If you hate Drew Sharp...

Submitted by M-Wolverine on
...and really, who doesn't?...(I mean, if there's ever a guy who even his mom couldn't love...)... TUNE INTO WTKA NOW!! Or, listen to the podcast later. Brian is ripping him a new A-hole. It's delicious.
MGoBoard

M-Wolverine

February 4th, 2010 at 9:28 AM ^

Despicable hateful person...disgusted by him... Standing over there in the corner in his leather jacket saying nothing... doesn't care about Demar Dorsey, just a piece of meat to him so he can write a snarky column... Vance Bedford recommended him to Rich Rod, and Vance recruited him for a year, so who knows more about him, Rich or Drew? (And frankly, while I had no worries to begin with...nothing wrong with giving no convicted guys a shot to show they've grown up...if Vance likes him, that's all I need to here. Vance is the man!). Legal system isn't perfect, but Drew admits he knows nothing about the kid, so we don't know if he got a break, or was in the wrong place at the wrong time....It's his job to upset people by writing bad things about all the teams in the area (and the insinuation of what a horrible way to make a living). And my favorite, when he gets fired in the next five years, and is selling insurance, MGoBlog is going throw a party! So I guess we're all invited.... And that's at just the beginning of the segment. I'm sure some caller will bring it up and he'll have more to say.

Joined: 10/04/2009

MGoPoints: 42190

harmon98

February 4th, 2010 at 1:14 PM ^

Ira: Demar Dorsey, Drew Sharp, go… BC: so, Tim Rice from my site and he sent me a Drew Sharp podcast and when he sent me this podcast he also sent me like a long string of expletives and like the words baseball bat and tacks and he's very very upset about this. And so I'm listening to it and, man, there's something wrong with Drew Sharp. Like there is something seriously wrong with the guy. He's talking about, ya know, seventeen eighteen year old kid who got in some trouble, maybe, a year ago. He doesn't know. He explicitly states that he doesn't know. But he's going to pass judgement on the kid anyway and this is what he – he says all this stuff – he says ah, he's talking to Matt Shepard, and to be fair Matt Shepard in this whole thing was acting as a voice of reason, he says, Shepard is saying he's timed in a four-four and Sharp interrupts 'avoiding police' (laughs) and, he says that 'O.J. got acquitted!' Being acquitted doesn't mean you're innocent, you're putting your career on whether or not this young man can keep his nose clean in which case dantonio's just been fired fifteen times. If this was any other sixteen year old facing charges on burglary or armed robbery or assault that kid might be serving probation. He said he only had to go to trial so he could get it off his record. Quote "I'm done with second chances. I have a hard time believing this kid Dorsey's learned one damn thing through his close calls with the criminal justice system." And, then Shepard comes in and says it's been a couple years has he got in any trouble since and he says "Not that we know of. It's naïve for people to automatically assume you have to give these guys another chance " All right. Drew Sharp might not believe in second chances but what about first chances? Demar Dorsey has not been convicted of anything. And Sharp has no knowledge of who Demar Dorsey is. He has no knowledge of what Demar Dorsey did. And, if you know (sigh) anything about the criminal justice system it's that it's not one hundred percent perfect. So, maybe Demar Dorsey did get in some trouble. And maybe he got off easy. Maybe he was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Maybe he was, you know, (unintelligible). And for Sharp to get on the radio and basically bash this guy, he doesn't care one iota about Demar Dorsey. He, he doesn't care. He just, he's a piece of meat to Drew Sharp. And, the only thing he is to Drew Sharp is a way to make a point and to have a snarky little column. And like to everybody else Demar Dorsey is a kid, who maybe made a bad choice but now has a chance to be a football player at Michigan and put his life on the right track. And that's the thing I think Rodriguez cares about. I mean what'd he think Rodriguez thinks about Chris Henry? I mean he recruited that kid. And he tried to keep him on the team for as long as he could and eventually had to kick him off because he was too incorrigible but he gave that kid a shot. And, when Chris Henry died I'm sure Rich Rodriguez thought 'what could I have done differently?' And, I'm sure that Drew Sharp thought 'how can I make this into a stupid column?' And, like, who's the bad guy here? I think it's the guy in the stupid leather jacket who stands off to the side during press conferences and then writes crappy columns about every, every team in the state and makes everybody upset. That's his job. Is to make people upset. And, you know, I just, it makes me sick. He makes me, like I'm repulsed by him. And I'm going to celebrate the day that he's fired, there's going to be a little party that mgoblog has and it's gonna happen within the next five years and then he's going to go sell insurance and then everybody else is going to have their lives be better. And, you know (swigs water, sighs)… that's what I think.

Joined: 07/24/2008

MGoPoints: 9886

mbrummer

February 4th, 2010 at 9:40 AM ^

MSU players are allowed infinite chances if they are caught in the wrong place or wrong time, or are convicted of misdemeaners, felonies, mayhem. Michigan players aren't allowed to set foot on campus, if they even have been on the same street where a crime was committed. Thanks for keeping score Freep. Nothing like Innocent until proven guilty. Question for the lawyers. The second charge was dropped. Doesn't that mean he more an likely didn't do it. Because if the charge is dropped, doesn't it mean if new evidence surfaces he can't be charged again under double jeopardy?

Joined: 07/29/2008

MGoPoints: 7872

Jebus

February 4th, 2010 at 9:45 AM ^

"Question for the lawyers. The second charge was dropped. Doesn't that mean he more an likely didn't do it." The one doesn't necessarily follow the other. It just means that they dropped the charges, for whatever reason. Could be insufficient evidence, could be reluctant witness, could be damn near anything. "Because if the charge is dropped, doesn't it mean if new evidence surfaces he can't be charged again under double jeopardy?" Depends, but probably not. I don't know enough about the facts in this case to say one way or the other. Double jeopardy (in general) deals with being TRIED twice, not charged twice. Double jeopardy attaches once the jury is impaneled and sworn in.

Joined: 06/30/2008

MGoPoints: 246

Smurfette

February 4th, 2010 at 9:58 AM ^

1) Charge dropped: prosecutorial discretion can amount for any changes in charges. Unless you're the prosecutor or the defense you will almost never know why which charges are picked, pressed, or dropped. 2) For Double Jeopardy to apply there has to be a factual finding (legal decision) regarding an occurrance/action. Once that action has been decided it cannot be decided again. Trial is not necessary - if a court finds you in contempt of court you cannot later be charged with anything relating to why you were held in contempt of court. (Kind of like preclusion in civil claims).

Joined: 08/10/2009

MGoPoints: 8

Rasmus

February 4th, 2010 at 10:32 AM ^

the charges were an attempt to get him to testify against someone else. He may even have done so, which would explain why Rich was so pained and unspecific when (Sharp, I presume) kept repeating the question. The kid could be at risk. I don't know, obviously -- but I do know Sharp is a moron.

Joined: 07/02/2009

MGoPoints: 2412

jtmc33

February 4th, 2010 at 9:59 AM ^

There is a gigantic difference in "not being able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did it" and "he actually didn't do it." I know that's not the answer you want to hear... but, the legal threshold for convicting someone is convincing judge or jury that it's 99% obvious he did it. You can never say a "not guilty" proves he didn't do it... but you can say (as Sharp is too stupid or unethical to point out) that a "not guilty" doens't prove that he DID do it.

Joined: 04/15/2009

MGoPoints: 10052

03 Blue 07

February 4th, 2010 at 10:34 AM ^

The standard in a criminal case is "beyond a resonable doubt." It is definitely not "99%." It is something below 99%. What is it? Well, I cannot say, numbers-wise. I know in Illinois, the civil standard is "preponderance of the evidence," which means "more likely true than not," but if you use numbers, and say "51%," it is a reversible error on appeal. Thus, in my experience, use of numbers to explain the amount of doubt to a jury is bad and should be shied away from. That being said, I'd always equated "beyond a reasonable doubt" to about 80% in my own head. (Yes, I realize that's a nice, fat, stark contradiction right there!) In fact, obviously, people are convicted all the time that probably didn't even commit the crime. However, like a previous commenter said, the only people who really know why charges are dropped are the prosecutor, his/her superior, and the defense attorneys, and even then, not all of those entities possess full knowledge of why such charges were modified or dropped, per se.

Joined: 07/01/2008

MGoPoints: 3427

Blazefire

February 4th, 2010 at 12:10 PM ^

That depends on your definition of "reasonable". The other terminology to consider is, "Innocent until PROVEN guilty". That would imply that even a 1% doubt, excepting something unreasonable, like aliens or ghosts did it, is enough to find someone "not guilty". Which I agree with. All I can think is how terrible it'd be to be in jail and be innocent.

Joined: 04/17/2009

MGoPoints: 25038

03 Blue 07

February 4th, 2010 at 10:35 AM ^

The standard in a criminal case is "beyond a resonable doubt." It is definitely not "99%." It is something below 99%. What is it? Well, I cannot say, numbers-wise. I know in Illinois, the civil standard is "preponderance of the evidence," which means "more likely true than not," but if you use numbers, and say "51%," it is a reversible error on appeal. Thus, in my experience, use of numbers to explain the amount of doubt to a jury is bad and should be shied away from. That being said, I'd always equated "beyond a reasonable doubt" to about 80% in my own head. (Yes, I realize that's a nice, fat, stark contradiction right there!) In fact, obviously, people are convicted all the time that probably didn't even commit the crime. However, like a previous commenter said, the only people who really know why charges are dropped are the prosecutor, his/her superior, and the defense attorneys, and even then, not all of those entities possess full knowledge of why such charges were modified or dropped, per se.

Joined: 07/01/2008

MGoPoints: 3427

Tater

February 4th, 2010 at 10:21 AM ^

I hope we get even half as many "reviews" on Amazon for Sharp's book as we did for Rosenpuke's. It may qualify as "hitting below the belt," but that's exactly what the Freep has been doing to RR since he was hired. The double-standard concerning UM and MSU is what pisses me off the most about both Sharp and MSU grad Birkett at A2.com.

Joined: 08/13/2008

MGoPoints: 30584

dahblue

February 4th, 2010 at 10:33 AM ^

The Freep knows that RR can be pushed into making a scene. RR makes a scene; Freep gets a better story. I don't recall any mics being pushed into Dantonio's face about the potluck attack. I believe he issued a one or two sentence quote and that was it. RR should have calmly said, "I understand your concerns, but we have researched the issue fully to our satisfaction. Had you had the same opportunity, you would have reached the same conclusion that we did. Thank you." When asked again, RR should have politely said, "I'm sorry. I've answered the question. Is there anything else you'd like to ask?" Then, "Again, I'm taking new questions now. Thank you." It's really about the tone from RR that allows the questions to be quashed quickly. I am not surprised by Drew Sharp here, but am surprised that UofM hasn't worked to perfect RR's press appearances so as to get the upper hand on the press and not remain under its collective foot.

Joined: 11/09/2009

MGoPoints: 5253

NHWolverine

February 4th, 2010 at 11:06 AM ^

You make some good points here in regards to the Freep trying to push Rich to make a story for them. Drew Sharp is getting all the attacks on the board here, rightfully so as he's the one who created the podcast, article and asked the questions, but the problem and focus for those of us who want Sharp to be held accountable for what he said should be with the Freep's editors. They're the ones who want the story. They're also the ones who made the decision to feature this prominently on the front page of the online edition.

Joined: 07/14/2009

MGoPoints: 79

brianshall

February 4th, 2010 at 10:40 AM ^

...is when Drew Sharp is right. I sure hope the kid does us all proud; turns into a great Michigan Man. But Michigan shouldn't be in the business of recruiting players like that.

Joined: 11/08/2009

MGoPoints: 44

brianshall

February 4th, 2010 at 11:47 AM ^

Are there any facts on the kid's record you are disputing? One? Just one? Thought so. So, we are in agreement on his background. Don't pretend otherwise dumbass. I don't like recruiting such kids. You are ok with it. Sure hope he proves Michigan proud but that doesn't prevent me from not wanting us to even recruit such kids. Stop being stupid and stop being a reflexive homer. We get zero extra wins from your closed mindedness. Saying things like none of the recruits has a felony conviction or misdemeanor conviction is on its face an embarrassing statement on behalf of our great U.

Joined: 11/08/2009

MGoPoints: 44

CWoodson

February 4th, 2010 at 12:12 PM ^

Seriously, you're a terribly ignorant asshole. "Such kids"? I hope your kids never get involved with the criminal justice system in any way (obviously including a result that exonerates them, because by your definition they're already "such kids" by then). Die in a fire.

Joined: 09/15/2009

MGoPoints: 1481

brianshall

February 4th, 2010 at 12:15 PM ^

By "such kids" I mean specifically those recruits that if Notre Dame or Stanford -- or even OSU or MSU -- recruited them you would call those schools and their coaches hypocrites, assholes, win-at-all-costs, unethical and similar words. That should clear things up.

Joined: 11/08/2009

MGoPoints: 44

Crowpuppy

February 4th, 2010 at 1:32 PM ^

Is that what's happening? Shucks. What's embarrassing, really embarrassing, is that you're arguing a point that you have no clue about. You're using generalizations in which our standards are being "trashed" based on the recruitment of "such kids" from a specific "background". What do you mean? Say what you mean. Be specific... make an argument. You won't. Because you can't. It's run and hide time.

Joined: 12/01/2009

MGoPoints: 1551

InterM

February 4th, 2010 at 12:38 PM ^

Because I know essentially NOTHING about this kid's "record" or "background," beyond the reported facts (without any context whatsoever) that the kid apparently has had two encounters with the criminal justice system. (By the way, if a kid had gotten convicted in the past, we might not know about it, given the usual confidentiality of juvenile records.) Unlike you, I don't feel inclined to use my ignorance as a springboard for sweeping pronouncements about what Michigan should or shouldn't do. For one thing, since I recognize the limits of what I know (very little), I'd be reluctant to say we shouldn't recruit "such kids" that, for all I know, Lloyd Carr or Bo recruited a thousand times before. But thanks for your thoughtful response.

Joined: 01/16/2009

MGoPoints: 2257