Elements of a failed out-of-court settlement mean nothing to a judge...

[zipp]

(I'm not a lawyer, and lawyers should comment...)

There are remarks among fans about what U of L has already admitted to the NCAA. It's my understanding that under normal circumstances, voluntary admissions, penalties, etc. by either side have no significance if this matter ends up in court because it couldn't be resolved outside.

I doubt that the merits of the underlying case get argued. But in U of L's defense, they don't have to fear any prior admissions to the NCAA of responsibility or wrongdoing, esp. when a lower or different standard of proof has been applied, e.g., guilty until proven innocent. If the need arises, U of L could argue that it was accepting responsibility to be expedient or receive lighter punishment. Once those conditions no longer apply, U of L's defense resets or starts over...

 

[JohnKBA]

The punishment seems super excessive IMO. The post season ban was already a HUGE thing. That's absolutely the worst thing a school like U of L can be hit with outside of the program being completely shut down. Think of all the schools that have gone through much worse shit recently and come through it a lot better off than Louisville has.

I've said it many times though, vacated wins are the most meaningless punishment the NCAA can hand out. Fans retain memories, players keep rings, gamblers keep their winnings, it's preserved on video, etc. If they decision doesn't get overturned, who cares? You guys won that title on the floor and millions of people watched it. Good luck convincing everyone it never happened.

 

[Cal4Pres.]

I agree with ya John, as much as I hate to admit it taking that banner is excessive, mostly because it's almost unprecedented. I thought the penalty would be a lot harsher on Rick and the staff than the program. But I disagree about the mentality of vacating wins. People care, programs care, its matters to people. If it didn't then they wouldn't try to fight it. You're right about the memories and all that, you cant take that from the team or fans, but vacating wins and especially a NC matters because its a permanent black eye. I see where you are coming from though, I guess after time, all the emotions of it go away and people still will remember it. But down the road it's always gonna be a permanent bad mark.

 

[topdecktiger]

You're right about the memories and all that, you cant take that from the team or fans, but vacating wins and especially a NC matters because its a permanent black eye. I see where you are coming from though, I guess after time, all the emotions of it go away and people still will remember it. But down the road it's always gonna be a permanent bad mark.

Before the national championship game last year (football), there was a montage of previous champions. Part of the montage was Southern Cal's win over Oklahoma........which had been vacated.

 

[-BBH-]

Think of all the schools that have gone through much worse shit recently and come through it a lot better off than Louisville has.

Can you tell us which schools have gone through worse?

 

[JohnKBA]

I was including football as well. Teams get away with recruiting shenanigans all the time.

 

[BooneCo_Card]

I was including football as well. Teams get away with recruiting shenanigans all the time.

LOL My Auburn Tigers are literally Shenanigan Central when it comes to FB recruiting. Nevertheless............

War Eagle!

 

[gocds]

(I'm not a lawyer, and lawyers should comment...)

There are remarks among fans about what U of L has already admitted to the NCAA. It's my understanding that under normal circumstances, voluntary admissions, penalties, etc. by either side have no significance if this matter ends up in court because it couldn't be resolved outside.

I doubt that the merits of the underlying case get argued. But in U of L's defense, they don't have to fear any prior admissions to the NCAA of responsibility or wrongdoing, esp. when a lower or different standard of proof has been applied, e.g., guilty until proven innocent. If the need arises, U of L could argue that it was accepting responsibility to be expedient or receive lighter punishment. Once those conditions no longer apply, U of L's defense resets or starts over...

zipp we need to be careful about getting past the "appeals" process and going straight to the "courtroom" process. The NCAA has had success in the past in appealing local rulings in UofL's favor to the Kentucky Court of Appeals. There is definitely a uahkay lean on that court and they are the ones that screwed us in the Lagassee(sp) case years ago. Just sayin'.

GO CARDS - BEAT EVERYBODY!!! God Bless America!!!

 

[Dore95]

OP's post makes no sense from a legal perspective. If U of L were to sue in court the question would be whether the NCAA departed from its procedures/process, based on the record in front of it. In other words, the court would have to take the record (including U of L's admissions) as it existed before the NCAA.

