Saints in More Trouble? Loomis Allegedly Bugged Headsets

[Papajohn]

it's called ratings.

 

That's not what you wrote though

[Savage Beatings]

If this story came out just like it did without any of the Bounty program scandal as context, I think it would be pretty quickly dismissed. The unnamed sources bit gets really old. If you have something to say, then stand up and say it instead of cowering in anonymity. BUT, the fact is, that Peyton and Loomis have put themselves in a vulnerable position by being guilty of other crimes. Now someone just has to throw a tiny bit of chum into the water and sit back and watch the carnage.

 

The worst part about all of this (seriously)... I genuinely like both Rajn and Az, and this seems to have clearly severed any online relationship they may have had. Too bad.

[Pope Flick]

You're kidding, right? The media can't stand Payton & Loomis.

 

 

Relax, dude.

[bushwacked]

Relax, dude.

 

 

+1. And to freaking out on Az, he's been condescending to alsmot everyone on this site for about 10 years. Not sure why there is exasperation when it's your turn. And I do see where he's coming from; it never ceases to amaze me how homerism among sports fans can make the most level headed person completely non-objective.

[delusions of grandeur]

it's called ratings.

 

Well obviously, but there's FAR less ground to stand on here than the supposed Shockey defamation suit, considering that what their source claimed was confirmed by the U.S. Attorney himself that he had learned of the allegations.... That's a key word here, because ESPN never said that this did in fact happen, but that there are actual allegations and coinciding hearsay from sources, which is what they're reporting. Perhaps this could end up where they're forced to reveal the source if it turns out the reports are completely false, but with the allegations confirmed, that may be a tough discovery to get as well.

 

I do not see how it's irresponsible or defamatory.... It's be one thing if it was just unnamed sources they were going with (though that could be still good enough to cover your butt, just maybe not theirs), but the allegation has happened, unless we want to assume that the U.S. Attorney has any reason to lie that he's received the allegations.

[rajncajn]

The worst part about all of this (seriously)... I genuinely like both Rajn and Az, and this seems to have clearly severed any online relationship they may have had. Too bad.

 

 

Not at all, there's very few here that I will never have anything to do with & it takes something far worse than just acting like a general d-bag for me to hold a grudge for very long. Two things I just won't stand for from a personal perspective is being called a liar & being called dumb.

 

Relax, dude.

 

It's a known fact in New Orleans circles, the local media talk about it all the time & there are quite a few here who don't like him either.

 

Well obviously, but there's FAR less ground to stand on here than the supposed Shockey defamation suit, considering that what their source claimed was confirmed by the U.S. Attorney himself that he had learned of the allegations.... That's a key word here, because ESPN never said that this did in fact happen, but that there are actual allegations and coinciding hearsay from sources, which is what they're reporting. Perhaps this could end up where they're forced to reveal the source if it turns out the reports are completely false, but with the allegations confirmed, that may be a tough discovery to get as well.

 

I do not see how it's irresponsible or defamatory.... It's be one thing if it was just unnamed sources they were going with (though that could be still good enough to cover your butt, just maybe not theirs), but the allegation has happened, unless we want to assume that the U.S. Attorney has any reason to lie that he's received the allegations.

 

It's irresponsible & defamatory to take one person's word that someone else committed a crime and report it as if it really happened. Especially if you know that when you report it, the public opinion will automatically believe it to be true. And saying that it was confirmed by the US Attorney as being reported and using that as your 2nd source is just as ridiculous.

 

Take a look at this interview from a legal analyst with a local TV station & tell men what you think ESPN was trying to do. It wouldn't be the first time either if you've followed the Syracuse story at all.

 

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.

Edited April 24, 2012 by rajncajn

[delusions of grandeur]

It's irresponsible & defamatory to take one person's word that someone else committed a crime and report it as if it really happened. Especially if you know that when you report it, the public opinion will automatically believe it to be true. And saying that it was confirmed by the US Attorney as being reported and using that as your 2nd source is just as ridiculous.

 

Take a look at this interview from a legal analyst with a local TV station & tell men what you think ESPN was trying to do. It wouldn't be the first time either if you've followed the Syracuse story at all.

 

How is it ridculous to use the U.S Attorney as a non-confidential source to confirm allegations of what you've heard? They're not the second source here, they're the primary source that it's more than jsut rumor, it's an allegation they've recieved.

