USC: Sark is full of shit
Comments
-
"We"? Mr. 248 poasts?WeAreAFatLesboSchool said:We were right.
-
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. -
Love the comments section, ex addicts saying it's not a disability
-
Has Kim weighed in recently on his hero's situation?
-
Hardcore Husky
We broke Sarks brain. -
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.section8 said:Love the comments section, ex addicts saying it's not a disability
Neither are alcoholics. -
THIS^^^^^^ Is pretty fucking funny.FremontTroll said: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. -
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.FremontTroll said:
It is factually true that Bleacher Report gave him an A+ grade for the ASU game.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.
-
whooshAlCzervik said:
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.FremontTroll said:
It is factually true that Bleacher Report gave him an A+ grade for the ASU game.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.
-
Legal superiority guy.AlCzervik said:
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.FremontTroll said:
It is factually true that Bleacher Report gave him an A+ grade for the ASU game.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.
