Myles Garrett Still Claiming Racial Slur

[Prickly Pete]

2 hours ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

The victimization is strong with this one.

 

Not nearly as strong as with you.

[Buffalo716]

4 minutes ago, NoSaint said:

no, Rudolph would need to prove that Garrett knowingly did this to harm him. That Garrett could simply argue he must’ve misheard makes this a silly uphill climb to pursue short of someone coming forward with info that Garrett made it up. 
 

as the plaintiff the burden is on Rudolph in this hypothetical case.

He was wacked in the head with an object , that's technically assault

 

No matter what he said to Garret you cannot retaliate with violence

[Augie]

3 minutes ago, NoSaint said:

no, Rudolph would need to prove that Garrett knowingly did this to harm him. That Garrett could simply argue he must’ve misheard makes this a silly uphill climb to pursue short of someone coming forward with info that Garrett made it up. 

 

I know we have some lawyers here. Who wants to be the Judge Judy of TBD? I don’t know what the standards are here. Who wants to go out on a limb (or at least give us a clue)? 

[NoSaint]

1 minute ago, Buffalo716 said:

He was wacked in the head with an object , that's technically assault

 

No matter what he said to Garret you cannot retaliate with violence

im assuming said case he hypothesized about  regarding the slur was referring to defamation, as I agree you can’t just assault the guy regardless of whether he said it

[Augie]

3 minutes ago, Buffalo716 said:

He was wacked in the head with an object , that's technically assault

 

No matter what he said to Garret you cannot retaliate with violence

 

I repeat..... Do we have a Judge Judy out there? 

 

Happens all the time in sports. I know there was a precedent in the NHL at one point, but don’t recall the details. 

 

 

.

Edited February 16, 2020 by Augie

[NoSaint]

1 minute ago, Augie said:

 

I know we have some lawyers here. Who wants to be the Judge Judy of TBD? I don’t know what the standards are here. Who wants to go out on a limb (or at least give us a clue)? 

 
to sue someone for defamation you have to prove that what they said was knowingly said as an intentional untruth that caused harm. 
 

so Rudolph would need to produce something like a text between Garrett and someone regarding lying about it for instance.

[Buffalo716]

6 minutes ago, Augie said:

 

I repeat..... Do we have a Judge Judy out there? 

 

Happens all the time in sports. I know there was a precedent in the NHL at one point, but don’t recall the details. 

 

 

.

In not taking either side Augie but I played organized football at a high level for 15 years and never saw that live

 

It could've killed him

Edited February 16, 2020 by Buffalo716

[NoSaint]

2 minutes ago, Buffalo716 said:

In not taking either side Augie but I played organized football at a high level for 15 years and never saw that live

 

It could've killed him

what age did you start playing high level organized football?

[DrDawkinstein]

12 minutes ago, Augie said:

 

I repeat..... Do we have a Judge Judy out there? 

 

Happens all the time in sports. I know there was a precedent in the NHL at one point, but don’t recall the details. 

 

 

.

 

The NHL players WERE charged. This happened at least a few times and they were charged and convicted. Back when it happened, I thought Myles had crossed the line to where he could have been charged. But Im sure there is no way Roger would allow that kind of bad press for the league.

 

https://toronto.citynews.ca/2016/02/09/some-notable-on-ice-incidents-that-led-to-criminal-charges/

[Augie]

5 minutes ago, Buffalo716 said:

In not taking either side Augie but I played organized football at a high level for 15 years and never saw that live

 

It could've killed him

 

Oh, I agree! I’m serious, I think an NHL player faced criminal charges for something that happened on the ice. Didn’t another guy get suspended until his “victim” was healthy enough to play again? 

[Buffalo716]

12 minutes ago, NoSaint said:

what age did you start playing high level organized football?

I played from the age of 5 through college football

 

Travel football started at 7-8 for me

 

It got hyper competitive at 11

Edited February 16, 2020 by Buffalo716

[DrDawkinstein]

1 minute ago, Augie said:

 

Oh, I agree! I’m serious, I think an NHL player faced criminal charges for something that happened on the ice. Didn’t another guy get suspended until his “victim” was healthy enough to play again? 

