Sapp vs. Shockey...celebrity NFL death match

[tazinib1]

So apparently, Sapp tweeted he knows who the "snitch" of the BountyGate scandal is. He publicly named Jeremy Shockey the culprit. Wow.....I never I thought I would see the day when a HOF player would out a current player. What if he's wrong? Can you imagine the ammo Shockey would have on Sapp? I don't even know if there is a precedent in a law suite for that. And why wouldn't he sue? Shockey is gonna be a marked man, proof or no proof, in 2012. And if he's protected by gratuitis calls? Everybody will call it "league protection" from the refs. Shockey is now in a no win situation IMO. I hope that sack of CHIPS AHOY! Sapp got it wrong and his career ends now.

[Guest FT32]

Well according to the NFL Offices, they never talked to Shockey.....Shockey being a FA, if he does not get picked up ahe can file a lawsuit against Sapp and NFL Network for slander and bringing harm to his ability to be employed. Sapp fits his name....why would Sapp have a source that no other person has? Being wrong could cost Sapp "everything"....you have a right to report facts, but false facts will get you canned!

[stevegrab]

The "media" circus continues. Everybody has to report something, be the first to get the scoop. They'll say things that have no basis in fact just to flap their gums.

[Footballjoe]

 

KFFL) Free-agent TE Jeremy Shockey (Panthers) is the whistle-blower who alerted the league to the New Orleans Saints' bounty program, according to NFL Network analyst Warren Sapp. Sapp said he did not receive his information from anyone at the league, but from a trusted source close to the situation. Shockey adamantly denied the charge.

[Bronco Billy]

Sapp is a piece of ####, and right or wrong this ought to cost him his job. Of course, that he doesn't have a clue on most things NFL and doesn't speak coherently half the time doesn't seem to concern the NFL network..

 

If he's wrong - and there are some very real indications he could be, I hope Shockey takes him for every freakin' penny he's got.

[stevegrab]

The only thing I really like about Sapp is that he looks like he wants to beat the crap out Irvin when he goes on his regular rants about the Cowboys.

 

I wonder has Sapp been defending/excusing the bounty system like some other former defensive players (Mike Golic was doing this when the story first broke, with all the "its no big deal, guys don't need the extra money, everybody is doing it" BS).

[delusions of grandeur]

So apparently, Sapp tweeted he knows who the "snitch" of the BountyGate scandal is. He publicly named Jeremy Shockey the culprit. Wow.....I never I thought I would see the day when a HOF player would out a current player. What if he's wrong? Can you imagine the ammo Shockey would have on Sapp? I don't even know if there is a precedent in a law suite for that. And why wouldn't he sue? Shockey is gonna be a marked man, proof or no proof, in 2012. And if he's protected by gratuitis calls? Everybody will call it "league protection" from the refs. Shockey is now in a no win situation IMO. I hope that sack of CHIPS AHOY! Sapp got it wrong and his career ends now.

 

There is not a precedent odf lawsuit.. Libel and slander are extremely hard to prove, because they require not only knowledge of it's falsity, and I believe also malevolent intent. All Sapp has to say is my source was mistaken, and it'd kill any lawsuit.

[electricrelish]

There is not a precedent odf lawsuit.. Libel and slander are extremely hard to prove, because they require not only knowledge of it's falsity, and I believe also malevolent intent. All Sapp has to say is my source was mistaken, and it'd kill any lawsuit.

 

Like PFT already stated, the NFL Network should have never asked the question to Sapp without him providing something substantial, otherwise anyone can say anything about anyone without having to prove it.

[lennykravitz2004]

Two guys from The U? I thought The U was some kind of Skull and Bones Society...

[Infinity]

I don't think Sapp is angry that Bounty Gate was exposed, but more so the fact that on a team(or in this case former team) there is unity, solidarity and an unspoken code there that was happens with your team doesn't get brought public. I mean if you can't trust your teammates who can you trust?

 

Not defending Sapp here, but the issue is likely more that someone snitched on their team, not what they were snitched on for. He didn't have an issue with it when on the team but now that he's off it he just screwed a franchise who he must play twice a year. I dunno.

