My guy tells me he is very close to mama so if he ends up at Otis it will probably be for that reason
Of course: Lloyd Tubman might be playing for UL this fall
- Thread starter JHB4UK
- Start date
The first two paragraphs were serious, pretty obvious that the third was tongue in cheek, and I did say I don't know that he has any of those problems.
And while I definitely believe that UK had no business expelling him based on what I know it is still a "he say, she say" situation, and it is pretty obvious that neither of them were virgins.
And it wasn't their first rodeo together because they were a couple...had been before
agree 100 percent..only Eli Capiluto can straighten out this ********..and he isn't talking..
I doubt it highly they have given kids schollys that actually were criminals
You know, I normally just read the post and not reply to them, but your comments are way off the grid! I think Mitch Barnhart is what UK needs in an AD and I wouldn't take ten Tom Jurichs for one Mitch Barnhart. Jurich owns Louisville and that's not right! Barnhart respects the process whether he agrees with the outcomes or not. You're right about one thing! If the results interfere with wins, whether ethical or not, Tom Jurich will make a big stink along with his lack of integrity in tact. Now, about Petrino, that was the closest I would have come to stop being a season ticket holder! I'm glad Mr. Barnhart didn't hire Petrino even today! I think if Kentucky fans give Stoops a chance, I think the good guys (AKA UK) overcome the bad guys (AKA U of L) down the road!
Last edited:
I like your post in general and agree about jurich and Transfer U but I can't believe that UK would have sunk to this low in football without some lousy leadership from our AD, isn't it his job to notice the emerging money cow? All he did was milk it.
And no, I would never want jurich or BP either one on our campus.
so if you have sex with a woman once, you are always allowed to? I'm not saying he raped her, I wasn't there, but neither were you. You can't say just because they have a history it was a set up. Very small minded thinking.
21
Not saying he was set up, although that isn't out of the realm of possibility since he might have a lucrative future, but she should have had some knowledge of his character AND should have known she was no match for him physically. Even more important to me than the fact she let him in her room is the fact the report said she had about the same demeanor when she let him out as she did letting him in.
Also seems a little strange that someone with his prospects and status as a BMOC would have to resort to these tactics if he really thought it was approaching rape, is he stupid? It sounds to me like he is if he thought he was committing rape and continued.
Not saying he was set up, although that isn't out of the realm of possibility since he might have a lucrative future, but she should have had some knowledge of his character AND should have known she was no match for him physically. Even more important to me than the fact she let him in her room is the fact the report said she had about the same demeanor when she let him out as she did letting him in.
Also seems a little strange that someone with his prospects and status as a BMOC would have to resort to these tactics if he really thought it was approaching rape, is he stupid? It sounds to me like he is if he thought he was committing rape and continued.
Last edited:
never said that..I know Lloyd Coached him 3 years in HS..He's not a rapist ..not his MO..the accuser was his previous girlfriend..She was jealous and set a trap for him..can you comprehend this..
Mitch is responsible for the athletics department, not admissions. It doesn't matter if Mitch respects, agrees or disagrees with the decisions made by those who are responsible for admissions. If a student can't enroll at UK then they cannot play athletics at UK. I'm not so sure why that is difficult for people to understand.
Maybe. That's just one side of the story. That's all we've heard on this board. HIS side. Of course you don't think he is the type to do this, of course the folks on this board that talk to someone who knows his family get HIS side of the story. I don't know him, but there are countless examples of star football players who are looked at as "upstanding", do well in school, etc. who rape women. Happens all the time, though the athlete usually gets away with it. Hell, a huge % of rapes are by someone who knows the other person and are even in a relationship together. Yes, not all accusations are legit, but the folks on this board act like his story is THE story and treat it as fact. I don't think it's that simple, but whatever.
It's a shame. He came from one of the worst High Schools in the state (Seneca - Hell, somehow they let someone like you coach kids, which is bad enough), and people say he was a good kid. Nice story, when not much good comes from that school. I'm sure he was/is a good kid. Doesn't mean he didn't do something wrong. Maybe that's why some on this board like myself aren't going insane over what happened to him with UK...because we really don't know for sure if he did something wrong or not. We understand prosecution didn't move forward. Doesn't mean he's innocent, just means they don't have enough to convict. Basic he said she said. Happens all the time.. rapists goes free cause it can't be proven.
But like I said before... If he plays D1 football again and turns out to be anything other than a stud, these threads won't come up much. Most care just because he plays football and I guess had some good practice reports when he was here. Though how many times with UK football have we heard that ("beast" in practice)?
Master of the obvious.
But the issue wasn't admissions. It was LT's dismissal in the first place. No need to respect that cluster.
He was investigated by the Fayette DA & no indictment returned. That's his story & the woman's story together; i.e., THE story. That's the facts people here base their support for LT on. You disagree and/or got anything better?
LOL
You accuse everyone on here that thinks kicking him out of school was the wrong decision of jumping to conclusions, then you jump to some even worse ones. I have said many times I don't know what really happened in the room, but I still think her actions, including no screaming heard or beating on the walls, the way she walked him out, the Grand Juries decision that had a lot more facts than anyone on here (including you), make me think he shouldn't have been kicked out of school. And yes, I do believe the burden of proof should be on the accuser.
It sounds like you think most of the players on our team are rapists, wonder why it only comes up once in GREAT while in today's enlightened society? Why aren't there ANY posts on here from people that know the young lady, testifying to her sterling character, the board is free. And where do you come off that the only posts on here are ones supporting Tubman, what is your post (and many others) about, although I think some are only concerned with the money that UK might lose if he were stupid enough to be a repeat offender, no doubt he doesn't have the body or status to attract a woman without having to resort to rape, and would have no idea of how bad the consequences could be------pretty devastating enough from a he say she say situation. Do you know her and can vouch for her character? Sounds like several on here do know Tubman AND have been willing to vouch for him.
Do you know his ex-coach is lying and just trying to cover up for him, do you even know him or anything about him, where do you get off casting aspersions at him? I know UL's coaches give them all a bad name, but I always looked up to my coaches, although the big money and win at all costs attitudes doesn't help their image any, not too many high school coaches involved in that, hopefully.
Lots of injustices in the world, have you noticed all the innocent people (mostly poor without the money to hire lawyers like BP could afford, AND mostly never heard of again) that have spent their life in prison because of overzealous prosecutors, DNA has been a real eyeopener there in many cases. I think the burden of proof has to be on the accuser AND that is how it is for the most part in our society, I'm not sure if that applies in any way to a kangaroo court, does anyone know anything about them, was the prof jealous of the athletic heroes (justified to some extent), what other evidence did they base their decision on, was their decision even really worth worrying about that much compared to spending most of your life in jail, etc etc.
thank you..nobody is in High School coaching for the money..I assure you..you do it for the love of he game..
Not sure where to start with your rambling...
His ex coach? Oh, the poster on this board that has been banned about 5 times (now on yet another screen name) cause he acts like a child? You're right, from what I do know of him, sounds like a quality, trustworthy individual.
No one is on this UK football message board sharing her side of the story cause she isn't a star football player. That's a silly thing to point out as being meaningful.
So if someone is an athlete and is attractive, they don't rape people? Cause they don't need to? Got it.
Now you're saying that "I think most of the players on our team are rapists"? Wow. Now you're acting like a fool.. Calm down and grow up.
Honestly, the fact that "2Adulterers" "Billy Bones" or whatever is the one vouching for him probably doesn't help from my point of view. Maybe if it was someone who wasn't possibly the worst poster on this board, I'd take it a little more seriously. I don't know her and I don't know Tubman and I'm rational enough not to take the "vouching" of UK football fans on a message board as being solid.
Her side of the story was told to a grand jury and it returned a "no true bill." Her side was reported in the papers. Her side was the only story told to UK, which got the kid removed from school. I think her side got a lot of traction before Tubman even was permitted to speak. I appreciate your hero self image, but it ain't resonating.
Its pretty simple. Some people are convinced 100% that he is innocent. I'm not one of those people, but that doesn't mean I think he did it. It means I don't know. I'm sure as hell not going to consider certain posters on a UK football fan message board as reputable. If you have a problem with that, fine.
i haven't seen too many who claim to be 100% certain he didn't do it. Most people fall into the don't know group. That is a problem. With the few shreds of evidence known, it appears unlikely that he did it. A grand jury refused to indict him. The DA dropped the matter. But then, a group of untrained and biased - their bias is automatic given the guidance of the Dept. of Ed. - magically found him responsible. The issue isn't the ruling or even whether he actually did it or not. The issue is a total lack of due process while being "tried" by the state.
the UL propaganda media members seem to think they are doing Tubman a huge favor allowing him to join their team & he is willingly paying every penny of his own way to do so (if he goes there)
They're right. Aren't a whole lot of better teams he could join that would allow him to.
Weird. I am not on of those entirely convinced he is innocent, as I have stated many times. But I do KNOW there are a lot of people wrongly imprisoned by overzealous prosecution, AND I think there is plenty of doubt in this case-----backed up by the Grand Jury decision. Then you do have people that know something about him willing to stand up and vouch for him, in strong terms, not much to recommend her, in fact some stories that don't sound very good to me.
"that doesn't mean I think he did it. It means I don't know".
So you don't really think he did it, and you don't know if he did it or not, and the evidence doesn't do a lot to support it, but you are fine with UK treating him like he is guilty AND IN FACT levying a heavy punishment on him.
Hang them all, why take a chance, why UK MIGHT even get sued in the future, right Fuzz?
You're right, Mitch Barnhart is a great AD. Let's look at some of his hires in the top sports. 1. Billy Clyde Gillispie 2. Joker Phillips. 3. Matthew Mitchell
There isn't an AD outside of Barnhart that could have made 4 worse pics. Hell, Gillispie wouldn't have passed a background test to work the assembly line at a factory.
I would venture to say that every SINGLE person on this message board would have made a better pic than Gillispie.
Mal Moore @ Alabama hired Mike Price and Mike Shula...
Jeremy Foley @ Florida hired Ron Zook and Will Muschamp...
Show me an AD who hasn't made bad hires...not sure how you include the most successful women's basketball coach in UK history in your list ...and I'll show you an AD that hasn't made many if any hires.
Who would you suggest we get? With the level of integrity that Mr. Barnhart has? How about Tom Jurich? Probably not a lot of bad hires when it comes to wins and losses, but boy he couldn't Mitch Barnhart's clipboard when it comes to class and integrity!
Why in the hell does your AD have to be some pillar of morality? Why do so many of you need moral superiority in your AD?
You are confusing hires that didn't work out, with BAD hires. By all accounts Muschamp was the top hire in college football. Some hires don't work out, it's part of the job. Gillispie didn't work out because he is a drunk with mental issues, who wouldn't get hired at a car wash. Every AD in the country would have done MINIMAL research and found out these issues. Except for our AD, because he is terrible. But hey he is super moral, so he is good.
This horse has been beat for a while, but I keep reading the same stuff and have a hard time staying out of the discussion. Unfortunately, most of the comments on here are ignorant of the fact that the Grand Jury's decision to not indict is not evidence of his innocence, just as a decision to indict is no evidence of his guilt. In the last two days I've read that he was "exonerated" and found "not guilty" by the Grand Jury. This is all false. I've also read multiple posts that he was a football playing big man on campus that didn't have to rape a girl for sex. Those posters are absolutely ignorant of the crime of rape. Raping one girl doesn't mean you couldn't have had sex with another one with consent. Do a little research about the crime and you will find that a huge percentage of rape happens in relationships, especially failing ones. Someone else said she "didn't beat on the walls or scream." Again, not unusual, especially in the context of a relationship. "She looked fine when she walked him out." Once again, in this context, not unusual. When that happens, women are often scared, embarrassed and not sure what to do.
I have no idea what happened in that dorm room. But none of you do either. I trust my university to make correct decisions when it comes to deciding who should and should not be allowed to live on its campus, especially while my granddaughter is there. To try to equate the decision that was made by the advisory board to the Grand Jury shows ignorance of the process. I wish Lloyd Tubman and the woman involved nothing but the best in the future.