sandgk
Watson, Crick & A Twist
So Lightning -- To summarize ..
The original article on Page 1 of this thread is wrong when it states:
"Smith is allowed to be reimbursed for driving to Tennessee to attend the camp so long as the reimbursement is in line with what others would receive."
Of course, I have not read anywhere that Smith received any expenses to cover travel costs, period. So the implicit assumption that he did receive compensation to cover gas / mileage is yet to be proven.
So -- we don't know, nor does anyone else (yet) that Smith received monies.
Next you point out another conflict between the rules as written and the assumption made by original writer -- i.e. that going to a charitable event in TN is OK. This does on its face appear to go against the constraints imposed by rule 12.5.1.1, which 100-mile radius is not lifted by the strict wording of rule 14.7.3 - as it only applies to events preparatory to official competition within the calendar year of that competition. McNair's QB camp is not such a prep session for a Games or other recognized event.
Then we have the this quote from the original article to consider:
"At the very least, Smith violated condition (d), which grants permission to attend a camp or outreach program so long as the student-athlete does not miss class, and condition (a), which requires written permission from the athletic director or designated coach to attend the camp."
3 points come to mind,
1 -- the writers assumptions become moot if the real issue is that the camp was beyond the 100 mile radius (i.e. writer not seeing forest for the trees).
2 -- We don't know that Smith missed any classes. Could be zero classes as they make ready for exams the following week. Could be classes were scheduled. Point is the writer nor we know the truth of the matter -- and the writer offers no proof either way.
3 -- Writer assumes that there was no grant of permission. We do not know that this was the case, he offers no assertion fromn the AD's office to support this assumption.
So, what I wonder is the following. tOSU's shows a reluctance to issue further statements on this matter. Part of that is normal operating procedure, caution before maknig a foolish statement. I wonder if part of this is due to them sorting the wheat from the chaff.
Lastly, is there any manner in which this falls entirely outside the rules cited by the writer? Seems very unlikely, but stranger things have happened beofre.
I'm taking a wait and see attitude. If it as bad as some fear then I will make my mind up on Smith and on any questions of maturity. Frankly, as it stands now there are just as many questions rasised by the gaps in the writer's reporting, errors and omissions if you will, as any doubts concerning Troy's ability to "do the right thing."
The original article on Page 1 of this thread is wrong when it states:
"Smith is allowed to be reimbursed for driving to Tennessee to attend the camp so long as the reimbursement is in line with what others would receive."
Of course, I have not read anywhere that Smith received any expenses to cover travel costs, period. So the implicit assumption that he did receive compensation to cover gas / mileage is yet to be proven.
So -- we don't know, nor does anyone else (yet) that Smith received monies.
Next you point out another conflict between the rules as written and the assumption made by original writer -- i.e. that going to a charitable event in TN is OK. This does on its face appear to go against the constraints imposed by rule 12.5.1.1, which 100-mile radius is not lifted by the strict wording of rule 14.7.3 - as it only applies to events preparatory to official competition within the calendar year of that competition. McNair's QB camp is not such a prep session for a Games or other recognized event.
Then we have the this quote from the original article to consider:
"At the very least, Smith violated condition (d), which grants permission to attend a camp or outreach program so long as the student-athlete does not miss class, and condition (a), which requires written permission from the athletic director or designated coach to attend the camp."
3 points come to mind,
1 -- the writers assumptions become moot if the real issue is that the camp was beyond the 100 mile radius (i.e. writer not seeing forest for the trees).
2 -- We don't know that Smith missed any classes. Could be zero classes as they make ready for exams the following week. Could be classes were scheduled. Point is the writer nor we know the truth of the matter -- and the writer offers no proof either way.
3 -- Writer assumes that there was no grant of permission. We do not know that this was the case, he offers no assertion fromn the AD's office to support this assumption.
So, what I wonder is the following. tOSU's shows a reluctance to issue further statements on this matter. Part of that is normal operating procedure, caution before maknig a foolish statement. I wonder if part of this is due to them sorting the wheat from the chaff.
Lastly, is there any manner in which this falls entirely outside the rules cited by the writer? Seems very unlikely, but stranger things have happened beofre.
I'm taking a wait and see attitude. If it as bad as some fear then I will make my mind up on Smith and on any questions of maturity. Frankly, as it stands now there are just as many questions rasised by the gaps in the writer's reporting, errors and omissions if you will, as any doubts concerning Troy's ability to "do the right thing."
Upvote
0