 

From the article I linked...

 

The outcome: Bertuzzi was suspended for the remainder of the season plus seven playoff games, totaling 20 games. Bertuzzi was charged with criminal assault causing bodily harm. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to one year probation and 80 hours of community service. Moore subsequently sued Bertuzzi and the Canucks, reaching a settlement a decade after the incident.

 

The outcome: McSorley was found guilty of assault with a weapon and was sentenced to 18 months probation.

 

The outcome: Ciccarelli was charged and convicted of assault. He was fined $1,000 and sentenced to one day in jail.

 

We're talking criminal records and jail time. Even if it's one day, still. That would be pretty huge.

 

Kudos to the NHL for not trying to sweep the bad incidents under the rug.

 

Now, someone just got suspended for kicking another player. I always thought skates could be easily used as a weapon. Will be interesting to see what comes of that.

[bobobonators]

20 minutes ago, NoSaint said:

 
to sue someone for defamation you have to prove that what they said was knowingly said as an intentional untruth that caused harm. 
 

so Rudolph would need to produce something like a text between Garrett and someone regarding lying about it for instance.

Yup. 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

29 minutes ago, Augie said:

 

I know we have some lawyers here. Who wants to be the Judge Judy of TBD? I don’t know what the standards are here. Who wants to go out on a limb (or at least give us a clue)? 

 

I’m just the local “Redneck woman” ?. Let me hear a big HELL YEAH for all the Redneck girls like me.  HELL YEAH!

 

Seriously:

Some pretty good info here tho https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2020/02/15/mason-rudolphs-lawyer-strongly-hints-that-myles-garrett-will-be-sued/

 

Key section:

Of course, because Rudolph is a public figure, he’ll need to prove that Garrett acted with actual malice. And it will take more than Younger using the term “maliciously” in his statement. Under the law, “actual malice” arises in the defamation context when the person utter a false statement with actual knowledge that the statement is false or with reckless disregard to whether or not the statement is true or false.

 

The argument would (or at least could) be that Garrett made the public claim that Rudolph uttered a racial slur knowing that Rudolph previously had denied it and knowing that the NFL, which has microphones blanketing the field, had no evidence of it. Even if Garrett subjectively believes he heard it, at some point he needs to consider the broader evidence and ask himself whether he simply believes he heard something that wasn’t said.

 

 

[Buffalo716]

16 minutes ago, Augie said:

 

Oh, I agree! I’m serious, I think an NHL player faced criminal charges for something that happened on the ice. Didn’t another guy get suspended until his “victim” was healthy enough to play again? 

There has been some CRAZY stuff to happen in hockey

 

Todd Berruzzi....

 

World class scumbag

[whatdrought]

37 minutes ago, NoSaint said:

no, Rudolph would need to prove that Garrett knowingly did this to harm him. That Garrett could simply argue he must’ve misheard makes this a silly uphill climb to pursue short of someone coming forward with info that Garrett made it up. 
 

as the plaintiff the burden is on Rudolph in this hypothetical case.

 

This article does a good job breaking down the situation, I think: https://www.si.com/nfl/2020/02/15/mason-rudolph-myles-garrett-possible-lawsuit-steelers-browns

 

While it's true that Rudolph has to prove the defamation, he need only do so through a preponderance of evidence. From the Article: 

 

Quote

Rudolph would need to prove slander by a preponderance of the evidence, meaning “more likely than not.”

 

 

As exists right now, (at least in the public record) there is more evidence that suggests Rudolph did not say it, vs evidence that says he did. It is not an open and shut case, but short of any additional revelations, it would be hard, I think, for Garrett to prove that it happened - specifically since he waited multiple days to make it public. 

