By: Jj (33 posts) - 7/25/2016 10:06:09 PM

My friend in the GW school administration just told me this!  GW Athletic Director Patrick Nero was not in charge of the men's basketball program this past season.  A member of the athletic department went to GW President Knapp in September 2015 and reported that Nero was having an inappropriate relationship with a men's basketball student athlete which included daily closed door meetings and dinner at Nero's residence.  President Knapp was told of many "red flags" and possible impermissible benefits the student athlete received from Nero.  After internal conversations, Knapp ordered Nero to stay away from the student athlete and the other players and put a Senior Associate Athletic Director in charge of the basketball program.  All of this has been reported internally to senior members of the GW school administration the last 2 years. 
The Washington Post article is retaliation as reporter was directed to call certain players the person orchestrating this article told him to call in order to take the focus off the real story.   Lonergan didn't say anything alleged in the article.   All of the details of this will be exposed after the external investigation. 

By: NewGWFan (510 posts) - 7/25/2016 10:08:53 PM

If that's true, and I'm ML I'm suing the crap out of someone.

By: ziik (2,950 posts) - 7/25/2016 10:14:23 PM

If true, it is shameful shit. But, why would Knapp treat it seriously if he knew it was a sham? 

Quite a shame. 

By: The Dude (529 posts) - 7/25/2016 10:17:28 PM

Sounds like total bullshit.  Not saying it is, saying it sounds like total bullshit. ......No, check that, I'm saying it is total bullshit and if you believe that you are a damn fool, no offense.

By: Long Suffering Fan (4,106 posts) - 7/25/2016 10:25:43 PM

Wow!  

By: ziik (2,950 posts) - 7/25/2016 10:50:05 PM

Does anyone else find it bizarre that an investigation is done only as a result of an anonymous article. The school and all parties involved knew this article was coming out for quite some time. So the school initiates an investigation only after the article comes out?? So melodramatic. If they really thought things were an issue don't you think an investigation would have been done prior. Seems as if they are just doing an investigation to appear as if an effort is being made in university's behalf 

By: ziik (2,950 posts) - 7/25/2016 10:52:32 PM

My guess, the guy who posted the #5 post on this string, using my name, is Putin. Damned trouble maker!!

By: GW 69 (7/25/2016 10:53:30 PM)

Im with the Dude. What a convoluted mess of a story.The Post story 

was a plant? Yikes! Almost time to go to bed. This thread makes me

tired.

By: BC (1,645 posts) - 7/25/2016 11:03:48 PM

all the more reason to wait till the facts a known.  I do find it difficult to believe that a reliable person in the admin would tell anybody this story.

By: bobo (3,178 posts) - 7/25/2016 11:14:07 PM

Image result for soap opera

By: adclub (377 posts) - 7/25/2016 11:31:52 PM

The junkies did say they have info that will break this whole thing open but couldn't share it....

By: Bo Knows (705 posts) - 7/25/2016 11:33:07 PM

I can confirm only the second sentence of JJ's report. I cannot confirm the reason for it - it was strange - but I heard the same thing from a reliable source awhile back. Thought it had no relationship to anything that we have been discussing so didn't mention it. I have never been told the reason behind it and certainly not the story set forth in JJ's post. But this all goes to the original point. Just as the Post tried ML based on anonymous sources this post does the very same thing to PN. Sad on both accounts really. Neither ML or PN need to have reputations ruined by anonymous reports.

We are apparently in the midst of a civil war for the hearts and minds of the GW athletics and the men's basketball program. Watch your back! I continue to trust that ML will ultimately be vindicated in all of this.

By: Bo Knows (705 posts) - 7/25/2016 11:37:12 PM

Image result for pandora's box

By: The Dude (529 posts) - 7/25/2016 11:40:51 PM

Two allegations, one story, we all wish isn't true, would vastly benefit the program to be found untrue, and yet is plausibly true/partially true and wouldn't come as a giant shock (to me at least)  It was also reported in a national paper of distinction with 6 sources including 5 players and 1 former ML staff member.

the 2nd story was typed by anonymous poster  "Jj" from what he claims was told to him, reads totally implausible, made up, and a giant distraction from what is already the biggest story in GW recent history.  But man, it doesn't take much to get some people here to pounce!  In related news I have been told by a GW official tonight that GW Football is coming back in 2018 and GW will rejoin the SEC schools, Alabama here we come!! Forget the 1955 Sun Bowl, we want the SEC crown!!

By: ziik (2,950 posts) - 7/25/2016 11:48:14 PM

Righto Dude. But, why waste time here with a concocted lie by jj? The lie goes nowhere, and does not affect the Post story. It makes me pause a bit.

By: BC (1,645 posts) - 7/25/2016 11:49:43 PM

I can just see it now, a mighty crowd of 1000 at RFK to see GW football.  Is it still called that?  Well it's a change of topic.

By: Bo Knows (705 posts) - 7/25/2016 11:51:24 PM

In fairness ziik, the second sentence of jj's post is not a lie. The rest of it ... I have no idea.

By: LA Fan (1,525 posts) - 7/25/2016 11:52:40 PM

Regardless of what anyone here believes or doesn't believe, this is all becoming disastrous for the program.  This story about Nero could just be a fabrication, but still if I didn't think it could get any worse, it may just have.

By: The Dude (529 posts) - 7/25/2016 11:59:31 PM

Jj's post reminds of drunk uncle from SNL.  If you haven't watched SNL much the last few years you are 1) Wise 2) need to google that for context.

Agree Ziik, but I feel a need to call such insidious BS for what it is.

Still called RFK, I believe the DC soccer team plays there, I still miss the days you could watch the early Nats game there for 10 bucks and Miller Lite bottles were like 3 bones.  What a dump, but it beats dropping 200 on Nats tickets and 6 drinks. Bought 2 rounds of 4 beers and 2 Jack Daniels last week for some ladies and it cost 66 bucks a round! MPire the new upscale strip club has more reasonable drinking prices!! And the "Teddy" there is a a little easier on the eyes.

 

By: LA Fan (1,525 posts) - 7/26/2016 12:00:29 AM

Regardless of what anyone here believes or doesn't believe, this is all becoming disastrous for the program.  This story about Nero could just be a fabrication, but still if I didn't think it could get any worse, it may just have.

By: BACCAS92 (705 posts) - 7/26/2016 12:40:01 AM

I am so confused.  

By: Bigfan (2,829 posts) - 7/26/2016 3:52:28 AM

Holy crap! ( good headline for Post story,come to think of it). Have no idea what to think.

No idea what is true. But Bo,if it is indeed Bo, confirmed second sentence.

Did point to a bizarre Shakesperian drama. Also did note several times that Nero had a lawyer best known for sexual harassment,something that no one seemed to pick up on.

And the fact that she is quoted and her seemingly odd comment from out of nowhere.

If even a smidgen of this is true,take back what I said about the story. Way worse than a piece of shit if this is the real direction. Naivete at its best.

In comments section of the Post, someone said story was likely a Nero plant. Go back and read.

This does provide some explanation,if at all correct. ML would go ballistic,as would any coach or human being. 

No idea if any of this is true,but if it is really Bo,will take him at his word. He didn' t post original statement and if indeed him, just carefully confirmed it.

Would have gotten this story out if were ML' s people. Now that' s a good read.

Because now, IF TRUE, alleged story line reads like ML. protecting player from a predator. 

That sounds more like ML.

Unlike some,not rushing to judgment on anyone, ML or Nero.

But would wait for other shoes to drop.

Speaking of dropping, would welcome any more insight from JJ, Bo Knows or anyone else.

 Something has to explain these bizarre maneuverings that went unexplained in the story.

Keep the information coming--and soon.

By: Skittles (178 posts) - 7/26/2016 6:27:56 AM

JJ tells the truth.

By: Poster (5 posts) - 7/26/2016 6:33:16 AM

It is completely untrue. 

By: bobo (3,178 posts) - 7/26/2016 6:56:42 AM

Who are Skittles and Poster and what are their agendas?

Frankly, I don't believe either one of them.

By: Skittles (178 posts) - 7/26/2016 7:00:05 AM

I have no agenda. Was asked not to speak on this until now. I'll stake my rep on this one, and my track record here speaks for itself bobo. 

By: Poster (5 posts) - 7/26/2016 7:03:43 AM

Spreading lies such is this is reprehensible.  I can't wait for the investigation to be done and Lonergan to be GONE.

By: bballfan (7/26/2016 7:11:13 AM)

Poster, When ML is cleared and Nero is gone - will you please leave?!

By: seangw83 (73 posts) - 7/26/2016 7:15:59 AM

I have no idea what's true or untrue, but I see little to no way both PN and ML are still standing after the truth is actually uncovered.

Combined with a new University President next year, seems to be a time of great upheaval for both the Athletic Department and University. 

By: GW69 (7/26/2016 7:16:16 AM)

Could the plant be a plant? This has become increasingly absurd.There is no good news here for ML nor PN. What a cluster!! This meta--level

labyrinth of a story is off the rails. It's gone way beyond what is true,

unfortuneatly. No winners here.Lives and reputations are changed

forever no matter what the outcome.

By: Hugh Jaynus (5 posts) - 7/26/2016 7:18:39 AM

When ML is exonerated, can the Dude please leave the board? Thought his basketball arguments were bad...

By: 2cents (32 posts) - 7/26/2016 7:23:35 AM

I don't know what to make of all this. If this is true, is anyone else wondering what an "innapproptaite relationship" in this context is?  As I understand it, any type of relationship with a scholarship player where they receive benefits in any form would be deemed inappropriate...like even taking them to Taco Bell for dinner. Or is this an "inappropriate relationship" of the sexual kind? 

By: Hugh Jaynus (5 posts) - 7/26/2016 7:25:45 AM

2cents...I'm assuming the latter.

By: Thomas (1,146 posts) - 7/26/2016 7:28:19 AM

bobo, I kind of believe both Skittles and Poster, as well as both Pro-Lonergan versus Anti-Lonergan sides because ML's personality indicates to me that elements to both sides of the story can be true. The Lonergan camp/supporters are saying ML is a saint and has done nothing wrong, and there are 1 or 2 individuals who are trying to ruin him. The anti-Lonergan group are describing him as an Out-Of-Control Maniac!! It's obvious from ML's "animated" sideline antics and 'Straight No Chaser' way of communicating to people that he's very capable of vile insults to or about his players, his coaches and/or his A.D.

On the other hand, we've had several of his current and former GW players come to his defense, along with 2 former Maryland players(Will Bowers and Nik Caner-Medley) who only played under ML when he was an assistant for one year in 2006(10 YEARS AGO!!!). I'm particulary impressed that the Maryland players would come to his defense because they were only around ML for 1 season, and thought so highly of him that they decided to speak up publicly in his defense.

By: Bballfan (7/26/2016 7:29:16 AM)

Let me spell it out for you - I would say anytime the AD meets one on one with a player repeatedly, having dinner only with said player, having said player at his private residence - unless they are related, that is inappropriate!!!  The coach does not only not meet with players alone, but they only go as a team or group.  This is beyond creepy!

By: Remember Fort Myer (14 posts) - 7/26/2016 7:32:58 AM

"Some modern historians question the reliability of ancient sources when reporting on Nero's tyrannical acts."  from Wikipedia

By: Skittles (178 posts) - 7/26/2016 7:36:13 AM

+1 bballfan 

By: Maine Colonial (487 posts) - 7/26/2016 7:36:29 AM

Last year was the best year in the history of GW Athletics and this year was shaping up to be even better...until this mess. Unbelievably sad. Both sides have to share some blame for it becoming such a public debacle. Then again it pales compared to the presidential election. 

By: bballfan (7/26/2016 7:46:46 AM)

Funny how the results of the investigation last year did not make the Post - maybe ML, or those who knew, did not feel the need to disgrace PN in the public.  Makes you wonder why this story even came out.  Any reporter worth his weight would have done a more thorough job finding out facts and motives.  For example - why is there tension between coach and AD?  Why was an associate AD now traveling with the team when there was nothing found against ML?  The school is never going to comment on personnel actions - get real. 

By: Mike K (1,177 posts) - 7/26/2016 7:48:18 AM

I will quote what went through many of our mides when we read this: "Holy Fuck!"

As far as Skittles, he has had accurate info in the past.

By: Keith Greene (151 posts) - 7/26/2016 7:53:11 AM

This whole story is analogous to a high school student accusing a teacher of sexual abuse.  The reputation of said teacher is damaged - maybe even irreperably - by such an allegation, whether true or untrue.

I have no doubt that Coach Lonergan is tough on the players; whether he is abusive is another question.  Enough players have spoken out in his support to cast doubt on the allegations of abuse.  Where are the graduated players claiming that Lonergan was abusive?  They have nothing to lose by coming forward, just as Garino, Armwood and Creek have nothing to gain.

The allegation makes front-page news.  When the teacher gets exonerated, it's on page 56!

I refuse to pass judgment on either Coach Lonergan or AD Nero until the facts are out.  It's not right.

By: Keith Greene (151 posts) - 7/26/2016 7:53:12 AM

This whole story is analogous to a high school student accusing a teacher of sexual abuse.  The reputation of said teacher is damaged - maybe even irreperably - by such an allegation, whether true or untrue.

I have no doubt that Coach Lonergan is tough on the players; whether he is abusive is another question.  Enough players have spoken out in his support to cast doubt on the allegations of abuse.  Where are the graduated players claiming that Lonergan was abusive?  They have nothing to lose by coming forward, just as Garino, Armwood and Creek have nothing to gain.

The allegation makes front-page news.  When the teacher gets exonerated, it's on page 56!

I refuse to pass judgment on either Coach Lonergan or AD Nero until the facts are out.  It's not right.

By: Skittles (178 posts) - 7/26/2016 8:07:43 AM

Poster can join The Dude in getting the hell out of here once Lonergan is cleared. 

By: Long Suffering Fan (4,106 posts) - 7/26/2016 8:36:40 AM

Lets just say that for selfish reasons, that if there is one guilty party and one who has to go, I am hoping it would be the AD rather than the coach.  And I am saying this not personally knowing either the coach or the AD, but the fact is the coach is the face of the team.  At least in the short term, his departure would be far more damaging to the team, which is really all I (and I suspect many others on this board) care about.   It would cause far more upheaval and be far more disruptive recruiting wise, attendance wise and general overall image.  The AD is a very important job...but by in large he they are nameless suits.   Replace one with the other and most of the world would not notice.   Now, having said that, I may somewhat disagree with bball fan's statement that "anytime the AD meets one on one with a player repeatedly, having dinner only with said player, having said player at his private residence - unless they are related, that is inappropriate!!!"  It certainly may raise eyebrows, but there could also be innocent explanations (i.e. the player was having a family or personal crisis and needed an adult to reach out to).   And just like we should not bash the coach on what is being written and give him the benefit of the "innocent until proven guilty presumption", the same shouild hold true for the AD, as much as I may want the blame to fall on him rather than the coach.

By: Long Suffering Fan (4,106 posts) - 7/26/2016 8:36:41 AM

Lets just say that for selfish reasons, that if there is one guilty party and one who has to go, I am hoping it would be the AD rather than the coach.  And I am saying this not personally knowing either the coach or the AD, but the fact is the coach is the face of the team.  At least in the short term, his departure would be far more damaging to the team, which is really all I (and I suspect many others on this board) care about.   It would cause far more upheaval and be far more disruptive recruiting wise, attendance wise and general overall image.  The AD is a very important job...but by in large he they are nameless suits.   Replace one with the other and most of the world would not notice.   Now, having said that, I may somewhat disagree with bball fan's statement that "anytime the AD meets one on one with a player repeatedly, having dinner only with said player, having said player at his private residence - unless they are related, that is inappropriate!!!"  It certainly may raise eyebrows, but there could also be innocent explanations (i.e. the player was having a family or personal crisis and needed an adult to reach out to).   And just like we should not bash the coach on what is being written and give him the benefit of the "innocent until proven guilty presumption", the same shouild hold true for the AD, as much as I may want the blame to fall on him rather than the coach.

By: Hoopsfan78 (7/26/2016 8:37:01 AM)

JJ/Skittles,

I know for a fact that there is no truth to this story at all.  In fact Nero was as involved as ever with the Basketball team and all other teams. 

1.) if this story were true and the university didn't dismiss Nero for cause on the spot they are open to lawsuits and potentially more

2.) Why would the university publically announce an investigation of ML by outside law firm as well as conducting a review after the 2014-2015 season.

3.) Mo Creek on the radio defended Nero (i forget the first part of what he answered, but second part was "i stop by and say hi when i'm back visiting"

4.) players on the team have a very good relationship with Nero and frequently stop by his office for random talks.

5.) patrick has hosted many team events and fundraisers that included ML (as well as some that ML chose not to attend)

In my opinion this is someone very close to mike planting a story to try and divert attention.  This is truely a new low for all involved.

By: Skittles (178 posts) - 7/26/2016 8:52:34 AM

I only post as skittles, for the hundredth time. Unlike some of the posters on this board I don't suffer from multiple personality disorder or stupidity. A lot of your points are misleading and Creek wasn't there for JJs version of events. I don't need to verify or argue any further the truth will come out soon enough. 

By: hungryhungrytrachtenberg (7/26/2016 8:54:39 AM)

Even if you have inside information, that information may only be part of the story or one individual's side of the story.  

I strongly encourage everyone to let the university and independent investigation conclude before rushing to any judgements or posting any potentially misleading information which could be incredibly harmful to the careers of hardworking staff in our athletics department.  

Depending on the outcomes of this investigation, I hope Herve considers deleting some of these threads that contain some wild accusations that could be very harmful in the years to come.  

By: hoopfan78 (7/26/2016 8:57:43 AM)

skittles i wasn't accusing you of being jj i was addressing both of you. 

Unfortunately i don't believe the average fan will ever know the "trueth", but i stand by my opinion that ML will not be on the plane to Japan.

sounds like we both have our sources that we trust heavily.  it comes down to which side of the story is true.  my opinion is that the members of the team last year will provide enough information to verify information. 

The part that JJ is dead wrong about however is Nero's involvement in the program over the past year. 

By: Hugh Jaynus (5 posts) - 7/26/2016 9:00:56 AM

 Herve needs to delete some anonymous accusations from some keyboard warriors on a blog with a population of 18 in case the Washington Post wants to quote Ziik or Long Suffering Fan in a professionally written article...

By: NewGWFan (510 posts) - 7/26/2016 9:04:20 AM

 

This story would jive with everything we have heard out of the ML camp. The junkies alluded to it, along with Feinstein, ML friends and family.  Lots of references to something happening behind the  senses that they can't disclose.  This would make a whole lot of sense as to why ML can't come forward or his associates and explain what's going on.  Would love to hear Patrick Nero side of things.  The way in which Feinstein explained that the article ended up at the post gives me great concern and makes me think something fishy is in play.  They did not take the story to the GW beat writers and did not present both sides of the story.

I think PN and the player went to the Post with the story. 

By: Bo Knows (705 posts) - 7/26/2016 9:04:22 AM

Skittles has had a solid track record here. I am now hearing the same thing from presumably someone other than Skittles. Can't vouch for it entirely except for the part about PN not overseeing men's basketball. And I have to tell you that alone is so atypical in athletic departments as to at least raise questions as to why. 

By: Still Here (7/26/2016 9:07:45 AM)

Hoopsfan, you just said you know for a fact then made a list of points based on conjecture. Additionally one person made the point that the kid could have been having a hard time (maybe with lonergan) and kept asking to meet with Nero. Doesn't make it appropriate, but it doesn't sound like a fireable offense. Either way I find this all incredibly believable. I said before the article read like it was being framed just so by someone (maybe Nero based on the strange weigh in from his lawyer against lonergan) and this makes it seem like motive has been established. I will say though, as many people have noted, none of this means the lonergan story has to be false. Both stories can easily be true.

 

 

 

 

By: Bo Knows (705 posts) - 7/26/2016 9:17:41 AM

Another thing the Post story got wrong I am told was why Ed Scott was so heavily involved. It wasn't because of ML's behavior, it was because of the reason in the second sentence of JJ's post. Ed Scott was there to oversee men's basketball. As to why, well other than JJ's post, I have no explanation. We will all find out soon the truth of all matters asserted but until then, unlike JJ, at least Skittles has a track record here. 

By: Tk (258 posts) - 7/26/2016 9:19:43 AM

i think it's a bit from column a, a bit from column b. Nero's been watching too much house of cards 

By: JJ (33 posts) - 7/26/2016 9:35:08 AM

To everyone. I am my own person and dont have any other names on this site. I rarely post or read periodically. I did post information last night as I have come to understand  that some part of the story was not told in the public. I totally agree that we need to be patient and let the external investigation occur and understand the results. This will take time. Like with any corporation, the university has documented all of this. They are not surprised by any of this. The external review must be performed legally as the school's reputation, careers and controls of the university need to be reviewed. If the school was not aware of this, they would have started an internal investigation first. The reason its an external investigation has a purpose which you can figure out on your own.  Understand why some may question my post because people dont have all the facts. But my question when I read the Post story, if everyone is anonymous and everyone involved ...looks like 6 people total...are not involved with the program anymore, who gains by this story? 

By: NJ Colonial (1,980 posts) - 7/26/2016 9:46:05 AM

Nice to see a grown-up post, Keith Greene, I agree with you.  Everybody needs to calm down.  If you really care about GW and the hoops program, stop jumping to conclusions.

By: Bo Knows (705 posts) - 7/26/2016 9:50:41 AM

Additional info (which is admittedly cannot be verified) which may support another part of this being a hatchet job and causing some confusion. It may be that current player alleged in the Post Story is now a former player and was at the time of publication (i.e. he was a current player at part of the timeframe discussed). Supposedly the writer has been working on this article for some time. If this is so, this is some really disingenuous stuff on the part of the Post labelling him now a current player.

By: JJ (33 posts) - 7/26/2016 9:50:55 AM

To everyone. I am my own person and dont have any other names on this site. I rarely post or read periodically. I did post information last night as I have come to understand  that some part of the story was not told in the public. I totally agree that we need to be patient and let the external investigation occur and understand the results. This will take time. Like with any corporation, the university has documented all of this. They are not surprised by any of this. The external review must be performed legally as the school's reputation, careers and controls of the university need to be reviewed. If the school was not aware of this, they would have started an internal investigation first. The reason its an external investigation has a purpose which you can figure out on your own.  Understand why some may question my post because people dont have all the facts. But my question when I read the Post story, if everyone is anonymous and everyone involved ...looks like 6 people total...are not involved with the program anymore, who gains by this story? 

By: Rich Maier (17 posts) - 7/26/2016 9:54:32 AM

hoopfan78 brings up a very god point. If as JJ's friend (not JJ) said Nero was having an inappropriate relationship with a player, why didnt GW fire Nero? Hoopfan78 is correct IMO that would open up a potential lawsuit. If that comes about the University is in big trouble.

I have no idea who is telling the truth.

By: Rich Maier (17 posts) - 7/26/2016 9:56:21 AM

that's good point not god point.

By: GW69 (7/26/2016 10:03:05 AM)

What is "real" is  subjective. What is "true" is objective. Right now 

all we have is what's real. Maybe we will find out what's true or 

maybe not.

By: hoopfan78 (7/26/2016 10:04:15 AM)

not trying to act as defense attorney or be defensive.  but what exactly does "in charge the basketball team" mean?  the AD is not in charge of any team.  The AD travelled with the team to almost every game, including for the thanksgiving tournament in NYC.  I would think if you were told to "stay away" you would not be traveling with the team to tournaments.

Also, why would ML give the AD practice tapes (leading to the alleged comment) if the AD wasn't "in charge" of the team.

The statement from the school states “The George Washington University is undertaking a Title IX review of allegations against men’s basketball coach Mike Lonergan,” I would think if the University had this information about the AD they would have used a more vague statement, instead of using ML's name.

 

By: Slayer (7/26/2016 10:07:22 AM)

Because the tapes comment was completely made up.

By: Bo Knows (705 posts) - 7/26/2016 10:08:03 AM

I don't know for sure Rich but maybe the University suspected but could not prove that something inappropriate was occurring. Maybe nothing was actually happening but it looked bad. So they took remedial steps to prevent the appearance of impropriety to make sure they did not get sued. The lawyer in me thinks that's a possibility. 

By: Free Quebec (6,340 posts) - 7/26/2016 10:09:40 AM

Rich,

That would depend on what the school found "inappropriate" to mean. If there was no evidence the relationship was sexual - just that he was meeting with a player a lot and having him over for dinner -  you could easily see the school saying to Nero, ok, you are creating the appearance of something untoward so we're going to tell you not to have unsupervised contact with this player or other players. 

I don't think there's any question that if they could prove there was a sexual relationship, he would have been fired, which leads me to believe that there were only accusations and no proof.  But note that JJ's (anonymous) accusation suggests they are looking into improper benefits which could be a tell that they can't prove the firable offense of a sexual relationship with a student in his charge.

By: Bo Knows (705 posts) - 7/26/2016 10:17:32 AM

hoopfan - there is something in between staying away which is an impossible standard for an AD and nothing especially where the facts might not be clear. You could have restricted private interactions (time, place, others present, etc.). None of us would know since no one was going to make this public. I know in one sexual harrassment case where it could not be determined definitively but there was an appearance of impropriety that a person was put on a plan where they were not allowed to have any private closed door meetings with any female staffers without another person being present.

By: InTheKnow (7/26/2016 10:18:12 AM)

Both sides of the story are true the post and what JJ writes. That's where it all started from Nero having the player over ML getting pissed at that and Nero getting offended at MLs accusations of Nero having a relationship. A situation that completely spiraled out of control instead of acting like men and figuring it out, they both decided to go at each other to get each other fired. However Ed Scott was placed with the team to monitor MLs behavior 

By: Rich Maier (17 posts) - 7/26/2016 10:31:24 AM

Bo and FQ, you should address JJ's friend. He is the one who said Nero had an inappropriate relationship not me. Let's have another thread in the meaning of inappropriate. Let the lawyers figure it out.

By: The Dude (529 posts) - 7/26/2016 10:32:21 AM

Let me let you in a little secret, there are people who here post a lot and then they use alternate names to make shit up and firebomb the people who do post here a lot whose thoughts they don't like.

This story is so obviously patently false that to give it more oxygen is silly, as several have posted, if the story were true Nero would have been fired immediately.  Get a clue, and stop giving the firebombers alternate poster name Bullshitters an ounce of credibility.  

By: Bo Knows (705 posts) - 7/26/2016 10:36:11 AM

IntheKnow - by whose authority was Ed Scott placed on team to monitor ML's behavior? The University gave ML a letter saying no further action was required in September 2015. And if JJ's post is true, PN was removed from overseeing men's basketball for 2015-16. Something does not add up. My information is that Ed Scott was assigned to oversee men's basketball for the athletic department not solely related to ML but rather to take over PN's responsibilities. 

By: Tuna Can (1,661 posts) - 7/26/2016 10:39:31 AM

Why do I think that this drama is going to replace Swamp People on the History Channel.

"CHOOT IT, CHOOT IT!!!!"

By: The MV (4,915 posts) - 7/26/2016 10:40:03 AM

To those of you who frequently get disgusted by the soap opera type atmosphere that sometimes takes place on this board....welcome.  This is sadly worse than anything you've ever read here.

Starting with Bo today.  Not a big deal in the overall scheme of things, but your posts on this matter have been perplexing.  First, you confirm your prior knowledge of the fact that Nero did not oversee the basketball team this past season, but failed to mention that here until now because you felt that this point had nothing to do with what we've been discussing?  Really?  The athletic director of a school without football, making men's basketball the dominant revenue producing sport for his department, has nothing to do with this particular sport, and you perceive this to have nothing to do with allegations that Lonergan made homophobic remarks at the athletic director's expense?  I obviously can't speak for you or determine your thought process, but it would seem highly improbable not to make some type of connection between these two things.  You do then go on to say that the Nero arrangement this past season was so atypical for any athletic department.  Yes.  Exactly.  All the more reason why this piece of information could have been revealed earlier (not that this was your obligation.  However, if you were The Washington Post, you might have found this nugget out in your research and reported it, unless you opted not to include it since it didn't quite fit the agenda.)

Bigfan...your point about the Debra Katz (sexual harassment attorney) quote was astute at the time and perhaps even far more germane now.  When I first read the article, I raised an eyebrow wondering why this quote was even included.  Despite claims over inappropriate remarks, it seemed a bit out of left field.

To everyone here or didn't or still hasn't gotten the message, I'll offer this.  Am proud of the folks who have kept their heads, realized that there could be facts or explanations that we have not seen or heard yet which might rectify much about what we've read in the Post.  Am proud of those who understand what "innocent until proven guilty" truly means, forget about in a courtroom, but in life.  And how failing to abide by this notion can in fact cause serious and needless damage to one's reputation and livelihood.

Am not at all proud of the folks who jumped to conclusions.  Who reacted without knowing the full story.  Who weighed in on who GW's next coach should be.  Who claimed that Lonergan has been damaged beyond repair.  Who have predicted that he'll never be able to effectively recruit again (or recruit at all if we are to believe some of you).  Who stated that there was no possible way that Mike could overcome this.

Has Lonergan now been exonerated?  Hardly.  But here's where we've gone from:

a) The Post article which resulted in critics (those with and some without agendas) wanting to tar and feather the coach.  Leaving even his defenders to acknowledge that this sounds very bad, and that Mike is a volatile guy who is capable of crossing lines, but that we need to let this play out.

b) Traces of support with some subtly indicating that a smoking gun might exist but can't be discussed yet.  OK, some hope for Lonergan perhaps but not a whole lot to go on yet.

c) MartiniBoy's account about the transgender insult being directed towards a player wearing bright pink sneakers.  Much more hope for Lonergan as context makes its way into the picture.

d) An allegation of sexual activity/inappropriate behavior between Nero and a player, along with an acknowledgement that Nero did not oversee the basketball team this past season, opens up the largest can of worms yet. 

The point of course is that there are at least two sides to every story.  The Post reported just one side and many here chose to believe it verbatim because how could all of these sources corroborate in this manner and have it not be the case?  And of course, even if the players and former staffer did not lie per se, we now know that there are possible circumstances and contextual situations which could readily explain why something might not be quite as it seems.

Again, I am happy to watch how things play out before drawing any conclusions, and would urge everyone here to do the same.  If that's just too hard for you to do, you may want to revert to this formula instead:

See which way The Dude is going and take the other side.

Bonus:  If Skittles has taken the opposite side of The Dude, double down on your wager.

 

By: InTheKnow (7/26/2016 10:41:17 AM)

he was placed there to oversee MLs behavior after people complained about him. Exactly why he's at every road game and sits right by the bench. 

By: Bo Knows (705 posts) - 7/26/2016 10:44:35 AM

Dude, you are going to be wrong on this at least in part. JJ's second sentence is accurate from everything I have heard. The only debate is as to why this unprecedented action was taken and by whom? Skittles and JJ have told you why and by whom. We will see if their info is correct. Given Skittles track record here I would be very shocked if he/she was wrong.

By: hoopsfan78 (7/26/2016 10:49:39 AM)

The MV,

just one note, Debra Katz is not a defense attorney:

http://www.kmblegal.com/attorneys-and-staff/debra-katz

'"I am deeply committed to protecting the rights of individuals who have been victimized by discrimination, sexual harassment or have been mistreated because they have done the right thing — whether it be reporting issues affecting the public health and safety or objecting to illegal business practices. These individuals deserve tough, tenacious, and principled advocates. I work hard every day to be just that."

By: Dootie Bubble (1,850 posts) - 7/26/2016 10:56:25 AM

Does anyone believe Nero is shtupping one of the players?  I for one find that a pretty hard thing to believe.  Until there's a single credible allegation or shred of evidence it sounds like the kind of accusation a single guy in a position of power gets regularly.   

By: Dootie Bubble (1,850 posts) - 7/26/2016 10:58:17 AM

If Patrick Nero didn't oversee the men's team directly this season I've got another hypothesis. ML was under investigation. Threw PN under the bus. University created some distance during monitoring to see if things got better.

By: Bo Knows (705 posts) - 7/26/2016 11:09:31 AM

MV, I knew that PN did not oversee men's basketball and that was atypical but why would I have given it another thought until JJ's post? I thought it was due to a division of responsibilities and that he ultimately oversaw the whole department but, unlike past ADs, was not going to be involved with men's basketball on a day to day basis, meaning this was an operational decision. I was with both PN and ML in New York in April (NIT) and saw no signs of any animosity between the two. And neither man cared to share that with me if there was such animosity probably because each knows that I know the other. The Post article was solely about ML's conduct and did not mention anything related to PN other than the comments allegedly made. I guess I was so focused on the Post's hatchet job on ML that I never thought to think about the mirror image of the story.

By: Bo Knows (705 posts) - 7/26/2016 11:13:43 AM

Just to clarify the above post - by hatchet job I meant that the PN statements attributed to ML were not in fact said because they seemed to be so outrageous on their face. 

By: The Dude (529 posts) - 7/26/2016 11:39:02 AM

MV, you've taken the other side of nearly every prediction/assessment I've taken and been wrong on all of them on just about every thing I've typed here since I joined the board.  Otherwise, your post is pretty good, at least the part where you stick to clear headed analysis and stay clear of the personal mud slinging you are oddly so fond of yet seem to denounce!

Otherwise, I think on this false Nero story, I've typed my last sentence, its plain utter madeup nonsense until it comes from somewhere else than an agenda driven alternate poster name.  Sorry, I do put a little more stock in the WaPo than Jj, a little more stock in 6 GW program sources over an anonymous poster name/s.  As for Bo, there does seem be a pattern on the board of a big story and breaking and then after the fact you claim to have had previous knowledge of it to puff your Insider Bona Fides.   This isn't meant personally to anyone here, I haven't seen one example of a truly big scoop or any proof at all we have an insider, despite a few who claim that to be so.

By: Bo Knows (705 posts) - 7/26/2016 11:46:25 AM

I don't know what previous knowledge you are referring to Dude. I had no previous knowledge that this story was about to break, that ML was alleged to have said these things or that PN was previously accused of having an inappropriate relationship. I read the Post story just like you did. I had previous knowledge that PN was not overseeing men's basketball but thought it was for operational reasons. As I just explained above, why would that have had any relevancy here before now? 

However, unlike you, what I did do after the story broke was to start checking in with various University sources not named ML or PN to try and discern what the truth of this was instead of just pontificating about air.

By: Danjsport (1,195 posts) - 7/26/2016 12:07:26 PM

Did I miss something?  Did this story "break" or was it just posted on this message  board?  I'm not saying it's not true (I don't have any idea).  I'm just saying if we were criticizing the washington post for printing a "hatchet job" of a story because it was based on anonymous sources, are we to give this story immediate credence?

I don't know what truth there is to anything.  I'm disapointed that all of this is now out there a bout the school I went to for two men who, at least from the outside, appeared to  be good men that were achievng good things for GW.  To the extent that this story is true, I'm concerned.  I'm not quite sure what an "inappropriate relationship" means.  Was it dinner and visits thats houldn't have occured?  Was it sexual in nature?  Somewhere in between?  At minimum, it seems if a student was getting benefits, that could be an NCAA problem.  At maximum, there are lots of moral and ethical concerns (not to mention potential legal ones).  

I'm just sad.  

By: The Dude (529 posts) - 7/26/2016 12:10:58 PM

No, the answer to that is no.  Hasn't broken, just made up on anonymous niche message board.  I should take this moment to dispell our SEC 2018 Football GW program rumor as well, that also hasn't broken, so to speak

By: Remember Fort Myer (14 posts) - 7/26/2016 12:27:39 PM

"As Senior Associate Athletics Director at GW, Ed Scott serves as the sport administrator for men's basketball and women's lacrosse, while overseeing NCAA compliance, educational services, community and career services, student-athlete discipline and welfare, along with diversity and inclusion efforts."

Above is from the GW Athletics Staff Directory, on its website.  

Could not believe the size of the staff.  Is the entire administration at GW so bloated?  Is this why tuition is so high?

By: Still Here (7/26/2016 12:28:27 PM)

Strange, you don't trust anonymous sources anymore?

By: GW69 (7/26/2016 12:30:00 PM)

I'm not working today---so I'm getting a chance to read all the posts.

The only thing I've gleaned is that we don't have sufficient  info

to make sense of all this.Psychotic musing---"Where have all the

flowers gone".

By: Bo Knows (705 posts) - 7/26/2016 12:33:18 PM

well danjsport - if we knew or had all the answers I doubt there would be almost 600 posts on this subject. I have parts of the story posted here but have not as of yet been able to check all the boxes. It is not patently false as Dude claims but also not completely confirmed. That is all.

By: Danjsport (1,195 posts) - 7/26/2016 12:53:25 PM

I just don't get why we're on here "smearing" one of our own (Nero) while bashing the post for "smearing" Lonergan. 

Maybe this is entirely true or partially true (or "half-lies" as skittles put it when the shoe was on the other foot).  Maybe this is a leak by the Lonergan side to take the heat off of him.  Maybe it's both.  But the fact of the matter, at least for me, is that I don't like seeing the program I root for dragged through the mud.  If either (or both) of these stories (Lonergan and Nero) are true, I think it's time to start over.  

If the Nero story is true, I'm not sure why he is still around, nor am I sure why the school hasn't reported violations to the NCAA.  But while not opining as to the truth of the story, I'm inclined to at least wish the person posting the story would attach a name to it--at least Kilgore did.

By: The Dude (529 posts) - 7/26/2016 1:09:25 PM

How to tell a real opinion or thought from BS agenda nonsense:

1) anyone who keeps claiming the WaPo story is anonymously sourced fall into the latter.

Its been repeatedly noted by many, that the 6 players/coach sources were not anonymous of course to WaPo, just at this juncture unknown to us.  

Contrast that with "Jj" of the gwhoops.com website.  Pretty easy to see what's going on here, an ML fan wants to distract you, that's all.

Might be an early day to hit the bottle! Surely the bulk of the fan base understands the distinction, frankly I think everyone does, but agenda driven poster or 2 wants to muddy the waters.  In the words of the Talking Heads, "same as it ever was"

By: Bo Knows (705 posts) - 7/26/2016 1:36:14 PM

Dude ummm the Post article was and is anonymously sourced the people who matter - that is GW, its faculty, staff, students - unless you can tell us right now who spoke to the Post. (I swear the Dude can't be this dumb so he must say shit for effect). Sources are almost always known to the writer otherwise they wouldn't write the article. Does the Dude seriously think you can send an anonymous email to the Post and have an article written?

And of course the king of agendas is objecting to others perceived agendas ... pretty rich.

By: ziik (2,950 posts) - 7/26/2016 1:47:38 PM

This story is sickening. If it shows anything, it is that issues, no matter what they are, need immediate resolution. 

By: ziik (2,950 posts) - 7/26/2016 1:49:09 PM

And: has this "new information"appeared anywhere else? 

I sure would like ML to stay, and be exonerated. But, all this stuff makes it hard.

By: Bo Knows (705 posts) - 7/26/2016 1:54:56 PM

danjsport - I have been careful not to say anything that I don't have reason to believe to be true. This, far I have stated that the two things I was told was that Nero was not overseeing men's basketball and Ed Scott was not there to monitor ML but rather to take over PN's functions. How or why this came to be is the question. 

By: Bo Knows (705 posts) - 7/26/2016 1:58:12 PM

ziik where else would you like it to appear? You do realize GW is a private institution with no obligation to make personnel records public? Undoubtedly, the Post did not ask about this aspect of the story because it had convinced itself it had the goods on ML.. So how or where would it appear assuming for the moment it is true?

By: Poster (5 posts) - 7/26/2016 2:03:21 PM

If there were a shred of truth to this Nero would have been long gone. Good try Mike & Co.

By: hoopfan78 (7/26/2016 2:13:25 PM)

I'm not sure that this will change anyone's mind in either direction, but interesting interview with Adam Kilgore on a Baltimore radio station.  (starts at 2:00 min mark

http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2016/07/26/adam-kilgore-of-the-washington-post-on-the-situation-with-mike-lonergan-and-allegations-of-verbal-abuse/

By: Bballfan (7/26/2016 2:14:34 PM)

Hoopsfan78 - as for as your statement - "I know for a fact that there is no truth to this story at all.  In fact Nero was as involved as ever with the Basketball team and all other teams, you are wrong." 

You obviously do not know, since PN did not travel with the team at all this season.  He went to games and tournaments on his own, not with the team.  The difference between past years and this one was significant - so check your facts!

By: bballfan (7/26/2016 2:19:20 PM)

Poster you are an idiot - this is not high school.  The player is not underage.  Does every professor who has a relationship with an adult college student get fired?  We would need to hire a lot more staff.....

By: The MV (4,915 posts) - 7/26/2016 2:37:48 PM

Dude, it is you who fails to understand distinctions.  Neither the WaPo story or JJ's account have been proven as facts.  You are inclined to believe the Post story because several people are presumably involved in corroborating it and the Post published it.  Neither makes the story definitively true.  JJ'story has only appeared here and as of now, it also can't be considered factual. it also can't be definitively determined to have been "made up" either. People are innocent until proven guilty.  Neither ML nor PN have been proven guilty yet.

By: ziik. (7/26/2016 2:39:53 PM)

Bo-If that story about the AD is deemed credible, well, the entire matter is different. Hell, GW starts looking like a minor league PennState, if the player is underage. (17). 

My guess,there are soap opera-worthy plots in  a lot of programs. SO far, the GW story looks uncontrollable. I hope I am wrong, and maybe I am, cause I am relying totally on hearsay.

 

I may unplug for a while. My head is struggling

By: LA Fan (1,525 posts) - 7/26/2016 2:54:50 PM

I don't think anyone on the basketball team is under 18.  So that hopefully isn't an issue.  But still, I happened to think about Penn State too.  

What happened?  And was there a cover-up?  That's what the attorney needs to find out.  Will we see a larger house-cleaning at GW because of this?

By: Bigfan (2,829 posts) - 7/26/2016 3:13:30 PM

Since this stupid story broke, I have been screaming about context and pointing to Debra Katz.

Here's the deal: I read the Post every day. Just a few days before the story and all the time, she is quoted in sexual harassment cases, like Roger Ailes. She is known in this field. Try a search of your own paper, Adam, if you don't read it.

Doesn't anyone find it odd that this weird quote was stuck in the middle of a story about Lonergan? Since it defends Nero, but the story is about Lonergan's ALLEGED shortcomings.. Did any editors read the article or the great Adam Kilgore read it back to himself? More on his bias in radio interview thread.

Like many here, was fine with both ML and Nero before this shitstorm.

Will say it again: the problem with this is there's no fucking CONTEXT in the article. No explanation for the transgender quote, although our own MartinBoy was able to come up with one.

 So we have been trying to nail jello to the wall. When you deal with a man's livelihood (now two men's livelihoods if they have the TRIGGER WARNING balls to address this issues, as well.

  Interesting thing mentioned by Bo is that the current player may be a former one. Can think of the perfect case. From what I have heard about journalists' roles, remembering to update things like this is a sacred responsibility (along with not writing a half-ass article posed as an investigative piece).

The reason to believe some form of this latest allegation is that it fits in the context. Yes, TRIGGER WARNING, can see ML or a number of us or anyone who is not in their 20s, saying sarcastically that someone is jerking off over tapes. That's all one could see.

Yes, ML is a tough coach. News flash.

But why would he say, if he did which has been denied by Bo and others, CAN'T BELIEVE I AM EVEN TYPING THIS, that Nero wanted to have sex with a player. Even if true, bad joke in PC era, certainly worse depending on Nero's personal life, and makes no sense.

But now, we have CONTEXT. Could be wrong context, but we have to fill in the blanks left in this Post piece of crap.

Not saying any of this is true, but it fits the alleged behavior and bad blood. Speaking of which, how the hell did the story not devote a chunk of the huge piece to the bad blood between Nero and ML and why. There are legitimate and normal reasons, also, as opposed to this horrible soap opera.

Remember what I posted about things and Washington and life being a gray area. Another thing, the article naively ignored. Sounds like both ML and Nero are going at each other and as someone here hypthesized it spun out of control.

All the allegations on both sides may be hyped on this.

The Post, naively bit into one side. Some point to Nero for furthering the agenda. Now, we are getting the other side. Like Jack Nicholson's character: "You want the truth. You can't handle the truth."

The truth may be in the middle. Neither as shocking or revelatory as the Post want us to believe with Lonergan, nor clear-cut with Nero.

Interestingly, Nero defenders or anti-Lonergan types here seem to confirm some type of relationship between Nero and a player. No reason to leap to any conclusions about that, but one can see how this starts the whole madness. Again, may be a gray area, with nothing actionable on both sides.

That's the thing. Could be something, with some kernels of reality on both sides that spiraled out of control, as a recent poster hypothesized.

Whole thing makes us sick to our collective stomachs. Because to put it delicately: we're fucked. This whole thing is out in the open, but in a form that raises more questions that answers.

Difference between posting anonymously here and posting rumors here is that this is an anonymous message board frequented regularly by a limited number of people. It is not a once-celebrated newspaper that is the major media outlet in the area. You don't see Sports Illustrated, Yahoo, wire services and media all over the world, quoting GWhoops.com

Though they should. Because we may, or may not have broken another part of this story.

The orginal article has left us like mushrooms: being kept in the dark and fed shit.

Everyone on both sides, please keep the information coming.

We are the ones who really care about this, apart from the parties and their families.  And we need CONTEXT and explanation for this bizarre string of events.

Please keep the info. coming.

By: Poster (5 posts) - 7/26/2016 3:21:07 PM

I have heard the same thing from numerous reliable sources.  Nero needs to be fired asap, but unfortunately he is playing the 'gay' card.  They can't touch him and we are stuck with him!  I wonder who he is going to take down next!??!  This is at least his fourth victim (the other three were not in the media because they left quietly), but look to see who he chased out of the athletic department.  They were all good people and wonderful representatives of our University. 

By: Skittles (178 posts) - 7/26/2016 3:31:33 PM

Good post Bigfan

By: RUSerious (7/26/2016 3:36:11 PM)

All I can say is that Lonergan and his "supporters" must be feeling pretty desperate to come up with this low-life sleezeball "story". The real truth will be out soon enough.  

By: Skittles (178 posts) - 7/26/2016 3:40:43 PM

oh it will RUSerious :) just not the "truth" you were hoping the post would be able to spot out without the real story coming out. Sorry to burst your bubble. Stay tuned my friend! 

By: ziik (2,950 posts) - 7/26/2016 3:46:54 PM

Skittles--how long will this take? I really cannot stand Chinese water torture of any sort.

By: RUSerious (7/26/2016 3:48:43 PM)

Oh I can't wait skittles. By the way what happened to the contract extension you said was coming this summer?

By: Skittles (178 posts) - 7/26/2016 3:55:19 PM

I'm not 100 percent sure Ziik but hopefully soon. RUSerious---obviously I was made aware of this happening on top of his contract is through 2020 season anyway. I never promised you anything at the time it was what I was told might happen this offseason. Plus I already answered you on the other thread 

By: The Dude (529 posts) - 7/26/2016 3:56:15 PM

This Nero thing feels invented to distract, pitting Nero vs ML, upping the anti of wrongdoing, to make ML's alleged indiscretions look tame in contrast.  

Was it 100% invented? Tough to prove a negative false but this whole thing smells like fiction, the complete opposite reaction I had to reading the WaPo story, sorry to say.  Wish both were total inventions.

By: hoopsfan78 (7/26/2016 3:57:36 PM)

SKittles, the request was for an extension through 2023 with a salary increase to bring in line with others in A-10.  That request was already denied.

By: RUSerious (7/26/2016 4:01:16 PM)

Thank you for that info hoopsfan78. 

By: Skittles (178 posts) - 7/26/2016 4:01:23 PM

Thanks hoopsfan78 I can't verify it at this time I never received any new details not really asked past the initial post I made on it so I'll take your word for it

By: Skittles (178 posts) - 7/26/2016 4:02:21 PM

You have it backwards the dude but it's ok 

By: Danjsport (1,195 posts) - 7/26/2016 4:05:14 PM

My question is, why is it being "leaked" here, and not to a newspaper, blog, etc?

By: Hugh Jaynus (5 posts) - 7/26/2016 4:09:24 PM

Good question Danjsports. A bunch of anonymous posters leaking information, shocked the post hasnt picked this up. Someone send Kilgore the link!

By: Bo Knows (705 posts) - 7/26/2016 4:25:38 PM

I am promising you that some posters here know more about what is going on then Kilgore. Let's leave it at that for now.

By: ziik (2,950 posts) - 7/26/2016 4:47:26 PM

I gather, after the first bizarro headlines, no national press cares about GW basketball.

By: Bballfan (7/26/2016 4:48:26 PM)

Danjsport - Maybe this never came out last year because the parties involved had more class and did not feel it was appropriate to put it out for public consumption.  The University handled it - done deal. 

I believe someone was not happy with the outcome and has decided to try and stir things up and destroy another person’s reputation and livelihood – not so classy.  It would not take much to get a disgruntled former player or two to agree to say something anonymously.

By: Bigfan (2,829 posts) - 7/26/2016 4:55:36 PM

Kilgore doesn't want to know.

How in the world could you legitimately report this story and not get a whiff of the undertone of any of this going on? Particularly with the bizarre Nero lawyer comment.

If it strikes a casual reader as odd, why wouldn't it strike the person typing it and the people editing the story?

 Seems, outside of such spectacular incompetence that it would boggle that mind, like there can be only two answers:1) you didn't do enough reporting and relied on anonymous sources with an agenda  2) You knew or had a good inkling you didn't follow up on, but didn't want to get into it because it would ruin the narrative, which is studded with PC buzzwords for maximum damage.

Like the UVA. Rolling Stone article, nothing is included that doesn't fit the narrative. This is clear from Kilgore's radio interview, as well as the article. It's all about narrative.

Not saying anonymous comments are a fabric and pretty sure they are not, though perhaps cleaned up a bit.

But the attitude is same: Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story.

 

By: ziik (2,950 posts) - 7/26/2016 4:58:54 PM

Has the Post mentioned any on the record response from GW? If not, that is strange.

By: Bballfan (7/26/2016 5:03:18 PM)

No university will comment on personnel actions - GW will not and should not respond to the Post. 

By: Hoopfan78 (7/26/2016 5:05:57 PM)

Ziik,  the post reported the press release from GW as well as the quotes from the 3 players that cam out supporting ML. 

Kilgore also mentioned both in his radio interview.

no other on the record comments have been made, outside of a few facebook messages and the posting of the previous investigation letter by ML.

By: Rich Maier (17 posts) - 7/26/2016 5:15:50 PM

Poster(s), I enjoy your posts. Today at 7:03am you said JJ's story was untrue, and you'll be glad when Lonergan. Then at 2:03pm you said if there was a shred of truth of this Nero would be gone. Then at 3:21pm you said you've heard all these things from numerous sources, and Nero is playing the 'gay card'. Why the sudden drastic change in your views? Perhaps we have more than one 'poster'. But that couldn't happen here. Obviously it's simply changing your mind. Just curious.

By: Poster (5 posts) - 7/26/2016 5:18:44 PM

RIch, there are several different "posters" here

By: Rich Maier (17 posts) - 7/26/2016 5:41:31 PM

Poster,  I'm guessing you are the 7:03am and 2:03pm poster.

By: Skittles (178 posts) - 7/26/2016 5:51:42 PM

Nero did not travel with the team at all in 2015-16.  He went to games on his own and was not allowed to have any contact with Larsen or any player.  Ed Scott was sports administrator.  Larsen had his best season and the team had one of the best seasons in school history.  28 wins and 3 players made the A10 AllAcademic team.  No issues at all and everyone graduated as always with ML.  After the season Nero started meeting privately with players again in his office.  Lonergan again went to the powers to be to protect his players from inappropriate relationships.  He never mentioned the word sex to the school.  He never discussed his concerns about the AD to his players.  The Post article was planted.  Figure it out. Contract is through 20-21 season.  5 more years.  The contract extension didn't happen because Nero is still the AD-for now. Where is Karen Ercole? Why did Jason Wilson leave to be AD at a local high school when he was a rising star in athletics administration? That's all for now.

By: The MV (4,915 posts) - 7/26/2016 5:55:46 PM

Skittles, it's kind of hard not to notice that Kevin Larsen was singled out as the only player mentioned in your post.

By: The MV (4,915 posts) - 7/26/2016 6:01:13 PM

Fascinating that the so-called "made up" story now has a real player mentioned, as well as two additional administrators mentioned by name.  Still not drawing any final conclusions but it is worth noting that aside from the names Nero and Lonergan, these are the first names mentioned pertaining to this whole mess.

By: Bo Knows (705 posts) - 7/26/2016 6:02:22 PM

So Skittles based on your knowledge of things at the end of this do you believe we will be looking for a new AD or is this at all salvageable through some sort of mediation between ML and PN? In other words in your opinion is this at the point of no return (I would think so if it turns out the story was planted by PN)? 

By: The MV (4,915 posts) - 7/26/2016 6:02:46 PM

Doesn't it sound like a stronger case when real names are used as opposed to anonymous sources?

By: Poster (5 posts) - 7/26/2016 6:08:30 PM

Skittles there are no words for what a disgusting human being you are for spreading such lies. I truly hope that what the investigators find is made public. 

By: Igor... Not Yegor (291 posts) - 7/26/2016 6:18:22 PM

By: Bballfan (7/26/2016 6:20:32 PM)

Poster - stop with the personal attacks. You have no more reason to doubt Skittles than believe the post.  I wish I could see your face when the truth comes out.  

Just because those in ML's camp who knew about this didn't discuss it on the board or in the Post, doesn't mean it's not true.  I believe the only reason it is coming out at all is because PN went after ML - at least it is what I believe.  

By: Bballfan (7/26/2016 6:21:57 PM)

Poster - stop with the personal attacks. You have no more reason to doubt Skittles than believe the post.  I wish I could see your face when the truth comes out.  

Just because those in ML's camp who knew about this didn't discuss it on the board or in the Post, doesn't mean it's not true.  I believe the only reason it is coming out at all is because PN went after ML - at least it is what I believe.  

By: Hoopfan78 (7/26/2016 6:32:25 PM)

Bballfan,

personal attacks are not good and i don't want to speak for 'poster', but he was most likely speaking to the fact that skittles dropped a few names.  that isn't fair to the player or anyone else in this story.  

i think skittles has made many points including at that post that prove whatever point he is trying to make without using the name.  

By: Bballfan (7/26/2016 6:36:27 PM)

Poster - stop with the personal attacks. You have no more reason to doubt Skittles than believe the post.  I wish I could see your face when the truth comes out.  

Just because those in ML's camp who knew about this didn't discuss it on the board or in the Post, doesn't mean it's not true.  I believe the only reason it is coming out at all is because PN went after ML - at least it is what I believe.  

By: Poster (5 posts) - 7/26/2016 6:56:35 PM

I can corroborate "Skittles'" story from 5:51pm. I learned it in May, from someone in athletics, close to the "story," (I was told the same player's ID). I can't say with certainty that the underlying facts are true, of course, but I was told the same things, months ago. I expected the Post story to be about PN's behaviour, not ML's. I do believe Skittles'/ my friend/ that the underlying facts are true, but that's not the point.

I can also corroborate the second "Poster" story (about the "Gay card" - a deplorable term - but the one people have used). Tyranny and high turnover have been poorly-kept secrets for years. 

I can also verify the Ed-Scott-travel reason not being in response to anything regarding ML.

PN is publicly boastful about how close he is to many players -- on a personal level. That closeness does make many people uncomfortable. I was not stunned to hear the story in May, because of the questionable behaviours PN has demonstrated or discussed in the past. The quote about the tapes in the Post seemed consistent with the story I knew. 

If Jack K. had carried on with female athletes, the behaviours would have been equally questionable. Sexuality has not been the crux of the issue; an individual in power engaging young people has been. It was unfortunate to see the University and ML and others painted has homophobic ... in reality, gay versus straight isn't part of the equation at all.

I hope Skittles is right about exoneration being public soon... 

By: Bballfan (7/26/2016 6:57:59 PM)

Poster - stop with the personal attacks. You have no more reason to doubt Skittles than believe the post.  I wish I could see your face when the truth comes out.  

Just because those in ML's camp who knew about this didn't discuss it on the board or in the Post, doesn't mean it's not true.  I believe the only reason it is coming out at all is because PN went after ML - at least it is what I believe.  

By: Free Quebec (6,340 posts) - 7/26/2016 6:59:26 PM

Rich, you asked a question and I gave you an answer directly. Not sure why you told me to address to JJ's friend, when I was responding directly to your question.

The anonymous poster, GTFO with your "gay card" stuff.   That's gay-baiting at its worst. Stick to facts, not appeals to bias.

 

By: Bballfan (7/26/2016 7:00:47 PM)

Poster - stop with the personal attacks. You have no more reason to doubt Skittles than believe the post.  I wish I could see your face when the truth comes out.  

Just because those in ML's camp who knew about this didn't discuss it on the board or in the Post, doesn't mean it's not true.  I believe the only reason it is coming out at all is because PN went after ML - at least it is what I believe.  

By: Bo Knows (705 posts) - 7/26/2016 7:08:37 PM

If I'm Kilgore, I am now trembling with fear that while I was myopically focused on the sailboat, the Titanic may have sailed by unnoticed.

By: Bballfan (7/26/2016 7:11:23 PM)

I have no idea why my post keeps repeating!  I apologize.  I only posted one time I swear!

By: Hoopfan78 (7/26/2016 7:16:37 PM)

so we have all these theories and stories from sources.  

With that we are then expected to believe that 5 players (including at least 1 still on the team), conspired to plant this story with the post.  to what end?

Also, for those who also think that Nero "planted" this with the post.  He gains nothing by this story.  Also, Kilgore (who you don't trust/believe i get it) included in the article and in radio inteterview that the player who's complaint was forwarded to title IX officer followed up with the officer and when no action was taken he (the player) aproached the post.  

no matter the outcome and who's truth is the actual truth reality really is stranger than fiction at GW Athletics these days.  Not good for anyone.

By: Bballfan (7/26/2016 7:18:16 PM)

I have no idea why my post keeps repeating!  I apologize.  I only posted one time I swear!

By: Poster (5 posts) - 7/26/2016 7:18:32 PM

I agree it's offensive, hence "deplorable". I quoted him/her. I specially said sexual preference was not the issue.

The point he/she made about being "stuck," is a common complaint, though -- turnover is very high. If that happened where you work, wouldn't someone look at your manager?

I stated that I could verify what I have seen or heard personally regarding every rumour (and they are just rumours) I've read here. I listed each rumour and ticked off that Yes, I am another who has been told the same. 

Believe it or don't. 

I don't work for GW or the Post, so I havs to take Skittles' word for it that everything will be made public soon and everyone can go back to complaining about missed free throws. 

By: Hugh Jaynus (5 posts) - 7/26/2016 7:19:59 PM

Or in some peoples case, poor recruiting

By: Bo Knows (705 posts) - 7/26/2016 7:34:28 PM

Hoopfan78, you are wrong when you say Nero would gain nothing from planting the story. He would gain everything - the basis for the firing of ML - who if you believe many different reports had posed a threat to ML by outing him to the University for certain transgressions. So you are going to have a hard time convincing anyone that there wasn't any motive here. But just because someone had a possible motive doesn't mean they acted on it. Hopefully, the investigation will determine whether or not that was the case.

By: Bo Knows (705 posts) - 7/26/2016 7:36:26 PM

that should have been "threat to PN" (not ML)

By: BC (1,645 posts) - 7/26/2016 7:37:46 PM

found in a tweet on A10 Talk:

Colonial Army@GWColonialArmy

Statement regarding recent news about our men's basketball team and the department of athletics:

By: Hoopfan78 (7/26/2016 7:39:00 PM)

ok Bo, but you would hope that if that were the case any compitent investigator would figure out what really went on fast.  

The main point i was trying to make is what could possibly motivate the 5 players?  Especially the 1 player who initiated the initial review and took the story to the post.  If for arguments sake you don't believe a player initiated the story with the post he still co-opperated and provided the quotes.  People have attempted to explain away everything, but i have yet to hear an explanation for this.  

By: Bo Knows (705 posts) - 7/26/2016 7:41:47 PM

Gay card is a deplorable term but the whole concept of sexuality was introduced by the Post article. So if it turns out that ML did not make the statements, it is apparent that someone (PN, player or writer) tried to use one of the four deadly sins (anti-LGBTQ, racism, sexual harassment and physical abuse) to bludgeon someone in a very public way. 

By: Bo Knows (705 posts) - 7/26/2016 7:48:41 PM

I think the explanation is easy hoopfan78, the question is whether it is accurate. The story of abuse is like a magnet. If you believe that ML didn't treat you fairly you can jump on the grievance train especially in a setting which you don't have to go under oath. Who directed the Post to only these 5 players? Why were the players in support of ML not contacted for balance? I am telling you basketball is a sick sport right now. Parents and players so out of control. The stuff that is said these days is mind-boggling. The venom at those who "ruined" their son's chance at the NBA is downright scary. I promise one day you will be reading about a coach gunned down by a disgruntled player or parent. It is only a matter of time unfortunately. I could get five disgruntled players to tell you that the sun rises in the West if it would suit their position.

By: Formerly Senioritis (30 posts) - 7/26/2016 7:51:46 PM

I just talked to one of the players who was interviewed today. The questions were all ML-focused. No PN questions at all. That tells you something. (well it tells the sane posters something).

By: Hoopfan78 (7/26/2016 7:56:47 PM)

i'm just not sure how making those comments about ML with at least 1 of the 5 giving the worst of the quotes and at least 1 other saying they were true.  improve any of the 5 players positions.  

I agree with what you say about parents, but not sure how that applies here.  

Also, since the bulk of the story focused on 2015-2016 it makes sense that he wouldn't have seeked comment from mo or Isaih.  I obviously don't know if he tried to contact Pato, and others from the past two seasons haven't commented publically.  We have no way of knowing how many players were contacted and how many returned calls/emails.

But i keep going back to the 5 who spoke, and the one who felt the need to go to the post to begin with.   none of the 3 or 4 who are no longer with the program benefit greatly from burning down the house on the way out the door.  

By: Rich Maier (17 posts) - 7/26/2016 8:07:21 PM

Bo, what did the reports, you mentioned, mean that ML was a threat to PN 'by outing him to the University for certain transgressions'. What transgressions that's a large category. 

Let's get the truth and end this.

By: Tim4 (821 posts) - 7/26/2016 8:18:01 PM

i only got a third of the way through this thread and I am disgusted by the way people are treating Nero.

Would these types of accusations happen to a straight AD? That this slander can happen at GW, as gay friendly a school as exists, is sickening. 

Let the facts play out. These people have families. 

 

By: Rich Maier (17 posts) - 7/26/2016 8:28:38 PM

FQ, sorry for the confusion. Referred you to JJ's post as he had a lot more to say on the matter than me. Almost everyone here, myself included, discusses 'inappropriate' actions when in fact no one knows what that means. Happy to see you return unfortunately under these circumstances.

By: dmvpiranha (7/26/2016 8:41:42 PM)

This is starting to sound like some sort of Scooby Doo mystery. I can only imagine that whoever is found to be guilty will say "I would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for the meddling posters at gwhoops"

By: Bo Knows (705 posts) - 7/26/2016 8:55:20 PM

Rich, if you read the reports by Skittles and JJ to name two here, ML went to the Administration over concerns that PN had acted inappropriately. There was action taken against PN that apparently resulted in his losing the ability to oversee the men's basketball program. Now if you were PN would you be happy about that?

By: Bigfan (2,829 posts) - 7/26/2016 9:01:38 PM

Why wouldn ' t Armwood be relevant.? Who knows when former players were from. One of the many things left out of the article.

A picture is emerging. One may be right. One may be wrong. Most likely a feud that got out of hand and some things on both sides. Lonergan may be tough,but not necessarily abusive. Nero may have had some really bad oersonal decision,partcularly optically,but no one is saying where it went.

But both in what has been posted here and reading between the lines of some both overt and unwitting confirmations.,there are definitely two sides here,not Kilgore's narrative-driven one dimensional,unprofessional piece.

What a soap opera nightmare. Like a five day nightmare. Each and every one of us has  to be thinking hope this is all just a bad dream. What's next? JT Sr.  winning the presidency on a third party platform of never playing GW? With Martelli elected Vice President? 

Want to use a phrase describing the situation,which rhymes with busterbuck,but really afraid it would be misinterpreted. 

Just hearing one side is wrong.

Please keep explanations and details coming. 

By: Bo Knows (705 posts) - 7/26/2016 9:08:47 PM

Tim4 but it's ok to label ML a homophobic bigot???? The concept of sexuality was not introduced by ML or anyone here. It was introduced by the Washington Post article. We should not lose track of that and once out there it has become an aspect of this story. When the truth is known it is entirely possible that it was ML rather than PN who was slandered. Personally, I could give a crap about PN's sexuality. I do give a crap if as alleged by some here, he acted inappropriately with a student and that would be true if it was male-male, female-female, male-female, or female-male. Being gay does not mean you should be slandered for it but being gay is also not a defense tor slandering others, gay or straight. Let the facts speak to this.

By: Free Quebec (6,340 posts) - 7/26/2016 9:08:53 PM

Bo, the Post didn't introduce sexuality.   It introduced homophobia.   Not the same thing.  Don't conflate them.

By: The Dude (529 posts) - 7/26/2016 9:12:49 PM

The Nero story seems like is a total invention, I'm amazed some of you fall for such a blatant distraction.  For all you know someone is just F'ing with you.  Or they want to distract from the ML thing.  Either way, it reads like utter concocted BS.  The ML story MIGHT be utter BS, but at least there's some things which suggest it might be true, this Nero thing is all just some guy coming on here and typing what reads like a total invention.

By: NewGWFan (510 posts) - 7/26/2016 9:14:29 PM

If PN was removed from overseeing the men's basketball program as people have mentioned why is this the first we are hearing of this?  I'm not saying it isn't true just would like to hear the official reason why Ed Scott was tasked with following the program. I think depending on who he was tasked with overseeing and why it would help give context about who's in the wrong.

By: Bo Knows (705 posts) - 7/26/2016 9:19:09 PM

FQ, by definition, homophobia describes bigotry or irrational fear or aversion towards homosexuals, correct? So sexuality unfortunately is very much part of this story by implication. 

By: Hoopfan78 (7/26/2016 9:19:10 PM)

Sorry, i didn't mean to say he didn't matter.  I was trying to say that the story was speaking to the 2015-2016 season.  I whole hartedly agree that Kilgore should have reach out to Pato and should have included his positive comments if they were received.  

Since today's post has largely focused on PN; i just want to point out a few things again.

Those who are now claiming that all this occured with PN, did you also know that ML was investegated by the Univeristy after the 2014-2015 season?  Most where not aware of that until the documents were posted by ML.  Now if you were ML would you be happy about that?

When the University requested practice tapes (which may or may not have lead to the quote in the article), would you have been happy about that if you were ML? (he was apparently livid)

When what i had hearrd called by others during the season a "baby sitter" was assigned to attend practices and road games would ML have been happy about that?  

I think ML and PN may have both dropped the ball by not speaking with the reporter.  It appears that if what those who are supporting ML are correct then he could have just as easily gone off the record, said "are you nuts?  listen, the real story is this..."... 

the once thing we might be able to all agree on is that we hope the report is complete and transparent, and that no matter the outcome we can move past this and continue building the program.

By: Bo Knows (705 posts) - 7/26/2016 9:25:52 PM

New GWFan the reason you are first hearing about it now is that nobody outside probably the inner core of the athletic department knew a reason other than it was operational in nature. So nobody including me thought twice about it. For all I knew PN didn't want to travel this year. This was tightly held information as it should be. If only other information was as tightly held we wouldn't be dealing in a very public way with this sordid mess which has damaged everyone involved who has been publicly identified meaning both PN and ML..

By: NewGWFan (510 posts) - 7/26/2016 9:35:44 PM

I was at the UMASS game and PN was definitely in attendance.

By: bobo (3,178 posts) - 7/26/2016 9:38:33 PM

Not sure I understand Tim's complaint against this board's supposed anti-gay treatment of Nero. Some said that if Nero engaged in such a relationship with a player, Nero should be fired. But if Nero had an inappropriate relationship with a female athlete, Nero should be fired for that too. I think it's a bogus accusation from Tim here.

By: Bo Knows (705 posts) - 7/26/2016 9:39:09 PM

hoopfan - You are right except for one thing - ML definitely didn't go to the Post with this story. I think we can all agree on that.

The problem is the way forward is not clear here and will depend largely on the established facts. But you are likely to not have much established to a certainty absent an admission. It will be a he said-she said unless there are hidden tapes. As I have said all along, how can ML possibly prove a negative to everyone's satisfaction? Same for PN for that matter. I fear nobody is going to be declared a winner and we are all going to be declared losers waking up to find out that the program self-immolated.

Maybe it's me but this program is very frustrating to support. Everytime we are on the precipe of something pretty good, bad things happen, whether by design or just bad luck. Damn frustrating no matter how you view what went down here. I have spent way too much time here trying to apply my legal skills to all the different allegations presented here and elsewhere. In the end, it won't matter what I think or you think but what the investigators think. All that is going on here is a battle for the hearts and minds of the GW faithful - all 25 of us. I really wish this was some kind of bad dream.

By: Bo Knows (705 posts) - 7/26/2016 9:43:58 PM

One other point and I hate to add complication to an already contentious and fractured GWHoops board but bear in mind that there are coaches who are snakes and would love to see ML lose his job so that they or their buddy might get a shot. So don't discount the fact that there may be some pot stirrers here hoping for that outcome.

By: ziik (2,950 posts) - 7/26/2016 9:49:52 PM

Bo, your last post smacks of paranoia. Aside from that, you are a loyal friend. Good luck.

By: Bo Knows (705 posts) - 7/26/2016 9:55:11 PM

Not paranois ziik. I got a few calls in the last few days asking me if I knew what was going to happen to ML and whether I thought GW would go in-house or do a search if he was removed. Knowing one of these guys, he wasn't asking for his health or genuine concern for ML. 

By: ziik (2,950 posts) - 7/26/2016 9:59:49 PM

Stay loyal

By: The Dude (529 posts) - 7/26/2016 10:02:16 PM

Recall last year on about this date, someone posted a GW starter had suffered a season ending injury which led to 3 days of speculation?  Doesn't take much to fool some of you here. Amazing since I'm pretty sure nearly 100% of us were admitted to attend a top 50 University.

By: Rich Maier (17 posts) - 7/26/2016 10:08:22 PM

Does anyone here know if Nero has ever been investigated by the University for any reason? 

By: Bo Knows (705 posts) - 7/26/2016 10:35:40 PM

What University is that Dude? GW ranked 57 is latest US News and World Report. It was lower when you attended but still perplexing how you got in lol.

By: Bo Knows (705 posts) - 7/26/2016 10:37:22 PM

Rich, well I am not privy to PN's personnel file but if he was indeed removed from overseeing the men's team then I assume he was investigated by someone. That wouldn't happen by accident and would not be in the control of ML..

By: Bo Knows (705 posts) - 7/26/2016 10:46:17 PM

No doubt ziik. There had better be film with seven camera angles before I will believe that ML did all the things alleged in the Post lol. He is a smart guy and in my opinion no way does he expose himself like that. You just have to go with your gut sometimes on these things. 

By: FredD (598 posts) - 7/26/2016 11:07:54 PM

BO I don't agree with about 50% of your asserssions/points but you nailed it with regards to the problems with proving a negative and the likelihood of a blown program 20 loss seasons AND if PN is gone the whole AD is in big trouble 

By: The Dude (529 posts) - 7/26/2016 11:12:23 PM

Bo, stick to propaganda, your jokes are awful, but hey, 200 posts on a nothing toping by you/a fellow ML propagandist, but I suspect you, I find it hard to believe we have 2 humans doing that on a niche board with about a dozen to 2 or so steady posters.

School was top 50 when I attended it, top 20 Law School from which I gradated too, although that too has dropped in recent years.  Joke though, super lame, so is spending so much of your life for 15 years trying to propagandize about 16 people on a website.

By: Bo Knows (705 posts) - 7/26/2016 11:21:13 PM

Dude other than this topic here I don't think anyone would think I spend a fraction of the time you do here so go figure. Also I don't have this compulsive need to repeat myself over and over again. But it just dawned on me how you got in to GW. You sent in several applications with alternative data on the theory one might slip through. Seems that is your modus operandi here.

By: The Dude (529 posts) - 7/27/2016 9:46:20 AM

Truth is, my guilty pleasure is taking stances on things I know nothing about. I speak blindly guys, that's my thing.

By: The MV (4,915 posts) - 7/27/2016 10:05:45 AM

That has been, is, and will always be duly noted.

By: Tim4 (821 posts) - 7/27/2016 10:25:52 AM

My point is - it's 2016 and a gay man who is being tarred is automatically accused of being a deviant? This is how gay men got fired from jobs in the 1980s when people who didn't like them would make false accusations about "inappropriate" behavior. 

The amount of you who are going along with this with absolutely no evidence is stunning. None of the players in the story had a single negative thing to say about Patrick. 

It remains to be seen what is true and what is not but I think it would be reasonable to refrain from perpetuating negative stereotypes and innuendo with no evidence until the facts are public. 

 

By: Bo Knows (705 posts) - 7/27/2016 10:40:22 AM

Tim4 what I'm still not understanding is why you think the Post story is credible and Skittles/JJ/Others are de facto not and therefore are gay bashing. I don't know the entire truth but I don't see how you accept one side and reject the other out of hand because both are anonymously sourced. That's sort of the point isn't it? We got into this whole mess because of a comnpletely anonymously sourced article. I am certainly not willing to convict ML based upon it and likewise I have been cautious to only agree with the parts of the PN story I can verify (which are not directly the parts you object to but they leave open the possibility). Plus, the issue is inappropriate behavior whether gay or straight. I doubt you write what you have (perpetuating negative stereotypes) if we were talking about the women's team and a male AD was alleged to have engaged in an inappropriate relationship with a female. 

Finally, the Post article was not about PN so its doubtful the players were even asked about him. Their silence cannot be taken as anything other than they weren't asked.

I do agree that we should let the facts come out but you are doing nothing different than anyone else here - shading the story towards your opinion of what transpired.

By: GW69 (7/27/2016 10:41:31 AM)

Thank you Tim4.We shall see.Need more info.Why can't we all get along?

 

By: The MV (4,915 posts) - 7/27/2016 11:02:03 AM

Tim4, I don't feel like very many have "convicted" Nero at this point in time.  Any negativity being expressed here is conditional upon Pat having invited a specific player multiple times to his home and engaged in inappropriate behavior.  Very few are saying "this is what happened"; they are saying "if this is what happened..."  Am I off-base?

By: GW69 (7/27/2016 11:11:33 AM)

Very chose call MV.Appears that ALMOST by definition if you 

support ML,PN must be a culprit and ,of course , the opposite 

has been proffered.

By: Poster (5 posts) - 7/27/2016 11:11:36 AM

Bo knows, the Post article said the players found the comments by Lonergan about Nero "shocking and offensive, with no basis in reality" so I guess they were asked. 

By: GW69 (7/27/2016 11:13:18 AM)

"Close"

By: Bballfan (7/27/2016 11:27:52 AM)

PN's sexual preference is not what is at issue - any AD who is meeting with players one on one, and having them come to his personal residence - regardless of whether they are men or women, it is inappropriate.  There are resources available through the University to handle issues players may be having - personal, family, with the coaching staff, financial, etc..  Those people are trained professionals.  So for me - there is absolutely no reason an AD should have a player or student of any kind, at his or her personal residence alone.  End of story.

By: Tim4 (821 posts) - 7/27/2016 11:28:35 AM

Bo - Yes I hold more credible what a reporter at a national media outlet reported with 5 sources. I work with reporters all the time. Its not to say they don't get it wrong. But an outlet like the post has editors who know who these sources are and to the best of their ability they have confirmed veracity.  

I find that far more credible than what some anonymous dude on a message board says. I will reserve judgment on ML but I don't think that is an unfair assessment of what is currently out there. 

MV - No I'm not saying many have convicted him - though some have, others indicated they hoped the problem wsa with PN not ML, and still others have seemed to accept the possibility at face value. All of those responses in my view reflect a very dangerous attitude towards gay men that some random anonymous person can post a comment saying they are a deviant that preys on young men. This is a tactic that has been used for decades to attack and undermine gay men. I think it should be viewed with extreme skepticism (and frankly hostility) unless there is actual evidence presented 

 

 

By: ziik (2,950 posts) - 7/27/2016 11:40:21 AM

Reporters look for stories and sources, check them out, and, if they have confirming, seemingly credible source, they go to print. That process does not ensure that the publiched story is the truth, or even factual. 

Legal trials have their own ways to prove guilt. They do not always prove what actually happened, just the results of what happened,

The Post story looks like truthiness, at its best.worst. Heck, it reads like substantiated gossip. Not much more. 

Tim, you are one of the all time best posters here. I am not attempting to argue with you on this. But, it is just that this story is a mess.

By: The Dude (529 posts) - 7/27/2016 11:43:06 AM

Posting under others names here could bring down the whole board, grow up and grow a pair of testicles, write under your own chosen name and no others.  

As to the matter at hand, there does seem to be a concerted effort to protect ML by inventing a Nero story and making Nero into ....well y'all should have figured that out by now I would hope without further explanation.

By: GayWHoops (7/27/2016 11:54:03 AM)

Homophobia is outing someone who doesn't want to be outed.

Homophobia is assuming that a gay administrator meeting with a student-athlete is automatically inappropriate.

Homophobia is equating GW's situation to Penn State's. Homosexuality is not related to pedophilia in any way, shape or form.

Homophobia is spreading unsubstantiated rumors that a gay administrator is having sex with a student-athlete.

Homophobia is telling student-athletes that the big scary gay administrator is jerking off to your practice tapes.

Stupid is conducting an investigation on a public basketball forum full of asshats.

By: The MV (4,915 posts) - 7/27/2016 11:56:56 AM

Tim4, fair response but I'm just not sure how relevant it is to what we are witnessing here.  I'll go back to speaking just for myself by conveying the same sentiment as LSF did...if I have to pick sides as to who I would like to see exonerated (IF only ML or PN could be but not both) short of definitive proof presenting itself, I'm picking ML solely because his worth to the men's basketball program is substantially greater than Pat Nero's worth.  This is not at all to suggest that Pat doesn't do a great job.  However, it is to suggest that my feelings are 100% basketball related and have absolutely nothing to do with anyone's sexual orientation.

By: GayWHoops (7/27/2016 12:01:08 PM)

You're right, MV- it's much easier to throw the big scary gay administrator under the bus and the only thing any one here really cares about is wins and losses πŸ™„

By: RUSerious (7/27/2016 12:03:47 PM)

Thank you GayWHoops.

By: thinker (2,825 posts) - 7/27/2016 12:03:49 PM

What's most stunning to me is that ML and posters who are clearly his supporters are coordinating his legal and PR defense at it were here on GWHoops.

The more things that get leaked on behalf of ML, frankly makes him look more guilty of something, in my eyes.

If ML is completely innocent of anything and this is all a smear by the Post and it's somehow being ochestrated by "creepy innappropriate" Nero, then ML should REALLY be VERY quiet and let the investigation prove him innocent if he knows he is innocent.

This is all extremely unseemly.

