Do we know yet if Michelin paid for the product placement in this scandal?
Interesting: Jon Gruden, guy who says offensive shit, has his name removed from Tampa Bay’s ring of honor. Warren Sapp, guy who actually beats the shit out of women, has his name still up. Ideas and words > actual behavior.
Why do you think that is?
Bumping this thread to give an update: Gruden shares the suspicions of us Dopers that the leaked emails were a targeted attack, and he’s firing back by suing the NFL and commissioner Roger Goodell.
A snippet from a statement by Gruden’s attorney Adam Hosmer-Henner says:
This saga could get really interesting.
Is leaking the emails illegal in some way?
It’s a civil suit, so illegal doesn’t apply as a standard. My guess would be that they’re suing over some form of tortious interference.
Judging by the snippet above, maybe Gruden is doing this to blow-up the NFL by forcing them to release the rest of the emails. Sorta to get back at them.
I don’t think there is any maybe about it. You only sue your former employer, and the only employer in your field, if you want to burn the whole thing down. I’m sure he believes (rightly or wrongly) that there are many, many other coaches, GMs, etc who have said the exact same things he has said (or worse), probably in that same batch of emails.
I would imagine that part of the defense to an interference suit would have to be claiming that Gruden’s emails were the only ones that were problematic. Which should lead to at least a judge getting to review all of the other ones.
I’m not familiar with employment law, but why would other coaches being just as bad give Gruden any excuse? This sounds like someone complaining in traffic court, “Yes, I was 30 mph over the speed limit but so was everyone else, so why was I the only one who got a ticket?” If you were bad, you were bad. The law gives no protection to you just because others were bad, too.
Especially since Gruden can’t use a protected class like race or gender as his excuse for being singled out.
But he can hope to have it force a few other resignations-in-disgrace, endorsement cancellations, etc. As in “I’m not going down alone”.
I will admit I just skimmed the Wikipedia article, but basically the argument is that if you leak emails that cause me to get fired, I may be able to sue you for interfering in my business contract.
But it’s entirely possible that he has no intention on winning the suit but just wants to sling some mud and make the NFL defend itself, and perhaps release more of the email traffic.
Exactly. Gruden knows that it’s very unlikely that he’ll ever be able to work in the NFL again, either directly (as a coach) or indirectly (as a TV analyst). So, he may be trying to get the league’s dirty laundry aired, either purely for spite, or to demonstrate that he was a scapegoat.
If many other coaches used the same language in the emails and only his were leaked, then the NFL has to defend why other coaches are not being similarly disciplined. If there is something uniquely offensive about Gruden’s emails, such as only his disparaged Goodell, then he may have a case the commish had a vendetta against him and he was targeted unfairly (in which case his emails will need to be compared to others).
Either way, it gets the NFL to have to open-up the emails more, which is something they do not want to do. I guess one does not become a head coach in the NFL without a strategic mind.
Bears coach Matt Nagy being the inevitable exception to that.
That’s not a very good comparison at all. Cops can’t possibly pull over every single speeder, but the NFL can release all of the damaging emails that they gathered in their investigation.
A better analogy would be if you and a dozen other people were involved in a burglary, and you all were caught red-handed, arrested, and the other dozen people were released without charges while you alone get charged. And in that case asking why you were the only one charged would be a really good question if you were all directly involved in the burglary. No, it doesn’t in any way make you less guilty, but it’s still a question that not only you but the public would probably like an answer to.
I think It’s simpler,money . He thinks he can get a hell of a payout settle or win. And what does he have to lose, he won’t be hired again either way.
Zing!
Does the NFL have to be fair about it?
I mean, is there some law that says if the NFL (or whoever) sues me for “X” they have to be fair about it and sue absolutely everyone else suspected of “X” also?
I do not think so but I could be wrong.
I think this is an effort at discovery and a threat they will air all the dirty laundry they can find in NFL emails hoping they will back down.
I think that’s sort of an interesting question. I don’t really know the organizational structure of the NFL, but it I’m assuming that Jon Gruden was contracted with the Raiders directly. He also had various sponsorship contracts.
I don’t think that the NFL can, as a third party, threaten the Raiders or the sponsors to fire Gruden or I will release damning emails of him. I would have to show that my actions were not improper interference in Gruden’s business dealings. One way they could be improper is if the NFL had a whole bunch of information about racist, homophobic coaches and only leaked the emails about Gruden. It’s not like at that point they are protecting the image of the league - they are clearly targeting one person to get him fired.
Now maybe there are good defenses against that claim, and I am not a lawyer. But my guess is that Gruden believes that in order to defend themselves the NFL may have to reveal emails they don’t want to reveal. And as @wolfman says, the NFL may decide it’s just better to settle this suit, pay Gruden even more money than he already got from the Raiders, and hope he finally slinks away.
It reminds me of the “Mayflower Madam”. That was a criminal prostitution case but the person running the prostitution ring basically said if they want her little black book then absolutely everyone in it would get exposed which included more than a few powerful people/politicians. So, they gave her a deal and her little black book was never revealed.
(I may be misremembering.)