|
| Posted by: Tree, not at home
- [4311301222] Fri, Dec 12, 2003, 23:33
i definitely find this fascinating - that being that all this time we'd thought the wording was something completely different then it really was...
In papers filed Friday with the U.S. District Court in New York, attorneys for Clarett state that the NFL has been misleading the public, as well as Clarett, about the actual language of the league bylaw that prohibits early entry to many college players.
When the rule was adopted in February 1990, NFL commissioner Paul Tagliabue issued a press release saying players could enter the draft only after "three full college seasons" had elapsed since their high school graduation. Over the past decade, the notion that players must wait three years has become widely accepted.
However, as noted by Clarett's attorneys, the formal language of Section 12.1(E) of the bylaws is: "For college football players seeking special eligibility, at least three NFL seasons must have elapsed since the player was graduated from high school."
|
| | | 1 | KrazyKoalaBears
Leader
ID: 517553018
Sat, Dec 13, 2003, 08:52
|
It's going to come down to how the word "elapsed" is defined. As the article points out: The NFL, in its response before Judge Shira A. Scheindlin, does not dispute the actual language of the bylaw as quoted by Clarett's attorneys. But the league does take issue with the definition of the term "elapsed," which it says means the end of a season that began after a player graduated. Besides, the NFL argues, Tagliabue, as commissioner, has the right to interpret NFL rules in whatever manner he wishes. "So [Clarett's lawyer] is telling the commissioner that he didn't interpret our own rule correctly," said Greg Aiello, NFL spokesman. I don't see how a judge can say that the commisioner cannot interpret the word "elapsed" however he wises, as long as it is reasonable, which I think it is.
|
|
| | | 2 | Tree, not at home
ID: 4311301222
Sat, Dec 13, 2003, 09:56
|
i have to disagree. words have definitions. and elapse means "to pass".
the fact it says "three NFL seasons", and not "three *full* NFL seasons" is huge, and no doubt something the NFL will correct, but the wording is what it is.
and three seasons have passed, after this current one ends, since Clarrett finished HS...
|
|
| | | 3 | Perm Dude
Dude
ID: 141046261
Sat, Dec 13, 2003, 11:44
|
Reading the first post, the difference that came to me is that in one quote the word "college" is used, and the other "NFL" is used.
pd
|
|
| | | 4 | Chuck
Donor
ID: 5610253017
Sat, Dec 13, 2003, 11:54
|
Obviously this will be a case of semantics.
But I do not think the NFL needs to put "full" prior to NFL seasons. By definition, I think of an "NFL season" as being complete (though not necessarily full). A partial NFL season is not an NFL season; it is just that, a partial season. The rule makes no mention of partial seasons, just NFL seasons. An NFL season is from week 1 through the Super Bowl. Anything less than that is not an NFL season.
However, complete and full seasons are different. A full season is Week 1 through SB. A complete season is any rotation of 20 (21?) weeks of football.
Based on this, MC has been out for 1 NFL season (full) or 2 complete NFL seasons (since December 11, 2001).
If anything, the idea of partial is taken away by the phrase "at least." In other words, since MC has graduated, 2 complete NFL seasons have passed (*2* 21-week game periods). He would be eligible to enter the draft, then, on December 11, 2004 (assuming that matches up with the proper amount of NFL weeks).
OK, this might not make sense, but simply put:
-As far as I can think, an item by mention is full unless specified otherwise. If someone can think of an instance that is not so, let me know, but nothing comes to mind right now.
-Thus, the "partial" season of 2001 does not count as an "NFL season."
-The loophole, however, is that an NFL season could be seen as point x in season 1 to point x in season 2. This currently puts MC at almost exactly 2 NFL seasons. However, this would not change his draft status, either, as he will have to wait until December 2004 to enter the draft.
-The NFL did not specify seasons must be within one year, and I think the loophole of partial seasons will fail, though the above could be true (even though it shouldn't change draft status for early graduates).
|
|
| | | 5 | steve houpt
ID: 32428300
Sat, Dec 13, 2003, 15:35
|
If he wants to get 'really' techical, he might be able to convince a judge he is eligible to sign after 11 DEC 2004. It says 'at least' three seasons have elapsed.
EX: Joe left on 11 DEC 2001. At least three years elapsed [passed] before he returned.
Did he leave in 'just 2001' or did he leave 11 DEC 2001. Does that mean he returned on [1 = 2001, 2 = 2002, 3 = 2003] sometime in 2004 or did he return after 11 DEC 2004?
Let him sign after 11 DEC 2004. Part of 2001, all of 2002, all of 2003 and part of 2004 would equal 3 NFL seasons.
But part of 2001, all of 2002, all of 2003 does not equal 3 NFL seasons IMHO - but that's common sense. A law degree may require common [sense] law be ignored.
|
|
| | | 6 | sarge33rd
ID: 2411361315
Sat, Dec 13, 2003, 16:39
|
by definition, a season (or anything else for that matter) cannot "elapse" until after it has begun. Since the season in question by Clarett began PRIOR to his graduation, that season cannot count. The next season would. Tagliabue is exactly right in his interpretation. In any event, it is unwise (and ill conceived) for a wanna-be rookie) to take issue with the commish and the leagues interpretation of league rules before he even gets into the league!)
|
|
| | | 7 | Perm Dude
Dude
ID: 141046261
Sat, Dec 13, 2003, 17:55
|
It's the NFL which determines a "season." EOS IMO.
|
|
| | | 8 | KrazyKoalaBears
Leader
ID: 517553018
Sat, Dec 13, 2003, 20:26
|
Tree, you seem to be forgetting that it's the NFL's rule and it's their organization. As long as their interpretiation is reasonable, they can interpret it however they want. Saying that they can't do so is like saying that they can't interpret their own Tuck Rule or any other rule on their books. It's their organization. Since when were organizations not allowed to apply their own interpretation to their own rules? And even if the NFL does further qualify the rule at a later date, that doesn't mean that Clarett was right. It would simply mean they are making their interpretation easier to understand for boneheads like Clarett.
|
|
| | | 9 | Sludge
Leader
ID: 2210372916
Sat, Dec 13, 2003, 20:39
|
Tree, you seem to be forgetting that it's the NFL's rule and it's their organization. As long as their interpretiation is reasonable, they can interpret it however they want.
While not directly comparable, tell that to the PGA.
|
|
| | | 10 | Perm Dude
Dude
ID: 141046261
Sat, Dec 13, 2003, 20:46
|
The problem with the PGA is that they tried to keep out someone for the wrong reasons, by claiming that their rules prohibited certain actions in certain situations which were inconsistently applied (and also claiming that they alone can interpret the "rules of golf.")
They would have been much better off with a different tact (sp?) in their SCOTUS challenge. Would have saved everyone a stupid ruling.
pd
|
|
| | | 11 | Tree, not at home
ID: 5411151320
Sat, Dec 13, 2003, 21:20
|
comparing the rules of who can and cannot play with something like the tuck rule, is apples to oranges. one is in-play, one is "who-can-play", which brings us to the point of the PGA.
Clarett, as an adult, can claim the NFL is denying him the opportunity to make a living, and he can point to all the other professional sports in this country where high school age and younger (look at golf with 13 year olds and soccer with 14 year olds) play.
|
|
| | | 12 | steve houpt
ID: 32428300
Sat, Dec 13, 2003, 21:23
|
the fact it says "three NFL seasons", and not "three *full* NFL seasons" is huge
I find the fact it says "AT LEAST three NFL seasons" and not just "three NFL seasons" just as huge.
|
|
| | | 13 | KrazyKoalaBears
Leader
ID: 517553018
Sat, Dec 13, 2003, 21:32
|
Tree, surely they are not denying him the opportunity to make a living, are they? Can he not go bag groceries like Kurt Warner once did? Can he not work at McDonalds like hundreds of thousands of other people? Does he not understand the finer points of collecting garbage? Maybe he could use his running ability to be an amazing courier for the Post Office. Heck, forget "normal" jobs, Clarett could also go play for the CFL, AFL, and other viable football entities. Let's be realistic here. Clarett is not being denied an opportunity to make a living, he's just being denied the opportunity to make the dream living he wants. Oh, boo hoo for him. And the PGA example is completely different. You want to talk apples to oranges, that's apples to rocket ships. The PGA was NEVER going to allow Martin to play. The NFL is simply saying, for the purposes of proper development to prevent major injuries, that a player cannot enter the league until 3 seasons have elapsed after their high school graduation. Huge difference because no matter what, Clarett will eventually have the opportunity to play in the NFL.
|
|
| | | 14 | Sludge
Leader
ID: 2210372916
Sat, Dec 13, 2003, 22:09
|
KKB -
It's not as wide a gap as you're making it sound.
I could be dead wrong, but I'm not so sure that the the time frame issue (when they will be able to play) would even be a legal issue.
|
|
| | | 15 | KrazyKoalaBears
Leader
ID: 517553018
Sat, Dec 13, 2003, 22:20
|
Sludge, I realize that. However, the gap between the NFL eligibility rule (play after a certain time) and the PGA eligibility rule (NEVER play) is far greater than the gap between the NFL interpreting its own eligibility rule and the NFL interpreting its own Tuck rule.
|
|
| | | 16 | Sludge
Leader
ID: 2210372916
Sat, Dec 13, 2003, 22:50
|
I'm more concerned about it in a legal sense, KKB.
|
|
| | | 17 | CJ
Donor
ID: 499271021
Sun, Dec 14, 2003, 10:22
|
The NFL makes a point of why they do not want Young players into the league, but when you look at MC I think that point is nullified.
Clarett's lawyers note that Clarett will be eight weeks shy of his 21st birthday at the start of the 2004 NFL season, and that at the start of last season there were eight players in the league who were 20 years old. Emmitt Smith, the NFL's all-time leading rusher, was 20 when he was drafted in 1990, and "weighs less and is shorter than Clarett," they wrote. At six-feet and 230 pounds, Clarett already is as large or larger than Hall of Famers Walter Payton, Barry Sanders and Gale Sayers were as NFL players.
Compared to the top 20 rushing leaders after the fifth week of the 2003 NFL season, Clarett weighed as much as or more than 17 of them and was as tall or taller than 15 of them.
|
|
| | | 18 | Perm Dude
Dude
ID: 141046261
Sun, Dec 14, 2003, 10:39
|
Casey Martin's suit was about the ADA and forcing the PGA to change their rules based upon that federal legislation; Clarett makes no such claim--his point is that his interpretation of the NFL rules should prevail over the NFL's.
pd
|
|
| | | 19 | sarge33rd
ID: 2411361315
Sun, Dec 14, 2003, 10:48
|
I would still maintain, that it is pretty poorly thought out, when an individual who wants to be "hired" by an organization...files suit to try and force that "hiring". I can't imagine that any "employer" would look kindly upon such a thing, and could/would make the situation as difficult as possible.
btw, to compare the fact that 15 yr olds are touring pro's on the tennis circuit and question then why not the NFL?, is ludicrous. You want to make it comparable? Turn loose folks like Ronnie Lott, Kenny Easley and the like,(in thier primes of ocurse), to chase the kid around the court trying to knock the stuffing out of them, all while the kid is trying to hit a tennis ball. Then it would be comparable.
|
|
| | | 20 | Tree, not at home
ID: 5411151320
Sun, Dec 14, 2003, 10:52
|
btw, to compare the fact that 15 yr olds are touring pro's on the tennis circuit and question then why not the NFL?, is ludicrous. You want to make it comparable?
i was using the comparison in legal sense. however, now that we have 14 year olds playing professional soccer in this country - and soccer is as physical, if not more, than football, it's hard to deny we have young children playing with men...
|
|
| | | 21 | Perm Dude
Dude
ID: 141046261
Sun, Dec 14, 2003, 10:59
|
Er, soccer is not as physical as American football. It's a physical sport with some contact, but football has hard contact on every single play.
|
|
| | | 22 | Perm Dude
Dude
ID: 141046261
Sun, Dec 14, 2003, 11:04
|
This always makes my wife and I laugh, from The Onion, News in Brief:
VOLUME 34 ISSUE 02 — 12 AUGUST 1998
Freak Accident Paralyzes Man From Waist Up
MESA, AZ—A bizarre spinal injury sustained in a car accident Sunday has left local resident Roberto Montenegro paralyzed from the waist up. "Roberto is back on his feet," said Mesa General Hospital head of surgery William Maxon. "Unfortunately, though, he has lost all feeling in his head, arms, and torso. No longer able to move from the waist up, he cannot eat, speak, dial a telephone, type, open doors, or look sideways." Doctors said Montenegro should be able to resume his career as a professional soccer player as early as next week.
pd
|
|
| | | 23 | Vee
ID: 267331616
Sun, Dec 14, 2003, 11:08
|
Right. Soccer more physical than football....
You might be able to do a Google search for your credibility
becasue it's nowhere to be found here.
|
|
| | | 24 | KrazyKoalaBears
Leader
ID: 517553018
Sun, Dec 14, 2003, 11:18
|
CJ, I hope they don't use that comparision in court. Comparing Clarett to 2 Hall of Famers and 2 future Hall of Famers before he's ever stepped foot on the grass of an NFL game is ridiculous. They would have a far more valid argument if they compared him to current year rookies who fit his build. But even then, they can't compare development, which is far more important than age, height, or weight. Tree, and soccer is as physical, if not more, than football Please tell me you're joking. The only way soccer is as physical as NFL football is that the players run a lot. Soccer doesn't include NFL-style tackling, nor does it include the kind of hitting that takes place at the line of scrimmage, nor many other aspects of NFL football. To compare soccer to the NFL is laughable. Try comparing it to rugby, which is far closer in the type of physical activity to NFL football than soccer is. And besides, just because some other organization thinks it's okay for kids to play their game doesn't mean the NFL should be forced to make the same determination. The NFL can do what it feels is right for their organization. If they feel that having sub-20 year olds playing their game is dangerous, then that's their prerogative. It's their organization.
|
|
| | | 25 | Slackjawed Yokel
Sustainer
ID: 52347519
Sun, Dec 14, 2003, 12:14
|
To me, there's a more obvious loophole in the rule: "For college football players seeking special eligibility, at least three NFL seasons must have elapsed since the player was graduated from high school." It's simple. Clarett is not a college football player. He did not play college football this year, therefore the rule does not apply.
|
|
| | | 26 | Tree, not at home
ID: 5411151320
Sun, Dec 14, 2003, 12:18
|
sorry. i'll maintain that soccer is a tougher sport to play than football. i've played both.
|
|
| | | 27 | KrazyKoalaBears
Leader
ID: 517553018
Sun, Dec 14, 2003, 12:18
|
Slackjawed Yokel, you're assuming there are no rules in place for non-college football players. That's not an assumption I would jump to.
|
|
| | | 28 | Slackjawed Yokel
Sustainer
ID: 52347519
Sun, Dec 14, 2003, 12:19
|
yeah, I suppose that's true.
|
|
| | | 29 | Perm Dude
Dude
ID: 141046261
Sun, Dec 14, 2003, 12:33
|
I've played both too, Tree, and I know soccer is not a wimp sport. But there's no comparison, IMO, in terms of contact.
Which is all beside the point: The NFL can interpret its own rules how it wants to--they can even pass a special rule tomorrow forbidding MC from being an NFL player for no reason at all. The NFL is not obligated to give Clarett a chance to play.
pd
|
|
| | | 30 | sarge33rd
ID: 2411361315
Sun, Dec 14, 2003, 13:31
|
quite true PD. Lawrence Phillips (IIRC) jumps to mind. Always wondered "what if" o team had drafted him? Same could be with Clarett. Really, would YOU as a coach, even w-a-n-t a player on your team, who had sued to get there?
|
|
| | |
| | | 32 | Mike D
Sustainer
ID: 41831612
Thu, Feb 05, 2004, 14:50
|
That would be wild.....but I can't see it happening.
|
|
| | | 33 | sarge33rd
ID: 509452715
Thu, Feb 05, 2004, 20:07
|
I can. The rule resulted from collective bargaining and is backed by owners and players alike. OK, say he does declasre...since the owners like the rule as it is, no one drafts him. Having declared, he cant return to college ball either. He'd be screwed, royally. And rightfully so IMHO.
|
|
| | | 34 | WiddleAvi
ID: 4092619
Thu, Feb 05, 2004, 21:14
|
Wouldn't that be collusion ?
|
|
| | | 35 | Mike D
Sustainer
ID: 41831612
Thu, Feb 05, 2004, 21:23
|
Big time, and opens up a huge liability lawsuit.
|
|
| | | 36 | rockafellerskank
Leader
ID: 27652109
Thu, Feb 05, 2004, 21:41
|
Perhaps they won't draft him cause he is destined to be the next LP?!?! gambling related story? I think there are enough questions about this kid's character to warrant most teams taking a pass I imagine he WILL be drafted, but I'll bet it's a late round pick.
rfs (Buckeye Alum)
|
|
| | | 37 | The Great One
ID: 240212522
Sat, Feb 07, 2004, 08:13
|
Kiper has him projected for the second round, but I think it all depends on his workouts.
He doesn't seem to have blazing speed, and he doesn't seem like a "bruiser" type back either. I've seen him defined as an Emmitt Smith type, which would really mean you could only judge him by game film, and I don't think there is enough to make an accurate judgement.
The bottom line is that although he might be a steal that low, I can't see anyone taking him before late in the second round....although if he gets Drew Rosenhouse as an agent...........
|
|
| | | 38 | sarge33rd
ID: 220582912
Sat, Feb 07, 2004, 09:03
|
its only collusion if the owners all get together and mutually agree not to draft him. If it just "happens", then no, its not collusion.
|
|
| | | 39 | Perm Dude
Dude
ID: 30792616
Tue, Feb 10, 2004, 13:30
|
Yeah, I don't believe the owners are required to draft him. He's simply eligible to be drafted.
|
|
| | | 40 | sorethumb @home
ID: 39118163
Sat, Feb 21, 2004, 22:30
|
funny that the Bills GM said its a farce that Clarrett
pulled out of the combine. Isnt this the idiot that drafted
an injured McGehee in the first round even though they
needed OL and a ton of other needs.
Funny guy.
|
|
| | | 41 | WiddleAvi
ID: 4092619
Sun, Feb 22, 2004, 18:41
|
What he was saying that Mcgahee was injured but worked very hard to get into shape etc. while Clarett comes to the combine overweight and not in shape. It's an attitude difference.
|
|
| | |
| | | 43 | KrazyKoalaBears
Leader
ID: 517553018
Thu, Apr 22, 2004, 18:17
|
Not so fast, Maurice & Co. Did anybody just hear that sound? It was Mike Williams's jaw hitting the floor.
|
|
| | | 44 | RecycledSpinalFluid
ID: 83581513
Thu, Apr 22, 2004, 19:25
|
Or is it Mo Clarret's head banging against the wall:
Mo "dropped out of classes at Ohio State after the winter quarter".
Going to have a hard time gaining academic eligibility that way.
|
|
| | | 45 | Madman
ID: 503552218
Mon, Apr 26, 2004, 12:08
|
Clarett screwed up. His only option is to go up to Canada and play. If he doesn't produce up there then he may never have an NFL career.
I guess his sense of "entitlement" that I have heard scouts say about him is disappearing fast. I guess his mother is a pain in the butt too. They want the money but they don't want to work for it. When he showed up at the combine overweight and pretty much just blew it off that told me something about Maurice Clarett.
|
|
| | |
| | | 47 | CJ
ID: 5539231
Wed, Jun 23, 2004, 03:28
|
Well whatever....I still feel he and many others should be eligible for the draft...Isn't it like Let the parents guard the kids from Violence in the films, games ect....just as it will be the coaches / Team management to decide who they want to draft.
Again this is no different from many other sports professions where KIDS can be drafted. He broke Archie Griffins now R Smiths rookie rushign record at Ohio State. He has skills and not brains....gee maybe over half of the KIDS in the NFL Draft should not be drafted then. I bet he could join the damn ARMY, NAVY, Marines and die in a war, but hell no can enter the damn NFL Draft. What a joke! Anyone over 18 shoudl be able to enter the draft! I shoudl be able to enter the draft!
|
|
| | | 48 | KrazyKoalaBears
Leader
ID: 517553018
Thu, Jun 24, 2004, 23:10
|
Mike Williams Back at USC!!!... as a student. I laughed so hard at this part of the story... Williams said the classes were more important than football. "I really would hate to go out there and just be gung-ho football and then the NCAA comes knocking two or three weeks later, and the next thing you know they bagged the whole deal," Williams said in a radio interview on KMPC. Yeah, it would be kind of like going gung-ho NFL and then having the courts come knocking two or three weeks later to bag the whole deal. I guess I always try to think that these guys actually have brains, but it's quite apparent that they don't. If Williams truly had a brain, he wouldn't have hired an agent after the first court ruling, knowing there would be appeals that could overturn the ruling. Declare for the draft, fine. But don't hire an agent. Oh, and go to class in the meantime. Suddenly classes are more important than football? Puh-leez! If they were so important, then why did he fail all his classes after he declared for the draft? He's just saying this now to try and suck up to the NCAA. If the NCAA lives up to its past rulings, Williams truly will only be at USC as a student. Basically, he'll bide his time, living off the boosters, until next year's draft.
|
|
| | |
| | | 50 | Khahan
ID: 2884979
Wed, Nov 10, 2004, 15:26
|
Who is going to sign this guy and take on his baggage?
Seriously, say he's drafted by the Cowboys, the next headline we see will be:
Clarrett sues Dallas Cowboys because he is not named the starting running back.
|
|
| | | 51 | KrazyKoalaBears
Leader
ID: 517553018
Wed, Nov 10, 2004, 16:55
|
If Lawrence Phillips got drafted/signed, then Clarett will get drafted/signed.
|
|
| | | 52 | sarge33rd
ID: 561193110
Tue, Jan 03, 2006, 17:01
|
Clarett appears in court, posts bond
I see Phillip Lawrence reincarnation (Lawrence Phillips?? lol never could keep his 2 first names straight), is in trouble again, still, something...
|
|
| | | 53 | blue hen
ID: 4810542515
Tue, Jan 03, 2006, 17:05
|
Holy crap this is a blast from the past. Fortunately, we now know Clarett lacks the skills to play in the NFL and he can be exactly what he deserves to be - a joke.
|
|
| | | 54 | sarge33rd
ID: 561193110
Tue, Jan 03, 2006, 17:26
|
lol bh, took some serious digging to find this damn thread. pg 8 or 9 IIRC. :)
|
|
| | | 55 | Species
Leader
ID: 07724916
Tue, Jan 03, 2006, 18:50
|
Couldn't happen to a bigger schmuck.
....although the Clarett case is an absolutely perfect case for my longtime contention that the college football/basketball 'systems' totally take advantage of young athletes and does them NO GOOD in the way they treat these star athletes and (for many) push them through college classrooms while not preparing them in the slightest for life after college sports.
Since the vast majority of these athletes will NOT make a living playing professionally, after being coddled and treated like stars in college they come crashing down big time into the real world and have no skills and no education (again for too MANY, not all) to fall back on.
|
|
| | | 56 | J
ID: 13443921
Thu, Jul 06, 2006, 23:17
|
This is the funniest thing I've heard in a LONG time!
