Peter King says if no tape, Kraft could sue Herald - Page 5 - New England Patriots Forums

upstater1 · 02-25-2008, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ctpatsfan77

He removed it in an "update."

And that's exactly why this sort of information correcting by us Pats fans is important.

Some people wanted to quash PatsinVas thread for information gathering and correcting.

But this is great evidence that shows writers makes mistakes, and some of them even correct them (though it would have been better if King made mention of the fact that the Rams did well in the end zone since he was so keen on pointing out originally that they struggled).

PatsFanSince74 · 02-25-2008, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PAPatsjunkie

John Clayton was just on ESPN radio saying if Walsh doesnt have a tape of the Rams' walk-through, Spygate will go away... why do I not think that it will be that easy?

it won't be "that easy," but it will go away. it was going away until SB week, when Specter and Walsh returned it to the front burner. it will go away again.

No hearings by Specter + No Walsh tape + No action last week by the Competition Committee = Spygate goes away for all but the most biased and jealous fans or mediots.

upstater1 · 02-25-2008, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by richpats

I'll reserve judgment until the truth comes out. I never knew the Pats taped defensive signals until Spygate.

I did.

I was paying attention to this the last couple years. It's not the first time this has been discussed. Read Don Banks 2006 article as well as the Clayton Dolphins article.

Not to mention the fact that you dissed our information gathering efforts on the other thread, and now you have evidence that correcting Peter King works.

***ctpatsfan77*** · 02-25-2008, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PatsFanSince74

Re the OP topic:

There's really nothing new about spygate in this article. To say that it's unlikely that a tape actually exists, but that BB would be toast and the franchise would be in deep trouble if an SB XXXVI walkthrough tape exists isn't news, it's just stating the obvious (no one outside the Pats fanbase--i.e., us--would ever believe a pats claim that such a tape was "unauthorized"--and, for many of us it would be a big swallow).

As for a Kraft lawsuit, King has had one latte too many. The Kraft family would have to prove monetary damages--i.e., that the value of his franchise was diminished as a result. The only way to do that would be to try to sell the team and get offers that are below today's third party estimates of the value of the franchise and then convince a court that this was directly linked to the Herald article. Not likely in our lifetime.

Actually, they don't. Quoting Wikipedia:

Quote:

Defamation per se
All states except Arizona, Arkansas, Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee recognize that some categories of statements are considered to be defamatory per se, such that people making a defamation claim for these statements do not need to prove that the statement was defamatory. In the common law tradition, damages for such statements are presumed and do not have to be proven. Traditionally, these per se defamatory statements include:

* Allegations or imputations "injurious to another in their trade, business, or profession"
* Allegations or imputations "of loathsome disease" (historically leprosy and sexually transmitted disease, now also including mental illness)
* Allegations or imputations of "unchastity" (usually only in unmarried people and sometimes only in women)
* Allegations or imputations of criminal activity (sometimes only crimes of moral turpitude)

Presumably, we don't have to worry about (2) or (3)

, but (1) and/or (4) seem like fairly valid grounds for defamation per se.

PatsFanSince74 · 02-25-2008, 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ctpatsfan77

Actually, they don't. Quoting Wikipedia:

Presumably, we don't have to worry about (2) or (3)

, but (1) and/or (4) seem like fairly valid grounds for defamation per se.

(4) refers to criminal acts. actions that violate sportsmanship or NFL rules are not criminal.

you might be right about (1), but that's very hard to prove when a person or institution is in the public eye and usually requires proving evil intent by the "injuring" party.

Jimke · 02-25-2008, 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by upstater1

Sack up. Jeez.

If the Pats' reputation wasn't already ruined, why do most football

fans outside of New England root against them? Many of them believe

this Spygate crap!

mcgraw_wv · 02-25-2008, 11:37 AM

IF there is any attempt to remove ANY wins from the Pats record ever... I will end my fandom of the NFL and the Patriots, and put ALL my money that I spend on NFL merchandice, into the NCAA.

The Entire game that is the NFL is crumbling away, and it seems as though most people want to see this happen. The repercussions of pushing this story will end ALOT of what the NFL is... America's #1 sport...

mcgraw_wv · 02-25-2008, 11:41 AM

I can already say now that my money going towards tickets, jereseys, and anything else NFL related, and more notably Patriots related, will be far less in the future. Im still a die hard Patriots fan, but I will not sit here and send my money to a league whos mission has turned from being the best sport in America to exporting games to make more money at the expense of the fans who built the sport, and to alter wins and championships on paper.

I think Patriot nation should Sue the NFL for the Steelers Championships based on the exesive steriod use on those Steeler teams. if they try to remove the Patriots Championship.

***MoLewisrocks*** · 02-25-2008, 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PatsFanSince74

Re King's comments on Asante in the thread topic article

His suggestion that Asante's payday might not be as high as Samuel is expecting were brutal...and, to me, accurate, especially when he cites his play in the SB: "I've been a Samuel guy for the last couple of years, because he's a fearless competitor, but his play late last season, particularly when the Patriots couldn't generate a consistent pass-rush on Eli Manning, was poor.

"He let David Tyree beat him for a touchdown in the fourth quarter of the Super Bowl, then let a catchable interception slip through his hands on the decisive Giant drive (though it would have been a tough catch), and didn't clobber Tyree when he was fighting for the catch heard 'round the world, though Samuel was only steps away."

Maybe someday Peter and his mediot peers will realize the fickle hyped up perceptions they establish about players are such a crock of **** perhaps they should be more selective when opining, or in his case hang it up.

I thought there was a player who was close enough and converging on the edges of that play from the outside he should have had a good shot at knocking that ball loose as Rodney held Tyree inverted over his knee for what seemed like forever... just couldn't make out who it was. I hope he wasn't positioning himself for a recovery at the expense of forcing a fumble...

***ctpatsfan77*** · 02-25-2008, 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fgssand

Except BB did get the memo and he chose to interpret it his own way without verifying it with the league. He admits to using bad judgement in not doing so.
He (NE) was punished for it -- waay too harshly in my opinion, but that's it. It should have ended right then and there, yet it never has and seemingly never will.

So, Pony - on what grounds can Kraft sue?

Just because you commit a crime does not mean you get branded with a scarlet letter. Even if the Pats are guilty of "illegally" taping defensive signals, that doesn't mean you can accuse them of other things with impunity. In this case, if there are no tapes, it at least opens the door to a lawsuit (I'm not saying it would win, but that there'd be grounds).