What is with the Ole' Miss Land Shark hanging with the Tiger band, that is just wrong.
Plain Trouble on "Da Plains" (all AU posts here)
- Thread starter CrimsonProf
- Start date
What is with the Ole' Miss Land Shark hanging with the Tiger band, that is just wrong.
You mean they hired the cover up.......excuse me "law firm" of Lightfoot, Franklin and White to smear the tutor who reported it and was fired for it.
I don't think that means much. They paid Cam's dad $200,000 and nothing happen. So........
Let me guess: Gordon Lightfoot & Franklin? :rolleye2:
Yeah, they are doing the same "investigation" that they did with $cam. (Spin control and how to hide/weasel out of a problem...)
Last edited:
Yep, everybody and their momma knew it too. And we got punished for kids selling text books???
Eh.
What else are they going to say? Honestly you are a solid fan and contributor to this board, but we both know after the way Cam was investigated that this is exactly what they will find, whether that statement has any shred of proof in it or not. Loose lips sink ships and nobody talks at Auburn.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It's an uncharacteristically strong statement for when situations like this pop up. Pretty much ended any concern I had.
I agree - they said that ESPN was flat wrong. They have to have some solid information to say that so boldly, IMO.
However, if they are wrong, ESPN will drag this out FOREVER!
If ESPN is going to tell auburn the accuser continues to change her story, why even publish it?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The story came out saying 2016. ESPN changed it to read 2015 after Auburn's statement that the claim was against a former player. So, who the hell knows. Be pretty funny for ESPN to get some egg on their face.
Doesn't matter how big and bold a font AU posts their response it doesn't give it any more credence or credibility than the story from ESPN. However, shout the message long enough and loud enough then perhaps people will get tired of hearing it and, just maybe, it will go away. That's one strategy.
How long is it going to take that law firm to read the federal prosecutor's transcript and declare ineligible the two basketball players whose families accepted Chuck's money. Those are facts even ESPN couldn't mess up.
How long is it going to take that law firm to read the federal prosecutor's transcript and declare ineligible the two basketball players whose families accepted Chuck's money. Those are facts even ESPN couldn't mess up.
Considering they altered their story after Auburn's statement, we caught them in at least one factual error. Takes away some of their credibility.
Plain Trouble on "Da Plains" (all AU posts here)
Reads similar to the statement put out regarding the softball investigation. We all now know what a lie that was. AU fans shouldn’t have any confidence in a statement by the athletic department based on the flat out lies Jacobs and the department told about the softball program among other things..
Eh.
Reads similar to the statement put out regarding the softball investigation. We all now know what a lie that was. AU fans shouldn’t have any confidence in a statement by the athletic department based on the flat out lies Jacobs and the department told about the softball program among other things..
Re: Plain Trouble on "Da Plains" (all AU posts here)
That was JJ badly fumbling a question in an interview. "Not to my knowledge." The department issued no statement that equals this one. Mum was supposed to be the word. He no doubt knew about the investigation. He no doubt had advisement from University Counsel and PR about how to respond. His choice of words should have been amorphous, so as not to draw attention to any party, but he fumbled the nuance. It's an easy thing to do, as anything other than a no is a pretty clear yes.
Big difference between the two. The statement above is a very emphatic rebuttal.
That was JJ badly fumbling a question in an interview. "Not to my knowledge." The department issued no statement that equals this one. Mum was supposed to be the word. He no doubt knew about the investigation. He no doubt had advisement from University Counsel and PR about how to respond. His choice of words should have been amorphous, so as not to draw attention to any party, but he fumbled the nuance. It's an easy thing to do, as anything other than a no is a pretty clear yes.
Big difference between the two. The statement above is a very emphatic rebuttal.
Trending content
Latest threads
-
ESPN: DC Heacock retires after 10 seasons at Iowa St.- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
-
ESPN: Ex-Michigan OC still faces aggravated ID theft
- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
Video: SEC shorts - A&M and Oklahoma lose Home Alone style- Started by MikeInBama
- Replies: 16
-
ESPN: Bowl season best bets: How to beat the bad bets while still getting in on the fun
- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
ESPN: The 25 most college football moments of the 21st century
- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0