- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: The Curious Cases of Will Wade and Nicholas Sandmann
Posted on 3/20/19 at 8:12 am to Anaximander
Posted on 3/20/19 at 8:12 am to Anaximander
I don't see Wade coaching at LSU again, but not because of the suspension. There are narratives on this board that are completely grounded int the Twilight Zone.
LSU does not want to fire Wade, he'd absolutely be gone already if they wanted him gone.
There isn't any proof, in terms of a smoking gun, but there's much more concrete evidence of impropriety with Wade than with some other coaches. The NCAA does need to prove its case, but the Rant's fantasy of "there's nothing to see here, move along, smart is an adjective, not a name" is laughable.
Getting the NCAA involved immediately, demanding that Wade meet with the NCAA, and suspending him for not is what's going to save LSU from "lack of institutional control".
I completely understand Wade's attorney's concerns in not having him testify, but it's not because the FBI told him not to talk, as the Rant thinks. They can't do that. Wade's attorney is concerned about Wade's criminal exposure. Never have people been prosecuted criminally for bribing kids to play for certain colleges. That paradigm has shifted, monumentally. Wade's attorney doesn't want him potentially being swept into that. LSU, meanwhile, has to protect LSU from the NCAA sanction hammer. I totally get the standoff, and I think LSU does, too.
LSU does not want to fire Wade, he'd absolutely be gone already if they wanted him gone.
There isn't any proof, in terms of a smoking gun, but there's much more concrete evidence of impropriety with Wade than with some other coaches. The NCAA does need to prove its case, but the Rant's fantasy of "there's nothing to see here, move along, smart is an adjective, not a name" is laughable.
Getting the NCAA involved immediately, demanding that Wade meet with the NCAA, and suspending him for not is what's going to save LSU from "lack of institutional control".
I completely understand Wade's attorney's concerns in not having him testify, but it's not because the FBI told him not to talk, as the Rant thinks. They can't do that. Wade's attorney is concerned about Wade's criminal exposure. Never have people been prosecuted criminally for bribing kids to play for certain colleges. That paradigm has shifted, monumentally. Wade's attorney doesn't want him potentially being swept into that. LSU, meanwhile, has to protect LSU from the NCAA sanction hammer. I totally get the standoff, and I think LSU does, too.
3
Posted on 3/20/19 at 8:12 am to madddoggydawg
Some redneck always mixing right wing politics with collegiate sports . Y tho
Posted on 3/20/19 at 8:14 am to S
quote:
Some redneck always mixing right wing politics with collegiate sports . Y tho
I am an independent that supports John Kasich.
Both instances are where conclusions were made without full evidence.
Posted on 3/20/19 at 8:14 am to Anaximander
Mr. Sandmann, bring me a dream....
Posted on 3/20/19 at 8:15 am to Anaximander
quote:
"1984" when he foresaw "facecrimes".
Nice reference. I had forgotten about that. It's been years since I've read that book.
Posted on 3/20/19 at 8:16 am to Anaximander
quote:
In the case of Will Wade we have a snippet of AUDIO that was leaked to a reporter by someone with the agenda.
Portions of one transcript were read into the record in federal court. The feds did not object to the accuracy of the transcript.
Posted on 3/20/19 at 8:17 am to Tiger_n_ATL
quote:
He also made the situation worse and was trying to ratchet up the confrontation.
WHAT A LIE!
Posted on 3/20/19 at 8:18 am to Tiger_n_ATL
Yea I dont agree with you
Posted on 3/20/19 at 8:23 am to Tiger_n_ATL
quote:
That kid is creepy, and he’s not as innocent as you make him out to be. He also made the situation worse and was trying to ratchet up the confrontation. Nobody looked good in that incident.
Why don't you just say the real reason you don't like the kid? Be a man about it.
Posted on 3/20/19 at 8:25 am to The First Cut
quote:
I don't see Wade coaching at LSU again, but not because of the suspension. There are narratives on this board that are completely grounded int the Twilight Zone.
