Can Mike Sheahan do that?

[thegrach]

Sounds like a certainty Sheehan will be taken to court over this now.

Will be interesting to see what gets presented there. Should be a good test for some of these journalists.

 

[Embers]

Will be interesting to see what gets presented there. Should be a good test for some of these journalists.

If the medical reports show what Fletcher and co says is true the case should be done pretty quickly.

 

[Borgsta]

If the medical reports show what Fletcher and co says is true the case should be done pretty quickly.

Which version of the truth will they be presenting?

 

[jim boy]

Sounds like a certainty Sheehan will be taken to court over this now.

Am I missing something here? Has Chad or West Coast said they are going or at least contemplating going to court? Or are you somehow mixing up the demented and ill-informed ramblings of the cyberworld called Big Footy with the real world?

 

[West Coast 06]

Am I missing something here? Has Chad or West Coast said they are going or at least contemplating going to court? Or are you somehow mixing up the demented and ill-informed ramblings of the cyberworld called Big Footy with the real world?

As mentioned in another thread.

Colin Young (Fletchers manager) is quoted in the West today as saying
"There is absolutely no evidence to make that claim (that there were drugs involved). It is factually incorrect. He had been drinking and as far as other footballers being there, there was no-one else other than one of our other players. I am with lawyers now and we are looking at what avenues are open to us."

 

[Embers]

Which version of the truth will they be presenting?

The one in the medical report. I imagine Footy Show will be announcing Fletcher is suing two Melbourne papers for the reporting of the issue. Adrian Barich is expected to get off by apologising over the radio in the next few weeks.

 

[lovesmahfooty]

The one in the medical report. I imagine Footy Show will be announcing Fletcher is suing two Melbourne papers for the reporting of the issue. Adrian Barich is expected to get off by apologising over the radio in the next few weeks.

find it amusing that this story has been doing the rounds for a looooongggng time, now that it's getting a bit of press the manager has miraculously produced a medical report. What might happen if the reporters actually got off the old leather swivel and did some poking around at a certain Las Vegas hotel, and found it wasn't an allergic yellow fever, one vodka- honest! scenario. I hope it goes to court, at least then some semblance of the truth might just come out of all this.

 

[jim boy]

As mentioned in another thread.

Colin Young (Fletchers manager) is quoted in the West today as saying
"There is absolutely no evidence to make that claim (that there were drugs involved). It is factually incorrect. He had been drinking and as far as other footballers being there, there was no-one else other than one of our other players. I am with lawyers now and we are looking at what avenues are open to us."

OK - hadn't seen that. Mind you, even that doesn't say anything about going to court or Mike Sheean. Its a standard defense for anyone to say they are going to speak with their lawyers.

 

[richmondgal]

Well he should sue them anyway if it this wasn't true. And that Sheehan and others should be aware of who they point the accused at whenever (which there will be more unfortunately)there are cases of illicit drugs use

 

[Grunty]

As mentioned in another thread.

Colin Young (Fletchers manager) is quoted in the West today as saying
"There is absolutely no evidence to make that claim (that there were drugs involved). It is factually incorrect. He had been drinking and as far as other footballers being there, there was no-one else other than one of our other players. I am with lawyers now and we are looking at what avenues are open to us."

Well what else would he say? He won't have a leg to stand on, as his client nearly didn't have.

 

[West Coast 06]

Well what else would he say? He won't have a leg to stand on, as his client nearly didn't have.

Well I presume you are the other West Coast player that was with Chad that night?

If not then you know nothing first hand. This is known as "hearsay" and is not admissable in a court so why bother commenting?

 

[imright]

Well what else would he say? He won't have a leg to stand on, as his client nearly didn't have.

So your saying that there is evidence against him, where is it then?

 

[ep2018]

http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,21386536-2761,00.htmlLooks like sheahan will be digging deeper then ever before into his pockets for some extra money

 

[imright]

http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,21386536-2761,00.htmlLooks like sheahan will be digging deeper then ever before into his pockets for some extra money

It would be great if Sheahan and Wilson did get sued. Fletcher's reputation will remain clean while these gossip columnists will get what they deserve.

