Chris Dufresne's article this morning in the (UC)LA Times entitled: "Pacific 10 Chief reflects on tenure" was just an excuse to "Witch Hunt" USC again!
Yes! There are 10 teams in the Pac-10, but of the 17 questions that Mr. Dufresne asked Commissioner Tom Hansen, FIVE of them were about USC's investigation.
Disgustingly, Mr. Dufresne's fifth question assumes that USC is GUILTY until proven INNOCENT! The question is as follows:
Q. Hypothetically, how would you strip a national title from a football team? Unlike basketball, the NCAA doesn't run football.
We all know which Pac-10 team Mr. Dufresne was alluding to!
What a RUSE to keep attacking USC!
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Not Bill Plaschke Too!
Now (UC)LA Times reporter(?) Bill Plaschke is spewing his venom on anyone who wears Cardinal and Gold, especially President Sample and Mike Garrett!
I always knew that Mr. Plaschke had a "Blue" streak down his back.
Which (UC)LA Times reporter will be next to cast aspersions?
I always knew that Mr. Plaschke had a "Blue" streak down his back.
Which (UC)LA Times reporter will be next to cast aspersions?
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Where is Tanya Harding when you need her?
This morning, (UC)LA Times reporter Chris Dufresne wrote that "USC and Floyd succumbed to a death "watch" penalty."
He than wrote that "More than two decades ago, Southern Methodist football received the "death penalty" for crimes committed against the NCAA."
What is Mr. Dufresne insinuating in his article? Does he proclaim that USC committed crimes against the NCAA? Does he hope that USC gets the "death penalty"?
In 1995, UCLA came closer to getting the "death penalty" than USC ever will. Wikipedia wrote this about Bruin Tanya Harding. "In 1995, Harding enrolled at UCLA for one trimester. She played on the squad that won the NCAA women's softball championships. She left the school after the tournament. However, due to recruiting and scholarship rule violations by UCLA, her participation was ruled ineligible by the NCAA, which disqualified UCLA and forced them to vacate the title."
UCLA was then placed on three years probation by the NCAA and was told, if another violation occurred during those three years, they (the Bruins) would receive the "death penalty".
In those three probation years, the (UC)LA Times reporters never mentioned that UCLA was on NCAA probation and never mentioned Tanya Harding's name again!
So why did Mr. Dufresne insinuate, unsubstantially, that USC will receive the "death penalty"?
He is biased for UCLA over USC!
He than wrote that "More than two decades ago, Southern Methodist football received the "death penalty" for crimes committed against the NCAA."
What is Mr. Dufresne insinuating in his article? Does he proclaim that USC committed crimes against the NCAA? Does he hope that USC gets the "death penalty"?
In 1995, UCLA came closer to getting the "death penalty" than USC ever will. Wikipedia wrote this about Bruin Tanya Harding. "In 1995, Harding enrolled at UCLA for one trimester. She played on the squad that won the NCAA women's softball championships. She left the school after the tournament. However, due to recruiting and scholarship rule violations by UCLA, her participation was ruled ineligible by the NCAA, which disqualified UCLA and forced them to vacate the title."
UCLA was then placed on three years probation by the NCAA and was told, if another violation occurred during those three years, they (the Bruins) would receive the "death penalty".
In those three probation years, the (UC)LA Times reporters never mentioned that UCLA was on NCAA probation and never mentioned Tanya Harding's name again!
So why did Mr. Dufresne insinuate, unsubstantially, that USC will receive the "death penalty"?
He is biased for UCLA over USC!
What Spews Out of Chris Dufresne's Mouth?
Enough vicious words to make me want to throw up!
In his (UC)LA Times article this morning entitled, "Only harm is to hoops, so far", Mr. Dufresne spewed out his own "HARM" to USC Men's Basketball.
Quotes from his article are as follows: "his (Tim Floyd) departure was inconsequential; it's (USC basketball) going to be over for several years; piecing the time line together is more fun that(n) Sudoku; poisoned; And here comes the almost comical question: Who wants to coach USC basketball?; (Hire) Pittsburgh Coach Jamie Dixon: Last time anyone checked, he was smart-and nobody could want to get back to his home state this badly; inherit the specter; Turn out the lights at Galen Center; and it's only USC basketball being asked to take a long walk in a dark alley."
DOOM and GLOOM! BULLY them! Pour salt in their wounds! Kick them when they're down! Hit them below the belt! DEGRADE the remaining players on the USC team!
Would he spew such vicious words about the UCLA Bruins?
In his (UC)LA Times article this morning entitled, "Only harm is to hoops, so far", Mr. Dufresne spewed out his own "HARM" to USC Men's Basketball.
Quotes from his article are as follows: "his (Tim Floyd) departure was inconsequential; it's (USC basketball) going to be over for several years; piecing the time line together is more fun that(n) Sudoku; poisoned; And here comes the almost comical question: Who wants to coach USC basketball?; (Hire) Pittsburgh Coach Jamie Dixon: Last time anyone checked, he was smart-and nobody could want to get back to his home state this badly; inherit the specter; Turn out the lights at Galen Center; and it's only USC basketball being asked to take a long walk in a dark alley."
DOOM and GLOOM! BULLY them! Pour salt in their wounds! Kick them when they're down! Hit them below the belt! DEGRADE the remaining players on the USC team!
Would he spew such vicious words about the UCLA Bruins?
Friday, June 5, 2009
Now I Know Why!
Now I know why the (UC)LA Times is biased for UCLA over USC!
It is so obvious after reading Lance Pugmire's "NCAA seeks documents in inquiry of recruit Sidney" article this morning.
I quote Mr. Pugmire's article as follows: "A UCLA source, requiring anonymity because college representatives are not allowed to speak about recruits, said the school was concerned about how the family could afford to live in such a home." ($4,000 to $5,000 a month)
Didn't UCLA just committ an NCAA infraction? College representatives are not allowed to speak about recruits! A UCLA representative gave Lance Pugmire private information about a recruit!
Following NCAA rules, USC gave Lance Pugmire gave no such information to the (UC)LA Times!
What reporter is going to cut off the hand that feeds him?
That is why the (UC)LA Times is biased for UCLA over USC!
They don't want to silence their ILLEGAL source!
It is so obvious after reading Lance Pugmire's "NCAA seeks documents in inquiry of recruit Sidney" article this morning.
I quote Mr. Pugmire's article as follows: "A UCLA source, requiring anonymity because college representatives are not allowed to speak about recruits, said the school was concerned about how the family could afford to live in such a home." ($4,000 to $5,000 a month)
Didn't UCLA just committ an NCAA infraction? College representatives are not allowed to speak about recruits! A UCLA representative gave Lance Pugmire private information about a recruit!
Following NCAA rules, USC gave Lance Pugmire gave no such information to the (UC)LA Times!
What reporter is going to cut off the hand that feeds him?
That is why the (UC)LA Times is biased for UCLA over USC!
They don't want to silence their ILLEGAL source!
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
This Bruin Gets Off Easy!
UCLA football defensive back E.J. Woods was arrested and charged with two counts of sexual battery and four counts of battery on March 28, 2009. His pretrial hearing was continued to June 24th. (UC)LA Times reporter Chris Foster wrote a mere 19 word blurb on page C-8 today, about this Bruin who is still on the football team.
This same (UC)LA Times reporter Chris Foster also wrote a "sensationalized" 19 paragraph article today about USC Coach Tim Floyd on page C-5. Naturally, former Trojan O.J. Mayo is mentioned, as well as the NCAA inquiry. This is the third article this week by the (UC)LA Times insinuating that USC is guilty of infractions.
Who is the real criminal here? Not Coach Floyd or O.J. Mayo!
This same (UC)LA Times reporter Chris Foster also wrote a "sensationalized" 19 paragraph article today about USC Coach Tim Floyd on page C-5. Naturally, former Trojan O.J. Mayo is mentioned, as well as the NCAA inquiry. This is the third article this week by the (UC)LA Times insinuating that USC is guilty of infractions.
Who is the real criminal here? Not Coach Floyd or O.J. Mayo!
Sunday, May 31, 2009
WHY???? Because!!!! Part II.
So WHY did the (UC)LA Times print Paul Pringle's special report about USC on the front page this morning?
Because.....
1. It was a SLOW news day.
2. Are SCORNED because USC has stated "No Comment" to its reporters. WHY are UCLA's "No Comments" about any investigations honored, while USC's are portrayed as a cover-up?
3. Are REHASHING "old" news and passing it off as "new" news.
4. Are not RESPECTING USC's correct stance on the NCAA rules that Mr. Pringle, himself, quoted in his article this morning: "NCAA bylaws forbid schools from publicly disclosing information from the association's investigations until the probes are complete".
5. Are UTILIZING "Advocate Journalism" techniques in printing defamatory words about USC in its article: "scant, bizarre, lumbering, jock-centric campus, modest academic ambitions, fattened the university endowment, well-oiled revenue engine, and guard bolted for the NBA" (well, so did UCLA's Kevin Love!).
6. Are BELIEVING the word of two ex-convicts as reputable!
WHY????
Because the (UC)LA Times covers up any UCLA investigations in its back pages and sensationalizes all of USC's on its front page!
Will the BIAS ever end?
Because.....
1. It was a SLOW news day.
2. Are SCORNED because USC has stated "No Comment" to its reporters. WHY are UCLA's "No Comments" about any investigations honored, while USC's are portrayed as a cover-up?
3. Are REHASHING "old" news and passing it off as "new" news.
4. Are not RESPECTING USC's correct stance on the NCAA rules that Mr. Pringle, himself, quoted in his article this morning: "NCAA bylaws forbid schools from publicly disclosing information from the association's investigations until the probes are complete".
5. Are UTILIZING "Advocate Journalism" techniques in printing defamatory words about USC in its article: "scant, bizarre, lumbering, jock-centric campus, modest academic ambitions, fattened the university endowment, well-oiled revenue engine, and guard bolted for the NBA" (well, so did UCLA's Kevin Love!).
6. Are BELIEVING the word of two ex-convicts as reputable!
WHY????
Because the (UC)LA Times covers up any UCLA investigations in its back pages and sensationalizes all of USC's on its front page!
Will the BIAS ever end?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)