HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » "Why I won't be chee...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 09:54 AM

"Why I won't be cheering for old Notre Dame"

Last edited Wed Dec 5, 2012, 03:53 PM - Edit history (1)

Here we go again. If what Melinda Henneberger (a Notre Dame alum) says is true, Notre Dame has some serious questions to answer. Particularly this paragraph:

At first, officials said privacy laws prevented them from responding. But after some criticism, Jenkins told the South Bend Tribune he’d intentionally kept himself free of any in-depth knowledge of the case, yet was sure it had been handled appropriately.


If the President of the university is going to "keep himself free of any in-depth knowledge" of a case involving allegegations against football players at Notre Dame, how is that not a "lack of institutional control" per NCAA guidelines? Isn't this exactly why the NCAA disciplined Penn State in the Sandusky outrages?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/she-the-people/wp/2012/12/04/why-i-wont-be-cheering-for-old-notre-dame/?wprss=rss_politics

57 replies, 5381 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 57 replies Author Time Post
Reply "Why I won't be cheering for old Notre Dame" (Original post)
yellowcanine Dec 2012 OP
Larkspur Dec 2012 #1
Are_grits_groceries Dec 2012 #2
Larkspur Dec 2012 #30
Are_grits_groceries Dec 2012 #36
yellowcanine Dec 2012 #3
yellowcanine Dec 2012 #7
joeybee12 Dec 2012 #9
yellowcanine Dec 2012 #13
joeybee12 Dec 2012 #14
yellowcanine Dec 2012 #20
Are_grits_groceries Dec 2012 #21
MrScorpio Dec 2012 #4
joeybee12 Dec 2012 #5
WilliamPitt Dec 2012 #6
joeybee12 Dec 2012 #8
ProudToBeBlueInRhody Dec 2012 #23
hifiguy Dec 2012 #28
yellowcanine Dec 2012 #10
joeybee12 Dec 2012 #11
yellowcanine Dec 2012 #15
yellowcanine Dec 2012 #19
joeybee12 Dec 2012 #12
yellowcanine Dec 2012 #17
Larkspur Dec 2012 #48
Larkspur Dec 2012 #40
yellowcanine Dec 2012 #45
Larkspur Dec 2012 #47
yellowcanine Dec 2012 #50
Ishoutandscream2 Dec 2012 #16
WilliamPitt Dec 2012 #18
KamaAina Dec 2012 #33
ProudToBeBlueInRhody Dec 2012 #22
yellowcanine Dec 2012 #24
ProudToBeBlueInRhody Dec 2012 #25
yellowcanine Dec 2012 #26
ProudToBeBlueInRhody Dec 2012 #27
yellowcanine Dec 2012 #29
Larkspur Dec 2012 #31
yellowcanine Dec 2012 #35
Larkspur Dec 2012 #39
yellowcanine Dec 2012 #44
Larkspur Dec 2012 #49
yellowcanine Dec 2012 #51
pnwmom Dec 2012 #55
Larkspur Dec 2012 #32
yellowcanine Dec 2012 #34
Larkspur Dec 2012 #38
yellowcanine Dec 2012 #43
Larkspur Dec 2012 #46
yellowcanine Dec 2012 #52
Larkspur Dec 2012 #53
yellowcanine Dec 2012 #54
radicalliberal Dec 2012 #56
Blue_Tires Dec 2012 #37
radicalliberal Dec 2012 #57
Mr. Blue Sky Dec 2012 #41
yellowcanine Dec 2012 #42

Response to yellowcanine (Original post)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 10:53 AM

1. Gee I remember when the University of Alabama allowed boosters to provide prostitutes for

football recruits until someone spilled the beans to the NCAA and the public.

Is Melinda Henneberger saying that the power of the Law of Indiana is weaker than the threats of some of the the ND football players?
Lizzy Seeberg, the St. Mary's student who committed suicide after allegedly being raped, also had a history of depression prior to going to college and prior to the alleged sexual assault. Depression is a main cause of suicide. Apparently, she also went to college away from where her parents could have helped her with her psychological problem.