LSU does not want to fire Wade, he'd absolutely be gone already if they wanted him gone.
There isn't any proof, in terms of a smoking gun, but there's much more concrete evidence of impropriety with Wade than with some other coaches. The NCAA does need to prove its case, but the Rant's fantasy of "there's nothing to see here, move along, smart is an adjective, not a name" is laughable.
Getting the NCAA involved immediately, demanding that Wade meet with the NCAA, and suspending him for not is what's going to save LSU from "lack of institutional control".
I completely understand Wade's attorney's concerns in not having him testify, but it's not because the FBI told him not to talk, as the Rant thinks. They can't do that. Wade's attorney is concerned about Wade's criminal exposure. Never have people been prosecuted criminally for bribing kids to play for certain colleges. That paradigm has shifted, monumentally. Wade's attorney doesn't want him potentially being swept into that. LSU, meanwhile, has to protect LSU from the NCAA sanction hammer. I totally get the standoff, and I think LSU does, too.
What is the "concrete" evidence? And if LSU wanted to fire Wade they would NOT have done it quickly if they wanted to avoid his buyout. Is is possible they did not want to fire him? Yes. Is it ALSO possible they wanted to fire him and wanted to speak to him under their terms with the NCAA present to give them more solid ground on which to fire him? Yes.
And I also do not believe the FBI would have told him not to discuss his testimony. It was likely purely his attorney's advice.
This post was edited on 3/20/19 at 8:27 am
Posted on 3/20/19 at 8:26 am to Tiger_n_ATL
Wow. Wtf is wrong with your brain. 
Posted on 3/20/19 at 8:29 am to Tiger_n_ATL
quote:
That kid is creepy, and he’s not as innocent as you make him out to be. He also made the situation worse and was trying to ratchet up the confrontation. Nobody looked good in that incident.
Thanks for letting everyone know you have no idea what you’re talking about. Also, thanks for helping prove his case vs CNN
Posted on 3/20/19 at 8:31 am to LSUGrad9295
Off to never never land 
Posted on 3/20/19 at 8:32 am to Tiger_n_ATL
Creepy Atlanta poster
Posted on 3/20/19 at 8:32 am to Anaximander
weird thread and a bit of a stretch of a comparison
Posted on 3/20/19 at 8:33 am to Macavity92
quote:
Portions of one transcript were read into the record in federal court. The feds did not object to the accuracy of the transcript.
I never questioned the veracity of the transcript. I stated it was a PORTION. OF course, no attorney would use a specific portion to skew the meaning of the entire conversation, would they?
Posted on 3/20/19 at 8:34 am to Anaximander
quote:
quote:
Another biased media twisted story.
quote:massive difference - Will Wade is on tape.
Which certainly could be the case with Will Wade.
Posted on 3/20/19 at 8:36 am to Anaximander
quote:you're REALLY stretching here.
I never questioned the veracity of the transcript. I stated it was a PORTION. OF course, no attorney would use a specific portion to skew the meaning of the entire conversation, would they?
Wade is on tape talking about a "strong arse offer" made to Smart and his family, with the offer being "tilted more toward the family."
Good luck trying to spin that.
Posted on 3/20/19 at 8:38 am to tigerfan in bamaland
quote:
Maybe he can’t speak about an ongoing investigation of which he is a witness. Maybe. I don’t know.
How can a simple proclamation of your innocence hamper an investigation in any way? I’d be saying it over and over. His world is crumbling around him.
Posted on 3/20/19 at 8:44 am to The First Cut
quote:
Getting the NCAA involved immediately, demanding that Wade meet with the NCAA, and suspending him for not is what's going to save LSU from "lack of institutional control".
This is my biggest issue with LSU. NCAA Bylaws dictate how investigations are to take place. No where does it state the NCAA has the right to sit in on a meeting a school is conducting with an employee.
The NCAA can request to interview Wade themselves, or the NCAA can start a formal investigation by sending a Letter of Inquiry to the school President.At that point the school can request a Summary of Disposition whereby both investigate together. (Maybe this is happening and has not been reported)
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News