On one hand, we’re glad that the league has finally put some teeth into the anti-tampering rule.  On the other, we fear that the recent finding of tampering against the 49ers was a one-time thing, and that other obvious incidents of premature negotiation with players and/or their agents won’t be punished.

The league’s safe harbor, we believed, was that a team who believes that it was on the wrong end of tampering must file an official complaint to the effect.  If no other team complains about tampering, then there’s no way for the league to pursue other franchises.

As it turns out, however, a tampering investigation may be launched without a formal complaint.  As NFL spokesman Greg Aiello recently told the St. Petersburg Times, “[I]n order for a tampering case to proceed, a team has to charge another team with tampering or we must have sufficient evidence to warrant an investigation.”

So what is “sufficient evidence to warrant an investigation”?  How about former San Francisco guard Justin Smiley agreeing to terms with the Dolphins within 30 minutes after free agency opened?  Or what about any contract negotiated in the first weekend of free agency?

In each case, the league could demand to see the e-mail messages exchanged by the execs with each team that signed a new player and the records of any calls made by and received from the agents of the players in the month before free agency.  We’ve got a feeling that more than a few smoking guns are lurking on the hard drives of the computers in Philadelphia regarding the pursuit of former Pats cornerback Asante Samuel.

Whether anything happens remains to be seen.  But even if the Niners choose not to do to the Dolphins what the Bears did to the Niners, the league has the ability to investigate and, if warranted, take action.