cibula11
Well-Known Member
No...they'd call him up and reprimand him first...but then again, halfway through the call Matt would probably disconnect it...
Fair point.......as someone named Matt would say.
No...they'd call him up and reprimand him first...but then again, halfway through the call Matt would probably disconnect it...
Fair point.......as someone named Matt would say.
No...they'd call him up and reprimand him first...but then again, halfway through the call Matt would probably disconnect it...
Quick, name all them who knew what DJK was doing...
Don't forget the part where Van "texts" him F U P. afterwards.
who cares? at the crux of the matter is saying something that you don't know for absolute 100% certain to be true.
How you would know I have never been in a locker room must come from the point that I disagree with you. Whatever gets you thought the night. You know nothing about me and I think its highly irresponsible to throw that at the wall and see if it sticks.
My point is, I would be the guy taking DJK aside and saying you want to F*** things up for yourself that's your business. But when it has the possibility to affect me or the rest of the team, yeah not going to happen. How do you think the locker room is right about now?
Front page of espn
Iowa discovers 'flaws' in drug-testing program
That's sure going to do some good for us. You want to discuss the actual topic at hand feel free, or you can waste time imagining my personal life and background.
What if I said some of the players, for example Stanzi, Clayborn, and Sash should have known.
Then what if I said Stanzi, Clayborn, and Sash, you know, some of the players? Should have known.
Then what if I said some of the players should have known. Some of our players are Stanzi, Clayborn, and Sash.
Then what if I said some of our players are stanzi, Clayborn, and sash. Some of our players should have known.
Are those statements out of line because they have specific names in them? You're not taking anything in context.
I'm guessing you're being sarcastic?
What if I said some of the players, for example Stanzi, Clayborn, and Sash should have known.
Then what if I said Stanzi, Clayborn, and Sash, you know, some of the players? Should have known.
Then what if I said some of the players should have known. Some of our players are Stanzi, Clayborn, and Sash.
Then what if I said some of our players are stanzi, Clayborn, and sash. Some of our players should have known.
Are those statements out of line because they have specific names in them? You're not taking anything in context.
Rob was right. Matt was wrong.
And Howe took him to the woodshed.
Done.
Don't forget the part where Van "texts" him F U P. afterwards.
There's a difference between those statements, and what Perrault said.
A parable to show the difference:
"One of the guys in the room is The Ripper: Adam, Carl, Ken, Will, Jack, etc."
"Jack is The Ripper."
See the difference?
Rob was right. Matt was wrong.
And Howe took him to the woodshed.
Done.
Thats not what he did though. He basically used Stanzi to represent "a player" or "another player". He could have said Joe Moore instead of Stanzi and no one would have given 2 *****.
You just talk like someone that's never been in a locker room. Feel free to correct me.
You point to ESPN's article as proof that someone should have snitched on DJK. It's just not the way it is, and you again, come off as Captain Hindsight. To think ANYBODY would think someone's extra curricular activities would lead to this is ludicrous.
Thats not what he did though. He basically used Stanzi to represent "a player" or "another player". He could have said Joe Moore instead of Stanzi and no one would have given 2 *****.
I havent read this whole thread so maybe this has been covered
Who cares if Stanzi knew? Its idiotic of Perrault to expect a player to turn in another teammate. This would not happen, they might try to change his ways but turn him in? cmon
Has he ever been on a sports team?