 

Just my

Edited March 22, 2012 by Infinity

[Bronco Billy]

There is not a precedent odf lawsuit.. Libel and slander are extremely hard to prove, because they require not only knowledge of it's falsity, and I believe also malevolent intent. All Sapp has to say is my source was mistaken, and it'd kill any lawsuit.

 

 

Do you have a precedent for your opinion? I would guess that any lawsuit would not go to whether the source was wrong, but rather that Sapp chose to make the news public. The standard of malacious intent only goes to public figures as it is my understanding, and while Shockey is a public figure as it pertains to being a football player, I'm not sure that would extend to the investigation of the charges by the league.

 

I'd like to hear more from those with more legal knowledge than myself.

[electricrelish]

I don't think Sapp is angry that Bounty Gate was exposed, but more so the fact that on a team(or in this case former team) there is unity, solidarity and an unspoken code there that was happens with your team doesn't get brought public. I mean if you can't trust your teammates who can you trust?

 

Not defending Sapp here, but the issue is likely more that someone snitched on their team, not what they were snitched on for. He didn't have an issue with it when on the team but now that he's off it he just screwed a franchise who he must play twice a year. I dunno.

 

Just my

 

 

Shockey has denied the claim. He said he would take a lie detector test. There is no evidence that we know of. All we have is Warren Sapp stating that Deep Throat told him it was Shockey. Now there is doubt about Shockey's character when he is trying to find a job. Not that there weren't question already, but folks are assuming guilt without any evidence. It seems reckless to me.

[stevegrab]

I don't think Sapp is angry that Bounty Gate was exposed, but more so the fact that on a team(or in this case former team) there is unity, solidarity and an unspoken code there that was happens with your team doesn't get brought public. I mean if you can't trust your teammates who can you trust?

 

Not defending Sapp here, but the issue is likely more that someone snitched on their team, not what they were snitched on for. He didn't have an issue with it when on the team but now that he's off it he just screwed a franchise who he must play twice a year. I dunno.

 

Just my

 

 

I can understand his viewpoint but I don't agree with it. Loyalty only goes so far. When you're doing really bad things, people are going to talk. Not to mention we don't know if Sapp has any credible evidence or just flapping his gums like so many of the talking heads do. Who's to say Shockey (or whoever) didn't talk while they were part of the team. If everybody were looking at it like Sapp we wouldn't have whistle blowers on companies that are polluting, cheating customers, embezzling, etc.

[Infinity]

Shockey has denied the claim. He said he would take a lie detector test. There is no evidence that we know of. All we have is Warren Sapp stating that Deep Throat told him it was Shockey. Now there is doubt about Shockey's character when he is trying to find a job. Not that there weren't question already, but folks are assuming guilt without any evidence. It seems reckless to me.

 

 

I can understand his viewpoint but I don't agree with it. Loyalty only goes so far. When you're doing really bad things, people are going to talk. Not to mention we don't know if Sapp has any credible evidence or just flapping his gums like so many of the talking heads do. Who's to say Shockey (or whoever) didn't talk while they were part of the team. If everybody were looking at it like Sapp we wouldn't have whistle blowers on companies that are polluting, cheating customers, embezzling, etc.

 

 

 

Definately Reckless and I also agree Steve. But when it comes down to it the NFL and it's players are not like a normal job. They're job is to play a sport professionally, work as a team, trust in your team etc. When it was brought up, I saw a lot of players, especially defensive players, saying thing such as "this happens on every team" etc rather then "we'd never do this on our team." It's terrible and sad, yet truthful.

 

It's a sad time in the NFL, but when it boils down to it Shockey has about as much Credibility as Sapp. And if Sapp had enough guts to put a target on Shockey's back like that, he better be positive. Also I have not seen any Saints players step up and say they don't believe shockey to be the snitch. Just well, seems weird. It's pretty terrible that Shockey would be penalized by teammates/fellow players for something like this, almost feels like the players are ok with Shockey being outed and having each individual deal with it how they feel proper even though the issue brought up is terrible. The refs and the NFL can't "protect him" for the precedent it would create, look it how pissed off the Ravens got when Brady got his way all game long on bs roughing the passer calls because the refs wanted to protect the Patriots Pretty boy QB. (This was never actually proven, just the viewpoint of most) It just can't happen. There's no protection if nobody can refute what Sapp has said, unless Shockey's team has his back in the middle of the game. (and if it holds to be the truth, I feel like there may be a game where dare a say some form of fight breaks out). But then again, Shockey outed his old team, if you're his new teammate, how do you feel?

