PDA

View Full Version : Cheap shot at John Lucas



chalz
05-09-2011, 10:45 AM
I have considerable admiration for the way that the DBR typically conducts itself, but summarizing Durham's own John Lucas as a "nearly 60-year-old recovering cokehead" and then snidely commenting that his history as an addict would be "very impressive to mothers" are low blows unworthy of a site that prides itself in taking a higher road than most.

Unimpressive, to say the least.

Turtleboy
05-09-2011, 10:47 AM
While technically true, I suspect he has been clean and sober longer than many members here have been alive. That's a pretty cheap shot for DBR (front page, Maryland search article) to take at someone who has turned his life around and helped scores of others to do the same.

Turtleboy
05-09-2011, 10:48 AM
I completely agree, and posted a similar thread almost simultaneously.

Devilsfan
05-09-2011, 10:57 AM
I thought they were talking about LT.

mdj
05-09-2011, 10:59 AM
I have considerable admiration for the way that the DBR typically conducts itself, but summarizing Durham's own John Lucas as a "nearly 60-year-old recovering cokehead" and then snidely commenting that his history as an addict would be "very impressive to mothers" are low blows unworthy of a site that prides itself in taking a higher road than most.

Unimpressive, to say the least.

agree on both counts, admiration for the way dbr is run and that was certainly not a high point. i was very surprised to read that to be honest.

CameronBlue
05-09-2011, 11:12 AM
See, it takes little imagination to throw around cheap shots. DBR needs to apologize.

MCFinARL
05-09-2011, 11:13 AM
agree on both counts, admiration for the way dbr is run and that was certainly not a high point. i was very surprised to read that to be honest.

Me too. I actually think a parent might be especially impressed by a recruiting coach who has so successfully tamed his own demons and turned his life around. I certainly find it impressive (though I'm not the parent of a prospective recruit and can't really stand in their shoes).

In fairness to dbr, it's probably pretty easy to post something without thinking it through when you are rushing to get us all the latest news and links first thing in the morning. It's pretty impressive how seldom that actually happens here.

OldPhiKap
05-09-2011, 11:21 AM
agree on both counts, admiration for the way dbr is run and that was certainly not a high point. i was very surprised to read that to be honest.

+1. I hope it is taken down very soon.

wilson
05-09-2011, 11:30 AM
Add me to the above chorus.

BD80
05-09-2011, 12:29 PM
Frankly, if I were a parent who had concerns that my highly recruited son had fallen in with some kids with substance abuse issues, I would steer my son toward Lucas.

ikiru36
05-09-2011, 12:30 PM
Strongly agree that such a statement is beneath DBR, and is especially ill-conceived about a Durham native son.

Without even getting to the point that severe drug dependence generally involves both an addiction and disease component (as opposed to being a cut and dried "moral failure"), Mr. Lucas is generally respected for all he has accomplished since his surely hard won recovery.

Go Duke!!!!!!!!!!! Go Blue Devils!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! GTHC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Go DBR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Mcluhan
05-09-2011, 01:12 PM
Was coming here specifically to object. Lucas has dedicated the last 25 years to helping people with substance abuse issues, and that's how he ought to be described, not as some cokehead. If that's all he is after all these years, what hope is there for people struggling with addiction now?

A stand-up guy from a great Durham family deserves better. And Maryland might be lucky to have him.

magjayran
05-09-2011, 01:22 PM
As a recovering alcoholic, I find this terribly offensive. A lot of people would be very surprised to find out just how many highly respected people show up in recovery meetings and just happened to be fortunate that their demons were never made public.

If I'm the parent of a D1 talent, I wouldn't look at the fact that Lucas struggled with addiction. I would look at the fact that he's been recovering (we never use the term recovered) for decades and has helped many other do the same. It also helps that he's been pretty successful in life as well.

The thing is, our current president has admitted to using coke before. There's an awful lot of speculation that the previous president enjoyed the drug quite a bit and also seemed to struggle with different forms of substance abuse. These guys were able to become presidents. Love them or hate them, that's a hell of an accomplishment. If you can battle substance abuse and become president, then surely you can do it and coach at Maryland.

AZLA
05-09-2011, 01:26 PM
Yup, totally uncalled for; unbelievable that this published; and this does not represent the Duke way at all.

Hey DBR maybe you need to take the forum offline overnight so you can cool down, get some perspective (before you write **** like this) kind of like you did to all your contributors the night after the loss to Arizona?

theAlaskanBear
05-09-2011, 01:37 PM
I will add mine to the chorus of voices asking for a rewrite, edit, or removal of the aforementioned article. It's mean-spirited and inappropriate, definitely NOT an "all-in-fun" fan-gibe.

Disrepectful and uncalled for.

SuperTurkey
05-09-2011, 01:51 PM
DBR in the past has taken a similarly callous editorial approach to the substance abuse issues of Phil Ford and others. Addictions are a disease, and taking shots at addicts is beyond distasteful.

For all the talk of DBR holding itself to a higher standard and moderating the boards such that they don't reflect poorly on the Duke community (an approach I'm fine with, just so we're clear), we should remember that DBR proper will always receive orders of magnitude more traffic than the boards. When you put something like that on the main page, you are doing more harm to the Duke image than 1000 poorly considered forum posts.

Mcluhan
05-09-2011, 01:55 PM
DBR in the past has taken a similarly callous editorial approach to the substance abuse issues of Phil Ford and others. Addictions are a disease, and taking shots at addicts is beyond distasteful.

For all the talk of DBR holding itself to a higher standard and moderating the boards such that they don't reflect poorly on the Duke community (an approach I'm fine with, just so we're clear), we should remember that DBR proper will always receive orders of magnitude more traffic than the boards. When you put something like that on the main page, you are doing more harm to the Duke image than 1000 poorly considered forum posts.

As you suggest, DBR runs a great site that really does operate at a higher rhetorical/ ethical standard thn the majority of fan sites. This is simply a lapse in judgment, but a lapse nonetheless.

gmorris22
05-09-2011, 02:08 PM
I read the website all the time. I have seen somethings on here that I thought was not well thought out, but this one is the worst. You guys really need to think about things before you right them.... I hope the people who come here and the read the site don't think all Duke Fans are like this......




Signed
Blue Devil fan for life.

mcdukie
05-09-2011, 02:37 PM
Extreme cheap shot and Lucas doesn't deserve that. He has done some outstanding things for athletes in the past 20 years.

Devil in the Blue Dress
05-09-2011, 03:05 PM
I just came home after a day of appointments. I know John Sr. and John Jr. The comment about John Lucas, Jr. is thoughtless, hurtful and disrespectful.

What would happen to someone who posted such a comment in a thread on this board? Would such a comment be allowed to stand with no infractions, penalties or warnings?

CameronBornAndBred
05-09-2011, 03:32 PM
What disturbs me is that this issue was brought up almost 5 hours ago and the comment in the article still stands. As others have noted, if this were a comment in a thread, it would have been toasted very quickly. I know the mods don't have control over the front page, but surely one of them has the phone number of someone that does. If that statement and this thread were to disappear, I wouldn't be disappointed in the least.

davekay1971
05-09-2011, 04:56 PM
Great posts calling out the main page article. Of note, the Lucas comment has been removed. My hat is off to all those who posted on this thread!

weezie
05-09-2011, 05:09 PM
I was pretty young at the time (fingers crossed) and I've posted this before but I remember wandering over to the the tennis courts to watch Lucas dismantle his opponent in straight sets on a warm spring day while he kept wearing his warm-up pants.
He was one beautiful man and a marvel of an athlete.
I'll bet at "nearly 60 year(s) old" he could still kick most of the tails here on the tennis or basketball court!
So, good luck to him.
And let's focus more on coming up with nit-picky annoyances oozing out of chapel hole.

Devil in the Blue Dress
05-09-2011, 05:44 PM
The offending comment is gone, but the memory lingers on.

77devil
05-09-2011, 05:56 PM
I was pretty young at the time (fingers crossed) and I've posted this before but I remember wandering over to the the tennis courts to watch Lucas dismantle his opponent in straight sets on a warm spring day while he kept wearing his warm-up pants.
He was one beautiful man and a marvel of an athlete.
I'll bet at "nearly 60 year(s) old" he could still kick most of the tails here on the tennis or basketball court!
So, good luck to him.
And let's focus more on coming up with nit-picky annoyances oozing out of chapel hole.


I played tennis with John on a few occasions in Durham over two summers. He was a genuinely nice guy and a tremendous athlete. Not a big fan of Durham though, which is one reason why Duke had no chance in his recruitment. Most on this board probably are unaware that he was an ACC singles champion in addition to his basketball skills and accomplishments which were considerable.

Don't recall DBR taking similar cheap shots at David Thompson who suffered from the same affliction. Hmm? And by the way, when did 56/57 become nearly 60?

Mcluhan
05-09-2011, 06:17 PM
Nice to see the offending passage removed. No hard feelings. Viva DBR.

BD80
05-09-2011, 06:17 PM
... when did 56/57 become nearly 60?

About 45 years after 30 was "over the hill"

OldPhiKap
05-09-2011, 06:28 PM
Nice to see the offending passage removed. No hard feelings. Viva DBR.

Yup. Chalk it up as a foom-pa and move on. Nothing to see here . . . .

-jk
05-09-2011, 06:30 PM
Yup. Chalk it up as a foom-pa and move on. Nothing to see here . . . .

Good idea.

-jk