Hodge arrested for stealing moped

[Harlan Huckleby]

http://www.madison.com/wsj/mad/sports/index.php?ntid=99881

(It was his little brother.)

[red]

we don't need to be scared like that

how desperate do you have to be to steal an f'ing moped?

i'd rather walk then ride one of those stupid looking things

[Partial]

we don't need to be scared like that

how desperate do you have to be to steal an f'ing moped?

i'd rather walk then ride one of those stupid looking things



mopeds get you laaaaaaiiiidddd

[ahaha]

we don't need to be scared like that

how desperate do you have to be to steal an f'ing moped?

i'd rather walk then ride one of those stupid looking things



mopeds get you laaaaaaiiiidddd


Maybe, if you lived in a third world country.

[Guiness]

Mopeds == Fat chicks. You know the rest.

What an idiot decision. Does he have the potential to get drafted? Things like this kill marginal players. :crazy:

[RashanGary]

Sounds liek a minor prank. I'm sure he wasn't really trying to steal the damn thing. He probably just wnated to take a joy ride accross campus.

[Fritz]

Kind of does sound like a dumb college thing. A couple of buddies and me once got drunk and ended up in the U.P. on a road trip before we sobered up.

Dumb.

[KYPack]

NEVER go Yooper on a road trip.

Go to LaCrosse or Stevens Point.

A place where you can party and tell everybody you're from outta town.

[BF4MVP]

Phew....IDC about Elijah..Good think it wasn't Abdul..

[Green Bud Packer]

Kind of does sound like a dumb college thing. A couple of buddies and me once got drunk and ended up in the U.P. on a road trip before we sobered up.

Dumb.i once took a wrong turn and ended up in the u.p. and then got drunk. dumb, but fun at the time.

[Harlan Huckleby]

A college prank is putting 20 live chickens in the dean's car. Stealing a mopid is thug behavior, even if he just ditched it.

[Guiness]

Agreed HH. Moped or not, it was a set of wheels some someone probably needed and missed.

Only excuse would be if it belonged to a close friend and it was a prank.

[Terry]

A college prank is putting 20 live chickens in the dean's car. Stealing a mopid is thug behavior, even if he just ditched it.

That's right.

Unless of course, you're James Coburn and you need to steal a bicycle to escape from German occupied France.

But I admit, I found some comfort in the prank idea; that it wasn't really stealing. I felt better about those assholes stealing my Volvo, because they were just kids out for a joyride, after all. Hell, what's a week or two of standing in the rain, spending 5 hours a day on lousy public transportation, and going a hundred and fifty miles to buy another car? I'm sure I wouldn't have minded if it had just occurred to me that it wasn't really stealing.

[Fosco33]

Hodge was reinstated on the active depth chart and played vs. UM - recording a partial tackle in the 1st half on special teams pending an investigation.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Hodge was reinstated on the active depth chart and played vs. UM - recording a partial tackle in the 1st half on special teams pending an investigation.

"pending an investigation" - too bad. When i saw Hodge on the field, I guessed that it must have been a misunderstanding, and he had been cleared.

Ummm, I would think Beliema could have asked Hodge what the hell happened, that would seem to be a sufficient investigation. If Hodge jacked the moped, and Beliema let him play, I will be pissed. But guess we have to wait for the facts.

[Fosco33]

Hodge was reinstated on the active depth chart and played vs. UM - recording a partial tackle in the 1st half on special teams pending an investigation.

"pending an investigation" - too bad. When i saw Hodge on the field, I guessed that it must have been a misunderstanding, and he had been cleared.

Ummm, I would think Beliema could have asked Hodge what the hell happened, that would seem to be a sufficient investigation. If Hodge jacked the moped, and Beliema let him play, I will be pissed. But guess we have to wait for the facts.

They initially said he wouldn't play but then realized they needed more facts before punishing him. It's kinda like any criminal situation - innocent until proven guilty. At that time, he should be removed from the lineup but not before that point - unless he admits it.

[MadtownPacker]

Get off your pedestal Princess Harlan. It was a damn moped, not auto theft.

Terry - Maybe the person who stole your car did it cuz they wanted to punish you for drunk driving in the past? :lol:

[Tarlam!]

Damned. You holier than the Pope poeple need to get a friggin life!

And, YES, I drive Volvo!

[Scott Campbell]

I think you'd have to be drunk to steal a moped.

[Harlan Huckleby]

They initially said he wouldn't play but then realized they needed more facts before punishing him. It's kinda like any criminal situation - innocent until proven guilty.

Not "like" a criminal situation, it IS a criminal situation.

But it is also a disciplinary issue between a coach & player. Bielema's investigation should start and end with one question: "What were you doing with a moped that didn't belong to you?"

[Tarlam!]

Or, drive Volvo...

[Fosco33]

They initially said he wouldn't play but then realized they needed more facts before punishing him. It's kinda like any criminal situation - innocent until proven guilty.

Not "like" a criminal situation, it IS a criminal situation.

But it is also a disciplinary issue between a coach & player. Bielema's investigation should start and end with one question: "What were you doing with a moped that didn't belong to you?"

Who knows what happened? Maybe his friend lent it to him and it was a mistake or something like that. We don't know what Bielema asked Hodge or what Hodge replied... it's all speculation at this point.

So, he's playing - we'll see how this shakes out before freaking out that he's playing.

A kid at my old high school was road racing and killed an elderly man. He played football that night after being released w/ minor injuries. If that kid can play, Hodge should be able to. Their penalties come later regardless of the offense - include KRob in that equation as well.

[Tarlam!]

Fosco, are you on a first name basis with God?

[Fosco33]

Fosco, are you on a first name basis with God?

Not sure what you mean there, Tarlam. I'm not playing decision maker here - like I said all this is just speculating.

And if you mean, "Do I believe in God?" I'm unsure and don't feel like discussing it here.

[Tarlam!]

Their penalties come later regardless of the offense - include KRob in that equation as well.

Then how are you so certain as to make this quote?

[Fosco33]

Their penalties come later regardless of the offense - include KRob in that equation as well.

Then how are you so certain as to make this quote?

All three have been or were accused of a crime

All three played football afterwards

We don't decide their guilt/innocence

If they are guilty, their penalties/suspensions/fines/etc come later - after playing while being assumed innocent - this is America

[Tarlam!]

That's not what you said. You said
Their penalties come later regardless of the offense


That sounds very righteous, vindictive. It is pretty vague. You can call upon your Americanism to defend your stance, but, that's not what you meant. You were referring to a higher being, and now, you're backing away and hiding behind false patriotism.

That's fine.

[Scott Campbell]

I don't agree that it has anything to do with being the American way of doing things. Our constitution doesn't protect your right to play football until you've been proven guilty. It just keeps you from being convicted and sentenced.

There's nothing wrong with suspending a guy pending the outcome of the investigation - when the preliminary evidence supports such an action.

[Tarlam!]

That is a weird point of view, SC! I thought innocent until proven guilty means, business as usual until you get a conviction...

[Scott Campbell]

That is a weird point of view, SC! I thought innocent until proven guilty means, business as usual until you get a conviction...

Tell that to all the guys who can't make bail.

[Tarlam!]

I'm replying to your constitutional rights, not to you personally...

[Fosco33]

That's not what you said. You said
Their penalties come later regardless of the offense


That sounds very righteous, vindictive. It is pretty vague. You can call upon your Americanism to defend your stance, but, that's not what you meant. You were referring to a higher being, and now, you're backing away and hiding behind false patriotism.

That's fine.

I wasn't referring to a higher power.

In each of the varying cases - vehicular manslaughter, DUI and moped theft - the actual penalties came after (or will come after) playing football again.

It's a fact - not an opinion. I don't need to prove otherwise - I don't even need to bring in 'false patriotism'. That's just BS.

[Tarlam!]

don't even need to bring in 'false patriotism'

Correct, you don't need to. Still, you clearly rely upon it to make your case.

Your original point, Fosco, was not made with the American legal system in mind. It was made in acknowledgement of punishment by an all-knowing being.

You can deny it. Then, you'll be denying your innermost beliefs on account of a silly arbitrary altercation on this forum. Or, you can own up, and stand by what you said.

It's all fine.

[Fosco33]

don't even need to bring in 'false patriotism'

Correct, you don't need to. Still, you clearly rely upon it to make your case.

Your original point, Fosco, was not made with the American legal system in mind. It was made in acknowledgement of punishment by an all-knowing being.

You can deny it. Then, you'll be denying your innermost beliefs on account of a silly arbitrary altercation on this forum. Or, you can own up, and stand by what you said.

It's all fine.

You misunderstood my statement. I would've said God's judgement if that's what I was implying. We're really arguing about nothing - like a married couple :lol:

[Tarlam!]

Fine.

[Harlan Huckleby]

We don't decide their guilt/innocence

If they are guilty, their penalties/suspensions/fines/etc come later - after playing while being assumed innocent - this is America

I just don't agree with this at all. By this standard, a coach can't take any action against a player unless an infraction can be proven in court.

If the kid stole a moped, it was wrong for Beliema to allow him to play, regardless of whether he is ultimately found guilty or innocent by the legal system. And Beliema has an excellent idea of what happened just by asking a few questions of Hodge & friends, this is not a complicated caper.

[pbmax]

The UW-Madison now has a student-athlete policy in place that takes individual situations out of the coaches hands. If charges are filed, then the player is suspended. If the player requests an appeal, they can get back on the team temporarily AFTER a hearing.

For the whole process to run its course, obviously the justice system must be done. But players have been suspended and the suspension upheld BEFORE the legal system has run its course. For example, Booker Stanley.

Hodge's, situation sounds like it hasn't hit the panel and he hasn't been suspended yet. But, I haven't read the coverage and its possible they held an expedited hearing and granted an appeal to stay on the team.

The idea is so that a backup player doesn't get made an example of and the star gets back on the field. It also seeks to eliminate the inconsistencies between coaches and programs.

[Harlan Huckleby]

pbmax, I was not aware of this policy. It sounds like an attempt at fairness. I understand the value of forcing a player to be suspended (absent a successful appeal.) But I would think that the Coach always has the discretion to suspend a player.

[Terry]

Get off your pedestal Princess Harlan. It was a damn moped, not auto theft.

Terry - Maybe the person who stole your car did it cuz they wanted to punish you for drunk driving in the past? :lol:
Hell, things can get really embarrassing when someone is around with an elephant memory!


I think you'd have to be drunk to steal a moped.
Some people say you'd have to be drunk to steal a Volvo!

[pbmax]

pbmax, I was not aware of this policy. It sounds like an attempt at fairness. I understand the value of forcing a player to be suspended (absent a successful appeal.) But I would think that the Coach always has the discretion to suspend a player.
I think the key word would be suspension. I suspect, but am not sure, that the coach wouldn't be able to suspend independently of the policy.

But Bielema kicked Stanley off the team, the policy didn't seem to deter that. It would also seem that a player could be kept from practicing or getting reps or playing time. There are also the ubiquitous team rule situations. There is still room for the coach to impose discipline.

The appeal is the exasperating one, because it is not at all clear what you would have to have done, or what evidence would have to be presented, for the appeal NOT to overturn the suspension. Of the ones I am aware of, the majority seem to be overturned.

An exception would seem to be Booker, who seemed hell-bent to land himself in jail or off the team. Or he was auditioning for the Bengals.

[Tarlam!]

What sort of bullshit system is this? Innocent until PROVEN guilty should be just that!

How dare anybody get their rights taken away just because of an accusation?

I could accuse Hodge of raping my border collie 1 day before the bowl game, and BOOM, under that stupid policy, he would be "suspended".

Think about the implications of that: Guilty until proven innocent......You wait out the hearing to find out your fine/sentence.

That is really a great thing to be proud of. The "American Way". Bah! Humbug!! :crazy:

[Patler]

I think Hodge may have been reinstated because formal criminal charges have not yet been filed. Others have been reinstated temporarily in the same situation, but again suspended when formal charges are filed. If formal criminal charges are not filed, he will be outside the new policy.

[Patler]

What sort of bullshit system is this? Innocent until PROVEN guilty should be just that!

How dare anybody get their rights taken away just because of an accusation?

I could accuse Hodge of raping my border collie 1 day before the bowl game, and BOOM, under that stupid policy, he would be "suspended".

Think about the implications of that: Guilty until proven innocent......You wait out the hearing to find out your fine/sentence.

That is really a great thing to be proud of. The "American Way". Bah! Humbug!! :crazy:

It's not just on an accusation, the DA has to file charges for the suspension to stick. The UW policy is a good one for student athletes. As they explained at the time, a player has more important things to worry about than football if the DA files charges against him.

[Tarlam!]

So, what you are saying is, if the DA files charges, it is a conviction.

Well, I am glad to know the DA is Judge and Jury and id he/she files charges, I am guilty until I prove otherwise...

[Patler]

So, what you are saying is, if the DA files charges, it is a conviction.

Well, I am glad to know the DA is Judge and Jury and id he/she files charges, I am guilty until I prove otherwise...

Do you not agree that the coach can suspend the player in that situation? If so, why can the University simply have an established policy that applies to everyone? A player has no "right" to play football.

The problem UW had was that for a while they had a number of athletes in different sports who had criminal charges filed against them. Some were suspended, others were not. There was a sense that they were lenienet with star players, but suspended players that didn't matter. There was also a rash of activity resulting in charges against players, and the school felt it had to do something to impress upon the athletes that activities like that won't be tolerated.

Some businesses put employees on a leave of absense if criminal charges are filed against them. This is no different.

[Harlan Huckleby]

So, what you are saying is, if the DA files charges, it is a conviction.

You've lost your perspective. If a player screws up, say, he cheats on his exams, the DA doesn't even file charges. Yet the coach might choose to suspend the player.

If a kid does something so obnoxious that a DA files charges, then an immediate suspension ought to be automatic. A coach (or parent) doesn't need the same level of proof as a court of law before disiplining somebody! Coach SHOULD take guilty until proven innocent stance in this case: "You better have a damn good story about why you were caught riding a stolen moped, or your ass is grass."

[MadtownPacker]

You shut your stinking trap Harlan!! I am positive you stole shit while in college but you never got kicked off the dance team.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Actually, I did spend a night in jail. Did I tell you that story about the insulation at the building site?

But it's inappropriate to get lectures about theft from one of you people. Different value systems.

[MadtownPacker]

Actually, I did spend a night in jail. Did I tell you that story about the insulation at the building site?

But it's inappropriate to get lectures about theft from one of you people. Different value systems.Yes you did tell me but unlike you I keep things people tell me to themselves. But now that you have openly admitted it...

When Harlan was in college him and a friend got drunk and stole house insulation. I dont recall why but he spent the night in jail (probably the front desk not a real cell) and was released. No punishment, no fine, nothing. Yet he has the nerve to point his snooty nose down on others when he is a petty thief. Not a very good either. Who gets caught stealing insulation? What the hell was he gonna do with it? Hahaha, moron!

[Harlan Huckleby]

We were not drunk! We were stoned.

We were building a walk-in freezer for a co-op. And I did get punished, had to go to first offenders school with a bunch of shop-lifters.

(ha ha! And police didn't realize we made-off with a whole pickup truck of insulation, which now lives-on as rabbit hutches out at a friend's farm.)

[MadtownPacker]

Whatever!! Point is you are a scumbag. Case closed. Now get off this guys back for jacking a moped. Uppity SOB!

[Tarlam!]

HH, Patler, not I have lost my perspective, but you both have.

Filing charges does not equate to proving guilt. I am surprized you need a Nazi like me to tell you this.

Cheating on an exam should be dealt with in a manner that is fair. Is it fair to bann the cheater from playing football? Only, if EVERY student is a football player, or on some type of scholarship.

You holier-than-thou pussies really get up my nostrils.

[Scott Campbell]

HH, Patler, not I have lost my perspective, but you both have.

Filing charges does not equate to proving guilt. I am surprized you need a Nazi like me to tell you this.

Cheating on an exam should be dealt with in a manner that is fair. Is it fair to bann the cheater from playing football? Only, if EVERY student is a football player, or on some type of scholarship.

You holier-than-thou pussies really get up my nostrils.


I'm on their side of this discussion T. I'd only consider your position if I considered playing football a right. It's not a right. It's a privledge.

[Fosco33]

HH, Patler, not I have lost my perspective, but you both have.

Filing charges does not equate to proving guilt. I am surprized you need a Nazi like me to tell you this.

Cheating on an exam should be dealt with in a manner that is fair. Is it fair to bann the cheater from playing football? Only, if EVERY student is a football player, or on some type of scholarship.

You holier-than-thou pussies really get up my nostrils.

So - you agree w/ my points then - despite our misunderstanding.

[Tarlam!]

Fosco, I don't know. I was trying hard to understand what your point was, but I didn't really get it.

My point is innocent until proven guilty seems to be a myth. Dual standards, seems to be daily life.

If Hodge was named Podge, would it have even made this forum? No.

Kinda sucks right there, doesn't it?

And Patler, of course he has a right to play football. He has a right to eat pizza, too. It's called freedom of choice.

The coaches are also free to choose if he plays or not, but that should be according to his ability and not charges made.

[Scott Campbell]

And Patler, of course he has a right to play football. He has a right to eat pizza, too. It's called freedom of choice.


It's Scott, but that's ok - I'm flattered. He may have the right or freedom of choice to play football - by himself or with his friends. He has no right to play football at UW. He has no right to eat Pizza at Godfathers either. Business can tell people to leave without reason, as long as they are not discriminating based on protected status of race, creed, gender, etc.....

[Tarlam!]

Scott, he can eat pizza and play football. Where he does it is another thing altogether.

My point is, if Godfathers says he can't eat pizza cause he allegedly stole a moped, that simply is pathetic.

Twist it anyway you want, innocent until proven guilty is what I am arguing and you mythically believe is in your system.

[Scott Campbell]

Scott, he can eat pizza and play football. Where he does it is another thing altogether.

My point is, if Godfathers says he can't eat pizza cause he allegedly stole a moped, that simply is pathetic.

Twist it anyway you want, innocent until proven guilty is what I am arguing and you mythically believe is in your system.

Innocent until proven guilty is a standard used in a court of law. It doen't always apply outside a court of law. Our system as you refer to it is the legal system. The system in this moped case is the UW Athletics system. They are two seperate systems.

[Scott Campbell]

My point is, if Godfathers says he can't eat pizza cause he allegedly stole a moped, that simply is pathetic.


Godfathers can say he can't eat pizza there because they don't like how he looked at the cashier, or how he is dressed. Legally, they need no reason to kick him out. It's their right to refuse service, as long as it's not based on one of the protected statuses.

[Scott Campbell]

But enough with Civics. It's Football Sunday!

[Tarlam!]

Scott, go get married again! Clearly, you don't have enough wives!

My point has been unwavering. It is easy to agree with, or disagree with, but to argue that my point is laced in duality is simply absurd.

[Scott Campbell]

Scott, go get married again! Clearly, you don't have enough wives!


Funny. I was thinking just this morning that you had the number exactly right.

:lol: