Cael

[nhs67]

2 minutes ago, JimmyCinnabon said:

That would be impossible. People were using the camp as proof that Beau's wife Syd was making the whole thing up. What are those people supposed to do now?

Honestly, I don't know what's true anymore.

Lovett was poking fun at stuff and had posted something with Starocci replaced with Johnny D.  I don't know if that actually happened.

[nhs67]

Also, Bartlett is(was) not a champ, so I don't think he should have been there anyways...?

[CHROMEBIRD]

21 minutes ago, nhs67 said:

Starocci was replaced with Johnny D last I saw.

https://www.poconorecord.com/picture-gallery/sports/high-school/2025/06/30/photos-carter-starocci-wrestling-camp-brodheadsville-poconos-carmen-mercadante/84422356007/

 

EDIT: sorry, the one with Bartlett, Yianni, and Lovett was called True Champ Camp. Wrong champy camp. But the point still remains, Starocci is still out there teaching at camps and repping PSU wrestling, which is a little odd.

Edited 19 hours ago by CHROMEBIRD

[CHROMEBIRD]

Dunno if this camp is still happening next week:

https://www.newberrywrestlingcamps.com/the-carter-starocci-camps.cfm

[Wrestleknownothing]

52 minutes ago, CHROMEBIRD said:

https://www.poconorecord.com/picture-gallery/sports/high-school/2025/06/30/photos-carter-starocci-wrestling-camp-brodheadsville-poconos-carmen-mercadante/84422356007/

 

EDIT: sorry, the one with Bartlett, Yianni, and Lovett was called True Champ Camp. Wrong champy camp. But the point still remains, Starocci is still out there teaching at camps and repping PSU wrestling, which is a little odd.

Let me throw an alternative interpretation out there.

It is only odd if what Beau and Syd Bartlett said happened did happen.

But what if none of it did? What if the reason Starocci was not caught on camera with the stolen items is because he did not steal them? What if they were never stolen? What if Bartlett made that up? I understand that there are a lot of other reasons he would not be on camera with the items even if he did steal them, but we have to consider that one possible reason is that there was nothing stolen.

Starocci is not likeable at all. Bartlett is very likeable. We want to believe Bartlett. But what if he is making this stuff up? I admit that given what we have all seen of Starocci's behavior it is not hard to believe everything Bartlett said happened did happen. But what if it didn't? Might that also explain why the university has said nothing too? I had a high school chemistry teacher who told a long rambling story (like this post) about someone who had been lied about going to anyone who would listen to explain their innocence, but it only created more doubt. The point of her story was to say, "your friends don't need it, and your enemies won't believe it" and IT is an explanation.

Now I am not saying nothing happened, or that Starocci is innocent of anything. But I am saying we need to leave room for doubt. There is a great book by Chuck Klosterman called "But What If We're Wrong: Thinking About The Present As If It Were The Past" that explores the idea that even what we are certain of today is the truth, we may come to find in the future was not.

[CHROMEBIRD]

22 minutes ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

Let me throw an alternative interpretation out there.

It is only odd if what Beau and Syd Bartlett said happened did happen.

But what if none of it did? What if the reason Starocci was not caught on camera with the stolen items is because he did not steal them? What if they were never stolen? What if Bartlett made that up? I understand that there are a lot of other reasons he would not be on camera with the items even if he did steal them, but we have to consider that one possible reason is that there was nothing stolen.

Starocci is not likeable at all. Bartlett is very likeable. We want to believe Bartlett. But what if he is making this stuff up? I admit that given what we have all seen of Starocci's behavior it is not hard to believe everything Bartlett said happened did happen. But what if it didn't? Might that also explain why the university has said nothing too? I had a high school chemistry teacher who told a long rambling story (like this post) about someone who had been lied about going to anyone who would listen to explain their innocence, but it only created more doubt. The point of her story was to say, "your friends don't need it, and your enemies won't believe it" and IT is an explanation.

Now I am not saying nothing happened, or that Starocci is innocent of anything. But I am saying we need to leave room for doubt. There is a great book by Chuck Klosterman called "But What If We're Wrong: Thinking About The Present As If It Were The Past" that explores the idea that even what we are certain of today is the truth, we may come to find in the future was not.

Yeah, I'm 100% for due process. I'm saying, even if nothing happened, it's strange that Starocci, Cael, or PSU Athletics haven't said, "hey nothing happened" or at least, "we take the safety of our atheletes seriously and are looking into it"

[Hammerlock3]

we all know cael isn't a talker, but they fact that he hasn't made any statement is not a good sign...kinda makes you think they aren't letting him cause he's not the face anymore...

[Wrestleknownothing]

4 minutes ago, CHROMEBIRD said:

Yeah, I'm 100% for due process. I'm saying, even if nothing happened, it's strange that Starocci, Cael, or PSU Athletics haven't said, "hey nothing happened" or at least, "we take the safety of our atheletes seriously and are looking into it"

Maybe they had the same chemistry teacher I had.

[CHROMEBIRD]

I hope the radio silence is because a staffer from the athletics dept asked ChatGPT to create a response in the voice of Starocci, and the AI just started threatening everyone

[flyingcement]

11 minutes ago, Hammerlock3 said:

we all know cael isn't a talker, but they fact that he hasn't made any statement is not a good sign...kinda makes you think they aren't letting him cause he's not the face anymore...

On the Penn State forums, it was mentioned that Cael had a statement prepared immediately after that article was released - and the statement refuted the claims.  But Penn State would not allow it to be released.  

https://247sports.com/college/penn-state/board/18/contents/penn-state-wrestling-discussion--227713133/?page=558

[ionel]

6 minutes ago, CHROMEBIRD said:

I hope the radio silence is because ...

What if  they are waiting for Jerry S to get out and make a statement on behalf of the program and university? 

[Dogbone]

24 minutes ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

Maybe they had the same chemistry teacher I had.

There is a reason you don't see a lot of chemist in the public relations field. 

[Rassling2]

1 hour ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

Let me throw an alternative interpretation out there.

It is only odd if what Beau and Syd Bartlett said happened did happen.

But what if none of it did? What if the reason Starocci was not caught on camera with the stolen items is because he did not steal them? What if they were never stolen? What if Bartlett made that up? I understand that there are a lot of other reasons he would not be on camera with the items even if he did steal them, but we have to consider that one possible reason is that there was nothing stolen.

Starocci is not likeable at all. Bartlett is very likeable. We want to believe Bartlett. But what if he is making this stuff up? I admit that given what we have all seen of Starocci's behavior it is not hard to believe everything Bartlett said happened did happen. But what if it didn't? Might that also explain why the university has said nothing too? I had a high school chemistry teacher who told a long rambling story (like this post) about someone who had been lied about going to anyone who would listen to explain their innocence, but it only created more doubt. The point of her story was to say, "your friends don't need it, and your enemies won't believe it" and IT is an explanation.

Now I am not saying nothing happened, or that Starocci is innocent of anything. But I am saying we need to leave room for doubt. There is a great book by Chuck Klosterman called "But What If We're Wrong: Thinking About The Present As If It Were The Past" that explores the idea that even what we are certain of today is the truth, we may come to find in the future was not.

such an excellent well written post, I read it twice.

[ionel]

2 minutes ago, Rassling2 said:

such an excellent well written post, I read it twice.

Did you guys have the same English teacher?  

[Rassling2]

6 minutes ago, ionel said:

Did you guys have the same English teacher?  

nah I just like what he said and how he said it - different perspective, thought out well. 

[MPhillips]

37 minutes ago, flyingcement said:

But Penn State would not allow it to be released.  

I wouldn't think a university would let the wrestling coach speak for them, but who knows. 

15 minutes ago, ionel said:

Did you guys have the same English teacher?  

Probably just took twice...

[headshuck]

such an excellent well written post, I read it twice.

Were you the one that nominated WKN as the best poster?

[ionel]

25 minutes ago, MPhillips said:

I wouldn't think a university would let the wrestling coach speak for them, but who knows. 

Probably just took twice...

Explains the re-read. 

I am surprised to see Wkn dip into the unseemliness.  

Edited 16 hours ago by ionel

[Fletcher]

1 hour ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

Let me throw an alternative interpretation out there.

It is only odd if what Beau and Syd Bartlett said happened did happen.

But what if none of it did? What if the reason Starocci was not caught on camera with the stolen items is because he did not steal them? What if they were never stolen? What if Bartlett made that up? I understand that there are a lot of other reasons he would not be on camera with the items even if he did steal them, but we have to consider that one possible reason is that there was nothing stolen.

Starocci is not likeable at all. Bartlett is very likeable. We want to believe Bartlett. But what if he is making this stuff up? I admit that given what we have all seen of Starocci's behavior it is not hard to believe everything Bartlett said happened did happen. But what if it didn't? Might that also explain why the university has said nothing too? I had a high school chemistry teacher who told a long rambling story (like this post) about someone who had been lied about going to anyone who would listen to explain their innocence, but it only created more doubt. The point of her story was to say, "your friends don't need it, and your enemies won't believe it" and IT is an explanation.

Now I am not saying nothing happened, or that Starocci is innocent of anything. But I am saying we need to leave room for doubt. There is a great book by Chuck Klosterman called "But What If We're Wrong: Thinking About The Present As If It Were The Past" that explores the idea that even what we are certain of today is the truth, we may come to find in the future was not.

One of the claims is provable. Bartlett would have to be an idiot to say there's a group chat with nonconsensual athlete nudes posted in it. If that was made up out of thin air, everyone in the group chat could prove him wrong. But I guess stranger things have happened.

[ionel]

1 minute ago, Fletcher said:

One of the claims is provable. Bartlett would have to be an idiot to say there's a group chat with nonconsensual athlete nudes posted in it. If that was made up out of thin air, everyone in the group chat could prove him wrong. But I guess stranger things have happened.

But channeling my inner Wkn

What if there is no group chat then there would be no one to prove him wrong.  

[bnwtwg]

7 minutes ago, ionel said:

But channeling my inner Wkn

What if there is no group chat then there would be no one to prove him wrong.  

He claimed it was Snapchat, so unless someone took a screenshot then the supposed proof *is* gone

[Wrestleknownothing]

29 minutes ago, Fletcher said:

One of the claims is provable. Bartlett would have to be an idiot to say there's a group chat with nonconsensual athlete nudes posted in it. If that was made up out of thin air, everyone in the group chat could prove him wrong. But I guess stranger things have happened.

It would seem highly likely that if the chat exists and Bartlett filed a complaint with the police that they would be viewing Bartlett's phone and using what they find to file charges if it matches what he described.

Then subpoenas would get issued and information would become public. That all takes time, so it is entirely possible we are in a quiet period while an investigation is being conducted. It is also possible that an investigation has occured and nothing came of it for whatever reason. It is even possible that nothing has been reported to police for any of a number of reasons.

At this point the whole situation requires patience for the simple reason that no one here has subpoena powers. 

Edited 15 hours ago by Wrestleknownothing

[Wrestleknownothing]

7 minutes ago, bnwtwg said:

He claimed it was Snapchat, so unless someone took a screenshot then the supposed proof *is* gone

With the right authority the history is viewable:

https://help.snapchat.com/hc/en-us/articles/7012327251348-How-Snap-Inc-Works-with-Law-Enforcement

[ionel]

5 minutes ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

It would seem highly likely that if the chat exists and Bartlett filed a complaint with the police that they would be viewing Bartlett's phone and using what the find to file charges if it matches what he described.

Then subpoenas would get issued and information would become public. That all takes time, so it is entirely possible we are in a quiet period while an investigation is being conducted. It is also possible that an investigation has occured and nothing came of it for whatever reason. It is even possible that nothing has been reported to police for any of a number of reasons.

At this point the whole situation requires patience for the simple reason that no one here has subpoena powers. 

If only there were such a thing as journalists who would hold folks accountable and ask questions.  

Edited 15 hours ago by ionel

[1032004]

3 hours ago, flyingcement said:

On the Penn State forums, it was mentioned that Cael had a statement prepared immediately after that article was released - and the statement refuted the claims.  But Penn State would not allow it to be released.  

https://247sports.com/college/penn-state/board/18/contents/penn-state-wrestling-discussion--227713133/?page=558

Interesting, hadn’t seen that.  And of course in addition to the radio silence from the staff, there has also been radio silence from the team and alumni (to my knowledge at least) since the article came out.  Mark Hall made sure to make it known that he wasn’t the one interviewed, but didn’t comment on the allegations.