|
|
Post by hchoops on Apr 20, 2017 11:16:04 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Apr 20, 2017 13:23:26 GMT -5
I understand the reluctance to have athletes with that sort of record, but is this a case where the athlete will be considered "guilty" (and dismissed) until proven innocent?
|
|
|
|
Post by ncaam on Apr 20, 2017 14:01:09 GMT -5
I understand the reluctance to have athletes with that sort of record, but is this a case where the athlete will be considered "guilty" (and dismissed) until proven innocent? Really??? |
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Apr 20, 2017 14:25:24 GMT -5
I understand the reluctance to have athletes with that sort of record, but is this a case where the athlete will be considered "guilty" (and dismissed) until proven innocent? I would say "no" "Any prospective student-athlete—whether a transfer student, incoming freshman, or other status—who has been convicted of or pleaded guilty or no contest to a felony involving sexual violence" would not be added to any sports team." To take this statement at face value, it is a nice step in the right direction, but not exactly a hard line. For example, Bill O'Reilly has never been plead guilty or been convicted to the best of my knowledge. If he were an athlete, the numerous allegations would not affect his admission into the school. He'd be good to go based on the language above. Also the policy, as stated in the article, is for prospective student-athletes. It doesn't say anything about athletes currently on teams, so a conviction doesn't by policy get you kicked off a team. In all fairness to Indiana, the article does say a football player was tossed out of school for being arrested, not convicted, of sexual violence |
|
|
|
Post by bison137 on Apr 20, 2017 16:13:02 GMT -5
I understand the reluctance to have athletes with that sort of record, but is this a case where the athlete will be considered "guilty" (and dismissed) until proven innocent? This sounds reasonable IF it only applies to those found guilty by a court of law. Hopefully the policy will not apply to someone who has been found "guilty" only by a college kangaroo court - one with no due process, no questioning of witnesses, and often a completely biased set of "judges", e.g. . Jack Montague of Harvard or William McCormick of Brown. |
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Apr 20, 2017 17:34:50 GMT -5
I understand the reluctance to have athletes with that sort of record, but is this a case where the athlete will be considered "guilty" (and dismissed) until proven innocent? Really??? Yes!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Apr 21, 2017 9:15:29 GMT -5
I understand the reluctance to have athletes with that sort of record, but is this a case where the athlete will be considered "guilty" (and dismissed) until proven innocent? This sounds reasonable IF it only applies to those found guilty by a court of law. Hopefully the policy will not apply to someone who has been found "guilty" only by a college kangaroo court - one with no due process, no questioning of witnesses, and often a completely biased set of "judges", e.g. . Jack Montague of Harvard or William McCormick of Brown. Once again quoting the article, but the phrase "has been convicted of or pleaded guilty or no contest to a felony involving sexual violence" sounds more like a court of law than phrasing typically used in a college disciplinary hearing |
|