And since ND doesn't have it's own hospital, I take it that the alleged rape victims were taken to one off campus? Hospitals should have rape kits, so if the alleged rape victim told them she was raped, they should have taken evidence and given it to the police.

Since Michael Floyd and Kyle McAlarney, 2 famous ND athletes, who committed crimes were disciplined by the University and their coaches, I don't think ND would cover up a sexual assault, if it was real, because they don't have control over all the circumstances, especially what happened at off-campus hospitals. The University suspended McAlarney, who was caught with a small stash of pot. Michael Floyd faced DUI charges. He could have been kicked out of school, but he agreed to rehab and faithfully did so.

Rape is a serious crime and should be investigate and the perpetrators punished, but like any alleged crime, accusation does not mean it is a fact. Should have ND security been quicker to investigate? Maybe. I don't know all their circumstances. But Melinda Henneberger is a political writer, not a journalist or criminal reporter. Her column seems based upon her biased opinion. What facts does she really have to convict the alleged football player? None and maybe that is what the police had too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Larkspur (Reply #1)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 11:06 AM

2. You don't think ND would cover up a sexual assault?

You are living in a dream world.
Here is an overall evaluation of ND and the FB program by Tim Layden. He is a senior writer at Sports Illustrated and has covered the Irish for a while. He looks at a lot of things both good and bad. The Seeberg case is among them.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1206462/index.htm

ND is no better or worse than any other school. They don't have a special dispensation that precludes them from being examined. The FB team and ITS BOOSTERS have a great deal of influence like it or not.

If you want an example of meddling and influence by the BOT and boosters, read up on Auburn. I don't think you can find a school where some problem doesn't exist to some extent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Are_grits_groceries (Reply #2)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 01:53 PM

30. Even if they tried to cover up any crime, they can't control everything

Just like when Alabama's long practice of providing prostitutes to football recruits eventually spilled into the public AND with EVIDENCE, ND Admin and coaches can't control everyone. People are not robots.

Rape is a crime, and to successfully prosecute a crime, you need evidence and/or a confession by the perpetrator. Otherwise, you are innocent until proven guilty. That's the law of the USA.

One of ND's major problems on and off campus when I attended the school in the early 1980's was alcoholism. I wouldn't be surprised if it still is a problem. There are dorm and off-campus parties where alcohol is served. I wouldn't be surprised if all the parties involved in the alleged sexual assault crimes were drunk the night of the alleged rape. Consent to have sex could have been given or interpreted while the parties were intoxicated. Alcohol interferes with memory and emotions and that could be a contributing factor to why, if it's true, that the alleged sexual assaults are just that, alleged. The alleged rape victim may have consented to have sex while drunk and then regretted it after sobering up.

But until evidence that proves beyond a doubt that the football play who allegedly committed rape appears, that person is innocent. Everything else is just hearsay.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Larkspur (Reply #30)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 03:50 PM

36. Please.

Read Tim Layden's article.
If you don't think calls from the FB team and general peer pressure cannot get to a student, you have forgotten college life. That alone discouraged one girl.

This wasn't taken seriously or addressed fully. If it had been, at least a better resolution could have been reached.

And yes, you are innocent until proven guilty. So why harass an accuser if they are ok?

Bottom line is that nothing must be allowed to cast a shadow on the FB program in many places.

And I cannot believe we are here again, bitching about some uppity woman who dared to accuse someone such as a football player without ironclad proof. This gets old. Nobody's word should be taken face value, but it damn well better be taken somewhere.

If there is an accusation, it needs to be addressed immediately for all involved. That's what the police do not the victims. They gather evidence and question witnesses. Or have we now gone to a DIY legal system. If you are the victim, it's on you. NOT! If there is no merit, say so and clear it up. If there is, bring it o trial.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Larkspur (Reply #1)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 11:22 AM

3. There cannot be rape convictions without charges.

The first woman is dead and the second woman was discouraged from pursuing the allegations after being sent text messages from other members of the football team, according to Henneberger. Police will usually not pursue a rape allegation without the full cooperation of the victim because the alleged victim usually has to testify in court to get a conviction. A rape kit does not prove rape by itself. The testimony of the alleged victim is still needed. And how do you justify the on the record statement of the Notre Dame president pretending to not know the details of the case? And why are Notre Dame officials apparently bad mouthing Lizzy Seeberg here? There may be no fire here but there sure is plenty of smoke, imo. Writing Melinda Hennebergre off as a "biased political writer" doesn't work for me. She is a Notre Dame alumnus. What is her motivation to earn the wrath (which she surely will and has - just look at some of the comments on the story) of Notre Dame supporters? Attacking the messenger never works anyway. If the truth is on her side, it will come out, maybe not before the championship game, but I would not count on that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Larkspur (Reply #1)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 11:32 AM

7. "Depression is a main cause of suicide" And how do you even know this young

woman was depressed? Ask yourself that. Someone is putting out information. Why? And why are Notre Dame officials telling people like Melinda Henneberger and others things about Lizzy Seeberg? Something is not right here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yellowcanine (Reply #7)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 11:40 AM

9. Maybe because that person is basing it on other articles and not

just one hatchet job that haters like you believe word for word.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joeybee12 (Reply #9)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 11:46 AM

13. I don't hate Notre Dame. I do hate cover ups of sexual assault.

Which it looks like might have happened here. Why don't you address the issues raised in the column instead of attacking the messengers? If you can.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yellowcanine (Reply #13)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 11:48 AM

14. Yeah you do...this is one article of many...

And yet to you it's the absolute truth without considering any other articles, evidence, etc...I reapeat you hate ND with an irrational hatred.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joeybee12 (Reply #14)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 12:16 PM

20. Of course you know me so you know better what I hate than what I do.

I read this column this morning. Before that I definitely would have been rooting for Notre Dame over Alabama. I still may, in fact, because I figure that most Notre Dame players are not part of this and they deserve to have a crack at the national championship. Unfortunately if they do win it is going to be tainted now and we have the ND administration to thank for that. But don't let the facts get in the way of your ND boosterism. The truth will come out, regardless of how much you want to wish it away.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joeybee12 (Reply #9)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 12:18 PM

21. Every article about ND isn't a hatchet job,

unless you equate anything negative said about ND being a hatchet job. They aren't above scrutiny.

However, you shout hater and blast everyone who disagrees with you or the completely positive line about ND. I don't hate ND FB or ND. I do dislike the manner in which people jump to their defense about any and everything.

That and their dismissive attitude about everybody else makes the school as a whole seem less than desirable. That does cast a shadow.

You can post, deny, obfuscate, dismiss, minimize and use whatever techniques you want. ND wasn't built by angels and saints don't live there. They are fallible.

Tim Layden isn't a hack and he doesn't do hatchet jobs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yellowcanine (Original post)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 11:26 AM

4. I have two favorite college football teams: The Univ. of Michigan Wolverines…

And ANY OTHER TEAM that plays Notre Dame.

http://deadspin.com/5963736/the-haters-guide-to-notre-dame

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yellowcanine (Original post)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 11:30 AM

5. Sour grapes from fans of second rate schools.

Any decent lawyer will try to keep as few people involved so that only a few know exactly what is going on and can speak honestly.

And I guess your education at your lousy SEC school can't comprehend what the term "in-depth knowledge" is. Pathetic whining post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joeybee12 (Reply #5)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 11:32 AM

6. Because of this ^^^^^

...there is this: http://deadspin.com/5963736/the-haters-guide-to-notre-dame

Holy Cross alum, chum. Go ahead and try to tell me about my "second-rate education."

Roll Tide.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Reply #6)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 11:39 AM

8. I got into Holy Cross...

Decided on ND.

Fuck the Tide and all the ignorant haters here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Reply #6)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 12:22 PM

23. Thanks for that....

....good lord, nothing worse than the media types such as Mike Francesa who when Notre Dame gets handed the game by the refs actually say "But they're Notre Dame!!!" like that's a valid reason.

