I mean I get that the writer didn't flesh out Teagarden like he should have, but I think it's quite clear that the author doesn't buy the "recantation." He all but states that Sly's HGH admissions during the documentary seem credible and he adds the context of Elementz to further the story that Sly probably was shipping out HGH. He also ties Derek Jeter into the story, making him a borderline American hero, depending on how this ends up playing out.
Manning Legacy: Scrotal Recall
- Thread starter GeorgeCostanza
- Start date
I think that by the time the 11/12 leaky was out of the bag the dynamic had changed--whether or not shooting down the story was in the NFL's best interest at that point, the key NFL decision makers (Pash and Goodell) concluded that they couldn't try to suppress the story without endangering their own jobs.
On mobile but just got a push notification from Score Mobile that Ryan Zimmerman plans to sue AJ for defamation.
Fair point. Upon re-reading this, the writer does say this:
But why are we centering the debate on Sly's credibility when we have an ACTUAL ATHLETE on camera admitting to PED use enabled by Sly? At the bare minimum, shouldn't we at least be saying "the issue is not whether Sly gives professional athletes drugs—we've seen one get them on camera—rather, the question is who ELSE he is giving them to"?
Isn't that the issue here?
It's hard to know if that's genuine, or just posturing to appear "genuinely outraged."
Even if they file suit, they can withdraw it and just wave it off as "not wanting to waste more time on nonsense."
Given the lack of media interest in the AJ report, suing for defamation may be a spectacularly wrong move.
IF this story grows any legs, it will be because of the Teagarden/Zimmerman/Howard connection or the Jeter things No one wants to investigate Manning's wife, and none of the other NFL names are juicy enough for a beat reporter to go after.
I think Clay Matthews is certainly a juicy enough name to go after and the guy is basically a real life version of Lattimer from "The Program".
Per the documentary wasn't Matthews trying to get legal drugs, though, just not through team doctors?
The heads are misaligned by about half an inch, and his hairline receded by another half; together they explain the difference.I don't know, looks like his head is almost a full inch taller.
This is evidence that Peyton may go bald.
Yes. Percocet and another pain med that's legal in the US (presumably with a prescription) but not in several other countries.
Torodol, which is what the Phillies told Papelbon he could no longer take after getting it from the Sox. Apparently, one of its side effects is death.
Im sure he's still using the same guy since college. And why not? He gets good drugs.
I had no idea we had an Exponent employee posting here ...I don't know, looks like his head is almost a full inch taller.
Clay thought Toradol contributed to his esophagitis, which could have led to death.
That was the point. It's Exponent-level analysis. I even cut 1/2 inch off the bottom of the ruler on the right to make it more Exponent-ey. Oh well, I guess it wasn't a very good joke.
Good luck guys? Look, I'm well past wishcasting on behalf of athletes and celebrities. The sociopathic Lance Armstrong should give anyone pause, and if he didn't clinch it, well Cosby.
But I also would advise getting your Jerry Thornton on and assuming the reporting was accurate cuz, well, we'd love it that way because of Manning.
I get the annoyance in the assymetry in the treatment of Manning and Brady, and share it. But I'm also dismayed, though not surprised, by people giving Tom Brady the benefit of every innocent inference -- oh, the many explanations of deflator texts -- while assuming that Manning is guilty. Fairness ought to run to everyone.
If one disagrees, fine. But I would counsel against making fools of yourselves by assuming Zimmerman's guilt just because his innocence could weaken the case against Manning. Zimmerman is about the most grounded and sensible guy I have come across in many years of fandom. Not the sort of guy to lead with his chin in a Clemens like way.
I am curious, however. As a highly esteemed attorney, would you have cautioned Zimmerman and Howard against filing a defamation suit? It seems difficult to detect malice by AJ and what damage have they suffered. Or should I stick to what I know best, which is equally hard to detect?
Before filing any defamation or libel suit, I would have to satisfy myself that it is meritorious. And if I concluded it wasn't, and the client still wanted to file, I'd ask him or her to find another lawyer.
If I concluded it was, I'd spend a full hour at least underscoring the downsides of bringing such a case. They go from A to Z, and I'd make damn sure the client understood and accepted them.
Remember here that among other things, we're measuring damage to reputation. So you have to assume as plaintiff that your entire life is fair game in discovery.
Actually, I just Roethlisbergered the joke. Serves me right for posting before the caffeine kicks in ...
Just a word to about "actual malice," in the context of libel, since we'll be hearing it a lot. It has nothing to do with "malice" in the usual sense -- like they did it out of spite or hatred or some personal vendetta.
In the libel context, "actual malice" (the plaintiff's burden if he is a public figure) is publishing something with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard as to the matter's truth or falsity. So, for example, even if you hate somebody and intend to destroy his life through publication, AND even if the information you publish is false and defamatory, the thing that really matters is the seeming reliability of your sourcing and whether or how much you ignored red flags.
So in this case, "actual malice" would depend on whatever is really going on with Sly and his recantation and whether AJ, as has been said, has other sources in addition to Sly.
One way of looking at the lawsuit is that, at a minimum, it allows Howard and Zimmerman to push back publicly with some effect, even if not legal victory in the end.
You are correct, of course, and I think most recognize that this entire affair is a schadenfreude-fest and not proof of anything at this point.
At the same time, there is a significant difference between making a judgement on the guilt or innocence of Zimmerman or Howard and pointing out that the deck is stacked against both of them unless they can prove malice. And based on what has been made public, I can't imagine they will be able to do so.
Where judgment on the wisdom of a lawsuit becomes tricky is that if the report is incorrect - and they would know that - I can see them going to court as a matter of principle. (A finding that the story is without foundation has value even if they can't prove malice.) I can also see a jury returning a verdict in their favor notwithstanding the law based on the identity of the media source in question. And while that would almost certainly be overturned, that would also be a victory.
The "AJ is just a front for Muslim terrorists" wave is pretty high. From a PR perspective they are capitalizing on that right now. Manning is in a different position because the bulk of national media will carry the water for him.
Post-Deflategate, this is the greatest thing I've seen posted on SoSH.I don't know, looks like his head is almost a full inch taller.
dcm, how committed are Howard and Zimmerman at this point? I understand that they've "filed" a suit ... but at what point does the discovery process--which, after all, is the risk in filing these kinds of suits--kick in? For that matter, how far did Armstrong go? Just trying to understand at what point we should be taking these defamation suits seriously -- or as a PR ploy to prevent other media outlets from pursuing this story any further.
To that end, I go back to what I said a few days ago: if AJ is serious about pursuing this story--and whoever it leads to--the first thing they should do is follow up on the Teagarden angle, then go to Neal and the rest of the Packers. Those are the lowest hanging fruits where this not only a lot of smoke but also some fire -- and they will go a long way toward establishing the credibility of Sly's claims in the AJ videos and putting the others named in the report in a very tough spot.
Further, were I an AJ editor, I would also seriously consider what could be done to help mainstream this story -- including whether Davies and her team might want to consider quietly supporting the work of other media outlets on this story, even though it obviously would go against their journalistic instincts. AJ has done some very important initial spade work and they deserve the credit, but it's very clear that Fleischer et al are having some success with the whole "you can't trust some 'Arab' paper with this story" angle -- certainly with the sports journalists like Nantz and Esiason and likely the NFL itself. The more this story bleeds into the MSM, the better it reflects on the AJ enterprise.
To that end, I go back to what I said a few days ago: if AJ is serious about pursuing this story--and whoever it leads to--the first thing they should do is follow up on the Teagarden angle, then go to Neal and the rest of the Packers. Those are the lowest hanging fruits where this not only a lot of smoke but also some fire -- and they will go a long way toward establishing the credibility of Sly's claims in the AJ videos and putting the others named in the report in a very tough spot.
