The Washington Post reported Saturday that Republicans Jon Kyl of Arizona and Lindsey O. Graham of South Carolina both said the National Football League is capable of policing itself.
Kyle told the Post "there are far better matters for our time." And Graham said: "I don't believe there's much sentiment that we should get involved. If there's a groundswell of support for us getting involved in this football escapade, it is news to me."
Read the entire story here.
]]>Here's what Belichick had to say:
On Walsh and his possible reason for becoming part of the Spygate story:
I don’t know what the agenda is. You know, again, he was fired here for poor job performance. There’s not a lot of credibility. He’s tried to make it seem like we were buddies and belong to the same book club and all that is really a long, long stretch.
More on Walsh and his role with the team:
For him to talk about game planning and strategy and play-calling and how he advised coordinators is…it’s embarrassing, it’s absurd. I mean, he didn’t have any knowledge of football – he was our third video assistant.
On Walsh's assertion that he was told to avoid detection while taping; the Patriots gave CBS tape which show Walsh behind a camera, in plain sight, and in team gear:
Why say he was told to avoid detection? I never told anybody to tell him that. All I can tell you is what the facts are – you look at the tape, you’ve seen film of the game. You tell me how discreet it is.
On the memo circulated by the league outlining illegal videotaping practices, which Belichick knew of and found to be in violation of:
I made a mistake. It was wrong. I was wrong.
What Belichick says to those who say his team cheated its way to Super Bowl titles:
I’ve said to you…I’ve told you the truth.
Keteyian (narration): In the latest episode of the NFL's "Spygate," a defiant Bill Belichick decided to break his silence today to challenge the charges and motives of former Patriots video operator Matt Walsh.
Belichick: There was no deception.
Keteyian (narration): It was Walsh who shot video during Belichick's first two seasons in New England, 2000 and 2001. He went public this week -- calling the coach "arrogant." Walsh claims Belichick's contention that he just "misinterpreted" league rules prohibiting taping of opponents signals was false. AND, that the taping was actually a deliberate, illicit scheme by the Patriots to cheat their way to victory. Today, in an exclusive interview with CBS News, Belichick questioned Walsh's credibility.
Belichick: I don't know what his agenda is, again, he was fired for poor job performance and for audiotaping his superior. There's not a lot of credibility. You know he's tried to make it seem like we were buddies, and belong to the same book club and all. That's really a long, long stretch.
Keteyian (narration): Belichick says Walsh was in no position to know.
Belichick: For him to talk about game planning and strategy and play calling and how he advised coordinators, it's embarrassing, it's absurd. He didn't have any knowledge of football. He was our third video assistant.
Keteyian (narration): During Walsh's entire time with the team Belichick said he operated under the belief that the NFL's bible -- its constitution and bylaws -- allowed taping as long as it wasn't used to "aid a team during the playing of a game." He says Walsh was instructed to shoot the game, including hand signals. In plain sight. Wearing Patriots gear. And he provided the video to the league -- and CBS News -- as evidence.
Keteyian (question to Belichick): So why would Matt Walsh say he was told by his superiors to avoid detection, not wear Patriots clothing, and to lie about what he was shooting?
Belichick: I never told anybody to do that. All I can tell you is what the facts are. You look at the tape. You see him filming the game. You tell me how discreet it is.
Keteyian (narration): Belichick acknowledged when the rule was clarified by the league in September 2006 -- outlawing "videotaping of any type" DURING a game -- he stepped over the line.
Keteyian (question to Belichick): Bill, you got the memo, ,I mean you couldn't be any more clear than . . .
Belichick: I made a mistake. I was wrong. I was wrong.
Keteyian (narration): In the end, Spygate will not likely be remembered for illegal tapes or even Matt Walsh, but for its impact on the legacy of a three-time Super Bowl champion coach and how his team achieved greatness.
Keteyian (question to Belichick): People have said you flat-out cheated. What do you say to those people?
Belichick: What I said to you. I told the truth.
On Wednesday, the NFL interviewed Daboll, now the Jets' quarterbacks coach, again. He was first interviewed earlier this year, after the Feb. 2 Boston Herald story which said the walkthrough was taped by a member of the Pats' staff.