 

[fredburgcard]

OP's post makes no sense from a legal perspective. If U of L were to sue in court the question would be whether the NCAA departed from its procedures/process, based on the record in front of it. In other words, the court would have to take the record (including U of L's admissions) as it existed before the NCAA.

Louisville's problem is that it is low hanging fruit for NCAA enforcement. After taking it on the chin with Penn State and Miami and then being unable (so far) to pin something on UNC and Baylor the enforcement staff needed a win. Louisville admitted that a staff member provided impermissible benefits to recruits and players. Louisville is a member of the NCAA and agreed to abide by the rules and enforcement procedures. Courts are very reluctant to interfere in the administrative process of private entities. Unless Louisville can pull off a Hail Mary with the appeal commitee the penalties will likely stand. I doubt the appeals committee will give the NCAA enforcement staff a black eye by altering any penalties. I hope I'm wrong.

 

[zipp]

Louisville's problem is that it is low hanging fruit for NCAA enforcement. After taking it on the chin with Penn State and Miami and then being unable (so far) to pin something on UNC and Baylor the enforcement staff needed a win. Louisville admitted that a staff member provided impermissible benefits to recruits and players. Louisville is a member of the NCAA and agreed to abide by the rules and enforcement procedures. Courts are very reluctant to interfere in the administrative process of private entities. Unless Louisville can pull off a Hail Mary with the appeal commitee the penalties will likely stand. I doubt the appeals committee will give the NCAA enforcement staff a black eye by altering any penalties. I hope I'm wrong.

Louisville won't try IMO to debate the merits of the underlying facts and findings. It will be about the penalties and whether they were excessive. That's a narrower issue and, as I understand it, without precedent in terms of U of L's penalty. That alone makes it worth the effort.

Private organizations can't be arbitrary in how they handle affairs just because they're private. I served on a non-profit board for many years. You sue in court and get sued just the same, and you don't get some blanket relief that membership is voluntary and you can do what you want. In fact, I don't ever remember an attorney trying to make that argument which I personally think is weak.

My OP was simply about a court recognizing an external standard for justice and evidence. Unless there's a settlement agreement by all parties, none of that really matters. And we don't have that with U of L and the NCAA; appears we're far from it...

 

[Cal4Pres.]

Before the national championship game last year (football), there was a montage of previous champions. Part of the montage was Southern Cal's win over Oklahoma........which had been vacated.

I see where you are coming from, but the first thing you thought of after seeing that was probably the fact that it was vacated? The problem with the past in this regard is while locally people will remember the run you guys had and all the good stuff, but the majority outside of that like someone in California will think vacated. That's what I was trying to get across.

 

[fredburgcard]

Louisville won't try IMO to debate the merits of the underlying facts and findings. It will be about the penalties and whether they were excessive. That's a narrower issue and, as I understand it, without precedent in terms of U of L's penalty. That alone makes it worth the effort.

Private organizations can't be arbitrary in how they handle affairs just because they're private. I served on a non-profit board for many years. You sue in court and get sued just the same, and you don't get some blanket relief that membership is voluntary and you can do what you want. In fact, I don't ever remember an attorney trying to make that argument which I personally think is weak.

My OP was simply about a court recognizing an external standard for justice and evidence. Unless there's a settlement agreement by all parties, none of that really matters. And we don't have that with U of L and the NCAA; appears we're far from it...

I'm not saying that the mere fact that Louisville is a member of the NCAA means the NCAA can do what it wants. What I'm saying is that in an administrative action the courts give an administrative entity great leeway in handling it's own affairs. If all Louisville has to do in court is prove the penalty isn't fair then I think they'd have a shot. Louisville's problem is there is no precedent for what McGee did. If you can show me another case where a school representative hired strippers and prostitutes to entertain individuals who played for that school and then the NCAA did not rule the players ineligible I'll go along with the idea that Louisville has a strong case that the NCAA was arbitrary. The NCAA will argue (and has already found) that it was dealing with an egregious violation that went on for four years without the school stopping it. Is Louisville going to argue it was no big deal? If they do I doubt a court will rule the NCAA arbitrary and capricious in finding that it was a significant violation. The NCAA rules say that when an athlete gets an impermissible benefit that athlete is ineligible to compete. I don't think that a court will rule that the NCAA was arbitrary and capricious in finding the strip shows to be an impermissible benefit.

