More Hubbard info coming to light?

[SwirlinLingerie]

I've got a feeling he will be here a long time and this will be far from his greatest mistake as Hawkeye coach.

I do, too. And if he is here a long time, this situation will be forgotten before long. But it is clearly his greatest mistake as Hawkeye coach up to this point in his tenure (perhaps his only real mistake, too).

 

[Wassabbe]

So the coaches and/or administration knew of this and decided to keep it a secret? Highly unlikely they cover up an actual crime and create a whole different story regarding his complete release.

Who said they are covering up a crime? He could have gotten into an incident where no charges were pressed but the staff said that was his 1 strike and that he was gone. No reason for the University to comment on it if there was no charges pressed.

In the article that Duff pats his back on, a random source says there was an incident 2 weeks ago. Same thing I have been hearing (from my crazy 21 year old bar buddies!!! right duff? )

 

[DwayneTwill]

I don't know if this is true, but it makes a lot of sense to me.

I don't buy the having a drink story based on what Barta said at his press conference a month ago.

Barta said at the press conference there was were no special requirements for Hubbard, he had the same requirements as any other student athlete.

Barta wouldn't lie about something like this, he would have no reason too. That means having a beer downtown would be okay.

Now if he did get in a argument or assault a women, it would be zero tolerance for him, for others it probably would not be.

If Barta said that, he was lying. It'd be ridiculous if there weren't higher expectations for Hubbard.

 

[DuffMan]

I don't know if this is true, but it makes a lot of sense to me.

I don't buy the having a drink story based on what Barta said at his press conference a month ago.

Barta said at the press conference there was were no special requirements for Hubbard, he had the same requirements as any other student athlete.

Barta wouldn't lie about something like this, he would have no reason too. That means having a beer downtown would be okay.

Now if he did get in a argument or assault a women, it would be zero tolerance for him, for others it probably would not be.

Yes, becasue we all know it would be no ramifications for players not named Anthony Hubbard to assault a woman. WTF.

Christ alive people, do you even think about what you right? A third string freshman offensive lineman can't fart in church in this town without the media in this town being all over it, and you think it's logical that Hubbard was accused/investigated of a crime yet we aren't hearing or seeing anything about it in the papers?

I guarantee you if Hubbard was guilty of breaking any codes outside the internal ones set by Iowa that it would be all over the place. The officers investigating would have leaked it, there would be public record of it, and there would be articles all over the place.

 

[tm3308]

The concerns that Hubbard was set up for failure or given too short of a leash blow my mind. Guys, this was a convicted felon. Convicted felons give up all kinds of rights that we take for granted. Upon their release from prison, they re-enter society with an asterisk. A convicted felon doesn't have the same status and legal rights as the rest of us.

Given that status, Anthony Hubbard should have counted his blessings every single night that he was offered a full ride scholarship to a solid academic institution. Staying out of a bar for two years (hypothetically) in exchange for the scholarship was the best deal he'll ever be offered. Whatever the conditions of the deal, he'll never find a better one as a convicted felon.

Actually, they do. It's not the law that limits what convicted felons can do 4 years after their release. It's people who judge them based on their record (which in many cases is one incident). That's part of the reason that so many ex-cons end up back in prison, because they struggle to get a decent job after release.

The reason that prisons are called CORRECTIONAL facilities is because prison sentences (in most cases) are supposed to correct or rehabilitate inmates, not just to punish them. That way, when they get out, they can (hopefully) successfully re-enter society. The law doesn't restrict the rights of a man like Hubbard, at least not after their parole is over.

Actually, a good test theory for this: Casey Anthony. As someone who was NOT convicted of a felony, she has the same legal rights as you or I do. You think that society is going to stand for it if she actually gets those rights? That there are many (if any) companies that will be willing to hire her? PEOPLE can very easily end up deciding what you get in life, rather than the LAW.

 

[HawkMD2007]

So the coaches and/or administration knew of this and decided to keep it a secret? Highly unlikely they cover up an actual crime and create a whole different story regarding his complete release.

Amen to that....

Signed Cedric E. and Pierre P.

Let's get real. All you will get is the "party-line" from the coaches and University. A lot of the information we want to know can not be legally shared.

 

[DuffMan]

Jon being mum doesn't mean much. He is an official source type of guy.

I know he is, and the fact that nobody close to the program is willing to go "on the record" with anything, and the fact that no body has, speaks volumes about how Fran wants this ship run.

I just think thats more interesting than the actual Hubbard speculation. No peep from Harty, or Hlas, or Dochterman, or Miller, or Howe, or.... anyoneone other than Jim Ecker who probably has the least to lose out of everyone I've just mentioned. His primary goal in life is to cover CR Metro HS stuff, why does he care if someone cuts him off the Iowa BBall info pipeline?

 

[DuffMan]

Actually, they do. It's not the law that limits what convicted felons can do 4 years after their release. It's people who judge them based on their record (which in many cases is one incident). That's part of the reason that so many ex-cons end up back in prison, because they struggle to get a decent job after release.

The reason that prisons are called CORRECTIONAL facilities is because prison sentences (in most cases) are supposed to correct or rehabilitate inmates, not just to punish them. That way, when they get out, they can (hopefully) successfully re-enter society. The law doesn't restrict the rights of a man like Hubbard, at least not after their parole is over.

Sure it does. He can't serve his country, in many states he can't vote, or legally carry a firearm, or say "No" on a job application when asked if they are a felon.... there are lots of restriction ex cons face even when off paper.

 

[tm3308]

Sure it does. He can't serve his country, in many states he can't vote, or legally carry a firearm, or say "No" on a job application when asked if they are a felon.... there are lots of restriction ex cons face even when off paper.

And employers aren't supposed to turn down applicants based solely on the fact that they did time, when that person is the most qualified. Otherwise, what would be the point of an ex-con applying at all? That's where PEOPLE make the decision to restrict what an ex-con can and can't do. And plenty of ex-cons get passed over for less qualified applicants.

 

[Stiles]

Yes, becasue we all know it would be no ramifications for players not named Anthony Hubbard to assault a woman. WTF.

Christ alive people, do you even think about what you right? A third string freshman offensive lineman can't fart in church in this town without the media in this town being all over it, and you think it's logical that Hubbard was accused/investigated of a crime yet we aren't hearing or seeing anything about it in the papers?

I guarantee you if Hubbard was guilty of breaking any codes outside the internal ones set by Iowa that it would be all over the place. The officers investigating would have leaked it, there would be public record of it, and there would be articles all over the place.

Do you think about what you right? People get in arguments, assault/battery others (as simple as a push) everyday, that are never investigated as crimes. Why do you assume this case would have to be?

I never said an assault or potential assault (not reported to police) wouldn't get another player in trouble, I said it probably wouldn't get them dismissed, if they had no prior issues.

My point is, Barta said there was no code. Why would he say that if there was? Nobody would think it was wrong to have additional requirements. All Barta would of had to say is Anthony has agreed to certain internal requirements and there is a zero tolerance policy.

Don't act like your smarter/more cleaver than anyone else Duff, trust me, your not.

 

[Stiles]

If Barta said that, he was lying. It'd be ridiculous if there weren't higher expectations for Hubbard.

I agree there should have been higher expectations and I am sure it was zero tolerance for any issue, however you have no reason to call Barta a liar.

 

[PalmettoHawkFan]

You should be ashamed of letting a kid like that who it sounds like his only hope of doing anything in life was based on his track skills go.

You don't let kid's like that go, you embrace them and stick by there side to show them that people care.

SHAME ON YOU.

Way off topic, but I'll follow -- the kid in question graduated high school. 4 schools in 4 years, and the program I coached in wasn't the only one he washed out of. He was far from ruined in life -- but he made choices that denied him an athletic scholarship.

The other kids and their parents were looking at how we managed that kid. Would we bend rules for him? Would we go back on our original "one strike and you're out" deal? Would we let him hang out with his old crowd and still run?

In the 15 years I've been teaching and coaching, I've found that the best way to embrace and stick by a kid is to maintain firm, fair boundaries and to enforce them. The fair part comes from everybody agreeing to the conditions, and for everyone to agree that nothing is too soft or too harsh. Almost all of the problem kids I've taught and coached haven't had reasonable limits put on them at home -- either way too soft or way too firm. You earn their respect by taking down the middle and consistently keeping it there. Love=limits.

 

[PalmettoHawkFan]

As for Hubbard, why worry about what "the truth" is? The truth is he left. Leave the conspiracy theories for the non-sports wackos on the internet.

 

[hawkIhoops]

Let's hope all parties involved learned a few lessons here. McCaffrey (hopefully) will not stick his head in a noose publicly again for a troubled kid with a line of BS a mile long. If he ever floats such an idea to Barta again, he should be required to give a week's pay to a charity. Lunacy on all sides in this deal and at the end of the day we are left with questions, rumors, disappointment and no Hubbard.

