Say it aint so, Eli

bankshot1

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 12, 2003
24,661
where I was last at
http://nypost.com/2017/04/13/heres-proof-eli-manning-was-in-on-giants-memorabilia-scheme/


Giants quarterback Eli Manning was in on a scheme to sell phony game-worn gear — sending an email asking the team’s equipment manager for “helmets that can pass as game used,” according to blockbuster court papers obtained by The Post.

The legal filing also alleges that Big Blue failed to produce the smoking-gun request — sent from Manning’s old-school AOL account to an official NFL account — even though “they claim to have no document destruction policy.”

But Manning turned over the incriminating email last week in connection with a civil racketeering suit that accuses him, his team and others of conspiring to fleece collectors of authentic athletic uniforms worn on the playing field.


In related court papers, plaintiffs’ lawyer Brian Brook alleges that the emails prove “Manning was looking to give non-game-used helmets to Steiner to satisfy — fraudulently — his contractual obligation.”

Several hours after Zucker sent the request on April 27, 2010, Giants equipment manager Joe Skiba sent Manning an email saying: “Let me know what your looking for I’ll try to get something down for you…,” court papers say.

“2 helmets that can pass as game used. That is it. Eli,” Manning allegedly responded from his BlackBerry at 2:08 p.m.

On Thursday, Brook told The Post that the Giants “have not clearly addressed the issue” of the emails between Manning and Skiba that the team didn’t turn over.
 

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
43,592
Here
A guy worth a hundred million bucks scamming collectors for thousands. What a complete piece of shit.
 

edmunddantes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2015
4,737
Cali
Yes. This is an ongoing case where it was alleged he was involved.

This is supposedly a smoking gun email that shows he was directly involved, and it wasn't just the equipment guys running it by themselves.

I thought I saw this mentioned in the SI long form on the Brady jersey? Wasn't it already out there?
also note the Giants weren't the ones to turn over the email even though it went to an NFL account (roger line 1. Roger line 1) from Eli's aol account. It came from discovery on Eli.
 

Byrdbrain

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
8,588
It was out there that the Giants were involved in this, I don't believe there was anything directly tying Eli to it until the email came out.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
90,032
Oregon
A guy worth a hundred million bucks using AOL. What a complete piece of shit.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
42,297
AZ
Was Eli actually making any money off this? Did this equipment even belong to him such that it was his to contract to give to someone else?

While on some level I kind of enjoy others in the NFL being involved in phony scandals, this seems like a nothing. The e-mail sounds on its face to be bad, but couldn't it simply be that Eli thought the whole thing was stupid and was just trying to avoid wasting his time chasing down shit?

I think my nothing-to-see attitude here maybe comes from a predisposition to think that "game worn" memorabilia or the like is incredibly stupid. I feel the same way about autographs, unless they were personally obtained by the person. Who gives a shit? In the sense that the only thing that really matters is what the person who buys or owns the autograph or memorabilia subjectively believes. If you believe it's a game worn jersey, or that an autograph was actually signed by someone, what else matters? The only problem is if some snitch outs the situation. Otherwise, it's very much a tree falls in the forest thing.
 

bankshot1

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 12, 2003
24,661
where I was last at
Was Eli actually making any money off this? Did this equipment even belong to him such that it was his to contract to give to someone else?

While on some level I kind of enjoy others in the NFL being involved in phony scandals, this seems like a nothing. The e-mail sounds on its face to be bad, but couldn't it simply be that Eli thought the whole thing was stupid and was just trying to avoid wasting his time chasing down shit?

I think my nothing-to-see attitude here maybe comes from a predisposition to think that "game worn" memorabilia or the like is incredibly stupid. I feel the same way about autographs, unless they were personally obtained by the person. Who gives a shit? In the sense that the only thing that really matters is what the person who buys or owns the autograph or memorabilia subjectively believes. If you believe it's a game worn jersey, or that an autograph was actually signed by someone, what else matters? The only problem is if some snitch outs the situation. Otherwise, it's very much a tree falls in the forest thing.

According to the article Eli was under contract to Steiner Sports, and he apparently wanted to keep the authentic stuff, so he pawned off phonies.

