goemaw.com
TITLETOWN - A Decade Long Celebration Of The Greatest Achievement In College Athletics History => Kansas State Basketball is hard => Topic started by: Pete on December 22, 2010, 11:13:11 AM
-
kkietz
Post #615
MyFanPage
Add Buddy
Seems to me... Reply
And I don't really know what happened in this case, this is more of a crime than a "benefit".
If this is somebody they know, and not a person in position of management or ownership, they weren't getting anything because they were basketball players. Do you guys realize what young employees will do at your businesses? They will steal toilet paper, ketchup bottles, coffee and if you're in retail, anything they think they can get away with. They use their friends all the time to commit these "crimes". Many are minor, all of them are illegal and something you should be fired for.
But this is not what the NCAA is really that interested in. If Jake and Curtis scammed some stuff with somebody they know, the manager or owner of the store can press charges and should. Frank can suspend them if he wants.
My main concern here is that we have an overactive compliance department at K-state and I don't think the coaches are very thrilled with the way we do business in this area. Compliance people typically are experts and sounding boards for coaches that have questions. It's my understanding at KSU that we have a department that is constantly digging and looking for things. This is VERY RARE in NCAA athletics.
Seems to me if what we've heard so far is true, there could have been two viable solutions.
1)Store manager presses charges
2)Store manager agrees to press no charges if all items are returned and amployee is terminated.
So how did we get to a phone call made to athletics and athletics turns itself in and turns it over to NCAA?
-
Like I said last night, kiss all hope of regular Near Glory goodbye if we have such a proactive, Stasi like compliance department and AD.
Keitz has a point, this is essentially stealing . . . press charges, suspend the guys for a game or two, make them pay restitution and fines, and leave the NCAA out of it.
Yeah, you could probably technically call it an "impermissable (sp?) beni" but at what point do you draw the line at people being people, and a K-State booster/athletic interests offering an illegal beni??
-
if the employee ever attended a ksu athletic event, he/she is considered a booster.
-
Warm up the fire currie shirts?
-
if the employee ever attended a ksu athletic event, he/she is considered a booster.
I thought it took more than that...not much more, but more than that. I thought you had to at least donate....don't really know, though.
Anyway, I'm with Keitz on this....time to warm up the "fire so-and-so-in-the-compliance-dept" movement.
-
if the employee ever attended a ksu athletic event, he/she is considered a booster.
It does take a little more than that. No much . . . like season tickets, or giving $5 buck to the Ahearn Fund.
-
Kietz is full of sh1t. First, it doesn't meet the elements of a theft charge to be prosecuted in Kansas. That should tell you a lot.
Here's the statute:
21-3701. Theft. (a) Theft is any of the following acts done with intent to deprive the owner permanently of the possession, use or benefit of the owner's property:
(1) Obtaining or exerting unauthorized control over property;
(2) obtaining by deception control over property;
(3) obtaining by threat control over property; or
(4) obtaining control over stolen property knowing the property to have been stolen by another.
(b) (1) Theft of property of the value of $100,000 or more is a severity level 5, nonperson felony.
(2) Theft of property of the value of at least $25,000 but less than $100,000 is a severity level 7, nonperson felony.
(3) Theft of property of the value of at least $1,000 but less than $25,000 is a severity level 9, nonperson felony.
(4) Theft of property regardless of the value from three separate mercantile establishments within a period of 72 hours as part of the same act or transaction or in two or more acts or transactions connected together or constituting parts of a common scheme or course of conduct is a severity level 9, nonperson felony.
(5) Theft of property of the value of less than $1,000 is a class A nonperson misdemeanor.
(6) Theft of property of the value of less than $1,000 is a severity level 9, nonperson felony if committed by a person who has been convicted of theft two or more times.
(c) Conviction of a violation of a municipal ordinance prohibiting acts which constitute theft as defined by this section shall be considered a conviction of theft for the purpose of determining the number of prior convictions and the classification of the crime under this section.
Notice that the control over the property ty Pullen or Kelly is not "unauthorized". It's not known if the employee used proper authorization, but from a legal standpoint, the employee is an "agent" of the store, and Pullen and Kelly have to accept that he is acting in the interests of the store.
RCPD has no problems charging student athletes. Why doesn't one of the geniuses that think this is a "crime" request a police report on this?
-
Kietz is full of sh1t. First, it doesn't meet the elements of a theft charge to be prosecuted in Kansas. That should tell you a lot.
Here's the statute:
21-3701. Theft. (a) Theft is any of the following acts done with intent to deprive the owner permanently of the possession, use or benefit of the owner's property:
(1) Obtaining or exerting unauthorized control over property;
(2) obtaining by deception control over property;
(3) obtaining by threat control over property; or
(4) obtaining control over stolen property knowing the property to have been stolen by another.
(b) (1) Theft of property of the value of $100,000 or more is a severity level 5, nonperson felony.
(2) Theft of property of the value of at least $25,000 but less than $100,000 is a severity level 7, nonperson felony.
(3) Theft of property of the value of at least $1,000 but less than $25,000 is a severity level 9, nonperson felony.
(4) Theft of property regardless of the value from three separate mercantile establishments within a period of 72 hours as part of the same act or transaction or in two or more acts or transactions connected together or constituting parts of a common scheme or course of conduct is a severity level 9, nonperson felony.
(5) Theft of property of the value of less than $1,000 is a class A nonperson misdemeanor.
(6) Theft of property of the value of less than $1,000 is a severity level 9, nonperson felony if committed by a person who has been convicted of theft two or more times.
