Craig James Threatened To Sue Tech

[sooner59]

According to Texas Tech's attorney, Craig James threatened to sue the university if they did not investigate Leach "for the improper treatment" of his son. The story isn't going away, and its always entertaining. :D

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/football/ncaa/01/27/leach.james.ap/index.html?eref=sihp

Oh and my favorite part is this: James spokesman Scott McLaughlin issued a statement late Wednesday saying James never threatened to sue Texas Tech. DENY DENY DENY!!!

:pop:

[Leroy Lizard]

LUBBOCK, Texas (AP) -- The father of injured Texas Tech receiver Adam James threatened to sue the university if it didn't investigate then-coach Mike Leach, according to a memo released Wednesday.

Texas Tech University System attorney Ronny Wall wrote in the Tuesday memo to the Texas attorney general that the threat came during a Dec. 20 exchange with James' father, ESPN sports analyst Craig James. The Lubbock Avalanche-Journal obtained a copy of the memo in response to an open records request.

The university fired Leach on Dec. 30, two days after suspending him amid allegations he mistreated Adam James, who was recovering from a concussion. The receiver says Leach twice ordered him to stand for hours while confined in a dark place during practice.

Leach denied the allegations, and responded to his firing with a lawsuit against the university, alleging libel, slander and breach of contract.

The Tech memo says James' father "indicated that litigation could ensue" if Tech didn't investigate Leach "for the improper treatment" of his son.

"The threat did not appear to be an idle threat as the parent expressed genuine concern for the health and well-being of his injured child, as well as other student-athletes," the memo continued.

Here come's the Senate Race:

Craig James... because he cares for the health and well-being of your children.

This "leak" won't hurt Craig James one bit.


James spokesman Scott McLaughlin issued a statement late Wednesday saying James never threatened to sue Texas Tech.

"Further, Texas Tech initiated its investigation of its own accord," he said.


I think this probably comes down to a differing interpretation of what constitutes a threat. Craig may have offered a veiled threat like "Look, you need to investigate this situation because sooner or later you could wind up in court (if you get my drift)."

Does it matter either way? If Craig really felt his kid was mistreated and that the university wasn't even going to look into the situation, would a threat of a lawsuit be all that surprising?

[King Barry's Back]

Of all the people in the middle of this soap opera -- Craig James is the guy I hope that comes out the worst for this.

[Leroy Lizard]

That's Senator James to you, pal!

:D

[SoCal]

Tech filings reveal lawsuit threatBy Matthew Mcgowan | AVALANCHE-JOURNAL
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Story last updated at 1/28/2010 - 12:27 am

Craig James threatened on Dec. 20 to sue the university if it did not investigate the actions of then-head football coach Mike Leach, according to documents filed Tuesday by Tech's attorneys with the attorney general's office.

The documents, filed as an appeal against an open records request made by the Avalanche-Journal, say James, father of Red Raider receiver Adam James, "indicated that litigation could ensue if TTU did not proceed to investigate Leach for the improper treatment of an injured student-athlete."

"The threat did not appear to be an idle threat as the parent expressed genuine concern for the health and well-being of his injured child, as well as other student-athletes," Tech's letter says.

A spokesperson for Craig James, however, denies that he made any such threats.

"Craig James never threatened to sue Texas Tech University," said the spokesman, Scott McLaughlin, in an e-mail through James' public relations company. "Further, Texas Tech initiated its investigation of its own accord."

The documents filed by Tech's attorneys also say Leach's attorney, Ted Liggett, contacted Tech administrators on Dec. 21 - about a week before his suspension - and informed them that he would represent the coach in the event of any legal action by the university or by Craig James, an ESPN college football analyst.

Paul Dobrowski, a Houston-based attorney on Leach's legal team, said Wednesday he was unaware of James' legal threats toward the university.

The fact a threat was made by the James family did not surprise Dobrowski, and the news will not change how the legal team approaches its lawsuit against Tech, he said.

"Whether or not the James family threatened to sue them (in December) has no bearing on their failure to honor his contract," he said.

Dobrowski believes a lawsuit by James last month against Tech for Leach's alleged treatment of his son would have had "no real teeth to it," because Leach hadn't mistreated the concussed inside receiver.

"They shouldn't have had any concern," Dobrowski said. "The kid wasn't injured by Mike. He wasn't mistreated. In my mind, it's a big nothing."

When the Avalanche-Journal asked Dobrowski earlier this month if Leach plans to sue the James family, he said it's something the ousted coach "will have to consider."


TEXAS TECH/Spokesman for James denies threat, says university initiated probe

[KantoSooner]

I sincerely hope Mike Leach is more or less clean in this and gets his cash and rep exonerated. (More or less because Mike is Mike and was probably doing something weird.)
As between the Craigs and Tech? Remember the Iran/Iraq war in the late 1980's? You can only hope it goes on and on and grinds them both down.

[fwsooner22]

This is the same Craig James who accepted illegal payments at SMU. FRAUD.

[Leroy Lizard]

This is the same Craig James who accepted illegal payments at SMU. FRAUD.

I looked but couldn't anything to substantiate this. Does anyone have a link?

[yukonsooner]

Only refeference I could find


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_James_(American_

[stoops the eternal pimp]

Craig James has never confirmed or denied(that I know of) taking the payments..unlike eric dickerson and everybody else on the football team

[MamaMia]

Thanks for the update. Is Adam James planning on staying at that University and playing for the Raiders?

[Jello Biafra]

I looked but couldn't anything to substantiate this. Does anyone have a link?

you don't have to substantiate it. he was part of the smu crew (pony express) that received the death sentence for the school. i read in SI or something that he was named as one of the recipients.

[Leroy Lizard]

SI or something? Is that a new magazine?

If you have no way of substantiating the rumor, why don't you just say so?

[SoonerLB]

I happen to know a gentleman that worked on that situation for the Methodist hierarchy that sat in on that case, and Mr. James is not on his favorites list. I will not divulge his name as I'm sure he does not care to get into any public debate concerning James or that case. It was not a rumor, if you need to substantiate details, try the Methodist Church and/or the NCAA.

[Jello Biafra]

SI or something? Is that a new magazine?

If you have no way of substantiating the rumor, why don't you just say so?

because i don't care. i witnessed it in the 80s just like everyone else did. the only way we know a slow white running back would be because of that incident. he was named, he was part of the pony express. the end.

[Jello Biafra]

I happen to know a gentleman that worked on that situation for the Methodist hierarchy that sat in on that case, and Mr. James is not on his favorites list. I will not divulge his name as I'm sure he does not care to get into any public debate concerning James or that case. It was not a rumor, if you need to substantiate details, try the Methodist Church and/or the NCAA.

leroy...


LEROY!



boom! goes the dynamite.

[AlbqSooner]

I think this probably comes down to a differing interpretation of what constitutes a threat. Craig may have offered a veiled threat like "Look, you need to investigate this situation because sooner or later you could wind up in court (if you get my drift)."

"The Tech memo says James' father "indicated that litigation could ensue" if Tech didn't investigate Leach "for the improper treatment" of his son."

Did you even read the article that you included with this statement?:confused:

[AlbqSooner]

I think this probably comes down to a differing interpretation of what constitutes a threat. Craig may have offered a veiled threat like "Look, you need to investigate this situation because sooner or later you could wind up in court (if you get my drift)."

"The Tech memo says James' father "indicated that litigation could ensue" if Tech didn't investigate Leach "for the improper treatment" of his son."

Did you even read the article that you included with this statement?:confused:

Wait, maybe you just don't know the meaning of 'James father indicated that litigation could ensue'.

[Leroy Lizard]

I happen to know a gentleman that worked on that situation for the Methodist hierarchy that sat in on that case, and Mr. James is not on his favorites list.

Do you realize that you basically said nothing?


because i don't care. i witnessed it in the 80s just like everyone else did. the only way we know a slow white running back would be because of that incident. he was named, he was part of the pony express. the end.

