Remember Ken Powers? Fired from the Worcester Telegram & Gazette for plagiarism in February 2005 after being sent home from the Super Bowl?

Well, it seems like he steals more than just words.

Reporter accused of $100,000 theft

UXBRIDGE — A well-known Central Massachusetts reporter is facing criminal charges that he stole $100,000 from a Sutton golf course where he worked as the pro shop manager.

Kenneth P. Powers, 49, of 36 Abbott St., No. 4B, Worcester, is scheduled to be arraigned in Uxbridge District Court Jan. 28 on one count of larceny over $250. A criminal complaint was issued Jan. 11.

Published by Bruce Allen

Automattician.

24 thoughts on “Ken Powers In Trouble Again”

  2. Bruce, if the point of this post is to snipe at Borges, then it's particularly cheap. If the point of this post is to convict Powers, then it's not your job — it's the job of the courts.

    I can understand why you'd post the story, but the guy's out of sports media and is clearly doing poorly enough without having you point and laugh quite so gleefully. Really don't see the point of the "told you so" attitude here. I'm usually a fan of your agenda, but your tone is unusually mean-spirited and immature, regardless of what kind of guy he is.

    Like

    2. You’re right. It was unnecessary and uncalled for. I removed the remark.

      For those wondering, following the quote from the paper, I had originally said:

      I recall Ron Borges trying to come to Powers defense after he was fired, saying that he was a “sweetheart of a guy.”

      That Ron Borges sure is a great judge of character.

      Like

    3. Am I missing something? Where did Bruce snipe at Borges( I realize he was also nailed for plagiarism)? And, if you read the T&G article, it states that Powers is still a news and sports writer for a few central Mass. publications.

      Also, I agree with EvilStaceyJames.

      Like

    4. You’re right. It was unnecessary and uncalled for. I removed the remark.

      For those wondering, following the quote from the paper, I had originally said:

      I recall Ron Borges trying to come to Powers defense after he was fired, saying that he was a “sweetheart of a guy.”

      That Ron Borges sure is a great judge of character.

      Like

    1. That is true, but this part of the above story seems pretty damning:

      Mr. Powers admitted he took the cash, but said he had intended to replace it with a personal check, according to the court documents. That personal check later bounced, and Mr. Powers was suspended for a week, and later returned to work. Court documents show that while Mr. Powers had sent several e-mails indicating he would return the $1,000, the money was not repaid.

      Like

      1. His innocence or guilt is almost a secondary point for me, Bruce. You surrender the moral high ground against someone like Borges when you throw his name around in a character attack. It's exactly the sort of thing I'd expect you to call out Borges for doing in a Belichick piece, for example.

        And I said Powers's innocence or guilt is "almost" a secondary point because I'd expect you to call out something like this too — not to put words in your mouth, but I wouldn't think you'd allow a member of the local sports media to convict an athlete of a crime (or, say, of using performance enhancers) before the proper authorities did so. My feeling is that a post like this should be beneath you.

        Like

        1. Am I missing something? Did Bruce convict him of anything. He said it "seems like" he steals more than words and his link says Powers is "accused".

          Like

        2. I understand your take, but to me, part of running this site is not to go by the rules that should be in place for the media, but to be able cover them in the same manner in which they cover stories. Sort of the old "taste of your own medicine" angle.

          Why do I have to play by their "rules" which they ignore anyway? I've never claimed to be better or "above" how they do things.

          Like

          1. What you say is true — I don't suppose that you do have to play by any rules other than your own. I might be unfairly projecting my own altruism onto you, since I do appreciate what you do here and you'd be easier for me to defend to others (as I've often attempted) if you didn't play on that level.

            With all that conceded, all I have left to stand on is some derivative of the golden rule. But this is the Internet, after all, so I won't try to develop it further.

            Like

          2. In general, I do try to go by that rule. It goes both ways, I suppose, if the media doesn't want this to happen to them, perhaps they shouldn't do it in the first place.

            But with some of them, it's not worth playing clean or fair with them.

            Like

    1. $100,000, but it apparently happened over a period of time. They confronted him over a missing $1000 originally, which is what the above paragraph is referring to.

      Like

    2. $100,000, but it apparently happened over a period of time. They confronted him over a missing $1000 originally, which is what the above paragraph is referring to.

      Like

  5. I think the story is relevant and the post seems appropriate. I am surprised by your comment, thought, that you stoop to their lowly levels.

    Like

  6. If you want to know the difference between Bruce and the sports media, when Bruce makes a mistake he apologizes. See how often someone from the BSM apologizes when they make a mistake. A great example is the aforementioned Ron Borges who not only never apologized for plagiarizing but tried to make himself out to be a victim.

    Like

    2. Worse yet, they "apologize," like Tomase did after tarring the Patriots with the Rams Walkthrough story on the eve of the biggest game in franchise history; but then their colleagues at the same paper (Felger, Mazz at the time) write back-to-back stories saying: 1–what Tomase wrote was actually accurate, but he was just wrong on the "semantics" (Felger); and 2–that Patriots fans are "yahoos" and "idiots" and just can't handle hearing the team criticized no matter how wrong they are (Mazz–who did that again, sort of, this week).

      It's the typical non-apology apology, and they pull this stuff all the time.

      Borges, in fact, has never, ever admitted that he was wrong about ripping the Pats for the Seymour pick in 2001: he merely admitted, later in that season, that he was "wrong about it THIS year, but we'll see what happens down the road." In fact, when the Pats picked up David Terrell after the Bears cut him, Borges went around the talk radio circuit basically demanding an apology from everyone who criticized what he said back in 2001.

      These guys are never wrong as far as they're concerned.

      Like

  7. I am a pretty good judge of character I played a round of golf at blackstone one day and the guy was pretty shady at the computer with greens fee pricing. This is coming from a person that had a lot of idle time that the devil rules in us! make him cut the grass with scissors 4 the season and house him in a stone shed on property 4 3 golf seasons that might pay restitution.
    Mr Shady

    Like

  8. At best Ron Borges should never have had meaningful employment in this media market ever again after a series of incidents, the most meaningful of which was his theft from Sando. There were many other instances of this which the Globe always gave him a pass on with the weekly notes disclaimer. But make no mistake, he was passing off the work of others as his own for years. Or we could delve into his financial relationship with Don King through the years. Or the time he attacked an elderly writer in a neck brace, causing Bob Arum to dislocate his shoulder breaking it up. To think that Bruce needs to stay above the fray and not give him a poke from time to time is either the height of naivete or obnoxiousness. He's earned it about 100 times over.

    Like

Comments are closed.