Regents to get details on Handling of Assault

[cigaretteman]

http://www.press-citizen.com/apps/pb...806060331/1079

[Phaedrus]

But... but... they can't DO that!!! A hawkfan told me so, so it HAS to be true!!!

[SouthernHawk]

Can't ask for details? Sure they can. But notice how they are asking the U of I for details, not a private investigator.

In fact, if the Regents hadn't have asked the U of I for details, I'd be a little worried.

[CY ST8T]

The only possible solution to this mess in my opinion is for these two ex-hawks to fall asleep in a prison and for a few bigger inmates to recreate the situation for them.

[Cyclonestate78]

Undoubtedly those "bigger inmates" that you speak of would be former Hawks as well. At EIU they like to keep things in the family if you know what I mean.

[ketelmeister]

Originally Posted by SouthernHawk

Can't ask for details? Sure they can. But notice how they are asking the U of I for details, not a private investigator.

In fact, if the Regents hadn't have asked the U of I for details, I'd be a little worried.

Hmm, first the players get indicted, now the Regents are involved. Seems more and more of what I said was happening IS happening. Maybe I do know what I'm talking about here.

[hawkeye_t]

Originally Posted by ketelmeister

Hmm, first the players get indicted, now the Regents are involved. Seems more and more of what I said was happening IS happening. Maybe I do know what I'm talking about here.

So you are back to saying that the Regents are the reason charges were filed? Are you going to bring out the assistant coach argument again?

I agree with you that the Regents have an interest, but according to your posts, the Regents are involved in the day-to-day operations of the UI athletic department. Which, I know is BS. What color is the sky in your world?

[ketelmeister]

Originally Posted by hawkeye_t

So you are back to saying that the Regents are the reason charges were filed? Are you going to bring out the assistant coach argument again?

I agree with you that the Regents have an interest, but according to your posts, the Regents are involved in the day-to-day operations of the UI athletic department. Which, I know is BS. What color is the sky in your world?

Thanks for misstating what I've said. The Regents are NOT involved in day to day operations, but with the horrible arrest record at the University of Iowa, they took an interest in getting to the bottom of things, AS THEY SHOULD. It wouldn't matter if it was Iowa State, UNI or Iowa, they have a responsibility to get involved. As I said months ago, I was told they had hired two investigators to look into the latest situation. I was also told the last asst. coach Iowa hired was an addition to help deal with player problems. Guys like you said
1. the players would never get indicted, since they had left the state and the university
2. there was no way the Regents would ever get involved. It was not in the "minutes" etc. Now that is apparently not true. I have only reported what I was told by multiple members of the Board of Regents. I have no reason to make stuff like this up.
What color is your sky?

[SouthernHawk]

Originally Posted by ketelmeister

Thanks for misstating what I've said. The Regents are NOT involved in day to day operations, but with the horrible arrest record at the University of Iowa, they took an interest in getting to the bottom of things, AS THEY SHOULD. It wouldn't matter if it was Iowa State, UNI or Iowa, they have a responsibility to get involved. As I said months ago, I was told they had hired two investigators to look into the latest situation. I was also told the last asst. coach Iowa hired was an addition to help deal with player problems. Guys like you said
1. the players would never get indicted, since they had left the state and the university
2. there was no way the Regents would ever get involved. It was not in the "minutes" etc. Now that is apparently not true. I have only reported what I was told by multiple members of the Board of Regents. I have no reason to make stuff like this up.
What color is your sky?

1.) I never once said that they would not get indicted
2.) I never said that the Regents wouldn't ask questions
3.) They have not hired an investigator (per the article linked above, it says that they are asking the university for details)
4.) You have completely misread what I have said in the past.

Fact: The Regents did not force Barta to hire an assistant (or KF). Remember, I actually called Barta, and he can be quoted in saying that this was an idea they were tossing around months before you talked to the Regents

Fact: The Regents are asking for a timeline of events. They will get one. Like most high profile case, they should be interested in the timeline of events. That is hardly hiring an investigator and forcing the U of I to give out information they haven't given out already, which brings me to my next...

Fact: The U of I has already given rather detailed information about the timeline of events, and will give details to the Regents. Since this is an oral report (per the link above), this is hardly a "tough grilling" of University staff

Fact: Authorities, lawyers, and even anti-rape activists have come out and publicly said that the U of I and the Iowa athletic department has handled this wonderfully

Fact: What you have been saying since Day 1 is that there is some sort of coverup. It now appears that the Regents are asking for an oral report of the timeline, and are not hiring an investigator (or that again, would have been public information, and the media would have included that in their article).

And finally, if the Regents hadn't asked for some sort of information on the subject, I'd be a little worried. I do find it somewhat comical that at this point, if the Regents so much as utter a word about this case publicly, you get all excited and claim that you've been right all along.

If it turns out there was a coverup, they hired an investigator, and they publicly thank the U of I for hiring a new assistant at their request, then you can brag about being right. But until then, it's your biased opinion against common public knowledge.

Anyways, I expect when I get back tonight I'll see some long winded post claiming how I did say they wouldn't ever be indicted, how the Regents did hire an investigator (even though that's been proven incorrect) and that you've done such a spectacular job of scooping this story and proving that everybody involved at the U of I is part of some huge coverup.

[hawkeye_t]

Originally Posted by ketelmeister

Thanks for misstating what I've said. The Regents are NOT involved in day to day operations, but with the horrible arrest record at the University of Iowa, they took an interest in getting to the bottom of things, AS THEY SHOULD. It wouldn't matter if it was Iowa State, UNI or Iowa, they have a responsibility to get involved. As I said months ago, I was told they had hired two investigators to look into the latest situation. I was also told the last asst. coach Iowa hired was an addition to help deal with player problems. Guys like you said
1. the players would never get indicted, since they had left the state and the university
2. there was no way the Regents would ever get involved. It was not in the "minutes" etc. Now that is apparently not true. I have only reported what I was told by multiple members of the Board of Regents. I have no reason to make stuff like this up.
What color is your sky?

My sky is blue and quite beautiful. I have never said that the players would not get indicated. Perhaps that was SH, but I could be wrong. The Regents are involved, from a distance as they should. The problem I have with your posts, and have for about 4 months is that you talk out of both sides of your mouth. The fact that you bring up the assistant coach is so absurd that I have trouble sifting throught the rest of your posts. I and ever member at hawkeyereport.com knew that Carl Jackson was retiring before the begining of last season. We also knew about three days after Lloyd Carr was let go that Soup Campbell was very high on KF's list of replacements. He was hired because he is a good coach, not because the Regents had any input.

Has it ever occured to you that the Regents might want to tell you how important they think they are? Michael Gartner thinks he is the most important person in the State. I am not trying to mistate what you have said. What are you trying to say by stating Hmm, first the players get indicted, now the Regents are involved.? Am I incorrect in that you are trying to connect the two?

[ketelmeister]

Originally Posted by SouthernHawk

1.) I never once said that they would not get indicted
2.) I never said that the Regents wouldn't ask questions
3.) They have not hired an investigator (per the article linked above, it says that they are asking the university for details)
4.) You have completely misread what I have said in the past.

Fact: The Regents did not force Barta to hire an assistant (or KF). Remember, I actually called Barta, and he can be quoted in saying that this was an idea they were tossing around months before you talked to the Regents

Fact: The Regents are asking for a timeline of events. They will get one. Like most high profile case, they should be interested in the timeline of events. That is hardly hiring an investigator and forcing the U of I to give out information they haven't given out already, which brings me to my next...

Fact: The U of I has already given rather detailed information about the timeline of events, and will give details to the Regents. Since this is an oral report (per the link above), this is hardly a "tough grilling" of University staff

Fact: Authorities, lawyers, and even anti-rape activists have come out and publicly said that the U of I and the Iowa athletic department has handled this wonderfully

Fact: What you have been saying since Day 1 is that there is some sort of coverup. It now appears that the Regents are asking for an oral report of the timeline, and are not hiring an investigator (or that again, would have been public information, and the media would have included that in their article).

And finally, if the Regents hadn't asked for some sort of information on the subject, I'd be a little worried. I do find it somewhat comical that at this point, if the Regents so much as utter a word about this case publicly, you get all excited and claim that you've been right all along.

If it turns out there was a coverup, they hired an investigator, and they publicly thank the U of I for hiring a new assistant at their request, then you can brag about being right. But until then, it's your biased opinion against common public knowledge.

Anyways, I expect when I get back tonight I'll see some long winded post claiming how I did say they wouldn't ever be indicted, how the Regents did hire an investigator (even though that's been proven incorrect) and that you've done such a spectacular job of scooping this story and proving that everybody involved at the U of I is part of some huge coverup.

It funny how your denials don't match with reality. I could give example after example of your denials of facts.
1. No Pugh was on the team, all reports of him leaving were wrong
2. No, the players would not be indicted, they did nothing wrong
3. No, the Regents would never get involved, it wasn't in the minutes. Not sure what minutes you read, but they must have talked about it somewhere.
4. No, Regents have no power whatsoever in all of this. If that is the case, why should UI even bother to respond?
I could go on, but it is you who is ranting on about your beloved Hawkeyes.
Do you even acknowledge there are have been a few arrests there in the past year. Or is it all just a big mistake?

[SouthernHawk]

Originally Posted by ketelmeister

It funny how your denials don't match with reality. I could give example after example of your denials of facts.
1. No Pugh was on the team, all reports of him leaving were wrong
2. No, the players would not be indicted, they did nothing wrong
3. No, the Regents would never get involved, it wasn't in the minutes. Not sure what minutes you read, but they must have talked about it somewhere.
4. No, Regents have no power whatsoever in all of this. If that is the case, why should UI even bother to respond?
I could go on, but it is you who is ranting on about your beloved Hawkeyes.
Do you even acknowledge there are have been a few arrests there in the past year. Or is it all just a big mistake?

