Open forum

when do you sleep? you are always posting at 3 and 4 am...what gives scott? do you just party all night with matt leinart?

Hey Scott: Who do you predict will be starting at the other CB position opposite C. Harris and who is the all important LT going to be??? THANKS

Could you confirm or elaborate on the rumors going around that Mark Sanchez received extra benefits from USC during the period that the university had suspended him following his arrest for sexual assault?

Scott, thanks for the forum. I check it every hour when I'm at work and it's my home page. What predict for the big OSU/USC game next fall? And will I get tickets under $400?

Scott, thanks for the forum. I check it every hour when I'm at work and it's my home page. What do you predict for the big OSU/USC game next fall? And will I get tickets under $400?

What question did you ask Pete Carroll from the ones that we asked?

Scott, great forum. It's my homepage. So what's your prediction for the ohio state game next year?

So if Mustain is considered to be the Barack Obama of this quarterback race, with people seeing him as the new and refreshing choice who represents their hopes and a bright future, and Sanchez is the Hillary Clinton, who is a tired retread who has not accomplished anything and carries a lot of baggage, does that make Corp the Dennis Kucinich of this campaign?

Scott,

I just finished this book, Saturday Rules, by a real journalist named Austin Murphy. According to his bio, Mr. Murphy has covered college football for an up-and-coming magazine called Sports Illustrated. Granted, it's no Daily News, but what is? Anyway, in this book, which covers the 2006 college football season from beginning to end, he refers to Pete Carroll as the "Emperor". Shortly after the book was published, I noticed you started referring to Carroll as "Caesar". Hmmmm. Is there some unspoken rule amongst journalists that allows you to rip off his material like you have been?

Second question, when does YOUR book come out? I almost typed that question without laughing.

If Spicer, Tupou or Simmons are not effective, would PC consider kicking Kyle Moore inside next to Moala and bringing Cushing back to the line in the "Elephant" scheme?

Who is the fastest RB....CJ or JoeMc or other? Fastest WR...RoJo or Travon or other?

Wolfmeister:

You've kinda answered my question about why the recievers were awful last year. But I'll ask again: Was it the Qb's fault, Wr's fault, or coach's fault? WHO is to blame?!

Was it simply Booty's fault for bad throws?
Can ALL of these WR's be overrated?
IS the coaching of this position that bad?

What are your thoughts on John David Booty scoring 14 on the Wonderlic Test? If a score of 20 is considered the equivalent of 100 on an IQ test, which is defined as "average intelligence," 14 translates to about 75 on an IQ test, so doesn't that mean Booty is, quite literally, legally retarded?

What is your realtionship like with SID Tim Tessalone? What are his good and bad qualities?
What about Paul Goldberg or Dave Tuttle? Anything interesting about these guys and working with them?

SW, which LB do you think will "possibly" step up and make a statement during the spring. Could we finally see "LUTHUR" meet everyone's expectations? Fight On!

Who are you predicting will be voted or named captains for this coming year?

Mitch Mustain is a modern day Renaissance Man, true or false?

who do you think will be named or voted captains?

who do you think will be named or voted captains?

who do you think will be named or voted captains?

who do you think will be named or voted captains?

Scott, what position do you see Chris Galippo fitting into next year since the LB position appears to be locked up?

Sorry if this has already been asked but have they ever thought of moving David Ausberry to tight end?

USC should win the Pac-10 again which would put the Trojans back in the Rose Bowl for a fourth straight year, unless they go to the BCS NC game at the Orange Bowl. And on paper at this moment, the 2009 team could be a lock for the BCS NC game at the Rose Bowl - five straight years. I heard that some of the players were grumbling about the last RB and it not being as fun as traveling to another city for a big time bowl. Do you think coach Carroll is getting concerned that the team will lose its enthusiasm for the RB - just another home game. Could getting stuck in a RB rut and visible lack of player excitement during bowl week start to hurt recruitment?

GOOD AFTERNOON WOLFIE:
In your post captioned DEALBREAKER,you said PC wanted eight million to take the Redskins job--that seems to strongly imply that if they would have offerred him that, he would have taken the job, with-or without-the complete control that he always says he wants.
So, my question is--Is that the real actual case to the best of your knowledge? If so, I am a little surprised, as he always says he must have complete control, and I don't remember that being the case with the Washington situation. Maybe I misread the implication.
Thanx in advance and, as always, thanx for the great forums.

Scott: Are we going to see Nick Perry playing as a true freshman just as E. Griffen did? Who else will be playing at weakside DE?

Any stand outs so far at DT?

Any stand outs so far at DT?

Any stand outs so far at DT?

Any stand outs so far at DT?

Scott, when will the numbers be assigned to the new recruits?

Scott, when will the numbers be assigned to the new recruits?

For your Friday article, how come the copy editors from one paper to another had such totally different headers? In the Daily News, the title was "Sanchez still in lead among Trojans QBs," whereas in the Long Beach Press-Telegram, it was "Mustain finds comfort zone."

The Press-Telegram also included an extra paragraph about the QBs throwing interceptions that was omitted by the Daily News.

So these two headers are completely and give an entirely different tone to your article to the reader, even though they are the same piece. One is favorable to Sanchez, while the other is favorable to Mustain.

What's with the discrepancy?

Agree or disagree - Stanley Havili should be permanently benched?

Scott,

I enjoy reading your articles, but it's difficult to read your boards.

I tune in for your humor and perspective but I'm also getting the vile racial comments from some of your contributors.

My mother was Mexican, and reading your blog is like walking into a minefield where the contributors comments are extremely irritating and souring.

Do you care that by allowing these socially handicap contributors to publish their perspective insult half of the city and about one third of recent USC alumni?

Soarez:

This is not a racial attack but a correction.

You wrote that "about one third of recent USC alumni" are Mexican. Not even close. According to USC's student demographics, that number would not even be close to 4%, let alone 33.3% as you claim.

If you include undergrads, all Latinos (not just Mexicans) make up about 12%, then if you factor in graduate and professional students (who make up approximately half of USC's 33,000 students), the number of Latinos drops to under 6% overall, of which Mexicans would be less than 2% of the USC student body (undergrad and grad combined.

So your claim that "about one third of recent USC alumni" being Mexican is categorically false.

I'm just pointing out the facts.

It all a matter of perspective Voodoo.

I personally wasn't counted as Mexican nor where my siblings, or other family members who attended and graduated USC. Our surnames where not "Latino" but part of our culture and heritage is.

What puzzles me is the implication by your statement that if my numbers are not correct, simply stating the facts as you claim, does that make it ok for socially handicap board contributors to insult Hispanic readers? Is that your take on it? Why bother to correct me?

The mocking language used by contributors is akin to black face. It's very poor humor that insults. If the player getting attacked was African-American would it be fine with you if they wrote in a style mocking the African-American community?

Since when is it okay to mock 6% of the population? Since when is it okay to mock 2% of the population?

I am not aware of anyone attacking Mexicans or bringing up race other than El Capitan. He's the only person who does that. Anytime someone criticizes Sanchez for anything, even if it is completely justified and deserved, he accuses them of racism towards Mexicans. It has never been an issue with anyone else. There has been no mocking behavior from anyone else towards Mexican, just race baiting by El Capitan.

For Voodoo

USC demographic composition.

The ethnic breakdown of undergraduates is:

* 47.0% White American
* 21.0% Asian American or Pacific Islander American
* 13.6% Hispanic American
* 5.8% Black/African-American
* 0.8% Native American/American Indian
* 9.1% International Students
* 2.7% Unknown/Other[50]

For graduate and professional students:

* 31.9% White/Caucasian
* 20.2% Asian/Pacific Islander
* 8.1% Hispanic
* 4.2% Black/African-American
* 0.4% Native American/American Indian
* 24.7% International Students
* 10.6% Unknown/Other[50]

[edit] Admissions

For Voodoo

As provided by my alma mater. USC demographic composition.

The ethnic breakdown of undergraduates is:

* 47.0% White American
* 21.0% Asian American or Pacific Islander American
* 13.6% Hispanic American
* 5.8% Black/African-American
* 0.8% Native American/American Indian
* 9.1% International Students
* 2.7% Unknown/Other[50]

For graduate and professional students:

* 31.9% White/Caucasian
* 20.2% Asian/Pacific Islander
* 8.1% Hispanic
* 4.2% Black/African-American
* 0.4% Native American/American Indian
* 24.7% International Students
* 10.6% Unknown/Other[50]

Scottsdale,

Read the following recent entry:

"Locoweed said:

Sanchitos is so far ahead of Moostain and AirCorp that the job is his to lose. So… he better keep it together and not do something stupid. Stop with the hateraid, we all need to forgive Sanchitos even if we can’t forget.
May the best Trojan win.
Fight On!"

This is very insulting. There are other incidents all over the board.

I also read some of el capitan's comments as well. From my perspective it appears he's reached his boiling point and reacting, badly I might add, to derogatory comments aimed at a Mexican-American football player.

I would hope that nobody would tolerate a minstrelsy posting relating to an African-American athlete. So I m' asking Scott why he tolerates the ones ridiculing a Mexican-American athlete.

Soarez:

It doesn't matter what your last name is; you enter whatever your race is on your application. The admission office does not determine your race based on what they "think" it is; you do.

You asked "Why bother to correct me?"

Answer: Because you were wrong and such false statements should not go unchallenged. If you want to make a point, be accurate about it.

As far as Locoweed is concerned, isn't he actually Latino? So not sure why his words would be a reflection on whites towards Latinos on this blog.

Voodoo,

Your numbers are also false.

"If you include undergrads, all Latinos (not just Mexicans) make up about 12%, then if you factor in graduate and professional students (who make up approximately half of USC's 33,000 students), the number of Latinos drops to under 6% overall, of which Mexicans would be less than 2% of the USC student body (undergrad and grad combined."

This doesn't agree with the factual data provided.

Mexicans are not 2% of the USC community. Do your math again, and use accepted statistical variables to arrive at you percentage of Mexicans at USC.

Now, regarding race. My race and my ethnic background are not the same. Hispanic, or Mexican, is not a race, it's an ethnic background.

And what makes you think Locoweed is Latino? Do you know that for a fact?

I'll also restate my question, and you didn't correct me by the way. Why bother with your answer. Do you feel it is acceptable to mock 12% or 2% of the community?

Answer that question. Hopefully Scott will answer my original question.

Hey Soarez,
I will direct my comments to you as a fellow Trojan. Like you, I am Latino -100% Mexican. Y si no me crees, te invito a que platiquemos en Español.
Recently I was attacked by a frequent visitor to this board (a race baiter who is not a Trojan) that blithely justifies Mark Sanchez’ history of bad behavior simply because Mark is a “Chicano.” I don’t buy that. Sanchez deserves to be criticized because he broke the law and embarrassed our school, and the Latino community. Mark wasn’t convicted, but that does not prove he is innocent.
Still, I believe in the power of redemption; and maybe I’m wrong, but I think most of the Trojan Family is ready to forgive Mark’s stupidity as long as he stays on the straight and narrow. We will never be able to achieve reconciliation if the issue keeps getting framed as a “racial thing.”
Finally, I call him Sanchitos because the diminutive form of a name is a typical Mexican expression, so you are incorrect to characterize it as an insult.
Voodoo; thanks for the stats. Things have improved since I was a student at USC back in the 70’s, when Latinos amounted to only a few score.

Soarez:

Your statements are incorrect on a number of fronts. First, you stated that "about one third of recent USC alumni" are Mexican. That was false. It cannot be disputed.

Second, the 2% figure I came up with was based on the percentage of Latinos at USC, which is not exclusive to Mexicans. If you figure out the numbers based on all Latinos (Cubans, Puerto Ricans, Venezuelans, etc.), then divide it up within the specific ethnicities, Mexicans would most likely be in the 2% range of the entire university.

The only race baiter on the board is El Capitan. If someone praises Mustain, he accuses them of being racist. If they criticize Sanchez, he accuses them of being racist. Once you bring race into the equation, you are not only desperate but have also lost the argument. Race baiting is a tool of the desperate who cannot argue their case with substance.

For the record, I do find Sanchez's off the field behavior to be a disgrace and I do not believe he is someone who should ever represent USC as the starting quarterback. This is about accountability and he has never been held accountable for any of his actions that brought shame to the university, and also how they hurt others. I am certainly not in the minority on this issue when it comes to USC alumni and their views regarding Sanchez. See, I didn't even bring up his race.

Voodoo

You have an ax to grind with Sanchez, that not my topic, nor does it have anything to do with my question to Scott.

I'm curious, where do you live, where have you lived, and did you attend USC?

Here are some stats to help you:

Of all the US Hispanics:
Mexico 66.8%
Puerto Rican 8.6%
Cuban 3.8%
South American 5.3%
Dominican 3.1%
Other 3.4%

Keep in mind that in the West Coast, the percentage of Puerto Ricans and Cubans decreases further since the majority live in the East Coast. So your 2% number is off the mark, it's statistically impossible.

Also keep in mind that these numbers don't reflect the mixed population, like myself. Care to look that number up? It will enlighten you, I encourage you to look up the numbers

Regarding Students at USC, the make up of the Hispanic student body is Mexican. In fact, one of the largest endowed alumni organizations is the Mexican American Alumni Association. I donate to the University and as I work with my alma mater in recruiting gifted students I've been given the student ethnic breakdown.

It is not my purpose to educate you. I want to be able to read Scott's blog without stepping on the land mines laid out by some of the contributors.

Soarez:

I have no ax to grind with Sanchez. I just do not believe he should represent USC. I also have felt the same way about Todd Marinovich, Eric Wright, Troy Van Blarcom, OJ Simpson and, now, Reggie Bush. All of those individuals brought disgrace to USC and for that I do not believe they are good representative of the university.

I am an alumnus of USC. I have two degrees: a BA earned in 1976 and a JD earned in 1979.

I am a native Southern Californian and have also lived and worked in DC and NYC.

You do not need to educate me about anything because this all began with your factually incorrect statement that "about one third of recent USC alumni" are Mexican. It was blatantly false and I corrected you. Unless you can prove my numbers are incorrect with actual data from USC (which does ask for ethnicities within race on applications), then you have no basis for your statements. Also, mixed race students can add as many races on their applications that they so choose.

Hey soarez, I have to tell you, pal, you're being smoked here and you're digging a bigger and bigger hole for yourself. You should give up while you're still reasonably behind, because it's getting embarrassing to read all these people put you in your place and expose you as a fraud and race baiter. I'm not trying to be hurtful, buddy, but you're coming across really bad and the more you go on, the more you're hurting yourself. Just walk away from this losing fight and drop the race card.

Fight on!

Counselor, I don't see how this has anything to do with my question to Scott.

You don't have an ax to grind with Sanchez but don't think he should represent the university...the young man was not charged with sexual assault. Innocent until proven guilty, that must mean something to you counselor?

He was guilty of carrying a fake I.D., I think most of my fraternity brothers committed the same offense during our undergraduate years.

I'm curious as to how you tied my statement to your "ax not to grind with Sanchez." Glad you're not on my payroll.

Can you prove my percentage wrong? Surely you must have some paralegal with good math skills. Perhaps my one third is a bit overstated, maybe a fourth? But you must admit is not 2%. The numbers I provided are from the school. Call the school, since you are so eager to correct me.

Also find if the university has registered Cuban, Puerto Rican, or Venezuelan Alumni associations. You are a Trojan for life, so it would make sense that these groups would exist.

Are you aware that mixed ethnicity folks often choose not to list any of their backgrounds? Or is that beyond the possibilities? There is also studies on this issues, ever heard of the PEW institute.

When you lived in NYC and DC what was the make up of the Latino population? Surely simple observations should have taught you about geographical differences.

Assuming you are a litigator, do you use the same criteria every time you pick a jury?

University of Sigma Chi stop being a gnat.

Soarez:

An ax to grind is different than stating my opposition to a person.

Read the DA's report - they never stated Sanchez's innocence; only that they could not guarantee a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. There are numerous other issues with Sanchez beyond the arrest for sexual assault. I find it laughable that you are actually defending breaking the law with the excuse of "well my fraternity brothers did it." So if someone you know breaks the law, that makes it acceptable for others to also break the law? That's a rhetorical question, in case you do not get it.

Your numbers are pie in the sky and were made up by you. Now you have gone from claiming USC is 33.3% Mexican to 25%? Pie in the sky. Not supported by any figures. Just complete fabrications.

All these questions you ask me are based on your own insecurities and do not prove anything other than the fact that you were wrong and I corrected you. If you want to keep bringing race into the equation, you will always lose on the spot.

And one final thing, I am not a litigator. I actually make real money!

Not a litigator, that would explain the inability to discuss the point without going off on diversionary tangents.

To clarify for you: I'm not defending Sanchez. I'm asking for Scott to allow me to read the board without the racially tinged sophomoric attempts at humor.

I met all three QB's battling it out in practice. All decent kids. When Coach makes his final decision, I hope it leads us to glory.

You claim my data to be incorrect, yet you don't provide anything to refute it. I'll make it easier for you, You don't have to call the university, Google USC Demographic breakdown, see if the data I provided is wrong. The other data and information came from Synovate and the PEW institute.

Your data IS incorrect.

You claimed USC is 33.3% Mexican and you now say it is 25% Mexican? Just complete fabrications. That data on USC's own website does not say anything like that. That data you copied and pasted on this blog does not say anything like that.

Again, YOUR data is incorrect. FACT.

I provide a legitimate argument, then you cannot refute anything I say. Instead, you ask unrelated question regarding where I am from, where I went to school, inaccurate information about a player, etc.

I suggest you learn how to make an argument and be able to substantiate it. So far, you have failed at every attempt. But I suppose, "if everyone else does it, it's alright..."

If you want to read a blog without racial comments, perhaps you should ask El Capitan to stop posting. He is the root of all race baiting. And by playing the race card, you are just as guilty.

Hey soarez, you are getting bitch slapped. Voodoo has made a fool out of you. Give it up, buddy, it's gone from bad to sad.

Voodoo Walk:

Greetings from a fellow SC grad. I graduated with two BA's in the early 90's, and received an MFA in Cinema four years ago this May.

Sidestepping the issue of the present disposition of ethnicities at SC -- which seems to me to be mostly beside the point -- I am curious about your seemingly ironclad animus against Mark Sanchez.

While I too am bitterly disappointed in Reggie Bush, I have formed this opinion based upon a great deal of commentary in the press. The Yahoo News accounts -- which are being denied as so much anti-SC conspiracy by some die-hards -- seem to me rather overwhelming.

As for Mark Sanchez, unless you are privy to some inside information the rest of us lack, I *do not* understand your vehemence. My assumption is that race has been brought into this discussion by some, because, otherwise they cannot account for your seemingly rather stern position.

These are the facts of the Sanchez case, as I understand them.

1) He was caught with an illegitimate ID.

2) He was *accused* -- apparently as much by a girl's mother as the girl herself -- of rape. Said accusation was *dismissed* and, moreover, never even went to trial.

While I was not caught, I myself certainly did have and use a false ID as an undergrad at SC. So did many of my friends. Off the top of my head, I cannot think of *any* friend whomsoever, in fact, who did not drink underage.

In my view, Sanchez was guilty here -- at worst -- of not being canny enough about the special spotlight he would be under as an up-and-coming star athlete at the University of Southern California.

As for point two, again I must confess that I did fool around with and have sex with girls as an undergrad at SC. At least in a few instances, both parties were under the influence of alcohol, and there may have been some confusion as to what specifically occurred the night before.

Although I certainly never once forced a girl -- in any way shape or form -- nor did I continue if she said "no", without question, if one of the girls in question had telephoned her mother about the incident, there may have been trouble. Who knows?

Did you yourself *not* ever have any similarly ambiguous experiences while an undergrad at SC?

If you did not, perhaps you are -- at least in part -- envious?

Again, all that we *know*, with categorical certainty, is that Mark Sanchez fooled around with a girl. Apparently all parties agree that technical sex -- meaning sexual intercourse -- *did not* occur. We also know that the girl confided in her mother about the experience. And the mother then called the Los Angeles Police.

We also know that, historically, the Los Angeles Police Department has been known to be, to put it charitably, exuberant. They responded to the mother's claim by literally swooping into Cardinal Gardens -- where one SC girlfriend of mine happened to live during her junior year -- with helicopters, multiple vehicles, all the rest. Not to mention, presumably with guns drawn.

Perhaps we also have different attitudes about the police, but, in my view, the method the LAPD chose to apprehend Sanchez if anything speaks in his favor. It was totally nuts, as far as I'm concerned. Completely disproportionate, in terms of the use of force, and in terms of what the circumstances dicatated.

Who is to say that the protestations by the prosecutors that they dropped the case only because the lacked sufficient evidence, were not, at the end of the day, not so much face-saving?

Finally, I know a bit about the kind of ship that Steven Sample runs at SC. From the time that I was completing my undergrad degrees at SC, to the present day, he has done extraordinary work to bring USC to its just academic prominence.

Given the publicity that surrounded the Sanchez case, if Sample had perceived for *one second* that Mark did not deserve the benefit of the doubt, I am utterly *certain* that he would have sent the kid packing.

To thegoodfight,

I do not have time to get into everything you wrote here since I am at work, but I want to address what you said re: Steve Sample.

He is well known, by his own admission, for delegating duties to underlings. He has, again by his own admission, only gotten involved in student affairs on one occasion in his entire career - when he wrote the new Greek system constitution in the early 1990s. He has stated that he will not get involved in the athletic department or student affairs. Those duties are for the administrators in those departments. This is all covered in his book.

Dr Sample would never have gotten involved in the Sanchez case, no matter how guilty or not guilty he could have been. He has stated that people are appointed to positions and it is their job to carry it out, while he will not get involved.

As such, he would not have sent any kid packing, because he would never have gotten involved.

Voodoo,

My question to Scott applies to all. I don't support any particular contributor. I don't identify with el capitan or with locoweed (Sigma Chi, seriously stop being a gnat, it's unbecoming to scream out and announce you are in the peanut gallery).

I wanted your information to get a perspective. I find that folks that don't live in Southern California have a skewed perspective on the multiculturalism of the area.

Also, while I didn't ask when you attended USC -- simply if you had. You attended during an earlier decade than I did. Perhaps USC in the 70's was quite different than the USC of the late 80's I attended, or the one I currently contribute my time and my corporation's muscle to support.

The current student body and recent graduates is fairly representative of Southern California. There is some work to do, the African-American student population is under represented.

I did use a directional statement in describing the student population demographic make up. I should have looked up the numbers first.

Regardless, my statement stands. Why leave contributor postings that potentially offend the reader?

Whether they come from El Capitan, or anyone else, I wish Scott would police the board. Some of the listed statements are meant to offend. I don't think anyone should be allowed to offend anyone because of their ethnic or racial background.

The USC demographic numbers was emailed to me by the endowment office after I read your response to me. They are reported by the university. The report is titled "All Enrolled Students, by Ethnicity (2007), USC at a Glance, Accessed March 7, 2007." It is my understanding that it is accurate for the 06-07 year.

The other data comes from the aforementioned sources. I can't make it clearer than that. You might choose to ignore my references, but they are very real. My 33% was off, but a lot closer than your 2%.

You are corre

There is FAR more to the Sanchez sexual assault arrest than has ever been made public. There are reasons reporters who know the story and those within the university will not say anything publicly. You can believe what you want about Sanchez but there is always more to a story than is made public.

I am NOT a race baiter. I have cried foul because of the constant rape garbage allegations which ended with charges dropped. WHY can't that be left at that? Illegal drinking happens on every American campus. Do I condone that? NO. For the record I don't drink and I don't smoke.
I did NOT bring the race an issue until a lot of you started your garbage with Mark. It seems to me that attacking his character instead of judging him as another QB is your way to show your dislike for him. A lot has been said about Mitch Mustain. Have I called him any names? NO, Sir; No Mame.
Here is another one that irritates me. WHY would you applaud or approve Mustain being called a hero? This nation is at war whether you approve of it or NOT. Over 4,000 had given their life so a lot of you here can scream that Mark Sánchez is a rapist. Ironic? Those are my heroes. Among them is a young Marine brought aboard an USAF C17 hooked to a ventilator. Physicians tried to save him but to no avail. His organs were donated including his heart. That young Marine by the way is NOT Latino in case some of you start smelling the wrong ideas. That same Marine won the nation highest honor:
The Congressional Medal Of HONOR.
That is a hero.
Back to football, if Mustain beats Sánchez in the field then so be it. That is the nature of sports. I don't mind sports objective criticism. I believe in good old sportsmanship. When some of you can distinguish between that and the rest of the garbage maybe then we can get along. The few times that I have criticized Mustain I have done it with confirmed reliable stats>IT. Don't think for a minute that I have not read in other forums what was said about Mr. Mustain. I have also emailed back and forth with an objective Arkansas fan. Have I thrown that in the ring like a lot of you have trashed Mark? The answer is a loud NO.
George Tirebiter among very few of you blatantly stated that some of you are prejudiced. His words not mine, NOT a single one here challenged that. It seems to me that the silence following that statement might confirm his belief.
Finally and for the X to the X power I did NOT attend USC. I think I have earned the right to root for USC based on the long time that I have been doing so. A few among you can say that you served this country like I have. I don't care whether you care to acknowledge that or NOT. I am proud that I did. The sad part is the way some of you react. I am NOT Chicano. I am Latino and that is ALL you need to know. I get offended when I'm referred to as Hispanic. I don't care for that demographic term. If Mark Sánchez disgraces USC I will try to lead your march. Leave the kid alone and let him play. If he has a bad practice and you care to blast him cool. Judge him as a player and you and I get along fine. You deviate from that and we have serious business to take care of. I am Mark's fan número UNO here.
Thank you

DShapiro,

All due respect, while this may be Sample's public line, I do not believe it, at least in such a prominent circumstance.

I worked as an administrator at SC while working on a PhD -- which I never completed -- and came into *frequent* contact with Lloyd Armstrong's office, and frequent enough contact with Sample's office, to believe that my assumption is absolutely correct.

Sorry, it is sheer silliness to think the Sample maintains such an utterly ironclad policy in matters of student affairs that he would not make his opinions known.

Presumably, you know that Sample is an *enthusiastic* booster of SC Football, and goes to most games.

Sorry, I don't buy your position.

Good Fight - please leave the young woman and her family out of this. They have been through enough and you do not know the full story about Mark. She dropped out of USC because of that incident and her family had to make a decision not to pursue the case with the district attorney in order to avoid further harassment from overzealous fans. You can draw your own conclusions as to why a young woman would drop out of school, losing everything and changing her future forever, and if you think it is because nothing traumatic happened to her, then you do not know much about the human psyche. I sincerely ask you to please leave the young woman alone and do not jump to any conclusions based on what you have read in media. Thank you.

To thegoodfight,

Lloyd Armstrong was the provost and, of course, Dr Sample would be involved in that capacity. The provost is also No. 2 in the administration and one of five members of the senior cabinet. Academic affairs and student affairs are completely different areas. Dr Sample does not get involved in student affairs and that is quite well known throughout the university. You would have to ask Michael Jackson about that and he would agree.

Brian,

Thanks for your viewpoint. I am sorry that the publicity surrounding the event caused this young woman to move on from USC.

That's truly a shame.

However, forgive me, but it seems to me that you've revealed far more about her situation in *your* post than I did in mine. Did I mention her name? Her mother's name? Did I make any assumptions about her state of mind or her complicity in/or resistance to the encounter?

No.

Sorry, your post seems typical of the kind of hush hush condescension that his followed this story.

And both you and DShapiro seem rather young and wide-eyed about the topic.

For anyone who says that if a football player is arrested for rape but never charged due to "lack of sufficient evidence," then he must be innocent, then all I can say is Jerramy Stevens at Washington.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004147460_rbstevens270.html

The past always comes back to haunt...

DShapiro said:
"To thegoodfight,

Lloyd Armstrong was the provost and, of course, Dr Sample would be involved in that capacity. The provost is also No. 2 in the administration and one of five members of the senior cabinet. Academic affairs and student affairs are completely different areas. Dr Sample does not get involved in student affairs and that is quite well known throughout the university. You would have to ask Michael Jackson about that and he would agree."

Again, respectfully, DShapiro, for several years during the mid-'90s I worked in an official capacity at SC, which led me to sit in meetings -- and other events -- which included both Lloyd Armstrong and Steven Sample.

I exchanged pleasantries with Dr. Sample on several occasions, and believe I have a good sense of his attitudes and concerns.

Number one: he has a keen interest in the football program.

Additionally, the bureaucratic structure about which you speak does not preclude for a second Steven Sample's involvement in the Sanchez matter, if he so desired. We are not talking about some random plagiarism case, here. But one which theoretically could have impacted the prestige of the entire institution.

You may believe it or not, but you will not convince me otherwise. And, at the end of the day, you are splitting hairs in this argument. Even if you were correct, and the buck stopped completely with Michael Jackson, then one could say:

"If Michael Jackson had perceived for *one second* that Mark did not deserve the benefit of the doubt, I am utterly *certain* that he would have sent the kid packing."

No matter what, an individual in a position of substantial authority at USC decided that Mark Sanchez did not deserve to be ejected from the University, nor lose his football scholarship.

Final question: Do you really believe that Sample never once discussed the matter with Jackson as it was being handled?

Yes or no.

Good Fight - you genuinely have no idea what you are talking about. You can believe whatever you like about Mark and what you have read but there are reasons a young woman drops out of school and it is not because of anything positive. You can defend Mark all you like, assume whatever you like about the process at USC, but reading what you wrote, I know that you are ignorant of the facts. I am not going to discuss this any further as it is futile arguing with someone on the internet who is not aware of what transpired.

thegoodfight:

Unless you have actual definitive proof that Steve Sample sat down with Michael Jackson and discussed Mark Sanchez's case, do not go around saying that such a meeting ever took place. For the record, no meeting ever took place. By the way, Michael Jackson was actually out of the country when Sanchez was arrested and was gone during much of the period Sanchez was suspended by the university.

Brian said:
Good Fight - you genuinely have no idea what you are talking about. You can believe whatever you like about Mark and what you have read but there are reasons a young woman drops out of school and it is not because of anything positive. You can defend Mark all you like, assume whatever you like about the process at USC, but reading what you wrote, I know that you are ignorant of the facts. I am not going to discuss this any further as it is futile arguing with someone on the internet who is not aware of what transpired.

Brian,

This will be my last post to you.

There is no question in my mind that I am not privy to all of the facts that occurred in the case. I never for a moment said that I was.

In fact, I implied in my initial post to Voodoo Walk that I was only going on what information had been made to the public.

Bluntly, however, are we to believe that *you* in fact are privy to all the details of what occurred?

Are you a personal friend of the young woman? Or were you merely a student at the time, and heard gossip that I did not, because I had graduated two years before?

It is preposterous for you to say that I suggested the young woman had dropped out of SC because of "something positive." Absolutely idiotic. In fact, I said that I was sincerely sorry that occurred.

Drop the precious condescension. You are speaking to a fellow Trojan, here.

NeilsonSC said:
thegoodfight:

Unless you have actual definitive proof that Steve Sample sat down with Michael Jackson and discussed Mark Sanchez's case, do not go around saying that such a meeting ever took place. For the record, no meeting ever took place. By the way, Michael Jackson was actually out of the country when Sanchez was arrested and was gone during much of the period Sanchez was suspended by the university.

I truly hope to God you are not an SC student.

Point to the line in my post where I claimed that Sample and Jackson had a meeting regarding Mark Sanchez. Please.

Hint: There is a fundamental difference between my asking DShapiro if he honestly believed that Sample and Jackson had never discussed the matter, and my asserting that such a meeting definitely occurred.

I have been following this thread and wasn't going to weigh in on it, but after the latest preposterous statement from thegoodfight, I have to put share my 2 cents. Yes, there was far more to story. Even Scott has said he is aware of facts that have never been made public. It's correct that Michael Jackson was in Asia during much of the suspension and Steve Sample also left town following commencement ceremonies, when Sanchez was suspended. That Jeremy Stevens link someone gave above is required reading. There are a lot of parallels there. I suggest thegoodfight reads that article.

One final thing - it is the job of an attorney to make sure rape charges are never brought against his client and he will do whatever he can to make the alleged victim back down before the DA can file charges. Remember that.

I seem to be fighting a battle against a multi-headed hydra here.

Unfortunately, most of the heads -- DShapiro and Voodoo Walk excepted -- do not seem to be particularly mature or intelligent.

JMH --

Thanks for adopting the use of the term "preposterous," which I had used in a previous post, and using it so feebly against me.

So you are trying to suggest to me that a matter involving an entirely different person -- on an entirely different campus -- should lead one to draw definitive conclusions about the Sanchez matter?

And you have the gall to claim that I have been "preposterous" in my posts?

I'll say it one more time, I certainly reserve the possibility that I do not know all of the facts. In fact, I'm sure I do not.

I also do not, however, believe for a second that the immature kids wandering around here, whispering gossip, are truly subtantially more informed. Sorry.

It's not like my having completed my MFA two years before the incident rendered me entirely out of the loop of USC information.

Not one of my friends from undergraduate years, nor graduate years have been made aware of the would-be sinister secrets, about which several of you have alluded here.

If you were sincere in your desire to inform me of some specific facts that you know -- as a true insider -- you would suggest some means by which you could privately inform me.

Rather than condescend.

I have three degrees from the institution. I am ABD toward a fourth.

You have no special purchase in this matter, above me.

Do you really have to keep saying, over and over and over and over again, that you have degrees from USC? You do realize that 200,000 other people throughout the world can say the same things, including me?

So you're saying because you were a man in your 30s, who got a degree at USC (did you remember to mention that to everyone here or not...?) two years before the incident, then you surely must have known all the details? Based on that, did people ever tell you Matt Leinart's nickname among the football players? Were you informed about Reggie Bush's Impala? Were details of other football arrests that were never made public shared with you? Surely they must have been because you were getting an MFA (make sure to tell us that again) at the time.

No one owes you an explanation, even if you have degrees from USC. By the way, did you make sure to tell us that you have degrees from USC? I cannot recall if you did. If you mattered, you would know. If you don't know, then I am sure you can keep telling everyone on this blog how you got degrees from USC and think that you are the only person here who has been bestowed such an honor. Apparently no one else here graduated from USC and if their views are different than yours, they are called immature, young, wide-eyed, anything you can think of in an attempt to discredit them with conjecture.

Since you are such a special man with an MFA from USC, to borrow a line from your field, the truth is out there. Since you have so many degrees from USC, that must mean you are so very, very, very, very intelligent and special, so I am sure you can find it all on your own, without help from the condescending immature kids wandering around here (even though most, perhaps all, of the "kids" here are actually older than you).

Sincerely,

Your academically inadequate only double-degreed (BS and MBA) Trojan friend JMH

JMH --

You are an @sshole and a punk.

I mentioned my degrees in my final post, only to remind you that I am a fellow Trojan. And as a counter to the condescension of some of the immature posters who were flying off at the handle.

Among which you should number yourself.

USC bred in me a keen sense of being a member of a family. Not to mention, such virtues as loyalty, honor and integrity. As much as any knowledge from books or professors, this is one of the paramount things I took away from SC.

Based on your insipid posting here, you are a pathetic excuse for a Trojan.

JMH,

That was great!!!! I cracked up reading that. You really put took that annoying tool thegoodfight to school. Pun intended.

FOR THOSE WHO DON'T KNOW ME, PLEASE EXCUSE THE ALL CAPS, AS I HAVE VERY POOR EYESIGHT.
I HAVE FOLLOWED THIS THREAD, AND WAS NOT GOING TO COMMENT, BUT I WILL BRIEFLY.
FIRST, THIS THREAD IS SAD--SAD THAT IT SHOULD BE OCCURRING.
FACT: LAST FALL THERE WERE PEOPLE POSTING HERE THAT REFERRED TO MARK AS " THE NIGHTSTALKER" AND AS "A CONVICTED RAPIST". IF THAT IS NOT RACISM, THEN I DON'T KNOW WHAT IS.
FOR PEOPLE LIKE THE VOODOO WALK WHO FEEL THAT MARK SHOULD NOT REPRESENT THE UNIVERSITY, I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT, AS IT APPEARS IN THE CASE OF THE VOODOO WALK, THAT THE OPINION IS NOT BASED ON RACE.
FOR PEOPLE WHO CLAIM TO HAVE INSIDE INFORMATION THAT WOULD MAKE MARK LOOK WORSE,I DO HAVE SOME PROBLEM WITH THAT, BECAUSE THE UNIVERSITY HAS ALL THE INFORMATION THERE IS TO KNOW ABOUT THE CASE, AND THE UNIVERSITY HAS MADE THE DECISION TO LET MARK REMAIN IN SCHOOL, AND PLAY FOOTBALL. AS A GRADUATE OF THE UNIVERSITY--AND PROUD TO BE A TROJAN,--I CHOOSE TO GO WITH THE DECISION OF THE UNIVERSITY. I HOPE THE BEST QB WE HAVE WINS THE STARTING JOB.

wheatman said:
JMH,

"That was great!!!! I cracked up reading that. You really put took that annoying tool thegoodfight to school. Pun intended."

Coming from anyone who'd use the term "annoying tool", I'll take this as a compliment.

Pr*ck.

Thank you, George Tirebiter.

I have been doing nothing here, in my mind, but giving a fellow Trojan -- who in this case, happens to be named Mark Sanchez -- the benefit of the doubt.

I will agree with you. Those who claim special purchase on information in the case, are at best, responding to gossip and hearsay.

It is, in my mind, ridiculous to think that the University knowingly allowed Mark Sanchez to get away with a truly despicable action, only because he was a football player.

Reggie Bush, for example, has been made persona non grata on the sidelines, for his sins.

*Unless* someone has the courage here to say, "I in fact, personally know the young woman, and know all of the facts; let me inform you" I'll continue to give Sanchez the benefit of the doubt.

It makes me sad -- but also very mad -- to have had the interaction I've had here. Believe me.

thegoodfight:
Thank you.
Sincerely,
El Capitán

THEGOODFIGHT--YOU ARE MORE THAN WELCOME---AND, THANK YOU FOR GIVING MARK THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT, WHICH, IN MY OPINION, HE VERY MUCH DESERVES. I CAN WELL RELATE TO YOUR ANGER--IT IS CERTAINLY JUSTIFIED.

I, in fact, personally know all the facts and know what happened to the young woman involved. There, I said it.

Brian:
WHY don't you meet with thegoodfight privately like he asked? Put-up or shut-up. That is your chance to test your credibility.

Captain:

You truly have to shut up. Seriously, shut up. No one in this world owes "thegoodfight" anything, least of all a private meeting regarding an arrest for rape by a football player. Do you really think someone on an internet blog is owed a private meeting to discuss a matter of rape?

You are sick, disturbed, delusional, not to mention completely ignorant of all the legal issues regarding such an event even taking place. This is the height of stupidity and is an all-time low, even for you.

To demand someone have a meeting with a stranger to discuss a matter of sexual assault that does not concern him in any way and state "Put-up or shut-up. That is your chance to test your credibility" is something that unless I had read it for myself, I would never have believed the sheer stupidity of such a statement. Just the height of stupidity. You are a disgrace and if you have any integrity in this world, you will never post on this blog again. I am genuinely shocked by your utter stupidity.

Concur wholeheartedly with 60614 Trojan. The demands from El Capitan for a meeting with a stranger to discuss the personal details of an alleged rape victim are disgusting and sickening to the soul. I do not know how someone like that can even look himself in the mirror.

Here is El Capitán, his psychotic viciousness in full bloom.
All he cares about is his man-love for Sanchez, so he damns anyone who dares to mention his idol’s iniquity.
El Capitán is not at Trojan and he is not a Trojan Football fan.
I thank the Good Lord Above he’s not Mexican.

Locoweed:
Keep your BS you damn chango, correction a childish chango.
606, Stan:
Brian opened the door>it is that simple.
Thank you

Jesus Christ, the self-righteousness on this board is just astonishing.

Just as a test case, by way of comparison, go to the uscfootball.com boards. You'll discover that *this* board -- Wolf's board -- is an echo chamber -- a hall of mirrors -- with regard to the Sanchez topic. The topic *does not* come up over there. Throw the Sanchez stone into that lake, and there will be no lake.

For whatever reason, this has become the place where Mark Sanchez conspiracy theorists and would-be insiders ply their trade.

Thanks, El Capitan, for your support. And don't let some of the bastards around here get you down.

In fact, I was *not* asking to meet with anyone in person to discuss this topic. If I had felt even a little more welcomed here -- believe it or not, simply because I am skeptical, and unwilling to sell Mark Sanchez down the river absent concrete knowledge, shouldn't render me an automatic pariah, in the view of some on this board -- I would have gladly posted one of my personal e-mail addresses to briefly discuss the matter.

*Not* to discuss any prurient details. But to be set straight -- if that's what I need to be -- about the situation.

"Sickening to the soul"!!! My God, get over yourself. So, are you now implying that Sanchez acted as a true "Nightstalker," picking up some random stranger and raping her in an alley?

Hopefully, we can all at least agree that what happened -- at worst -- was a case of "date rape," in which a young man may have pushed a young woman further than she wished to go.

Or do you subscribe to the dark alley theory? If so, whose soul here is truly sick?

If you do think this of Mark Sanchez, how can you even stand to *follow* USC football? What does this say about Pete Carroll, then? If Mark Sanchez is the wicked beast some here make him out to be, and Pete has chosen to keep him on, why not give up on the team entirely?

Given that Mark is unanimously perceived to be very popular, and a leader among his teammates, how do some of you here even stand to watch *them*? Isn't the *entire team* guilty by association?

Do you see where this lynch mob mentality finally tends?

I'll take the opportunity to use again the word that my new pal JMH turned against me. Preposterous.

Or, even better, I'll employ a truly profound phrase, spoken two millennia ago, by our president's "favorite philosopher":

Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.

I had a long conversation with one of my most avid SC football buddies last night. I was genuinely disturbed by the interaction here and wanted to bounce it off him.

He is a second generation Trojan, his parents have been Cardinal and Gold for decades, and they throw fantistic and generous tailgate parties for every home game. To which every Trojan is welcome.

If a rumor, or inside story comes down the pike, it come through them. I confirmed last night that, in fact, my friend knows little or nothing more than I do about the Sanchez matter.

Incidentally, he and I will be at Howard Joes Field this afternoon to watch practice. And, at the end of the day, we're not strangers to anyone. We're fellow Trojans.

And just like my friend's tailgate parties, we have an open door policy to all fellow Trojans. That's the way *we* choose to think of this critical component of our identities.

And we're deeply proud to do so.

Let me pose a few questions to those in the anti-Sanchez camp:

If Sanchez is named as the starting QB, will you root any less for USC this season? If he is named the starter, will you be rooting for him to fail or get injured? Be honest with yourself.

If the answer is yes, then that is sad, because you are likely putting your dislike for Sanchez (or, God forbid, his heritage?) above your allegiance/loyalty to USC.

If the answer is no, then why not let "bygones be bygones," and support him as a fellow Trojan?

I am in no way apologizing for his past behavior. I wasn't there, so I don't know what happened. However, he was never prosecuted for any crime. Innocent until proven guilty. Others have been criminally prosecuted, but allowed to remain on the team (Rey-Rey comes to mind). Others were kicked out of the program (e.g, Eric Wright). It's a case-by-case basis. With Sanchez, USC allowed him to remain. I'll defer to its judgment. I hope he succeeds, just like any other Trojan.

As I said all along, may the best man win the position, regardless of race, creed, color, etc.

Having said that, I have no quarrel for those who question whether Sanchez is capable of being the starter based on the merits - he stares down his receivers, doesn't check down to other receivers, etc. I remember those picks against Oregon (although other factors, like Havili's fumble, also contributed to the loss.) However, I also remember that Sanchez was able to avoid sacks, and get first downs with his feet (just remember to protect the football). Of course, if Sanchez falters ON THE FIELD (I hope not), then, by all means, bring in Mustain. But I, for one, I am NOT going to root for Sanchez to fail.

Let's get back to football.

Fight On!

USCMIKE------AS USUAL, YOU NAILED IT PERFECTLY-------I ECHO YOUR SENTIMENTS 100%

BRIAN-------RE YOUR LAST POST, IF YOU THINK YOU KNOW THAT MARK WAS GUILTY OF RAPE, IF THIS IS WHAT YOU ARE SAYING, THEN I THINK YOU ALSO NEED TO SAY WHY MARK WAS NEVER CHARGED--AND ALSO, WHY MARK WAS ALLOWED TO REMAIN IN SCHOOL AT SC AND PLAY FOOTBALL.

BRIAN, ANYONE CAN SAY ANYTHING IN A POST. IF YOU ARE SAYING YOU HAVE DEFINITE EVIDENCE THAT MARK WAS GUILTY OF RAPE, DID YOU PRESENT THIS EVIDENCE TO THE UNIVERSITY? IF YOU DID, THEN WHAT WAS THE RESULT? IF YOU DID NOT, THEN WHY NOT? WOULD THAT NOT BE YOUR RESPONSIBILITY? THE ONLY THING I AM SAYING HERE TO YOU IS THAT YOUR POST NEEDS CREDIBILITY.

CONVERSELY, IF WHAT YOU KNOW PROVES MARKS' INNOCENCE, THEN YOU NEED TO SAY THAT TOO.

SO, BRIAN, WHAT IS THERE THAT YOU CAN ADD TO YOUR POST? IF THERE IS NOTHING YOU CAN ADD, THEN YOUR POST, STANDING ALONE, MEANS NOTHING.

To George Tirebiter & a few others:

Do not be so foolish. Never ask someone to disclose matters of a legal nature on the internet, especially sexual assault.

Now I do not know, one way or the other, if Sanchez was guilty or not guilty of sexual assault. I do know, quite definitively, that ordering someone to disclose what he may or may not know on the internet about an alleged victim of sexual assault will have major legal consequences.

George Tirebiter, it is well known that El Capitan sends you emails and you are doing his work. Do not do that. It is in poor taste and you are fooling no one.

I agree with Brian that the young woman should be left alone, so for those of you who are demanding information on the internet, not only is that legally in the wrong, you are morally wrong. Obviously something traumatic enough happened to her to leave USC, so you can draw your own conclusions.

No one owes anyone on this blog an explanation, so I suggest you either conduct yourselves with dignity or realize you are getting in murky legal waters.

TrojanJD'92:
Do you have any proof that I "send" George Tirebiter emails? Secondly can you prove that he is posting what I tell him to? You are preaching ALL that legal BS and there you are making accusations without anything to back them-up. Put-up evidence or shut your damn mouth. Let me remind you Mr. Sanctimonious hypocrite that your emails are private just like mine are. Again prove without any doubt that I told Mr. George Tirebiter what to post. If you don't for the second time shut your damn loud mouth and take your assumptions where the sun doesn't shine.

Brian opened the door to brag that he knows [EVERYTHING]:
March 28, 2008 7:40 PM:
Brian said:
"I, in fact, personally know all the facts and know what happened to the young woman involved.
There, I said it". This post reinforces what he stated March 28, 2008 4:04 PM:
"it is futile arguing with someone on the internet who is not aware of what transpired".
Quit playing Perry Mason defending Brian. He did NOT say anything about leaving the young lady alone. If anything he put her on the stage to be scrutinized. Those are his words coming out of his mouth confirmed by his posts. TJD'92 you are supposedly a college graduate yet you have a problem reading. Does this penetrate your BBB? It stands for blood brain barrier! You got ALL Hollywood dramatic and assumed for the second time by stating:
"Obviously something traumatic enough happened to her leave USC, so you can draw your own conclusions".
TrojanJD'92 the preacher:
"so I suggest you conduct yourselves with dignity". TJD'92 you are beyond presumptuous:
1. You make assumptions.
2. You play Perry Mason.
3. You get dramatic and play a Hollywood screen writer. I hope that any politician does NOT hire you as a speech writer.
4. The joke of the day he turns into a preacher with his hypocritical conduct rhetoric.
Let's give give him the cake and the icing!

El Capitan, Tirebiter has already admitted in the past that you email him and that you mention issues regarding Sanchez. Also, emails that you sent to reporters about both Mustain and Sanchez have been forwarded all over the place and read by many. That is a fact.

Zander:
Prove ALL your damn allegations or shut your loud mouth. Post specific links about ALL your allegations.
Talk the talk and walk the walk. You testify that your hooker told you this and that and any lawyer will have a ball with your Bool$#*T.

Just one word - Luis!

The polo female dog(FD) again wagging her tail. Polo FD post any links or shut your damn mouth.

I know you, Luis. And you know I know about you. I know about the emails to the LA Times. So you said this was going to be resolved in court and I am still waiting. What a liar you are, Luis.

Polohead I dare you to post the email you loud mouth FD. All you do is wag your tail, drool and drip!

So where's that court appearance you promised, Luis? Liar. Just a big liar, Luis. I laugh in your face! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!

Behind a keyboard you coward female dog. That is the only way you can make noise. That's what female dogs do:
NOISE, talk bigger than their mouths...

You are a hypocrite and liar, Luis. You are the one hiding behind a keyboard, promising a court appearance. And then...NOTHING. You are a liar, Luis. A big fat liar. I laugh in your face! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!

Wag FD. Make noise FD.

Wag FD. Make noise FD. Noise FD.

Liar. Where's the court appearance, Luis? Never going to happen because you are a liar. I laugh in your face! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!

Scrawny idiot with a big mouth, lots of noise. What else can you expect?

Luis, Luis, Luis...where's the court appearance? Liar! I laugh in your face! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!

Polo female dog:
Cowards ONLY act big behind a keyboard you scrawny idiot. That's all you are a big act and a big mouth.

You are a hypocrite and liar, Luis. You are the one hiding behind a keyboard, promising a court appearance. And then...NOTHING. You are a liar, Luis. A big fat liar. I laugh in your face! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!

El Capitán:
How low you have fallen compadre. This is how you spend your weekends? Your faux Latino pride is so cartoonish you can’t possibly be real. You should be ashamed of yourself for posting such drivel.
Also, please do a favor to all cogent Latinos and stop with the insults in Spanish. Anyone that managed a B in Spanish II knows you neither speak nor write the language; and the person that has been helping you isn’t very good at it either. You are a fraud.
Those that have allied themselves with this dyspeptic and ignorant lunatic should reconsider their fidelity.

Locohead:
I am NOT your compadre. I don't want your friendship. I have NOT fallen anywhere you damn childish CHANGO. Go take Polo to a gay bar you deserve each other.

El Capitán,
You are also a homophobe? Your list of attributes is truly charming! We can add this latest jewel to your misogyny, racism, paranoia, and gutter Spanish. Nice going Luisito.

TROJANJD92
IF YOU WILL KINDLY RE-READ MY POST, YOU WILL PLAINLY SEE THAT I WAS NOT ASKING BRIAN TO REVEAL ANY DETAILS OF THE RAPE---------THAT WOULD PROVE NOTHING---------BRIAN, OR ANYONE, COULD FABRICATE ANYTHING. CLEARLY, THE THRUST OF THE QUESTION WAS--------WHAT, IF ANYTHING, DID BRIAN DO WITH THE KNOWLEDGE HE CLAIMS TO HAVE---I.E.--DID HE PRESENT THIS KNOWLEDGE TO THE UNIVERSITY, AND WHAT WAS THE REACTION OF THE UNIVERSITY
REMEMBER, THE UNIVERSITY HAS MADE THE DECISION TO ALLOW MARK TO REMAIN IN SCHOOL AND PLAY FOOTBALL-------THAT SPEAKS FOR ITSELF, MUCH MORE THAN ANYTHING BRIAN MIGHT POST HERE, DOES IT NOT??

ZANDER-----I HAVE NEVER SAID THAT THE CAPITAN E-MAILS ME. IF YOU THINK I HAVE, EVERYTHING IS ARCHIVED--SO PLEASE PROVIDE THE DATE AND THE TIME---THE PLAIN TRUTH IS--------I NEVER HAVE-------I CANNOT BE MORE FRANK OR BLUNT THAN THAT----I HAVE SUPPORTED THE CAPITAN HERE WHEN PEOPLE POST RACIST REMARKS, LIKE CALLING MARK A CONVICTED RAPIST OR A NIGHTSTALKER-------RACIAL PREJUDICE HAS NO PLACE HERE--OR ANYWHERE.

As someone mentioned before, Carroll offered a scholarship to Frostee Rucker AFTER he was expelled from Colorado State for raping a student, and then he was arrested for an assault against a woman at SC, too. So I doubt the fact that he has allowed Sanchez to remain at SC means that he is innocent of anything. Also, as was pointed out, Rucker and Sanchez had the same attorney. There is history here to suggest Carroll turns a blind eye to legal troubles.

EVK Room 323 said:

"As someone mentioned before, Carroll offered a scholarship to Frostee Rucker AFTER he was expelled from Colorado State for raping a student, and then he was arrested for an assault against a woman at SC, too. So I doubt the fact that he has allowed Sanchez to remain at SC means that he is innocent of anything. Also, as was pointed out, Rucker and Sanchez had the same attorney. There is history here to suggest Carroll turns a blind eye to legal troubles."

If this is truly how you feel, then I would ask again, how can you, in good conscience, remain a fan of the program?

I guess, of course, I should first ask: are you an SC fan/alum?

But if what you say about Pete Carroll is true -- that, in matters of football, he is essentially amoral -- then it means he is a pretty bad guy, himself. Right?

Unless, of course, at the end of the day, Pete knows more about *either* the Rucker matter *or* the Sanchez matter, than you or me. Which, I'm thinking, is a pretty d*mn safe bet.

EVKR 323:
PC could have been overruled by the USC administration, WHY NOT? I have asked you that based on your line of reasoning. Secondly intentionally leaving sports out to emphasize the power structure or chain of command.
Thank you

Worth reading:
http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=394151&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0#comments
thegoodfight: Please READ
Thnx