Medlock hour ...

by Nestor on Apr 11, 2006 5:46 AM PDT in Football Comment 35 comments

Some good news. Dorrell reinstated Justin Medlock to the football team yesterday after the court gave him probation for his involvement in a DUI back in December:

UCLA kicker Justin Medlock was sentenced to three years' probation Monday after pleading guilty to a misdemeanor drunk-driving charge.

Inglewood Superior Court Judge Rodney Forneret also ordered Medlock, 22, to perform five days of work for the California Department of Transportation and undergo a nine-month alcohol education program as a result of a Dec. 10 accident that injured Hannah Jun, a member of UCLA's women's golf team.

The next day, Coach Karl Dorrell suspended Medlock, who did not play in the Bruins' 50-38 victory over Northwestern in the Sun Bowl and sat out UCLA's spring drills.

After Monday's sentencing, Dorrell reinstated Medlock.

As you may recall - KD suspended Medlock for the Sun Bowl immediately after receiving the news that he was involved in a DUI. It was a good move. A move which stood in stark contrast to Pom Pom from cross town who never suspended his freshmen LB for assaulting other students on campus parties. The message is simple - gangbanging, potsmoking, gun-brandishing, thuggery in general - is accepted and embraced at USC, while those kind of behavior will never be tolerated at UCLA. We have different standards in Westwood.

Anyways it's welcome news that Medlock is back. He should be one of the premier college kickers going into next season. Just another reason we feel that it's reasonable to execpt Dorrell and his staff to come up with 9 wins and beat SC.

GO BRUINS.

0 recs | Comment 35 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

If By Different Standards...

you mean we slap our players on the wrist by not letting them play in a mediocre bowl game, then sure, we have different standards.

So much for our moral victory of being a team with stand up kids, especially against the "rape accused" and "babies thrown in dumpsters" trojans.

by dbthree on Apr 11, 2006 10:34 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Uhm David ...

We are not celebrating any moral victory here. Just pointing out an obvious contrast. That is all.

Pom Pom over at USC is running a program that will make Fulmer proud. And we will continue to point that out because ESPN is sure not going to talk about it.

All this post was about pointing out an obvious contrast. That is all. Not sure what your retort is all about. It is kind of bizarre snark considering it is comming from a current UCLA student who still has no clue about what it feels like to beat USC.

by Nestor on Apr 11, 2006 10:58 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

ROFL!

So, UCLA's coach reinstates a guy AFTER he pleads guilty to a crime that caused significant injury to another person and you think there is a marked contrast between Dorrell and Carroll?

Maualuga wasn't even charged. So which team will have the criminal playing for it in 2006?

That must be why dbthree is having a hard time swallowing the kool aid.

by Heismanpundit on Apr 11, 2006 3:27 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Hey Asshole ...

Maualuga wasn't even charged because he himself said SC owns the police.

Justin was suspended immediately. And his crime was so henous that the courts put him on probation. If he had gotten more severe punishment from the court - then KD would have imposed more stringent suspensions on him.

Unlike Petey who didn't have the balls to suspend a LB who punched another kid out, assaulted him, and then bragged about how he owned the police. There is no comparison really.

And don't come back here making the excuse how his dad had cancer and use that as a disgusting excuse.

Back to your pathetic little hole of blog asshole.

Later.

by bluestreet on Apr 11, 2006 3:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

"Maualuga wasn't even charged"

And OJ didn't commit double murders so he must not be a criminal.

Typical Trojan delusion.

by Nestor on Apr 11, 2006 3:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Manpundit mocks the justice system

So one man owns up to his mistakes, faces the justice system like a man and accepts responsibility. The other one commits assault and then rants about how he "owns the police". The difference here is Dorrell realizes that he is not the Judge and Jury, and is not in a position to further punish a player after our nations justice system has handed down its sentence, meanwhile Pissant Petey conveniently looks the other way when his players commit assault/rape/what have you.

It's about responsibility and accountability. The fact that you can't see the difference is truly pathetic.

by scittles on Apr 11, 2006 6:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

i dunno

I'm not so sure I see such "stark contrast" in this case. Medlock nearly killed himself and another athelete (who hasn't been able to compete this year) and his punishment from the team was that he had to miss a mediocre bowl game and spring practice. Honestly, when I opened the paper and read the headline, my initial response was "wtf? really?". I dont have a suggestion for what would be more appropriate, but my gut feeling is that this really is just a slap on the wrist, and it makes me feel uneasy about making comparisons between us and suc.

by ranelar on Apr 11, 2006 5:33 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Maualuga...

Should have been suspended, Period!

Should he have been charged or not is a matter for the police. His actions lacked some serious judgement on his part.

It's pointless to try to see which situation was worse. There is no excuse for bad behaviour.

