Reporter Linked To Disgusting Report

( Front Office Sports senior reporter A.J. Perez wrote an article last month about Brett Favre advocating for a cream made by Prevacus to heal concussions and implied that Favre was somehow linked to Prevacus using dogs in lab experiments. But according to the Daily Caller, Perez’s claim was “grossly misleading.”

In his October 28 story, Perez acknowledged that Favre played no role in the lab testing. But in a later broadcast, Perez appeared to imply that Favre was somehow involved.

When Perez’s story first broke, social media users accused Favre of being a frontman for killing dogs. An outlet that picked up Perez’s story, ran it under the headline, “Brett Favre Now Under Scrutiny for Role in Funding Concussion Cream & The Death of Multiple Dogs.”

But according to texts obtained by the Daily Caller, the night before the story was published, Perez acknowledged to a source that Brett Favre “had no part” in the testing of dogs.

Perez was telling the source associated with Brett Favre about receiving documents about the Prevacus cream and the dog testing element, “which Favre had no part of,” would “drive some people nuts.

The source told Perez if Favre played no part, the headline better not give people the impression that he did.

Speaking to the Daily Caller, the source said Favre did support the Prevacus cream but had nothing to do with the lab testing that killed the dogs.

After the story was published, Perez went on a Connecticut radio show and accused Brett Favre of being “the one behind it all,” claiming the dog testing would not have happened if Favre hadn’t advocated for the cream.

The Daily Caller spoke to Perez who confirmed that Favre wasn’t directly involved with the testing, but repeated the claim that the dogs would never have died if Favre didn’t push for the product. He claimed that Prevacus had “no interest” in developing the cream but Favre “pushed” for the cream to be produced.

Regarding the text message obtained by the Daily Caller, Perez claimed it was an “out of context excerpt.”