PDA

View Full Version : [PFT] Cushing Says He’ll “Take Action Toward” NFLDraftBible.com


Texans34Life
05-01-2009, 10:37 AM
http://www.profootballtalk.com/category/rumor-mill/

In a Thursday interview with ESPN 1530 in Austin, Texans linebacker Brian Cushing said that he’ll “take action toward” NFLDraftBible.com for its erroneous report that Cushing tested positive at the Scouting Combine for steroids.

That action could include a letter from a lawyer demanding a settlement, and it could include a lawsuit.

Cushing explained that, with the draft over, the next step will be to address the April 2 report from NFLDraftBible.com.

“I’m pretty tired of everything happening with all these supposed rumors [and] people trying to tarnish my reputation,” Cushing said. “I’m not sure what happened. I’m don’t know if it’s my playing attitude [or] people just don’t like how I handle myself. But you know that’s too bad for them.”

On April 3, we reported on the existence of the report, with multiple disclaimers that we were taking no position as to the accuracy of the NFLDraftBible.com allegations. In our view, the existence of the report was newsworthy — and we then embarked on an effort (thanks to the efforts of our in-house journalist Aaron Wilson) to get to the truth.

CAA sent to us that same day a statement from Cushing’s agent, Tom Condon, regarding the situation.

“There is no truth to the vicious and false rumor regarding Brian Cushing’s drug test at the Combine,” Condon said. “Brian, in fact, has been informed by league representatives that his test result was negative for any banned substances. Furthermore, neither the League office nor Brian’s representatives have been contacted regarding a positive test.”

After the official list of positive results came out in the days preceding the draft, NFLDraftBible.com retracted its report, and apologized.

So we hope you’ll all tune in next year to track the various prospects at NFLDraftBible.com, brought to you by Brian Cushing. And Clay Matthews. And Vontae Davis. And B.J. Raji.

drewmar74
05-01-2009, 10:40 AM
So we hope you’ll all tune in next year to track the various prospects at NFLDraftBible.com, brought to you by Brian Cushing. And Clay Matthews. And Vontae Davis. And B.J. Raji.

:spit:

ObsiWan
05-01-2009, 11:28 AM
http://www.profootballtalk.com/category/rumor-mill/ (http://www.profootballtalk.com/category/rumor-mill/)

On April 3, we reported on the existence of the report, with multiple disclaimers that we were taking no position as to the accuracy of the NFLDraftBible.com allegations. In our view, the existence of the report was newsworthy — and we then embarked on an effort (thanks to the efforts of our in-house journalist Aaron Wilson) to get to the truth.

Translation:
Hey, don't sue US!! It's NOT our FAULT!
We just repeated the lie we heard on the internet!!
Then we askeded some another dudes what they'd heard...
just don't sue us!

Ole Miss Texan
05-01-2009, 11:29 AM
I hope Cushing, Matthews and the like (particularly their attorneys) go hard after the site/people that produced the erroneous...scratch that LIES.

Like anything else, that site needs to be made an example of and be slaughtered in court. So that other people who try and "get/make a story" will think twice before tarnishing a person's reputation.

I'm sick and tired of the media reporting on sh*t that doesn't matter, that I don't care about especially... with biasness. They're trying to make money by publicizing negative crap about people whether it's true or not. I think we need to bring back the punishment of chopping off hands when people steal or do other stuff.

Actually better yet, I'd leave Cushing alone in a room with these guys and let him settle it.

gtexan02
05-01-2009, 11:38 AM
I hope Cushing, Matthews and the like (particularly their attorneys) go hard after the site/people that produced the erroneous...scratch that LIES.

Like anything else, that site needs to be made an example of and be slaughtered in court. So that other people who try and "get/make a story" will think twice before tarnishing a person's reputation.

I'm sick and tired of the media reporting on sh*t that doesn't matter, that I don't care about especially... with biasness. They're trying to make money by publicizing negative crap about people whether it's true or not. I think we need to bring back the punishment of chopping off hands when people steal or do other stuff.

Actually better yet, I'd leave Cushing alone in a room with these guys and let him settle it.

I agree. I hope they get whats coming to them. Check your sources or reveal them and let them get punnished. Someone should go down bc of this. Its not like they werent warned

ObsiWan
05-01-2009, 11:54 AM
I hope Cushing, Matthews and the like (particularly their attorneys) go hard after the site/people that produced the erroneous...scratch that LIES.

Like anything else, that site needs to be made an example of and be slaughtered in court. So that other people who try and "get/make a story" will think twice before tarnishing a person's reputation.

I'm sick and tired of the media reporting on sh*t that doesn't matter, that I don't care about especially... with biasness. They're trying to make money by publicizing negative crap about people whether it's true or not. I think we need to bring back the punishment of chopping off hands when people steal or do other stuff.

Actually better yet, I'd leave Cushing alone in a room with these guys and let him settle it.

Ooh! Ooh!
Can I have the Pay-per-View rights?!!
:money:

nunusguy
05-01-2009, 12:34 PM
"In a Thursday interview with ESPN 1530 in Austin, Texans "
************************
Huh !
I'm not surprised by the plans for legal action, as I think we all expected this.
What I'm surprised about is that a radio station, a member of the media outside of the city limits of Houston, TX actually scheduled and conducted an on-air interview with a Texans' Draft choice. Nah, its just a typo, forget it. Probably the local Houston ESPN affiliate, but "Austin" entered in error.

Kaiser Toro
05-01-2009, 01:01 PM
"In a Thursday interview with ESPN 1530 in Austin, Texans "
************************
Huh !
I'm not surprised by the plans for legal action, as I think we all expected this.
What I'm surprised about is that a radio station, a member of the media outside of the city limits of Houston, TX actually scheduled and conducted an on-air interview with a Texans' Draft choice. Nah, its just a typo, forget it. Probably the local Houston ESPN affiliate, but "Austin" entered in error.

It was on in Austin.

El Tejano
05-01-2009, 01:02 PM
"In a Thursday interview with ESPN 1530 in Austin, Texans "
************************
Huh !
I'm not surprised by the plans for legal action, as I think we all expected this.
What I'm surprised about is that a radio station, a member of the media outside of the city limits of Houston, TX actually scheduled and conducted an on-air interview with a Texans' Draft choice. Nah, its just a typo, forget it. Probably the local Houston ESPN affiliate, but "Austin" entered in error.

Get used to it bro. With us picking a 1st rounder out of USC, it's going to happen more and more. The media loves USC guys because with them also comes a huge California market. We did good by picking up Cushing.

Texaninlild
05-01-2009, 01:10 PM
I agree. I hope they get whats coming to them. Check your sources or reveal them and let them get punnished. Someone should go down bc of this. Its not like they werent warned

Can we take action for the stupid things Justice says daily?.....or does he get a pass because we know to ignore them?

Mailman
05-01-2009, 01:11 PM
I am a huge critic of 1530 because the afternoon guys are both anti-Houston douches. They've mocked the Texans and Astros every chance they get and really don't know all that much about the respective teams. They are both Longhorn goobers and lovers of the Dallas Cowboys. Still, they do a decent job of getting H-town guests to fill their on-air interview segments. They regularly have LZ on each week and sometimes invite the Dickie Justices of the Houston sports scene on. My problem with them is the b.s. they spew about Houston teams in between.

texicantone
05-01-2009, 01:13 PM
"In a Thursday interview with ESPN 1530 in Austin, Texans "
************************
Huh !
I'm not surprised by the plans for legal action, as I think we all expected this.
What I'm surprised about is that a radio station, a member of the media outside of the city limits of Houston, TX actually scheduled and conducted an on-air interview with a Texans' Draft choice. Nah, its just a typo, forget it. Probably the local Houston ESPN affiliate, but "Austin" entered in error.

Believe it or not there are a bunch of us Texans fans in Austin & we greatly appreciate the local ESPN affiliate interviewing & discussing other teams besides the Cowpokes.

Mailman
05-01-2009, 01:25 PM
Believe it or not there are a bunch of us Texans fans in Austin & we greatly appreciate the local ESPN affiliate interviewing & discussing other teams besides the Cowpokes.

Do you ever call in or email them about the Texans? The more they hear from us, the better.

nunusguy
05-01-2009, 01:35 PM
Believe it or not there are a bunch of us Texans fans in Austin & we greatly appreciate the local ESPN affiliate interviewing & discussing other teams besides the Cowpokes.
I know about you guys and appreciate your dedication to the Texans, but everything I've heard is that the media outside of Houston but still in state behaves as if they know nothing of the existance of another NFL franchise in Texas ? And won't ole Jer be really upset when he gets wind of this ?

texicantone
05-01-2009, 02:26 PM
Do you ever call in or email them about the Texans? The more they hear from us, the better.

Honestly, I do not call in to their show. When I do call, I call the Craig Way show. He's the voice of the Longhorns, but he is actually unbiased in his coverage to all teams and gives credit to all the teams that deserve them.:texflag:

texicantone
05-01-2009, 02:27 PM
I know about you guys and appreciate your dedication to the Texans, but everything I've heard is that the media outside of Houston but still in state behaves as if they know nothing of the existance of another NFL franchise in Texas ? And won't ole Jer be really upset when he gets wind of this ?

Now, I can't argue that point very well because it is true. I have to order Sunday Ticket just to be able to watch all the Texans games because of the stupid people at our local CBS affiliate keeps choosing to show Titans games even though Vince is not the starter anymore.

Mailman
05-01-2009, 02:39 PM
Honestly, I do not call in to their show. When I do call, I call the Craig Way show. He's the voice of the Longhorns, but he is actually unbiased in his coverage to all teams and gives credit to all the teams that deserve them.:texflag:

Craig Way is on 1300, not 1530.

Specnatz
05-01-2009, 02:59 PM
It was on in Austin.

John McClain was on the same day I missed both do to other stuff going on.

Goatcheese
05-01-2009, 05:57 PM
Cushing has about as much of a case against NFLDraftBible as John McCain does against the New York Times over them claiming they had sources claiming McCain had an affair with a lobbyist.

The standards for public figures are much different than for private citizens.

LonerATO
05-01-2009, 07:42 PM
I am a huge critic of 1530 because the afternoon guys are both anti-Houston douches. They've mocked the Texans and Astros every chance they get and really don't know all that much about the respective teams. They are both Longhorn goobers and lovers of the Dallas Cowboys. Still, they do a decent job of getting H-town guests to fill their on-air interview segments. They regularly have LZ on each week and sometimes invite the Dickie Justices of the Houston sports scene on. My problem with them is the b.s. they spew about Houston teams in between.

I can't understand how you are able to even listen to any ESPN radio station. ESPN's local talent sucks major D**k in all of the markets they are in. Dallas, Austin and San Antonio markets all suck and its not even about the Texans with me.

ObsiWan
05-01-2009, 11:31 PM
Cushing has about as much of a case against NFLDraftBible as John McCain does against the New York Times over them claiming they had sources claiming McCain had an affair with a lobbyist.

The standards for public figures are much different than for private citizens.

I think the difficulty in winning a lawsuit would be proving that this website posted these allegations with premeditated intent to malicously harm Cushing's career. In Cushing's case or the McCain example, if it could be proven that the respective media outlets intentionally lied or misrepresented/twisted the facts, because they wanted to damage each guy's career, then those media outlets would be liable for damages.

Bubbajwp
05-02-2009, 08:33 AM
Ooh! Ooh!
Can I have the Pay-per-View rights?!!
:money:

I wouldnt pay. Way to short.

ObsiWan
05-02-2009, 10:28 AM
I wouldnt pay. Way to short.

you probably have a point there

disaacks3
05-02-2009, 01:24 PM
I agree. I hope they get whats coming to them. Check your sources or reveal them and let them get punnished. Someone should go down bc of this. Its not like they werent warned

For the record, a journalist has no moral obligation (or a legal one for that matter) to protect a "source" that brings them FALSE information.

You want to see punishment? Release that person's name to the media as a BAD source..if he doesn't lose his current job, he'll get the equivalent of a diplomatic PNG and never be trusted again.

As long as there IS an outside source that provided the info (with no way to confirm), the action can be shown to be absent of malicious intent and NFLDraftBible is off the hook legally.

infantrycak
05-03-2009, 07:56 AM
Cushing has about as much of a case against NFLDraftBible as John McCain does against the New York Times over them claiming they had sources claiming McCain had an affair with a lobbyist.

The standards for public figures are much different than for private citizens.

And the standard for being a public figure isn't near as low as you are implying - just that the public knows you. There are both general public figures, usually politicians and limited purpose public figures who are folks such as Cindy Sheehen who have "thrust themselves" into public view on a particular issue. Just being known usually won't cut it.

I think the difficulty in winning a lawsuit would be proving that this website posted these allegations with premeditated intent to malicously harm Cushing's career. In Cushing's case or the McCain example, if it could be proven that the respective media outlets intentionally lied or misrepresented/twisted the facts, because they wanted to damage each guy's career, then those media outlets would be liable for damages.

That's only if he is declared a public figure. If not, because this reflected upon his career it is defamation per se and he will be presumed to have been damaged.

rickyb
05-03-2009, 09:18 AM
Get used to it bro. With us picking a 1st rounder out of USC, it's going to happen more and more. The media loves USC guys because with them also comes a huge California market. We did good by picking up Cushing.

Just for the record, there have been Texans fans in Austin from Day One. And to add a little color, one of the hosts on the 1530 early morning sports talk radio is a Texans fan also.

I just don't want Austin thrown in the same ilk as the Cali market.

threetoedpete
05-03-2009, 02:44 PM
My questions would be first how do you prove Malice on the part of NFLdraft bible ? The second is.....where is the money ? Just to file.....what is it now 2,500 ? And then there is the billable hours.....tick-tock...tick-tock. Standard for malice is pretty tough. Before you go to war in court you better have more in the bank than the guy is a slime ball and you're pissed. Gotta have proof.

infantrycak
05-03-2009, 02:53 PM
My questions would be first how do you prove Malice on the part of NFLdraft bible ? The second is.....where is the money ? Just to file.....what is it now 2,500 ? And then there is the billable hours.....tick-tock...tick-tock. Standard for malice is pretty tough. Before you go to war in court you better have more in the bank than the guy is a slime ball and you're pissed. Gotta have proof.

You don't have to prove malice unless you are proven to be a public figure. Filing fees are around $200. But on the main point of where is the money going to come from, odds are the guys running this site aren't worth a whole lot.

ObsiWan
05-03-2009, 02:58 PM
You don't have to prove malice unless you are proven to be a public figure. Filing fees are around $200. But on the main point of where is the money going to come from, odds are the guys running this site aren't worth a whole lot.

Don't you have to prove malice or intent to defame in order to collect? You can sue for whatever you want. I would think that in order to collect, you have to show that the website intentionally posted lies/misinformation rather than merely repeating some bad data that they were given.

infantrycak
05-03-2009, 03:11 PM
Don't you have to prove malice or intent to defame in order to collect? You can sue for whatever you want. I would think that in order to collect, you have to show that the website intentionally posted lies/misinformation rather than merely repeating some bad data that they were given.

Not unless the person is a public figure. For most people the standard is basically negligence - either they knew the statement was false, should have known it was false or just had no friggin' idea and ran with it anyway. It isn't a defense to say Joe the Whino (after I paid him enough for a bottle of mad dog) told me that Rick Smith once had carnal relations with Richard Justice's pet gerbil. You generally need to have at least a credible argument about why what you printed was reasonable.

threetoedpete
05-03-2009, 03:37 PM
Don't you have to prove malice or intent to defame in order to collect? You can sue for whatever you want. I would think that in order to collect, you have to show that the website intentionally posted lies/misinformation rather than merely repeating some bad data that they were given.

http://www.criminal-law-lawyer-source.com/terms/malice.html

Legal malice is a term that refers to one party’s intention to do injury to another. Malice can either be expressed or implied. Expressed malice occurs when the party gives outward notice that they intend to commit a crime or some other wrong towards another. Implied malice occurs when one party causes death or injury to another during the course of unlawful or disreputable actions. Malice generally involves the intentional infliction of physical, mental, psychological, or financial damage to another party.

