42 replies to this topic

[Bud Adams]

NoSaint, on 23 April 2012 - 04:35 PM, said:

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

Here's the thing, though, NoSaint. I'm sure you'd agree that "evidence" and "sources" are two different things. To some on this board (this thread has made it obvious), there is no difference between the two.

In ESPN's second paragraph, it claims ownership of this story by citing its own sources. So the network is very much on the hook, and, despite what some here say, ESPN is not just "reporting what someone else reported."

Evidence is for the prosecutor to bring about -- not ESPN.

For the record, I have not convicted anyone. I just believe that in a case like this, given the credibility (or lack thereof) of the person(s) in question, there could well be smoke where there is fire.

BA

[NoSaint]

Bud Adams, on 23 April 2012 - 04:45 PM, said:

Here's the thing, though, NoSaint. I'm sure you'd agree that "evidence" and "sources" are two different things. To some on this board (this thread has made it obvious), there is no difference between the two.

In ESPN's second paragraph, it claims ownership of this story by citing its own sources. So the network is very much on the hook, and, despite what some here say, ESPN is not just "reporting what someone else reported."

Evidence is for the prosecutor to bring about -- not ESPN.

For the record, I have not convicted anyone. I just believe that in a case like this, given the credibility (or lack thereof) of the person(s) in question, there could well be smoke where there is fire.

BA

I understand, and it could be 100% true, but without anything beyond essentially "so someone told us, and Jim letten confirmed he's been told too" doesn't really do anything for me. If espn had a credible history of vetting anonymous sources, it would be one thing. They don't, and because of that until they bring forward information to back up this allegation, I'm not going to get too invested in the story. To drop an absolute bombshell like this, I think they owe it to the public to share some shred of why they it has validity as an allegation. Otherwise, they should tread VERY lightly.

[K-9]

NoSaint, on 23 April 2012 - 05:55 PM, said:

I understand, and it could be 100% true, but without anything beyond essentially "so someone told us, and Jim letten confirmed he's been told too" doesn't really do anything for me. If espn had a credible history of vetting anonymous sources, it would be one thing. They don't, and because of that until they bring forward information to back up this allegation, I'm not going to get too invested in the story. To drop an absolute bombshell like this, I think they owe it to the public to share some shred of why they it has validity as an allegation. Otherwise, they should tread VERY lightly.

So the US Attorney being informed of the allegations and his subsequent notification to the FBI doesn't carry any weight? At the very least, the Feds are now obligated to investigate and those sources can be compelled to testify. Loomis better lawyer up more than ESPN should worry too much at this point.

GO BILLS!!!

[NoSaint]

K-9, on 23 April 2012 - 06:01 PM, said:

So the US Attorney being informed of the allegations and his subsequent notification to the FBI doesn't carry any weight? At the very least, the Feds are now obligated to investigate and those sources can be compelled to testify. Loomis better lawyer up more than ESPN should worry too much at this point.

GO BILLS!!!

That is noteworthy but this may fall away like the Vicodin issues did very easily too.


Now back what's alleged - they had a qb that lined up behind the guard, and another time threw a pass backwards for some reason at that point. Further, loomis isn't a football guy. This would be like Russ Brandon sending info to jauron and then to JP. Kind of a shouldn't you be learning how to walk before you run situation. It just doesn't add up. They had a better record on the road.

Did it happen? Very possible (though I'm skeptical). What was the impact? Seemingly not very big. Frankly, many have said on espn that the pats taping signals would be more valuable on gamedays.

Edited by NoSaint, 23 April 2012 - 06:26 PM.

[Just in Atlanta]

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.

Im not saying the Saints are, well... Saints. I certainly cant defend the franchise at this point, but Im taking everything new with a grain of salt.

It's a legit story, and the reporting is good--they did far more than just report the report. The U.S. Attorney's Office was involved; ESPN would be negligent if it didn't report this.

I have no idea whether the source is truthful, but that's not ESPN's job at this point. As for the PR flack saying it's "1,000 percent false", that is his job. Does it make it any more believable if it's 1 million percent? Or 1 bazillion percent?

This is a bombshell of a story--bigger than Bountygate times 10 if it turns out to be even remotely true.

On another note, maybe the Deepthroat is Jeremy Shockey.  

Edited by JustinAtlanta, 23 April 2012 - 06:47 PM.

[K-9]

I think they should have had two-way communication links installed. Loomis could really have messed with some minds if that were the case. Could of had opposing coaches going crazy.

GO BILLS!!!

[peterpan]

Bud Adams, on 23 April 2012 - 03:00 PM, said:

You hit the nail on the head. I really, really like Drew Brees, but I don't see how the "Super Bowl era" in New Orleans isn't already branded with an asterisk.

In a year or two everyone will forget about it just like the Pats.  You still hear Brady is the best ever, Belicheat the best ever, etc.  I guess what does the elague expect?  A team cheats its way to three superbowls and are fined some measily amount and loose one draft pick?  Id give up my entire draft for a SB.  You are encouraging cheating with that type of punishment.  

A real punishment would have been revokeing the SBs and all the wins and banning the coach for at least 1 year, if not life, and serious fines and forfeit an entire two drafts (like the college SMU death penalty)

[ICanSleepWhenI'mDead]

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.

You may have reached a correct conclusion about ESPN's potential legal liability for entirely the wrong reasons:

1.  Repeating someone else's defamatory statement is NOT a defense for broadcaster ESPN:

http://www.answers.c...ander-and-libel

Quote

Liability for republication of a defamatory statement is the same as for original publication, provided the defendant had knowledge of the contents of the statement. Thus, newspapers, magazines, and broadcasters are liable for republication of a libel or slander because they have editorial control over their communications.

2.  But because the GM of an NFL franchise is arguably a celebrity or public figure, Loomis might have to show that ESPN acted with reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the reported information (i.e., with actual malice) when it republished the report in order to win a civil suit against ESPN, even if what ESPN reported turns out to be totally false:

Quote

In New York Times Company v. Sullivan (1964), the U.S. Supreme Court provided a significant expansion of the protection of the press from libel actions. Stemming from a case in which an elected official in Montgomery, Ala., complained of defamation by civil-rights activists, the court ruled that to protect the free flow of speech and opinions, public officials could only collect damages for libel if falsehoods were made with "reckless disregard" for the truth. This ruling has since been extended to any celebrity before the public.

There was a pretty good movie called "Absence of Malice" that dealt with this topic some years ago.

[Mr. WEO]

ICanSleepWhenI, on 23 April 2012 - 11:25 PM, said:

You may have reached a correct conclusion about ESPN's potential legal liability for entirely the wrong reasons:

1.  Repeating someone else's defamatory statement is NOT a defense for broadcaster ESPN:

http://www.answers.c...ander-and-libel



2.  But because the GM of an NFL franchise is arguably a celebrity or public figure, Loomis might have to show that ESPN acted with reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the reported information (i.e., with actual malice) when it republished the report in order to win a civil suit against ESPN, even if what ESPN reported turns out to be totally false:



There was a pretty good movie called "Absence of Malice" that dealt with this topic some years ago.

Loomis would have to prove that ESPN knew the info was false and published it anyway.  It's impossible to believe ESPN would have done that.  There is no case for libel.

[Joe_the_6_pack]

K-9, on 23 April 2012 - 07:29 PM, said:

I think they should have had two-way communication links installed. Loomis could really have messed with some minds if that were the case. Could of had opposing coaches going crazy.

GO BILLS!!!

I wonder if something like that explains some of the idiotic game decisions made by jauron