He sold stuff that had nominal value for presumably thousands.

Sound like a crime to me.

And it explains why the Giants signed Geno Smith.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,850
Was Eli actually making any money off this? Did this equipment even belong to him such that it was his to contract to give to someone else?

While on some level I kind of enjoy others in the NFL being involved in phony scandals, this seems like a nothing. The e-mail sounds on its face to be bad, but couldn't it simply be that Eli thought the whole thing was stupid and was just trying to avoid wasting his time chasing down shit?

I think my nothing-to-see attitude here maybe comes from a predisposition to think that "game worn" memorabilia or the like is incredibly stupid. I feel the same way about autographs, unless they were personally obtained by the person. Who gives a shit? In the sense that the only thing that really matters is what the person who buys or owns the autograph or memorabilia subjectively believes. If you believe it's a game worn jersey, or that an autograph was actually signed by someone, what else matters? The only problem is if some snitch outs the situation. Otherwise, it's very much a tree falls in the forest thing.
So because you're not into autographs and the like, it's no big thing if they are passing off fake ones as real?
 

edmunddantes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2015
4,737
Cali
Got to be a conspiracy to commit fraud case here, maybe unjust enrichment, and a whole bunch of other lawyerly words...


(not to be taken seriously. I'm just having fun with this in the dead time of the NFL offseason)
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
42,297
AZ
So because you're not into autographs and the like, it's no big thing if they are passing off fake ones as real?
It's only a big thing if someone finds out. What's being sold is belief and so long as you believe, it seems like a crime without a victim.

My sincere hope is that the guy who was "defrauded" will think, "wait, I was very happy when I thought it was real, but then I was sad now that I know it's not, but it's the same fucking helmet," and then maybe we all will be better off.

Seriously, though, I still don't understand the alleged fraud. I understand what the daily news is implying, and if the Giants were trying to double sell the same memorabilia I hope they get roasted or whatever. But the part that's kind of most surprising to me, if it's even true, is that players can enter into contracts to sell their own equipment. Do they own it in the first place? I mean, if Brady takes his super bowl jersey, I'm sure Kraft is fine with it, but that's very different from giving a player the right to enter into a contract to sell the equipment as though it were his.

Edit: Also, I'd be surprised if the NFL is cool with players selling any materials that contains the NFL's marks and other intellectual property, although maybe it is.
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
55,300
deep inside Guido territory
It's only a big thing if someone finds out. What's being sold is belief and so long as you believe, it seems like a crime without a victim.

My sincere hope is that the guy who was "defrauded" will think, "wait, I was very happy when I thought it was real, but then I was sad now that I know it's not, but it's the same fucking helmet," and then maybe we all will be better off.

Seriously, though, I still don't understand the alleged fraud. I understand what the daily news is implying, and if the Giants were trying to double sell the same memorabilia I hope they get roasted or whatever. But the part that's kind of most surprising to me, if it's even true, is that players can enter into contracts to sell their own equipment. Do they own it in the first place? I mean, if Brady takes his super bowl jersey, I'm sure Kraft is fine with it, but that's very different from giving a player the right to enter into a contract to sell the equipment as though it were his.

Edit: Also, I'd be surprised if the NFL is cool with players selling any materials that contains the NFL's marks and other intellectual property, although maybe it is.
Players have to buy helmets and jerseys if they give them away.
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,615
Portsmouth, NH
It's only a big thing if someone finds out. What's being sold is belief and so long as you believe, it seems like a crime without a victim.

My sincere hope is that the guy who was "defrauded" will think, "wait, I was very happy when I thought it was real, but then I was sad now that I know it's not, but it's the same fucking helmet," and then maybe we all will be better off.

Seriously, though, I still don't understand the alleged fraud. I understand what the daily news is implying, and if the Giants were trying to double sell the same memorabilia I hope they get roasted or whatever. But the part that's kind of most surprising to me, if it's even true, is that players can enter into contracts to sell their own equipment. Do they own it in the first place? I mean, if Brady takes his super bowl jersey, I'm sure Kraft is fine with it, but that's very different from giving a player the right to enter into a contract to sell the equipment as though it were his.