[Augie]

6 minutes ago, whatdrought said:

 

This article does a good job breaking down the situation, I think: https://www.si.com/nfl/2020/02/15/mason-rudolph-myles-garrett-possible-lawsuit-steelers-browns

 

While it's true that Rudolph has to prove the defamation, he need only do so through a preponderance of evidence. From the Article: 

 

 

 

As exists right now, (at least in the public record) there is more evidence that suggests Rudolph did not say it, vs evidence that says he did. It is not an open and shut case, but short of any additional revelations, it would be hard, I think, for Garrett to prove that it happened - specifically since he waited multiple days to make it public. 

 

And THIS is why I asked for an actual attorney with actual knowledge. It’s far more complicated than a google search of some states rules and a night in a Holiday Inn Express. 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

13 minutes ago, whatdrought said:

 

This article does a good job breaking down the situation, I think: https://www.si.com/nfl/2020/02/15/mason-rudolph-myles-garrett-possible-lawsuit-steelers-browns

 

While it's true that Rudolph has to prove the defamation, he need only do so through a preponderance of evidence. From the Article: 

 

 

 

As exists right now, (at least in the public record) there is more evidence that suggests Rudolph did not say it, vs evidence that says he did. It is not an open and shut case, but short of any additional revelations, it would be hard, I think, for Garrett to prove that it happened - specifically since he waited multiple days to make it public. 

 

Good article; not sure I see how the conclusion will be supported by just yapping about it:

Rudolph wants to signal to the football community—and the companies that might one day want to sign him to endorsement deals—that he is a good person. Garrett, meanwhile, wants to signal that he is telling the truth. Both can accomplish their goals without facing off in court.

 

11 minutes ago, Buffalo619 said:

Since when did insults equal violence?  Is he saying he is justified for his out of control behavior because of a racial slur? 
 

I hope he gets suspended again and sued for this You can’t fix stupid, what an idiot. 

 

Insults don’t excuse violence, of course.

 

TBH, I’m not sure what Garrett wishes to accomplish.  My best take is that he deeply personally feels what he believes he heard, and the fact that he’s been portrayed as the out-of-control unprovoked “bad guy” is eating on him.

 

There is no basis for suspending here, none, Nada.  But he’s probably Jerry Hughes’d himself; he will not get the benefit of the doubt in any future incidents, the book will be thrown.

[whatdrought]

4 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Good article; not sure I see how the conclusion will be supported by just yapping about it:

Rudolph wants to signal to the football community—and the companies that might one day want to sign him to endorsement deals—that he is a good person. Garrett, meanwhile, wants to signal that he is telling the truth. Both can accomplish their goals without facing off in court.

 

Yeah, not sure how they expect that to happen... It's a pretty black or white situation at this point. Either Rudolph said the racist thing, or Garrett is a liar. Neither of them will truly be "made whole" without something definitive- though that's probably unlikely. I think if Garrett hadn't doubled down there's a chance it's all in the past and done, but claiming it again seems more likely to bring about further action. 

[Call_Of_Ktulu]

2 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I dunno, K-9.  I've read up on other "True Crime" type accounts where part of the investigation was driven by perception of how the individual SHOULD have behaved....sometimes that means something, but sometimes it doesn't.

 

The bottom line, though, is it was already brought up by Garrett and denied by Rudolph and the Steelers players who were in the vicinity right after Garrett appealed the suspension and initially made his claim.  Unless it's recorded somewhere, it's a he-said he-said thing and I don't know what can be done besides let it go and move on. 

Maybe @BarleyNY is correct in what (I think he) implied that it's actually recorded and the NFL is suppressing it but Man! they got some high-powered suppression game if so.

Lie detector test on national tv will make Garrett look like a complete moron. My brother in law is a US Marshal and I went with him on a ride along and actually got to test out the lie detector. I was lying just to see if it would pick up on it and it did 100%.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

1 minute ago, Call_Of_Ktulu said:

Lie detector test on national tv will make Garrett look like a complete moron. My brother in law is a US Marshal and I went with him on a ride along and actually got to test out the lie detector. I was lying just to see if it would pick up on it and it did 100%.

