42 replies to this topic

[section122]

Bud Adams, on 23 April 2012 - 03:31 PM, said:

This is not "breaking news." It's not a "flash" that can be retracted. ESPN had BETTER have solid sources in place, or it'll face civil suits out the you-know-what.

So, to answer your question -- No, I can't see ESPN making up something this serious.

As you wouldn't put anything past a network like ESPN, I wouldn't put anything past the Saints.

BA

again I will bring up the Bernie Fine situation.

[K-9]

Bud Adams, on 23 April 2012 - 03:31 PM, said:

This is not "breaking news." It's not a "flash" that can be retracted. ESPN had BETTER have solid sources in place, or it'll face civil suits out the you-know-what.

So, to answer your question -- No, I can't see ESPN making up something this serious.

As you wouldn't put anything past a network like ESPN, I wouldn't put anything past the Saints.

BA

From the article, it sounds like the US Attorney's Office confirmed the reports and informed the FBI. Sounds like Loomis and the Saints better have a solid defense team at this point. More than ESPN should worry about their sources anyway.

GO BILLS!!!

[aristocrat]

If this turns out to be true the team should be given the equivalent of the NCAA death penalty.  No draft picks for two seasons and perhaps a significantly lower salary cap.

[NoSaint]

K-9, on 23 April 2012 - 03:41 PM, said:

From the article, it sounds like the US Attorney's Office confirmed the reports and informed the FBI. Sounds like Loomis and the Saints better have a solid defense team at this point. More than ESPN should worry about their sources anyway.

GO BILLS!!!

confirmed the allegations have been made and confirmed the allegations were true are WIDELY different statements though. currently they have only confirmed someone has made the accusation, and passed the info to the proper office.

Edited by NoSaint, 23 April 2012 - 03:47 PM.

[Bud Adams]

DrDareustein, on 23 April 2012 - 03:37 PM, said:

All ESPN is doing is "reporting the report". Passing along the info, if you will. They will not be on the hook if proven false. They have NOTHING to lose. If it comes out it was incorrect, they say "We were just relaying what was reported and what our sources told us". The entire thing is a he-said/she-said.

Ever hear of "libel" or "defamation?" They are quoting their own anonymous sources -- that's not just "reporting the report." ESPN had better have this on very good authority.

Quote

again I will bring up the Bernie Fine situation.

Bring up Fine all you want. ESPN had its "sources" on the air (they were muffled, but STILL) -- they had sources. THAT was enough to keep them out of a lawsuit. The allegations were blatantly false, but the accusers were very real.

BA

Edited by Bud Adams, 23 April 2012 - 03:49 PM.

[NoSaint]

Bud Adams, on 23 April 2012 - 03:46 PM, said:

Ever hear of "libel" or "defamation?" ESPN had better have this on very good authority.



Bring up Fine all you want. ESPN had its "sources" on the air (they were muffled, but STILL) -- they had sources. THAT was enough to keep them out of a lawsuit. The allegations were blatantly false, but the accusers were very real.

BA

which is exactly what we are looking at here, minus the sources being public.

espn is reporting that allegations have been made. which is true. the amount of digging into those allegations before they reported may be an entirely different matter, which i think many of us are addressing here.

Edited by NoSaint, 23 April 2012 - 03:49 PM.

[K-9]

NoSaint, on 23 April 2012 - 03:45 PM, said:

confirmed the allegations have been made and confirmed the allegations are WIDELY different statements though. currently they have only confirmed someone has made the accusation, and passed the info to the proper office.

Agreed. But the ball is out of ESPN's court at this time. That's all I was saying. If they had published this sourced report without those sources having contacted the US Attorney's office, ESPN would be more exposed.

GO BILLS!!!

[RyanC883]

Bud Adams, on 23 April 2012 - 03:22 PM, said:

I couldn't see ESPN reporting something this serious -- which could trigger an avalanche of lawsuits -- unless they had hard evidence and/or solid witnesses. I really don't believe anything the Saints say anymore. Will be interesting to see how it pans out.

I think ESPN would report anything at any time, even if it is false.  Their article is carefully written so that they can defend themselves by stating they are relying on this or that source.   They claim no responsibility.

[stony]

DrDareustein, on 23 April 2012 - 03:26 PM, said:

Really? You cant?

Are you that unfamiliar with the 24-hour news cycle and what it does to an Entertainment company like ESPN?  

I wouldnt put ANYTHING past any of these 24-hour "news" networks.

Normally I wouldn't either. But ESPN has become the NFL. I would be very surprised if they were to damage the reputation of an important franchise without having credibility to the allegations.

[DrDareustein]

stony, on 23 April 2012 - 03:52 PM, said:

Normally I wouldn't either. But ESPN has become the NFL. I would be very surprised if they were to damage the reputation of an important franchise without having credibility to the allegations.

But we're not talking about damaging a reputation. We're talking about piling on an already wounded franchise, which is exactly ESPN's MO.

