In a stunning but not surprising move, the Boston Herald has apologized to the New England Patriots for the February 2 report that the Patriots videotaped the walk-through practice of the St. Louis Rams prior to Super Bowl XXXVI.

“While the Boston Herald based its Feb. 2, 2008, report on sources that it believed to be credible,” the newspaper writes, ”we now know that this report was false, and that no tape of the walkthrough ever existed.

“Prior to the publication of its Feb. 2, 2008, article, the Boston Herald neither possessed nor viewed a tape of the Rams’ walkthrough before Super Bowl XXXVI, nor did we speak to anyone who had.   We should not have published the allegation in the absence of firmer verification.”

“The Boston Herald regrets the damage done to the team by publication of the allegation, and sincerely apologizes to its readers and to the New England Patriots’ owners, players, employees and fans for our error.”

Wow.

In our view, the timing of the story implicitly confirms that former Pats video employee Matt Walsh was the source of the story, despite the recent denial issued by his lawyer, Michael Levy.  If Walsh wasn’t the source, why would the disclosure from NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell that Walsh didn’t tape the walk-through, is aware of no tape, and knows of no one who made such a tape prompt the about-face?

The only other possible explanation is that the actual source of the Herald story coincidentally called John Tomase on May 13 and explained that the information was incorrect.

Though plenty of Pats fans will (continue to) call for Tomase to be fired, the real culprit here, in our view, is the person who (as we believe the facts to be) previously told Tomase that the story couldn’t run with Walsh as an unnamed source, and who then changed his/her mind dramatically once it appeared that the New York Times and ESPN.com were close to getting Walsh to crack.

Despite the apology (which doesn’t use the word “retraction” but which operates as one), the Patriots could still sue the Herald for defamation.  And the Pats would be entitled, if successful, to full compensation for the damage to the franchise that was done as a result of the false story.

Given the widespread play that the article received and in light of its timing, a fair verdict easily could involve a dollar sign followed by eight figures.