NFL: Holy Shit Saints

[JDaveG]

(04-24-2012 11:11 AM)AsylumGuido Wrote:  I would think that the supposed unnamed, anonymous source would be the one targeted by the lawsuit, as well. ESPN's Outside the Lines covered their asses by saying alleged every other word and adding that there is no indication that Loomis ever actually listened into the device or that any information was ever relayed from Loomis if he had listened.

In fact, Colin Cowherd just made an announcement from ESPN saying that their reports are not implying that any device was actually used to listen to opposing coaches. ESPN is trying to cover their butts.

ESPN doesn't need to "cover" anything. ESPN is in the catbird seat.

The Saints would have to prove ACTUAL MALICE on the part of ESPN in order to recover a dime against them. Do you really think that's possible?

And by the way, ESPN doesn't have to name their source, so the Saints can go pound sand. I'm in the "wait and see" camp on this story, but if you seriously think the Saints are going to sue anyone over it, you're delusional. They don't have a cause of action.

[AsylumGuido]

(04-24-2012 11:24 AM)Jesus Wrote:  Since ESPN did not make this up and it the details were confirmed by the US Attorney's office I would say there is little ground for a lawsuit.

It's not like Loomis and the Saints don't already have a short history of lying to the NFL or anyone else. 1000% inaccurate sure and there was no bounty system in place.

PS nothing can be 1000% that doesn't make any sense.

The US Attorney's office has only confirmed that someone has just made the claim, not that there is any validity to it. And ESPN is saying that this ALLEGEDLY happened according to the unnamed source.

[AsylumGuido]

(04-24-2012 12:17 PM)JDaveG Wrote:  ESPN doesn't need to "cover" anything. ESPN is in the catbird seat.

The Saints would have to prove ACTUAL MALICE on the part of ESPN in order to recover a dime against them. Do you really think that's possible?

And by the way, ESPN doesn't have to name their source, so the Saints can go pound sand. I'm in the "wait and see" camp on this story, but if you seriously think the Saints are going to sue anyone over it, you're delusional. They don't have a cause of action.

Loomis, not the Saints, would be suing.

[JDaveG]

(04-24-2012 12:28 PM)AsylumGuido Wrote:  Loomis, not the Saints, would be suing.

Whatever -- Loomis can't prove a case because there isn't one.

[AsylumGuido]

(04-24-2012 12:31 PM)JDaveG Wrote:  Whatever -- Loomis can't prove a case because there isn't one.

This legal expert begs to differ:

Analyst: ESPN reporter 'was on a mission' | wwltv.com New Orleans

Analyst: ESPN reporter 'was on a mission'

WWLTV.com
Email: "webteam@wwltv.com" | Twitter: [URL="http://www.twitter.com/wwltv"]@WWLTV[/URL]
Here's an interview with Eyewitness News legal analyst Donald "Chick" Foret on an ESPN report claiming GM Mickey Loomis could listen in on opponents during Saints games via an electronic device. Foret says the author of the ESPN report tried to interview him.

Foret: “They’re talking about two statutes, according to the ESPN report this afternoon. The federal statue is the electronic communication privacy act of 1986, and Louisiana law has a similar statute.
“But I have real trouble with this report. I have been told by some sources of mine that this is virtually impossible.
“The NFL has what’s called an NFL frequency coordinator who is at every game. He is controlled by the NFL, and he controls the frequency. I just don’t see that this happened.”
Angela Hill: “You had communicated with the reporter?”
Foret: “John Barr, the reporter on April 5 called me asking a lot of questions about the Saints. Obviously, everyone is piling on as a result of the bounty scandal. He called me on April 5 and he asked me some really crazy questions, and it was obvious to me that he was looking for dirt on the Saints. I felt terribly uncomfortable with the conversation. I reported it to the Saints.
“It’s obvious to me that John Barr had a mission, and it looks like he reported on that mission today.”
Karen Swensen: "Would you go so far as to say that might have included malice, and if so could Loomis potentially sue for defamation?"
Foret: "Certainly, as I think Doug Sunseri is going to talk about in a piece a little later. Certainly there is a possibility of a defamation of character lawsuit. There’s no question about that. You can’t go out and defame someone. If it’s false – I believe this report to be false, we’ll have to wait and see."
"Now it’s been turned over to the U.S. Attorney’s Office. Jim Letten is going to do his due diligence. He has turned it over to the FBI for investigation. We will find out whether or not this happened, because it looks like the FBI is gonna be put on notice. They’re going to investigate, so we’ll find out if it happened or not."
Hill: "But you know, I think people wonder. Where does this come from? Is it a disgruntled employee from the past. The Saints are sort of on their knees know, hit them when they’re vulnerable."
Foret: "John Barr in early April, as I say he called me on April 5, he was calling a number of ex employees. It seems to me he stumbled upon a disgruntled ex employee who gave him this information. I don’t know that anyone has been able to check this information out. There’s some report after Katrina.
"It just doesn’t make any sense to me, and I don’t believe it."

[TeamPlayer1]

This will all blow over very quickly and be a non-story and the Saints will be the first team as host to win the Super Bowl. The Saints don't need Sean Payton, Loomis or any defensive players. They have Breesus.

[AsylumGuido]

(04-24-2012 01:38 PM)TeamPlayer1 Wrote:  This will all blow over very quickly and be a non-story and the Saints will be the first team as host to win the Super Bowl. The Saints don't need Sean Payton, Loomis or any defensive players. They have Breesus.

Yup. You got that right!

[RFlagg]

(04-24-2012 01:38 PM)TeamPlayer1 Wrote:  This will all blow over very quickly and be a non-story and the Saints will be the first team as host to win the Super Bowl. The Saints don't need Sean Payton, Loomis or any defensive players. They have Breesus.

Oh, did he sign his tender like Grimes?

[ATLBound]

(04-24-2012 01:38 PM)TeamPlayer1 Wrote:  This will all blow over very quickly and be a non-story and the Saints will be the first team as host to win the Super Bowl. The Saints don't need Sean Payton, Loomis or any defensive players. They have Breesus.

Wait a minute I already said this as a fill in for Guido...check page 2 mister

[ATLBound]

Its funny looking at the subsequent pages after guessing every move amd word that Guido would say. Check page 2 as the dialogue between me and Guido and then read the rest of the pages. It's actually pretty funny