My favorite part: Boston College: AHAHAHAHAHAHA

Oh, and this

Florida State: Remember when Florida State lost to Notre Dame but still ended up playing for the title anyway while Notre Dame got shut out? That was great. I miss the era of poll-related screwjobs, when all it took were a few embittered SIDs to deny a team a chance to play for anything significant. The best part is that Notre Dame got stuck in the Cotton Bowl that year, and the Cotton Bowl isn't even the most important football game played in the Cotton Bowl.

Hahahahahahaaaaaa......I still celebrate that moment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Reply #6)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 01:04 PM

28. Loved that link, Will!

"Yankees fans: If you meet someone who loves both Notre Dame and the Yankees, DESTROY THEM. It's legal."

And I've disliked Notre Dame ever since Lou Hoax, err, Holtz, abandoned the Minnesota program after two years so he could coach ND. I loathe Holtz - couldn't he have had those marbles surgically removed from his mouth with all the money he made? - but he was on the verge of making the Gophers relevant for the first time in decades back in the mid-1980s. College football hasn't mattered in Minnesota since Carl Eller and Sandy Stephens were stars for the Gophers. And it still doesn't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joeybee12 (Reply #5)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 11:42 AM

10. Melinda Henneberger is a Notre Dame alum. Nice try.

Last edited Wed Dec 5, 2012, 03:55 PM - Edit history (1)

And what does my education have to do with it? (wrong, btw). Care to address the actual content of what Melinda is saying?

As far as "any decent lawyer" is concerned, the President of a university is ultimately responsible for what goes on in sports programs, according to the NCAA, which Notre Dame is a part of. He will be held accountable if the NCAA finds any violations. And how can football players texting an alleged rape victim to keep her from pressing charges NOT be a violation of NCAA rules, if not a crime?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yellowcanine (Reply #10)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 11:44 AM

11. Nice to know you know absolutely nothing about due process...

The President was not there, the President would have no first-hand knowledge of waht did or did not happen...he needs to be abreast of the situation and let those directly responsible for handling such situations do their jobs...to compare this to Penn State shows the depths of your hatred...it's sickening.

And yeah, one alum slamming the university makes what she's saying entirely true...you just jumped on an article that validates your view of the situation without knowing any of the facts...absolutely pathetic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joeybee12 (Reply #11)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 11:52 AM

15. What part of "due process" is served by bad mouthing a suicide victim?

I had no "view of the situation" before reading the column. Sorry to disappoint. Care to address the actual account instead of making characterizations of people you do not know?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joeybee12 (Reply #11)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 12:05 PM

19. "The President was not there."

Last edited Wed Dec 5, 2012, 03:55 PM - Edit history (1)

The President of the University never is "there." Wasn't in the locker room at Penn State either. But according to NCAA guidelines, still responsible for knowing what went on and acting on it, nevertheless. And why is this not to be compared to Penn State? Because sexual assault of young women is somehow less offensive than sexual assaults of young boys? Wow.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yellowcanine (Reply #10)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 11:45 AM

12. One more thing, the articles alleges there were texts...

Were are they? It's hearsay...and in a court of law they could be produced...i repeat, pathetic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joeybee12 (Reply #12)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 11:57 AM

17. There was no court of law because there were no charges. Pathetic yourself.

And you obviously do not know much about rape victims. The majority choose not to press charges. That doesn't mean they weren't in fact, raped. It just means they do not wish to be victimized twice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yellowcanine (Reply #17)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 09:59 AM

48. What about the women who falsely accused the Duke Lacrosse team of rape?

Our law says that the accused is innocent until proven guilty. If it followed the Napoleonic code, which states the opposite, we'd have a much higher incarceration rate then we do not, especially among minorities.

Rape is a violent crime, but it is a crime that needs evidence to support claims against the perpetrator because perpetrators are ASSUMED innocent until proven guilty. Accusations ARE NOT EVIDENCE.

There has been much progress in helping victims of rape over the last few decades to overcome the stigma and encourage them to bring charges against their attackers. There were support groups available to the women who accused individuals on the ND football team, but these women chose not to use the help available to them. That makes me, a woman, suspect their real intentions about their accusations. In Seeberg's case, she seemed to show signs of bipolar disorder. I have a friend who has a daughter who was diagnosed with bipolar disease. As long as she is on her meds, she's fine, but if she stops taking them she becomes suicidal. Because Seeberg killed herself, she could not be cross-examined to test the validity of her accusations.

The law must find out the truth, not coddle victims, who like the women in the Duke case brought false charges against innocent people. Those women also hurt real rape victims by their lies.

What Melinda should have written about, if she was really concerned about justice in college sexual assault cases, was the differences between how Duke and Notre Dame handled sexual assault accusations and have both schools improved their procedures on handling them or not. Maybe she should also have written about the support groups and if they have the resources to help sexual assault and rape victims. If they suffer from lack of resources, can the colleges do more to fund them? But she chose to continue impugning the reputation of the University of Notre Dame, the unnamed football player, whom she gave zero chance to defend himself, and the rest of the football team based largely on hearsay. That's shoddy writing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yellowcanine (Reply #10)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 04:43 PM

40. I'm a Notre Dame alumna and strongly disagree with her

She ran a shoddy hit piece on her alma mater. She should have interviewed the lawyer of the unnamed football player to get his side of the incident as well as research Seeberg's testimony, which was contradicting with itself and with other witnesses.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Larkspur (Reply #40)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 08:34 PM

45. She clearly researched both cases. It was not a shoddy hit piece. Name one incorrect statement in

column.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yellowcanine (Reply #45)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 09:32 AM

47. Yes it was a shoddy column.

She never interviewed the football player's lawyer to get his client's side of the story. Melinda believes that accusations of sexual assault are enough evidence for her to convict someone whose side of the story she refused to research. That's shoddy reporting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Larkspur (Reply #47)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 01:15 PM

50. But you still haven't named one incorrect statement. So how is it shoddy?

She is careful to say what is her opinion also. Shoddy is in the eye of the beholder, it seems.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joeybee12 (Reply #5)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 11:56 AM

16. Wow!! Arrogant much?

My daughter is attending a "lousy SEC school." Fuck you and your superiority complex.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ishoutandscream2 (Reply #16)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 12:02 PM

18. See post #6.

Trust me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joeybee12 (Reply #5)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 02:59 PM

33. Any Vanderbilt alums who happen by

are not going to handle that "lousy SEC school" remark well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yellowcanine (Original post)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 12:19 PM

22. I wish they would both lose

Both schools are dirty as hell, although in today's college football world you have to be.

Nick Saban's an asshole and all these ND fans coming out of the woodwork are as annoying as all the Cowboys and Celtics fans who suddenly pipe up when they start winning.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProudToBeBlueInRhody (Reply #22)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 12:29 PM

24. Well one is going to win unless the game is cancelled.

And I still think Notre Dame has a good football program and most of the people involved deserve a shot at the national title. I don't know much about Alabama so do not have an opinion. But I do think the Notre Dame administration is doing itself, the players and the fans no favors if they indeed handled these allegations the way Melinda says they did - and she has no motive to lie as far as I can see. And it is disappointing to see Notre Dame boosters blindly denying everything, just as it was to see Penn State boosters blindly defending Joe Paterno.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yellowcanine (Reply #24)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 12:41 PM

25. Notre Dame is no different....

....than a lot of places. What's annoying is they act like they are better, and the media swears to it. There have been tons of stories where ND players do all sorts of outrageous shit, and one call from old Lou Holtz and it was all taken care of. Read "Under the Tarnished Dome" about what a fraud that sanctimonious right-wing coot was. Now he's on ESPN as a loveable old sage. Fuck him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProudToBeBlueInRhody (Reply #25)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 12:53 PM

26. Lou Holtz.....ancient history, though.

Lou last coached ND in 1996. It wasn't even the last place he coached. So branding the current program because of Lou Holtz is unfair, imo. The current players know nothing of Lou Holtz.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yellowcanine (Reply #26)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 12:59 PM

27. I'm fully aware of that

But there's a history here, and the media has done a lot over the years to look the other way on a lot of things with them. It's just no surprise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProudToBeBlueInRhody (Reply #27)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 01:51 PM

29. Yes, there is history but that doesn't mean a lot to the current team.

The current team has their accomplishments and it is not fair to tarnish them with the sins of Lou Holtz or the fawning media.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yellowcanine (Original post)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 02:19 PM

31. Have we learned nothing from the Duke Lacrosse scandal?


Notre Dame Football: The Lizzy Seeberg Case and Poor Reporting
SNIP
The Chicago Tribune was the first to bring the story to light, seeking comment from Brian Kelly several times about the incident. And, according to David Haugh of the Tribune, the player should be removed from the playing field.

Per Haugh: "A guy who can discipline a player for missing a meeting should have the autonomy to bench a player accused of what could be a felony in the real world. The player is innocent until proven guilty, to be sure. But football coaches, especially those of the most famous college football program in America, rarely deal in due process."

Does that make sense to anyone?

"The player is innocent until proven guilty... but football coaches rarely deal in due process."

So he is presumed innocent but coaches don't always follow that logic. So he should be singled out and suspended, presumed guilty until the investigation's facts come to light?

Have we learned nothing from the Duke Lacrosse scandal?

What happened to innocent until proven guilty?

SNIP


And were ND and authorities covering up the sexual assualt or following the law on privacy...

Haugh goes on to refer to Kelly's tone in his press conference; the fact that the University and police have kept the investigation private (bound by federal law), and Notre Dame having "lost the benefit of the doubt when it sent Sullivan up in a scissors lift on an extraordinarily windy day" as his evidence that the university is doing something wrong and involved in a cover up.

It's just astonishing reporting from one of the traditionally sound newspapers out of Chicago.

The facts are starting to come out in the case, but will certainly be few in number until the investigation is complete. St. Joseph County Police and their SVU—both investigating the case with the ND police—were notified of the alleged sexual assault (Haugh stated they were unaware, which was incorrect).

And as noted above, Notre Dame is bound by the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) which prohibits universities from publicly discussing specific disciplinary cases.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Larkspur (Reply #31)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 03:26 PM

35. And have we learned nothing from the Penn State Sandusky scandal?

If you cover up a problem it is not going to go away. Melinda is alleging that the player involved in the Seeburg incident should not have been recruited by ND. Now why is she saying that, and does ND, ND boosters or the NCAA care?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yellowcanine (Reply #35)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 04:40 PM

39. And there was no cover-up, and there was no rape.

There was NO EVIDENCE and there was NO RAPE! And Seeberg's statements, per the state prosecutor, conflicted with other witnesses.

It's obvious Seeberg was mentally unstable. Most rape victims don't commit suicide 9 days after filing a report. And she had help from the St. Mary's College sexual assault group. In case you don't know, St. Mary's College is independent of the University of Notre Dame. They are not a subsidiary of ND. SHE HAD HELP!! but refused it.
Seeberg was not raped, as shoddy writers attest. At the most, if what she said was true, she was groped without her consent. That's not rape. It's sexual assault per Indiana law.

As far as the football player, his name has not been released to the public, so Melinda is committing journalistic malpractice by judging him. Maybe she should have called up his lawyer to ask his viewpoint of this incident. Since no more incidents have happened, I'd say that he's not a serial rapist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Larkspur (Reply #39)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 08:29 PM

44. The alleged rape was the second victim. Seeberg did not allege rape. You are obfuscating by

deliberately ignoring the alleged victim of a different ND football player.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yellowcanine (Reply #44)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 10:01 AM

49. No, I'm not obfuscating. Some shoddy writers call Seeberg's case rape because

they assume sexual assault = rape.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Larkspur (Reply #49)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 01:20 PM

51. "SOME shoddy writers" But not this writer (Melinda). So why bring it up here?

That is why it is obfuscation. You choose not to address Melinda's specific points, instead you bring in some other writer's point and shoot it down. That is also known as constructing a straw man argument.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Larkspur (Reply #31)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 09:12 PM

55. I don't see much of a similarity between the two cases so far.

In the Duke case, there was an immediate rush to judgment against the whole lacrosse team. The President of Duke hung the whole team -- along with its coach -- out to dry.

It appears to be the opposite in the Notre Dame case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yellowcanine (Original post)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 02:39 PM

32. Here's another article on this incident...


Jenkins breaks silence on Seeberg allegations
http://www.wsbt.com/news/wsbt-jenkins-breaks-silence-on-seeb-122610,0,1148738.story
SNIP

When a campus police officer interviewed Seeberg on Sept. 1, the officer was made aware of the young woman’s history of depression and the fact that she was taking Effexor, according to Notre Dame spokesman Dennis Brown. Effexor is a medication used for treatment of depression and anxiety. Seeberg’s suicide came nine days after she reported to Notre Dame Security Police that a student athlete had touched her breasts while they were alone in his dormitory room. Under Indiana law, touching another person without consent for purposes of sexual gratification meets the definition of sexual battery, a felony.
SNIP

So it's most likely that this football player engaged in sexual foreplay, not sexual intercourse. Seeberg's statements imply this, not rape. But contrary to some bashing ND over this, there were witnesses with Seeberg around the time of the alleged sexual assault, but they and cell phone records conflict with Seeberg's account.


The prosecutor’s written explanation said Seeberg’s suicide made her statements to police inadmissible in court because they would be considered hearsay evidence. Dvorak also said Seeberg’s written statement conflicted with the accounts of three other students and that the cell phone records were inconsistent with Seeberg’s claims.

Lizzy Seeberg’s recollections of Aug. 31 are detailed in her typed Sept. 5 statement, a copy of which was obtained by the South Bend Tribune.
The young woman said she and the player went to his room that evening, along with a male friend of the player’s and that friend’s girlfriend, who was also Seeberg’s friend, according to the statement. Seeberg wrote that it appeared as though the player and his friend were communicating with their cell phones shortly before the other couple abruptly left the room.

Alone with the player, Seeberg started feeling uncomfortable with the conversation. “I started feeling as though I was in danger,” she wrote. “I didn’t feel safe in his room.”

Seeberg wrote that she reached for her phone to text her female friend to come back but that the player stopped her. “He then proceeded to grab my face and started to kiss me. Tears started to roll down my face because I didn’t know what I should do and I was extremely scared,” she wrote.
He then touched her breasts and pulled down her tank top by the straps, Seeberg wrote. The incident ended when the player received a call or text on his cell phone and he “violently threw me off of him to the side,” she wrote.

About a minute later, the other couple returned to the room, according to the statement.

Seeberg wrote that she had consumed two beers that evening and that the player “forcibly told me to drink an open beer” when they were alone in his room. “Though I wouldn’t consider myself drunk, I definitely felt the effect of the three beers I had that night,” she wrote.

Seeberg’s account states she and the other male student each had beer that evening, but that neither her female friend nor the player had a drink.
Some media reports have stated Seeberg accused the player of raping her, but her statement makes no such claim.
SNIP

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Larkspur (Reply #32)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 03:21 PM

34. Most of this does not address Melinda's allegations.

For example - the alleged rape which occurred later and the text messages supposedly sent by football players in that instance to the alleged victim, possibly intimidating her. What was Notre Dame's response to that incident?

Also the whispering campaign against Lizzie Seeberg which Melinda states was/is occurring. If Notre Dame officials are not supposed to be discussing this, why are they bad mouthing a dead young woman to media people, including Melinda? Notre Dame seems to be hiding behind the legal eagles when it comes to meeting with alleged victims or their families or addressing questions from media but then when it comes to whispering to media in a way which reflects well on the ND football players in question, not so much.

Melinda also addresses the cell phone issue and she makes a valid point that for someone in the middle of a sexual assault getting it wrong about whether a phone call was made or received is not surprising. Heck, I cannot always tell whether people around me received or initiated a phone call. If the phone is set on silent you can't always tell. And anybody who has been involved in actual court trials involving witnesses (rather than what they see on TV) knows that witnesses in trials often get details wrong. It doesn't mean they are lying. In fact, a constructed story often has fewer inconsistencies in it than a truthful account.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yellowcanine (Reply #34)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 04:29 PM

38. Those issues were all addressed but ND haters want a scandal even if there isn't one

And Seeberg didn't claim rape, as some shoddy writers attest. It was, by Indiana law, non-consensual groping per her description.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Larkspur (Reply #38)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 08:24 PM

43. "Those issues were all addressed...." And why then are ND officials conducting a whispering

campaign against the woman who died? Mighty curious if those issues were all addressed. That is what Melinda is alleging based on first hand experience. Are you saying it is not true?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yellowcanine (Reply #43)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 09:29 AM

46. What campaign against the women who died?

The only campaign I see is from ND football haters saying that accusations are evidence because they don't have any real evidence to support the accusations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Larkspur (Reply #46)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 01:23 PM

52. The one mentioned by Melinda from her personal experience.

I guess you really didn't read the column very carefully. Quelle surprise!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yellowcanine (Reply #52)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 02:36 PM

53. Oh, you mean that made-up campaign

created by ND football haters.

Got it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Larkspur (Reply #53)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 08:51 PM

54. Again with the assertions but not one example of an inaccurate statement in this particular column.

Ok. Got it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Larkspur (Reply #53)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 09:24 PM

56. Concerning cases of this sort ...

Why don't you read Our Guys by Bernard Lefkowitz. You might learn something.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yellowcanine (Original post)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 04:15 PM

37. WaPo writer *shocked* that big-time NCAA program covers up player crime...

Writer also shocked that: Her alma mater would knowingly recruit certain high schoolers with well known "character" issues, all in the name of winning games, and that most university admins and prominent alumni/fans blindly protect the program and would rather put the whole story "behind them"...

What? This is something new to her? Did she graduate in 1909 or something?? I'm not trying to make light of the tragedy, but even as a student she must have been aware of dozens of unsavory stories of jackassery that the athletic department suppressed (especially if she ever worked for her campus newspaper)...And for all her hand-wringing, how does she neglect mentioning the $100 million dollar elephant in the room, which is how corrupt sports on the college and high school level have become with the flow of so much cash? (In case she missed the point, THAT'S WHY NOTRE DAME AND EVERY OTHER MAJOR PROGRAM COVERS FOR THEIR PLAYERS)...Why has it become verboten for journalists to look at the full landscape and admit how ugly it has become?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue_Tires (Reply #37)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 10:57 AM

57. Because school sports have been a sacred cow in this country for generations.

Instead of being treated as human beings, athletes and coaches have been placed on pedestals. If a player has viciously mistreated another young person, the sports establishment protects the guilty. And the sports media? Oh, give me a break! You call that journalism? When have they ever done any investigative reporting? Well, I guess they did begin to act like journalists during the Penn State scandal. But really the sports media is nothing more and nothing less than a propaganda mill. If most sports columnists are true journalists, then so was Joseph Goebbels. "Sports journalists," indeed!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yellowcanine (Original post)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 04:54 PM

41. It wasn't rape. It was investigated by the county prosecutor and no charges filed.

It happened 2 years ago. The allegation was sexual battery - "specifically touching her breasts".

Why is this article even being published? Especially now... 2 years after the fact on the eve of Notre Dame playing for the national title?

Trying to boost her readership and create national exposure for herself?

Sure looks that way to me.

Prosecutor's report...

http://media.trb.com/media/acrobat/2010-12/272335660-16095122.pdf

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mr. Blue Sky (Reply #41)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 08:16 PM

42. There were two alleged victims. One was sexual assault. The other was rape. Why do ND boosters

ignore the second victim by saying it wasn't rape? The second case allegedly involved football players texting the alleged victim to pressure her to keep quite. She did not file charges, possibly because of what happened to the first woman and the pressure from football players. If true the texting could be a NCAA violation. The article is relevant today because players involved are still on the team.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread