Former Players v. Football Program *** Thread
- Thread starter AuroraHawk
- Start date
- Status
Thank god a clown fan showed up to tell us how it really is.
Why would that be when their accusations caused him to lose his job and a future job with the Jaguars? He was let go from Jag's strictly due to what he has been accused of (not found guilty of). Just curious. Thanks in adavnce.
For instacnce - here is an article that is essentially finding him guilty and defaming his character based on accusations, not facts.
Jaguars Daily: Some background on the Chris Doyle hire
We want to send our Keep Choppin’ Wood newsletter to more Jaguars fans but it costs money! (Who knew?) We’ve got emails hitting over 10,000 inboxes every week and we could add 5,000 more tomorrow...
www.bigcatcountry.com
Why would that be when their accusations caused him to lose his job and a future job with the Jaguars? He was let go from Jag's strictly due to what he has been accused of (not found guilty of). Just curious. Thanks in adavnce.
For instacnce - here is an article that is essentially finding him guilty and defaming his character based on accusations, not facts.
Jaguars Daily: Some background on the Chris Doyle hire
We want to send our Keep Choppin’ Wood newsletter to more Jaguars fans but it costs money! (Who knew?) We’ve got emails hitting over 10,000 inboxes every week and we could add 5,000 more tomorrow...
Google this: "Litigation Privilege"
Are they recording and listening all the time like Alexa? We know they know exactly where you are at any time (assuming you have your phone with). I always liked it when they said they don't track users. Well then how is google maps showing real time traffic?
That old kceasthawk, owner of cell phone xyz, sure does like to stop off at the screaming eagle bar about 5:30pm at night, let's make sure he says these kinds of ads.
Damn it! Found out again! Time for a new watering hole.....
"And, as beerhawk aptly noted, juries are extremely volatile critters, you never what they'll believe or why. That's why 90% of civil cases settle."
That and defense attorney fees to go to court can be nearly as high as it costs to settle some of the claims.
In big cases, $200K and up its cheaper, but much riskier to go to trial. There could be hundreds of witnesses in this case. They will all need to be interviewed and most of them would need to be deposed. That alone would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.
In this case, however, the AG is defending so there are no defense costs but the court reporters fees could be hundreds of thousands of dollars. That's just one part of a complex case.
Lets see how confident these ex-players really are. Sounds like they're the ones who potentially have the most to lose...
so who pays the court reporters fee's? Is that on the university, players or tax payers?
As mentioned above, Iowa has the AG defending so they aren't paying attorney fees. The ex-players may end up paying in the end if they lose. IDK what kind of arrangement they have with their attorney but I can't imagine they want to do all this work for free.
So basically you're saying fear might play into the players deciding to move forward? Fear that they may have to come to the table with $ if they lose? Again, serious question.
I'm betting the Attorneys are working this on contingency.
Pretty much. It has to be a factor, right? Even if their attorney told them they don't pay unless they win, what happens if/when damning info comes up during discovery that is bad for the ex-players? Would their attorney cut his losses and drop the suit rather than dump more time into a losing battle?
I'm pretty sure this costs the players nothing. If the attorney cuts his losses....who cares? Nothing ventured, nothing gained, right? That's the issue with these types of cases where the attorneys work on contingency. The plaintiffs have nothing to lose. The attorneys usually take these figuring the defendant will settle rather then pay the cost of fighting it or they think they've got a sure thing, or the payday is worth the risk. They drag it out and try to get as much mud slinging out to the media as they can to make fighting as painful as possible.
I'm wondering if they'll actually go to trial if it makes it that far. One thing in their favor is the current political climate regarding racial issues creates an environment that's favorable to the plaintiffs. It feels like a lot of what they're claiming will be hard to prove and could easily be undermined by past players who testify that they saw none of what the plaintiffs claim.
In civil rights litigation, there is "fee shifting" language for a prevailing plaintiff. Thus, one of the risks faced by defendants in civil rights litigation involves the chance that they will have to pay some or all of the fees claimed by plaintiff's counsel.
