‘Kansas’ Head coach knew of and asked for a payment to be made to Silvio de Sousa’s handler. ‘Coach Self and Coach Townsend knew of and asked Adidas to make this payment to Fenny.’ -Michael Schacter, Jim Gatto’s attorney
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
"See, it was taken out of context." - Nooneputsbabyinacorner
I ventured over to the Kansas board and in a shocking turn of events, a number of their posters are registering genuine awareness, objectivity, and even acceptance. Their consensus seems to be that Adidas paid the players and that the KU coaching staff knew about it. End of story.
I’m impressed. Little Brother fans were in denial for years. Some still are.
This isn’t really a bombshell. This is a closing argument. He’s talking about evidence that was introduced during the trial. It’s the rock solid evidence of Self cheating that is the bombshell.
Although the prosecutors are doing their rebuttal right about now and I’m betting they’re going to say “of course the coaches knew” but the coaches are not the university. That will be fun. Prosecutors and defense agreeing that Self is a low down dirty cheater who schemes to break NCAA rules by having third parties pay basketball players.
I mean if that’s the case then I don’t know what is the point of this trial. There’s all kinds of evidence in the record supporting that the coaches knew. The case is a total epic flop if your characterization is correct. And it could be.I doubt the prosecutors agree; this undermines their case. They’re trying to argue that these shoe companies are defrauding public institutions by covertly paying players, and placing the universities at risk of NCAA sanction. If an agent of the public university, the head coach, is directing the shoe companies’ operatives, then the corruption charge is defeated. The institution is violating NCAA rules, not an unrelated third party at the university’s expense.
I mean if that’s the case then I don’t know what is the point of this trial. There’s all kinds of evidence in the record supporting that the coaches knew. The case is a total epic flop if your characterization is correct. And it could be.
‘Kansas’ Head coach knew of and asked for a payment to be made to Silvio de Sousa’s handler. ‘Coach Self and Coach Townsend knew of and asked Adidas to make this payment to Fenny.’ -Michael Schacter, Jim Gatto’s attorney
Did they present evidence that they asked for payments, because I don't recall seeing any actual evidence that they did. Of course the lawyer is going to say they knew, it is the crux of the defense. Unfortunately, they didn't present any evidence showing it. Remember, lawyers have great latitude in closing arguments in what they say.
Unfortunately, this is another case of everyone wanting something to be true, which has not been proven. A Nothing-burger, if you will.
Did they present evidence that they asked for payments, because I don't recall seeing any actual evidence that they did. Of course the lawyer is going to say they knew, it is the crux of the defense. Unfortunately, they didn't present any evidence showing it. Remember, lawyers have great latitude in closing arguments in what they say.
Unfortunately, this is another case of everyone wanting something to be true, which has not been proven. A Nothing-burger, if you will.
Did they present evidence that they asked for payments, because I don't recall seeing any actual evidence that they did. Of course the lawyer is going to say they knew, it is the crux of the defense. Unfortunately, they didn't present any evidence showing it. Remember, lawyers have great latitude in closing arguments in what they say.
Unfortunately, this is another case of everyone wanting something to be true, which has not been proven. A Nothing-burger, if you will.
Did they present evidence that they asked for payments, because I don't recall seeing any actual evidence that they did. Of course the lawyer is going to say they knew, it is the crux of the defense. Unfortunately, they didn't present any evidence showing it. Remember, lawyers have great latitude in closing arguments in what they say.
Unfortunately, this is another case of everyone wanting something to be true, which has not been proven. A Nothing-burger, if you will.
I said something like this in the other thread - this is just a closing statement from the defense. Unfortunately, the defense didn't provide any "bombshell" evidence during the trial that the jury can use to substantiate this closing statement, so truthfully it's just a nothingburger (and that's too bad - had the defense proved Self knew during the trial, we'd be onto something, but they didn't, so this blurb is worthless with regards to the jury's decision).So do some not know what closing arguments are or are we trolling KU fans pretending like that was a new bombshell?
Lawyers have latitude in closing arguments to interpret things a certain way, but they absolutely can't make false statements. This is Adidas Executive Jim Gatto saying through his lawyer that Bill Self asked for payments to secure De Sousa. And there is plenty of evidence that the payments were made. So a person directly involved has said Self asked for it to happen, and there is ample evidence that it did happen. NCAA sanctions have been leveled on a lot less. Let Self deny it, and get them both under oath in front of an NCAA sanctions board. I suspect Gatto can prove it easily.Did they present evidence that they asked for payments, because I don't recall seeing any actual evidence that they did. Of course the lawyer is going to say they knew, it is the crux of the defense. Unfortunately, they didn't present any evidence showing it. Remember, lawyers have great latitude in closing arguments in what they say.
Unfortunately, this is another case of everyone wanting something to be true, which has not been proven. A Nothing-burger, if you will.
Since you are using court-of-law standards to define your position...if the defense is found "not guilty", does that "prove" it??Did they present evidence that they asked for payments, because I don't recall seeing any actual evidence that they did. Of course the lawyer is going to say they knew, it is the crux of the defense. Unfortunately, they didn't present any evidence showing it. Remember, lawyers have great latitude in closing arguments in what they say.
Unfortunately, this is another case of everyone wanting something to be true, which has not been proven. A Nothing-burger, if you will.
Lawyers have latitude in closing arguments to interpret things a certain way, but they absolutely can't make false statements. This is Adidas Executive Jim Gatto saying through his lawyer that Bill Self asked for payments to secure De Sousa. And there is plenty of evidence that the payments were made. So a person directly involved has said Self asked for it to happen, and there is ample evidence that it did happen. NCAA sanctions have been leveled on a lot less. Let Self deny it, and get them both under oath in front of an NCAA sanctions board. I suspect Gatto can prove it easily.
Since you are using court-of-law standards to define your position...if the defense is found "not guilty", does that "prove" it??
Here's what Nobabyshatsinacorner will say.."This has been the argument of the defence the entire time. nothing to see here"@Nooneputsbabyinacorner
Where’s the spin bro? Come on now, share..
But yet you made sure to take a quote from an Adidas rep saying Nike cheats too and tried to use it as proof Kentucky is cheating too.
You’d do well as a Louisville fan, considering how f’n ignorant some of those absolute losers are, just like you.
LMAO you sound like a guy dating out of his league explaining his GF being seen out with other guys by his sister.Did they present evidence that they asked for payments, because I don't recall seeing any actual evidence that they did. Of course the lawyer is going to say they knew, it is the crux of the defense. Unfortunately, they didn't present any evidence showing it. Remember, lawyers have great latitude in closing arguments in what they say.
Unfortunately, this is another case of everyone wanting something to be true, which has not been proven. A Nothing-burger, if you will.
LMAO you sound like a guy dating out of his league explaining his GF being seen out with other guys by his sister.
Did they present evidence that they asked for payments, because I don't recall seeing any actual evidence that they did. Of course the lawyer is going to say they knew, it is the crux of the defense. Unfortunately, they didn't present any evidence showing it. Remember, lawyers have great latitude in closing arguments in what they say.
Unfortunately, this is another case of everyone wanting something to be true, which has not been proven. A Nothing-burger, if you will.
I ventured over to the Kansas board and in a shocking turn of events, a number of their posters are registering genuine awareness, objectivity, and even acceptance. Their consensus seems to be that Adidas paid the players and that the KU coaching staff knew about it. End of story.
I’m impressed. Little Brother fans were in denial for years. Some still are.
"We already fired everybody, there's nobody left here to punish" seems to be the delusional line many of them are buying into now. The more reasonable are bracing to get reamed, but still salty that UNC skated and Duke will probably skate over Zion. "They'll probably punish Louisville more" was my Cardinal friend's reaction to the Zion story.
Wow, how dumb are these guys? Don't put crap like that on text or email… .ever.
So, your theory is that in a federal criminal trial, acting as an officer of the court, Gatto's lawyer made up something to tell the jury - under the watchful eye of a federal judge -- that Gatto had not told him? Okay, stick with that. I'd say that's about as deep into the corner as you can get.unless you've bridged attorney-client privilege, you do not know what Gatto did or did not say to his attorney.
I don't get the reference. Has this happened to you?