NCAA Ruling

[aff]

I don't want to be negative for you guys here, but I truly don't understand the confidence you have in winning a court case. Like it or not, nobody is forcing you to be in the NCAA. Just because it is the best doesn't mean you have to be a member. NAIA Division I is all the alternative you need. Would it suck? Absolutely. But the amount of sucking won't factor into this decision. Only if there is an alternative. And there is. Heck, nobody has even said you have to be a member of any of these organazations. Technically your teams could be completely independent of any organazation. Yes, it would make scheduling games nearly impossible. But in court that won't matter, only if there is an alternative.

While I'm talking about it, is the NCAA even subject to an anti-trust case? It isn't a buisness, as much as it appears to be. It is a club, or association, which means they can enforce their own rules for members. If you don't like it, you can leave. In any event, I'm absolutely positive that the NCAA studied all possible legal outcomes in detail before this ruling was ever placed. There's a reason that Marquette etc. just changed their names, and didn't attempt to sue the NCAA. They know it would be a waste of time and money. If these schools thought there was even a chance of winning a liable suit against the NCAA, don't you think they would have taken it? Wouldn't the risk of losing time and money be worth the potential of winning millions from the NCAA? If nobody else has sued, I would venture to say that there is hardly any chance of UND winning a case, despite all of the big talk coming from the admin. Your president knows that nothing will ever come out of talk of a law suit, hes just trying to appease all of the alums that are up and arms. Watch and see what happens. I doubt UND can even win an injunction against this.

Speaking of injuctions, would that really be what you want? Having this name thing over UND's head for the next 10 years. Protests every time you go somewhere. All so that you can lose in the end, but have wasted hundreds of thousands of dollars? I know that Kupchella isn't that stupid. He's going to change the name, except feed everyone some stuff about "it still protects the spirit and history of the fighting sioux name".

I'm probably offending a lot of people by saying this, but things really couldn't have worked out better for your president on this. Right now he has alums breathing down his neck about going D-I and about the name. The NCAA is going to force him to change the name, which is going to cost the school big dollars for athletics. Since the school is going to lose money, he now has a convient scape goat for not going D-I (Which he doesn't want to do anyway, but he can't get the pressure off his back, and not have it be his fault). Look where he ended up...

Name change = NCAA's Fault

Staying D-II = NCAA's Fault

Administration = Martyrs. Alums will be happy that he "did everything he could".

[brianvf]

Administration = Martyers.

[Frontroguy]

I want to hear from PETA on the Gophers? Or the Fighting Irish. I guess the darlings of the NCAA would never do any wrong.

As a Gopher fan, my condolences on losing this battle. As many of you have posted already, I sense that the war is just begining.

Perhaps there is a link in this thread somewhere, but has the NCAA ever stated the difference between Fighting Sioux, and Fighting Irish? I bet that would be a pretty good laugh.

Damn, I bleed maroon and gold. My Kids cried when all you jerks cheered at Holy Cross's OT goal (well, I teared up a bit too), but I might just have to go out and get a Sioux Jersey in protest of this.

[beersong]

Well said aff.

Best of luck to UND whatever they choose to do with this ruling.

[sioux7>5]

I don't want to be negative for you guys here, but I truly don't understand the confidence you have in winning a court case. Like it or not, nobody is forcing you to be in the NCAA. Just because it is the best doesn't mean you have to be a member. NAIA Division I is all the alternative you need. Would it suck? Absolutely. But the amount of sucking won't factor into this decision. Only if there is an alternative. And there is. Heck, nobody has even said you have to be a member of any of these organazations. Technically your teams could be completely independent of any organazation. Yes, it would make scheduling games nearly impossible. But in court that won't matter, only if there is an alternative.

While I'm talking about it, is the NCAA even subject to an anti-trust case? It isn't a buisness, as much as it appears to be. It is a club, or association, which means they can enforce their own rules for members. If you don't like it, you can leave. In any event, I'm absolutely positive that the NCAA studied all possible legal outcomes in detail before this ruling was ever placed. There's a reason that Marquette etc. just changed their names, and didn't attempt to sue the NCAA. They know it would be a waste of time and money. If these schools thought there was even a chance of winning a liable suit against the NCAA, don't you think they would have taken it? Wouldn't the risk of losing time and money be worth the potential of winning millions from the NCAA? If nobody else has sued, I would venture to say that there is hardly any chance of UND winning a case, despite all of the big talk coming from the admin. Your president knows that nothing will ever come out of talk of a law suit, hes just trying to appease all of the alums that are up and arms. Watch and see what happens. I doubt UND can even win an injunction against this.

Speaking of injuctions, would that really be what you want? Having this name thing over UND's head for the next 10 years. Protests every time you go somewhere. All so that you can lose in the end, but have wasted hundreds of thousands of dollars? I know that Kupchella isn't that stupid. He's going to change the name, except feed everyone some stuff about "it still protects the spirit and history of the fighting sioux name".

I'm probably offending a lot of people by saying this, but things really couldn't have worked out better for your president on this. Right now he has alums breathing down his neck about going D-I and about the name. The NCAA is going to force him to change the name, which is going to cost the school big dollars for athletics. Since the school is going to lose money, he now has a convient scape goat for not going D-I (Which he doesn't want to do anyway, but he can't get the pressure off his back, and not have it be his fault). Look where he ended up...

Name change = NCAA's Fault

Staying D-II = NCAA's Fault

Administration = Martyers. Alums will be happy that he "did everything he could".

I respectfully disagree with you. If they are not a business why does the NCAA employee over 800 lawyers. I thought only big business does that. If they are a club. Do not most clubs give a vote to the members not just to a committee. The rank and file should be heard and, and why only a selct few schools come off the list. you can not apply this to some and not to other. Florida State is exempt, but why? I think this has more to do with money then a school being hostile and abusive. UND is neither.

[jimdahl]

I don't want to be negative for you guys here, but I truly don't understand the confidence you have in winning a court case.

I think what you're seeing is more optimism/hope than actual confidence. I, personally, haven't heard anything that would make me think UND could prevail in a lawsuit, either. I'm no lawyer, but I do know the NCAA stalled this action for the last four months only after UND threatened legal action. That they spent four months studying UND's threatened lawsuits and then went ahead with their sanctions suggests to me that the NCAA is confident that they're acting within the law.

[HockeyMom]

I don't want to be negative for you guys here, but I truly don't understand the confidence you have in winning a court case. Like it or not, nobody is forcing you to be in the NCAA. Just because it is the best doesn't mean you have to be a member. NAIA Division I is all the alternative you need. Would it suck? Absolutely. But the amount of sucking won't factor into this decision. Only if there is an alternative. And there is. Heck, nobody has even said you have to be a member of any of these organazations. Technically your teams could be completely independent of any organazation. Yes, it would make scheduling games nearly impossible. But in court that won't matter, only if there is an alternative.

The alternative sucks because the NCAA is a monopoly, last time I checked, they're illegal. In court, we have a 50/50 chance of winning- with the NCAA, we have a 0% chance of winning.

There's a reason that Marquette etc. just changed their names, and didn't attempt to sue the NCAA. They know it would be a waste of time and money. If these schools thought there was even a chance of winning a liable suit against the NCAA, don't you think they would have taken it? Wouldn't the risk of losing time and money be worth the potential of winning millions from the NCAA? If nobody else has sued, I would venture to say that there is hardly any chance of UND winning a case, despite all of the big talk coming from the admin. Your president knows that nothing will ever come out of talk of a law suit, hes just trying to appease all of the alums that are up and arms. Watch and see what happens. I doubt UND can even win an injunction against this.

Marquette wasn't told that they would be restricted by the NCAA, to the detriment of of their ATHLETES (a violation of the NCAA's own rules BTW) they changed their name on their own time.

Speaking of injuctions, would that really be what you want? Having this name thing over UND's head for the next 10 years.

So we should just roll over and give up because you think we don't have a chance of winning?

Protests every time you go somewhere.

Those six or seven people have the right to protest

All so that you can lose in the end

So, the 1980 Olympic Hockey team should have never even taken the ice against the Russians, I guess.

Alums will be happy that he "did everything he could".

And WHEN he wins in court, he will be known as the president who finally put the nickname issue to rest by fighting the NCAA when it said that my Alma Mater is hostile and abusive, when it isn't.

[aff]

I respectfully disagree with you. If they are not a business why does the NCAA employee over 800 lawyers. I thought only big business does that. If they are a club. Do not most clubs give a vote to the members not just to a committee. The rank and file should be heard and, and why only a selct few schools come off the list. you can not apply this to some and not to other. Florida State is exempt, but why? I think this has more to do with money then a school being hostile and abusive. UND is neither.

The measure of a business isn't how many lawyers they hire, but where the money goes. In this case, the money goes back to the members. I know that the NCAA admin is becoming rich off of this, but the NCAA tournament money? Goes back to the organazation, even some goes to D-II and D-III to fund thier tournaments. It definitely doesn't have the appearance of an organazation, but keep in mind, that the members involved with it have budgets in many cases in excess of 50 million a year. Thats a lot of money (which also answers your question about why their are so many lawyers. Wherever theirs a lot of money, I promise there will be a lot of lawyers). The voting doesn't matter. I'm pretty confident that even if there where no committees involved in the NCAA, and only one person who pronounced king of the NCAA upon birth, it would have no effect on the NCAA's status as an organaztion. It is an organaztion because membership is voluntary.

The rules for why FSU is exempt and UND isn't are truly crazy. But don't have any doubt that there is an actually test that the NCAA has come up with. Absolutely nobody will understand it, or be able to cipher and sort of logic out of it, but it will be there, and it will somehow hold up in court, because there have been 800 lawyers working on it for 3 years.

[mikeypat15]

Here is my opinion on the issue. It seems, or maybe I don't have enough info that the NCAA would prefer us to change our name to something non Native American, but after looking over the appeals that have won, a couple things stand out.

1. All are of a specific tribe (Seminoles, Utes, Chippewas) (We are that, along with UIUC, IUP is not (Indians))

2. All have had support from a tribe(We have that, UIUC cannot, IUP cannot)

3. All approved names do not include the term fighting (Us along with UIUC have that term)

As for IUP, their name is the Indians, a term today that is considered Politically Incorrect. I believe that before a lawsuit is brought up, let's drop the term "fighting" and see what the NCAA says. I'm starting to believe that the word fighting is the real problem. The NCAA would prefer no Native American names, but would settle for the above.

[tnt]

Move to Division I in all sports and the Sioux won't have to worry about being in the post season for years anyway, and the policy would only affect hockey for the short term. The Sioux would continue to get press on the big stage even if they can't wear the uniforms they want.

[sioux7>5]

The measure of a business isn't how many lawyers they hire, but where the money goes. In this case, the money goes back to the members. I know that the NCAA admin is becoming rich off of this, but the NCAA tournament money? Goes back to the organazation, even some goes to D-II and D-III to fund thier tournaments. It definitely doesn't have the appearance of an organazation, but keep in mind, that the members involved with it have budgets in many cases in excess of 50 million a year. Thats a lot of money (which also answers your question about why their are so many lawyers. Wherever theirs a lot of money, I promise there will be a lot of lawyers). The voting doesn't matter. I'm pretty confident that even if there where no committees involved in the NCAA, and only one person who pronounced king of the NCAA upon birth, it would have no effect on the NCAA's status as an organaztion. It is an organaztion because membership is voluntary.

The rules for why FSU is exempt and UND isn't are truly crazy. But don't have any doubt that there is an actually test that the NCAA has come up with. Absolutely nobody will understand it, or be able to cipher and sort of logic out of it, but it will be there, and it will somehow hold up in court, because there have been 800 lawyers working on it for 3 years.

Just a quick question, you seem to know a lot about this, but do you personally support the Sioux nickname or no. Because you kinda of sound like we should not challenge this and that the NCAA is all knowing and all right. Go Sioux!

[Goon]

Byron Dorgan

Bismarck office-701-250-4618...Fargo office-701-239-5389...Grand Forks-701-746-8972

Washington D.C.-202-224-2551.

Earl Pomeroy

Washington D.C.-202-225-2611...Bismarck office-701-224-0355..Fargo office-701-235-0760

Kent Conrad

Washington D.C. office-202-224-2043...Grand Forks-701-775-9601...Fargo office-701-232-8030

Bismarck office-701-258-4648

Please call. Good Luck and Go Sioux!

Just another little note here, the Senators will get back to you they will act on our concerns. Also, I talked to one of Conrad's aids the other day and he basically said that Senators are aware of what the people of ND are concerned about. They actually approve most responses before they are sent out to the ND voters. I have wrotten both Conrad and Dorgan on various issues and gotten prompt responses on various issues. Recently during the Alito vote I was sent a email message from a right wing religious group that Conrad was considering not voting for Judge Sam Alito during the Alito confirmation. I called his office and funny thing happened, apparently a bunch of people called his office and he voted for Alito. So they listen. Time to Bend their Ears. Funny how the minute that Jeb Bush squawked the FSU Seminols were taken off the list.

[aff]

The alternative sucks because the NCAA is a monopoly, last time I checked, they're illegal. In court, we have a 50/50 chance of winning- with the NCAA, we have a 0% chance of winning.

Wrong. In court I would give you a 0 - 5 % chance of winning. This isn't a flip of the die. People make careers figuring out what would happen in court. If you think that 5% chance is worth potentially over a million dollars, than by all means, sue. All I was saying was that no other school in the nation has thought that much money was worth the small chance of winning, and they have rolled over. I'm not saying it doesn't suck, I'm saying those are the facts.

Marquette wasn't told that they would be restricted by the NCAA, to the detriment of of their ATHLETES (a violation of the NCAA's own rules BTW) they changed their name on their own time.

Which is going to happen to UND.

So we should just roll over and give up because you think we don't have a chance of winning?

Not because I said so, because it is the logical move. The potential of winning isn't worth the cost involved with trying to win.

o, the 1980 Olympic Hockey team should have never even taken the ice against the Russians, I guess.

This isn't a hockey game. It is predictable up to about 95%. Thats the way the court system was set up in this country. It is supposed to be consistent and fair. It is therefore predictable.

[sioux7>5]

Wrong. In court I would give you a 0 - 5 % chance of winning. This isn't a flip of the die. People make careers figuring out what would happen in court. If you think that 5% chance is worth potentially over a million dollars, than by all means, sue. All I was saying was that no other school in the nation has thought that much money was worth the small chance of winning, and they have rolled over. I'm not saying it doesn't suck, I'm saying those are the facts.

Which is going to happen to UND.

Not because I said so, because it is the logical move. The potential of winning isn't worth the cost involved with trying to win.

This isn't a hockey game. It is predictable up to about 95%. Thats the way the court system was set up in this country. It is supposed to be consistent and fair. It is therefore predictable.

It is not predictable up to 95%. I think that UND has a chance of winning if they file a lawsuit. I just think you want to have them change their name. Why?

[The Sicatoka]

Say you join a club or organization, and sign a contractual agreement to join.

The by-laws (in the contract) say that all rules have to be approved by a 2/3 vote of the total membership.

Instead, a sub-committe of the club decrees that wearing Nike anything to club meetings is "hostile and abusive" to Greek goddesses and outlaws all Nike apparel.

You appeal saying the sub-committee can't do that. The sub-committee says "No Nike."

I see breech.

Where do you go next?

I'd say court.

PS - Did I mention that certain members get to keep wearing Nike apparel to club meetings even though you don't?

[The Sicatoka]

Here are five quick reasons why UND shouldn't be dealing with this:

(1) the Executive Committee lacked the authority to do this in the first place;

(2) what the NCAA is doing is most likely a violation of federal anti-trust law;

(3) the standard of this policy keeps changing and is based upon a faulty presumption;

(4) the NCAA hasn't defined "hostile and abusive" and they aren't applying the appropriate legal standard of the terms "hostile" or "abusive",

(5) UND should be exempt from the Policy under the so-called "namesake tribe" exemption (Spirit Lake).

I'd guess those five would be a good basis of a court case.

[govikes27]

Say you join a club or organization, and sign a contractual agreement to join.

The by-laws (in the contract) say that all rules have to be approved by a 2/3 vote of the total membership.

Instead, a sub-committe of the club decrees that wearing Nike anything to club meetings is "hostile and abusive" to Greek goddesses and outlaws all Nike apparel.

You appeal saying the sub-committee can't do that. The sub-committee says "No Nike."

I see breech.

Where do you go next?

I'd say court.

Yeah, this is why the policy has no legitimacy. Not anti-trust issues, but that this is a policy well beyond "basic athletic issues" as stated in their own bylaws. Brand has even said that this is about "social" issues, not athletic ones. Anything of this nature would have to be put to a vote and approved by the members, which, funny, never took place.

[HockeyMom]

This isn't a hockey game. It is predictable up to about 95%. Thats the way the court system was set up in this country. It is supposed to be consistent and fair. It is therefore predictable.

A court outcome is NEVER predictable. Good try though.

[sioux7>5]

Say you join a club or organization, and sign a contractual agreement to join.

The by-laws (in the contract) say that all rules have to be approved by a 2/3 vote of the total membership.

Instead, a sub-committe of the club decrees that wearing Nike anything to club meetings is "hostile and abusive" to Greek goddesses and outlaws all Nike apparel.

You appeal saying the sub-committee can't do that. The sub-committee says "No Nike."

I see breech.

Where do you go next?

I'd say court.

PS - Did I mention that certain members get to keep wearing Nike apparel to club meetings even though you don't?

What is next, is the NCAA going to roll out all the liberal tree huggers Hollywood stars to tell us what to think about this issue. Maybe Grand Forks will get really luck and Bono will come there and tell you how racist the name is. I am serious I would not be shocked if that is next. Go Sioux and keep the nickname at all costs. It is a fight that needs to be fought and won. So all the PC people can know that people can wear a jersey of a native american tribe and feel pride when we cheer and when we wear our jerseys.

[jimdahl]

Here are five quick reasons why UND shouldn't be dealing with this:

(1) the Executive Committee lacked the authority to do this in the first place;

(2) what the NCAA is doing is most likely a violation of federal anti-trust law;

(3) the standard of this policy keeps changing and is based upon a faulty presumption;

(4) the NCAA hasn't defined "hostile and abusive" and they aren't applying the appropriate legal standard of the terms "hostile" or "abusive",

(5) UND should be exempt from the Policy under the so-called "namesake tribe" exemption (Spirit Lake).

I'd guess those five would be a good basis of a court case.

I'm no lawyer, and the crack SiouxSports.com legal team is better at issues like fair use of copyrighted logos, so I have absolutely no opinion as to the legitimacy of any legal claims (though I personally agree with all five points).

The most concerning facts to me are: 1) after we threatened a lawsuit the NCAA studied it for 4 months and still ruled against UND and 2) Kupchella is already saying they may have to modify the name somehow and only that they will "consider" legal and other options. We showed our cards, the NCAA studied them, and kept on betting; Kupchella's reaction wasn't to immediately unleash an army of lawyers that had been prepping for months.

I'll be very interested to see what UND says and does in coming days.

[govikes27]

I'm starting to believe that the word fighting is the real problem.

No, I think it really is tribal support (real or perceived). Signals from the local tribes are more ambivalent than with the Seminols or the Utes, so the NCAA can conveniently go with what they want to hear. Anti-logo activists are protesting the "Sioux" part of the nickname much more than the "Fighting" part. Plus there plenty of Fighting Scotts, Irish, etc., that I don't think even the NCAA could not see the holes in that policy. I know the NCAA's idea of logic is a lot different than most of our's, but still...

[ScottM]

I'm no lawyer, and the crack SiouxSports.com legal team is better at issues like fair use of copyrighted logos, so I have absolutely no opinion as to the legitimacy of any legal claims (though I personally agree with all five points).

The most concerning facts to me are: 1) after we threatened a lawsuit the NCAA studied it for 4 months and still ruled against UND and 2) Kupchella is saying they will "consider" legal options and may have to modify the name somehow. We showed our cards, the NCAA studied them, and continued on and Kupchella's reaction wasn't to immediately unleash an army of lawyers that had been prepping for months.

As a lawyer who works for one of the largest companies on Earth, we get threatened with litigation from small claims to class actions daily. It's part of the game. Litigation is generally the last resort of a smart plaintiff, especially given the costs and relative uncertainty. If you know you are completely wrong, you settle and move on. If you think you have a decent chance of winning or forcing a favorable settlement you tell the bastards to sue you. Most cases never see the courtroom anyway, but discovery is a good chance to beat the snot out of people and achieve your ends.

Having been privy to some off-line information, I am pretty certain that whomever drafted UND's earlier appeals and other correspondence is confident in their arguments, and they make more sense from a legal perspective than in the media's condensed view of the world. (And it's not some firm that advertises in the Yellow Pages or on TV.) They draw a number of different angles of attack, but focus on the fact that the NC$$ has stepped all over itself, and its rules, to achieve a given objective. My own view is that the NC$$ sees room for compromise, and that by completely folding their hand today they would have lost whatever nanogram of credibility they have left.

[Goon]

Here are five quick reasons why UND shouldn't be dealing with this:

(1) the Executive Committee lacked the authority to do this in the first place;

(2) what the NCAA is doing is most likely a violation of federal anti-trust law;

(3) the standard of this policy keeps changing and is based upon a faulty presumption;

(4) the NCAA hasn't defined "hostile and abusive" and they aren't applying the appropriate legal standard of the terms "hostile" or "abusive",

(5) UND should be exempt from the Policy under the so-called "namesake tribe" exemption (Spirit Lake).

I'd guess those five would be a good basis of a court case.

Sica,

I think just because the NCAA let FSU keep its name for NCAA Tourneys and UND not keep its name for NCAA Tourneys basically says there is a double standard and that since FSU is a huge school with a lot of money: plus the fact that their governor made a big stink in the beginning of the process basically then strong armed the the NCAA to back down, basically proves that if your a small school your going to not be ruled against favorably even if you have a letter from your name sake tribe. Correct me if I am wrong UND does have a letter from the Spirit lake Tribe basically stating they have the support of the Spirit Lake Sioux. Since no one from Fort Totten or from the Spirit Lake Tribe has ever rescinded that letter of support that should be enough to have any court slap The NCAA around.

However, this just proves the double standard and inconsistency of the NCAA and this ruling this should be enough for them to be slapped or sanctioned by a court of law. What good for one should be good for another school. Again, this is what happens when you let this P.C. crap get out of hand. It

[aff]

Just a quick question, you seem to know a lot about this, but do you personally support the Sioux nickname or no. Because you kinda of sound like we should not challenge this and that the NCAA is all knowing and all right. Go Sioux!

I honestly don't have an opinion on this either way. I think that if there really are that many people that are offended by the sioux name being used, then it should be changed, but I have a hard time believing that most Native Americans even care if UND uses the Sioux name. I haven't really followed this whole if we should change the name thing or not, since I really don't have a stake in it, but if I had to guess I would say that a lot of special interests groups have probably gotten involved, and everything about the argument, such as how many native americans actually oppose its use, the effects of using the Sioux name, etc. have all been so distorted by now that nobody even knows what their arguing about.

I don't think that the NCAA is all knowing by any means, but looking at the issue objectively, it would appear that they have staked out the legal high ground on it, and they will be almost impossible to beat in court. I'm not saying it doesn't suck, I'm saying thats the situation you are in, and theirs nothing you can do about it. If I sound like I don't think you should fight the NCAA, thats because I don't. It makes no sense from a risk vs. benefit standpoint. If you're in a war and your outnumbered at a bridge a thousand to one, your going to retreat and use your resources for something else, not sit their and get slaughtered. I know it sucks, and I sympathize, but those are the facts.

I guess you could compare me to a doctor diagnosing a terminally ill patient. Doesn't mean I wanted it to happen, but I can pretty much tell you whats going to happen. Some of you are going to hope for a miracle. Some of you will hope for a new cure, maybe it will happen. But probably not.

[sioux7>5]

I honestly don't have an opinion on this either way. I think that if there really are that many people that are offended by the sioux name being used, then it should be changed, but I have a hard time believing that most Native Americans even care if UND uses the Sioux name. I haven't really followed this whole if we should change the name thing or not, since I really don't have a stake in it, but if I had to guess I would say that a lot of special interests groups have probably gotten involved, and everything about the argument, such as how many native americans actually oppose its use, the effects of using the Sioux name, etc. have all been so distorted by now that nobody even knows what their arguing about.

I don't think that the NCAA is all knowing by any means, but looking at the issue objectively, it would appear that they have staked out the legal high ground on it, and they will be almost impossible to beat in court. I'm not saying it doesn't suck, I'm saying thats the situation you are in, and theirs nothing you can do about it. If I sound like I don't think you should fight the NCAA, thats because I don't. It makes no sense from a risk vs. benefit standpoint. If you're in a war and your outnumbered at a bridge a thousand to one, your going to retreat and use your resources for something else, not sit their and get slaughtered. I know it sucks, and I sympathize, but those are the facts.

I guess you could compare me to a doctor diagnosing a terminally ill patient. Doesn't mean I wanted it to happen, but I can pretty much tell you whats going to happen. Some of you are going to hope for a miracle. Some of you will hope for a new cure, maybe it will happen. But probably not.

Are you an attorney or jsut play one on the internet? Just curious