(c) Conviction of a violation of a municipal ordinance prohibiting acts which constitute theft as defined by this section shall be considered a conviction of theft for the purpose of determining the number of prior convictions and the classification of the crime under this section.
Notice that the control over the property ty Pullen or Kelly is not "unauthorized". It's not known if the employee used proper authorization, but from a legal standpoint, the employee is an "agent" of the store, and Pullen and Kelly have to accept that he is acting in the interests of the store.
RCPD has no problems charging student athletes. Why doesn't one of the geniuses that think this is a "crime" request a police report on this?
:ck:
-
JFC, we need a ruling on who to start hating now. Dillards, our AD's office, Frank, Jake/Curt....this is all very confusing.
-
Kietz is full of sh1t. First, it doesn't meet the elements of a theft charge to be prosecuted in Kansas. That should tell you a lot.
Here's the statute:
21-3701. Theft. (a) Theft is any of the following acts done with intent to deprive the owner permanently of the possession, use or benefit of the owner's property:
(1) Obtaining or exerting unauthorized control over property;
(2) obtaining by deception control over property;
(3) obtaining by threat control over property; or
(4) obtaining control over stolen property knowing the property to have been stolen by another.
(b) (1) Theft of property of the value of $100,000 or more is a severity level 5, nonperson felony.
(2) Theft of property of the value of at least $25,000 but less than $100,000 is a severity level 7, nonperson felony.
(3) Theft of property of the value of at least $1,000 but less than $25,000 is a severity level 9, nonperson felony.
(4) Theft of property regardless of the value from three separate mercantile establishments within a period of 72 hours as part of the same act or transaction or in two or more acts or transactions connected together or constituting parts of a common scheme or course of conduct is a severity level 9, nonperson felony.
(5) Theft of property of the value of less than $1,000 is a class A nonperson misdemeanor.
(6) Theft of property of the value of less than $1,000 is a severity level 9, nonperson felony if committed by a person who has been convicted of theft two or more times.
(c) Conviction of a violation of a municipal ordinance prohibiting acts which constitute theft as defined by this section shall be considered a conviction of theft for the purpose of determining the number of prior convictions and the classification of the crime under this section.
Notice that the control over the property ty Pullen or Kelly is not "unauthorized". It's not known if the employee used proper authorization, but from a legal standpoint, the employee is an "agent" of the store, and Pullen and Kelly have to accept that he is acting in the interests of the store.
RCPD has no problems charging student athletes. Why doesn't one of the geniuses that think this is a "crime" request a police report on this?
So, you know that the clerk didn't have authority to give this stuff away. Do tell if you know something the rest of the public does not.
-
Dawg does bring up a great point.
So it was up to a couple of college guys to the mature ones, ask the questions about the clerks authority etc. etc. . . . not going to happen.
This is one reason why a 3 game suspension is Bull$hit.
Hell who knows . . . :ck:
-
if the employee ever attended a ksu athletic event, he/she is considered a booster.
There is no way on earth this is accurate.
-
if the employee ever attended a ksu athletic event, he/she is considered a booster.
There is no way on earth this is accurate.
Pretty sure that's what the season ticket packet says. Someone near their season ticket faq page check this.
-
if the employee ever attended a ksu athletic event, he/she is considered a booster.
I thought it took more than that...not much more, but more than that. I thought you had to at least donate....don't really know, though.
Anyway, I'm with Keitz on this....time to warm up the "fire so-and-so-in-the-compliance-dept" movement.
let's do it the KU way - not have a compliance dept during hoops season and see what we can get away with
-
Dammit, I was afraid we were headed down this road when Currie bragged about carrying around the budget on a flashcard in his pocket.
-
Kietz is full of sh1t. First, it doesn't meet the elements of a theft charge to be prosecuted in Kansas. That should tell you a lot.
Of course it fits the elements. I've prosecuted it.
-
if the employee ever attended a ksu athletic event, he/she is considered a booster.
There is no way on earth this is accurate.
Pretty sure that's what the season ticket packet says. Someone near their season ticket faq page check this.
i think i mispoke...it is season tickets..but it says any financial contribution. for some reason I thought they extended this to just buying a a ticket. from ark's website:
The NCAA defines a booster as:
* An individual who is a member of the institution's athletics booster club.
* An individual who has made financial contributions to the booster club or the Athletic Department.
* An individual who is involved in providing benefits (e.g. summer jobs) to prospects or enrolled student-athletes.
* An individual who has been otherwise involved in promoting University of Arkansas (i.e. buying season tickets).
-
kkietz
Post #615
MyFanPage
Add Buddy
Seems to me... Reply
And I don't really know what happened in this case, this is more of a crime than a "benefit".
If this is somebody they know, and not a person in position of management or ownership, they weren't getting anything because they were basketball players. Do you guys realize what young employees will do at your businesses? They will steal toilet paper, ketchup bottles, coffee and if you're in retail, anything they think they can get away with. They use their friends all the time to commit these "crimes". Many are minor, all of them are illegal and something you should be fired for.
But this is not what the NCAA is really that interested in. If Jake and Curtis scammed some stuff with somebody they know, the manager or owner of the store can press charges and should. Frank can suspend them if he wants.
My main concern here is that we have an overactive compliance department at K-state and I don't think the coaches are very thrilled with the way we do business in this area. Compliance people typically are experts and sounding boards for coaches that have questions. It's my understanding at KSU that we have a department that is constantly digging and looking for things. This is VERY RARE in NCAA athletics.
Seems to me if what we've heard so far is true, there could have been two viable solutions.
1)Store manager presses charges
2)Store manager agrees to press no charges if all items are returned and amployee is terminated.
So how did we get to a phone call made to athletics and athletics turns itself in and turns it over to NCAA?
