Stephen A. Smith is quickly taking on a second job outside of working for ESPN as an analyst/screaming head ? a professional lackey for embattled athletes who need someone reputable to put a positive spin on their past crimes. He did it a few weeks ago in the days leading up to Floyd Mayweather?s big fight with Manny Pacquiao, and for some reason he?s doing it again with Isiah Thomas, who is facing a firestorm of well-deserved criticism mixed with disbelief after he was named president (and co-owner, pending approval) of the New York Liberty.
You might remember that in 2007, a jury found that Thomas sexually harassed former team executive Anucha Browne Sanders. Sanders and Madison Square Garden eventually settled out of court, but it?s still true that Thomas harassed Sanders and created a hostile work environment for her. When she complained, she was fired. Those are the facts.
But Stephen A. Smith defended Thomas on ?First Take? this morning, saying that Thomas himself gets ?straight up volatile? when people ask him about the case. In a fantastic display of truth-bending, Smith bludgeons viewers with the idea that Thomas and the words ?sexual harassment? are merely near each other on a piece of paper, as if the jury did not specifically find Thomas to have acted improperly. Smith uses the ol? ?say things a thousand times until people start believing it? tactic, though it falls flat, even to co-troll Skip Bayless:
?It still says sexual harassment ? and your name is in it.? That?s how Smith views this case, which is only true in the most literal sense of the word. This and other ridiculous lines (my favorites: ?He blames the media. The legal system itself? read the papers.? ??I worked in Tarrytown which is over 40 minutes away.’?) make up Smith?s case against the case, which was tried and settled long ago.
Since the day MSG and Sanders settled out of court, both Thomas and MSG have insisted the payment was made in order to put the case behind them, and that Thomas was innocent of all charges. Thomas (and now Smith, his mouthpiece) uses phrases like ?not financially liable? and ?no punitive damages? to make it seem as though the hostile work environment he created appeared out of thin air. It?s a blatant fudging the facts in order to support a false narrative.
The fact that MSG was liable for Thomas? actions (as is typical in workplace sexual harassment lawsuits like this) has allowed both parties enough wiggle room, in their own minds, to pretend like this never happened. And now they?ve got Smith repeating that line to the masses. Don?t be fooled.
