Adam Reilly talks to Herald editor Kevin Convey about why the specific editors that worked with John Tomase on the story have not been named.

In answer, Conveys says to Reilly:

The issue of the editors’ involvement was on the front page and back page of the Boston Herald, and in my editor’s note. I think that’s the answer I would give to that question. I just don’t see it in the best interest of the paper and the staff to go more deeply than that.

Reilly goes on to speculate some more on the reasons why Convey may feel this way.

Seth Mnookin offers a defense of John Tomase

As you might imagine, this whole story has been a huge topic of conversation on the BSMW message board. One poster went back through the archives of the board and found a post from October 7, 2007, in which a poster stated the following:

Felger mentioned on his show a few weeks ago that there was “talk” that the Pats had videotaped the Rams walk-thru the day before SB 36.

Leaving out whether Felger did in fact make that statement or not, it was a public topic of conversation at least as far back at October.

In Tomase’s explanation today, he said:

Late in the 2006 season, I was having a casual conversation about the Patriots [team stats] when someone I trust threw out the following tidbit.

“I heard the Patriots filmed the Rams’ final walkthrough before Super Bowl XXXVI,” he said.

It was just a rumor, and certainly not actionable intelligence, as they say. He had heard it from a friend of a friend. I filed it away, and then forgot about it. Reporters hear stuff like that all the time.

Little did I know that comment would resurface from a much stronger source in the days after the Patriots had been caught filming the Jets’ defensive signals in September 2007.

The rumor was certainly making the rounds during that time. Whether or not Tomase and Felger had talked about it, (It seems natural that they would.) it’s interesting that Felger is apparently one of the ones who was circulating the rumor as well.

In recent days Felger has said that Tomase’s only error was using the wrong verb. He says “monitored” should be used rather than “filmed.” This also has seemingly been proven false, as the statements from Brian Daboll and the NFL would seem to indicate.


13 thoughts on “Editor’s Identities Not “In The Best Interest Of The Paper”

  1. Felger has decided that he will decide for himself what the definition is ‘is’ is. In this massively angst-ridden and oversubscribed world of sports media, these cretins are shooting fans, the teams, and even themselves in an effort to maintain relevancy. To coin a phrase, ‘Larry Bird ain’t walking through that door, folks.’ In other words, the ‘halcyon days’ when the Boston sports media were revered rather than reviled are gone for good. They all seem to know this, which is why they are twisting themselves into pretzels over every little thing. I’ve rarely witnessed such seething rage…whether from Felger, or Shaughnessy, or Borges or anyone else you can name. These people have become unglued & unhinged.


  2. I tried listening to Felger, as opposed to the WEEI donkeys, but it is merely “Big Show Lite.” Felger is constantly saying, “X might be true; but Y might be true also.” (even though X and Y are complete opposite thoughts). He has attempted to be Baby Ordway. Thank God for satellite radio.


  3. Felger has commented on the possibility of the Rams walk through being taped as far back as his WEEI appearances on the Big Show. Tom E Curran has also mentioned it on WEEI…


  4. After the tapes were released and before walsh talked, Felger was trying to say that just because there was no tape now, that didn’t mean that the tape hadn’t existed. Somehow, he was trying to say that the dog ate Walsh’s tape of the Ram’s runthrough. Pathetic.


  5. Why is that so far fetched to think that a tape once existed and now doesn’t? Felger talks more sports in ten minutes than the Big Show does in a week…


    1. Because evidence is usually required before making an assumption like that.

      There is, never has been, and probably never will be any evidence that this tape was made.

      At some point, people have to let this idea go and dismiss it as the falsehood that it was/is.


    2. Ummm, maybe because they like, you know, INVESTIGATED IT, and everyone, INCLUDING WALSH, who was there….coaches, others in the video department, Rams personnel, security….said it DIDN’T HAPPEN. There was no power, they know what equipment the Patriots had there and they have figured it out. It didn’t happen.



    3. Brian,
      Quick question for you. What good would a tape of the Super Bowl walk-thru do for the Patriots? Any idea what happens at a Super Bowl walk-thru? Ask someone who’s seen one – you find out how many kids a player has and what his wife/girlfriend looks like and lots of photo taking by the players. So say they saw Marshall Faulk on the punt return team – don’t you think they’d also see that in the pre-game warm-ups.

      Felger’s shtick is that he offers original, contrarian ideas – no matter how far-fetched they are. 90% of his ideas are in outer space. He doesn’t talk sports, he talks about Felger. And he calls Belichick an idiot.


  6. Evidence could have been destroyed is my point. All Felger has said from day one is that if you spend time around the team, the rumor has been making the rounds for years that he taped the walkthrough. Whether it’s true or not nobody knows, but it’s not out of the question to assume that maybe it was taped and it was destroyed is all I’m saying.

    So tired of talking/hearing about this.


    1. It could have been done and destroyed, sure. But remember that Walsh’s indemnification agreement with the NFL required him to tell Goodell the truth about it, or else he’d face the consequences. That’s why it took so long to get that agreement negotiated in the first place. The Pats were never going to give the guy a blanket immunity to lie about something like that.

      I really have a hard time believing that any tape ever existed.

      But I’m with you….I’m tired of the entire thing. It’s gone on far too long.


  7. Easy there, Patrick.

    It should be pointed out that while Martz’s statement indicates he wants the story to go away, he does point out that at no time did he or anyone on his staff/security see people in Pats gear on his sideline as Walsh claimed they were, so don’t act like there aren’t holes everywhere in these stories.


    1. So you give Martz 100% credence in his assertion, because it supports your viewpoint, yet question the assertions of the NFL, Patriots, Walsh, and everyone else who has investigated the situation, because they don’t?

      Just getting that clear. Check.



    The Boston Herald – Sections and Editors
    Section Editor Link
    News Kevin Convey The Boston Herald news page
    Opinion Shelly Cohen The Boston Herald editorial & opinion page
    Books Sandra Kent The Boston Herald book review page
    Business Greg Gatlin The Boston Herald business page
    Entertainment Larry Katz The Boston Herald entertainment page
    Sports Hank Hryniewicz The Boston Herald sports page
    Travel Sandra Kent The Boston Herald travel page

    It is not a state secret.


Comments are closed.