Head Strong: Arlen Specter goes after the Patriots

Sen. Arlen Specter relishes a good investigation, whether it's the Kennedy assassination, corruption among Philadelphia's magistrates, the Anita Hill/Clarence Thomas hearings, the death of Randy Weaver at Ruby Ridge, or the Khobar Towers bombing.

Now his passion for truth is focused on the National Football League, much to the angst of the league and some taxpayers who question whether the senator's interest is appropriate.

Last week, I sat down with him to find out why he is so interested in "Spygate," the NFL scandal involving illicit videotaping by the New England Patriots, and the league's handling of the mess.

Specter said there's something wrong with how things have turned out, especially with what the NFL did once the scandal broke.

The game that brought the scandal to light pitted the Patriots against the New York Jets on Sept. 9. NFL security officers caught Matt Walsh, a Patriots video assistant, filming the Jets' defensive signals. Such filming is against the rules of the league. After the game, the Jets filed a formal complaint.

On Sept. 13, the following Thursday, the NFL announced its punishment: an unprecedented fine of $500,000 against Pats head coach Bill Belichick, $250,000 against the team, and the surrender of a first-round draft choice in 2008. On Sept. 18, the NFL took possession of the evidence - six videotapes and notes dating back to 2002.

But then something odd happened. Only two days later, without time for any real investigation, the NFL destroyed the evidence. The league said it had done so to prevent anyone from possibly seeing it and gaining a competitive advantage. Specter isn't buying it. He says the league's behavior is like "a jury imposing a sentence before seeing the evidence."

He was not placated by NFL commissioner Roger Goodell in their Feb. 13 meeting. Specter told me Goodell disclosed that Belichick had started the illegal photography in his first season with the Patriots in 2000. That contradicts prior statements in which Goodell said that the spying extended back only to the 2006 season.

Now Specter is anxious to speak with two individuals: Matt Walsh and an unidentified "former Patriot player" who reportedly confirmed to the New York Times that videotaping was used in the 2000 season opener - Belichick's debut - against the Tampa Bay Buccaneers.

If the NFL really wanted Walsh to talk, "they would have found a way to do so a long time ago," Specter told me. He said he thinks a lawsuit filed by Willie Gary, who played for the St. Louis Rams in 2002 (the year they lost Super Bowl XXXVI to the Pats on a last-second field goal), could lead to the taking of discovery. Belichick would have to answer questions under oath. Reportedly Walsh videotaped the Rams' walk-through practice before the 2002 Super Bowl, which would certainly have helped the Patriots beat the Rams.

Specter confirmed that his mailbag has been heavy with complaints from non-Pennsylvanians who believe the Senate has more pressing business, but he said his constituents know him to be a "24/7 guy" and that he has received their support, particularly in Pittsburgh.

Maybe that's because shortly after Spygate broke in September, Pittsburgh Steelers wide receiver Hines Ward claimed the Patriots had stolen the Steelers' defensive signals during the 2002 AFC Championship game. "They were calling our stuff out," Ward complained.

In an Oct. 31, 2004, game against the Steelers, Tom Brady was sacked four times and threw two interceptions. The Patriots lost, 34-20. When the teams met again in that AFC Championship on Jan. 27, 2005, Brady was sacked twice and threw no interceptions, and the Patriots won, 41-27. Specter asked Goodell whether the Patriots had spied against the Steelers; Goodell told him they had. Goodell denied, however, that they had spied on the Eagles in Super Bowl XXXIX on Feb. 5, 2005.

If there is Spygate fury out there, it's not evident, or public. Instead of outrage against a team that appears to have been cheating for seven years, other teams seem to be reading from timid talking points. When NFL coaches and executives gathered recently in Indianapolis, they generally said they were satisfied with the league investigation. Typical are the comments of Eagles president Joe Banner, who said last week: "We need to move forward. It's not an issue for us." Even the Steelers have called Spygate a "non-issue."

None of this sounds very competitive, which is another of Specter's concerns. He justifies his involvement by pointing out that professional football players are role models: "If they cheat, they set that example for younger athletes." But he is also quick to point out that the league has a "preferred position not enjoyed by any other business except baseball. They have an antitrust exemption. This goose is laying a platinum egg."

Surely this protected business has sufficient motive for addressing this issue and the damage it could do to the image of the league. If the NFL appears lax in this matter, it risks being compared to professional wrestling, where nothing is "real." If the good name of football suffers, owners who share revenue can say goodbye to sold-out stadiums, sky-high television revenues, and, ultimately, the resale value of their franchises. What's needed is (a) a truly independent investigation, and (b) an NFL commissioner who is intolerant of cheating - in the mold of baseball commissioner Kenesaw Mountain Landis, who took the helm in 1920 after the Chicago Black Sox scandal - to protect pro football from itself.

Meanwhile, Specter will keep going. "I intend to do it like porcupines make love," he told me. "Very carefully."