Yahoo, Tattoos, and tOSU (1-year bowl ban, 82 scholly limit for 3 years)

[ochre]

In the video at that link, Joe Schad mentions that TP's Nissan, acquired in the last 10 days, was a 2007 with 80,000 miles on it, but says that his mother bought it for around $11,000. You're getting closer to the full story Joe - now if you'd only mention that the trade-in of TP's Dodge, valued at over $7,000, was also part of that deal, you'll actually be portraying the transaction in a fair and complete manner!

And that's not even counting the fact that they had TP sign the dash of his Dodge, thus increasing... doh. Wait.

 

[OH10]

Hard to find an attorney that would take such a case on contingency.

Don't be so sure. Its a lawsuit that could garner media attention, so an attorney may be willing to take it on contingency just for the publicity - even if there is no pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

I know Sports Illustrated and George Dohrmann would be nervous. He'd be subject to a deposition, in which among other questions, he'd have to answer as to many of his intentions regarding certain aspects of his investigation and what was printed in the story. SI/Dohrmann wouldn't want that.

EDIT: In fact, Dohrmann posted on his twitter page a few days ago in response to questions about the story that he's always nervous when a story gets printed about a lawsuit.

 

[CHU]

The next time Joe Schad says something profound (or even correct), it'll be the first.

The same Joe Schad that said half of the Big 12 was going to jump into the Pac-12 (and went on record with this statement)?

But then he blamed his sources...which he was asked to reveal and said he wouldn't.

 

[BB73]

I may be wrong, but it seems to me that in the event a player couldn't afford private counsel, that a professor, as mentioned earlier in this thread, or public interest group might have an interest in taking this kind of case up. With regards to damages, I don't see why you couldn't qualify an NFL scout as an expert for valuing character issues when doing draft evaluations. In the era of Goodell and his disciplinary measures, it wouldn't be unreasonable to put on proof that X player would likely be a 2nd round draft choice but for concerns that he doesn't play by the rules, and therefore would likely fall to an undrafted free agent. I'm not saying that's how it would go, but damages wouldn't be the biggest hurdle in such a suit.

My understanding is that in a case like that you have to prove malice or a deep disregard for the truth on behalf of George Dohrmann/SI.

They'll state that they reported what "Ellis" said, and that they contacted tOSU to allow them and/or the players a chance to comment and that opportunity was declined.

If Ellis was erroneous in naming some players, they'll say that's not their fault, they were just reporting what they were told.

It would be almost impossible to win a suit against them, even if a guy that was named never got near a tattoo parlor in Columbus. But if I were the parent of such a player, I'd be raising Hell about it.

I'm guessing that enough heat on SI and their story could result in Dohrmann talking to 'Ellis' again, and it's possible that they'd print that their source may have been mistaken on a small percentage of the players that were named, but that might be the best case scenario in how this turns out. But even that's not likely - they'll always try to take the "we stand by our reporting" stance.

 

[buxfan4life]

The same Joe Schad that said half of the Big 12 was going to jump into the Pac-12 (and went on record with this statement)?

But then he blamed his sources...which he was asked to reveal and said he wouldn't.

You mean the little green man from which he gets his information?

 

[Tlangs]

You mean the little green man from which he gets his information?

the same Joe Schad that blows doberman pinchers.

 

[matcar]

bull [Mark May]. I care because I'm not just going to accept my team being dragged through the mud for doing the same thing every other school does.....and in the case of Auburn we didn't even do anything nearly as bad (based on current info of both ours and their transgressions. objections based on what has and hasn't been proven have been heard and overruled).

I don't care, not one bit. Our team is being dragged through the mud because some of our problems have already been proven and agreed upon by our administration. Not so with other offenders. Again, the SEC Cheaters line is silly now, because we've proven willing/capable of doing so as well.

 

[GeorgiaBuck2]

Joe Schad is such a [Joe Schad].

 

[Dryden]

[Joe Schad] him in his [Mark May] with a rusty [Kirk Herbstreit]!

 

[GeorgiaBuck2]

[Joe Schad] him in his [Mark May] with a rusty [Kirk Herbstreit]!

Exactly!

 

[Tlangs]

[Joe Schad] him in his [Mark May] with a rusty [Kirk Herbstreit]!

gpa

 

[cjmik_75]

EDIT: In fact, Dohrmann posted on his twitter page a few days ago in response to questions about the story that he's always nervous when a story gets printed about a lawsuit.

He should be worried...can't you sue a person for defamation of character? seems like that would fit here, no?

 

[Gatorubet]

EDIT: In fact, Dohrmann posted on his twitter page a few days ago in response to questions about the story that he's always nervous when a story gets printed about a lawsuit.

Lawsuits can be costly and annoying to defend even if you know you will win.

 

[OH10]

Lawsuits can be costly and annoying to defend even if you know you will win.

Exactly. But its also nerveracking to be placed under oath and have to answer tough questions about your job.

I'm not advocating a frivolous suit here; it would be a tough one to win for sure, but if they could avoid the "public figure" label, it could potentially get by summary judgment.

 

[CookyPuss]

Exactly. But its also nerveracking to be placed under oath and have to answer tough questions about your job.

I'm not advocating a frivolous suit here; it would be a tough one to win for sure, but if they could avoid the "public figure" label, it could potentially get by summary judgment.

Storm is not likely a public figure. The more important ids he in this case would be whether it is public or private concern. I seriously doubt you could get summary judgement. Maybe a settlement.

Edit: Forget the summary judgement part. I missed the "by" in your statement.