Ryan Smith (8:01)

Everything's good, man. How you doing?

Stephen A. Smith (8:03)

I'm doing all right, man. Let's get right to it. I already heard me talking about Diddy a little bit earlier. His trial date starts on May 5. What's the significance of Cassandra Cassie Ventura testifying under her real name instead of anonymously like three other people named in the indictment.

Ryan Smith (8:18)

Yeah, this could be huge in a couple different ways. And let's break it down between symbolically and legally. Symbolically, for me, this is huge because it lends credibility to her testimony. So you think about it like this. Cassie gets up on the stand, she's naming herself. And for jurors and even in the court of public opinion, there's this sense that she's standing behind her allegations full throttle, using her name. Now, that's nothing against other accusers who might not be willing to use their names. It's just that how we tend to look at things, especially how juries might tend to look at things that they might say, well, this person standing behind what they're saying, so we're going to back her a little bit more, we might believe her a little bit more, and it lends credibility to her allegations. The other thing is putting her name out there. And I know it's been out there in some connections in many ways so far. It also helps others possibly come forward. Prosecutors always talked about how this case might not be done. There might be other factors, and that could still be a possibility. Legally, I think it's twofold. Number one, it's showing of strength for the prosecution. We are here. We are naming ourselves. We are out there. Come at us. The other thing I think that's critical here is it puts the defense on the defensive. Here's why. She gets up on the stand, she names herself, she's got the credibility. Jurors are connecting with her. It might make it harder for them to try to discredit her or intimidate her or come at her really hard on cross examination. So those are some factors that play into all this. And I think for the prosecution, it's a win to have her naming herself.

Stephen A. Smith (9:46)

Let's look at the specificity of the actual charges against Diddy. When you talk about her name, instead of being anonymous, her name being put out there specifically, what can she speak to? I'm talking about the actual specifications of the charges against him. How can she specifically speak against that? We heard the words racketeering, for crying out loud. What would she have to do with that? Explain that to them to my viewers.

Ryan Smith (10:09)

My biggest thing is she's going to try to explain what happened at these pre coughs, and that's going to be huge. I think people tend to look at legal trials and they say, well, this person's going to give us the smoking Gun. This person's going to tell us the one thing that's connect everything. But racketeering cases are a vast thing that you have to build. So you have to show through the different witnesses, through the different evidence, all the different things you have, that there was a criminal enterprise going on in furtherance of these activities, in furtherance in this case of these assaults, of these different things in terms of prostitution, of the allegations they're making. So you have to build that case. And I think what Cassie can do is we've all seen the video, and there's been a lot of connections to her in that video, but this goes beyond that. This is her being able to frame what the situation was like for Diddy, what some of these events were like, so they can use her testimony along with the evidence they have to prove the racketeering.

Stephen A. Smith (11:04)

But Ryan, when we talk about that, just playing devil's advocate for a second, Diddy, in all likelihood, one would surmise, would say she was consensual in these actions, okay, she wasn't forced, et cetera. His proof could be the fact that they were in a relationship for years. So if he was so reprehensible, such a, such a, such an insidious figure, why was she involved with him for so long? What defense do you anticipate he'll be able to make that he has a snowball's chance, and you know, what of making against her, particularly when she's the one we saw him hit and kick on a video?

Ryan Smith (11:46)

That's the defense. He's going to say she was consensual. He's going to say all the people involved, everybody the prosecution is bringing in was all consensual, that people did this because they liked it, they wanted to be there. But prosecutors, you got to look at it in terms of the way prosecutors are trying to build their case. They're building it in the same way or in a similar way that the Weinstein case was built. This is a person in power, a gatekeeper to certain things in this industry. If you wanted to get into this industry in certain ways, you had to do the things he said, and this was how he did it. And these are the things these people had to do. I think you make a great point that they were in a relationship, that that might be part of what they might use. But my sense is that, and we don't. All the prosecution's case, my sense is that they're going to build this and say she was in that relationship. But just because you're In a relationship doesn't mean that person gets to control you and make you do certain things. And perhaps there was a point where he was doing this and doing things that she felt like she had to do in order to not only further her career, but in order to be a part of this world. And I think that's one way in which prosecutors are going to try to build this case. They're going to try to build similarities among Cassie and other people that might testify and other people that are contributing to this case to say this was a pattern. These were the things he did in order to continue this criminal enterprise.

Stephen A. Smith (13:05)

But if she's willing to put her name on front street instead of being anonymous and others refrain from doing so, won't that diminish potentially their argument against Diddy, the anonymous ones?

Ryan Smith (13:17)

I love that you asked that question because that's a common thing that people ask when you talk about one person revealing their name and others not. And you make a great point because in some ways it looks like, well, they're not willing to stand behind their claims. So how can we believe their claims? What the judge and what others are going to have to decide in this case and what probably will play out a little bit is the reason why people are trying to remain anonymous here. Cassie is a well known public figure. She was also connected in that initial videotape. We know that she is a part of this. Anybody who knows anything about this case. So in many ways it's amazing that she's still coming forward and offering herself out there like this with all the public scrutiny that she might face, with the harassment she might face. But Stephen, a look at it from the other people's perspective. Are they supposed to be in a place where they're supposed to deal with the harassment and the public scrutiny? I think it becomes hard for people sometimes to realize that people who are accusers in cases like this, they come forward with their story. And as painful as that is, there becomes the aftermath of sharing a story. They're harassed online, people get their address, they try to find them. The accusations dog them for most of their lives. How does that affect their ability to get a job? How does that affect their ability to live in society? So I think it's incredibly brave that Cassie is able to come forward and use her name. But she's also a public figure and she's been accustomed to that scrutiny a little bit. I think what will help the other accusers is they might not be as famous, maybe not as a custom, and maybe it'll Be easier for the prosecutor to say to jurors, hey, look, they don't have the public profile that she does. Let's try to hear their words and respect their privacy.

Stephen A. Smith (14:59)

The word anonymous, and I'm gonna go off the subject in a second, but the word anonymous, a lot of people don't realize what that means. It just says, okay, you're not. You don't know the meaning. The public. But those who will testify against Diddy anonymously. Does Diddy and his defense team know specifically who they are? Do they know their names, etc? Can you explain that to my audience?

Ryan Smith (15:19)

Yeah, they'll know their names. Discovery should have all come out. A lot of that information should come out, unless there's some sort of play by the prosecutor to try to restrict that access because there's some concern about harassment or that they can be threatened. But in theory, the way this should work is they should have a right to confront their accusers. They should have a right to know their names, background on them, and that's part of what they're going to try to use to credit their story. So. But the naming, Anonymous ends up being significant in a case like this. Because you mentioned it. Once you put Cassie's name out on Front street, everybody's going to hear about it. We're going to be waiting for the testimony. We're going to be trying to figure out what she said. She's going to probably have to do press conferences, possibly at some point, speak, are the other people signing up for that in order to share what happened to them. And I think that's the critical part of leaving their names anonymous in that courtroom. That stuff is supposed to be confidential and allow them to go ahead and live their lives while also sharing their truth as the prosecution needs them to to build their case.

Stephen A. Smith (16:17)

The video that Diddy put out on social media where he appeared contrite and disheveled, those are the words that I used. Basically saying he was effed up, he was in a very, very bad place when he did what he did to Cassie Ventura. You see the video right there? How incriminating could that end up being against him now that Cassie has been willing to attach her name to the lawsuit and she's going to come out on Front street and say whatever it is that she has to say.

Ryan Smith (16:45)

It could be a very big problem for him because prosecutors are going to pull up that videotape, they're going to put it out there in court, and they're going to say, look at what this man said. He is sorry for what he did. Folks, let's outline for you now what he did. Cassie, let's get on the stand and outline for us what he did. And coupled with our evidence, that's going to prove our case. So typically, when you have a situation like that, your lawyers will tell you, if you're representing Diddy, hey, don't say anything. I know there's a temptation to do that. Don't say anything because it can be used against you. I think it did his mind. It's a way to get public sympathy. It's a way to get. And I think in some ways his defense team can say about this, hey, he's apologizing for the relationship. He is not a perfect person, but he is not a criminal. That's going to be their messaging. But still, you don't want to have to have a videotape out there from your client saying, I'm sorry for what I did. Giving the prosecution the ability to explore that and with their evidence, with Cassie and with other witnesses to be able to prove, yeah, you're sorry for what you did because it was criminal. That's what prosecutors are going to want to do.

Stephen A. Smith (17:47)

Knowing the law, knowing criminal cases the way that you do, what does this case eerily remind you of as it pertains to other cases that may have existed out there in the past? When you think about what P. Diddy is going through right now, what. What's the comparison you draw it to?

Ryan Smith (18:02)

My biggest comparison is the Weinstein case, also the R. Kelly case. Both of those cases involved a situation where prosecutors were able to build it as you have a gatekeeper, and it's impossible to really make inroads in this area without the gatekeeper. Now, no people are going to hear and say, well, all these people, they could have. Diddy is doing this. They could have gone to Dre or somebody else. And, you know, there's a million other rap artists and production companies out there, But I think what they're trying to build, in the same way that it was built in the Weinstein case, was he wasn't the only studio in town. Miramax wasn't the only place to make films. But in a particular way, once you got in this world, there was a way to build your career, to foster development. And I think what this case draws a similarity to and what prosecutors have been trying to do with these cases is show no one is above the law. You can't go out in prosecutor's mind, create a business, and then make people do your bidding, even if it's illegal in order to move up in that business, if it's a legitimate business, you can't do that. And so in the same way that the Weinstein case was prosecuted and the R. Kelly case was prosecuted, feels like prosecutors are following the similar playbook here, trying to make that point, not only publicly, but also in the courtroom. These are criminal enterprises that in many ways were set up in furtherance of Diddy and the people with him and at the expense of these, in their minds, accusers and victims.

Stephen A. Smith (19:29)

We use words. Last question on this matter. We use words like criminal enterprise. We use words like racketeering and what have you. Is it wrong for us to get the impression that it's not Diddy that they're after? They're after him? Of course, please don't get me wrong. But it's not just him thereafter, a whole string of individuals that he's connected to as opposed to. It just be. It was about R. Kelly, it was about Harvey Weinstein. It doesn't appear to be thereafter, just Diddy. It's like he's the guy to get. So all the dominoes will fall and we'll get everybody associated with it. That's the impression that I'm getting to. That you say what? Ryan Smith.

Ryan Smith (20:08)

Yeah, I say I completely agree. And I say I would go beyond that. The first thing is, you're absolutely right. They're trying to get him and the enterprise and everything that backed him and everything that created this enterprise, because that's what they try to do when they prosecute criminal cases. I know the people out there say, hey, this is just about Diddy. It's not just about Diddy. It's about trying to uphold the law. That's how prosecutors see it. But the way I go beyond it is this. With each one of these cases, they are trying to send a message not just to the diddies of the world or to the Harvey Weinstein or R. Kelly's. They're trying to send a message to the people who have other things going on or people who might come up later, who might have ideas of doing something that they are saying Diddy did. They're saying, we will find you. We will come after you. The fact that Diddy is there in the courtroom, perhaps he is telling us things about you, about people you know. So if you're doing something on the wrong side of the law and you think your power and your money and influence is going to protect you, it will not. And that's the message they're trying to send. We Obviously, Stephen A. We talk about this case, we have to see how it's litigated and how everything comes out. But for prosecutors, this is every success they have in this area is another ability for them to be able to say to everybody else out there in all of these businesses, you are not above the law, no matter how much money or power you have.

Stephen A. Smith (21:31)

I want to transition back to the world of sports and off this P. Diddy topic. And thank you so much for coming on Ryan and talking about this, but I want to talk about this potential multi billion dollar settlement between NCAA and student athletes, past and present. By the way, this deal could reshape the business of college sports, correct?

Ryan Smith (21:49)

Yeah, absolutely. And this deal is like it's labeled as a $2.8 billion settlement, but really it's a deal that looks backwards and forwards. So the backwards part is it's spending billions of dollars to pay back athletes who didn't, who weren't able to make deals before nil, who are part of these antitrust lawsuits that were all combined. So for example, that could mean that athletes who made a lot of money for their schools, like Power 5 Conference football players, basketball players, could make hundreds of thousands of dollars. Small sport athletes at mid majors could end up making only hundreds of dollars, but in ways it kind of compensates them. The looking forward part ends up being interesting too, because what it does is it sets up sort of a salary cap, just like we see in pro sports. 20 million bucks or so for each school to spend on athletes. The idea is to try to rein in some of the nil spending by boosters and all that. And it also sets up something that I think is going to actually be a legal issue beyond this settlement, which is like a clearinghouse for nil deals. So if somebody's making a deal over 600 bucks, they have a clearinghouse that's going to look at that and maybe say, hey, is this circumventing the salary cap? If not, you can't do it. I think that one's going to face court challenges even after this settlement. At least it has a likelihood to.

Stephen A. Smith (23:00)

What? I think the part that turns me off, Ryan, is that they're talking about cap and, you know, revenue at 20 million per school or what have you, something along those lines. The $2.8 million billion dollar settlement that they've been talking about is retroactive from what happened between 2016 and 2024. The athletes that were denied money at that particular moment in time and sort of reimbursing them for missed Wages and things of that nature. I understand that part, even though I think it should be more. My issue is why does it need to be capped? Why does it be capped at $20 million as opposed to a percentage of revenue generated by the universities? Just like you have basketball or football, where there's a percentage of football or basketball related income or revenue that comes to the players. Why can't the same be with NCAA athletes? That's I'm suspicious is what I'm trying to say about that cap. Trying to derail the kind of money guys are able to get in nil, guys and ladies able to get in nil and beyond and stuff like that. I'm kind of suspicious anytime I see a capped number associated with student athletes playing in the NCAA under the NCAA umbrella, because I don't trust them one bit. To that you say what I say.

Ryan Smith (24:06)

The pushback to you is going to be, well, it's going to go up next year, it might be more and then it's going to be more. But the problem is it doesn't answer your claim, which is there's still a cap. And I think you make a great point. I also think what becomes interesting in what you're saying is the clearinghouse aspect of this. Think about this, Stephen A. In the advent of NIL and even before that, athletes became, in many ways, these college athletes became business people. They built up huge followings online, millions of people. Some of their income might be coming from boosters, some of it might be coming from their own deals. Are we now going to look at those deals that they in many ways created on their own and say, well, you're going to circumvent the salary cap, so you can't do that. Now we're back in the same bag that we were in before nil, which is not only your cap argument, which means people might be limited from getting their real market value, but then also, even if you could go out and have millions of followers and do all these other things on your own, well, now we might try to cap that. We might try to limit that because we feel like it's circumventing the cap we already have. I am in agreement with you. I think when you have a situation like nil, it's almost like letting the cat out of the bag. Once they open that bag up, you can't close it off and now say, okay, let's pull everybody back in and cut the number and try to keep everybody down a little bit lower. That ship has already sailed. I think if people I think at this point, the booster system, the fact that I agree with the idea of paying players directly from colleges, but I think to try to cap it and to try to rein it in is always going to be a problem and it's always going to face legal challenges and it's always going to have critics because people are going to say, just when you open the floodgates so we can make money and create businesses and earn more, you're trying to close them back up again to the benefit of schools, which is the same reason why we ended up in many ways in the nil spot in the first place.

Stephen A. Smith (25:52)

And by the way, you know, it's bad when Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who was appointed by Donald Trump, was the one that made the argument in 2021 where he called them out and he said, I've not there's no business in America that could get away with doing this other than you guys. And sure enough, I think they're finding they're fine. They're trying to find an end around to get around this stuff to do the same thing they've always been doing. So we'll see what happens with all of that. Ryan Smith, man, I really, really appreciate you taking time out of your busy schedule. Thanks for coming on, my brother. I appreciate it. Thanks so much.

Ryan Smith (26:21)

Anytime, man. Good to talk to you.

Stephen A. Smith (26:24)

All right, one and only. Ryan Smith, legal analyst, ABC and espn. Also anchor for Sports center. The Brothers Outstanding. One of the best in the business, make no mistake about that.

AT&T Advertiser (26:38)

AT&T has a new guarantee because most things in life are not guaranteed, like getting through self checkout by yourself. Not guaranteed in a world where Nothing is guaranteed. AT&T is bringing something new to the table. AT&T is introducing a guarantee with connectivity you can depend on deals you want and service you deserve or they make it right. Learn more@att.com Guarantee ATT Connecting changes everything. Terms and conditions apply. Visit att.com guaranty for details.

Laura Carrenti (27:15)

What's up? I'm Laura, host of the podcast Courtside with Laura Carrenti, a masterclass case study of the business of women's sports. I'll be chatting with leaders like tennis icon Alana Kloss.

Ryan Smith (27:25)

I don't do what I do only for women. I do it for everyone.

Laura Carrenti (27:28)

And I want the whole market and innovators like Jenny Nguyen. I would say 50% of the people that come visit the sports bra aren't sports fans. They come to be in community. They come to be part of this culture. Courtside with Laura Carenti is an iHeart women's sports production in partnership with Deep Blue Sports and Entertainment. Listen to Courtside with Laura quarente on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Presented by Elf Beauty, founding partner of iHeart Women's Sports.