John Adams article on settlement

#26
#26
golfballs said:
Oohh John Adams the boogeyman!

Of course Tennessee always pays its way out of bad situations. And of course it was financially responsible to settle. That's the bull**** litigious society we live in. I would like to live in a society where justice is served and the frauds are exposed.
Click to expand...

Maybe they were:hi:
 
#28
#28
I find it interesting that virtually everyone here on VN is passing judgement on the plaintiffs because UT settled but have any of us actually seen any of the evidence supporting the case? No.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#29
#29
So guilty until proven innocent - that's how it works?

They settled because of the AJ/Williams exposure. The defense solicited the other plaintiffs to make a bigger claim because they knew the other plaintiffs would win nothing in individual cases. That they settled this soon before depositions and discovery for an amount that netted each plaintiff around $200 K after attorney fees and costs should tell any casual observer they were very uncertain they could win.

The amount they settled for is half what it would have cost UT in legal fees to fight it. Had they gone that route, Adams would have written an article about how they should have settled it. That's who he is and what he does. Is and always will be a troll.
 
#30
#30
fade route said:
I find it interesting that virtually everyone here on VN is passing judgement on the plaintiffs because UT settled but have any of us actually seen any of the evidence supporting the case? No.
Click to expand...

It's a predictable reaction, but I agree. You really can't draw any informed conclusion other than making a guess about the veracity of the case based on the size of the settlement ... which seems on the low side IMO - but I'm blissfully ignorant about the going rate in Title IX settlements.
 
#32
#32
The buyout is Shockingly low which is why they did it!

DD's buyout was like $5 million for crying out loud!!

Been saying this a long time about Adams...


10037-albums19-picture5604.jpg






.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#33
#33
And what did you expect of the traditional scumbag of those who attempt to call themselves Sports Writers. I still refuse anything he pins. When one speaks of journalistic malpractice, Adams is at the head of the list.
 
#34
#34
From John Adams:
Tennessee officials have said all along there's nothing wrong with the culture surrounding their athletic program. And they're willing to spend almost $2.5 million not to prove it.


Anyone know where he lives??....
 
#35
#35
GAVol said:
It's a predictable reaction, but I agree. You really can't draw any informed conclusion other than making a guess about the veracity of the case based on the size of the settlement ... which seems on the low side IMO - but I'm blissfully ignorant about the going rate in Title IX settlements.
Click to expand...

The size of the settlement is a good place to start if you're going to make a judgement. It's amazingly low, chump change by today's standards. It's a lot I guess for just saying "he hit me" or "the university is mean" but comparatively most sexual harassment settlements against a business get settled for more.

Almost all entities will try to settle out of court because it's impossible to fight against a Jane Doe when everyone already is assuming she's been victimized right out of the gate. Emotional reactions don't favor a big business or University calling "sexual assault" victims liars. Speaking of emotional reactions, Jury awards have reached the millions.

Simply a risk that UT can't afford to take under the current climate of thought shared in today's society.

Do Companies Try to Settle Harassment Claims Out of Court? | Chron.com

Sexual harassment settlements: 'cost of doing business' - CNN.com

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/05/n...lion-to-settle-sex-harassment-cases.html?_r=0
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#36
#36
Adams had an article either way. He likely enjoyed this one a bit more but he could crap on UT no matter the course they chose
 
#37
#37
MustafaRasta said:
The size of the settlement is a good place to start if you're going to make a judgement. It's amazingly low, chump change by today's standards. It's a lot I guess for just saying "he hit me" or "the university is mean" but comparatively most sexual harassment settlements against a business get settled for more.

Almost all entities will try to settle out of court because it's impossible to fight against a Jane Doe when everyone already is assuming she's been victimized right out of the gate. Emotional reactions don't favor a big business or University calling "sexual assault" victims liars. Speaking of emotional reactions, Jury awards have reached the millions.

Simply a risk that UT can't afford to take under the current climate of thought shared in today's society.

Do Companies Try to Settle Harassment Claims Out of Court? | Chron.com

Sexual harassment settlements: 'cost of doing business' - CNN.com

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/05/n...lion-to-settle-sex-harassment-cases.html?_r=0
Click to expand...

I don't watch CNN but I will say the CNN article hit the key points of why corporations settle.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#38
#38
I don't see UT shying away, they told the world they were doing this in the media. JA problems started way back when he did not received preferential treatment for first print stories. He constantly harasses UT coaches or the university because he has to stand in line like the rest. UT has done some crazy things, and not to mention some of the students have help give many universities a bad image. However, I would point out to JA that he has fallen into the same trap as many others. Let's judge the many on the acts of the few. There some really good examples on both sides of the fence of student athletes and just everyday Joe and Jane students that bust their lower posterior to get an education and move on and try to build good memories of their "college days" but ambulance chasing lawyers and columnist want to make their name the quick and easy way.........prey on the weak and desperate. John Adams is a tool, and CBJ has made attempts to build a bridge, but John has refused to improve his attitude and look at the big picture. If I was UT, his media card would be cut and have him sulk at home and drink is JD all by himself........enough said. Let's move on and shine light on those who strive to see the best in people..............Go Vols!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#39
#39
Power T-Rev said:
Thought some people may want to read it. I'm not making anyone
Click to expand...

I just wish John or one of the "editors" at his job would read these every once in a while before he presses the submit button and sends them forward to affront the cerebrums of any sentient which might find these Rorschachs for the criminally butt hurt in their newsfeed.

There was a time when his curmudgeonly dyspepsia was at least formed into a semblance of coherent and organized journalese from the standard "I drink a lot, but when I'm not passed-out drunk I write sports articles" grab bag.

Now it seems that every year his writing gets more and more of a "my grandpa likes to go down to the root cellar to talk to his best friend who drowned 70 years ago" feeling.

Surely his time would be better spent pasting macaroni shards to construction paper in any ward the state could find the fiscal resources to offer him shelter in; and, surely, our time would be better spent analyzing the relative merit of said macaroni art than ever wounding our fore brains again in the toxic fume trail that is the standard John Adams article at this juncture of his ignominious and execrable career.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#40
#40
FlyFishnVol said:
I don't see UT shying away, they told the world they were doing this in the media. JA problems started way back when he did not received preferential treatment for first print stories. He constantly harasses UT coaches or the university because he has to stand in line like the rest. UT has done some crazy things, and not to mention some of the students have help give many universities a bad image. However, I would point out to JA that he has fallen into the same trap as many others. Let's judge the many on the acts of the few. There some really good examples on both sides of the fence of student athletes and just everyday Joe and Jane students that bust their lower posterior to get an education and move on and try to build good memories of their "college days" but ambulance chasing lawyers and columnist want to make their name the quick and easy way.........prey on the weak and desperate. John Adams is a tool, and CBJ has made attempts to build a bridge, but John has refused to improve his attitude and look at the big picture. If I was UT, his media card would be cut and have him sulk at home and drink is JD all by himself........enough said. Let's move on and shine light on those who strive to see the best in people..............Go Vols!
Click to expand...

If there is nothing happening that gives him an opportunity to crap on UT, He will dream up something to satisfy his ego. I stopped delivery of the KNS a long time ago and Hope I never find myself in a weaken state of mind to ever read anything he writes. I will not listen to any radio or TV show on which he appears. As far as I am concerned he is one of the lowest individuals I have ever had the displeasure of to which I have been exposed. Where are this who send moving van to the home of creeps like him? One of the largest problems with his attitude is he has taught/forced many of the younger, so called, journalist who work with/for him to follow in his miserable footsteps.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#41
#41
junder13 said:
The reaction of people on this site never ceases to amaze me. So Adams article is rubbish because of what exactly? Because it's poorly written (it's not), he has a lifelong agenda against UT as a Knoxville sports columnist (fallacious urban legend among UT fans that view any stated negativity towards UT as a sure sign of hatred against the vols), or because he is using his characteristic sarcasm to express dissatisfaction with the university taking the easy road and settling?

Adams did us all a great favor when he wrote his cutting article on Jamie Naughright back in February. It helped turn the tide of seemingly endless negativity towards the university in the early stages of the lawsuit generated media frenzy (which was the main battle tactic by the plaintiffs' lawyer team.

If you read through his sarcasm, you will see why he writes a scathing opinion piece quickly after the announced settlement: he recognizes (correctly) that the lawsuit was paper thin and there was a strong case to fight it to the bitter end.

I, for one, am in agreement with Adams 100% here. The University of Tennessee is a state institution and the state has a sales tax. Therefore, it is an institution partly funded by TN taxpayers. It also happens to be one of the most important representations of the state as a whole. Seeing as how I'm both a graduate of UT and a Tennessean, born and raised, I don't give a d@mn what the cost would be to fight this unsubstantiated lawsuit, if it truly does consist of nothing but "false accusations, as Jimmy Cheek stated, I would never want it settled.

But that's the problem with society. It's no longer about right or wrong, fact or fiction, justice or injustice. All that seems to matter in this litigious society today is perception and the size of the threat.

Now the state of Tennessee has enriched 8 contemptible, degenerate, reprehensible cleat chasing women and your run-of-the-mill pernicious team of personal injury lawyers to the tune of $2.5mil. That's likely to be around $250k for each plaintiff and half a million or more for the blood sucking lawyers. Personal injury settlements are also non-taxed, so if you think of it in terms in terms of income it's more like $325k to each plaintiff.

Based on my earned income out of college it would have taken me roughly 6 years of work to have earned that amount, maybe longer.

If this lawsuit was as frivolous as we all believed, the university just made a short-sighted and unacceptable decision to settle. Keep in mind that the buyout for both Fulmer and Dooley was likely more than the worse case estimate on legal costs had they not settled. Also, had the court ruled in the university's favor, they could have countersued for a frivolous suit (and would have had a strong case IMO) in an attempt to regain some of the legal costs.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your insight Mr. Adams.
 
#42
#42
Every university has a paper that covers them (sans Vandy because who cares) and they all have an opinion writer and they are all hated. It just is what it is. They write to induce reaction. He did a good job with this article.
 
#43
#43
Pretty stupid argument by Adams since it would have cost UT more than that in lawyer's fees to fight it for another 2-5 years. And it is unlikely it would have been resolved in less time.
 
#44
#44
Someone needs to ask Adams this: If you were sued, wrongly in your opinion, and you were offered a settlement less than what it would cost you for a lawyer to fight it.... would you take the settlement?
 
#48
#48
junder13 said:
The reaction of people on this site never ceases to amaze me. So Adams article is rubbish because of what exactly? Because it's poorly written (it's not), he has a lifelong agenda against UT as a Knoxville sports columnist (fallacious urban legend among UT fans that view any stated negativity towards UT as a sure sign of hatred against the vols), or because he is using his characteristic sarcasm to express dissatisfaction with the university taking the easy road and settling?

Adams did us all a great favor when he wrote his cutting article on Jamie Naughright back in February. It helped turn the tide of seemingly endless negativity towards the university in the early stages of the lawsuit generated media frenzy (which was the main battle tactic by the plaintiffs' lawyer team.

If you read through his sarcasm, you will see why he writes a scathing opinion piece quickly after the announced settlement: he recognizes (correctly) that the lawsuit was paper thin and there was a strong case to fight it to the bitter end.

I, for one, am in agreement with Adams 100% here. The University of Tennessee is a state institution and the state has a sales tax. Therefore, it is an institution partly funded by TN taxpayers. It also happens to be one of the most important representations of the state as a whole. Seeing as how I'm both a graduate of UT and a Tennessean, born and raised, I don't give a d@mn what the cost would be to fight this unsubstantiated lawsuit, if it truly does consist of nothing but "false accusations, as Jimmy Cheek stated, I would never want it settled.

But that's the problem with society. It's no longer about right or wrong, fact or fiction, justice or injustice. All that seems to matter in this litigious society today is perception and the size of the threat.

Now the state of Tennessee has enriched 8 contemptible, degenerate, reprehensible cleat chasing women and your run-of-the-mill pernicious team of personal injury lawyers to the tune of $2.5mil. That's likely to be around $250k for each plaintiff and half a million or more for the blood sucking lawyers. Personal injury settlements are also non-taxed, so if you think of it in terms in terms of income it's more like $325k to each plaintiff.

Based on my earned income out of college it would have taken me roughly 6 years of work to have earned that amount, maybe longer.

If this lawsuit was as frivolous as we all believed, the university just made a short-sighted and unacceptable decision to settle. Keep in mind that the buyout for both Fulmer and Dooley was likely more than the worse case estimate on legal costs had they not settled. Also, had the court ruled in the university's favor, they could have countersued for a frivolous suit (and would have had a strong case IMO) in an attempt to regain some of the legal costs.
Click to expand...

You make a lot of good points here. The ad hominem attacks on Adams are intellectually lazy and the volume of them is pretty comical.

JA ticks folks off because he's often willing to take a contra/non-homer view and a lot of people take it personally or just don't like reading positions with which they disagree. As noted in another post, it cuts both ways. He strongly defended Manning when it seemed virtually everyone else in the media was ready to burn down his legacy. And he did so by simply telling the truth about Whited/Naughright with his customary biting style--again, something some just don't like. That said, if he'd fabricated any of what he wrote about her repeated phone calls/etc., I'm sure she would have been happy to add the KNS to her list of defendants. Haven't heard anything about that yet.

His attacks on the Fulmer regime in its later years were warranted--things were slipping. The efforts by UT/AD to spin failure earned JA's sharpest barbs. As they should have. His shots at the lunacy of how UT makes decisions have generally been rooted in truth and designed to provoke debate, and of course clicks (which is what he's paid to do).

Anyway, I'd take Adams over those weak-willed homers that cover UGA or Bama any day of the week. Or the UK media that only barely understands the game of American football. Or God forbid the Baylor media which was essentially complicit in systematically enabling multiple sexual assaults to be covered up. The ultimate in homer media...sweeping felonies under the rug. Not in Knoxville--our dirty laundry is in the street and we'll be better/stronger for facing it now than pulling a Waco and trying to pretend we're all squeaky.

Vigorous debate and differing ideas make for a more interesting experience and fan base--and a wiser one. One of which I'm proud to be a part.

Adams as provocateur is an important square in our quilt. I'll miss him when he's gone, especially the times when he pisses me off.

my $0.02

GBO
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#49
#49
NYCVol said:
You make a lot of good points here. The ad hominem attacks on Adams are intellectually lazy and the volume of them is pretty comical.

JA ticks folks off because he's often willing to take a contra/non-homer view and a lot of people take it personally or just don't like reading positions with which they disagree. As noted in another post, it cuts both ways. He strongly defended Manning when it seemed virtually everyone else in the media was ready to burn down his legacy. And he did so by simply telling the truth about Whited/Naughright with his customary biting style--again, something some just don't like. That said, if he'd fabricated any of what he wrote about her repeated phone calls/etc., I'm sure she would have been happy to add the KNS to her list of defendants. Haven't heard anything about that yet.

His attacks on the Fulmer regime in its later years were warranted--things were slipping. The efforts by UT/AD to spin failure earned JA's sharpest barbs. As they should have. His shots at the lunacy of how UT makes decisions have generally been rooted in truth and designed to provoke debate, and of course clicks (which is what he's paid to do).

Anyway, I'd take Adams over those weak-willed homers that cover UGA or Bama any day of the week. Or the UK media that only barely understands the game of American football. Or God forbid the Baylor media which was essentially complicit in systematically enabling multiple sexual assaults to be covered up. The ultimate in homer media...sweeping felonies under the rug. Not in Knoxville--our dirty laundry is in the street and we'll be better/stronger for facing it now than pulling a Waco and trying to pretend we're all squeaky.

Vigorous debate and differing ideas make for a more interesting experience and fan base--and a wiser one. One of which I'm proud to be a part.

Adams as provocateur is an important square in our quilt. I'll miss him when he's gone, especially the times when he pisses me off.

my $0.02

GBO
Click to expand...

No.

my $0.02 [at a penny-to-word ratio, worth a lot more than yours] :)
 
#50
#50
junder13 said:
But that's the problem with society. It's no longer about right or wrong, fact or fiction, justice or injustice. All that seems to matter in this litigious society today is perception and the size of the threat.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree with most of what you posted (IN PRINCIPLE). Reality is that dragging this thing out could be way more costly. Yes it was a money grab and it worked. And, because it's settled, the door is open for more of the same.

As for the problem with society part - the problem is with the ambiguities in the Title IX law. It's got more loopholes than my granny's knitting basket. The responsibilities it places on schools to police these allegations are unrealistic and basically ludicrous. It's not a task that an administration has the tools or expertise to do. Therefore, they did, and will again, botch it the next time an allegation arises. It's a recipe for repeated failure; a chink in the armor for a legal money grab, and that chink still exists - not only in Knoxville but nationwide.

It's temporarily over, but you can bet your bottom dollar the lawyers are foaming at the mouth looking for another opportunity. Society the problem only in the fact that society thought Title IX was a good thing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top