Argumentative Topics: Whos Making Money

—Posey sold his championship ring and accepted discounted services.

—Adams sold his championship ring.

—Thomas sold both his championship ring and gold pants, and accepted discounted services.

As part of their reinstatement, the five Buckeyes are responsible for repaying the money they received from selling the awards and apparel, according to the release. Combined, the five must repay a total of $7,405, with Pryor responsible for repaying the most, $2,500.

As far as I’m concerned, the players have no one to blame but themselves. They know the rules. They were educated about them long before they arrived on campus.

By allowing the five to play in the Sugar Bowl, it seems as if the NCAA is making excuses for them at the expense of the Ohio State athletic compliance department.

To claim that the players were inadequately educated about athletic compliance rules during the time period of the violations is fine if the violations were something with a lot of gray area, and without proper education the players could think they were doing no wrong. But how does an intercollegiate athlete, even without the so-called proper athletic-compliance education, think that selling awards they received for their on-field performance is ok?

I bet a sixth-grader understands that concept, and they likely don’t even know what the phrase “athletic compliance” even means. I had never heard the phrase until I was in college.

The Ohio State athletic compliance department shouldn’t be let off the hook, after all it claimed to be squeaky clean since the whole Maurice Clarrett saga and that appears to be in jeopardy—where there’s smoke there’s fire—but it shouldn’t take the fall for its athletes.

The department, the university and the NCAA are not helping its athletes by patting them on the back and saying “it’s not your fault completely, we should have made that part more clear—our bad. Now go have fun in New Orleans.”

Thank God this con-man never targeted America: the U.K.'s Paul Bint posed as a banker, a lawyer, and a hospital consultant, bedding what he claims were 2,500 women along the way, and making away with 2 million pounds (approximately $3.1 million in today's money). The Daily Mail caught up with Bint -- who's been nicknamed "King Con" -- upon his recent release from a three-year jail term.

Although Bint claims, "If I could go back 25 years and start again I would," his interview hits some unrepentant notes as well. "What I've done is turned a lot of my dreams into reality," He told the Daily Mail. "I've gone that extra step. Instead of fantasizing what it would be like to own a Ferrari I went out and got one." Dealbreaker hypothesizes about which is the most plausible Bint lie here.)

So, now that Bint's (second) jail term is behind him, will he play by the rules? "...I can't say never again. Let's be honest, nobody would believe me if I said was going straight," he told the Daily Mail.

Many more details of his outrageous lies and manipulations can be found here

BBC's Crimewatch has put together an ingenious renactment of Bint's downfall. It began in a taxi cab.

Get HuffPost Business On
Twitter and Facebook!

Know something we don't? E-mail us at huffpostbiz@gmail.com

surface encounters macomb mi surface encounters rock tops

Thursday, January 6, 2011

Whos Making Money

No comments:

Post a Comment

Followers

Blog Archive

About Me