 

 

 

https://p.twimg.com/AomzTTACEAM60T3.jpg

 

That's an interesting take. Nobody can prove that's actually Payton. But if it is, certainly puts a twist on the situation

Edited March 22, 2012 by Infinity

[delusions of grandeur]

Do you have a precedent for your opinion? I would guess that any lawsuit would not go to whether the source was wrong, but rather that Sapp chose to make the news public. The standard of malacious intent only goes to public figures as it is my understanding, and while Shockey is a public figure as it pertains to being a football player, I'm not sure that would extend to the investigation of the charges by the league.

 

I'd like to hear more from those with more legal knowledge than myself.

 

I'm a Ron Paul backer, so if there hasn't been a lawsuit against the media from his camp, then I'm guessing Shockey is SOL.

 

BTW, I'm no lawyer, but I was in a journalism-related major where you're instructed on what's acceptable/non-liable to report. I'm quite certain there is no law against "deciding to take what you heard public", or in other words hearsay or speculation based on a source. I watched him on NFLN, and Sapp chose his words carefully to say "this is just what I've heard".

Edited March 22, 2012 by delusions of granduer

[Duchess Jack]

Not defending Sapp here, but the issue is likely more that someone snitched on their team, not what they were snitched on for. He didn't have an issue with it when on the team but now that he's off it he just screwed a franchise who he must play twice a year. I dunno.

 

 

He plays on offense. If it was him, I wouldn't have a problem. They are hurting real people. People that might have been him, if this were another team. No problem with a whistle blower in this case (if it was him).

[Bronco Billy]

I'm a Ron Paul backer, so if there hasn't been a lawsuit against the media from his camp, then I'm guessing Shockey is SOL.

 

BTW, I'm no lawyer, but I was in a journalism-related major where you're instructed on what's acceptable/non-liable to report. I'm quite certain there is no law against "deciding to take what you heard public", or in other words hearsay or speculation based on a source. I watched him on NFLN, and Sapp chose his words carefully to say "this is just what I've heard".

 

 

So in your opinion, legal protection is afforded to anyone for saying anything, as long as it is precluded by a disclaimer?

 

"From what I've heard, DMD dresses in Victoria's Secrets thongs and defiles young goats" is okay to run as an advertisement during the Super Bowl, even if it isn't 100% true?

Edited March 22, 2012 by Bronco Billy

[Clubfoothead]

So in your opinion, legal protection is afforded to anyone for saying anything, as long as it is precluded by a disclaimer?

 

"From what I've heard, DMD dresses in Victoria's Secrets thongs and defiles young goats"

 

 

Just a guess.

 

 

Sapp is a reporter for the NFL network I think. If he is, then as a member of the press I would guess he can lean on an anonumous source being incorrect all the way to summary judgment if Shockey sues him. I know the NFL Network is probably fine under that theory that it has a first amendment right to report and comment on public matters. I imagine both individually and as an employee of the network, Sapp has the same rights. He may even be indemnified by the networ for reporting it within the course and scope of his employment. Truth is an affirmative defense also.

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

Stay classy New Orleans.

 

http://m.lockerz.com/s/194805832

[electricrelish]

Just a guess.

 

 

Sapp is a reporter for the NFL network I think. If he is, then as a member of the press I would guess he can lean on an anonumous source being incorrect all the way to summary judgment if Shockey sues him. I know the NFL Network is probably fine under that theory that it has a first amendment right to report and comment on public matters. I imagine both individually and as an employee of the network, Sapp has the same rights. He may even be indemnified by the networ for reporting it within the course and scope of his employment. Truth is an affirmative defense also.

