Auburn's Tainted Title

Auburn report says nothing to see here.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/9199334/auburn-tigers-jay-jacobs-refutes-roopstigo-report-internal-review

This is one that drives me crazy -- story says several times that Auburn "refuted" the initial report. No, that isn't what happened, unless you consider a self-generated report from that shady group of characters to be proof of Auburn's case. Refute means to prove something wrong. Dispute is what Auburn is doing here.

Also the statement quotes Darvin Adams saying he was never offered money and "according to the statement, Adams would have no further comments." How in hell can the school declare that a former player is off-limits to the media?

 

Agreed. But, hey, who would expect someone writing for a cheap little operation like ESPN to understand the difference between the words refute and dispute?

 

This is still huge if Auburn has found itself clear of any misdoings.

 

Maybe it's just that I'm watching All The President's Men Revisited while I type this, but that story seems more a defense of Auburn than a search for the truth.
I'll be curious to see if Auburn releases the notes on the investigation, the questions asked, who was interviewed etc. Now that would be some interesting reading.
Also figure Selena Roberts has tape of the interview.