Update on Pac Man Jones from PFT today.
POSTED 11:41 p.m. EDT, April 16, 2006
PACMAN ADMITS TO LOANING CAR TO SUSPECTED DRUG DEALER
Omitted from Saturday's published reports in the Tennessee media regarding the possible connection between Titans cornerback Pacman Jones and suspected drug dealer Darryl Jerome Moore was any reference whatsoever to a WKRN-TV report from Friday night in which Jones admits that he loaned his Cadillac XLR with "Pac-Man" stitched into the seats to Moore, an aspiring rapper, for the making of a music video.
Jones says that he doesn't know what happened to the car, which lists at more than $70,000, after giving it to Moore.
The video of the WKRN story is available right here. And although there's still no evidence to link Pacman to any illegal activities, Jones once again shows off his turdish tendencies by verbally berating the reporter who tried to question him from a public driveway near Jones' house.
Here are some of the more colorful quotes from Pacman. (The expletives were bleeped by WKRN, but it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure out what he was saying.)
1. "This is private property. Don't you see that [sh-t]? Private [f--king] property."
2. "Don't put that -- don't turn that [camera] on on me. If you turn that on, I'm gonna snatch it."
3. "I don't give a [f--k] what you do, man. You ain't got no proof to do nothin'."
4. "I don't give a [f--k] who told you what."
5. "Next time you come on my property . . . we gonna get to fightin'."
Jones' admitted link to Moore contradicts statements from his lawyer and agent to the Nashville Tennessean, and it's amazing to us that the Tennessean would allow petty local rivalries between media outlets to prevent the newspaper from providing to its readers with the whole story.
We also wonder why the video hasn't made its way into the national media, such as ESPN. Frankly, we're beginning to suspect that maybe the editors in Bristol might now turn a blind eye to some of the player behavior that might alienate the average fan, in order to protect and defend the network's $1.1 billion-per-year stake in the NFL's main product.
If that ultimately occurs, it would be extremely ironic. After all, who would think that the network responsible for a fictional portrayal of pro football that was too close to the mark for the NFL's liking would thereafter exercise editorial discretion in a manner aimed at making the league appear that it isn't populated by a certain segment of thugs, wife beaters, and general buttholes