[Chan]

Originally Posted by Puffle

ESPN likes to focus on certain athletes like Terrel Owens. In Isiah Thomas' case, I think it's because Isiah hasn't apologized for what his team did or his role in the causing the fight. Instead, he blames the Nuggets for trying to run the score up.

Agreed. ESPN loves to hate certain people, and especially when Thomas hasn't apologized.

[JuniorNoboa]

Originally Posted by JoeD

That wasn't very informative. All I get from that is you don't like Isiah.



Here it is: "a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report: a slander against his good name."

Malicious? Yes. False? Yes (acting as if they know for sure he ordered the foul, pinning the whole brawl on him which is false even if he did order the foul). Defamatory? Yes.

The civil definition of slander is nowhere close to what you have interpreted.

If Isiaih wants to sue ESPN he has to prove that there comments were false... good luck with that.. and he also needs to prove that ESPN made the statements knowing they were false.. just as difficult to prove.

. Furthermore, if there is evidence to suggest that IT may have been involved (the lip reading, the post gave interviews), such that someone can reasonably take a stance or opinion that Isiah initiated the event, then your not going to get charged with slander, because you are not making a knowingly "false" statement..

To be fair to your comment your not suggested a civil lawsuit here...

[JoeD]

Originally Posted by JuniorNoboa

The civil definition of slander is nowhere close to what you have interpreted.

If Isiaih wants to sue ESPN he has to prove that there comments were false... good luck with that

. Furthermore, if there is evidence to suggest that IT may have been involved, such that someone can reasonably take a stance, then your not going to get charged with slander.

Slander by definition ..sure. Slander in the courts... LMAO!!!!!

Slander in the courts... yeah I did not say that. I just used the word for its literal meaning. It is utterly irrelevant to this point whether this is legally slander. Though, out of interest, I think people have been taken to court for less.

ESPN isn't saying Isiah MAY have been involved, they are saying he was. And more, they are acting like his responsibility goes beyond the hard foul into everything that happened in the brawl.

[Mateo]

The way they are acting seems like it is a company policy. Like the way everyone keeps mentioning he got no suspension when in reality that was never going to happen and really shouldn't have happened.

What do you mean it was "never going to happen"? According to the Marc Stein article (relaying what he heard from Stern), the league considered fining/suspending Thomas, but didn't have enough evidence.

It sounds to me like you are really just complaining that some people in the media disagree with you.

Furthermore, you are acting like your opinion is self-evident.

[JuniorNoboa]

Originally Posted by JoeD

Slander in the courts... yeah I did not say that. I just used the word for its literal meaning. It is utterly irrelevant to this point whether this is legally slander. Though, out of interest, I think people have been taken to court for less.

ESPN isn't saying Isiah MAY have been involved, they are saying he was. And more, they are acting like his responsibility goes beyond the hard foul into everything that happened in the brawl.

I edited my commetn before your reply, as I know my comments were unfair given your "textbook" definition, rather then civil law interpreation... your interpretation literally is fair, but then again you cannot defintely say it is a false accusation.. but semantics so let's move on.

Media have been taken to court for mucg less.. no doubt. But almost always unsuccessfully. The media is all about opinion and sometimes they seem / are absurd. But as long as they can show there was a reason for them to write / state what they did, they will always be safe from punishment.

[Pimped Out]

Originally Posted by JoeD

That wasn't very informative. All I get from that is you don't like Isiah.

i actually had no dislike of isiah before this started, but based off how he handled it and his post game interview, he made it clear to me he is a punk.

[JoeD]

Originally Posted by Mateo

What do you mean it was "never going to happen"? According to the Marc Stein article (relaying what he heard from Stern), the league considered fining/suspending Thomas, but didn't have enough evidence.

It sounds to me like you are really just complaining that some people in the media disagree with you.

Furthermore, you are acting like your opinion is self-evident.

I didn't mean to act like it was self-evident. Though ironically, that's what I'm saying ESPN is doing with Isiah
"getting away free".

What I think is self evident is, a) you can't prove thomas ordered the foul. b) if he did, what then? What is the penalty for a flagrant foul like the one mentioned? A fine at most? When Billups did a much worse foul in a similar situation to RJ (which injured him a long time), he wasn't even fined. They just called the flagrant.

I haven't seen anywhere else saying that Thomas was a real canidate for suspension. Saying that the league considered punishing Thomas doesn't mean that he was going to get suspended, it could mean a fine for all that tells us. Though obviously ESPN would like to imply the worst.

EDIT:

What Stern in fact said was: "It's very difficult to judge," NBA commissioner David Stern said. "If I had thought someone had given a specific order to injure another player, I would've reacted very differently."

It is pretty far out to assume that Isiah wanted someone to get injured. For ESPN to act like he did, when they can't even prove he wanted a hard foul, is unprofessional. It furthers my opinion of a "mandate" as you put it. It is a pretty big jump for so many guys to make independently.

It was a infinitesimally small possibility yet they skipped even introducing it--they brought it up as if it should of happened, which makes it seem worse. Like Thomas got away with it. And despite a multitude of Thomas bashing articles I've seen elsewhere, ESPN is the only one I've seen doing this. They even had that asian news guy who never gives an opinion on anything say "and Thomas wasn't suspended."

Just look at the NBA front page. They dug up some picture of Isiah with his fist clenched and put it right next to a picture of Carmelo in the act of the brawl. Real subtle.

[Mateo]

I haven't seen anywhere else saying that Thomas was a real canidate for suspension. Saying that the league considered punishing Thomas doesn't mean that he was going to get suspended, it could mean a fine for all that tells us. Though obviously ESPN would like to imply the worst.

All you are doing is complaining that the ESPN guys disagree with your opinion. Just because someone thinks that Isiah could have or should have gotten suspended doesn't mean they have an anti-Isiah agenda, and definitely doesn't mean their company has an anti-Isiah agenda. No one is denying the holocaust here, people just think that it's likely that Isiah ordered a hard foul and that he should have been suspended for it.

[OneBadLT123]

Well they are jumping on George Karl as well thingking he wanted "payback" for getting Larry Brown fired.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news;_yl...yhoo&type=lgns


.

[JoeD]

Originally Posted by Mateo

All you are doing is complaining that the ESPN guys disagree with your opinion. Just because someone thinks that Isiah could have or should have gotten suspended doesn't mean they have an anti-Isiah agenda, and definitely doesn't mean their company has an anti-Isiah agenda. No one is denying the holocaust here, people just think that it's likely that Isiah ordered a hard foul and that he should have been suspended for it.

I'm not sure if you saw my edit before you posted, but come on man.

Don't you admit that they are making a big jump with there "Isiah got away with it" thing? As I indicated, it would require Thomas deliberately ordering an INJURY to have gotten away with jack. And for all of them to start doing it at once?