This won't be TLDR, but it will be way shorter than 9 pages.
I will cover 3 things that make it clear the reporter was just making shit up. There are at least a half dozen other things that are inaccurate or were made up. In addition to showing how bad the AJC's writer was, it will show how badly I appear to get under
@fordman84 skin and how wrong he was because he can't stand it when I am right, which is most of the time.
1. Eleven players
Among other things, the article states: "UGA football program rallies when players accused of abusing women: Athletes often remain on the team despite sexual assault, domestic violence allegations." The reporter, Judd, claims: "The Journal-Constitution
identified 11 players during Smart 's tenure who remained with the team after women reported violent encounters to the police, to the university, or to both." Yet the article only identifies two players by name and another without naming him.
UGAA responding: Noting this discrepancy and being skeptical of the claim, we asked Mr. Judd to provide a full list of the eleven players that meet his description. He initially responded he was away from his office without his files but would respond when he returned to the office. After repeated follow-ups, Mr. Judd refused to provide the list. He claims the AJC has a "policy" not to "release unpublished information," although he has not provided a copy of or citation to this policy. Even if such a policy exists, the AJC did publish this information. Mr. Judd published an entire article excoriating the UGA football program for "rallying" on behalf of players accused of abusing women, primarily based on the assertion that "11 players" remained on the team after being accused. But when asked simply to provide a list of the eleven names referenced in the article, Mr. Judd refused.
We are confident there are not "11 players during Smart's tenure who remained with the team after women reported violent encounters" to the police or University; indeed, even the three players mentioned in Mr. Judd's article do not meet this description.
So, the AJC states that there were 11 players allowed to remain on the team despite being accused of sexual assault, or domestic violence allegations. Yet, they won't release who the 11 are - they have no reason not to. Moreover, the 3 that they did refer to were either (1) not on the team - he was a recruit, there were never any charges brought, and it is clear the alleged victim was a psycho; (2) was immediately dismissed from the team and never played another down, and (3) the charges weren't sexual assault but that a player had videotaped consensual sex and the facts of the encounter were wildly exaggerated.
2. Total Misrepresentation of Facts - making it up, or just lying
To show what a shitbag the writer is, let's take a look at the 3rd incident. In the article, Mr. Judd states without qualification: "A player charged with recording a sex act with
an unconscious woman remained on the roster for a full season until he transferred." In a subsequent media interview, Mr. Judd again referred to this case, claiming the player videotaped himself
"having sex with a woman who had passed out from drinking." In the same interview, he again referred to the player videotaping himself
"having sex with a woman blacked out drunk." Mr. Judd then suggested the player received preferential treatment from the Athens-Clarke County police, saying that "strangely" the police did not charge him with sexual assault "even though the video shows that she had no idea what was happening."
That sounds like some bad shit, right? The problem is the AJC never got the police report or the videos, and UGA did. But before we get to his lies, know that even though no charges were ever brought against the player, he was suspended from the team and never played a down for UGA. So, no, this player didn't remain on the team as alleged.
Once UGA got the police report and the video, here is what actually happened. Note how it is nothing like what the AJC said, and they never got the report or the video. "
The former player involved in this case was charged with unlawful surveillance for engaging in consensual sexual activity and recording it without consent. As a result of the charge, this player was suspended from competition and never played a single down for the program, even though the unlawful surveillance charge was later dismissed. But the former player was never charged with sexual assault because, according to the police reports, the videos depicted the complainant as "engaged and responsive" and "actively participating" in the sexual activity-contrary to Mr. Judd's false claims. According to the supplemental police reports, the videos "display consensual sex" between the parties. All of this is documented in extensive detail in the supplemental police reports that Mr. Judd requested, but either has not reviewed or is misrepresenting."
So we have a reporter making repeated public assertions that this former player remained on the roster after being "charged with recording a sex act with an unconscious woman" when in fact he was immediately suspended and never played for UGA, and the alleged victim was not unconscious, was not passed out, or blacked out drunk. The AJC chose to create the story he wanted to tell regardless of the facts.
3. Totally cherry-picking parts of an interview
Mr. Judd's article extensively covers a matter involving a 16-year-old prospective student athlete, Jamaal Jarrett, accused of sexual assault during his recruiting visit. Mr. Judd questions the rigor of the Athens-Clarke County Police Department's investigation of the case, characterizing it as "remarkably friendly" and "more like a counseling session." He claims the video of the interview "suggests criminal charges were never likely." These subjective assessments are based on two phrases totaling eight words-both taken out of context from a 54-minute interview.
Mr. Judd first
describes the interview as "a remarkably friendly interrogation at the Athens police headquarters, where the detective investigating the sexual assault allegation
spoke of 'my beloved Bulldogs."' The words "my beloved Bulldogs" were uttered by the Detective twenty-two minutes into the 54-minute interview, when Mr. Jarrett explained that the complainant had searched for him online and initiated contact with him after seeing him from a distance at the January 2022 National Championship Parade. Recalling the day of the Parade and lamenting that he was required to be on duty that day, the Detective noted sarcastically,
"One of many Saturdays I had ruined, working on behalf of my beloved Bulldogs."
So, he was obviously sarcastically using "my beloved Bulldogs" and Judd interprets it to mean that he loves his Dawgs and will therefore go easy on Jarret. The interview that I cited here the other day, and that Josh Pate did a video on calling out the AJC, shows how badly the ACJ writer interpreted this.
He does this numerous times, sometimes tying together statements made 20 minutes apart to sound as if they were stated at the same time. His coverage of the players going to court to support Adam Anderson is incredibly bad.
There is a lot more. At the end of the day, UGA's attorneys absolutely bitch slapped the AJC. I am not going to argue with anyone about this. Read the letter and make your own conclusions. I just bring stuff here, and this one isn't worth arguing over.
