Sark gets drunk, drops F-bomb @ USC Donor Event

[The Oldtimer]

I was clear to say it was allowed and was more or less just business as usual. I made no inference of any wrong doing or that it proved anything.

It was presented by our local paper as it appears they are digging more into his tenure here and his alcohol use while here. Because UW is a public institution those financial records are required to be public. Obviously someone at the Times went through all of his reimbursements looking for such things and that is what they found.

What does it prove? That so far in their digging this is all they came up with?

Note that I haven't sunk to any depths in name calling since this story broke. And given that I don't respect or trust him and he's the head coach of the team I hate the most in the Pac, that's saying something.

Fair enough!! IMO the article you posted proves nothing. I get it, that they are digging for more information, but that is what the media does. It doesn't surprise me one bit that the Seattle newspapers are trying to make it a better story, then it really is. I also realize that Sarks didn't make a lot of fans when he left the Huskies.

 

[WizardHawk]

There is nothing in the Times article that is making more of their information than it is. They are not a trash rag. They simply report what they find. In this case you can take it in more than one way. If that's all they found while they were digging then you can infer that in his 5 years here he didn't abuse the reimbursement system or there would have been many more. You can still look at those bills and the number of people and guess that he was involved in a heavy drinking event both times, but that alone doesn't mean there was a problem. It's just information. Make of it what you will.

 

[The Oldtimer]

There is nothing in the Times article that is making more of their information than it is. They are not a trash rag. They simply report what they find. In this case you can take it in more than one way. If that's all they found while they were digging then you can infer that in his 5 years here he didn't abuse the reimbursement system or there would have been many more. You can still look at those bills and the number of people and guess that he was involved in a heavy drinking event both times, but that alone doesn't mean there was a problem. It's just information. Make of it what you will.

Fair enough.

 

[trojanfan12]

There is nothing in the Times article that is making more of their information than it is. They are not a trash rag. They simply report what they find. In this case you can take it in more than one way. If that's all they found while they were digging then you can infer that in his 5 years here he didn't abuse the reimbursement system or there would have been many more. You can still look at those bills and the number of people and guess that he was involved in a heavy drinking event both times, but that alone doesn't mean there was a problem. It's just information. Make of it what you will.

Yeah, came off to me as more of a "we took a look around, this what we came up with" type of thing than some "OMG, look how much they were drinking" piece.

End of the day, I don't think this is nearly as big a deal as some folks want to make of it. Best case, Sark takes the abuse that he's sure to face with signs, chants, etc. without it being too much of a distraction for the team and by this team next year, people barely remember it. Worst case, it's the start of Kiffin 2.0 and he's fired on a tarmac in a season or 2.