In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 528
Black shoes, basic blues. No names, all game
Buy, sell and swap tickets
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
Now that's Poster of the Year material right there.
Follow me on Twitter @rayraycotto
Jay Bilas @JayBilas
Wait, the NCAA talks out of both sides of its mouth in separate legal cases? http://bit.ly/14DH7T8 Shocker.
Decent read but nothing truly new in the article. It will be interesting on how this plays out and just as importantly the reaction. After reading the article it appears that the case can be dismissed on technicalities (if that's what we call constitutional rights) for lack of legal representation and Balwin violating attorney client privilege. Certainly it appears their rights were violated and the case should be dismissed.
Unfortunately though this is a case I was looking forward to for a certain amount of the truth to come out. Without the actual trail and details coming out, I think public perception would see this as a continuation of not allowing the truth to come out.
Once the charges are dropped those 3 will want to clear their names. They'll be all over the media telling their side of the story. I don't know if that counts as "truth" but it's better than nothing.
WE ARE! And we will always be...
Dominate The State
As much as I hate to say this, getting a report on the situation was not really a bad idea.
The bad idea came when the BOT made it public, when they made it public before they looked at it, etc. The goal of the Freeh Report should have been to figure out what Penn State can do to prevent this from happening again, not to assign blame. The idea of the Freeh Report was good (assuming they wanted it for future prevention recommendations), the implementation was horrible.
This post was edited by psubills62 13 months ago
"I like your head, it's a good look." - James Franklin, to a bald reporter asking a question.
Not trying to stick up for the NCAA but in court you are allowed to basically argue as many alternative theories as you want. I know it's ridiculous that they would argue the exact opposite thing in 2 different cases but that's how the legal system works.
This post was edited by PSUJT0409 13 months ago
Were it the same case you absolutely could. For example, if you were charged with murder you could argue one that you didn't do it and in the alternative, you could argue that even if you did do it the jury can't find you guilty because you were insane or acting in self-defense or some other affirmative defense. Obviously the prosecution would point this out to the jury and it would be something they would hammer you on. In this situation, because we are dealing with 2 separate trials, it will depend on the admissibility of the arguments of one trial into the other. I'm not sure if it could get in but you can bet the NCAA's lawyers will fight like hell to keep it out. Maybe someone with alittle more experience with this can comment as well.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports