Plaschke in LAT: Dorrell Hiding Info (Lying?) Re. Eric Scott

by bluestreet on Aug 17, 2007 9:17 AM PDT Comment 41 comments

Bumped. Thanks a lot Karl. Thanks a lot. GO BRUINS. -N

So much for Dorrell wishing that the Eric Scott scandal would just going away. For the second time this week yet another MSM pundit comes down hard on Karl Dorrell, this time taking him to task for not being straight (read honest) about the Scott fiasco from last weeks.

Plaschke from the LA Times:

This is, of course, about Eric Scott, a receivers coach and star recruiter who was recently arrested on suspicion of felony burglary.

No charges were filed, he was properly reinstated, and the expectations-bloated Bruins are awkwardly trying to run past it.

But, for the moment, it's hard for some of their fans to join them.

It turns out, at the time of his hiring last year, Scott had been sentenced for three other crimes.

Interestingly, Dorrell knew about some of that stuff.

Even more interesting, his boss Dan Guerrero didn't.

Said Dorrell: "Yes, I knew he had some issues in his background."

Said Guerrero: "We did not know the background for that particular person."

Apparently when DG and KD heard that Plaschke was going to write this article they called into explain the conflict between their two statements. Yet, as Plaschke points out that Dorrell still hasn't fessed up and disclosed exactly what did he know (and consequently withheld from DG) when he hired Scott into his program.

Both men said Dorrell informed Guerrero of general facts about Scott's past, just not the details.

"I explained some of the issues to Dan, but he did not know the specifics," Dorrell said.

Did Dorrell know those specifics?

"That's all I'm going to talk about," Dorrell said.

That is, of course, the issue here, and both men know it.

In other words Dorrell is hiding something. And that is not good news. This I think will go a long way in just destroying Dorrell's effort to project the image of running a clean program in Westwood.

Like it or not Dorrell now has become a total joke just like Lavin. Remember all the mumurs and whispers we used to hear during the Lavin days about how he was totally derelict in recruiting, how he used to come into work late, watch Montel at his office, and how he used to peddle exercise bikes in high school gyms, while all other college coaches were busy scouting recruitings.

Similarly something is really rotten in Dorrell's case. The guy is hiding something on this Scott scandal. And then there is the story/rumor about him being a total classless d*** to Svoboda.

Unless people give straight up explanations about WTF is going on with Dorrell, none of these stories are going away, no matter how badly Karl and his cult of loser supporters want them to go away.

Every day Dorrell is embarrassing our school thanks to the casual and "reckless" (phrased from Plaschke's piece) way he is leading the program.

This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of BruinsNation's (BN) editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of BN's editors.

0 recs | Comment 41 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I just want to repeat

I am %*#@! tired of hearing KD keep saying over and over -- "I am still learning." This is his FIFTH year on the job. At my company you have 6 months to learn or you do not pass probation and get canned.

And the matter of not lying to your boss is not something you have to "learn" in the 5th year. It's part of being an honest person.

How much slack does KD get? Did Toledo get as much slack? And if not, why not? This whole KD scenario stinks from day 1.

by bluegold on Aug 17, 2007 9:24 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Watch out

Just by your last sentence some blithering idiot will call you a racist.

by bluestreet on Aug 17, 2007 9:27 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Only morons would use the race card

at every turn. This really dilutes the veracity of "REAL" racsim issues.

by bluegold on Aug 17, 2007 9:40 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Scott Scandal....

From all accounts not only did KD and DG take him back so did higher ups, including the HR department. Not sure what article or from whom I read it, but the article that I read did mention that it what was a collective meeting in regards to retaining ES not just DG and ES, it mentioned others we in the meeting. Yes I am reading into a bit more in regards to "others" being involved, I think that it would be safe to say HR and maybe someone from the Chancellors office was involved.

by BruinFan73 on Aug 17, 2007 9:58 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I don't care about all the "meetings"

that took place after this all became public.

The questions remain what did he Karl know about Scott and what he did not disclose to DG?

These are serious questions and go right into the heart of character question about this guy.

Right now this guy seems like a very shady dude and he is not making UCLA look very good.

by bluestreet on Aug 17, 2007 10:02 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Damn right!

Bruins have always chastised SC for choosing W/L over integrity.

Now we are seeing KD supports ignoring his shadiness in great anticipation of all the W's this season.