By: Tim4 (821 posts) - 7/27/2016 12:07:34 PM

Ziik - Thanks for the kind words, wish I could post more often. Have benefit of time on my hands at the moment :) 

I hear what you are saying though I stand by my point that the multiple-sourced, edited, national news outlet at this point has more credibility than a person named "Skittles" on an internet message board. :) 

By: Tim4 (821 posts) - 7/27/2016 12:08:15 PM

Bingo - Thinker 

By: alum9999 (7/27/2016 12:08:45 PM)

I just wish the 5 anons would be revealed so the context will be FORCED to emerge as the rest of the players can confirm/deny the context in which things occurred/said.

By: The MV (4,915 posts) - 7/27/2016 12:15:16 PM

GayWHoops, here is precisely what I wrote:

..if I have to pick sides as to who I would like to see exonerated (IF only ML or PN could be but not both) short of definitive proof presenting itself, I'm picking ML solely because his worth to the men's basketball program is substantially greater than Pat Nero's worth.  This is not at all to suggest that Pat doesn't do a great job. 

Did you miss the words "short of definitive proof presenting itself", or did you simply choose to ignore these words? What that means is that if it can be proven that one man has been victimized here and the other is proven to be guilty of something, then this is my preferred outcome.  Regardless of who the guilty party and who the victim may be.

So, if it still sounds like I'm throwing anyone under a bus, then I'm left to conclude that maybe you have some sort of agenda.  Based on your poster name alone, that notion may not be too far off.

 

By: GayWHoops (7/27/2016 12:16:09 PM)

Yes alum9999- let's force the anonymous players and their inapproriate relationships with the big gay boogie man to be subjected to this board's, ML's, and the junkie's obvious homophobia

By: GayWHoops (7/27/2016 12:18:03 PM)

MV- I hear you loud and clear. You prefer the scary gay boogie man to go down for this and the nice family man with kids to get his name cleared.

By: The Dude (529 posts) - 7/27/2016 12:21:21 PM

I was going to say something significant on the issue then I remembered I never do that so I am just going to call everyone else ignorant for what they think. You're ignorant

By: Long Suffering Fan (4,106 posts) - 7/27/2016 12:25:55 PM

There's something happening here
But what it is ain't exactly clear
There's a man with a gun over there
Telling me I got to beware

There's battle lines being drawn
Nobody's right if everybody's wrong
Young people speaking' their minds
Getting so much resistance from behind

What a field day for the heat
A thousand people in the street
Singing songs and carrying signs
Mostly saying, "hooray for our side"

Paranoia strikes deep
Into your life it will creep
It starts when you're always afraid
Step out of line, the men come and take you away

We better stop
Hey, what's that sound?
Everybody look - what's going down?

We better stop
Hey, what's that sound?
Everybody look - what's going down?

We better stop
Now, what's that sound?
Everybody look - what's going down?

We better stop
Children, what's that sound?
Everybody look - what's going down?

"

 

By: Poster (5 posts) - 7/27/2016 12:27:32 PM

I don't blame the kids (former and CURRENT) who went to the press for preferring to stay anonymous. Look at how Nero has been treated here and he hasn't even uttered a word.  They would have been torn to shreds, although I doubt they care what a bunch of clowns on a message board think.

By: ziik (2,950 posts) - 7/27/2016 12:29:12 PM

gaywhoops-- they all are manipulated by the system. That does not mean they need special manipulation for any person's individual satisfaction. I would guess the university has rules in place to protect students against inappropriate exploitation of any intimate sort, no matter the sexual practices involved, if we get to that point. 

So far, this thing looks like it may be a power play, with the press being used as a tool. I think that is what ia troubling. 

 

 

By: Long Suffering Fan (4,106 posts) - 7/27/2016 12:31:14 PM

Just stop it.  Noobdy on thie board is gay bashing.  Nobody is discriminating against anyone based upon sexual orientation.   There are essentially 2 main issues that warrant investigationn:   Whether the coach regularly used language that rose to the level of abuse and whether the AD crossed the line in his relationship with one of the players. 

By: Free Quebec (6,340 posts) - 7/27/2016 12:31:30 PM

Tim, you and I don't agree often on political subjects, but your defense of how gay men are smeared is well-written, on-point, and important. Well done.

That may not actually be what's happening here, but it's still an important conversation. Thank you for posting it.

By: GayWHoops (7/27/2016 12:32:14 PM)

I haven't posted here in years, and trust me, I really don't want to me..

But the comparisons of PN to Jerry Sandusky and the perpetuation of PN as a big scary gay perv out to fondle student athletes has really pissed me off.

Is it possible PN or any gay person to be capable of such a thing? absolutely. But no one here knows the facts. GWhoops is not his trial and jury. Yet people here seem to prefer this narrative and are perpetuating it in order to exonerate ML, and that is inherently homophobic.

By: Bo Knows (705 posts) - 7/27/2016 12:35:55 PM

Well Thinker you have missed the point entirely. He should be quiet in the face of an anonymous false assault on his integrity, his judgment, and his livelihood?  He should be quiet while he is falsely tried by his peers/recruits/recruits families in the court of public opinion affecting his program and future recruiting? He should be quiet while he is falsely lumped in with Mike Rice as just another abusive coach? He should just be quiet period. Right? 

It was extremely unseemly for people to go anonymously to the Post to begin with.

No the right PR is always the truth. The truth will set you free. You never have to apologize for telling the truth anytime or any place. And we will get to the truth.

And just in case everyone thinks this is organized or orchestrated, I am not aware that ML has asked anyone to advocate on his behalf either here or otherwise. He certainly didn't ask me. And I don't even know who Skittles or JJ or any of the other supporters here are although I would like to know.

But when you have friends this is what friends do, they get your back when they feel you are being wronged unjustly. What will only matter in the end is the truth of the matter asserted! As I said I believe ML is telling the truth. Could I be wrong? Certainly. Am I biased? Probably. But I am willing to stake a claim here that ML will be vindicated. All the PN stuff I could care less about for the moment other than as it impacts the ML investigation. If I had my way I would figure out a way forward with both men. Unfortunately, I don't think that is possible any longer.

But all the PR nonsense is more Washington bullshit/distraction. Just remember the old adage that lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth catches up with it.

By: Bo Knows (705 posts) - 7/27/2016 12:47:16 PM

GayWHoops - nice strawman argument. Who here compared PN to Jerry Sandusky? Please provide me an example.

Sorry this isn't about gay, straight or anything else. That's all a smokescreen now. This is about whether not ML said or did the things anonymously alleged and now whether or not PN did the things anonymously alleged,. That is all. I don't think anyone wanted this mess and certainly not ML or PN. But some times when you light a stick of dynamite it blows up in your face.

By: The MV (4,915 posts) - 7/27/2016 12:48:06 PM

Gaywhoops, you'll be happy to know that I just finished reading the "Appropriate Actions and Opinions Towards Gay Men" handbook and I think I now have it right.

If I were to fire a gay employee who consistently was late to work and performed well below expectation, then I would be homophobic.

If a driver cut me off and I gave him a dirty look and then noticed a pro-gay bumper sticker on his car after the fact, then I would be homophobic.

if I were to watch a television show but didn't laugh at any of a gay character's jokes because I simply didn't find them to be funny, then I would be homophobic.

Thanks for showing me the light.

By: The Dude (529 posts) - 7/27/2016 12:50:14 PM

What Tim4 (and others) wrote.  Thinker too actually

By: Slayer (7/27/2016 12:52:38 PM)

No one here compared PN to Sandusky. GayWHoops completely made that up to push his agenda. 

By: bobo (3,178 posts) - 7/27/2016 12:55:05 PM

I agree with LSF that there's no evidence of gay bashing so far on this board. We do not know the facts of the matter so all of this is pure speculation. But for Tim or GWGay to lable people homophobes or gay bashers does NOT further the conversation...it simply shuts down debate.

By: Colonial'13 (94 posts) - 7/27/2016 12:55:10 PM

GayWHoops - Who is comparing Nero to Sandusky?? I've only seen you mention the two in the same sentence. I'm all on board the anti-gay bashing and homophobia issues, but I'm honestly not seeing it here and think you are reaching. Gay or not, an AD having as much contact with a player as is described here would be inappropriate regardless. As to who to put more faith in, The Post anonymous sources or "insiders" here, to each his own.

By: GayWHoops (7/27/2016 1:02:35 PM)

By: LA Fan (1,525 posts) - 7/26/2016 2:54:50 PM

I don't think anyone on the basketball team is under 18.  So that hopefully isn't an issue.  But still, I happened to think about Penn State too.  

What happened?  And was there a cover-up?  That's what the attorney needs to find out.  Will we see a larger house-cleaning at GW because of this?

By: bballfan (7/27/2016 1:02:40 PM)

In fact - ML has asked (in writing, with his name on it!) that none of his family and friends to post anything.  He will not lower himself to answer the false, disgusting accusations made against him.  As his wife posted on FB - when they g

Point of fact - ML has asked (in writing, with his name on it!) that none of his family and friends post anything.  He will not lower himself to answer the false, disgusting accusations made against him.  As his wife posted on FB – “when they go low, we go high".  He will let the investigation deal with it.  So get over yourselves!

And for God’s sake – stop thinking this is a Gay bashing – it is not.  Neither ML nor anyone who knows anything said it was about being Gay.  What we are saying happened would be inappropriate no matter what the sexual preference was, and no matter what happened behind closed doors.  The sexual harassment came from the Post and Nero’s attorney.

If people are leaking things - maybe they are fed up with the crap being said about ML, knowing it is likely PN who initiated it.  And trust me - I know!  But yes - I am anonymous too, just like all of you!  :-)

o low, we go high".  He will let the investigation deal with it.  So get over yourself!

If people are leaking things - maybe they are fed up with the crap being said about ML, knowing it is likely PN who initiated it.  And trust me - I know!  But yes - I am anonomous too!  :-)

By: GayWHoops (7/27/2016 1:04:56 PM)

By: ziik. (7/26/2016 2:39:53 PM)

Bo-If that story about the AD is deemed credible, well, the entire matter is different. Hell, GW starts looking like a minor league PennState, if the player is underage. (17). 

By: Slayer (7/27/2016 1:11:24 PM)

LOL that's what you were referring to with your homophobia rant?! That is not homophobic at all. First of all he acknowledged that it is a lesser offense and second of all he was only saying it relates if there was a minor involved. You went 0 to 100 and translated that to what you wanted and called someone out for comparing Nero to Sandusky which is quite a stretch. Not even close man.

By: ziik (2,950 posts) - 7/27/2016 1:14:58 PM

I said that, true. IF PN took advantage of an under aged student, and the ML story was out out as a coverup. 

Nobody has a right to prey on underaged students, of any sexual orientation. That is pretty simple. 

But, it seems we do not have that, GayWhhoops, so my remark was inapt. 

mrs. ziik is a teacher. We joke about the apparent national rage of teachers hitting on underaged students. Well, I joke, she cringes, but only because it is so sick, it is hard to take.

Are you suggesting a relationship between and adult official of GW and an uneraged student is fine? Or fine if it is a gay relationship?  I doubt it would be accepted, no matter the sexual orientation(s) involved.

I sort of doubt this situation ever goes that far. But, the U will sort it all out.

 

By: Poster (5 posts) - 7/27/2016 1:15:03 PM

"When they go low we go high"   that's quite comical 

By: The Dude (529 posts) - 7/27/2016 1:21:56 PM

The idea that Nero is being sullied on the basis of invented poster names making up a transparent lie, with such an obvious and insidious agenda is deplorable, but treating such a baldfaced bunch of horseshit with an ounce of seriousness is equally deplorable.  

One of the Nation's top papers of record with 6 sources from GW ran a troubling story about ML.   And on the otherhand we have a poster inventing new anomymous names to lie and sully Nero.  Pathetic as to the latter, troubling and still unclear as to the former. Open your eyes.

By: Hoopsfan78 (7/27/2016 1:22:51 PM)

GayWhoops fan, as everyone will attest my comments since the story broke would be seen as believing what the post reported and if anything defending PN.

Since the story broke i have commented to others offline that i am shocked how mature the conversation has been.  I can think of a hundred examples of places where certain fans would have posted actual homophobic slurs/comments just because and not in any defense of ML.

At one point a commenter said, something to the effect of "if mike did say the quote about a sexual relationship and it was based in reality the university to be looking at a penn state/sandusky scenario."  While i don't agree (based on the fact that all on the team are/were 18 and above) i don't think that was a homophobic statement.

Lastly, if you read the comment that started this chain and some of the other pro-ML responses that claim to have information from direct university/athletic department sources.  They actually haven't said anything relating to the post "sexual relationship" comment.  What they have said is that PN is accused of maybe being a little too close with one player, including having that individual over to his house alone.  They further stated that they believed this wasn't normal activity for an AD. 

I agree that the fact that this includes accusations that include two males does bring other outside questions about motives of individuals into this.  But at the same time i believe all that have posted regularly about this topic have been respectful (when it comes to the "gay" part of this story). 

enough complications with everything here, i'm not sure we need to be tossing any more hand grenades.

 

By: GayWHoops (7/27/2016 1:26:57 PM)

You're justifying ML telling players that PN is jerking off to their tapes and  that PN had sex with a teammate, because, well, PN is the big gay perv. That is homophobic. That is classic gay panic defense, which has a long history of working in this country. Gay people also find it extremely offensive when you call us child predators. If PN had a relationship with a student, that is inappropriate, wrong, and a fireable offense.. but it is not illegal. Any comparison, rather direct or indirect, to someone who preyed on little children and even adopted them to molest them, is wrong. I never said anyone here said what PN did was as wrong as what Jerry Sandusky- I'm saying you found similarities. I find it extremely offensive when gay people are compared, on any minor scale, to pedophiles.

Sorry but you don't get to tell me that's not homphobic. You sound like Donald Trump supporters saying they're not racist.

By: hoopsfan78 (7/27/2016 1:32:28 PM)

GayWHoops,

i am not telling you how to feel at all.  Also, you speak for yourself and not all LGBT individuals.  My statemnet was simply laying out facts (as i have seen them).

Those individuals that have commented have simply said that ML never made the statements.  I don't believe one of them has said "f-yah he said them, he said it because it is true. "  They are saying the answer is that the quotes are false and madeup (i don't agree with them, but i respect their right to have that opinion) 

People have been emotional and have very strong opinions on both sides. 

By: The Emperor (7/27/2016 1:37:26 PM)

Let the hate flow through you

By: Bo Knows (705 posts) - 7/27/2016 1:49:05 PM

GayWHoops - your comments are deplorable. No one has justified the comments ML is alleged to have made. What some of us are saying is that we don't believe he made them. Stop with all the anti-gay nonsense - it really diminishes you. It doesn't exist here. I am sure you can find it elsewhere if you just want to rant. 

By: Remember Fort Myer (14 posts) - 7/27/2016 1:50:37 PM

Maybe I got lost in these threads, but how did the issue of sex or someone's sexual preferences become an issue?  The only "factual" sexual reference I recall is the word masturbate, and as Bill Clinton said, that would depend on your definition of what sex is.

By: GayWHoops (7/27/2016 1:56:10 PM)

Regardless of wether you believe ML made the comments or not, and I'm leaning towards believing the students-athletes vetted by the Washington Post over someone named skittles, the subsequent perpetuation on this board of PN as the big gay boogie man is undeniable.

You can call me deplorable or eviscerate what I've said using semantics all you want. You can also say 'no one here is homophobic because we don't use gay slurs like other sites would.' I understand that's a lot easier ✌️

By: GayWHoops (7/27/2016 1:59:08 PM)

And no one seems to give a flying fuck that in perpetuating this narrative of PN as the big gay boogie man, you've publicly outted someone who chose not to be out. And can you blame him in the world of athletics?

That personal choice, and victory, of coming out on your own terms is forever taken away from him.

By: JJ (33 posts) - 7/27/2016 2:03:31 PM

Just a follow-up on what I originally started. This is not a made up name. I dont have any other names on here. Some people want themselves to be known while others do not. Thats their choice. Also, im not much of a person who likes to write on here only when I feel like I have something to add. You dont have to be a regular poster on here to comment. Its an open board with everyone sharing their opinions. 

As far as the "relationship". I am not aware what type it is.That will be investigated and defined by others. But the individual meetings and dinners did happen. No matter what the orientation of the participants, first, its very unusual for an AD to meet and dine with individual student athletes as often as it was happening. Second, due to the frequency of the meetings, dinners and other undefined potential benefits, the NCAA would see this as a violation. It would be similar if a coach would frequently paid for a player's meals. Its just not allowed by the NCAA. So this would jeopardize GW to NCAA violations. Its a red flag for them that there is no institutional control. 

But as many on here have confirmed after my comment, there was one Associate AD in charge of the program the past year. The question that needs to be answered is if the coach was cleared before the season by the school, why would they need to assign someone to the program? Who decided it and why? This is not normal for most athletic departments considering this is the #1 revenue generating sport in the athletic department and generates to most publicity for the school. 

 Since the Post article provided one perspective. I was just trying to provide the board with information that might be useful and may come out after the investigation when details of what is already known by universityofficials will be released.  Bottom line the Post opened a can of worms. Everyone can say what they want, when the facts of the investigation are complete, hopefully the truth and whole picture are shared with the public. 

By: Poster (5 posts) - 7/27/2016 2:05:31 PM

GayWHoops I respect where you are coming from, but Lonergan is the one who has taken that choice and victory away from Nero.  He's the one who has been saying the nasty stuff about Nero to his players and obviously to his family and friends and anyone who wll listen.  

By: JJ (33 posts) - 7/27/2016 2:27:49 PM

Just a follow-up on what I originally started. This is not a made up name. I dont have any other names on here. Some people want themselves to be known while others do not. Thats their choice. Also, im not much of a person who likes to write on here only when I feel like I have something to add. You dont have to be a regular poster on here to comment. Its an open board with everyone sharing their opinions. 

As far as the "relationship". I am not aware what type it is.That will be investigated and defined by others. But the individual meetings and dinners did happen. No matter what the orientation of the participants, first, its very unusual for an AD to meet and dine with individual student athletes as often as it was happening. Second, due to the frequency of the meetings, dinners and other undefined potential benefits, the NCAA would see this as a violation. It would be similar if a coach would frequently paid for a player's meals. Its just not allowed by the NCAA. So this would jeopardize GW to NCAA violations. Its a red flag for them that there is no institutional control. 

But as many on here have confirmed after my comment, there was one Associate AD in charge of the program the past year. The question that needs to be answered is if the coach was cleared before the season by the school, why would they need to assign someone to the program? Who decided it and why? This is not normal for most athletic departments considering this is the #1 revenue generating sport in the athletic department and generates to most publicity for the school. 

 Since the Post article provided one perspective. I was just trying to provide the board with information that might be useful and may come out after the investigation when details of what is already known by universityofficials will be released.  Bottom line the Post opened a can of worms. Everyone can say what they want, when the facts of the investigation are complete, hopefully the truth and whole picture are shared with the public. 

By: JJ (33 posts) - 7/27/2016 3:00:37 PM

Just a follow-up on what I originally started. This is not a made up name. I dont have any other names on here. Some people want themselves to be known while others do not. Thats their choice. Also, im not much of a person who likes to write on here only when I feel like I have something to add. You dont have to be a regular poster on here to comment. Its an open board with everyone sharing their opinions. 

As far as the "relationship". I am not aware what type it is.That will be investigated and defined by others. But the individual meetings and dinners did happen. No matter what the orientation of the participants, first, its very unusual for an AD to meet and dine with individual student athletes as often as it was happening. Second, due to the frequency of the meetings, dinners and other undefined potential benefits, the NCAA would see this as a violation. It would be similar if a coach would frequently paid for a player's meals. Its just not allowed by the NCAA. So this would jeopardize GW to NCAA violations. Its a red flag for them that there is no institutional control. 

But as many on here have confirmed after my comment, there was one Associate AD in charge of the program the past year. The question that needs to be answered is if the coach was cleared before the season by the school, why would they need to assign someone to the program? Who decided it and why? This is not normal for most athletic departments considering this is the #1 revenue generating sport in the athletic department and generates to most publicity for the school. 

 Since the Post article provided one perspective. I was just trying to provide the board with information that might be useful and may come out after the investigation when details of what is already known by universityofficials will be released.  Bottom line the Post opened a can of worms. Everyone can say what they want, when the facts of the investigation are complete, hopefully the truth and whole picture are shared with the public. 

By: FredD (7/27/2016 3:07:10 PM)

As an alum I want what is best for the school #1. #2 as a fan I want men's bb not to get demolished. What the heat echoed in this thread of people who like or identify with GW proves to me is what a horrendous outcome this will be.  As Tim4 and others have said the  Post did not create this story out of nothing and bc it's the Post the most dramatic aspects will stick the most UNLESS  the follow up proves the story is False and the Post chooses to follow up with the same vigor. Debate all you want but  this plain sucks. I feel real bad for PN , ML and my school and even the unnamed 6.

 

By: Bo Knows (705 posts) - 7/27/2016 3:17:17 PM

Poster and GayWHoops - it has not been established that ML outed PN. That is your spin for the moment. Perhaps you should blame the player who initiated the story. Perhaps he should've checked with PN first before placing such inflammatory language into the record which may not even be true!

GayWHoops - perhaps it is easier for your narrative to assume that everyone who discusses this story with a viewpoint counter to yours is gay bashing. Sort of like everyone who criticizes Obama on policy is by definition a racist. Please stop with the identity politics. No one gives a shit whether PN is gay or straight. No one is threatened by him. All anyone wants is for the full facts to come to light in this whole sordid affair and then we will let the chips fall where they may.

By: Poster (5 posts) - 7/27/2016 3:26:20 PM

nice strawman arguments bo knows

By: Bo Knows (705 posts) - 7/27/2016 3:36:44 PM

which part of my post was a strawman?

By: ziik (2,950 posts) - 7/27/2016 3:41:01 PM

Obama is a stretch too far, Bo. Or, would you prefer to now be paying for John McCain's wars in Libya, Syria, and Timbuktu?

By: Hugh Jaynus (5 posts) - 7/27/2016 3:47:42 PM

Anyone see Mike Breys comments about this situation? Andy Katz via twitter

By: Bo Knows (705 posts) - 7/27/2016 3:50:19 PM

Well ziik, you can look at it 2 ways. We might have been paying for McCain's wars but we will be paying for the wars to come due to the inaction by Obama. This is sort of like praising Neville Chamberlain because he avoided war with Hitler for a couple of years.

By: Bo Knows (705 posts) - 7/27/2016 3:52:54 PM

"Notre Dame coach Mike Brey said on the CBB podcast he has talked to his good friend GW coach Mike Lonergan, who is under investigation for emotional and verbal abuse. "I grabbed him in Vegas and said how can I help you? He's a teacher and educator and intense guy too. He can't overreact. I said you can't get into a public contest of throwing barbs. But it's my alma mater and I'm disappointed in the administration that they could have handled this better. I'm close to the place and love the place. The guy has done a good job. He works his butt off and represents the place well. I just hope it works out and Mike continues to stay at GW. As an alum we're happy the way he's run the program."

By: Buffman (38 posts) - 7/27/2016 3:59:02 PM

bo knows is a biased mechancial idiot on every issue, why anyone even asks him a question is beyond me, you know his answer before you get one, you know what the post will read before you read it

like a lab created a combining of skip bayless with sean hannity and a dose of sarah palin:  

1 - lonergan is infallible,

2 - anyone who disagrees the slightest is without any of  the facts and or lying, his opinions are facts, your facts are wrong opinions

3 - and blame obama if the subject turns political

By: ziik (2,950 posts) - 7/27/2016 3:59:48 PM

Bo, you are over your head. McCain dropped the ball on the economy, early on too. 

I thought he was a close call, and should have won that election, But, he seemed to have KH's knack for petulence, It was hard to watch.

Our nation is struggling with stupidity and ignorance these days on all fronts. It really is a shame.

Nice to see Mike Brey's comments. 

By: Poster (5 posts) - 7/27/2016 4:04:06 PM

Brey acted classy and gracious, what did you expect?  He certainly has no idea what is going on day to day at GW. 

By: Bo Knows (705 posts) - 7/27/2016 4:13:56 PM

Buffman glad you could join the discussion ... but you know nothing of me so I've already spent more time addressing you than you deserve.

By: Bigfan (2,829 posts) - 7/27/2016 4:33:08 PM

Feel bad for what gay and transgender people have had to have gone through. It is just terrible But much, though hardly all, of that has disappeared.

But in today's politically correct environment, any mention of anything that could be miscontrued as homophobic is the third rail of society, looking at the responses and frankly, the article. Jerking off over practice tapes in my opinion is a joke many people over 40 would make. Now, the unrevealed in the Post information may add poignancy to the comment. But still could be a joke, albeit a bad one in todays era). Is a bad joke a firing offense now?

And if you hit transgender in there, a true hot button word, you really score in the politically correct scorned lottery.  That's the problem with the Post "story." A joke that may be about pink sneakers worn to get humorous comments, is now construed as worse than the North Carolina bathroom bill. WITH NO CONTEXT.

Now, Tim4 has been a great poster. And his heart is in the right place. But he is a millennial, so he is in the politically correct buzzword era. Again, like Tim4. He sure seems like a good guy really up on GW basketball.

But we only have to look to the Colonial Army to see how things can be miscontrued. (The Colonial Army is now really going to have to double down on that hotline for those whose safe spaces were violated by merely HEARING about this story, even though it is the summer when most students are not in university).

But levity aside, on a serious note: there's an aspect of Nero being gay, if he is gay, that would have been relevant to the Post story. Again, look at that weird quote from HIS LAWYER which seems to out him.

But I have been more afraid here to type anything about Nero being gay. I've actually  started to do so several times, but just don't want to deal with this being off the rails as GayWHoopps (whose misplaced here concerns may been formulated by legitimate societal trauma) and other posters have. Literally have typed out responses and been scared to post, because it is not only the third rail of society, but GWhoops.com.

I'm not really scared because I've seen real trauma. But I have been scared away from posting what I want due to political correctness. That's sad.

No one like to be tarred with homophobia. The Post did it to Coach Lonergan (see the other lawyer quote where they literally declared he is GUILTY of sexual harassment without any context or trying to explore his side of the story).

Now, there is a new dimension. But can't talk about because Nero is gay. Or isn't gay. Is he gay? Who gives a shit? Although it would frankly be a wonderful story of rising against societal prejudices that were ONCE prevalent. Never really came up in my limited conversations with Nero, which were solely about GW basketball. Never really thought about it or cared. Maybe the question is whether the AD had an inappropriate relationship with a player? But as others point out, while if it had been at all a male with a female, the roof would be raised and there would be protest marches.

Maybe it's not sexual, but just inappropriate. Maybe it didn't happen, but triangulating it between the odd Post story and things posted here, it sure as hell seems like there was somethign raised. But to some, we can't talk about it, because it is not permissable in today's environment, since one person may or may not be gay.

At GW, I learned about free speech. Here, at times, there really is none. That is sad.

Lives and careers are at stake. The program we love is imploding.

Both sides of the story need to come out. The Post shockingly and unprofressionally failed to do that. JJ and others on both sides should keep coming forward with real information.

This is an Internet basketball message board. But it is also in America.

We should be able to speak freely, within limits of appropriateness and decency, without censorship.

By: Bo Knows (705 posts) - 7/27/2016 4:39:38 PM

Bigfan +1

By: bballfan (7/27/2016 4:48:12 PM)

Bigfan +2

By: Buffman (38 posts) - 7/27/2016 4:59:26 PM

bo knows, the robot in rocky IV had more interesting to say than you do, and less predictably slavish responses as well

"longeran is awesome, everyone here is dumb" you could just type that and nothing more and it would be the same as any post you've ever made

By: Bballfan (7/27/2016 5:49:12 PM)

at least spell the guy's name right idiot. L-o-n-e-r-g-a-n. 

By: Buffman (38 posts) - 7/27/2016 5:57:13 PM

bigger sin was now that i think about it, i believe the robot rocky gets his kid starts rocky III, could be #4, not sure, either way the robot is less predictable than bo knows 5,000 posts assuring us that ml, the infallible pope, god's own perfect creation can do now wrong and if you think he might have, well your facts are wrong and you are an idiot

bo knows is so smitten he thinks ml never farts, but if he were to, it would smell like polo cologne

By: thinker (2,825 posts) - 7/27/2016 6:03:00 PM

Bo,

I don't know what your background is. You seems to be very intelligent. Obviously you seem to be very involved in basketball as a coach. You have said you are a lawyer and you work at a company. I don't know if you went to GW yourself. So I don't really know much about you. And yet everything is about context - though we don't really have any context about you.

On the other hand, lots of people here actually know me personally like Herve, MV, BM, Alumnus, Formerly Boston Pops, Squid, I helped LSF change a flat tire once, I've spoken to Ziik on the phone, I've met Lev and his son, I believe I've met Dolphin Michael and Tuna. I'm not sure exactly how I never came to know FQ personally, but I certainly wish that I had before I left DC.

Increasingly your and others' ferver to defend your friend ML has gotten a bit over the top. Above your last post directed towards me (when I said ML should stop leaking things) you responded 

Well Thinker you have missed the point entirely. He should be quiet in the face of an anonymous false assault on his integrity, his judgment, and his livelihood?  He should be quiet while he is falsely tried by his peers/recruits/recruits families in the court of public opinion affecting his program and future recruiting? He should be quiet while he is falsely lumped in with Mike Rice as just another abusive coach? He should just be quiet period. Right? 

My answer is YES. He should be quiet for now. I feel like I can say that because there is context about me here. In addition to being a lawyer myself, my father was a diplomat and I lived in 6 different countries growing up with my father often being the spokesman for the US Government. I also worked on Capitol Hill for 3 different members. I worked as a lobbyist for a federal agency under attack from Congress. I worked as a Presidential Appointee in the USDA Office of Civil Rights. I have been a consulant for GW working directly for the Comptroller on a very sensitive project. I've written speeches and testimony; I've prepared Presidential appointees for Senate Confirmation hearings. I've had lots of interaction with the media - directly under my name and on behalf of my principals. I worked at a very high level on defense and national security issues and played a central role on issues concerning nuclear submarines, Blackhawk helicopter sales, negotiated all kinds of complicated deals, and on and on. I've traveled to 4 foreign countries as a representative of the US Congress. I have worked at the highest levels with individuals and their staff whose names most people would recognize and would likely be appointees in the next presidential administration. I've hired Jake Stein and Plato Cacheris and coordinated the legal defense of my client with them (look them up if you don't know who they are).

So yes, I think I might have a better sense of politics and PR and what would be smart for ML than you, his friend and basketball person. I actually think ML has bungled his PR stuff from the very first day of his arrival at GW. Some other time I will gladly post my list of all the PR things he's done which seem very stupid to me. Mrs. Lonergan recently posting biblical verses in defense of her husband is just one most recent stupid thing.

That doesn't mean I know what has been going on at GW on this whole mess. It doesn't mean that I am against him or that I want him fired or otherwise gone. I don't know what's going on and I hope ML doesn't have to be fired. But I'm going to say that your efforts and the others who are posting things on his behalf are making it look worse for him not better. You all are making it harder for him to maintain his job and reputation not easier. That comes from a 50+ year lifetime of being involved in politics and PR. Anyone else is free to post their credentials here if they think they fundamentally understand politics and PR better than me.

If I were advising ML (and I've advised plenty of people higher than him) I'd say put out a statement along the lines of 

"I think this story is fundamentally untrue and unfair. I love GW and my players. I would never do anything to harm either of them. I look forward to the investigation exonerating me and I will cooperate fully. In order to not interfere with the investigation, I hope everyone will understand that I will not be commenting on this matter further. I ask that all of my friends and supporters do the same. Thank you. Raise High!"

Then I'd advise ML to STFU almost no matter what.

Bo, you and others are clearly loyal friends of ML. Everything you say even may be true. But IT'S BAD PR FOR ML.It's bad strategy vis-a-vis GW.

You all have INVITED more shit to come out. You have invited MORE AMBIGUITY. You have helped create a permanent thread here for people to read that airs out everything. That's actaully not good for ML. You are actually making things worse for him. If GW adminstration people read this (and how wouldn't they) they will see ML's fingers in all of this (whether that's true or not) and be more motivated to stick it to him - if they are at all inclined to do so. Logical people will conclude that, with all of this effort directed by ML (and that's what people will assume whether that's true or not) he must actually feel like there is some merit to the charges. Savvy observers will speculate that he already knows he's out and he's spinning things to get a better deal or to maintian the possibility of coaching again.

That's all Bowie shit, not the way things work in the big city under the bright lights. That's my personal and professional opinion backed up by the credentials I have listed. If you want to say your personal and professional credentials make your opinion have more weight than mine, then you should definitely list those. Otherwise, if you are all truly friends of ML you should really stop because it's truly counterproductive for him. 

PLEASE do not reply with some "Oh I think Maggie was absolutely right to tweet biblical verses." Everyone on his side should be keeping their mouths shut. 

 

By: Bballfan (7/27/2016 6:05:06 PM)

Funny how not a single post I could find has said ML was infallible.  Most agree he is tough and animated on the court - they just aren't buying the load of crap being offered up by the Post.  

By: Remember Fort Myer (14 posts) - 7/27/2016 6:51:56 PM

I think that anyone posting this on Board, and just plain anyone, has equal rights and are all equally accomplished in their own way.  I hope we don't have to start posting our curriculum vitae to support our thoughts and opinions.

By: Bo Knows (705 posts) - 7/27/2016 7:03:26 PM

Thinker, I was starting to actually think your post was reasonable even though I disagree with it until you posted this: "That's all Bowie shit, not the way things work in the big city under the bright lights." 

First, how elitist of you. Do you really believe that ML is some country bumpkin? You don't think after 23 years of coaching he has learned anything about the media despite being in its glare almost daily? You and I go out and make  a crude joke nobody cares. ML leaves the toilet seat up and it's front sports page news. Do you think I come from Bowie? WTF, does that mean? Really I would like an explanation.

Second, unfortunately for you, I have been involved in several of these similar cases over the years both from a legal perspective and from a PR perspective. I am well aware of the advice you have given. It is the standard playbook. I have given it myself.

However, you must acknowledge that times are changing. In today's world with social media and the American short attention span, if you aren't out there in about 24 hours with some sort of story or statement you are dead (metaphorically speaking). Truth of the matter asserted notwithstanding. It's true for politics and it's true for public cases of claims of as bigfan labeled it the third rail.That is eaxactly what we have here. There is no court of law and no time for a court proceeding (that may come at some future date but well after the seminal decision has been made). And the fact is for all these PR "experts" most people who utilize the old tried and true PR strategy end up dead (metaphorically speaking again) these days even where the underlying claim is dubious.. No longer is the Washington Post, radio or television the only source by which people get their information or communicate - where the message can be tightly controlled. The world of social media is now as important if not moreso for the court of public opinion which ultimately may decide the fate of all the actors here if the legal is inconclusive. Silence these days is taken as an admission. That shouldn't be the case but it is.

And let me ask you this. If you wanted to affect the hearts and minds of the GW faithful, where else would you go but here for a rapid response?

Now mind you and anyone else, I am not consulting ML on this and in fact have purposely not done so because I know everyone involved. I have received no instructions from ML nor asked for any. Do I wish JJ had not posted what he did? Certainly and I'd bet ML does too. But once it was out there it could not go unseen and needed to be developed and discussed. I still don't know that all of it is true but I confirmed the parts I found to be true and said so expressly.

In the end, this will all turn on the facts. It will not turn on any defense, counterclaim or the intensity with which ML or any of his friends have decided to offer in support. The University is not going to say that (as long as ML has not violated any FERPA standards) "Well ML you didn't do what was alleged but we didn't appreciate the fact that you published a non-confidential letter on facebook or defended yourself with facts and your history/relationships so you are fired."

 

By: Bigfan (2,829 posts) - 7/27/2016 7:31:06 PM

Doubt he's orchestrating it and understand Thinker's point about what Lonergan should say. But think he essentially said that.

Unrelated note: why are there more lawyers here than at the American Bar Association? What is the correlation?

Could not even think of putting this into perspective without JJ s and other poster' s comments. Kind of an " Aha!" Moment,putting in perspective the negligently unrevealed subtexts to this whole disturbing affair. (Spoiler alert: we are already screwed. And screwed no matter what,so the real facts should come out).

They are the only things that supply context missing from you know what.

Social media responses are incredibly important today.

Keep the revelations coming.

By: Free Quebec (6,340 posts) - 7/27/2016 7:53:04 PM

No matter how you view this, here are facts I think we can all stipulate to at this pint:

1) Some players feel that ML crossed the line from critcal to mean-spirited I don't thikn even ML's most ardent defenders would argue that some players feel this way.

2) Other players do not feel ML crossed the line. I don't think even ML's most ardent critics would argue that some feel this way.

3) The university investigated specific Title IX claims a year ago about ML's treatment of players and chose not to take action. However, many of the allegations in the Post are from after that investigation and the university is compelled to look into them.

4) Over a year ago, PN had signifcant one on one contact with a player, including several dinners at his house.  It's possible it's made up, but too many seem to have heard the same rumors and much circumstantial evidence suggests those rumors are likely true. I hope everyone can agree on that now (it's just a debate over that was inappropriate or not, but I would be shocked if it turned out PN didn't even a player for dinner).

5) ML felt the relationship was inappopriate and he did not keep his feelings about this to himself.  Don't know if he complained formally or just to his players.  Don't know if he claimed it was a sexual relationship or just an inappropriate one. Don't know if he said one thing to players, and another to higher ups, but I think we can all agree that ML felt it was wrong and didn't keep his feelings to himself. 

6) A player told the Post that ML claimed it was a sexual relationship (not just inappropriate). Those close to ML are saying that is a lie.

7) Gay men are often unfairly slandered as having sexually predatory relationships even when they are not.  That has basically been PN's defense- that he did not have a sexual relationship, but it's being assumed about him becuase he's gay.   I am guessing everyone can agree that gay men are often unfairly tarnished as predators, and rightly or wrongly, PN or his defenders are claiming this kind of homophobia as the reason for what they say is a false accusation.

8) When they looked into it at the end of last season, the univeristy did not have evidence that the relationship was sexual. Either that or they made the decision that since sex with soemone over 18 is not illegal, that they would not fire PN over it.

9) However, the university did find that the relationship was inappropriate in some way.   That may becuase they believe Nero was giving impermissable benefits (meals) to a player or just becuase the university thinks it not appropriate for an authority figure at the school to be alone like that with a player under his/her charge (regardless of gender).   As a result, they asked or demanded that he not have one on one contact with either a player or with all players.

10) PN and ML have escalated a feud over this - with PN claiming to be unfairly maligned as a gay man and ML feeling uncomfortable with a boss who spends time alone with his players like that.

11) The university is now bringing in outside counsel to further explore what happened, figure out who to hold accountable (or both).

 

I am guessing/hoping those are facts that everyone on both side can agree on - whether you think PN is being unfairly maligned, whether you thnk ML was unfairly maligned, or whether you think both are in the wrong here.

But I'll add one more thing: when the accuasation of an inappropriate relationship (whatever that means) surfaced on this board, both LA Fan and ziik made reference to convicted pedophile Jerry Sandusky.  That is, unintentionally on their part, a textbook example of a homophobic slur.  LA Fan and ziik both owe this board and the gay community an apology for that kind of malicious linking.  I'm assuming neither one gave a thought to how that comment would be taken, but I hope they can see now why it's so harmful to throw Sandusky's name in here. 

By: Bo Knows (705 posts) - 7/27/2016 8:29:40 PM

FQ I would think that is a very balanced way of looking at things to this point. Kudos for the summation.

I don't believe LA Law or ziik meant any harm by the Penn State reference. They can explain themselves but perhaps the Penn State reference was not meant to be a comparison of PN to Sandusky but rather a comparsion of GW to Penn State. In other words, GW looked the other way when there was inapproppriate behavior of some sort and should have taken action sooner. 

By: ziik (2,950 posts) - 7/27/2016 8:32:53 PM

FQ-My suggestion was that, if GW was burying its head in the sand in a matter that involved abuse of power by an offical over an underage player, it would be wrong. 

I know nothing about the AD, except that before the Post story, he was well regarded.

If it seemed I was tarring him, I had not meant that, because I do not know any relevant facts.  I am not a fan of labeling guys, or taking one-dimensional shot at people, and I have no issues with anybody else's sexual orientation or personal style or politics. To the extent it matters (which I doubt that it does), I think the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution means what it says, in every way, and I have accepted and supported gay relationships having equal rights for at least 45 years, and gay marriage from the time the issue first arose.

So, yes, my speculation and concern went overboard. I am sorry. 

By: thinker (2,825 posts) - 7/27/2016 9:28:25 PM

Bo,

The Bowie comment was not intended as a joke by me. Would you have preferred "this isn't West Virginia?" I can use that going forward if you prefer.

I am not better than anyone but sometimes in some things I am smarter than certain other people and vice versa. Sometimes I have more experience or training or insight. On real pure basketball things like in game subsitutions or talent evaluations or defensive schemes etc. I am pretty sure that you, Bo know a LOT more than me. OBVIOUSLY ML knows 1000% more than me.

By all means focus on the elitist angle. Obviously from your postings you never think you are "elite" compared to other posters. For clarity purposes, that was sarcasm.

Yes I do think that ML is and has often acted like a country bumpkin from a PR point of view. I have said repeatedly that I thought his whole PR approach has been wrong and unsophisticated from the very start. ML has not been under the glare of the media for more than 5 years. He obviously didn't get that at Catholic, as an assistant at Maryland or in Vermont. I think that's a big part of the problem. He hasn't adjusted a lot of things that needed adjustment when he got to the most visible position of his career here at GW. I have feared for a long time that this "intensity" and lack of PR astuteness would come back to bite ML.

The last time this PR issue was raised when everyone was having a big yuck over him getting thrown out of his daughter's basketball game and then joking about it on the Junkies, I said

That isn't smart because, among other things that can make him a target. Someone can look up the exacxt quote..

Do I think he is a good basketball coach? Yes. Do I like his "intense" style? No. Is that style smart for him going forward? ABSOLUTELY NOT. Do I hope he leaves? Absolutely not. 

Do I believe that people are coordinating in some way with ML directly or carrying out what they think he'd want? Yes. Am I 100% sure? No. Would most objective analysts think there is some degree of coordination? I think so. Do I think you Bo are taking orders from ML? No. Do I think that you think he wants you to do this? Yes, of course you're doing this because you think it helps him and I imagine you have some sense of what he'd want because you are friends with him. If you thought what you were doing would hurt him, I doubt you'd persist. Obviously..

And no Bo, regardless of these social media times I still think this approach is bad for ML.But I think keeping silent just drives all you guys crazy.

Did you answer my question about what your professional experience or background is in some way? No.  Even in a broad way? No.

I didn't post my background to bully anyone but to show I have some real experience and expertise on this kind of thing. 

Bigfan,

ML posted the letter from the University on his Facebook page. i believe that he has had his lawyer giving interviews/statements. HIs wife posted biblical verses on twitter. So I don't think he has essentially done what I said I thought he should have done.

By: Poster (5 posts) - 7/27/2016 9:44:53 PM

for such important, great men (in your own minds) you sure do have a lot of time on your hands to write incredibly long winded, self indulgent, self-congratulatory posts day after day, year after year, decade after ...

By: LA Fan (1,525 posts) - 7/27/2016 9:49:29 PM

The only reason I brought up Penn State is because there was a cover up there.  If someing happened between an administrator and a student, and no action was taken.  It goes from being a personal problem to becoming an institutional problem.

By: Wax Daddy (193 posts) - 7/27/2016 9:57:19 PM

Well laid out FQ, thanks all for the summaries

By: NewGWFan (510 posts) - 7/27/2016 10:16:57 PM

FQ for the win.  This makes a ton of sense.  Both are to blame.

By: Bo Knows (705 posts) - 7/27/2016 10:40:22 PM

Thinker - I didn't respond to your question because I think it is a little ridiculous to be setting forth dueling cv's on a anonymous niche basketball message to try to show who has the bigger dick. I could say I am anyone or have any background. It is also a diversion from the topic we are discussing. You could be full of shit, I could be full of shit, we both could be full of shit. I prefer to focus on the content of the messages being exchanged.

But I don't expect you to believe anything about me and I'm not trying to sell you on my background. This is a public message board and everyone of every background, geographic location and economic status has an equal right to post their views. You can choose to accept or disregard them based on background if you so desire.

That said, since you say you are not joking, I would prefer that you not generally denigrate people by geographic location. Since you are a PR "expert" surely you would know that this is not the way to win friends or influence people. For whatever it is worth, one of the best young trial lawyers I knew in DC until he was tragically killed in a car crash was from West Virginia. He used to run circles around some of his Ivy League counterparts.

But since you are a self-proclaimed PR "expert", I find it fascinating that you think ML has had a PR problem or is not PR/Media savy. Please tell me how he has embarassed the University before (not yet conceding he has embarrassed it now)? Has he been unprepared at press conferences or interviews? Have his players done something egregious at ML's request? Instead, you point to ML getting thrown out of his daughter's game by an overzealous parent looking to be a big shot and tell all his WCAC buddies that he got ML thrown out of a game? Seriously? Do you know how many Lonergan kids there are and how many sporting events ML attends every year? Heck, I don't know where the guy gets the energy given his other responsibilities.

What I can tell you the guy is a regular parent as I've seen him on weekends in gyms and on soccer fields. Most of the time he finds a quiet place away from people and you would hardly notice he was there. Try to find another story of him getting ejected from one of his kids' games. I can't believe that you as a PR "expert" find this one incident so troubling and damaging to his brand given all the many interactions he has had. In fact, I would venture a guess that ML has been thrown out of fewer games and received less technical fouls than any of his predecessors through their first five years (Penders only had three but I bet he still had more)..  

Finally, I don't really know what ML wants or has been instructed by his counsel to do or say. He has been careful to not discuss this with me other than to accept my general support for him when the Post article first hit. He doesn't even know my screen name because I have never told him it. So he could be happy with me or not. However, the ML I know is a straight shooter. So, yes, in my opinion, he would probably not be mad at someone being open and honest about things. 

 

By: Bo Knows (705 posts) - 7/27/2016 10:41:30 PM

poster - it beats watching the Democrats drone on ...

By: ziik (2,950 posts) - 7/27/2016 10:51:10 PM

I think you are getting some constructive criticism, Bo. How about not bringing your agenda to the board. It really does not help Mike, GWHoops, or your credibility.

ML and GW, the AD and the players, all need help. Not cheerleading. 

By: thinker (2,825 posts) - 7/27/2016 10:51:54 PM

FQ,

After all the twists and turns, and spinning by different sides, I am no longer confident that we can summarize the situation as you have. I think you have definitely listed many of the questions that ae out there, but I think it's definitely possible there are still more shoes to drop.

By: Bo Knows (705 posts) - 7/27/2016 10:58:30 PM

ziik, my agenda is to support my friend truthfully and honestly. If that is a fault, then I plead guilty as charged.

By: ziik (2,950 posts) - 7/27/2016 11:02:54 PM

Bo, I am speaking of the political drivel. I've heard it from every direction for my entire life. 

Explain and correct what you can. Show your loyalty and support your friends. My guess is that not all of them share your politics or your prejudices.

By: Bo Knows (705 posts) - 7/27/2016 11:05:23 PM

ziik, My God man. Have sense of humor. That was a joke.

By: ziik (2,950 posts) - 7/27/2016 11:07:36 PM

Bo, even the Dude is funnier.

By: Poster (5 posts) - 7/27/2016 11:10:14 PM

I don't believe you are a friend of ML's.  But positioning yourself as this friend is one more way you like to put the thumb on the scale of every convo on this board.  Just as I nor anyone cares what anyone posting here does for a living, nor should one place any value in some anonymous poster claiming to be an ML friend.  You think The Post is bullshit because the 6 accussers names are protected, but we're to blindly believe one is a friend of the Head Coach just because one anonymous poster name  claims to be? What a joke.   There's the strength of arguments, observations and opinions, and nothing else here, all other claims are irrelevant and quite likely BS anyway

- and absurd bias is a quickfire way to make all 3 of the above predictable and consistently offpoint, and bo knows, you are the most biased, predictable, and boringly rigidly redundant poster here, by a mile.

By: thinker (2,825 posts) - 7/27/2016 11:21:04 PM

Bo,

You can't have it both ways. You can't argue that this a little niche message board and we can kind of say what we want and then turn around and say it's a matter of the greatest urgency that you defend any possible criticism leveled at ML.

I don't believe I've ever used the word "embarassed" with regard to ML.

I don't believe I've said I was a pr "expert." I suppose I could possibly be a pr expert but talking about Bowie or West Virginia isn't going to prove anything either way since I'm not trying to make friends or influence people here on this niche message board. I'm pretty sure that the town or state a person is from in not some type of protected class that can't be generalized about. If the Democratic Convention is too boring, does that mean you're a Republican? If so don't Republicans really hate political correctness?

You've proven one of my points that you simply can't leave any ML criticism alone. All this shit going on - ML fighting for his job and career and reputation and you're worried about an anonymous poster on a niche website libeling Bowie and thinking that ML is poor at PR.

If ML has a good lawyer AND if ML's cause is not lost yet, then I am quite comfortable saying the lawyer wouldn't want all this shit on a message board.

BTW I'm hoping we can debate PR and the great state of West Virginia. That's WAY more palatable than the all of these awful horrible allegations back and forth.

By: bobo (3,178 posts) - 7/27/2016 11:24:35 PM

The lessons we can learn from Penn State are not strictly related to pedofilia.  The larger subject universities and athletic departments need to learn is that they must aggressively follow up on any accusation of innapropiate activity, even if they do not believe those accusations to be accurate.  I believe that's the point ziik and LAfan were trying to make. 

Pat Summitt's son, Tyler Summitt, was forced to resign this year when it was learned that he was having an innapropriate sexual relationship with one of his players.  He coached the women's team at LA Tech. 

Any such relationship between a coach or administrator and a player is innapropriate. Straight or gay. It's wrong. It should be called out. It should be stopped.  And the coach/adminstrator engaged in that activity should be fired.  There can be no tollerance for that type of activity. 

By: Bigfan (2,829 posts) - 7/27/2016 11:47:05 PM

The weird thing,assuming any of this on any side is true,is if there was something that even looked wrong and this whole debacle may be about perceptions, ML could be pilloried for not acting on it.

For obvious reasons, won' t provide any examples, But if there was something that even if innocent,looked inappropriate,wouldn' t ML be open to a more "damned if he don't" situation.

He could be excoriated for not doing anything about the situation.

To be fair, Nero could have felt the same way in a complaint against ML.

By: thinker (2,825 posts) - 7/28/2016 1:00:26 AM

Bo,

I feel compelled to add:

If you are here posting ALL all of this stuff and you aren't close to 100% sure that ML and his lawyer really want you to post this stuff, then

a) You are a real idiot, or

b) You are no friend of ML

And probably both. But I think you are actually pretty smart so I truly believe you are damn sure that ML wants you doing this.

You don't want to tell me a little bit about your profession? That's fine but I'm not trying to out you. The only poster here that I'm mildly interested in knowing about is Dude because I don't believe he's actually a real person. I actually want to know a little bit about your professional experience so I have better context about what you're posting.

But anybody who has been involved in high stakes politics or crisis management or litigation does not want miscellaneous people making uncoordinated comments, litigating the issue in the public domain. UNLESS they believe they are going to lose.

I don't care how many posters here are lawyers or how many people disagree. You don't want all these random miscelleneous people arguing your case in the media and on message boards. You just don't. If you're PR savvy and unless you think you're going to lose.

So:

1) I think you're definitely not an idiot

2) I think you're definitely a friend of ML

3) So I think you are quite sure ML wants you doing this

4) So I think ML and his lawyer think he might lose OR

5) ML and his lawyer are not PR savvy.

I really think you and the other ML supporters are hurtung ML's cause and I sincerely wish you would stop. Because I sincerely would like ML to be able to stay, if that's still possible. 

By: The Dude (529 posts) - 7/28/2016 1:16:42 AM

Here's a hint, no one gives a sh-t who you claim to have been, I'm a GW fan, that's all that matter and I've said (at your constant prodding) who I am and no one cares about that either, so have a strong cocktail and get over yourself Sthinker.  People come here to discuss the program, hard to do with you two having an anonymous whip out the di-k contest and see who can make up more things about themselves to an audience of 10-20 that could care less about you two.  Get a life, or at least a clue.

By: Long Suffering Fan (4,106 posts) - 7/28/2016 1:47:41 AM

Heard a couple of references to age...that as long as a student is 18 or over, no law has been broken, etc.   No.  If a person in authority has sexual relations with someone in which there is a supervisory role, be it employer and employee, teacher and student it is highly inappropriate at best and civilally actionable at worst, even if no criminal statute has been violated.  It would become even more egrecious if the older person in authority is twice the age of the underling.   So, if something did go on (besides dinner and watching a game together), the fact that the student was over 18 has virtually no impact.

 

By: Long Suffering Fan (4,106 posts) - 7/28/2016 1:55:28 AM

Bo Knows clearly takes the position of supporting the program 100%.  My school, right or wrong.   It very well may cloud his objectivity.  But I don't know why he is so vicioiusly attacked on this board by some for defending the administration.   Pesonally, I think his passionate and articulate support of the school is a very good thing, as I have no problem with anyone vigerously defening the team that I am emotionally root for.  I don't know why he is so viSo, keep defending the administration, Bo.    At least I will be pulling for you and always hope you are right.  Now if we can just straighten out his screwed up  politics.

By: Remember Fort Myer (14 posts) - 7/28/2016 5:32:59 AM

Too bad all the principals (players, PN and ML) didn't have the benefit of a "Dutch uncle".  (Apology if that too is politically incorrect.)

My question is why so many of you admittedly old guys are up so late, or are you computer clocks not set correctly?

My bio:  GWU, BA 1970.  Last game attended at the Smith Center 77-78 Season, GW 77 Wisconsin 74.  Incidentally, Coach Bob Tallent was from Maytown KY, a "stones throw" from West Va.  Don't recall him having any of these problems.

By: Maine Colonial (487 posts) - 7/28/2016 7:00:13 AM

With all due respect to Coach Tallent, 8-19 in 80-81 was a different kind of problem. As bad as this is, I think I would rather have this type of problem coming off of the NIT Championship and the best year in the history of GW athletics. 

By: Long Suffering Fan (4,106 posts) - 7/28/2016 8:21:20 AM

I generally don't go to sleep that late but was up late watching the democratic convention and post convention coverage.  Also taking a couple of hours off this morning

By: Bo Knows (705 posts) - 7/28/2016 9:44:23 AM

Thinker I think you have me confused with JJ and Skittles. I did not post any factual information here in the first instance. Just confirmed parts of what they have posted and those parts were not the explosive stuff. I have told you I would have preferred that they not post that here. But once they posted it and someone challenged it, I thought it appropriate to say what I do know. I am not leading this charge and I probably wouldn't have commented on this aspect but for the fact Skittles and JJ were met with incredulous disdain when certainly at least part of their story is correct.

I think anyone who has been reading my posts for awhile knows that I am rarely the first to bring the news to this board but I am more than happy to confirm something once it is out there. Ironically, I often get criticized for that - for not stating what I know before anyone else. 

By: Rich Maier (17 posts) - 7/28/2016 9:52:46 AM

Maine has consistentently mentioned GW had it's best year in history. Yes since I got here in 1968. ML made major contributions to the men's basketball team. But I doubt he had anything to do with any of the other teams. So I guess we should credit Nero for the successes of all the other teams. That would be fair correct?

I am not on any team as many are here. Just want the truth. 

LSF, agree with your comments about Bo Knows. Much too much.

By: The MV (4,915 posts) - 7/28/2016 9:53:24 AM

A few thoughts and observations:

1) It has been stated numerous times that ML does not read this board.  I don't think he decided to start over the past week.

2) While Bo's connection to the program has been widely known, I can not recall Bo ever referring to ML as a friend before this incident.  Might be a semantics thing, or that Bo never felt the reason to use the word friend in describing ML before this story.

3) Hypothetical:  Let's say that Nero attempted to engage in a sexual relationship with a player but the player shunned his advances.  When questioned, Nero claims it was a huge misunderstanding and that there was nothing more to the story than inviting a young man he liked over to his place a few times (with nothing happening).  Would GW be covering anything up?  Would the administration have been wrong in not firing Nero on the spot?

By: bro'd (7/28/2016 10:03:47 AM)

My short and only experience with Nero was at a banquet where he talked about and metaphorically jerked off the bb team.  It kind of left a bad taste in everyone's mouth because it was a banquet for another sports team / alumni.  

   

By: Rich Maier (17 posts) - 7/28/2016 10:12:49 AM

someone here has posted about 50 times on this thread alone. Guess who?

By: ziik (2,950 posts) - 7/28/2016 10:14:11 AM

Let's hope, then, that the ML-PN dust up is just a metphorical scandal. 

By: Keith Greene (151 posts) - 7/28/2016 10:18:10 AM

Can I make a suggestion?  Why don't we back off of this conversation until we all have more information?  

There is WAY to much speculation going on, and it's leading to pissing contests, assumptions, presumptions, name-calling, labeling, etc.

Just my thoughts.

By: Bo Knows (705 posts) - 7/28/2016 10:30:44 AM

MV, to clarify I don't think it was relevant before now and I don't want to overstate the friendship - I would not call us good friends just friends - we talk from time to time - and have had a few meals together. I also freely admit I have a bias here - have stated it in this thread before. However, I would not be so blind to argue with facts. Just don't see them yet. We all have had friends who have made mistakes (not saying ML made any mistakes here) but regardless we still support them to the extent possible. If you are a friend that's what you do. I would not knowingly lie or cover-up for a friend if that helps to clarify for anyone here.

But I think something is getting lost here. I like and respect PN as well. What I really hope is that none of this is true at least to the extent that either man has to lose his job and there is some way forward from here.

By: The MV (4,915 posts) - 7/28/2016 10:39:30 AM

Bo, no need to defend that point.  I wasn't offering up a criticism; I was merely making an observation.

By: Bo Knows (705 posts) - 7/28/2016 10:40:51 AM

Got ya MV. That was more for some others here. Should have stated that.

By: Buffman (7/28/2016 11:11:46 AM)

What's the bo knows post count on this thread alone now Rich? 53? 54?

By: Rich Maier (17 posts) - 7/28/2016 11:19:11 AM

Buffman, in that area. wish we had a word count.

By: Free Quebec (6,340 posts) - 7/28/2016 11:56:42 AM

Thinker, I'm sure there will be more information.  Was just trying to summarize what seems to be the story so far, especially for those getting lost in all the personal attacks and unclear about what we know (or think we know).

By: NewGWFan (510 posts) - 7/28/2016 11:57:36 AM

I do want to say that people who are coming out and defending or speaking on the record have all done so in a positive light for ML.

Armwood, Creek, Pato, Feinstein, Sports Junkies, Brey.  

Most have insinuated that the GW athletic administration is in some way culpable which jives with much of the chatter here on the board in speculation on PN.  That doesn't exonerate ML for his comments or justify what was allegedly said about PN or to players.  However it would serve as an explanation of the alleged rift between ML and the athletic department.  It also calls into question the WAPO article which seems awfully one sided and doesn't prove anything at the moment. The investigation needs to run its course. I do find it odd that national media types have been oddly silent in even mentioning or discussing the topic.  Makes me wonder if they know more about the situation and want to reserve comment until more facts are known. 

By: The MV (4,915 posts) - 7/28/2016 12:20:48 PM

NewGwFan, perhaps the national media does not want to leave itself extremely vulnerable to any legal action.  That would certainly explain the silence.

I have seen a few follow-ups from lesser known internet blogs who must have thought that if the Post published it, it must be true enough for them to comment on.  They followed the simplistic narrative that coaching has gotten out of hand and that Lonergan is a bully, following someone like Mike Rice as the latest example of a bad apple infecting their players. 

This whole "I trust the Post" mindset actually reminds me of some recruiting discussions we have had around here.  Like some high school players with three stars next to the name has to be better than someone with two stars because some scouting service thinks this.  Could be true but by no means is it automatically true.  The Post published what they were told was the truth.  Could be but it doesn't have to be.  Of course, the added dimension here is contextual, where the Post can publish a damning comment that is indeed true, only to find out that with proper context, the comment is much less innocous or at least easier to comprehend than the way it was presented by the Post.

By: ziik (2,950 posts) - 7/28/2016 12:21:40 PM

I doubt the national media know GW is D-1. So, the quiet means little.

It would be nice if it was a shit storm that came from just a few guys bummed out by their lack of PT. But, that is a pie in the sky hope. 

Before this, I never heard a negative word about PN. Maybe, he just enjoys the sport.  And, there always is room for basic human jealousies. 

We will find out soon enough.

 

By: Hoopfan78 (7/28/2016 12:26:43 PM)

NewGWFan,

The story was widely picked up nationally including by espn both on air and online.  The story got the attention it should deserve given the scope of the issue and the size/popularity of the program.

In fact ESPN didn't just report what the post did, they interviewed the individual who approached the post to start the story (aditional quotes included in espn article).

"...according to one former player who spoke to the Post and expanded on his comments to ESPN.

"The stuff [Lonergan] has said about the athletic director made everybody uncomfortable," the player told ESPN.

The player said Lonergan routinely accused players of engaging in sexual relationships with Nero.

"It was very odd," the former player said. "He had this weird obsession."

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/17120165/players-accuse-george-washington-colonials-coach-mike-lonergan-verbal-emotional-abuse

The ESPN article has also been updated many times and includes the "other side" that many on here have (rightly) faulted the post for not including.

By: hoopfan78 (7/28/2016 12:32:24 PM)

by no means a fan of the aleged "world wide leader" espn, but they granted the same anonymity that the post did.  They appear to only be quoting the main complainant, though it is not clear if they also spoke with any of the others that the post mentions.

 

"

"This worries me because if I [and others] choose to leave the University, word of Coach Lonergan's verbal and emotional abuse, as well as player mistreatment would eventually be known among the greater community," the former player wrote to Muhammad. But the former player said Muhammad ultimately told him the program had handled everything internally, which the former player viewed as a failure to take action against the coach, who signed an extension through the 2020-21 season after a successful 2013-14 campaign.

The player then left the school.

"One day, I said I have to do something," the former player told ESPN of his decision to publicize the accusations against Lonergan. "I don't think it's fair that people have to leave the school they love. The Title IX coordinator didn't protect athletes."

By: ziik (2,950 posts) - 7/28/2016 12:39:01 PM

A bit more

 

https://www.campuspressbox.com/2016/mike-lonergans-alleged-abuse-highlights-college-basketballs-transfer-problem/

By: Rich Maier (17 posts) - 7/28/2016 12:48:23 PM

ziik is right. It's GW insider basketball with little interest nationwide. Imagine that others not in the media have a lot to say unfortunately. National media picked up the story when it was released. No reason for them to say anything because nothing has happened. 

By: The MV (4,915 posts) - 7/28/2016 12:55:08 PM

Rest assured that if the story brought to this board by JJ and confirmed by Skittles is not only true but is also brought to light from the outside investigation, we will all be cringing over the amount of national publicity our school receives.

By: Rich Maier (17 posts) - 7/28/2016 12:56:29 PM

ziik, thanks for posting that lousy article. didn't realize the investigation was concluded and verdict given. Article written by Chris Pyle, and let's not have any jokes that the article was a Pyle of _____.

By: thinker (2,825 posts) - 7/28/2016 1:01:07 PM

FQ,

I think your post was an excellent summary and I just wanted to add what you've now said - it's likely that more is to come. 

Bo,

Apologies - You, AND Skittles AND JJ AND others aren't doing ML any favors continuing your defense of ML. I profoundly think it all works against his legal and PR interests UNLESS he and his lawyer feel like they are losing or could easily lose. If you guys are posting facts and theories and defenses without any real sense that he and his lawyer want you to then you aren't being smart or good friends.

IF I am a party to this stuff (which I am not) then I'd DEFINITELY be reading this board to try to understand what the lines of attack by the other side are. I'd try to glean what the other side's defenses would be. I would be able to get insight into how to frame my arguments against the other side. I'd get a sense of how reasonable the other side will be and whether I think I could negotiate a compromise.

It doesn't matter if Bo OR Skittles OR JJ or anyone is actually coordinating with ML and his lawyer. When an objective person reads this carefully they will have to very seriously consider that these people are speaking for ML. NO lawyer EVER wants his case tried on a message board UNLESS he thinks he's going to lose. All parties to this 1000% are reading this stuff because they would be incredibly stupid not to. You are hurting ML's position UNLESS he knows he's losing anyway. But by all means carry on.

AGAIN to be clear I don't know what happened and I don't want any of this to be true and I don't want this to wreck anyone's career or to wreck GW basketball.

By: ziik (2,950 posts) - 7/28/2016 1:21:41 PM

It was pathetic, Rich, but, it is a diversion from our back and forth stuff. ML and PN and GW deserve better

By: Danjsport (1,195 posts) - 7/28/2016 1:48:53 PM

MV- I agree.  And that's why I don't understand why it was brought up here.  For what gain?  To defend ML?  Clearly this is a public message board that can be viewed by any journalist, including Ben Standig, who has posted here before, Jake Sherman, who has posted here before, and I'm sure others.  

Putting this out there to be investigated does no good for anybody, including ML.  1) at minimum, it creates the possibility of sanctions for the university for giving impermissible benefits to a student; 2) it makes recruiting more difficult; 3) it paints a former player, Kevin Larsen, in a negative light; 4) it makes recruiting more difficult.  The list, I'm sure could go on and on.

So what are we doing here?  We're relying on "anonymous sources" that have told skittles and/or jj that a certain story is true (because they have not outed where they learned the information, much less posted their real names).  And it very well may be.  We're relying on "anonymous sources" and emails alleging Title IX violations of the coach.  And that may also be true.  And, neither is good for the coach, the AD, the University, or its fan base.

If this PN story is true, my concern, (Again, at a minimum) is that the school hasn't dealt with what may be NCAA violations.  

No matter what,  this looks terrible.

By: Bo Knows (705 posts) - 7/28/2016 1:50:05 PM

To the contrary Thinker you have it backwards. PR will only backfire if it ultimately doesn't match the facts. The only thing it could possibly make worse is if ML loses not if he prevails. I have not disclosed a single thing here that couldn't be confirmed by others if they took the time to ask the right people not named ML. As for the information posted by Skittles and JJ and others, you'd have to ask them how that information was developed. Again, I don't think it was particularly helpful to ML's cause but if ultimately entirely accurate will have ZERO effect. 

The funny thing is I see you only objecting to ML's defense. How about the possibility that others are tipping the scales in the other direction. Attempting to smear him in advance of or concurrent with the investigation. Is that also unhelpful in the midst of an investigation?

By: Bo Knows (705 posts) - 7/28/2016 1:57:04 PM

Unfortunately danjsport you are correct.However, one of the things I always see time and time again in life is that if you light a brushfire you can't always control where it goes - the winds can change quickly. I wish none of this had come out starting with the Post article and I was arguing with the Dude over nonsense. I think everyone who pulls for GW right now would sign up for that. But we are where we are and what has been stated and read cannot go unstated and unread at this point.

By: thinker (2,825 posts) - 7/28/2016 1:59:36 PM

Bo,

I have no idea what happened. You should definitely continue posting this stuff along with Skittles and JJ EVEN THOUGH you say you don't know whether ML and his lawyer want you to.

You're sure that this stuff won't hurt him though you're not in contact with the people who would actually know that. I guess you're the PR expert. So I definitely hope that works out for your buddy ML.

In my background and experience, which I have shared and you have not, I'd say what all of you are doing is REALLY stupid. But definitely carry on.

By: Buffman (38 posts) - 7/28/2016 2:02:59 PM

I've lost interest in reading these threads as there's zero new news or fresh insights

but I will say I'm intrigued to see if bo knows can reach 100 posts on his own on a single thread. Must be well into the 60s by now, each post saying the exact same thing over and over again.

By: Danjsport (1,195 posts) - 7/28/2016 2:12:59 PM

Bo- you went to considerable lengths bashing the post for not naming the names of those that provided information to the post.  Yet, I have not seen you bash JJ or skittles for failing to explain where they got their information from.  Why is that?

By: Hugh Jaynus (5 posts) - 7/28/2016 2:28:42 PM

Skittles cannot expose his secrets! Its like asking Batman to turn himself in...HA

By: The MV (4,915 posts) - 7/28/2016 2:34:34 PM

Danj, one crucial difference in the way I see things is that the actual name of a GW player was used in the JJ/Skittles account.  We can debate whether that was appropriate or not but the fact is that in my mind, it strengthens their story considerably.  Otherwise, the player has been erroneously implicated and given the sensitive nature of these discussions/events, one would think that the player might have a legal case on his hands.

Thinker, while an investigator or attorney might gain something by reading through these posts if that only meant picking up a possible theory or nugget that they otherwise would not have, I can't help but think that these trained professionals will aggressively do their jobs without help.  One thing is practically for sure...we'll likely never know if this board was utilized as a resource because I can't foresee any investigator or legal professional ever admitting to this.

Finally, I just wanted to say that this summer's Virtual One-On-One Tournament has been cancelled.  This GWHoops.com event has helped us through the summer doldrums in the past; however, this summer has been many things but dull has not been one of them.

By: BM (5,673 posts) - 7/28/2016 2:37:09 PM

I see lawyers in herve's future trying to get the IP addresses for the posters on these threads.  

By: squid (1,510 posts) - 7/28/2016 2:40:55 PM

Some of you should be ashamed of yourselves. The summer is for speculation, sure, and if you have actual insight, fine, but to me it's completely beyond the pale and asburd to post player and administrator names about this kind of issue. That's craziness. Honestly, JJ. Why.

By: Slayer (7/28/2016 2:50:13 PM)

If you really think this message board will have any effect on the investigation at all, you are an absolute, Grade A, moron. "What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."

By: hoopsfan78 (7/28/2016 2:54:42 PM)

Also, no one is bashing ESPN for doing the same thing as the post.  If you had a problem with the post you should have a bigger problem with ESPN as they only mention the one former player. 

They did include ML's response and comments from others supporting ML, but went into more detail than the post as well.

 

By: Danjsport (1,195 posts) - 7/28/2016 2:56:21 PM

MV- and I don't think it gives any more credence to anything, other than to drag a player we've all rooted for into a mess that he wasn't involved in previously.  I still don't know where the information came from.  It may very well be true--just as the post story may be--but by naming a player, that does nothing for me other than making this more difficult.

By: Bo Knows (705 posts) - 7/28/2016 3:14:47 PM

danjsport - I have said I wish JJ and Skittles would not have posted what they did here - believe it only served to inflame things here in an already tense situation. But they have their reasons so you will have to ask them.

However, I was able to confirm part of the information they posted. That is more than I was able to do with the Post article. 

By: The MV (4,915 posts) - 7/28/2016 3:35:19 PM

Danj, of course naming the name gives their account more credence.  You can't just walk around insinuating that a well-known college student by name was even potentially involved in an inappropriate relationship with a high ranking administrator without risking legal action if you are incorrect.  It could turn out to be false, or a big misunderstanding, or a story that is severely altered with greater context added.  But I don't think there's any question that naming names in this manner absolutely enhances the credibility of the account.

By: Bo Knows (705 posts) - 7/28/2016 3:41:53 PM

Thinker you've made your point over and over again. I don't know what "stuff" you think I am posting but you continue to confuse me with other posters. You have your viewpoint and I have mine. We will just have to agree to disagree on this.  

By: The Dude (529 posts) - 7/28/2016 3:45:54 PM

All this based on an infrequent anonymous poster/s salacious claim about Nero? I'm amazed.  you guys must be very bored, it would be a little silly if the story is 100% made up as I strongly suspect it is, right?

350 and counting posts because some guy posting a Jj says this happened? SMDH.  Any reason whatsoever to believe him? I can't find any

By: Bigfan (2,829 posts) - 7/28/2016 3:48:13 PM

First off, want to add to the deserved adulation that FQ received for the summary. It was a great and balanced job for those 11 points. Terrific job, FQ.

Now, want to note that without JJ and others here, FQ's summary would not be possible. We would be in the dark about the other side.

If you can't see the difference between the impact what you post on an anonymous message board and what the Washington Post publishes, you need to think about impact.

What obviously bugs the crap out of some here is the fact that ML was tried in the newspaper, in what for you lawyers (basically everybody it seems) was a case presented only by the prosecution. Have no idea how as as a professional or decent human being could write something so one-sided not labeled as opinion.

Now HERE ON GW HOOPS, we learn another side of the story that the Post left out. Either because it didn't fit the narrative or such incompetence that one shouldn't be writing for their neighborhood newsletter, much less a major newspaper. That letter for example. Anyone want to say that was made up? Why wasn't it in the Post and the other stories?

Frankly, the Post article made little sense, except as prosecutor, judge and jury.  As have pointed out from Day 1, the weird-ass quote from a sexual harassment lawyer of the AD in the middle of the story. With no context. Why include that quote? What was the subtext for Lonergan's remarks.

Now MartiniBoy bravely offered what may be the answer about the transgender comment. It was a joke over sneakers, not a slander to transgender individuals that should prompt a boycott. If correct, and even if not, how in the hell did that not appear in the Post? Did the reporter not ask what the quote was and what prompted it? Again for you lawyers, maybe not libelous, but lack of professionalism, really skating on both reckless disregard and malice for libel cases. Prob. not enough, but getting closer.

 Now, the whole thing about Nero. Post basically saying he was homophobic, even if they didn't come out and say. Pretty much, along with transgender, one of the worst things you can do on college campuses, except for limiting the GW world card to the cafeterias. And comments in article noted ML's weird obsession with the AD.

Now, ML like many coaches has a lot of things to obsess about with the AD. But if he sees one of his players being contacted in an inappropriate fashion, he would be obsessed. You would be obsessed too. Maybe a love-hate relationship and he shows it in a way that many of us older poster grew up with, but don't think anyone here will deny ML loves his players.

Even if he didn't, in today's era, it is criminal not to report or be concerned by something that seems inappropriate. Without naming it, a recent athletic scandal focused on turning a blind eye to such things. Although the circumstances were vastly and horribly different, the point remains that it is also career suicide to stay silent when you see something that may be wrong, whether something actually wrong occurred.

And the school could receive NCAA sanctions for even innocent behavior.

The point of listing all of this (sorry Rich) is not really that we wouldn't know half or more of the story that is affecting what to the 25 people here is a major thing in our lives, however sad that might be.

The point is the real story would never come out if Lonergan's defenders hadn't come forth. Know there are PR strategies, but there are also examples where the honest truth blunts the impact of a crisis.

This story had a bad smell when The Post published it, which could be found reading between the lines. It stinks.

But it would stink worse for someone's reputation to be maligned, on either side, without knowing the full story. We still don't know, but have a better picture thanks to caring postings providing information and FQ's brilliant summary.

We're screwed anyway. There's more out there that we need to know.

Let's have the sunshine of information shine through the darkness. Keep the information coming, posters.

The truth will set us and the program free.

By: Bea (7/28/2016 3:48:51 PM)

No one is reading this. Except maybe the Russians looking for emails. It's newsworthy, it's hearsay anyway, and would never be admissible. No decent attorney comes near it. Herve is good.

BO ISNT A PLANT. He's not colluding. He's not abetting. He's making rational counterpoints, and none of them are harmful to anything. Mike isn't calling him, hitting refresh, and dictating what Bo should post next. It's illogical. 

Even if Skittles, JJ, and others' statements are correct above, the individuals with the actual testimony, information, and evidence would be summoned. (Their sources.) Those people were there; the attorneys might give a damn about their story. But Bo? Skittles? JJ? None have claimed personal knowledge of the actual events, only that they heard something from someone, or knew quiet, but public, information. Outside of this thread, nobody cares what they've heard, because it could all be false, or even just adulterated by the passage of the message from person to person. I trust that it is neither, but the rules of evidence aren't up to me.

Thinker, I can't tell whether YOU'RE the plant, if it's a pissing contest thing, a PN Fan Boy thing, an ML hatred thing or all of the above, but stick to PR. You give bad legal advice. And try being nicer: you're pretty emotionally abusive to the other posters; your criticism has been awfully mean-spirited... 

In other news: did everyone just skip over the guy who said the thing about the alumni banquet? What?! That can't be true. When was that? Which sport? I call malarkey.

By: Dootie Bubble (1,850 posts) - 7/28/2016 3:49:48 PM

By: Bo Knows (705 posts) - 7/28/2016 4:49:35 PM

DB lol. I think he needed a break from finding those yoga routines and recipes among hundreds of state secrets and decided that GW Hoops might be more interesting. The Donald must have told him to come here.

By: thinker (2,825 posts) - 7/28/2016 5:41:40 PM

Rock on Bo, Skittles, and JJ!

#BowieStrong

By: bballfan (7/28/2016 6:18:39 PM)

Thinker - what the hell is your issue with Bowie?!  Would it matter if he was from Annapolis or Bethesda?  Give it a rest!

By: Bo Knows (705 posts) - 7/28/2016 6:28:15 PM

Thinker once got his nose bloodied and his lunch money taken on the courts of Bowie. Heard it was some guy they nicknamed "Fresh" but I could be wrong. Might explain a lot here.

By: Poster (5 posts) - 7/28/2016 7:43:33 PM

Roger that Bo. Something is up Thinker's ass about Bowie. Sad. Really.

By: GYHP (7/28/2016 8:51:34 PM)

Headling this post as the main post and naming a player who allegedly is innocent of any wrongdoing AND of any invovlement in the Post's report is utterly wrong and unconscionable. 

I don't even believe Lonergan is stupid enough to encourage you. I think you hero-worship him and read into what he says to you - the flippant comments that he says to anyone that travels for games, etc. - and believe you are important. I absolutely think he would in no way encourage saying players' names, let alone Kevin's, and that's in spite of the fact I think he's an egomaniac. 

Those of you who claim to be longtime fans buying into anything you want to hear because it would absolve Longeran of any wrongdoing (to you, not to anyone else) and claiming that naming names lends credence to this witchhunt should be ashamed. 

 

 

By: GYHP (7/28/2016 8:57:14 PM)

MV, you think a flippant idiot on an internet message board weighed the potential legal implications of naming the wrong person, knowing what someone wrongfully named would have to go through to unmask an anonymous internet poster? You're delusional. That person knows damn well that their specualtion is all but not actionable. You're astonishingly naive to believe otherwise. Plus it was carefully couched to insinuate and not come right out and say what the poster was saying about the player. 

 

By: Long Suffering Fan (4,106 posts) - 7/28/2016 9:08:13 PM

flip·pant

flip- uhnt]

ADJECTIVE

1.

frivolously disrespectful, shallow, or lacking in seriousness; characterized by levity: The audience was shocked by his flippant remarks about patriotism.

2.

Chiefly Dialect. nimble, limber, or pliant.

3.

Archaic. glib; voluble.

To the best of my recollection, this is the first time the word "flippant" was used in back to back posts, yet alone by the same poster.

By: ziik (2,950 posts) - 7/28/2016 9:20:12 PM

It's a great word, LSF. Seen it a lot, I doubt I have use it more than 4-5 times, lifetime. (87 years)

By: Poster (5 posts) - 7/28/2016 9:40:43 PM

I heard reports from a friend in the athletic dep that Nero was having an affair with the dude.

By: Buffman (38 posts) - 7/29/2016 12:29:47 AM

GYHP, perfect post/s, word perfect thoughts.

By: BACCAS92 (705 posts) - 7/29/2016 2:02:33 AM

This may sound treasonous but can the Russians please hack Nero's and Lonergeran's computers and end this story?

