If any of this is true about the staff indicating that the head injury and incident not be reported....that's a big problem. Almost regardless of the cause, if she was purposefully discouraged from seeking treatment for a head injury = big problem. Now, the stupidity of doing pole-races near a brick wall is another argument altogether. [Please, no posting of players covered in whipped cream]
I think that withholding judgement until this all comes out in the wash will be the way to go with this. So far, all we have is an extremely biassed news story from the perspective of the plaintiff's attorney which even to my untrained eye is full of inconsistencies. The university will have their slant on it from the other side, and given that that they apparently investigated the incident three years ago they will undoubtedly have a different story with facts that they collected then. I recall the news story and subsequent court filings a couple of years ago regarding the accusations against the South Carolina coach for highly inappropriate behavior. Those initial stories were seriously damning and if even some of it were true the coach would have long since been fired (or possibly in jail.) The result was that the charges were thrown out, the coach got a longer term contract, and two classes of highly rated recruits have since signed on with no defections. I mention the SC story only to make my point that biding our time and not jumping to conclusions at this time might be the best way to go. Time will tell.
In my opinion, just because a case got thrown out of court does not mean something didn't happen. Also, it's not uncommon for anyone and/or all involve with a university that is being sued or under investigation to circle the wagons. It seems like it took a national outrage to fully expose what happened at Penn State.
I think this lawsuit is a huge problem. It has all of the juicy bits -- hazing, assault, a cover-up, a head injury, and a former USWNT goalkeeper. I'll be frank. I've seen entire seasons shut down for less in the U.S. college ranks.
Not shut down by the NCAA. I find it interesting that while the NCAA feels perfectly OK with regulating whether Student Athletes can have peanut butter on their snack bagels, they feel no responsibility with respect to protecting Student-Athletes from Hazing. This was their response to the New Mexico revelations in August. Institutional policy? Who represents the students here?
Your comment speaks to the point I am trying to make. All of the things you mention are at this point only alleged. All, some, or none may turn out to be true to one degree or another. Yes, the article does include "juicy" items, which is the point of the lawyer apparently leaking it to the news reporter. Should we spectators assume that the specifics of the allegations are all true or should we withhold judgement until this is resolved?
Ha, isn't that what Ray Rice's lawyers were saying? And NFL's Roger Goodell? Wait till the evidence comes out. Don't rush to judge. This is all alleged. Then BAM, the video leaked out. WOW! Now they look like fools! I have no sympathy for Universities that don't protect kids.
Here's a link to the court Complaint itself, as distinguished from the article about it: http://fitsnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/2014-08-14-Summons-and-Complaint-1.pdf. Her attorneys filed the Complaint a little over 3 weeks ago. What interests me is how very specific some of the allegations are. I'm surprised to see that because ordinarily, I would not expect a trial lawyer to put very specific allegations into a complaint unless the lawyer is certain of being able to prove them. (Making allegations and then not being able to prove them would undermine the entire case's credibility.) Maybe the proof isn't that clear and the attorneys are not particularly competent, which is a possibility, but the Complaint is well drafted from my perspective. The University apparently has an Ethics board that performed an investigation and found wrong-doing. I wonder what is in their report.
I too would have no sympathy for Universities that don't protect kids. I am appalled by the slow pace of concussion regulations in FIFA (and I am buoyed at the several good examples of how to treat this in women's college soccer.) I have as long as I can remember been against any form of hazing, and hope that all kinds of institutions are taking proactive steps to make sure there is adequate education and protection. I also, however, would accept looking like a fool, if I was trying to do the right thing and it turned out that I was wrong or was misled. I am prepared to find that all of these allegations are correct, although it may not be by a leaked video in the next few days. The right thing is not to rush to judgement. That is what lynching parties do. In addition to the example I already mentioned in South Carolina, I have personal experience of another rush to judgement that readers may be familiar with. I would be happy to provide a blow by blow of the Duke Lacrosse case (and I personally know some of the folks who were on the university staff at the time) but, for those who do not remember, suffice it to say that there was a huge rush to judgement starting locally and quickly spreading nationally were the popular sentiment was that Duke needed to accept responsibility and take action, innocents should be protected, and that justice must be done. Fury was heaped upon those of us who counselled restraint. Action was taken. Season was cancelled. Folks were fired. ..... But in the end the rush to judgement had it ALL WRONG and Duke and the city of Durham have paid dearly both in expensive lawsuit settlements (finally settled this year, 8 years after the fact) and in prestige. OK, OK. I'm not saying that the Clemson situation is like Duke's. I guess I'm making clear a lesson that has not been lost on me, that it is very dangerous to assume the dimensions of a fire when the smoke is coming from a single as of yet uncorroborated source. So I'll stand by to be made a fool of when the facts finally come out. I support thorough investigation.
After reading the complaint (linked above), all I can say is wow! Restraint in judgement until everything plays out? Of course. I was directly involved in helping plan and coordinate a traditional event at my college that had been occurring annually - and passed down to the next wave of pranksters - that 'went wrong'. Fortunately only property was damaged and a life was not allegedly ruined. Never did any one involved think that anything could go wrong, but it did. Made me sad to read about the whole thing. What made me even more sad was reading about the absolute dickish and unprofessional behavior that an incoming coach allegedly exhibited toward a recruit that wasn't his. If you don't want the kid, just don't honor the scholarship and deal with the fallout. No need to (allegedly) humiliate and bully an 18 year old girl because you can . Question for those who may know much more about this than I do - is this reality from anyone who has knowlege of coaching turnover and its impact on incoming recruits? I am fully aware that a new coach in no way has to honor a scholarship that the last guy promised, but if a letter of intent was signed then he probably does in some way, shape or form. In my view, the right way to handle the situation would be to have a discussion with the athlete and the family about the reality of the situation (i.e. - I don't see you fitting into what I want to do, I don't see you getting any playing time, I likely will only honor one year of scholarshipr money, etc.), and then go out of my way to work my contacts to help out the kid if she decides to stay or go. You know- with ethics and professionalism. Don't know the kid, the coach, or the program - just an observation on an alleged event that occurred a couple of years back.
I agree with Soccerhunter on this, we need to wait until the facts come out, which may be quite a while. Whether we ever will know the facts about what transpired between coach and player regarding her coming to Clemson is a little doubtful to me, as it may be a "she said/he said" and there also may be issues of how what was said was interpreted. But in relation to the alleged hazing incident, I think we're more likely to find out what actually happened. There were a lot of people allegedly involved, not just players but also team staff and independent medical personnel. Once again, I would like to see what the Office on Community and Ethical Standards office's investigative report says.
Pretty Damning with the specifrics detailed in the suit. There is little doubt this all happened. And there was no intent to injure. Just a prank that went wrong and an accident happened. But that's why they have anti-hazing legislation. The whole deal with the coach and the bullying is heresay and probably wont hold water. Seems like to separate issues. Kid was injured in a hazing event and Kid didn't get along with the coach.
Story from local paper with brief responses from University and coaches' lawyer: http://www.greenvilleonline.com/sto...-filed-former-clemson-soccer-player/15336329/
I assume the wrong doing would be in the admitting to the hazing incident. If it has already been proven in the Ethics board investigation that the "hazing" did in fact take place, shouldn't the University be taking some kind of disciplinary action against the head coach. As in the case of New Mexico, they did in fact have the head coach serve a suspension, even though she claimed she was unaware it had taken place.
Well, the NCAA says In several places that hazing is to be dealt with using internal policy procedures and local laws. As I read local SC state laws, they call for a fine and/ or jail time up to one year. Internal policy may not address hazing at all, in which case the NCAA is fine with it. So the questions are whether that is acceptable, and whether tort law ( lawsuits) can address the issues. One thing has been established in other suits against Clemson is that it is considered a state body, so it can't be sued directly by the principle of sovereign immunity, which explains why all the defendants are named individually.
By the way, who the heck runs into a brick wall and blames someone else? If I drive into a pedestrian on the road and kill them while I'm drunk, why is it my fault because my friends told me to drink at the BIGGEST PARTY of the year I'm at and everyone there is drunk and I had to make the rounds to buy more alcohol. Could I sue someone else for that and not get in trouble for killing someone on the road while attempting to buy more alcohol for everyone at the party on campus? If I were an 18 year old female that played college soccer, who knows. Let's blame it on the university we attend. It's completely and entirely THEIR FAULT.
And this is happening in women's soccer more than any other women's sport. It seems the most "wild" athletic girls on campus play soccer .......... http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=hazing women soccer
Well, when the biggest party of the year is also the party where you must drink or face the consequences of never getting to another party, while simultaneously being ostracized from the the one group on campus with whom you will have to spend 20+ hours per week for the next four years, perhaps then you would have more to think about.