 

[sharpie]

I'am sure you are all aware now that in todays Herald Sun Mike Sheahan named the West Coast Eagle player who nearly died in Las Vegas.

And i quote from Mike Sheahan's article

'Late last year, it was reported that a preimership player almost died on a recent players' trip to Las Vegas. The report did't mention drugs, but the industry soon knew exactly who had done exactly what'.

'The player supposedly is West Coasts 2006 premiership player Chad Fletcher, commonly believed to have almost died after an episode with an illicit substance that put him in hospital'.

So he names the player with out any solid proof, accuses him of using illicit substances, and uses words such as 'supposedly' to put together his article. Now we at Bigfooty, legally, because of this article are allowed to use Chad Fletchers name. Opposed to the 3 footballers that were actually caught by the AFL for using 'illicit substances'. Bit unfair on Chad isn't it?

Sheehan has done nothing wrong here legally in my belief

Never does he say that Fletcher DID take drugs - just saying that there is a slur against him!

 

[jim boy]

http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,21386536-2761,00.htmlLooks like sheahan will be digging deeper then ever before into his pockets for some extra money

Absolutely no chance of that:

a) Sheahan can point to articles in the Age etc that basically identified Chad anyway, so he can claim that he introduced nothing new
b) Sheahan while inferring drug use, stopped shot of direct accusation
c) Any court case would see the Herald-Sun building a case of drug-use culture at WCE as a defence, they would call witnesses who would have to testify under oath. There is no way WCE will let it get to that.
d) WCE know that suing a paper won't do their media relations any good, and poor media relations mean trhe WCE brand is less attractive, which means a drop in sponsorship and revenue.

 

[bunsen burner]

Absolutely no chance of that:

a) Sheahan can point to articles in the Age etc that basically identified Chad anyway, so he can claim that he introduced nothing new
b) Sheahan while inferring drug use, stopped shot of direct accusation

He has made a clear implication. He'll have to have some reasonable evidence to get out of it.

c) Any court case would see the Herald-Sun building a case of drug-use culture at WCE as a defence, they would call witnesses who would have to testify under oath. There is no way WCE will let it get to that.

Like who? Fraser and Maxwell? They were with Fletcher from what I can see.

The other player that was with Fletcher? Doubt he'd say anything else than "Fletcher didn't take illicit drugs"

d) WCE know that suing a paper won't do their media relations any good, and poor media relations mean trhe WCE brand is less attractive, which means a drop in sponsorship and revenue.

If West Coast think they are right there is a good chance they will take egal action knowing that it will most likely be settled privately either way before it goes to court.

 

[UpForGrabs]

Sheehan has done nothing wrong here legally in my belief

Never does he say that Fletcher DID take drugs - just saying that there is a slur against him!

He's done nothing wrong in a legal sense, but in an ethical and journalistic sense he's unbuckled his pants and taken a dump on anyone who does that job seriously.

What's he's basically printed is a bunch of innuendo and rumours, none of it substantiated by anything but word-of-mouth and hallway whispers. If he had any concrete proof he would have used it and wouldn't have fallen back on the "it has been reported that..." and "drugs weren't mentioned" (while at the same time saying illicit substance) routine.

And for someone who claims to be one of the leading writers, he knew exactly that even if all he did was report rumours and gossip, the general public would take it as fact. Which seems to have been the case.

 

[jim boy]

He has made a clear implication. He'll have to have some reasonable evidence to get out of it.

Like who? Fraser and Maxwell? They were with Fletcher from what I can see.

The other player that was with Fletcher? Doubt he'd say anything else than "Fletcher didn't take illicit drugs"

I wasn't talking about the matter of the incident itself, but the building up of the character of Chad and the environment in which he operates. The Herald Sun may well argue that even if Chad didn't o/d as alledged, it was not defamation as that is Chad's character anyway. Any drug related incident may be brought up by the Herald-Sun's legal, whose resources undoubtly are quite substantial. And witnesses won't find it so easy to hide. They are compelled in case they perjure themselves.

If West Coast think they are right there is a good chance they will take egal action knowing that it will most likely be settled privately either way before it goes to court.

Either way? Why would the Herald-Sun settle if they think they would win, they're not the ones taking Chad to court. Chad has to gamble on a positive outcome. He has to prove that his character has been defamed, he has to do more than just argue the facts of the incident. The risks are inherently much higher for him.

 

[bunsen burner]

I wasn't talking about the matter of the incident itself, but the building up of the character of Chad and the environment in which he operates.

Dude, be serious. It just doesn't work like this.

The Herald Sun may well argue that even if Chad didn't o/d as alledged, it was not defamation as that is Chad's character anyway.

1. Has there been any prior evidence that Chad Fletcher has this sort of character?
2. Even if he did, let's say it was Cousins in LV, the "but he has a soiled drug reputation" is not good enough reason no accuse someone of a specific incident.

Any drug related incident may be brought up by the Herald-Sun's legal, whose resources undoubtly are quite substantial. And witnesses won't find it so easy to hide. They are compelled in case they perjure themselves.

Plenty of people perjure themselves in court.

Either way? Why would the Herald-Sun settle if they think they would win, they're not the ones taking Chad to court.

What are you talking about? They will settle out of court if they are check mated, conversely, Fletcher will withdraw the matter before it gats to court if he thinks he is check mated. That's how it works a lot of the time.

Chad has to gamble on a positive outcome. He has to prove that his character has been defamed,

That's not going to be hard (assuming he didn't OD on illicit drugs).

he has to do more than just argue the facts of the incident. The risks are inherently much higher for him.

The risk is higher for the person who is wrong. If Fletcher is right (I don't think he is), then he would win quite comfortably. The HUN would get their arses sued.

 

[jim boy]

Dude, be serious. It just doesn't work like this.


1. Has there been any prior evidence that Chad Fletcher has this sort of character?

This is the crux of the matter, it doesn't matter that there isn't an already published account of any potential misdemeanours of Chad's, the Herald Sun is perfectly welcome to introduce previously unreported information about Chad's alledged drug habits. If they do that, then the incident in Las Vegas is irrelevant, at worst the Herald-Sun would be required to print a correction, but no damages would be paid and Chad ends up with a reputation in the mud. Right now he can spin it as much as he like and come out OK. Go for gold and he risks everything.

What's more it isn't Mike Sheahan who will be footing the legal bills, it will Rupert Murdoch. Big as WCE might feel they are, they now they are small fry in comparison.

Plenty of people perjure themselves in court.

And some go to jail for it, there's a big difference between saying nothing when you're not compelled to say anything and when you're risking porridge.

Fletcher will withdraw the matter before it gats to court if he thinks he is check mated.

That's not settling, that's conceding and possibly paying some pretty hefty legal fees.

If Fletcher is right (I don't think he is)

Leaving aside this revelation that you think Fletcher did OD in las Vegas, Fletcher can't win damages on the basis that the story is untrue, he can win damages on the basis that he is a clean living soul who doesn't do drugs, Herald Sun prove otherwise and he is in the poo.

 

[bunsen burner]

This is the crux of the matter, it doesn't matter that there isn't an already published account of any potential misdemeanours of Chad's, the Herald Sun is perfectly welcome to introduce previously unreported information about Chad's alledged drug habits. If they do that, then the incident in Las Vegas is irrelevant, at worst the Herald-Sun would be required to print a correction, but no damages would be paid and Chad ends up with a reputation in the mud. Right now he can spin it as much as he like and come out OK. Go for gold and he risks everything.

This is pure BS. Where did you get this stuff from?

You can't make up a story about someone, not prove it, and then dig some dirt up on him that wasn't previously in the public domain as reasonable justification for making up that story?

This is what you're potentially saying could happen, yes?

You need to think it through more.

And some go to jail for it, there's a big difference between saying nothing when you're not compelled to say anything and when you're risking porridge.

So what? People still do it.

That's not settling, that's conceding and possibly paying some pretty hefty legal fees.

?????????? Otherwise known as settling out of court.

Leaving aside this revelation that you think Fletcher did OD in las Vegas, Fletcher can't win damages on the basis that the story is untrue, he can win damages on the basis that he is a clean living soul who doesn't do drugs, Herald Sun prove otherwise and he is in the poo.

Are you on drugs? Seriously?

So you're saying I can post this or print this in the Hun:

"Michael Gardiner went out last night and had 2 high class call girls snort coke off his co*K and then he went with some bikies and was involved in a brawl where a knife was used"

And justify it and escape being sued for libel because "Michael Gardiner is a proven shady character who has been involved with drugs, bikies, and knives"?

Mate, put the ice pipe down.

 

[- PC -]

So you're saying I can post this or print this in the Hun:

"Michael Gardiner went out last night and had 2 high class call girls snort coke off his co*K and then he went with some bikies and was involved in a brawl where a knife was used"

And justify it and escape being sued for libel because "Michael Gardiner is a proven shady character who has been involved with drugs, bikies, and knives"?

Mate, put the ice pipe down.

Probably not

But what could happen is '' there have been rumours about an ex eagle bad boy who moved interstate, who last night night was present at a brawl involving bikies and knives, it was also rumoured he took 2 beauty queens home who sniffed coke off his wang''

 

[jim boy]

This is pure BS. Where did you get this stuff from?

You can't make up a story about someone, not prove it, and then dig some dirt up on him that wasn't previously in the public domain as reasonable justification for making up that story?

This is what you're potentially saying could happen, yes?

You need to think it through more.

I don't know how many times I need to spell it out for you. Its not a matter of whether the story is true or not - the question is over suing for defamation. If its not true the Herald Sun have to print a correction. Just becuase someone prints an untrue article about doesn't automatically entitle you damages, you have to show your reputation is unfairly tarnished. If the Herald Sun find find evidence that Chad is a druggie of sorts, then they could argue that the article was in line with Chad's character. How many ways do I have to cook up this sausage?

?????????? Otherwise known as settling out of court.

Nope, settling is when two parties come to agreement. Chad dropping the case is one party acting unilaterally. The Herald-Sun may wish to recover legal costs, but that is another issue.

So you're saying I can post this or print this in the Hun:

"Michael Gardiner went out last night and had 2 high class call girls snort coke off his co*K and then he went with some bikies and was involved in a brawl where a knife was used"

And justify it and escape being sued for libel because "Michael Gardiner is a proven shady character who has been involved with drugs, bikies, and knives"?

Of course, they print what they want in the paper, its up to aggrieved to do something about it. However given the far greater seriousness of the allegations against Gardiner (eg GBH, serious crime etc) than the ones levelled against Chad (ie that he has or has had the odd line), then it would be far more onerous task to show that this is typical of Gardiner as would be required by the HUN.

Mate, put the ice pipe down.

Oh BB, resorting to insults. Can't or don't want to debate the issue so attack the poster?

 

[bunsen burner]

I don't know how many times I need to spell it out for you. Its not a matter of whether the story is true or not - the question is over suing for defamation. If its not true the Herald Sun have to print a correction. Just becuase someone prints an untrue article about doesn't automatically entitle you damages, you have to show your reputation is unfairly tarnished. If the Herald Sun find find evidence that Chad is a druggie of sorts, then they could argue that the article was in line with Chad's character. How many ways do I have to cook up this sausage?

Pretty sure you're not allowed to make up stories and put them in the paper. Also pretty sure you can get sued for it.

Do I need to show you precedence?

Nope, settling is when two parties come to agreement. Chad dropping the case is one party acting unilaterally. The Herald-Sun may wish to recover legal costs, but that is another issue.

Splitting hairs.

Of course, they print what they want in the paper, its up to aggrieved to do something about it. However given the far greater seriousness of the allegations against Gardiner (eg GBH, serious crime etc) than the ones levelled against Chad (ie that he has or has had the odd line), then it would be far more onerous task to show that this is typical of Gardiner as would be required by the HUN.

Sounds like you want it both ways. Previously you have said that papers can make up what they want without fear of a lawsuit as long as it's consistent with that person's character but here you are saying they can't? You're saying there is somesort of cut ff point regarding seriousness? That's a contradiction.

Oh BB, resorting to insults. Can't or don't want to debate the issue so attack the poster?

Are you saying I haven't been addressing the issue? I've heard this excuse many times and it's just laughable. Just like your view on how the legal system works.