Kind of a High Bar, Isn't It?

Don Banks does the Patriots a favor today on SI.com by explaining that the only thing that matters in the Spygate scandal is what former video assistant Matt Walsh actually has on tape:

The Patriots cheated by taping their opponents' coaching signals dating back to 2000. That's old news. Then Bill Belichick's team used that illegally gained material to crack its enemies' secret codes, and thereby better prepare to face them the next time. Check. We knew that too...

Walsh will have his long-awaited meeting with NFL commissioner Roger Goodell next Tuesday in New York, and maybe he'll flesh out some more details of the Patriots' espionage. But we now know that there's no big hammer headline to come. No suspension to be handed down. For all we know, Walsh might even contend that a Super Bowl walkthrough tape was shot, but he won't be able to produce one, and that's all that matters in this story.

Um, pardon me for asking, but why is that the only thing that matters?  Is Banks saying it wouldn't matter if Walsh testified that he personally had shot the alleged Rams video but didn't keep a copy of it?  That it wouldn't matter if Walsh ever heard Bill Belichick say something like, "Make sure no one ever finds out about this"?

Sports journalism is weird.  In every other section of the paper -- OK, not the entertainment section -- reporters do their damnedest to get to the bottom of every story.  On the sports pages, it's all, "Move along, nothing to see here, how about that draft we just had."  Kinda like this:

But he doesn't have anything that proves they were guilty of the smarmy charge that they taped their opponent's practice the day before New England's first Super Bowl win in 2002.

Any way you cut it, that accusation was at the heart of the Matt Walsh saga. And it didn't stick. It didn't stand up. It remains nothing more than an unsubstantiated report. A rumor.

And why wouldn't we take Walsh's word for it if he testifies under an agreement that legally requires him to tell the truth?  Is it because Belichick has such a sterling reputation for honesty that his account should be beyond reproach?

Here's the thing about this meeting Mr. Goodell is going to have next week.  Yeah, he's going to do everything in his power to bury this story.  And a whole lot of writers look like they're ready to assist in that task.

After that, though, Walsh goes to visit Sen. Specter.  And something tells me the former prosecutor who has taken way too much crap already for his involvement in this story will not be interested in letting sleeping dogs lie.   

But you can send Banks his check now, Roger. 

Oh, he's not on the payroll?

Comments

"Sports journalism is weird. In every other section of the paper -- OK, not the entertainment section -- reporters do their damnedest to get to the bottom of every story. On the sports pages, it's all, "Move along, nothing to see here, how about that draft we just had."

I know you werent trying to be funny but I almost hurt myself laughing here. Sports reporters are every bit as shitty as your regular reporters. Other than that I agree with you.

[Tracer Bullet]

Banks, like most sports reporters, is not strictly a reporter. He's also an opinion columnist. A regular reporter doesn't make such definitive statements because there is a price to be paid for being wrong. Columnists don't have to worry about that.

The same story on B1 would say something like, "Walsh is scheduled to meet with Goodell and testify under oath about tapes he claims to have made before the Super Bowl. Walsh says he was acting under Belichik's orders when he taped Rams' practices.

The Patriots lost a first round draft pick this year for taping opposing coaches during the regular season. If Goodell feels Walsh is telling the truth, he has sole discretion as to what punishment, if any, the Patriots would face for this violation."