I'd like you to find my posts for 2-4. I did say the Pugh was still on the team (irrelevant to this conversation) because he registered for spring classes and was expected to return.

But I did not say that the players would not be indicted, or that the Regents would be 100% out of it (right now, all they are involved with is asking questions, which is what they are supposed to do), etc...

But please, I would be interested in seeing where I claimed that the players would not be arrested/indicted, or that the Regents wouldn't ask the U of I questions. In fact, while you're at it, please provide where you posted that the Regents would ask the U of I officials for an oral report. I'm interested in seeing these posts.

[Steve]

Originally Posted by SouthernHawk

1.) I never once said that they would not get indicted
2.) I never said that the Regents wouldn't ask questions
3.) They have not hired an investigator (per the article linked above, it says that they are asking the university for details)
4.) You have completely misread what I have said in the past.

Fact: The Regents did not force Barta to hire an assistant (or KF). Remember, I actually called Barta, and he can be quoted in saying that this was an idea they were tossing around months before you talked to the Regents

Fact: The Regents are asking for a timeline of events. They will get one. Like most high profile case, they should be interested in the timeline of events. That is hardly hiring an investigator and forcing the U of I to give out information they haven't given out already, which brings me to my next...

Fact: The U of I has already given rather detailed information about the timeline of events, and will give details to the Regents. Since this is an oral report (per the link above), this is hardly a "tough grilling" of University staff

Fact: Authorities, lawyers, and even anti-rape activists have come out and publicly said that the U of I and the Iowa athletic department has handled this wonderfully

Fact: What you have been saying since Day 1 is that there is some sort of coverup. It now appears that the Regents are asking for an oral report of the timeline, and are not hiring an investigator (or that again, would have been public information, and the media would have included that in their article).

And finally, if the Regents hadn't asked for some sort of information on the subject, I'd be a little worried. I do find it somewhat comical that at this point, if the Regents so much as utter a word about this case publicly, you get all excited and claim that you've been right all along.

If it turns out there was a coverup, they hired an investigator, and they publicly thank the U of I for hiring a new assistant at their request, then you can brag about being right. But until then, it's your biased opinion against common public knowledge.

Anyways, I expect when I get back tonight I'll see some long winded post claiming how I did say they wouldn't ever be indicted, how the Regents did hire an investigator (even though that's been proven incorrect) and that you've done such a spectacular job of scooping this story and proving that everybody involved at the U of I is part of some huge coverup.

When I read the article, I sure didn't arrive at the same "facts" that you did. The key point is that it mentions that the Regent President will present an oral report to the Regents based on information provided by the "Regent's staff". I wouldn't be so quick to conclude that the term staff doesn't involve outside investigators. In fact, if it does, this is exactly how the information would typically be released. The article doesn't say anything about the upcoming oral report being based on details released by the U of I.

[ketelmeister]

Originally Posted by SouthernHawk

I'd like you to find my posts for 2-4. I did say the Pugh was still on the team (irrelevant to this conversation) because he registered for spring classes and was expected to return.

But I did not say that the players would not be indicted, or that the Regents would be 100% out of it (right now, all they are involved with is asking questions, which is what they are supposed to do), etc...

But please, I would be interested in seeing where I claimed that the players would not be arrested/indicted, or that the Regents wouldn't ask the U of I questions. In fact, while you're at it, please provide where you posted that the Regents would ask the U of I officials for an oral report. I'm interested in seeing these posts.

I started going through your mass of posts to confirm what I wrote. The sheer number of false claims, distortions and illogic would fill a thesis. Just keep watching the newspaper stories to confirm what I've been saying. Oh ya, and Go Hawks!

[hawkeye_t]

Originally Posted by ketelmeister

It funny how your denials don't match with reality. I could give example after example of your denials of facts.
1. No Pugh was on the team, all reports of him leaving were wrong
2. No, the players would not be indicted, they did nothing wrong
3. No, the Regents would never get involved, it wasn't in the minutes. Not sure what minutes you read, but they must have talked about it somewhere.
4. No, Regents have no power whatsoever in all of this. If that is the case, why should UI even bother to respond?
I could go on, but it is you who is ranting on about your beloved Hawkeyes.
Do you even acknowledge there are have been a few arrests there in the past year. Or is it all just a big mistake?

I would like to defend SH here on #1. There were rumors that Jevon Pugh was leaving school. It was then reported, and confimed by KF and the spring two deeps that Jevon Pugh was indeed returning to the Hawks. It was not until Pugh went back to Florida for Spring Break that he finally decided he was not coming back. Do you care to discuss the Soup Campbell/Carl Jackson statement?