By: NewGWFan (510 posts) - 7/29/2016 6:54:40 AM

Check out @CoachingChanges on Twitter.  Another anonymous source, but claims he will have information later today @ 10 AM PST on this subject.

By: hoopfan78 (7/29/2016 7:10:47 AM)

10 a.m. pst... damn have to wait until 1 :-(

 

By: Colonial NY (95 posts) - 7/29/2016 7:37:22 AM

I think we're overdue for this to be posted again (hope this embeds properly): http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png

By: Colonial NY (95 posts) - 7/29/2016 7:37:51 AM

I'll try one more time

By: Mentzinger (3,646 posts) - 7/29/2016 8:14:27 AM

What should happen is PN and ML, realizing their shared destiny and importance to their careers and reputations going forward, schedule a short joint press conference at which they profess their love of GW and their unity as a team that produced the best year ever for GW Athletics. The statements are prepared and vetted by the highest ranking GW official overseeing athletics, and they agree to not discuss the ongoing investigation.

They respond to any questions only with some reprise of the above statement, such as: "As there's an active investigation by the university, we cannot address specifics, but, as we said, we both love this university, we have differing approaches, but we believe we are a great team between the lines while we improve our understanding of what could be better for our program outside the lines."

"We wanted to appear together in order to allay rumors and to let our students and alumni know we are united in winning and in finding out how we can do better, on and off the court."

That's what should happen. But, as anyone who's been through a divorce knows, it won't, and someone is going to get the short end of this, probably with more detail than desired aired in the press.

Mike and Pat: Please get on the same page here.

By: Maine Colonial (487 posts) - 7/29/2016 8:16:24 AM

It sounds like really bad news is in our very near future if as @CoachingChanges claims the news supplements the Washington Post story and if the current GW President has to act to head off 30 potential lawsuits. Would any insiders like to clue us in on what's going to happen so we don't have to wait until 1 p.m.? How bad is it going to be? 

By: Maine Colonial (487 posts) - 7/29/2016 8:27:57 AM

Nice post Mentzinger but it sounds like Mike is going to lose the biggest contest of his career if I have to hazard a guess. Why we have to wait to learn what's going to happen is beyond me given how vocal some of the insiders have been since the Washington Post story hit the internet and newstands? Is President Knapp going to hold a press conference and announce Mike's firing for cause and the appointment of an interim head coach? If that's the case, it was a really quick investigation or the investigation was already underway.

By: hoopfan78 (7/29/2016 8:38:15 AM)

Mentzinger, while just about every fan would love for that to happen the ball has rolled too far down the hill at this time.  If stories are true one or both will be gone.

If post/ESPN (why does no one comment on espn story?) stories are true ML's time will be short.

Maine, given that the twitter account only has 3,500 followers i would assume they have more sources (without names) or further quotes from the same sources as the post/espn.  I don't think that this account would have the jump on the findings. 

Also, my belief is that if it is ML that goes it will be a resignation with settlement and a confidentiality agreement.  So it will be left to JJ/Skittles to say he was railroaded and resigned because the university wasn't supporting him.

 

By: NewGWFan (510 posts) - 7/29/2016 8:39:06 AM

Anyone head the Feinstein hit on junkies today any update from them?

By: bro'd (7/29/2016 8:42:29 AM)

Bea!  How dare you call shenanigans on my one piece of relevant gwbb information?!  

It was during the 2013 season and anyone would tell you PN was obsessed with mbb.  With all the success across the board in athletics I'm sure he does care and he certainly puts coaches in a position to succeed.

Fun Fact: Our team GPA was the lowest by a mile

  

By: The Dude (529 posts) - 7/29/2016 9:17:07 AM

Mentz, spot on post.

I'll ask one last time, why in the world are we putting any credence into a wild story coming from one anonymous poster? People here balked at the WaPo story with its 5 players and 1 former Coach, and yet many of the same voices take one guy writing as "Jj" as the lord's Gospel???

WTF?

 

By: The MV (4,915 posts) - 7/29/2016 9:25:01 AM

GYHP, your poster name is new here (another friggin surprise) but I'm guessing you are not which means that if true, you should know better.  While most of us may not know one another personally, the regulars here do have an idea of what to expect from one another.  I'm sure that many here hold certain perceptions of me (positive and negative I'd imagine) and I definitely have clear perceptions of many who visit here.

With this in mind, my perception of Skittles is practically anything but, to use your words, a flippant idiot on an internet message board.  I would venture to say that Skittles has provided as much inside information about this program as anyone, certainly if measured on a "per post" basis.  He has rarely if ever been wrong because he has the discipline to wait until information is solid enough before reporting it.

There are plenty here who could have backed up JJ's account and named a player involved and I would not have given it the time of day.  Not the case with Skittles.  So when you ask me if I thought the poster gave thought to possible legal ramifications, my answer is that he probably did but was secure in his knowledge that he was reporting the truth.  And when you ask if I know what someone would have to go through to unmask the identity of this poster, my answer is less than you think or realize.

So I'll stand by my earlier comments. When a respected, knowledgeable person provides the information that Skittles provided, it most definitely lends credence to this side of the story. 

By: Free Quebec (6,340 posts) - 7/29/2016 9:26:11 AM

Looks like it's Neil vs. @CoachingChanges.  One will be right, one wrong.

 

Maine Colonial, I know you say bad news seems to be coming, but I think if something happens today it's great news, whatever it is. 

By: NewGWFan (510 posts) - 7/29/2016 9:32:40 AM

The Dude,

We're putting credence into these annonymous posters because we are dying to find out what the heck happened.  The WAPO unleashed this whole thing. You can't blame this audience who's visiting a niche basketball message board in the middle of summer for wanting to find out the fate of the Men's Basketball program.  Anyone who claims to have info Skittles/Jj/@CoachingChanges I'm going to listen.  I'll then try to evaluate the validity of it.  

I'm not saying whatever @CoachingChanges puts out this afternoon is fact.  But it's more to the story to process.

By: Bballfan (7/29/2016 9:38:18 AM)

Listen to Sports Junkies - yet another person corroborating what JJ, Skittles, and others have posted, and he has a name and identity.  There are two sides to every story - you just don't seem to want to hear the other one the Post neglected to cover. 

By: Bo Knows (705 posts) - 7/29/2016 9:58:02 AM

Please expand on what was said and who said it Bballfan. I can't listen right now.

By: Bea (7/29/2016 10:05:10 AM)

Can we blame the person who is REALLY to blame here? Person or persons, I guess? 

(also, I'm new too; so if the standard for validity is tenure, skip this)

I am not friends with ML or PN, but I do know both of them, one better than the other. You know who I don't know? Adam Kilgore. You know who I blame? Adam Kilgore. And maybe his "team" of reporters.

One of a few things have to be true here: Kilgore either did a terrible job investigating this story but published it anyway, Kilgore had additional information that he left out, Kilgore was made privvy to potentially unlawful conduct and chose an expose instead of actually trying to solve the problem and helping those who were allegedly harmed (even requiring therapy...),  and/or Kilgore took what was nothing more than salacious gossip and spun it in a way to make it "newsworthy" and ran with it. And hurt a lot of people in the process. 

Whatever you all think of PN or ML personally, Kilgore is really the bad guy here. I still can't wrap my head around the why. Why he ran it. Why he wrote it. Why he organized it to make it seem like there were more sources quoted than there probably were. Why he didn't get the claims. Why, if the portions about legitimate damage to young men are true, he didn't go to the university trustees or even the NCAA or some other governing body first. 

I blame Kilgore. I know which "version" I think is true, but Kilgore really didn't have a story, and he ran it anyway. The Post has never been a friend to GW, and they've proved it yet again. 

Also, if you have a slow day at work, go back and read Steinberg's posts from June/July of this year. He wrote the rebuttal to Kilgore, but go back before that. The Internet has good memory. 

By: NewGWFan (510 posts) - 7/29/2016 10:09:31 AM

Bea coming stronnnnnnng.  +1

By: NJ Colonial (1,980 posts) - 7/29/2016 10:24:04 AM

I agree Bea, Kilgore has been reckless and he really stuck it to GW.  As for ML and PN, I have met Coach several times and I know Patrick Nero well and have always been so impressed with them both, so this story has really made me upset.  GW is at the heart of DC but the WPost seems to make every effort to attack the university.  Very frustrating.

By: FredD (598 posts) - 7/29/2016 10:30:29 AM

I wish the story had been differently written. I'd have liked a clear declaration about which of any of charges were previously investigated. A paragraph or two detailing what the procedure is supposed to be and if GW followed the letter and/or the spirit of it. More context in general However I disagree about Kilgore's obligation to fix anything. Newspapers are sunshine at best. Lastly would any of us be clamoring for a context and fairness if GTN was the subject? Also this is a reminder of the importance of skepicism during the general campaign

By: Maine Colonial (487 posts) - 7/29/2016 10:30:53 AM

We'll see who writes today's story for the Washington Post. If Kilgore doesn't write it then it's basically it's confirmation by the Post that Kilgore butchered the initial story. I don't know Mike or Patrick personally; I just want the black cloud lifted off the university, the athletics program and the basketball team as soon as possible so we can continue the current trajectory coming off the greatest year in GW athletics history. But it sounds like the investigation is going to be extensive and take time. In the end, iIf either Mike or Patrick end up leaving, or they both leave, then so be it. I've lived through too many scandals and low periods in GW sports history and I don't want the program to regress from where it is now. 

By: Bo Knows (705 posts) - 7/29/2016 10:35:24 AM

Bea - you are right that Kilgore started all this stuff and he had an obligation before he did so to button down all the facts (including those that were against his thesis to let the reader evaluate) given the explosive nature of the story. He wrote a story where only one person was identified as a bad actor and only one person's reputation was at stake while everyone else was allowed to remain in the shadows and take shots with relative anonymity. Even if you accept the fact that there was a need for this anonymity (I do not given the fact that in other cases of alleged abuse by coaches such anonymity has not been granted), the fact that Kilgore apparently refused to present any information that would be potentially exculpatory (talking to Armwood, Creek, Pato for example) or would present ML in any favorable light is inexcusable as a journalist.

I also find it curious as to why Steinberg wrote the follow-up article. This was Kilgore's baby and it is rare for an investigative journalist especially one at the Washington Post not to continue to follow the story. I don't know if that is a signal from the Post that maybe they have regrets on how the story was presented. Regardless, it is somewhat odd and raises more questions than it answers as far as the integrity of the reporter here. 

By: Rich Maier (17 posts) - 7/29/2016 10:55:38 AM

FQ, think you made a great post. Let's just get this over with and move on. Nobody wins if this continues to drag on.

By: Zeek (2 posts) - 7/29/2016 11:11:05 AM

Bo,  another reminder ESPN ran basically the same story however they included aditional comments from ML's attorney, the players you mentions, and aditional quotes from the main player who starte the story with the post.

 

By: hoopfan78 (7/29/2016 11:12:11 AM)

apologies, name keeps pre-populating with strange things... not sure why that says "zeek"; this was me not him

Zeek this was not intentional; quirky website

By: Bo Knows (705 posts) - 7/29/2016 11:12:21 AM

Rich that I think we can all agree on.

By: Bo Knows (705 posts) - 7/29/2016 11:17:09 AM

True hoopfan78 but the Post story was the one that got out there first and which many unfortunately based assumptions upon if you just read the comments section to the Post article alone. Not sure how many people really noted the distinction between ESPN's reporting and the Post. Moreover, doesn't the fact that ESPN was able to include these things which undoubtedly existed prior to the Post article being finalized, beg the question as to why Kilgore could not have included some of the same information?

By: GYHP (7/29/2016 11:18:48 AM)

Oh, god, "insider information", yet again. What insider information? The gossip and rumors about recruits, scheduling, and transfers that anyone with more than a passing interest in college basketball could predict? Like it's News at 11 that a player recruited to play one position who is struggling with that position and has obviously lost the coach's confidence is considering transfer options? Will likely transfer? That type of insider information? The ones they always post maybe a day to 20 minutes before Standig or one of those guys announces it on twitter? Insider information like that Lonergan just wants to see everyone do well and wants to see guys that transfer land somewhere else that makes them happy? (He's not a monster). The insider information that anyone that has bothered to say hello to Lonergan in a hotel lobby, or travelled for a game, or chit-chatted to Nero has been on the receiving end of? But that most of us have the wisdom and savvy not to spread all over the internet? 

How do you not see the difference between the relative harmlessness of that kind of chit-chat and announcing which players, who are glorified children, had a sexual relationship with their athletic director? Do you really not see this difference? It's not the way I'd run my program, letting half of my massive, extended family and friends run their mouths off on Twitter and the internet and to anyone that will listen, but it's relatively harmless. Even smart, because it creates the sycophancy that we see here every day, which in turn provides a false layer of protection.  

Why did Kilgore write the article? Because it was newsworthy. The Post puts the knife in on Georgetown and Maryland when they get the chance -- jesus, look at the bloodletting that was the end of Williams' tenure. Do you know why sometimes they don't get the chance? Because Thompson and Turgeon appear to have modicum of control over their assistants and players, and their past/current players didn't send an email detailing their past allegations they made to the athletic director and the Title IX coordinator to the Washington Post because he felt that it wasn't handled apropriately. That's why. How is that not newsworthy? You complain the Post never covers the team, then when they find it newsworthy, that should be brushed under the rug. And why did they grant anonomity? So that people like the people on this thread didn't sit here for two weeks and speculate wildly about the sex lives of 20 year olds. And even still, you managed to find a name, and coincidentally, the name belongs to a non-American student who has always been seen as a gentle giant, who would likely never fight back, or have the family and friends savvy enough to fight back. It's disgusting. 

There's a total disconnect here about the seriousness of these allegations. As to both Lonergan and Nero. And expecting them to finish this quickly -- god, some of you are suppose to be adults. It's not going to be quick. There's allegations of violations of federal law. They're bringing in outside counsel. Counsel is going to question every single person involved with the basketball team and the athletics office over the past 5 years, curate and collate their statements, and then as accounts are made, go back to the people that are interviewed and ask them about those accounts. They've both been accused -- and one is accused of having accused the other -- of serious NCAA and federal law violations and you want them appearing at press conferences together. That would be legally inadvisable, and useless. They're LEGAL ADVERSARIES. 

Those of you who want some kumbaya outcome where both Lonergan and Nero are cleared and it turns out none of this every happened, not a single one of the allegations (even though we know they did from the Post article), how does gross and rampant speculation about "the other side of the story," which involves basically sexual coercion, help that goal, again? 

It's not the Post's fault you can't control yourselves. It's not the Post's fault you hero worship a man who has made 1 NCAA tournament in 5 years and lost to Richmond at home last year to enough of an extent that you'll believe anything that would suggest that this doesn't start with his lack of control over HIS players and HIS recruits. 

And yet ultimately the mess really does begin and end with Lonergan, because pick your poison, but he either recruited boys so out of step with his style and program and expectations they made up a story eventually to stick the knife in, or he kept running his mouth off to players that you didn't have to be an "insider" to see had one foot out the door. Loose lips sink ships. 

In closing, in past threads, when you have blamed this all on Savage, again, I have to question what team you have been watching this entire time. It wasn't Savage, who is the kind of kid that has to keep his head down and needs to succeed to help himself and his family. The complaints originated with players that didn't have to fear having that taken away from them. 

 

By: hoopfan78 (7/29/2016 11:19:47 AM)

Bo, i have said all along that if kilgore had reached out to the 3 players that have come forward and got similar comments he should have included them.  I also said that based on the 15/16 allegations he should have included Pato in the players aproached.

By: Danjsport (7/29/2016 11:21:59 AM)

what did Feinstein say?

By: hoopfan78 (7/29/2016 11:23:40 AM)

Just listend to the John Feinstien interview on the junkies. 

I wouldn't go as far as to say that he confirmed jj's post.

What he said was that Mike went to knapp with concerns that Patrick was too close with the team.  Ed Scott was added to travel with the team and sit on the bench as well as attending some practices for the purpose of seeing if any of the allegations previously aimed at ML were true and to "create a buffer" between ML and PN.

The junkies and John both said they knew more detials.

John said that based on all his knowledge he believed ML would survive.

John said that he has not spoken with anyone at the post about the story and has stayed away from it based on his relationship with ML.  he then critized the post for the reason that have been mentioned by many (probably the vast majority) on here relating to letting players speak off the record.

 

By: The MV (4,915 posts) - 7/29/2016 11:28:26 AM

I think this is an appropriate time to remind everyone to please stop making up fake poster names and post under your already anonymous poster name.  And yes, I am talking about you GYHP.

By: Bea (7/29/2016 11:41:25 AM)

Oh give it rest.

1. The Post writes nary a negative word about the Thompson party, that's true. But it has NOTHING to do with institutional control. You brought up sycophancy; I think you just used it in the wrong place. It's kinda pathetic in light of the gossip (and it is just gossip) about Georgetown's program. It's no different than Kilgore's gossip published about GW. Just different names and different crimes.

2. Agreed not Savage responsible. In my opinion, though, he was likely John Doe #2. In light of the things I think can be attributed to him, maybe he didn't think it was going to be such a hatchet job, the way John Doe #1 did. The facts published when and by whom make it painfully obvious who shopped the story where and when and to whom. John Doe #1 was not Savage, in my opinion. The catalyst was JD #1. You can even differentiate the two JDs in the story when you read it carefully. Kilgore didn't do a great job hiding anyone's identity...

and frankly, if the Post DID cover GW FAIRLY, during the year, for MBB and other sports and whatever else, this wouldn't have seemed like SUCH a low blow. They don't. So they can't even say they cover everything GW, good and bad. They only, apparently, cover the bad. Even when it can't be fully corroborated. 

By: Bea (7/29/2016 12:00:18 PM)

caveat: I trust JF since he just went on the record, on air, and put his reputation on the line for a story that didn't involve him.

If what JF said about Ed Scott's role is true, then was that before or after Mike was that what the university found to be "groundless," or was this newer? Mike got a contract extension, so logic would hold that whatever Ed Scott reported did not indicate that the allegations against Mike were true? Or was the extension before Scott revealed whatever he was supposed to say? Is Patrick Ed's boss? Is that what the university meant by "retaliation"? 

Someone call Feinstein. New girl has questions. 

 

By: GYHP (7/29/2016 12:00:55 PM)

I'm going to regret even engaging on this because I think it's a distraction from the bigger issues in my post, like the lack of understanding about the seriousness of the allegations, but I would love to know what this board thinks fair coverage by a national newspaper of an underachieving 28-10 middling Atlantic 10 conference team looks like, particularly in light of the fact that the Post profiled both Pato and Yuta at various times throughout the year. 

You know what's newsworthy? Winning. Going undefeated at home for the year. Not dropping 7 conference match-ups. Making the tournament. 

By: hoopfan78 (7/29/2016 12:04:08 PM)

Bea,

Ed reports to Patrick.

Also, ML's extension was March of 2014 (before 1st investigation or Ed being placed with the team.

i'm not sure that JF said anything that "put his reputation on the line", acting as a buffer is a far cry from what JJ said. 

 

By: Poster (5 posts) - 7/29/2016 12:07:44 PM

Yes, Bea. You certainly sound like a "new poster".   

 

By: Poster (5 posts) - 7/29/2016 12:09:03 PM

Yes, Bea. You certainly sound like a "new poster".   

 

By: GYHP (7/29/2016 12:17:28 PM)

There's no risk for Feinstein, or Fraschilla, for that matter, to not back up Lonergan in terms of the player complaints. There's an element that will always believe that players are "soft" and especially today's players, and that will blindly support a "tough" coach. On this board alone, people invoked Bobby Knight as a compliment and a comparasion, even though Bobby's a pariah whose best days came when Reagan was president and his son, with the same style, is banished to scout land. 

But I sure as shit don't see anyone touching the relationship allegations. Even Armwood or Creek, I can't remember which, distanced his defense of Lonergan's style from that. 

By: thinker (2,825 posts) - 7/29/2016 12:28:01 PM

I find GYHP's post at 11:18 am today very interesting. I don't agree with everything, but these paragraphs definitely coincide with what I've been saying and I think it bears repeating:

How do you not see the difference between the relative harmlessness of that kind of chit-chat and announcing which players, who are glorified children, had a sexual relationship with their athletic director? Do you really not see this difference? It's not the way I'd run my program, letting half of my massive, extended family and friends run their mouths off on Twitter and the internet and to anyone that will listen, but it's relatively harmless. Even smart, because it creates the sycophancy that we see here every day, which in turn provides a false layer of protection. 

But also this on the delusion that all of this is anything other than a brewing bitter and protracted legal fight to the death.

There's a total disconnect here about the seriousness of these allegations. As to both Lonergan and Nero. And expecting them to finish this quickly -- god, some of you are suppose to be adults. It's not going to be quick. There's allegations of violations of federal law. They're bringing in outside counsel. Counsel is going to question every single person involved with the basketball team and the athletics office over the past 5 years, curate and collate their statements, and then as accounts are made, go back to the people that are interviewed and ask them about those accounts. They've both been accused -- and one is accused of having accused the other -- of serious NCAA and federal law violations and you want them appearing at press conferences together. That would be legally inadvisable, and useless. They're LEGAL ADVERSARIES. 

And finally this:

And yet ultimately the mess really does begin and end with Lonergan, because pick your poison, but he either recruited boys so out of step with his style and program and expectations they made up a story eventually to stick the knife in, or he kept running his mouth off to players that you didn't have to be an "insider" to see had one foot out the door. Loose lips sink ships. 

I find these arguments well stated and in some ways better than I was able to state my views. The more this escalates - and seeing how ML has his supporters acting on this board - the more I think he is cooked.

#BowieStrong

By: Bea (7/29/2016 12:32:52 PM)

I probably sound new because I am. I already apologized to the other guy for the auto fill thing. Why do you care? Do you think I'm that GYHP person? I don't argue with myself except about dieting, gentlemen. I can assure you, I am most definitely: new here, human, female, a GW grad (I'll even narrow it down to b/w 2000-2010), sitting at my desk in northern VA, and I probably have better seats in the Smitty than you do. I won't give you my IP address because I like my job too much, but I'll post my office direct dial, if someone will delete it. You can all call, hear me speak, I will tell you I lived in Thurston, and then a dorm I will not reveal, and New Hall when it was called that, and then you can rest your pretty, paranoid little head. I'll also say my name isn't Bea, and I do know a few of you on a name and face basis, so you know my real name, not that it should matter. My opinions are my own.  Are we good? Good.

Moving on.

Bo: Point Taken about JF's reputation. What I meant was that Hoops' report of JF's remarks included that Mike went to GW brass about Patrick being too close to players. Half of this thread has been shots fired about the wisdom of uttering that information. I can't imagine the posters here are the only people who share that sentiment. Were I JF, and I weren't fairly certain it was true, I'd have stayed far, far away from it, since it didn't involve me. 

I still want to know what the outcome of Ed Scott's role was.

 

By: bballfan (7/29/2016 12:38:56 PM)

Savage had nothing to do with any of this - he is a good kid who wanted to be guaranteed playing time/position.  Not how ML, or most coaches operate – he left on good terms.  He is not involved.

By: Tennessee Colonial (1,179 posts) - 7/29/2016 12:56:10 PM

Back from Yellowstone NP. Fly fishing was good. Now, I come back and see this. Well, just like during the Hobbs era, we seem to know a lot about nothing. The truth will come out some time, or maybe not. Now I have to get a new rfly rod. Whats anyone's opinion on the OrvisHelios 2 vs. the Recon for a 9/5/4? Thanks.

By: GYHP (7/29/2016 1:03:25 PM)

Bea, half of the thread has been about the wisdom of uttering that the closeness was an "inappropriate" relationship with soap opera-like details that were designed to lead to the conclusion that it was a sexual relationship, which is alleged in the first post in this thread. That post went on to lead to a player being named as the alleged person in that relationship, which if it was true, would be  merely existing would be a violation of NCAA rules and Title IX, regardless if the player even claimed it was consensual. 

Feinstein's version of events makes it sound like a power struggle. A coach who wanted the AD to stop meddling with his team. That's a far cry from JJ's post. 

By: hoopsfan78 (7/29/2016 1:13:38 PM)

from Coaching changes tritter: (grain of salt as with everything we don't know his sources and i think we beat the agenda horse to death)

"Unfortunately, most of our sources got cold feet about most of the information they provided, which means we can only report 20% of the shit"

he then went on to post 8-10 messages that really didn't include anything worth mentioning.  It would mostly just make everyone on either side (or impartial) roll eyes. 

certainly not the smoking gun he seemed to promise last night (though he did post a tthe time he promised for what that is worth)

 

By: Free Quebec (6,340 posts) - 7/29/2016 1:15:13 PM

GYHP, if winning were the only thing newsworthy, the Redskins would hardly ever get covered.

Seriously, an A-10 team should receive signficant coverage in their local paper.  We are litereally the only ones that barely get covered in the entire league. Even Fordham gets frequent articles in some of the NY local papers.  But all the other programs - the ones in Richmond, in St.Louis, in Dayton, in Rhode Island and Massacahusetts, and especially in Philly - get treated like important local teams worth following. 

We are the only ones who's own local paper fails to educate their viewers about the level of basketball played in the A-10 (a mutli-bid leage every year, so well above the so-called mid-majors).  We are the only ones who can have an underchavieving year and barely have the paper inform their readers about why, about what's happening.  We are the only ones who routinely get ignored when we play on the road, who has a beat reporter trash the local fans in an unwarranted way (can you imagine that happening in Dayton or Richmond or Olean, etc.?), who get lumped in with the one-bid leagues when it comes time for previews.

And lastly, you can say if we win, it's newsworthy, but if we lose, it's not.  But when we won, we still didn't get much coverage.  And when other comparable programs lose, their papers tend to help their readers understand why.

I'll add, I don't think Kilgore was in the wrong here.  A player comes to you with an allegation that a coach crosses the line, and gives you 5 others to confrim, then you expect him to run with it.  That is news all on its own. And if ML or GW didn't tell him about the allegations aganist PN to defend himself, that's on them, not Kilgore.  Some of the writing is sloppy, to be sure, but players publicly saying a coach crossed the line from critical to mean-spirited is probably news, regardless of whether some macho, macho men think the real story is young people are soft.

By: Bea (7/29/2016 1:21:12 PM)

I read "close" as a euphemism for "inappropriate." But maybe the appropriateness of the closeness is relative to the economic value players or team have for the school... 

By: NewGWFan (510 posts) - 7/29/2016 1:32:48 PM

Oh man, if what is said on CoachingChanges is true, it's ALL over for ML.

By: hoopfan78 (7/29/2016 1:36:48 PM)

i've thought from the begining (and still do) that ML will not survive this.  But, i disagree that anything coaching changes wrote on twitter adds to the story or makes anything worse for him. 

 

By: hoopfan78 (7/29/2016 1:40:29 PM)

now some actual breaking news!  go PATO!

 

Adrian Wojnarowski@WojVerticalNBA 19s20 seconds ago

Sources: Argentina forward Patricio Garino, who played at George Washington Univ., has reached agreement on deal with the San Antonio Spurs.

By: hoopfan78 (7/29/2016 1:43:25 PM)

more:

Adrian Wojnarowski@WojVerticalNBA 2m2 minutes ago

Garino will play in Olympics for Argentina with Maun Ginobili and Luis Scola. Gregg Popovich watched Garino vs. Team USA in Vegas last week.

By: GYHP (7/29/2016 1:47:37 PM)

Bea, you read "close" as a euphenism for "an inappropriate relationship with a men's basketball student athlete which included daily closed door meetings and dinner at Nero's residence.  President Knapp was told of many "red flags" and possible impermissible benefits the student athlete received from Nero.". Really? 

By: GYHP (7/29/2016 2:37:41 PM)

And one more thing: to state the obvious, Feinstein's timeline for Longeran complaining to Knapp doesn't match JJ's post that the complaint occurred in September 2015. 

Further, if it went down the way it's alleged by JJ, every single adult associated with basketball and the athletic department that had any knowledge of the situation would be fired. They would have to start from scratch. A sexual relationship between the ultimate head of the athletic department, that was reported and found to be credible by the President of the University to warrant ordering the superior away from the student, would be a pretty obvious Title IX violation. 

Which is why it's so blatantly, absurdly, untrue. But hell if it hasn't been a interesting trip into the nadir of human existence to see some of you get so excited by the propect. 

By: Bea (7/29/2016 2:40:35 PM)

I don't believe I equated "close" to the things you listed, and since I have not defined "inappropriate," you'd do quite well not to put words in my mouth. I can speak for myself, thank you.  

What I said was: JF involved himself publicly in something that wasn't his problem. I reasoned that many people would be upset by his decision to reveal additional facts, based on some of the advice in this thread alone. I don't believe I mentioned specific posts or authors; I spoke generally about - as some have put it - Mike's "PR campaign." And then I said that I took "close" to be a euphemism for "inappropriate." 

That's not the same thing as equating "close" to daily "closed door meetings" and "dinners".

I know my experience, and view of a typical AD-athlete relationship, and I wouldn't describe them as "close" in nature. Not by the standard you tried to ascribe to me, not by my own vague understanding of what I think it means.

To clarify what I said about MBB at GW and high-value-sports: perhaps the monetary value of the team or athlete's personal contribution to a team lends itself to a closeness that I did not experience or have not seen. Maybe an AD gets more involved on a personal level with a team or individual players when his punting suffers or her free throw shooting declines, if wins mean revenue for the school. I have no idea. I was offering a differential argument to my own explanation.  

If you know whether that is typical, since you seem to know an awful lot, enlighten me. I can post that phone number. Kill two birds with one stone.

The Junkies are close to Mike, they've been skewered for their impartiality in his favor. When they, and JF, corroborate one another's stories, say that Mike will probably not be fired, and use the word "close," in the same segment (I didn't hear that segment, by the way; I'm reasoning from someone else's post here), then yes, I do see it being used as a loaded word, at least potentially.

I don't know the meaning of "close," or "inappropriate," or even "is." I have a general understanding, thresholds, ideas.

I'm speculating because I do want a Kumbyah ending here. I happen to want the very best outcome, I want names cleared, reputations mended, programs funded, games won, jobs retained, and more NBA deals signed. If that can't happen, I'd like the least disruption, destruction, and embarrassment to GW as possible.

I would hope that's what everyone wants. 

By: GYHP (7/29/2016 3:05:12 PM)

Bea, the only definition of "inappropriate" was provided by JJ in the opening to this insane thread, and what I copied and pasted above is exactly what he wrote. You are the one that did indeed say that you thought "close" was a euphenism for "inappropriate," which is why I asked you if you were really saying that it was a euphenism for JJ's libelous commentary in the very first post in this thread. Which apparently you are not. So I'm glad that's cleared up. But it's pretty obvious from your reaction and the way that this post developed that certaintly a sexual relationship was what JJ was promoting and multiple posters jumped in to agree with him, and then name players' names. All of which is, as I stated previously, unconscionable. 

I would not post your phone number on this tread or any GWHoops thread since there is essentially no mechanism to delete any threads. 

1) Yes, it is typical for an athletic director to be much more concerned with the goings-on of a premiere revenue-produing athletic program than another one. 

2) Nero seems incredibly involved in almost every sport. 

3) Lonergan would have been used to a far more traditional athletic director relationship and calling the shots at Vermont, where he was a huge fish in a tiny pond. 

So no, I don't think that the jump from "too close" with the players to candle-lit dinners is a normal one. I could absolutely see Lonergan chafing if he felt the players were complaining to Nero about him, or that Nero was too chummy with them and therefore undermining the way he wanted to run his progarm. That's a somewhat typical power struggle. Of course, it's rather undermined by the fact that at least one of those players went ahead and made a formal complaint about Lonergan's behavior, which suggests that the reason Lonergan didn't want Nero around so much was so that the ability to complain/whistleblow wasn't so easy. That also works with John Feinstein's timeline. 

Also: John Feinstein is a journalist and columnist. His entire job is to involve himself publicly in things that aren't his problem. I don't have a problem with him revealing more details because he is JOHN FEINSTEIN, a noted reporter and columnist with impeccable sources, although he is also not a saint, and because he did not wildly speculate without citing those sources about a SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN A SUPERIOR AND HIS INFERIOR and further insinuate that Lonergan and the athletic department KNEW ABOUT IT. Why didn't he?! Because it's textbook defamation and totally unsupported. 

Athletic directors have been accused by pissed-off coaches of coddling players since athletic departments were invented. Lonergan wanting Nero out of his program so he could run it the way he saw fit is far more likely and jives with Feinstein's claims than JJ's. 

By: The MV (4,915 posts) - 7/29/2016 3:18:25 PM

I'm just glad to see The Dude taking a day off from the board.  GYHP is truly filling a void in his "absence".

By: ziik (2,950 posts) - 7/29/2016 3:32:25 PM

Gyhp may be the Dude, MV. Name change is so easy.

 

Otherwise, I think when Neil or Herve post, the stroy will be resolved, totally

By: Bo Knows (705 posts) - 7/29/2016 3:34:02 PM

Funny ... Thinker is strangely silent about GYHP. I guess only one side of the story is entitled to PR here.

Also, GYHP glad to see you've suddenly become interested in GW Hoops. But please don't confuse your newfound status as a poster with having a lock on the facts because that you clearly do not have. I would tell you point by point where you went wrong but that would offend my friend Thinker because ML is clearly not entitled to a defense much like Rasheed Sulaimon wasn't and probably those accused by "Jackie" at UVA weren't either. Is it possible that Thinker is jet setting to Turkey to assist in the Erdogan round-up, summary trials and executions? Perhaps.

But if you really want to know what is going on, please consult the Dude he has never been wrong. Of course, he has alternatively posted that ML is guilty/not guilty so he will be right again!

 

By: JJ (33 posts) - 7/29/2016 3:34:49 PM

Just to clarify. This is something I posted a couple of days ago:

By: JJ (33 posts) - 7/27/2016 2:03:31 PM

As far as the "relationship". I am not aware what type it is. That will be investigated and defined by others. But the individual meetings and dinners did happen. No matter what the orientation of the participants, first, its very unusual for an AD to meet and dine with individual student athletes as often as it was happening. Second, due to the frequency of the meetings, dinners and other undefined potential benefits, the NCAA would see this as a violation. It would be similar if a coach would frequently paid for a player's meals. Its just not allowed by the NCAA. So this would jeopardize GW to NCAA violations. Its a red flag for them that there is no institutional control. 

People are adding their own interpretation into "Inappropriate relationship" which could mean many things. I do understand how some can interpret it differently  but I left it vague for a reason. Lets wait for the investigation to be completed and let the results become public. As most heard from JF and Junkies, there is alot of info out there about this story that has yet to be released to the public.  

 

By: GYHP (7/29/2016 3:41:15 PM)

I'm not The Dude, and any comparison of my style and that of the posts by The Dude reflects that pretty obviously. 

Either of you want to address any of my points about how the scenario laid out in the opening of this thread wouldn't be a de facto Title IX violation and almost definitely lead to a total cleansing of the athletic department and the basketball program, you go right ahead.

Any of you want to address that Feinstein's and the Sports Junkies's (from that noted bastion of accuracy, sports radio), version of events doesn't jive with JJs, go right ahead. 

Any of you want to claim that both JJ and Feinstein's stories are accurate, and somehow it wouldn't be a massive violation of federal law and NCAA violations, again, go right ahead. 

You can't, because any of those versions are terrible, and the sexual relationship allegations are the reason everyone is lawyered up and outside counsel is being brought in. It's massive issue. It's a tremendous accusation. And it's being speculated about herein by adult men as if it's a joke and a diversion. 

By: Neil (314 posts) - 7/29/2016 3:41:54 PM

The story will be resolved and ML will remain the coach.  I'm not sure the same for PN.

By: GYHP (7/29/2016 3:45:22 PM)

Come off it, JJ. Here's what you wrote: A member of the athletic department went to GW President Knapp in September 2015 and reported that Nero was having an inappropriate relationship with a men's basketball student athlete which included daily closed door meetings and dinner at Nero's residence. 

---

Coupled with the speculation all over the place about Nero's personal life and the preexisting commentary about that, you knew exactly what you were doing. Own it. 

---

And even your version of events means that Lonergan didn't prevent or report his own program's NCAA violations. He would have had to force an internal investigation and self-report if that was the case. Why isn't that out there? That would make him a hero. I, again, actually don't believe Lonergan is so stupid to risk himself and his career if there was an obvious fall guy and obvious NCAA violations. 

By: BM (5,673 posts) - 7/29/2016 3:48:35 PM

...and I refer to my previous post:

By: BM (5,673 posts) - 7/28/2016 2:37:09 PM

I see lawyers in herve's future trying to get the IP addresses for the posters on these threads.  

 

 

By: JJ (33 posts) - 7/29/2016 3:54:10 PM

Just to clarify. This is something I posted a couple of days ago:

By: JJ (33 posts) - 7/27/2016 2:03:31 PM

As far as the "relationship". I am not aware what type it is. That will be investigated and defined by others. But the individual meetings and dinners did happen. No matter what the orientation of the participants, first, its very unusual for an AD to meet and dine with individual student athletes as often as it was happening. Second, due to the frequency of the meetings, dinners and other undefined potential benefits, the NCAA would see this as a violation. It would be similar if a coach would frequently paid for a player's meals. Its just not allowed by the NCAA. So this would jeopardize GW to NCAA violations. Its a red flag for them that there is no institutional control. 

People are adding their own interpretation into "Inappropriate relationship" which could mean many things. I do understand how some can interpret it differently  but I left it vague for a reason. Lets wait for the investigation to be completed and let the results become public. As most heard from JF and Junkies, there is alot of info out there about this story that has yet to be released to the public.  

 

By: Long Suffering Fan (4,106 posts) - 7/29/2016 3:58:25 PM

I checked out the tweets from "coaching changes"..   Are you kidding me? Who are these jokers?   If anyone on the team was offended by those comments, they need to (add your own offensivem, politically incorrect term).   "Mommy, the coach said mean things to me"  He called me a bad name for female genitalia.   "He told me to take a Puerto Rican shower."   He made me cry.  I need to go to therapy.  I'm telling on him. Whomever the player was...good riddance.

 

 

By: Bea (7/29/2016 4:03:11 PM)

You didn't answer my question. I asked, in part, whether it is typical for an AD to have "close" relationships with athletes.

You kinda-sorta-faked an answer, but you didn't actually answer it.  "Much more concerned with the goings on," Well, yeah. thanks. I watch ESPN too. What I was asking: specifically, what does that mean at most places? How deep into the details of "goings on" does the AD get? How "close" to the "team" as a unit? How "close" to individual players? What is "close," "too close," and when does it become "inappropriate"? And who decides?

Your argument in 1) seems to be: more money, more AD involvement. Do I have that right? How involved an AD gets with a team is dynamic, based on the team's "premiere" status (revenue stream), right? So then, with players: is the line of "appropriateness" of "closeness" to a player similarly dynamic? The AD is allowed to be "closer" to a starter than a bench-rider because the starter has a greater impact on the outcome of a game, and more-directly affects the revenue stream? It's the same logic. If an AD isn't equally "close" to all starters, or is "closest" to one, what does that mean? Anything?

I'm not saying Patrick did anything wrong. I'm not saying Mike did anything wrong. This may surprise you, but I wasn't there. 

Your response 2) is it "Seems to be," or is? There is a big difference. 

I disagree about JF and Vermont, but I sincerely don't have the energy to even begin to explain why.  Fish size; there are other big fish. JF; GW has big-gun lawyers. He's not stupid, bet he has evidence.

This is exhausting. how do you all do this day after day? The irony will be that Mike and Patrick will both keep their jobs and I will get fired for being totally unproductive. ha.

By: GWAlum2001 (409 posts) - 7/29/2016 4:05:18 PM

agreed, coaching changes is a joke and was trolling for followers.  I have a huge scoop!  And then the sources conveniently backed out, shocker...