 

There used to be a time when networks would not report rumors or unfounded speculation. Networks used to only bring up these items if it were so widespread that the rumors were common knowledge or if they had substantial facts to support the claim. That type of integrity is seen less and less.

[delusions of grandeur]

So in your opinion, legal protection is afforded to anyone for saying anything, as long as it is precluded by a disclaimer?

 

"From what I've heard, DMD dresses in Victoria's Secrets thongs and defiles young goats" is okay to run as an advertisement during the Super Bowl, even if it isn't 100% true?

 

Well, you're taking it to the extreme to run an attack ad, I'm not sure how running an attack ad under hearsay falls under the law, but I can assure you that irresponsible jump-the-gun speculative, even false reporting is not against the law, it happens daily.

 

In America, you are innocent until proven guilty, so unless you can show that he did so with a clear intent to drag Shockey's name through the mud and knew it was false when he said it, then it is virtually unproveable that Sapp was seeking to defame, slander, libel, whatever... You and I may see a difference between this and other "sources" that end up being false, but in the eyes of the law it is no different, unless it can be proven that Sapp knew it was false and reported it anyway, and/or that it was malicious. Come back to me when you even have indication of either of those. I will stake my reputation here that absent either of those conditions, there is no way Shockey would succeed in a lawsuit against Sapp.

[Bronco Billy]

Truth is an affirmative defense also.

 

 

Wait, are you saying what I think you're saying...?

[Bronco Billy]

Well, you're taking it to the extreme to run an attack ad, I'm not sure how running an attack ad under hearsay falls under the law, but I can assure you that irresponsible jump-the-gun speculative, even false reporting is not against the law, it happens daily.

 

In America, you are innocent until proven guilty, so unless you can show that he did so with a clear intent to drag Shockey's name through the mud and knew it was false when he said it, then it is virtually unproveable that Sapp was seeking to defame, slander, libel, whatever... You and I may see a difference between this and other "sources" that end up being false, but in the eyes of the law it is no different, unless it can be proven that Sapp knew it was false and reported it anyway, and/or that it was malicious. Come back to me when you even have indication of either of those. I will stake my reputation here that absent either of those conditions, there is no way Shockey would succeed in a lawsuit against Sapp.

 

 

I think a law can begin to be evaluated by implementing the most extreme examples and working backwards. BTW - keep going, I'm asking questions because I don't know the answers, and I'm learning.

Edited March 22, 2012 by Bronco Billy

[electricrelish]

Well, you're taking it to the extreme to run an attack ad, I'm not sure how running an attack ad under hearsay falls under the law, but I can assure you that irresponsible jump-the-gun speculative, even false reporting is not against the law, it happens daily.

 

In America, you are innocent until proven guilty, so unless you can show that he did so with a clear intent to drag Shockey's name through the mud and knew it was false when he said it, then it is virtually unproveable that Sapp was seeking to defame, slander, libel, whatever... You and I may see a difference between this and other "sources" that end up being false, but in the eyes of the law it is no different, unless it can be proven that Sapp knew it was false and reported it anyway, and/or that it was malicious. Come back to me when you even have indication of either of those. I will stake my reputation here that absent either of those conditions, there is no way Shockey would succeed in a lawsuit against Sapp.

 

 

I agree with you. I don't think Sapp had an agenda. I just think he's reckless and unprofessional...unless of course, his source is right.

[rajncajn]

I wonder has Sapp been defending/excusing the bounty system like some other former defensive players (Mike Golic was doing this when the story first broke, with all the "its no big deal, guys don't need the extra money, everybody is doing it" BS).

 

No, actually just the opposite, which is kinda funny considering the classless bag of dicks he was as a player.

Sapp is a piece of ####, and right or wrong this ought to cost him his job. Of course, that he doesn't have a clue on most things NFL and doesn't speak coherently half the time doesn't seem to concern the NFL network..

 

If he's wrong - and there are some very real indications he could be, I hope Shockey takes him for every freakin' penny he's got.

 

Totally agree & ashamed of myself for automatically believing him.

Stay classy New Orleans.

 

http://m.lockerz.com/s/194805832

 

Stay classy Grunge. I can help you dig up some better links if you like.