I have a question though, if DG Hired PC and the roles were revesed and UCLA was ruling LA in CFB would there be as much anger going on around here. I mean winning cures all ills. It's easy to take the high road and say no, but winning can be very intoxicating. And it is not my intention to be disrespectful, I'm just curious.

I have no problem with KD reinstating the kid, after all we are in the land of second chances. He will pay his debt to society and move on.

by SOCOM on Apr 11, 2006 5:38 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

FWIW ...

I think KD did a great job in how he handled the Medlock situation. It is one of the few things he did right last season.

by Nestor on Apr 11, 2006 6:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree...

He acted swiftly by suspending him then he waited until the issue was resolved before making his final decision.

by SOCOM on Apr 11, 2006 7:19 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I love it

The whole point here is that this blog routinely jumps the gun in branding players from other teams as thugs and criminals when its own players are just as bad. Hey, what ever happened to the Duke basketball players?

Talk all you want about USC 'owning' the police. Just because Maualuga says so does not make it so.

The reality is that Medlock is a convicted drunkard and criminal and will be suiting up for UCLA next fall. Maualuga was not charged and is clean.

All we do know is that there will be more of this at both schools because that's the nature of things in this day and age.

As I said a long time ago, best not to gloat over the misfortune of others, because it comes back to bite you. I was right on this and will continue to be right. You chose not to heed this and now you have to twist like a pretzel to accept Dorrell's decision.

Hey, it's all very entertaining!

by Heismanpundit on Apr 12, 2006 5:23 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

More delusion ...

We have been on Duke basketball players and the Duke athletic program in general pretty hard.

And you are still missing the basic distincitions betweeen our players and your thugs. Justin made a horrible mistake. He was contrite about it and he was immediately punished accordingly.

Your thugs are going around campus beating up other students, and then bragging about it. There is a basic difference. And if you still cannot see it ... well we will chalk it off to your Trojan idiocy. And no you were not right ... you sounded like a jackass.

And that is even more entertaining.

by Nestor on Apr 12, 2006 5:33 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

HP ..

Shouldn't this asshole be banned from BN?

by bluestreet on Apr 12, 2006 6:58 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

No...

I wouldn't ban HP.

You guys have a good blog here. There are a lot of credible and informative posts. Banning him just looks silly. He is not here often. Nestor said it himself, it's entertaining.

Not everyone is going to agree here regardless of the topic so I would let it go.

by SOCOM on Apr 12, 2006 8:46 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

We will not ban HP ...

and rob our readers from reading examples of Trojan stupidity up close and personal.

by Nestor on Apr 12, 2006 9:01 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I Hope

that "stupidity" doesn't apply to me. I understand my place here.

by SOCOM on Apr 12, 2006 9:08 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Where's the delusion?

I know you have been hard on Duke. The question is whether it is warranted.

Yes, Justin made a horrible mistake. He was contrite and I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that he was sincere about it. But, when you are picked up for a DUI accident, you have really no other choice but to sit back and take what is given to you. Being contrite was the best thing to do to try to get a soft punishment and it worked. In the end, he missed ONE game for seriously injuring a girl and (possibly, it's not clear) fleeing the scene. As you recall, he was found a mile-and-a-half away from the car, looking for help. I know that Manchester off ramp and you don't have to go that far to find a phone.

As for thugs going around beating up students. What is sloppy about that statement is the use of the plural. There was ONE guy who got in a fight with ONE student. Yet, in your world, it becomes thugs beating up students. What other students have USC football players beat up recently?

As for him bragging, I find it funny that he supposedly said he owned the police and yet the police, who tend not to like being called out, didn't press charges. Also, unlike Medlock, Maualuga turned himself in.

I have already brought up the issue with his dying father, but clearly that has no resonance. All you are interested in is scoring points.

by Heismanpundit on Apr 12, 2006 12:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Your delusion ...

lies in even bringing up the comparison between Justin and Ray.

JM had a clean record. His alcohol level was a relatively low .08. Now considering the expected full recovery of the passenger, the reasonable explanation for his leaving the scene, all worked to mitigate the original felony filing down to a misdemeanor.

Justin was contrite. But this is not over for him. In addition to his community service, fines, insurance hikes, civil claim from his passenger, alcohol school, and morgue visitation, he is going to have his hands full. If he's ever popped again, he goes straight to jail. And he already did some time at the beginning. So he is going to learn a thing or two about being accountable.

But how has the SC football program held Ray accountable? Was he suspended a single game? He was not even benched.

And get off this Justin missing one game nonsense.

If he was busted for this back in September, you can bet UCLA would have suspended him until his legal proceedings had resolved the situation.

