(09-12-2013 01:05 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-12-2013 12:13 PM)Hokie4Skins Wrote:  I guess we'll be awaiting Oklahoma State's libel suit in that case. Bet that won't happen though.

There is zero chance of Okla St filing a libel suit. To win that suit, they would have to prove that the stuff in SI's article is false. Okla St doesn't want to go there.

You might be a bit premature on that assumption...

Documents undermine some OK State accusers

Quote:Some aspects of the story of former Oklahoma State safety Fath' Carter, who was quoted extensively in Sports Illustrated's series about improprieties within the Cowboys' football program, are inconsistent with information obtained by ESPN from a number of university documents.

Carter was one of the main sources quoted in SI's five-part series that alleges players were paid by coaches and boosters and had an academic coordinator complete school work for them while at Oklahoma State.

Among the claims by Carter that are not supported by university documents were that he graduated from the school and attended classes in 2004 with running back Tatum Bell in which the professor gave them failing grades because their eligibility had expired.

Another discrepancy was from running back Dexter Pratt, who told SI that in his first semester, in 2009, every course he took was online. According to university records, Pratt took three online courses and two actual classes.

In Tuesday's SI report, Carter said he graduated from OSU with a degree in education. George Dorhmann, one of two SI reporters who wrote the stories, also said Tuesday on CBS Sports Radio's "The Doug Gottlieb Show" that Carter "has two degrees from Oklahoma State, spoke on the record, recorded. I have no reason to believe he lied. And he's certainly not disgruntled."

Carter didn't have two degrees. Carter attended OSU from 2000 to 2005 but did not graduate, according to the university's office of the registrar.

There's a lot more to the article. But it's starting to look like a pack of lies was the main content in SI.com's article, which is slander, no matter how you look at it...

(09-12-2013 12:23 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(09-12-2013 12:13 PM)Hokie4Skins Wrote:  I guess we'll be awaiting Oklahoma State's libel suit in that case. Bet that won't happen though.

Why? The majority of the stuff in SI.com's report comes from 2009 and before, which the NCAA's statute of limitations renders irrelevant, whether it's true or not...

And SI.com still has to PROVE their story is true. Hearsay from a bunch of disgruntled players who couldn't get on the field isn't PROOF...

If they can't come up with PROOF, OSU could very well seek vengeance upon SI.com and the writers for their slanderous poor reporting. We will find that out L8r...

It isn't "hearsay." Many of the players accepted benefits or saw benefits given to others.

(09-12-2013 03:23 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-12-2013 12:23 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(09-12-2013 12:13 PM)Hokie4Skins Wrote:  I guess we'll be awaiting Oklahoma State's libel suit in that case. Bet that won't happen though.

Why? The majority of the stuff in SI.com's report comes from 2009 and before, which the NCAA's statute of limitations renders irrelevant, whether it's true or not...

And SI.com still has to PROVE their story is true. Hearsay from a bunch of disgruntled players who couldn't get on the field isn't PROOF...

If they can't come up with PROOF, OSU could very well seek vengeance upon SI.com and the writers for their slanderous poor reporting. We will find that out L8r...

It isn't "hearsay." Many of the players accepted benefits or saw benefits given to others.

Without any documented proof, it's hearsay. I haven't seen one document to back up SI.com's story...

However, I have seen some documents from OSU that disprove some of it...

Here is my unsubstantiated unproved no way that I can prove thoughts and theory. What if there are certain forces behind the scenes instigating these kinds of rumors (even when true) to force a break away from the NCAA? A person with agenda and wants to see the g5 break away, so they pay to put together and find rumors that can be proven true or somewhat true. Therefore the NCAA has to investigate and when they find something they have to punish. Well how much will these schools take? I am starting to think that there are powerful forces working behind the scenes to make this happen, perhaps the NFL, the scouts?

Bit, for something that would appear to be an Oklahoma State scandal, you sure seem awfully invested in discrediting this report. Why would that be?

Could it be because of the obvious connection between Oklahoma State and West Virginia (DeForest, a WVU coach, is specifically named as the central figure in almost all of the cheating). No, let me guess; you are just a media watchdog who demands truth in journalism.

I hope Oklahoma State does the honorable thing and sues the pants off Sports Illustrated for libel. Seriously, I hope OSU sues SI for $500 million and wins. That would give me some hope in humanity.

However, if they instead choose to cherry pick minor inaccuracies here and there and leak it to the media to try and discredit these witnesses, and if those leaks don't materially challenge any of the many serious allegations be leveled against that program, I think most will take that as a tacit sign of admission of guilt. I know that's how I'll feel. Also, by extension, if DeForest is still employed by West Virginia by the end of this season, I think it is a reasonable assumption for people to make that program is dirty filthy as well.

You are free to disagree with those statements but I think mine are extremely reasonable conclusions for anyone to draw.

Doc, I merely looked at the quality of SI's reporting. They presented no facts. All they've present is a bunch of hearsay...

When Yahoo released their report on the SEC's problems with agent runners paying players, they presented documented proof for everything they wrote, including the names of everyone involved. That's quality reporting...

SI had none of that. All they had was a bunch of complaints from some disgruntled people who weren't good enough to play out their career in Stillwater. Without any documentation, that article is just so much hot air from a writer that has a history of attacking Oklahoma State for little reason...

Yahoo had professionals working on their expose. SI.com didn't, and therein lies the diff...

As for DeForest, if he's guilty of anything, he'll be gone. But nothing has been proven yet. It's a bunch of accusations...

It's been kind of funny reading the WVU scout board about this though. Everyone is ready to jettison DeForest, whether he's guilty or not. He earned a lot of ire for last year's defense, and this scandal hasn't improved the mood any. Many don't care whether he's guilty or not. They just want him gone...

Although these same people are defending d'Vante Henry, who was dismissed from the team when he was arrested and charged with a felony sexual assualt charge. They want to give him the benefit of the doubt on his criminal offense, while slamming DeForest for some NCAA offenses that may or may not be true. Somehow it seems like a lot of people have mixed priorities, due to their love of sports...

DeForest they want to crucify for breaking a rule book that is so convoluted that following it is almost impossible, and they want to pardon the rapist felon. It's a crazy world we live in...

(09-12-2013 03:46 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(09-12-2013 03:23 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-12-2013 12:23 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(09-12-2013 12:13 PM)Hokie4Skins Wrote:  I guess we'll be awaiting Oklahoma State's libel suit in that case. Bet that won't happen though.

Why? The majority of the stuff in SI.com's report comes from 2009 and before, which the NCAA's statute of limitations renders irrelevant, whether it's true or not...

And SI.com still has to PROVE their story is true. Hearsay from a bunch of disgruntled players who couldn't get on the field isn't PROOF...

If they can't come up with PROOF, OSU could very well seek vengeance upon SI.com and the writers for their slanderous poor reporting. We will find that out L8r...

It isn't "hearsay." Many of the players accepted benefits or saw benefits given to others.

Without any documented proof, it's hearsay. I haven't seen one document to back up SI.com's story...

However, I have seen some documents from OSU that disprove some of it...

Eyewitness testimony is not hearsay. It is proof in any court of law. Player A heard Player B say Player C claimed he got money is hearsay.

(09-12-2013 06:28 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Doc, I merely looked at the quality of SI's reporting. They presented no facts. All they've present is a bunch of hearsay...

When Yahoo released their report on the SEC's problems with agent runners paying players, they presented documented proof for everything they wrote, including the names of everyone involved. That's quality reporting...

SI had none of that. All they had was a bunch of complaints from some disgruntled people who weren't good enough to play out their career in Stillwater. Without any documentation, that article is just so much hot air from a writer that has a history of attacking Oklahoma State for little reason...

Yahoo had professionals working on their expose. SI.com didn't, and therein lies the diff...

As for DeForest, if he's guilty of anything, he'll be gone. But nothing has been proven yet. It's a bunch of accusations...

It's been kind of funny reading the WVU scout board about this though. Everyone is ready to jettison DeForest, whether he's guilty or not. He earned a lot of ire for last year's defense, and this scandal hasn't improved the mood any. Many don't care whether he's guilty or not. They just want him gone...

Although these same people are defending d'Vante Henry, who was dismissed from the team when he was arrested and charged with a felony sexual assualt charge. They want to give him the benefit of the doubt on his criminal offense, while slamming DeForest for some NCAA offenses that may or may not be true. Somehow it seems like a lot of people have mixed priorities, due to their love of sports...

DeForest they want to crucify for breaking a rule book that is so convoluted that following it is almost impossible, and they want to pardon the rapist felon. It's a crazy world we live in...

One of the "hacks" working on the SI story has a Pulitzer Prize. People seem to have a pretty low opinion of the lead writer, but not of the people who worked with him.

You don't seem to have read the report if you think what DeForest was accused of was "impossible" to follow rules. There are amounts and names and quotes. Now I see it. You are defending a WVU coach and don't want to believe it. Well there's a Texas coach who was at Okie St. during that time too.

What I do find interesting is I haven't really read of any recruiting violations yet. Its all after they got there.

One take on the story that I heard today was that the players making the accusations had all been thrown off the team and many of the people involved in giving money are no longer living. needless to say he was not too high on this story from cnnsi

Okie State needs to learn from UNC on how to deal with getting caught.

(09-12-2013 08:49 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-12-2013 06:28 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Doc, I merely looked at the quality of SI's reporting. They presented no facts. All they've present is a bunch of hearsay...

When Yahoo released their report on the SEC's problems with agent runners paying players, they presented documented proof for everything they wrote, including the names of everyone involved. That's quality reporting...

SI had none of that. All they had was a bunch of complaints from some disgruntled people who weren't good enough to play out their career in Stillwater. Without any documentation, that article is just so much hot air from a writer that has a history of attacking Oklahoma State for little reason...

Yahoo had professionals working on their expose. SI.com didn't, and therein lies the diff...

As for DeForest, if he's guilty of anything, he'll be gone. But nothing has been proven yet. It's a bunch of accusations...

It's been kind of funny reading the WVU scout board about this though. Everyone is ready to jettison DeForest, whether he's guilty or not. He earned a lot of ire for last year's defense, and this scandal hasn't improved the mood any. Many don't care whether he's guilty or not. They just want him gone...

Although these same people are defending d'Vante Henry, who was dismissed from the team when he was arrested and charged with a felony sexual assualt charge. They want to give him the benefit of the doubt on his criminal offense, while slamming DeForest for some NCAA offenses that may or may not be true. Somehow it seems like a lot of people have mixed priorities, due to their love of sports...

DeForest they want to crucify for breaking a rule book that is so convoluted that following it is almost impossible, and they want to pardon the rapist felon. It's a crazy world we live in...

One of the "hacks" working on the SI story has a Pulitzer Prize. People seem to have a pretty low opinion of the lead writer, but not of the people who worked with him.

You don't seem to have read the report if you think what DeForest was accused of was "impossible" to follow rules. There are amounts and names and quotes. Now I see it. You are defending a WVU coach and don't want to believe it. Well there's a Texas coach who was at Okie St. during that time too.

What I do find interesting is I haven't really read of any recruiting violations yet. Its all after they got there.

Without any documentation to back anything up, why should I believe it? Now if they come up with something concrete, I'd take more stock of it. But the people used in the SI story are already seeing holes blown through some of their testimony by OSU documentation. Who do you believe? It's a wait and see affair...

As for Joe DeForest, WVU is conducting an internal review to make sure nothing like this has occurred on campus. And if it turns out that DeForest was guilty of doing this, the NCAA will hit him with a show cause, which will render him unemployable, allowing WVU to dismiss him without penalty, athletic or monetary...

DeForest's half million dollar salary can be terminated without any penalty to WVU. And as long as nothing happened in Morgantown, and Holgorsen was unaware of any of these activites, the NCAA shouldn't do anything to WVU. WVU has done nothing wrong in this, and hired DeForest without any knowledge of these activities...

Besides, DeForest did more damage to WVU football last year than anything the NCAA could have done. Why should we be penalized for that? - more than we have been already, that is...

(09-12-2013 05:33 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  Bit, for something that would appear to be an Oklahoma State scandal, you sure seem awfully invested in discrediting this report. Why would that be?

Could it be because of the obvious connection between Oklahoma State and West Virginia (DeForest, a WVU coach, is specifically named as the central figure in almost all of the cheating). No, let me guess; you are just a media watchdog who demands truth in journalism.

I hope Oklahoma State does the honorable thing and sues the pants off Sports Illustrated for libel. Seriously, I hope OSU sues SI for $500 million and wins. That would give me some hope in humanity.

However, if they instead choose to cherry pick minor inaccuracies here and there and leak it to the media to try and discredit these witnesses, and if those leaks don't materially challenge any of the many serious allegations be leveled against that program, I think most will take that as a tacit sign of admission of guilt. I know that's how I'll feel. Also, by extension, if DeForest is still employed by West Virginia by the end of this season, I think it is a reasonable assumption for people to make that program is dirty filthy as well.

You are free to disagree with those statements but I think mine are extremely reasonable conclusions for anyone to draw.

If you think that Joe Deforest was paying players on the WVU defense for big plays last year you clearly didn't watch our defense much.