What the fuck are you talking about? Tech was not party to the lawsuit. That’s what I said and that is true. Tech administration and athletic department can hope for any outcome they like, but that doesn’t make the them party to the suit. Perhaps you’re confused how a lawsuit works. They didn’t arrange Sorsby’s representation or pay for any of it.
I did say that most of Tech fandom was surprised and many didn’t agree with the decision. That, however is changing with with the sanctimonious shitstorm. So I guess you, being morally superior, would advise Tech to violate the Court Order? That’s the correct course of action, right?
ETA:
Here’s part of the statement from Holcutt:
"Texas Tech is not a party to Brendan’s lawsuit. “We did not file it. We did not fund it. A young man in treatment for a clinically diagnosed addiction exercised his legal right to seek a remedy in court, and a judge agreed with him. Our role has been to support his recovery, not to engineer his eligibility.”
Since you’ve called me a liar, I’d like a fucking explanation.
I’m going by the quotes in Lefty’s post. It’s lame lawyering to make the distinction that “they were not party to the suit” and they didn’t support his suit. I interpreted your post to include both. Sort of like Tech saying “we understand this guy deserves banishment, so we will have no part of the suit.” In reality, it’s “we won’t be party to the suit, as it gives us an obscure talking point that we are actually ethical, but we certainly support him in his suit.” Additionally, every subsequent statement by the coach, the AD, and the Chairman of the BOR supports this latter interpretation.
Tech apparently took the latter stance, and is trying to have their cake and eat it too. Just like you are doing with this convoluted argument that you know it’s wrong, but hey, the court is forcing us to play the guy. Basically treating all readers like we’re too fucking stupid to understand that Tech supported the guy’s suit all along and has zero qualms about the verdict.
The Big 12’s options also could include an interpretation of league bylaw 3.6, which allows the conference autonomy for discipline such as “prohibitions on appearance in postseason events or televised events, restrictions on revenue distributions and limitations on recruiting or scholarships.”