Leave it to the SUC times to thoroughly cover the Eric Scott proceedings while turning a blind eye to the laundry list of scandals going on across town.
I hate this story, I really do. I have to apologize for once again bringing this to the top, but sadly, it's still relevant. Trust me, I'm as sick of this as the rest of you.
Well it's getting worse, and Scott's ties to UCLA are reflecting poorly on the University, not just as an employee but as a former UCLA student athlete. The burglary charge may not be the only thing Scott has to worry about. From the SUC Times:
Again, we cannot presume guilt here, and ideally, Scott will be found to be an innocent bystander in all of this, but his record of transgressions suggests a higher probability that he was actively involved in whatever took place that day. And of course, here at BN we demand accountability, and I full expect swift and decisive termination if he is indeed found guilty.
Narcotics? What was this, an OJ2 type joyride/drug run? An additional drug possession charge is just what we need right now...
Nestor raised the disturbing question earlier today - What did KD know and when did he know it?
"I believe in second chances," Dorrell said. But when asked whether the university encountered any red flags during the hiring process, he added, "I can't speculate on that."
A university source on Thursday acknowledged "because Eric Scott had played at UCLA, there was some loyalty."
UCLA Athletic Director Dan Guerrero said, "You make judgment calls on everyone you hire. This was a person who had already spent a year in the program as an intern, so you go back and look at a number of factors there.
"Clearly, we knew where he was coming from as a person. Karl felt that he was a person who would help our program. In any program, you're going to have transgressions."
Hey Karl, you can count right? Second chances? Anyway, we have a mixed bag here. KD knew he was taking a gamble, and he might have crapped out this time. I am somewhat disturbed by DG's attitude towards this as it appears on the surface that he is attempting to explain this away. I would have expected him to distance himself from this with more of a "wait and see" attitude which seems more appropriate considering his position.
As the article points out, this case is more than a little strange:
Later, DeAlba also entered the house, looking for his cousin.
"[DeAlba] walks back outside, yelling for his cousin, police pull up, and they get Eric out of the car," Grimes said. "DeAlba admitted he took something from the house. I'm not sure what the items were."
Grimes said deputies never found a "complaining occupant," which was confirmed by authorities. Rivas said the burglary investigation has been complicated because "we're having a problem trying to find who lives in the house."
"We went by there and there's no occupant," Rivas added. "It would help a lot if we [had a victim]. We don't know what's missing from the residence."
A sheriff's official said Scott's Mercedes was "parked up the street" from the home that was allegedly burglarized. But even if Grimes' account becomes established, a legal source warned the coach remains subject to an accessory charge.
No complaining occupant? The guy took something from the house and Scott was in what may or may not have been a getaway vehicle? The range of possibilities are virtually limitless.
No matter the result of these charges, I believe Morgan Center will still have some explaining to do if they couldn't even raise the flag on someone with Scott's background. UCLA is not the place to rehab or reshape your image, nor is it the place to learn on the job. I just get the feeling this is far from over.
And so we wait...