PDA

View Full Version : Giuliani's son sues Duke



efudd
07-24-2008, 12:28 PM
Huh?

---------------------------

Giuliani's son sues Duke, says he was wrongfully kicked off golf team

[Text redacted for copyright violation (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hAw1HPVJ6scY6fCPiPh5FtPDjN1AD9249O1G0)]

Copyright 2008 by The Associated Press

DevilAlumna
07-24-2008, 12:35 PM
198 pages?!

2535Miles
07-24-2008, 01:01 PM
Okay, I usually reserve passing judgment on issues where I can't see all of the facts, but I'm going out on a limb here and calling this guy out; what a tool!

Are there any legal precedents here? It seems to me that playing for a collegiate team is first voluntary, and then dependent upon your ability to contribute to the team. If anything you do detracts from the team, you're out.

Andrew, get over yourself and go test the professional waters.

Dukiedevil
07-24-2008, 01:01 PM
I guess that's one way to get what you want if you're the son of a politician:

http://www.golf.com/golf/tours_news/article/0,28136,1826188,00.html

mph
07-24-2008, 01:07 PM
I'd like to hear from our more litigiously minded members, but on its face this looks like a crock.

I'd also be curious to know if dad supported this decision.

Inonehand
07-24-2008, 01:11 PM
I guess that's one way to get what you want if you're the son of a politician:

http://www.golf.com/golf/tours_news/article/0,28136,1826188,00.html

From what I gather, they don't have much of a relationship, Rudy and son. Anyways...this is nuts. He just got cut, like many people do, from a sports team. There's no contract that says you're on the team forever. For any reason. Duke handles this better than most universities anyway. What's stopping him from transferring and playing somewhere else? I personally think highly of Bob Ekstrand, the attorney, but this is laughable.

TillyGalore
07-24-2008, 01:13 PM
Here is a link to the brief filed, http://www.wral.com/asset/news/state/2008/07/24/3262235/Andrew_Giuliani_vs_Duke.swf. Am curious to see what some of the DBR legal minds have to say/write about this. I didn't read the whole thing, though what I did read seems bizarre on both sides.

Clipsfan
07-24-2008, 01:21 PM
That's ridiculous. Beyond the ability of a sports team to cut players, if he wants to go pro, he doesn't need to play on the college team, so getting cut from it wouldn't hurt his chances. I tried out for the golf team at Duke and didn't make it, but never would have thought of suing them!

CLT Devil
07-24-2008, 01:40 PM
I read the story in the Charlotte Observer and they had some pretty funny things to say about him, including a SNL skit based on when his father was at his inaguration speech for mayor. Apparantly he made enough of a scene that he stole the show from his dad...Chris Farley played little Guliani and Kevin Neeland was Rudy. Is this exculpitory evidence that he just wasn't a good kid? The other incidents include throwing an apple at a teamates head, gunning his car out of a golf course parking lot and cursing loudly when he broke a club.

Here's a link to a picture of the skit, can't find the whole thing:
http://snl.jt.org/photo.php?t=8&i=359&d=1

Clipsfan
07-24-2008, 02:00 PM
Hmm, I must be in the middle of a slow day because I did just read the whole thing...I'm not a lawyer, but this touches on something which we have discussed previously in regards to basketball. We've always said that the basketball players can leave early because it's not a 4-year contract, and that it's also true that the school has to renew the scholarship each year for the same reason. Is the same true for golf? I understand that in this case, he was suspended with a month+ left in the season, so it wasn't just at the end, but is there any obligation to renew his participation on the team at the end of the year? It sounds like other players were also dismissed, but at the end of the season.

Dukiedevil
07-24-2008, 02:31 PM
Because of the golf theme of the thread, I immediately thought of John Daly when I saw that picture... Funny stuff!

dukeENG2003
07-24-2008, 02:53 PM
one important point is that depriving him of use of the practice facility DOES impair his ability to pursue a professional golf career. . .

Sounds like Duke screwed up on this one for sure, at least that they didn't handle themselves as they should have. I don't know if he has a case or not, but they could have handled it better.

Bluedog
07-24-2008, 03:11 PM
one important point is that depriving him of use of the practice facility DOES impair his ability to pursue a professional golf career. . .

Sounds like Duke screwed up on this one for sure, at least that they didn't handle themselves as they should have. I don't know if he has a case or not, but they could have handled it better.

Duke also deprived me the use of the golf practice facility which impaired my ability to pursue a pro golf career....not everybody is afforded this right. Those on athletic teams get special privileges, and he is no longer on the team. Duke also deprived me of the use of the Center for Academic Excellence tutoring centers, impairing my ability to get the best job at graduation as possible.

This lawsuit looks frivolous if you ask me....I especially like a few points made in the suit: http://www.wral.com/asset/news/state/2008/07/24/3262235/Andrew_Giuliani_vs_Duke.swf

"DUKE UNIVERSITY MADE PROMISES TO ANDREW TO INDUCE HIM TO CHOOSE DUKE OVER MANY OTHER SCHOOLS THAT SOUGHT HIM...In light of that, Coach Myers focused Andrew's attention on the University's
'state-of-the-art' training facilities which were 'second to none' and were for the exclusive use of the men's and women's golf teams."

Oh no! They recruited him! Sue them! Unfortunately, Coach Myers passed away....

"DUKE UNIVERSITY AND ANDREW ALSO ENTERED INTO A
$200,000 CONTRACT.
15. Upon his enrollment at Duke University, Andrew and Duke University entered into an agreement. The Agreement required Andrew to pay Duke University roughly $200,000 in tuition and fees"

Me too! Can I sue Duke as well? Also, if you don't like the agreement, you can transfer or drop out. It's not a "contract" of $200,000 at the onset. He could certainly transfer right now to another golf team if he wants.

"on February 3, 2008 Andrew leaned on his driver and it broke; in
O.D. Vincents telling, this became 'throwing and breaking' a club."

I'll admit I'm not a golfer, but I don't think "leaning" on a driver would break it unless it's an incredibly bad driver, which I'm sure it wasn't.

"On February 4, 2008, during a football game that was part of the team's
training session, Andrew played harder than some of the other boys
wanted to play. "
hahaha, I love this depiction...

"O.D. Vincent was well aware that Andrew has been the subject of significant media interest throughout his life, and that news of O.D. Vincent's wrongful conduct could cause Andrew to be unjustly subjected to harsh public scrutiny. "

uh, this public scrutiny didn't occur until the lawsuit was filed...

and on and on....

Olympic Fan
07-24-2008, 03:28 PM
Are there any legal precedents here? It seems to me that playing for a collegiate team is first voluntary, and then dependent upon your ability to contribute to the team. If anything you do detracts from the team, you're out.


Heather Sue Mercer says, hi!

SilkyJ
07-24-2008, 03:37 PM
A bud of mine was on the team as well but got cut. I don't think everyone is realizing that this is a bit of a unique situation in that they just decided to cut the team from 13 members to 6 or 7 or whatever, without a real good explanation. That being said, I don't he has a case, but this isn't someone just getting cut in favor of someone else, they literally cut half the team and are not replacing them.



D
"on February 3, 2008 Andrew leaned on his driver and it broke; in
O.D. Vincents telling, this became 'throwing and breaking' a club."

I'll admit I'm not a golfer, but I don't think "leaning" on a driver would break it unless it's an incredibly bad driver, which I'm sure it wasn't.


I am and it could if the shaft was weakened. I once broke a driver while swinging it normally. Of course, who knows what actually happened...

Bluedog
07-24-2008, 03:39 PM
A bud of mine was on the team as well but got cut. I don't think everyone is realizing that this is a bit of a unique situation in that they just decided to cut the team from 13 members to 6 or 7 or whatever, without a real good explanation. That being said, I don't he has a case, but this isn't someone just getting cut in favor of someone else, they literally cut half the team and are not replacing them.




I am and it could if the shaft was weakened. I once broke a driver while swinging it normally. Of course, who knows what actually happened...

Ok, fair enough. I agree that it sucks for those who got cut. I would certainly be angry if a team I was on suddenly was half the size and I didn't make the cut...But I don't think its grounds for a suit or illegal in any way. Was UCLA's team also small? How many scholarships does men's golf have? How large are most men's golf teams?

An interesting recent addition to the AP article:
"Five players later wrote an e-mail stating that Giuliani should be removed from the team."

Another article:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2008/07/24/2008-07-24_andrew_giuliani_sues_duke_university_coa.html

"One of the teammates, Wes Roach, said the athletes reached a decision by consensus and were not pressured to keep Giuliani off the team.
'To my belief, coach O.D. assumed he would be back on the team. He was sort of surprised [he wasn't voted back on],' Roach said.

"A student said that Giuliani was a well-liked member of the team but seemed to have 'changed' last year when his father was running for president.
The student, who asked not to be named, said he was more arrogant and disrespectful toward some of his teammates."

RainingThrees
07-24-2008, 04:15 PM
Man I feel sorry for Andrew. Now that this lawsuit has come up he will have no time to work on his game. Oh wait, he never did work on his game, thats why he got kicked off the team!!!

moonpie23
07-24-2008, 04:19 PM
one important point is that depriving him of use of the practice facility DOES impair his ability to pursue a professional golf career. . .

Sounds like Duke screwed up on this one for sure, at least that they didn't handle themselves as they should have. I don't know if he has a case or not, but they could have handled it better.

what a croc......he can go to any golf course. how did duke "screw up?"

rasputin
07-24-2008, 04:34 PM
There are five counts alleged:
1. breach of contract
2. breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing (in the contract)
3. tortious interference with contract
4. promissory estoppel (don't ask)
5. for a declaratory judgment

I was expecting to see some claim of discrimination since the action is in federal court.

Unfortunately, the documents that comprise the contract aren't part of the link.

There are some strange allegations and it's a very argumentative complaint. The most colorful stuff is a repeated reference to "Lord of the Flies."

FreezingDevil
07-24-2008, 04:37 PM
This is just ridiculous. I played a lot of basketball with Andrew in Wilson last year, and I can say that this is all hot air. The guy talks a lot of smack and has an ego the size of Sean May. The boy's just pissed his plan to be the next Tiger hasn't worked out too well. As for that $200,000 "contract"? Please, every family who has sent a kid to Duke has had to bear that burden and all of them have done so with a lot more dignity and grace. Let's just hope he doesn't sue me for blocking his shot that one time.

77devil
07-24-2008, 04:38 PM
I am and it could if the shaft was weakened. I once broke a driver while swinging it normally. Of course, who knows what actually happened...

I can't ever recall seeing you swing it anything less than as hard as you could.;)

dukeENG2003
07-24-2008, 05:00 PM
what a croc......he can go to any golf course. how did duke "screw up?"

It wouldn't surprise me if some of the allegations are true about the way the "appeal" was handled. Sounds to me like he would have been happy being kicked off the team, but still being allowed to continue to use the facility. Perhaps given that it was such an arbitrary change, and that no real REASON was being cited for him being kicked off the team or the team being basically cut in half (well, sounds like they made it up after the fact), that maybe they should have tried to meet somewhere in the middle. Doesn't mean the guy has a case though.

Indoor66
07-24-2008, 05:06 PM
There are five counts alleged:
1. breach of contract
2. breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing (in the contract)
3. tortious interference with contract
4. promissory estoppel (don't ask)
5. for a declaratory judgment

I was expecting to see some claim of discrimination since the action is in federal court.

Unfortunately, the documents that comprise the contract aren't part of the link.

There are some strange allegations and it's a very argumentative complaint. The most colorful stuff is a repeated reference to "Lord of the Flies."

It reads like hearing the stamping foot of a petulant, spoiled child. :mad: :rolleyes:

aheel4ever
07-24-2008, 05:18 PM
Can someone enlighten me on the nature of this "contract" that both parties supposedly entered into, worth $200,000? It's not clear to me from the brief what constitutes this contract.

Bluedog
07-24-2008, 05:20 PM
Can someone enlighten me on the nature of this "contract" that both parties supposedly entered into, worth $200,000? It's not clear to me from the brief what constitutes this contract.

his decision to enroll.....as far as i can tell....

kexman
07-24-2008, 05:28 PM
It would not surprise me to learn that we sweet talked the son of the NYC mayor and potential future president with a few promises to get him to come to Duke. I don't know how good he was, but maybe he would never make the Duke golf team if he was an average Joe, but if you are Guiliani's son.. sure you can be on the team if you enroll. I'm more surprised that we would kick him off with a famous father.

