Some troubling comments attributed to Terry Pegula (and denied by Pegula) and Jerry Jones from SI Writer Jim Trotter’s Lawsuit against the NFL

[That Aud Smell]

11 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

I don't agree with your criticism of the rest of the statement.  People are allowed to be outraged, shocked, horrified, disgusted etc. at being falsely accused of terrible conduct.  

Whether it's allowed or permitted has little to do with what I'm driving at. Is it advisable for a person in his position to thusly react? It is not.

13 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

This is why, if he didn't say it, I think TP should sue Trotter for every dime he has -- even if it doesn't survive a motion to dismiss, he should make Trotter bleed legal fees for smearing him like this.

I don't quite understand this sort of take when something like this is in the posture it is - early days. It seems to reveal a bias more than anything.

[Porous Five Hole]

I just want to make sure I have this correct. The chain of the alleged communication goes like this?

Pegula -> NFL media reporter -> Trotter in a Zoom meeting -> Trotter's attorneys.  

And this was over the course of a three year period?  And the media reporter Is unnamed? And there are no repercussions to Trotter if this is false?

Given these circumstances, I am going to abide by innocent until proven guilty. 

[That Aud Smell]

Just now, Porous Five Hole said:

I am going to abide by innocent until proven guilty. 

well, this is a civil matter so ... .

but the burden of proof is on the plaintiff, to be sure.

[Porous Five Hole]

Just now, That Aud Smell said:

well, this is a civil matter so ... .

but the burden of proof is on the plaintiff, to be sure.

Yes, I was just trying to say that it doesn’t smell right to me to I intend to withhold judgement.  

[klos1963]

2 hours ago, Pimlach said:

 

 

You proved yourself to be right, nice job.   

Yeah,  nobody else has ever mentioned that before.  And I'm not behind the scene in saying it,  kinda out in the open. And really doesn't compare to racist comments,  but go on. 

And was making a joke... but whatever. 

23 hours ago, Eleven said:

Yeah, the guy who married a woman of a different race and who has several brown kids is going to say something like that.  Eyeroll thingy.

Brown kids? 

[That Aud Smell]

2 minutes ago, Porous Five Hole said:

Yes, I was just trying to say that it doesn’t smell right to me to I intend to withhold judgement.  

now, wait a goddamn minute.

[That Aud Smell]

I just glossed the complaint.

That's some impressive looking work product. It was not "giving"* frivolous litigation.

*This is the Gen Z phrase I just caught onto. "It's giving ... ."

[JohnC]

2 hours ago, ... said:

So condescending. The comment I'm responding to has little to do with the legal machinations and everything to do with PR. If Pegula is in a position to take this to court he should not let it slide no matter how long it takes to play out.

We all understand how damaging a situation like this can be; witness this very thread where before any facts, evidence, or proper context have been established, people are not only saying this is bad for Pegula, and he shoudn't own the team, but already posters are judging other posters with the "showing your true colors" accusation.

The only effective counter to this situation from a PR perspective, again, assuming Pegula has been done dirty, is to take a suit all the way. Letting it slide is effectively as bad as the accusation itself.

My response is not condescending. You clearly misinterpreted my response@Cascade Youth's responses on this topic were the most illuminating posts on this issue. His responses dealt with the cold-blooded legal issues involved and not the emotional responses that have followed. 

[That Aud Smell]

6 minutes ago, JohnC said:

cold-blooded 

[shrader]

56 minutes ago, That Aud Smell said:

There's plenty wrong. They're tone deaf. Focus on the hurt being alleged. Stop feeling sorry for yourself, Mr. Billionaire. You spent your entire statement doing that.

So he's supposed to be sympathetic towards the person accusing him of something that he says he did not do?  That type of response is not even remotely human.  If the statement did actually say that, people would be lining up to call it BS.

[JohnC]

1 minute ago, That Aud Smell said:

When deciding to take the legal route one needs to be sober-minded. 🍺

[nfreeman]

34 minutes ago, That Aud Smell said:

Whether it's allowed or permitted has little to do with what I'm driving at. Is it advisable for a person in his position to thusly react? It is not.

I don't quite understand this sort of take when something like this is in the posture it is - early days. It seems to reveal a bias more than anything.

First bolded — I don’t agree that it’s not advisable for someone who believes himself falsely accused of terrible conduct to react with outrage.  Frankly in this context I think the statement is fairly measured.

2nd bolded — how so?  I assume you saw the words “if he didn’t say it” in my post?

[...]

38 minutes ago, That Aud Smell said:

I don't quite understand this sort of take when something like this is in the posture it is - early days. It seems to reveal a bias more than anything.

Of course it does. You seem to be implying the bias is out of line.

[K-9]

1 hour ago, Eleven said:

Is that supposed to be jism?  What's going on here?

[...]

On 9/12/2023 at 1:14 PM, JohnC said:

I'm not commenting on the veracity of Trotter's comments because I don't know. Assuming it is not true, or even if it was true, the worst approach for Terry P to take is to sue and then have this issue linger for years in the court system. As you well know as an attorney, civil cases can take years to work through the system. Right or wrong, it's not worth it to Terry P.

 

49 minutes ago, JohnC said:

My response is not condescending. You clearly misinterpreted my response@Cascade Youth's responses on this topic were the most illuminating posts on this issue. His responses dealt with the cold-blooded legal issues involved and not the emotional responses that have followed. 

Baloney. @Cascade Youth hadn't even contributed to the thread before your post above that I referenced in my reply to you.

Therefore I could not possibly have misinterpreted a response by you to they.

I was responding directly to your "advice" to Pegula that it's "not worth it..." to try and address this through litigation - a path which does exist.

If the goal would be to repair Pegula's reputation, then the threat of, or an actual suit, are the quickest, most effective tactics to employ from a PR perspective. With so much on the line, one should not rely on others' activities to do the job.

There are other ways to do it, but with such an emotionally charged matter it should be dealt with quickly, hence the reason I think your "advice" is riffraff.

If it turns out that Pegula was falsely attributed yet someone allowed it to spread, personally I am all for making an example of that kind of garbage "reporting".

 

 

Edited September 13, 2023 by ...
effluvium

[JohnC]

10 minutes ago, ... said:

 

Baloney. @Cascade Youth hadn't even contributed to the thread before your post above that I referenced in my reply to you.

Therefore I could not possibly have misinterpreted a response by you to they.

I was responding directly to your "advice" to Pegula that it's "not worth it..." to try and address this through litigation - a path which does exist.

If the goal would be to repair Pegula's reputation, then the threat of, or an actual suit, are the quickest, most effective tactics to employ from a PR perspective. With so much on the line, one should not rely on others' activities to do the job.

There are other ways to do it, but with such an emotionally charged matter it should be dealt with quickly, hence the reason I think your "advice" is riffraff.

If it turns out that Pegula was falsely attributed yet someone allowed it to spread, personally I am all for making an example of that kind of garbage "reporting".

 

 

I have stated my position on this issue. The owner taking this issue to court would be a waste of time and needlessly keep this issue alive for possibly years. Again, @Cascade Youthgives the most illuminating response on this matter. 

[...]

2 minutes ago, JohnC said:

I have stated my position on this issue. The owner taking this issue to court would be a waste of time and needlessly keep this issue alive for possibly years. Again, @Cascade Youthgives the most illuminating response on this matter. 

Waiting for the system to work is just as slow! And without any proactive measure to challenge the accusation one allows themselves to be seen as "hiding something" or "not able to respond". We've seen that in this thread alone.

In the early stages we don't concern ourselves with outcomes, we concern ourselves with actions. A suit can be settled or dropped later on once it has achieved its real goal of challenging and negating the accusation.

[JohnC]

1 minute ago, ... said:

Waiting for the system to work is just as slow! And without any proactive measure to challenge the accusation one allows themselves to be seen as "hiding something" or "not able to respond". We've seen that in this thread alone.

In the early stages we don't concern ourselves with outcomes, we concern ourselves with actions. A suit can be settled or dropped later on once it has achieved its real goal of challenging and negating the accusation.

We disagree. Not much to add. 

[Stoner]

1 hour ago, nfreeman said:

I'm sure Trotter's group can do so, since they know who it is.  The fact that they chose not to do so could mean plenty of different things -- e.g. that they were trying to protect someone credible and respected from a poopstorm, or alternatively that upon questioning, that person's lack of credibility would be immediately apparent, or a bunch of other possibilities.

 

Perhaps you missed my response to you in which I commended your clarification on "NFL Media" and pointed out that plenty of sports media people -- like Trotter -- have gone back and forth between independent media sources and "in-house" -- and noted that in the 3 years since the alleged zoom meeting occurred, plenty of the 40 NFL Media people who allegedly attended the zoom meeting may have gone independent.

As for what may have been made up -- it's quite possible that something was repeated, exaggerated, mis-attributed, etc. -- and then spun into a baseless accusation of terrible conduct in a lawsuit.  It wouldn't be the first time.

 

I agree with your breakdown of "The statement attributed to me in Mr. Trotter's complaint is absolutely false" -- but I would be shocked if the intended meaning was anything other than "I didn't say it."

I don't agree with your criticism of the rest of the statement.  People are allowed to be outraged, shocked, horrified, disgusted etc. at being falsely accused of terrible conduct.  This is why, if he didn't say it, I think TP should sue Trotter for every dime he has -- even if it doesn't survive a motion to dismiss, he should make Trotter bleed legal fees for smearing him like this.

I am not Clarence Sparrow but I believe this would invite a countersuit as the goal would not be to win the suit but to punish the critic. The effect is rich people being able to chill free speech.

[...]

8 minutes ago, JohnC said:

I have stated my position on this issue. The owner taking this issue to court would be a waste of time and needlessly keep this issue alive for possibly years. Again, @Cascade Youthgives the most illuminating response on this matter. 

You are not even addressing the interaction with me. It doesn't matter what your position is over the course of the thread, your characterization of people suggesting he look into defamation as a response strategy being "emotional" and then claiming I misinterpreted a response to someone who wasn't even in the conversation at the time are balderdash.

1 minute ago, PASabreFan said:

I am not Clarence Sparrow but I believe this would invite a countersuit as the goal would not be to win the suit but to punish the critic. The effect is rich people being able to chill free speech.

The effect is to apply the law.

[nfreeman]

From The Buffalo News today:
 

Quote

 

A league source told The Buffalo News that the alleged comment was thoroughly investigated, including interviews with Terry and his wife and co-owner, Kim Pegula – who both denied the statement – and every other person at the dinner where this conversation purportedly took place.

The investigation took place shortly after the comment was brought to the league’s attention, and no one else from the dinner recalled the statement being made, according to this source, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

The dinner took place in 2018 and no one complained about the purported racist remark until the 2020 NFL Media video call, the source said.

 

 

[Stoner]

Well that's that.

[K-9]

Accusations from people with axes to grind should be taken with a boulder of salt. I have to wonder if Trotter ever bothers to publicize this in the first place if he wasn’t let go from his job. 

[Eleven]

1 hour ago, PASabreFan said:

Well that's that.

Even the article that you cited stated that it already had been investigated and had been found to be BS.  Don't know what you expected...

[...]

1 minute ago, Eleven said:

Even the article that you cited stated that it already had been investigated and had been found to be BS.  Don't know what you expected...