In other words, you got nothing.

So far, we have a mystery magazine article and a mystery Methodist, along with a suggestion to go on a wild goose chase. Just say:

"We think that Craig James was involved in the SMU scandal, but we really can't be certain."

Sounds pretty accurate based on what has been posted so far.

[AlbqSooner]

I guess the edit function double posted me.

[Leroy Lizard]

"The Tech memo says James' father "indicated that litigation could ensue" if Tech didn't investigate Leach "for the improper treatment" of his son."

Yep, INDICATED. In other words, a veiled threat.

[Widescreen]

A threat is a threat, veiled or not. I have no idea what you're talking about.

[Leroy Lizard]

A threat is a threat, veiled or not..

Sure, if intentional. My point was that Craig James may not have considered his warning a threat, while Tech did. This is how two sides can have differing opinions on whether a threat occurred. Happens all the time.

[Widescreen]

I don't know how you could unintentionally say "litigation could ensue". If anything similar to that leaves your lips, it's an intentional threat. Whether or not he would've followed up, no one knows. But it's an intentional threat.

[Leroy Lizard]

I don't know how you could unintentionally say "litigation could ensue". If anything similar to that leaves your lips, it's an intentional threat. Whether or not he would've followed up, no one knows. But it's an intentional threat.

Sure, if Craig James really said that. But in the memo it says that Craig "indicated that litigation could ensue."

What does "indicated" mean? That he said it? I don't know.

All I am saying is that Craig may not have intended to threaten Tech, but that they took his words as a threat. Again, this is common.

My question is, so what? What if James threatened Tech? He felt his kid was badly treated, so he (possibly) threatened Tech with a lawsuit if they didn't take his concern seriously. Sounds pretty common to me.

[Widescreen]

Sure, if Craig James really said that. But in the memo it says that Craig "indicated that litigation could ensue."

What does "indicated" mean?

What do you think? Pantomime? He would've said it, duh.

[TUSooner]

Sure, if intentional. My point was that Craig James may not have considered his warning a threat, while Tech did. This is how two sides can have differing opinions on whether a threat occurred. Happens all the time.

[and a little later ....]
Sure, if Craig James really said that. But in the memo it says that Craig "indicated that litigation could ensue."

What does "indicated" mean? That he said it? I don't know.

All I am saying is that Craig may not have intended to threaten Tech, but that they took his words as a threat. Again, this is common.

My question is, so what? What if James threatened Tech? He felt his kid was badly treated, so he (possibly) threatened Tech with a lawsuit if they didn't take his concern seriously. Sounds pretty common to me.

Hokey smokes, Bullwinkle! What you describe is a threat to sue on the planet where the rest of us live. Stop acting so ****ing obtuse just for the sake of being disagreeable. It's not Socratic, but more like sophistry.
Don't you have a class to teach or a book to write or some parents to avoid confronting about Muffy's C minus?

[Leroy Lizard]

I don't know how you could unintentionally say "litigation could ensue".

Okay, let's go back.

The memo did not say that James stated that litigation could ensue. We don't know what James said.

"litigation could ensue" is not a direct quote, but an interpretation.

There is no doubt that if James said "Litigation could ensue" that he is threatening the university with a lawsuit. We agree, okay?

What's the big deal? All I said was that the whole issue of whether James threatened to sue the university could be the result of a misunderstanding. Are you saying it couldn't?


What you describe is a threat to sue on the planet where the rest of us live

I don't know what James said. You don't know either. The Tech memo doesn't tell us what he said, and there is no way that we can know whether they interpreted what James said in the same manner as James intended.

"Look, you need to look into this or you won't hear the last from me." That could be interpreted as a threat of litigation, but it really isn't. Or maybe it is. Depends on the context of the conversation.

And you still haven't answered my question: So what if it was a threat? What are the implications? No one has explained that yet. Not even the reporter.

[TUSooner]

A threat to by James, whether it meets the Lizard definition of a threat or the Earthling definition, shows his pettiness, his petulance. Something in the broad general category of, "If you don't protect my little Adam from that mean old Coach Leach I'll hold by breath till I turn blue!" But a bit more serious because it implies paying lawyers. Craig may say his remonstrance was to protect "the rest of these fine young lads" but those of us who have ever walked through a cow pasture know it for the bullsh!t it is.

Of course, you won't see it that way, but I just liked writing that. :)

[Leroy Lizard]

A threat to by James, whether it meets the Lizard definition of a threat or the Earthling definition, shows his pettiness, his petulance.

One small problem with your interpretation:


"The threat did not appear to be an idle threat as the parent expressed genuine concern for the health and well-being of his injured child, as well as other student-athletes," the memo continued.


I wouldn't consider a genuine concern for the health and well-being of student-athletes as petty, especially since it is coming from a man that himself was a star athlete and should know how athletes are usually treated.

Now, whether Craig James knew exactly what happened to his son is another matter. He can only go by what Adam told him. Maybe Adam told him some real horror stories.

[TUSooner]

One small problem with your interpretation:



I wouldn't consider a genuine concern for the health and well-being of student-athletes as petty, especially since it is coming from a man that himself was a star athlete and should know how athletes are usually treated.

Now, whether Craig James knew exactly what happened to his son is another matter. He can only go by what Adam told him. Maybe Adam told him some real horror stories.
You left out this:

Craig may say his remonstrance was to protect "the rest of these fine young lads" but those of us who have ever walked through a cow pasture know it for the bullsh!t it is.
Craig knows he sounds like a whiny bitch over his bratty son - which he is - so he dolls himself up in altruistic hogwash.

You are eager to dismiss the views of mere internet posters but you seem willing to drink Craig's bath water. Bottoms up! You can drink alone.

[Leroy Lizard]

Craig may say his remonstrance was to protect "the rest of these fine young lads"

Craig said nothing of the kind. The Tech administrators said it, in a memo that was not meant to be seen by others. That is fairly strong evidence that Craig James was legitimately concerned about his kid.

How can you possibly think that the Tech memo was part of Craig James' pr habits? He didn't write it, and I doubt he even knew about it.

Again (and you keep ignoring this point), we don't know if Adam exaggerated his mistreatment at the hands of Leach, so how can we judge Craig's alarm?

[MamaMia]

I don't know how you could unintentionally say "litigation could ensue". If anything similar to that leaves your lips, it's an intentional threat. Whether or not he would've followed up, no one knows. But it's an intentional threat.
It was a threat.

[Leroy Lizard]

It was a threat.

So you know what Craig James actually said? Good. Maybe you can tell the rest of us.

[Widescreen]

Like talking to a brick wall.

[MeMyself&Me]

Like talking to a brick wall.

Use the ignore feature and and that brick wall will look like this:


This message is hidden because Leroy Lizard is on your ignore list.

[TUSooner]

Craig said nothing of the kind. The Tech administrators said it, in a memo that was not meant to be seen by others. That is fairly strong evidence that Craig James was legitimately concerned about his kid.
How can you possibly think that the Tech memo was part of Craig James' pr habits? He didn't write it, and I doubt he even knew about it.
So Tech made it all up and James did not say it?
It's "strong evidence" to nobody but you. And by the way, Tech has an incentive to put up the front of "protecting the rest of these fine young men."



Again (and you keep ignoring this point), we don't know if Adam exaggerated his mistreatment at the hands of Leach, so how can we judge Craig's alarm?

These are the last words I'll waste on this thread:

We all have basically the same public information. Most of us have our BS detectors on and tuned. But you (evidently presuming yourself to be among the elite) assume that the majority is an uninformed "mob," so you construe the information with all inferences, reasonable and unreasonable, in favor of the Jameses, just to avoid sharing the same thoughts as the unwashed masses. That's your choice, and it's fine. But please stop pretending that it's some special insight.

