kettlehill
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,139
|
Post by kettlehill on Dec 5, 2019 18:28:35 GMT -5
Can we slow down a bit here.....I know all the accusations sound very nasty and if true should lead to two dismissals from the team and GU. But nothing has been proven. Nothing. I have not been a fan of PEs coaching, but I have never questioned his character. Do any of you actually believe that Pat would allow these kids to play if he thought that the charges were true? Or at least if he thought there was doubt. Perhaps the kids told him that they did not do it. I am hoping that he knows something that we don’t. I sure hope so. I do have to question why this while process has taken so long. Or why there have been no arrests. Hopefully we will find out soon...
|
|
|
Post by johnnysnowplow on Dec 5, 2019 18:30:09 GMT -5
Based on what are you so sure he knows a lot more than we do? He wasn’t there. He doesn’t have video evidence. There’s no admission of guilt from the accused. All he has are police reports and testimony from the complainant. Which is essentially exactly what we have. He probably saw the text messages that were referenced. I strongly suspect those were a big reason he felt that she had good reason to feel unsafe. And, perhaps the women involved offered more detail about what happened (under oath I might add) beyond what was in the written report. Maybe not, maybe he just read the report and ruled. I don't know but I really doubt that was the case. You continue to drag these kid through the mud when your arguments are full of probablies, maybes, and doubts. Shameful
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,863
|
Post by EtomicB on Dec 5, 2019 18:49:57 GMT -5
Sacred Heart was sued because they kicked the kids out of school due to the false accusations, that's not what folks are talking about doing in this case... Actually Bradley withdrew from school, he wasn't kicked out. And we are talking about punishing students based on uninvestigated accusations, the principle is the same. And there are multiple other examples listed in this thread of similar cases and precedents against acting against the accused without giving them their due process. www.legalreader.com/football-players-falsely-accused-rape-sue-sacred-heart/Two former college football players, both of whom were falsely accused of rape by a New York woman, are suing Sacred Heart University for forcing them out of school.
Filed in a Bridgeport, CT, court, Dhameer Bradley and Malik St. Hilaire claim Sacred Heart violated its own ethics handbook. The athletes point to a passage that states that all students “have the right to be treated with respect, dignity, and compassion by university officials and by all persons involved in disciplinary procedures.”
|
|
royski
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,293
|
Post by royski on Dec 5, 2019 18:51:40 GMT -5
He probably saw the text messages that were referenced. I strongly suspect those were a big reason he felt that she had good reason to feel unsafe. And, perhaps the women involved offered more detail about what happened (under oath I might add) beyond what was in the written report. Maybe not, maybe he just read the report and ruled. I don't know but I really doubt that was the case. You continue to drag these kid through the mud when your arguments are full of probablies, maybes, and doubts. Shameful While you continue to imply that two female Georgetown students, who unlike these basketball players have actually made their claims in court, under penalty of perjury, are making it all up. It’s disgusting. Surely it is me, all powerful Royski, creating a deluge of national media scrutiny on our players and program, and not their own actions. I control the Washington Post, the NYT, Yahoo Sports, ESPN, you name it. The program has sullied its own reputation. Some of us want accountability for that. Others take offense at that notion.
|
|
swhoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,137
|
Post by swhoya on Dec 5, 2019 19:04:16 GMT -5
I don't recall ever complaining about an article before. Claims of bias against the reporter, in my mind, more often than not reflect the reader's bias and not being told what the reader wants to hear. I saw the comments on this and rolled my eyes figuring it was overreaction by both sides.
But then I read it. And man, it's a terrible article.
I have two issues with this article (more than that, but I'll cut it down).
1. There is more snark in this article than I've ever read in a national publication. And it's about a serious subject, and as the author acknowledges, there's much he doesn't know that may (or may not) explain why the university handled it the way they did. And I'm not saying that to absolve the university of blame. But just as he points out that there's ways the university handled this that could have been better...the reporter could handled it better--in a far less flippant, galvanizing way. There are serious accusations made against these kids, and serious concerns with how the university handled it--and is continuing to handle it. This reads like a freshman editorial in the Hoya.
2. The conclusions/suggestions he makes are, in some cases, ridiculous and below the standards of a national publication. Take this particular nugget:
But they don’t have to comment on individual cases if Ewing would say something like, “I believe in the character and conduct of the players I have remaining on the team and am comfortable that none of them have threatened, harassed or assaulted women. If I had even a sliver of doubt, I wouldn’t be playing them until the process plays itself out.”
Is he out of his ever-loving flipping mind? Does the Washington Post not have a legal or ethics advisor available that he could have consulted? Or does he himself not just have a sense of decency? Ewing comes out and says something like that, he's immediately publicly branded the accusers as liars. He'd open the university up to a HUGE lawsuit, but perhaps more importantly, he sends a message to victims of assault that his gut is more important than having their claims properly investigated. He may have information that indicates to him that the accused did nothing wrong. But he'd be an idiot to say something like that publicly, and he'd be wrong to not let the accusers have their say without calling them liars.
Good grief Washington Post. Normally I try to stand up for you but...do better.
|
|
guru
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,599
|
Post by guru on Dec 5, 2019 19:20:20 GMT -5
I don't recall ever complaining about an article before. Claims of bias against the reporter, in my mind, more often than not reflect the reader's bias and not being told what the reader wants to hear. I saw the comments on this and rolled my eyes figuring it was overreaction by both sides. But then I read it. And man, it's a terrible article. I have two issues with this article (more than that, but I'll cut it down). 1. There is more snark in this article than I've ever read in a national publication. And it's about a serious subject, and as the author acknowledges, there's much he doesn't know that may (or may not) explain why the university handled it the way they did. And I'm not saying that to absolve the university of blame. But just as he points out that there's ways the university handled this that could have been better...the reporter could handled it better--in a far less flippant, galvanizing way. There are serious accusations made against these kids, and serious concerns with how the university handled it--and is continuing to handle it. This reads like a freshman editorial in the Hoya. 2. The conclusions/suggestions he makes are, in some cases, ridiculous and below the standards of a national publication. Take this particular nugget: But they don’t have to comment on individual cases if Ewing would say something like, “I believe in the character and conduct of the players I have remaining on the team and am comfortable that none of them have threatened, harassed or assaulted women. If I had even a sliver of doubt, I wouldn’t be playing them until the process plays itself out.”Is he out of his ever-loving flipping mind? Does the Washington Post not have a legal or ethics advisor available that he could have consulted? Or does he himself not just have a sense of decency? Ewing comes out and says something like that, he's immediately publicly branded the accusers as liars. He'd open the university up to a HUGE lawsuit, but perhaps more importantly, he sends a message to victims of assault that his gut is more important than having their claims properly investigated. He may have information that indicates to him that the accused did nothing wrong. But he'd be an idiot to say something like that publicly, and he'd be wrong to not let the accusers have their say without calling them liars. Good grief Washington Post. Normally I try to stand up for you but...do better. Your reaction to the column seems hyperbolic to me, but we can agree to disagree. But criticizing the tone and angle of the column (which by definition of course is an opinion piece, not reportage) seems to miss its point. The school has handled this situation terribly. A simple announcement of 2 transfers would have sufficed. Instead, they used ridiculous language that was easily interpreted as a disciplinary measure and, worse, included both players in this description. Did they not realize that a simple web search would reveal the legal proceedings begun against one of the players leaving, and 2 other players on the team? Did they not realize that, in any time but particularly this current time, that the allegations made in those public documents would cause a huge s—tstorm. There was a simple way to avoid most of the drama and terrible press that has engulfed the program the past few days. Unfortunately, Georgetown’s stupidly worded original press release led directly to the discovery of the other material, which was a violation to the players involved and, most importantly, to the accusers. TLDR - the Washington Post is not the institution you should be angry with right now.
|
|
swhoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,137
|
Post by swhoya on Dec 5, 2019 19:35:02 GMT -5
I don't recall ever complaining about an article before. Claims of bias against the reporter, in my mind, more often than not reflect the reader's bias and not being told what the reader wants to hear. I saw the comments on this and rolled my eyes figuring it was overreaction by both sides. But then I read it. And man, it's a terrible article. I have two issues with this article (more than that, but I'll cut it down). 1. There is more snark in this article than I've ever read in a national publication. And it's about a serious subject, and as the author acknowledges, there's much he doesn't know that may (or may not) explain why the university handled it the way they did. And I'm not saying that to absolve the university of blame. But just as he points out that there's ways the university handled this that could have been better...the reporter could handled it better--in a far less flippant, galvanizing way. There are serious accusations made against these kids, and serious concerns with how the university handled it--and is continuing to handle it. This reads like a freshman editorial in the Hoya. 2. The conclusions/suggestions he makes are, in some cases, ridiculous and below the standards of a national publication. Take this particular nugget: But they don’t have to comment on individual cases if Ewing would say something like, “I believe in the character and conduct of the players I have remaining on the team and am comfortable that none of them have threatened, harassed or assaulted women. If I had even a sliver of doubt, I wouldn’t be playing them until the process plays itself out.”Is he out of his ever-loving flipping mind? Does the Washington Post not have a legal or ethics advisor available that he could have consulted? Or does he himself not just have a sense of decency? Ewing comes out and says something like that, he's immediately publicly branded the accusers as liars. He'd open the university up to a HUGE lawsuit, but perhaps more importantly, he sends a message to victims of assault that his gut is more important than having their claims properly investigated. He may have information that indicates to him that the accused did nothing wrong. But he'd be an idiot to say something like that publicly, and he'd be wrong to not let the accusers have their say without calling them liars. Good grief Washington Post. Normally I try to stand up for you but...do better. Your reaction to the column seems hyperbolic to me, but we can agree to disagree. But criticizing the tone and angle of the column (which by definition of course is an opinion piece, not reportage) seems to miss its point. The school has handled this situation terribly. A simple announcement of 2 transfers would have sufficed. Instead, they used ridiculous language that was easily interpreted as a disciplinary measure and, worse, included both players in this description. Did they not realize that a simple web search would reveal the legal proceedings begun against one of the players leaving, and 2 other players on the team? Did they not realize that, in any time but particularly this current time, that the allegations made in those public documents would cause a huge s—tstorm. There was a simple way to avoid most of the drama and terrible press that has engulfed the program the past few days. Unfortunately, Georgetown’s stupidly worded original press release led directly to the discovery of the other material, which was a violation to the players involved and, most importantly, to the accusers. TLDR - the Washington Post is not the institution you should be angry with right now. I got the point of it. But here's the thing...I can be angry at the institution you're claiming I should be angry at, and I can be angry at the tone, angle, and conclusions of the article. Most of us have that ability: to recognize that the university screwed up, but frankly so did the WP here. The accusers, the accused, the University, they all deserve better than this. There may be facts that would absolve the University for what most of us think was a botched handling of this. Unlikely, perhaps, but possible. And it doesn't change the fact that he makes suggestions that are just downright silly and, if the university followed them, would only make it worse. I have no issue with your wanting ire directed at the university. But it's not mutually exclusive.
|
|
guru
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,599
|
Post by guru on Dec 5, 2019 19:44:35 GMT -5
Your reaction to the column seems hyperbolic to me, but we can agree to disagree. But criticizing the tone and angle of the column (which by definition of course is an opinion piece, not reportage) seems to miss its point. The school has handled this situation terribly. A simple announcement of 2 transfers would have sufficed. Instead, they used ridiculous language that was easily interpreted as a disciplinary measure and, worse, included both players in this description. Did they not realize that a simple web search would reveal the legal proceedings begun against one of the players leaving, and 2 other players on the team? Did they not realize that, in any time but particularly this current time, that the allegations made in those public documents would cause a huge s—tstorm. There was a simple way to avoid most of the drama and terrible press that has engulfed the program the past few days. Unfortunately, Georgetown’s stupidly worded original press release led directly to the discovery of the other material, which was a violation to the players involved and, most importantly, to the accusers. TLDR - the Washington Post is not the institution you should be angry with right now. I got the point of it. But here's the thing...I can be angry at the institution you're claiming I should be angry at, and I can be angry at the tone, angle, and conclusions of the article. Most of us have that ability: to recognize that the university screwed up, but frankly so did the WP here. The accusers, the accused, the University, they all deserve better than this. There may be facts that would absolve the University for what most of us think was a botched handling of this. Unlikely, perhaps, but possible. And it doesn't change the fact that he makes suggestions that are just downright silly and, if the university followed them, would only make it worse. I have no issue with your wanting ire directed at the university. But it's not mutually exclusive. Yes, of course you can be angry with both. It seems to me, though, that the overarching “conclusion” Svrluga reaches is that the university handled the situation horribly. Which is undoubtedly accurate. And I honestly don’t see how the Post “screwed up.” Again, this is a column. A writer’s opinion. They pay him to do this. What’s the screw up? Employing Svrluga?
|
|
swhoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,137
|
Post by swhoya on Dec 5, 2019 19:51:33 GMT -5
I got the point of it. But here's the thing...I can be angry at the institution you're claiming I should be angry at, and I can be angry at the tone, angle, and conclusions of the article. Most of us have that ability: to recognize that the university screwed up, but frankly so did the WP here. The accusers, the accused, the University, they all deserve better than this. There may be facts that would absolve the University for what most of us think was a botched handling of this. Unlikely, perhaps, but possible. And it doesn't change the fact that he makes suggestions that are just downright silly and, if the university followed them, would only make it worse. I have no issue with your wanting ire directed at the university. But it's not mutually exclusive. Yes, of course you can be angry with both. It seems to me, though, that the overarching “conclusion” Svrluga reaches is that the university handled the situation horribly. Which is undoubtedly accurate. And I honestly don’t see how the Post “screwed up.” Again, this is a column. A writer’s opinion. They pay him to do this. What’s the screw up? Employing Svrluga? Saying something is an opinion piece doesn't mean that there shouldn't be standards. My six year old has opinions, but that doesn't mean they're ready for prime time. Perhaps it's just me, but the snark in it isn't up to what I would expect from a national publication, about (several) serious subjects. And more than that, the screw up is publishing opinions that wouldn't pass a moment's thought. I wouldn't go so far as to say the WP screwed up in employing him, but should they want to publish opinion pieces that are actually well thought out? Absolutely. As I stated before, his opinions about things Ewing could have said would only make the situation worse for all involved and result in a huge lawsuit. And any lawyer could have told him as much. Anyway, that's the last I have to say about it.
|
|
sleepy
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,079
|
Post by sleepy on Dec 5, 2019 19:59:26 GMT -5
Actually Bradley withdrew from school, he wasn't kicked out. And we are talking about punishing students based on uninvestigated accusations, the principle is the same. And there are multiple other examples listed in this thread of similar cases and precedents against acting against the accused without giving them their due process. www.legalreader.com/football-players-falsely-accused-rape-sue-sacred-heart/Two former college football players, both of whom were falsely accused of rape by a New York woman, are suing Sacred Heart University for forcing them out of school.
Filed in a Bridgeport, CT, court, Dhameer Bradley and Malik St. Hilaire claim Sacred Heart violated its own ethics handbook. The athletes point to a passage that states that all students “have the right to be treated with respect, dignity, and compassion by university officials and by all persons involved in disciplinary procedures.”Forced out equals not kicked out. I believe in that very article it states Bradley withdrew himself.
|
|
hoya95
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,445
|
Post by hoya95 on Dec 5, 2019 20:14:43 GMT -5
If this process concludes and there is no punishment for any player (or no further punishment if that's what LeBlanc was suspended for), are we even going to know? I don't need to know the details of an ongoing investigation or any privacy info, but we're going to need some transparency at some point.
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,863
|
Post by EtomicB on Dec 5, 2019 20:25:28 GMT -5
www.legalreader.com/football-players-falsely-accused-rape-sue-sacred-heart/Two former college football players, both of whom were falsely accused of rape by a New York woman, are suing Sacred Heart University for forcing them out of school.
Filed in a Bridgeport, CT, court, Dhameer Bradley and Malik St. Hilaire claim Sacred Heart violated its own ethics handbook. The athletes point to a passage that states that all students “have the right to be treated with respect, dignity, and compassion by university officials and by all persons involved in disciplinary procedures.” Forced out equals not kicked out. I believe in that very article it states Bradley withdrew himself. If they withdrew on their own how can they sue the school for forcing them out? I'm too lazy to look into it any further but I'm pretty sure they were kicked off the football team & lost their scholarships as a result of the false accusations against them...
|
|
IDenj
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,526
|
Post by IDenj on Dec 5, 2019 20:30:47 GMT -5
The players should be held back from playing while the the investigation is on going. They are innocent until proven guilty but as an institution they should not be allowed to represent the basketball program. Look at the claims made against the NHL coaches; while the clubs/league followed thru on investigations both Peters and Crawford were put on leave. It’s the right thing to do.
|
|
the_way
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
The Illest
Posts: 5,419
|
Post by the_way on Dec 5, 2019 20:33:08 GMT -5
It's a complex issue for sure. Don't know what typically happens with athletes accused of such allegations. Do they continue to play or not? Don't know. If it is determined the allegations are not true, then G-town is off the hook. If it comes out that the allegations are true....well...yikes.
|
|
sleepy
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,079
|
Post by sleepy on Dec 5, 2019 20:41:35 GMT -5
The players should be held back from playing while the the investigation is on going. They are innocent until proven guilty but as an institution they should not be allowed to represent the basketball program. Look at the claims made against the NHL coaches; while the clubs/league followed thru on investigations both Peters and Crawford were put on leave. It’s the right thing to do. What investigation?! This events took place in September, it sounds like it’s already taken place and/or it is an extremely long drawn out process that would be completely unfair to sit players for its completion. Comparing well compensated NHL coaches to student athletes who are already taken advantage of by the system is asinine.
|
|
joey0403p
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,586
|
Post by joey0403p on Dec 5, 2019 21:25:17 GMT -5
Have been thinking about this....if a random employee were accused of the things the players were accused of, what would the reaction be/have been?
Would the employer even find out?
If the employer did find out, would the employee be put on some type of leave? (Presumably paid)?
I don’t think it is nearly as simple or black and white as we want it to be
And I generally hate that the university isn’t transparent - but in this instance I don’t know what else they really could / should have done.
|
|
guru
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,599
|
Post by guru on Dec 5, 2019 21:30:42 GMT -5
Have been thinking about this....if a random employee were accused of the things the players were accused of, what would the reaction be/have been? Would the employer even find out? If the employer did find out, would the employee be put on some type of leave? (Presumably paid)? I don’t think it is nearly as simple or black and white as we want it to be And I generally hate that the university isn’t transparent - but in this instance I don’t know what else they really could / should have done. A straightforward news release about 2 players requesting to transfer would likely have avoided all this mess. Not rocket science. The bizarre phrasing implied something else was going on and invited people to investigate. Curious.
|
|
bamahoya11
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,831
|
Post by bamahoya11 on Dec 5, 2019 22:30:55 GMT -5
I thought the critique in the Post was spot-on. I've been very disappointed in the University's response. The awkward responses and refusal to answer any questions reflects not just on the basketball program, but on the school as a whole. As Svrluga points out, it wouldn't take a lot to have a response that actually involves questions from the media. I totally get the concern about privacy, but the University could do a lot more.
In terms of Ewing's responsibility in all this, I don't know yet. I will say that I thought allowing the two implicated players to appear in the game last night was a poor choice. Especially given the refusal to address the situation directly.
|
|
iowa80
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,399
|
Post by iowa80 on Dec 5, 2019 22:47:03 GMT -5
I would probably err on the side of sitting the players under the circumstances.
That said, a journalist calling for transparency is a dog bites man story of the highest order. The more "transparency," the more they have to write about, the easier their jobs are. It's a vested interest thing. And I lived many years on the planet without hearing the phrase "credibly accused." Those were happier times. The term, plain and simple, is a short cut around established standards of proof to satisfy a short term need for some blood.
|
|
|
Post by bicentennial on Dec 5, 2019 23:17:34 GMT -5
I agree with those who feel it is very unlikely that a thorough investigation did not occur more than a month ago by both DC metro and GUPyS. The university can say very little without violating a whole lot of privacy rights. The civil case will play out eventually in court or it will not and be dropped. As long as no one violates a restraining order the university has no grounds for punishing any of the students.
|
|