Interference (64 page)

General Background

In July 1987, I sold a proposed article to
Regardie's
magazine about the influence of organized crime on the NFL. My story built upon the controversial premier program of the public television series
Frontline
, “An Unauthorized History of the NFL,” which was broadcast on January 17, 1983. My article appeared as the cover story of the magazine's February 1988 issue, released the week before Super Bowl XXII.

In its review of my article, the
Washington Post
wrote: “Washington's Dan E. Moldea is one of a kind, and the kind in question is the tireless hunter-gatherer of evidence that some people would just as soon see left alone. … There is evidence of legwork here, and of reality.”

Soon after,
Extra!
, the house organ of the media watchdog group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), criticized the sports press for not reporting the revelations contained in my article, saying: “The major media, with few exceptions, are still ignoring a very embarrassing subject. Moldea appeared on
CBS Night Watch
(1-29-88) and CNN
Crossfire
(1-30-88), but his story wasn't picked up by the nightly news or the national print media. As an NBC employee told Moldea, ‘We spend $[2] billion to broadcast NFL games. We can't have you on saying it's crooked.'”

After the publication of the
Regardie's
article, I wrote a proposal for a book about the NFL and the mob. My agent submitted it to no fewer than one dozen publishers, but the only house to make a legitimate bid for the project was William Morrow & Company. Although Morrow's advance offer was only $50,000—$25,000 less than I had received for my previous book—I believed in the NFL project and decided to accept the deal.

Upon completion of the book, I gave my 734-page manuscript—which William Morrow entitled
Interference: How Organized Crime Influences Professional Football
—to no fewer than five experts on the NFL, organized crime, and sports gambling in order to ensure the accuracy and fairness of my work.

Also, as I do for all of my books, I either met with or telephoned numerous key characters in the text, including many of the book's targets, to fact-check or approve their quoted words from our previous interviews. During these follow-up conversations, I read them the entire sections in which they were discussed, giving them an opportunity to expand upon or amend the record I was in the midst of creating.
¹

Of course, William Morrow made sure that the manuscript was thoroughly vetted. In a memorandum from my editor, Lisa Drew, to Jim Landis, Morrow's editor in chief, Drew wrote, “I must say, [Moldea] has done an incredible job of research, synthesis, writing and documentation, which is a requirement, because the Mob is all over the NFL. … In addition, Moldea is very responsible, and has never been sued for any book or article he has written.”

But editor Drew also predicted, “This is going to create enormous comment and controversy.”

Why? Because
Interference
was the first book to concentrate on probing the relationships among professional football, the legal and illegal gambling communities, and organized crime. As a result of the documents I had uncovered and the two-hundred-plus interviews I had conducted, the book contained fresh and significant, never-before-published information.

Specifically, in
Interference
, I made five principal charges against the NFL, claiming that:

1. No fewer than twenty-six past and present NFL team owners have had documented personal or business ties with members of the gambling community or the organized-crime syndicate.

2. No fewer than seventy NFL games might have been fixed.

3. No fewer than fifty legitimate investigations of corruption within the NFL have been either suppressed or killed as a result of the sweetheart relationship between NFL Security, the internal police force within the league, and a variety of federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies.

4. The illegal gambling economy has become an adjunct to the First Amendment because of the insistence by the sports media to print and broadcast betting lines and to hire oddsmakers and handicappers to predict the outcomes of NFL games.

5. The movement to legalize sports gambling by state jurisdictions will cause a proliferation of illegal bookmaking and organized-crime activities.

Joe Browne and the NFL's Counterattack

Early on, fearing yet another public-relations disaster, the NFL started reacting strongly to my work. On January 9, 1989—nearly seven months before the release of my book—the NFL launched a preemptive attack. The
New York Post
published an article in its “Page Six” column, reporting: “An NFL spokesman [communications director Joe Browne] said a magazine article Moldea wrote on the same subject ‘was a cut-and-paste job and not very factual. It was filled with inaccuracies, gossip and innuendo.' He said league commissioner Pete Rozelle didn't intend to talk to Moldea.”

Then, on June 4, less than two months before the publication of
Interference
, Peter King, then a sportswriter for
Newsday
, once again repeated the NFL's mantra: “NFL director of communications Joe Browne, who denied Moldea an interview with commissioner Pete Rozelle about the charges leveled, said the book was old news. ‘The book is an outgrowth of a magazine piece and a tabloid TV show [PBS's
Frontline
], both of which contained a series of long-repudiated rumors, distortions, half-truths and outright factual errors,' Browne said.”

The
Sporting News
, in a July 3 story, titled “NFL Worried,” repeated some of the same material in the
Newsday
story, as well as Joe Browne's quote.

Clearly, the NFL's strategy in its prepublication assault on my work consisted of portraying it as sloppy, dishonest, and old news.

Actually, I had anticipated these responses from the NFL and their cheerleaders in the sports media and wrote in the prologue to
Interference
:

In effect, I agreed with Neil Amdur, the editor of the
New York Times
' sports section, who wrote in his 1971 book,
The Fifth Down: Democracy and the Football Revolution
, “Football writers and members of the media are among the most intense rooters for the teams they are assigned to follow as a ‘beat.'”

Interference
was released in late July 1989. On July 30, Jim Baker of the
Boston Herald
wrote an article, “Moldea's claims big headache for NFL.” Baker stated: “It will be most interesting to see how … yes, those NFL writers and broadcasters who've been riding the NFL gravy train for years, will treat this [book]. Those media members with strong connections to the owners will make especially compelling observation.”

After the book's release, William Morrow sent me on a thirteen-city, seventy-interview book tour, which included such high-profile programs as
Nightline
,
Good Morning America
, the
Larry King Show
, and
The Pat Sajack Show
. I debated anyone who wanted to challenge my findings or documentation, including the top bookmakers and oddsmakers in Las Vegas during my two-hour appearance on
The Stardust Line
, the premier sports gambling program in the country. Throughout these sparring and even free-swinging sessions during my tour, no one ever laid a glove on me or my work. Yet, incredibly, not one reporter—from news or sports—ever asked to see my evidence of NFL game-fixing, even though I traveled around the country always prepared to provide it.

By the end of August, my book went into its third printing and was selling well. My publisher was solidly behind the book and expected it to appear on the national bestseller lists. But, while I was on the road, the NFL's attack had already intensified.

On July 23, the
New York Post
's “Page Six” column published a second piece, “Writer tackles Mob-NFL ties,” announcing the release of
Interference
. The
Post
essentially repeated its first story, saying: “Gridiron powers that be aren't overly concerned with the book's blitz. League spokesman Joe Brown [sic] called the book ‘a padded magazine piece.' Although he wouldn't respond to specific allegations, Brown [sic] contended ‘the book is based on a TV show … and a 1988 magazine story, both of which contained a listing of long repudiated rumors, distortions, half-truths and, frankly, outright factual errors.”

Then, the NFL owners jumped into the fray.

On July 30, the
Akron Beacon Journal
—my hometown newspaper—published a front-page news story about the book, which was picked up by numerous papers on the Knight-Ridder wire service. Interviewed about the charges in
Interference
, Cleveland Browns owner Art Modell, who admitted that he had not even seen the book, angrily reacted: “The man [Moldea] is a muckraker, the man is sick. … We're a popular game and he's trying to take advantage of that by looking for a fast buck. I wouldn't even look at the book, let alone buy it. Outrageous. It's all outrageous.”

But the worst was yet to come.

The
Times
Review and the Immediate Aftermath

On September 3, 1989, the week before the NFL season began, Gerald Eskenazi, a well-known and respected
New York Times
sportswriter who had covered the National Football League beat for three decades, reviewed my book for the
New York Times Book Review
.
²
In this review, Eskenazi grossly misrepresented specific facts contained in my work, concluding that my book contained “sloppy journalism,” a charge that, if true, could end a nonfiction author's career.

But Eskenazi had based his opinion on a series of provably false statements. Incredibly, he claimed that I stated facts I never did, or that I omitted other facts that were clearly contained in my book.

Some media critics later blunted Eskenazi's review. Writing for the
Columbia Journalism Review
, columnist Christopher Hanson stated: “Moldea has reason to be upset. … [A]fter comparing what the book says with what the review says it says, one might conclude that Eskenazi was some distance from Pulitzer territory.”

Journalist Edwin Diamond observed in
New York
magazine: “[Eskenazi charges that]: ‘[Moldea] revives the discredited notion that Carroll Rosenbloom … met foul play when he drowned in Florida 10 years ago.' In fact, Moldea interviewed witnesses who were at the scene, obtained the autopsy photos, and concluded on page 360 of
Interference
: ‘
Rosenbloom died in a tragic accident and was not murdered.
'” (Emphasis added.)

Who was Gerald Eskenazi? In 1989, at the time of the review, he was specifically assigned as the
Times
' beat reporter who covered the New York Jets. And, in 1976, Eskenazi had written a celebration of professional football,
There Were Giants in Those Days
(Grosset & Dunlap), a book about the New York Giants, for which he received the cooperation of both the NFL and the Giants' top management. On the acknowledgment page of his book, Eskenazi wrote: “Most of the Giants and the Giants officials, past and present, written about gave me their time and enthusiasm. All the reminiscences were given directly. … Also, the necessary technical help was provided by Jim Rooney of the NFL, whose Don Weiss and
Joe Browne
also served.” (Emphasis added.)

The similarities in tone and substance between Joe Browne's prepublication attacks on
Interference
and Eskenazi's postpublication review were striking. Both men had portrayed my work as sloppy, dishonest, and old news.

According to his personal calendar, which my attorneys and I later obtained, Eskenazi was scheduled to talk tBrowne on the first day of my book tour, July 26, 1989. Soon after, Eskenazi received the assignment from the
New York Times Book Review
to review my work.

Significantly, Browne's name is handwritten in a margin of Eskenazi's personal notes about
Interference
. Eskenazi had listed and numbered several criticisms of my book in another margin, apart from the rest of his notes, and he used most of them in his review.

Did these criticisms come from Eskenazi or did they come from Browne?

Regardless, Eskenazi seemed less concerned with fairness towards my work and more determined to protect his longtime friends and sources in the National Football League with his review of
Interference
.

On September 4, 1989, the day after the review appeared in the
Times
, I sent a letter, challenging the review point by point, to Lisa Drew, my editor at William Morrow.

On September 5, Drew replied: “While we are sympathetic with your distress about both the tone and the many statements and implications of inaccuracy in the review, this, unfortunately, is not a unique or even rare situation; it is the risk one takes when sending a book out for review. … However, we—and for that matter no other publisher I know of—do not respond to these unfortunate attacks as a matter of policy.”