So did the draftbible intensionally intend to harm Cushing and the others ? And if Cushing was drafted in the first round anyway....what is his damage ? So does this injury rise to that of yelling fire in a crowded room ? Not criminal. And unless the guy is loaded....not going to regain reputation that wasn't lost anyway. Lawyers will bill anyone for anything to keep themselves in scotch and hookers. But at the end of the day what would Cushing win ?

threetoedpete
05-03-2009, 03:45 PM
If you can't prove malice.....I don't care who you are or where you rank in society ...you do not have cause. Period. You can file all day....but everyone in this country can express their opinion on anything about anyone and pretty much get away with it. Unless you can prove malicious intent. The forth amendment told me so.

We all have the right to freely assemble....and express our opinions on anything regarding anything. And it requires a very hard threshold....before you have cause.

http://www.consource.org/index.asp?sid=28&taxlist=179

Freedom of Speech/Freedom of Expression Clause I
Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or
of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition
the Government for a redress of grievances.

Mailman
05-03-2009, 03:58 PM
Pete, that definition of malice is not applicable here. The applicable legal theory is the concept of actual malice, which is distinct from legal malice. Actual malice does not mean a plaintiff must prove a publisher's intent but that s/he must prove that the publisher of the information knew the statements were false and/or acted with reckless disregard for the statement's truth or falsity.

Mailman
05-03-2009, 04:08 PM
If you can't prove malice.....I don't care who you are or where you rank in society ...you do not have cause. Period. You can file all day....but everyone in this country can express their opinion on anything about anyone and pretty much get away with it. Unless you can prove malicious intent. The forth amendment told me so.


No, this is incorrect. You don't have to prove intent.

Also, even though an athlete may be a public figure, there is a likelihood that the courts would determine him to be a limited-purpose public figure, which can affect the standard of proof. For example, if a court were to classify Cushing as a limited-purpose public figure, the actual malice standard would only apply to statements that are related to the reason he's famous (i.e. playing football) and not to anything at all in his personal life. So, yeah, NFLDraftBible.com has some leeway in publishing information about steroid rumors, but not for something completely unrelated to football.

ObsiWan
05-03-2009, 04:28 PM
No, this is incorrect. You don't have to prove intent.

Also, even though an athlete may be a public figure, there is a likelihood that the courts would determine him to be a limited-purpose public figure, which can affect the standard of proof. For example, if a court were to classify Cushing as a limited-purpose public figure, the actual malice standard would only apply to statements that are related to the reason he's famous (i.e. playing football) and not to anything at all in his personal life. So, yeah, NFLDraftBible.com has some leeway in publishing information about steroid rumors, but not for something completely unrelated to football.

So you're saying the legal system won't be of much help to Cushing in this matter..?

Okay, we're back to Plan B... leave Cushing in a locked room alone with those guys. I'd be good with that.
:)

threetoedpete
05-03-2009, 04:28 PM
Well mail man there it is in black and white. There are only two definitions...and I posted them. Now whether or not you want to consider NFLdraft bible as a credible journalistic source...up to you. But there must be a threshold for free speech. And what I learned is if your not standing up in a crowded room yelling fire....you can pretty much say what you want to say. And if this were not true every comedian and politician would get sueded everyday in this country. There is a threshold. And malice is that floor mat. Unless Cushing has proof they were out to ruin him...he can file all day. But it isn't going anywhere. No judge is going to pull down a basic pillar to our democracy. Free speech and assembly are the only two things left separating us from Cuba. And the left is working over time to over turn both.

Mailman
05-03-2009, 04:37 PM
Well mail man there it is in black and white. There are only two definitions...and I posted them. Now whether or not you want to consider NFLdraft bible as a credible journalistic source...up to you. But there must be a threshold for free speech. And what I learned is if your not standing up in a crowded room yelling fire....you can pretty much say what you want to say. And if this were not true every comedian and politician would get sueded everyday in this country. There is a threshold. And malice is that floor mat. Unless Cushing has proof they were out to ruin him...he can file all day. But it isn't going anywhere. No judge is going to pull down a basic pillar to our democracy. Free speech and assembly are the only two things left separating us from Cuba. And the left is working over time to over turn both.

While I agree with you about the probable end result, your understanding of malice and its relation to libel law is lacking. Your definition is not applicable (this is not a criminal case). It is not necessary for a plaintiff to show intent. IOW you don't know what you're talking about.