This gets me thinking.....coach K did not pick me at an open tryout for the team one year. I'm sure it has hurt my professional basketball career. Since I'm 5'10" I might have a tough time convincing anyone of my NBA potential, but his point guards have gone on to lucrative coaching careers...I see a lawsuit!!! Although I would probably settle for season tickets if he would like to avoid the lengthy court battle. I will split the tickets with any of the DBR lawyers that want to take the case:)

aheel4ever
07-24-2008, 05:32 PM
That's what I thought. Let's see, no written contract, freedom to go to another school at any time, lives in a country that has golf practice facilities everywhere, has personal wealth (I'm assuming) that would likely afford him access to the best individual training there is. But, getting kicked off of the golf team, where he was generally not good enough to play in most matches, is preventing him from reaching his dream of playing on the PGA tour. Right. Sounds like a strong case to me.

aheel4ever
07-24-2008, 05:34 PM
You think his attorney's doing this on a contingency basis?

sagegrouse
07-24-2008, 05:44 PM
I don't care a fig about Andrew Giuliani (and less about his father).

If the main fact is true, then Duke screwed up. Apparently and without notice, Duke cut the 13-man golf team to six or seven players. Takeaways are difficult in government or public institutions and (for these purposes) Duke is in the public spotlight.

NO! This isn't the way to deal with student athletes.

Here are three alternatives that would have been better and much more acceptable.

(1) Phase the new concept in over 3-4 years. We want a smaller golf team, and we will be very selective in allowing future players on the team. Those on the team would be allowed to complete four years as golfers.

(2) Announce a brutal Q round for next fall. I.e., announce we want six or seven players and we will have a competition in the fall to select them. Scholarship players could be excepted, if necessary. I suspect most golf schollies are partial.

(3) Create essentially a junior varsity vs. a travelling squad. It would be much better if it were effective next year, and if the JV were allowed reasonable access to the practice facilities.

I know that coaches are kings, but Kevin White should have put a stop to this madness.

Having said all this, I know there is a new golf coach, and I have no clue who he is, how long he has been on board, or what he was promised vis a vis team size.

sagegrouse
'Rarely right but seldom in doubt'

'BTW, when I hit a key erroneously and a message posts before I am ready, why does DBR randomly insert "pottymouth!" into the text? I mean, I try to be polite to everyone, but if one of these gets through....Yikes!'

Jarhead
07-24-2008, 05:53 PM
One would swing as hard as possible only when distance is wanted, but there is no expectation of the direction the ball travels. Or if you wish to break the golf club.

Channing
07-24-2008, 06:16 PM
You think his attorney's doing this on a contingency basis?

Thats what I was wondering. If it is on a contingency basis - it must be strictly under the policy that there is no such thing as bad press.

Otherwise, this would have to be done on retainer.

sagegrouse
07-24-2008, 06:54 PM
One would swing as hard as possible only when distance is wanted, but there is no expectation of the direction the ball travels. Or if you wish to break the golf club.

Or, as we say here at 7,000 ft. elevation, "swing easy and learn to live with the longer distance." BTW, it also works at sea level.

sagegrouse
'I have no opinion about the motivation of the lawyers, except to observe that young Giuliani would have no trouble finding representation on favorable terms'

Clipsfan
07-24-2008, 07:27 PM
Was UCLA's team also small? How many scholarships does men's golf have? How large are most men's golf teams?

I don't know if UCLA has cut their team in the last few years, but one of my friends was roughly the 12th or 13th guy on the UCLA team a few years ago. I think that most of the teams have 6 or 7 guys who play a decent amount, and then another group is allowed to practice etc.

Acymetric
07-24-2008, 07:38 PM
I don't care a fig about Andrew Giuliani (and less about his father).

If the main fact is true, then Duke screwed up. Apparently and without notice, Duke cut the 13-man golf team to six or seven players. Takeaways are difficult in government or public institutions and (for these purposes) Duke is in the public spotlight.

NO! This isn't the way to deal with student athletes.

Here are three alternatives that would have been better and much more acceptable.

(1) Phase the new concept in over 3-4 years. We want a smaller golf team, and we will be very selective in allowing future players on the team. Those on the team would be allowed to complete four years as golfers.

(2) Announce a brutal Q round for next fall. I.e., announce we want six or seven players and we will have a competition in the fall to select them. Scholarship players could be excepted, if necessary. I suspect most golf schollies are partial.

(3) Create essentially a junior varsity vs. a travelling squad. It would be much better if it were effective next year, and if the JV were allowed reasonable access to the practice facilities.

I know that coaches are kings, but Kevin White should have put a stop to this madness.

Having said all this, I know there is a new golf coach, and I have no clue who he is, how long he has been on board, or what he was promised vis a vis team size.

sagegrouse
'Rarely right but seldom in doubt'

'BTW, when I hit a key erroneously and a message posts before I am ready, why does DBR randomly insert "pottymouth!" into the text? I mean, I try to be polite to everyone, but if one of these gets through....Yikes!'

There's no reason to have to "phase in" this concept. I would assume that the golfers remaining on the team were the top golfers on the team. If this is the case, then whats the problem? They wanted a smaller team, and have done it fairly, with fair being by ability. I haven't seen anything to suggest that the golfers still on the team aren't the best out of the original team.

If he was one of the best, and got cut anyway, then perhaps behavior is a problem. If so, cutting him is still entirely within reason. If he was a model athlete and teammate and was still cut while players with lesser skill remained on the team he would certainly have a complaint, but not a legal one. This would be something to take to the athletic department, or any other department in the school that has control over these matters. There is no legal issue here, and this entire thing is ludicrous. You got cut, as do millions (probably, you know what they say about statistics...) of other college students. That probably is high, I guess. I'll go with thousands to be safe.

AtlBluRew
07-24-2008, 07:51 PM
You think his attorney's doing this on a contingency basis?

No. I skimmed quickly, but I didn't see a request for money damages. What I saw were requests for equitable relief -- i.e., make Duke perform the contract by letting him use facilities. Without money damages, there wouldn't be a basis for a contingency.

sagegrouse
07-24-2008, 07:55 PM
There's no reason to have to "phase in" this concept. I would assume that the golfers remaining on the team were the top golfers on the team. If this is the case, then whats the problem? They wanted a smaller team, and have done it fairly, with fair being by ability. I haven't seen anything to suggest that the golfers still on the team aren't the best out of the original team.



You and I disagree.

My point was that an abrupt change to constituting the golf team, especially dismissing almost half the players, while totally within the rights of the athletic department, is a poor way for a classy university to treat student-athletes.

My suggestions were for alternative and more palatable ways to get there.

You are fully entitled to disagree.

sagegrouse

Cavlaw
07-24-2008, 07:56 PM
The author should be banned from using metaphors.

BD80
07-24-2008, 08:15 PM
This is a complete crock of ... I mean a vessel of strongly odoriferous fertilizer.

The contract claim is bogus, he is still entitled to pay his tuition and receive an education at Duke. The $200,000 contract is specious, if he had turned pro after one year, would he have owed Duke the remaining $150,000?

AG's lawyer is trying to conjure up some ancillary contractual obligation. It sounds like the claim is Duke made promises to AG to get him to come to Duke. Where is the consideration provided by AG? The publicity of having Rudy's son at Duke? The kid was there three years using Duke's unequaled facility and he was still TWELFTH out of 14 players. Doesn't bode well for his pro career that he can't even come close to breaking into the top six on a college team. If the basis of the lawsuit is his claim that he is a pro-caliber player, sounds like he is the one guilty of misrepresentation and we have wasted our facilities and coaching staff on him. HE OWES DUKE MONEY!!!!

I doubt this is contingent fee, too little chance of any money to justify such a long work of fiction (200 pages?). AG's mommy has money, and the lawyer's eyes probably lit up at the chance to bill 400 hours at $500 per hour.

Indoor66
07-24-2008, 08:36 PM
This is a complete crock of ... I mean a vessel of strongly odoriferous fertilizer.

The contract claim is bogus, he is still entitled to pay his tuition and receive an education at Duke. The $200,000 contract is specious, if he had turned pro after one year, would he have owed Duke the remaining $150,000?

AG's lawyer is trying to conjure up some ancillary contractual obligation. It sounds like the claim is Duke made promises to AG to get him to come to Duke. Where is the consideration provided by AG? The publicity of having Rudy's son at Duke? The kid was there three years using Duke's unequaled facility and he was still TWELFTH out of 14 players. Doesn't bode well for his pro career that he can't even come close to breaking into the top six on a college team. If the basis of the lawsuit is his claim that he is a pro-caliber player, sounds like he is the one guilty of misrepresentation and we have wasted our facilities and coaching staff on him. HE OWES DUKE MONEY!!!!

I doubt this is contingent fee, too little chance of any money to justify such a long work of fiction (200 pages?). AG's mommy has money, and the lawyer's eyes probably lit up at the chance to bill 400 hours at $500 per hour.

FYI, the complaint I read was 29 pages. Any additional pages were exhibits (which have not been posted.)

Atlanta Duke
07-24-2008, 09:27 PM
Settle with one group of students to resolve claims of dubious legal merit and you invite more lawsuits.

Based on his prior dealings with the University, Andrew's attorney has grounds for believing the University will crater and try to cut a deal.

Jim3k
07-24-2008, 10:30 PM
If he was never a scholarship player, there is not even an implied contract. The tuition/fees stuff is a red herring.

I do agree with Atlanta Duke that this is a spinoff theory from the lacrosse case settlements. The theory there was never fully articulated or found to be valid. That settlement was mainly due to what Duke perceived as a moral obligation.

This is nowhere near as morally persuasive. As a legal matter it is junk.

Defenserules
07-24-2008, 10:48 PM
I am an attorney and I can tell you that my firm would never let me file a complaint based on these very very weak allegations. I imagine this is one that Duke can win on summary judgment. In fact this might be a good candidate for a Motion to Dismiss, but the fact heavy complaint was clearly written to defeat either motion. If I were Duke I would take this to the mat and I would embarrass this kid and his family in the media in every way possible. The good thing is that his dad is famous enough that Duke might just be able to embarrass the heck out of this kid enough to make him drop his suit.

The sad thing to me is that the attorney in this case and most of his associates attended Duke Law School, talk about biting the hand that feeds you...

I don't know much about the current Duke situtation but I remember when I was there about 8 years ago that many of the golfers were on partial scholarships and only a few were on full scholarships. I am guessing that the reduction in team members might have been a result of the coach attempting to build the number of full scholarships available by reducing the number of partial scholarships. I guess he could have converted the kids to walk-ons but golf seems to be one of those sports that having more teammates doesn't really help (unlike football or basketball where you need people to help the starters prepare during the practices).

The good news is that Duke doesn't look bad in this situation, but the bad news is that Duke-haters will use it against us for many years to come. If I were still in school there I would have a hard time sitting beside this kid in class.

RepoMan
07-25-2008, 06:23 AM
Interestingly, his lawyer was the first lawyer involved in connection with the representation of the wrongly accused Duke lacrosse players. Seems to be developing some sort of athlete advocacy sort of niche.

If you read the complaint, one thing becomes clear: The intended audience was the media and public. Grandstanding for sure, chock full of strange easily quotable sound bites.

It will be interesting to see what the Court thinks of it. Federal court is no place for shenanigans.

fogey
07-25-2008, 07:33 AM
I agree. 74.5 stroke average plus spoiled brat syndrome says it all. Legal claim is specious and is simply trying to leverage perceived Duke weakness in aftermath of LAX mess.

Inonehand
07-25-2008, 08:13 AM
I agree. 74.5 stroke average plus spoiled brat syndrome says it all. Legal claim is specious and is simply trying to leverage perceived Duke weakness in aftermath of LAX mess.

Personally, I feel as though the suit has very little legal basis. In that most agree. I DO NOT agree that the lax settlements were out of moral obligation as a couple of posters have thrown out here. Duke continues to have a LEGAL mess on its hands with the lax case and, it seems, the moral mess has not gone away either. I stated very early on that I couldn't believe Ekstrand took on this case. In truth, it kind of makes me laugh. But, having learned what I can from reading the complaint, and having a few conversations with people a little bit closer to the issue, how this was handled by Coach Vincent is a complete joke. Sounds extremely sneaky and snaky in the handling of it all. I miss Rod Myers.

Another poster said Kevin White should have fixed this. Well, he just moved here!

And another using as good reason for dismissal, AG's ranking of 12th of 14. Anyone who has played a sport knows that when you simply get spot duty in tournaments/games your scoring/average/etc. is not always indicative of your place in a rotation.

Bottom line to me...as Sagegrouse said, this was not handled in a Duke-like manner. Because of it, Duke is now in the news again looking like it is run, from the middle, up, by people that don't care about their kids. The ridiculousness of the lawsuit aside.

Duvall
07-25-2008, 09:01 AM
Settle with one group of students to resolve claims of dubious legal merit and you invite more lawsuits.

Quoted for truth.

Inonehand
07-25-2008, 09:05 AM
Quoted for truth.

Quoted for opinion. Dubious legal merit? I think not.

johnb
07-25-2008, 09:28 AM
Being 1/14 means you might have a chance to become a touring pro; being 2/14 means you might have a chance if you played for Stanford while Tiger was there; being #3/14 means you might have a chance if you play for Duke women's golf. Being 12/14 means no chance.

gus
07-25-2008, 10:22 AM
Duke sure seems to get sued a lot.


Quoted for opinion. Dubious legal merit? I think not.

Whether you believe the lax player suit had legal merit is irrelevant. Enough people do believe the suit was of dubious merit to make Atlanta Duke's statement true. The issue is about perception. Whether accurate or not from a legal basis, it sure looks to many that Duke caved to a baseless suit. This perception invites more frivolous suits.

rasputin
07-25-2008, 10:30 AM
No. I skimmed quickly, but I didn't see a request for money damages. What I saw were requests for equitable relief -- i.e., make Duke perform the contract by letting him use facilities. Without money damages, there wouldn't be a basis for a contingency.


Actually, the prayer for relief asks for compensatory damages, punitive damages, and attorney's fees, among other things.

buddy
07-25-2008, 11:48 AM
I don't think this is a simple case of a walk-on being told to walk off. I understand he was offered a partial, but declined (he CAN afford it). In any case, apparently he WAS recruited. It does not appear he was very good (comparatively speaking). This is a basketball board. How many times have we read about a coach "encouraging" a bench warmer to transfer to free up a scholarship. Or just plain drop out. In many cases those athletes are inner city kids without the resources or prospects of AG. There is a lot of spoiled brat here, but there is a lot of mismanagement as well. New coach wants to reduce the squad. Forces a low performing junior off the team. AG could transfer to play golf--but would not have a Duke degree. And as a junior, not many top tier schools would accept him as a SENIOR and allow him to graduate in one year. And if it has always been Duke's practice to permit recruited athletes to complete four years of eligibility, then there is an mplied contract that was violated. So this procedure did harm him, although maybe not in the ways he has alleged. I think Duke could have handled this much differently. Other posters have suggested ways. AG may look like a spoiled brat, but I would expect future men's golf recruits to be somewhat wary about committing.

77devil
07-25-2008, 11:53 AM
That settlement was mainly due to what Duke perceived as a moral obligation.

I suspect the decision to settle was based on economics, direct and indirect via perceived reputational consequences, instead of any sense of moral obligation. There is nothing in the public record about the behavior of the administration and the BOD that suggests that settlement was motivated by contrition.

Shammrog
07-25-2008, 12:13 PM
I suspect the decision to settle was based on economics, direct and indirect via perceived reputational consequences, instead of any sense of moral obligation. There is nothing in the public record about the behavior of the administration and the BOD that suggests that settlement was motivated by contrition.

I agree completely. They settled based on economic risk/reward, and to try and get the whole matter out of the headlines. However, the administration has not shown any appreciable sign of contrition.

TrueBlue2
07-25-2008, 12:44 PM
I don't really care if AG is a good golfer, a crybaby or had any type of contract (implied or otherwise) What should concern Duke Alumni, if it is true, is the allegations covered in pts 31 - 51 of the suit......regarding how Duke and its employees continue to conduct themselves. If the Coach and the University are behaving properly, why do they need AG to sign a waiver not to discuss anything that has transpired regarding his removal from the team? Why does the legal cousel's office take over the investigation and then assign it to someone who is "on leave" in another state? If you are conducting an investigation, why do you not meet with people representing both sides? There is a new PR guy in place.....can I suggest someone get him involved earlier in the decision making process? Perception is worth a lot, and when Duke is getting known more for how they screw their student athletes than anything positive that may be going on down there.....

For crying out loud, Duke is the size of a MAJOR CORPORATION and they continue to act like a mom & pop outfit from 100 years ago!

Gunnar Kaufman
07-25-2008, 01:47 PM
When the truth comes out on the Giuliani situation, Andrew will regret having taken this preposterous step.

RainingThrees
07-25-2008, 01:52 PM
Giuliani's chance to get a nomination in the next election is going to be zero.

Inonehand
07-25-2008, 01:59 PM
When the truth comes out on the Giuliani situation, Andrew will regret having taken this preposterous step.

And let's do hope the truth comes out. However, I don't think Duke looks great in all of this either. The fact he filed suit suggests to me that 1) yes, AG is spoiled and misguided and 2) Duke absolutely dropped the ball by somehow not diffusing this situation before it got to this point.

HaveFunExpectToWin
07-25-2008, 02:09 PM
I read the story in the Charlotte Observer and they had some pretty funny things to say about him, including a SNL skit based on when his father was at his inaguration speech for mayor. Apparantly he made enough of a scene that he stole the show from his dad...Chris Farley played little Guliani and Kevin Neeland was Rudy. Is this exculpitory evidence that he just wasn't a good kid? The other incidents include throwing an apple at a teamates head, gunning his car out of a golf course parking lot and cursing loudly when he broke a club.

Here's a link to a picture of the skit, can't find the whole thing:
http://snl.jt.org/photo.php?t=8&i=359&d=1

I had forgotten about that sketch... too funny. Chris Farley was hilarious.

buddy
07-25-2008, 04:10 PM
of the UCLA men's golf team appeared in Golf Digest in 2004. With the permission of Coach Vincent, several members of the UCLA men's golf team appeared nude, with their "critical areas" covered by a bucket of balls (no pun intended). After the lacrosse incident, whatever prompted Duke to hire a coach that encouraged such behavior? Are there any adults in positions of responsibility at Duke?

weezie
07-25-2008, 04:21 PM
Wouldn't Duke have been informed of an intent to file suit? Are we being told that they had no previous knowledge of what was coming down the pike?
Could they have possibly gotten ahead of this and deflected the national attention (I can't venture a scenario but, then again, I'm no lawyer) on yet another screw-up by the athletic department publicity machine?

Does anyone have insider knowledge as to what kind of personality the golf coach has?

blublood
07-25-2008, 04:29 PM
Wait, wait, I have a contract too! I paid Duke $120,000 for my degree and have I once been invited to use the golf facilities?? No siree.

This is so stupid. Notice that there is no explanation at all in this whole complaint for why the golf team was reduced in number. Stuff like this happens all the time. Maybe their budget was reduced. Maybe a Title IX-type situation came up and they needed to cut a men's sport. I seriously doubt any coach would do it just for fun because it makes your sport look bad in a highly, highly competitive department.

If any of that is the case, Duke is a private entity and they can do whatever they need to do. If the allegations of having students decide who stays and who goes are indeed true, then they need to seriously consider getting rid of the golf coach. *But* - I don't think a lawsuit filed is a good source for finding out the truth about the situation.

Acymetric
07-25-2008, 04:37 PM
of the UCLA men's golf team appeared in Golf Digest in 2004. With the permission of Coach Vincent, several members of the UCLA men's golf team appeared nude, with their "critical areas" covered by a bucket of balls (no pun intended). After the lacrosse incident, whatever prompted Duke to hire a coach that encouraged such behavior? Are there any adults in positions of responsibility at Duke?

Whats wrong with that? They are adults, and I've seen racier, more offensive implied nudity in PG movies. This has no real connection to the lacrosse incident, its just a bit of humor.

Now if you just don't approve of them appearing in the magazine nude thats fine, and I sort of agree with you, but I don't really fault the coach, nor is there a connection to the lacrosse scandal.

buddy
07-25-2008, 04:46 PM
Duke was shocked, SHOCKED, that the lacrosse team hired strippers. Pressler had lost control of his team, they were hooligans, order had to be restored. So we hire a coach who thinks its great publicity for his players to appear nude. I don't have a problem with the picture. I have a problem with Duke's apparent lack of standards.

I think the issue with AG (if there is one) is not that the squad was reduced, and not that he was cut. I think the issue is whether there were any procedures put in place to determine the roster, and whether those procedures applied equally to everyone, or whether AG was singled out for disproportionate treatment. Now it may be fine for a institution to establish grievance procedures, and then cancel them in individual circumstances. I think that is the question raised. And the answer may be that it's just fine to have different standards for different people. And the answer may be that it's just fine to abrogate the institution's stated standards with respect to certain people, but not others. IF AS ALLEGED, the University violated its own established and stated standards, THEN there may be an issue. Duke's failure to follow its own standards is a serious charge. It already cost Duke money when Kyle Dowd was awarded damages for grade retaliation. It may cost them more money with the other suits. Procedures exist for a reason.

cspan37421
07-25-2008, 04:50 PM
Just wanted to chime in - we have "SNL: The Best of Chris Farley" at home on Netflix and it leads off with the Giuliani Mayoral inaugural speech with Farley playing Andrew.

I vaguely remember the real thing and how much of an attention hog he was as a kid. Farley nailed the impersonation, as far as I'm concerned.

That such a kid grew up to file what appears (on the surface, I'm no expert) to be a frivolous lawsuit, or to be a cocky, mouthy, selfish kid is of no surprise to me.

In this post-DukeLacrosse world, of course, one has to concede that with respect to legal matters, appearances can be deceiving. So I'll leave open the door there could be some merit to it.

cato
07-25-2008, 04:59 PM
I understand he was offered a partial, but declined (he CAN afford it).

While there is a lot of innuendo and second hand information flying around already, I just wanted to ask a question on this one. Why would anyone ever turn down a partial scholarship? The only reason I can dream up would be to make funds available for other players, but even that sounds kind of far fetched.

rasputin
07-25-2008, 04:59 PM
Wouldn't Duke have been informed of an intent to file suit? Are we being told that they had no previous knowledge of what was coming down the pike?
Could they have possibly gotten ahead of this and deflected the national attention (I can't venture a scenario but, then again, I'm no lawyer) on yet another screw-up by the athletic department publicity machine?

Does anyone have insider knowledge as to what kind of personality the golf coach has?


Duke wouldn't necessarily have been informed of an intent to sue. Lots of people threaten to sue, of course, looking to squeeze out a few dollars, and many don't follow through. On the other side of the equation, sometimes lawsuits just come out of the blue.

duke74
07-25-2008, 05:04 PM
Just wanted to chime in - we have "SNL: The Best of Chris Farley" at home on Netflix and it leads off with the Giuliani Mayoral inaugural speech with Farley playing Andrew.

I vaguely remember the real thing and how much of an attention hog he was as a kid. Farley nailed the impersonation, as far as I'm concerned.

That such a kid grew up to file what appears (on the surface, I'm no expert) to be a frivolous lawsuit, or to be a cocky, mouthy, selfish kid is of no surprise to me.

In this post-DukeLacrosse world, of course, one has to concede that with respect to legal matters, appearances can be deceiving. So I'll leave open the door there could be some merit to it.

I'm not commenting on the situation or the lawsuit, but remember, the kid was 7 at the time. Clearly ridiculous behavior, but irrelevant for this discussion.

And, this is a kid who found out that his father was dumping his mother during his father's press conference. (And I voted for Rudy twice.)

sagegrouse
07-25-2008, 05:29 PM
I have several observations after reading the Andrew Giuliani brief:

1. Remember the story of when White House aides asked that LBJ dismiss the uncontrollable J. Edgar Hoover? He replied: "I'd rather have him inside the tent p*ssing out than outside the tent p*ssing in." I mean, who wanted a confrontation with this guy, his family, and his lawyers? We know, for one thing, they ain't afraid of a public spectacle.

2. This appears to have occurred during the interregnum between Alleva and White. Almost makes you want to think well of Alleva, doesn't it? What the heck was Mike Sobb thinking in attending a meeting with O.C., Andrew and his stepfather (a lawyer)? The right thing was for Sobb to have a separate meeting, exclude O.C., and tell Andrew and family that the University wanted to make sure that everyone was treated fairly (including the coach). When acting AD Chris Kennedy got involved, the University Counsel pulled the rug out from under him by elevating the dispute to her level. Where are we, Russia?

3. My initial suggestion (above) was to reduce the team size by grandfathering in all of the current varsity players and allow attrition to occur naturally over a couple of years. That apparently was the plan, but AG was removed from the "grandfather" list for other reasons. Uh, O.C, making exceptions is really a bad idea.

4. You have to wonder what AG is really like. I well remember his awful performance as a ten-year-old at his father's inauguration. Exactly why was he thought to be a good candidate for the Duke golf team?

5. BTW, what does the NC Bar think of the brief's accusation of "callous disregard" of Andrew's rights by Duke counsel Pamela Bernard, presumably a member of the Bar. Is she fair game, or should NC Bar ethics provisions apply?

6. O.C. comes off not only as a jerk but also as an unsupervised one.

7. If O.C. wanted to throw Andrew off the team, he should have simply done so and not created a series of "kangaroo court" proceedings to appear to give him a chance of reinstatement. This is worthy of Catch-22, and I don't think AG can hold a candle to Yossarian.

8. I repeat my first observation. Why did the Duke athletic dept. think it was a good idea to get into a p*ssing contest with the fabulously confrontational Giuliani family? Just what til poppa Rudy jumps in!

sagegrouse
'I only paid $10,000 for my Duke degree back in the day and less than one-half after scholarship. No, I don't want my money back.'

Clipsfan
07-25-2008, 08:56 PM
There are several comments in the complain which suggest that Andrew wasn't kicked off the team as part of the winnowing process, but rather because they wanted to get rid of him. His teammates apparently disliked him, and his initial suspension came a couple days after he threw an apple at one of them, hitting the guy in the head. The complaint states that they are suing not because the team was being reduced, but rather because Andrew was eliminated from contention early in the process, while the season was still ongoing.

Anyway, Andrew comes across as a complete spoiled brat in the complaint. Given that he apparently was physically destructive and a brat, it's understandable that the rest of the team would want him gone.

yancem
07-28-2008, 08:52 AM
Was the cutting of the team a result of trying to come into compliance with Title 9 or was there some other reason for cutting the team in half? It seems that cutting a team in half is a pretty drastic change, especially for a team that has been pretty successful over the last several years.

BD80
07-28-2008, 10:33 AM
Was the cutting of the team a result of trying to come into compliance with Title 9 or was there some other reason for cutting the team in half? It seems that cutting a team in half is a pretty drastic change, especially for a team that has been pretty successful over the last several years.

If I recall, there are several ways to come into "compliance" with Title IX, each of which is tricky in accounting terms. Number of scholarships is one issue, but football totally skews that counting (as it does with percentage of athletic funds spent). I believe one measure is number of athletes for which the school funds athletic programs, so axing 6 or 7 golfers would actually help toward title 9. Doesn't matter that these 6 or 7 guys do not add to the total cost of the athletic department at all - the golf facilities are a fixed cost, so it doesn't really matter how many golfers we have (OK, maybe we give the team members golf balls and tees, and there is a minuscule cost of retrieving additional balls at the practice range). Just as the NET operating cost (profit) of football or men's basketball doesn't matter.

Title IX - the insanity continues.

Inonehand
07-28-2008, 11:05 AM
If I recall, there are several ways to come into "compliance" with Title IX, each of which is tricky in accounting terms. Number of scholarships is one issue, but football totally skews that counting (as it does with percentage of athletic funds spent). I believe one measure is number of athletes for which the school funds athletic programs, so axing 6 or 7 golfers would actually help toward title 9. Doesn't matter that these 6 or 7 guys do not add to the total cost of the athletic department at all - the golf facilities are a fixed cost, so it doesn't really matter how many golfers we have (OK, maybe we give the team members golf balls and tees, and there is a minuscule cost of retrieving additional balls at the practice range). Just as the NET operating cost (profit) of football or men's basketball doesn't matter.

Title IX - the insanity continues.

Title IX had nothing to do with this. If it did, the skrinking of the men's golf roster would have been ordered by the administration. This was simply a coaches decision...handled not so well. Personally, I think the 14 golfer roster was too big too.

One poster above wonders if Duke had any idea that AG and family might sue. From what I've heard, yes, they definitely knew it was a possibility and they did nothing to stop it.

pfrduke
07-28-2008, 01:08 PM
There are several comments in the complain which suggest that Andrew wasn't kicked off the team as part of the winnowing process, but rather because they wanted to get rid of him. His teammates apparently disliked him, and his initial suspension came a couple days after he threw an apple at one of them, hitting the guy in the head. The complaint states that they are suing not because the team was being reduced, but rather because Andrew was eliminated from contention early in the process, while the season was still ongoing.

Anyway, Andrew comes across as a complete spoiled brat in the complaint. Given that he apparently was physically destructive and a brat, it's understandable that the rest of the team would want him gone.

I have two comments, both of which are somewhat uninformed because the WRAL link did not have the exhibits.

1) This case is entirely dependent on whether there was, in fact, a contract between Giuliani and Duke. They cite 4 documents as part of the contract - the Duke Student-Athlete Handbook, the Duke Athletic Department Policy Manual, the Duke Student Bulletin, and the NCAA Division I Manual. I am not intimately familiar with any of these documents, but they do not strike me as inherently contractual in nature; that is, they don't create any "rights" between two contracting parties (here, the golfer and the University). If they are not a contract, case closed.

2) If there is a contract, the allegations of the complaint indicate that Duke screwed up. The complaint alleges that there are provisions governing removal of a player from a team, procedures that must be followed, appeals that must be permitted, etc. The story told by the complaint is that those procedures simply were not followed. If true, that's a problem.