 

And as it said in that interview, there has to be malice and knowledge of it's falisty for a defamatinosuit to fly... That might not be that tough for the alleger and/or sources if they're found to have made it up, but when ESPN gets word of something and then it's confirmed as an allegation by a U.S. attorney, there's not a chance in hell you're going to successfully sue them (absent more facts coming out). There is no crime in digging for a story, so that's irrelevant that he was calling looking for dirt.

[tbimm]

Jim Miller a former Saints executive pointed something out in an interview that I noticed right away as well. After Bountygate broke the Saints had next to nothing to say for several days. When this story broke the response was immediate and decisive. This did not happen according to them and honestly I believe them. I really think someone has serious issues with the Saints and is taking advantage of the current mood.

[tbimm]

How is it ridculous to use the U.S Attorney as a non-confidential source to confirm allegations of what you've heard? They're not the second source here, they're the primary source that it's more than jsut rumor, it's an allegation they've recieved.

 

And as it said in that interview, there has to be malice and knowledge of it's falisty for a defamatinosuit to fly... That might not be that tough for the alleger and/or sources if they're found to have made it up, but when ESPN gets word of something and then it's confirmed as an allegation by a U.S. attorney, there's not a chance in hell you're going to successfully sue them (absent more facts coming out). There is no crime in digging for a story, so that's irrelevant that he was calling looking for dirt.

 

 

No crime indeed but it does lead to you looking like the National Enquirer as false reports start to add up.

[rajncajn]

What I think is funny is that now ESPN is trying to say that they are only reporting that the US attorney has started an investigation. But here is the direct quote from Barr's report that says no such thing.

 

Sources familiar with Saints game-day operations told "Outside the Lines" that Loomis, who faces an eight-game suspension from the NFL for his role in the recent bounty scandal, had the ability to secretly listen for most of the 2002 season, his first as general manager of the Saints, and all of the 2003 and 2004 seasons. The sources spoke with "Outside the Lines" under the condition of anonymity because of fear of reprisals from members of the Saints organization.

 

There are a few things to keep in mind here as well that point out the utter ridiculousness of this report.

 

1. Mickey Loomis is anything but a "football guy." He's a glorified accountant & a damn good one. He'd be the very last person they would want listening in on the other team. As several have already said, he wouldn't even know what he was listening to. Not only that, but how many people would they have to relay this through to get the message on the field. If they were doing this, why have Mickey Loomis listening in? It's stupid.

 

2. Loomis isn't the only person in his box. There are actually quite a few folks there, many not associated with the Saints. It would be virtually impossible for him to do this and not get caught. Take this quote from Cortez Kennedy for example (which BTW has not been reported by ESPN).

 

"This is completely false," Kennedy said. "I have sat with Mickey for years, for multiple games and I can say that when Mickey gets up to go walk around during breaks or halftime, I put his earpiece in ... it is WWL-AM radio ... I know this, because I have heard. Plain and simple."

[rajncajn]

How is it ridculous to use the U.S Attorney as a non-confidential source to confirm allegations of what you've heard? They're not the second source here, they're the primary source that it's more than jsut rumor, it's an allegation they've recieved.

 

And as it said in that interview, there has to be malice and knowledge of it's falisty for a defamatin suit to fly... That might not be that tough for the alleger and/or sources if they're found to have made it up, but when ESPN gets word of something and then it's confirmed as an allegation by a U.S. attorney, there's not a chance in hell you're going to successfully sue them (absent more facts coming out). There is no crime in digging for a story, so that's irrelevant that he was calling looking for dirt.

 

 

If you read the quote I posted just below my reply to you, you will see that they are in fact not the primary source. The "unnamed" person is the primary source & the US Attorney's office only confirmed that it had just been reported to them. Just been reported... 10 years after the fact... Just before this article came out.

[delusions of grandeur]

If you read the quote I posted just below my reply to you, you will see that they are in fact not the primary source. The "unnamed" person is the primary source & the US Attorney's office only confirmed that it had just been reported to them. Just been reported... 10 years after the fact... Just before this article came out.

 

which source you hear it from first does not change wh oyou cite as the primary (confirmed) source, due to them being the only ones to confirm anything concrete.

 

We can sit here and aruge semantics all day, but there is a confirmed allegation along with anonymous sources... Whether those sources and allegations end up being bunk, has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that ESPN reported something they heard that was confirmed as an allegation before they reported it.

