans was the site of 2002’s Super Bowl XXXVI),. Belichick would probably want it in federal court if at all possible, in large part because federal civil juries require unanimity in civil as well as criminal cases, and federal juries often, though not always, tend to have a higher view of “preponderance of evidence.” (I’ve been trying some Google terms, but I don’t know if Missouri is unanimous, 11-1 or 10-2 on civil suits. I’ll take any help I can get.)

Whether a state-level suit could be moved to Louisiana (New Orleans was the sitge of 2002’s Super Bowl XXXVI), especially if Belichick couldn’t get it moved to federal court, is a more open question. (Look up where 2002 SB played, then that state’s rules, whether 10-2 or 11-1, on civil cases.)

And, there’s a lot of dinero involved here, should Warner sue.

That ranges from the small-dollar stuff, such as the different between winners’ and losers’ Super Bowl payouts, to big-dollar stuff.

That would include Warner’s worth as a quarterback after winning back-to-back Super Bowls rather than just one, lost commercial endorsements, lost speaking engagements, lost value of Kurt Warner merchandise such as his personal cut on No. 13 Rams jerseys, and even longer-term lost moneys such as if back-to-back Super Bowl wins wouldn’t get him into the NFL Hall of Fame. (No two-time Super Bowl-winning quarterback, especially one who won back to back, who is eligible for the HOF is not in there.)
That, then, goes to related tort issues, such as loss of reputation.

All of this leads to two sets of questions.

Is Bill Belichick, regardless of whether legal action is ever actually pursued

Criminally guilty of "stealing a trade secret"?Civilly liable for depriving Kurt Warner of earnings?Neither

Free polls from Pollhost.com

If Kurt Warner sues, he should get

Nothing$100,000$500,000$1 million$2-3 million$4-5 millionmore

Free polls from Pollhost.com