Sanchez on Bush, "sometimes kids want to take"

[Captain Caveman]

Well I simplified it, but the agent was/is rich.

 

And besided, how does that change my point? A guy with money donated it to people without money. Whats the problem with that?

 

The problem is, the kid is being taken advantage of. The expectation is that by laying out a little money (under the table and against the rules) the agent will make lots of money later off of this kid.

 

In this case, it's kind of funny that the agent got his comeuppance. Come to think of it, so did Reggie Bush, who may have to give up his Heisman and will not be welcomed back to USC anytime soon.

[Kelly the Dog]

I know this may be a minority opinion, but if every player did what Bush did, take a bunch of money from sleazy agents, promise them the world (their signature on an agent contract) and then spit in their face and say "ha! Sucker!! I was only kidding!". You know, the kind of **** that agents do all the time, maybe agents would be a little more careful.

[JohnC]

Well I simplified it, but the agent was/is rich.

 

And besided, how does that change my point? A guy with money donated it to people without money. Whats the problem with that?

 

For one, it is against the NCAA rules. The violation caused major damage to the school and athletic program. In addition, it is simply illegal. Do you think the Bush parents claimed the money and benefits they were receiving from this shyster agent on their income statements? Of course not.

 

The agent was not donating money to anyone. He expected a return on his under the table payments. Whether the sleazy street agent was rich or poor is irrelevant. What he did was certainly very questionable.

[San Jose Bills Fan]

I know this may be a minority opinion, but if every player did what Bush did, take a bunch of money from sleazy agents, promise them the world (their signature on an agent contract) and then spit in their face and say "ha! Sucker!! I was only kidding!". You know, the kind of **** that agents do all the time, maybe agents would be a little more careful.

Be that as it may, two wrongs don't make a right.

 

You don't address the problem of an unscrupulous agent by stiffing them on a deal you agreed to with them.

 

IMO, this is the sort of degenerative approach to problems which leads to more problems and a further decay in our society.

[Kelly the Dog]

Be that as it may, two wrongs don't make a right.

 

You don't address the problem of an unscrupulous agent by stiffing them on a deal you agreed to with them.

 

IMO, this is the sort of degenerative approach to problems which leads to more problems and a further decay in our society.

Actually two wrongs often do make a right. It happens all the time. Like most of those stupid maxims everyone can recite, they're not really true in the real world.

 

You're right, it doesn't address the problem of the unscrupulous agent but nothing being done right now does either, so I am calling that a wash.

 

Sometimes "this sort" of degenerative approach does lead to more problems. And perhaps just as often it doesn't. I would LOVE if more politicians took huge sums of campaign contributions from donors looking to get favors from it, and then never gave them favors. Is that two wrongs not making a right? Does that further decay society? If enough politicians did that, wouldn't that address some of the problems with rich donors trying to buy influence under the guise of legal campaign contributions?

[San Jose Bills Fan]

Actually two wrongs often do make a right. It happens all the time. Like most of those stupid maxims everyone can recite, they're not really true in the real world.

 

You're right, it doesn't address the problem of the unscrupulous agent but nothing being done right now does either, so I am calling that a wash.

 

Sometimes "this sort" of degenerative approach does lead to more problems. And perhaps just as often it doesn't. I would LOVE if more politicians took huge sums of campaign contributions from donors looking to get favors from it, and then never gave them favors. Is that two wrongs not making a right? Does that further decay society? If enough politicians did that, wouldn't that address some of the problems with rich donors trying to buy influence under the guise of legal campaign contributions?

I see your point, Kelly. There are a few ways to look at this.

 

For my own part, I wouldn't address a situation this way. I'm pretty rigid in my morales and values and would TRY to take the high road on either side.

 

That said, I understand your point. What you're saying is not unlike the ideas of frontier justice or vigilanteism.

 

I understand that and have used that approach from time to time. It's a big, bad world out there and that's the only approach some people understand.

 

It's a matter of what any individual is comfortable doing.