Did NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell Pressure Coaches to Cover Up Scandals?
ESPN released a shocking report about National Football League commissioner Roger Goodell and the way he investigated the "Spygate" and "Deflategate" scandals. Here's one detail that's getting overlooked, and particularly unflattering to Goodell and the league, dating back to when then-senator Arlen Specter, Republican-turned-Democrat of Pennsylvania, started calling for a congressional investigation: [Former St. Louis Rams head coach Mike] Martz says now that he returned Goodell's call from the 49ers' practice field. During a five-minute conversation, Martz recalls that the commissioner sounded panicked about [Sen. Arlen] Specter's calls for a wider investigation. Martz also recalls that Goodell asked him to write a statement, saying that he was satisfied with the NFL's Spygate investigation and was certain the Patriots had not cheated and asking everyone to move on -- like leaders of the Steelers and Eagles had done. "He told me, 'The league doesn't need this. We're asking you to come out with a couple lines exonerating us and saying we did our due diligence,'" says Martz, now 64 years old and out of coaching, during a July interview at his summer cabin in the Idaho mountains. A congressional inquiry that would put league officials under oath had to be avoided, Martz recalls Goodell telling him. "If it ever got to an investigation, it would be terrible for the league," Goodell said. Martz says he still had more questions, but he agreed that a congressional investigation "could kill the league." So in the end, Martz got in line. He wrote the statement that evening, and it was released the next day, reading in part that he was "very confident there was no impropriety" and that it was "time to put this behind us." Shown a copy of his statement this past July, Martz was stunned to read several sentences about Walsh that he says he's certain he did not write. "It shocked me," he says. "It appears embellished quite a bit -- some lines I know I didn't write. Who changed it? I don't know." Since Spygate broke, Martz says he has continued to hear things about the run-up to that Super Bowl. Goodell "told me to take him at his word," he says. "It was hard to swallow because I always felt something happened but I didn't know what it was and I couldn't prove it anyway. Even to this day, I think something happened." Do you remember the loud debate at the time about why anybody in Congress was spending time on potential NFL scandals when the country had so many other problems? (This was 2007, which looks like a relative nirvana compared to now. That year the unemployment rate was 5 percent, and the workforce-participation rate was 66 percent; today it's 62.6 percent. About 20 million Americans were on food stamps then, compared to 45 million today.) In retrospect, it's fascinating that comments dismissed by the political world as empty grandstanding stirred such intense fear in the league's offices. Here's Martz's statement from way back when, in its entirety; note the bolded sections about Walsh: Former St. Louis Rams head coach Mike Martz released the following statement tonight, through the San Francisco 49ers, where he is serving as offensive coordinator: "I had the opportunity to talk to Commissioner [Roger] Goodell yesterday and I was very satisfied with the NFL's efforts to investigate the situation with Matt Walsh as it related to Super Bowl XXXVI. I'm very confident that there was no impropriety. I believed Bill Belichick when he said there wasn't and I took that at face value. "Let me make this clear – we lost to the New England Patriots in the Super Bowl because we turned the ball over three times. If there was anything obtained from our walk-thru from a casual observer that happened to be present, then that was just part of those walk-thrus and that environment. What I've said all along and what my only concerns were if A): If the walk-thru was filmed or B): If it was purposely scouted for information. If so, then that is an issue that the league needs to pursue. I'm very satisfied that this was not the situation in this instance whatsoever. "I was stunned at Matt Walsh's allegation that he was on the sideline in New England Patriots apparel during our walk-thru. I find that insulting, disturbing and a slap in the face to both our team security and NFL security, who both do outstanding jobs. I promise you that if he was on the sideline, he was not in New England Patriots apparel because he would have been identified. "This whole issue is based on statements made by Matt Walsh, and I think we have to understand that. "I'm very grateful for Commissioner Goodell to take the time to talk to me about this. It's time to put this situation behind us." If Goodell and his staff are putting words in coaches' mouths to help cover their butts . . . the NFL is probably long past due for some new leadership. The March to Bring U.S. Women into Combat Roles Hits a Snag Gee, this seems important: [Lance Cpl. Callahan] Brown was one of just two women left standing in the pair of infantry-trained rifleman platoons at the end of the nine-month-long experiment, she and other members of her unit said. Most of the other women in those two platoons had been dropped or temporarily sidelined with light duty due to injury. While Marine officials declined to provide any figures on the makeup of the units, it has been reported that there were roughly two dozen women in the infantry company when the task force activated. Marine officials are expected to make data and findings collected from the task force experiment public in coming weeks. Ahead of official results, however, male and female participants told Marine Corps Times that only a small number of female volunteers proved capable of taking on the more physically demanding combat jobs. And some volunteers reported perceived unequal treatment that broke down unit cohesion and fostered resentment between male and female counterparts. Mike Fredenburg, founding president of the Adam Smith Institute of San Diego, writing in NRO earlier this summer: Putting women into close combat roles isn't fair to the men who will be relying on them, and isn't fair to the women who will find themselves continuously at a deadly disadvantage. When we send our soldiers into combat we should be giving them the best possible chance of succeeding and surviving. While women are equal to or better than men at many tasks, they simply aren't when it comes to combat. Substituting men with far less combat-capable women is profoundly unfair, immoral, and utterly unnecessary. God bless every man and woman who wears our country's uniform. They're all unique, and all have something to contribute. But that doesn't mean every one of them is capable of handling every job. Forget the Apology, Let's Get Some Facts about That E-Mail System I think Jonah's had it with Hillary Clinton's not-really-an-apology theater: Were you demanding an apology from Hillary Clinton? I wasn't. I wanted the facts. And those are still in short supply. Which raises a second point: What the Hell is she talking about when she says the State Department "allowed" her private, off-site, server? First off, Hillary Clinton was running the State Department. Does she mean that she allowed herself to do it? If so, this may be the greatest example of Clintonian weasel-wording yet. If she doesn't mean that, can we have the name of the official who told Clinton it was okay? Can we have the paperwork? Or is the Clinton team still drawing straws to see who gets to take one for the team? Which brings us back around to this apology business. Note that she's apologizing for the narrowest definition of her transgressions, which is a clever way of trying to minimize the scandal. It was perfectly allowed . . . but I should have used to email addresses. My bad. This is a strange way to "take responsibility," after months of saying you did absolutely nothing wrong and attacking anyone who said otherwise. If she's going to apologize for anything, she should apologize for that. Or she could apologize for putting national security at risk. Or she could apologize for violating rules rank-and-file people can get sent to jail for. This "apology" is a response to her falling poll numbers and nothing more. That's because everything she does these days is in response to poll numbers. ADDENDA: Cameron Gray kindly interviews Cam and myself about the forthcoming book. Cam's observation about Washington: "You move here, if you got married at 23, you're a sideshow freak." | 
Comments
Post a Comment