One of the pieces of the investigation revolves around troubled former Huskies tight end Jerramy Stevens, who had several off-field problems with the law -- including a rape allegation and reckless driving conviction -- yet wasn't held accountable.

"There are some things I could have done differently," Neuheisel said. "In Jeremy's case, I should've been harder on him after the reckless driving incident. I should have sent a message."

As for the Stevens rape allegations: "I listened to our athletic director (Barbara Hedges) on how best to proceed. There's a proper (legal) code of conduct there. In retrospect, considering what happened with the Duke case, it's easy to say someone is guilty. I am not claiming guilt or innocence -- we simply had to follow the proper code of conduct."

As for the rest of the series: "Most of that stuff happened before I got there," Neuheisel says.

Neuheisel says he refused comment to the Times on the investigation because he still feels the newspaper has a personal vendetta against him. He told me the same thing four years ago when I went to Seattle to write about his lawsuit against the NCAA and Washington.

Still, I was skeptical about the "vendetta" Neuheisel claimed. Then I read the Times series, and more shocking, the response from executive editor David Boardman in addressing questions from readers. One of the questions: Was this series timed to hurt UW football recruiting ...?

Boardman's answer was, "...We did not intend to impact UW recruiting one way or another, though in retrospect the story seems more likely to hurt recruiting by UCLA, where Neuheisel is the new coach, than it does at (Washington)."

That response was published Sunday, Feb. 3 -- three days before National Signing Day.

Let me explain something, everyone: This is the executive editor of a major newspaper; the only higher authority at the Times is the publisher. The paper gets its direction, its philosophy, from the editor.

That response takes on more of an anti-Neuheisel spin after you read the reaction Ted Miller had to the Times' recent series on Washington. Miller is currently a columnist for the Seattle Press-Intelligencer, the competing paper in the city. The Times took a veiled shot at Miller, the P-I reporter assigned to cover the Huskies in 2000, and a story he had written about another Washington player, Jeremy Pharms.

In his take, Miller finally responded. Miller notes that the Times twisted the words from his original story, claiming he had "raised a series of questions that suggested Pharms might be innocent." In actuality, Miller's story said Pharms' case was "a question not of innocence but of degree of guilt."

Miller asserts that the Times' presentation of facts indicates they slanted coverage, as well as placed the majority of the blame on Neuheisel.

At the very least, two sides of the story give some semblance of balance. In no way am I trying to shield Neuheisel from blame; he obviously deserves criticism because -- like it or not, fair or not -- the coach is ultimately accountable. Even he says as much.

But when the editor of a major newspaper -- an editor with a graduate degree from Washington, no less -- says the series could affect UCLA recruiting, it exposes the core of the investigation.

Was Rick Neuheisel an angel during his time at Washington? Of course not.

Was the series fair? You decide.