And, before anyone asks the question, there is no "fee shifting" language in favor of a prevailing defendant. And, no, in statutes with "fee shifting" provisions, it is not uncommon for such provisions to only favor plaintiffs.
And, before anyone asks the question, there is no "fee shifting" language in favor of a prevailing defendant. And, no, in statutes with "fee shifting" provisions, it is not uncommon for such provisions to only favor plaintiffs.
Wow what a great way to be able to trash someone's reputation with impunity.
A complaint contains "allegations." A defendant has every opportunity to defend whether the allegations are accurate. A court of law provides the very forum to test and to determine whether "allegations" are true, accurate and supported by evidence.
Agreed, but we all know the allegations get front page coverage and news that they were false is page 8. Plus, many read them and take em as gospel.
There are two types of court reporters fees. Court hearing transcripts and discovery deposition transcripts.
Each party decides whether they want to order the transcript or not. It isn't required. But if you order it you pay for it. If you are the party requesting the deposition, at minimum, you pay the court reporter a sitting fee.
Typically the attorney representing the Plaintiff will pay those costs up front and then get reimbursed out of the settlement or verdict in addition to their fee. It is not unheard of to get some payment from the client up front for these costs but it isn't typical in this type of claim.
For the defendants it is unclear to me whether those costs would be paid by the State if Iowa, the University, or the Board of Regents. But likely one of those entities is footing the bill.
To add to this, the concept is that civil rights violations are important to litigate and get corrective action for, but such cases may have very low actual damages. Therefore to encourage attorneys to pursue the claims and obtain remedial action (or to help assure peoples civil rights are respected) reasonable attorneys fees and costs can be ordered to be paid by the defendant.
To build on beerhawk, the larger concept is private attorney general. It applies in many laws, like illegal debt collection or consumer credit illegalities. Done hundreds of these cases. The consumer rarely has serious damages but we as a society still don't want debt collector's calling at 2 in the morning either. Unlike civil rights cases, the consumer credit cases have a mandatory fee shifting so the bank, credit card company collection agency has to settle because they could find themselves paying as little as $1000 in a penalty but $50-$60K in attorney's fees.
The theory is to place the proverbial little guy, who US Bank or some interstate collection mill would otherwise ignore or crush, on an even footing.
The theory is to place the proverbial little guy, who US Bank or some interstate collection mill would otherwise ignore or crush, on an even footing.
I could be totally wrong but this feels like more of a win for the university/football program than the players. I suppose its more juicy to lead that the beat goes on and the case survived complete dismissal, but I guess my slant would be Judge dismisses most of the complaints against Iowa Football, an uphill climb for players in the remaining part of their case.
That's what I mean, these weren't just "allegations" they presented them as facts and got a guy removed from his job and cost him a future job. There has to be a way to counter this or else heck I could make a case against anyone really and they now have to defend and cannot counter, it's a win\win for them - if they lose they have tarnished a persons character to a point where they can't get a job. If they win, the same plus possible monetary rewards to boot.
Look at rape cases for example (google "football player spent years in jail for a rape he didn't commit") - when accusations are made the defendant is plastered all over the news so that person character is immediately and indefinitely smeared for life. When the defendant wins the case the accuser is rarely, if ever give the same coverage (and most of the time still believed by 50+%). Look at Kavanaugh case where Ford was just a tool, Kavanaugh will always be remembered for this - Ford...where is she now?
Immediately when I see his name I think about the kickoff against Tennessee... What in the Hell was he thinking/doing?
What a complete disaster of a game.
Not a lawyer, but my best guess at an answer is that going to court and fighting it there is the opportunity for a person to defend themselves. Or fighting it at the organizational level as well. Doyle made the decision to accept the payout from Iowa and not demand a hearing. He could have chosen at any time to go public with his version of what took place while he was the coach. I don't know if that was a wise decision or not to stay quiet, that was a decision he and his legal representation made.
The whole thing caught validity and started resonating last summer as it moved beyond just players who had left the program complaining to guys who had gone through the program, got their degree, were in the NFL, etc. They couldn't be dismissed as holding grudges due to being disgruntled. Again, I'm not saying one side is right or wrong, just the way things are. It became clear that Iowa felt like it couldn't openly disagree with players who went through their entire program (probably a wise decision).
As to what should happen going forward with this legal case against BF and Doyle, I have no idea. If Iowa/defendants settle, I'm not sure how BF is ever a college head coach, and even to some extent how he continues in his current job. Every story about him if he's under consideration will include this. It might anyway, even if everything is dismissed or they go to court and the ruling is for the defendants. Which is kind of the point of your post.
Appreciate the people in this thread who do know what they are talking about.
Agree 100% with the last statement, I'm legally inept and get most of my courtroom from Judge Judy and divorce court...
Steve Alford has continued to find work, despite how he "managed" the Pierre Pierce situation. Brian will need to clean up his act, but unless there are things more egregious than what's been in the press, this case won't keep him from a HC position somewhere. It may, however, keep him from getting the HC job in Iowa City.
I feel somewhat compelled to clarify something that I wrote earlier in response to a question posed by a poster. In that post, I perceived the question to be whether Doyle or Ferentz could "counter-sue" based upon the allegations in the Complaint or the Amended Complaint. When I answered something to the effect of such a counterclaim would not likely be viable . . . my answer was based upon my understanding that the counterclaim would allege that the allegations in the Complaint or Amended Complaint constitute libel. My answer was also based upon my understanding of the privilege that generally attaches to allegations in a lawsuit.
Now . . . if any of the remaining plaintiffs made slanderous statements or wrote and published libelous comments, it would certainly be possible for Doyle to claim that the out-of-court spoken statements and/or out-of-court written comments rise to the level or either slander or libel. Those out-of-court spoken statements and/or out-of-court written comments would not be protected by the litigation privilege.
Now . . . I am not a libel or slander specialist and I've only handled two small slander/libel cases very early in my legal career when I was a younger associate at a law firm in Chicago. So take the following for what it may be worth. My impression is that Chris Doyle and Brian Ferentz would be considered public figures. There is an elevated burden to prove slander or libel against public figures. Further, there is a doctrine in slander/libel law known as the "innocent construction rule" which essentially provides that a court must interpret a particular statement or written comment in a non-libelous or non-slanderous manner if it is reasonable to do so. In other words, if there are two reasonable interpretations and one of those interpretations defeats a claim for libel or slander, the court must adopt that interpretation. (The key word is "reasonable." A court should not and will not engage in wild-eyed interpretations of a statement or comment in an effort to defeat a slander or libel claim). Without looking at the exact written words (libel) or spoken words (slander), I couldn't offer any meaningful commentary/opinion as to whether Doyle or Ferentz would have a decent claim for libel and/or slander for any particular comment.
It is my impression that Doyle and the UI didn't reach a separation agreement because of one particular player's allegations or even a handful of players' allegations. My impression was that the numbers were significant . . . probably well into the 20s at least (I seem to recall over 40+ players commented upon Doyle on Twitter). I feel that it would be particularly difficult for Doyle to prove that his separation agreement arose because of a libel situation. Even if he could prove that a handful of players' comments were libelous, how is he going to prove that the separation agreement arose because of those comments and those comments alone as opposed to the other (perhaps in the dozens) comments?
Also . . . it is important to keep in mind that Doyle (and I'm just focusing on him because he's no longer a UI employee) is being defended at no cost to him by the Iowa AG's office. If he wanted to file a counterclaim, he'd have to hire his own lawyer to pursue such a cause of action. While that is certainly "doable" and he may be able to line up an attorney to take the case on a contingency fee basis, it would complicate the proceedings and there could certainly arise conflicts in a strategic approach that the AG's office wants to pursue in defense of the case versus what a lawyer hired by Doyle might want to do as part of a counterclaim.
All in all (and with the caveat that it is based upon what I currently know), my feeling is that a counterclaim by Doyle would likely be a poor avenue to pursue. Don't lose sight of the environment in which this case will proceed - and I'm not referring to the racial environment. There is a lot of public sympathy for college athletes (particularly football players) who receive scholarships but cannot profit on NIL while coaches make seven figures. It may be an absolutely awful strategy for a strength coach who was making in excess of seven figures per year to complain that some of his former players have destroyed him financially.
Probably a much better route to vigorously defend against the allegations, introduce throngs of evidence that there was not a "hostile" environment to black football players, introduce evidence that black football players were not singled out for harassing behavior and win on the merits. If and when that happens, Doyle can hold that out as direct proof that he was innocent of the civil charges levied against him.
Now . . . if any of the remaining plaintiffs made slanderous statements or wrote and published libelous comments, it would certainly be possible for Doyle to claim that the out-of-court spoken statements and/or out-of-court written comments rise to the level or either slander or libel. Those out-of-court spoken statements and/or out-of-court written comments would not be protected by the litigation privilege.
Now . . . I am not a libel or slander specialist and I've only handled two small slander/libel cases very early in my legal career when I was a younger associate at a law firm in Chicago. So take the following for what it may be worth. My impression is that Chris Doyle and Brian Ferentz would be considered public figures. There is an elevated burden to prove slander or libel against public figures. Further, there is a doctrine in slander/libel law known as the "innocent construction rule" which essentially provides that a court must interpret a particular statement or written comment in a non-libelous or non-slanderous manner if it is reasonable to do so. In other words, if there are two reasonable interpretations and one of those interpretations defeats a claim for libel or slander, the court must adopt that interpretation. (The key word is "reasonable." A court should not and will not engage in wild-eyed interpretations of a statement or comment in an effort to defeat a slander or libel claim). Without looking at the exact written words (libel) or spoken words (slander), I couldn't offer any meaningful commentary/opinion as to whether Doyle or Ferentz would have a decent claim for libel and/or slander for any particular comment.
It is my impression that Doyle and the UI didn't reach a separation agreement because of one particular player's allegations or even a handful of players' allegations. My impression was that the numbers were significant . . . probably well into the 20s at least (I seem to recall over 40+ players commented upon Doyle on Twitter). I feel that it would be particularly difficult for Doyle to prove that his separation agreement arose because of a libel situation. Even if he could prove that a handful of players' comments were libelous, how is he going to prove that the separation agreement arose because of those comments and those comments alone as opposed to the other (perhaps in the dozens) comments?
Also . . . it is important to keep in mind that Doyle (and I'm just focusing on him because he's no longer a UI employee) is being defended at no cost to him by the Iowa AG's office. If he wanted to file a counterclaim, he'd have to hire his own lawyer to pursue such a cause of action. While that is certainly "doable" and he may be able to line up an attorney to take the case on a contingency fee basis, it would complicate the proceedings and there could certainly arise conflicts in a strategic approach that the AG's office wants to pursue in defense of the case versus what a lawyer hired by Doyle might want to do as part of a counterclaim.
All in all (and with the caveat that it is based upon what I currently know), my feeling is that a counterclaim by Doyle would likely be a poor avenue to pursue. Don't lose sight of the environment in which this case will proceed - and I'm not referring to the racial environment. There is a lot of public sympathy for college athletes (particularly football players) who receive scholarships but cannot profit on NIL while coaches make seven figures. It may be an absolutely awful strategy for a strength coach who was making in excess of seven figures per year to complain that some of his former players have destroyed him financially.
Probably a much better route to vigorously defend against the allegations, introduce throngs of evidence that there was not a "hostile" environment to black football players, introduce evidence that black football players were not singled out for harassing behavior and win on the merits. If and when that happens, Doyle can hold that out as direct proof that he was innocent of the civil charges levied against him.
Doyle's best defense against the allegations and charges of racism has always been the public comments and testimony of the other hundreds of football players who have come under his supervision. Not too many have come to his defense so far.
- Status
Similar threads
