So, There You Go

by Achilles on Jul 29, 2007 4:04 PM PDT in Football Comment 5 comments

From Brian Dohn's blog, Sunday, July 29, 2007

Did Guerrero and Dorrell know about Scott's prior arrests? Their statements seem to be conflicting?

I'm so glad you asked this because it is a chance for me to state what happened. No, they did not know about them. In fact, the athletic department didn't know about it until they were told by reporters, according to folks I deal with regularly and never (and I mean never) steer me wrong. There are no conflicting statements. Dorrell's statements were about knowing Scott had a difficult background with gang violence and Scott's family. He never said he knew about the arrests, but many people seem to be reading into his comments and believe he knew. He did not know.

0 recs | Comment 5 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

My experience interviewing at UCLA Athletics

I really can't answer that question, but I can relate my experience of going through the hiring process at UCLA Athetics.

I'm a Bruin fan for the last 30 years and a season ticket holder. This whole Scott thing really bothers me, as it does most of you.

About a year ago I was interviewed for a position with the Bruins in athletic fundraising. Even though it wasn't as high a profile job as an assistant football coach, once they contacted me for an interview, I had to spend the better part of the day down there going through a series of meetings with staffers up to Dan Guerrero's secretary. A lot of the questions were about job experience, but some also spoke to the issue of honesty and integrity. I would expect nothing less from UCLA. If Scott went through the same process, I can't imagine them not asking about his past. Whether or not he was honest with them is another issue.

I didn't get the job there, though I was a finalist. I ended up at another local university (thankfully not SC!), where I'm very happy.

See you guys at the first football game. We should do Bruins Nation tailgate!

Go Bruins!

by HoozierDaddy on Jul 29, 2007 4:21 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

It sure sounds fishy

Either Scott lied, or the hiring process was somehow short-circuited in order to get him onto KD's staff.

Both scenario has an unpleasant stench to it.

by bluegold on Jul 29, 2007 6:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Dohn's take

The exact same question was asked and anwwered in Brian Dohn's July 29 blog entry.

Did Guerrero and Dorrell know about Scott's prior arrests? Their statements seem to be conflicting?

by Thirteen Nine on Jul 29, 2007 6:50 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

KD has a history of

communicative skills issues. My opinion only, but people might have read into his comments because once again he did not speak clearly enough.

In order for KD to be absolved, Scott had to have lied on his application, in which case he should not be on KD's staff regardless of what happens in this case.

by bluegold on Jul 29, 2007 6:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs