Steve Alford new coach at UCLA

From the article


Reporter question:
“You’ve talked a lot about coach (John) Wooden and how he’s shaped you and (how you try to follow) his values. Do you think he would have the Pierre Pierce case the way you did. And in 2003 you gave an interview in which you said the whole Pierce episode made Pierre stronger. Do you think the whole episode made the victim stronger?”
Alford answer:
“Well, that was an instance that happened years ago at the University of Iowa and all I can tell you with that situation is I followed everything that the University of Iowa administration and the lawyers that were hired, I did everything I was supposed to do at the University of Iowa in that situation. I followed everything that I was told to do.”
 
From the article


Reporter question:
“You’ve talked a lot about coach (John) Wooden and how he’s shaped you and (how you try to follow) his values. Do you think he would have the Pierre Pierce case the way you did. And in 2003 you gave an interview in which you said the whole Pierce episode made Pierre stronger. Do you think the whole episode made the victim stronger?”
Alford answer:
“Well, that was an instance that happened years ago at the University of Iowa and all I can tell you with that situation is I followed everything that the University of Iowa administration and the lawyers that were hired, I did everything I was supposed to do at the University of Iowa in that situation. I followed everything that I was told to do.”

What an *******
 
From the article


Reporter question:
“You’ve talked a lot about coach (John) Wooden and how he’s shaped you and (how you try to follow) his values. Do you think he would have the Pierre Pierce case the way you did. And in 2003 you gave an interview in which you said the whole Pierce episode made Pierre stronger. Do you think the whole episode made the victim stronger?”
Alford answer:
“Well, that was an instance that happened years ago at the University of Iowa and all I can tell you with that situation is I followed everything that the University of Iowa administration and the lawyers that were hired, I did everything I was supposed to do at the University of Iowa in that situation. I followed everything that I was told to do.”


I re-read the report that Bernstein linked,the official University report,and it seems to go to great pains to insulate SA somewhat from any direct responsibility. For instance, on his insensitive comments, they indicate that Bowlsby told him to support PP in his comments,but then indicated that SA was too obtuse to understand not to cast aspertions on the allegations made by the victim,as he did. They say he mis-understood the instructions from BB. And of course,they do not accuse SA directly of orchestrating the Goodrich meeting with the victim....and both BB and SA have denied they knew about this meeting.
And the University does not dispute that denial.

Bottom line, if you read the report carefully, it does not really accuse SA of wrongdoing beyond misunderstanding the instructions from BB.

B & B are saying that SA flatly lied to the LA press by saying he did what the lawyers and his superiors instructed and are expecting Iowa to come out and refute what SA said? Total BS. Yellow journalism by B & B,but they do not care...just their opinion,and public figures cannot sue for slander.

Bernstein just said that there were more protestors outside Iowa games than in the arena to watch the team......were there over 10k protestors outside? Typical hyperbole from this scumbag.
 
I re-read the report that Bernstein linked,the official University report,and it seems to go to great pains to insulate SA somewhat from any direct responsibility. For instance, on his insensitive comments, they indicate that Bowlsby told him to support PP in his comments,but then indicated that SA was too obtuse to understand not to cast aspertions on the allegations made by the victim,as he did. They say he mis-understood the instructions from BB. And of course,they do not accuse SA directly of orchestrating the Goodrich meeting with the victim....and both BB and SA have denied they knew about this meeting.
And the University does not dispute that denial.

Bottom line, if you read the report carefully, it does not really accuse SA of wrongdoing beyond misunderstanding the instructions from BB.

B & B are saying that SA flatly lied to the LA press by saying he did what the lawyers and his superiors instructed and are expecting Iowa to come out and refute what SA said? Total BS. Yellow journalism by B & B,but they do not care...just their opinion,and public figures cannot sue for slander.

Bernstein just said that there were more protestors outside Iowa games than in the arena to watch the team......were there over 10k protestors outside? Typical hyperbole from this scumbag.

Hi Steve! How is UCLA? Pretty warm and sunny out there why are you wasting your time on an Iowa message board.

Say Hi to Tanya for me.

thanks
 
Hi Steve! How is UCLA? Pretty warm and sunny out there why are you wasting your time on an Iowa message board.

Say Hi to Tanya for me.

thanks


Nah, not SA. Just someone that can read,and did read the report. Unlike some on here.
 
I re-read the report that Bernstein linked,the official University report,and it seems to go to great pains to insulate SA somewhat from any direct responsibility. For instance, on his insensitive comments, they indicate that Bowlsby told him to support PP in his comments,but then indicated that SA was too obtuse to understand not to cast aspertions on the allegations made by the victim,as he did. They say he mis-understood the instructions from BB. And of course,they do not accuse SA directly of orchestrating the Goodrich meeting with the victim....and both BB and SA have denied they knew about this meeting.
And the University does not dispute that denial.

Bottom line, if you read the report carefully, it does not really accuse SA of wrongdoing beyond misunderstanding the instructions from BB.

B & B are saying that SA flatly lied to the LA press by saying he did what the lawyers and his superiors instructed and are expecting Iowa to come out and refute what SA said? Total BS. Yellow journalism by B & B,but they do not care...just their opinion,and public figures cannot sue for slander.

Bernstein just said that there were more protestors outside Iowa games than in the arena to watch the team......were there over 10k protestors outside? Typical hyperbole from this scumbag.

After reading your post, I feel like I need to take a shower after all the crap you just threw out. Goodness, you should be Stevie's public relations director!

I'm sure BB and the administration told him to say, "I think Pierre is completely innocent!" or "This will make Pierre a stronger person" or all the other ridiculous comments he made.
 
JHHawk, so U of I and/or their lawyers told Alford to seek out an outside source in an attempt to shut the victim up?

If I was an attorney for the U of I or an administrator I would be hot reading Alfords comments. Alford is basically saying he did everything he was told to do, in other words, blame the University of Iowa and their Lawyers for what happened. A little case of defamation?

He is a complete scumbag, and now proven himself to be a liar.
 
If you read the official report,they do not accuse SA of orchestrating the meeting between Goodrich and the victim. If they had evidence of that, he could have been fired,with no payout. BB and SA denied any knowledge of the Goodrich meeting until afterward when they told him to not do that.

Again, in the report,they say that BB did instruct SA to support PP in his comments....not making that up, read the report. They said that SA was too obtuse to understand that he should not be insensitive to the victim in those comments supporting PP. SA was a bungling hick, no doubt, and he misspoke horrendously,but the report does indicate that BB told him directly to show support for PP in his comments to the media.

I am not defending SA or anyone in authority like BB or Jones,but they all screwed it up royally,not just SA. The report says as much.
 
Most Iowa fans were outraged by the PP incident. It looks more and more like they were completely justified.

Now I wonder about who hurt the Iowa BB program the most: Stevie Alfraud or Todd Lickliter. At least Lick was a nice guy.
 
Not SA, just maybe his very last defender. Oh, you forgot to mention seven consecutive winning seasons.
 
Not SA, just maybe his very last defender. Oh, you forgot to mention seven consecutive winning seasons.


Citing the report and its conclusions is defending SA? Sorry,but I still believe that facts matter,and am not into a mob mentality thing of making up stuff and throwing it on the radio as fact.
But,hey, you hate him,so go ahead and pin the JFK assassination on him also. After all,he is the root of all evil,right?
 
Citing the report and its conclusions is defending SA? Sorry,but I still believe that facts matter,and am not into a mob mentality thing of making up stuff and throwing it on the radio as fact.
But,hey, you hate him,so go ahead and pin the JFK assassination on him also. After all,he is the root of all evil,right?

I seriously cannot believe you are defending that AHole.
 
jerry crawford is on kxno talking about how iowa and bowlsby handled it well, and alford was the main problem.
 
If you read the official report,they do not accuse SA of orchestrating the meeting between Goodrich and the victim. If they had evidence of that, he could have been fired,with no payout. BB and SA denied any knowledge of the Goodrich meeting until afterward when they told him to not do that.

Again, in the report,they say that BB did instruct SA to support PP in his comments....not making that up, read the report. They said that SA was too obtuse to understand that he should not be insensitive to the victim in those comments supporting PP. SA was a bungling hick, no doubt, and he misspoke horrendously,but the report does indicate that BB told him directly to show support for PP in his comments to the media.

I am not defending SA or anyone in authority like BB or Jones,but they all screwed it up royally,not just SA. The report says as much.

Why would the head FCA person (Goodrich) organize a random meeting with the victim? He did this because Steve is a big Christian and set up the meeting. Can you honestly think of any reason that Goodrich would take it upon himself to organize a meeting with the victim? And it just so happened that Steve showed up to the meeting? I don't think that was by chance.

Steve was looking out for himself in the whole scandal. I think if Pierce served no purpose to him he would have just bailed on Pierce. He knew he needed Pierce to have his best team so he backed Pierce.

There are far too many stories about Alford around Iowa City to think that he is some nice guy or some bumbling idiot like you stated. He is not an idiot, he is all about himself and will do anything to sereve his best interest.
 
All he had to do is show a little contrition, a little humility. Instead, the Nuremberg defense.

He also looked unprepared for the question. Shoulders slumped, looking down.

Epic fail. Nice start, Steve.
 
Why would the head FCA person (Goodrich) organize a random meeting with the victim? He did this because Steve is a big Christian and set up the meeting. Can you honestly think of any reason that Goodrich would take it upon himself to organize a meeting with the victim? And it just so happened that Steve showed up to the meeting? I don't think that was by chance.

Note also that Goodrich issued that statement afterwards claiming the victim contacted them first. The victim insisted they initiated contact, and the investigation report sides with her.
 
Citing the report and its conclusions is defending SA? Sorry,but I still believe that facts matter,and am not into a mob mentality thing of making up stuff and throwing it on the radio as fact.
But,hey, you hate him,so go ahead and pin the JFK assassination on him also. After all,he is the root of all evil,right?

Dude, don't even try. These proles have made their minds up about Alford. Of course, they also convicted the Duke Lacrosse Team on no facts. They can't be reasoned with.
 
If you read the official report,they do not accuse SA of orchestrating the meeting between Goodrich and the victim. If they had evidence of that, he could have been fired,with no payout. BB and SA denied any knowledge of the Goodrich meeting until afterward when they told him to not do that.

Again, in the report,they say that BB did instruct SA to support PP in his comments....not making that up, read the report. They said that SA was too obtuse to understand that he should not be insensitive to the victim in those comments supporting PP. SA was a bungling hick, no doubt, and he misspoke horrendously,but the report does indicate that BB told him directly to show support for PP in his comments to the media.

I am not defending SA or anyone in authority like BB or Jones,but they all screwed it up royally,not just SA. The report says as much.

You are so far off base that it isn't even funny.

First of all, you don't get to the position Steve is by being a "bumbling hick". He knew exactly what he was doing.....which is to say he was protecting his own a$$ and his prized athlete.

The guy protected a sexual predator, pure and simple. He raped her so badly that she had bruising and lacerations on her rectum and her vagina. Anyone who defends that or brings into question the victim's statements before a trial or before all the facts come out is not stupid....they're just evil.
 
Top