Duke Lacrosse

gopherhoopsguy

Active member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
1,157
Reaction score
6
Points
38
How do these early findings compare to the Duke Lacrosse findings early on?

Are we headed down this road? Because I remember everyone getting pissed off about the Lacrosse players then having to change there tune.
 

Catechol

Active member
Joined
Dec 10, 2009
Messages
424
Reaction score
64
Points
28
There are major differences. The two incidents are not very comparable. In the Duke scandal, the sexual contact never actually happened. In this instance, it is not disputed that all of those sex acts with many players actually occurred. As far as the upfront institutional response, Duke fired the coach, kicked the players off the team and canceled the entire season. In this instance, the players were held out just long enough to get cleared even though they probably should have been dismissed right away for violating team rules. Unless encouraging group sex with a 17 year old recruit is not covered by the rules. In addition, in this instance I think Claeys and Coyle should be dismissed as well.
 

VACTERL

Active member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
295
Reaction score
32
Points
28
Gotta respectfully disagree Catecholamine. Both - at their cores - are about the presumption of guilt until proof of innocence.
 

Bob_Loblaw

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 23, 2009
Messages
14,649
Reaction score
4,686
Points
113
There are major differences. The two incidents are not very comparable. In the Duke scandal, the sexual contact never actually happened. In this instance, it is not disputed that all of those sex acts with many players actually occurred. As far as the upfront institutional response, Duke fired the coach, kicked the players off the team and canceled the entire season. In this instance, the players were held out just long enough to get cleared even though they probably should have been dismissed right away for violating team rules. Unless encouraging group sex with a 17 year old recruit is not covered by the rules. In addition, in this instance I think Claeys and Coyle should be dismissed as well.

Well. . . no.

In this case, there is a dispute as to whether a sexual assault occurred.
In that case, there was a dispute as to whether a sexual assault occurred.

In both cases, the school tried to hide behind "student conduct policies" (drinking, behaving poorly, etc.).

Duke is a private school, so slightly different implications.

The recruit thing. . .yeah. I wouldn't be surprised if people got in trouble for the recruit. That would obviously be a bit of a weasel-y move. . .they've known the details regarding the recruit for months.
 

Bob_Loblaw

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 23, 2009
Messages
14,649
Reaction score
4,686
Points
113
Gotta respectfully disagree Catecholamine. Both - at their cores - are about the presumption of guilt until proof of innocence.

The people that hold strongly to that side of the argument do not care whether it was consensual. The entire thing is about consent, not sexual contact.
 


Catechol

Active member
Joined
Dec 10, 2009
Messages
424
Reaction score
64
Points
28
I do agree with that, but only as it applies to the initial suspensions. It is at that point that the Duke players and coach were let go. The Gopher players were allowed to play the rest of the season while the EOAA conducted their investigation, thus as far as the current suspensions/expulsions they were not treated as guilty until the report was completed.

Had they just kicked the initial 4 off the team at the time of the initial suspension for team rules, this entire situation may have defused. I think the whole dimension with the recruit being there (having sex and reportedly drunk) got kind of lost in the shuffle but probably should have been grounds for dismissal from the team immediately due to being underage, potential NCAA implications etc.
 

VACTERL

Active member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
295
Reaction score
32
Points
28
The entire thing is about consent, not sexual contact.

Totally. And these guys - just like the Duke guys - have been labeled as rapists without a preponderance of evidence.
 

saintpaulguy

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2009
Messages
10,769
Reaction score
5,302
Points
113
Totally. And these guys - just like the Duke guys - have been labeled as rapists without a preponderance of evidence.
Just good boys railin hoes, sharing some home movies.
 

Bob_Loblaw

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 23, 2009
Messages
14,649
Reaction score
4,686
Points
113
Just good boys railin hoes, sharing some home movies.

Whether or not you agree with that kind of behavior, one is sexual assault and the other one is not. The Duke Lacrosse players were not exactly being choir boys either.

Comments like these really downplay actual sexual assault.
 



saintpaulguy

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2009
Messages
10,769
Reaction score
5,302
Points
113
They are crass jerks either way, Bob. Ask any woman your life if she wants to be mounted 5 to 20 times while menstruating by strangers, and see how that goes. This is Unicorn territory. And what makes it really hard to believe.

I don't really feel like being that charitable. I don't make decisions at the U. But I don't care if you can Catch or throw a ball. This was super dumb.
 

btowngopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 23, 2008
Messages
4,836
Reaction score
1,180
Points
113
Wasn't basically just Djam around when the recruit was involved? If so then no one else would be part of that issue.
 





Top Bottom