[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 79 (Wednesday, May 14, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4175-S4177]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    NEW ENGLAND PATRIOTS VIDEOTAPING

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, 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' September 25, 2005, game against the Steelers, which 
the Steelers resoundingly won 34-20.
  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 2005 because he was not asked.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  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, 
preseason 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 3, 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.
  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

[[Page S4176]]

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, Eagles cornerback, Sheldon Brown, reportedly said 
earlier this year that he noticed a difference in New England's play 
calling in the second quarter of the February 6, 2005, Super Bowl game.
  Tampa Bay won the August 20, 2000, preseason 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.
  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.
  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 14:

       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.

  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. It 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.
  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 late 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.

  Commissioner Goodell materially changed his story in his meeting with 
me on February 13, 2008, when he said there has been taping since 2000.
  There has been no plausible explanation as to why Commissioner 
Goodell imposed the penalty on September 13, 2007, before the NFL 
examined the tapes on September 17, 2007.
  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.

  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.
  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.
  In the absence of the notes, which the NFL destroyed, of the 
Steelers' three regular season games and two postseason 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.
  Failure to question--or at least publicly disclose the results of--
key witnesses to other matters identified herein on what we do not 
know.
  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

[[Page S4177]]

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.

                          ____________________