I expect that we will hear more about Hubbard in the not too distant future and I don't think it will be that he has decided to take up knitting. From a glass half full perspective, I am glad he washed out early, as McCaffrey would have been torched publicly if this kid got into some domestic / legal trouble down the road. Not a matter of if, but when.

 

[DwayneTwill]

I agree there should have been higher expectations and I am sure it was zero tolerance for any issue, however you have no reason to call Barta a liar.

If it *was* zero tolerance, then there were special requirements in place.

 

[tm3308]

Way off topic, but I'll follow -- the kid in question graduated high school. 4 schools in 4 years, and the program I coached in wasn't the only one he washed out of. He was far from ruined in life -- but he made choices that denied him an athletic scholarship.

The other kids and their parents were looking at how we managed that kid. Would we bend rules for him? Would we go back on our original "one strike and you're out" deal? Would we let him hang out with his old crowd and still run?

In the 15 years I've been teaching and coaching, I've found that the best way to embrace and stick by a kid is to maintain firm, fair boundaries and to enforce them. The fair part comes from everybody agreeing to the conditions, and for everyone to agree that nothing is too soft or too harsh. Almost all of the problem kids I've taught and coached haven't had reasonable limits put on them at home -- either way too soft or way too firm. You earn their respect by taking down the middle and consistently keeping it there. Love=limits.

Overall, I agree with you, but in this particular case I think you were too harsh. I can get telling him that if he keeps hanging out with the wrong crowd, he's gone. Skips class, he's gone. And that if he's caught drinking or something like that, he's gone. But being late to one practice? That's hardly the sign of someone who isn't an upstanding citizen (which you said is what you expected of him). Good kids, hell great kids are probably late to at least one practice in their career. That doesn't change the fact that they are good/great kids.

 

[DuffMan]

Do you think about what you right? People get in arguments, assault/battery others (as simple as a push) everyday, that are never investigated as crimes. Why do you assume this case would have to be?

I never said an assault or potential assault (not reported to police) wouldn't get another player in trouble, I said it probably wouldn't get them dismissed, if they had no prior issues.

My point is, Barta said there was no code. Why would he say that if there was? Nobody would think it was wrong to have additional requirements. All Barta would of had to say is Anthony has agreed to certain internal requirements and there is a zero tolerance policy.

Don't act like your smarter/more cleaver than anyone else Duff, trust me, your not.

It's the number one rule of arguing on the internet, if you can't argue their point, argue their grammar. It's kind of like bringing up the academics of a school when arguing about their sports programs, it's basically admitting you've lost.

 

[DexterMorgan]

I don't know if this is true, but it makes a lot of sense to me.

I don't buy the having a drink story based on what Barta said at his press conference a month ago.

Barta said at the press conference there was were no special requirements for Hubbard, he had the same requirements as any other student athlete.

Barta wouldn't lie about something like this, he would have no reason too. That means having a beer downtown would be okay.

Now if he did get in a argument or assault a women, it would be zero tolerance for him, for others it probably would not be.

I don't believe that for a second.

 

[Stiles]

It's the number one rule of arguing on the internet, if you can't argue their point, argue their grammar. It's kind of like bringing up the academics of a school when arguing about their sports programs, it's basically admitting you've lost.

You insult me and my post, then you criticize me for doing it back? You are funny.

You have not addressed anything that I posted as an opinion in my original post. Barta said there were no restrictions.

Just because you say you won doesn't mean you have.

I never claimed to say I know what happened. I just repeated what Barta said, and made conclusions based off that and other posters comments.

You have no evidence to support there were requirements, which would make Barta a liar.

 

[DuffMan]

You insult me and my post, then you criticize me for doing it back? You are funny.

You have not addressed anything that I posted as an opinion in my original post. Barta said there were no restrictions.

Just because you say you won doesn't mean you have.

I never claimed to say I know what happened. I just repeated what Barta said, and made conclusions based off that and other posters comments.

You have no evidence to support there were requirements, which would make Barta a liar.

I didn't insult you, I criticized what you said.

On one hand you said it made sense for you that Hubbard was kicked off the team after assaulting a woman, essentially saying that Barta and the adminisatration lied through thier teeth in the initial release as well as being party to some cover up. Then on the other hand you said you didn't buy the special rules for hubbard because it would mean that Barta had lied.

I find that pretty contradictory and outright laughable.

Again do you honestly think a 26 year old ex con with a well known past would be able to get into an altercation with a woman (or anyone else) and have that altercation be known to the UI (and presumably the athorities) WIHTOUT attracting the attention of any of the local media, or at the very least a large percentage of people connected with the program?

I find that utterly rediculous, and I question the judgment of anyone who doesn't also find it rediculous.