And remember, they arent breaking this themselves. They are just reporting that it has been reported.

Edited by DrDareustein, 23 April 2012 - 03:58 PM.

[K-9]

Bud Adams, on 23 April 2012 - 03:46 PM, said:

Ever hear of "libel" or "defamation?" They are quoting their own anonymous sources -- that's not just "reporting the report." ESPN had better have this on very good authority.



Bring up Fine all you want. ESPN had its "sources" on the air (they were muffled, but STILL) -- they had sources. THAT was enough to keep them out of a lawsuit. The allegations were blatantly false, but the accusers were very real.

BA

Well, they were also quoting the US Attorney as well. That's a pretty good authority.

GO BILLS!!!

[Bud Adams]

DrDareustein, on 23 April 2012 - 03:57 PM, said:

And remember, they arent breaking this themselves. They are just reporting that it has been reported.

I remember the article, particularly paragraph 2:

"Sources familiar with Saints game-day operations told "Outside the Lines" that Loomis, who faces an eight-game suspension from the NFL for his role in the recent bounty scandal, had the ability to secretly listen for most of the 2002 season, his first as general manager of the Saints, and all of the 2003 and 2004 seasons. The sources spoke with "Outside the Lines" under the condition of anonymity because of fear of reprisals from members of the Saints organization."

They are NOT just reporting that it has been reported. They're embedding themselves.

BA

[DrDareustein]

Watching ESPN right now and they are going out of their way to make it clear that they are "just allegations" right now. Meaning ESPN has no evidence, and doesnt need any evidence, since they are just reporting the allegations.

Not sure what else you are arguing...

[stony]

DrDareustein, on 23 April 2012 - 03:57 PM, said:

But we're not talking about damaging a reputation. We're talking about piling on an already wounded franchise, which is exactly ESPN's MO.

And remember, they arent breaking this themselves. They are just reporting that it has been reported.

Fair enough.

And FWIW, is Drew Brees' agent happier by the second? This deal needs to get done just to repair the PR nightmare the organization has dealt with.

[Ramius]

Bud Adams, on 23 April 2012 - 03:22 PM, said:

I couldn't see ESPN reporting something this serious -- which could trigger an avalanche of lawsuits -- unless they had hard evidence and/or solid witnesses. I really don't believe anything the Saints say anymore. Will be interesting to see how it pans out.

I know. It's not like they went on a witch hunt after Bernie Fine, with much more serious allegations, on evidence just as flimsy/non-existant.

[Bud Adams]

Ramius, on 23 April 2012 - 04:19 PM, said:

I know. It's not like they went on a witch hunt after Bernie Fine, with much more serious allegations, on evidence just as flimsy/non-existant.

So you're saying you know FOR SURE the evidence in this case is "non-existent?" Interesting.

[DrDareustein]

Bud Adams, on 23 April 2012 - 04:26 PM, said:

So you're saying you know FOR SURE the evidence in this case is "non-existent?" Interesting.

we know that ESPN doesnt have any of their own, so in that regard, yes.

[NoSaint]

Bud Adams, on 23 April 2012 - 04:26 PM, said:

So you're saying you know FOR SURE the evidence in this case is "non-existent?" Interesting.

the fact that they are refusing to make anything public besides the fact that an allegation has occurred does tend to leave one feeling that way. whether true, we have no idea.

unfortunately for espn, its their own fault that the credibility is so low

Edited by NoSaint, 23 April 2012 - 04:35 PM.

[Bud Adams]

DrDareustein, on 23 April 2012 - 04:30 PM, said:

we know that ESPN doesnt have any of their own, so in that regard, yes.

How about answering the point I made to counter your comment that ESPN was not "just reporting what has been reported?"

Understandable that you'd bypass my reply and branch off defending others.

[KollegeStudnet]

When I see the quote, "This is 1,000 percent false. This is 1,000 percent inaccurate."


It makes me wonder how guilty the Saints organization is!

But, it really isn't defamation and/or slander...the allegations stem from the U.S. Attorney's office...ESPN is just reporting on the matter of it being a federal crime!

One point, I would like to point out is the years of this violation...

2002-2004....

I don't understand, why it's just those years under Loomis...something just doesn't add up--it was almost 10 years ago!?

Were there more years--leading up to the Saints *asterisk Super Bowl?!

Another point, Cortez Kennedy's recent statement on PFT.com about his take on the Loomis earpiece...Now, I can't find the years he was doing his coaching fellowship, but describes the earpiece in the booth rather recently--than 8-10 years ago...


“This is completely false,” Kennedy said, via comments forwarded to PFT by the Saints.  “I have sat with Mickey for years, for multiple games and I can say that when Mickey gets up to go walk around during breaks or halftime, I put his earpiece in . . . it is WWL-AM radio. . . .  I know this, because I have heard.  Plain and simple.” - Cortez Kennedy