Take a look at what the NCAA did to Thomas More College just last year:

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/spo...unces-sanctions-against-thomas-more/93907266/

An assistant coach let a women's basketball player live at her house for a few months while the player recovered from a knee injury. TMC found out about it, held the athlete out of the first five games of the season, reported it to the NCAA, and then let her play while the investigation went on. TMC went on to win the national championship that season. There was no indication the assistant coach was doing anything other than helping a player, who she had known before she even played at the school, during a difficult rehab. NCAA ruling: Impermissible benefit. Punishment: Forfeiture of all games the player participated in after getting the benefit which caused TMC to forfeit its national championship.

I personally think what happened to Thomas More is horse***t. It's just an example of the NCAA flexing its muscle against those who can't fight back. I think the punishment handed down to Louisville is horse***t. UNC perpetuated an academic fraud for over a decade that resulted in untold numbers of athletes to be academically eligible to play but will probably skate because they let regular students also take the same courses the athletes took. Baylor looks the other way and actively hinders investigations while members of their football team engage in sexual assaults and will probably skate because they can't show an impermissible benefit. They can't hammer UNC or Baylor so they hammer Louisville just to show they can be tough.

Hopefully Louisville can find a better lawyer than me to overturn this thing in the courts. But I'm not optimistic.

 

[KozmasAgain]

Louisville could take it to court and use North Carolina as an example of one school being treated unfairly compared to the other. I have nothing against UNC but their problem has gone on for 30 years do they have to pay back 30 years worth of tournament money and vacate multiple titles. If not why should we I would definitely appeal and use the UNC situation to my advantage.

 

[topdecktiger]

I see where you are coming from, but the first thing you thought of after seeing that was probably the fact that it was vacated? The problem with the past in this regard is while locally people will remember the run you guys had and all the good stuff, but the majority outside of that like someone in California will think vacated. That's what I was trying to get across.

Most people think, "I remember when Southern Cal killed Oklahoma."

Louisville could take it to court and use North Carolina as an example of one school being treated unfairly compared to the other. I have nothing against UNC but their problem has gone on for 30 years do they have to pay back 30 years worth of tournament money and vacate multiple titles. If not why should we I would definitely appeal and use the UNC situation to my advantage.

The previous poster summed up your question. Teams have been forced to vacate wins because they had ineligible players. The NCAA would be able to make a case that the North Carolina players didn't violate rules which made them ineligible. The argument could be made that the school as a whole violated broader policies, but that the individual players were still eligible. Your theory would be really tricky to prove in court.

 

[KozmasAgain]

If UNC gave them passing grades when they didn't earn them ( which sounds like they did ) that would mean they were falsely eligible to play. Our situation at the most involved a handful of players where their situation involved years of players.

 

[topdecktiger]

If UNC gave them passing grades when they didn't earn them ( which sounds like they did ) that would mean they were falsely eligible to play. Our situation at the most involved a handful of players where their situation involved years of players.

It actually wouldn't. You're making assumption that AFAM classes were keeping the players eligible. You would have to show the players would be ineligible otherwise. The other issue is that it's going to be tricky to prove the players were given grades they didn't earn. The classes were open to all students, and they all pretty much had the same requirements, so it would be hard to prove ineligibility on those grounds.

You have to remember, winning an argument on a message board is not the same as winning in court. There are a lot of technicalities in the legal system that don't pass the "common sense" test in the outside world.

 

[nccardfan]

Again the UNC case is not relevant to ours. Theirs is an academic scandal that involves athletes. Ours is an athletic scandal where players received improper benefits.

