NFL, Patriots Dispute New "Spygate" Charge...NFL: "Rams Not Taped in 2002"

[WilliamPitt]

League disputes report
NFL: Rams not taped in 2002

By Mike Reiss and Christopher L. Gasper
Boston Globe Staff / February 3, 2008

PHOENIX - The NFL disputed a published report that indicated the Patriots had filmed the St. Louis Rams' walkthrough prior to Super Bowl XXXVI in 2002.

"We were aware of the rumor months ago and looked into it," NFL spokesman Greg Aiello wrote in an e-mail. "There was no evidence of it on the tapes or in the notes produced by the Patriots, and the Patriots told us it was not true."

The Boston Herald reported yesterday that the Patriots had filmed the walkthrough, citing an unnamed source.

Early yesterday evening, the Patriots released the following statement: "The suggestion that the New England Patriots recorded the St. Louis Rams' walkthrough on the day before Super Bowl XXXVI in 2002 is absolutely false. Any suggestion to the contrary is untrue."

More: http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/articles/2008/02/03/league_disputes_report/

=====

Statements on Patriots
Posted by Mike Reiss
Boston Globe Staff

February 2, 2008 06:59 PM

The NFL and Patriots released statements today regarding a report that the Patriots illegally videotaped the St. Louis Rams walkthrough in Super Bowl XXXVI.

The statements:

NFL: "We were aware of the rumor months ago and looked into it. There was no evidence of it on the tapes or in the notes produced by the Patriots, and the Patriots told us it was not true."

Patriots: "The suggestion that the New England Patriots recorded the St. Louis Rams’ walkthrough on the day before Super Bowl XXXVI in 2002 is absolutely false. Any suggestion to the contrary is untrue."

http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/reiss_pieces/2008/02/statements_on_p.html

=====

Patriots, NFL deny report on taping
By John Tomase
Boston Herald

Sunday, February 3, 2008

PHOENIX - The Patriots last night denied filming the St. Louis Rams’ walkthrough before Super Bowl XXXVI.

“The suggestion that the New England Patriots recorded the St. Louis Rams’ walkthrough on the day before Super Bowl XXXVI in 2002 is absolutely false,” the club said in a statement. “Any suggestion to the contrary is untrue.”

NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said the league investigated the claim and found no evidence of wrongdoing.

“We were aware of the rumor months ago and looked into it,” Aiello said. “There was no evidence of it on the tapes or in the notes produced by the Patriots, and the Patriots told us it was not true.”

More: http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/football/patriots/view.bg?articleid=1070927

=====

Today's Boston Herald

Today's Boston Herald came into existence on December 20, 1982, when Rupert Murdoch, chairman of News Corp. bought the tabloid from the Hearst Corporation and changed its name from the Herald American back to the Boston Herald.

For the next decade, the Herald continued to grow in size and circulation, expanding its commitment to cover local news, increasing its local sports coverage and strengthening its business and feature sections. This resulted in a strong increase in both advertising revenue and circulation.

In February of 1994, Patrick Purcell, publisher of the Boston Herald and a News Corp. executive, purchased the Boston Herald from Murdoch's News Corp. and established it as an independent newspaper.

In 2001, Herald Media acquired Community Newspaper Co. (CNC), a group of four suburban dailies and numerous weekly, online and specialty publications. In 2006, Purcell sold CNC to Gatehouse Media.

http://www.heraldmedia.com/heraldMedia/history.html

[rinsd]

1. How did the NFL look into it if they never talked to the guy?

On top of the rush to destroy evidence?

This is as obvious a coverup as it gets.

After the Giants and their fans, happiest person in the world right now is Roger Goodell.

Now he doesn't have to deal with the Patriots impugning the integrity of the game.

[BOSSHOG]

2. Lord Will

that's kinda lock solid stuff huh. The league looked at five year old evidence provided by the accused and found nothing incriminating, add to the mix that the accused said they didn't do it and you got an airtight case. And don't forget the "suggestion" is false. Well gooolllly, give billichick back his fine money cause there is no way the evidence found a few months ago could possibly incriminate to the point of a guilty finding. Ooh but we can't take a look at that evidence anymore can we.

[Goblinmonger]

4. I noticed that wording, too

I mean, really, who would even have the audacity to even "suggest" that they cheated. Douchebags.

[frylock]

6. the nerve!

[madinmaryland]

3. Hey Will! Didn't you have a bet with Trumad about the Super Bowl?

Weren't you going to have to sport the Dolphins Avatar?

:hi:

[trumad]

7. Actually he didn't

the bet was that they wouldn't make it to the super bowl... I actually lost.

[rocktivity]

5. The Pats may be looking at an "anklegate" charge as well

I believe the NFL is required to give accurate injury reports.

:headbang:
rocknation