I sure do, but you clearly don't understand two things, 1- it's irrelevant because Hopkins no longer met the criteria in the bylaws to be an AD, and 2- accusations without proof are meaningless.Not only does he need to state it, but also offer some proof, or is it your theory that proof isn't needed to support an accusation of wrong doing.Did you expect him to state that he was being blackmailed instead of giving a lame, forced excuse?