I'm basing my take entirely on the complaint, and accepting his allegations as true (without making up my mind whether they are, in fact, true). Obviously Duke's answer will tell a different story. But to me, the key is whether there is a University-athlete "contract" in place as alleged by Giuliani, and if so, whether Duke abided by the terms of that "contract" both in substance and in process when it removed him from the golf team.

Thurber Whyte
08-01-2008, 10:57 AM
Settle with one group of students to resolve claims of dubious legal merit and you invite more lawsuits.

Based on his prior dealings with the University, Andrew's attorney has grounds for believing the University will crater and try to cut a deal.

You have this entirely backwards. Many people on this board have expressed this notion and I do not want it to pass by unchallenged.

The administration was always going to settle with someone. The only question was who. At the beginning, that looked like Mark Simeon and Willie Gary. Do not forget that the hoax started as a seedy shakedown. What was always incomprehensible to me was that the administration took positions that served the purposes of the hoax enablers without any regard for its own interests in the any anticipated litigation. Indeed, the administration was trying to reach out to and curry the favor of the group that was most responsible for pushing the hoax forward and keeping it going

As for the lacrosse players and their families, Duke was conscious of the fact that it was creating liability for itself through its actions and took numerous measures to help position itself for any litigation starting from the very beginning. For a group that bitterly insisted that they were doing the best they could, the administration sure appeared to have a guilty conscience. Again, the administration was not interested in eliminating its liability in the first instance by adopting different policies. Rather it merely wanted to manage whatever damage resulted.

The administration’s only concern during the hoax was maintaining its esteem in the eyes of certain narrow constituencies. The administration was always going to do whatever it was going to do and use the tuition money that students pay and the money that alumni donate to pay for that privilege.

There was, however, one flaw in their plan: what if the players did not settle? What if they were interested in more than money? The press release Duke issued after the first lawsuit is telling. It read in part, “Nevertheless, to avoid putting the entire community through destructive litigation, the university offered many months ago to reimburse the attorneys' fees and other out-of-pocket expenses of the players whose lives were disrupted but who were not indicted. We were and remain disappointed those offers were not accepted.” I laughed when I read that. The exasperation and incredulity behind those words is palpable. No, the demands of the players and their families were not just financial and they are angry and frustrated that litigation was necessary.

I do not know the merits of the Giuliani case. However, it does fit a pattern. As others have noticed, the most disturbing allegations are that Pam Bernard personally intervened and took the matter out of the hands of the Athletic Department and forced Giuliani to go through a grievance procedure, which was supposed to be a last resort, before he had exhausted his remedies in the Athletic Department. How much do you want to bet me that Chris Kennedy would have found an amicable solution that preserved everyone’s dignity? Instead, Bernard wants to play hardball with everyone. The administration is apparently in love with the idea that by, establishing a particular procedure and clothing it with various rituals and formalities, you can use it to create whatever reality you want.

Bernard needs to figure out that her job is to save the University money and protect its reputation and not just go around cleaning up after the administration. That means doing the usually lawyerly thing of imposing reality on clients who are creating problems for themselves. It also means being diplomatic and conciliatory in dealing with potential litigants when the clients are being petulant and confrontational. That also means she has to realize that she is the University’s lawyer and not the personal attorney of Brodhead, Steel, Burness and the others.

Not only does Bernard fail at all these things she ends up being a defendant in many of these suits herself. If anyone here is unhappy that Duke is being sued left and right and that all of its dirty laundry is being shown in public, you should consider what look like failures of basic lawyering during the beginning, middle and end of all these events.

I do not want to be too critical because she may not actually be in a position to exercise much influence. Her behavior is at least consistent with the Bob Steel outlook on life, which is that there is nothing that cannot be solved through the application of brute force. However, one family member found her to be high handed and arrogant during the settlement negotiations which did not help matters at all and you can see some of this behavior on display in the Giuliani case.

buddy
08-02-2008, 10:20 AM
What you said! Only based upon actions to date, I believe that Brodhead, Burness and Steel think they ARE Duke, that there is no difference between the instution and themselves. In that regard, Bernard's actions are perfectly understandable. I also agree that early on the University was trying to mitigate damages in a Willie Gary/Mark Simeon suit on Crystal's behalf.

HaveFunExpectToWin
08-04-2008, 11:55 AM
The American Voices page is almost always my favorite part of The Onion (http://www.theonion.com/content/amvo/giulianis_son_suing_duke_over_golf?utm_source=onio n_rss_daily)...

Jarhead
08-04-2008, 02:08 PM
The American Voices page is almost always my favorite part of The Onion (http://www.theonion.com/content/amvo/giulianis_son_suing_duke_over_golf?utm_source=onio n_rss_daily)...
Wow! That sure is a lot of reaction. Back in the day, Giuliani would have been labeled a spoiled brat, and that would be the end of it.

huied
08-04-2008, 04:34 PM
Another take on this fiasco, this time from NYMag...

http://nymag.com/news/intelligencer/48940/

:D

Blue in the Face
05-20-2009, 04:58 PM
A US District Court Magistrate recommends dismissal of the suit, poking some fun (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2009/05/20/2009-05-20_judge_dismisses_andrew_giulianis_bid_to_sue_duk e_university_for_kicking_him_off_.html) at Giuliani along the way.

Vincetaylor
05-21-2009, 01:31 AM
http://www.wral.com/news/national_world/national/story/5183666/

This judge sounds like my type of guy.

Duke #33
05-21-2009, 01:41 AM
http://www.wral.com/news/national_world/national/story/5183666/

This judge sounds like my type of guy.

I like the judge too.

devildeac
05-21-2009, 07:45 AM
ROFLMAO when I read that last PM.

77devil
05-21-2009, 10:04 AM
http://www.wral.com/news/national_world/national/story/5183666/

This judge sounds like my type of guy.

Indeed. It seems young Mr. Giuliani did not fall far from the tree.

huied
08-28-2009, 01:50 PM
Seems like our favorite ex-golfer has finally accomplished something.

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2009/08/rudy_giulianis_son_accomplishe.html

Surprising, as I didn't think he could golf at all...

mkirsh
10-15-2009, 10:50 AM
Was watching the golf channel last night and saw someone wearing a Duke shirt - turns out it was Andrew Giuliani who is a contestant on the Big Break, a golf reality/elimination show for aspiring pros:

http://www.thegolfchannel.com/big-break-disney-golf/players/