Fascinating Updates on the TKO situation
 

The history:

A couple of weeks ago, former Tucker Tiger and current Georgia Bulldog Tavares "TKO" Kearrney was accused of cheating on a test, and of assaulting a TA. He dropped the class and headed back to this area. Neither Tavares nor his mom, who is a local morning radio personality, would comment. Well, this morning, the AJC published an article that indicated TKO was formally charged. This article claims that through open records laws, the AJC accessed a letter that Tavares received on Monday informing him of three charges:

1. Disruption or obstruction of teaching, research, administration or other university activities . . . taking place on university property.
2. Engaging in conduct that causes or provokes a disturbance that disrupts the academic pursuits, or infringes upon the rights, privacy, or privileges of another person.
3. Physical abuse, threats, intimidation, harassment, coercion and/or other conduct that threatens or endangers the health or safety of another person.

Curious in all of this is that Tavares is scheduled to report for practice Thursday. Also, CMR casually mentioned at a recent Bulldog club meeting here that Tavares was one of the people in competition for playing time at LB. Very strange if his case was still pending. Well...




...as I mentioned, TKO's mom is a morning radio personality. She co-hosts the morning show on the highest-rated station in metro Atlanta, actually. Well, according to what I'm hearing, she just RIPPED into the AJC a little while ago. (As soon as I heard, I turned to her station. They've moved on, but she did throw in a hard jab at the AJC when talking about another story. According to Wanda, Tavares has been formally cleared of all academic dishonesty charges at a hearing. According to my sources, his mom claimed that...

1. He was in the exam, his phone vibrated, he turned it off.

2. The TA came over and snatched the phone out of his hand. He reached to get it back and took it from her and then went straight to Butts-Mehr.

3. In the Student Judiciary proceedings, the TA gave her account, and TKO refuted her testimony. He got his phone records which proved he had received no text messages during that time and that his phone does not have picture taking capabilities.

4. The charges of battery were brought up by the TA AFTER these records were produced.

5. TKO's mom said she would not stand behind her child if she believed him to be in the wrong. Had he cheated or hurt the TA, then she would have let him go on his own.

6. They hadn't spoken out up to now because of advice from their attorney not to do so.


Anyway, who knows what to believe, but this could get good. A nice, public media war in the A-T-L. ;)

Wow. She just spoke on it again as the show is going off the air. She named the TA by name on the radio, like 5 times, and publicly called her a liar. Wow. She further called out Chip Towers, the AJC reporter.

Its not a sexual assault case, there is no reason not too.

Although I find it pretty unprofessional for her to talk about this at all.

I must have missed something from the original: what is "Butts-Mehr"?

However, these sure sound like a TA who over-reacted (and #3 sure seems verifiable). Notably if the charges of battery came up AFTER his testimony in a hearing (and not before), it sounds like someone trying to CYA. "Yeah, okay, he didn't cheat, but he did do THIS after I falsely accused him".

My thoughts exactly.

Miss Wanda might want to go after the Athens Banner-Herald too, since they're reporting the same basic information. (it doesn't look like they're using wire copy, looks more like their own write-thru).

And for gstelmack "an 85,000 square foot complex which serves as the every day home of the Georgia Bulldogs. Named after two of Georgia's most famous football coaches, Wallace Butts and Harry Mehre, and completed in 1987 at a cost of more than $12 million..." Basically, it's home to the athletic department at UGA.

edit to add: If this doesn't end up being spun as a racial incident, I'll be surprised at this point.

Agreed. Her name has been in some of the articles, but there's something extra-bold about saying, "Dawn Penn LIED about my son."

Well:

1. She's a morning radio disc jockey. Shock value is the most expensive currency in her profession, is it not? :p
2. Anyone who ever listens to her show knows that Tavares is her son, because she talks about him. (Tavares announced his commitment to UGA on the show, even.)
3. He's been all over the papers the last week or so. There's also a cultural issue here. You may call it "unprofessional." Most of her audience would call it "keepin' it real." This IS "the Black Hollywood," after all. :p

The complex that houses pretty much the entire UGA Athletic Department's offices. Sorry. Been at the UGA boards this morning. :p

You raise some interesting stuff here, just as I'm wondering how this will play with their advertisers (or more specifically, the people who control the flow of ad spending in Atlanta). After thinking about it, and about the client base at V, I reached pretty much the same conclusion you did in point 3 -- this will actually play better with the clients they have than saying/doing nothing.

Depends on what race Dawn Penn is. If she's white, the V-103 audience will eat that angle up.

Not to be cynical here, but airing this out in public makes for good ratings, now doesn't it? I got e-mails from six different people within 15 minutes of the first post on the UGA Boards about his mom speaking out telling me to turn to V-103, and two others from my home town telling me to turn it on and tell them what was going on.

I would not find it unprofessional if she were saying the exact same things about some other black dude with a white TA. She is too close to the situation to report about it - end of story for me.

And if you are trying to convince me that it is not unprofessional because it falls under the normal conduct for a morning radio shock jock, well, lets just say that argument is not likely to carry much weight here.

What do you mean a cultural issue? Are blacks somehow excused from the normal standards of professionalism? Should I hold her to a lower standard because she is black? Sorry, I pride myself on holding everyone to the same standards, and I am not likely to change soon.

The good news is I am certain she does not give a whit about how I rate her on the professionalism scale, making our discussion entirely immaterial to her, and merely an exercise in entertaining ourselves.

That's actually a very Anglocentric way of looking at it (and I'm not one to calim that very often, you should know.) I'm saying that in "black" culture, her behavior is *not* unprofessional at all. It is expected. I call your statement "Anglocentric" because you're operating on the assumption that white culture's standard of "professionalism" is the "normal" standard of professionalism.

Now, I anticipate the argument that "We're all one culture--American." In most places, that's by and large true. In most places in America, the advice of my parents, "you need to learn how to talk around white folks to make it in this world," is very much true. However, a big difference here is the fact that this is taking place in Atlanta, where black buying power is substantial enough that "black culture" *can* exist pretty much independent of any conformity or assimilation whatsoever. When I lived and worked in South DeKalb County, I knew many adults who had "made it" who virtually never had any interaction with anything other than black people. They worked for (or owned themselves in some cases) black-owned businesses, in a black part of town that had the resources to support their business on its own. Similarly, V-103 is supported by advertising from businesses that are at the very least somewhat Afrocentric culturally, if not completely black-owned and black-operated. It isn't a "lower" standard as you propose. It is a *different* standard.

I'm glad I'm not a TA anymore (somewhat better protection), but it's always a dicey situation when a student breaks testing rules (like not having their cellphones turned off, regardless of what they do with them when they ring). I'm sure there are two sides to the story, and having been in the TA's boat, I'm inclined to want to hear his/her side as well.

Actually, I would never come at you with the argument about us being one culture.

Instead, I point you to my original statement: I find this unprofessional. My standard of professionalism is all that matters in making that evaluation. I have no idea where it fits into anyone else's, nor do I care.

Yes, but you also referred to the standard I mentioned as a "lower" standard. That's what tweaked me a bit. That's all.

Good. I don't like pie-in-the-sky, sound-good-but-ain't-based-in-reality arguments. :p

I can only assume that police report (which comprises the substantive details of the original article) came from her side of the story.

I live in the real world - the same world in which only about 5 people I form opinions about actually care about those opinions :)

Her side of the story is that he cheated using a cellphone, and when it was proven he wasn't, she forgot that he had also assaulted her while confiscating the cellphone.

As more of a radio sidebar than anything else, this is also one of the reasons why V-103 has one of the lowest "billing per rating point" in Atlanta & one of the worst I've ever seen anywhere. i.e. you'll pay less for 1.0 rating points on V than you will on most stations in the market over at least the past 20 years.

Part of that is audience & demographics, but part of it is the inability/unwillingness (a mixture of both IMO) to play the game at the next level in terms of sales.

All of which could be true.

In Skydog's original description, it says that after the TA took his cellphone, TKO took it back. Ask yourself how he might have done that.

(By the way, I'm with the TA on taking the cellphone even after he turned it off. Who's to say he won't silently turn it back on? That's why you have to take it, and return it after the test.)

I'd say it's likely that TKO used some force, though perhaps not a lot, to retrieve his cellphone. Maybe, at a minimum, he grabbed her arm and pried his cellphone out of her hand.

If this is the case, perhaps the TA thought that all she'd do is just report him for cheating using a cellphone, and that would be that. However, she failed to reckon with two facts: 1) he'd be resourceful enough to prove, via call records, that he didn't get text messages and 2) he's a football player and is going to get help from various people in fighting this.

Ask yourself what would have happened if TKO wasn't a football player.

Anyway, based on the evidence so far, I'd say both made mistakes:

TKO probably used some force to retrieve his cellphone, when he should have just left it with the TA, finished his test, and then seen his advisor about what to do.

The TA comes off as more than a little vindictive with the after-the-fact assault accusation.

The first part (audience and demographics) makes sense, but I'm not following you on the second part. Elucidate, please.

I'm not getting the whole "after-the-fact" element that's been mentioned in the thread here, at least that's not how I'm reading the info in the two articles (which have pretty much been the source of most of the information I've seen on this case anywhere).

1)"The battery charge, filed against Kearney by instructor Dawn Penn, was dropped Wednesday, according to an incident report obtained by The Atlanta Journal-Constitution from the University of Georgia Police Department."

Okay, that's Wednesday after the incident the previous Friday. I read this as referring to the criminal charges that were originally brought at the time of the incident. (In order to be dropped, they would seem to have had to exist at some point, right?)

2) The latest article refers to "The instructor, graduate student/teaching assistant Dawn Penn, dropped an initial criminal charge of simple battery against Kearney filed with the UGA Police Department on July 19 but forwarded her complaints to the university."

So the latest round isn't criminal charges, it's "administrative", for lack of a better word, under the school regulations governing student conduct. These aren't "after-the-fact" as far as I can tell, they're the same accusations as were made to police at the time of the incident, except that they're now being handled in a different channel, administrative within the school as opposed to criminal in the courts.

I stand corrected.

My guess is that if Mama is admitting that he took it from her against her will, there might have been some physical contact with the girl in retrieving it.

If the sentence of second-hand description of the "assault" represents all of her side, then yes, he's clearly in the wrong. I would have asked him to turn off his phone and give it to me to keep until after the test probably (rather than taking it), but if a D-1 football player grabbed me I certainly wouldn't treat it lightly. Either way, he was in the wrong, and made things worse.

TKO made a mistake grabbing the phone back, but these charges are not enough to get him kicked out of school which is what would have happened if they proved cheating. Of course this whole story has changed considerably since the first story ("he had a picture of the test, etc."). I would say his mon has a legit beef with the AJC condsidering how they have covered this so far (though news coverage is always this one-sided. The worse it looks on TK, the better the story in their book.)

dola...

And I agree with Jon's take on the criminal vs. administrative channeling. A difficult situation to know how to deal with, esp. as a graduate student for whom this shouldn't be a concern.

I don't believe V's inability to convert their once massive ratings into the same dollars as, say a 96 Rock (which isn't always the most attractive demo's either) hasn't always been strictly a matter of audience demographics, but rather an inability and/or unwillingness to "speak the language of business" to some of the buyers that are out there. As you mentioned, a lot of their focus is on FU-BU type businesses and they haven't always handled the differences between doing business with those clients and with potentially larger accounts successfully. I believe that's a combination of things through the years, hiring some sales reps that really weren't able to play at that level and some others who consciously chose try to sell both types of clients the same way.

FTR, my own dealings with them from this side of the biz have been pretty pleasant so anything that may seem critical isn't based on how they worked with me personally, it's more a general observation about how things have gone over the 20 or so years I've been aware/involved in the business side of radio here.

A couple questions:
The student judiciary proceedings were only considering the academic misconduct? Did they rule on that yet? Did they consider any battery accusations after she brought it up, or would that be considered in a separate proceeding?

Does UGa have any sort of ridiculous punishment tacked on to athletes, like automatic suspensions for being punished by the student judiciary?

I've been trying to sort this all out, and you just posted what I realized about 10 minutes ago. Here's what I just posted at one of the UGA Boards:



No. Case-by-case. As I mentioned earlier, Richt was asked a question about the LB depth chart at the Bulldog Club meeting in Atlanta Monday night, and he named Tavares as one of the guys who might get playing time. Prior to then, all he'd said was that they were waiting for it to be resolved. That further supports my theory--sounds like Richt knew that the academic charges (probably the more serious) had either been cleared or were about to be cleared.

This I don't get. Have they inaccurately reported any charges filed, content from official reports, or statements she made? Did they not ask him/his mother/his attorney for their version of events? Did the paper print an op ed piece slamming him and college athletics in general due to inaccurate information?

If all they did was publish all the information they had on the case, I think they did nothing wrong. True, it would be mostly the official documents, which would be from reports the girl filed, and thus would reflect her side of the story. But, if you are accused of a crime, and refuse comment, that's how it goes. Ask Kobe.

No where in todays article does it suggest that the cheating charges were dropped. As a matter of fact, they suggest that he is still accused of that. Either they can get hold of every piece of paper laying charges on him but somehow let the hearing were the cheating charges were dropped pass them up, OR they chose to ignore that fact because it looks worse with the cheating charge still pending. THAT is why his mom is mad, and I agree with her.

Or, perhaps, because of the labyrinth of rules surrounding the availability of information involving students at a state school, the results of any procedures involving the cheating charge were not available to the AJC.

(I'm no fan of the AJC by any stretch of the imagination, I'm just saying that this not only seems possible but borders on being likely)

[*Devil's Advocate]What if, as I've heard from some reports, UGA refuses to give out any information on the status of the cheating charges, as they are academically-related?[/Devil's Adocate]


*--which isn't far from what I think of the AJC...

Dang. Not only did Jon beat me to the punch, but he also used the word "labyrinth" metaphorically. :(

Because I have doubt that they did not have that information. Too many leaks, too many concerned. I guarantee they'd use an "unnamed source" if it were bad information, but on anything good, they have to have official, notarized documents, and then they'll put that on the back page. It is the AJC, Jon!

How did she take the cell phone from him in the first place? If he is refusing to hand it over, you write him up, fail him for cheating, and move on. But did she swipe it from his desk? Take it out of his hand? This could be a key factor in my mind about how heavily he should be charged for taking it back from her.

Yeah, but if the charges were filed Monday it was still a full day for them to get the results of that and another to print - surprises me less about the AJC that they're essentially reporting the news two days behind.

Celeval - the timelines for newspapers have been out of whack for years but the internet makes it a lot easier to notice. In this case, what Wanda was reacting to on-air this morning, what we've been calling "today" is something that I read in their online edition by probably 10 pm last night.

Yeah, and typically everything that you'll see printed in the morning AJC other than night/evening sports results shows up between 6pm and 8pm the evening before. If you recall my Tucker Dynasty threads, I'll often post at the beginning that "this article will appear in tomorrow's AJC..."

According to a reliable source (a third party in the media), Chip Towers (the AJC writer) has spoken. Here's what the reports are saying:

Quote:

Under privacy laws, the school can not release or comment on academic issues. He said he has tried to get in touch with the family, but that they have not returned any calls, and in fact left a message on his phone saying never call again.

By the way......the information I heard didn't say it that she explicitly read the letter.

Which has, at least for the moment, re-hoisted a red flag that went up in my mind earlier in the discussion.

If, just if mind you, if she may have been "creative" with her explanation of the status of those charges on-air, she may find herself in a very precarious position.

It isn't exactly a secret that some want to see the Frank & Wanda show eventually dumped in favor of returning Ryan Cameron to mornings. If she wasn't shooting completely straight today, she's going to lose at least portion of her credibility with the audience (and she's really been on quite an upswing in her profile over the past 6 months or so, coming close to being more of a co-host than a sidekick). If she loses pull, that would make a total revamp of the mornings much easier than it would be right now.

Not saying that there's one thing she said that wasn't 100% accurate, just doing a little radio-oriented speculating & hypothesizing.

Understood. However, don't read anything into what I said there. I don't normally listen to the show. I turned it on *after* she had made her main comments about it all. Based on the student demographic at UGA, I doubt many die-hard Dawgs DO listen to V103 in the morning. :p All of the e-mails I got saying to listen were from people that got the word from this one guy who posted on the boards to listen, as best as I can tell. So, we're talking just this one guy didn't mention the detail that she may or may not have read the letter verbatim. His direct quote was: "Good information. TKO has officially been cleared of all academic dishonesty charges" The main point of his post was to give TKO's side of the story, and at the time (this, he has admitted since I posted my "read between the lines" take") he didn't consider that the academic dishonesty charges were separate from the disorderly conduct charges, so he figured that since the charges were cleared, TKO's side of the story must have been the correct one. The tone of his post was more to criticize the TA (who is a Florida graduate, by the way) than to report on exactly what TKO's mom said.

Based on the tone of his post, and the definitive statement from the member of the press who talked to the AJC writer, I'd strongly suspect that she actually did read the letter this morning (which would also serve to explain the other thing I mentioned--how strongly indignant she was at the end of the show).

As you can see, I posted here at 9:50, and that post took a few minutes to write (looking up links, checking information, etc.) However, it couldn't have taken more than 15 minutes. I'd probably been listening to bump-and-grind music for only 5 or 10 minutes before I got tired of it, turned it down, and started posting that message. Point being, I only caught the last half hour or so of the show, and during that time, she took several little side shots at the AJC. It was only during the final wrap-up (right before 10am) that *I* heard her directly comment about it, and it was in a "wrap-up" kind of way.

UPDATE: The AJC is running an article in tomorrow's paper saying that Tavares has been cleared of all cheating charges. They make a point in the article to point out that the letter makes no reference to the disorderly conduct charges. Sounds like Chip Towers and Wanda smile ain't exactly bosom buddies still. ;)

Tavares has been offered a deal by the university. He basically pleads "no contest," and he does some community service/anger management counseling. He's considering the offer. It sounds like he believes he's 100% innocent, but I'm guessing he wants to talk it over with his mom and the coaching staff before making a decision. Tucker has a scrimmage in Athens tonight, and UGA's practice should be done by the time we start, so I expect that Tavares (and Thomas and Darrius) will be there by the end of the evening, if not earlier.

If he's 100% innocent then he should definitely reject the university's attempt to find a reasonable resolution for what would have been a relatively ugly incident, had he committed it.

The AJC reported that he has already pleaded "no contest," which if true (and that's a big if since it is the AJC) would mean the innocent ship has sailed.

A no contest plea is not an admission of guilt. It is simply a plea designed to avoid the hassle of prolonged adjudication.

I myself have entered a no contest plea when I absolutely did not commit the offense. It made more sense financially and personally to simply not bother with court on a $45 ticket.