Today, the league released this statement:
"Our security department re-interviewed Brian Daboll on Wednesday and he has no recollection of a conversation with Matt Walsh about the Rams’ walk-through practice. Even if such a conversation occurred, it would not be a violation of NFL rules. Matt Walsh was authorized to be in the stadium to perform his job duties along with other members of the Patriots’ video department, members of the Rams’ video department, and other people preparing for the Super Bowl. Mr. Walsh told the commissioner that he was wearing Patriots’ attire at the time and did not conduct himself in a clandestine manner. He said that he saw Rams employees while he was there and also was on the sidelines. He stated clearly to the commissioner that nobody from the Patriots requested or directed him to observe or report on the Rams’ walk-through."
]]>Patriots fans who wish to purchase tickets to individual games in 2008 will have the opportunity on Friday, May 16, 2008 at 9:00 a.m. The New England Patriots annually cap their season ticket sales, leaving a limited number in reserve for fans throughout New England who wish to attend just a couple of games each season. Those tickets will be released for sale through Ticketmaster. Visa, a proud sponsor of the National Football League and the New England Patriots, will be the only form of payment accepted.
All ticket orders will be processed through Ticketmaster. Tickets will NOT be sold at the Gillette Stadium Ticket Office. Ticket orders can be completed online at www.ticketmaster.com or by phone. Ticketmaster phone numbers vary by area code, please check your local listings. In the greater Boston area, please call 617-931-2222. Once again, all phone and online orders must be made exclusively with a Visa credit or debit card.
If recent years are any indication, fans can expect all regular season games to sell out within minutes. If that occurs again this year, 2008 will be the 15th consecutive season that the Patriots have announced a complete sellout prior to the start of the regular season. The Patriots streak of consecutive sellouts is currently 149 games and began in 1994, the year that Robert Kraft purchased the franchise. The streak includes all preseason, regular season and postseason games since Sept. 4, 1994. If the Patriots sell out every game again this season, the streak will extend to 159 consecutive games by the end of the 2008 regular season.
The Patriots season ticket waiting list remains in excess of 50,000 fans.
]]>"We thought our story was solid. It wasn't. And we owned up to it," said the letter, signed by editor and chief Kevin Convey.
"Nevertheless, I continue to stand behind the work of the Herald sports department and John Tomase, a talented journalist who has dealt with this difficult matter professionally while continuing to do his job under intense pressure."
]]>Andrea Kremer snagged the interview with Walsh, who was interviewed by NFL commissioner Roger Goodell and Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter on Tuesday but did not answer any questions from media.
Some excerpts from the interview, provided by HBO:
Walsh, who served an internship in the Patriots media relations office before joining a new supervisor in the team’s video group in 1999, recalls being asked to make the switch:
MATT WALSH: “I said, ‘I’ll be honest with you, I really don’t know anything about video.’ He said, ‘That’s okay, we’ll teach you everything you need to know.’ “
ANDREA KREMER: “Boy, did they.”
Walsh says that knowledge of and participation in the video spying/signal stealing operation began at the top levels of the coaching staff — and extended to the team itself. He recalls a conversation he had with a Patriots player after the first game of the 2000 regular season. At the time, Patriots were not an elite team and Tampa Bay was on its way to the playoffs.
MATT WALSH: “I had spoken with one of our quarterbacks, uh, that said, he was called into Coach Belichick’s office shortly before the Tampa Bay game. In the office was Ernie Adams, Charlie Weis, and Coach Belichick. They closed the door, Charlie said to him, “You know, we’ve got tape of the Buccaneer’s coaches defensive signals. What we’re going to do is have you learn this, then we’re going to have you next to Charlie on the sideline, when he’s calling in the play to Drew [Bledsoe, the starting quarterback], over the coach to quarterback communication system. Drew’s got the, the earpiece in the helmet, and you're going to tell Charlie the defense that’s being called, and we’re going to relay the information, or use that in calling the play into Drew.” Um, the quarterback, you know, later told me that within two to three seconds of when [Tampa Bay defensive coordinator] Monte Kiffin sent a play call into [Tampa Bay safety] John Lynch, Drew Bledsoe had it in his helmet.”
Walsh says that a Patriots quarterback also told him that the spying effort had yielded remarkable success.
MATT WALSH: “After the first game when we played the Buccaneers in the first season, after the tapes would have already been utilized, and I went up to one of our quarterbacks, because, you know, running the offense, I figured the quarterback might know something about this. I said, you know, was this, was the footage that I shot of the opposing coaches’ signals, you know, any use for you guys? Did it help at all? And one of the quarterbacks told me, he said, probably about seventy-five percent of the time Tampa Bay ran the defense that we thought they were going to run.”
Walsh suggests that Bill Belichick has not owned up to his responsibility in this affair, or admitted his true familiarity with Matt Walsh and his actions.
MATT WALSH: “He was, he was always friendly, you know, when we talked. Um, cordial, he, him and his wife Debbie, bought us a Christmas gift in 2001.”
ANDREA KREMER: “So how does that give with Bill Belichick saying, “I couldn't pick Matt Walsh out of a lineup?” “
MATT WALSH: “Um, it’s funny, the first time I heard that was when somebody in Hawaii brought the quote to me too. And my first hand answer to them was, well, I wonder if he can pick me out on one of the three team pictures we’re in together.”
ANDREA KREMER: “Why do you think he would have said that?”
MATT WALSH: “I don’t know, if I was just that forgettable and he can't remember me, or if he was just trying to distance himself from this whole situation as best as he could.”
ANDREA KREMER: “What do you think?”
MATT WALSH: “I think Bill’s got a pretty good memory.”
ANDREA KREMER: “Bill also has a great knowledge of the game, so when, when Bill Belichick says he misinterpreted the rules of what can be shot during a game, who much do you believe him?”
MATT WALSH: “When I was doing it, I understood what we were doing to be wrong. We went to great lengths to keep from being caught. Just saying that the rules were misinterpreted isn't enough of a, an apology or a reasoning for what was done. I mean, we live, you know, in a very forgiving nation, you know. People, if you come out and you admit a mistake you made or something you did that you shouldn't have done, people are usually very forgiving of that, accepting. When people try to get around answering it, or giving an explanation, or you know, admitting culpability, that’s usually when people start to question your motives.”
MATT WALSH: “Coach Belichick’s explanation for having misinterpreted the rules. To me, that really didn’t sound like taking responsibility for what we had done, especially considering the great lengths that we had gone through, uh, to hide what we were doing.”
According to Goodell, Walsh at one point during their meeting on Tuesday referred to Belichick as "the man behind the curtain," which leads one to believe he may not have had much interaction with the Pats' coach. - smy
Walsh discusses how his recent public ordeal has affected him.
ANDREA KREMER: “What’s the thing that really bothers you the most about this whole situation, I mean granted, you did what you…were instructed to do, but what bothers you the most when you reflect back on it, years later?”
MATT WALSH: “Really just a lot of…what myself— I can’t speak for them but I have to imagine Steve Scarnecchia and Matt Estrella, you know, have had to go through, and experience, um, simply for being young kids and doing what we were told to do. Um, all the attention this has gotten and how…you know, the Patriots through the media have tried to smear my character. And I hadn’t even come out with any definitive information against them. I never said that we videotaped the Rams’ walk-through, I never came out, I was very, you know, as non-committal as I could in any of the answers I gave, yet they still went to great lengths to try to discredit me. You know, and still to this day, you know, the commissioner says I’ve just presented information that he already knew? Which would mean information before I even talked in the first place? So, well, why put me through all this. If I didn’t do anything to them. And the same thing with Matt Estrella and Steve Scarnecchia. I mean you know, my life, my friend’s life, my family lives, have been turned upside down, supposedly for nothing new.”
Real Sports will debut Friday at 8 p.m.; it will be re-aired throughout the month.
]]>"We respectfully disagree with Senator Specter’s characterization of the investigation conducted by our office. We are following up after yesterday’s meeting with Matt Walsh."
]]>Editor's note: Specter's office, at 5:35 p.m., e-mailed a corrected version of the statement, saying:
Attached please find a CORRECTED version of the floor statement Senator Arlen Specter entered into the Congressional Record today.
The previous version contained two factual errors:
1) The correct date of the Patriots-Steelers game is September 25, 2005, not October 31, 2004.
2) Sheldon Brown is a cornerback for the Philadelphia Eagles and was referencing the Eagles-Patriots 2005 Super Bowl.
I. WHAT WE KNOW:
(1) The Patriots engaged in extensive videotaping of opponents' offensive and defensive signals starting on August 20, 2000 and extending to September 9, 2007, when they were publicly caught videotaping the Jets.
The extent of the taping was not disclosed until the NFL was pressured to do so. Originally, Commissioner Goodell said the taping was limited to late in the 2006 season and early in the 2007 season. In his meeting with me on February 13, 2008, Goodell admitted the taping went back to 2000. Until my meeting with Matt Walsh on May 13, 2008, the only taping we knew about took place from 2000 until 2002 and during the 2006 and 2007 seasons.
That left an obvious gap between 2003 and 2005. In response to my questions, Matt Walsh stated he had season tickets in 2003, 2004 and 2005 and saw Steve Scarnecchia, his successor, videotape games during those seasons including:
The Patriots' September 9, 2002 game against the Steelers.
The Patriots' November 16, 2003 game against the Cowboys.
The Patriots' October 31, 2004 game against the Steelers, which the Steelers resoundingly won 34-20. (When the Patriots played the Steelers again that season in the AFC Championship game on January 23, 2005, the Patriots won by a score of 41-27.)
Walsh stated he observed Scarnecchia filming additional Patriots home games, though he could not recall the specific games.
Walsh said he did not tell Goodell about the taping during 2003, 2004 and 2005because he was not asked.
(2) The NFL confiscated the Jets tape on September 9, 2007; imposed the penalties on September 13, 2007; on September 17, 2007, viewed the tapes for the first time; and then announced they had destroyed those tapes on September 20, 2007. Commissioner Goodell made his judgment on the punishment to be levied before he had viewed the key evidence.
(3) Matt Walsh and other Patriots employees, Steve Scarnecchia, Jimmy Dee, Fernando Neto and possibly Ed Bailey were present to observe most if not all of the St. Louis Rams walk-through practice in advance of the 2002 Super Bowl, including Marshall Faulk's unusual positioning as a punt returner.
David Halberstam's book, The Education of a Coach, documents the way Belichick spent the week before the Super Bowl obsessing about where the Rams would line up Faulk.
Walsh was asked and told Assistant Coach, Brian Daboll, about the walkthrough.
Walsh said Daboll asked him specific questions about the Rams offense and Walsh told Daboll about Faulk's lining up as a kick returner. Walsh also told Daboll about Rams running backs "lining up in the flat." Walsh said Daboll then drew diagrams of the formations Walsh had described.
(According to media reports, Daboll denied talking to Walsh about Faulk. We do not know what Scarnecchia, Dee, Neto or Bailey did or even if they were interviewed.
(4) The Patriots took elaborate steps to conceal their filming of opponents' signals.
Patriots personnel instructed Walsh to use a "cover story" if anyone questioned him about the filming.
For example, if asked why the Patriots had an extra camera filming, he was instructed to say that he was filming "tight shots" of a particular player or players or that he was filming highlights.
If asked why he was not filming the play on the field, he was instructed to say that he was filming the down marker.
The red light indicating when his camera was rolling was broken.
During at least one game, the January 27, 2002 AFC Championship game, Walsh was specifically instructed not to wear anything displaying a Patriots logo. Walsh indicated he turned the Patriots sweatshirt he was wearing at the time inside-out. Walsh was also given a generic credential instead of one that identified him as team personnel.
These efforts to conceal the filming demonstrate the Patriots knew they were violating NFL rules.
II. THE VIDEOTAPING HAD A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THE GAME
(1) The filming enabled the Patriots coaching staff to anticipate the defensive plays called by the opposing team. According to Walsh, he first filmed an opponents' signals during the August 20, 2000 pre-season game against the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. After Walsh filmed a game, he would provide the tape for Ernie Adams, a coaching assistant for the Patriots, who would match the signals with the plays.
Walsh was told by a former offensive player that a few days before the September 11, 2000 regular season game against Tampa Bay, he (the offensive player) was called into a meeting with Adams, Bill Belichick and Charlie Weis, then the offensive coordinator for the Patriots, during which it was explained how the Patriots would make use of the tapes. The offensive player would memorize the signals and then watch for Tampa Bay's defensive calls during the game. He would then pass the plays along to Weis, who would give instructions to the quarterback on the field. This process enabled the Patriots to go to a "no-huddle" offensive, which would lock in the defense the opposing team had called from the sideline, preventing the defense from making any adjustments. When Walsh asked whether the tape he had filmed was helpful, the offensive player said it had enabled the team to anticipate 75 percent of the plays being called by the opposing team.
(2) Among the tapes Walsh turned over to the NFL is one of the AFC Championship game on January 27, 2002 in which the Patriots defeated the Steelers by a score of 24-17. When the Patriots played the Steelers again during their season-opener on September 9, 2002, the Patriots again won, this time by a score of 30-14.
On October 31, 2004, the Steelers beat the Patriots 34-20, forced four turnovers, including two interceptions, and sacked the quarterback four times. In the AFC Championship game on January 23, 2005, the Patriots won 41-27 and intercepted Ben Roethlisberger three times. The Steelers had no sacks that game.
With respect to the 2002 AFC Championship game, it was reported in February of this year that Hines Ward, Steelers wide receiver, said: "Oh, they know. They were calling our stuff out. They knew, especially that first championship game here at Heinz Field. They knew a lot of our calls. There's no question some of their players were calling out some of our stuff."
In addition, Steelers cornerback, Sheldon Brown, reportedly said earlier this year that he noticed a difference in New England's playcalling in the second quarter of the January 27, 2002 AFC Championship game.
(3) Tampa Bay won the August 20, 2000 pre-season game by a score of 31-21. According to the information provided by Matt Walsh, the Patriots used the film to their advantage when they played Tampa Bay in their first regular season game on September 3, 2000. The Patriots narrowed the spread, losing by a score of 21-16. After the game, Charlie Weis, the Patriots' offensive coordinator, was reportedly overheard telling Tampa Bay's defensive coordinator, Monte Kiffin, "We knew all your calls, and you still stopped us."The tapes Walsh turned over to the NFL indicate the Patriots filmed the Dolphins during their game on September 24, 2000, a game the Patriots lost by 10-3.
According to Walsh, when the Patriots first began filming opponents, they filmed opponents they would play again during that same season. The Patriots played the Dolphins again that season on December 24, 2000; they again narrowed the spread, losing by a score of 27-24.
According to Walsh, he filmed the Patriots' game against Buffalo on November 5, 2000, a game the Patriots lost 16-13. When the Patriots played the Bills again that season on December 17, 2000, the Patriots won by a score of 13-10.
During the following season, Walsh filmed the Patriots' game against the Jets on September 23, 2001, a game the Patriots lost by a score of 10-3. When the Patriots played the Jets again that season on December 2, 2001, the Patriots won by a score of 17-16.
The tapes Walsh turned over to the NFl indicate the Patriots filmed the Dolphins during their game on October 7, 2001, a game the Patriots lost by 30-10. When the Patriots played the Dolphins again that season on December 22, 2001, the Patriots won by a score of 20-13.
(4) The Patriots filmed opponents offensive signals in addition to defensive signals. On April 23, 2008, the NFL issued a statement indicating that "Commissioner Goodell determined last September that the Patriots had violated league rules by videotaping opposing coaches' defensive signals during Patriots games throughout Bill Belichick's tenure as head coach." However, the tapes turned over by Matt Walsh contain footage of offensive signals. The tapes turned over to the NFL and the information provided by Walsh proves that the Patriots also routinely filmed opponents' offensive signals.
(5) Why the Patriots videotaped signals during games when they were not scheduled to play that opponent during the balance of the season unless they were able to utilize the videotape during the latter portion of the same game. The NFL has not addressed the question as to whether the Patriots decoded signals during the game for later use in that game.
Mark Schlereth, a former NFL offensive lineman and an ESPN football analyst, is quoted in the New York Time on May 14th:
"Then why are you doing it against teams you aren't going to play again that season?"
Schlereth said that "the breadth of information on the tapes - mainly, the coaches' signals and the subsequent play - would be simple for someone to analyze during a game. There are enough plays in the first quarter, he said, to glean any team's "staples," and a quick review of them could prove immediately helpful. I don't see them wasting time if they weren't using it in that game."
III. The NFL's Investigation was not objective, transparent or adequate
(1) Walsh said that Dan Goldberg, an attorney for the Patriots, was present at his interview and asked questions. With some experience in investigations, I have never heard of a situation where the subject of an investigation or his/her/its representative was permitted to be present during the investigation. I strains credulity that any objective investigator would countenance such a practice. During a hearing or trial, parties will be present with the right of cross-examination and confrontation but certainly not in the investigative stage.
