More attrition
- Thread starter ilmherdfan
- Start date
- Status
Unless they quit for medical reasons, I'm not sure how their status as student-athletes is covered by privacy laws. Even then, "They quit for medical reasons" is a totally legal answer.
Let's just cut to the chase and speak frankly: there is something very, very wrong with this program. Players quit suddenly during the season, after the season, before the first game. Players are suddenly booted off the team and then no explanation is given.
Jesus, we just had a player get shot this offseason, with heroin found on the ground nearby, and the AD did everything it could to keep the public from finding out his name, and then did much less pursuing any kind of discipline or even addressing what the fuuh actually f'ing happened.
Pleading to Marshall fans to step back and just trust this coaching staff is a tough sell these days. A year from now, we could be looking for a new coach, watching the rest of our roster transfer out, and then clenching our collective b-holes just praying nobody peels the lid back on whatever the hell has been happening the last seven years.
Let's just cut to the chase and speak frankly: there is something very, very wrong with this program. Players quit suddenly during the season, after the season, before the first game. Players are suddenly booted off the team and then no explanation is given.
Jesus, we just had a player get shot this offseason, with heroin found on the ground nearby, and the AD did everything it could to keep the public from finding out his name, and then did much less pursuing any kind of discipline or even addressing what the fuuh actually f'ing happened.
Pleading to Marshall fans to step back and just trust this coaching staff is a tough sell these days. A year from now, we could be looking for a new coach, watching the rest of our roster transfer out, and then clenching our collective b-holes just praying nobody peels the lid back on whatever the hell has been happening the last seven years.
It's ok. Right guys? We are just "young". Give Doc some time to "turn it around"..........
Uh, Highly Touted and soon Highly Departed seems to becoming the mantra of Doc Holliday's Herd!!
Guys, it happens everywhere. The coaches weren't counting on these guys anyway. Yeah right!
The implied accusation here is totally baseless and incorrect. The only verifiable fact mentioned is that the AD did try to keep the player's name out of the press as long as possible - AT THE REQUEST OF THE PARENTS. If there was heroin "on the ground nearby," which I have never heard a reliable source confirm, then it had nothing to do with the incident. It was investigated. Discipline, if necessary at all, was handled in-house. The truth was addressed. It just wasn't shared with the public.
Google FERPA. And it's really none of our business why players quit just like I don't need to know why you make every decision that you do in your life.
how many 4 star athletes has Doc recruited that actually played 4 years or graduated? go
Really? Well, multiple media outlets have stated that police found a bag of what they believed to have been heroin. More telling, the police report states that Dozier was uncooperative with police at the scene when they tried getting information AND uncooperative when they later interviewed him at the hospital about the incident.
Strangely, the police wouldn't give the media the police report, so they had to file a FOI act to get it.
So, lets review . . .
- early morning hours out for a stroll
- shot
- a stolen gun and bag of suspected heroin were found nearby
- "victim" was uncooperative with police at the scene
- "victim" continued to be uncooperative with police later at the hospital
- Marshall athletic department tried hiding the identity of the "victim"
- police tried hiding the identity of the "victim" to the extent that it forced the media to file a FOI act to simply get the police report
It's too bad the "victim" wasn't named in a federal indictment implicating him in a heroin selling ring. He would have had his name kept a secret better by the athletic department.
So, how was 'licous' comment off-base?
Last edited:
No factual evidence points to anything the OG poster said other than Dozier being struck by a bullet.
Really? Again, lets look at what he said:
1) Dozier shot - you admitted that being factual
2) Heroin being found on the ground nearby - the police report states that the bag was suspected heroin
3) The AD attempted to keep the name of the "victim" from the media - the poster you agreed with "x 1,000,000,000" admitted that was accurate
4) The AD didn't try finding out the truth as hard as he tried keeping the name private - hard to determine that
So, it appears that at least three of his four comments regarding the incident are true and/or previously agreed upon by you, yet you're claiming only one of them is accurate. Like usual, you quickly jumped to disagree with anything you felt would take your heroes off of their pedestals even though you previously agreed with just about everything he said about the incident.
My objection was about the implied accusations herdalicious was making in his post.
herdalicious: Jesus, we just had a player get shot this offseason, with heroin found on the ground nearby, and the AD did everything it could to keep the public from finding out his name, and then did much less pursuing any kind of discipline or even addressing what the fuuh actually f'ing happened.
Yes, a player was shot.
The report I read said that a substance suspected to be heroin was found in the area. I never read nor heard anything to indicate that the heroin was in any way connected to this incident, and if it was, certainly nothing to connect it to the Marshall player.
Yes, the AD tried to keep his name from becoming public at the request of the parents. I don't read anything nefarious in that action, though the implication is that there is some kind of cover up taking place.
And as you admit, we don't know to what extent this incident was investigated. But again, the implication is that he spent more energy trying to cover up the situation than actually looking into what happened.
The problem is not so much with the stated facts, but with those implied accusations.
Didn't I just state them? You are usually way too precise with words to not have read my opinion here.
Crazy. "Unemployed," yet I just bought a BMW i8 two weeks ago. I almost went with the Aston Martin Rapide S they had, but I decided to be thrifty and go with the i8 and use the difference in money to get a BMW X5 as soon as they get one in that I want. Two nights ago, I popped a tire on the i8, and nobody carries those tires around here, so I have to wait five days and pay $500 to get it. I'll be lucky if I have this car through November, as I will either kill myself in it or wreck it.
I've been employed at an FBS since January. Of course, it isn't like I need it, as my life has been far more successful than yours in that I never have to work again and could still lead a far better life than yours.
But, why must so many discussions turn threads into being about me when the topic has nothing to do with me? Why would @Josh Stowers be allowed to stay on board when he supports things like that? Besides being a dork, the guy is allowed to threaten posters, suspend them and then do the exact same thing to them that he suspended them for, lie, and drive Marshall fans away with his constant excuse making. I mentioned months ago that the clown is bad for the brand of this board, and he continues to act like an idiot and drive away paying customers.
No, you didn't. You claimed that there were problems with 'licious' "implied accusations." Which of his accusations are false (assuming you only have a problem with those which are false, as if they were true, you shouldn't have an issue with them)?
1) The player was shot. That "implied accusation" is hard to deny.
2) There was suspected heroin reported to be nearby (he didn't make an accusation, but simply restated the police report). That "implied accusation" is hard to deny.
3) The AD put forth great effort from hiding the player's name. You have admitted as much, so that "implied accusation" is hard to deny.
4) The AD put less effort into disciplining the player or addressing what actually happened than he did trying to hide the player's identity . . . so, that "implied accusation" is what you have the issue with? It is quite true. The AD, as you admitted, put forth a strong effort to hide the player's name from the public, yet never addressed the truth to the public. Did he put more effort into trying to hide the name than he did trying to find out the truth? We don't know. Based on how a recent Marshall player was named in a federal indictment, admitted to his involvement in a heroin ring to the FBI (I believe it was the FBI), then still played for Marshall after admitting his role, it isn't a stretch of an accusation made by Herdalicious.
The police report has quite a bit of info in it:
player out early in the morning; player shot; suspected heroin and a stolen gun found nearby; player uncooperative with police at the scene, then later uncooperative again during their investigation at the hospital. The AD then tried hiding the player's name. The parents were so worried about their son's name being leaked that they called the AD, who went along with their plan, yet nobody thought it would be best for the player to be cooperative with the police? That sure is interesting.
The implied accusation of the post is that Hamrick was, at best, not doing his job diligently, and at worst, conducting a criminal cover up to protect the program. I think that is an unfair conclusion given the facts in play. Yes, he did try to keep the young man's name out of the press, but I don't see why that is being interpreted as a bad thing.
Here is another take of what happened that night that aligns with the facts: It was about a girl, and mistaken identity. Dozier was in the wrong place at the wrong time, and confused for someone else. The heroin nearby was not his; I have no idea if it belonged to the perp, or if it was totally unrelated; police reports never said. The stolen gun was not Dozier's; it may or may not have belonged to the perp; police report never said. So a player leaves a party late - after drinking too much (no excuses offered here) - and gets mistaken for someone who was at the party and messed with the wrong girl. He gets shot. Police show up. I don't know how Dozier was treated by the police - if he was handled like a suspect or questioned as though he was guilty of something. I do know that I think it unfair to imply some level of complicity based on a young, drunk black man being uncooperative with the police. The AD (and others) investigated and came to the conclusion that the player was not involved in anything other than underage drinking and perhaps questionable associations. To IMPLY that Hamrick didn't do his job or tried to cover up the incident is unfair. To IMPLY that Dozier was involved in something nefarious is unfair. If we want to turn this debate into one about underage drinking or dubious decision making then I'm fine. Charge him with underage drinking, drunk in public, some curfew violation maybe. Should Dozier have been cooperative? Fair question. It has nothing to do with his guilt in the matter, but sure, it would have been better if he had been cooperative. But I still contend that the IMPLIED ACCUSATIONS of the post were not fair to Dozier, Hamrick, or the program.
Y.A.G Si Ye Nots:
1) The player was shot. That "implied accusation" is hard to deny.
There actually is no implied accusation in this statement. It is just a fact. I will stipulate that the player was, in fact, shot.
2) There was suspected heroin reported to be nearby (he didn't make an accusation, but simply restated the police report). That "implied accusation" is hard to deny.
Perhaps you need to look up the word "implied." You are correct in your first sentence; stating the presence of the heroin is not a straight out accusation of anything. But it is an implied accusation, one that you say is "hard to deny." The implied accusation is that this shooting had to do with some kind of drug deal gone bad. Speculation, not supported by the facts. It turns out that is not true so...objection denied.
3) The AD put forth great effort from hiding the player's name. You have admitted as much, so that "implied accusation" is hard to deny.
"Put forth great effort..." A touch of hyperbole here. Hamrick simply didn't give his name to the press. It was a given that the press would eventually get the name once the police reports became public, but the parents wanted to keep there son's name out of the press as long as possible. To IMPLY that there is something inappropriate in Hamrick's actions here is unfair. Objection denied.
4) The AD put less effort into disciplining the player or addressing what actually happened than he did trying to hide the player's identity . . . so, that "implied accusation" is what you have the issue with? It is quite true. The AD, as you admitted, put forth a strong effort to hide the player's name from the public, yet never addressed the truth to the public. Did he put more effort into trying to hide the name than he did trying to find out the truth? We don't know.
Yes, we do know. It would be hard to do less.
Press: Can we have the name of the player who was shot?
Hamrick: No.
If all he did was ask what happened then he gave more effort in his investigation. "It is quite true." That is your opinion of the lack of effort on Hamrick's part, made without any idea what he did to "find out the truth." You only know that he didn't share his investigation results with the public. Nor did he, or Doc, share any disciplinary action with the public, which doesn't mean that there wasn't any. Speculation, not supported by the facts. Objection denied.
For someone who is very precise with other's words and likes to use them against them later, you are very imprecise with mine. Never did I admit that the AD "put forth a strong effort to hide the player's name." Hyberbole. Denied.
Based on how a recent Marshall player was named in a federal indictment, admitted to his involvement in a heroin ring to the FBI (I believe it was the FBI), then still played for Marshall after admitting his role, it isn't a stretch of an accusation made by Herdalicious.
This should have been your lead - actually your entire case. It is a solid reason how someone could jump to conclusions based on past actions. It still doesn't mean that there wasn't a jump, and that the implied accusations made in Dozier's case were fair, but it does give a reason why someone may be unfair in their evaluation. So, I'll concede this point. It doesn't help your case, but it does explain why you're wrong.
Last edited:
This is a big part of your errors. You originally claimed that the "implied accusations" (plural) were unfair and wrong. I asked which of those accusations were unfair/wrong. Now, you have gone back to claiming it is just a singular accusation which is unfair/wrong. Even in your explanation, there is only one accusation you believe is unfair/wrong.
So, with Herdalicious' entire post, you're fine with all of it other than one accusation? That still leaves quite a bit of blame to go around in Shewey.
If you don't see it as a bad thing, you must be as tone-deaf as Hamrick was when he sent those infamous tweets last year.
A recent Marshall player admitted to the FBI his role in a heroin ring. He was named in a federal indictment regarding his role. Yet, he was still allowed to play at Marshall after admitting his involvement.
We have a player who was highly intoxicated, walking the streets early in the morning, was shot, had heroin found nearby, was uncooperative numerous times with police in their investigation, and the AD's priority is to keep his name secret even though he allegedly knew it would get out? You don't have to hire a major Hollywood publicist to realize that is a horrible idea. You expect Marshall fans, after the Lang fiasco, to trust the competency and ethics of the AD with this situation? Come on, man.
As of last year, Marshall was in the top 15 in the country for player arrests over the last five years. Couple that with the high number of departures, and we have what basically amounts to a renegade program. Then, mix in the Lang situation in which somebody in Shewey didn't do their job and/or covered up the incident. Now, is it unfair to imply that Hamrick may have been trying to cover up this incident?
No, perhaps you need to work on staying consistent in your argument. "Implied accusations" was quoted by me numerous times in an attempt to determine which of them you claimed were unfair. Since you claimed there were more than one, I had to list all potential accusations you could possibly have taken exception to. Since you previously dismissed things in the police report (suspected heroin found nearby), I had to list even factual things as accusations in order to give you an opportunity to defend your plural use of "accusation."
Don't play the fool's role. It isn't a flattering look.
The AD, according to you, communicated in some form with the player's parents. He then decided to hide the identity of the player. Not so coincidentally, the police refused to hand over the police report (which is far different from their investigative information). You're telling me that he knew the name would come out, yet decided to appease the player's parents by keeping it secret for the few days it would be? What sense is there in that? In reality, it was far more likely one of three things: 1) Shewey didn't want to tread on federal privacy laws 2) With the police refusing to hand over the police report - perhaps a coordinated effort - perhaps the media wouldn't get the information or not until much later when interest in the story would die down. 3) Based on previous situations, if the name didn't hit the media and there was some culpability by the player that night, he could still play against NC State (instead of Purdue this year). But claiming that inside of Shewey was not identifying the player simply based on the request of the parents? Come on, man.
It isn't my opinion. You were contesting Herdalicious' opinion on the matter. I contested your claim that he had multiple accusations which were unfair/wrong. I don't see those. In fact, after all of your attempts, you still can only claim that the singular accusation (see, no "s") that is unfair deals with Hamrick having put forth more effort in a cover up than in his attempt to get the truth. Everything else, including the suspected heroin, is fair.
And looking at Herdalicious' post, he simply stated the facts of the situation. It is on your shoulders if your mind somehow linked the heroin with the player.
Last edited:
Are you seriously this obtuse? Stating the "facts" as he did was meant to IMPLY wrong doing on Hamrick's part. My mind made the implied link because that was the poster's intention, and my contention, with his post.
Next, wrong interpretation on your part. I didn't say there were multiple accusations, I said accusations (plural) because he made the same accusation in several different ways. I can see now where you made the mistake.
Lastly, sorry, you lost. Request for appeal denied. Thanks for playing.
You are arguing with a guy who twice has tried to get a job coaching here and was denied. A poster who claims to have been working at an FBS coaching job but neither SMU, North Texas, or TCU lists him on their staff. Same thing goes for any other FBS school in the state of Texas.
Just let it go, and allow him to believe he knows everything.
Back on topic. A poster on another board did research on the WKU program and their attrition the last few classes. I hope he posts it here. It tells you all you need to know why they are now the Kings of CUSA. Even with coaching changes.
Probably pretty good advice. But according to him he did win (via settlement) his wage and hour settlement vs Bethune Cookman
Wrong. His point was that, based on previous incidents, this administration/staff isn't exactly the best to trust. Based on the circumstances of this incident, it isn't prudent to just accept what is (or isn't) said from this administration about it.
You said "those accusations" and "implied accusations" multiple times. If he made the same accusation, that doesn't mean he made accusations. He would have made a repeated accusation. "Accusations" refers to more than one accusation, not the same accusation multiple times.
I'm not the one who made the mistake. Your inability to properly communicate your intent is your responsibility and mistake.
Oh, the stalker wants to talk about me again. Didn't you recently say you couldn't care less about me, never think about me, etc.? Strange.
I didn't try to get a job there. I reached out expressing interest; and it was only once. The other time, a coach reached out to me to tell me about the impending move before it was announced and discuss the situation.
Oh, the stalker wants to talk about me again. Didn't you recently say you couldn't care less about me, never think about me, etc.? Yet you went to about 12 school websites trying to stalk me? Strange.
Show me where I claimed what you state I did. As I have said multiple times, I have been employed at an FBS since January. It is no different than when you failed miserably trying to stalk me last year when I had told you for months that I was at an FCS, but since you couldn't find it online, you claimed it was false.
Why are so many of you obsessed with talking about me instead of the topic we are discussing? And, yes, I overwhelmingly did win my suit. The other two coaches also won their suits. The one before me also won his suit for nearly $1 million. The one after me is still on going, though I was deposed for it a couple of months ago.
Should I expect a series of tweets about me from you over the next two days like Fever does when he gets really mad at me?
The accusations that Dozier was involved with heroin. If anybody needs to leave this board permanently, it would be you. You are a sorry excuse for a human-being and I wish you nothing but pain and suffering in your life.
Last edited:
The accusations that Dozier was involved with heroin. If anybody needs to leave this board permanently, it would be you. You are a sorry excuse for a human-being and I wish you nothing but pain and suffering in your life.
Nobody made that accusation. What was stated was that suspected heroin was found near the shooting, that the athletic department didn't exactly play the Lang situation in a respectable manner, and because of that (and a million other things), Marshall fans can't trust the decisions and expect any objectivity inside Shewey.
Now, go back to trying to turn this discussion into being about me instead of the subject.
I don't have to flatter myself. I have you here to do that. You're the guy who admitted yesterday on another board that you go around Googling my name.
Are you and Fever the only in this thread who Google me? Hell, Fever went to a dozen school websites looking for me just a week after he claimed he couldn't care less about me. Stalkers.
Have to admit, I would probably Google your name, but I made the mistake of not writing down your personal information after a moderator posted it.
- Status
Similar threads