Mailman
05-03-2009, 04:55 PM
So you're saying the legal system won't be of much help to Cushing in this matter..?



Well, that depends on what his exact goals are. If he files suit, I doubt he'd be doing it for the money. I mean, it's probably worth his time and money to file suit just to make the site owners hire an attorney to defend the case, in which case the judicial system would be helping him in his endeavors to make their lives hell.

swtbound07
05-03-2009, 08:24 PM
I would think the injury to Cushing is real and financial, and easily proven. Malicious intent is pretty easy to prove as well. I think he has a case and will probably win. Reporting "news" prior to the draft knowing said news would affect the person in question to the tune of millions of dollars means you have a real obligation to make damn sure your "news" is accurate. If nothing else, the credibility of this website will be crushed due to a lawsuit.

ObsiWan
05-03-2009, 09:03 PM
Well, that depends on what his exact goals are. If he files suit, I doubt he'd be doing it for the money. I mean, it's probably worth his time and money to file suit just to make the site owners hire an attorney to defend the case, in which case the judicial system would be helping him in his endeavors to make their lives hell.

I doubt Cushing would be after any significant monies either. The final goal would be to make the website owners (not just draftbible, but the whole industry) think twice before they post unsubstantiated information such as this again.

Ole Miss Texan
05-03-2009, 11:01 PM
I don't think the false allegations by the site caused Cushing's draft stock to slip. All 32 teams were given the list of players that tested positive for a banned substance and Cushing wasn't on it. If teams (1-14) were concerned over possible steroid usage by Cushing, they had those concerns before these false reports.

ObsiWan
05-03-2009, 11:22 PM
I don't think the false allegations by the site caused Cushing's draft stock to slip. All 32 teams were given the list of players that tested positive for a banned substance and Cushing wasn't on it. If teams (1-14) were concerned over possible steroid usage by Cushing, they had those concerns before these false reports.

so the possibility that Cushing's "draft stock" was undisturbed by false allegations means its okay that a quasi-news source can post said allegations??
In other words, No harm, No foul??
That just seems wrong to me.

mexican_texan
05-03-2009, 11:42 PM
NFL Draft Bible most likely printed the stories to increase attention and bring traffic to the site, which was successful. I didn't find it slightly credible, I doubt NFL suits felt differently.

What I want to know is what BJ Raji is planning to do with Sports Illustrated.

danger6
05-04-2009, 07:05 AM
so the possibility that Cushing's "draft stock" was undisturbed by false allegations means its okay that a quasi-news source can post said allegations??
In other words, No harm, No foul??
That just seems wrong to me.

I sure agree with you, ObsiWan. Sometimes you just want to get in someone's face and make them hurt for the trouble they have caused. I think OMT was referring to the economic benefit (monetary award) to be derived as a function of the economic damages sustained. There is probably not a favorable cost / benefit result to be derived here . . . and punitive damages are much harder to receive. I like your Plan B (and wear a false mustache).

Personally, I hope he does sue. It would provide more Texans news (entertainment) to read about in the off-season . . . as long as his attention is not diverted from his playbook.

Then again, once you open the lawsuit floodgate anything can happen . . . ask Roger Clemens.

Ole Miss Texan
05-04-2009, 09:21 AM
so the possibility that Cushing's "draft stock" was undisturbed by false allegations means its okay that a quasi-news source can post said allegations??
In other words, No harm, No foul??
That just seems wrong to me.
danger6 pretty much summed it up. I was strictly referring to the arguement that these allegations caused Cushing to lose money. As far as his draft slot and "quasi-corresponding" contract with that selection spot, I think it had Zero effect on it. In order to prove it did, you'd have to talk to each team 1-14 and get them on record stating nfldraftbible.com's report had any effect on their decision not to draft him. Concerning monetary damages, I think you may could argue that Cushing missed out on some marketing opportunities.

I think Cushing has the mentality (which I love) that "you did something wrong so I'm going to punish you. If it cost me attorney's fees and court costs... so be it. I'm not going to let you slide by." He seems old fashioned to me- bluecollar, hardworker, prepared for the draft in Jersey with longtime friend's gym vs. going to a flashy prep place, etc. He's all business.