(2) Commissioner Goodell misrepresented the extent of the taping when he said at the super Bowl press conference on February 1, 2008: "I believe there were six tapes, and I believe some were from the pre-season in 2007, and the rest were primarily in the lat 2006 season. In addition, there were notes that had been collected, that I would imagine many teams have from when they scout a team in advance, that we took, that may have been collected by using an illegal activity, according to our rules." Later, Goodell said of the taping "[W]e think it was quite limited. It was not something that was done on a widespread basis."
(3) Commissioner Goodell materially changed his story in his meeting with me on February 13, 2008 when he said there has been taping since 2000.
(4) There has been no plausible explanation as to why Commissioner Goodell imposed the penally on September 13, 2007, before the NFL examined the tapes on September 17, 2007.
(5) There has been no plausible explanation as to why the NFL destroyed the tapes. Commissioner Goodell sought to explain his reason by saying during his February 1, 2008 press conference that: "We didn't want there to be any question about whether this existed. If it shows up again, it would have to be something that came outside of our investigation and what I was told existed."
(6) On April 23, 2008, the NFL issued a statement that the penalties imposed on the Patriots last Fall were solely for filming defensive signals. "Commissioner Goodell determined last September that the Patriots had violated league rules by videotaping opposing coaches' defensive signals during Patriots games throughout bill Belichick's tenure as head coach." The tapes turned over by Matt Walsh also contain footage of offensive signals.
(7) The overwhelming evidence flatly contradicts Commissioner Goodell's assertion that there was little or no effect on the outcome of the game: during his February 1, 2008 press conference, Commissioner Goodell stated "I think it probably had a limited effect, if any effect, on the outcome on any game." Later during the press conference, Goodell stated again "I don't believe it affected the outcome of any games." Commissioner Goodell's effort to minimize the effect of the videotaping is categorically refuted by the persistent use of the sophisticated scheme which required a great deal of effort and produced remarkable results.
(8) In the absence of the notes, which the NFL destroyed, of the Steelers' three regular season games and two post-season games, including the championship game on January 23, 2005, we do not know what effect the videotaping of the earlier games, especially the October 31, 2004 game, had on enabling the Patriots to win the AFC Championship. It is especially critical that key witnesses (coaches, players) be questioned to determine those issues.
(9) Failure to question (or at least publicly disclose the results of) key witnesses to other matters identified herein on what we do not know.
IV. An Objective, Thorough, Transparent Investigation is an Absolute Necessity
On the totality of the available evidence and the potential unknown evidence, the Commissioner's investigation has been fatally flawed. The lack of candor, the piecemeal disclosures, the changes in position on material matters, the failure to be proactive in seeking out other key witnesses, and responding only when unavoidable when evidence is thrust upon the NFL leads to the judgment that an impartial investigation is mandatory.
There is an unmistakable atmosphere of conflict of interest or potential conflict of interest between what is in the public's interest and what is in the NFL's interest. The NFL has good reason to disclose as little as possible in its effort to convince the public that what was done wasn't so bad, had no significant effect on the games and, in any event, has all been cleaned up. Enormous financial interests are involved and the owners have a mutual self-interest in sticking together. Evidence of winning by cheating would have the inevitable effect of undercutting public confidence in the game and reducing, perhaps drastically, attendance and TV revenues.
The public interest is enormous. Sports personalities are role models for all of us, especially youngsters. If the Patriots can cheat, so can the college teams, so can the high school teams, so can the 6th grader taking a math examination. The Congress has granted the NFL a most significant business advantage, an antitrust exemption, highly unusual in the commercial world. That largesse can continue only if the NFL can prove itself worthy. Beyond the issues of role models and antitrust, America has a love affair with sports. Professional football has topped all other sporting events in fan interest. Americans have a right to be guaranteed that their favorite sport is honestly competitive.
In an extraordinary time, baseball took extraordinary action in turning to a man of unimpeachable integrity - Federal Judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis - to act forcefully and decisively to save professional baseball from the Black Sox scandal in 1919.
On this state of the record, an objective, thorough, transparent investigation is necessary. If the NFL does not initiate an inquiry like the investigation conducted by former Senator George Mitchell for baseball, it will be up to Congress to get the facts and take corrective action.
He's "very disappointed," though, that the newspaper "wrote a story that was completely false and unsubstantiated," Kraft said in an interview with The Associated Press.
He also said he doesn't know why former New England video assistant Matt Walsh didn't refute the story soon after it came out on Feb. 2, the day before the Patriots lost the Super Bowl to the New York Giants, 17-14, ruining their quest for an unbeaten season.
"I must compliment the Boston Herald for doing what is unprecedented in terms of recognizing their error in a major way," Kraft said. "I'm really delighted with that, but I wish it never happened."
The apology came a day after a meeting between NFL commissioner Roger Goodell and Walsh produced no major revelations about the team's taping procedures.
"I think I speak for all Patriot fans," Kraft said. "We're relieved that this is over and you see that this is nonsense and we were unfairly accused and we're moving on."
Kraft spoke by telephone before Sen. Arlen Specter said in Washington that he wants an independent investigation of the Patriots' taping of opposing coaches' signals similar to the Mitchell Report on performance-enhancing drugs in baseball.
Patriots spokesman Stacey James said the team had no immediate comment on Specter's remarks.
Walsh told Goodell he did not tape the walkthrough and had no knowledge that any other Patriots employees did so, Goodell said. The commissioner also indicated he considered the investigation over after meeting with Walsh on Tuesday.
Goodell fined coach Bill Belichick $500,000 and the team $250,000 and took away a first-round draft pick this year after an investigation found the Patriots violated league rules by taping New York Jets coaches on the sideline during the season opener.
Kraft said he didn't think the investigation that began then would leave a lasting stain on the club.
"I was unhappy with what transpired in the fall, the actions of some of our employees, and we were penalized severely for that," he said. "We said back in September that we had disclosed all of our actions as an organization to the league. You can see this is true.'
"The erroneous story really led to a second round of inquisitions after September, and it really was a distraction. The sad part (is) that it took away from an 18-0 Super Bowl season."
The Herald's story cited unidentified sources and was released Feb. 2.
In the apology, published in the newspaper's Wednesday edition and posted on its Web site, the Herald said the story was based on sources "it believed to be credible."
"We now know that this report was false, and that no tape of the walkthrough ever existed," the paper wrote.
"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."
The newspaper featured a front-page headline reading: "Sorry, Pats." It placed the three-paragraph apology on the back inside page of the newspaper.
]]>Specter, who met with former Patriots' videographer Matt Walsh yesterday, also criticized what he called the National Football League's investigation into the matter.
Earlier in the day yesterday, Walsh met with NFL commissioner Roger Goodell, who announced after yesterday's meeting that further sanctions against the Patriots over the Spygate controversy were unlikely.
Goodell said Walsh affirmed that he does not have, nor did he make, a tape of the St. Louis Rams’ final walkthrough before Super Bowl XXXVI, in 2002.
Speaking to reporters in Washington today, Specter charged among other things that, although Walsh did not tape the St. Louis Rams walkthrough practice, Walsh and several other Patriots' personnel "were present to observe most if not all" of the practice, including running back "Marshall Faulk's unusual positioning as a punt returner."
Specter, citing reports by the late journalist David Halberstam, said Patriots' coach Bill Belichick spent much time before that Super Bowl "obsessing about where the Rams would line up Faulk."
Specter, based on an interview with Walsh and other research, also asserted that although Walsh did not tape opposition practices between 2003 and 2005 -- a gap much remarked upon in the sports media -- other Patriots' personnel did tape such sessions during those years.
Specter also criticized the NFL for permitting the Patriots to have representatives on hand during yesterday's NFL questioning of Walsh. Former prosecutor Specter asserted that such a practice ran counter to the principles of objective investigations.
-- Specter criticized NFL commissioner Roger Goodell in stinging terms for what he called the league's "dribbling out" of facts about the so-called Spygate scandal and for destroying the first significant evidence in the case, tapes that the Patriots surrendered last September after the disclosure that they had videotaped New York Jets defensive signals during a game.
Specter also charged that Goodell settled on a penalty against the Patriots before he viewed the videotaped evidence of the rules infraction.
Specter did not specify who should do the investigation, but he did hold out as an example the investigation of steroids use in baseball by former Senator George Mitchell.
-- Journal Washington bureau John Mulligan
]]>