Teatment for what...
See this is where I have a problem. I just think the guy was having a lot of fun after a big win.
Ed Podolak Done
- Thread starter A-town Cy
- Start date
Teatment for what...
See this is where I have a problem. I just think the guy was having a lot of fun after a big win.
Easier to get caught drinking underage when you're at a bar that legally let you in (IC) than when drinking underage at a house party (Ames). Bigger house party scene in Ames w/o the 19 year-old rule. And as an ISU gradutate, I know there was plenty of underage drinking going on :wink:
And it will continue to be an issue in IC until that law changes, and unfortunately it never will, too much money to be made to kick out the minors. :no:
Teatment for what...
See this is where I have a problem. I just think the guy was having a lot of fun after a big win.
There are numerous anecdotes and a police report that show signs that this guy has alcohol issues.
Yeah. I know better than to think most ISU athletes don't drink. I've drank with them. They're like any other kid.
The IC kids are just hard on their luck.
I agree that he didn't deserve it. I really enjoyed him on the radio, and it's a real shame. Unfortunately though, this isn't his first offense with alcohol and public embarrassment.
Thats why he's gone. Nobody really cares about his drinking. Nobody would care if he sat in his house and smoked weed all night long. The fact is he does all this crap in public and it really does look bad for the U of I.
In reality is it that bad? No way. But it makes your university look pretty trashy.
Im embarassed to be a clone today. Weve had coaches convicted of felonies..and we act like we have a high horse to sit upon?
Barta is a joke..if an employee had a substance abuse problem..you get him help, you dont throw a long time employee under the bus.
Barta is a joke..if an employee had a substance abuse problem..you get him help, you dont throw a long time employee under the bus.
The way I look at it is if this was a typical company and these photos surfaced of an employee on a business trip, do you think they would have been let go? I agree this isn't a crime, but you don't have to commit a crime to be in the wrong. Learfield is still a business and just because he's an announcer doesn't mean he doesn't have to be professional.
And I don't mean it to come across as "poor Iowa City kids." I mean it more as that law is probably a big part of a lot of the problems there. It encourages a lot of that behavior, and I think things would be calmed down to a certain degree if that was ever changed.
I'm willing to bet in the agreement with Learfield there's some sort of part that talks about positive representation of the University, or something of the like.
Dude, I never said this incident was a crime. This embarrassing incident, combined with the DUI and other embarrassing incidents shows that the guy has a problem, IMO.
This is a slick, slick slope we're heading down though.
Not saying this is how it happened with Eddie, but this isn't impossible and could happen to someone in the future.
I have job where my position is visible to the public and say I went out to the bar and was having a good time, posed with a stranger or friend for a photo, beer in hand and whoops, I blink and have my eyes half closed or some other goofy look on my face.
The photo winds up on facebook, somebody posts it here and suddenly it's made the rounds that so-and-so public figure was out drunk off his ***. Now, my company finds this embarassing, and fires me NOT because of what it DID, but what it LOOKS like and REFLECTS on THEM.
Or maybe I was a little intoxicated at a bar, had a safe ride home, but somebody snapped some pictures of me. Am I going to have to drink only at home with the blinds pulled or else risk termination?
Last edited:
Chances are you wouldn't take such a move if it was just a first (or second) incident. Who's to say that there hasn't been more stuff going on, and this brought it to a head?
I have a feeling that the people that feel he should be gone now are the same ones that said he should be gone in the other thread when the pictures came out. They were definitely in the minority in that other thread. The fact that some people think it was a big deal, and completely different people do not does make anybody bi-polar...
I agree, the history complicates things in Ed's case, but we're starting to set a precedent here. I don't think it's too far of a jump now to see people firing/suspending people for this sort of thing, especially when as far as we can tell, nothing has been done wrong.
Starting? It's been going on for a while. Everyone has a camera and everyone's on the internet now. People are either going to have to be really careful about the situations they're in or it's not going to be as big of a deal anymore.