Do people think about multiple scenarios or do they generally just run with the first line of bullshit that pops into their head? Rhetorical question.
If you're the compliance dept, do you handle this as soon as you find out or do you say eff it let the NCAA possibly find out on their own and we'll deal with it if they do? To blame the AD or compliance department is the dumbest rough ridin' thing I have ever seen. Not surprising considering the source. If you are K-State you don't eff with the NCAA. We don't swing a hammer you yessir them as much as possible to keep them out of your face.
-
if the employee ever attended a ksu athletic event, he/she is considered a booster.
There is no way on earth this is accurate.
Pretty sure that's what the season ticket packet says. Someone near their season ticket faq page check this.
i think i mispoke...it is season tickets..but it says any financial contribution. for some reason I thought they extended this to just buying a a ticket. from ark's website:
The NCAA defines a booster as:
* An individual who is a member of the institution's athletics booster club.
* An individual who has made financial contributions to the booster club or the Athletic Department.
* An individual who is involved in providing benefits (e.g. summer jobs) to prospects or enrolled student-athletes.
* An individual who has been otherwise involved in promoting University of Arkansas (i.e. buying season tickets).
From the KSU Compliance dept.
A ‘representative’ of Kansas State’s athletic
interests is: an individual who is known (or who
should have been known) by a member of KState’s
executive or athletics administration to:
• have participated in or to be a member of
an agency or organization promoting KSU
athletics.
• have made fi nancial contributions to the
athletic department or to an athletic booster
organization of K-State.
• have been involved otherwise in promoting
the institution’s athletic program.
• bought or received tickets to a K-State athletics
event.
Once an individual is identified as an ‘athletic
representative,’ the person retains that identity
forever.
so yes all you need to do is go to a game
http://www.kstatesports.com/compliance/pdf/48390.pdf (http://www.kstatesports.com/compliance/pdf/48390.pdf)
-
if the employee ever attended a ksu athletic event, he/she is considered a booster.
There is no way on earth this is accurate.
Pretty sure that's what the season ticket packet says. Someone near their season ticket faq page check this.
i think i mispoke...it is season tickets..but it says any financial contribution. for some reason I thought they extended this to just buying a a ticket. from ark's website:
The NCAA defines a booster as:
* An individual who is a member of the institution's athletics booster club.
* An individual who has made financial contributions to the booster club or the Athletic Department.
* An individual who is involved in providing benefits (e.g. summer jobs) to prospects or enrolled student-athletes.
* An individual who has been otherwise involved in promoting University of Arkansas (i.e. buying season tickets).
From the KSU Compliance dept.
A ‘representative’ of Kansas State’s athletic
interests is: an individual who is known (or who
should have been known) by a member of KState’s
executive or athletics administration to:
• have participated in or to be a member of
an agency or organization promoting KSU
athletics.
• have made fi nancial contributions to the
athletic department or to an athletic booster
organization of K-State.
• have been involved otherwise in promoting
the institution’s athletic program.
• bought or received tickets to a K-State athletics
event.
Once an individual is identified as an ‘athletic
representative,’ the person retains that identity
forever.
so yes all you need to do is go to a game
http://www.kstatesports.com/compliance/pdf/48390.pdf (http://www.kstatesports.com/compliance/pdf/48390.pdf)
Not even sure why this matters, you cannot receive impermissible benefits from anyone, authorized rep or not
-
Kietz is full of sh1t. First, it doesn't meet the elements of a theft charge to be prosecuted in Kansas. That should tell you a lot.
Of course it fits the elements. I've prosecuted it.
I doubt it was a jury trial. Prosecutors get bogus pleas all the time. Your defendant was a Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!), which of course, you relied upon to get your plea.
-
this is the reason K-State will never be good at anything. We will never be able to bring in or keep a winning coach with a compliance office like ours. Have a compliance office that will "do the right thing" and follow ever letter of the law will scare away any good coach from our program and lead to a good up and comer to leave. If I ma not giving a big enough hint, Frank was more pissed that compliance would not let him handle this internally. You take the keys away from a coach he will find a new car to drive sooner rather than later.
-
Kietz is full of sh1t. First, it doesn't meet the elements of a theft charge to be prosecuted in Kansas. That should tell you a lot.
Here's the statute:
21-3701. Theft. (a) Theft is any of the following acts done with intent to deprive the owner permanently of the possession, use or benefit of the owner's property:
(1) Obtaining or exerting unauthorized control over property;
(2) obtaining by deception control over property;
(3) obtaining by threat control over property; or
(4) obtaining control over stolen property knowing the property to have been stolen by another.
(b) (1) Theft of property of the value of $100,000 or more is a severity level 5, nonperson felony.
(2) Theft of property of the value of at least $25,000 but less than $100,000 is a severity level 7, nonperson felony.
(3) Theft of property of the value of at least $1,000 but less than $25,000 is a severity level 9, nonperson felony.
(4) Theft of property regardless of the value from three separate mercantile establishments within a period of 72 hours as part of the same act or transaction or in two or more acts or transactions connected together or constituting parts of a common scheme or course of conduct is a severity level 9, nonperson felony.
(5) Theft of property of the value of less than $1,000 is a class A nonperson misdemeanor.
(6) Theft of property of the value of less than $1,000 is a severity level 9, nonperson felony if committed by a person who has been convicted of theft two or more times.
(c) Conviction of a violation of a municipal ordinance prohibiting acts which constitute theft as defined by this section shall be considered a conviction of theft for the purpose of determining the number of prior convictions and the classification of the crime under this section.
Notice that the control over the property ty Pullen or Kelly is not "unauthorized". It's not known if the employee used proper authorization, but from a legal standpoint, the employee is an "agent" of the store, and Pullen and Kelly have to accept that he is acting in the interests of the store.
RCPD has no problems charging student athletes. Why doesn't one of the geniuses that think this is a "crime" request a police report on this?
:ck:
The clerk had authorized control over the property, so it wasn't stolen. Good cite if Pullen and Kelly were buying the goods from a fence. That's not what's going on here.
-
JFC, we need a ruling on who to start hating now. Dillards, our AD's office, Frank, Jake/Curt....this is all very confusing.
I pretty much hate all of them at this point. I think I hate our compliance dicks the most though. Frank should have "handled" this. They got a discount on a few polos from some whore at fracking Dillards, they didn't get a money bag from a damn booster. :chainsaw:
-
JFC, we need a ruling on who to start hating now. Dillards, our AD's office, Frank, Jake/Curt....this is all very confusing.
-
JFC, we need a ruling on who to start hating now. Dillards, our AD's office, Frank, Jake/Curt....this is all very confusing.
I pretty much hate all of them at this point. I think I hate our compliance dicks the most though. Frank should have "handled" this. They got a discount on a few polos from some whore at fracking Dillards, they didn't get a money bag from a damn booster. :chainsaw:
I really don't understand why this is so hard for you tards to understand. We're not rough ridin' Duke or Kansas. Either have a far reaching compliance department or deal with a TV ban, two year post season ban and the loss of 4 scholarships. I can't believe you fuckwads are willing to risk something bigger for 3 goddamn December games. Get a rough ridin' grip.
-
god dammit I want Krause back, he could have fixed all this with a contract
-
There is no "risk everything" in these types of scenarios Make it Golden Shower. . .. geezus, talk about a rough ridin' drama queen.
-
There is no "risk everything" in these types of scenarios Make it Golden Shower. . .. geezus, talk about a rough ridin' drama queen.
So you know for a fact that the snitch wouldn't have called the RCPD, KC Star, or straight to the NCAA if they were not satisfied? They were going to snitch to the AD, with no expectations whatsoever but no one else. As always, perfectly reasonable, Dax.
-
There is no "risk everything" in these types of scenarios Make it Golden Shower. . .. geezus, talk about a rough ridin' drama queen.
So you know for a fact that the snitch wouldn't have called the RCPD, KC Star, or straight to the NCAA if they were not satisfied? They were going to snitch to the AD, with no expectations whatsoever but no one else. As always, perfectly reasonable, Dax.
Doesn't matter, it's a secondary violation, it's not a "risk everything" scenario. The NCAA just pretty much said there's nothing they can do to a kid even if his dad did shop him around for $200K. Even that is absolutely a clear violation of multiple NCAA rules. Plus, don't give some spiel about it being Auburn, the NCAA has hammered Auburn repeatedly over the years. If it's handled internally, the kids make full restitution and all of this is documented, there isn't going to be some "risk everything" scenario. The worst possible thing to happen is to have some compliance staff that's sniffing around and sticking their head into every little thing. Because you can't fart without committing a secondary violation.
-
There is no "risk everything" in these types of scenarios Make it Golden Shower. . .. geezus, talk about a rough ridin' drama queen.
So you know for a fact that the snitch wouldn't have called the RCPD, KC Star, or straight to the NCAA if they were not satisfied? They were going to snitch to the AD, with no expectations whatsoever but no one else. As always, perfectly reasonable, Dax.
Is it me or did my powerespect version of myself get a hold of Makeitrain's log in info and start posting. :powerespect:
-
Kietz is full of sh1t. First, it doesn't meet the elements of a theft charge to be prosecuted in Kansas. That should tell you a lot.
Here's the statute:
21-3701. Theft. (a) Theft is any of the following acts done with intent to deprive the owner permanently of the possession, use or benefit of the owner's property:
(1) Obtaining or exerting unauthorized control over property;
(2) obtaining by deception control over property;
(3) obtaining by threat control over property; or
(4) obtaining control over stolen property knowing the property to have been stolen by another.
(b) (1) Theft of property of the value of $100,000 or more is a severity level 5, nonperson felony.
(2) Theft of property of the value of at least $25,000 but less than $100,000 is a severity level 7, nonperson felony.
(3) Theft of property of the value of at least $1,000 but less than $25,000 is a severity level 9, nonperson felony.
(4) Theft of property regardless of the value from three separate mercantile establishments within a period of 72 hours as part of the same act or transaction or in two or more acts or transactions connected together or constituting parts of a common scheme or course of conduct is a severity level 9, nonperson felony.
(5) Theft of property of the value of less than $1,000 is a class A nonperson misdemeanor.
(6) Theft of property of the value of less than $1,000 is a severity level 9, nonperson felony if committed by a person who has been convicted of theft two or more times.
(c) Conviction of a violation of a municipal ordinance prohibiting acts which constitute theft as defined by this section shall be considered a conviction of theft for the purpose of determining the number of prior convictions and the classification of the crime under this section.
Notice that the control over the property ty Pullen or Kelly is not "unauthorized". It's not known if the employee used proper authorization, but from a legal standpoint, the employee is an "agent" of the store, and Pullen and Kelly have to accept that he is acting in the interests of the store.
RCPD has no problems charging student athletes. Why doesn't one of the geniuses that think this is a "crime" request a police report on this?
:ck:
What about receiving stolen property? :facepalm:
-
There is no "risk everything" in these types of scenarios Make it Golden Shower. . .. geezus, talk about a rough ridin' drama queen.
So you know for a fact that the snitch wouldn't have called the RCPD, KC Star, or straight to the NCAA if they were not satisfied? They were going to snitch to the AD, with no expectations whatsoever but no one else. As always, perfectly reasonable, Dax.
Doesn't matter, it's a secondary violation, it's not a "risk everything" scenario. The NCAA just pretty much said there's nothing they can do to a kid even if his dad did shop him around for $200K. Even that is absolutely a clear violation of multiple NCAA rules. Plus, don't give some spiel about it being Auburn, the NCAA has hammered Auburn repeatedly over the years. If it's handled internally, the kids make full restitution and all of this is documented, there isn't going to be some "risk everything" scenario. The worst possible thing to happen is to have some compliance staff that's sniffing around and sticking their head into every little thing. Because you can't fart without committing a secondary violation.
That entire paragraph is based on subjective opinion, thankfully the people running the athletic department aren't willing to fool around with "what if's." There is nothing consistent about how the NCAA enforces its rules. Only a Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) wouldn't :cheese: with three games at the end of December.
I know this is very difficult for you, but try to stop :runaway: about small crap. I'd save this for when we start conference 1-3.
-
There is no "risk everything" in these types of scenarios Make it Golden Shower. . .. geezus, talk about a rough ridin' drama queen.
So you know for a fact that the snitch wouldn't have called the RCPD, KC Star, or straight to the NCAA if they were not satisfied? They were going to snitch to the AD, with no expectations whatsoever but no one else. As always, perfectly reasonable, Dax.
Is it me or did my powerespect version of myself get a hold of Makeitrain's log in info and start posting. :powerespect:
I sweat to God I'll fight your fat, smelly, acne faced ass.
-
There is no "risk everything" in these types of scenarios Make it Golden Shower. . .. geezus, talk about a rough ridin' drama queen.
So you know for a fact that the snitch wouldn't have called the RCPD, KC Star, or straight to the NCAA if they were not satisfied? They were going to snitch to the AD, with no expectations whatsoever but no one else. As always, perfectly reasonable, Dax.
Is it me or did my powerespect version of myself get a hold of Makeitrain's log in info and start posting. :powerespect:
I sweat to God I'll fight your fat, smelly, acne faced ass.
:bwpopcorn:
-
Only a Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) wouldn't :cheese: with three games at the end of December.
good rebuttal. although we still haven't heard what Kelly's punishment is. have we?
-
There is no "risk everything" in these types of scenarios Make it Golden Shower. . .. geezus, talk about a rough ridin' drama queen.
So you know for a fact that the snitch wouldn't have called the RCPD, KC Star, or straight to the NCAA if they were not satisfied? They were going to snitch to the AD, with no expectations whatsoever but no one else. As always, perfectly reasonable, Dax.
Is it me or did my powerespect version of myself get a hold of Makeitrain's log in info and start posting. :powerespect:
I sweat to God I'll fight your fat, smelly, acne faced ass.
Sure. This fat ass is ready to rumble.
-
Never said that the NCAA was consistant Rain, in fact I've been pointing out how inconsistant they've been for years. But you're operating under the dumbass assumption that I am sayiing that K-State just look the other way, and that's not what I am saying. I am saying you don't have to run to the NCAA on every little freaking thing, particuarly if there was not anyone in the K-State athletic adminstration or coaching staff involved in what is clearly a secondary violation at most, and even that is debateable because the actual "booster" status of the Dillards employee has not been established publically. Handle it in house, restitution, 1 game suspension, go over rules with the entire team, ensure no one on the coaching staff was involved, ensure that it was an isolated incident.
-
Never said that the NCAA was consistant Rain, in fact I've been pointing out how inconsistant they've been for years. But you're operating under the dumbass assumption that I am sayiing that K-State just look the other way, and that's not what I am saying. I am saying you don't have to run to the NCAA on every little freaking thing, particuarly if there was not anyone in the K-State athletic adminstration or coaching staff involved in what is clearly a secondary violation at most, and even that is debateable because the actual "booster" status of the Dillards employee has not been established publically. Handle it in house, restitution, 1 game suspension, go over rules with the entire team, ensure no one on the coaching staff was involved, ensure that it was an isolated incident.
OR, Bill Self it and completely ignore.
-
Never said that the NCAA was consistant Rain, in fact I've been pointing out how inconsistant they've been for years. But you're operating under the dumbass assumption that I am sayiing that K-State just look the other way, and that's not what I am saying. I am saying you don't have to run to the NCAA on every little freaking thing, particuarly if there was not anyone in the K-State athletic adminstration or coaching staff involved in what is clearly a secondary violation at most, and even that is debateable because the actual "booster" status of the Dillards employee has not been established publically. Handle it in house, restitution, 1 game suspension, go over rules with the entire team, ensure no one on the coaching staff was involved, ensure that it was an isolated incident.
They shouldn't inform the NCAA of NCAA violations that they know about? I would agree with you IF the compliance department uncovered the violation, it's pretty clear that this isn't the case, they were told by the snitch. If townies were the people who uncovered the issue you are rolling the dice by keeping it in house.
Why do you keep thinking that you have to be a booster to be penalized by the NCAA for impermissable benefits?
-
Never said it had to be a booster . . . but there's a huge difference between some dumbass clerk at a department store giving some discounts as oppossed to Jack Vanier handing out pre-paid $1000 Visa cards . . . which is a hell of a great idea IMO.
Here's the deal on the "snitch", anybody can call up the NCAA and say anything, so what.
-
What ever happened to the $100 handshake?
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
-
Players aren't allowed to benefit from their celebrity status. I don't think it matters if this clerk ever went to a game.
BITB was talking about how great Currie is yesterday. I don't have a problem with self-reporting this. Players need to understand there are consequences for violating NCAA rules. Frank too.
-
Kietz is full of sh1t. First, it doesn't meet the elements of a theft charge to be prosecuted in Kansas. That should tell you a lot.
Of course it fits the elements. I've prosecuted it.
I doubt it was a jury trial. Prosecutors get bogus pleas all the time. Your defendant was a Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!), which of course, you relied upon to get your plea.
Kietz is full of sh1t. First, it doesn't meet the elements of a theft charge to be prosecuted in Kansas. That should tell you a lot.
Of course it fits the elements. I've prosecuted it.
I doubt it was a jury trial. Prosecutors get bogus pleas all the time. Your defendant was a Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!), which of course, you relied upon to get your plea.
You have no idea what you're talking about. Just stop. When an employee of a store works with "customers" to get them free crap, it's theft. The whole bunch of them are stealing from the store.
I'm fairly sure that this has nothing to do with boosters, ku snitches, etc. An employee tried to give the players the same hook-up she probably gives non-playing friends. She got busted and law enforcement was involved. The manager there hates everyone; she is a bitter old woman. She wouldn't discriminate between KSU ballers, squawks, students, anybody. KSU was brought into the fold and made the call, rightly or wrongly, that they'd rather self-report then let the thing play out and catch whatever consequences the NCAA could bring should they later find out, which between the prospect of charges (which are public) and small-town-everyone-talks Manhattan, were probably pretty good.
-
Players aren't allowed to benefit from their celebrity status. I don't think it matters if this clerk ever went to a game.
BITB was talking about how great Currie is yesterday. I don't have a problem with self-reporting this. Players need to understand there are consequences for violating NCAA rules. Frank too.
:powerespect:
-
Nope, gonna stick with the fact that there's literally 1000's of secondary violations every day all across college sports and most of them never see the light of day at the NCAA. If it was found that somebody on the K-State staff or admin was involved, or that this was an inducement to come to K-State or stay at K-State (uh-hmm like happens at certain other schools) then yeah, I grudgingly say report it to the NCAA.
-
Nope, gonna stick with the fact that there's literally 1000's of secondary violations every day all across college sports and most of them never see the light of day at the NCAA. If it was found that somebody on the K-State staff or admin was involved, or that this was an inducement to come to K-State or stay at K-State (uh-hmm like happens at certain other schools) then yeah, I grudgingly say report it to the NCAA.
I don't want to live in a world where this isn't true.
-
Never said it had to be a booster . . . but there's a huge difference between some dumbass clerk at a department store giving some discounts as oppossed to Jack Vanier handing out pre-paid $1000 Visa cards . . . which is a hell of a great idea IMO.
Here's the deal on the "snitch", anybody can call up the NCAA and say anything, so what.
Yes but if the NCAA investigates and find that the Athletic dept knew about it and the department store can show reciepts etc... to collaborate it's claim then the whole department looks bad.
To me this is setting up nice. We turn ourselves in for something petty our preseason all american non the less. Now we can start the real paying of player/recruits and the NCAA won't even think twice. "What they are handing out gift cards, no way, they turn in there best players for stupid things, we will leave this one alone."
-
Nope, gonna stick with the fact that there's literally 1000's of secondary violations every day all across college sports and most of them never see the light of day at the NCAA.
No rough ridin' crap Dax, the same thing happens at K-State too. I wouldn't be shocked if it happened in Manhattan again today. The rough ridin' equestrian team gets impermissible benefits. It is obvious to nearly everyone but you and Keitz that the compliance department felt like they had reason to report this specific incident. LOL at you thinking that the compliance department calls the NCAA everytime they know an athlete got a goddamn Jimmy Johns sub brought for them.
-
Never said it had to be a booster . . . but there's a huge difference between some dumbass clerk at a department store giving some discounts as oppossed to Jack Vanier handing out pre-paid $1000 Visa cards . . . which is a hell of a great idea IMO.
Here's the deal on the "snitch", anybody can call up the NCAA and say anything, so what.
Yes but if the NCAA investigates and find that the Athletic dept knew about it and the department store can show reciepts etc... to collaborate it's claim then the whole department looks bad.
To me this is setting up nice. We turn ourselves in for something petty our preseason all american non the less. Now we can start the real paying of player/recruits and the NCAA won't even think twice. "What they are handing out gift cards, no way, they turn in there best players for stupid things, we will leave this one alone."
Okay, well I am big believer in pre-emptive reporting to get out ahead of the real cheating. Looking at the recruiting, you really think we're trying very hard (cheating) on the recruiting front??
-
Geezus Rain . . . you become more of a drama queen little bitch with every post.
And yeah, no crap, the compliance department thought they had good reason to report this incident to the NCAA, thanks Captain rough ridin' Obvious. Doesn't mean I have to agree with it.
I am sure Frank appreciates the fact that he's dealing with a hyper reactive compliance staff who is going to go running to the NCAA on every little thing that had nothing to do with him or his staff, nor with any boosters of any level of significance. Just some dumb college chick working behind the counter at Dillards.
-
Never said it had to be a booster . . . but there's a huge difference between some dumbass clerk at a department store giving some discounts as oppossed to Jack Vanier handing out pre-paid $1000 Visa cards . . . which is a hell of a great idea IMO.
Here's the deal on the "snitch", anybody can call up the NCAA and say anything, so what.
Yes but if the NCAA investigates and find that the Athletic dept knew about it and the department store can show reciepts etc... to collaborate it's claim then the whole department looks bad.
To me this is setting up nice. We turn ourselves in for something petty our preseason all american non the less. Now we can start the real paying of player/recruits and the NCAA won't even think twice. "What they are handing out gift cards, no way, they turn in there best players for stupid things, we will leave this one alone."
Okay, well I am big believer in pre-emptive reporting to get out ahead of the real cheating. Looking at the recruiting, you really think we're trying very hard on the recruiting front??
Maybe we are setting up to scuttle the the ship and start over. This was the first move to get the NCAA off our tail. Next spring we will suddenly be mentioned with multiple 4 and 5 star recruits.
-
Geezus Rain . . . you become more of a drama queen little bitch with every post.
And yeah, not crap, the compliance department thought they had good reason to report this incident to the NCAA, thanks Captain rough ridin' Obvious. Doesn't mean I have to agree with it.
So you are bitching just to bitch, I should have known better, you win this round :takesbait: reel'd me in
-
Geezus Rain . . . you become more of a drama queen little bitch with every post.
And yeah, not crap, the compliance department thought they had good reason to report this incident to the NCAA, thanks Captain rough ridin' Obvious. Doesn't mean I have to agree with it.
So you are bitching just to bitch, I should have known better, you win this round :takesbait: reel'd me in
To bad Captain Compliance.
-
BITB:
K-State should never have told the NCAA, K-State blew it.
-
BITB:
K-State should never have told the NCAA, K-State blew it.
BITB!
-
You have no idea what you're talking about. Just stop. When an employee of a store works with "customers" to get them free crap, it's theft. The whole bunch of them are stealing from the store.
trim, would it not matter if the customers conspired with the store employee, or if they were just buying something, and the employee was like "hey want a free merchandise, it's on the house?" and threw a merchandise into the bag.
i ask in the abstract, not re. the pullen/kelly occurrence.
-
You have no idea what you're talking about. Just stop. When an employee of a store works with "customers" to get them free crap, it's theft. The whole bunch of them are stealing from the store.
trim, would it not matter if the customers conspired with the store employee, or if they were just buying something, and the employee was like "hey want a free merchandise, it's on the house?" and through a merchandise into the bag.
i ask in the abstract, not re. the pullen/kelly occurrence.
Was wondering this too. Is the clerk not a store representative who could be reasonably considered to have either knowledge or authority to cut a deal?
-
You have no idea what you're talking about. Just stop. When an employee of a store works with "customers" to get them free crap, it's theft. The whole bunch of them are stealing from the store.
trim, would it not matter if the customers conspired with the store employee, or if they were just buying something, and the employee was like "hey want a free merchandise, it's on the house?" and through a merchandise into the bag.
i ask in the abstract, not re. the pullen/kelly occurrence.
Was wondering this too. Is the clerk not a store representative who could be reasonably considered to have either knowledge or authority to cut a deal?
Depends on the store depends on the deal.
Your average clerk at a large corporate place has very little responsibility beyond ringing up a sale. Hell most places require a manager to issue refunds. Mom and pop stores are a little different and will often offer free stuff/big discounts on a whim.
-
Due to my post as an alumni club leader, I just got this e-mail from the Alumni Association.
TOP FIVE THINGS ALUMNI, FANS AND FRIENDS OF KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY SHOULD KNOW:
5. AM I A BOOSTER?
As an alum, fan or friend of Kansas State University, you are considered a booster. K-State is responsible for the actions of its boosters. Once a booster … Always a booster.
4. WHAT IS AN EXTRA BENEFIT?
You may not provide any type of extra benefit to a prospective or enrolled student-athlete, or their family or friends. Examples include, but are not limited to: cash, gifts, loans or co-signing loans, use of a vehicle, free or reduced housing, concert or sporting event tickets.
3. CAN A BOOSTER RECRUIT?
As a booster, you may not be involved in recruiting a prospective student-athlete. A prospective student-athlete is a student who has started classes for the ninth grade.
2. WHO CAN A BOOSTER EMPLOY?
You may not employ or arrange for the employment of a prospective student-athlete until after he or she has signed a National Letter of Intent and has completed their senior year of high school. You may employ a current student-athlete provided he or she has registered the job with the K-State Compliance Office.
1. ALWAYS ASK BEFORE YOU ACT!
-
You have no idea what you're talking about. Just stop. When an employee of a store works with "customers" to get them free crap, it's theft. The whole bunch of them are stealing from the store.
trim, would it not matter if the customers conspired with the store employee, or if they were just buying something, and the employee was like "hey want a free merchandise, it's on the house?" and threw a merchandise into the bag.
i ask in the abstract, not re. the pullen/kelly occurrence.
1) Your alternate scenario would be relatively rare, and almost certainly not what happened in the instant case.
2) Your alt scenario would be a harder case with which to prosecute the customers. It'd be fact-based on how dumb/naive the customers are and how obvious it was that the $9/hour p/t sales associate didn't have authority to be throwing in freebies. How many freebies would be pretty important too. An extra shirt when purchasing a suit - plausible that's a store giveaway. 10 shirts for the price of one - customer probably can't claim stupidity.
-
The manager there hates everyone; she is a bitter old woman. She wouldn't discriminate between KSU ballers, squawks, students, anybody.
If she had a boyfriend this would all go away.
Any volunteers?
-
It'd be fact-based on how dumb/naive the customers are.
you'd have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the customer was intelligent? good luck with that, in the state of kansas.
:woot:
-
It'd be fact-based on how dumb/naive the customers are.
you'd have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the customer was intelligent? good luck with that, in the state of kansas.
:woot:
:lol:
Certainly not intelligent. Just functional enough to know that Dillard's probably isn't running an official yet unadvertised buy one get ten free sale.
-
Kietz is full of sh1t. First, it doesn't meet the elements of a theft charge to be prosecuted in Kansas. That should tell you a lot.
Of course it fits the elements. I've prosecuted it.
I doubt it was a jury trial. Prosecutors get bogus pleas all the time. Your defendant was a Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!), which of course, you relied upon to get your plea.
Kietz is full of sh1t. First, it doesn't meet the elements of a theft charge to be prosecuted in Kansas. That should tell you a lot.
Of course it fits the elements. I've prosecuted it.
I doubt it was a jury trial. Prosecutors get bogus pleas all the time. Your defendant was a Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!), which of course, you relied upon to get your plea.
You have no idea what you're talking about. Just stop. When an employee of a store works with "customers" to get them free cac, it's theft. The whole bunch of them are stealing from the store.
I'm fairly sure that this has nothing to do with boosters, ku snitches, etc. An employee tried to give the players the same hook-up she probably gives non-playing friends. She got busted and law enforcement was involved. The manager there hates everyone; she is a bitter old woman. She wouldn't discriminate between KSU ballers, squawks, students, anybody. KSU was brought into the fold and made the call, rightly or wrongly, that they'd rather self-report then let the thing play out and catch whatever consequences the NCAA could bring should they later find out, which between the prospect of charges (which are public) and small-town-everyone-talks Manhattan, were probably pretty good.
Just to be clear...you state that you could convict Kelly and Pullen of theft based on the public reports of the violation. Or, do you want to use inside info to tell everyone what a dumbass they are? If you believe that a jury would convict Pullen and Kelly of theft based on publicly available info, you'd get your ass plugged faster than a $5 whore at aTailhook convention.
-
It'd be fact-based on how dumb/naive the customers are.
you'd have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the customer was intelligent? good luck with that, in the state of kansas.
:woot:
:lol:
Certainly not intelligent. Just functional enough to know that Dillard's probably isn't running an official yet unadvertised buy one get ten free sale.
So Curt and Pulls can plead insanity?
-
Certainly not intelligent. Just functional enough to know that Dillard's probably isn't running an official yet unadvertised buy one get ten free sale.
i thought of another one: if the state could prove that a customer is a Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!), could they prosecute him for conspiracy to defraud or to commit theft, or something, if when he's trying to buy a car, and the salesman is like "ok, so don't tell my manager, but i'm going to give you the undercoating and the lx package for free", the customer: a) doesn't inform the manager, and b) accepts the proffered additions?
-
btw, if pullen and kelly get charged with anything, i'll offer to defend. i'm very confident i can get them acquitted.
-
btw, if pullen and kelly get charged with anything, i'll offer to defend. i'm very confident i can get them acquitted.
You won't be the first person to successfully defend Jake this year!
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
-
Wait, I can recruit 8th graders!?
I'll take it from here 'Te.
-
You won't be the first person to successfully defend Jake this year!
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
:curse:
-
Compliance doesn't sell tickets . . .
Why can't our people remember that? :facepalm:
-
Just to be clear...you state that you could convict Kelly and Pullen of theft based on the public reports of the violation. Or, do you want to use inside info to tell everyone what a dumbass they are? If you believe that a jury would convict Pullen and Kelly of theft based on publicly available info, you'd get your ass plugged faster than a $5 whore at aTailhook convention.
I'm not sure what you're talking about anymore, but if you ever find yourself in a similar predicament, hire sys to rep you using the tard defense. You should be fine.
-
Just to be clear...you state that you could convict Kelly and Pullen of theft based on the public reports of the violation. Or, do you want to use inside info to tell everyone what a dumbass they are? If you believe that a jury would convict Pullen and Kelly of theft based on publicly available info, you'd get your ass plugged faster than a $5 whore at aTailhook convention.
I'm not sure what you're talking about anymore, but if you ever find yourself in a similar predicament, hire sys to rep you using the tard defense. You should be fine.
Simple version: You wouldn't be able to convict Pullen or Kelly based on the story made available to the public.
-
Just to be clear...you state that you could convict Kelly and Pullen of theft based on the public reports of the violation. Or, do you want to use inside info to tell everyone what a dumbass they are? If you believe that a jury would convict Pullen and Kelly of theft based on publicly available info, you'd get your ass plugged faster than a $5 whore at aTailhook convention.
I'm not sure what you're talking about anymore, but if you ever find yourself in a similar predicament, hire sys to rep you using the tard defense. You should be fine.
Simple version: You wouldn't be able to convict Pullen or Kelly based on the story made available to the public.
Uh, yeah. Lawyers don't use press releases for evidence. Of course, all non-tards know how to read a KSU press release about anything and can apply common sense (and in my/this case, apply the real world) and figure out what happened.
You still have a day and a half to finish off your Christmas shopping by wandering around malls waiting for a clerk to randomly give you a bunch of free crap and walk out blissfully knowing you didn't steal.
-
Any blowhard can talk like they do super cac all the time....which is where you seem to be. I'm sure you've obtained the employee manual that addressed customer relations....one shred of latitude by employees to give away merchandise, for whatever reason, blows your case to shreds. Of course you didn't, the defense attorney that's busy owning you will.
-
Any blowhard can talk like they do super cac all the time....which is where you seem to be. I'm sure you've obtained the employee manual that addressed customer relations....one shred of latitude by employees to give away merchandise, for whatever reason, blows your case to shreds. Of course you didn't, the defense attorney that's busy owning you will.
Alright, now go to Dillard's and make eyes with the staff there and see if anyone decides to use their store-granted latitude to give you a bunch of free crap that you're absolutely indifferent to receiving. Or go to the courthouse and look up cases with Dillard's as the victim. Either way, just do something involving real-life instead of hypotheticals.