How on Earth is Spygate drawing Specter's attention?

Arlen Specter doesn't understand why the NFL destroyed the tapes from Spygate. AP

Super Bowl XLII   Sunday Banks: Giants offer Pats reminder of past Perloff: Patriots lose cloak of invincibility Brooks: Report cards for Patriots, Giants Banks: Tuck Rules, Plaxico, Eli and more Deitsch: Super Bowl broadcast grades Duerson: Best ads from Super Bowl XLII Galleries: Super Bowl XLII | Pregame The Greatest Upsets In Sports History Previous Coverage Trotter: It's history or infamy for Pats Dumbest Super Bowl questions of all time Best Super Bowl commercials of all time King: Four reasons for Manning's rise Banks: Five reasons Patriots can't lose Dr. Z: Giants' grit too much for Pats Top 10 Biggest Super Bowl Underdogs ROAD TO SB XLII: Patriots | Giants Top 10 moments in Super Bowl history

MAILBAG Peter King will answer your questions each week in Monday Morning Quarterback: Tuesday Edition. Your name: Your e-mail address: Your home town: Enter your question:

PHOENIX -- The one thing Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter said in Friday's New York Times regarding Spygate that I agree with is this: "The American people are entitled to be sure about the integrity of the game.'' He's 100 percent right. In fact, the one thing about the Patriots' September response to the incident that bothers me is they never acknowledged whether the taping went back to any of their three Super Bowl victories.

We learned from commissioner Roger Goodell's annual pre-Super Bowl press conference on Friday that, in his words, the tapes showed no evidence that the taping went back to the Super Bowl wins. "I don't believe it affected the outcome of any game,'' he said -- including those three Super Bowls.

That said, the rest of Specter's interview with the newspaper bothers me because he says he wants the federal government to investigate Spygate. "It's analogous to the CIA destruction of tapes,'' he told the Times. A stunning comparison. Not because they both involve destruction of tapes, but because a senator in the United States would believe that the country is well-served by an investigation into why a sports league handled the discipline of a major offense in a certain way, and why it's like the CIA destroying tapes.

The CIA. The NFL. What is wrong with this picture?

If I'm a Pennsylvania citizen, I'm furious that the most important politician in my state is spending time planning a hearing at which Roger Goodell will have to appear to justify why he destroyed the tapes. I'm furious because this is football, not national security. It's absurd that Specter would think this is important enough to put the full force of the U.S. government into attacking it.

One of the other things we learned from Goodell today in his press conference is that the league destroyed six tapes plus some additional notes about the Patriots' spying. He has said on several occasions, including today, that destroying the tapes was the best way to prevent the Patriots from keeping any of the tapes or documentation of the tapes. By doing this, he reasoned, any leaks of the tapes in the future would be traced directly back to the Patriots and could result in further sanctions. We can disagree with that, which I do, but I can at least see the logic in it.

If I thought Specter had a scintilla of evidence that some conspiracy happened, I'd be praising his decision. But the thought that the feds are going to get anything significant out of Goodell, or do anything more than waste time and money that should be spent on more important pursuits, is folly. That's why people get down on politicians.

Attention all webbies: I'll have a quick analysis of the Hall of Fame voting late Saturday afternoon on SI.com.

Now for today's Five Things I Think I Think:

1. I think the players association needs to advocate for the rank-and-file, obviously. But when executive director Gene Upshaw says he'll oppose a blood test for human growth hormone when it becomes available, he's dead wrong. When ANY reliable test for HGH surfaces, it has to be implemented. Absolutely has to be. Here's what Upshaw said in Arizona: "When that test is developed, we really believe it should be a urine test. No one is interested in a blood test. We got a lot of big tough guys, but they don't even like to be pricked on the finger to give blood.''

No one LIKES a blood test. It's a very, very small price to pay to run a clean sport.

2. I think Tom Coughlin had a great week. He handled himself well, fielding some awkward questions with aplomb. He's always a little stiff, but he never bristled in four days. Not that I expected him to say anything stupid, but he impressed me with how he handled the week.

3. I think it was nice to see Dwight Clark here. The former 49er is doing some valuable work promoting Pop Warner football, and is a former Pop Warner player and coach. Some kids in Phoenix will be re-enacting "The Catch'' tomorrow, and Clark will be there. "I haven't been to a Super Bowl the 49ers weren't in since maybe 1982,'' Clark said. "But I really wanted to come this year, to see history. I think we're going to see it.''

4. I think there are scads of people -- and I've talked to at least a dozen of them -- who came here without tickets, just hoping and praying that ducats will somehow fall into their hands. Talked to Paul from Malden, Mass., today, trying to find a pair for he and his wife, and I could see the desperation in his eyes. Have a feeling he'll be watching from his hotel room. Tickets are very, very tight.

5. I think the traffic on I-10 here -- for five or six hours a day -- reminds me of the Garden State Parkway around 7:15 on a Friday morning. Seriously. As the week has gone on, the traffic has multiplied.