Clarett reportedly to sign with indoor league
Former Ohio State star has oral agreement to join Mahoning Valley Hitmen
Former Ohio State star running back Maurice Clarett, who failed to catch on with an NFL team after being cut by the Denver Broncos last year, has an oral agreement to play with an indoor league team, the Columbus Post-Dispatch reported Thursday.
Clarett was expected to sign a contract with the Mahoning Valley (Ohio) Hitmen of the Eastern Indoor Football League, the newspaper reported.
Hitmen coach Jim Terry said he sent the contract to Clarett on Wednesday, the Post-Dispatch reported.
"I’ve never seen a player this excited at this level of play," Terry said of Clarett, the newspaper reported. "This isn’t a runner’s league. It’s a passer’s league. And (Clarett) is going to try to make it on the ground."
Clarett led Ohio State to the 2002 national championship, then was suspended and took on the NFL in court, challenging the requirement that players wait three years after high school before turning pro. After losing on appeal, he was drafted by the Denver Broncos, then cut before the team’s first game last fall. He hasn’t played since the 2003 Fiesta Bowl against Miami.
It's unclear if Clarett will ever play for the Hitmen, because the team currently has just four players on its roster, the newspaper reported.
The Hitmen plan to hold open tryouts in August, the newspaper reported, and Terry hopes the league will begin play in January or February.
"I don’t want this to be like a bowling league with a new guy or new team leaving every year," Terry said, the Post-Dispatch reported.
|
|
| | | 57 | KrazyKoalaBears
ID: 15023167
Fri, Jul 07, 2006, 08:40
|
"I've never seen a player this excited at this level of play"
... followed by...
Terry hopes the league will begin play in January or February.
Translation: "I haven't really seen any guys at this level of play before, because this 'level of play' has never existed, but Clarett sure is eager to earn a paycheck."
|
|
| | | 58 | sarge33rd
ID: 575352217
Fri, Jul 07, 2006, 10:35
|
What a fitting situation...
a non-existant player, in a non-existant league.
|
|
| | |
| | | 61 | sarge33rd
ID: 75591913
Fri, Jul 07, 2006, 22:24
|
cheerleaders and pom-poms and footballs....oh my!
|
|
| | |
| | | 63 | THK
ID: 2510332316
Wed, Jul 26, 2006, 12:17
|
"In a single-paragraph letter Clarett wrote"
Why does this not surprise me?!?! ;-) I am sure he has a wonderful education.
Anybody have a link to the Clarett Exam at Ohio State? That was hilarious.
|
|
| | | 64 | Kyle
ID: 261371521
Wed, Jul 26, 2006, 14:24
|
I surprised it wasn't a single sentence letter.
What they fail to mention is the single paragraph goes on for 5 pages. After the attorneys read the letter they returned if for a second draft citing "Grammatical errors" that caused them to be unable to read the paper.
|
|
| | | 65 | Perm Dude
ID: 366482611
Wed, Jul 26, 2006, 14:27
|
Firing an attorney doesn't really take much prose.
|
|
| | | 66 | holt
ID: 386122123
Wed, Jul 26, 2006, 15:30
|
when I went to read the link posted above, I stumbled onto this news flash:
ISU football hires equipment manager
It's reassuring to know that Yahoo is there to keep us up to date with such important news.
|
|
| | | 67 | holt
ID: 386122123
Wed, Jul 26, 2006, 15:37
|
I'm only into the second sentence of the equipment manager story and I've already noticed two misspelled words. Editorial greatness.
|
|
| | |
| | | 69 | Perm Dude
ID: 107399
Wed, Aug 09, 2006, 10:07
|
See what happens when you don't finish your education?
|
|
| | | 70 | barilko6
ID: 971298
Wed, Aug 09, 2006, 10:17
|
This is a classic example of what a lack of positive, strong leadership in a talented young man's life can lead to.
Sad.
|
|
| | | 71 | Motley Crue
Dude
ID: 439372011
Wed, Aug 09, 2006, 10:28
|
He's going to go to jail for a long time for this.
That's a horrible fate for a guy who had so much potential. barilko's point is seconded here.
|
|
| | | 72 | Seattle Zen
ID: 46315247
Wed, Aug 09, 2006, 10:42
|
Officers used Mace to subdue Clarett after a stun gun was ineffective because the former Fiesta Bowl star was wearing a bullet-resistant vest, Sgt. Michael Woods said.
Sounds like a drill at the Raiders' open tryouts.
|
|
| | | 73 | holt
ID: 22726517
Wed, Aug 09, 2006, 17:34
|
wearing a bullet-proof vest, with a loaded rifle and 3 loaded handguns in the front of the vehicle. sounds like he was on his way murder someone. I mean there are plenty of wannabe "gangstas" who get busted with a concealed weapon in the car, but this sounds a little different to me.
|
|
| | | 74 | sarge33rd
ID: 575352217
Wed, Aug 09, 2006, 17:38
|
armed and armored? On his way to a confrontation for daman sure.
|
|
| | | 75 | holt
ID: 22726517
Wed, Aug 09, 2006, 17:40
|
check out these pics.
looks like he could have killed a few dozen people if he really wanted to.
|
|
| | | 76 | sarge33rd
ID: 575352217
Wed, Aug 09, 2006, 17:45
|
30 years sound right? Wearing the vest, IMHO, shows intent. The multiple weapons, loaded, reinforces that intent. FWIW, this is one P.O.S. needs to be knocked WAY down off his high horse.
|
|
| | | 77 | holt
ID: 22726517
Wed, Aug 09, 2006, 17:46
|
it's always good to have a 40 round clip, just in case you miss the deer with your first 39 shots.
|
|
| | | 78 | holt
ID: 22726517
Wed, Aug 09, 2006, 17:50
|
yeah, with the vest, multiple loaded weapons within reach, pending charges of armed robbery, running from the cops and then fighting them... I can't imagine any judge going lightly on him.
|
|
| | | 79 | barilko6
ID: 16529229
Wed, Aug 09, 2006, 18:04
|
re 76
Sarge you missed part of it out before handing down your sentence:
"Police also charged him with weaving in and out of lanes on a road before he entered the highway"
|
|
| | | 80 | sarge33rd
ID: 575352217
Wed, Aug 09, 2006, 18:29
|
make it 31 years then. :)
Claretts mentor?
|
|
| | | 81 | Species
Leader
ID: 07724916
Wed, Aug 09, 2006, 18:30
|
Re: #70 Adding to that excellent point......
......and Clarett is a poster boy for the NCAA system that rewards (mostly illegally), pampers, babies and sets on a pedastal star athletes without any intention of educating them or preparing them for life after NCAA sports. So many hundreds of young men (mainly - I'm sure it happens on occasion to women) have been used like meat by their schools only to be tossed away when their usefullness is used up (via injury or otherwise).
I wonder what Lawrence Phillips is doing for a living these days...
|
|
| | | 82 | sarge33rd
ID: 575352217
Wed, Aug 09, 2006, 18:34
|
I dont blame the college. By the time the character gets there, his ways have been largely set. It would take one incredibly gifted leader of young men, to turn around a Clarett who comes to you at 18-19 and having been treated as special by every school coach, administrator and teacher so far encountered in their lives.
|
|
| | | 83 | GoatLocker
Sustainer
ID: 060151121
Wed, Aug 09, 2006, 18:37
|
Last I remember seeing on Phillips was being arrested again.
In LA
Cliff
|
|
| | | 84 | biliruben
Leader
ID: 589301110
Wed, Aug 09, 2006, 18:37
|
Charged with carrying a concealed weapon? He wasn't carrying any of them, and they don't look concealed to me.
Maybe reckless driving, and not having a permit, but the concealed weapons charge doesn't seem likely to stick.
That said, I don't know danky about the law, and perhaps Ohio defines "concealed" and "carrying" in some manner completely inconsistent with the english language. Wouldn't be the first time.
|
|
| | | 85 | sarge33rd
ID: 575352217
Wed, Aug 09, 2006, 18:38
|
I wonder what Lawrence Phillips is doing for a living these days...
see post 80
|
|
| | | 86 | GoatLocker
Sustainer
ID: 060151121
Wed, Aug 09, 2006, 18:40
|
Didn't see sarge's link in 80.
So the link is in 83 also.
Cliff
|
|
| | | 87 | Species
Leader
ID: 07724916
Wed, Aug 09, 2006, 18:55
|
sarge 82 - a valid point in that you can't take a Clarett and turn him into a Boy Scout. But the universities are still guilty of perpetuating the issue, and making it worse as the stakes get raised so much higher.
I guess making that point in a case like Clarett is bad timing. Plenty of decent kids who aren't idiots like Clarett still get abused and passed through by the universities for the benefit of the university instead of the "student athlete".
|
|
| | | 88 | sarge33rd
ID: 575352217
Wed, Aug 09, 2006, 18:59
|
a contention I wont for a moment argue against. Ever since colleges became businesses vs educational institutions, it was an inevitable migration away from scholastics and toward revenue generation.
Scenario:
University football coach graduates 90% of his squad every year and 90% of those men have 3.5+ GPA's. College football team record is .500 and no Bowl appearances in the coaches 5 yr tenure. Another coach in the same conference, same tenure...graduates 10% of his sqaud every year and none carry GPAs over 2.5. 5 bowl appearances in the 5 years though.
Which coach gets fired and which gets a 7 figure contract? THERE is the real problem.
|
|
| | | 89 | Myboyjack
Dude
ID: 014826271
Wed, Aug 09, 2006, 22:46
|
bili - Why do you think all those good ole boys have guns racks in their trucks? I'm pretty sure you can't drive around with pistols in your driver side seat in Ohio, but I don't know.
The most serious of the charges Clarett has from his lastest escapade would appear to be the fleeing and evading (unless he winds up with a Federal gun charge of some kind.) This isn't nearly as serious has his previous robbery charge, anway.
He's been complaning of death threats lately (He owes a lot of people money who don't collect through an agency) - I'd guess that and his obvious mental instabilty explains the armor and guns (but not the Grey Goose)
I think it's ugly the way the media seems to revel in this screwed up guys messed up life.
Wearing the vest, IMHO, shows intent.
Intent to what? Not be shot dead?
|
|
| | | 90 | Motley Crue
ID: 2192327
Wed, Aug 09, 2006, 23:15
|
MBJ, you missed the audition for Clarett's Public Defender; he already has one assigned.
Get out your highball glass and pull up a chair. I'll pour you a Grey Goose and we can watch this poor bastard get flushed down the toilet.
Cheers.
|
|
| | | 91 | sarge33rd
ID: 76442923
Thu, Aug 10, 2006, 00:56
|
C'mon MBJ...get real.
1)Guy is up on charges for armed robbery.
2)He gets caught, with a loaded, 30rd clip, assault rifle and multiple loaded semi-automatic handguns within reach and access while driving. (I cant speak for the "good ole boy" states, but in Iowa where I spent most of my life, its illegal to transport loaded weapons within reach of the driver. Unless said driver, has a permit to carry concealed weapons. (The weapons are copncealed to view by passersby on the road when they are on the passengar seat. That may well be where the concealed weapons charge originates.)
3) Not only is he carrying multiple weapons illegaly, but he is wearing combat armor while doing so.
Intent to do what? Get into a gun battle. Commit greivous bodily harm upon someone. Intent to commit murder, to commit assault with a deadly weapon.
|
|
| | | 92 | GoatLocker
Sustainer
ID: 060151121
Thu, Aug 10, 2006, 01:18
|
Better yet, one of the loaded pistols was under is leg on the drivers seat.
If that's not concealed, nothing is.
The cops are chasing you and you hve a weapon under your leg.
Sounds like a death wish to me.
Cliff
|
|
| | | 93 | barilko6
ID: 16529229
Thu, Aug 10, 2006, 08:49
|
Interesting sidenote that just surfaced regarding why Clarett was on his rampage:
"Assistant Franklin County Prosecutor Tim Mitchell asked a judge Wednesday to keep Clarett in jail and revoke his bond on the robbery charges, given that Clarett was arrested close to the home of Tywona Douglas, one of the people who identified him in the alley behind the bar. (Douglas is a witness in the initial criminal proceeding that Clarett is involved in.)"
|
|
| | | 94 | Motley Crue
Dude
ID: 439372011
Thu, Aug 10, 2006, 11:34
|
Wilbon on Clarett
Even as someone who was not in favor of the NFL changing its rules to allow Clarett in early, I sit at the keyboard now wondering what might have become of Clarett had he spent the last three years within the structure of a football team, which is probably the only structure he had ever known -- certainly the only one he ever appreciated. It's impossible to not wonder what might have happened had Clarett been good enough to stick with the Denver Broncos, who brought him to camp last summer.
I like Wilbon's writing. I get the feeling he is sort of at a loss for words about Maurice Clarett, which makes his column impressive. Since, you know, there are about 1000 words there.
|
|
| | | 95 | FRICK
ID: 345202714
Thu, Aug 10, 2006, 11:42
|
Re:93
On the Mike and Mike show on ESPN this morning they were saying close to the witness's house as being within 1 block. He got the cops attention for making an illegal u-turn. As they stated, that might have been a great thing the cop was there or how ugly could this situatin be now.
Sidenote: Do you think LeBron still takes Clarett's calls?
|
|
| | |
| | | 97 | barilko6
ID: 30728108
Thu, Aug 10, 2006, 14:45
|
That is one messed up story...
|
|
| | | 98 | Balrog
Dude
ID: 02856618
Thu, Aug 10, 2006, 15:23
|
Re: 94
I don't know if the national press picked it up, but the Broncos Mike Shanahan was all over the local news saying how he never saw anyone that the veterans on the Broncos tried so hard to help straighten out and yet Clarett refused every attempt. Shanahan said that's a big part of why he was cut.
Maybe it would have been a different story if he went straight into the NFL from OSU, but it looks like he already had the attitude when he got kicked off the college team.
|
|
| | | 99 | Perm Dude
ID: 2073108
Thu, Aug 10, 2006, 16:06
|
That's why he was kicked off the team. I suspect that if he had stuck it out a little more his maturity level would be much higher.
|
|
| | | 100 | Myboyjack
Dude
ID: 014826271
Thu, Aug 10, 2006, 18:55
|
Intent to do what? Get into a gun battle. Commit greivous bodily harm upon someone. Intent to commit murder, to commit assault with a deadly weapon
You're not being serious. Sorry, I didn't get that before. Wearing body armor and having a gun, by themselves, won't get him convicted of anything. We don't get to prosecute people based on what we think they may have been thinking about doing. Now, if had some notes laying around....
There no such thing as a "wearing body armor with intent to..." crime anyway.
|
|
| | | 101 | sarge33rd
ID: 575352217
Thu, Aug 10, 2006, 19:00
|
We don't get to prosecute people based on what we think they may have been thinking about doing.
We dont? Possession with intent to distribute for ex?
|
|
| | | 102 | Myboyjack
Dude
ID: 014826271
Thu, Aug 10, 2006, 19:07
|
We dont? Possession with intent to distribute for ex?
Who is using their imagination, sarge, in that example?
Trafficking is sometimes stautorily defined as possession of over "X" oz. of whatever ubstance. It's black and white - not someone's best guess.
Maybe you should refer me to the "wearing body armor with intent to ?" statute you are referring to. If it doesn't exist, then what are you talking about that Clarett should be charged with, that he hasn't already been?
|
|
| | | 103 | Myboyjack
Dude
ID: 014826271
Thu, Aug 10, 2006, 19:12
|
Clarett's bond has been set at $5 mil because, the Judge says, "he fled police"
Like I said in post you took exception to,sarge, fleeing and evading is the most serious thing he'll be charged with in this incident (unless there are Federeal weopons charges or more facts materialize)
Fleeing and Evading is good for 1-5 years in KY
|
|
| | | 104 | Toral
ID: 52621719
Thu, Aug 10, 2006, 19:16
|
We're seeing people talking at cross-purposes about different things. Wearing a bulletproof vest can't be cited as evidence of criminal intent. It sure is common-sense evidence of 'intent' to be in a place where trouble is going on though -- and being that Clarett was driving as opposed to being chased by troublemakers, it suggests an evil intent, in common-sense terms. Unless you believe that people put on the bulletproof vest and load up with weapons just for a scenic drive around the town.
Toral
|
|
| | | 105 | Myboyjack
Dude
ID: 014826271
Thu, Aug 10, 2006, 19:23
|
Wearing a bulletproof vest can't be cited as evidence of criminal intent
No. Wearing the vest could be evidence of intent to do something or another criminal, Toral, if there is some other crime he is being charged with.
The problem is there no underlying crime to charge him with. sarge wants him charged with "intent to engage in a gun battle" or something. The fact that he was wearing a vest and had some guns, alone, is not going to get him charged with intending to engage in another crime.
|
|
| | | 106 | biliruben
Leader
ID: 589301110
Thu, Aug 10, 2006, 19:28
|
So can I or can't I walk or drive around with an unconcealed weapon anymore?
Do I have to keep my winchester locked in the trunk these days?
|
|
| | | 107 | Toral
ID: 52621719
Thu, Aug 10, 2006, 19:29
|
Prosecutorial logic-chopping in a forum that isn't a criminal law forum. I should have said "Wearing a bulletproof vest in itself can't be cited as evidence of criminal intent."
I know, it's hard to give up arguing with sarge forever.
Toral
|
|
| | | 108 | Myboyjack
Dude
ID: 014826271
Thu, Aug 10, 2006, 19:31
|
gun rack.
Each state is different as to where you can have a hand gun. In KY it's legal (and not concealed) to drive around with a gun in your glove compartment. In Ohio that would be considered "concealed"
There is no where I know of that you can drive with a gun in your seat or under it.
|
|
| | | 109 | biliruben
Leader
ID: 589301110
Thu, Aug 10, 2006, 19:33
|
A quick google gets me here.
I think I'd be okay in Indiana:
Gaddis v. State, 680 N.E.2d 860 (Ind.App. 1997)
In this case the Indiana court of appeals reverses a conviction for intimidation under Indiana law, based on the defendant's having displayed, without pointing it at anyone, a handgun after a confrontation in highway traffic. The court notes that intimidation requires a threat, and the mere display of an otherwise lawfully carried handgun is not a threat. The court notes that to the extent the law might mean that, it would violate the constitutional right to keep and bear arms, and thus they will interpret it not to prohibit constitutionally protected conduct, so as to preserve it.
|
|
| | | 110 | biliruben
Leader
ID: 589301110
Thu, Aug 10, 2006, 19:41
|
I think it would be pretty amusing mounting a gun rack in my Civic! Almost tempting enough to risk the wrath of my gun-fearing wife.
|
|
| | | 111 | Myboyjack
Dude
ID: 014826271
Thu, Aug 10, 2006, 19:41
|
Toral - It's not logic chopping. It really is two different things.
There are some acts that carry an absolute criminal liabilty because of how they are defined by the legislature - criminal intent is supplied because the actor's state of being gives him a certain defined status
Sarge understands that concept because he cited one - Trafficking (defined as possession of > X oz.....
He's just wrong in implying that wearing a vest and carrying a gun is similar (unless he knows if a statute I don't.)
Now, if there was evidence, say, that suggested that Clarrett had conspired with LeBron to knock somebody off that night, then sure, the vest and the guns could be evidence of that conspiracy and certain elements of it.
|
|
| | | 112 | Toral
ID: 52621719
Thu, Aug 10, 2006, 20:01
|
How is 111 different from what I said in 104: Wearing a bulletproof vest can't be cited as evidence of criminal intent. I.e., there is no absolute presumption.
Toral
|
|
| | | 113 | Myboyjack
Dude
ID: 014826271
Thu, Aug 10, 2006, 20:20
|
Toral - Look at sarge's attempted analogous crime - "Possesion with intent to traffic"
That's a crime wherein intent is presumed by possesion. Possession is not just evidence of intent - basically, it is intent.
Now, you said: "Wearing a bulletproof vest in itself can't be cited as evidence of criminal intent."
That's not really right. Wearing the vest can be cited, even by itself, (although it wouldn't make much of a case), of a conspiracy or Attempt. Where I differed with sarge was when he tried to say that wearing the vest was evidence of some "Possession with intent.." crime that doesn't exist.
"Attempt to murder" is a crime - "intended murder" is not, if that helps.
|
|
| | | 114 | GoatLocker
Sustainer
ID: 060151121
Thu, Aug 10, 2006, 22:46
|
The fact that he was stopped within a block of the woman who was about to testify against him really throws a slant to this.
The rest is just crazy and doesn't make a lot of sense.
The gut tells you that wearing the vest means he is up to no good, but nothing can be proved by it.
Cliff
|
|
| | | 115 | holt
ID: 074720
Thu, Aug 10, 2006, 23:25
|
has he ever been convicted of a felony? pretty sure that it's illegal for a felon to be in possession of a bf-vest. I also don't think those weapons were registered to him, since one of the stories refers to the feds trying to determine where the guns came from.
Woods said he did not know where Clarett got the guns or why he had them, and that federal authorities plan to trace their ownership.
i'm no expert by any means, but it seems to me that fleeing and evading are the least of his worries.
|
|
| | |
| | |
| | | 118 | sarge33rd
ID: 76442923
Mon, Sep 18, 2006, 22:43
|
lol gotta like that link Tree:
Maurice Clarett will at least serve 3.5 years in prison after agreeing to a plea bargain Monday.
This will probably be our last Clarett post for a while unless we can find enough stats to set up a Ohio Correctional Facilities fantasy league. Thanks for the memories Mo.
*waves bye to MC*
|
|
| | | 119 | Tree
ID: 568511818
Mon, Sep 18, 2006, 22:53
|
for all that we joke about it, it's really a sad, sad story.
|
|
| | | 120 | Perm Dude
ID: 55855188
Mon, Sep 18, 2006, 23:15
|
Maybe he'll be added to the Failures Collection
|
|
| | | 121 | sarge33rd
ID: 76442923
Mon, Sep 18, 2006, 23:38
|
I'd agree Tree, and I'd feel badly for him....if he werent such a total jackass.
|
|
| | | 122 | KrazyKoalaBears
ID: 15023167
Tue, Sep 19, 2006, 08:28
|
I'd have to say Clarett looked pretty happy about going to jail in the footage I saw. He walked into the courtroom with a big smile on his face and even seemed okay with his sentencing. He has to have been the happiest man facing 3-1/2 years in prison I've ever seen on TV.
Maybe it's where he really wants to be.
|
|
| | | 123 | sarge33rd
ID: 257222410
Tue, Sep 19, 2006, 11:55
|
I noticed that too KKB. I dont recall ever seeing anyone so apparently happy, over the prospect of 42 months in the pen. Kind of makes oyu wonder, what he was facing with a conviction sans the plea agreement.
|
|
| | | 124 | Perm Dude
ID: 56851198
Tue, Sep 19, 2006, 12:14
|
Maybe he's about to come out of the closet.
|
|
| | | 125 | Myboyjack
ID: 8216923
Fri, Mar 30, 2007, 21:39
|
I Know this thread is way stale but for some reason this just cracked me up...
|
|
| | | 126 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Sat, Mar 31, 2007, 12:01
|
roflmao.....nice post MBJ. Thanks for that one!
|
|
| | | 127 | Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Tue, Apr 03, 2007, 17:59
|
LOL!
|
|
|
|