TimeKiller
05-04-2009, 09:52 AM
Ultimately this is just eye for an eye. They reported something that was false, purposefully harm or not his name has been smeared enough to the point that if Cushing were to ask a judge to take down the site the judge would probably oblige. Who cares if they just put up another site? They won't have the recognition (no press is bad press?) of being "that site".

jppaul
05-04-2009, 11:53 PM
Cushing has no recourse at law the standard of actual malice to be proved by clear and convincing evidence is too high. I guess he is just going to have to be satisfied with the knowledge that everytime nfldraftbible.com is mentioned their credibility will be questioned.

infantrycak
05-05-2009, 08:58 AM
Cushing has no recourse at law the standard of actual malice to be proved by clear and convincing evidence is too high. I guess he is just going to have to be satisfied with the knowledge that everytime nfldraftbible.com is mentioned their credibility will be questioned.

Guess it isn't worth repeating again that actual malice is not the normal standard.

Specnatz
05-05-2009, 12:46 PM
Guess it isn't worth repeating again that actual malice is not the normal standard.

Yeah but you are a lawyer so there is no way you know what you are saying. :sarcasm:

jppaul
05-05-2009, 10:03 PM
Guess it isn't worth repeating again that actual malice is not the normal standard.

I am going to go ahead and make the legal conclusion that he is in fact a public figure, although it is arguable either way.

Football players have frequently been found to be public figures before, although it is a fact specific inquiry. Chuy v. Philadelphia Eagles Football Club, 595 F.2d 1265 (3rd Cir. 1979)("...Professional athletes, at least as to their playing careers, generally assume a position of public prominence. Their contractual disputes, as well as their athletic accomplishments, command the attention of sports fans. Chuy, in particular, was a starting player for the Eagles..."); Bell v. Associated Press, 584 F.Supp. 128 (Dist. Ct. D.C. 1984)("...Professional athletes, including football players, have frequently been held to be public figures, especially when they have achieved fame or notoriety...); Brewer v. Memphis Publishing Company, 626 F.2d 1238 (5th Cir.1980)(football player is a public figure).

edo783
05-05-2009, 10:55 PM
I am going to go ahead and make the legal conclusion that he is in fact a public figure, although it is arguable either way.

Football players have frequently been found to be public figures before, although it is a fact specific inquiry. Chuy v. Philadelphia Eagles Football Club, 595 F.2d 1265 (3rd Cir. 1979)("...Professional athletes, at least as to their playing careers, generally assume a position of public prominence. Their contractual disputes, as well as their athletic accomplishments, command the attention of sports fans. Chuy, in particular, was a starting player for the Eagles..."); Bell v. Associated Press, 584 F.Supp. 128 (Dist. Ct. D.C. 1984)("...Professional athletes, including football players, have frequently been held to be public figures, especially when they have achieved fame or notoriety...); Brewer v. Memphis Publishing Company, 626 F.2d 1238 (5th Cir.1980)(football player is a public figure).

While that may be true, I don't think they were professional athletes at the time it was written. In fact, they were private citizens who were students and played sports at a major university. IMO, that wouldn't meet the criteria of being a public figure.

jppaul
05-06-2009, 07:53 AM
Certainly that is the argument that NFLdraftbible would make. If it ever does go, i would be interested to see what came down.

On the other side you would argue that College Football is big business, and USC is one of the most recognized programs. Being a member of the usc team brings with it a de facto celebrity, and athletes go there specifically for that. USC regularly goes to the Rose Bowl which drew 26.7 million viewers this year and Brian Cushing has been a four year star on that team. A team that is treated like stars in LA, the paparazzi capital of the US.

Further and perhaps most importantly, you are volunteering to be examined under the microscope of the NFL draft. A process that is invasive to say the least, you are submitting yourself to intense public scrutiny. 36.7 million viewers watched the NFL draft last year. Lets say that only about 10 million of those want to know all about you to see if you are a candidate for thier team, but the larger portion of that number are going to be interested in news about you. The media is going to focus on all aspects of the draft because of the viewership.

I am not sure how the courts would decide the college star on a huge program in limelight drenched LA issue but I am confident that that combined with entering the NFL draft and all that carries with it, would result in a determination of public figure.