Bigs"R"Us
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,642
|
Post by Bigs"R"Us on Dec 5, 2019 23:30:47 GMT -5
I guess if my daughter was assaulted, robbed and threatened, I might be a bit upset that the university thought it was okay for the players named to proceed as nothing happened. Let the process come to its natural conclusion. There must be some mediation going on behind the scenes and non disclosure agreements being signed.
|
|
|
Post by bicentennial on Dec 6, 2019 0:23:10 GMT -5
I do know someone who's daughter was assaulted at a major university and ended up being harassed by other students at the university to the point she almost left that university a few months before her graduation. The university was the only player in town and the police did not ever follow through on a rape kit since it related to star athletes. She ended up getting through and finishing her degree with the support of her family but will never go back. In DC, I do not believe that GU basketball can derail an assault or burglary investigation. I do believe in DC, if there was clear cut evidence, there would be charges. I trust that the university was not engaged in a cover up of something that happened in September before the season even began.
|
|
mfk24
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,759
|
Post by mfk24 on Dec 6, 2019 9:17:25 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. I just don’t think this is true. Even if the release had just said 2 players are requesting transfer, in the age of the internet in the palm of your hands, people would still have gone digging. Which is exactly how this became public knowledge. Maybe the transfers could have been announced separately? But as soon as Leblanc’s name was out there, it would have come up.
|
|
guru
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,599
|
Post by guru on Dec 6, 2019 9:47:07 GMT -5
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. I just don’t think this is true. Even if the release had just said 2 players are requesting transfer, in the age of the internet in the palm of your hands, people would still have gone digging. Which is exactly how this became public knowledge. Maybe the transfers could have been announced separately? But as soon as Leblanc’s name was out there, it would have come up. Even assuming this is true, how can communications professionals not see that eventuality? It makes the idiotic wording in the original release even more unconscionable. They requested a transfer - that language would at least have given them leeway to say they tried to decouple their transfer from the legal issues once those became public. It’s not even debatable that the original announcement was ham-handed, amateurish and possibly spiteful. That’s why they had to release another one, which had its own problems but at least put a band-aid on the debacle.
|
|
|
Post by hoyalove4ever on Dec 6, 2019 9:49:12 GMT -5
I take issue with the notion that there was anything wrong with the original announcement.
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,864
|
Post by EtomicB on Dec 6, 2019 10:20:59 GMT -5
I take issue with the notion that there was anything wrong with the original announcement. You can’t possibly think that statement was ok in anyway, I get that you’re a homer and that’s fine but you have to be a little objective once in awhile...
|
|
|
Post by hoyalove4ever on Dec 6, 2019 10:25:26 GMT -5
I do think that original statement was fine. While I am fine with the limited additional information that was provided, I would have stuck by that original statement, as in, "We have made a statement and that is all of the information we are providing on that subject. The student-athletes are no longer on the team. Next question."
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,864
|
Post by EtomicB on Dec 6, 2019 10:29:05 GMT -5
I do think that original statement was fine. While I am fine with the limited additional information that was provided, I would have stuck by that original statement, as in, "We have made a statement and that is all of the information we are providing on that subject. The student-athletes are no longer on the team. Next question." The statement read in part that the two players wouldn’t be on the team the remainder of the season... How can you describe that as fine?
|
|
|
Post by hoyalove4ever on Dec 6, 2019 10:43:05 GMT -5
I think less information is better than more in these adverse situations. As these threads reveal, you cannot make everyone happy or really disclose the material facts, so I see additional information as counterproductive.
|
|
hoyainla
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Suspended
Posts: 4,719
|
Post by hoyainla on Dec 6, 2019 10:47:38 GMT -5
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. I just don’t think this is true. Even if the release had just said 2 players are requesting transfer, in the age of the internet in the palm of your hands, people would still have gone digging. Which is exactly how this became public knowledge. Maybe the transfers could have been announced separately? But as soon as Leblanc’s name was out there, it would have come up. I strongly disagree with this. Why didn’t they go digging when it was clear Josh was getting punished for something? If they just said they requested a transfer I don’t think anyone who actually followed Georgetown or college basketball enough to care would’ve thought twice that it was anything other than frustration. Especially with transferring so common. I do not know if this is true but I heard that someone in Casual was the 1st to post about it. Do you think any Hoya fan would have thought it was anything other than frustration if the school comes out and says the 2 of them requested a transfer? Now that does not mean the legal stuff never makes it to the surface? That depends on the case itself. If this goes further in the legal process it obviously oils have. That will likely be months from now. If it was after the season it doesn’t have near the impact it does coming out now.
|
|
hoya9797
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,201
|
Post by hoya9797 on Dec 6, 2019 10:48:07 GMT -5
I think less information is better than more in these adverse situations. As these threads reveal, you cannot make everyone happy or really disclose the material facts, so I see additional information as counterproductive. Even if that is true, there was a way to communicate what happened much much better than GU did and still give away very little. Even the most unobjective homer should be able to see this.
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,864
|
Post by EtomicB on Dec 6, 2019 10:49:24 GMT -5
I think less information is better than more in these adverse situations. As these threads reveal, you cannot make everyone happy or really disclose the material facts, so I see additional information as counterproductive. This isn’t about less or more information, it’s about accurate information... Even Lee Reed agrees...
|
|
hoyainla
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Suspended
Posts: 4,719
|
Post by hoyainla on Dec 6, 2019 10:49:41 GMT -5
I do think that original statement was fine. While I am fine with the limited additional information that was provided, I would have stuck by that original statement, as in, "We have made a statement and that is all of the information we are providing on that subject. The student-athletes are no longer on the team. Next question." Me thinks you wrote the statement and realizes what a colossal screw up it was and are trying to cover for it. I’m joking kind of
|
|
RusskyHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
In Soviet Russia, Hoya Blue Bleeds You!
Posts: 4,598
|
Post by RusskyHoya on Dec 6, 2019 10:49:42 GMT -5
For whatever it's worth... I told Svrluga on Twitter that there was a mistake in the column. The original wording when published was: "Not that this would have been morally admirable, but had Ewing, Reed, et al said simply that LeBlanc and Akinjo wanted to transfer, there's a decent chance the criminal complaints would have remained under the rug, where the Hoyas wanted them."
Not that it makes a difference from an ethical/moral culpability perspective, but the complaints have "CIVIL DIVISION" printed across the top, so they are by definition not "criminal" complaints. He acknowledged the error this morning and said they would correct it, which they have (they just took out "criminal"). Naturally, they did not issue a correction at the bottom - guess it's too small of a mistake for them to own up to.
Anyway, I do take this evidence that the author was writing a polemic and looking to ratchet up the severity. Which I have no problem with in principle - there's a time and place for polemics and righteous anger. But it makes being 100% factual extremely important.
|
|
|
Post by hoyalove4ever on Dec 6, 2019 10:53:49 GMT -5
What Lee Reed did was to give in to pressure- shame on him for that. Any confusion was caused by external speculation rather than the statement itself. In my opinion, the university and program has said too much.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,443
|
Post by TC on Dec 6, 2019 10:54:54 GMT -5
I think less information is better than more in these adverse situations. As these threads reveal, you cannot make everyone happy or really disclose the material facts, so I see additional information as counterproductive. The original statement suggested that James Akinjo and Josh Leblanc were both suspended for the year and either chose to leave because of it or were kicked out of school. It was released somewhat vindictively because their names had appeared on the transfer portal. If kids are not playing because they are transferring, every other program in the country just says that. PR statements live in a read-between the lines world. It also suggested - because it paired the two of them in the same statement and the same sentence, that their situations were related. Less information is fine, but when you form it in such a way that it accuses someone of something they didn't do, that's patentedly unfair. The court information almost immediately was found afterwards. The program was not at all prepared for that and that's why the first statement was so awful. James Akinjo's family has vehemently denied that Akinjo and Leblanc's situations were related. We've read the court documents and James Akinjo does not seem to be involved whatsoever in the Leblanc incident. Unless Akinjo is involved in something criminal to the same degree or worse and left school because of it, the first statement absolutely was unfair to him. The first statement is also unfair to Leblanc in the sense that it suggests that he was suspended for the year. We do not know that is true, and frankly given his minutes recently, I doubt he was despite what happened.
|
|
|
Post by hoyalove4ever on Dec 6, 2019 11:01:49 GMT -5
The statement did not reference anything related to discipline. All of the speculation was external.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,443
|
Post by TC on Dec 6, 2019 11:04:21 GMT -5
The statement did not reference anything related to discipline. All of the speculation was external. If whatever company you worked for released a statement saying that "X is no longer with the company as of immediately", it doesn't say that you were fired, but everyone understands that, and they aren't wrong to do that, because that's the only situation where that happens.
|
|
|
Post by hoyalove4ever on Dec 6, 2019 11:07:43 GMT -5
OR the employee resigned, or had a family emergency, or any other number of things. Let people who want to speculate do so.
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,740
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Dec 6, 2019 11:14:34 GMT -5
The statement did not reference anything related to discipline. All of the speculation was external. If whatever company you worked for released a statement saying that "X is no longer with the company as of immediately", it doesn't say that you were fired, but everyone understands that, and they aren't wrong to do that, because that's the only situation where that happens. At a former company I worked for, these e-mails fell into three categories: 1. Forced to Quit: "It is my sad duty to report that Jack Smith is leaving the company effective Dec. 31. [Insert paragraph on past accomplishments]. He will be missed by all of us at [Company]. Stop by the cafeteria on Friday afternoon for cake to wish Jack well." 2. Laid off, but really got canned: "Jack Smith is no longer with us this morning. [No paragraph on past accomplishments.] We do not anticipate any more reductions today. We wish him well in his future endeavors." 3. Fired outright: "Effective immediately, Jack Smith is no longer with the company." www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Future%20Endeavors
|
|