Further, were I an AJ editor, I would also seriously consider what could be done to help mainstream this story -- including whether Davies and her team might want to consider quietly supporting the work of other media outlets on this story, even though it obviously would go against their journalistic instincts. AJ has done some very important initial spade work and they deserve the credit, but it's very clear that Fleischer et al are having some success with the whole "you can't trust some 'Arab' paper with this story" angle -- certainly with the sports journalists like Nantz and Esiason and likely the NFL itself. The more this story bleeds into the MSM, the better it reflects on the AJ enterprise.
IANAL, but I suspect this initial filing is already serving its PR purpose, and may be as far as Howard & Zimmerman ever intend to go.
They are barely committed. It will be months (6?) before any deadline for discovery, and if it gets that far (which I don't think it will) there will be a battle or two between Howard/Zimm's attorneys and AJ's over how much access AJ gets to H/Z's medical files. Issues of scope and relevancy that could drag out for months.
Right now, they've only committed the time to draft a Complaint. That's not much time at all. It's basically a public "cease and desist" letter.
It's quite difficult to win a libel/defamation suit when you're a public figure. It does happen (see, Jesse Ventura), but it's a huge commitment, and I think the best bang-for-their-buck is still to file the suit, make hay with that, hope AJ backs down, and if they don't quietly withdraw it in a few months after the season starts and this blows over. The cost/benefit/risk of actually taking this to trial, even if they are totally clean and didn't do anything wrong, is probably just not there against a moneyed defendant like AJ. I mean: what damage do these allegations really do to H/Z? It's all P.R.
Others may disagree.
Right now, they've only committed the time to draft a Complaint. That's not much time at all. It's basically a public "cease and desist" letter.
It's quite difficult to win a libel/defamation suit when you're a public figure. It does happen (see, Jesse Ventura), but it's a huge commitment, and I think the best bang-for-their-buck is still to file the suit, make hay with that, hope AJ backs down, and if they don't quietly withdraw it in a few months after the season starts and this blows over. The cost/benefit/risk of actually taking this to trial, even if they are totally clean and didn't do anything wrong, is probably just not there against a moneyed defendant like AJ. I mean: what damage do these allegations really do to H/Z? It's all P.R.
Others may disagree.
Schedule will depend on the court/judge to whom this is assigned. We're talking weeks and months before things really get going.
This story, predictably, has gotten little play down here because of Redskins > playoffs. And the same may be true in philly re Howard b/c of the Kelly mess.
But as defense counsel for AJ, that would give me pause. Because you have to figure the two Ryans lawyers cautioned them:
"So you really want to do this? It has gotten overshadowed by the football stuff, and few believe it b/c it's AJ. It's a real pain in the ass, and filing will only highlight the story."
That is a powerful argument. Zim needs no PR rehabilitation in the current climate. So, AJ may really have a tiger by the tail.
This story, predictably, has gotten little play down here because of Redskins > playoffs. And the same may be true in philly re Howard b/c of the Kelly mess.
But as defense counsel for AJ, that would give me pause. Because you have to figure the two Ryans lawyers cautioned them:
"So you really want to do this? It has gotten overshadowed by the football stuff, and few believe it b/c it's AJ. It's a real pain in the ass, and filing will only highlight the story."
That is a powerful argument. Zim needs no PR rehabilitation in the current climate. So, AJ may really have a tiger by the tail.
Well, when we compare to the control group we see that the rate of change over time in the Manning head is the same as what was predicted by the Bonds head!I don't know, looks like his head is almost a full inch taller.
Last edited:
The weirdest part of all of this is how everyone in media just goes with the "Sly recanted thing nothing to see here" while ignoring that Teagarden is right there on camera doing exactly what Sly said he does.
At least one of Sly's boasts was accurate. It should be enough to trigger real investigations from every drug testing arm of the major sports leagues that has players named in the documentary.
At least one of Sly's boasts was accurate. It should be enough to trigger real investigations from every drug testing arm of the major sports leagues that has players named in the documentary.
Yes, this is why they are filing lawsuits. It's a PR ploy to keep public sentiment on their side and hopefully prevent any investigation. I don't know why some people are getting so worked up over their chances of actually winning. They can quietly withdraw if and when this goes away. If it doesn't go away, then this action didn't hurt.
That's the sticking point for me. Truth is an absolute defense - but I don't know how defamation suits interact with individual medical records. At first blush, it seems to me that sealed/confidential discovery of medical records ought to be possible. At the very least, the shipping records of the company should be completely discoverable (assuming they used a third party carrier), as well as plaintiffs' financial records showing funds going out to the company.
I don't see why AJ backs down. I'd get those non-party subpoenas fired up ASAP. Can AJ counterclaim anything?
Which was my point. I'm not getting worked up at all, which dcmissile seems to assume. But I do enjoy this story getting more attention because there is a hell of a lot of smoke here and Davies is getting attacked by the herd mentality of the NFL media. No truly innocent parties should get their names dragged through the mud but the last decade or so has me a lot more cynical with athlete doping.
I didn't think anyone is getting worked up. My point was simply that for the Ryans to sue in the present circumstances if they were using would be about the dumbest thing imaginable -- unless those suits are promptly withdraw. Because the present circumstances are easy to navigate -- 1. No one is paying attention right now, in Washington at least and 2. To the extent attention is being paid, the reporting is deemed highly suspect cuz of the recanting and cuz AJ. This is the one time you can safely ignore it, innocent or guilty.
I don't know much about Howard, but I don't believe Zim take such a reckless and unnecessary course.
I don't know much about Howard, but I don't believe Zim take such a reckless and unnecessary course.
Check out the summaries of the Mitre International V HBO Sports defamation suit for a view on how long and complicated these types of things can take. That case started in 2008 and HBO won last summer.
Caveat: this was a corporate entity suing a media org over alleged defamation, and not a celebrity or individual, so it's not totally apples to apples.
I know several people involved in that one and while HBO had what it felt was a super solid case, there was a ton of uncertaintity on what the jury would end up thinking. There was some serious tension.
These filings by Z/H could be the start of a veerrryyy long process.
Caveat: this was a corporate entity suing a media org over alleged defamation, and not a celebrity or individual, so it's not totally apples to apples.
I know several people involved in that one and while HBO had what it felt was a super solid case, there was a ton of uncertaintity on what the jury would end up thinking. There was some serious tension.
These filings by Z/H could be the start of a veerrryyy long process.
I'm curious what makes you think this way in light of what bigsox us regarding the age we live in? I felt the same about Lance Armstrong, no freaking any he cheated they're just all out to get him. Now I'm a cynical prick when these stories come out.
I tend to be too. Armstrong proved a sociopath who for a good while wielded the power of God. Zim is very far removed from that. My 2 cents and gut judgment as a lawyer-fan.
Fair enough. I've learned to stop trusting my gut. It has the accuracy of a chuck knoblauch throw to first base.
If I'm AJ, and I've sourced this story as thoroughly as they seem to have done, I welcome a defamation action.
AJs attorneys would have an absolute right to depose the plaintiffs, and subpoenas to depose Sly and other Guyer personnel would survive motions to quash.
Truth is a defense to defamation, so AJ would be given great latitude to prove the truth of its story.
Let some plaintiff claim under oath that he never used, and get ripped apart on cross.
This is bluster.
AJs attorneys would have an absolute right to depose the plaintiffs, and subpoenas to depose Sly and other Guyer personnel would survive motions to quash.
Truth is a defense to defamation, so AJ would be given great latitude to prove the truth of its story.
Let some plaintiff claim under oath that he never used, and get ripped apart on cross.
This is bluster.
I don't disagree. For Howard, these allegations have little affect on his future. However, I could see Ryan as a potential borderline HOF if he's able to recover and play well over the next 5-6 years. Perhaps for Ryan, dispelling the allegations may have implications for HOF voters? I'll admit I'm sort of grasping at straws here.
As to the damage, isn't it defamation per se? Illegal acts, acts contrary to the good practice of their professions, etc.? Stuff that traditionally encompasses the public embarrassment of having to deny and/or explain the defamation. Beyond that though, the allegations could have an effect on endorsement contracts or post-playing career employment.