 

You're misplacing your blame in who may be irresponsbile here, because they did do their due diligence to confirm the allegation before reporting what their sources said. Even more than normal circumstances where unnamed sources can still be acceptable to report (hearsay isn't a crime either), they've absolutely covered their bases and done nothing irresponsible or liable here.

Edited April 24, 2012 by delusions of granduer

[rajncajn]

which source you hear it from first does not change wh oyou cite as the primary (confirmed) source, due to them being the only ones to confirm anything concrete.

 

We can sit here and aruge semantics all day, but there is a confirmed allegation along with anonymous sources... Whether those sources and allegations end up being bunk, has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that ESPN reported something they heard that was confirmed as an allegation before they reported it.

 

You're misplacing your blame in who may be irresponsbile here, because they did do their due diligence to confirm the allegation before reporting what their sources said. Even more than normal circumstances where unnamed sources can still be acceptable to report (hearsay isn't a crime either), they've absolutely covered their bases and done nothing irresponsible or liable here.

 

 

Did you read the quote? This is not semantics. They listed the unnamed person as the source & the Attorney's office for confirmation. To me, that is nothing more than irresponsible & shoddy, tabloid reporting. Something that is becoming unsettlingly more commonplace these days. And people eat this CHIPS AHOY! up like it's fact.

Edited April 24, 2012 by rajncajn

[delusions of grandeur]

Did you read the quote? This is not semantics. They listed the unnamed person as the source & the Attorney's office for confirmation. To me, that is nothing more than irresponsible & shoddy, tabloid reporting. Something that is becoming unsettlingly more commonplace these days. And people eat this CHIPS AHOY! up like it's fact.

 

Again, you're confusing the original source, with primary source you use to cite the article, and it's purely semantics anyway... I don't see what part of "confirmation" of an allegation that you find irresponsible to report. They got a lead and confirmed it as an actual allegation before reporting on it. OUTRAGEOUS!!!

Edited April 24, 2012 by delusions of granduer

[bpwallace49]

No matter what, this has to suck for saints fans.

 

And the hits just keep ooonnnnnn comin.

[rajncajn]

Cortez Kennedy's entire quote:

 

"What a bunch of liars!'' Kennedy texted.

On Tuesday, Kennedy, whose friendship with Loomis goes back to when he played and Loomis scouted for the Seattle Seahawks, explained why he feels that way.

"I've been with Mickey on game days since 2002,'' Kennedy said. "For a while I was an intern, learning the business, and I would be in the Saints' coaching booth for a while, but most of the time I was with him, in his booth, where he watched the games. I was watching how Mickey and [director of college scouting] Rick Reiprish [who began sitting in the box in 2004] do their jobs during the games, taking notes and keeping track of penalties and how far downfield passes go, things like that. Sometimes he'd be listening to the game through an earpiece. I knew that because at halftime or when he'd go to the bathroom, I'd pick up the earpiece and listen, and it'd be the game broadcast.

"Never once did I hear him talk about what was going on in the coaching booth with the other team. Never did I hear any evidence that we knew what was being said there. To me, the real outrage is, what advantage would it be for Mickey to hear it? He wouldn't have the time to get that information to our sidelines in time for it to have anything to do with the play on the field.

"I have been in that box for years, and I just couldn't believe it when I heard it. Shocking. No way it's true.''

Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/peter_king/04/24/mickey.loomis/index.html#ixzz1sz0KIcRq

 

 

[Hugh 0ne]

Don't let him bother you. Trust me, he lives for this kind of situation to pounce on. If you defend your team/player, then you are an un-objective homer. If you denounce the team/player, such as I did by wanting the Steelers to trade Roethlisberger, you are lying and you really want to be an un-objective homer. He is what he is. Don't let him bother you.

 

 

Yeah, your non-biased opinion on this topic. Menudo, with all due respect, you don't have an un-objective bone in your body when it comes to your sports teams. But there's nothing wrong with that, it is what it is. Not sure why you seem to take that as an insult at times.

 

FWIW, imo, rajn and tbimm are being way over-sensitive, and Az is great at rubbing it in. It's a perfect storm. On the other hand, I can understand the frustration which breeds the over-sensitivity based on what's happening to their team.

Edited April 24, 2012 by Hugh 0ne

[detlef]

Prior to bounty gate, this is the sum total of what I knew about Payton, all courtesy of the media because that's the only way I would know anything about him.

 

1) He's an offensive genius

2) He and Drew Brees, who btw is the single best guy in the league and married his college sweetheart before singlehandedly saving NOLA from the hurricane, are soul mates who can read each other's minds

3) He's a genius

4) He and Drew Brees are soul mates on par with Payton Manning and Marvin Harrison. The type of guys who can tell, at a glance what play the other is thinking about.

 

That is it. And you know what, I think that's freaking great. Despite the fact that I was literally force fed all this, I lapped up each and every bite. I was, right up until I heard a bunch of Saints fans b!tching about how everyone is out to get them.

 

So that's what this sports fan's view of your team is courtesy the media. Which brings us back to Az's point about any NO fan who thinks the team has been unfairly targeted.

Edited April 24, 2012 by detlef

[delusions of grandeur]

No matter what, this has to suck for saints fans.

 

And the hits just keep ooonnnnnn comin.

 

+1

 

As much as I can't help but take joy as a Falcons fan, after all the crap we've had to go through, I don't wish this kind of CHIPS AHOY! storm for any fanbase.

 

And to be fair, these allegations do seem quite a bit more bunk.

[Hugh 0ne]

I don't wish this kind of CHIPS AHOY! storm for any fanbase.

 

 

Yeah, that's really the kick in the tits. Teams and personnel doing things that disgrace or embarass a franchise is not fair to the fans that spend their hard earned money on tickets, apparel, etc.

[Menudo]

Yeah, your non-biased opinion on this topic. Menudo, with all due respect, you don't have an un-objective bone in your body when it comes to your sports teams. But there's nothing wrong with that, it is what it is. Not sure why you seem to take that as an insult at times.

 

 

 

It simply isn't true. I could point you to tons of evidence where I was objective, or downright negative about my favorite teams and players on that team, where other fans were blindly defending them. However, you obviously ignore that evidence, or just choose not to believe it, so, it would be a waste of time.

[detlef]

It simply isn't true. I could point you to tons of evidence where I was objective, or downright negative about my favorite teams and players on that team, where other fans were blindly defending them. However, you obviously ignore that evidence, or just choose not to believe it, so, it would be a waste of time.

 

One man's opinion and all that, but I agree that Menudo, while among the biggest and most loyal homers here, does take his team to task when they deserve it. You need only go way back in time to this year's NHL playoffs where a disgusted Menudo showed his embarrassment with the conduct of a Penguins team that was being outplayed and resorted to thuggery.

[Azazello1313]

This is what Az said:

Azazello1313, on 23 April 2012 - 06:44 PM, said:

 

I will bet you whatever you want that the saints never get a penny of restitution from espn for "defamation" or anything of the sort with respect to this matter...

...the whole "we're outraged and we're going to sue" is just lawyerly bluster schtick to keep their dumb fans feeling like victims. appears to be working.

Azazello1313, on 23 April 2012 - 07:25 PM, said:

I think your knee-jerk defense of your team's while pretending to be objective about it is kind of ridiculous. same kind of thing I've bagged on menudo and others for for years.

 

 

yeah and hot damn did I ever hit the nail on the head!

[Azazello1313]

The worst part about all of this (seriously)... I genuinely like both Rajn and Az, and this seems to have clearly severed any online relationship they may have had. Too bad.

 

 

I doubt it.

 

Not at all, there's very few here that I will never have anything to do with & it takes something far worse than just acting like a general d-bag for me to hold a grudge for very long. Two things I just won't stand for from a personal perspective is being called a liar & being called dumb.

 

 

don't think I ever called you a liar. you're not nearly as objective in these matter as you think you are. that's just typical in-group, fortress mentality psychology, not "lying". hell, if that sort of thinking was "lying", that would make every person who has ever argued about politics in the tailgate a liar.

 

as far as "dumb", well....I do feel that any propensity to blame the saints woes on some conspiracy unfairly victimizing them (a theme that has been strong in your posts lately) is indeed pretty dumb. I know you're not dumb. but I also know that very smart people often buy into very dumb lines of thinking.

[Bier Meister]

I doubt it.

 

 

 

..... but I also know that very smart people often buy into very dumb lines of thinking.

 

 

exactly rajn. just take a look at tebow's "success" this year.