 

cool that it worked for you, but they aren’t admissable in court for good reason

[Augie]

With one half of a brain you should know this should have just been left alone to be forgotten. The only reason anyone is talking about this is because they are making it happen!  What is wrong with these people??? 

[DrDawkinstein]

5 minutes ago, Augie said:

With one half of a brain you should know this should have just been left alone to be forgotten. The only reason anyone is talking about this is because they are making it happen!  What is wrong with these people??? 

 

See my post on the previous page regarding the Haslams and how nothing will change for the Browns, no matter who they hire as HC or GM, or who they draft, as long as those schmucks are still in charge.

 

It blows my mind that the team allowed Garrett to get in front of the media this week and not only talk about it, but to double-down and expand on it.

 

The only comment should have been "We're on to 2020".

[YoloinOhio]

6 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

See my post on the previous page regarding the Haslams and how nothing will change for the Browns, no matter who they hire as HC or GM, or who they draft, as long as those schmucks are still in charge.

 

It blows my mind that the team allowed Garrett to get in front of the media this week and not only talk about it, but to double-down and expand on it.

 

The only comment should have been "We're on to 2020".

Everything is fine. Never mind that the face of the franchise, married,  is luring young women on snap chat to give him blow jobs behind the Cheesecake Factory of Sadness. 
 

stefanski gotta be having second thoughts 

[DrDawkinstein]

9 minutes ago, YoloinOhio said:

Everything is fine. Never mind that the face of the franchise, married,  is luring young women on snap chat to give him blow jobs behind the Cheesecake Factory of Sadness. 
 

stefanski gotta be having second thoughts 

 

I missed this. What is this???

[CommonCents]

1 minute ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

I missed this. What is this???

Baker Baker the BJ Maker, Behind the Cheesecake is where he takes her, still in college, famous he’ll make yah. 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

23 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

I missed this. What is this???

 

Starts here in the “Baker being Baker” thread.

 

TL;DR (at this point) 3 chicks have come forward to say they DM’d Baker and were given a “Burner” Snapchat account with a count of Snaps in the “thousands”; after sexting and stuff they met him behind a Cheesecake Factory and gave him blowjobs in the back seat of his Range Rover.

 

No intimations of anything coerced; everyone above age of consent; nothing criminal except possibly public lewdness or indecency (unsure on local law)

 

It just went down (edit: HA!  Didn’t see what I did there at first) while Baker was living with/engaged to/married to his wife Emily  ? and it’s not a good look for the “Face of the Franchise”

 

The intimation of the “Snaps in the thousands” things that perhaps they ain’t the only ones

[DrDawkinstein]

2 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Starts here in the “Baker being Baker” thread.

 

Oh man. Browns...

[Hapless Bills Fan]

3 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

Oh man. Browns...

 

Stefanski: “FML”

[NoSaint]

57 minutes ago, whatdrought said:

 

This article does a good job breaking down the situation, I think: https://www.si.com/nfl/2020/02/15/mason-rudolph-myles-garrett-possible-lawsuit-steelers-browns

 

While it's true that Rudolph has to prove the defamation, he need only do so through a preponderance of evidence. From the Article: 

 

 

 

As exists right now, (at least in the public record) there is more evidence that suggests Rudolph did not say it, vs evidence that says he did. It is not an open and shut case, but short of any additional revelations, it would be hard, I think, for Garrett to prove that it happened - specifically since he waited multiple days to make it public. 

 

frankly if going the legal route Garrett has the advantage of needing only to argue that he thought he heard it, not prove that he said it

Also- major aside but fascinating is the tomlin speaking to browns players twist. Can you imagine this being Jerry Hughes and Tom Brady and all of a sudden we get stories of BB speaking to our team and them siding with his version of events? 

[Augie]

6 minutes ago, NoSaint said:

 

frankly if going the legal route Garrett has the advantage of needing only to argue that he thought he heard it, not prove that he said it

 

That’s why I asked for actual attorneys, preferably from the correct state. If saying “well I really thought.....” gets you off, that’s one thing. The preponderance of evidence is very different. 

