Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
USC: Sark is full of shit
FremontTroll
Member Posts: 4,744
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 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.
Comments
-
"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."
-
We were right.
-
I hope sark takes sole possession of usc once this lawsuit is done
-
I like U$C in this one.
-
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! -
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.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.
-
Listen guys lawsuits have a lot of ups and downs and are filled with twists. If you're going to get this worked up over them you might want to find another hobby
-
I see the game of telephone is alive and well ;-)
-
"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.
-
Check with @creepycoug, first.HeretoBeatmyChest said:
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.
-
Actually he's Mr. 20,247 poasts.GrundleStiltzkin said:
"We"? Mr. 248 poasts?WeAreAFatLesboSchool said:We were right.
-
CheersWestDawg said:
Actually he's Mr. 20,247 poasts.GrundleStiltzkin said:
"We"? Mr. 248 poasts?WeAreAFatLesboSchool said:We were right.
-
It is a fact that some random basement dweller held that opinion.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.
-
Probably admissible not for it's truth or as a fact, but for it's impact on Sark or Haden's state of mind. Whether it's true isn't the issue. Whether it impacted their states of mind is. That's relevant, and it probably jumps the hearsay fence since it's not offered for it's truth, but for it's impact on their minds. Plus, it's touchy-feely Cali, where the courts are as liberal as their politicians. I agree it's ridiculous, but they could worm it into court somehow. That's why this turd case will settle out of court for 2 to 5 mil.
-
nice rant. Butt, the only thing that matters now is what will PeoplesInsurance look like and what will it limit in terms of carednc said:
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. -
Hollywood jury.HeretoBeatmyChest said:
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.
Tee Vee
Case closed. -
A millionaire CFB coach plays the Victim card. Well, one thing is certain: Sark will forever be known as the wannabe pussy who couldn't win big games, keep his marital promises, or, worst of all, hold his liquor. No single trait would doom him, but going 0 for 3 in those categories is unforgivable.
-
Man this latest stunt by Sark makes my blood boil.
Just because you have a disability or a disease doesn't give you an excuse to not do your job! My understanding of the ADA is it gives you (as I believe it should) protection to take time off to get treatment and/or ask for reasonable accommodation. You can still be fired if you aren't meeting the standards of the position. Sark is taking advantage of legislation that is meant to help people that are genuinely trying to get their lives back on track.
I hope the USC lawyers rake him through the coals. -
I want Sark to win just so USC is proven wrong.