This is PURE HYPOCRISY.

by bluegold on Aug 17, 2007 10:16 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Don't Care?

"That's all I'm going to talk about," Dorrell said.

Now, what does that really mean?

1. That KD did know something and he is protecting his ass
or
2. That is all KD is going to say and is moving on with the season.

Caring about wins and loses.... ES reinstatement could be deeper than that, right now nothing that ES has done to date has had an impact on wins and loses for UCLA.

I am sure if we went and did a background check of every UCLA employee that we would find dirt. The trouble with ES is that it happened to be public. ES is a former UCLA student and player, is it possible that none of the right questions were asked and the background check was flawed or not followed through by HR or the AD?

I agree this makes UCLA look bad to some minor degree since it not against school policy hiring people with misdemeanor convictions.

It does not matter what you do or don't care about as the decision has already been made. It could be the fact that KD and DG knew very little and failed to look at the background check, got screwed up when ES was arrested and his priors became public and they were already caught in conflicting statements made to the reporters and clammed up. The fact that charges against ES were dropped UCLA is moving on because they did not make it public to what extent they knew of ES background, enough embarrassment for all involved.

If the school and the Chancellor want to let this go I recommend that we do as well and concentrate on other matters.

by BruinFan73 on Aug 17, 2007 3:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I care

Whether it means anything to anyone else, it means something to me that our coach is honest and transparent. I used to think he was. Now I don't. That was the only thing he had going for him, in my opinion.

But of course, none of this is new. The reason this is a big deal have been discussed at length. I suggest you re-read things and see if your mind might change.

by Fox 71 on Aug 17, 2007 7:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sorry Foxy

But since I was not in on the interview process and it's clear that DG and the Chancellor have approved of the reinstatement that's what I am going on.

Now what bother's me a little bit is that Plaschke said "Scott had been sentenced for three other crimes." This makes it sound as if it were 3 additional crimes on top of the previous three. ES's arrest reports that have been published to date only showed two misdemeanors convictions.

Again, I nor you have seen his application nor the offical background check. We are going on conflicting statements and nothing more.

by BruinFan73 on Aug 17, 2007 9:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

3 convictions

You might want to take up Fox on his suggestion. You obviously haven't followed this story terribly closely, or you wouldn't make so many misstatements.

For one thing, ES does have 3 convictions on his record. The LAT beat reporter has been reporting this for a while. So, although initial reports were that ES had two convictions, it turns out he had three (2 gun related, one disturbing the peace).

Also, it's been reported that ES didn't fill out an application, so there's apparently nothing to see. It's also been reported that the official background check didn't show the convictions, so we already know what it says (or at least doesn't say).

And, more to the point, I don't take a great deal of comfort in the fact the DG reinstated the guy.
The fact remains that there are many unanswered questions relating to this matter, and Plastke for once actually was able to articulate a few of them. If DG and KD wanted to clear this up, they could- easily. That they don't when given the opportunity speaks volumes to me.

That you'd be so dismissive of the situation, simply because you wern't "in on the interview process" is one thing. But that you'd fault others for wanting to know what happened during that interview process in the face of a fairly clear indications of irregularities is quite another.

by Menelaus on Aug 18, 2007 4:18 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

So ES did not lie on his application!

"Also, it's been reported that ES didn't fill out an application, so there's apparently nothing to see. It's also been reported that the official background check didn't show the convictions, so we already know what it says (or at least doesn't say)."

If this is the case than it is possible that KD did not ask enough questions about ES's past, and if there is no application than ES did not lie. I will not argue with the 3 misdemeanor convictions, all I was stating is that Plasc was insinuating that ES was sentenced for those three convictions right before he was hired. Just seems to me that he was digging for more on this issue when it seems that everyone at UCLA is putting this behind them and we should do the same. The season is two weeks away and to keep demanding more only will distract our team.

by BruinFan73 on Aug 18, 2007 9:17 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

And why should we do the same?

Because some KD honk says so? Again, this would have all gone away if nothing was wrong and KD and the administration were forthcoming with the information on what they knew and when they knew it. Time and time again, it is not the act that gets you in trouble, it is the coverup afterwards. Just ask our last two presidents. As it is, the rift has not been closed between what KD said and what DG said, and Plaschke was trying to bridge this gap and was met with silence. That reeks of coverup.

Everyone at UCLA is not putting this behind them, because we, a large portion of students and alums, are not. To be honest, that's a more important population than fans that didn't go here like you, whazup. I'm not trying to bash on people who aren't students/alumni, I'm pointing out that we have a much larger stake in how our University conducts itself.

by Tydides on Aug 18, 2007 10:26 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Wrong

it has NOT been proven that the background check came back negative. UCLA first said that, and that it was a 3rd party service that got it wrong, then they backtracked and said that it was UCLA PD that did the background check and that they would NOT report what the results were, ONLY that the results were not properly forwarded onto the athletic department. Get your facts straight.

"The season is two weeks away and to keep demanding more only will distract our team."

Ok, lets demand integrity only during the off-season. Good suggestion.

editor, DumpDorrell.com ... formerly posted as DumpDorrell

by BruinCore on Aug 19, 2007 8:19 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hi "whazup"

Can't stay away from here. Can you?

by Nestor on Aug 18, 2007 4:53 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not Whatzup....who??

I am new here and I am also known as ArmchairQB on BG and BRO.

I can appreciate what this board is doing with wanting to have a real football team and wanting the people in charge at UCLA to get behind the program, it just seems that most of you go to the extreme in your dislike of KD. But as I see it he is the less of our problems with building what we all agree is a real football program.

To start off we need money lots of it so that we can build state of the art facilities on campus. I have no problem playing our games at the RB.

Than once the facilities are in place we need to increase the budget for recruiting, kids would love it out here. Westwood is a beautiful campus, weather is great all year long, it's located in great area of LA and UCLA is one of the best academic universities too. Than increase the monies for coaches from HC to all the assistants. It's expense to live here and to keep coaches longer they have to afford to live here. Once all the above is here than you have proved that UCLA is committed to football and the top tier coaches will want to come here and put their mark on the program.

Every coach is asked the same questions year after year day after day and when KD gets crossed or says something strange you nail his ass to the wall for it. All coaches say the same cliche things and flub their responses as this gets old and they are just trying to be polite to the beat writers.

Be critical all you want on KD after each game I do the same thing as I do with other coaches after games, I play archairQB with the best of them. Than I focus on the next game. We will continue to get only the TD, BT, and the KD's of the world until we raise more monies it just that simple.

This board at times looks ridicules for it's countless attacks on KD, people on this site caused BD to close his blog to open posts for your agenda based attacks on anyone that supports KD. Well KD is our coach and we stand behind him and when he screws up we say so but not to the degree and length that people on this board does.

All your stats are useless as it compares it to nothing. You can't compare TD to BT or to KD because the variables change each year. It seems that the University will not push for a real football program on it's own. But if fans and alumnus want a real football program such as OU, SC, Mich, OSU and ND than we all must make more of an effort with our pocket books as the State will not back football at UCLA. If we raised the monies that UCLA needs to build and maintain a top 10 football than the AD will be more inclined to listen to you when you are dissatisfied with the direction of the program. Since we as supporters and donators contribute such monies we will have much more leverage in getting coaches replaced and hired.

by BruinFan73 on Aug 18, 2007 9:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't know who you are

which is both the blessing and the curse of anonymous posting. But you make a giant jump of logic that is not warranted by anything I've seen posted here. You equate criticism of Mr. Dorrell with hatred of Mr. Dorrell and the two are not the same. You don't have to hate something or love something or be indifferent to something to criticize it (using criticism in the broadest sense.)

Until the last two incidents (Scott hiring and Swoboda termination) I did not want Mr. Dorrell totally severed from the program. I thought he would be perfect to be the moral compass of the team. I would have named him Assistant Coach for NCAA Compliance and Integrity Maintenance.

Now, it appears that he has issues on the integrity front. Since his failings as a head coach have been documented at length, he now has nothing going for him, in my opinion.

My opinion of Mr. Dorrell is not based on hatred. It's more on disappointment than anything else.

by Fox 71 on Aug 18, 2007 10:47 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

The wonders of reverse IP lookup

So whazup gets banned for spouting nonsense and cluttering the page with factless drivel, and now a new user comes in posting from the same IP address spouting the same type of nonsense. Suspicious.

Before you get all up in arms about Network Address Translation and using the RIAA vs. the People defense, I'll just say this method has been 100% effective in my experience in catching lamers in the past. Like a retarded cal fan that created two names just to agree with himself in arguments, and a wide variety of trOJan jackasses who keep coming back for more after we beat them down and ban them.

