The minefield of a story, first released online in late February, paints the UCLA program as a mess, alleging a slew of misdeeds by players on and off the court, not limited to dropping ecstasy, smoking weed and deliberately ignoring coaches’ orders. Nelson, in particular, is portrayed as a total tool who intentionally tried to injure teammates in practice and even peed on teammate Tyler Honeycutt‘s clothes for allegedly snitching about a New Year’s Eve rave. Meanwhile, coach Ben Howland is depicted as somebody who more or less turned the other cheek to the bad behavior.

Nelson, who was kicked off the team in December for a recent string of misconduct, mounted up by hiring entertainment lawyer Keith Fink, who sent a letter to SI shortly after the story’s publication demanding a retraction, saying the expose’s author, George Dohrmann, fabricated portions of the story. Obviously SI didn’t budge.

Now Nelson has filed suit against the publication, and, according to TMZ, Fink said they have proof that Dohrmann “recklessly and negligently failed to investigate the claims in the article.” The lawsuit cites 18 current and former players who deny the allegations leveled against Nelson in the story. Honeycutt also reportedly said that Nelson “did not urinate on my clothes.”

Even if the suit is successful, it probably still won’t do much to undo the negative perception people have of Nelson. Or any possibility that he actually pooped on Honeycutt’s clothes instead.

Photo: Jayne Kamin-Oncea-US PRESSWIRE

Walsh was supposedly “asked” a question about Phillips during his chat. Based on the way it was phrased, the question seemed planted by ESPN (or specifically chosen by them) so that they could formulate a response that wouldn’t make them look too bad. Let’s look at Walsh’s response:

Robbie Crowley (Anaheim, CA)

Given the dustup over Sarah Phillips, what is ESPN’s policy as it relates to hiring prospective workers? And what’s the difference at ESPN between a freelancer and a fulltime columnist?

John Walsh

We need to remember she was a freelance contributor, not an employee or full-time staffer, or part-time staffer, or contractual contributor. As such, she was properly vetted for the normal hiring standards for per-piece contributors, which is common not just at ESPN, but throughout the media industry. For those unaware, there is a big difference in these job descriptions. As the name implies, freelancers without contracts are free to work anywhere, for anybody. There is no obligation on the part of the individual or the company to continue the working relationship. When she first started, she provided the information necessary to contribute to us (obviously, since then we were aware only of the contributions she was making to ESPN). This week, when we became aware of other information, we promptly ended our per-piece relationship with her. We are continuing to review this instance and examining our process for potential changes.

Walsh is doing his best to defend ESPN, but everything he’s saying is flat-out wrong. The distinction between full-time, part-time, freelance, or contract employees for ESPN does not matter to the public. Does ESPN tell us in a writer’s byline that the employee is only a freelancer, therefore we shouldn’t take their material as seriously? Of course not.

The public trusts that if ESPN has hired someone to write for its website — or any position for that matter — that the person is credible. Likewise, the person then gets to use ESPN’s name in their Twitter bio and resume, giving them instant credibility. The person becomes a representative of ESPN, who is then trading off that respectable name.

ESPN can’t simply excuse their mistake by saying that the person was only a freelancer. They were extremely careless with their hire, and many people were allegedly hurt in a number of ways — monetarily and emotionally — because ESPN hired Phillips. If you read the stories from people who claim they were scammed by Phillips, they almost all mention that ESPN was a huge factor in trusting, believing, and dealing with Phillips. I would even think they could be liable for damages if they were sued.

One distinction I want to make is that it’s extremely difficult to find ESPN, or any company for that matter, responsible for what its employees do when they’re not at work. If one of their writers gets a DUI, it reflects poorly on the company by association, but it would be hard to blame them unless the person was coming from a company function.

In this case, it’s ESPN who hired Phillips and made her what she was, giving her the credibility to dupe people. Had they done proper research, they would have realized Phillips was an extremely sketchy character whose identity was uncertain, and they hopefully would not have hired her.

Dan Patrick frequently talks about his former employer, ESPN, (aka the “Mothership”), on his nationally syndicated and televised radio show, but he doesn’t often go after them as much as he did on Friday.

Patrick was upset that ESPN Radio morning talk show host Colin Cowherd seemed to rip him off without giving credit, and he called him out for it.

What happened is Patrick interviewed Kurt Warner on Thursday morning and asked the former quarterback-turned-analyst if he would want his children to play football given the dangers of the sport. Warner said he preferred if they didn’t, and was called out by another player for his opinion.

According to Awful Announcing, Cowherd had Warner on his show later in the morning (audio here). He started off the interview asking about the same subject.

“You know, Kurt, yesterday on the tragic death of Junior Seau one of the first things I thought about was the effect it’s going to have on the game long term and mothers and fathers saying, ‘you know what, I’m out.’ There’s no way I want my kids playing this game. You’ve got kids, where do you fall on that Kurt?” Cowherd asked.

Patrick viewed that as Cowherd trying to piggyback on a subject Patrick raised, but without giving Dan the proper credit. After Patrick called out Cowherd on his show Friday (audio in the video above), the ESPN personality responded to people questioning him over Twitter. Cowherd played dumb.

@Uuuumaganever heard his show once…not once.

— Colin Cowherd (@ESPN_Colin) May 4, 2012

@BlakeSmith2012 @dpshownever heard it once…ever. danny is not on the radar.

— Colin Cowherd (@ESPN_Colin) May 4, 2012

@danny232425 dan talks a lot about espn in his show apperantly. I talk a lot of sports. Just different approaches

— Colin Cowherd (@ESPN_Colin) May 4, 2012

Cowherd could be telling the truth when he says he hasn’t heard Dan Patrick’s show, and I wouldn’t doubt him. Here’s the thing: He doesn’t have to listen to the show to know if something of significance was said on it. Awful Announcing points out that ESPN was running the quotes Warner gave Patrick all throughout the day, and crediting “The Dan Patrick Show” for them. It’s quite possible that Cowherd saw that, piggybacked on it, and tried to present it as his own. It’s also entirely possible that Cowherd just thought of the question on his own.

I worked in national radio for nine years and can tell you that some organizations refuse to credit their competitors. Sometimes I would credit competitors for a scoop because I felt it was the right thing to do, and I was called in by bosses and told not to. This is the way national radio organizations operate, so it’s not a surprise if Cowherd intentionally didn’t give credit.

If you’re a regular LBS reader, you know we’re big on credit. We frequently “hat tip” other blogs or people if we happen to see a story on their site or through their Twitter feed. It’s the right thing to do. Sometimes we’ll happen to publish an obscure story from an obscure source 30 minutes after a competing blog does, and it looks like we grabbed the story from them without giving credit. I can tell you that no matter how much it looks like we got it from them, if we didn’t give a hat tip, it’s because we saw it and were working on it and just happened to publish a little later. What’s my point? It’s possible Cowherd was thinking about asking that question on his own.

Still, nothing tops Dan Patrick going after ESPN.

“I’ll take on the empire. And I like my damn chances.”

The ESPN NFL Draft set was never more animated than when the analysts began discussing quarterback prospect Russell Wilson.

Early in the third round, the only quarterback taken on the second day was Brock Osweiler. ESPN showed draft analyst Mel Kiper Jr.’s quarterback board, and he said Wilson was more of a fourth-round prospect. Kiper’s big knock against Wilson is his size — he’s only 5’11″. That reasoning caused Jon Gruden to have a fit.

Gruden tore into Kiper for downgrading Wilson over a matter of an inch or two in height.

“You discriminate against guys who aren’t six feet!” Gruden told Kiper.

He then cited Ray Lewis, Wes Welker, Darren Sproles, and Maurice Jones-Drew as examples of undersized star players who Kiper would have downgraded.

The whole exchange was highly entertaining, and Gruden turned out to be correct in his prediction that Wilson would be taken that round; Seattle took him with the 12th pick in the third round, No. 75 overall.

Below is a look at Wilson turning down the volume on his TV after hearing all the ESPN bickering:

So for the first night of next week’s NFL Draft, in an effort to make their draft coverage more suspenseful, both networks reportedly won’t be showing shots of players talking on the phone shortly before their name is ultimately read by Roger Goodell. According to SI’s Richard Deitsch, on-air personalities are still free to make predictions, however.

Previously, any suspense leading up to a pick evaporated once cameras showed prospects coyly speaking into their phones in the green room or their homes before Goodell had a chance to officially announce their name. It has always been the downside to the extensive coverage networks provide for the draft. LB has voiced this complaint in the past. Finally, something is being done about it. The decision comes after both networks met with the league Wednesday to discuss ways to deal with the problem.

This should be a move welcomed by anybody who enjoys all things compelling. After all, the NFL Draft is a television event more than it is a sporting event. Hopefully well-informed reporters like Adam Schefter and Chris Mortensen will also have the decency to bite their tongues.

Aside from the few no-brainer selections, it’s going to be fun not knowing what to expect at each pick. For once it will happen other than when the Raiders are on the clock.

H/T Shutdown Corner
Photo credit: Howard Smith-US PRESSWIRE

The Boston Globe reports Sapp’s stint as an analyst with NFL Network is “likely over.” This comes in the wake of Sapp’s controversial accusation last month that Jeremy Shockey was the whistle blower in the Saints’ bounty scandal. The network reprimanded Sapp, saying he is an “analyst, not a reporter,” but did not fire him. However, Sapp hasn’t appeared on the network since that week.

According to Sapp’s bankruptcy paperwork, he makes roughly $540,000 per year for his NFL Network gig. The Globe’s report cites a source that says his contract is not expected to be renewed when it expires in August. Pro Football Talk confirms that Sapp will be “benched” until his deal is up.

We’ve been vocal in the past about our belief that Sapp should have been dismissed from the network for his reckless handling of the serious allegations he leveled against Shockey. It appeared he was just going to get away with a slap on the wrist. Now it looks as if his contract simply won’t be picked up, as a consequence. Better late than never.

Photo credit: Matthew Emmons-US PRESSWIRE

Curtis Lofton, Chris Chamberlain, David Hawthorne. Get the message, Jonathan Vilma?

— Peter King (@SI_PeterKing) April 3, 2012

King sent the message shortly after the Saints signed linebacker David Hawthorne. Vilma played dumb, responding to King “that u know how to type peoples names??” Vilma then called King a blogger, saying he was doing “reckless journalism.”

@SI_PeterKing the nfl investigation has NOTHING to do with ur tweet. You’ve now turned into a blogger who takes shots at players on twitter

— Jonathan Vilma (@JonVilma51) April 4, 2012

King reminded Vilma that his anger was misdirected, saying “It’s the NFL investigation, Jonathan. Not me.”

Vilma is playing dumb here and he is wrong. Vilma was singled out as a player who led the bounty system along with Scott Fujita and Will Smith. Vilma even has a history of participating in bounty systems dating back to college. The Saints wouldn’t be aggressively signing linebackers if they didn’t believe Vilma would be suspended for a significant amount of time. If he can’t see that, then he’s ignoring reality.

Newsday reports that a member of Lin’s family contacted Anthony Federico more than a month ago but they were unable to set up a meeting until now because of the point guard’s busy schedule. They finally met for lunch at a Manhattan restaurant Tuesday and Federico, who was apologetic following his egregious error, said “it went incredible.”

“The fact that he took the time to meet with me in his insanely busy schedule . . . He’s just a wonderful, humble person,” Federico told Newsday. “He didn’t have to do that, especially after everything had kind of died down for the most part.

“We talked more about matters of faith [and] reconciliation. We talked about our shared Christian values and what we’re both trying do with this situation . . . We didn’t talk about the headline for more than three minutes.”

Federico was feeling terribly for his error but probably feels much better now that he’s met with Lin. That’s also extremely thoughtful of Lin to arrange the meeting. As Federico said, Lin is very humble, and definitely a caring person.

“We have discussed it with Warren and stressed that he is an analyst and not a reporter for NFL Network. In the future, if he comes across something he thinks is news he will let his producers know and before it is reported or Tweeted, that content will be subject to the same verification procedure that our reporters follow.”

Earlier this week Sapp tweeted and later repeated on air that Shockey was the whistle blower for the Saints’ bounty system. Shockey profusely refuted the claims, even showing a text from Saints coach Sean Payton that he thought exonerated him. Sapp hasn’t revealed his source.

We thought what Sapp did to Shockey was pretty reckless and was a fireable offense. Obviously Sapp losing his job is not going to happen now. Hopefully he’s learned that somebody with his stature and position can’t throw damaging accusations around so loosely without being entirely certain.

Photo credit: Mark J. Rebilas, US Presswire

Scully is 84 and has called Dodgers games for 62 seasons (!!!). He pared down his traveling schedule the past few seasons by not calling games east of Colorado, but now it looks like he will no longer be making the trip for Rockies games.

Luckily the Dodgers play in the NL West and many of their games are nearby Los Angeles, so he can still do Giants, Padres, and Diamondbacks games.

Even though Scully is older and not as sharp as he used to be, most fans would agree it’s more enjoyable to hear him calling games than anyone else, so we’ll take whatever he can give us.