PDA

View Full Version : Lance Thomas jewelry update



Bay Area Duke Fan
10-01-2012, 05:32 PM
http://www.heraldsun.com/view/full_story/20329491/article-Thomas--Jewelry-purchase-broke-no-NCAA-rules?instance=home_breaking_news

killerleft
10-01-2012, 06:21 PM
Ha! We seem to be at a loss for words. Nice to see Lance is alive and well. And, tentatively, this all sounds good. I'm waiting for Feinstein to weigh in before I know what NOT to think about it.:p

cspan37421
10-01-2012, 06:30 PM
Sometimes no news is no news.

Well, I take that back, since I did learn that the current agreement between Lance and the jeweler was described as tentative. OK, back to walking on eggshells.

Dr. Rosenrosen
10-01-2012, 07:25 PM
Here's your chance...

lotusland
10-01-2012, 07:54 PM
Here's your chance...

Sounds like legal shuck and jive to me. College athletes are supposed to be both student athletes and amateurs. The UNC scandal makes a mockery of the student athlete concept while Lance's jewelry purchase draws questions about amateurism. While there is considerably more evidence against UNC at this point I don't really think one issue is more important than the other.

I'm hopeful that the answer, when it comes, will actually include a paper trail showing from whence the money came and not just an unverified claim that it was a gift from family.

MarkD83
10-01-2012, 07:58 PM
I'm hopeful that the answer, when it comes, will actually include a paper trail showing from whence the money came and not just an unverified claim that it was a gift from family.

If it was a gift from the family it might not have a paper trail. I give my kids lots of things and keep the receipts for the gifts but certainly don't keep track of where the money came from.

arnie
10-01-2012, 08:00 PM
Sounds like legal shuck and jive to me. College athletes are supposed to be both student athletes and amateurs. The UNC scandal makes a mockery of the student athlete concept while Lance's jewelry purchase draws questions about amateurism. While there is considerably more evidence against UNC at this point I don't really think one issue is more important than the other.

I'm hopeful that the answer, when it comes, will actually include a paper trail showing from whence the money came and not just an unverified claim that it was a gift from family.

The UNC mockery of academics is not more important than Lance's jewelry purchase?? WOW

freshmanjs
10-01-2012, 08:21 PM
pretty clear from that article that duke and the ncaa are still looking into this. kind of interesting considering that several posters here were adamant that the settlement of the lawsuit meant this was totally resolved and accused those of who said that didn't make sense of "baseless speculation" and general lack of logic skills. it was (and still is) obvious that settlement of the lawsuit does not change the likelihood that the NCAA will be interested in figuring out where the money came from.

-jk
10-01-2012, 08:34 PM
pretty clear from that article that duke and the ncaa are still looking into this. kind of interesting considering that several posters here were adamant that the settlement of the lawsuit meant this was totally resolved and accused those of who said that didn't make sense of "baseless speculation" and general lack of logic skills. it was (and still is) obvious that settlement of the lawsuit does not change the likelihood that the NCAA will be interested in figuring out where the money came from.

It's not so much that everything is resolved, it's that lacking any hard info, there's nothing but baseless speculation or rumors. We tend to discourage both here.

As far as I can tell, there's still no new news, just an acknowledgment that there was a settlement, Duke and the ncaa are still interested, and Lance asserts he did nothing wrong.

-jk

Wheat/"/"/"
10-01-2012, 08:36 PM
Here's your chance...

I find it had to believe he hasn't spoken to coach K about whole the situation after spending 4 years on his team.

But, whatever, it's not a big deal to me unless the NCAA makes it into something.

Just glad to see it discussed here so I can keep up with it, whatever direction it all takes.

CameronBornAndBred
10-01-2012, 10:17 PM
Thomas also indicated a willingness to speak with the NCAA about the
purchase, which spawned a lawsuit by a New York jeweler and an inquiry by Duke
and the NCAA of whether Thomas violated rules pertaining to improper benefits
for college athletes.
''I'm still working on that, but I'll eventually speak to them,'' Thomas
said.

He goes on to say that he hopes the coaches and school understand "those were the best four years of my life". I'm guessing that's the one thing everyone actually DOES understand. Crossing my fingers, hoping for the best. Since the suit is being handled out of court does not mean that lawyers aren't advising "less talk", so while it's encouraging that he will talk with the NCAA it means we must suffer a waiting game.
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/ex-duke-player-thomas-says-221031240--ncaab.html

g-money
10-02-2012, 12:47 AM
It's not so much that everything is resolved, it's that lacking any hard info, there's nothing but baseless speculation or rumors. We tend to discourage both here.

As far as I can tell, there's still no new news, just an acknowledgment that there was a settlement, Duke and the ncaa are still interested, and Lance asserts he did nothing wrong.

-jk

Although we probably won't find coverage of it on CNN, to me this last part falls into the good (and potentially, great) news category for all Duke fans. I'm glad Lance is aiming to clear things up once the legal process is complete.

I'm also very happy to read Coach K's statement that Duke initiated contact with the NCAA. That's why he's a leader of men.

Turtleboy
10-02-2012, 06:50 AM
Note his parting shot, the byline on his entry, and consider what happened 3 months later. :rolleyes:It's more of a dateline.

Cameron
10-02-2012, 09:13 AM
I admit that I feel much more at ease with the whole situation now that Lance has at least been allowed to speak, even if only a few words. Hearing him say he doesn't believe any NCAA rules were broken is huge. Although, to be fair, the small caveat Lance threw in there at the end by saying "hopefully" pretty much means that we still don't really know anything.

Without attempting to partake in any baseless speculation, I simply imagine that Lance's careful choice of words just means that the situation is complicated and that, despite being confident that he did not take part in any dishonest activity, there is still a chance that things could be considered in another light. So we wait.

Even though he technically was required to say nothing, I appreciate that Lance took that first step and did. He seems to only want what is best for the university and you can tell he feels horrible over it all.

Lord Ash
10-02-2012, 09:25 AM
Sounds like legal shuck and jive to me. College athletes are supposed to be both student athletes and amateurs. The UNC scandal makes a mockery of the student athlete concept while Lance's jewelry purchase draws questions about amateurism. While there is considerably more evidence against UNC at this point I don't really think one issue is more important than the other.


I have to take massive issue with this.

An entire institution engineering fake classes and grades and student work in order to ensure athlete eligibility across multiple sports in a scandal that has resulted in the leaving/firing of the Chancellor, AD, and numerous other personnel, as well as entailing sanctions, is in NO WAY, SHAPE, or FORM as important as a guy buying a piece of jewelry (even if in violation of an NCAA rule, which we have no evidence of) in which neither Duke nor anyone associated with Duke is assumed to have had any role. Not even the same universe.

MCFinARL
10-02-2012, 09:56 AM
I find it had to believe he hasn't spoken to coach K about whole the situation after spending 4 years on his team.

But, whatever, it's not a big deal to me unless the NCAA makes it into something.

Just glad to see it discussed here so I can keep up with it, whatever direction it all takes.

I don't think that is so hard to believe. He said the lawsuit took him by surprise, and he likely got a lawyer (or consulted his existing lawyer, if he had one) pretty quickly. The first thing the lawyer would have told him would probably have been not to talk to anyone about anything until the situation was resolved--and that would be good advice just in terms of dealing with the lawsuit, regardless of any potential NCAA involvement. And if he were to have contacted Coach K to explain the situation, while not making any public statements, that might only have made things look more suspicious whether or not there was an actual rule violation--it would just give the "Duke is always allowed to get away with everything" crowd more ammunition.

mo.st.dukie
10-02-2012, 09:57 AM
Without attempting to partake in any baseless speculation, I simply imagine that Lance's careful choice of words just means that the situation is complicated and that, despite being confident that he did not take part in any dishonest activity, there is still a chance that things could be considered in another light. So we wait.



And also that it's all based on how the NCAA interprets the situation. For instance, even though we have an idea that he may not have received a loan or line of credit at all, the NCAA still may interpret the 15 day inspection period to be a line of credit and something that other students couldn't get. You never can be 100% sure how the ruling will turn out.

lotusland
10-02-2012, 11:04 AM
I have to take massive issue with this.

An entire institution engineering fake classes and grades and student work in order to ensure athlete eligibility across multiple sports in a scandal that has resulted in the leaving/firing of the Chancellor, AD, and numerous other personnel, as well as entailing sanctions, is in NO WAY, SHAPE, or FORM as important as a guy buying a piece of jewelry (even if in violation of an NCAA rule, which we have no evidence of) in which neither Duke nor anyone associated with Duke is assumed to have had any role. Not even the same universe.

We can agree to disagree then but to me it is no more important to the integrity of college athletics for athletes be students than it is for them to remain amateurs

4Gen
10-02-2012, 11:08 AM
When some knucklehead goes off the reservation, how is it logical or fair to punish the school which had no knowledge of it and gained no advantage? Whether Lance was, in fact, a knucklehead, we don't know.

Cameron
10-02-2012, 11:48 AM
When some knucklehead goes off the reservation, how is it logical or fair to punish the school which had no knowledge of it and gained no advantage? Whether Lance was, in fact, a knucklehead, we don't know.

I am not in any way insinuating that Lance is a knucklhead -- we just don't have all the specifics yet as to what transpired during his visit to New York -- but I totally agree. It is senseless for the NCAA to make some of the decisions that it does, which in many cases negatively affect schools that just couldn't have known or prevented certain transactions. But that is the way of the climate we are currently in.

Jderf
10-02-2012, 12:08 PM
We can agree to disagree then but to me it is no more important to the integrity of college athletics for athletes be students than it is for them to remain amateurs

The problem that I think others are keying in on right here is that you don't seem to be leaving any room for differences in degree or magnitude. Even if we agree that academics and amateurism are equally important, that doesn't necessitate that the two situations are anywhere near equal in scope. For example, I would propose that for Duke to have an amateurism scandal which was equivalent to UNC's academic scandal, a large cross-section of the Athletic Department would need to be complicit in some kind of payout system enabling dozens of athletes to purchase hilarious jewelry -- rather than just one athlete acting on his own. So even if it is granted that amateurism is just as important as academics, I'd still argue that UNC's current scandal is still much, much bigger in it's breadth and importance to NCAA athletics.

arnie
10-02-2012, 12:44 PM
We can agree to disagree then but to me it is no more important to the integrity of college athletics for athletes be students than it is for them to remain amateurs

After thinking about this awhile I'm in agreement with Lotusland. Duke provided Lance Thomas quality education in a classroom setting, opportunity to earn a valuable degree, room and board. The football team at Carolina only received room, board and a place to fart. Seems like the NCAA should investigate Duke for provided excessive benefits.

MarkD83
10-02-2012, 12:56 PM
After thinking about this awhile I'm in agreement with Lotusland. Duke provided Lance Thomas quality education in a classroom setting, opportunity to earn a valuable degree, room and board. The football team at Carolina only received room, board and a place to fart. Seems like the NCAA should investigate Duke for provided excessive benefits.

Ok, you just made my day except I now have to clean up all of the coffee I just spewed all over my desk.

DukeWarhead
10-02-2012, 03:12 PM
... and my stomach just sank. Great way to start the day...

His statement sure doesn't sound positive. 'I think' and 'I hope' aren't too convincing.

I am glad he's wanting to do the right thing. I just hope it doesn't hurt Duke.

I tend to agree. I don't see this as good news, per se. The whole thing had already been relegated to "we'll never know" status, which isn't great, but beats the worst-case scenario. If Lance did indeed do nothing wrong and wants to clear his name, then OK. But a prolonged question and answer period that keeps it in the news and on the editorial page is not great. I'd have preferred to let silence remain and have the new season take the forefront this month.
Fingers crossed that when Lance does indeed speak publicly, if he does, that his actions were beyond reproach and not just his intentions and his love for Duke.

lotusland
10-02-2012, 03:40 PM
After thinking about this awhile I'm in agreement with Lotusland. Duke provided Lance Thomas quality education in a classroom setting, opportunity to earn a valuable degree, room and board. The football team at Carolina only received room, board and a place to fart. Seems like the NCAA should investigate Duke for provided excessive benefits.

That's a good one-liner but you are not actually in agreement with anything I posted. I haven't said anything about Duke being investigated. I think it is important for the NCAA to insure that players qualify as amateurs in order to be eligible. Lance's bling purchase has the appearance of possible impropriety so he needs to provide explanation and paper trail to remove all suspicion post haste

75Crazie
10-02-2012, 03:43 PM
We can agree to disagree then but to me it is no more important to the integrity of college athletics for athletes be students than it is for them to remain amateurs
As long as there is no alternative path for athletes to pursue professional careers in football or basketball, the integrity of college football and basketball athletics will continue to be a point of ridicule. I see no earthly idea at all why a prospective athlete should be forced to sit in college-level courses. A farm system works just fine for baseball, in parallel with college programs that give an athlete a choice as to which path to follow. I see no reason why farm systems for football and basketball could not succeed in the same manner. That, of course, will never happen, since professional leagues and colleges both have a vested, monetary interest in the current system. But as long as just this one single path exists, "integrity" and "college athletics" will continue to be two terms with very little in common for a great many of the power schools.

Kedsy
10-02-2012, 04:00 PM
Lance's bling purchase has the appearance of possible impropriety so he needs to provide explanation and paper trail to remove all suspicion post haste

I don't understand why you think Lance "needs" to provide anything? Because the NCAA takes the position that member institutions are guilty until proven innocent? They certainly don't have any power over a former athlete. So Lance's obligations, if any, would have to be some sort of moral obligation to help his former school. Has there even been an allegation that Duke needs to prove themselves innocent about? Just because some people in the press have said it smells fishy doesn't mean it has risen to the level of an NCAA allegation.

Even more puzzling to me is why you think Lance has any obligation to "remove all suspicion post haste." For one thing, it would be foolish of him to say anything that would violate his legal obligations under the settlement agreement, or to do anything before things are "taken care of," as he put it. But putting that aside for the moment, even if we assume Lance has obligation to provide an explanation, why would he have to provide it quickly? Other than certain people writing or speaking negative things about Duke (which most of them would be doing anyway), what would be bad about Lance answering the questions in his own time?

lotusland
10-02-2012, 04:24 PM
I don't understand why you think Lance "needs" to provide anything? Because the NCAA takes the position that member institutions are guilty until proven innocent? They certainly don't have any power over a former athlete. So Lance's obligations, if any, would have to be some sort of moral obligation to help his former school. Has there even been an allegation that Duke needs to prove themselves innocent about? Just because some people in the press have said it smells fishy doesn't mean it has risen to the level of an NCAA allegation.

Even more puzzling to me is why you think Lance has any obligation to "remove all suspicion post haste." For one thing, it would be foolish of him to say anything that would violate his legal obligations under the settlement agreement, or to do anything before things are "taken care of," as he put it. But putting that aside for the moment, even if we assume Lance has obligation to provide an explanation, why would he have to provide it quickly? Other than certain people writing or speaking negative things about Duke (which most of them would be doing anyway), what would be bad about Lance answering the questions in his own time?

A very lawyerly response but a simple explanation doesn't require legal consultation. Lance has no obligation to provide any information but appearance of impropriety exists and will remain. If Lance chooses to remain under a cloud of suspicion and Duke by association then he may certainly do so but folks also have a right to rip him for doing so. So he may take as long as he likes but the longer he takes the guiltier he appears. After all, the truth is very simple and doesn't require a lot of preparation to get one's story straight. Unfortunately the statement he gave comes off much more like legal parsing than a forthright answer. He is either innocent or guilty and it really doesn't depend on what the definition of "is" is to figure it out.

jv001
10-02-2012, 04:26 PM
A very lawyerly response but a simple explanation doesn't require legal consultation. Lance has no obligation to provide any information but appearance of impropriety exists and will remain. If Lance chooses to remain under a cloud of suspicion and Duke by association then he may certainly do so but folks also have a right to rip him for doing so. So he may take as long as he likes but the longer he takes the guiltier he appears. After all, the truth is very simple and doesn't require a lot of preparation to get one's story straight. Unfortunately the statement he gave comes off much more like legal parsing than a forthright answer. [B]He is either innocent or guilty and it really doesn't depend on what the definition of "is" is to figure it out.[B]

No matter what Lance says, Duke haters will still presume him guilty. Not only LT, but Duke guilty as well.

Kedsy
10-02-2012, 04:33 PM
So he may take as long as he likes but the longer he takes the guiltier he appears. After all, the truth is very simple and doesn't require a lot of preparation to get one's story straight.

I completely disagree with this. I can think of any number of things Lance might want to take care of or people he might want to speak with before he releases a public statement where every word will be parsed and debated at least as fiercely as it is in any courtroom. In today's environment, the truth is rarely simple. Anything Lance says may have a profound effect on his life or the lives of others. Since it's really none of our business anyway, I applaud whatever efforts Lance takes to make sure his words aren't misconstrued and don't have a negative impact on himself or others.


A very lawyerly response

You say that like it's a bad thing? ;)

SmartDevil
10-02-2012, 04:42 PM
If Lance has a deal almost completed (?) with the seller, he needs to finalize that, presumably including a non-disclosure clause binding both parties as might be found in any other similar private agreement.

He needs to put this entire incident in the past. It will soon be forgotten by all but the hard-core Duke haters. And even those will find other things to focus their irrational hatred/jealousy of Duke on.

But if Lance makes any comments on this situation this remains a news story.

He's courting trouble where there should be none. In fact, the more talking, even general talking, about this private matter could invite other potential legal or financial problems from those who do not wish him well or seek to exploit him.

BD80
10-02-2012, 05:33 PM
... appearance of impropriety exists and will remain. If Lance chooses to remain under a cloud of suspicion and Duke by association then he may certainly do so but folks also have a right to rip him for doing so. ... He is either innocent or guilty and it really doesn't depend on what the definition of "is" is to figure it out.

Appearance of impropriety based on WHAT? Have you seen the complaint? The suit was as likely a shakedown of a pro athlete. Lance's word means less than a lawyer's?

Lance should not be ripped on this board. No reason to, and this is a Duke fan's joint.\

GUILTY??? Holy smokes, the crazy train is headed off the tracks.

How about this scenario: Lance can't decide which piece of jewelry his girlfriend would like the most for Christmas, and he is spending $30k his Mom gave him, so he wants to be sure. The salesman says take all of these, and have her keep what she likes, bring the rest back. You have to sign this paperwork because there is some real value here, but we know your good for it. Don't worry about that 15 day thing, we know Christmas is farther away, this is just for our records. Lance returns the jewelry after Christmas and thinks everything is cool. He never intended to purchase all of the jewelry, and he paid for what he kept. Did he break any NCAA rules?

dpslaw
10-02-2012, 07:09 PM
I find it had to believe he hasn't spoken to coach K about whole the situation after spending 4 years on his team.

According to Laura Keeley's latest posting on the N&O website, the NCAA would likely frown upon such communication:

The fact that Thomas hasn’t spoken to Duke, though, follows standard NCAA procedure. While Duke’s compliance officers are not explicitly banned from talking with him, the Cooperative Principle, Bylaw 32.1.4, obligates member institutions to assist the enforcement staff in finding information about a possible violation. All individuals who are subject to NCAA rules protect the integrity of an investigation.

Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/10/02/2386145/thomas-reportedly-will-talk-to.html#storylink=cpy

lotusland
10-02-2012, 08:08 PM
Appearance of impropriety based on WHAT? Have you seen the complaint? The suit was as likely a shakedown of a pro athlete. Lance's word means less than a lawyer's?

Lance should not be ripped on this board. No reason to, and this is a Duke fan's joint.\

GUILTY??? Holy smokes, the crazy train is headed off the tracks.

How about this scenario: Lance can't decide which piece of jewelry his girlfriend would like the most for Christmas, and he is spending $30k his Mom gave him, so he wants to be sure. The salesman says take all of these, and have her keep what she likes, bring the rest back. You have to sign this paperwork because there is some real value here, but we know your good for it. Don't worry about that 15 day thing, we know Christmas is farther away, this is just for our records. Lance returns the jewelry after Christmas and thinks everything is cool. He never intended to purchase all of the jewelry, and he paid for what he kept. Did he break any NCAA rules?

That's a good explanation and easily verified so there should be no problem.

ForkFondler
10-02-2012, 09:10 PM
After all, the truth is very simple...

No, generally speaking, it really isn't.

Wheat/"/"/"
10-10-2012, 07:04 PM
Your friend Art Chansky has an article out today (http://chapelboro.com/A-Coach-s-Choice/9737820?pid=269637) discussing the Thomas issues...

No new news, but does make the point that it will be interesting to see how coach K handles the questions that are sure to come in the next few weeks.

Indoor66
10-10-2012, 07:32 PM
Your friend Art Chansky has an article out today (http://chapelboro.com/A-Coach-s-Choice/9737820?pid=269637) discussing the Thomas issues...

No new news, but does make the point that it will be interesting to see how coach K handles the questions that are sure to come in the next few weeks.

What questions and from whom?

Duvall
10-10-2012, 08:01 PM
Your friend Art Chansky has an article out today (http://chapelboro.com/A-Coach-s-Choice/9737820?pid=269637) discussing the Thomas issues...

Never change, Chansky:


Duke's Hall of Fame Coach Mike Krzyzewski is very likely one of only two people on the planet who knows what happened with his former player Lance Thomas during the 2009-10 season. The other person is Thomas. Krzyzewski has to know because he asked and the former player had to tell his former coach the truth.

Fun fact: There is no reason to think that anything in that paragraph is actually true.

Also, SPOILER: It won't actually be interesting to see how Krzyzewski handles the questions, because he's going to say that he can't comment on an ongoing NCAA investigation other than to say that Duke is working with the NCAA. There isn't anything else he *can* say.

MattC09
10-10-2012, 08:07 PM
Your friend Art Chansky has an article out today (http://chapelboro.com/A-Coach-s-Choice/9737820?pid=269637) discussing the Thomas issues...

No new news, but does make the point that it will be interesting to see how coach K handles the questions that are sure to come in the next few weeks.

In reality, which Mr. Chansky clearly no longer inhabits, Coach K will say he can't comment on an on-going investigation. That doesn't make a very interesting article though.

Edit: NCAA rules prohibit Coach K from talking to Lance Thomas so most of the article is baseless speculation and projection.

devildeac
10-10-2012, 08:12 PM
Your friend Art Chansky has an article out today (http://chapelboro.com/A-Coach-s-Choice/9737820?pid=269637) discussing the Thomas issues...

No new news, but does make the point that it will be interesting to see how coach K handles the questions that are sure to come in the next few weeks.


What questions and from whom?


Never change, Chansky:



Fun fact: There is no reason to think that anything in that paragraph is actually true.

Also, SPOILER: It won't actually be interesting to see how Krzyzewski handles the questions, because he's going to say that he can't comment on an ongoing NCAA investigation other than to say that Duke is working with the NCAA. There isn't anything else he *can* say.

Let's see, what was your password again, art...

(Newton_14 and -jk and I discussed this privately and publicly here on the board about a month or so ago but I can't remember for the life of me which thread it was.)

I think his password starts something like 9f...

fh84
10-10-2012, 08:15 PM
That whole article by Chansky is just ridiculous.
"If the truth ever came out that Krzyzewski had lied about the Lance Thomas affair, his entire career would be judged differently – as Paterno’s is now."
I think there is a small difference between covering up child rape and whatever NCAA rule Lance Thomas might have violated.

norduck
10-10-2012, 08:30 PM
Your friend Art Chansky has an article out today (http://chapelboro.com/A-Coach-s-Choice/9737820?pid=269637) discussing the Thomas issues... No new news, but does make the point that it will be interesting to see how coach K handles the questions that are sure to come in the next few weeks. So he must troll.

Duvall
10-10-2012, 08:33 PM
So he must troll.

Birds fly, fish swim, and fishermen... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolling_(fishing))

allenmurray
10-10-2012, 09:36 PM
That whole article by Chansky is just ridiculous.
"If the truth ever came out that Krzyzewski had lied about the Lance Thomas affair, his entire career would be judged differently – as Paterno’s is now."
I think there is a small difference between covering up child rape and whatever NCAA rule Lance Thomas might have violated.

Most UNC folks hold Masters Degrees in false equivilency. It is an advanced field for them.

CLT Devil
10-10-2012, 09:36 PM
Your friend Art Chansky has an article out today (http://chapelboro.com/A-Coach-s-Choice/9737820?pid=269637) discussing the Thomas issues...

No new news, but does make the point that it will be interesting to see how coach K handles the questions that are sure to come in the next few weeks.

So, Art, because every rock, crack and crevice in Chapel Hill seems to be hiding some gnarly creature which slithers out when the daylight hits it that automatically means that one of the most esteemed coaches of all time HAS to fall into your myopic potential outcomes? He says that K has 'certainly' knowingly witheld information from the NCAA before to benefit himself, his family and his team but doesn't can't seem to point to any [I]actual[I] witholding he's been guilty of.

He makes zero points in this article other than the fact that he's not even pretending to have anything new to report other than his strong desire to deflect attention by any means necessary away from the dumpster fires raging all over Chapel Hill.

Sweet article, Art. I can't wait to read your next piece of garbage where you state that only Coach K and his barber know that he dyes his hair with the tears of puppies and it will be interesting to see how he answers all of the questions that PETA will surely ask him in the coming weeks. Huh?

Son of Mojo
10-10-2012, 09:38 PM
Your friend Art Chansky has an article out today (http://chapelboro.com/A-Coach-s-Choice/9737820?pid=269637) discussing the Thomas issues...

No new news, but does make the point that it will be interesting to see how coach K handles the questions that are sure to come in the next few weeks.

Art has no friends. If he were an ice cream, he'd be pralines and "Richard." :D

OldPhiKap
10-10-2012, 09:50 PM
Still waiting on Art's expose on Butch Davis.

Wheat/"/"/"
10-10-2012, 10:09 PM
I'm no troll, way too handsome for that designation.

And I always try to respond and defend fairly any post I make.

That article is the stuff that is being discussed out in the media, no reason not to discuss it here, unless someone plans on spreading lies or making outlandish charges that would reflect poorly on this site. The moderators have made it clear that will not be tolerated and I support them.

I would think the handling of this issue is of interest to Duke fans, at some level at least, as the season gets going and the questions come, and they will. That's why I passed on the link when I saw the article.

Please, let's not make this thread about me. Lets just discuss the topic and make your comment, if you have one. I won't reply to anybody that wants to try dragging the thread off topic.

For the record, I still believe that somebody representing Duke/ coach K's interest, if not coach K himself had to speak to Lance when this story broke. I would think it was human nature to give him a call and say, "Lance, what the heck is this about?"

But, of course that's just my common sense speculation.

I'm not suggesting anybody skirted any NCAA regs regarding an investigation, I'd think the conversation likely occurred well before there was any investigation, if at all.

Also my position on this whole deal is its a crock and just one more reason to separate the revenue producing sports from schools and get rid if the NCAA and all their self serving $$$ rules that can't be enforced... Like potentially punishing a kid, his teammates and his school for maybe being foolish enough to buy way too expensive jewelry.

The moderators have been very clear that we all need to be mindful of handling this discussion carefully and respectfully, I hope to do my part.

norduck
10-10-2012, 10:41 PM
I'm no troll, way too handsome for that designation.

And I always try to respond and defend fairly any post I make.

That article is the stuff that is being discussed out in the media, no reason not to discuss it here, unless someone plans on spreading lies or making outlandish charges that would reflect poorly on this site. The moderators have made it clear that will not be tolerated and I support them.

I would think the handling of this issue is of interest to Duke fans, at some level at least, as the season gets going and the questions come, and they will. That's why I passed on the link when I saw the article.

Please, let's not make this thread about me. Lets just discuss the topic and make your comment, if you have one. I won't reply to anybody that wants to try dragging the thread off topic.

For the record, I still believe that somebody representing Duke/ coach K's interest, if not coach K himself had to speak to Lance when this story broke. I would think it was human nature to give him a call and say, "Lance, what the heck is this about?"

But, of course that's just my common sense speculation.

I'm not suggesting anybody skirted any NCAA regs regarding an investigation, I'd think the conversation likely occurred well before there was any investigation, if at all.

Also my position on this whole deal is its a crock and just one more reason to separate the revenue producing sports from schools and get rid if the NCAA and all their self serving $$$ rules that can't be enforced... Like potentially punishing a kid, his teammates and his school for maybe being foolish enough to buy way too expensive jewelry.

The moderators have been very clear that we all need to be mindful of handling this discussion carefully and respectfully, I hope to do my part.




Rebaiting?

OldPhiKap
10-10-2012, 11:07 PM
Rebaiting?

I would use a treble hook just to make sure I got a bite or two.

-jk
10-11-2012, 12:34 AM
Wheat, linking Chansky in a piece critical of K is beyond absurd.

Art was a unc homer as sports editor of the Durham Sun. A unc homer as publisher of Four Corners Press. A unc homer when he discouraged faculty investigations into the recent unc scandals.

Nothing he says about Duke or K can be taken seriously.

His column was filled with speculation and innuendo furthering the discussion not one whit.

Obviously, the NCAA is still investigating.

I'm baffled as to why you bothered to link it.

-jk

throatybeard
10-11-2012, 12:37 AM
I'm baffled as to why you bothered to link it.

-jk

I'm not. Wheat has been trolling here for over a decade. It's what he does.

Otherwise, what you said.

Wheat/"/"/"
10-11-2012, 01:14 AM
Wheat, linking Chansky in a piece critical of K is beyond absurd.

Art was a unc homer as sports editor of the Durham Sun. A unc homer as publisher of Four Corners Press. A unc homer when he discouraged faculty investigations into the recent unc scandals.

Nothing he says about Duke or K can be taken seriously.

His column was filled with speculation and innuendo furthering the discussion not one whit.

Obviously, the NCAA is still investigating.

I'm baffled as to why you bothered to link it.

-jk

Chansky is Chansky....people can go after his comments, I didn't write that article, no need for the personal attacks here on me.

I linked it because its relevant to this thread. He did make one point in that article that could/should be discussed...How coach K responds to the questions he is going to get regarding this issue could be important on many levels for him and Duke.

No doubt there will be a lot of "can't comment, investigation going on" stuff for a while...but at some point he will need to address it publicly and how he does that will matter.

How do you think he will handle it?

CDu
10-11-2012, 01:26 AM
Chansky is Chansky....people can go after his comments, I didn't write that article, no need for the personal attacks here on me.

I linked it because its relevant to this thread. He did make one point in that article that could/should be discussed...How coach K responds to the questions he is going to get regarding this issue could be important on many levels for him and Duke.

No doubt there will be a lot of "can't comment, investigation going on" stuff for a while...but at some point he will need to address it publicly and how he does that will matter.

How do you think he will handle it?

The worst kind of trolling: the kind where the troller feigns innocence and gets sanctimonious.

I find it hard to believe you posted this for any reason other than an attempt to agitate Duke fans. Pretty much textbook trolling.

throatybeard
10-11-2012, 02:24 AM
Chansky is Chansky....people can go after his comments, I didn't write that article, no need for the personal attacks here on me.


Accurately summarizing your record here does not qualify as a personal attack on you. In the past, we've had UNC posters such as Chris13 who don't act like this.

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
10-11-2012, 03:24 AM
... (yammer yammer yammer....) How do you think he will handle it?

I guarantee I know how he will handle any questions by the media. "You know I cannot comment on that, let's talk about this year's team."

It's the answer I expect and I would be shocked if he says anything else.

Now then, let's give this the "Next Play" treatment, unless something of substance comes up.

oldnavy
10-11-2012, 08:01 AM
Chansky is Chansky....people can go after his comments, I didn't write that article, no need for the personal attacks here on me.

I linked it because its relevant to this thread. He did make one point in that article that could/should be discussed...How coach K responds to the questions he is going to get regarding this issue could be important on many levels for him and Duke.

No doubt there will be a lot of "can't comment, investigation going on" stuff for a while...but at some point he will need to address it publicly and how he does that will matter.

How do you think he will handle it?

He will handle it like he has lived his entire life. With honestly and with class. The fact that you even ask that question implies that he will do something else which is insulting.

I know it must be hard trying to cling to that "carolina way" given the troubles on the hill, but that doesn't mean everyone lives a lie.

nocilla
10-11-2012, 08:17 AM
So, looking back, we had a couple posters get real upset about the previous Lance Thomas thread getting locked because they thought it should still be open for discussion. They pleaded with the moderators to open it back up because apparently there was still plenty to talk about. Finally a new thread is opened to allow further discussion.

And for 2 weeks the only discussion from all of the parties that complained about the threads getting locked is a link to an Art Chansky article? Good grief...

allenmurray
10-11-2012, 08:26 AM
I'm not. Wheat has been trolling here for over a decade. It's what he does.

Exactly - his credibility on this board by some posters has always puzzled me. He is as big a troll as UNC has ever produced.

niveklaen
10-11-2012, 08:35 AM
I'm no troll, way too handsome for that designation.

And I always try to respond and defend fairly any post I make.

That article is the stuff that is being discussed out in the media, no reason not to discuss it here, unless someone plans on spreading lies or making outlandish charges that would reflect poorly on this site. The moderators have made it clear that will not be tolerated and I support them.

I would think the handling of this issue is of interest to Duke fans, at some level at least, as the season gets going and the questions come, and they will. That's why I passed on the link when I saw the article.

Please, let's not make this thread about me. Lets just discuss the topic and make your comment, if you have one. I won't reply to anybody that wants to try dragging the thread off topic.

For the record, I still believe that somebody representing Duke/ coach K's interest, if not coach K himself had to speak to Lance when this story broke. I would think it was human nature to give him a call and say, "Lance, what the heck is this about?"

But, of course that's just my common sense speculation.

I'm not suggesting anybody skirted any NCAA regs regarding an investigation, I'd think the conversation likely occurred well before there was any investigation, if at all.

Also my position on this whole deal is its a crock and just one more reason to separate the revenue producing sports from schools and get rid if the NCAA and all their self serving $$$ rules that can't be enforced... Like potentially punishing a kid, his teammates and his school for maybe being foolish enough to buy way too expensive jewelry.

The moderators have been very clear that we all need to be mindful of handling this discussion carefully and respectfully, I hope to do my part.



So just out of curiosity I clicked on the link in Wheat's sig block and it leads to a fishing blog - I think he actually trolls for a living...

(mods - if clicking wheat's link violates a board policy please feel free to delete this post...)

johnb
10-11-2012, 08:47 AM
By linking to an average-expectable Chansky piece, Wheat brings us news. He's been a member of the DBR community for a long time and is far less provocative than I'd be on a Carolina message board.

I don't like the piece, but I like Thomas's jewelry-related behavior even less. I'm hoping it's just an embarrassing lack of judgment on his part, since that's best case scenario, and I'm ok with assuming th best (which is adolescent impulsivity using his own money and without breaking rules). but surely we should assume our rivals would view it less charitably, just as we feel free to assume the entire unc system is a cesspool of stupidity--which is obviously a (small) exaggeration.

allenmurray
10-11-2012, 08:55 AM
By linking to an average-expectable Chansky piece, Wheat brings us news.

You're serious with this statement? We'd have all been unaware of the Chansky piece save for the generosity of Wheat "bringing us news"? And descirbing the Chansky piece as "news" is an insult to journalism everywhere.

Every once in a while I'm reminded of why I quit being a regular at this board, and reminded of why I need to do so again. This place will make your brain hurt.

Wheat/"/"/"
10-11-2012, 09:01 AM
OK. You guys win. I've had enough. I post a link in a relevant thread and most just attack me and avoid a respectful discussion.

This used to be a place where you could have a mature, stimulating, civil give and take discussion on sensitive, varying opinions and topics...unlike other boards around. Now it seems to be graduating to the standard Internet mean.

Have a good season. Maybe I'll come back someday. When some of you throw the party, be sure to bring something to relieve the pain of patting yourselves on the back.

sagegrouse
10-11-2012, 09:09 AM
OK. You guys win. I've had enough. I post a link in a relevant thread and most just attack me and avoid a respectful discussion.

This used to be a place where you could have a mature, stimulating, civil give and take discussion on sensitive, varying opinions and topics...unlike other boards around. Now it seems to be graduating to the standard Internet mean.

Have a good season. Maybe I'll come back someday. When some of you throw the party, be sure to bring something to relieve the pain of patting yourselves on the back.

Easy there, guy. The LT matter, until it is resolved, is a sensitive spot, and folks show their sensitivities. I hope you stick around. You add a lot to the Board,

sagegrouse

budwom
10-11-2012, 09:27 AM
At least I hope people can appreciate the irony of Chansky (who I knew as a premium twit 40 years ago), fired from his position in Holeville during their ongoing, tawdry
scandal now trying to interject himself into Duke's NCAA business.

bob blue devil
10-11-2012, 09:31 AM
So, looking back, we had a couple posters get real upset about the previous Lance Thomas thread getting locked because they thought it should still be open for discussion. They pleaded with the moderators to open it back up because apparently there was still plenty to talk about. Finally a new thread is opened to allow further discussion.

And for 2 weeks the only discussion from all of the parties that complained about the threads getting locked is a link to an Art Chansky article? Good grief...

as one of those that complained, i will respond to this complaint. to be fair, this is not just directed at you, but to everyone that thinks this thread should be closed, but at the same time can't seem to keep themselves from reading it and whining about it.

first, i agree there hasn't been much to talk about. however, i don't see why that implies the thread should be locked. there are plenty of threads that thrive without any real info for long periods (just check out recruiting threads).

second, i agree the chansky article is useless. however, i am certainly curious how those without duke blue glasses (or anti-duke blue glasses) view this situation. it looks to me like they don't have a lot of ammo, which is comforting. also, i choose not to give chansky clicks, so the feedback of others provided here resolves my curiosity.

third, while there hasn't been a ton of useful information, as a result of the discussion here i've learned that coach k/duke is not permitted to speak with lance without the ncaa present. that's a pretty interesting piece of information and certainly shapes my perception of k's responsibilities as a leader. also, there have been bits i've otherwise missed - for instance, while i had interpreted from articles that the lawsuit was settled and lance announced his intention to speak with the ncaa, i missed the fact that they only had an agreement and that actually nailing the settlement might take longer. reading comments in this forum helped me understand that nuance and, perhaps, better align my expectations on timing. perhaps you are entirely on top of these issues and don't need to hear these things from the forum discussion - kudos to you, but this a community forum that includes people less up to speed.

ultimately, i really do not understand the argument against having this thread open (aside from being able to avoid hypersensitive duke fans getting nasty at any comment that might cast duke in a bad light). if you think wheat is trolling, ignore him or call him out or give him negative feedback or infractions or whatever. if reading posts related to this topic is annoying to you, then perhaps you should stay off the thread that you've made it clear you think is unworthy of existence. these concerns really have little to do with whether we should have a venue to discuss what was a major (but perhaps shallow) news story related duke basketball.

and we are still not certain whether this story will ultimately be a non-event. lance hedged himself a bit on the question of whether he violated ncaa rules. his comments could mean a number of things, but most likely for me are a) "i didn't violate ncaa rules, but am uncomfortable making authoritative statements", or b) "i may have violated an ncaa rule, but i didn't think i was violating a rule when i did this and if it was a violation it was an honest mistake." if we can have an extensive discussion regarding whether austin nichols's buddy, twin sister and girlfriend are all the same person, then certainly we can have a forum to discuss lance's jewelry.

Philly_B
10-11-2012, 09:45 AM
OK. You guys win. I've had enough. I post a link in a relevant thread and most just attack me and avoid a respectful discussion.

This used to be a place where you could have a mature, stimulating, civil give and take discussion on sensitive, varying opinions and topics...unlike other boards around. Now it seems to be graduating to the standard Internet mean.

Have a good season. Maybe I'll come back someday. When some of you throw the party, be sure to bring something to relieve the pain of patting yourselves on the back.

Wheat,

As someone that rarely ever posts, but comes here to read every day, I, for one, enjoy what you bring to this board. I personally feel that you add a much needed dynamic to this place and certainly wish that you continue to contribute to this community.

CameronBornAndBred
10-11-2012, 10:08 AM
OK. You guys win. I've had enough. I post a link in a relevant thread and most just attack me and avoid a respectful discussion.


I hardly think "most" are attacking you, just a very small percentage of this board. Most of the folks here read and don't respond either way. You gotta know as a tarheel you will get plenty of pushback, but in comparison to the entire population of this site, the 5 or 6 posters that have responded negatively hardly counts as most. (Although some of the "students" in the football program might disagree with my math:rolleyes:). I'm in the camp of enjoying your contributions, but lordy you gotta have a thicker skin than that!

alteran
10-11-2012, 10:10 AM
Your friend Art Chansky...

You forgot the sarcasm emoticon.

Highlander
10-11-2012, 10:18 AM
Wheat,

As someone that rarely ever posts, but comes here to read every day, I, for one, enjoy what you bring to this board. I personally feel that you add a much needed dynamic to this place and certainly wish that you continue to contribute to this community.

Seconded. There are trolls and there are UNC trolls, and personally I find you to be neither. I've dealt with a ton of obnoxious UNC fans in my day, and if you're pretty tame posts are now what we're branding as a "troll", then we've lost a ton of objectivity.

Linking Chansky on anything will typically get you laughed out of the room, though. Just like using Al Featherston on a UNC board would. Even if they have a good point, the perceived bias ship has sailed.

ChillinDuke
10-11-2012, 10:26 AM
Easy there, guy. The LT matter, until it is resolved, is a sensitive spot, and folks show their sensitivities. I hope you stick around. You add a lot to the Board,

sagegrouse

Agreed, Sage. Hope you stick around, Wheat.

Although Art's article does next to nothing to further the conversation, I don't see a reason to rag on Wheat. It was an honest effort IMO.

I just subscribe to the idea that the easiest, most simplistic reason is usually the reason. No conspiracies, no cover ups, no complex strategies.

And to compare this to a child rape case is just utterly absurd. This is over jewelry. Doesn't have the smallest impact on the basketball court, in the classroom, or on the university. You can argue over the potential consequences, NCAA rules, bicker back and forth as Duke vs. UNC fans, debate Lance's financial judgment. Doesn't change the fact that the kid just bought some metal; it's so inconsequential in the grand scheme of things. As happy as it would make the Duke haters, maybe I'm dubbing it down way too much but who really cares? Lance's purchase did not affect his basketball skills, his college degree, or his personal conduct while on campus.

- Chillin

wallyman
10-11-2012, 10:27 AM
OK. You guys win. I've had enough. I post a link in a relevant thread and most just attack me and avoid a respectful discussion.

This used to be a place where you could have a mature, stimulating, civil give and take discussion on sensitive, varying opinions and topics...unlike other boards around. Now it seems to be graduating to the standard Internet mean.

Have a good season. Maybe I'll come back someday. When some of you throw the party, be sure to bring something to relieve the pain of patting yourselves on the back.

Please stick around, though I'd understand if you figure it's not worth the trouble. Wheat has been an informed, agreeable presence and one of my favorite posters. Lots of idiot Duke haters out there -- he's not one. I'm guessing 95 percent of the people on here agree.

DukeWarhead
10-11-2012, 10:53 AM
OK. You guys win. I've had enough. I post a link in a relevant thread and most just attack me and avoid a respectful discussion.

This used to be a place where you could have a mature, stimulating, civil give and take discussion on sensitive, varying opinions and topics...unlike other boards around. Now it seems to be graduating to the standard Internet mean.

Have a good season. Maybe I'll come back someday. When some of you throw the party, be sure to bring something to relieve the pain of patting yourselves on the back.

1. You're not fooling anybody. You'll be back posting on here before you can say "muckraker". You can't stay away...

2. "standard Internet mean"???? IMO, most people that post here do so with kid gloves. Nobody gets savaged. I haven't seen anything that would or should make even the thinnest skinned poster take their tablet and go home.

Oh well. Enjoy the self-imposed exile, or vacation, whichever it may be.... but I'm not buying it.

Turtleboy
10-11-2012, 11:49 AM
Please stick around, though I'd understand if you figure it's not worth the trouble. Wheat has been an informed, agreeable presence and one of my favorite posters. Lots of idiot Duke haters out there -- he's not one. I'm guessing 95 percent of the people on here agree.I certainly do, for what it's worth. Some of these folks complaining haven't been around very long. Wheat has always been a respectful and insightful poster. God knows if you get the slightest bit out of line around here the Hammer of Disappeared Posts comes down. If he was as bad as some folks seem to think he would have been long gone.

And yes, he is a fisherman, IIRC.

Chicago 1995
10-11-2012, 12:10 PM
OK. You guys win. I've had enough. I post a link in a relevant thread and most just attack me and avoid a respectful discussion.

This used to be a place where you could have a mature, stimulating, civil give and take discussion on sensitive, varying opinions and topics...unlike other boards around. Now it seems to be graduating to the standard Internet mean.

Have a good season. Maybe I'll come back someday. When some of you throw the party, be sure to bring something to relieve the pain of patting yourselves on the back.

Wheat, I think you lose the moral highground to complain about how you are treated in this thread when your contribution is to link a piece of Chansky dreck. I don't think the response would be the same if you brought something less inflamatory and with any actual intellectual value to the table. People can take dissent and discussion here. You didn't bring that. You tossed in a firecracker and now are surprised people are upset? GMAFB.

Troll in fisherman's clothing. As you always have been.

Starter
10-11-2012, 12:11 PM
Having met Art Chansky and read some of his screeds, I think he's a real piece of garbage, and that's being generous. Wheat, not so much, he's cool by me, even if we've disagreed on content and tone on occasion.

Regardless, I think Chansky's fantasy scenario of an interrogation of Krzyzewski is just that: a fantasy. As some have said here, you'd have a better chance of getting blood from a stone than getting Krzyzewski to offer up information on this when he doesn't have to, nor should he have to. The cards will fall where they may.

CDu
10-11-2012, 12:28 PM
OK. You guys win. I've had enough. I post a link in a relevant thread and most just attack me and avoid a respectful discussion.

This used to be a place where you could have a mature, stimulating, civil give and take discussion on sensitive, varying opinions and topics...unlike other boards around. Now it seems to be graduating to the standard Internet mean.

Have a good season. Maybe I'll come back someday. When some of you throw the party, be sure to bring something to relieve the pain of patting yourselves on the back.

1. Nobody "attacked" you. People just pointed out that your post (which didn't provide any news or intellectual discussion points, comes from a noted Duke hater, and was clearly just a flame piece) was a troll move. And that's accurate, whether you meant to troll or not. Some speculated as to your intent. But nobody attacked you.

2. Very few people on this board even responded to you. Trust me: the response you got in this thread is way, way, WAY above "the Internet mean" in terms of maturity and civility.

3. We have plenty of mature, civil, give-and-take discussion on a variety of topics. You chose to post a flame piece that adds nothing to the discussion. That's not a recipe for mature, civil, give-and-take discussion. You should know that.

4. Spare us the pity party, martyr angle. You're experienced enough to know better than that. No one will be patting themselves on the back if you leave. No one is even trying to get you to leave. If you don't feel we're worth your time anymore, that's your loss (or gain). But don't try to spin this as "we ran you off." But getting your drawers in a wad over a mildly-negative response from the community to a post of an inflammatory article is pretty weak in my opinion. If I got huffy and threatened to leave every time a bunch of people felt my post was worthless, I'd have probably left 100 times by now.

JasonEvans
10-11-2012, 01:31 PM
Folks,

I think enough of us have made our opinions known about Wheat. He is not the topic here. He can decide to stay or leave -- it is of course up to him. Some posters think he is a troll. Others value his contributions. I think that much is clear.

Wheat chose to link an ill-conceived article that has been fairly thoroughly debunked as having little value. As a moderator responsible for maintaining civility on this site, I see no reason for further discussion of this. If you can bring something new to the party, feel free, but continued posts that make the same points we have seen over and over will not rest well with the moderation team and are likely to result in infractions.

I hope everyone understands and can abide by this request.

-Jason "I hope Wheat sticks around... but is a lot more thoughtful in his links and comments" Evans

Turtleboy
10-11-2012, 03:54 PM
And the Hammer strikes again. Note to self -- contradicting Jason Evans is verboten! Vere are your papers?

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
10-11-2012, 04:39 PM
OK. You guys win. I've had enough. I post a link in a relevant thread and most just attack me and avoid a respectful discussion.

This used to be a place where you could have a mature, stimulating, civil give and take discussion on sensitive, varying opinions and topics...unlike other boards around. Now it seems to be graduating to the standard Internet mean.

Have a good season. Maybe I'll come back someday. When some of you throw the party, be sure to bring something to relieve the pain of patting yourselves on the back.

I'm not going to fall all over myself begging you to stick around, but I do think you bring an entertaining perspective to the board, and I like the fact that you do, from time to time needle some folks who take ALL this too seriously.

If you don't stay, God speed

Turk
10-12-2012, 08:13 AM
So now a guy from the N&O wants Coach K to "clear the air"; we can all move on from poor Wheat (count me as one who wants him to stay with us) and the hapless Chansky (he can 9F to oblivion). I hope all Coach says is, "We're cooperating with the NCAA but those morons couldn't empty a bucket if the instructions were printed on the bottom. Next question." That would make my day....

bob blue devil
10-12-2012, 10:23 AM
So now a guy from the N&O wants Coach K to "clear the air"; ... I hope all Coach says is, "We're cooperating with the NCAA but those morons couldn't empty a bucket if the instructions were printed on the bottom. Next question." That would make my day....

that would be awesome. i'm not hanging around to wait for it.

regarding the article, i think decock has a valid point. note that he is not suggesting k knows anything or that k should say what he is not permitted to say. all decock is saying is that k should address the situation with the media instead of avoiding it. while k cannot "clear the air" as most in the media would like him to, he can "clear the air" in terms of discussing how seriously he is taking the situation, giving the media a window into how the process works (for instance, emphasizing he/duke cannot speak with LT without the ncaa), and emphasizing that he's striving to get all information that can/should be made public to eventually be made public (yes, LT's privacy might make that last point sticky, but hopefully k could convince him). comments such as these would give more credibility to the argument that there is nothing he can/should say about what lance actually did or didn't do at this point, but that the issue is being dealt with in a serious fashion. yes, i'm sure many people already know how the process works, but the audience will be larger with k saying it and he will be driving the conversation. also, k will be more likely to be seen for what he is - a leader pursuing the truth above his self interest, rather than what his detractors would like to make him out to be - someone who is ducking this issue to protect his legacy.

killerleft
10-12-2012, 10:59 AM
that would be awesome. i'm not hanging around to wait for it.

regarding the article, i think decock has a valid point. note that he is not suggesting k knows anything or that k should say what he is not permitted to say. all decock is saying is that k should address the situation with the media instead of avoiding it. while k cannot "clear the air" as most in the media would like him to, he can "clear the air" in terms of discussing how seriously he is taking the situation, giving the media a window into how the process works (for instance, emphasizing he/duke cannot speak with LT without the ncaa), and emphasizing that he's striving to get all information that can/should be made public to eventually be made public (yes, LT's privacy might make that last point sticky, but hopefully k could convince him). comments such as these would give more credibility to the argument that there is nothing he can/should say about what lance actually did or didn't do at this point, but that the issue is being dealt with in a serious fashion. yes, i'm sure many people already know how the process works, but the audience will be larger with k saying it and he will be driving the conversation. also, k will be more likely to be seen for what he is - a leader pursuing the truth above his self interest, rather than what his detractors would like to make him out to be - someone who is ducking this issue to protect his legacy.

This is reasonable. I'm really hoping we don't just hear dead air and a re-statement of the terse earlier releases. Fill the air with sweet nothings for a minute or two, at least. What would be my fantasy would be Coach K reading some of the ludicrous statements made by such journalistic luminaries as Doyel and Chansky. Quote at least ten or so of them, and then patiently, and in a very sweet voice, calmly explain to them (maybe like they're precocious little children) why ignorance is not a virtue.