 

I know enough to know that I don’t know the answers here. I DO know they should both just STFU and let it become forgotten history. 

[whatdrought]

12 minutes ago, NoSaint said:

 

frankly if going the legal route Garrett has the advantage of needing only to argue that he thought he heard it, not prove that he said it

Also- major aside but fascinating is the tomlin speaking to browns players twist. Can you imagine this being Jerry Hughes and Tom Brady and all of a sudden we get stories of BB speaking to our team and them siding with his version of events? 

I would tend to disagree because “I thought I heard it” goes out the window when there’s no verification and he’s double downed on it. Legally speaking I’m not sure what the line truly is, but that line “more likely than not” is telling. You can’t be slanderous and then say “well I think he said that.” 
 

yeah. It seems damning that he has no verification within his own locker room. As for Tomlin, I think the fact that he’s black is quite telling when he comes out and makes the specific push to release that statement. 

Edited February 16, 2020 by whatdrought

[Phil The Thrill]

Garrett and his team are incredibly stupid for doubling down on the story.  If you are to believe Garrett:

 

1. Rudolph said the slur in the second that he was going down.

2. Garrett purposely kept didn’t tell anyone about the slur because he wanted to wait until the trial so as not to “justify” his actions.  He had the wherewithal to do this as soon as he was suspended and walked off the field that Sunday.  
3. The NFL is purposely suppressing the evidence which contains the slur and purposely protecting Rudolph and it’s image.

 

These all seem so incredibly far-fetched.  It’s looking more and more like a contrived alibi to garner sympathy for Garrett and it’s clearly not working to anyone that isn’t a Browns fan

Edited February 16, 2020 by Phil The Thrill

[Augie]

4 minutes ago, Phil The Thrill said:

Garrett and his team are incredibly stupid for doubling down on the story.  If you are to believe Garrett:

 

1. Rudolph said the slur in the second that he was going down.

2. Garrett purposely kept didn’t tell anyone about the slur because he wanted to wait until the trial so as not to “justify” his actions.  He had the wherewithal to do this as soon as he was suspended and walked off the field that Sunday.  
3. The NFL is purposely suppressing the evidence which contains the slur and purposely protecting Rudolph and it’s image.

 

These all seem so incredibly far-fetched.  It’s looking more and more like a contrived alibi to garner sympathy for Garrett and it’s clearly not working to anyone that isn’t a Browns fan

 

Clearly, it’s time to TRIPLE down!       

[K-9]

4 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I dunno, K-9.  I've read up on other "True Crime" type accounts where part of the investigation was driven by perception of how the individual SHOULD have behaved....sometimes that means something, but sometimes it doesn't.

 

The bottom line, though, is it was already brought up by Garrett and denied by Rudolph and the Steelers players who were in the vicinity right after Garrett appealed the suspension and initially made his claim.  Unless it's recorded somewhere, it's a he-said he-said thing and I don't know what can be done besides let it go and move on. 

Maybe @BarleyNY is correct in what (I think he) implied that it's actually recorded and the NFL is suppressing it but Man! they got some high-powered suppression game if so.

I truly appreciate that aspect of crime investigation and agree 100%. 
 

But not in this case. I don’t buy that the NFL is suppressing the use of the N word on the field as it’s literally an unsportsmanlike penalty of 15 yards. If anything, I think if the NFL truly had a recording of it they’d present it as an explanation for one of the most violent on field actions against a player by another player in the history of the game. I also think the player’s union would be pressing a case against the league to produce it as well. 
 

Were there no Browns players or refs in the vicinity to hear it? I would think so. This is just a case of he said by Garrett. It just doesn’t hold water. 

[Augie]

12 hours ago, K-9 said:

I truly appreciate that aspect of crime investigation and agree 100%. 
 

But not in this case. I don’t buy that the NFL is suppressing the use of the N word on the field as it’s literally an unsportsmanlike penalty of 15 yards. If anything, I think if the NFL truly had a recording of it they’d present it as an explanation for one of the most violent on field actions against a player by another player in the history of the game. I also think the player’s union would be pressing a case against the league to produce it as well. 
 

Were there no Browns players or refs in the vicinity to hear it? I would think so. This is just a case of he said by Garrett. It just doesn’t hold water. 

 

They were indeed surrounded by refs and players from both teams, but it was whispered so lightly into his ear hole that it took a weak to be heard. 

 

That’s my best guess. 

 

 

.

Edited February 16, 2020 by Augie

[Phil The Thrill]

10 minutes ago, K-9 said:

I truly appreciate that aspect of crime investigation and agree 100%. 
 

But not in this case. I don’t buy that the NFL is suppressing the use of the N word on the field as it’s literally an unsportsmanlike penalty of 15 yards. If anything, I think if the NFL truly had a recording of it they’d present it as an explanation for one of the most violent on field actions against a player by another player in the history of the game. I also think the player’s union would be pressing a case against the league to produce it as well. 
 

Were there no Browns players or refs in the vicinity to hear it? I would think so. This is just a case of he said by Garrett. It just doesn’t hold water. 

Don’t you think that suppressing the audio in a situation which had the makings of a court case would have been an incredibly stupid move for the NFL?  
 

I love all these people from Cleveland saying “release the audio!”  The NFL never does this unless it’s a court case.  They don’t take orders from fans or the media.  They investigate internally and don’t share ANY evidence to the public.

 

Thats why I don’t buy that the NFL is hiding or destroying evidence.  Because if this turns into a court case, their audio is evidence and they’re screwed.  

1 minute ago, Augie said:

 

They were indeed surrounded by refs and players from both teams, but it was whispered so lightly into his ear hole that it took a week to be heard. 

 

That’s my best guess. 

Whispered in his earhole in the half second it took for Rudolph to hit the turf

[/dev/null]

Release the audio

 

If there is audio of Rudolph using the slur, ban him for the whatever the maximum first offense

 

If the audio exonerates Rudolph, ban Garrett for life.  He has had multiple offenses on the field and falsely attacking the character of another player as his excuse is indefensible.

[Buffalo716]

 

2 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Starts here in the “Baker being Baker” thread.

 

TL;DR (at this point) 3 chicks have come forward to say they DM’d Baker and were given a “Burner” Snapchat account with a count of Snaps in the “thousands”; after sexting and stuff they met him behind a Cheesecake Factory and gave him blowjobs in the back seat of his Range Rover.

 

No intimations of anything coerced; everyone above age of consent; nothing criminal except possibly public lewdness or indecency (unsure on local law)

 

It just went down (edit: HA!  Didn’t see what I did there at first) while Baker was living with/engaged to/married to his wife Emily  ? and it’s not a good look for the “Face of the Franchise”

 

The intimation of the “Snaps in the thousands” things that perhaps they ain’t the only ones

Baker sexts me every nite... Gettin creepy... Idk how he even got my burner snap!

 

And I told him I don't even like cheesecake!

Edited February 16, 2020 by Buffalo716

[NoSaint]

4 hours ago, whatdrought said:

I would tend to disagree because “I thought I heard it” goes out the window when there’s no verification and he’s double downed on it. Legally speaking I’m not sure what the line truly is, but that line “more likely than not” is telling. You can’t be slanderous and then say “well I think he said that.” 
 

yeah. It seems damning that he has no verification within his own locker room. As for Tomlin, I think the fact that he’s black is quite telling when he comes out and makes the specific push to release that statement. 

more likely than not (standard for civil cases) that Garrett intentionally made it up out of thin air... which means a simple explanation of “rewatch the tape. I sacked him and basically ended the game but acted like a crazed idiot because I heard him say it” could be enough even if it’s 100% verifiable that Rudolph did not say it.
 

simple misunderstanding or confusion can be a 100% acceptable defense to this lawsuit as malicious intent is key to the allegation that garret is making it up. Rudolph’s team doesn’t have to prove whether or not he said it, though that helps if he didn’t say it. 
 

 

Edited February 16, 2020 by NoSaint