---

The Patriots have gone on the offensive in the past week or so over the issue of "Spygate," displaying an intensity that, if it had been in place for the entirety of Super Bowl XLII, there would be no special "Giants: Super Bowl Champions" editions of Sports Illustrated being hawked repeatedly during commercial breaks of "The Best Damn Sports Show, Period."

The focus of this attack is one Mr. Matt Walsh, former video assistant for your local football franchise. He's the guy who claims to have some sort of damning evidence that goes beyond "Spygate" and threatens to establish the Patriots' practice of surreptitious videotaping of opposing teams as having been in place long before Eric Mangini got his knickers twisted over it last September - but he'll be damned if he'll reveal the damning evidence before he's absolutely certain he's not going to be sued over it.

In recent days, Patriots' coach Bill Belichick and VP-Personnel Scott Pioli have gone on the offensive with their condemnations of Walsh in exclusive interviews granted to the Boston Globe. Patriot-sympathetic media outlets have fallen into step quickly enough, including Boston radio station WEEI, which compensates Belichick and some players to participate in exclusive on-air interviews during the season. Anyone who dares call the station (particularly the afternoon drive-time show) to suggest that "Spygate" might actually have legs is immediately shouted down in a torrent of puerile insults.

Belichick spent most of the year dismissing "Spygate" and all associated topics as the result of a misunderstanding of league rules. He was fined $500,000 for his role in the illegal videotaping of the Jets' defensive assistant coaches and lost one of his two first-round draft picks, and his "we're moving on" mantra seemed by season's end to have achieved its goal of sweeping the controversy under the Gillette Stadium FieldTurf.

But then along came Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., who stoked the fires of "Spygate" during the week of Super Bowl XLII by demanding answers from NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell about why the latter ordered all "Spygate" videos and other evidence destroyed. At the same time, the Boston Herald cited an unnamed source (who is widely presumed to be Walsh) that claimed the Patriots videotaped the final walkthrough practice of the St. Louis Rams before Super Bowl XXXVI.

Belichick recently claimed that he couldn't pick Walsh out of a lineup - and if that's true, he's not alone.

Walsh apparently spent a few years as a glorified intern in the Patriots' video department, then was transferred to the player personnel department before being terminated in 2003. He's listed in the Patriots' 2002 Media Guide as a "scouting assistant," which is basically the only evidence I have that he ever existed.

In the Globe interviews, it's claimed that Walsh was terminated because he was found to have secretly taped conversations between himself and Pioli. Not surprisingly, Walsh's lawyer is claiming that Belichick and Pioli are trying to undermine his client's credibility by making those revelations.

No fooling! And why, I ask, would they do that?

Because they're afraid they might have to.

Nobody outside of Walsh, now a golf pro in Hawaii, knows if he really has the goods on his former employers - stuff that's damaging enough to make it worth his while to risk whatever financial settlement he may have received from the Patriots under the agreement that what happened in Foxboro would stay in Foxboro.

It's not uncommon for confidentiality agreements to be part of a severance. Personally, I know of other individuals who could not talk about their departures from the Patriots' organization in recent years without risking their settlement packages and legal action. Confidentiality agreements often indicate the need for a company to protect its internal workings from outside scrutiny - but at the same time, they don't always mean that there are deep, dark secrets hidden away in the storerooms, just begging to see the light of day.

Certainly, Walsh's coy approach to the controversy would seem to indicate that he thinks he has something legitimately damaging in hand. Lending at least a little credence to that presumption is the fact that Belichick now believes he has to go on the attack, rather than just sit back and continue his "we're moving on" approach that took him comfortably from the first week of September to the last week of January.

"In my entire coaching career, I've never seen another team's practice film prior to playing that team," Belichick told the Globe's Mike Reiss, a reporter respected for his fairness and willingness to let the subject of the interview tell the story without the insertion of a personal agenda. "I have never authorized, or heard of, or even seen in any way, shape, or form any other team's walkthrough. We don't even film our own. We don't even want to see ourselves do anything, that's the pace that it's at. Regardless, I've never been a part of that." Fair as Reiss is, he is being used by Belichick to set up the latter's line of defense. And why not? In the court of public opinion, who will be regarded in a better light? The embattled, contrite coach who wishes to break his silence and tell his side of the story, or the "Deep Throat" source who won't talk to anyone until he makes sure his legal and financial backside is covered?

Meanwhile, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell must be feeling one or two drops of sweat trickling down the back of his neck.

Even as he levied the "Spygate" punishments upon Belichick and the Patriots' organization, Goodell stuck his neck out about as far as it could go on behalf of the Patriots. By accepting their claim that they had turned over all "Spygate" evidence, and by ordering it destroyed, Goodell put his personal stamp upon the premise that the controversy was over.

Now, if more damaging information comes to light, it doesn't just reflect badly upon Belichick and his boss, Robert Kraft. It also would reflect quite badly upon the commissioner himself for meekly believing what he was told and not investigating further. Goodell's own future might be at risk if he is perceived by the owners who pay his salary that he harbored and protected cheaters in their midst.

The NFL clearly wants "Spygate" to go away, and the league's spin doctors are hard at work trying to make that happen. Just a few days ago, the Rooney family in Pittsburgh issued a statement claiming that they believe the Patriots' videotaping had no bearing whatsoever upon the results of any recent games between the Patriots and Steelers.

One wonders if 30 copies of that same statement went to the rest of the franchises, with "fill in the blank" where the Steelers' name appeared.

Meanwhile, Matt Walsh strolls a beautiful golf course in Hawaii, probably chuckling to himself over how he has the sports world in a tizzy over what he might or might not know.

I certainly hope he's enjoying himself - because the time will come, hopefully sooner rather than later, when he'll have to put up or shut up.

MARK FARINELLA may be reached at 508-236-0315 or via e-mail at mfarinel@thesunchronicle.com