 |
|
Sterck did more than that and that’s why he was fined.
Posted on: February 24, 2018 at 07:29:56 CT
GapDaddy MU
Posts:
16515
Member For:
26.34 yrs
Level:
User
M.O.B. Votes:
0
Sterck made specific allegations - spitting, n-word - and then he accused Staley of promoting it. And then he refused to back off when he couldn’t provide proof.
Staley’s lawsuit preceding the SEC fine is no accident:
Prior to the fine, Sterck stood behind his statement not as an option but as a description of fact, ie what he or his players saw. But, unable to provide proof and unwilling to recant, Sterck was therefore susceptible to Staley’s defamation lawsuit.
Once Sterck is served, he had to back off his stance, ie “I was only stating my opinion that Staley promoted it.” This significantly removes the defamation threat as it eliminates the first crieteria, ie that Sterck knowingly published something he KNEW to be untrue. An opinion is not defamation.
But, that then placed Sterck in the position of violating the league bylaws prohibiting public criticism. Staley should have been subject to the same same sanction.
Staley’s lawsuit preceding the SEC fine is no accident:
Prior to the fine, Sterck stood behind his statement not as an option but as a description of fact, ie what he or his players saw. But, unable to provide proof and unwilling to recant, Sterck was therefore susceptible to Staley’s defamation lawsuit.
Once Sterck is served, he had to back off his stance, ie “I was only stating my opinion that Staley promoted it.” This significantly removes the defamation threat as it eliminates the first crieteria, ie that Sterck knowingly published something he KNEW to be untrue. An opinion is not defamation.
But, that then placed Sterck in the position of violating the league bylaws prohibiting public criticism. Staley should have been subject to the same same sanction.
Please explain why this message is being reported.
MESSAGE THREAD
- 
Sterck did more than that and that’s why he was fined. - GapDaddy MU - 2/24 07:29:56