BAC

It was hard to watch. After watching Vito slump off the mat in the first match, while Jax skipped off, the result of the second match seemed like a sure thing. It's been a while since I've seen a wrestler whose cardio was that bad. I don't want to judge since we all know Vito is coming off some sort of injury, but dang, I can't help but wonder if there was something else Vito could have done while he was getting wrestling-ready to keep his cardio up. Ride a bike, swimming, anything? Both matches his tank was empty at the 4 minute mark.

I've shuffled the rankings in my head of "who's the best P4P high schooler?" about 3-4 times the past 6 months, between Blaze, Jax and PJ. I wonder if I'll need to do it again after today. One thing's for sure -- the US has never had 3 current high schoolers who were as good as those three. And I doubt it ever will again.

Agree with this. If anything, it's a feather in Cornell's cap that they had 3 guys in Final X (including Dake), which is outstanding. Second only to PSU (with 4), right? What's more, each of these Cornell Final X'ers have world medals to their credit. Any recruit worth having is going to know full well how credentialed Vito, Yianni and Dake are, and that Cornell produced them. There's zero shame in losing to a high schooler when they beat everyone else too.

Some pretty crazy rankings in there. Here is the entirety of Luke Simcox's resume to be ranked #16 (per WrestlStat): #74 Navida, Elias (14 - 5) #17 North Carolina 02/23 Wildcat Open 141 W DEC 7 - 0 #154 Sly, Charlie (8 - 11) #61 Gardner-Webb 02/23 Wildcat Open 141 W FALL 6:28 #92 Reihner, Blake (10 - 7) #78 Davidson 02/23 Wildcat Open 141 W DEC 5 - 0 #65 Sherlock, Tyson (13 - 7) #78 Davidson 02/23 Wildcat Open 141 W FALL 1:57 #38 Basile, Braden (11 - 6) #25 Army West Point 01/04 Southern Scuffle 141 L MD 18 - 4 #154 Sly, Charlie (8 - 11) #61 Gardner-Webb 01/04 Southern Scuffle 141 W FALL 1:46 #68 Iamunno, Joey (14 - 13) #55 Brown 01/04 Southern Scuffle 141 W DEC 10 - 3 #77 Oswalt, Ian (17 - 7) #55 Brown 01/04 Southern Scuffle 141 L DEC 10 - 5 #151 Matthews, Devin (11 - 14) #65 LIU 01/04 Southern Scuffle 141 W DEC 6 - 1 #6 Frost, Jacob (28 - 9) #13 Iowa State 12/21 Iowa State - North Carolina Dual 141 L MD 10 - 1 #3 Wilson, Josh (D3) #101 Greensboro 11/25 Greensboro - North Carolina Dual 141 L DEC 4 - 1 In sum: Highest ranked win is vs. #65 (a back-up at Davidson), with losses to #6, 38, 77 and a D3 kid. I know it's all algorithm based but what kind for formula would make a computer say "yeah he's 16th"?

No one's saying that. But if he were ramping up for a competition, there's be a stronger inference of intent to cheat. Since he wasn't, the inference cuts the other way. The point is that the supplement was allegedly purchased *after* he was sick (according to his dad), and he didn't find out about the negative test result until *after* Final X had passed. It isn't dispositive, but that too cuts in favor if it being inadvertent. Um, OK. Whatever that means. Well, the problem here is we don't know exactly what he bought, or how that product lines up to his explanation. His dad says he was "looking at his doctor’s report and all the things he’s lacking in. And he went to get supplements to replenish whatever it is that needs to be replenished." If I'm the USADA, I want to see what the doctor's report says, and whether/how the product he bought replenishes that. Again, it isn't a defense, but it might tend to show it was bought more for healing purposes than competitive purposes. Conversely, some are claiming he bought supplements that are literally called "DHEA." But do we know that? His dad says he bought "a supplement, a natural, plant-based supplement," which doesn't quite track, unless he's referring to the soy/yam from which I understand DHEA can be synthesized. I guess we'll find out. If it was literally called "DHEA," that's some next-level stupid and you can't claim it was ingested accidentally (only that you didn't know it was banned). This we won't know until the report comes out, but don't see the point in definitively stringing him up without knowing the truth. What's the basis for tagging the "asshole" label on Brooks, besides his misfortune of having gone to a college that kicked everyone's butt? I could do without his Christian proselytizing too but he's entitled to his views and I'm entitled to mine. You may find his outward religiosity cringey but a-hole is a stretch.

That's actually what my first reaction was, except salary cap, not roster cap. By "salary cap," I mean that in a program that's dependent on just 1 or 2 major donors for NIL money, they only have so much money they can spend each year. That's the salary cap. If those funds get tied up in someone who isn't starting, it's that much less they can devote to some other recruit. To free that money up, the donor needs a valid reason to break the NIL contract -- and dismissal of the team is one such reason. Can't say that's what happened here, but since Arnold was already destined to ride the pine while still collecting Nicolls' NIL money, it would make some sense for Brands to seize on the first defensible reason they had to cut him loose, thus freeing up Nicolls' NIL money for some other recruit. Nicolls making his displeasure known on the Hawk boards may have accelerated that process.

DHEA is a hormone that your body naturally produces. I assume the supplements are a synthesized version but it's irrelevant -- the point is when you buy supplements, it's likely a non-FDA approved use, which means you need to be extra careful to check the ingredients. However made, DHEA is a steroid, full stop, so he's getting dinged for it -- rightly so. The only question is whether he intended to cheat. Here, there is zero evidence of it. The fact that he wasn't planning to compete anyway points the other way. (He didn't get his test results until WTTs were over.) Yet here you are, along with 90% of other "fans," celebrating the downfall of a world team member, accusing him of lying, and all but DEMANDING the USADA find him guilty of intending to cheat. Why? Because his alma mater kicked your favorite team's azz. That's all. Welcome to Team USA, home of the worst fans in the world.

I see the PSU haters are out in full force in this thread. If it were up to this crowd, Brooks would be banned for life, jailed, and sterilized for good measure. Brooks was boneheaded, no doubt. Not reading the label of a natural supplement is a inexcusable, pneumonia or not, so I'm not sympathetic. I'm also ticked that his actions will hurt the strength of Team USA. But saying he's outright lying and intending to cheat, without a lick of evidence, is pretty nasty stuff. If the USADA decides otherwise, then I'll defer to that finding, as there may be more to the story. But if the USADA determines this was a result of negligence, and not an intent to cheat, is this crowd going to collectively petition the USADA to reconsider, and to impose a harsher punishment? It used to be the case that when a guy graduated and was on the World team, the entire USA wrestling community would be behind him. I guess not so anymore. I can just see some of you guys cheering like maniacs when Ramazanov came from behind to beat him at the Olympic semis. Best day of your life, eh? I guess some guys just can't get over the beatings Brooks gave your team in his college days.

Thanks Caveira. I, for one, feel enlightened. I had thought perhaps a stolen watch was more the size of a breadbox and thus would be difficult to conceal without smoke and mirrors. Thanks for setting me straight.

I don't know Caveira. Why don't you delve into your history of petty theft to enlighten us.

I'm not sure why you would assume he *wouldn't* mention it. My read of the article is that Beau thought Carter was retaliating because Syd mentioned the sexual assault allegations to Carter, and Beau thought Carter's unwelcome photo of him while naked was an example of his vindictiveness. The article says "the photos were reported to Sanderson along with the theft," suggesting Beau thought they were linked -- i.e. each an act of retaliation and/or revenge. If Beau sees the photo as evidence that the theft was done by Carter, why wouldn't he mention that to police?

If someone steals your car, and you think your former neighbor did it since he did something really nasty to you lately, do you mention that to the police? Or just stay quiet, giving the police nothing to work with in their investigation?

Because Beau thinks Carter took his stuff as retaliation and wants the police to understand why he thinks that. Presumably Beau would inform the police of other vindictive stuff that Carter has done that back his theory, such as unwanted photo-taking. I could be wrong, but to me, it would be weird for Beau to point the finger at Carter without mentioning other douchy stuff he's done since his wife spilled the beans.

You're correct that the article doesn't say that the photo was uploaded to chat. In fact, it doesn't say that any of the photos shared on chat contained anything explicit. It doesn't say that the chat, or anything on it, was mentioned to Cael or any other coach. Many people are spreading lies about that, based on no facts or reporting. As for the photo itself, at the risk of splitting hairs, there's a difference between a naked photo showing private parts, and a "photo taken while naked," where you don't know what the photos shows. The author does refer to it as an "explicit photo" -- but that word choice appears to be based on Beau's description that it was taken *while* he was naked, not based on the author or Beau having ever seen the photo. Based on the reporting, it seems fair to infer that Beau at least *thought* the photo was explicit. Either way, inaction by a coach would be inexcusable. But that doesn't appear to be the case since the theft was reported to the police, and I assume the photo was too.

Doesn't say what the photo shows. Doesn't say it was added to chat. Doesn't say anyone on the chat was visibly exposed. Doesn't say the chat was reported to anyone. Could be true, but article doesn't say and we don't know. I'd say "reread the article" but you already know this, and are gleefully spewing as fact things that exist only in your head. We all know you've been jerking off in a bowl all day, hoping Beau will do what Iowa couldn't, unleashing a decade's worth of frustration. Easy there fella. The allegations here are serious, and the facts matter. No decent person wants PSU coaches to escape responsibility if they're culpable, but no decent person wants their career ruined if they acted properly. But then again, not everyone's a decent person, are they?

Maybe, but I still have a different take. He's toast if (a) the photo showed private parts, and (b) it was uploaded to Snap and shared, and (c) this fact was reported to Cael (and he admits it). That's a major reporting failure, and a bridge too far for admin. But I don't think that's what the facts are, based on what's come out so far. Beau never said the photo of him was uploaded/shared with others. He also never says he even saw it, or if it showed any private parts. He also never said that any of the photos being uploaded to Snap included any private parts. (And I sort of doubt it did, because ... WTF? Why wouldn't they all speak up then?) So, when he reported it to Cael (and I'm assuming he did, along with the theft), I'm envisioning it was more like, "And that SOB took a pic of me just as I got out of the shower and laughed and ran away." That's super sketchy, but I'm not sure that's illegal. Maybe it should be, but as a general rule, you can take pictures of whoever you want, with or without their consent. If they're naked, it can be a crime if not consented to (as here), but typically only if done for purposes of arousal/gratification. Maybe it was, but Beau describes it like Carter's being a jokester in poor taste, so maybe that's how it was reported -- and how it was interpreted. If done more than once, it can be harassment or stalking, and if it's shared it triggers a whole bunch of other laws, but again, it isn't clear that Beau reported any of that. Just a dbag teammate snapping a pic of him as he gets out of the shower as a supposed "joke", which, while tasteless and unfunny, is pretty borderline by itself as far as being a mandatory report. Even if I'm wrong, I question whether the PSU admin would see it as so clearcut a violation of mandatory reporting as to warrant serious discipline. This also assumes Cael didn't do anything. If he didn't report it, personally I'd be offended if Cael didn't at least go to Carter to say (a) WTF are you doing? (b) You better have deleted that, (c) if you shared that with anyone I'll kill you myself, and (d) don't do that ever again, not funny. Not his job to investigate, but if you're going to take the position it doesn't need to be reported, you better fix it. Again, there's lots we don't know. But on these facts, I don't see a major issue, unless the PR people tell the admin that they need a scalp.

Dude, you're out of control. You're making up stuff, and putting words in my and other peoples' mouths that they didn't say. You need to relax.

You may be right but, call me naive, I don't think the coach(es) are going to deny they were told about the photo. Not if they were, in fact, told. I just don't think that's how Cael rolls. I think that's where the greatest exposure is. The article's unclear about what was shown in the pic, whether it was deleted, whether it was shared in chat, whether Cael did anything. But it's the kind of thing I can easily see a coach writing off as standard locker room idiocy when, depending on the details, it might need to be reported, strictly speaking. I doubt it's a firable offense, but I wouldn't be surprised if it resulted in discipline.

I wonder if Carter is going to show up in all of Beau's missing gear just to troll him.

Scourge, see my above comments. I'll just be repeating myself if I keep going, but my last few comments: -- Counting up the number of black players isn't helpful. We already know that black athletes are dramatically overrepresented in high-end NCAA D1 athletics. That doesn't answer whether there's a racial disparity after taking that disproportionate representation into account. -- When you say things like "these schools want to WIN!", it tells me you're confusing the school with the NIL donors, which are kept separate by law. That was my whole point that indirectly led to this discussion: NIL donors aren't beholden to follow the university's obligation not to discriminate. Donors want to see their school win too, but they're also making an economic investment. That's why social media following is so central. There's a separate metric for it for every athlete shown on On3, though other intangibles apply too. That means if there's a racial disparity in social media following and overall fame, that will translate to what sponsors will offer. It's really not much different than male professional athletes earning more, on average, than women. I don't think the racial disparity is nearly as stark as the gender one, but it's existed every time someone's take the time to examine it. -- Although NIL is market driven, I agree that merit is the primary driver of NIL money -- both because excellence drives social media follows, and because many donors are motivated by desire to make their team win, not just to make money. On that, we don't disagree. But again, the question is whether there's a racial disparity, and the answer consistently has been yes, every time it's been critically examined. It's a separate question to ask how large that disparity is, and as I said above, I'd personally join the hypothesis that it's gone down in recent years as collectives have increased, leading to greater coordination more race neutrality than you are apt to find if left to individual wealthy donors. -- This is just a theory, but I'd wager the racial disparity is smaller in non-revenue sports, like wrestling. That's because donors to these sports are more apt to be driven by loyalty to a team, rather than to make money. They're not making an "investment" where they need to worry about their revenue-generation ability, so much as they're trying to build a winning team, where "marketability" is irrelevant. (See CStar.) In any case, I'm not sure if we really disagree all that much. Is NIL fund allocation 100% race neutral? 80%? 95%? My guess is the racial disparity has reduced, as I said, but some level of racial disparity is almost inevitable when (a) allocation of NIL dollars is left purely to the marketplace, where race plays at least a small role, and (b) when your main donors are old white men, some of whom may harbor old biases that the university is powerless to put in check.

Sorry for slow response. I appreciate your points. I disagree with much of it, for reasons I've given, but understand where you're coming from. Here's my final thoughts, and happy to give you the final word. I do think some of your criticisms of the one study are just factually wrong, and the "just media articles" I mentioned themselves refer to other studies, e.g. lower average return on IG posts, black folks having a disproportionate share relative to participation. There's also a Penn study in 2021 that also found a stark race disparity, a WVU (Sports Marketing Quarterly) in 2022 also finding whites earn "a disproportionate share of NIL deals," and others. I'd be more open-minded to a critique if there was some contrary data that you're citing, but there really isn't -- just your off-the-cuff, 15-minute anecdotal once-over of a list you saw online, compared against actual studies by people who have an actual responsibility to be scientifically accurate. (My own 15-minute once-over points to a different conclusion, albeit an unscientific one). You openly admit there's a racial disparity among women but not men, but again cite no data. All of that said, I'm not sure our disagreement is really all that stark. First, you say "will you at least acknowledge that your claim of 'people of color only get 16% of NIL dollars' is complete nonsense?" That isn't my claim. It's a claim from a study cited in an article, and it specifically says it was an analysis from 2021-22. I have no reason to say that it was untrue back then, so I suspect it is accurate. But is it true today? I don't know. but looking at anecdotal evidence, it seems unlikely. That was a very different landscape then. That leads to a second point. The landscape is changing *dramatically*. June 2025 compared to say, June 2023, would be an enormous difference, and going all the way back to 2021 is essentially the stone ages in the NIL world. Much of the o the research I've seen is from 2023-24 or earlier. So I will agree with you generally that research from back then is of limited relevance to today. Does that mean they've magically cleared up the racial disparity? No, it doesn't, but the world is so different now, I think it's just hard to extrapolate. (I think that is especially so as the prevalence of individual NIL donors started to give way to collectives that coordinate more closely with universities, causing pressures for equal treatment.) So if your core point is that the 16% figure of 2021-22 is likely higher today, I'd give that one to you on suspicion. Third, just because a racial disparity may have a non-racist explanation does not mean it exists. If you asked 100 10 year old black boys their biggest sports hero, do you think more will name a black athlete than if you asked the same question of 100 10 year old white boys? Does that mean either are racist? There's lots of studies on this too, but it's a social fact that people tend to relate more to people who look like themselves. I suspect that translates to NIL. It's ultimately marketplace driven, and the moneyed marketplace is still predominantly white. So if a given black and white athletes are of identical ability, I think you can expect to see the white athlete have a stronger social media following, which in turn translates to more NIL dollars, which has an objective basis. That's why you've got these white guys who aren't necessarily the best FB players getting the most money. It's the same rationale as gender disparities, e.g. how women in the WNBA or Women's MLS get way less. We say "the market doesn't support it." It's less pronounced in race, but it's always been there. In the professional sports context, there's a treasure trove of research that black athletes earn less in endorsements (relative to representation) than white athletes, ostensibly because white athletes are seen as "safer" and "appealing to a wider audience." None of this means NIL money isn't predominantly a meritocracy. Of course it is. Donors want their school to win. But even if there's a 5% racial disparity, it's still a disparity. How big is it in 2025? Dunno. Lastly, and some may disagree, but I think there's a racial element even to some of the explanations we are hearing. Saying "Well he's in the Manning family, of course he's getting a lot, that's not race," ignores the likely racial difference among those who are the biggest fans of the Manning family. Saying "Livvy's super hot, of course she's getting a lot, that's not race," ignores the fact that there's a racial disparity among who her biggest fans are. Even "they're highly paid because they're QBs not because they're white" is a fraught thing to say. Yes, black QBs command a NIL premium too, but is there a racial component to that? I recall reading a few years ago an article saying that black fans' favorite position is RB and white fans' favorite position is QB. Wish I could find that, but query whether there's a racial element to which positons are most valued, based on the race of the perceiver. Also, there may be a racially-grounded difference in perception of QB abilities too. There's evidence of racial bias inhibiting perceptions of who's the best QB (e.g. here). Even in the NFL, where black QBs have dramatically outperformed white QBs relative to draft position (see article here). Cheers.

Delete "feeding" and the "s" on trolls, and you'd be on point.

Agreed, especially if whatever Kasak said didn't give them any ammunition to charge Carter. Hard to see how you can prove a charge beyond a reasonable doubt here, where your only real evidence of charging Starocci over Kasak is motive. Beau would probably win a civil suit on these facts, but no one's doing that over 1K.

Sure. But is that what the coaches learned? What they have is a student telling them stuff they had in their locker isn't their anymore. Even assuming that means it was stolen (and not lost/misplaced, which the coach won't know), what they don't have is any credible evidence that it was stolen by one of their athletes, as opposed to someone else. (Remember, this is before police looked at camera footage.)

This is a part of the article that I'd bet large amounts of money is inaccurate. If it's really true that the cops were so bumblingly incompetent that they were "unable to contact" Starocci for six freaking months, then everyone in that chain of command should be fired. But I think it's exponentially more likely that they contacted Starocci, and he either said nothing or said he did not want to talk about it. It's conventional wisdom that if you're being investigated for a crime, you don't talk to the cops. If he asked a lawyer for advice, that's what the lawyer would say. Most people know that. That seems far more likely what happened here.