Good National Reaction To Oddsmaker Dan

[AUChizad]

http://dev.chuckoliver.net/2011/08/sheridan-strikes-out/

My name is Barrett Sallee.  I wrote this piece about Danny Sheridan a few weeks ago.  I don't hide behind my keyboard.  My e-mail address and Twitter handle are both located at the bottom of this column.  I don't live in my mother's basement.

Now that we have that out of the way, let's move on to the disgraceful acts that took place in the studios of the Paul Finebaum Radio Network on Wednesday afternoon.

Danny Sheridan, a sports analyst (oddsmaker) for USA Today, made his long-awaited return to the airwaves after supposedly receiving the name of the "bagman" that paid off Cam Newton's father, Cecil Newton, in order to sway the younger Newton to the Auburn Tigers.

The result?  A whole lot of nothing.  Raise your hand if you're surprised (put your hand down, you shouldn't be).

Sheridan, hiding behind the advice of Vince Kilborn - one of the most prominent lawyers in Alabama - claimed that he was able to track down the name of this alleged "bagman" through his sources, but couldn't reveal it over the air for fear of A) being sued and B) getting his sources fired.

If Sheridan's source is telling the truth, legal action is out the window.  There's no defense from the truth, so if the name Sheridan claims to have is, in fact, the "bagman," Sheridan has nothing to worry about from a legal perspective.  Clearly, he's not 100 percent confident that the information he has is accurate.

Sheridan also has nothing to worry about in relation to his sources getting fired.  Alabama's "shield law" (section 12-21-142 of The Code of Alabama) protects him from revealing his sources.  That law reads as follows:

    "No person engaged in, connected with or employed on any newspaper, radio broadcasting station or television station, while engaged in a news-gathering capacity, shall be compelled to disclose in any legal proceeding or trial, before any court or before a grand jury of any court, before the presiding officer of any tribunal or his agent or agents or before any committee of the Legislature or elsewhere the sources of any information procured or obtained by him and published in the newspaper, broadcast by any broadcasting station, or televised by any television station on which he is engaged, connected with or employed."

Sheridan claims that he will take a polygraph test to prove that he's telling the truth.  What he is hoping slipped by most people is the simple fact that he IS telling the truth.  There's no doubt in anybody's mind that somebody, somewhere told him the name of this alleged "bagman."  A simple Internet search would have turned up 20 people that were definitely the "bagman," even before Sheridan made his initial claims.  That doesn't make the information legitimate.

A far more likely reason for this fiasco was the drama that played out in an Alabama courtroom over the last few months.  Legalized gambling has been a hot topic for several years, but two defendants were acquitted and a mistrial was declared for seven others in a high profile vote buying trial last week.  This trial had long been the subject of rampant Internet rumors that phone recordings tied to the case were related to Cecil Newton's pay-for-play conversation with Mississippi State boosters, and Cam Newton's eventual decision to sign with Auburn.

Jim Parkman, a self-proclaimed Alabama fan and attorney for Slocomb Senator Harri Anne Smith, told WRBC Fox 6 in Birmingham, Ala., that there is no trace of any evidence on those recordings.

    "I did hear all the rumors they just said. People even say I have a great source that has heard the tapes. There is no tapes I'm aware of. Never has been. I'd like for them to be. I'm an Alabama fan."

So is it a coincidence that Sheridan - an Alabama grad - made his initial claims as the trial was ongoing, and conveniently lawyers up after the trial bears no evidence of any wrong doing in relation to Auburn football?  I'll let you be the judge of that, but the answer is pretty clear.

The medium in which Sheridan appeared also warrants criticism.  The Paul Finebaum Radio Network is a nationally syndicated circus that originates from the heart of the ongoing Iron Bowl war - Birmingham, Ala.  The show is theater.  The host, callers and, in this case, guest, all play a role to agitate one side or the other in the never-ending battle for state supremacy.  The result is a four-hour radio program that is tragically entertaining and tragically depressing at the same time.

But this time, the act went too far.  This was a ratings ploy, plain and simple.  Paul Finebaum deserves a lot of credit for the empire that he's built for himself, capitalizing on the fever pitch in which the Iron Bowl exists on a daily basis.  But this transparent, pathetic series of appearances by Sheridan on Finebaum's air is the responsibility of the host, and he could have - and should have - have put an end to it long ago.

Six months ago, I thought it was impossible for anyone - and I mean ANYONE - to make Cam and Cecil Newton sympathetic figures.  Wednesday afternoon, Danny Sheridan and Paul Finebaum did just that, and they owe the Newtons an apology.

I'll hang up and listen.

[Snaggletiger]

Well now.....

[AUTiger1]

I read this little gem last night.  Very good read. 

Chizad, did you see the one where the guy broke down why it was BS, b/c Danny Boy would have been in hot water with USA Today for having that kind of story and them not getting to break it, but instead him letting Finebaum who is a nobody break it?

[Townhallsavoy]

Well, ole Barrett didn't deny that he's a cockroach.  Point to Danny. 

[Snaggletiger]

Okay, clarify something for me.  Was Dummy Sheridan going to reveal the name of a witness, as he referred to it 100 times yesterday, or the actual "bag man"?  Or are they one and the same?

I asked this yesterday as well, Dummy kept saying over and over that if the witness doesn't come forward, there's no case. Right?  So, the witness hasn't come forward and until he does, no case.  I know this sounds too logical but if the witness hasn't come forward, exactly how did you identify this person as a witness in the first place?  I'm thinking something along the lines of ooohh saaayyy....someone who was ultra butthurt, decided to contact the NCAA with some really super-secret insider information concerning knowing who paid Cecil/Cam.

That's never been done before, has it?  Naaaaa...apparently I'm missing something badly here. 

[Townhallsavoy]

Okay, clarify something for me.  Was Dummy Sheridan going to reveal the name of a witness, as he referred to it 100 times yesterday, or the actual "bag man"?  Or are they one and the same?

I asked this yesterday as well, Dummy kept saying over and over that if the witness doesn't come forward, there's no case. Right?  So, the witness hasn't come forward and until he does, no case.  I know this sounds too logical but if the witness hasn't come forward, exactly how did you identify this person as a witness in the first place?  I'm thinking something along the lines of ooohh saaayyy....someone who was ultra butthurt, decided to contact the NCAA with some really super-secret insider information concerning knowing who paid Cecil/Cam.

That's never been done before, has it?  Naaaaa...apparently I'm missing something badly here.

Doesn't matter.  Danny's full of shit. 

Danny gave himself an out.  My opinion is that he was lucky.  I think he and his lawyer listened to his interview with Finebaum from a few weeks ago and caught that he said "I may or may not give the name."  That's the angle they took on the show yesterday.

[AUChizad]

I read this little gem last night.  Very good read. 

Chizad, did you see the one where the guy broke down why it was BS, b/c Danny Boy would have been in hot water with USA Today for having that kind of story and them not getting to break it, but instead him letting Finebaum who is a nobody break it?

No, but if you find it, please to be posting.

[AUTiger1]

No, but if you find it, please to be posting.

I will look some more, I can't remember where I saw it.

[AuburnChopper 3.0]

Clay Travis wrote an article last night that fits your description.  Broke down why Sheridans story didn't hold up to the specific laws that would protect him, etc....

[AUTiger1]

Clay Travis wrote an article last night that fits your description.  Broke down why Sheridans story didn't hold up to the specific laws that would protect him, etc....

Is he the outkick the coverage guy?  If so, I think that is where I saw it.

[AUChizad]

Is he the outkick the coverage guy?  If so, I think that is where I saw it.

Oh yeah, I saw that. Posted here.

[AUTiger1]

Oh yeah, I saw that. Posted here.

Yup, that was it.  Made sense to me, even if Travis is a douche of epic proportions, if I were USA Today and he had that kind of scoop, I can guarantee you that he would be working with my reporters to break it and not Pawwwwlll.  If not, then his ass would be unemployed on the quick.

http://outkickthecoverage.com/danny-sheridan-doesnt-really-believe-his-cam-newtoncecil-newton-source.php