Started By
Message
re: Question re. Ole Miss/Rebel Rags lawsuit
Posted on 6/14/17 at 8:32 pm to SwayzeBalla
Posted on 6/14/17 at 8:32 pm to SwayzeBalla
quote:
Barney was set up by Dan Mullen as a part of the Rebel Rags conspiracy IMO
Dan Mullen. Cousin Eddie, or diabolical genius? You decide.
0
Posted on 6/14/17 at 8:33 pm to RebelExpress38
quote:
and everyone else (non OM related like family/friends/HS Coach) the NCAA interviewed about the free stuff denied it happened.
No way?!!!??!!???!
Posted on 6/14/17 at 9:01 pm to AshLSU
quote:
Subject: Re: Ole Miss
quote:As per norm
by AshLSU
Posted on 6/14/17 at 9:54 pm to AshLSU
quote:
Have you ever actually listened testimony in a court case? Minor things like "taking off security tags" gets fudged both ways all the time. So he thought they took them off?
Have you ever actually read this court case? Please tell us more about how it's not important he made a point about security tags when not a single item in the store actually has security tags.
Posted on 6/14/17 at 10:06 pm to RebelExpress38
Before this thread becomes uncivilized... immunity: I thought the NCAA comes to an athlete and states, "we know what happened, tell us the truth and you are protected with immunity" at that point if the athlete lies then he would be in trouble? I am genuinely asking, not flaming.
Posted on 6/14/17 at 10:24 pm to MSUmtowndawg
NCAA FAQs on immunity
Read #8. Doesn't outright address it but I'm guessing they would revoke immunity, opening up the possibility that the student athlete is no longer protected from losing eligibility
Read #8. Doesn't outright address it but I'm guessing they would revoke immunity, opening up the possibility that the student athlete is no longer protected from losing eligibility
Posted on 6/14/17 at 10:29 pm to RebelExpress38
Thank you. So if they lied, they screwed themselves and deserve punishment. I have enjoyed the somewhat civil discussion.
Posted on 6/14/17 at 10:31 pm to MSUmtowndawg
just ready for this thing to end so we can focus on more important things like the actual games Posted on 6/14/17 at 11:12 pm to AshLSU
arse - Leo was asked to produce the free merchandise. He couldn't.
Leo was asked to provide a photo, since he has 100's of photos of hisself. He couldn't.
Leo was asked to produce a witness who saw him with the clothes. He demured.
Leo was asked who handed him the merchandise. He says "Emily." You figure it out.
Leo was served with the lawsuit. He struggled to read it, the tears were streaming down his face. He shite his pants. So did his coach. He was held out of spring practice.
Leo was asked to provide a photo, since he has 100's of photos of hisself. He couldn't.
Leo was asked to produce a witness who saw him with the clothes. He demured.
Leo was asked who handed him the merchandise. He says "Emily." You figure it out.
Leo was served with the lawsuit. He struggled to read it, the tears were streaming down his face. He shite his pants. So did his coach. He was held out of spring practice.
Posted on 6/15/17 at 1:04 am to RebelExpress38
quote:
Have you ever actually read this court case? Please tell us more about how it's not important he made a point about security tags when not a single item in the store actually has security tags.
I know this is a big "talking point" for younOle Miss fans but the reality of this is, it means nothing. It's a minor detail that, like I said, will be considered irrelevant. If he is asked about it in court, his answer will simply be "I thought they had to remove tags, but I could be mistaken. We purchased things from other stores that day. It must have been one of those stores that I'm thinking about that removed the tags"
This will not "blow this case wide open". Sorry to disappoint you. Any judge (unless he is biased) is going to consider that an insignificant detail.
Posted on 6/15/17 at 1:08 am to AllUrCrootsRBlong2Us
quote:
As per norm
I live in Mississippi, frickface. I have friends and family at both institutions. I hear about this from both sides on a daily basis.
Get over yourself.
Posted on 6/15/17 at 1:10 am to RebelExpress38
quote:
Read #8. Doesn't outright address it but I'm guessing they would revoke immunity, opening up the possibility that the student athlete is no longer protected from losing eligibility
How could he "lose eligibility" if he lied meaning he never actually received improper benefits? You can't have it both ways.
Posted on 6/15/17 at 6:25 am to matthew25
quote:
arse - Leo was asked to produce the free merchandise. He couldn't.
Leo was asked to provide a photo, since he has 100's of photos of hisself. He couldn't.
Leo was asked to produce a witness who saw him with the clothes. He demured.
Leo was asked who handed him the merchandise. He says "Emily." You figure it out.
Link?
quote:
Leo was served with the lawsuit. He struggled to read it, the tears were streaming down his face. He shite his pants. So did his coach. He was held out of spring practice.
You are fricking stupid LINK
Posted on 6/15/17 at 6:25 am to matthew25
quote:
arse - Leo was asked to produce the free merchandise. He couldn't.
Leo was asked to provide a photo, since he has 100's of photos of hisself. He couldn't.
Leo was asked to produce a witness who saw him with the clothes. He demured.
Leo was asked who handed him the merchandise. He says "Emily." You figure it out.
Link?
quote:
Leo was served with the lawsuit. He struggled to read it, the tears were streaming down his face. He shite his pants. So did his coach. He was held out of spring practice.
You are fricking stupid LINK
Posted on 6/15/17 at 6:31 am to matthew25
quote:
arse - Leo was asked to produce the free merchandise. He couldn't.
This never actually happened. Never.
Leo was asked to provide a photo, since he has 100's of photos of hisself. He couldn't.
This probably never did either but you're stupid if you think he'd be required to have a photo. If they bring this up in court, the laughter will be deafening.
Leo was asked who handed him the merchandise. He says "Emily." You figure it out.
I mean...... so what? Do see how weak this is?
Posted on 6/15/17 at 6:40 am to AshLSU
He asked about immunity so I told him about it, I never said Leo was going to lose eligibility. That's just the only real leverage the NCAA has to get the truth.
As for lying to the investigators, please tell us more about how that doesn't matter. All the "small" lies added up sure don't strengthen his story
As for lying to the investigators, please tell us more about how that doesn't matter. All the "small" lies added up sure don't strengthen his story
Posted on 6/15/17 at 7:14 am to Whereisomaha
Regardless of the "wrong"statement, it astounds me that a player, or players, would arbitrarily name a business in a town where they do not live if nothing never actually occurred. Something happened here. The kids all have a conception that there was something going on there. It was enough that it made an impression. No matter how much disdain Mullins might have for OM, there is no way feasible he could be the "mastermind" behind all of this that you say. This is going to blow up in the RR faces big time, and any lawyer worth his salt will bring this argument to bear in court before a jury. You can rest assured that the jury will not contain a single OM fan if the lawyers can help it, and when the argument comes up in the jury room, OM is gonna be screwed. There is way too much smoke here for there not to be a flame somewhere.
Posted on 6/15/17 at 7:15 am to RebelExpress38
quote:
RebelExpress38
You're a reasonable poster who has an adult view of this thing , so I'll ask your opinion on something that's puzzling to me.
In your opinion, what is the mood of the University toward this lawsuit?
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News