Edit: Also, I'd be surprised if the NFL is cool with players selling any materials that contains the NFL's marks and other intellectual property, although maybe it is.
Not trying to be a dick, but I'm not grasping the bolded. How do you not understand it?

If I sold you the Mona Lisa and it turned out to be a fake, would you not think there was something to look at there?
 

edmunddantes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2015
4,737
Cali
It's only a big thing if someone finds out. What's being sold is belief and so long as you believe, it seems like a crime without a victim.

My sincere hope is that the guy who was "defrauded" will think, "wait, I was very happy when I thought it was real, but then I was sad now that I know it's not, but it's the same fucking helmet," and then maybe we all will be better off.

Seriously, though, I still don't understand the alleged fraud. I understand what the daily news is implying, and if the Giants were trying to double sell the same memorabilia I hope they get roasted or whatever. But the part that's kind of most surprising to me, if it's even true, is that players can enter into contracts to sell their own equipment. Do they own it in the first place? I mean, if Brady takes his super bowl jersey, I'm sure Kraft is fine with it, but that's very different from giving a player the right to enter into a contract to sell the equipment as though it were his.

Edit: Also, I'd be surprised if the NFL is cool with players selling any materials that contains the NFL's marks and other intellectual property, although maybe it is.
Well... no. There is actual value inherent to something being actually game used.

They sell for premiums over non-used, but otherwise authentic memorabilia.

If someone sold you an Action Comics #1 and passed it off as authentic, you paid top dollar because of authenticy, and you then later found out it's a reprint thus destroying the value of it.

Is there a crime there?
 

bankshot1

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 12, 2003
24,661
where I was last at
It's only a big thing if someone finds out. What's being sold is belief and so long as you believe, it seems like a crime without a victim.

My sincere hope is that the guy who was "defrauded" will think, "wait, I was very happy when I thought it was real, but then I was sad now that I know it's not, but it's the same fucking helmet," and then maybe we all will be better off.

Seriously, though, I still don't understand the alleged fraud. I understand what the daily news is implying, and if the Giants were trying to double sell the same memorabilia I hope they get roasted or whatever. But the part that's kind of most surprising to me, if it's even true, is that players can enter into contracts to sell their own equipment. Do they own it in the first place? I mean, if Brady takes his super bowl jersey, I'm sure Kraft is fine with it, but that's very different from giving a player the right to enter into a contract to sell the equipment as though it were his.
IANAL, but there are at least two victims of this fraud, the first is Steiner by Eli selling counterfeit goods to them, and then Steiner selling collectibles it thinks are real, but are counterfeit.

Both the end buyer and Steiner (their business reputation) have taken hits. Presumably the Steiner financial loss related to their reputational damage could be substantial.
 

Oil Can Dan

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2003
8,015
0-3 to 4-3
What's being sold is an Eli Manning game-used helmet. But the thing is, it's actually not an Eli Manning game-used helmet. An Eli Manning game-used helmet might sell for $1,000, whereas a non-Eli Manning game-used helmet might sell for $100.

What is hard to understand about that? Eli Manning signed a contract to provide game-used equipment to Steiner Sports for them to market and sell. But he (allegedly) wanted to keep the actual game-used equipment for himself so he (allegedly) orchestrated a scam so that he could still get paid for providing his game-used equipment for sale without actually doing so.

Scumbag.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
42,297
AZ
Not trying to be a dick, but I'm not grasping the bolded. How do you not understand it?

If I sold you the Mona Lisa and it turned out to be a fake, would you not think there was something to look at there?
Well... no. There is actual value inherent to something being actually game used.

They sell for premiums over non-used, but otherwise authentic memorabilia.

If someone sold you an Action Comics #1 and passed it off as authentic, you paid top dollar because of authenticy, and you then later found out it's a reprint thus destroying the value of it.

Is there a crime there?
Yes, I understand that part of it. Sorry not to be more clear. What I meant was that I still don't understand exactly what Eli was supposedly doing or not doing that's part of the alleged fraud, or what his motive was. If it was "just get me some fucking helmets, this is a pain in the ass," that's different to me from him getting to sell his stuff and having him doing this in order to make money by tricking people, which is what everyone is assuming but isn't clear to me from the e-mail alone.

Though I still stand by my tounge in cheek point -- that the only difficulty with a phony reprint is if someone knows it's a phony reprint. Or if I do. A reprint of a comic that's a forgery is a bit different, but what if it's a really really good forgery and nobody can tell? I never know. It's just as good. The same is true if Paul Goldschmidt sells 100 autographed balls every year that he actually has his wife autograph, so long as they never tell anyone.
 

edmunddantes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2015
4,737
Cali
To give some flavor to people. This goes back to 2014. Thus the "hasn't this been known for awhile"

The new news is the supposed smoking gun of Eli being directly involved in the fraud.

Article from 2014


he lawsuit first reported by the New York Post today that claims the New York Giants and the NFL team's quarterback, Eli Manning, engaged in the fraudulent distribution of Giants memorabilia, will rock the industry even if the suit is without merit as the team claims.

Why?

The Post: "Some of Manning’s alleged fakes were sold through famed memorabilia house Steiner Sports, with whom he had an exclusive deal. Steiner, believing its items to be authentic, sold them “to unwitting customers and sent them via the mail,” the suit says. Angry buyers started to complain after noticing that markings on their items didn’t match those that appeared in pictures of Manning’s game-day duds. But Manning told Steiner (not named as a defendant) they were legit, and Steiner resold returned helmets to other buyers, the suit claims."
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
55,300
deep inside Guido territory
Yes, I understand that part of it. Sorry not to be more clear. What I meant was that I still don't understand exactly what Eli was supposedly doing or not doing that's part of the alleged fraud, or what his motive was. If it was "just get me some fucking helmets, this is a pain in the ass," that's different to me from him getting to sell his stuff and having him doing this in order to make money by tricking people, which is what everyone is assuming but isn't clear to me from the e-mail alone.

Though I still stand by my tounge in cheek point -- that the only difficulty with a phony reprint is if someone knows it's a phony reprint. Or if I do. A reprint of a comic that's a forgery is a bit different, but what if it's a really really good forgery and nobody can tell? I never know. It's just as good. The same is true if Paul Goldschmidt sells 100 autographed balls every year that he actually has his wife autograph, so long as they never tell anyone.
But no one would pay top dollar for something a bit different than the real thing. That's the problem. Eli was getting paid by Steiner Sports to provide game used items and knowingly produced fake ones.
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,615
Portsmouth, NH
Yes, I understand that part of it. Sorry not to be more clear. What I meant was that I still don't understand exactly what Eli was supposedly doing or not doing that's part of the alleged fraud, or what his motive was. If it was "just get me some fucking helmets, this is a pain in the ass," that's different to me from him getting to sell his stuff and having him doing this in order to make money by tricking people, which is what everyone is assuming but isn't clear to me from the e-mail alone.

Though I still stand by my tounge in cheek point -- that the only difficulty with a phony reprint is if someone knows it's a phony reprint. Or if I do. A reprint of a comic that's a forgery is a bit different, but what if it's a really really good forgery and nobody can tell? I never know. It's just as good. The same is true if Paul Goldschmidt sells 100 autographed balls every year that he actually has his wife autograph, so long as they never tell anyone.
The point is he was under contract with a collectibles dealer and was keeping the original stuff and selling off fake shit. Memorabilia isn't just about nostalgia, it ostensibly can be an investment. So suppose you buy his helmet from SB 42, on speculation that it will increase in value and then years down the road, when he gets inducted into the HoF and you think it's peak value, you go to sell and it's proven a fraudulent piece? Maybe someone determines it by inspection, maybe he;s an idiot and does an interview and the real one is sitting behind him. Whatever. That you don't find value in autographs or sports memorabilia doesn't equate to producing them fraudulently not being a crime.
 

edmunddantes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2015
4,737
Cali
Yes, I understand that part of it. Sorry not to be more clear. What I meant was that I still don't understand exactly what Eli was supposedly doing or not doing that's part of the alleged fraud, or what his motive was. If it was "just get me some fucking helmets, this is a pain in the ass," that's different to me from him getting to sell his stuff and having him doing this in order to make money by tricking people, which is what everyone is assuming but isn't clear to me from the e-mail alone.

Though I still stand by my tounge in cheek point -- that the only difficulty with a phony reprint is if someone knows it's a phony reprint. Or if I do. A reprint of a comic that's a forgery is a bit different, but what if it's a really really good forgery and nobody can tell? I never know. It's just as good. The same is true if Paul Goldschmidt sells 100 autographed balls every year that he actually has his wife autograph, so long as they never tell anyone.
His contract was for game used equipment. I.E. a specific helmet he used on November 20th in game against 49ers where X happened that a person wanted to buy.

People look to own things from specific games. Thus people complained as they noticed the markings didn't match up with the actual game footage.
 
Last edited:

Oil Can Dan

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2003
8,015
0-3 to 4-3
Why not just get Tom Brady a SB51 jersey out of the gift shop instead of hunting down the real thing? What's the big deal?
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
42,297
AZ
But no one would pay top dollar for something a bit different than the real thing. That's the problem. Eli was getting paid by Steiner Sports to provide game used items and knowingly produced fake ones.
Ok, well, I'm posting a lot about a story I first learned about in this thread, and nobody agrees with me, so I'll stop doubling down. But there are lots of different scenarios I can imagine:

1. Eli is under contract to sell game worn stuff. He doesn't keep track of it, and it's a big pain in the ass, so he just has someone grab some stuff he can pass off and keep up his end of the bargain figuring that nobody will ever know the difference and the fans will get their fantasy which is all they are buying anyway. My verdict: Whatever. Don't care. The only problem is that someone found out.

2. Eli is under contract to sell game worn stuff. The more he can produce the more he sells. He gives the seller ten jerseys because that's all he wore, but he wants more money, so he pretends to have twenty. My verdict: He's a criminal.

I don't know which is closer.
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
15,672
Yes, I understand that part of it. Sorry not to be more clear. What I meant was that I still don't understand exactly what Eli was supposedly doing or not doing that's part of the alleged fraud, or what his motive was. If it was "just get me some fucking helmets, this is a pain in the ass," that's different to me from him getting to sell his stuff and having him doing this in order to make money by tricking people, which is what everyone is assuming but isn't clear to me from the e-mail alone.

Though I still stand by my tounge in cheek point -- that the only difficulty with a phony reprint is if someone knows it's a phony reprint. Or if I do. A reprint of a comic that's a forgery is a bit different, but what if it's a really really good forgery and nobody can tell? I never know. It's just as good. The same is true if Paul Goldschmidt sells 100 autographed balls every year that he actually has his wife autograph, so long as they never tell anyone.
Better yet, I could go around saying I was Paul Goldschmidt, get a few free meals, get a few dates, sell a few balls, and as long as nobody knows it's all good?

How about counterfeit money? I mean really good counterfeit money? What's the problem there?

Edit: Saw your subsequent post. The problem is that there's an actual market for authentic shit. If it turns out fake crap is being sold as authentic shit it destroys the market and the income potential for dealers, athletes, and people who have already bought supposedly authentic shit.
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,615
Portsmouth, NH
His contract was for game used equipment. I.E. a specific helmet he word on November 20th in game against 49ers where X happened that a person wanted to buy.

People look to own things from specific games. Thus people complained as they noticed the markings didn't match up wtih the actual game footage.
I'm not sure that it's that specific, but yeah, that's the point. (Even before the one shell rule, players weren't moving helmets mid season to collectors).

Edit: Jerseys, cleats, etc sure, but helmets I'd imagine were end of season and only worth much if it was a SB year or a big performance.
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2007
64,048
That time BbtL had it out over the theory of the social construction of value...
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
42,297
AZ
That time BbtL had it out over the theory of the social construction of value...
One side of the "debate" is getting crushed though.

DrewDog had it right at the outset -- I am minimizing the "fraud" because I have trouble seeing the value. These things would be subjectively relatively worthless to me. But that's not the point -- as long as society, or even some portion of it, puts some value on the thing, it's fraud to trick those people.
 

cleanturtle

New Member
Feb 2, 2007
32
Even if no one finds out about it, putting counterfeit items into the marketplace degrades the value of authentic items.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,850
Ok, well, I'm posting a lot about a story I first learned about in this thread, and nobody agrees with me, so I'll stop doubling down. But there are lots of different scenarios I can imagine:

1. Eli is under contract to sell game worn stuff. He doesn't keep track of it, and it's a big pain in the ass, so he just has someone grab some stuff he can pass off and keep up his end of the bargain figuring that nobody will ever know the difference and the fans will get their fantasy which is all they are buying anyway. My verdict: Whatever. Don't care. The only problem is that someone found out.

2. Eli is under contract to sell game worn stuff. The more he can produce the more he sells. He gives the seller ten jerseys because that's all he wore, but he wants more money, so he pretends to have twenty. My verdict: He's a criminal.

I don't know which is closer.
I have a Van Gogh hanging in my office. Would you like to buy it?


The only problem is that someone found out.
Yes--someone discovering the crime is what makes people go "Well, shit".
 

edmunddantes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2015
4,737
Cali
I'm not sure that it's that specific, but yeah, that's the point. (Even before the one shell rule, players weren't moving helmets mid season to collectors).

Edit: Jerseys, cleats, etc sure, but helmets I'd imagine were end of season and only worth much if it was a SB year or a big performance.
True.. I was trying to drive home the idea that it was used in game mattered.

And helmets were the thing complained about in the actual lawsuit.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
90,032
Oregon
“The email, taken out of context, was shared with the media by an unscrupulous memorabilia dealer and his counsel who for years has been seeking to leverage a big payday,” said Karren Kessler, spokesperson for the law firm of McCarter & English, which represents the Giants. “The email predates any litigation, and there was no legal obligation to store it on the Giants server. Eli Manning is well known for his integrity and this is just the latest misguided attempt to defame his character.”
 

edmunddantes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2015
4,737
Cali
Here's an article with a bit more of the details.

Manning’s email is contained in a pair of exchanges that allegedly began when his marketing agent, Alan Zucker, asked Manning to supply “2 game used helmets and 2 game used jerseys” as per the two-time Super Bowl MVP’s contract with memorabilia dealer Steiner Sports.

Several hours after Zucker sent the request on April 27, 2010, Giants equipment manager Joe Skiba sent Manning an email saying: “Let me know what your looking for I’ll try to get something down for you…”, court papers say.

“2 helmets that can pass as game used. That is it. Eli,” Manning allegedly responded from his BlackBerry at 2:08 p.m.

Less than 15 minutes later, at 2:25 p.m., Manning wrote back to Zucker, saying: “Should be able to get them for tomorrow.”

“Thanks Eli,” Zucker responded.
As much fun as this has been. Worth noting still relying on plaintiff release and characterizations.

The context does matter, and it'll be interesting to see how the emails flow in a conversation.
 

uncannymanny

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 12, 2007
9,081
Ah the old "I'm a busy guy" fraud defense.

Fail to see how that exchange makes things better. Steiner's contract with Manning 100% does not say equipment that "passes as" game worn.
 
Last edited:

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
15,672
I don't get why he didn't just change helmets every series, or at least every TD pass.

 

NortheasternPJ

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 16, 2004
19,272
Do we have any idea how recent this went on for? Since 2013 the NFL has had a one helmet rule where a player keeps one helmet all season, hence the lack of throwback helmets on throwback uniform day.

I'm really not upset or outraged by this. He did a shitty thing and is getting caught. Good.
 

Leather

given himself a skunk spot
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
28,451
Oh, if it predates litigation then it's worthless. Evidence only matters if it is created after files are charged.
Seriously! My first thought, as well.

"Hey lets throw some bullshit legalese at the problem so we stand a chance at suckering our fans and local media."

I'd like to see this played out in a wrongful death suit.

"Your honor, id like to introduce into evidence an email from the defendant to the deceased that says 'I'm going to kill you, asshole!'"

"Objection! Irrelevant. It predates litigation!"

Edit: I know the context is actually a litigation hold, but the point stands. Lit holds obviously relate back to documents that predate the hold directive.
 

Marciano490

Urological Expert
SoSH Member
Nov 4, 2007
62,312
I haven't done this in awhile, but if you're committing fraud I'd think you'd technically need to preserve all related documents because of a reasonable anticipation of litigation.