Belichick's Spygate assertion doesn't pass smell test

The notion Bill Belichick didn't know videotaping opponents violated league rules doesn't fit his detail-oriented nature. AP

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:

The e-mail bag overfloweth, much of it concerning Spygate. We'll start with that, then a plug for the new NFL Films DVD on the Giants' Super Bowl win -- being released nationwide today -- because there are a few very interesting things in the DVD that taught me a few things I didn't know about the Giants' season and the Super Bowl.

Let's start with an intelligent e-mail from Sam Finkelstein of Chicago: "Do you give any credence to Bill Belichick's continued assertions that he didn't believe it was against the rules to tape the opposing team's signals? I'm inclined to say no, except for two points: (1) Belichick didn't seem to be taking any measures to hide the taping; and (2) if he did not use the tapes during that particular game he was taping, the videotaping could arguably be allowed under the league rule [the rule prohibits 'devices that might aid a team during the playing of a game.'] It's probably not the best reading of the rule, but arguably a reasonable reading.

"Secondly, do you believe Roger Goodell's reasons for destroying the confiscated tapes? I have to imagine that he had league lawyers involved in the investigation. It's hard to believe a lawyer would tell him that destroying evidence is a good idea. At the very least, Goodell's decision to destroy the evidence creates the appearance of impropriety. Goodell needs to admit this lapse in judgment and provide assurances that it will not happen again; he just looks foolish trying to justify his actions. Perhaps Goodell could benefit from the same 'admitting your mistakes' lecture you provided for the Tennessee-Rutgers officiating crew and conference officials.''

Good points. Let's start by saying that I would be very surprised -- stunned, knowing his attention to all detail large and small -- if Belichick did not know of a very public memo sent from league senior vice president of football operations Ray Anderson to all general managers and coaches on Sept. 6, 2006. In the memo, Anderson wrote:

"Video taping of any type, including but not limited to taping of an opponent's offensive or defensive signals, is prohibited on the sidelines, in the coaches' booth, in the locker room, or at any other locations accessible to club staff members during the game."

That memo was written 52 weeks before the Patriots illegally taped the Jets sidelines, and 53 weeks before Belichick said he didn't think he was breaking a rule. In addition, when this story broke, the league brought the media's attention to a section of the Game Operations Manual that said: "No video recording devices of any kind are permitted to be in use in the coaches' booth, on the field, or in the locker room during the game ... All video shooting locations must be enclosed on all sides with a roof overhead."

It is very hard to believe somehow that these rules were not seen by the Patriots, the team and organization I believe to be the most intelligent in football.

Now, as for the Goodell action, I understand why he says he had the tapes destroyed -- so that if any other tapes surfaced showing illegal video of a Patriots opponent hand-signaling defensive calls into the game, he would know the Patriots hadn't been truthful when they said they'd turned over all the tapes. You're right: At the very least, it looks improper and conveys the appearance that the league is trying to cover something up. Goodell says he doesn't regret his actions, but only he knows if deep down he believes that. I believe there is some logic to destroying the tapes, though, in retrospect, it's not the route he should have taken.

There's one aspect of this whole story that is going to be troubling as it plays out. If you read Mike Reiss' story in the Boston Globe on Monday about the Patriots post-Spygate public comments by Belichick and VP Scott Pioli, you came away with a fairly negative opinion of Matt Walsh, the former team employee who allegedly taped the Rams' pre-Super Bowl walk through in 2001. In the story, Pioli says Walsh was fired for secretly tape-recording a conversation he had with Walsh. I've always found Pioli to be truthful, and for him to say something about another person publicly really piqued my interest. I give his statement a lot of credibility.

But even at that, even if the Patriots were right for firing Walsh for conduct unbecoming a good employee, that doesn't mean that the videotapes in his possession aren't worth seeing. There have been a lot of whistle blowers who weren't exactly the most pristine characters and who may have gotten their evidence by abnormal means, but in the end the evidence was still judged on whether it was truthful or not. Although I'm still a little bit ill at ease with the thought that the evidence could be stolen property, I still think we need to see it.

1 of 2