Home› Hardcore Husky Board

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Sign In Register
Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.

USC: Sark is full of shit

FremontTrollFremontTroll Member Posts: 4,744
in Hardcore Husky Board
http://www.usctrojans.com/blog/2015/12/usc-response-to-sarkisian-lawsuit.html

No way, ya think?

The only way this could get any better is if by some miracle it ends up at trial. Then we could finally find out who ordered the cosmo.
· Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
«13

Comments

  • LaZorisLaZoris Member Posts: 1,734 Standard Supporter

    "the record will show that Mr. Sarkisian repeatedly denied to university officials that he had a problem with alcohol, never asked for time off to get help, and resisted university efforts to provide him with help. The university made clear in writing that further incidents would result in termination, as it did. We are profoundly disappointed in how Mr. Sarkisian has mischaracterized the facts and we intend to defend these claims vigorously."
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • WeAreAFatLesboSchoolWeAreAFatLesboSchool Guest Posts: 736
    We were right.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • SlocusSlocus Member Posts: 289
    I like U$C in this one.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • jecorneljecornel Member Posts: 9,727
    Maybe HH & parties will be asked to testify based on insights of infidelity and public patheticness.

    Every AD should stop by HH before hiring a loser coach.

    Haden could have himself a lot of face by reaching out to the HH family.

    Hail Derek & crew!
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • MeekMeek Member Posts: 7,031
    I'm shocked USC publicly responded in the first place and second, that they actually said "most" of Sark's allegations are untrue implying there is some truth to it. Jury to decide which part I guess.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • GladstoneGladstone Member Posts: 16,419
    image

    credit to @PurpleReign
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • GrundleStiltzkinGrundleStiltzkin Member Posts: 61,516 Standard Supporter
    WeAreAFatLesboSchool said:

    We were right.

    "We"? Mr. 248 poasts?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • The_UndertakerThe_Undertaker Member Posts: 521
    That's the main flow with Sarks lawsuit. He makes it sound like he was a known medical alcoholic and everybody knew about his "disability" for years and accepted him this way.
    And then a few pages later it says, sometimes after the UW loss October 2015, "this is when for the first he realized what he had denied for a long time, that he had a booze problem".
    Yeah, you're full of shit.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • section8section8 Member Posts: 1,581
    Love the comments section, ex addicts saying it's not a disability
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • RaccoonHarryRaccoonHarry Member Posts: 2,161
    Has Kim weighed in recently on his hero's situation?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • section_332section_332 Member Posts: 2,403
    Hardcore Husky
    We broke Sarks brain.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • dncdnc Member Posts: 56,819
    edited December 2015
    section8 said:

    Love the comments section, ex addicts saying it's not a disability

    It's disabling, but it's not a disability. Obese people have been disabled but they're not a special class deserving of special treatment for something they did to themselves.

    Neither are alcoholics.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • AlCzervikAlCzervik Member Posts: 1,774
    FremontTroll said:

    Meek said:

    I'm shocked USC publicly responded in the first place and second, that they actually said "most" of Sark's allegations are untrue implying there is some truth to it. Jury to decide which part I guess.

    It is factually true that Bleacher Report gave him an A+ grade for the ASU game.
    No. It's not a fact; it's an opinion, which is why inclusion in the lawsuit is so absurd. The only way that the Bleacher report writer's opinion that Sark deserved an A+ grade for the ASU game would be admissible at trial is if Sark's lawyers were able to first qualify him as an expert. This seems unlikely. If watching a lot of college football is sufficient to qualify the writer as an expert competent to render an opinion at trial, then all of us on this board and half the male population of America would be similarly qualified. Accordingly, even if the witness were qualified as an expert, under this standard USC would be able to bring in their own "experts" to refute the testimony. Sark will never gain any traction with this. Bullshit, time-wasting lawyering.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • dncdnc Member Posts: 56,819
    AlCzervik said:

    FremontTroll said:

    Meek said:

    I'm shocked USC publicly responded in the first place and second, that they actually said "most" of Sark's allegations are untrue implying there is some truth to it. Jury to decide which part I guess.

    It is factually true that Bleacher Report gave him an A+ grade for the ASU game.
    No. It's not a fact; it's an opinion, which is why inclusion in the lawsuit is so absurd. The only way that the Bleacher report writer's opinion that Sark deserved an A+ grade for the ASU game would be admissible at trial is if Sark's lawyers were able to first qualify him as an expert. This seems unlikely. If watching a lot of college football is sufficient to qualify the writer as an expert competent to render an opinion at trial, then all of us on this board and half the male population of America would be similarly qualified. Accordingly, even if the witness were qualified as an expert, under this standard USC would be able to bring in their own "experts" to refute the testimony. Sark will never gain any traction with this. Bullshit, time-wasting lawyering.
    whoosh
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • HeretoBeatmyChestHeretoBeatmyChest Member Posts: 4,295
    AlCzervik said:

    FremontTroll said:

    Meek said:

    I'm shocked USC publicly responded in the first place and second, that they actually said "most" of Sark's allegations are untrue implying there is some truth to it. Jury to decide which part I guess.

    It is factually true that Bleacher Report gave him an A+ grade for the ASU game.
    No. It's not a fact; it's an opinion, which is why inclusion in the lawsuit is so absurd. The only way that the Bleacher report writer's opinion that Sark deserved an A+ grade for the ASU game would be admissible at trial is if Sark's lawyers were able to first qualify him as an expert. This seems unlikely. If watching a lot of college football is sufficient to qualify the writer as an expert competent to render an opinion at trial, then all of us on this board and half the male population of America would be similarly qualified. Accordingly, even if the witness were qualified as an expert, under this standard USC would be able to bring in their own "experts" to refute the testimony. Sark will never gain any traction with this. Bullshit, time-wasting lawyering.
    Legal superiority guy.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
Sign In or Register to comment.