Now to counter your drivel:

We have stated again and again that we do not dislike KD the person, but KD the football coach. Guess what, there's a difference there, and it doesn't surprise me that you can't see it. We make fun of his behavior because his behavior is ridiculous and not befitting of a head coach of a major football program.

We heard whazup use the "money" excuse. "Money" for recruiting nationwide when we would have an excellent football team just keeping top notch SoCal talent close to home is a waste. "Money" spent to raise the salary of a coach who hasn't earned it like KD is a waste. "Money" to attract a new head coach with a proven track record after KD is fired for underperforming this season is not a waste.

It is not this board that looks ridiculous for pointing out that KD is a clown, but it is you for not responding to ANY of the facts that we all judge his performance upon.

I can't refute any stat, but we all know that stats can be skewed to our own point of view.

That's you by the way, and I'm still waiting for your skewed stats that make KD look good.

All your stats are useless as it compares it to nothing. You can't compare TD to BT or to KD because the variables change each year.

HAHAHAHAHA are you kidding me? So we can't use the past as a guide to judge KD. We can't use the present (training camp blunders) to judge KD. And we can't use the future to judge KD because it's physically impossible. If only all of our jobs could come with such blank checks on performance metrics. Is this what it's like where you work? And if so, where can I sign up?

Oh and btw, you just said that you can't compare TD to BT to KD or whatever, but this is also you:

BT took over a good program from TD (unlike KD taking over from BT) and I think that Cade made BT look really good at times. We had good offensive lines left over from the TD era and some good running backs but lets not forget the that Miami game that showed how BT stopped recruiting defense. I believe that BT made a star out of James that game and that was our best chance at a NC bid. I liked BT style but if was bit more of disciplinarian things might have been different.

I guess you mean we can only compare the eras when it's convenient for you right? Pathetic, whazup, just pathetic.

by Tydides on Aug 18, 2007 10:53 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Note:

I can vouch that both posters also attended (or rather, skipped) the same English class in junior high school (last year).

by Barnes2JJ on Aug 18, 2007 5:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Bye

I don't have a lot of patience for dumb, flame throwing liars.

by Nestor on Aug 18, 2007 11:28 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sheesh

If I had known I was trying to reason with that guy I wouldn't have wasted my time. We all have some sort of personality defect that is manifested by wasting our time with posts on this board (I figure I'm here about 18 hours a day). But nothing is more pathetic than making up new names to come to a website and start an argument based on a major premise that's just silly. Something like Emily Litella wondering what was so bad about violins on TV.

Whazup, if you're reading, you really should take some time to make contact with the real world, and see about some counseling.

As an aside, I didn't know you could tell if I signed in using two names to argue with myself. What a bummer. I was going to make myself look really good by totally ripping a specious argument I had made, then excuse myself for being such a weenie and confess I was really a trOJan, but after having had my rear end handed to me with a fork in it, I was going to drop out of justsc and join myself at UCLA. I would then congratulate myself for winning another away from the dark side, and then bask in the glory of all the congratulatory messages from other BN people.

But now I guess I won't.

(And for you Gilbert and Sullivan fans, the Lord Chancellor has a similar speech about appearing before himself in the Court of Chancery. It's pretty funny.)

by Fox 71 on Aug 18, 2007 12:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Remember SUC Dad?

The Dorrellistas seem to enjoy having double identities...

So far, the double agents who start these wars in honor of their idol, Dorrell, have thrown out the "Nazi" card and the "racist" card. What insults are left for them to use on us which have as much power? Molesters?

Very classy.

by Barnes2JJ on Aug 18, 2007 5:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

not to take anything away...

from this serious issue. But, LA Slimes would never do this type of investigative reporting on their favorite son, usc.

by FullertonBruin on Aug 17, 2007 10:05 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

The thing is

SuC doesn't care all that much about projecting the image of a "clean program." They can't given all the scandals they have piled up under Cheatie Peetie.

At UCLA on the other hand the whole facade under Dorrell has been that he is not like Cheatie Peetie (if you were to believe his loonie supporters on other boards) and that it is all about running a program with integrity.

This questions that central point and that is why I think it is lot more serious when it involves UCLA.

Dorrell is shaming the entire program right now.

by bluestreet on Aug 17, 2007 10:08 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

believe me, in no way...

am I defending this situation. It isn't good and it isn't getting any better.

I was just pointing out that the times and sc are so in bed with each other that they would never dig like this. If they did, it could get real ugly over there. The times does have good investigative reporting as much as I hate to admit that.

I think that this scandal will be the pin on the camels back, so to say, when Dorrell gets fired after another underachieving season.

by FullertonBruin on Aug 17, 2007 10:15 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I am with you

The Trojan Times is a joke.

But seriously it didn't take much investigative reporting to expose KD hiding something in this case.

KD said something to the press, DG said something otherwise.

Even after trying to clear it up, its obvious that KD is still hiding something.

The good people around here and DD have been hammering this point for days. This is not that difficult to get.

So what Plaschke did was pretty easy.

Now of course his lips are firmly puckered up Pom Pom's a$$. That's a different issue.

But we need to worry about cleaning up our own house first. Its clear that something is really dirty right now.

Trojans don't care about being a dirty and filthy program. We are not TrOJies.

I want a clean, honest program at UCLA. And right now its not clear whether Dorrell is running one.

by bluestreet on Aug 17, 2007 10:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Why all the references to USC?

Your only defense seems to come by saying that USC did this and USC did that. What do you think you are less pregnant then we are? Never have been and never will be.

Get off your high horse. This is as blatant a cover up as anything that USC has ever been accused of. The UCLA program has just as many faults as any big time college athletic program.

by Mrtravlear on Aug 17, 2007 11:38 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

lol

Here comes a TrOJie spewing its BS.

Uh, our program has some issues and we are calling our coaches and administrators on it.

Your program is just corrupt and you guys are more than willing to sell your soul, bury your head in the sand for few cheap wins. Thats what happens when all you have is a thuggish football team to root for in your sorry "school."

by bluestreet on Aug 17, 2007 11:42 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hey

How do I apply for membership in that "White Nation" club over at SuC?

I hear it's just a bunch of fun guys laughing about pictures of black kids in handcuffs and things like that. Sure sounds cool.

by Barnes2JJ on Aug 17, 2007 11:51 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

In case

MrTraveler's memory is a little hazy:

And there was this

I am sure MrTraveler was on some Trojan Blog joining in and demanding transparency and accountability.

by bluestreet on Aug 17, 2007 12:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

MrTravelar says

"BOYS WILL BE BOYS!"

If you can't see the difference between our demands for accountability and the typical trOJan fans' lack of the same despite a far longer laundry list of coverups and scandals, then you are beyond salvation.

By the way, how's Reggie's free house holding up? What's that? You don't know what I'm talking about? Shut up, hypocrite.

by Tydides on Aug 17, 2007 12:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I am sure Mr Traveler was outraged

when he found out his team's start WR was getting thousands of dollars of free rent from the former star quarterback's Daddy. I am sure he was demanding accountability from his AD and Pom Pom when that story broke.

by bluestreet on Aug 17, 2007 1:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well MrTravlear

what say you? Where was your outrage?

Or are you just another trOJan douchebag talking out of your ass?

by Tydides on Aug 17, 2007 2:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

He went back

to the treehouse with the other White Powerboys to tell funny racist jokes and make their plans for visiting Westwood Village tonight, like all the other Toejams.

by Barnes2JJ on Aug 17, 2007 2:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

As expected

The reaction was about what I expected. A listing of all of USC's sins. Like I didn't admit we have issues? My point was that you are trying to make yourself feel better by trashing someone else. It's the old two wrongs make a right defense.

Sorry, that doesn't work. What else doesn't work is you spouting epiphanies on some obscure internet blog about how terible all this is. If you really want the moral high ground, Dan Guerrero (sp?) or the University Chancelor need to take action by getting the truth our and taking corrective action. You should write Dan Guerrero or the Chancellor a letter.

Oh, and before you ask, when USC has taken the low road, I have taken specific actions including witholding contributions (and letting them know why) and boycotting events.

by Mrtravlear on Aug 17, 2007 2:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Seriously

either you have not read very much on BN or you do not read very closely.

The great, great majority of posters here have been very harshly critical of everyone involved in this possible scandal/cover-up.

Our criticisms have been ongoing for weeks on this "obscure" blog which you obviously read. More substantively, at least two posters have either followed up on this investigation, received information, or have asked the right questions, and have obtained information which has not appeared anywhere else in the MSM.

So, your criticims are going to ring pretty hollow on this issue.

I won't hold my breath on waiting to hear your thoughts on Carroll's blowing off of the funny White Power jokesters, not to mention the simmering free rent scandal.

by Barnes2JJ on Aug 17, 2007 3:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

We should turn this guy over to KD

to have his installations minimized.

(Sorry, SC dude, inside joke.)

by bluegold on Aug 17, 2007 4:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

As expected

Dumbass trOJan fails at reading comprehension.

I'll tell you what doesn't work, SUC's compliance people as well as the NCAA's investigative team. What separates Bruins from lowly trOJans is, among other things, a sense of obligation to do the right thing. The fact that this is up on this blog is a testament to that, whereas if this were a trOJan scandal, you wouldn't hear a peep on some (all) shitty obscure trOJan blog(s). You would hear it here first.

And by the way, "before you ask" is only appropriate BEFORE I ASK. Given that SUC and their degenerate fans have absolutely no moral standing to be pointing fingers at anyone, if you were smart (doubtful), you'd lay low on this one. I also call bullshit on withholding contributions, if you even contributed to begin with. "When SUC has taken the low road" which is when? In your eyes...never? You're not ready for the real world yet, go back to your plantation/trOJan circle jerk/White Nation where you belong.

by Tydides on Aug 17, 2007 5:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

All of USC's sins

You, sir, are living a highly sheltered life if you think those are "all of USC's sins.

"What else doesn't work is you spouting epiphanies on some obscure internet blog about how terible all this is.". It can't be too obscure, considering that you found it. Other than the petition that was organized and delivered by a member of this community, I would ask for your suggestion as to how to raise the attention of the administration. Maybe Nestor can send a strippergram to Morgan Center with our feelings re. the program??

As to your last point, if true, I credit you for taking action that I feel that most in the CFB community would not take, regardless of school. However, I refer back to my first point to question what you actually believe to be "taking the low road".

by bruinhoo on Aug 18, 2007 12:58 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Obvious Tag Says "I told you so"

Where are all those posters who said they want Dorrell gone but came on here with fire and righteousness and pointed to this whole Scott hiring question as a "witch hunt" and "character assasination"? We pointed to FACTS about quotes made by Guerrero and Dorrell that conflicted .. to FACTS about Dorrell's own quotes that changed with time and conflicted. There is a big lie here and Dorrell AVOIDING the truth, avoiding transparency, is a direct and flagrant disregard for the character and integrity our football program stands for. Where are all those posters now??

And now, with this OBVIOUS cover-up, how badly does the Svoboda story look?? Any character assassination knocks now?? I cant say that anything more will come of the Svoboda hiring any more than I could say that the Scott hiring would still be news ... but now one wonders. Did Dorrell make a Faustian bargain this year to bring in Scott (lying to bring him in) because he was feeling the pressure ... the pressure of not meeting expectations, the pressure of losing coaches "with abandon" because of the way he is treating them??? A different story is emerging here with regard to Dorrell. Coaches breaking rank with the coaching fraternity to accuse Dorrell openly of doing something egregious (and against California employment law). Not being transparent when his own quotes are used to raise important questions.

This is just shameful.

editor, DumpDorrell.com ... formerly posted as DumpDorrell

by BruinCore on Aug 17, 2007 11:48 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Remember too, in regards to Svoboda

how shabbily Baumgartner was treated when he lost his scholie, a story which Plascke also reported

by BillyZoom on Aug 17, 2007 1:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

The minute this Eric Scott thing came out

It was a HUGE HIT for the Dorrellistas. They have religiously clung to the notion that Dorrell is above reproach, a man of dignity and honor who runs a squeaky clean program.

Additionally, all failings of the football program can be attributed to the fact that UCLA football, pillar of morality that it is, can never compete with all the "outlaw" programs that rule college football. That's why BRO and BZ are filled with thread after thread about Pete Carroll and how dirty that progam is.

Now, of course, these Kool AId drinkers have lost their moral high ground. Eric Scott, Svoboda, the shabby treatment of Baumgartner, Medlock, the Hale (?) fight, Brian Price's pending ineligibilty, etc ad infinitum.

Of course, they've written off this latest story as another plot hatched by the "LA Slimes" which is run by "Trojans", just another part of the nationwide media bias against Dorrell and UCLA.

And it will all be forgotten by the Blues after UCLA's next appearance, not win mind you, just appearance in the Las Vegas or Emerald Bowl.

by BillyZoom on Aug 17, 2007 1:34 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs