ESPN touches on Fields’ hardship argument

BigDawgHuntinBigDawgHuntin Posts: 74 ✭✭✭ Junior
edited January 9 in Football

Apparently his attorney (Mars) will use “egregious “ behavior while at the school. In addition- he goes on to say “Noboy who’s on social media would have a problem with Justin getting a waiver if they knew the whole story”. Buckle up UGA faithful- the mud slinging is coming.

«13

Comments

  • LORLOR Posts: 66 ✭✭ Sophomore

    Is his defense that there are racists on social media? Yes, there a lot of keyboard cowards. I’m not sure I understand his comment, though, or if that’s sufficient grounds for an exemption.

  • kelly_bkelly_b Posts: 1,031 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    @LOR - It was vague. Does that mean he's going to say that Fields was getting threats via social media? If so, were the alleged threats coming from 'inside the house?' Everybody knows why Fields transferred and it had nothing to do w/ some dumb baseball player's comment at a game. Who was, btw, dispensed with toute de suite. UGA handled the situation without delay.

  • LORLOR Posts: 66 ✭✭ Sophomore

    @kelly_b - I’ve always hated the slippery slope argument...but here we are. Does the NCAA gift this transfer exemption without a mountain of evidence? This is about to get gross.

  • TNDawg71TNDawg71 Posts: 572 ✭✭✭✭ Senior

    It seems like a lot of bluster to bully everyone into making it happen, just so ugliness doesn't go public, even if it is way more smoke than fire. Banking on most wanting to just move on from the whole saga.

  • HumbleYourselfHumbleYourself Posts: 313 ✭✭✭✭ Senior

    His statement was addressing people who question Fields on social media, not stating that the issue is with social media. He's saying its worse than everyone knows and if we all knew what really happened we would agree with his hardship waiver claims...sounds like the worst case scenario of Fields publicly attacking the University (on some grounds) is to be expected as part of this.

  • WCDawgWCDawg Posts: 11,127 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    Still waiting, but obviously it looks bad.

  • Raiderbeater1Raiderbeater1 Posts: 1,008 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    @JayDog said:

    @Dawg14 said:
    Seems like all anyone has to say is, "Justin if you felt it was so hostile, why did you request to stay in Athens for practices for the bowl game and take until after the game to confirm your transfer?"

    Logical. Reasonable. Those things don't count much anymore. He could claim one account of bad language and if he didn't have a snowflake room with kittens where he could decompress--he will get his waiver.

    Lawyers are snakes.

  • WCDawgWCDawg Posts: 11,127 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    @Dawg14 said:
    Seems like all anyone has to say is, "Justin if you felt it was so hostile, why did you request to stay in Athens for practices for the bowl game and take until after the game to confirm your transfer?"

    Once the it's an open conflict we can't win, even if Justin loses we lose.

  • JayDogJayDog Posts: 3,983 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    @Raiderbeater1 said:

    @JayDog said:

    @Dawg14 said:
    Seems like all anyone has to say is, "Justin if you felt it was so hostile, why did you request to stay in Athens for practices for the bowl game and take until after the game to confirm your transfer?"

    Logical. Reasonable. Those things don't count much anymore. He could claim one account of bad language and if he didn't have a snowflake room with kittens where he could decompress--he will get his waiver.

    Lawyers are snakes.

    They are parasites on the belly of snakes. Until I need one >:)

  • kelly_bkelly_b Posts: 1,031 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    I know everyone is sick of the Fields talk and with good reason, but this is kind of important because it addresses bigger issues that are out there. Even people who aren't sports junkies might be following this to see what happens. The NCAA has been a punchline for a long time, but I hope that they don't set a terrible precedent here.

  • rockymtndawgrockymtndawg Posts: 1 ✭ Freshman

    Does anyone know how this process works? I do not, and maybe we’re heading out into a brave new world… Seems like in previous hardship cases (Robinson, Patterson) their former schools were not involved. Does the new school make the case for their (now) student athlete, or is it only the SA? So, is it a case of Fields vs. the NCAA policy or OSU/Fields vs NCAA? Does OSU jump on board with the allegations to support his case? What’s UGA’s role in that proceeding, if any? Is there president for a hardship on “hostile environment” grounds?

    In any case, if that’s the path they choose, I would fully expect UGA to answer the allegations in a public manner, even if they have no role in the NCAA process. Fields is gone, and weather he plays this year or next will likely have little impact on UGA, so the biggest issue is a PR and image impact.

  • ColumboColumbo Posts: 109 ✭✭✭ Junior

    The Fields and Luke Ford timelines were pretty much the same including going into the portal. I noticed yesterday they removed Fields from the UGA roster but that Ford was still listed yesterday and today. Gives me a sense Kirby and Company were ready to hit the Delete button.

    https://georgiadogs.com/roster.aspx?path=football

  • AnotherDawgAnotherDawg Posts: 874 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    @rockymtndawg said:
    Does anyone know how this process works? I do not, and maybe we’re heading out into a brave new world… Seems like in previous hardship cases (Robinson, Patterson) their former schools were not involved. Does the new school make the case for their (now) student athlete, or is it only the SA? So, is it a case of Fields vs. the NCAA policy or OSU/Fields vs NCAA? Does OSU jump on board with the allegations to support his case? What’s UGA’s role in that proceeding, if any? Is there president for a hardship on “hostile environment” grounds?

    In any case, if that’s the path they choose, I would fully expect UGA to answer the allegations in a public manner, even if they have no role in the NCAA process. Fields is gone, and weather he plays this year or next will likely have little impact on UGA, so the biggest issue is a PR and image impact.

    All indications are that UGA will support the waiver and will have no comment. (Unless it's a generic statement condemning racism and indicating that the university values diversity and fosters an inclusive environment.) I'd love for them to call BS on the whole thing, but it's not going to happen.

  • VALDOSTADAWGVALDOSTADAWG Posts: 868 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    If he's trying to be just like Cam Newton he's off to a great start.

  • ghostofuga1ghostofuga1 Posts: 1,876 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    @AnotherDawg said:

    @rockymtndawg said:
    Does anyone know how this process works? I do not, and maybe we’re heading out into a brave new world… Seems like in previous hardship cases (Robinson, Patterson) their former schools were not involved. Does the new school make the case for their (now) student athlete, or is it only the SA? So, is it a case of Fields vs. the NCAA policy or OSU/Fields vs NCAA? Does OSU jump on board with the allegations to support his case? What’s UGA’s role in that proceeding, if any? Is there president for a hardship on “hostile environment” grounds?

    In any case, if that’s the path they choose, I would fully expect UGA to answer the allegations in a public manner, even if they have no role in the NCAA process. Fields is gone, and weather he plays this year or next will likely have little impact on UGA, so the biggest issue is a PR and image impact.

    All indications are that UGA will support the waiver and will have no comment. (Unless it's a generic statement condemning racism and indicating that the university values diversity and fosters an inclusive environment.) I'd love for them to call BS on the whole thing, but it's not going to happen.

    Could UGA just make a statement that they do not support the waiver without explanation? That is pretty much how I read the the transfer waiver rules. Thought they just had to either support it or not. If they decide not to, it automatically goes to the NCCA staff to determine whether it should be granted, but I really don't know for sure....

  • SquillDawgSquillDawg Posts: 67 ✭✭✭ Junior

    Some are regular humans, some are sub-human, and some are reptilian. And some, like me, just help people get patents and trademarks!

    Some of the things that receive patents are completely ridiculous and only exist to get the lawyers more work defending the BS patent.

    You're lumped in! ;)

  • AnotherDawgAnotherDawg Posts: 874 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    @ghostofuga1 said:

    @AnotherDawg said:

    @rockymtndawg said:
    Does anyone know how this process works? I do not, and maybe we’re heading out into a brave new world… Seems like in previous hardship cases (Robinson, Patterson) their former schools were not involved. Does the new school make the case for their (now) student athlete, or is it only the SA? So, is it a case of Fields vs. the NCAA policy or OSU/Fields vs NCAA? Does OSU jump on board with the allegations to support his case? What’s UGA’s role in that proceeding, if any? Is there president for a hardship on “hostile environment” grounds?

    In any case, if that’s the path they choose, I would fully expect UGA to answer the allegations in a public manner, even if they have no role in the NCAA process. Fields is gone, and weather he plays this year or next will likely have little impact on UGA, so the biggest issue is a PR and image impact.

    All indications are that UGA will support the waiver and will have no comment. (Unless it's a generic statement condemning racism and indicating that the university values diversity and fosters an inclusive environment.) I'd love for them to call BS on the whole thing, but it's not going to happen.

    Could UGA just make a statement that they do not support the waiver without explanation? That is pretty much how I read the the transfer waiver rules. Thought they just had to either support it or not. If they decide not to, it automatically goes to the NCCA staff to determine whether it should be granted, but I really don't know for sure....

    From a strictly legal and procedural standpoint I believe the answer to your question is yes, they could opt not to support the waiver, without comment. But that would trigger the deluge.

  • Casanova_FlatulenceCasanova_Flatulence Posts: 839 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    @AnotherDawg said:

    @ghostofuga1 said:

    @AnotherDawg said:

    @rockymtndawg said:
    Does anyone know how this process works? I do not, and maybe we’re heading out into a brave new world… Seems like in previous hardship cases (Robinson, Patterson) their former schools were not involved. Does the new school make the case for their (now) student athlete, or is it only the SA? So, is it a case of Fields vs. the NCAA policy or OSU/Fields vs NCAA? Does OSU jump on board with the allegations to support his case? What’s UGA’s role in that proceeding, if any? Is there president for a hardship on “hostile environment” grounds?

    In any case, if that’s the path they choose, I would fully expect UGA to answer the allegations in a public manner, even if they have no role in the NCAA process. Fields is gone, and weather he plays this year or next will likely have little impact on UGA, so the biggest issue is a PR and image impact.

    All indications are that UGA will support the waiver and will have no comment. (Unless it's a generic statement condemning racism and indicating that the university values diversity and fosters an inclusive environment.) I'd love for them to call BS on the whole thing, but it's not going to happen.

    Could UGA just make a statement that they do not support the waiver without explanation? That is pretty much how I read the the transfer waiver rules. Thought they just had to either support it or not. If they decide not to, it automatically goes to the NCCA staff to determine whether it should be granted, but I really don't know for sure....

    From a strictly legal and procedural standpoint I believe the answer to your question is yes, they could opt not to support the waiver, without comment. But that would trigger the deluge.

    By opting to support the waiver is UGA admitting to having racial bias on campus? If yes, doesn't that make us look worse?

  • AndersonDawgAndersonDawg Posts: 574 ✭✭✭✭ Senior

    @AnotherDawg said:

    @Raiderbeater1 said:

    @JayDog said:

    @Dawg14 said:
    Seems like all anyone has to say is, "Justin if you felt it was so hostile, why did you request to stay in Athens for practices for the bowl game and take until after the game to confirm your transfer?"

    Logical. Reasonable. Those things don't count much anymore. He could claim one account of bad language and if he didn't have a snowflake room with kittens where he could decompress--he will get his waiver.

    Lawyers are snakes.

    Go easy there with the broad brush! :smiley:

    Some are regular humans, some are sub-human, and some are reptilian. And some, like me, just help people get patents and trademarks!

    My guess is that the previous poster was not maligning all lawyers, but the type that are classified as “ambulance chasers”.

  • ghostofuga1ghostofuga1 Posts: 1,876 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    @Casanova_Flatulence said:

    @AnotherDawg said:

    @ghostofuga1 said:

    @AnotherDawg said:

    @rockymtndawg said:
    Does anyone know how this process works? I do not, and maybe we’re heading out into a brave new world… Seems like in previous hardship cases (Robinson, Patterson) their former schools were not involved. Does the new school make the case for their (now) student athlete, or is it only the SA? So, is it a case of Fields vs. the NCAA policy or OSU/Fields vs NCAA? Does OSU jump on board with the allegations to support his case? What’s UGA’s role in that proceeding, if any? Is there president for a hardship on “hostile environment” grounds?

    In any case, if that’s the path they choose, I would fully expect UGA to answer the allegations in a public manner, even if they have no role in the NCAA process. Fields is gone, and weather he plays this year or next will likely have little impact on UGA, so the biggest issue is a PR and image impact.

    All indications are that UGA will support the waiver and will have no comment. (Unless it's a generic statement condemning racism and indicating that the university values diversity and fosters an inclusive environment.) I'd love for them to call BS on the whole thing, but it's not going to happen.

    Could UGA just make a statement that they do not support the waiver without explanation? That is pretty much how I read the the transfer waiver rules. Thought they just had to either support it or not. If they decide not to, it automatically goes to the NCCA staff to determine whether it should be granted, but I really don't know for sure....

    From a strictly legal and procedural standpoint I believe the answer to your question is yes, they could opt not to support the waiver, without comment. But that would trigger the deluge.

    By opting to support the waiver is UGA admitting to having racial bias on campus? If yes, doesn't that make us look worse?

    I'm pretty sure that it's not going to be "racial bias" but "egregious behavior by staff or a student" which is all it takes to request a waiver...

  • AnotherDawgAnotherDawg Posts: 874 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    @Casanova_Flatulence said:

    @AnotherDawg said:

    @ghostofuga1 said:

    @AnotherDawg said:

    @rockymtndawg said:
    Does anyone know how this process works? I do not, and maybe we’re heading out into a brave new world… Seems like in previous hardship cases (Robinson, Patterson) their former schools were not involved. Does the new school make the case for their (now) student athlete, or is it only the SA? So, is it a case of Fields vs. the NCAA policy or OSU/Fields vs NCAA? Does OSU jump on board with the allegations to support his case? What’s UGA’s role in that proceeding, if any? Is there president for a hardship on “hostile environment” grounds?

    In any case, if that’s the path they choose, I would fully expect UGA to answer the allegations in a public manner, even if they have no role in the NCAA process. Fields is gone, and weather he plays this year or next will likely have little impact on UGA, so the biggest issue is a PR and image impact.

    All indications are that UGA will support the waiver and will have no comment. (Unless it's a generic statement condemning racism and indicating that the university values diversity and fosters an inclusive environment.) I'd love for them to call BS on the whole thing, but it's not going to happen.

    Could UGA just make a statement that they do not support the waiver without explanation? That is pretty much how I read the the transfer waiver rules. Thought they just had to either support it or not. If they decide not to, it automatically goes to the NCCA staff to determine whether it should be granted, but I really don't know for sure....

    From a strictly legal and procedural standpoint I believe the answer to your question is yes, they could opt not to support the waiver, without comment. But that would trigger the deluge.

    By opting to support the waiver is UGA admitting to having racial bias on campus? If yes, doesn't that make us look worse?

    Good questions. I trust the University is weighing all these factors, with input from legal counsel and PR staff, perhaps outside assistance as well. Mixing metaphors, at the end of the day I assume they choose to swallow the bitter pill rather than roll around in the mud.

  • Casanova_FlatulenceCasanova_Flatulence Posts: 839 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    @ghostofuga1 said:

    @Casanova_Flatulence said:

    @AnotherDawg said:

    @ghostofuga1 said:

    @AnotherDawg said:

    @rockymtndawg said:
    Does anyone know how this process works? I do not, and maybe we’re heading out into a brave new world… Seems like in previous hardship cases (Robinson, Patterson) their former schools were not involved. Does the new school make the case for their (now) student athlete, or is it only the SA? So, is it a case of Fields vs. the NCAA policy or OSU/Fields vs NCAA? Does OSU jump on board with the allegations to support his case? What’s UGA’s role in that proceeding, if any? Is there president for a hardship on “hostile environment” grounds?

    In any case, if that’s the path they choose, I would fully expect UGA to answer the allegations in a public manner, even if they have no role in the NCAA process. Fields is gone, and weather he plays this year or next will likely have little impact on UGA, so the biggest issue is a PR and image impact.

    All indications are that UGA will support the waiver and will have no comment. (Unless it's a generic statement condemning racism and indicating that the university values diversity and fosters an inclusive environment.) I'd love for them to call BS on the whole thing, but it's not going to happen.

    Could UGA just make a statement that they do not support the waiver without explanation? That is pretty much how I read the the transfer waiver rules. Thought they just had to either support it or not. If they decide not to, it automatically goes to the NCCA staff to determine whether it should be granted, but I really don't know for sure....

    From a strictly legal and procedural standpoint I believe the answer to your question is yes, they could opt not to support the waiver, without comment. But that would trigger the deluge.

    By opting to support the waiver is UGA admitting to having racial bias on campus? If yes, doesn't that make us look worse?

    I'm pretty sure that it's not going to be "racial bias" but "egregious behavior by staff or a student" which is all it takes to request a waiver...

    Correct, but the egregious behavior by the student will require an explanation, which will be a full accounting of the G-Day episode, which is a racial matter.

  • AnotherDawgAnotherDawg Posts: 874 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    @AndersonDawg said:

    @AnotherDawg said:

    @Raiderbeater1 said:

    @JayDog said:

    @Dawg14 said:
    Seems like all anyone has to say is, "Justin if you felt it was so hostile, why did you request to stay in Athens for practices for the bowl game and take until after the game to confirm your transfer?"

    Logical. Reasonable. Those things don't count much anymore. He could claim one account of bad language and if he didn't have a snowflake room with kittens where he could decompress--he will get his waiver.

    Lawyers are snakes.

    Go easy there with the broad brush! :smiley:

    Some are regular humans, some are sub-human, and some are reptilian. And some, like me, just help people get patents and trademarks!

    My guess is that the previous poster was not maligning all lawyers, but the type that are classified as “ambulance chasers”.

    It's all good. Even lawyers make lawyer jokes. Shakespeare said it best. "The first thing we do..."

  • Casanova_FlatulenceCasanova_Flatulence Posts: 839 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    @Casanova_Flatulence said:

    @ghostofuga1 said:

    @Casanova_Flatulence said:

    @AnotherDawg said:

    @ghostofuga1 said:

    @AnotherDawg said:

    @rockymtndawg said:
    Does anyone know how this process works? I do not, and maybe we’re heading out into a brave new world… Seems like in previous hardship cases (Robinson, Patterson) their former schools were not involved. Does the new school make the case for their (now) student athlete, or is it only the SA? So, is it a case of Fields vs. the NCAA policy or OSU/Fields vs NCAA? Does OSU jump on board with the allegations to support his case? What’s UGA’s role in that proceeding, if any? Is there president for a hardship on “hostile environment” grounds?

    In any case, if that’s the path they choose, I would fully expect UGA to answer the allegations in a public manner, even if they have no role in the NCAA process. Fields is gone, and weather he plays this year or next will likely have little impact on UGA, so the biggest issue is a PR and image impact.

    All indications are that UGA will support the waiver and will have no comment. (Unless it's a generic statement condemning racism and indicating that the university values diversity and fosters an inclusive environment.) I'd love for them to call BS on the whole thing, but it's not going to happen.

    Could UGA just make a statement that they do not support the waiver without explanation? That is pretty much how I read the the transfer waiver rules. Thought they just had to either support it or not. If they decide not to, it automatically goes to the NCCA staff to determine whether it should be granted, but I really don't know for sure....

    From a strictly legal and procedural standpoint I believe the answer to your question is yes, they could opt not to support the waiver, without comment. But that would trigger the deluge.

    By opting to support the waiver is UGA admitting to having racial bias on campus? If yes, doesn't that make us look worse?

    I'm pretty sure that it's not going to be "racial bias" but "egregious behavior by staff or a student" which is all it takes to request a waiver...

    Correct, but the egregious behavior by the student will require an explanation, which will be a full accounting of the G-Day episode, which is a racial matter. It's like a No Lo Contender plea. By supporting the waiver we're admitting to racial bias or at least that's the way some will see it. It's almost like we're damned if we do and damned if we don't.

«13
Sign In or Register to comment.