 

[TDredbird]

I agree with ya John, as much as I hate to admit it taking that banner is excessive, mostly because it's almost unprecedented. I thought the penalty would be a lot harsher on Rick and the staff than the program. But I disagree about the mentality of vacating wins. People care, programs care, its matters to people. If it didn't then they wouldn't try to fight it. You're right about the memories and all that, you cant take that from the team or fans, but vacating wins and especially a NC matters because its a permanent black eye. I see where you are coming from though, I guess after time, all the emotions of it go away and people still will remember it. But down the road it's always gonna be a permanent bad mark.

So you're saying that Kentucky's "48","49" and "51" titles are tainted as well (which they absolutely are), because of the point shavers and many, if not all players being provided impermissible benefits during that period, which lead to UK being denied permission to compete against SEC or NCAA competition in the "52-53" season. You know, the original "Death Penalty".

 

[OneEarWonder]

Louisville won't try IMO to debate the merits of the underlying facts and findings. It will be about the penalties and whether they were excessive. That's a narrower issue and, as I understand it, without precedent in terms of U of L's penalty. That alone makes it worth the effort.

Private organizations can't be arbitrary in how they handle affairs just because they're private. I served on a non-profit board for many years. You sue in court and get sued just the same, and you don't get some blanket relief that membership is voluntary and you can do what you want. In fact, I don't ever remember an attorney trying to make that argument which I personally think is weak.

My OP was simply about a court recognizing an external standard for justice and evidence. Unless there's a settlement agreement by all parties, none of that really matters. And we don't have that with U of L and the NCAA; appears we're far from it...

You also seem to be muddling two different judicial standards as well. Courts will commonly take into account records and actions from civil procedures. If there is a record, and it is deemed valid, then prior statements stand. So if U of L admitted fault previously, they cannot erase that admission because it occurred in a non-judicial setting. One reason why corporate executives are taught to not apologize.

We don't know yet if the Banner will come down, but the outlook is not so good. Do we have the list of players the NCAA deems ineligible?

As for lawsuits, yes they will come. Anybody and sue anyone for anything. But these would be civil suits, not criminal. And thus, a lower standard of evidence. Also, the courts have ruled in the past that the NCAA can enforce penalties on institutions. So I doubt U of L has a leg to stand on. Their best hope is a settlement, but not sure that is on the table now. I don't see the NCAA backing down as it would set a bad precedent for their enforcement.

I think we can all agree the NCAA is a joke. But they ARE a member organization. And the members have agreed to abide by the rules and rulings. And for anyone leaning on UNC, that's immaterial here too. Technically, they have not issued a ruling or punishment. It could be that U of L is setting the framework for the UNC ruling.

 

[GoCatsForever2k15]

You also seem to be muddling two different judicial standards as well. Courts will commonly take into account records and actions from civil procedures. If there is a record, and it is deemed valid, then prior statements stand. So if U of L admitted fault previously, they cannot erase that admission because it occurred in a non-judicial setting. One reason why corporate executives are taught to not apologize.

We don't know yet if the Banner will come down, but the outlook is not so good. Do we have the list of players the NCAA deems ineligible?

As for lawsuits, yes they will come. Anybody and sue anyone for anything. But these would be civil suits, not criminal. And thus, a lower standard of evidence. Also, the courts have ruled in the past that the NCAA can enforce penalties on institutions. So I doubt U of L has a leg to stand on. Their best hope is a settlement, but not sure that is on the table now. I don't see the NCAA backing down as it would set a bad precedent for their enforcement.

I think we can all agree the NCAA is a joke. But they ARE a member organization. And the members have agreed to abide by the rules and rulings. And for anyone leaning on UNC, that's immaterial here too. Technically, they have not issued a ruling or punishment. It could be that U of L is setting the framework for the UNC ruling.

This is correct. You don't get to deny facts, evidence, etc. that you admitted/was brought to light in the prior proceeding.


There is a rule against considering settlement offers at trial, ie, you can't say "party x offered to settle! See! That proves he's guilty!". But that's a different animal with its own nuances and caveats, and not really applicable here.

 

[bloodguard13]

(I'm not a lawyer, and lawyers should comment...)

There are remarks among fans about what U of L has already admitted to the NCAA. It's my understanding that under normal circumstances, voluntary admissions, penalties, etc. by either side have no significance if this matter ends up in court because it couldn't be resolved outside.

I doubt that the merits of the underlying case get argued. But in U of L's defense, they don't have to fear any prior admissions to the NCAA of responsibility or wrongdoing, esp. when a lower or different standard of proof has been applied, e.g., guilty until proven innocent. If the need arises, U of L could argue that it was accepting responsibility to be expedient or receive lighter punishment. Once those conditions no longer apply, U of L's defense resets or starts over...

I am not sure they could get any lighter punishment if they went to court. The 5 game suspension for Pitino, the $5,000 fine, the 4 year probation and the 1 scholarship per year are arguably light sentences. So most people think losing the 2012 final 4 and 2013 NC are too stiff, the problem is that the NCAA would have no problem showing that their past practice in hundreds of cases has been to vacate wins that what they deem as ineligible players have participated in. Unfortunately the problem in this case is that they played in those final fours and Championship games.

 

[zipp]

I am not sure they could get any lighter punishment if they went to court. The 5 game suspension for Pitino, the $5,000 fine, the 4 year probation and the 1 scholarship per year are arguably light sentences...

That logic taken to the limit is that an extremely light penalty would have been nothing else except vacating the championship. Like the murderer saying "at least I didn't steal his money!"

Not sure that POV flies with anyone else...

 

[zipp]

...So if U of L admitted fault previously, they cannot erase that admission because it occurred in a non-judicial setting...

They can certainly try if the admission wasn't done in a vacuum. All actions in this matter were in the context of an out-of-court settlement.

And I should have been more specific in my OP... All non-slappy lawyers feel free to comment.

"Elite program," my a$$...

 

[GoCatsForever2k15]

They can certainly try if the admission wasn't done in a vacuum. All actions in this matter were in the context of an out-of-court settlement.

And I should have been more specific in my OP... All non-slappy lawyers feel free to comment.

"Elite program," my a$$...

We'll see Zipp. Ultimately, none of the pertinent facts and/or evidence that the NCAA received will be insulated from a Court's review.

 

[KozmasAgain]

I hope it goes to court and we drag that slut Powell and her slut daughters back into court. I hope we get a judge who doesn't think a mother prostituting her under age daughters is a victim.

 

[zipp]

All U of L has to do in its defense of prior admissions is present any internal documents showing what they were conceding to in the face of flimsy or no evidence in order to expedite matters. And those documents likely exist even if they're protected, for example, under attorney-client privilege.

IMO a court will take that context seriously and reset arguments if necessary.

We'll see Zipp. Ultimately, none of the pertinent facts and/or evidence that the NCAA received will be insulated from a Court's review.

Like I said, slappy comments are always held in highest regard.

"Elite program," my a$$...

 

[nookam]

Clearly, the NCAA is racist against coaches of Italian heritage. They hammered Jimmy V to the point his immunity system was broke down. They went after Calipari who had to vacated 2 FF. The 2nd with 0 evidence, 0 as many sports writers confirmed and was on his 30 for 30. They hammer Pitino here. Yet, Duke got away with Corey Maghette taking cash, lying about it, later admits to it and nothing happens. Lance Thomas got 160,000 in jewelry from a NYC jeweler in December of a championship year. Nothing happens, the NCAA didn't even talk to Thomas because he had went pro, despite receipts from the store.
Look at 20 years of academic fraud from UNC, the "Carolina Way" was a fraud. No banners or championships coming down. And that would be many.
In my opinion it's all if they want to or not. Definitely not hurting K, Williams and a few others. Kansas played and won a championship in 08, year Calipari vacated. Kansas used a player who was admitted, played and didn't even graduate HS- Darrell Arthur. Another, had a 0.0 HS GPA, yet, Kamsas got him qualified. Go figure.
Screw the NCAA. Keep your banners.

 

[gocds]

Clearly, the NCAA is racist against coaches of Italian heritage. They hammered Jimmy V to the point his immunity system was broke down. They went after Calipari who had to vacated 2 FF. The 2nd with 0 evidence, 0 as many sports writers confirmed and was on his 30 for 30. They hammer Pitino here. Yet, Duke got away with Corey Maghette taking cash, lying about it, later admits to it and nothing happens. Lance Thomas got 160,000 in jewelry from a NYC jeweler in December of a championship year. Nothing happens, the NCAA didn't even talk to Thomas because he had went pro, despite receipts from the store.
Look at 20 years of academic fraud from UNC, the "Carolina Way" was a fraud. No banners or championships coming down. And that would be many.
In my opinion it's all if they want to or not. Definitely not hurting K, Williams and a few others. Kansas played and won a championship in 08, year Calipari vacated. Kansas used a player who was admitted, played and didn't even graduate HS- Darrell Arthur. Another, had a 0.0 HS GPA, yet, Kamsas got him qualified. Go figure.
Screw the NCAA. Keep your banners.

Uh this has to be a joke. Terrible post.

GO CARDS - BEAT EVERYBODY!!! God Bless America!!!

 

[GoCatsForever2k15]

All U of L has to do in its defense of prior admissions is present any internal documents showing what they were conceding to in the face of flimsy or no evidence in order to expedite matters. And those documents likely exist even if they're protected, for example, under attorney-client privilege.

IMO a court will take that context seriously and reset arguments if necessary.


Like I said, slappy comments are always held in highest regard.

"Elite program," my a$$...

To begin with, I'm not sure this would even constitute a "settlement". At the very least, certainly not the typical settlement situation contemplated by the rule.

Second, plenty of courts have held that concessions of guilt/responsibility, even made in the course of settlement, are admissible.

Finally, as your OP mentioned, even if a court DID hold UofLs prior admissions as protected, theyre still going to get to the meat of what happened.

 

[OneEarWonder]

All U of L has to do in its defense of prior admissions is present any internal documents showing what they were conceding to in the face of flimsy or no evidence in order to expedite matters. And those documents likely exist even if they're protected, for example, under attorney-client privilege.

IMO a court will take that context seriously and reset arguments if necessary.

What court would reset? The problem is they self imposed penalties and admitted wrong doing. The only argument remaining is whether or not the punishment is appropriate.

NCAA is neither fair nor consistent, but the courts have ruled for them in the past a right to impose penalties on member institutions.

Like I said, the Cards don't have a leg to stand on. Our only hope is to get a settlement that keeps the Banners. Unfortunately, that's not looking likely.

 

[zipp]

What court would reset? The problem is they self imposed penalties and admitted wrong doing. The only argument remaining is whether or not the punishment is appropriate.

NCAA is neither fair nor consistent, but the courts have ruled for them in the past a right to impose penalties on member institutions.

Like I said, the Cards don't have a leg to stand on. Our only hope is to get a settlement that keeps the Banners. Unfortunately, that's not looking likely.

"Our" only hope? Who are speaking for, slapd!ck??

"Elite program," my a$$...

 

[zipp]

To begin with, I'm not sure this would even constitute a "settlement". At the very least, certainly not the typical settlement situation contemplated by the rule.

Second, plenty of courts have held that concessions of guilt/responsibility, even made in the course of settlement, are admissible.

Finally, as your OP mentioned, even if a court DID hold UofLs prior admissions as protected, theyre still going to get to the meat of what happened.

There's nothing in the law about "settlements" per se; at the end of litigation, they're typically called "consent judgments." The only matters of relevance prior to litigation are facts; what's been discussed and agreed to BASED ON the facts may or may not be relevant. But you're playing with semantics... The process so far wasn't arbitration or mediation, and it was out-of-court. There aren't many parallels to civil procedure that our justice system provides for unconditionally.

And I know from personal experience that negotiated terms of an UN-resolved settlement are irrelevant once you get into court. It's not admissible as "evidence" of anything.

By far the most important part of this discussion is, however, what part of "slapd!ck opinions don't matter" do slappies have a hard time understanding? Do you clowns just read what you want to?

"Elite program," my a$$...

 

[OneEarWonder]

"Our" only hope? Who are speaking for, slapd!ck??

"Elite program," my a$$...

Really Kevin? Childish name calling? I guess if you have nothing productive to add to the conversation you can always resort to your tired diatribes. However I'm more interested in response of the University and the legal aspects.

As far as "our" ... yes. As a local, as a city taxpayer, and as a fan I am part of "our". I claim U of L as my own. Just because I also cheer for other teams is irrelevant. Or just because I'm not fanatical is irrelevant to the conversation at hand. Neither have any impact on my analysis.

 

[zipp]

Really Kevin? Childish name calling? I guess if you have nothing productive to add to the conversation you can always resort to your tired diatribes. However I'm more interested in response of the University and the legal aspects.

As far as "our" ... yes. As a local, as a city taxpayer, and as a fan I am part of "our". I claim U of L as my own. Just because I also cheer for other teams is irrelevant. Or just because I'm not fanatical is irrelevant to the conversation at hand. Neither have any impact on my analysis.

"Kevin"...LOL!! Classic slappy move over a puddle of drool. "Let's google his picture!!"

A quick survey confirms the only threads you post in are of LPT focus or participation. Everyone knows who you are...It's hard for a slapd!ck to paint himself in any other color but that sickening blue.

"Elite program," my a$$...

 

[OneEarWonder]

"Kevin"...LOL!! Classic slappy move over a puddle of drool. "Let's google his picture!!"

A quick survey confirms the only threads you post in are of LPT focus or participation. Everyone knows who you are...It's hard for a slapd!ck to paint himself in any other color but that sickening blue.

"Elite program," my a$$...

I've never claimed to be anything I'm not. I don't participate often anymore because of work responsibility but I lurk here and there. I also prefer conversations where there are multiple points of view. Your search efforts will also show me as a member of this board for years, and no other boards.

As far as UK or your childish insistence on name calling go, they have absolutely nothing to do with this thread. You seem rather obsessed with the school in Lexington. Not all of us share your obsession.

 

[zipp]

I've never claimed to be anything I'm not. I don't participate often anymore because of work responsibility but I lurk here and there. I also prefer conversations where there are multiple points of view. Your search efforts will also show me as a member of this board for years, and no other boards.

As far as UK or your childish insistence on name calling go, they have absolutely nothing to do with this thread. You seem rather obsessed with the school in Lexington. Not all of us share your obsession.

You and your slappy friends took in that direction simply with your participation. Leave and we can get back on topic.

"Elite program," my a$$...

 

[KozmasAgain]

Do sUcK fans pay a monthly fee to get access to our board ?

 

[OneEarWonder]

You and your slappy friends took in that direction simply with your participation. Leave and we can get back on topic.

"Elite program," my a$$...

If my mere presence bothers you so much, feel free to use the ignore feature. But let the record show the only one throwing around insults or bring up UK here is you. You'll also find that I have NEVER disparaged the Cards. I'm a local. I'm a fan. And my identity consists of more than which teams I pull for. Can you say the same?

I'd much rather get back to the topic at hand.

 

[zipp]

If my mere presence bothers you so much, feel free to use the ignore feature. But let the record show the only one throwing around insults or bring up UK here is you. You'll also find that I have NEVER disparaged the Cards. I'm a local. I'm a fan. And my identity consists of more than which teams I pull for. Can you say the same?

I'd much rather get back to the topic at hand.

I don't ignore anyone--that's what an ostrich does with his head in the sand. And I'm not relinquishing any U of L real estate to slapd!cks. This is a U of L fan message board.

You're a slapd!ck not in name but--like all of you--by your actions. You could have posted in this thread without issue except that you couldn't leave your slappy baggage at the door. You can't ever do that.

My identity ain't at issue--everyone knows who and what I am. It's the surreptitious types like you that need to be ferreted out. ...The wolves who come here in sheep's clothing.

Contrary to what you think, I don't like going off topic. But I'll stay there as long as slappies are here trying to play nice and really doing very little of that. Expect this thread to now be about slappies until you do something about it, i.e., leave.

"Elite program," my a$$...