[burn_baby_burn]

Specter does not appear to be satisfied with Goodell's explanation of the league's handling of the Spygate investigation.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3246788

Among the issues that continue to trouble Specter are:


• Goodell's imposition of a penalty -- the loss of a first-round draft pick, a $500,000 fine to coach Bill Belichick and a $250,000 to the team -- before the Patriots had turned over evidence, including notes dating to 2002 and six tapes from the 2006 season and 2007 preseason, requested by the league. The Patriots were caught videotaping defensive signals from the sidelines in their Sept. 9 season opener against the New York Jets. The commissioner imposed his penalty on Sept. 13, four days before New England provided the tapes and notes.

"Did they know the scope of the wrongdoing before the penalty was imposed?" asked Specter, a former Philadelphia district attorney. "The answer is no."

I must have missed this before. Didn't realize the penalty had been handed out before the taps were handed over to the league.

• Specter said it was unsettling to learn that the tapes, as well as notes, turned over by the Patriots in September had been destroyed in Foxboro rather than in the league's New York offices. Aiello said the documents and tapes were destroyed after they were reviewed by NFL officials Jeffrey Pash and Ray Anderson, and that the call to destroy the material came from Goodell, saying "There's no further use for it, so he said get rid of it."

A question I have about tapes. Don't most NFL team video departments(or athletic video tape department) keep everything on computer hard drives anyways? They can customize DVDs for players and coaches to watch game film on their laptops.

• Specter is particularly concerned about how the taping might have affected New England's games involving teams from his home state in the 2004 playoffs.


In a preseason opener in August of that year at Gillette Stadium in Foxboro, the Patriots and the Philadelphia Eagles played in what proved to be a preview of the 2005 Super Bowl, won by the Patriots 24-21. And in an Oct. 31 regular-season game in Pittsburgh, the Steelers beat the Patriots 34-20. Those two teams later met in the AFC title game, which New England won, 41-27.

Later Thursday, the Steelers released a statement that read: "We consider the tapes of our coaching staff during our games against the New England Patriots to be a non-issue. In our opinion, they had no impact on the results of those games. The Steelers fully support the manner in which Commissioner Goodell handled the situation and the discipline that he levied against those who violated league rules. We are confident that the Commissioner has taken appropriate action in his investigation of this matter, and will do so again if new information arises which requires further investigation and or discipline."

• Specter believes the NFL hasn't gone far enough in its offer of legal protection to former Patriots video assistant Matt Walsh, who has told ESPN.com that he has potentially embarrassing information about the team's taping practices.

Thats news to me I thought Walsh had been silent since the story broke before the Super Bowl.

• Specter said he was concerned to learn from Walsh's attorney that an NFL security representative, Dick Farley, had been investigating Walsh. Specter said: "I confronted them on that, and Goodell says, 'Yeah, he [Farley] works for us. Yeah, he is a security guy, but we didn't know he was investigating him.' "