_2.gif "Time.com 50 Best Websites 2008")
The initial thought that came to mind for us while hearing the explanation from NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell regarding the knowledge of former Patriots employee Matt Walsh is that Walsh could now end up being the star witness of the New England Patriots in any lawsuit that might be filed against the Boston Herald.
Walsh’s sweeping denial of any knowledge of the existence of any tape of the Rams’ walk-through practice prior to Super Bowl XXXVI and Walsh’s presence in the Superdome during the Rams’ walk-through practice makes Walsh an obvious candidate to testify for the team, if the Pats opt to sue the Herald.
Walsh would have even greater importance to the case because he is a completely unbiased witness. If anything, he would have a natural tendency to say things that would hurt the team, given that the team fired him. So if he says that there was no videotape of the walk-through and that he was in the Superdome and saw no evidence of anything like that, his version of the events are necessarily more credible than would be any similar accounts provided by current employees of the team.
May 13th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
Please take time to review the petition that I have created. If you support my cause then feel free to sign it and pass it on to anyone you may know. I am not looking for anyone to get in trouble. I just believe that an explanation must be given by the Boston Herald and Mr. Tomase as to why it was reported in their newspaper (which has been credible in the past) that a video tape existed of the St. Louis Rams walkthrough prior to Super Bowl XXXVIII. Hopefully, this will begin to put closure to the Spy gate issue. The New England Patriots violated a rule and should have been punished as they were, but this story has gone overboard for months.
P.S. Lets now move onto real football talk!
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
May 13th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
Whoa, after all that’s gone on between Walsh and the Patriots, now all of the sudden he’d testify FOR them? Wow, what an uneasy alliance! Oh well, can’t wait until the last time I hear the name Matt Walsh.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
May 13th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
There are some dramatic inconsistencies here. I believe the Herald story said that the walk through was taped by someone who deliberately stayed behind, blended in with Rams personnel, then rode back on a bus without being caught. Walsh’s version is that he was there with a lot of people during the walk through and everyone knew he was there.
Maybe he wasn’t the Herald source. Maybe Walsh is lying. Sadly, this is not over … yet.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 2.5 / 5 with 2 rating(s)
May 13th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
John Tomase,
Meet Lisa Olson. You wont be able to get out of town fast enough.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 5 / 5 with 1 rating(s)
May 13th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
Is that rag still publishing??? Man that is as bad a newspaper as there is. Try opening it up and finding anything newsworthy? Just Car Dealer ad’s and celebrity scandals… FREE PACMAN JONES NOW!
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
May 13th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
Why can’t I sue someone and make a few cheap $100,000?
Isn’t America great!?
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
May 13th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
First, I think if Walsh was in fact Tomase’s source (still don’t believe he ever was and that Tomase ran with a rumor and attributed it to a sources because the story read like a rumor), he needs to reveal him as the source.
Second, I think Walsh could be a star witness against Mike Fish and ESPN if the Pats choose to go in that direction. Although since Kraft is on the TV committee and the NFL fleeced ESPN for over a billion a year for crappy games, I don’t know if he will. Goodell said Walsh came forward because he didn’t know that the Pats admitted to taping since 2000. Except Chris Mortensen reported that in September. That means the Patriots could have a case that Mike Fish recklessly disregarded the truth by not informing Walsh the scope that the Patriots admitted to before they printed his comments which would have changed if he knew that information.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
May 13th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
I say there’s no way the Pats disturb that hornet’s nest.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 1 / 5 with 1 rating(s)
May 13th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
Too funny. Florio just can’t let is rest — can ya, Mike? I mean, after all — how many hits is he gonna lose on his site once all the hooplah dies down?
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 1 / 5 with 1 rating(s)
May 13th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
I’m not saying that it did, but has anybody considered that maybe the Pats gave Walsh a little hush money, and a videotape of the walk-through, if there was one, was handed over and destroyed??
The Pats certainly had enough to lose to make that an option, IF a tape ever existed.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 1 / 5 with 1 rating(s)
May 13th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
No way the Pats* sue the Herald. If they sue Herald and the source of their story turned out to be Matt Walsh, the Herald turns around and countersues him. If that happens, he’ll be cross examined about why he changed his story. This would lead to one of two conclusions (especially if the reporter taped the conversation): 1) Matt Walsh lied completely (hence, the Herald has to pay the Pats* and Walsh has to pay the Herald) or 2) Matt Walsh will get caught in the retraction which could open up bribery questions on the Pats* (which is A LOT MORE SERIOUS) than the taping itself.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
May 13th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
Who’s to say during all this time waiting for Walsh, the Pats hadn’t already got their hooks in him so he’d tell his story to paint a more favorable picture for the team. They had no problem dropping half a million to make the story go away once, why not twice? I’m curious now to see what the Herald’s point of view in all of this is now. If the Pats were smart, they would just let it die here rather than drum up a lawsuit against the paper.
If Walsh was indeed the source and did more than hint to them about about there being a tape, then how would the Herald be at fault? He’s obviously lied at some point, whether it was to the Herald or at this meeting today. I have a feeling he was full of crap when he was talking to the paper, and got himself in a corner when he had nothing to back it up, which is why it’s taken half a year for him to iron out the legal aspect to protect himself from being sued before he’d talk.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 3 / 5 with 2 rating(s)
May 13th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
I thought the Rams said there was no walk through?
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 5 / 5 with 2 rating(s)
May 13th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
This has gotten way out of hand. The Patsies aren’t going to sue anybody. The principals involved all just want it to go away. The Patsies have to show the Herald published information damaging to the club that they knew was incorrect. Even Dan Rather and CBS who did make up stuff they knew to be fraudulent didn’t get sued by Bush. Once in awhile a tabloid gets smacked, but as bad as the Herald is, it isn’t a tabloid. Any lawsuit does as much if not more damage to the NFL and Patsies as it does to the Herald. The fat lady is warming up when it comes to this story.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 5 / 5 with 1 rating(s)
May 13th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
All the Pats have to do is not serve food anymore to the media at Gillette Stadium and that fat bastard Tomasse will stay home to watch the games.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 5 / 5 with 2 rating(s)
May 14th, 2008 at 4:59 am
If the Patriots sue the Herald, I’ll be surprised. If I’m them, I want this to go away with as quickly as possible with as little publicity as possible. Whether there’s actually more to this than meets the eye or not, they’d be idiots to do it.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
May 14th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
As you say that Walsh would be unbiased, you are making an awefully large assumption that the team hasn’t paid him off to say there was no tape of a walk through.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated