Handsome Pete
Wartime Hero Fool
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2008
- Messages
- 1,530
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 36
Uhhh, what? We're not talking about kicking someone out of school. We're talking about whether or not he plays and represents your school in inter-collegiate athletics. Completely unanalogous.
In the football case - they sure as HELL did not all admit 'what happened'. There were no charges. Man... so you're telling me your measurement of whether or not the U should let a player play or not play when associated with a crime... is 1) not based on whether they are charged and 2) based on what THEY, the 'associated' person says?
You're freaking nuts.
Absolutely - the equities (huh?) point in favor of waiting for the trial - so let him practice but not play. If you say, 'hey he's OK until the trial concludes' then #1 Maturi should have decided that decades ago and #2 Mbakwe and any recruit can easy deal with that by asking to continue the matter until after the season, etc.
1) It is facile to claim this is simply about whether or not Mbakwe represents the U in intercollegiate athletics. We both know the man's personal and professional lives are on the line. Enough said.
2) In the football case, they all admitted they were there. The sole criminal defendant, Dominic Jones, admitted what happened but claimed it was consensual. I can't understand the rest of your comments.