seaweed
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,648
|
Post by seaweed on Nov 29, 2011 17:51:47 GMT -5
somewhere buried in here is probably the answer to that question, but as so often happens it appears that study methodology and reporting concerns seem to muddy any stats www.jimhopper.com/male-ab/I don't feel like we should be at all surprised by 'Scuse PD, SU or ESPN ignoring this. we have long known that all three organizations are highly biased towards their iconic citrus-men and the head orange. People on here have discussed the institutional bias resulting from the lifeline btw Newhouse and Bristol - did anybody really believe they would be able to get out of their own way in a situation like this?
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,696
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Nov 29, 2011 18:01:38 GMT -5
It may not be the legal standard, but there's an ethical standard. And what reason to sit on it if you weren't using it to build a story?
|
|
chep3
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,314
|
Post by chep3 on Nov 29, 2011 19:10:17 GMT -5
It may not be the legal standard, but there's an ethical standard. And what reason to sit on it if you weren't using it to build a story? Also, why sit on it for a week after reporting the initial allegations? It seems to me that they were trying to get two cracks at scooping the news cycle, which is despicable given that they sat on the recording in the first place. If you have both, why parcel them out piecemeal?
|
|
seaweed
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,648
|
Post by seaweed on Nov 29, 2011 19:46:42 GMT -5
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,438
|
Post by TC on Nov 29, 2011 19:47:51 GMT -5
Also, why sit on it for a week after reporting the initial allegations? It seems to me that they were trying to get two cracks at scooping the news cycle, which is despicable given that they sat on the recording in the first place. If you have both, why parcel them out piecemeal? According to the timeline in their article, they didn't submit it to a voice recognition expert until last week, and they were playing phone tag with Fine's lawyers - who never really got back to them. So the best guess you can take out of the article is that they knew the police were moving with an investigation, so they could report that, but they didn't want to use the tape until they had cleared every legal hurdle they could. The article then goes on to say when the third accuser came forward, they figured they had enough to go forward with the tape - which I do not understand whatsoever. The third accuser had nothing to do with the tape, and lends absolutely no extra credibility towards it. The tape was backed up by the voice recognition expert, not the third accuser. The only conclusion you can make is that they felt like they were getting scooped on a news cycle and decided to finally release the tape because otherwise the Syracuse Post-Standard was going to be grabbing headlines.
|
|
RusskyHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
In Soviet Russia, Hoya Blue Bleeds You!
Posts: 4,596
|
Post by RusskyHoya on Nov 29, 2011 19:48:02 GMT -5
But no matter how common the serial aspect is, it is definitely a possibility. That is, the Possibility of additional victims is high enough that the Police and ESPN SHOULD have been looking into the allegations to protect potential additional victims. In my personal opinion, ESPN has a lot to answer here. Possibility is a very broad and subjective thing, though. We've all known guys who seemed pervy or creepy or made inappropriate comments. It's possible they are child molesters, but the vast majority are not. Heck, there's plenty of people out there - and not only of EasyEd's generation - who think that every gay male is a boyrapist just waiting for an opportunity. There has to be some standard beyond "possibility" that must be satisfied before acting. It will likely vary in everyone's case, but a majority would agree on the overall outlines. I think in the Sandusky/McQueary 2002 instance, there is widespread agreement that the standard is met. In the Davis case around the same time? I'm not completely sure. What gives me some pause, I suppose, is that I can come up with a plausible scenario that is sympathetic to ESPN. It goes something like this: they are contacted by Davis, who tells his story, including the claim that the sexual contact continued until he was 27. I'm well aware that abuse can mess with people's minds in a way that can make them act in very illogical or unexpected ways, but this is still a very unusual claim for several reasons (not least of which is that, as you say, molesters usually move on as their victims get older). On top of this, Davis provides a tape that reveals he had a sexual relationship with Fine's wife starting when he was 18. This is now an extremely unusual set of claims. The only person backing Davis's story is his stepbrother. If I'm ESPN, I don't know entirely what to make of this. Is this some sort of bizarre love triangle and Davis is conspiring with Laurie Fine (plus his stepbrother)? Is Davis a con artist who has ensnared a closeted Fine and his unhappy beard wife? Something even more outlandish? Or is it all true? What I do know - or think I know, since apparently Syracuse PD did nothing - is that the police are investigating. Ok, let that play out. If they ask for the tape, provide it; if the investigation takes off, the tape is a big scoop and the cops will have it when you run it. Instead, the cops say there's no case because the statute of limitations has run out, meaning the tape is irrelevant. So now you face a dilemma. Run with this story, knowing it will destroy the Fines even if Davis is proven to be a complete fabricator? Offer it up to the cops, knowing that in all likelihood they will do nothing with it (if they don't already have it), but increasing the probability that it will get leaked and you will both lose your scoop and the Fines are ruined? Or $hitcan the story, keep the tape to yourself (knowing full well that Davis can and probably will take it to any number of other outlets), and keep your eyes out for other corroboration. I absolutely agree - ESPN has a lot to answer here. But the above scenario is plausible to me, based on the information now available, and it's easy to see how ESPN's relationship with Syracuse would play a part in such a thought process. I cannot think of any plausible exculpatory scenario in Paterno's case. It may not be the legal standard, but there's an ethical standard. And what reason to sit on it if you weren't using it to build a story? Good question. I can think of a couple of possible reasons, mostly having to do with setting precedents involving information provided by sources. But ESPN needs to answer this question. Doria's answer is absolutely insufficient. Also, why sit on it for a week after reporting the initial allegations? It seems to me that they were trying to get two cracks at scooping the news cycle, which is despicable given that they sat on the recording in the first place. If you have both, why parcel them out piecemeal? Another good question. The only thing I can think of is that the emergence of a third accuser, one unrelated (although apparently not unconnected) to Davis, greatly diminished the likelihood that the tape was part of a con job. That justified releasing the tape, which effectively destroys Laurie Fine's reputation.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,438
|
Post by TC on Nov 29, 2011 20:38:02 GMT -5
Another good question. The only thing I can think of is that the emergence of a third accuser, one unrelated (although apparently not unconnected) to Davis, greatly diminished the likelihood that the tape was part of a con job. That justified releasing the tape, which effectively destroys Laurie Fine's reputation. That makes no sense whatsoever. The third accuser's father called him a liar in the original article. How does that authenticate the tape in any way?
|
|
RusskyHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
In Soviet Russia, Hoya Blue Bleeds You!
Posts: 4,596
|
Post by RusskyHoya on Nov 29, 2011 20:50:10 GMT -5
Another good question. The only thing I can think of is that the emergence of a third accuser, one unrelated (although apparently not unconnected) to Davis, greatly diminished the likelihood that the tape was part of a con job. That justified releasing the tape, which effectively destroys Laurie Fine's reputation. That makes no sense whatsoever. The third accuser's father called him a liar in the original article. How does that authenticate the tape in any way? The likelihood of a conspiracy decreases exponentially as the number of alleged conspirators increases. This is particularly true for con jobs, where a greater number of participants in the con both decreases each participant's share of the take and increases the likelihood that one will defect (the greater the number of prisoners, the greater the dilemma). There are plenty of reasons to doubt Accuser #3's story, such as the fact that he is himself accused of molestation. There are also good reasons to be suspicious of his father's statements, since Accuser #3 also claims his father molested him. But the existence of a third, unrelated accuser does make the prospect of this all just being a con pretty unlikely. On the other hand, it is equally likely that ESPN is just using this as a pretext to get the tape out there, since it was only going to grow more radioactive with each day that it went unreleased.
|
|
|
Post by LizziebethHoya on Nov 29, 2011 23:03:47 GMT -5
In my opinion, Boeheim handled the post-game press conference surprisingly well. He wasn't as muzzled as I thought he was going to be, and explained himself well based on the questions asked. He admitted he wrote Sunday night's statement, and the statement he read tonight, with "the help of a friend." Guess thats a nice way of saying he had University Counsel looking over his shoulder telling him what words to put down on the page. espn.go.com/blog/collegebasketballnation/post/_/id/40470/video-jim-boeheims-postgame-presser
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Nov 29, 2011 23:42:21 GMT -5
In my opinion, Boeheim handled the post-game press conference surprisingly well. He wasn't as muzzled as I thought he was going to be, and explained himself well based on the questions asked. He admitted he wrote Sunday night's statement, and the statement he read tonight, with "the help of a friend." Guess thats a nice way of saying he had University Counsel looking over his shoulder telling him what words to put down on the page. espn.go.com/blog/collegebasketballnation/post/_/id/40470/video-jim-boeheims-postgame-presserDid he apologize for going after the victims?
|
|
chep3
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,314
|
Post by chep3 on Nov 29, 2011 23:53:01 GMT -5
In my opinion, Boeheim handled the post-game press conference surprisingly well. He wasn't as muzzled as I thought he was going to be, and explained himself well based on the questions asked. He admitted he wrote Sunday night's statement, and the statement he read tonight, with "the help of a friend." Guess thats a nice way of saying he had University Counsel looking over his shoulder telling him what words to put down on the page. espn.go.com/blog/collegebasketballnation/post/_/id/40470/video-jim-boeheims-postgame-presserI found him to be oddly combative, with his repetition of "we'll find out what happened...on my watch" line. I know that's his style in post-game press conferences, but I was expecting him to be a little more cautious. His problems are all self-created--had he said nothing accusatory to the alleged victims, he'd have been ok. Given that, I'm surprised he threw out the "on my watch" line in what I read to be sort of a taunt. It very may well turn out that some awful stuff happened "on his watch."
|
|
|
Post by professorhoya on Nov 29, 2011 23:55:46 GMT -5
In my opinion, Boeheim handled the post-game press conference surprisingly well. He wasn't as muzzled as I thought he was going to be, and explained himself well based on the questions asked. He admitted he wrote Sunday night's statement, and the statement he read tonight, with "the help of a friend." Guess thats a nice way of saying he had University Counsel looking over his shoulder telling him what words to put down on the page. espn.go.com/blog/collegebasketballnation/post/_/id/40470/video-jim-boeheims-postgame-presserI found him to be oddly combative, with his repetition of "we'll find out what happened...on my watch" line. I know that's his style in post-game press conferences, but I was expecting him to be a little more cautious. His problems are all self-created--had he said nothing accusatory to the alleged victims, he'd have been ok. Given that, I'm surprised he threw out the "on my watch" line in what I read to be sort of a taunt. It very may well turn out that some awful stuff happened "on his watch." He needs to be fired and the Syracuse program destroyed. Then the ACC basically gets a dead school and Pitt. Bob Costas (Syracuse alum) should interview Bernie Fine.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,438
|
Post by TC on Nov 30, 2011 0:03:22 GMT -5
In my opinion, Boeheim handled the post-game press conference surprisingly well. He wasn't as muzzled as I thought he was going to be, and explained himself well based on the questions asked. Did you watch the same thing I did? You could boil it down to two words : lawyered up. All he kept saying was "until the investigation is done, we have to wait". No apology for his attack. Furthermore, he kept saying "we'll see what happened on my watch" qualifying that it would be proved in a court of law by grand juries, indictments, convictions, knowing full well that the statute of limitations is up. Pathetic questions from the press too. All barking up the wrong tree, asking if he had a hand in the decision to fire Fine, etc.
|
|
|
Post by LizziebethHoya on Nov 30, 2011 0:07:21 GMT -5
I found him to be oddly combative, with his repetition of "we'll find out what happened...on my watch" line. I know that's his style in post-game press conferences, but I was expecting him to be a little more cautious. His problems are all self-created--had he said nothing accusatory to the alleged victims, he'd have been ok. Given that, I'm surprised he threw out the "on my watch" line in what I read to be sort of a taunt. It very may well turn out that some awful stuff happened "on his watch." I think he just wanted to stress his point that there is a difference between what happens outside of the SU basketball program and what happens within the program. Just like he stressed the point that ball boys don't travel with the team as a ball boy, but they may travel as someone's guest. These were lines fed to him by his lawyer as a way to present that he feels he can't be held responsible for what happens outside of the program. Although, as you said, maybe some of the stuff that happened happened inside of the program. He isn't going to make those unequivocal statements anymore no matter what he believes is true. Wasn't surprised he was combative. I honestly expected him to be more combative, which is probably why I feel like he handled it well. EDIT based on the above post: I guess this is all a matter of expectations. I really expected him to be combative, to point to that damn piece of paper every time anyone asked him a question, etc. Obviously some of the things he said, he was told to say. He's not used to that. But, as I said, I think he handled it the best he knew how. I don't know what you're really expecting out of him at this point. And, no microphones were hurt during the making of the press conference - so thats always a good sign.
|
|
|
Post by LizziebethHoya on Nov 30, 2011 1:01:53 GMT -5
rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/basketball/news?slug=pf-forde_syracuse_boeheim_scandal_missteps_112911After reading Forde's article, I can see where you guys are coming from. I think a lot of what Forde wrote was right, especially this paragraph: "The crowd that watches CNN and Fox News and MSNBC? A lot of them are interested in this story, but a lot of them don’t know the flippant Boeheim persona. When they see the video clips of an occasionally smirking, joking coach in the midst of a pedophilia investigation involving his trusted assistant, I don’t anticipate it playing well in mainstream America." For those of us used to the "flippant Boeheim persona," we know this was the best we were going to get (and I was pleasantly surprised because, as I said, I expected much worse). But, Boeheim's best doesn't mean that it was the absolute right way to go about things.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,438
|
Post by TC on Nov 30, 2011 6:31:23 GMT -5
Forde is right. The applause after his response after saying he was helping his friend was ridiculous. Syracuse media doesn't get it either.
|
|
|
Post by BubbleVisionBiff on Nov 30, 2011 8:17:58 GMT -5
|
|
seaweed
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,648
|
Post by seaweed on Nov 30, 2011 9:19:18 GMT -5
That presser was a disgrace - walking in wise-cracking? are you Editeding kidding me? ALL EGO, no CONSCIENCE - just what we have thought was wrong with your program for years, but this is far more serious than basketball and your answer is to crack jokes. sick. "i have zero say in who is hired fired assigned" ? are you joking again? are we supposed to believe that someone else picks your assistants? you are so full of yourself Mr boeheim that you are utterly incapable of seeing outside your myopia, "all i get to do is call the plays" - it's like you want the sympathy
|
|
Filo
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,906
|
Post by Filo on Nov 30, 2011 9:30:37 GMT -5
I, along with all of my fellow Hoya fans really despised Boeheim when we were in school and immediately afterwards. I mean, really despised him.
Even though I never liked him, that kind of mellowed over time. Seeing him and his behavior in connection with this "situation" makes me realize how right we were back then. He is just not a god guy, and truly deserves our scorn.
|
|
|
Post by LizziebethHoya on Nov 30, 2011 10:15:03 GMT -5
Not defending him, but what were people really expecting him to say or act? He's not going to change his mannerisms, but he at least tried to tone down his words and didn't make any stupid unequivocal statements. The man has never had a "serious face" in his life.
Its Boeheim. Theres a reason he's unlikable. Theres a reason we despise him.
|
|