You also speculate and assume things based on no information. Example: To defend Craig, you say "we don't know if Adam exaggerated" and you call it "a point." It's nothing remotely like "a point"; it's 100% speculation and pure imagination.

The topper: You make so many petty arguments over tangents (like whether Adam exaggerated) that few can remember what the main contention is. You disagree for the sake of disagreeing until the center of attention is .... YOU!
Like now.
Sometimes it's fun, I admit. But sometimes it's just tiresome.
Like now.

[RacerX]

Like talking to a brick wall.

Nope, brick walls are more enjoyable.

[badger]

Nope, brick walls are more enjoyable.

Brick walls are more enjoyable to listen to than Craig James on commentary.

[TexasLidig8r]

Lesson to be learned....

IF you send written correspondence to any state agency, including public universities, understand that the correspondence is discoverable under the Freedom of Information Act.

Except for few exceptions, there is no privacy.

[Clever Trevor]

Sure, if Craig James really said that. But in the memo it says that Craig "indicated that litigation could ensue."

What does "indicated" mean? That he said it? I don't know.

All I am saying is that Craig may not have intended to threaten Tech, but that they took his words as a threat. Again, this is common.

My question is, so what? What if James threatened Tech? He felt his kid was badly treated, so he (possibly) threatened Tech with a lawsuit if they didn't take his concern seriously. Sounds pretty common to me.

LOL!!!
This is rich!


http://corporatespeak.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/businessman-banging-his-head-against-the-wall-ispc026073.jpg

[Seamus]

SI or something? Is that a new magazine?

If you have no way of substantiating the rumor, why don't you just say so?

Sorry, but nickzep in his heydey was nowhere near as annoying as this bastard ...

[Leroy Lizard]

So Tech made it all up and James did not say it? It's "strong evidence" to nobody but you. And by the way, Tech has an incentive to put up the front of "protecting the rest of these fine young men."

Oh, criminy! Here we go again.

We don't even know what was said, so how can we discuss whether Craig James said it? I have pointed this out about 30 times in here and you continuously ignore this point. (And then *I* get accused of arguing like a brick wall.)

Then you make another error when you say that the Tech administrators put in the comment about "protecting the rest of these fine young men" to make themselves look good. That is total horse****. The Tech admin is stating that CRAIG JAMES said something to that effect.

You need to go back and read the article again, because you have it all fouled up.

Craig James did not necessarily threaten Tech; he said something that Tech considered a threat, hence the word "indicated."

And then you say "it's strong evidence." Strong evidence of what? That Craig James cares enough about his kid that he threatened a lawsuit if Tech didn't investigate the situation?

The article is all about nothing. There is no smoking gun there. Even if all that is implied is true, it says nothing about Craig James or Tech. I don't even consider the article newsworthy. A dad feels his son was badly treated and is (supposedly) threatening a lawsuit if the administration doesn't take his concern seriously. So what?


We all have basically the same public information. Most of us have our BS detectors on and tuned. But you (evidently presuming yourself to be among the elite) assume that the majority is an uninformed "mob," so you construe the information with all inferences, reasonable and unreasonable, in favor of the Jameses, just to avoid sharing the same thoughts as the unwashed masses. That's your choice, and it's fine. But please stop pretending that it's some special insight.

We all share the same LACK of information. We don't know what Adam told his dad. We don't know what his dad told Tech. We don't know what Tech said to Leach. We don't know what Leach said to Tech.

So you create the conversations in your own mind, being careful to steer them so that (1) Leach looks good and (2) Tech and the Jameses look bad.

The difference between you and me is that I admit to not knowing exactly what took place. I am only offering alternative theories to contrast those from the lynch mob.


You also speculate and assume things based on no information. Example: To defend Craig, you say "we don't know if Adam exaggerated" and you call it "a point." It's nothing remotely like "a point"; it's 100% speculation and pure imagination.

Actually, given that Craig James got so steamed that he was calling Tech administrators, it is highly likely that Adam James did tell him some horror stories. Can you rule it out?

And the answer is no. But you really, really want to believe that Craig James is guilty on every single count because you don't like him. And that is what is driving this.

To you (and the other posters in here), it is not possible for Adam to have exaggerated his treatment to his dad, because that would imply that his dad (the Evil Craig James) acted somewhat reasonably.


The topper: You make so many petty arguments over tangents (like whether Adam exaggerated) that few can remember what the main contention is. You disagree for the sake of disagreeing until the center of attention is .... YOU!

First of all, whether Adam exaggerated is important if you want to gauge Craig James' discussion with Tech. You, on the other hand, don't want to consider the possibility because it could be construed as letting Craig James off the hook.

Now, why do these arguments go on and on? Two reasons:

1. I never quit. I will argue 'til the cows come home because I enjoy it. (Even when posters get pissy, like the one commenting about the brick wall.) Because I think I'm right, I am not going to cave in no matter how many oppose me.

2. Many posters in here (maybe even all of them) absolutely despise me and overreact to everything I say. (I could wish someone a happy birthday in here and there will be posters ready to step in and argue.)

[Leroy Lizard]

BTW, can we put an end to the discussion? We have all said what we needed to say.

[sooner59]

Why do people argue with LL anymore? He doesn't care about any issues that people argue with him over. He just gets off on being a spin doctor and finding a way to argue with someone. He takes minute details that are usually questionable at best and builds an entire case against someone. The problem is that too many people have common sense and don't buy into bull****. Maybe the movie "Thank You for Smoking" was based on his life.

[SoonerAtKU]

I think the salient point here is that Leach and his staff have claimed that Craig James was intrusive and distracting as a parent of a player. The facts seem to be bearing that out, even if we don't know the exact words used by either Tech or James. If you skirt that issue by arguing semantics, you create a different discussion. I think people are fine discussing that with you, Liz, but you're creating an argument that didn't exist.

To your point, however, I feel it's more than a little bit of a conflict of interest to have a public figure at the most powerful sports information network in human history threaten legal action, veiled or otherwise, towards one of the schools they cover.

[Leroy Lizard]

I think the salient point here is that Leach and his staff have claimed that Craig James was intrusive and distracting as a parent of a player.

I don't recall any of us denying that. I have stated many times that Craig James got involved when he shouldn't have.

But we already knew that James complained to Tech about the treatment of his son. James even admitted it. The only thing the article adds is that during the time James complained to the admins, he (supposedly) threatened legal action if his complaints were not taken seriously.

To that, I respond: BFD. So what? Who gives a ****?


To your point, however, I feel it's more than a little bit of a conflict of interest to have a public figure at the most powerful sports information network in human history threaten legal action, veiled or otherwise, towards one of the schools they cover.

James would have to be very careful how he words it, but he has the same rights as any other father. I think he was out of line in complaining to Tech, but that has nothing to do with his job at ESPN.

[Leroy Lizard]

Why do people argue with LL anymore?

For the same reason you bothered to post. Most posters would (I would think) look at the thread, decide it was not their cup of tea, and move to another thread. Yet, there are those that feel compelled to weigh in, all the while asking why others want to weigh in. Like you.

If you don't like the discussion, change the channel. No one is forcing you to read any of this or to respond.

[Jello Biafra]

BTW, can we put an end to the discussion? We have all said what we needed to say.

and yet you keep responding....


everyone elses responses are usually tolerated (including mine) because we aren't popmous pricks but YOU....you argue about damn near anything.

[Leroy Lizard]

Because people evidently still want to talk about it. Did I force Sooner59 and SoonerATKU to respond?

If we are going to end the discussion, then let's end it. Now.

[MamaMia]

Because people evidently still want to talk about it. Did I force Sooner59 and SoonerATKU to respond?

If we are going to end the discussion, then let's end it. Now. I'm really happy for you and Imma let you finish because you are the best thread ender of all time.

[TooSoon]

Craig said nothing of the kind.

Didn't he basically say that on a statement he read on ESPN? Only he didn't say "fine young lads" he said "fine young men."