|
Post by Phaedrus on Feb 14, 2018 17:16:17 GMT -5
Being someone who had spoken to Sarah, a few point of facts.
All three of them are suffering emotionally, they have been ever since this all happened. Sarah is the one that has managed to fight through the emotional devastation well enough to mount a fight.
The t shirts came along after her first time coaching at AAUs and heard and seen RB. She filed the lawsuit against the AAU after that initial encounter. It wasn't that year with the t shirt.
|
|
|
Post by colonial2415 on Feb 14, 2018 18:03:25 GMT -5
Well, that didn't take long...I'm not surprised. I have no doubt that there are those out there that copied everything...all 20+ pages of text and all the documents. I'm not one of those people. OK just found the documents on another page. I have a few questions for Rick that Cheryl seemed to miss in her story as the questions and statements selected were misleading. (you=Rick for all the questions below) #1) Did you have sex with any other players or anyone who previous played for you other than the three who have come forward before they were 18? It was not asked during the polygraph. #2) Did you have sex with Kay's Daughter while she was under 18? It was not asked during the polygraph. #3) Did you have sex with any of your players while they were under 18? It was not asked during the polygraph. #4) Did you ever threaten any of your former players not to tell anyone about the sexual relationship you were having? It was not asked during the polygraph. I don't know any of the answers to the questions listed above, but the questions asked during a polygraph do not dispute anything that Rick has been accused of. I would have asked different questions during his polygraph, if I was trying to prove that Rick didn't have sex with any players why they were still playing for me or they were under 18. Where did you see the article? Was it before it was taken down?
|
|
|
Post by boh on Feb 15, 2018 9:15:16 GMT -5
I didn't get a chance to read much before it was pulled down, but I did not see anywhere that they had posted what questions were asked in the polygraph. Did I miss that part?
|
|
|
Post by moderndaycoach on Feb 15, 2018 9:21:26 GMT -5
I didn't get a chance to read much before it was pulled down, but I did not see anywhere that they had posted what questions were asked in the polygraph. Did I miss that part? I read all of it immediately in anticipation it was going to be removed very quickly much like her other attempts to defend herself when she posts the information they always claim to have but never show anyone. Unfortunately I do not know how to copy that type of stuff or the time to figure it out before anyone even had a chance to grab it. As you saw she posted a tonnnnnn of documents in the scribe screens in the middle of the web page and one of the pages had all the polygraph tests and the questions that were asked including one from a couple months ago, just complete and total BS. The questions were so easy and basically were grooved in there for him to give answers he has probably practiced and given literally 100's of times before. Like another poster said, how many other polygraphs did you have that failed and where are those results? I would think it was like making a highlight video where you have kids lower the net a couple inches and just hit 50/50 balls to send to a college coach and say look I can bounce inside ten with no block.
|
|
|
Post by Hawk Attack on Feb 15, 2018 10:17:32 GMT -5
Next we have SPB 16's team and rick's 18's who are most definitely at the OCCC together on 6/23 and 6/24 however the are NOT on adjacent courts, but ARE within a few rows of each other (clink link below - last page "24" in the tourney book) which backs up her argument that she has a very good chance of running into him at the gym while her teams are participating. The PVC 16’s team Head Coach was Emily Strack, not SPB.
|
|
|
Post by moderndaycoach on Feb 15, 2018 10:38:08 GMT -5
Next we have SPB 16's team and rick's 18's who are most definitely at the OCCC together on 6/23 and 6/24 however the are NOT on adjacent courts, but ARE within a few rows of each other (clink link below - last page "24" in the tourney book) which backs up her argument that she has a very good chance of running into him at the gym while her teams are participating. The PVC 16’s team Head Coach was Emily Strack, not SPB. Click the link, she is listed as the head coach, it is her club, and none of her teams that were there overlapped play dates so I am going to guess there is an extremely good chance she was on the bench especially because she had the suit against AAU and wanted to make her presence known at the tourney she was suing. Really just semantics at this point, but the point is she was there and it was a very high probability she would run into rick.
|
|
|
Post by boh on Feb 15, 2018 10:43:39 GMT -5
I didn't get a chance to read much before it was pulled down, but I did not see anywhere that they had posted what questions were asked in the polygraph. Did I miss that part? I read all of it immediately in anticipation it was going to be removed very quickly much like her other attempts to defend herself when she posts the information they always claim to have but never show anyone. Unfortunately I do not know how to copy that type of stuff or the time to figure it out before anyone even had a chance to grab it. As you saw she posted a tonnnnnn of documents in the scribe screens in the middle of the web page and one of the pages had all the polygraph tests and the questions that were asked including one from a couple months ago, just complete and total BS. The questions were so easy and basically were grooved in there for him to give answers he has probably practiced and given literally 100's of times before. Like another poster said, how many other polygraphs did you have that failed and where are those results? I would think it was like making a highlight video where you have kids lower the net a couple inches and just hit 50/50 balls to send to a college coach and say look I can bounce inside ten with no block. Wish I'd have seen that page, I think I maybe got through 4 pages before I had to go back to work. Almost glad I didn't read it all because it looked like the typical trash they try to defend themselves with. As far as the questions for the polygraph go, this doesn't surprise me at all. I have seen shows where experts have said polygraphs are meaningless anyway because there are certain people who, because of their psychological make up are capable of passing polygraphs without telling the truth, whether the questions are doctored or not. So really it proves nothing anyway. I was just interested in what they actually asked because, again, their "proof" seems to so obviously show that they are not innocent at all and skating around any real proof. I also was wondering how they have all of this information, timelines, and documentation of everything. Is this normal for a business to keep all of this for so long?
|
|
|
Post by maɡˈnōlēə on Feb 15, 2018 12:02:57 GMT -5
I read all of it immediately in anticipation it was going to be removed very quickly much like her other attempts to defend herself when she posts the information they always claim to have but never show anyone. Unfortunately I do not know how to copy that type of stuff or the time to figure it out before anyone even had a chance to grab it. As you saw she posted a tonnnnnn of documents in the scribe screens in the middle of the web page and one of the pages had all the polygraph tests and the questions that were asked including one from a couple months ago, just complete and total BS. The questions were so easy and basically were grooved in there for him to give answers he has probably practiced and given literally 100's of times before. Like another poster said, how many other polygraphs did you have that failed and where are those results? I would think it was like making a highlight video where you have kids lower the net a couple inches and just hit 50/50 balls to send to a college coach and say look I can bounce inside ten with no block. Wish I'd have seen that page, I think I maybe got through 4 pages before I had to go back to work. Almost glad I didn't read it all because it looked like the typical trash they try to defend themselves with. As far as the questions for the polygraph go, this doesn't surprise me at all. I have seen shows where experts have said polygraphs are meaningless anyway because there are certain people who, because of their psychological make up are capable of passing polygraphs without telling the truth, whether the questions are doctored or not. So really it proves nothing anyway. I was just interested in what they actually asked because, again, their "proof" seems to so obviously show that they are not innocent at all and skating around any real proof. I also was wondering how they have all of this information, timelines, and documentation of everything. Is this normal for a business to keep all of this for so long? This has gone on so many years OF COURSE they've kept it all.
|
|
|
Post by boh on Feb 15, 2018 12:04:04 GMT -5
Wish I'd have seen that page, I think I maybe got through 4 pages before I had to go back to work. Almost glad I didn't read it all because it looked like the typical trash they try to defend themselves with. As far as the questions for the polygraph go, this doesn't surprise me at all. I have seen shows where experts have said polygraphs are meaningless anyway because there are certain people who, because of their psychological make up are capable of passing polygraphs without telling the truth, whether the questions are doctored or not. So really it proves nothing anyway. I was just interested in what they actually asked because, again, their "proof" seems to so obviously show that they are not innocent at all and skating around any real proof. I also was wondering how they have all of this information, timelines, and documentation of everything. Is this normal for a business to keep all of this for so long? This has gone on so many years OF COURSE they've kept it all. I am talking about checks, etc. from the 80's before all this started. Obviously once this all began you are going to document everything and save it.
|
|
|
Post by maɡˈnōlēə on Feb 15, 2018 12:10:46 GMT -5
There used to be recommendations to save tax documentation for at least seven years. I know that we have to do a purge once every few years of the papers I put in storage, some we've kept 10-11 years. As a large business entity I don't see how that's unusual.
|
|
|
Post by boh on Feb 15, 2018 12:44:01 GMT -5
There used to be recommendations to save tax documentation for at least seven years. I know that we have to do a purge once every few years of the papers I put in storage, some we've kept 10-11 years. As a large business entity I don't see how that's unusual. I guess a lot of it I wouldn't have thought of as tax documentation. Some of the checks, etc I get...but the letters that were not related to buying out KR, if I recall there was a check for $20 that was unrelated to Sports Performance RB wrote to a former player...just seems odd. Again I asked if it was normal to save for a business, because I don't know. Nobody else has brought it up in any of the personal discussions I've had or on here, so I guess it is thought of as normal?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2018 13:26:02 GMT -5
There used to be recommendations to save tax documentation for at least seven years. I know that we have to do a purge once every few years of the papers I put in storage, some we've kept 10-11 years. As a large business entity I don't see how that's unusual. I guess a lot of it I wouldn't have thought of as tax documentation. Some of the checks, etc I get...but the letters that were not related to buying out KR, if I recall there was a check for $20 that was unrelated to Sports Performance RB wrote to a former player...just seems odd. Again I asked if it was normal to save for a business, because I don't know. Nobody else has brought it up in any of the personal discussions I've had or on here, so I guess it is thought of as normal? Just a different time in terms of records keeping. My mom has a phone book white pages from 1982. Inside of it there are sales slips, receipts, photos, cards letters, and other seemingly random things. I offered to scan them for her so she didn't have to go through the boxes to look for them if she needed them. She let me scan them, but still insists on keeping the phonebook and the originals. It's just something people that age do. Back to point of it all. If these documents or photos is what she's calling proof that Kay was somehow out to ruin Rick that is not my concern. The problem of him using his position to rape his athletes is. It only matters that the women he raped stepped forward. The animosity between Rick and Kay is between Rick and Kay. Cheryl can't use Kay's motives for championing this cause against the women that were raped.
|
|
|
Post by azvb on Feb 15, 2018 13:36:47 GMT -5
This scenario makes perfect sense: 😉😉😉😉😉
Kay says, “Hey girls, I know you all had sex with Rick. He screwed me out of money, so will you lie for me? Say you were under age? I mean he didn’t let you eat fast food, so you want to ruin him too, right?” Case closed. 😉😉😉😉😉😉😉😉
BTW, has Kay ever said why she didn’t step up to plate those years ago when she suspected something was going on? Rick is total scum, but Kay rubs me the wrong way.
|
|
|
Post by karellen on Feb 15, 2018 13:52:11 GMT -5
And,, IF she knew what was happening, or had suspicions and did nothing, why was she never punished for not protecting these girls.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2018 13:58:24 GMT -5
And,, IF she knew what was happening, or had suspicions and did nothing, why was she never punished for not protecting these girls. We need to do a better job at focusing blame properly. Butler was the offender, not Rogness. She shouldn't have to answer for his sins or be treated as an accomplice to his crimes.
|
|