The Rick Pitino-Karen Sypher saga got a whole lot stranger over the last few days, with the federal prosecutors involved in the prosecution against Sypher on extortion charges now requesting the judge in the case demand that Karen Sypher be examined for competency, the chief prosecutor laughably asserting that-
there were a “multitude of factors” justifying the request for a competency exam, but he said he was citing them in a separate motion under seal to avoid tainting the jury pool and unduly prejudicing the defendant.
They are claiming that Sypher has made repeated public comments and given interviews that have fed a growing media frenzy. Yet, Jim Earhart, Sypher's attorney replies that-
"most of the recent press coverage was based on the release of records by Metro Louisville police pursuant to the Kentucky Open Records Act."
So what is the truth? Is Sypher kind of crazy, or a whole lot so, or is she truly the victim of a conspiracy involving one of the most popular and successful NCAA basketball coaches of all time, enabled by a culture that values success and image above all else?
It goes without saying the University just wishes this would all go away. This is going to look bad enough on the University and on Pitino, and could hurt recruitment and for that matter admissions in general. Pitino has actually admitted enough to warrant his dismissal on moral grounds. Yes, there is a morals clause in his U of L contract. The question is, does the University have either the backbone or the integrity to enforce such a contract. I am going to guess probably not.
Nor is it any stretch of the imagination to conjecture that this sudden concern for Sypher's state of mind by the prosecutors is a made up deal. What better way to help the University sweep this all under the rug. By claiming Sypher is incompetent, possibly schizophrenic or even worse, they manage in one fell swoop to render whatever testimony she might offer worthless. Therefore, why bother with a trial? Let's just forget the whole sordid affair ever happened and go back to business as usual. A lot of money is on the line here, in contracts, in licensing fees, in season ticket sales, in admissions and registrations fees, in endorsements-you name it. Why let some crazy bitch mess all that up with her version of the truth? What is truth anyway? Is a crazy woman capable of recognizing the truth if it stared her in the face? If it slapped her on the ass?
You see where I'm going with this. Karen Sypher may or may not be crazy. She may or may not be telling the truth. She may or may not be lying, whether she thinks she is telling the truth or not. But one thing is certain. This does not look good on the University of Louisville, and the University has a lot of pull and influence on the state of Kentucky, and vice versa.
That goes without saying. As it happens, the University of Louisville, like UK, could not survive without state funding, or for that matter without federal funding.
This is in fact the uncomfortable, unvarnished truth pertaining to all universities, not merely the U of L and UK. The state of Kentucky has a large say in who makes up the various boards of trustees, who sits in the chair of the Dean of Admissions, who in fact actually runs the universities, what branch is awarded research funds, and how much they are awarded? If you ever wondered why the nations universities are riddled with political correctness in its programs and a good many of its more politically oriented classes, such as women's and minority studies, social and political sciences, and even its history classes, etc., you need look no further than this fact. They are the result of a university system that has become overly dependent on government funding. More importantly, they are overly dependent on the politicians and bureaucrats who are necessary for the continuation of that funding, and who in turn have their own patrons to suck up to.
Is it any small wonder if Karen Sypher does not in the long run get a fair hearing?
The irony is, this won't look any better on Pitino. If the judge should decide the woman is crazy, and we are to take such a judgment at face value (which I for one would not), then what does it say about the qualifications of Rick Pitino, a coach of a major university basketball program, to gauge the mental and emotional state of his players? After all, he didn't seem to have any problem fucking this broad.
Of course, he could always say she seemed perfectly sane during that period of time when he was screwing her on the tops of restaurant tables after closing. Then again, that might well imply that she must have lost her mind after the fact, right?
The little matter of the abortion is an entirely different issue, one that was even originally air-brushed out of the Courier Journal web-site photo below when Sypher's son appeared on the far right, carrying the sign that asked the loaded question "What's The Price Of An Abortion"?
The answer of course is three thousand dollars, a sum Pitino claims was not directly for the purpose of paying for an abortion, but for the purchase of insurance which was then used to acquire one. Yet, as has been pointed out, few if any insurance companies will cover a procedure for a pre-existing condition. Yet, we are to take Pitono's word that this is precisely the case here. In making this public utterance, has Pitino possibly compromised his integrity further, and possibly even plagiarized himself?
But hey, come on-who really cares as long as The Louisville Cardinals make it to the Final Four?
7 comments:
Most of this is good, however I'd disagree that universities have become somehow more dependent on state funding. Much the opposite, in fact. Back in the 70s and 80s, you could still find state universities that got 50% or more of their operating budget from the government. Now, the vast majority of them are below 30% and there are actually many that are well below 20%. This is one reason that tuition rates have risen so dramatically in the last few decades. But the trend has definitely not been towards greater state funding, although there has been greater state micromanagement of higher ed, so that part is accurate.
Rufus-thanks, I wasn't aware of that. It is certainly true though of UK, which has one of the preeminent medical research facilities in the country (or at least so they like to claim). They are very dependent on state funding, for that, their agriculture department, and other things. That's pretty much true of all Kentucky Universities, the U of L included, and even some of the smaller ones, though maybe to not quite the same extent as UK. Every time Kentucky goes through their budget plans for the year, UK always figures prominently, the others to a lesser extent.
Some of their more prominent board members are even paid by the state of Kentucky, if I am not mistaken.
Good post about what is for the most part a local issue. It was mentioned on NPR, where I first heard about it.
Thanks, Ren. I would remind you though that, while this is naturally of greater immediate interest to Kentucky and especially Louisville fans and alumni, Pitino is a national figure.
Also, this might well involve an abuse of power and maybe even state and court corruption. The University has a lot of clout, and this woman has (regardless of the veracity of her claims or not) made herself a target of wealthy and powerful interests just by possibly putting not just Pitino, but by extension the University of Louisville in a bad light.
The case brought against her for extortion is also a federal charge. This could get bigger over time. That's precisely why I think the very feds charged with prosecuting her are seemingly trying to deliberately sabotage their own case by declaring her incompetent to stand trial.
Which makes this even more remarkable, because the implications here might well be that the feds are purposely acting not in the pursuit of justice, but in the greater long-term interests of the University of Louisville-or possibly of certain alumni associations-which should not be a part of their agenda.
To put it another way, its usually the attorneys for the defense who tries to maneuver a plea of non compis mentis (I think that's the correct legal term) when it seems appropriate to do so on behalf of their client.
It's exceedingly rare for the prosecuting team to do so. It has happened, usually when the defense makes the request as part of a deal with prosecutors behind closed doors, in order to keep from offending their clients.
This does not seem to be the case here though.
In the future it'll be the 24 hour story on CNN.
Pitino is starting to lose it. Just today he gave a press conference where he slammed the media for causing problems for him and his family. It's not his fault, you see, its the media's fault, just for daring to cover the story, as though they should either support him outright, or not cover it at all.
Like you said, Ren, this is mainly a Kentucky story, or has been up to this point. What will he do if this does become a big national story?
Post a Comment