But of course at USC players never have to face the court because they own the police and they have a lawyer who miraculously keep bailing them out of jail.

And you should be ASHAMED for bringing up Ray's dying father to excuse his behavior. That was one of the most disgraceful posts you have ever written here. Pathetic.

by Nestor on Apr 12, 2006 12:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Now hold on

I was not using his dying father to justify his hitting the guy.

I was using his dying father to justify Carroll not suspending him right away. There is a difference. In other cases--Eric Wright, Winston Justice, etc.--these players were either kicked out of school or missed an entire season. So this notion that Carroll doesn't meet out punishment just isn't true.

Which is why in Maualuga's case, there had to be a reason why Carroll was taking the PR heat for not suspending him. It's pretty clear that PC figured the kid was already having issues with his dad and suspending him was not necessarily the right way to go. As it was, his dad died the day before the Rose Bowl, but got to see his son play before he passed. I think the right decision was made.

Finally, one big difference is that Maualuga wasn't charged. Oh, I know, USC owns the justice system, right? Isn't that just a convenient excuse?

by Heismanpundit on Apr 12, 2006 12:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

You were using his dying father ...

to justify the situation. You can parce it all you want. You did use his dying father in that conversation.

And it was a classless, shameful, and disgusting thing to do.

by Nestor on Apr 12, 2006 12:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Dude

I did not use his dying father to justify him hitting the guy. Not at all.

It's not about parsing, it's about being accurate.

My point in relation to the dad dying was regarding the 'punishment', not the 'crime'. There's a huge difference.

It is classless, shameful and disgusting to think otherwise when you know the opposite is true.

by Heismanpundit on Apr 12, 2006 12:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Again ...

You brought up his dying his father while discussing that incident when he punched another kid out.

It was classless.

by Nestor on Apr 12, 2006 12:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

LOL

So, by 'bringing up' his dying father while 'discussing' the punishment and aftermath of the incident--but not using it in any way to justify the actual incident, that's somehow classless?

Whatever you say, man.

by Heismanpundit on Apr 12, 2006 1:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah it is pretty funny ...

to plop in "LOL" while discussing someone's dying father to justify actions (or lack thereof) stemming from a violent assault which almost cracked the skull open of another human being.

And if you have a problem with not seeing what is so classless and distasteful about it - well then - whatever.

by Nestor on Apr 12, 2006 1:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Very befuddling

Yeah it is pretty funny ...to plop in "LOL" while discussing someone's dying father to justify actions (or lack thereof) stemming from a violent assault which almost cracked the skull open of another human being.

No matter how many times I read that, it still makes no sense.

My 'LOL' was over your refusal to accept my point, not over someone's dying father.

'Almost' cracked a skull open? How do you 'almost' crack a skull open? Is that like 'almost' breaking a golfer's neck?

I have no problem with noting anything that is classless, as long as it is. My wishing something were classless--as you clearly are doing right now--does not make it so.

by Heismanpundit on Apr 12, 2006 1:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Keep trying ..

to thread the needle on why you brought up Ray's dying father in discussing his assaulting over another kid.

Keep doing it. I am sure it is obvious to rest of this community who is behaving like a classless SOB.

by Nestor on Apr 12, 2006 1:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

heismanpundit

Nestor,

There is an old saying "Never argue with a drunk, it's pointless". The same can be said about the rubbers...oops I mean Trojans.

They all live on a planet with their own rules that normal people are not even allowed to visit, much less live there.

I hope his trip back to earth is pleasant.

by artybruin on Apr 12, 2006 1:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

You used his dying father to justify his action

Are you intellectually dishonest, or a baldface liar?

I happen to just think that you are just sooo full of shit that you can't tell the difference anymore. Just a couple months ago you did in fact use Maualuga's dads' cancer as a justification for his violent attack.

I honestly can't believe that you are making light of the fact that Maualuga's dad was dying of cancer at the time. It wasn't that he was just feeling 'emotional' about some random thing. His father was dying. I tell you what: When your father is dying of cancer, I give you one free pass to punch a guy after he insults you. When they call you a thug, a criminal and a wife beater (?), I will be there to defend you.

by Cocoman25 on Apr 12, 2006 1:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Out of context

This was a sarcastic reply to this statement from Norcalbruin:

So next time I'm feeling upset and emotional, I guess the answer is for me to walk up to some guy and punch him in the face. Kinda sounds like something a violent criminal, thug, or wife-beater would do. Oh well, if you say it's OK, I'll give it a try...

My response was not to be taken literally. He brought up the notion that his being 'emotional' was the reason he hit the guy. I ran with his pretext and noted that if you are going to use emotion as a motive, then a dying father would make for a pretty strong emotion, not a weak one.

The point was that he shouldn't necessarily be called a thug and a violent criminal just because he got in a fight.

by Heismanpundit on Apr 12, 2006 1:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Obvious Contrast My Ass!

I understand we're not arguing some moral high ground explicitly, but when a lot of what is talked about regarding Trojan football (and rightfully so) are its criminal problems, I don't see how we aren't arguing for some moral high ground at all. Isn't that the point of talking about it? To ILLUSTRATE THE CONTRAST BETWEEN OUR PROGRAMS? I'm merely stating that I have a hard time seeing contrast with our football team when we have convicted criminals running around, too.

Point is, when Medlock goes and almost kills a fellow student, I have no idea why we're talking as if all is well in the world, because there really isn't a glaring contrast (as this was pointed out). At the end of the day, that isn't very different than the stuff that goes on at Figueroa Tech (we just haven't matched their quantity of problems).

I completely agree that Medlock pleading guilty is a bit more honorable than the denial, denial, denial that goes on at USC. And I agree that Karl Dorrell was correct in his timing on the situation. However, I don't agree with KD's decision to bring him back. I would have preferred we cut him.

I'm sure most of you know it, but the student group, The Den, writes dirt on all the other teams. I feel the credibility of that is shot right out the windows as soon as we (UCLA) become hypocrites in the whole situation.

Now, I may "delusional" because I never saw a victory over USC in my UCLA career, but in my UCLA career, we've always had a fairly stand up team free of rapists, etc. It was the one thing we had.

You guys should know more than anyone that its alright to be critical of the program and still love the school. I'm just saying I disagree with KD's decision and that we as fans should not be applauding the return and then criticize rapists at USC... I would prefer that we be critical of both.

by dbthree on Apr 12, 2006 9:38 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Good post

I like this bit a lot:

dlb ... if you feel so passionately about this and think that KD made the wrong move by reinstating Justin to the team, then you should expand this post out a bit, put it up in the diary section - that way lot more people can read it.

But my point remains the same - SuC is a lawless program of thugs without any sort of accountability. The situation is a little different at UCLA. Not exactly bragging about it. God knows I would prefer to have a coach like Howland who would probably have booted Justin off the team. I do think there is a difference between the scenario involving a contrite Justin who feel bad about a horrible mistake v. thug like Malauga who goes out beats up other students and then brags about it - and in return gets rewarded with a starting spot the following Saturday. There is a difference here and it is more than worth pointing it out.

Now as far as disagreeing wit KD's decision to reinstate him to the team - like I said you should do a separate post on it.

by Nestor on Apr 12, 2006 10:24 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Our justice system has the final say

After investigators concluded that Medlock did not "hit and run" so much as he was looking for help afterwards, his sentencing reflected these findings. We can try to find all kinds of reasons why you wouldn't WANT a man like this on the team, but from KD's standpoint, he doesn't have a leg to stand on as far as cutting him if all of Medlock's actions past his incredibly irresponsible decision have been responsible. Who is a football coach to go over the top of a judge to hand down punishment? Now if your players show their true colors (red for student's blood and yellow for their cowardice) and don't face the justice system at all, well then I guess it would be up to Pissant Pete to dole out the discipline, and we all know THAT's not gonna happen.

You may call it a slap on the wrist, but the fact is that the timing of the incident and the subsequent trial did not overlap that much with the football season. If this had happened in September, guaranteed he would have missed every game until his trial was finished.

by scittles on Apr 12, 2006 10:30 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I've said all along

....from the beginning, that incidents like this happen at both schools. I have never claimed either school was any better than any other at producing quality human beings. I said this after the Maualuga incident and after the Medlock incident. Those kind of things have happened before and they will happen again.

Hear me now, believe me later. Whatever. I just think it's wrong to jump on any allegations of wrongdoing to gain some kind of partisan advantage, to play loose with the facts regarding the incidents and then to distort things after. It's wrong whether it relates to USC athletes, UCLA athletes or Duke athletes.

Calling players thugs and rapists over and over does not make it so. It's just wrong.

by Heismanpundit on Apr 12, 2006 12:06 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Believe trOJan bullshit? Not likely

Maybe calling players like UCLA has thugs and rapists doesn't make it so, but calling thugs and rapists like USC has thugs and rapists is only stating what happens when your thugs and rapists solicit prostitutes, rape people, brandish fake firearms, and assualt students, then proceed to get away with murder because they "own the police".

Speaking of getting away with murder, how's OJ doing in the poor house these days?

by scittles on Apr 13, 2006 10:58 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

OJ

I believe he is still on the hunt, looking for the golfer that actually committed the crime, and because he is so efficient, he also practices his golf game....

He gets approximately 30K a month from his NFL pension that the victims families cannot touch.

by artybruin on Apr 13, 2006 12:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs