The Real Matt Walsh

I don't usually equate sports with real news--it's entertainment, like movies and rock concerts, and hardly equates to issues like war, the economy, and natural disasters. Nevertheless, we don't like learning that our pop stars are lip--synching, and we certainly don’t like finding out that our sports heroes are cheaters.

I have been deeply involved in Patriot "Spygate" affair because Matt has been my client--I was asked to help navigate the media circus by his attorney, Michael Levy, a close friend with whom I have worked on a number of issues. I have done other sports scandals--Tim Montgomery was a client--and I generally don't care for this line of work. First, they don't pay very well; and second, dealing with sports reporters is not like dealing with other journalists. For them, access is everything. So writing investigative stories about the NFL or their hometown sports team means they will be shut out of access in the future.

Perhaps more importantly, sports is big business more than anything else, and the teams and the leagues go to great lengths to protect their business. Being open and forthcoming is simply not in their interest. Hence, the NFL and Goodell really are not investigative entities--their goal is to protect their business interests.

I have watched the Matt Walsh story develop over the past six months from the inside, and sat in on the two interviews that Matt has given to the New York times and HBO, both on Wednesday of this week. So based on my front-row view of the Spygate scandal, a few points need to be made:

1) Matt is not out for vengeance, has no ill will against the Patriots, and tried his best to stay out of this scandal. He only told what he knew, with no spin, and left it to others to draw conclusions. He was asked repeatedly by Andrea Kramer of HBO if he thought the league had punished the Patriots enough, if their three Super Bowl victories should be questioned, and if their significance should be diminished. This, of course, would have been a great sound bite to close the broadcast, and Andrea skillfully tried numerous times to get him to say something definitive. He would not do it. He loves the Patriots and believes strongly in their victories.

2) Matt has only talked about what he knows personally or what was directly told to him by players and coaches. The Patriots in their statement yesterday attempted to discredit Matt by questioning how a video guy could ever understand what coaches and players know, stating: "For him to attempt to speak with any authority on the process of coaching, play calling, or the decisions made by offensive or defensive coordinators is an embarrassment." I never have heard Matt, either in the interviews to the New York Times and HBO, or to me personally, attempt to speak authoritatively on coaching or play calling. He simply was repeating what he had been told, and he did so in an honest and forthright way, never going further than what he personally was involved in.

3) Roger Goodell's performance at his press conference begged the question of whether taping and decoding the opponent's defensive signals was of any real value to the patriots. If the taping is of such little consequence, then a) Why is it against the rules in the first place? b) Why did Goodell destroy the initial tapes immediately after reviewing them (he said because of the value to other teams if they got them)? and, c) Why did the Patriots not only go to such great efforts to conceal what they were doing but also continue doing it for seven years?

4) There is a real question about whether the punishment handed down by the NFL serves as any real deterrence. A $750,000 fine and the forfeit of an inconsequential draft pick in exchange for knowing the opponents offensive plays ahead of time--and the chance to win a hat trick of Super Bowls--is a very low cost of doing business. In contrast, sprinter Marion Jones' teammates, presumably innocent bystanders, lost their Olympic Medals after she admitted to using steroids.

Yes, I recognize that any NFL defense still needs to stop the other team's offense to win the game, but anyone who doesn't think having the other team's defensive signals isn't a huge advantage needs to read the quote in today's Washington Post [Some Are Fuzzy on Taping's Benefits -- washingtonpost.com] by an unnamed current NFL coach, who contends: "Are you kidding? It's huge. If I know what the defense is going to do on every play, I'll score 35 points a game, too." I wonder if Goodell interviewed that coach as part of his "investigation?"

Matt is a good guy who got swept up in something that he never wanted to be anywhere near. Don't blame the messenger.