By: GYHP (7/29/2016 4:20:14 PM)

Do you know whose job it is to watch and determine when anything is an NCAA violation? The compliance officers.

You should probably go ask them exactly when a line was crossed, but certainly if Mike Lonergan truly believed that his athletic director was crossing them, he had an obligation to fight it, demand an internal investigation, and self-report those violations to the NCAA. That's just as to the NCAA violations, of course. The Title IX violations would be a whole other can of worms. 

Which is why I don't think that Mike Lonergan actually believed his athletic director was committing NCAA violations with his players in 2013. I think, based on the information we have here, he complained to Knapp that he wanted his athletic director to be less chummy with his players because it was confusing them as to who their leader was, and the coach is the leader of the team. 

And then one of those players made a formal Title IX complaint about Mike Lonergan. That we know. 

There's probably a scenario or two where all of this can be true about Nero and Lonergan is a whistleblowing hero, just not any of the ones his blind defenders are presenting. You truly are doing the man no favors. 

If he suspected in 2013 that his athletic director was having an inappropriate relationship with one of his players that was a NCAA violation or a Title IX violation, and he reported it to his college president, and nothing happened (and no, preventing Nero from travelling with the team and ordering him away from that player would not be self-policing or self-reporting as per the feds or the NCAA), that would be a huge problem for Lonergan. It would become an even larger problem if it went on another 2 years. It would absolutely not absolve Nero, but it's also bad for Lonergan. 

Now, if he just wanted his AD to stop meddling with the way he's running his team, that's a lot different. 

 

 

By: Bo Knows (705 posts) - 7/29/2016 4:22:29 PM

Coaching Changes either lied about the sources/info they had or the people feeding them this garbage "got cold feet" as in "we just made this shit up and now you want us to go the record?" Sounds like they might have been talking to GYHP.

By: The MV (4,915 posts) - 7/29/2016 4:26:38 PM

Yawn.  Yes, you are.  GYHP and The Dude are one and the same.  The very thing that The Dude consistently complains about (posting under multiple names) is something that he himself does regularly.  I would tell you to stop lying but I know, as a pathological liar, that you can't help yourself.  You just create these little personas in order to build consensus for your own positions.  How sad.  That's really what you are, just a sad excuse for a human being.  This program is being rocked with real issues that are embarrassing to be polite and that can impact professional careers and subsequently, the program we've invested so much in.  And here you are, continuing to dress up in costumes and play make believe for no other reason than to get your jollies, I guess.

My accusations are well-known.  Your denials are pointless.  You are transparent.  I will stop now as I know this isn't what the board wants to be reading.

By: thinker (2,825 posts) - 7/29/2016 4:26:47 PM

Hi Bo, want to rally up with the troops at Molloy's later? 

No I wasn't off to Turkey. Erdogen is the worst type of bully and I don't care for bullies. Even when they are associated with my favorite basketball team.

I think a bunch of what GYHP has posted is very sensible sounding - I guess I wouldn't have quoted him above quite extensively if I thought otherwise. I don't think GYHP's viewpoint is as much "pro Nero" as it were as it counters the "Bowie narrative."  To be clear Bo, you and the others in the Bowie Brigade have brought some of this stuff on yourselves.  I sincerely doubt that GYHP or any number of other posters would be posting things here that you see as damaging to ML's status or reputation if you all weren't so vigorously defending him/making claims against others, etc.

That's why I said much earlier that I didn't think all of you ML supporters were being smart - if you actually wanted to help him. I absolutely know there wouldn't be 2 threads with about 1000 posts with all of this horrifically ugly stuff if you and the Bowie Brigade didn't keep stoking the fire. But then as I've also said, maybe ML thinks he's going to lose so he getting a head start on spinning that. That's what an astute analyst would conclude.

But definitely rock on because it probably can't be stopped now anyway.

#BowieStrong

By: JJ (33 posts) - 7/29/2016 4:28:11 PM

Just to clarify. This is something I posted a couple of days ago:

By: JJ (33 posts) - 7/27/2016 2:03:31 PM

As far as the "relationship". I am not aware what type it is. That will be investigated and defined by others. But the individual meetings and dinners did happen. No matter what the orientation of the participants, first, its very unusual for an AD to meet and dine with individual student athletes as often as it was happening. Second, due to the frequency of the meetings, dinners and other undefined potential benefits, the NCAA would see this as a violation. It would be similar if a coach would frequently paid for a player's meals. Its just not allowed by the NCAA. So this would jeopardize GW to NCAA violations. Its a red flag for them that there is no institutional control. 

People are adding their own interpretation into "Inappropriate relationship" which could mean many things. I do understand how some can interpret it differently  but I left it vague for a reason. Lets wait for the investigation to be completed and let the results become public. As most heard from JF and Junkies, there is alot of info out there about this story that has yet to be released to the public.  

 

By: hoopfan78 (7/29/2016 4:30:50 PM)

GYHP, 

Ed Scott's bio on the GW Athletic department page includes NCAA Compliance

" Ed Scott serves as the sport administrator for men's basketball and women's lacrosse, while overseeing NCAA compliance, educational services, community and career services, student-athlete discipline and welfare, along with diversity and inclusion efforts. "

By: GYHP (7/29/2016 4:31:28 PM)

The ad hominen attacks because you either 1) know full well Lonergan would have had an obligation to self-report and push self-reporting over the course of the last three years (according to John Feinstein's timeline of his complaints to Knapp) if he actually believed or had evidence that Nero was committing NCAA/Title IX violations with Lonergan's own players or 2) your knowledge of this area of the law is so limited that you didn't of that part before you crafted this whole defense of him really say it all. 

By: BC (1,645 posts) - 7/29/2016 4:35:10 PM

I wonder if all the buff-oonery will stop.  The only thing all this speculation does is hurt the team.  Just fucking stop.

By: Bea (7/29/2016 4:37:45 PM)

Dude did you get tossed from a Baysox game or something? Get stuck in traffic trying to get to Seacrets too many times? What is your ish with Bowie?

Also, if I get a vote, I disagree that that GYHP guy is Dude. I think it's Thinker. 

By: GYHP (7/29/2016 4:43:00 PM)

hoopfan78, I noticed that when you posted it before, that it was part of Scott's duties. (I didn't mean to insinuate that we didn't have compliance.)

What it means as to Scott being the buffer alleged by Feinstein... I don't know. I think he's probably the No. 2 in the office. He started this year, right, travelling with the team? So that would insinuate -- to me -- that they didn't see a need for him to investigate over NCAA violations in 2013. But they did see a need to provide a watch that wasn't Nero over Lonergan after the player complaint last year. 

By: Bo Knows (705 posts) - 7/29/2016 4:48:57 PM

Who knew that Sports Junkies and John Feinstein were in on the vast Mike Lonergan conspiracy to squelch the truth and spin this to his advantage? Must be part of Bowie Brigade. Maybe Mike Brey is too. I am still waiting for my invite to the first club meeting. Sigh.

I haven't seen anything new posted lately that has been established as true about ML, Thinker. Perhaps you can enlighten us. Funny that you never learned in law school that the truth is the ultimate defense. But as Jack Nicholson stated so forcefully apparently "You can't handle the truth".

And for the record, the only "claims against others" I have posted here are that the Washington Post did a hatchet job on ML and I confirmed another post that PN was not overseeing the men's basketball program in 2015-16. That is my truth so far. I offered no reason as to why PN did not oversee men's basketball So  you must be confused as to who is posting what here.

If you object to JJ and Skittles' posts then address it to them. Surely you don't think we are one and the same.

 

By: ziik (2,950 posts) - 7/29/2016 4:49:44 PM

I recall, in little league, my coach looked an awful lot like Briscoe County, Jr. He drove the young mother nuts.

He got in trouble, serious trouble, becuase he bought us burgers, cokes and ice cream. We were a poor group of inner city guys. He may have been just being a nice guy.

But, a jealous mother tried to get hhi canned.

It's always something.

Respecting GW, I trust Neil. I trust Herve. I enjoy FQ, BM, LSF, and a few others whose heads are on straight.

I hope the hysteria ends soon.

By: GYHP (7/29/2016 4:53:26 PM)

I never would have posted yesterday if a sweet kid who doesn't deserve being mentioned on this thread hadn't been named as the alleged player involved in an "inappropriate" relationship highly insinuated by JJ and others to have been sexual in nature, when it wasn't just outright stated to have been sexual in nature. 

There are many GW fans that don't post on this board. I'm one of them. I popped in because I'd been gone for a week and thought it would be easiest to see what the consensus was. And I was appalled to see that kid's name. 

So you hit the nail on the head, thinker. 

By: GYHP (7/29/2016 4:58:58 PM)

Bo, if Mike Lonergan thought that Patrick Nero was committing NCAA violations in 2013, he had no obligation to report it? He didn't have an obligation to go up the chain, outside the university, to the NCAA itself, if he felt that the violations weren't being handled appropriately by GW? 

You know full well he did. Which is why it's not true. 

Also since you guys are such insiders, why didn't we know about this in 2013? How come we had to find out from today from John Feinstein that Nero and Lonergan's relationship had deteroriated to the point that Lonergan bitched to Knapp about it, all the way back in 2013? I wonder. 

By: GYHP (7/29/2016 5:01:48 PM)

*bitched to Knapp and John Feinstein of the Washington Post, of course. Who, along with the Sports Junkies, wants everyone to know that he knows more than he's telling, too. Because he's selfless, that John Feinstein, putting his reputation on the line for situations that have nothing to do with him as a sports columinist with a specialization in college basketball, based in the Washington area, who was invited and compensation to appear on the program specifically to talk about Mike Lonergan. Self. Less. 

By: thinker (2,825 posts) - 7/29/2016 5:02:18 PM

Bea,

That's flattering since I think some of the things GYHP says have been very smart, but I came to believe a long time ago that it would be too much trouble for my taste to comment back and forth between my own alter egos.

I also think that over the years here, most people would conclude that I'm not the slighest bit shy about openly expressing my own opinions. So I can't see how I'd need to pretend to be someone else. This is Herve's board and I fully respect what he wants to do with it. If it were me, I'd much prefer a registration system so people couldn't use multiple names.

I definitely hope you will stay here on the board for the long term. It's good to get fresh perspectives from new people.

By: ziik (2,950 posts) - 7/29/2016 5:12:58 PM

When it comes to players being accused of improper activities, I doubt any one here would believe a thing, even if there were tapes and fingerprints.

By: Bo Knows (705 posts) - 7/29/2016 5:34:42 PM

GYHP, seriously? Ever heard of that little federal statute called FERPA? I suggest you read it closely. As an insider or as anyone, I am not nor should I be made privy to what is defined as private information regarding students at GW. Had ML told everyone about it you would be screaming he violated FERPA. Please.

ML only had a legal obligation (repeat "legal obligation") to report it only within the defined chain of command within GW for reporting such conduct. That is why there are compliance officers, Title IX officers and the like at each school. It is not up to the coach to act as witness, judge and jury. There is a procedure established for purposes of determining the facts, whether it was likely that violations of University policy, NCAA rules or federal/state law were committed and the process/remedies to deal with any such violations. If you don't understand this, I can't help you.

 

 

By: GYHP (7/29/2016 5:37:02 PM)

A player involved in a relationship with his athletic director wouldn't be "participating in improper activities." He would be a victim. It would be considered a coercive sexual relationship, no matter what the claim was as to consent.

That is the point of how highly damaging JJ's post, all of the insinuations as to the "inappropriate relationship" being sexual, and then Skittles' indefensible and inexplicable decision to name the name of a just-graduated player, are. 

The existence of any kind of relationship like that would be a de facto violation of federal law, Title IX. If it had been known, or rumored about, and the athletic director wasn't fired, and the player wasn't supported or protected, it would be a University-wide violation. It woudn't be a matter just for the NCAA, it would be a matter for the Justice Department. 

That is what that particular allegation is so unseemly, so beyond the pale, and so damaging. That is why everyone is lawyered up. The great distinction in the Post article so missed here, and what every public Lonergan defender has avoided commenting on, is that THAT is the most damaging allegation in the article, not Lonergan's (alleged) bad behavior. And here you have so-called insiders lending credence to it because they somehow think it exonerates Mike Lonergan? I'll tell you right now, Mike Lonergan doesn't think that. There is no way in hell Mike Lonergan thinks it's a good thing for him if one of his players was having a relationship with his athletic director since 2013 or his athletic director was trying to do it since 2013, or since last fall. It would be a debacle for him, unless he's been on the phone with the NCAA the entire time bringing down the house about it. 

Watching these stories devlop because morons think it helps Lonergan has truly been something. It doesn't. You don't understand the way any of this works or what the obligations would be to report or any of the rules and regulations at the NCAA or federal levels that would implicate him, were the scenario laid out by JJ true. 

 

 

By: GYHP (7/29/2016 5:40:59 PM)

What would FERPA have to do with Lonergan complaining that his AD oversteps his bounds with him and doesn't let him do his job with the team and why did he tell John Feinstein about it if it's a FERPA violation? 

Thanks for proving my point about what this "too close" relationship entailed, which appears, from what we know right now, to be much closer to a turf war than the sordid scenario laid out by JJ and skittles. 

By: Bo Knows (705 posts) - 7/29/2016 6:01:53 PM

GYHP ,

There are two separate legal issues you are conflating.

First, as to any NCAA violations, those would "extra benefits" such as meals. How do you know whether GW self-reported violations and restitution was made. If it was a few hundred dollars worth of meals then that could have been done with no public reporting. And it could be a secondary infraction depending on the scope and reporting.

As to any sexual harassment or improper relationship, those are covered by federal law and University policy. Since we don't know the facts as to the extent of any improper relationship, it is impossible to comment on the failed responsibilities of any party here. We do not know when or if it was reported and by whom. But if ML complained about it at any point to the Chief Executive Officer of the University and there was credence to his claims, it was then up to President Knapp to follow University policy and procedure on these types of matters, nothing more or less.

You are doing a great job of distraction - offering up red herrings - in an effort to distract from the main issues. The more the anti-Lonergan forces do this I am beginning more and more to think as Neil says ML is going to be our coach in 2016-17.

By: GYHP (7/29/2016 6:07:35 PM)

Ah, yes. If Mike Lonergan suspected that his athletic director coerced one of his players into a sexual relationship and reported it to the University President, his job is done here. Got it. And if the athletic director so couldn't control himself from committing NCAA violations that the university had to quietly self-report them, the athletic director is also good. Got it. Not at all a debacle if it came out later because of a Washington Post article about a Title IX investigation into a player complaint about Lonergan. 

You know nothing, Bo Knows. 

By: Bo Knows (705 posts) - 7/29/2016 6:12:13 PM

GYHP says "What would FERPA have to do with Lonergan complaining that his AD oversteps his bounds with him and doesn't let him do his job with the team and why did he tell John Feinstein about it if it's a FERPA violation? " 

Nothing. You missed my point entirely. FERPA prevents ML from disseminating private information about a student outside of GW. My point was he didn't tell the so-called insiders about an "inappropriate relationship" because he couldn't without probably identifying the student or likely identifying the student involved. So that's why nobody outside of GW knew about it.

As for any conflict with Nero over turf that is a different issue entirely. What may or may not have been known before about that doesn't mean it was helpful to post it here.

BTW, in case your memory fails you here is your post that I was responding to ...

"Bo, if Mike Lonergan thought that Patrick Nero was committing NCAA violations in 2013, he had no obligation to report it? He didn't have an obligation to go up the chain, outside the university, to the NCAA itself, if he felt that the violations weren't being handled appropriately by GW? 

You know full well he did. Which is why it's not true. 

Also since you guys are such insiders, why didn't we know about this in 2013? ..."

 

 

By: Bo Knows (705 posts) - 7/29/2016 6:20:42 PM

GYHP your last post becomes the most ridiculous post of the day. I think your reading comprehension skills are failing. If ML reported it to Knapp his job is done from a legal obligation perspective. ML can't fire his boss or take disciplinary action against him. It was the University's job to investigate, not ML's job.

I hate to break this NEWS FLASH to you but GW, like almost all schools, quietly self-reports all sorts of infractions. That is a process set-up by the NCAA. So yes it is possible GW did this. Not a debacle if self-reported and minor in scope, even if it comes out later. So if it was 3 or 4 meals totalling let's say $200 in value not a huge deal. Way worse happens everyday.

The more you post the more you demonstrate that you are out of your league on this. But by all means keep posting.

By: GYHP (7/29/2016 6:23:27 PM)

Jesus, those are two separate paragraph ls and two separate thoughts. Of course Lonergan would be in violation of countless laws if he told John Feinstein or you about an inappropriate relationship between us player or athletic director. The next sentence in that paragraph -- about John Feinstein -- is what I asked you about not knowing.  

"Also since you guys are such insiders, why didn't we know about this in 2013? How come we had to find out from today from John Feinstein that Nero and Lonergan's relationship had deteroriated to the point that Lonergan bitched to Knapp about it, all the way back in 2013? I wonder." 

By: The Dude (529 posts) - 7/29/2016 6:36:31 PM

The Dude literally stepped out of meetings all day (literally an Ed Friday thing we do once a month in a NE City, B'more today) haven't posted since I got into my office this AM.  Funny to see Mailvan off his rocker claiming someone else writing all day and long ass posts is me, I don't post as anyone but me and GYHP isn't me. I do happen to agree with most of what GYHP is writing.  

Sorry Mailvan, your Sherlock Holmes skills are as dumb and pathetic as your "you pathological liar" insults. The Lame, hackneyed, same Ol' Mailvan insults, at other posters, and throwing temper tantrums on a niche anonymous message board for GW hoops.  Anger management mailman.

By: Bo Knows (705 posts) - 7/29/2016 6:36:37 PM

Your post was far from clear but ok let's assume I misconstrued it. What were you supposed to know about in 2013? That there was a brewing turf war in the athletic department? 

If both men are professionals would you expect it to be loose public knowledge? Should have all the juicy details been placed here? Not sure what you wanted to happen?

Because if all we are talking about at the end of the day is a garden variety athletic department turf war between ML and PN with no abuse by ML and no inappropriate relationship by PN, the Washington Post, JJ and Skittles have played a huge joke on all of us. I don't think either of us believes that is true.

 

By: The Dude (529 posts) - 7/29/2016 6:50:23 PM

Final thought Mailvan, I don't think you have the genetic makeup to engage on message board with fellow fans, your inner asshole comes out I truly think you need mental health help.  Bo Seats merely does some very bizarre GW propaganda campaign that I believe is 100% in his head. Also very bizarre, I believe he has a close (dinners!) friendship with ML about as much as I believe the Kethan left to play PG story!

LOL anyone still buy that nonsense? Any clearer that ML has had many guys (fair or unfair) who were very unhappy playing for him, 5 of which were speaking to WaPo ion the article at hand.  As for the Nero story, other than dismissing it as utter bullshit I don't have anything else to add about an invented nonsense story, I surely wouldnt spend a full day posting long ass posts about that topic.  This Mailman "pathological liar obsession" of yours, truly pathetic stuff hombre, really pathetic.

By: Bo Knows (705 posts) - 7/29/2016 7:03:43 PM

Well nothing like the Dude to enter stage left with his usual misinformation. I guess you don't read too well Dude. I explained my relationship with ML above perhaps you can reread and possibly try to be honest at least once here.

 

By: GWRecentGrad (7/29/2016 7:13:38 PM)

The Dude, I don't know specifics of what happened here but I don't think the stuff on Nero is bullshit. I posted a few years ago - under a different name as I was a student at the time - about seeing Nero at Nellies, the gay sports bar in DC, and was quickly derided because everyone was saying "oh well straight people go to Nellies too" or "he could've just been with friends". That could be true, but that's way more likely during happy hour period, on a weekday, and/or earlier in the night than at 1am on a weekend night at Nellies. As a gay man, I can admit I've brought straight people to Nellies. It happens. Even a new Washington Post article wrote about how straight Nellies has become. However, I had a very good hunch Nero might be gay.

First, yes some gay people do legitimately have a 'gaydar'. It's always funny to me when I'm with straight friends and can easily tell someone is gay and find out I was correct and they're shocked and I have a shocked reaction like "are you kidding me? How could you not tell?" My gaydar was like alarm bells around Nero. Second, the way he looked that night at Nellies was uncomfortable, not in the sense of being a straight guy there, but very worried that he might be noticed. And I believe he recognized me from seeing me at basically every GW game and he seemed very uncomfortable with the fact I saw him there. And third, I had heard from a number of other gay men that he seemed very flirty with them. All in all, this is not a shock to me at all. And this is coming from someone who's not a fan of ML. In this case, I don't believe the Post article. 

Now you may say, why are you trying to out someone? I think if you're married with kids and living a lie in that sense while potentially cheating with men, it's a very different situation than if you haven't told people but are coming to terms with your sexuality. I know a number of closeted pro athletes (including known names) who I wish were out, but they're coming to grips with their sexuality and they have told some people in their private lives. They also face considerable scrutiny as pro athletes that could derail their career if they came out. I will not out them. I think that's definitely different than an Athletic Director at GW, which among students is nicknamed "GayDoubleJew" (I fit both) and is among the most progressive and LGBT-friendly universities in the country. In fact, almost every fraternity has at least one "out" guy, which is unheard of at most schools (I was one of them as well). Anyway, I know this was quite the rant, but I did want to push back on The Dude saying this story is utter bullshit. Feel free to criticize me as I admitted I don't know true details pertaining to this story specifically. 

By: thinker (2,825 posts) - 7/29/2016 7:19:47 PM

Bo,

I'm not saying that GW is Penn State or anyone here is Paterno or Sandusky.

BUT what was most vile about the Penn State situation is that it's now clear that MANY people including many of the assisatant coaches knew what Sandusky was doing since the mid 1970's. They all hid from their own responsibility to protect young men and children by saying "well I did tell my boss about it." Whatever the technicalities are you simply CANNOT remain silent if you think something nefarious is going on.

Ironically Bo, THAT'S WHY YOU ALLOW PEOPLE TO MAKE THESE TYPES OF COMPLAINTS ANONYMOUSLY. Surely ML could have done that, right? If he thought something terrible was happening. Obviously he's aware of how powerful anonymous complaints are right? Why wouldn't he leak it before when the relationship was going on, supposedly, instead of now after the fact. Why wouldn't he leak it to save the student instead of to "save his own skin?"

Understand I'm talking hypothetically because I have no earthly idea who did what to whom or said etc.

It's also why it just seems implausible that Nero was having this kind of relationship with a player - because if it was such a terrible thing like it sounds like someone would have had to stop it. But again I don't know what happened.

I am not very familiar with FERPA so this is a genuine question. I had the impression that the privacy laws related to nondisclosure of only certain types of information like grades, medical issues, maybe discipline things. If you witnessed a student commit a crime or have one committed against them then I don't think there is a privacy issue. So would your finding out that a student what having some type of improper relationship - would that information even be covered by the privacy rules? This is a sincere question.

By: Hoopfan78 (7/29/2016 7:23:28 PM)

GWrecentGrad, 

I don't think anyone was trying to debate whether Patrick is or isn't gay.  As you know being gay doesn't mean you are sleeping with an athlete.  Most have questioned if it really happened.  (my opinion is that that part of the story is not true)

If it were true and the university knew that raises a whole lot of other questions.  

Last, i'm not sure how you say that a story with 1 source who spoke with both ESPN and the post and 5 other sources including 4 current/former players spoke with the post is not believable.  

Also, since Patrick was not out prior to the post article you should also question if it is ok for a journalist to out someone as part of a story.  (and yes those quotes did out him to those who didn't know)

By: Hoopfan78 (7/29/2016 7:25:24 PM)

also, what is a "gaydoublejew" and are you saying that was/is his nickname?

By: Remember Fort Myer (14 posts) - 7/29/2016 7:29:18 PM

I know this is too serious to be joking around, but nevertheless; what if "player y" brought his own food to the home of "administrator x".  Would it be possible to get some free legal analysis of that scenario?

By: GYHP (7/29/2016 7:35:08 PM)

Nero's sexual orientation has absolutely nothing to do with any alleged coercive sexual relationship with a player. The coercion is about the power imbalance. That story was completely irrelevant to anything at all, and extremely insulting to any gay people or their allies. Good story, bro. Keep up the good work working to out the poor man and completely annihilate his privacy and personal life. 

By: GYHP (7/29/2016 7:36:51 PM)

Nero's sexual orientation has absolutely nothing to do with any alleged coercive sexual relationship with a player. The coercion is about the power imbalance. That story was completely irrelevant to anything at all, and extremely insulting to any gay people or their allies. Good story, bro. Keep up the good work working to out the poor man and completely annihilate his privacy and personal life. 

By: ziik (2,950 posts) - 7/29/2016 7:40:34 PM

Ferpa-I had some minor involvement with it years ago. 

Mrs. ziik faces it daily, and it told, she has NO discretion. If she sees or hears something, or has some reason to believe something is wrong, she,the teached and the nurses all are required to report wht they know, the particulars, etc., to a trained school official. 

SHe is told that under FERPA it is a fireable  offense to not report. 

Sure, its just elementary school. What could go wrong? Well she has 5th graders with sex, drugs, abuse and neglect issues. It has gone on for 10 years of more. 

There are kids who do not know who their parents are:  "momma" "Grandma" "sister" or äunt" 

And, no adult picks up a kid from school without clear written authority. Too many loose canons.

By: thinker (2,825 posts) - 7/29/2016 7:59:59 PM

Ziik,

That's what you have to disclose to the university. What categories of things must be kept confidential and what categories can be disclosed elsewhere without violating FERPA?

By: ziik (2,950 posts) - 7/29/2016 8:14:18 PM

Not sure I follow, Thinker. She has to report to the office all adult/child interactions, and all inappropriate child to child interaction. She cannot disclose any information on a child to anyone except a custodial parent. (The latter drives everyone nuts, as parents forum shop, and there are commpeting documents)

By: Bo Knows (705 posts) - 7/29/2016 8:24:27 PM

Perhaps I can give a scenario that some aren't considering here of which I cannot prove but which seems a reasonable way of validating JJ's story if one is inclined to believe it. Let's assume ML suspected but did not have ironclad proof that PN was having an inappropriate relationship with a player. So ML, being cautious and worried that if he knows but doesn't say something he might be in trouble, complains. The University investigates and both PN and the player deny anything untoward in a sexual way was occuring. The only thing the University can prove is that the player has been spending time at PN's residence and perhaps PN admitted to providing a few meals (paying these days means providing as well purchasing them form a restaurant). There are no witnesses to counter this and the University cannot prove anything other than the appearance of impropriety and some extra benefits to a student-athlete. The University has legal grounds to take action only on what it can prove. However, it was a violation of University policy and NCAA policy to even provide meals or to behave in this manner. So the University sanctions PN, self-reports to the NCAA, has all reimbursements made, and tells him PN he must stay away from the men's basketball program as far as oversight and individual contact with players. They cannot fire him over this without facing a lawsuit from PN and perhaps don't want to fire him over this as he has been doing a good job otherwise. But, they do want to send a message to protect themselves against future liability and so they say stay away from men's basketball program and any players.

Plausible? Certainly. Likely? Yes. Had this been reported and had the University been able to prove more, PN would have been fired.

 

 

By: Long Suffering Fan (4,106 posts) - 7/29/2016 8:27:25 PM

Although very disturbing, on another level it is facinating.   I know nobody really cares what I think, but I am going to tell you anyway:

1.    Most information (not all) of the posters on this board is not fabricated, but most of it is also hearsay (I heard from someone that...) which is inherently questionable.  

2.    People are too quick so believe that "inappropriate" means "sexual".   If there was a sexual relationship going on between an older school official and a younger student, the action taken by the school would have been much stronger than simply removing PN from his men's basketball duties.  Likewise, if ML was aware that the AD was involved in a sexual relationship with one of his players, he would have taken action that was a lot stronger than denigrading the AD to his players.   I do believe that ML may have thought that PN through words and actions was undermining his authority with the kids, and that rather than anything sexual was the inappropriate behavior.   

3.     I am bursting with curiosity as to what really happened, but I wish that people would stop using students' names.

4.     I am perfectly happy to receive exculpatory information about the coach.   As his name gets dragged through the mud, so does the basketball team.

5.     I suspect that some information on this board is intentionally being leaked by school officials.  I also suspect that this is being read by members of the administration.  And the team (past and present).

6.      I am curious how the news of the day is impacting season ticket renewals, which were recently released.  (FWIW...I mailed mine out last week)  Would also love to know the impact on recruiting.  Although impossible to measure, I think we can safely assume that it has had a negative impact on both.

7.      I remember when the school first hired ML, a Vermont fan came on this board and warned us of certain aspects of ML, including his tendency to run players off of the team that he didn't like.   And I don't believe that he hides those he likes and dislikes very well. In his first year, I spoke with ML during what I believe was the open practice and asked him about the transfer of a point guard, as we were really weak at that position.  Rather than simply say the standard "he decided to pursue other options and we wish him well", he kinda tore into the player, saying that he could not even get another D-1 scholarship offer, and words to that effect.  (I was a bit stunned by his candor).   So when I hear that he was kinda rough with many of the kids, I find that believable (I think we all do), but just about everything he is quoted as saying is without context and probably was not as mean spirited as the words on its face may indicate.  Sounds like the line was crossed on occasion which may have warranted a "hey Mike, can you tone it down a bit" from the administration, and even a monitor, but not close to a firing offense.

8.    The Post was correct in running the story, even if there are valid criticisms of its objectivity or investigation.  It is newsworthy, probably for any college team in the country.   I believe, however, that the player who initiated the contact was motivated by vindictiveness rather than out of any love for the team or the school.  I also think we can figure out how that probably was.

9.     As I mentioned in another post, this story has potential catestrophic potential for the men's basketball team if it is a "Penn State" situation.  Although the acts and omissions alleged hardly rise to a Penn State level, I agree with Thinker and others on this that if there was something serious going on and the school knew about it and basically covered it up rather than protecting the kids, we are doomed as a team, especially with a new president coming in.   I don't believe that to be the case, but if it was as serious as some on this board are reporting, I don't know how we can recover short of blowing it up and rebuiliding from scratch.

10.   A bit off topic, but the name calling and personal insults between posters, even in these very serious topics, remains disturbing and annoying.

By: Bea (7/29/2016 8:31:58 PM)

Hoopfan, I have asked the same question about Patrick's personal life (privately, obv) often since the Post published. From my interactions with Patrick, I presumed him to be gay, but whatever, it's none of my business. As you might imagine, even as a woman who usually prefers men, I didn't ask him to stand around, and rate hot dudes at events with me. It may have made some of those events more interesting, come to think of it. (JOKING)

Probably like many people, when I read the Post, I momentarily assumed it meant that Patrick was out. When I realized he wasn't (and I don't even know whether he's gay -- I still don't care and it's yet to come up, you're shocked, I can tell), that was actually the most troubling thing to me:

Adam Kilgore, based on an anonymous source, (allegedly) outed Patrick Nero (arguably not previously a public figure) in a major metropolitan (and formerly credible) newspaper, and it went instantly around the world. 

Most of us, me especially, don't give a damn whether Patrick keeps sister wives and a litter of kids or whether he molests collies. But the hiring committee at a large Southern State School just might. Maybe BC needs and AD someday and he's the best, but they overlook him because they are Jesuit and he is (allegedly) gay, which, to some close-minded people, is an problem. Being gay isn't protected; if Patrick chose to stay under the radar for any reason, he should have been allowed to do so. Kilgore's 15 minutes of fame could cost Patrick (and Mike) a lifetime of careers.

As heartbroken and angry as I was for Mike, because what I know of him I genuinely like, I was aghast that the Post editors let Kilgore go on about Patrick. I assume Kilgore didn't have permission to expose Patrick's personal life. I can't think of anything more unethical; it's no one's business which way Patrick butters his bread. 

I am soooo pissed at Kilgore and the Post for a dozen things in that "story," and that is not least among them. If Kilgore had wanted to destroy Mike (which - why even?), he could have done it without crossing that line.

I want to ask whether Patrick is gay, and whether he was out before the Post, only because it's pertinent to Kilgore's liability and ethics, but honestly, I don't want to know about Patrick's personal life. 

I doubt this is just a Power Struggle pissing contest in athletics blown out of proportion, and I think a better-balanced piece could have been written, but I also think pieces that did run should never have been made public that way.

Does anyone know which firm the university has retained? I missed it if they have.

By: Bo Knows (705 posts) - 7/29/2016 8:36:46 PM

Let's clear up the FERPA stuff. FERPA is a federal statute designed to protect the confidentiality of certain defined student information and records. It is somewhat akin to HIPAA in the medical area. Things like transcripts and student disciplinary records cannot be made public without in the case of student over the age of 18, his/her consent. If a student was involved in something on campus in which his name was mentioned in an investigation and this information is kept as a student record there are only limited circumstances in which this information can be released or disseminated without consent. ML talking to boosters or friends is not one of them. There are potentially huge institutional penalties for violating FERPA such as the loss of all federal funding. Please see the following for a quick overview if you are interested ... http://www.virginia.edu/registrar/documents/FERPA.pdf

By: hoopfan78 (7/29/2016 8:44:57 PM)

long suffering,

" I do believe that ML may have thought that PN through words and actions was undermining his authority with the kids, and that rather than anything sexual was the inappropriate behavior.   "

keep this one in your back pocket, i think you may have hit the nail on the head more than you think with that line... your summary is as close to the bullseye as i have seen.  

I would disagree that the player's motive for going to the post was vindictive.  In the ESPN story he said that he told the university that if  they wouldn't look into his allegations then he would transfer.  We can't possibly know what his motives really were at this point.  

" "I don't think it's fair that people have to leave the school they love. The Title IX coordinator didn't protect athletes."

If he is vindictive it was towards the Title IX coordinator for not looking into his complaints.

 

By: Bo Knows (705 posts) - 7/29/2016 8:48:53 PM

Bea - I agree with what you wrote. This whole thing didn't have to go down this way if at all. Unless in the very weird circumstance that somehow PN was behind the story, I can't be mad at PN based on what we know now. In fact, after ML, he is the second victim in what I believe metaphorically was a drive by shooting by someone who is very bitter. 

That leads me to a second point. Perhaps this isn't ML v PN in the way it has been framed here. Perhaps the proponent of the story wanted to take down everyone and knew or suspected of PN's sexuality.Perhaps they were mad that PN didn't take action against ML. So he figured what better way than to pit ML v. PN in a very public way while outing PN. While I don't give a lot of credence to this, who really knows at this point? In today's world just about anything is possible.

By: Bea (7/29/2016 8:50:32 PM)

Bo, your hypothesis works. Plus 10 points. I like it because the program remains intact, and eventually some PR guru (anyone know any...? kidding!) spins things in a way that the story just goes away. 

Agree Long Suffering Fan ++++ about mike's candor. It's one of his best - and worst - traits as a representative for GW. For a lot of fans, it's very endearing.

Also agree ++++ Long Suff about student who shopped story being vindictive. I've used much stronger descriptors than "vindictive" in private.  

By: ELJ (2,207 posts) - 7/29/2016 8:53:02 PM

Bo knows, you are insane. Seriously, literally, insane. I hope you can handle what happens very soon. I'm sincerely worried for you.

By: Hoopfan78 (7/29/2016 8:54:20 PM)

Bo,  the part that would make no sense about PN being behind the plant is two fold

1.) why would he want to be outed that way

2.) how would he possibly have the ability to convince the player who went to the post to do so?  I don't think that PN is the man behind the curtain convincing this player to speak with the post and ESPN as this whole story coming in this way doesn't help him or the program at all.

By: GYHP (7/29/2016 8:56:29 PM)

Wow, Bo, you literally made that up wholesale. What an imagination. I was the first person to even bring up the specter of reporting requirements, and you've managed to create a scenario that totally exonerates Lonergan based on it. Well done. Even though I'd already broadly outlined multiple scenarios that you borrowed from, you still want to believe so badly that JJ's defamation is true -- even though in in NO way has to be true for Lonergan to be fine, keep his job, or truly be exonerated -- that you felt compelled to paint us another picture. Wow. 

By: Bo Knows (705 posts) - 7/29/2016 9:07:37 PM

Jesus do people even read ... where did I say I thought PN was behind the story????? I said it would be weird to think that and that PN was the 2nd victim here.

By: Bo Knows (705 posts) - 7/29/2016 9:09:09 PM

ELJ - please tell us what is going to happen?

By: Hoopfan78 (7/29/2016 9:12:21 PM)

Bo,

sorry if i read this wrong "Unless in the very weird circumstance that somehow PN was behind the story,"

i'm sure you have seen several others that have said they thought it was PN that brought the story to the post.

By: Bo Knows (705 posts) - 7/29/2016 9:14:11 PM

So GYHP you are going on record as saying the scenario I painted where PN did not have a sexually impermissible relationship with a player but did engage in the appearance of impropriety or alternatively provided impermissible extra benefits which were self-reported is impossible? Wow. 

By: Bo Knows (705 posts) - 7/29/2016 9:16:40 PM

ELJ - I'm still waiting ... what is going to happen? You have the answer we are all waiting for. Please share. Stop teasing.

By: Bo Knows (705 posts) - 7/29/2016 9:19:26 PM

Also ELJ for whatever it is worth I will be fine. I'm not involved at least professionally. I've been around for more than 30 years ... seen some good times and some bad times and everything in between.

By: Bo Knows (705 posts) - 7/29/2016 9:20:43 PM

No problem hoopfan. With so many posts flying it is hard to keep up with who said what and when.

By: GYHP (7/29/2016 9:25:10 PM)

I'm saying that attempting any scenario to match JJ's story is absurd and more over, your scenario is still insulting and still relies on the specter of impropriety. 

By: Bea (7/29/2016 9:25:57 PM)

GYHP, I have to know:

Why is it so hard for you to believe that Mike might not be actually be The Boogeyman? 

You're roasting a guy while most of the rest of us speculate and hope for the best for everyone. Your posts make it unequivocally clear that Mike Lonergan is guilty until proven innocent - by your standards. If there is something you know that makes you so sure Mike is a Monster, please share. 

If not, we have a fight song - Maybe you've heard it? It has a great lyric: "loyal to GW" - it's good advice. Try it.

By: Hoopfan78 (7/29/2016 9:26:50 PM)

Hopefully not much longer we have to deal with this.  team leaves for Japan two weeks from Sunday.   My guess is that ML being on the flight says a lot.  Obviously, if he isn't on the flight it would lead to a lot more speculation what direction this is heading.

though after this week, two more weeks will be an eternity.

By: Long Suffering Fan (4,106 posts) - 7/29/2016 9:31:55 PM

Thank you for the kind words, Hoopfan 78.  Why I think the player was vindictive is that if he had made good on his threat to the university that  if  they wouldn't look into his allegations then he would transfer, what was to be gained by talking to the press other than sticking it to the coach and/or university.   Further, if it is accurate that the Post was approached by one of this years transfers, I think we can all make a fairly educated guess who that was.

By: Bo Knows (705 posts) - 7/29/2016 9:34:49 PM

So GYHP are you denying that there was some decision to separate in some way PN from men's basketball? And if you are not, would you agree that that is not SOP in athletic departments? And if so, is it impossible that the reason for that was related to the scenario I laid out?

By: Hoopfan78 (7/29/2016 9:36:46 PM)

well we can all make a fairly educated guess who it is, but that wouldn't be fair to anyone if you guessed wrong.  we can certainly narrow it down to a very limited number though.

By: ziik (2,950 posts) - 7/29/2016 9:45:44 PM

So far, even taken the various rumors to supposedly nasty conclusions, there really seems to be nothting that is so worthy as to deserve a Wash Post investigative story.

So, why does the Post hate GW? What else is there?

By: GYHP (7/29/2016 9:54:51 PM)

I basically haven't said much at all about Mike Lonergan. I pointed out that under the scenario JJ proposed, it would be nearly impossible for him to come out unscathed. In fact, multiple times, I've said that I don't think Lonergan would support the speculation you've engaged in about inappropriate sexual relationships between his athletic director and his players, and that I definitely don't think he'd want his players named in this forum. I pointed out multiple ways that this scenario that some of you are absolutely salivating over in which an adult man takes advantage of a person whose future he controls would implicate Lonergan, too. I said repeatedly that that alone to me is proof it's not what happened and that JJ's story is wrong. Notably, JJ's story is not Mike Lonergan's story. I have my own thoughts about what Lonergan may have said in anger or those moments of candor that a person would have reported as a Title IX violation, but I don't think for a second that he actually believed one of his players was having a sexual relationship with the athletic director, no. 

I already said above that I believe Feinstein when he says that Lonergan complained to Knapp in 2013 about Nero interferning with his players, and Scott was put in to run interference. I do not believe that there was a ban on Nero interacting with the basketball team. 

Why do I believe Longeran isn't completely innocent? Because he can't keep his mouth shut, and he can't keep his former players and assistants in line. 

Oooo, not the fight song! What a burn! Should I have remained loyal to Karl Hobbs after he was fired? What about Tom Penders? How far back does this go? What actions get excused out of loyalty? Are you sure that you're not from Happy Valley? At least they got a national championship out of their blind loyalty. 

 

By: Long Suffering Fan (4,106 posts) - 7/29/2016 9:55:09 PM

What is the old saying...it doesn't matter what is said about you in the newspaper so long as they spell your name right?

By: GYHP (7/29/2016 9:57:00 PM)

LSF, the player who transferred said what his motivation was even though he was transferring: to protect the players who were left. You can choose to believe it or not, but he did state that. 

By: Poster (5 posts) - 7/29/2016 10:00:25 PM

Bo Knows and Bea are the same person.

By: Bea (7/29/2016 10:15:34 PM)

Oooooh, another tasteless Sandusky joke. 

so you do know something. or you think you do.

you should go back and read your posts between 3:00 today and 5:15 today  your memory is as bad as your second personality. Even if I knew how to copy and paste, Thinker, um, I mean G... whoever, I would quote you, but it's not worth my time. 

(you also contradicted your own story about who you are, and why you're here, but good game. high five.)

While we're at it, I'm still waiting for you to answer my question, for real. You ducked it the first time, and I was going to let it go, but nah. So tell me:

Since you know so much, is it typical for an AD to be "close" to individual students on "premiere" teams? Your logic was that ADs are more involved blah blah blah with money making sports. No shit, Socrates. Thanks for that surprising analysis. What I wanted to know, and you knew I wanted to know, was whether, since you tried to say it's normal for ADs to be "close" to athlete on a personal level, your rule applies to people. Are ADs closer to "premier" athletes than non-revenue athletes? Do they get more leeway for personal "closeness" with starters than pine riders? It's all economics, right? 

I'll wait. there's a great Paterno special on television. it's riveting. 

By: Bo Knows (705 posts) - 7/29/2016 10:18:30 PM

Again, GYHP you keep fixating on sexual relationship. I have not said that one time. Take that up with anyone who said it. I have consistently said that I have never heard of that and can't confirm it. I agree that it is a horrendous charge to make without absolute proof and why I won't make it without much more. I also have no reason to believe Skittles and JJ would make stuff up like that out of whole cloth especially given Skittles previous reputation for accuracy here. So it's out there now. It's like the elephant in the corner. It's part of an ugly sordid story and someone is probably not telling the whole truth. It will need to be addressed by the facts. As I said it cannot go unread here unless JJ or Skittles wish to retract the story and even then some will still believe it.

Which also ironically also applies to the anonymous charges leveled against ML. They are horrendous as well and the Post had better make sure their ducks are lined up on this one. I for one don't believe they are.

But all that doesn't mean a whole host of things short of what has been reported could not have happened. The truth may lie between here and there ... perhaps innocent but still problematic under various policies or rules. Pretty much something happened - we all know that. That something remains to be determined. So right now in the absence of hard information there are theories and information.

It's like I said a few nights ago. No one here has established real take it to the bank credibility on this because we are all anonymous and this isn't a fight over whether Jordan Roland or Colin Goss can play or not. This is fight over the future of the program and perhaps the athletic department and what happens in the coming weeks will likely affect us for years, good or bad.

By: Bigfan (2,829 posts) - 7/29/2016 10:18:59 PM

More later,but want to for a walk  and get away As GW Hoops Turns for a little bit and think happy thoughts like Patricio with an NBA contract.

Then, Mrs. Bigfan and I can gin up the Victrola and have a hot Friday night listening to a replay of the Sports Junkies. Believe in Feinstein,there is truth.

But shoutout to LSF's really astute multipoint plan (sometimes a cigar is just a cigar),Bea's entertaining insight, my new TRIGGER WARNING--just a phrase and lacks context like Post story-- strange bedfellow Bo's interesting supposition and GHYP' s more tempered comments.

By: BC (1,645 posts) - 7/29/2016 10:22:33 PM

Wonder if that post by "ELJ" was really by ELJ.  Doesn't sound like him.  Just a guess.

By: GYHP (7/29/2016 10:24:35 PM)

The answer is I don't know if it's normal. I can speculate scenarios in which probably -- I'm sure the athletic director of Ole Miss was pretty tight with Eli Manning, for example, and his father. It's also irrelevant because we don't have any evidence that Nero had an inappropriately close relationship with one player. But I don't know what's considered normal, to whom it's considered normal, etc. I'd assume it's really dependent on the athlete, AD, etc. 

You know who didn't think Nero's behavior was weird? The player who reported it. The player who reported Lonergan's alleged line about it thought Lonergan was the weird one. 

The Penn State line wasn't a joke. The kind of blind loyalty you're seeking is exactly what leads to situations like Penn State. 

How's Dayton, by the way? I know how much you love the fans there and how classy they are. 

 

 

By: Bea (7/29/2016 10:28:52 PM)

 

Poster, I confess. you're absolutely right. Bo and I "know" each other indeed. you caught me. I'm so ashamed. well done. you figured it out from the GW promotional video I'm in, didn't you? because I definitely LOOK like a man, what with the blowout and pumps. and the "woooo" sounded particularly masculine of me. I'd better let GW hospital know; when they ran a genetic test prior to the birth of my child, even my chromosomes showed that I am a woman. I even fooled those stupid bastards. but you, Poster? you couldn't be fooled.

Bo, I hate to break it to you, but you're a terrible woman. you wear an A cup, you work far, far too much, you curse in equal measure, you run slowly, you don't know shit about Shawnta Rogers, and apparently you've taken to disagreeing with yourself in public. Better get some cream for that. 

By: Bo Knows (705 posts) - 7/29/2016 10:41:29 PM

Poster actually you are on to us but we are not the same. Bea and I are having an "inappropriate" relationship here. We use GWHoops to communicate. No one would ever think that so we are safe. There are code words you know like everytime we mention ML or PN that means a restaurant or  ... :-)

Poster, perhaps you can land a job on the hit television series "Cheaters" with that keen sleuthing mind of yours. 

By: Free Quebec (6,340 posts) - 7/29/2016 10:52:23 PM

LSF< I was all ready to praise your post until I got to #9.  Why did you have to bring Penn State into this.  Totally different.  That was pedafilia.  This might be inappropriate, but I don't think you would EVER compare a male professor sleeping with, say, a 20 year old female coed, to a case of a child rapist molesting a 13 year old girl.  It would never cross your mind to conflate the two.  

And that's the problem with what you did.  Yeah, yeah, I know you are going to say it's just the cover up part that would be similar - except it's not.  One went on for decades and the coach didn't report it and put children in position to be molested.  The other, at worst, is a case of a coach actively trying to keep adults out of a coercive relationship, not looking the other way.

For decades, gay men have been smeared as pedaphiles.  I know you didn't intend anything wrong, but for you to conflate what is at worst an adult AD sleeping with a (legal) adult player is to fall prey to decades old tropes used against gay men. It's the kind of old habits and old thinking that we all need to get away from in order to end the stigma.  I know you didn't mean it, but I hope you can why it would be so offensive for you to conflate the two.

 

That said, Bo's hypothesis seems most plausible at this point.  Coach assumes there's something sexual, university can't prove it but tells AD to stay away, AD feels like the reason he's being accuased of sexual relationship is because he's gay, player takes exception to being accused of having a sexual relationship and files a Title IX complaint, school doesn't take acton against coach who claims he was exercising caution, coach is pretty rough on players so the player who didn't like the school's resolution goes public with allegations of mistreatment and gets other disgruntled players to corroborate that they hate coach for cause, now university has to go back to figure out if they can prove the relationship was sexual and, if they still can't, has to figure out what to do about an unsolvable feud between an AD they can't prove had a sexual relationship but who created an appearance of impropriety and a coach who some players disliike (others love) who spent a year making jokes about that which he believed, but couldn't prove.    Totally uneviable position for the school, for the players, for the coach, and for the AD.  I just hope the school figures it out quickly and anyone wronged in this process gets justice.

By: Bea (7/29/2016 10:57:54 PM)

Shhhh, Bo don't tell. GYHP knows I'm married.

Apparently GYHP knows who I "really" am (OH! The Humanity!) so he can tell Poster. My troll can beat your troll. 

GYHP: Don't ever do that again. You want to "out" me? Think you're clever? "Classy," even? Have at it. Use a flattering photo. No one cares, but it'll verify that one of us tells the truth (that'd be me), it would clear up Poster's confusion, and while I was hoping to remain anon so I could be me, as opposed to the +1, I really have nothing to lose by going public. I've made clear how well I know the parties involved (not very), and my agenda (the best for everyone, whatever that is). That's a benefit of loyalty. You can say what you say in private, in public.

Let me know if you need a towel for that egg on your face. 

(I also noted your answer, but the truth is that personal "closeness" is, at least, unusual. Without any value statement added, it's not commonplace. And you know it.)

Back to basketball: has GW released the name of the firm it hired? 

Has there been any indication Mike *isnt* going to Japan? Patrick is going to the Olympics again, isn't he? So it's not like, if there is "bad blood," they would even be in the same hemisphere. 

I still think there are scenarios where this works out, or goes away. Every day that passes and everyone has a job, the more positive I feel. I agree with whoever made the Japan trip point being telling. If Mike goes, that says something, although not nearly as much as if he does not. 

By: Bea (7/29/2016 11:00:02 PM)

Agree with FQ's analysis of Bo's scenario. Unenviable is exactly right. 

By: GYHP (7/29/2016 11:06:24 PM)

How would the University not be able to fire a member of the athletic department that was found in violation of NCAA rules? Of course they would be able to do it, no matter how slight the violation. You think that the contracts are rigged to prevent that? Do you know how off his rocker you make Lonergan sound to start with if accusing people of having sex was  his assumption and then he spent the next 3 years airing it out to his players? 

If that's the best case, most likely scenario, god help us all.

Thank God it isn't, since the first post on this whole thread is made. up.  

 

By: bobo (3,178 posts) - 7/30/2016 1:32:14 AM

LSF's discription of the case make sense to me too. ML and PN at loggerheads as one feels unfairly maligned because of his personal relationship with one or more players and the other feels unfairly scrutinized by his supervisor for doing his job as he sees best.  The university trying to figure out how to proceed with the clear obligation to protect the players first.

IF the investigation does not prove any type of abuse to a player, either by any type of physical relationship or repeated verbal abuse, than GW would have multiple options.  They probably could force either party out first and then figure out the contract obligations later.  But I'm sure they would probably want to keep both PN and ML since they are both good at their jobs. 

Would one of them hold fast and try to force the other one out? I'm sure there would be some bad blood between them if that senario is accurate. But I also can't see that forcing either PN or ML out is good for the "victor' in that outcome.  It would be harder to take action against PN for simply allowing the appearance of impropriety but even publicly labeling his actions as such would severly damage his position.  Canning ML would be a deep blow to GW's athletic department and look very bad on PN's resume. 

As long as the investigation does not conclude that there's any type of abuse to the student athletes, it's in both PN and ML's best interest to find a way to mend fences and figue out a way to work together.

By: Bigfan (2,829 posts) - 7/30/2016 1:34:31 AM

Know that sex sells,but nothing is sold here.

Anyone consider that regardless of Nero's sexuality and Lonergan's directness that maybe,today,much like millennials not being able to handle criticism,that the appearance of impropriety is a bad thing, particularly in the eyes of the NCAA.

Rewatch the movie, The Blind Side.

Pretty sure Coach isn' t homophobic,which Post essentially charges him with. Also pretty sure that if someone interfered with his program, he would act. Especially when there is the appearance of impropriety for whatever reason.

If he didn' t speak up,ML could be crucified for that.

But maybe the situation,on both sides isn' t as dramatic as we imagined. And nobody's a horrible monster. At least a possibility.

Anyone with insight come forward.

By: Bigfan (2,829 posts) - 7/30/2016 1:34:35 AM

Know that sex sells,but nothing is sold here.

Anyone consider that regardless of Nero's sexuality and Lonergan's directness that maybe,today,much like millennials not being able to handle criticism,that the appearance of impropriety is a bad thing, particularly in the eyes of the NCAA.

Rewatch the movie, The Blind Side.

Pretty sure Coach isn' t homophobic,which Post essentially charges him with. Also pretty sure that if someone interfered with his program, he would act. Especially when there is the appearance of impropriety for whatever reason.

If he didn' t speak up,ML could be crucified for that.

But maybe the situation,on both sides isn' t as dramatic as we imagined. And nobody's a horrible monster. At least a possibility.

Anyone with insight come forward.

By: Oldish (109 posts) - 7/30/2016 8:22:06 AM

So Neil said that ML will survive this just fine, and I believe him. 

After this season, however, will he want to stay? 

 

By: Hoopfan78 (7/30/2016 8:46:20 AM)

Oldish, 

saying Neil is correct (i know his track reccord, but still don't agree) and ML stays, it would take an offer from another team (that ML had interest in) for him to want to leave.

if he stays he will face ongoing questions from fans/boosters/player parents over the allegations.  He will also have another year of ES babysitting him.  

Even if you don't agree with the above, you would still have programs who are extremely causes with who they hire these days reading this stories.  If as some claim he is "just tough on his players" and doesn't cross lines that have been alleged, a University isn't going to want to hold a press conference and have one of the first few questions thrown at the new head coach be about this story.

 

By: GWAlum2001 (409 posts) - 7/30/2016 8:58:41 AM

bea is my favorite new poster, welcome (even though you don't know shit about Shawnta)

By: Poster (5 posts) - 7/30/2016 9:17:18 AM

Bea is full of complete nonsense,as are several "new" posters.

Total crap---Please ignore---MUCH pathology!!!!

By: The Dude (529 posts) - 7/30/2016 9:26:33 AM

If you believe a woman calling herself "Bea" popped up for the first time ever to post here and then posted 20x in 20 hours (with a rather familar point of view) on a Friday in the Summer, there's a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you.

By: Bea (7/30/2016 9:58:42 AM)

Hoopfan is wise.

In Mike's shoes, whether I stayed would come down to more than pride. I'm sure he's well-compensated, but it is a career. Pride doesn't pay bills. As much as it has to suck to be maligned personally (if the Post is wrong or half-true), and questioned professionally day after day (as happens to most every coach, pro-athlete, manager, front-office guy, and so on, in every sport), at the end of the day, few people have the luxury to leave their jobs on principle. Mike Lonergan could be the most principled guy in the world (and again -- I don't know), and he probably can't just leave. Even if he can, ESPN ran a 30 for 30 on Archie Manning (I'm not comparing Mike to Manning) and John Goodman, the narrator, had a line: "great leaders can compartmentalize." All of this was happening while the team was winning, right? Maybe that says something about Mike, the players, the coaching staff, the fans... someone did something right.

Plus, and I made a similar point about Patrick, albeit more legal in nature: it may be hard for him to get hired after this, especially if there an NDA in place (and there will be). Assuming there is any mitigating info, he wouldn't be allowed to share it in an interview. Reasons to not hire someone are infinite; reasons to fire someone are limited.

I bet he stays.  I hope he stays. I hope Patrick stays. I'm sure this has been scary and re-centering for everyone. Even if Ed Scott retains general control while the dust settles, bones that break often heal stronger. 

I wonder often whether the "vindictive" John Doe #1 feels any hint of guilt. On some scale we can probably all relate: you feel so justified and righteous until you see the ramifications of your actions. Then you're like "oh shit, what did I do?" 

By: Hoopfan78 (7/30/2016 10:07:07 AM)

Bae,

I think "John Doe #1" sense of guilt would come directly from the offline support he is getting (or not getting) from his former teammates.  We have only heard from 3 players.  two of them were not around for the 15/16 season in which the majortiy of the quotes came from. 

for all we know the returning/graduating/transfer players support what he did.  If nothing else, they all know who he is.

 

we don't know if he's getting texts like "you were gone, why didn't you have to do this?" (or much worse); or "thanks for looking out for us!"  we just don't know... the independent investigator will attempt to interview all current players and former players from the last two season (attempt meaning no player is required to answer questions from him).  A player who loves playing for ML might also say "yes, he said that... made me uncomfortable... but thats just how coach is, he is hard on us to get more out of us"  so much we don't know and most of it will hinge on the records of previous investigations and what these young men say

By: Rich Maier (17 posts) - 7/30/2016 10:23:07 AM

Looks like we have 25 people posting under 40 names. So happy to see some of the 'new' posters like GYHP and Bea. I believe everything they say. Carry on.

By: Long Suffering Fan (4,106 posts) - 7/30/2016 10:23:25 AM

Free...I understand your criticism's of my Penn State analogy but I will stand by it.  You do state that I wasn't trying to compare the acts but rather the coverups (if one did exist), but think you are missing my point, namely that I truly was not comparing the actual severity of the acts itself but the coverups and the potential impact upon the program.  Let me put it another way...assuming arguendo that a school official was taking sexual advantage of students and that the school was aware of it but either took no or inadequate steps to prevent it, while it may not nearly rise to the level of Penn State, I think the analagoy is fair, and that the impact on the program would be severe, even draconian.   Again, let me emphasize so I am not accused of maligning anyone at the school, that I do NOT believe this was the case and that sexual orientation, sex, racism and homophobia are not the issue,  but rather our situation was a result of the coach being extremely hard on the players resulting in some legitimate complaints by the playes and the AD undermining the authority of the coach in the manner in which he protected the players (and perhaps other reasons) with perhaps both the coach and AD perhaps crossed lines that do not nearly rise to the level of negative attention and speculation that we are reading, addiing that this will blow over and have only minimal impact on the program.  (I would state that I anticipate that the coach and AD would kiss and make up, but that may bring about another round of...never mind).   I am just presenting a worst case scenerio. I will even back off a bit and say that if what the AD is being accused of is true and the school was aware and did little of nothing, it may not be as severe as Penn State but it would be more severe than admitting players who "graduated" from bogus high schools, with the impact on the team being somewhere in between.

By: bobo (3,178 posts) - 7/30/2016 10:36:14 AM

It seems the investigation of Charleston coach Doug Wojcik became a process where the investigators asked the players "Tell me the worst thing coach ever said or did to you or any of your teammates".  There were about 15 witnesses against the coach (both anonymous and on record) and very few supporters.  he was only there 2 years and had fewer backers.  Yet there was a long list of mean, spiteful things the coach said about or directly to his players.

I wouldn't want to have everyone I work with or coached (youth basketball and baseball) simply list me at my worst.  I'm sure ML will have many more backers than Wojcik did.  I hope things will be put in context. My guess is that if the investigators compile a "worst of Mike Lonergan", there will be several cringe worthy outbursts against the players we haven't heard about yet. 

My guess is also that players will be more reluctant to go on record, even anonymously, with investigators in a formal probe than they were with the WaPo reporter.  Some of them might not have realized the full repercusions.  "I don't remember" is often the phrase that pays when you don't want to get too involved. 

By: Bea (7/30/2016 10:45:20 AM)

More good points, Hoopfan.  And even if the reports of this or other investigations were ever to be made public (doubtful), the "truth"  is rarely empirical. communication isn't mathematic; something is always lost in translation. 

By: GYHP (7/30/2016 11:36:23 AM)

The whole point of posting was I was ticked off that "skittles," one of the posters that claims to have insider information from the program/admnistration/Lonergan (not sure which), named a player to match the scenario in the first post, and "jj," another one who's claimed to be a an "insider" which the same caveat I listed above, is the one who posted the breathless scenario to begin with. He's tried to back off it a couple times now, but you don't need to be read between the lines much to get what he meant by "closed-door" meetings, and then other posters went ahead and just drew the conclusions for everyone that couldn't figure it out on their own. 

So I pointed out that there's a million ways under the scenarios proposed that Lonergan wouldn't escape unscathed. 

Somehow, that led to a whole scrambling by certain posters of all of the ways that the scenario had to be true (even though it's certainly not been proposed or aadopted by Mike Lonergan, and comes from the Post article that the same posters believe is either 1) entirely false, 2) the result of a vindictive player (does that make it false?), or 3) planted by the man who is the subject of the most damaging accusation in it), just to conclusion that Saint Lonergan couldn't possibly be anything but squeaky-clean and completely innocent, no matter what the facts are, and no matter what the facts would be under the scenario proposed in the first post. 

And now of course we're finally getting to what they actually want to talk about -- who's the vindictive, ungrateful wretch that sold out Saint Lonergan? 

The only good thing to come out of Lonergan leaving would be the cult of Lonergan leaving with him and going back to speculating all of the Game of Thrones-like scenarios that would have to take place for him to ever sniff the Maryland job. Although I don't know, the Terps have a habit of inexplicable hires, so I suppose hiring a man in his mid-50s with Lonergan's resume wouldn't be the most insane thing they've ever done. 

My actual opinion is that, as other people have mentioned, whatever has occurred that's caused all of this, and particular the comments about Nero, is much closer to 1) not being as dramatic as imagined and 2) people not being horrible monsters. 

But pretending that Saint Lonergan didn't have a role in it, whether it was from his treatment of the players or his inability to keep his mouth shut (that first statement he gave to the Post was very clearly issued in the heat of the moment and not reviewed by a lawyer; hence the need for the second statement from the lawyer), to get this whole ball rolling, is just delusional. 

And to think Nero brought him out of the basketball hinterlands back to the DMW. Yeah, lecture me more about loyalty. 

 

 

 

By: GYHP (7/30/2016 11:43:50 AM)

 

From Bea: And even if the reports of this or other investigations were ever to be made public (doubtful), the "truth"  is rarely empirical. communication isn't mathematic; something is always lost in translation. 

--

Yeah, I suppose when the only two things we know for certain are that a player launched an investigation against you and the allegations were found to be credible enough that it was decided an athletics administrator must babysit you to keep you in check, the truth definitely can't be the truth. 

Oh, that reminds me of another thing that came up on this thread, about Nero asking for the videos: demanding the practice videos probably would have taken place as part of the investigation into Lonergan's behavior toward the players. Video from the practice videos is what brought down Mike Rice, although it was pieced together for the University by Eric Murdock, a person in basketball with an actual conscience. 

By: Still (7/30/2016 11:56:22 AM)

Eesh, what has this thread become. Clearly this isn't Sandusky (if it's true) but people claiming that if there was a relationship there is "no big deal"... That's just crazy talk. This isn't even a question. In the army it would be considered rape when someone who is overseeing you had a relationship with someone serving under them. In the work place it is definitely fireable, with legal action taken. Think about it this way, this is a young adult who is trying to play basketball at a very high level. Their boss is the coach and his boss is interested in you. You're not really in the best position to refuse his advances. So IF (i am not saying there was anything) there was a relationship... umm yeah thats a really big deal. Don't diminish this like its no big deal. Now given that, if this was true, the kid would be the one feeding the paper. So its unlikely the kid felt pressured into the relationship. That being said it would still be a major conflict of interest when PN is in a position to show favoritism, or punish someone based on their private relationship. Not only that, to the person who said that professors and students have relationships, its no big deal.... again yes that is a big deal. Does it happen? Yes. But if the university found out it is most definitely grounds for termination. People need to stop taking such strong stances on here. You can be pro PN without blinding defending innappropriate professional relationships, you cannot date your subordinates. And you can be pro ML without attacking PN like he is some monster.

By: Bo Knows (705 posts) - 7/30/2016 11:58:02 AM

GYHP you apparently watch far too much television. Just have to laugh at some of the stuff you post here which has zero intersection with reality. Good luck!

By: Bea (7/30/2016 11:58:29 AM)

"credible enough"

As much as I don't appreciate being forced to take a side here, you just proved my point. Had there been enough irrefutable evidence to prove Mike was definitively guilty of the allegations brought by anyone, an investigation would have been unnecessary. He'd have been fired on the spot.

Truth is in the eye of the beholder. Even people on the same "side" in a situation can have a different view of the "truth." 

PS You said "it was decided." That is passive.  Who decided? I don't know. Do you? That seems to be a pretty critical piece of the issue here, and you just gloss over it, conclusorily, as though your view is certainly correct.  If it is, please share.

By: GYHP (7/30/2016 12:11:13 PM)

Because you want me to say it was Nero that ordered Scott to monitor Lonergan so then you can claim it was done out of maliciousness? 

No, I don't know. What I do know is John Feinstein knows that Scott was put in place for an entire season to monitor Lonergan's behavior. Then at the end of the season a player sent his complaints to the Washington Post, and the Washington Post got multiple confirmations about specific stories within it from other people. 

That's what we do know. 

 

By: Hoopfan78 (7/30/2016 12:20:09 PM)

Bae,

i the "credible enough" would be speaking to the 2014/15 allegation (of which no one here has posted, the details... also sounds like most didn't even know an investigation took place until ML posted the letter saying that no wrongdoing was found).  not finding evidence of wrongdoing and finding enough to cause concern are two very different things.  so i'm reading into it that "credible enough" meant that it was felt more was needed than simply closing the file and moving on.  Placing the "babysitter" or as John Feinstien called him "a buffer" with the team would help the university determine if certain of ML's coaching methods crossed the line from being a tough coach to something else.  

I can't speak for GYHP, but i took "credible enough" to mean that they warrented further attention and ML was potentially facing an increased level of scrutiny during the 2015/16 season.  

The allegations that were raised after the 2015/16 season appear to be more of the same from previous season with the adition of the quotes related to PN that the post published.  Taking it from accusations of a verbally abussive coach to potentially one who was (inadvertantly?) creating a hostile environment and maybe even one rising to the level of sexual harrasment (towards players, PN or both).  

while this is certainly a lively debate i think most of us really just hope that in the end no matter the resolution that we get a report of findings (either way it turns out).  While certainly certain items can't be discussed and NDA's will be signed, I hope we at least gain enough information to be comfortable with how the university chooses to proceed.  I think it is important that if ML/PN stay that we get enough information as to why the university thinks this is ok.  Similarly if either or both are no longer with the University at the end of summer i hope that we get enough information to be able to know that no one was 'rali roaded' (as will certainly be the claim if ML is pushed out). 

 

By: GW69 (7/30/2016 12:50:42 PM)

Total support for Poster, Dude and Rich.

This whole thread has devolved into complete and utter nomsense with these

'new posters'.It strains credulity. In other

words,it's full of shit!! 

 

By: Bea (7/30/2016 12:56:49 PM)

You know, GYHP, the more you say, the more I think you are Thinker. He was the one who demanded CVs and let us know how good he is at PR and spin and politics.  Plus, you just took an ("elitist") unnecessary, snobby shot at another D1 school which has made it just as far as GW in the NCAA tournament in the last decade or so. And you either just misquoted the shit out of John Feinstein on purpose, deftly spinning his remarks to fit your narrative, or the only written account posted here (yesterday by Hoopfan at 11:30ish) was of a different interview.  Here was Hoopfan's take:

 

 

Just listend to the John Feinstien interview on the junkies. 

I wouldn't go as far as to say that he confirmed jj's post.

What he said was that Mike went to knapp with concerns that Patrick was too close with the team.  Ed Scott was added to travel with the team and sit on the bench as well as attending some practices for the purpose of seeing if any of the allegations previously aimed at ML were true and to "create a buffer" 

 

 

Feinstein saying "for the purpose of seeing if the allegations previously aimed at ML were true..." and "monitoring his behavior," if not actually different things, are certainly intended to sound like they are. One is investigatory, the other penal. 

I don't want you to admit anything except that you're spinning facts to make them suit you. And as I said originally, the only person who might see this is Putin, in my opinion. I was only partly kidding.

There is also the possibility that Patrick didn't make the Ed Scott decision at all, correct? Surely, even the boss has a boss? Who is that person?

I get that you have an axe to grind. Grind away. Just stop pretending like you have laid out every possible scenario, and in every one Patrick wears the white hat and Mike wears the black hat. You may have it backward. Sometimes both hats are grey, or maybe, as Bo said, Patrick and Mike are both the good guys being ambushed by the same nefarious ("vindictive") foe. Each scenario is possible, some more plausible than others.

I keep saying that I have no idea. Let me say again: I wasn't there. I have no idea.  I have questions, not answers. But as much as you seem to want others to think, with declarative statements and "those are the facts" posts, you don't have answers either.

Or maybe you do, they aren't relevant to the statements you're making here.

By: GW69 (7/30/2016 1:16:07 PM)

Speaking of masturbation.What a circle jerk

This has become with Bea,yes Bea,

wearing a strap-on.To all the 'new posters'--

'have you no shame'. I'm all for freedom of

speech--but this compulsive masturbation 

needs to stop--you'll go blind!!!

By: The MV (4,915 posts) - 7/30/2016 3:13:41 PM

When does the investigation of the new posters begin?

By: thinker (2,825 posts) - 7/30/2016 4:33:23 PM

Bea,

I'm fine if you think I'm GYHP (I'm not), but why would it matter anyway? Would it change the meaning or value of anything he said? I'm not sure people would read some anonymous posting and think of it in one way then reconsider if it were me - another somewhat less anonymous poster. I'm not sure why I would need to post under a separate name since over the last 10 or so years here I've never really hesitated to speak my mind - even when it was very unpopular. Are you Maggie Lonergan? You might as well be - but it doesn't really matter either. You arguments make sense or they don't.

Of course I am completely withholding judgment as to what did or didn't happen and who said or didn't say something because I have no idea. It's surprising that you Lonergan Truthers (as @coachingchanges refers to you guys - and I'm not that twitter account either) all seem so sure of exactly what happened and want to attack everyone and everything on this story. I think all this ongoing debate likely hurts ML much more than it might help him. But we'll certainly see.

I'll be curious to see if in fact ML gets on that plane to Japan.

I'll just add one thing about @coachingchanges. I absolutely HATE them because I'm so jealous they came up with "Lonergan Truthers." That's way better than

#BowieStrong

By: Bo Knows (705 posts) - 7/30/2016 4:49:41 PM

Thinker is worried about hashtags and of course he doesn't have a dog in this hunt ... at least that is what he tells us. Curiously, he thinks pro-ML statements are hurting ML's cause while simulataneously whistling "Dixie" when GYHP and several new posters (some remarkably going by the name "Poster" suddenly rush in to defend PN's honor against you guessed it - anonymous allegations just like ML faces - and claim the very same thing - to know what happened.

 In the spirit of this campaign season here is a hastag you can run with - #ThinkerHypocrisy2016 

By: ziik (2,950 posts) - 7/30/2016 4:54:20 PM

Like so many threads, this one stopped being about GW coaches, players and administrators, or the school or its program, long ago.

Sorry to have contribued my own electrons to it.

By: The MV (4,915 posts) - 7/30/2016 5:15:40 PM

This thread has recently replaced Great Publicity as the longest thread in GWHoops.com history (though if we add those 13 responses from the Great Publicity Continued thread, we still have a little more work to do here in order to truly claim the record without any controversy).

This means that the alltime longest thread record will have been broken twice in a little over a week from one another.  It's like Great Publicity and GW Investigation are the McGuire and Sosa of threads.  Huge numbers everywhere you look, and yes, it would not surprise me to find out that some the most overboard posters here are on performance enhancing drugs.

By: Bea (7/30/2016 5:16:03 PM)

"classy"

try to remember: I've mostly advocated logic and - gasp! - kindness toward alllll parties. I'm not a "truther," I'm a "there are usually two sides"er or at least "shit is often more nuanced"er.

I'm was willing to earn my stripes. I know I'm new. No one is new forever. 

This has been pretty big news and a pretty big mess, of COURSE your membership would grow. It's not a coincidence, but it doesn't make anyone a plant, or a foot soldier. It means Google fucking works. Some of you all are too paranoid.

It's bananas how quickly being trolled, and above-the-belt sparring, equated me to being a troll, when in reality (read what I said), I trolled no one. 

This is about basketball, boys.

I'll make you all a deal, since about - what, maybe 20? - unique people (and the 20 alter-egos of a few) seem to read this board: this year, at everything I attend, under my name, I'll write "Bea." It will be like real-life Where's fucking Waldo.

If those of you calling malarkey on me *personally* (not my views, which are fair game, but my existence and right to be here  -- big difference) are as tough and macho as you are pretending to be, you'll all do the same with your own screen name, or you'll at least have the stones to come up and tell me who you are. It sounds like some of you have been pulling this bullshit and hiding for years. I have nothing to do hide. Those of you pointing the finger at me, do YOU have something to hide? If not, then come on out of the shadows, and introduce yourself, I'll buy you a beer.

Somehow I doubt you will.

Other solutions that allow this to move back to a semi-reasonable discourse:

I can start typing my name into the little box instead of Bea. Most of you don't use your real name, so it seems like an unfair standard, but it's a lot harder to use the term "circle jerk" with your own name, than as some spineless, faceless keyboard. Maybe it would help keep the conversation/ debate about basketball, or at least potential sidebar stories to the Kilgore story.

or 

There is an email address at the bottom of this page.  Presumably if I email Herve (at) earthlink (dot) net from my GW email or my work email, (my name is pretty fucking unique and neither email is within my control to change) it can be verified? I can email him whatever numbers he wants off of my little router jobbie thing. Voila. I'm real, with GW athletics bona fides and no major connections to anyone in this story. Just like everyone, I have opinions. I want to share ideas about it, but also to discuss and learn more generally about GW basketball. 

Think about this critically: What do I gain? I could see if I'd taken a steadfast position one way or the other. I've tried really hard not to do that. Kumbyah, remember?

It really shouldn't devolve into posts involving the terms "circle jerk" (thankfully, I'm still not even clear what that entails), "strap on" (directed as someone you know or have reason to believe is a woman, giving the term actual context), and "investigation." 

That's nonsense.  

This is supposed to be about basketball.

As much I wanted to wait out the bullshit, since it's become most bayonets at me, I'll play along until it begins disrupting my life.

So tell me what to do. Tell me how to make it so you can sleep at night without the big scary new chick haunting your dreams, because I really don't expect to go anywhere, and come November, I expect to be debating why X player started instead of Y, and other GW Basketball things, not anything to do with a "strap on." 

I'll wait.  

PS: Thinker, it matters because if GYHP is the second persona of you or any real person, then his opinions are not only not actually validating yours/others hellbent on cruelty, but he's also nothing more than the mental dirty diaper of a deeply troubled man. I care even less to refute his nonsensical spin on the few facts known.  Also, "GYHP" alluded to knowing my real human identity yesterday in what amounted to a thinly-veiled threat. It was juvenile. 

By: Bo Knows (705 posts) - 7/30/2016 5:41:49 PM

Bea - this is becoming SOP for certain segments of posters on this board. If you support the Administration or God forbid the coach, show any loyalty to anyone, etc. an effort will be made by some to immediately discredit you by any means necessary. However, if you come here guns blazing ready to bring down the coach, a player, or the Administration - the welcome mat is rolled out by these same folks. Hang tough - it's tough but worthwhile work to ensure that facts overcome hypocrisy and emotion. 

By: thinker (2,825 posts) - 7/30/2016 5:46:08 PM

Bo,

I don't have a dog in this. I actually hope all of this has been blown out of proportion because I would hate to see the program blown up as it really is on the precipice of something special.

I also was so disappointed when Trachtenberg pulled the rug out from under Hobbs after Omargate. He was also doing very special things.

I'm not sure if I'm being inconsistent about my view of other posters. I know what you and the other Lonergan Truthers are trying to do -- You're trying to help ML. And I don't think you are helping him.

I'm not sure what the motivation of some of the other posters are. Are they ML haters? Are they Nero defenders? Are they neutral as to agenda but just want the set the record straight? Their agenda(s) aren't nearly as easy to identify. And if their agenda is to help wreck ML, then it doesn't really make sense for me to tell them to stop posting things because it will hurt ML. Right? Because under this scenario, that's exactly what they're trying to do. That's why I'm not advising them what is smart or not. Because I don't know what they're trying to do and it's quite possible that it is the opposite of what the Truthers are trying to do. 

And I don't believe that on this topic (the article and investigation) I've said anything negative about ML except for the fact that I think he and the Truthers are following a stupid PR strategy. So I'm not sure why you are so fascinated with my comments on this topic. I simply don't know what happened and I simply don't know what is going to happen. Like others I can speculate and also try to analyze the information that's available about how investigations work and what a "good journalist" does.

But disagreeing with you about proper journalism is not the same as being against ML. I have had stated many opinions about ML over the years and have many more. Many of those opinions were and are negatiove, but I don't want see the program blown up if it can be avoided.

 

By: Bo Knows (705 posts) - 7/30/2016 5:56:00 PM

Thinker, using hashtags like #BowieStrong and #LonerganTruthers is as transparent as night and day. If you are really a neutral observer as you claim - why use these derisive and loaded tags aimed only at one side? You've made your point over and over again about what you believe is the proper strategy. We've heard you loud and clear here. I don't think anyone will say Thinker is supportive of Skittles or JJ's or perhaps even my posts here. So my question is if you just want to call balls and strikes, why are you apparently wearing one team's uniform? 

By: Long Suffering Fan (4,106 posts) - 7/30/2016 6:36:57 PM

Circle jerk may refer to:


Circle jerk (sexual practice), group masturbation, especially when all-male.

By: Poster (5 posts) - 7/30/2016 6:59:40 PM

If you add Bea with a strap-on the circle

is complete.

By: GW69 (7/30/2016 7:31:38 PM)

Wow! Just came on this thread.Been off

the board for over a day. None of the posts 

attributed to me are me. Bea I don't care if

you are a man or a woman,or if you're real.

This thread is a tedious mess.

By: Bigfan (2,829 posts) - 7/30/2016 7:50:49 PM

Isn' t the alleged,unproven use of the non- politically correct word "circle jerk"  reason these days for huge,one- sided Washington Post " investigative" piece thatraises way more questions than it answers.

The term could hurt someone' s feelings. Hope they don' t read the board and sic Ace Kilgore on us.

By: thinker (2,825 posts) - 7/30/2016 8:48:25 PM

Bo,

I think I've stated over and over again - I think ML and all of you Truthers and #BowieStrong people are hurting ML's cause. 

BUT that doesn't mean that I am on the "other" side. And I'm not really sure exactly what the other side is other than I guess it's on the "other side of ML." Whatever that is.

It is not inconsistent to say that you are all acting stupidly and counterproductively AND not know what happened and HOPE that ML can continue his run at GW.

I get that you are all or nothing but I am not. I have enough distinction in my thinking that I can dislike some of ML's ways and still want him as the coach. I don't care if a #BowieStrong country bumpkin is our coach as long as he wins in a manner that reflects well on the university. But I still get that you see the world as either 100% in support of ML or 100% against ML. That's how a concept such as Lonergan Truther can gain currency.

ML is not perfect and he is actually far from it. Much of this situation has been brought on by how he has treated people. That is undeniable. You can't get all of these players and staffers to go after you in this way if you consistently treated people better. Everyone can rationalize what's happened any way they want by talking about soft kids etc, disguntled staffers, dishonest journalists, inappropirate ADs. but ML has been a dick to lots of people and that's part of why this has happened.

IF and that's a big IF some of the allegations are true -- WHICH I DON'T KNOW -- than I would want ML fired. But I don't know any of the pertinent facts. So I await the results of the investigation.

AND if ML stays on, I would hope that he would seriously look himself in the mirror and commit himself to being nicer to people going forward, That's my absolute preferred result here -- if it's possible.

But I know there's just too much criticism of ML there so you'll certainly want to take issue. But "dick" isn't fair and "that's what coaches do" and "everybody is against poor Mike" "undeniable - how dare you - ML is the nicest human on earth I deny it" That's fine. As I say

#BowieStrong

By: herve (9,159 posts) - 7/30/2016 10:23:55 PM

And now THIS is the longest thread in the nearly 20 year history of this board. Makes me want to title a thread "Left-Handed Lesbian Eskimo Albinos" just to see what happens.

Fairly easy to explain: everyone has full and immediate access these days and an obscure, niche message board no longer has anywhere to hide!

By: Bea (7/30/2016 10:55:47 PM)

Thinker,

I just went back over your extraordinary list of professional accomplishments. If, when I'm that old, I have a portfolio of life's work resembling yours, I'll probably drop it apropos of nothing too.

You mention, among your significant list of achievements (seemingly offered as an explanation of your infallible opinion), that you are an attorney. Perfect! Me too! (I probably haven't rubbed elbows with people important enough to impress you, but the DC Bar doesn't seem to give a shit.) Since you are an attorney, then you, like me, and all of the other attorneys here, as well as just all of us who are literate, will understand why conclusory statements don't work when you're trying to make an argument. Who, better than you, to explain to this group why your phrase "ML has been a dick to lots of people," cannot possibly stand on its own without some explanation as to what in the hell you actually mean. Who better than you to explain who those people are, what quantifies "lots," and to back up your claim with "lots" of anecdotes. Normally, evidence would be critical for the paragraph I cite, but for now, feel free to just use verifiable examples. Go ahead, sentence by sentence, and expound. You can skip first sentence; it is a given. No one is perfect. I'm not, and I'd venture that even you, Thinker, are perfect. I don't know you, but when you said you had to hire Stein and Cacheris, the likelihood that you are perfect, if ever you were perfect, went way, way down. So start your explanation after that, with the second sentence, when you begin at "Much of this situation..." through to the end of the paragraph. Please, enlighten us. Obviously you have far more "insider knowledge" than anyone here, to be able to fire off such statements as "much of this situation has been brought on by how he has treated people," and "but ML has been a dick to lots of people and that's part of why this happened." Oh, has he now? And is it now? Pray, tell, WHAT? No one is nice all the time, so I'm sure Mike has moments, says, maybe entire weeks being grouchy AF. I know that I do. But I don't know Mike particularly well, or really much at all, so I'm depending on you Thinker. Help me understand. Fill in the blanks left by your sweeping, broad statements. Give me examples, "lots" of examples, involving "players and staffers" who were "consistently" mistreated by Mike Lonergan because he "has been a dick" to them.

(Sidebar: while we're on the topic of perfection, I think there is a typo in your sentence "You can't get people..." Please clarify that, too.)

Your words: 

"ML is not perfect and he is actually far from it. Much of this situation has been brought on by how he has treated people. That is undeniable. You can't get all of these players and staffers to go after you in this way if you consistently treated people better. Everyone can rationalize what's happened any way they want by talking about soft kids etc, disguntled staffers, dishonest journalists, inappropirate ADs. but ML has been a dick to lots of people and that's part of why this has happened."

#BowieLiterate

#BowieIsInMarylandRight

#IThinkItsBetweenDCAndAnnapolis

#LetMeCheckAMap

#YeahThatsPGCounty

#IDKThatDoesntSeemVeryCountryToMe

#IThinkIWentThroughItInAnAmbulanceOnce

#IDontKnowTheLonergans

#IDoKnowHowToRead

#ImSureMikeCanBeMean

#IBetHeCanEvenBeADickOnOccasion

( #IWouldntKnow )

#ButItsAwfullyHypocriticalOfYouToCallHimADick 

#BecauseYoureKindaBeingATextBookDickYourself

#BeaLikesHastagsToo

PS: Many thanks for the literal definition of "circle jerk." That was helpful, but I should have been clearer. I had, and have, an idea of what happens in one. I was trying to say that I don't get the allure. Gay or straight, bi, orgy, threesome, or one-on-one, isn't the point of any such encounter to derive your gratification from someone else, and vice versa? If you're just going to do it yourself, why even leave your house? You obviously have an Internet connection already. Anyway! I digress. That's something else that falls squarely under: None of My Damned Business. You kids go on ahead and enjoy your party games. I won't judge. 

By: herve (9,159 posts) - 7/30/2016 10:58:57 PM

Thread Stats

1. bo knows: 16.7% (89)

2. ziik: 6% (32)

3. hoopfan78: 5.8% (31)

4. gyhp: 4.9% (26)

5. poster: 4.3% (23)

6. the dude: 4.1% (22)

7. bballfan: 4.1% (22)

8. the mv: 4.1% (22)

9. thinker: 3.2% (17)

10. long suffering fan: 2.8% (15)

By: The Dude (529 posts) - 7/30/2016 11:10:26 PM

Only have 3 words for this thread.  W.... T .....F (is this?)

Truly bizarre, for a site where somewhat bizarre is the norm.

By: LA Fan (1,525 posts) - 7/30/2016 11:22:30 PM

It's times like these that we need the wisdom of Diamond Jim, Poog, ELJ, Old Prof and Young Prof.   For those of us have been on the board since the 90s,  it's strange to have all of these new-name posters here with different agendas. Believe me GW Hoops didn't start that way. And whatever happens, GW basketball will live on. But we may be in for a little bit of pain between now and then .

By: Poster (5 posts) - 7/30/2016 11:28:58 PM

Bo is a word generation machine (I say that in a complimentary way) either that or he is a Herve plant designed to drive up traffic here. HA!

By: bobo (3,178 posts) - 7/31/2016 12:12:24 AM

Thinker,

It's hard to believe you when you say you hope ML can continue his run at GW when you state latter in the same post that if even SOME of the allegaions against him are true, you'd want him fired.  Very few here think ALL of the the allegations in the WaPo report are completely made up so most all of us realize the truth iis likely somewhere in the middle. 

If your criteria is that ML (or any other coach) is never overly harsh or ever criticizes his players in a way he/she would like to have back warrents termination, then just admit that you simply want ML gone from GW.  You want him fired.

I'd like to see ML tone down his biting critiques of the players too, so that's both an admission that SOME of the alllegations are likely true and a belief that's it's not a firable offense. 

By: thinker (2,825 posts) - 7/31/2016 12:23:41 AM

#MaggieStrong

#Paragraphsareyourfriends

By: Bigfan (2,829 posts) - 7/31/2016 12:37:09 AM

The outrage is settling,just leaving depression and quiet desperation brought on by Washington Post witch hunt. And this isn' t helping.

Some real info would help.

By: Bea (7/31/2016 1:16:44 AM)

Not even close. Are we playing Hot and Cold now? Ok. You're getting colder. You're freezing, in fact.  

Good game, though. 

IDK, Thinker. I've had some pretty terrible, line-crossing bosses, and none were ever exposed by a national newspaper, so whatever Mike did "consistently" that you're referencing so confidently, whatever was so bad ("consistently") that Kilgore couldn't even publish it, has to be pretty batshit bananas. Obviously I misjudged the little I knew of Mike when I believed him to be a decent human being, and you apparently have significant (verifiable) evidence that he's *actually* a terrible person who "consistently" mistreats people. That evidence certainly forces a person's hand to take a side against Mike. But you know us attorneys - always wanting to cross "t"s and such. SUCH an occupational hazard. So I'm eager to hear what your evidence is, and evaluate it myself, even if it is "lots" to read through. 

Until then, 

#Goodnight

By: thinker (2,825 posts) - 7/31/2016 1:54:03 AM

Bobo,

Sorry, my statement was unclear. By some allegations I didn't mean any of the allegations. I meant some of the worst allegations. So if some of the more awful allegations are true I'd want him fired. While I really don't care for how harshly he may talk to the kids, that wouldn't be something I'd want him fired for. I would prefer him working himself to being less "intense."

I don't know where exactly my personal firing line would be because all of the allegations are still just that and I have no idea of what was actually said or the context. But I've said throughout that the overwhelmingly most problematic things relate to what is alleged that he said about Nero. I would also expect that the investigation will yield other issues thst we haven't heard about yet.

I think you and I are like many of the longtimers here who are not Truthers. We're willing to go only so far to have a winning team at GW. BUT we also know how hard it is to win at GW and that ML has put together an excellent team that has a great trajectory. I really hate the notion that the whole thing might get blown up. What is particularly disappointing to me about this situation is that it would seem that it was entirely avoidable - IN MY OPINION. 

By: thinker (2,825 posts) - 7/31/2016 2:21:32 AM

Good morning Bea. I hope you slept well. I wanted to help with some things since you're new to the board. 

It's tempting to come up with a lot of new hasgtags all at once but I think it kind of dilutes them. The power of a hashtag is that it captures a profound concept in just a few words, A good hashtag also has to be clever and makes you think. If it's me I think all the Bowie hashtags were too repetitive and frankly the #BowieStrong concept is kind of obtuse so for someone that wasn't following from 100 posts ago, they just wouldn't understand what you're talking about.

I do LOVE #IThinkIWentThroughItInAnAmbulanceOnce

That would be an awesome #BowieStrong rebuttal hashtag.

I also love #BeaLikesHashtagsToo

The rest are mostly meh. Too long and too straightforward without a twist or being clever.

Did you think I was the circle jerk commenter? I wasn't and I didn't read that post.

In closing, since you are new to the board and I'd like to help, I'm about to jump on a red eye back to DC from the Bay area where I had some meetings and took in the Nats Giants game. I think another deal is possible by the Nats - stay tuned.

When I get back, please email me at the office and we can figure out a time to get together to discuss the Lonergan situation. I'll send the limo, Maybe we can take in a Mystics game. I'll make sure we have plenty of roast beef sandwiches.

By: bobo (3,178 posts) - 7/31/2016 10:17:45 AM

I think it  may come down to what GW decides to do if it is believed that ML had negative comments to players about Nero. If the investigators have multiple players state that ML bad mouthed Nero with words to effect questioning Nero's relationship with a player or why Nero wants to practice tapes, I think GWU would certainly have the option to fire ML if they wanted.  But I do not believe they would be obligated to do so. 

Could GW count those comments as an unfortunate outburst against a supervisor he feels was both unfairly usurping his authority with his team and improperly having too close of personal relationship with some of the players.  He let his resentment of Nero boil over and said things he shouldn't have.  Could GW take that into account with the big picture of all the good thigns ML has done at GW and positive relationships he as built?  I say yes, maybe you say no. 

By: Long Suffering Fan (4,106 posts) - 7/31/2016 10:32:19 AM

Unless there is something far more egregious that what has been reported in the Post, firing the coach for cause is much easier said that done.   At the very most, it puts the case in a gray area, which means that a substantial (7 figure) settlement would be likely.   The financial costs along with the negative publicity of a "breach of contract" trial is something that the school cannot let happen.

By: thinker (2,825 posts) - 7/31/2016 10:43:14 AM

Bobo,

I was just speaking for my sensibilities. This whole thing is so complicated and sordid that I imagine most of us will never get a real clear idea of what was really going on. And I think that the process by which GW decides what to do  will be filled with factors that are not shared publically as well. Obviously we'll know who stays and who goes; we'll know some of the basics; but I'm resigned to never really knowing the full picture.

I don't think there is going to be a happy resolution because all sides have already been severely damaged. It's crossed my mind if Knapp's sudden retirement was connected to his awareness that this stuff was rapidly approaching. The more I see about this, the more I have no earthly idea of how it's going to turn out.

By: thinker (2,825 posts) - 7/31/2016 11:05:05 AM

LSF,

I think in these these, at a certain point, GW could be forced to take drastic steps regardless of the cost. I don't know what that point is for GW - but all insitutions have a line that forces them to do the "unthinkable."

This is not the Baylor situation, but I cannot imagine ANYONE predicting a year ago that an investigation could force the removal of Ken Starr, Art Briles and the AD. At a certain point an institution is forced to bite the bullet.

In the normal range of things, GW would be hard pressed to fire ML (or Nero) and they would likley walk away with a huge settlement. But this may not be something within the normal range of thigs - It appears it isn't. Depending on what is revealed in the investigation, GW might be forced to fire ML (or Nero). For ML at least, suing GW might not be that viable of an option because it would cause the information (whatever that might be) to be publically revealed and maybe even have people testify publically. That might expose things that would make it impossible for ML to ever coach again.

Depending on what actually transpired, ML might not be nearly as securely in the drivers seat as he and his supporters imagine him to be. 

So, LSF while GW has historically been unwilling to write big checks and has often based decisions on common snese bottom line money calculations -- They aren't forced to do that here. Recall GW did write a big check to Penders. And GW is a multi billion dollar enterprise. If it feels it nees to it has in a practical sense infinite resources to fight something - something that ML clearly does not have.

By: Bballfan (7/31/2016 11:15:19 AM)

Thinker you give me a headache. No one has ever said ML was a saint or perfect - even him.  But some of us - who have read this blog for years, felt the need to post when we saw someone being unfairly roasted here and in the post. None of us - including you, can say we don't regret something we have said or done. But given ML's brutal honesty, I believe him when he says he did not say what he is accused of.  I know (for fact) PN was removed from direct oversight of the basketball team after ML reported an unusually closeness to one or two students. This has been known by many for a year. They chose not to bring it to this board because it wasn't appropriate.  I personally think the university should have asked PN to leave, however, they did not. I (my personal opinion) believe PN is retaliating by encouraging a bitter former players and a recent transfer.  I cannot offer proof - just my gut.

I am hoping the truth will come out after the investigation is completed - but what I also believe is there will be two careers unrepairably damaged.  

What would ML want to stay?  I am really worried he will force the university to buy out his contract and walk away.  Why would he want to stay? Being attacked in the paper by a one sided POS article. Being attacked on this blog. He is one of the worst paid coaches in D1 - and he chose to stay here (because he loves the school, the kids, the area, and the game) even with multiple offers of significantly more money and perks - but I am very afraid he may walk away.   

 

By: Bballfan (7/31/2016 11:15:20 AM)

Thinker you give me a headache. No one has ever said ML was a saint or perfect - even him.  But some of us - who have read this blog for years, felt the need to post when we saw someone being unfairly roasted here and in the post. None of us - including you, can say we don't regret something we have said or done. But given ML's brutal honesty, I believe him when he says he did not say what he is accused of.  I know (for fact) PN was removed from direct oversight of the basketball team after ML reported an unusually closeness to one or two students. This has been known by many for a year. They chose not to bring it to this board because it wasn't appropriate.  I personally think the university should have asked PN to leave, however, they did not. I (my personal opinion) believe PN is retaliating by encouraging a bitter former players and a recent transfer.  I cannot offer proof - just my gut.

I am hoping the truth will come out after the investigation is completed - but what I also believe is there will be two careers unrepairably damaged.  

What would ML want to stay?  I am really worried he will force the university to buy out his contract and walk away.  Why would he want to stay? Being attacked in the paper by a one sided POS article. Being attacked on this blog. He is one of the worst paid coaches in D1 - and he chose to stay here (because he loves the school, the kids, the area, and the game) even with multiple offers of significantly more money and perks - but I am very afraid he may walk away.   

 

By: Bballfan (7/31/2016 11:17:53 AM)

Sorry for the double post - did not do it. Quirky board

By: Bo Knows (705 posts) - 7/31/2016 11:23:08 AM

Seems to me that ironically this whole thing may turn on the truth of JJ/Skittles information.

Here is why. There is probably no question that ML said some things that outside of the coaching world will look harsh. That would be true of every coach. Coaching isn't a pretty business. However, I believe these were largely dealt with in 2014-15 and found not to have been a problem. I think the Washington Post writer knows this and therefore to make his story stick wanted to include something more. If there was enough other stuff, he wouldn't have needed to out PN. Perhaps the proponent of the story thought this too and threw that in for good measure.

Regardless of motivation for inclusion in the Post article, to me the crux of the matter will be whether or not (a) ML said about PN what was attributed to him or (b) and if so, whether it was true to any degree. Unless there is something else ML keeps his job if (a) or (b) is satisfied in the sense he didn't say it at all or there is some truth to the inappropriate relationship story. If it is (a) he will emerge as unscathed at least as far as any disciplinary action. If (b) I would expect him to keep his job but face some sort of required training or probation for stating these things to players out of school. If he said this and it was confirmed to be patently false that is where it is going to get tricky for everyone.

That said I would be shocked if ML both uttered these things about PN and they were patently false (as in no underlying truth at all). He is too smart to put himself in that position especially since he knew after 2014-15 he had been investigated. So I will be surprised if ML isn't the coach in 2016-17.

By: Bea (7/31/2016 11:27:11 AM)

Good Morning!

For the love of God, Thinker, WHAT?

1. You didn't explain your earlier comments. In reality, that's all I care about. The rest is just noise. You made a lot of ballsy remarks, and didn't back them up. when you make sweeping, unsubstantiated claims using the words "consistently" and "lots" and then draw causal connections about negative consequences, people (or at least I) want some explanation. You purport to know first hand.

2. Limos? Call you? What? Less absinthe, more imported, sparkling water, my insecure friend. Just... what? The Mystics? You lost me. If that's a dig because I've been to fewer women's games at GW than men's, touché. You attend all GW basketball games, then? How many soccer, volleyball, gymnastics, lacrosse, tennis, golf, and spirit team (sponsored) events have you been to? Or not-sports-related GW events? You don't want to get into that particular pissing contest with me.  I have never been to a Mystics game, but thanks anyway. I've admitted I don't know shit about Shawnta. More accurately, I don't know much about basketball. (I'm v good with most other sports.) Basketball is newer to me, like I am to this, which - for the 10th time - is partly why I'm here. So if, as I suspect, you are still on the Bea = Maggie Lonergan (or Maggie friend, family, close acquaintance, dog walker's fifth-cousin's boyfriend's ex's accountant) train, then as I said: you've gotten colder. Antarctic. Stop. She and I have a few things in common, but the things I know of her that make us different are far more voluminous. She's pretty religious, which - LOL. She is pretty knowledgable about basketball; I admitted I'm not. The only thing about her, and about me, about which you should care is that presumably we both think that the paragraph I quoted of yours needs to be substantiated or rescinded. You can't throw in glittery nonsense to distract, and try to move on. See #1. 

3. Roast Beef: what? Is that connected to the Bea = Maggie thing? You've lost me. (There is a scenario where you just made the crudest sexual joke ever, absent all context or any relationship to me, but that seems suspiciously base for you Thinker, given your eyebrow raise to the "circle jerk" silliness. And in light of your um, beef, with the allegations of what Mike did say, and Kilgore did publish, I'm going to assume you wouldn't go even lower with a stranger.) I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you really did mean the consumable, digestable food item. Plus 2 points because I am missing the connection. Please, at the very least, clarify that. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 

4. The "circle jerk" thanks was a general thanks to those who found it relevant "help" me understand how some of you pass the time when you're not killing Herve's bandwidth. I don't judge. If that's your thing, NMS, but you do you. Literally, I guess.

5. I swear to God I am not involved with the Lonergans (or Patrick, for that matter). What I know of them, I like. It if sounds like I'm defending Mike, it's because Kilgore's article  read funny to me. I go with my gut; it's usually right. If it sounds like my defenses have gotten more ... defensive ... it's to counter what I see are unsubstantiated (hashtagged) attacks. I am, at best, in the third or fourth row here. Thinker, you seem to be in the front row, and your most recent play-by-play was pretty damning, so I want to know what you saw. I didn't see it, I keep saying that, so I need your replay, with an explanation. 

and 

6. My hashtags were meant draw attention to the fact that yours are one-sided, don't make your argument stronger, and are unnecessary. #Obviously

By: Poster (5 posts) - 7/31/2016 11:39:33 AM

People need to read thinker's posts, and go back and read them again. He is right on the money. 

Bo knows, I don't know where you get your information, (wait, I do know) and you are so wrong, so 100% wrong. I almost feel bad for you that you can be this loyal to such a sleeze.

ML has said the crazy stuff the post quoted--and lots, lots, more. To many people.  GW is doing what seems to be a thorough investigation so that they don't have to pay him.  I have to believe the people who are being interviewed by the investigators are telling the truth. He will be gone soon, in my opinion.

 

 

 

By: Hoopfan78 (7/31/2016 11:54:46 AM)

Thinking/LSF,

I think that the other thing to consider is not only if the comments that are atributed to ML in the post are true, the frequency with which they were made will also come into question.  A one time "joke" (quotes as not everyone would consider it funny), similar to the explanation that someone provided about the transgender comment is one thing.  However in the ESPN article which expanded on the main complainents comments said:

"The player said Lonergan routinely accused players of engaging in sexual relationships with Nero.

"It was very odd," the former player said. "He had this weird obsession."

my point is all dependent on IF the independent investigation shows that this is true.  But "routinely" making these comments makes it a much different situation.  This would rise to the level that the university would have no choice.  The Buff & Blue Fund has been doing very well.  If these allegations are true and they don't take action that changes instantly.  So it isn't just about doing the right thing, or looking for the easiest way for this to go away.  Outside forces will come into play as well. 

Lastly, the Athletic dept released a "You Can Play" video (i believe more than one).  You can expect that this organization and others will come out strong if they believe the comments to be true.  something like "You Can't just release a video and say we believe in these issues; you actually have to follow through and protect LGBT athletes and others"

http://www.youcanplayproject.org/videos/entry/you-can-play-george-washington-university

By: Hoopfan78 (7/31/2016 12:01:37 PM)

Bo,  "poster" is accurate.  Nero was not "removed".  As John Feinstien said on the radio Ed Scott was incerted to watch ML's actions to see if the allegations made after 14/15 were true and to act as a "buffer" between ML/PN.  

I know you don't believe this, but think of it this way.  If Knapp had removed Nero and put Ed "in charge" why did Ed travel with the team and sit near the bench, and why did he frequently attend practice?  As some have said that an AD being close with players is not normal; and Associated AD attending practices and sitting near the bench at road games is also not the norm.  

 

By: GYHP (7/31/2016 12:15:05 PM)

Bea stated: ....come November, I expect to be debating why X player started instead of Y, and other GW Basketball things... 

 

 

--

We aren't allowed to do that, either. BoKnows and Skittles and Co. step in to make sure the board and its readers know that every decision Lonergan made (I mean -- he does set the lineups, right, they don't set themselves?) is the right one and we just don't understand the reasoning behind it because we don't have the knowledge of the program they have. 

--

No one is nice all the time, so I'm sure Mike has moments, says, maybe entire weeks being grouchy AF. I know that I do. But I don't know Mike particularly well, or really much at all, so I'm depending on you Thinker.​

--

And yet you call a grown man in a position of authority with a title by his first name and have the entire time. I'm actually sure you don't know him well, yet doing things like that leads people to believe you may. And you like to try to assert that, don't you. Just like your GW bona fides, too.

Lonergan came to GW in 2011. If you're a practicing attorney as you claim, how much could you have possibly overlapped with him as a collegiate athlete, as you claimed you were on another thread? 

--

The rest of that post -- hell of a rant. The ad hominem attacks on this thread have worked very much in one direction. 

--

One more thing: have I laid out a single scenario in which Nero wore the white hat? No. Not a single one. Any scenario-related posts I made were about the scenario posited in the first post of this thread, in which he is accused of a coercive sexual relationship with a player. So that's hardly wearing the white hat. 

--

Bea: Plus, you just took an ("elitist") unnecessary, snobby shot at another D1 school which has made it just as far as GW in the NCAA tournament in the last decade or so.

I must be old, but I remember a time when it was canon as a GW basketball fan to despise the Terps, probably after Gary Williams spent the 2004 BB&T championship screaming directly at our players for having the gall to walk the Verzion Center and compete, then defeat, his precious team. Then he gave a presser bitching that this is why he didn't see a future for the tournament, insinuating it was because Maryland might lose sometimes. 

Then they and their Walmart Terrapin fans (to borrow from Michigan), swooped in again in 2005 expecting it to be a fluke and they'd put us right back into our place and we beat their ass again. And Robert Novak had to stand their in his bright-red sweater, face red with rage and hand the trophy to our boys. Practically refused to shake their hands. Thought Williams might run onto the court himself to punch JR in the head. Whole train of Walmart Terrapins cursed us out as we got off in Foggy Bottom 

So I'm good with taking little shots at the ivory tower of College Park. That's what being a college athletics fan is about. Kumbaya isn't meant for basketball in the DMV. 

I'm sure it bothers you with your closeness to UMD... operations, though.... and Gary Williams sure did still have some remaining loyal supporters... but man... doesn't a whole lot of the Lonergan accusations about player treatment and AAU relationships sound like the end of Williams tenure. 

 

 

By: Long Suffering Fan (4,106 posts) - 7/31/2016 12:30:11 PM

I was not necessariy saying that a court (jury) would or would not find cause or that GW may have to bite the bullet irrespective of the costs...all I am saying is that it is far more complicated than GW saying that you violated the terms of your contact, your fired, we don't owe you anything. Again, simply based on what is being reported, a termination would would come with great financial exposure to the school, not to mention the collateral damage that a trial would cause in terms of negative publicity.  Even the prevailing party would have to pay enormous legal fees. A breach of contract suit would hardly be a frivilous suit.   I agree, Thinker, that there may be a point where it has to be done, but it would be at a huge cost and something that reasonable people could all agree must be avoided if at all possible.  Would anyone really benefit from the spector of the players being examined and cross examined in a public forum, with the press present, about the details of what was going on behind closed doors?

By: Bo Knows (705 posts) - 7/31/2016 12:42:22 PM

Be careful folks ... We have "poster" here who won't even reveal his regular screen name so that way if things don't work out he can come back here unscathed.

Next we have "GYHP" who just started posting here but claims to Bea to know the history of this board however inaccurate that may be. Sounds awfully familiar to me. MV any hunches?

But it may be hard for some of you to fathom but I take a man at his word unless I have reason to believe otherwise. ML has never been untruthful to me. He gets the huge benefit of the doubt - the presumption of innocence if you will. I wasn't there and I doubt any of you were either. I can only go off of what I have been told by others in and out of GW whom I also trust. Some of whom are not even close to ML but have knowledge of the situation. If all of this turns out to be incorrect than I will gladly come here and say I was misled. I wonder if we will ever see poster or GYHP if it goes the other way.

 

By: GYHP (7/31/2016 12:53:54 PM)

 

 

BoKnows said: Next we have "GYHP" who just started posting here but claims to Bea to know the history of this board however inaccurate that may be. Sounds awfully familiar to me. MV any hunches?

--

I've read the board on and off for over a decade. I read it more this winter bc I was wondering if some of the things that my friends and I were picking up on attending games at Smitty were being picked up on by others. But I've never posted until this thread. 

---

BoKnows: But it may be hard for some of you to fathom but I take a man at his word unless I have reason to believe otherwise. ML has never been untruthful to me. He gets the huge benefit of the doubt - the presumption of innocence if you will. I wasn't there and I doubt any of you were either. I can only go off of what I have been told by others in and out of GW whom I also trust. Some of whom are not even close to ML but have knowledge of the situation. If all of this turns out to be incorrect than I will gladly come here and say I was misled. I wonder if we will ever see poster or GYHP if it goes the other way.

--

Thanks for the confirmation that all you care about is Mike Lonergan. The contradictions within this paragraph are obvious. Mike Lonergan gets the benefit of the doubt from you because he's never lied to you about relatively harmless crap about players, lineups, games, schedules, recruits, etc., even though he's not spoken to you at all about this current legal boondoogle. A player's complaint and a full-blown Title IX investigation that is into Mike Longeran, not Patrick Nero, and the knowledge that an athletics administrator travelled with the team for an entire season, according to John Feinstein, to monitor Lonergan for evidence supporting a PREVIOUS player's complaint -- none of that is enough for you to even believe that perhaps Lonergan should have adjusted his relationships and behavior at some point in this debacle. 

 

By: Bo Knows (705 posts) - 7/31/2016 12:55:13 PM

Just one other point to consider ...

There was a letter issued in late September 2015 that cleared ML and said no further action would be taken. I believe it was posted here. So are we to believe that the University despite stating this on the record actually lied and made ML subject to monitoring less than a month later? 

By: GYHP (7/31/2016 12:59:14 PM)

No, what a reasonable person would think is that Scott monitoring Lonergan was already agreed upon and worked out and therefore no "FURTHER" action would be taken, the use of the word further suggesting that some action HAD been taken. 

By: GYHP (7/31/2016 1:01:22 PM)

Also, so is John Feinstein the one not telling the truth, then? Because that'll truly upset Bea, who so admires him for sticking his repuation and neck on the line for a situation that doesn't even involve him as a newspaper columnist in the DMV specializing in college basketball. And does it mean that he's equally not telling the truth that he thinks Lonergan's keeping his job? What about that he knows more details that he can't talk about? 

By: Bo Knows (705 posts) - 7/31/2016 1:02:22 PM

GYHP I've been here (GW) for 30 years. I have known the last 5 coaches and stay in touch with all 5. You could actually say 6 since I know Bob Tallent. I am no more a ML guy than a KH guy or a MJ guy. 

 

By: The MV (4,915 posts) - 7/31/2016 1:08:26 PM

While I know nothing for a fact ( unlike so many of you), this is what things sounds like to me:

1) The 2014-15 complaints did not involve ML statements about PN to the players.  The 2015-16 complaints were about remarks made at PN's expense, and the university response of "we have already handled this" should never have been issued. These were new and unique issues that had not been previously addressed.

2) ML was outraged by an inappropriate relationship between PN and one of his players.  Sexual?  One consenting adult or two?  How would we have an idea at this point?  But a player receiving multiple invitations to spend time in the home of an athletic director strikes me as inappropriate.  Otherwise, does anyone know of another example when this has ever happened?

3) ML's manner of acting out against this was to verbally make condescending jokes or remarks to his players about it.  Unfortunately in this world, whenever someone uses humor or sarcasm to diffuse a tense situation, relieve stress, etc., there is risk involved.  We all simply do not think the same things are funny.  Some might think the masturbation line was funny, others may see humor in it but feel it was inappropriate, and some may see no humor in it and simply find it offensive.  The frequency of these remarks should not have any bearing unless he was specifically told to knock it off but refused to do so.

4) I am far more confused by what PN' s motivation was behind all of this.  Is he a victim in all of this and nothing more?  Was he truly "outed" by the Post story against his will or did he orchestrate this to win a power struggle over ML?  Or, did he go on the offensive to cover up his own wrongdoing?

5). My sense is that the investigation results in one of two scenarios:  a) While it is fashionable to suggest that these two men can no longer work together again,  maybe everyone realizes that this got way out of hand, that both are extremely competent at their jobs, and they manage to move forward with conditions in place, or b) the surviving party is the one who is deemed to have been victimized more..PN for the ramification of the Post article, assuming he was not behind it, and for ML's remarks to his players at PN's expense, or ML/ML player for having to endure the advances of PN and the subsequent distractions this created.

6) I am not factoring in this verbal and emotional abuse charge which is what I believe was dismissed last year.  I do think the current investigation is truly about ML/PN/Said Player and only about this triangle. So I am not very concerned about the food stamps or transfer to transgender league comments.  Not at all a fireable offense (these particular comments) as far as I am concerned.

 

By: Bo Knows (705 posts) - 7/31/2016 1:09:46 PM

GYHP - the letter also said NO violation had been found. So if there was no violation found what further action could be taken? Do you really think GW would assign an administrator after finding no violation solely to monitor ML?

By: GYHP (7/31/2016 1:16:03 PM)

 

T2) ML was outraged by an inappropriate relationship between PN and one of his players.  Sexual?  One consenting adult or two?  How would we have an idea at this point?  But a player receiving multiple invitations to spend time in the home of an athletic director strikes me as inappropriate.  Otherwise, does anyone know of another example when this has ever happened?

 

--

The only place that this scenario about Nero has been propagated is this board. That's what is so horrifying about this thread. The player's comments to the Post, especially considering the ludicrious way that the Post reporting the "masturbation" comment (I have a feeling that if it was said, it was along the lines of "I don't know what he wants the tapes for, probably to jerk off to them," and not bc he SERIOUSLY thought that, but bc of the way people use that term jerk off), said that Lonergan was obsessed with their relationships with Nero. The only EVIDENCE supporting that that was in fact the case comes from sordid scenarios presented by this board. That's it. When you remember how the Post couched the other sexual comments, it could mean almost anything. Feinstein said "too close." 

It would make no sense that if it was really happening that Nero and the player would bring it up to the Post. The revenge scenario that made any sense would be JUST leaking the Lonergan past investigation and THEN Lonergan or players or some source angry about the Lonergan allegeations revealing the suspicion of a sexual relationship. 

The player revealing Lonergan's alleged comments about Nero to the Post lent them no credence, or else THAT would have been the story. 

 

By: Poster (5 posts) - 7/31/2016 1:19:05 PM

MV---there is absolutely no investigation going on pertaining to PN. It is all about ML.  

By: Bea (7/31/2016 1:58:05 PM)

Whoa, Whoa, Whoa. Back up.

Hoopfan is wise indeed.  

The unsubstantiated use (by an attorney) of the word "consistently" looks a lot like the anonymous use of "routinely" by John Doe #1 to me. 

Bo, I agree with your opinions, but I agree with Thinker now: continuing to argue with him (or GYHP) the strengths of "Coach Lonergan's" (better, GYHP?) case is probably a bad idea. Not because "truthers" (what even?) are wrong or you are blinded by friendship, but because there is at least a reasonable argument to be made that someone is using that loyalty.  I'm done debating them.

I also agree with Poster for a change: reread Thinker's posts, particularly his "legal advice." I wonder if there is a reason it's crappy. Even if he "knows" so many people here personally, I would venture he doesn't "routinely" (or ever) share his client list. When I said no "decent" attorney comes near this thread, (a) the emphasis was on "decent, and (b) I was referring to direct use, not shoring up weak points.

GYHP and Poster are doing tremendous work creating red herrings. It has worked. Perhaps it's coordinated or maybe a coincidence. Either way, they created one hell of a distraction. Also, GYHP knows less about basketball than I do, apparently. And math. And time. That's remarkable. His rant at me was one for the ages.

Something is definitely not right (and it's not me; I have no doubt Herve can find me, and that's AOK). I am here to stay, as GYHP quoted, but since my questions to the vehement anti-"coach Lonergan" camp remain unanswered, I won't continue to challenge the failed logic, because like I said, I go with my gut. It's usually right. Call it a woman's intuition. 

#kumbaya

By: RUSerious (7/31/2016 2:19:53 PM)

"Bea" the only one ranting here is you. You honestly are coming across as a crazy person.

By: Bea (7/31/2016 2:35:36 PM)

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 

In this instance, I'd rather be "crazy" than wrong.  Do as you will.

By: The MV (4,915 posts) - 7/31/2016 2:42:30 PM

Poster, I think that is a somewhat naive view.  Sure, OK, it is Lonergan that is technically being investigated.  But, if the investigation brings to light that an inappropriate relationship was taking place, does this not become an investigation of Nero as well?  Let's not let semantics get in the way; that is reality if the inappropriate relationship turns out to be true.

GYHP, I really don't care that this board has been the only place to suggest the possibility of my point #2 being true.  The media has not reported it because it has not been admitted to nor has an investigation, which likely has not even begun, uncovered this to be true.  Nor have I ever said that this was definitively true.  Like I said, I do not have the facts but apparently people such as yourself seem to think you do.  As for the media, the Post has been accused here by some of publishing their story a bit too quickly.  My guess is that everyone will take their time, meaning waiting until an investigation has been completed, before reporting any other controversial or damaging developments.

By: Bo Knows (705 posts) - 7/31/2016 3:02:35 PM

MV, it is possible that ML is the only one being investigated now because PN may have been previously investigated based on prior concerns and that's why, in whole or in part, the action was taken to keep him away from men's basketball this past season. I don't know that for a fact but that is just as reasonable an explanation at this point as "poster's" summary statement. 

Also as a point of procedure, there is no allegation in the Post story about PN. So unless other information comes to light in the investigation there would be no reason to investigate PN. So "poster" could be correct but that means little if ML did not do the things alleged.

By: Bo Knows (705 posts) - 7/31/2016 3:04:44 PM

To clarify - "no allegation in the Post story re PN" meant to say "possibly no new allegation".

By: thinker (2,825 posts) - 7/31/2016 3:09:21 PM

The letter that ML posted on his own Facebook account (any lawyers here- please confirm that's a smart legal tactic - I think it's stupid) was almost certainly refering to Title IX charges and actions as a result of that. To me that is VERY different from the University discovering other matters that were concerning that were NOT related to Title IX. I could easily imagine that some of ML's "intensity" could be concerning even though it wasn't a Title IX violation. Obviously they found something that was extremely concerning if they ordered practices to be recorded and an AD person to accompany the team on trips. Unless the Truthers say those things didin't happen. If they did happen then how do you reconcile that with your argument that there was no problem at that time and ML was completely exonerated of any claims altogether?

That letter is really a red herring. Obviously the University thought there were problems with ML or they wouldn't have taken those kinds of extraordinary steps. The Truthers are just spinning. Obviously there was a problem. Mind you I don't know what the problem was exactly.

Bea,

#GirlfriendNeedsToPickUpHerHashtagGame

#GottaGetMeSomeOfDemRoastBeefSandwiches

#BowieStrong

By: Bo Knows (705 posts) - 7/31/2016 3:29:35 PM

Thinker -

You're as transparent as dental floss bikini. You tell us you don't really know what happened but then you presume one of the two factual explanations for Ed Scott monitoring the team is correct. Is it not also possible that Ed Scott was assigned to the team to oversee it because that responsibility was taken away from PN by the University? That's the crux of the matter and there is evidence pointing both ways.

By the way if you want to continue call those "Truthers" because they are willing to give ML the benefit of the doubt based on personal interactions aren't you then subject to being called a "Denier" because you obviously really have your mind made up despite plenty of evidence otherwise?

 

 

By: GYHP (7/31/2016 3:40:44 PM)

So the going theory on this thread is that the athletic director had a sexual relationship with a player dating back to 2013, Mike Lonergan knew about it and complained about it, in 2013, the University could only find evidence the athletic director creeped on the player, so in 2015, the University took "control" of the men's basketball team away from the athletic director, and put it in Scott, while Mike Lonergan spent 2013-2016 making comments to the players about the sexual relationship that his athletic director had with his player. 

Parallel to this, a player formally complained about Mike Lonergan's treatment of players and a Title IX investigation was conducted. 

Somehow, quite a few people seem to believe this entire scenario is 1) not a complete and total debacle for everyone involved and 2) renders Mike Longeran completely pure and innocent. 

Did I miss something? 

 

By: Free Quebec (7/31/2016 3:51:58 PM)

that's not the going theory.   The going theory is that ML thought it was sexual but had no proof.  Nero took umbrage to the accusation, the feud escalated. 

By: thinker (2,825 posts) - 7/31/2016 3:53:07 PM

Bo,

Are you saying that GW didn't order practices to be recorded? Are you saying that Scott didn't accompany the team on all trips?

This is a place where you can say as to the first part:

1) Yes it was ordered that practices be recorded or

2) No that was not ordered

3) You don't know

I have no idea. But I think that's an important question. Were practices ordered to be recorded or not? I understand that if practices were ordered to be recorded we wouldn't necessarly understand why. But they would have been recorded for a reason.

As to Scott --  Did he accompany the team on all road trips -- yes or no?

If he did accompany the team -- was that a normal thing -- yes or no? I understand that if he did accompany the team we wouldn't necessarily understand why. But there would have been a reason.

If I misunderstood some of the facts, I apologize. You can certainly clear that up for me and others who may have misunderstood as well.

By: Bea (7/31/2016 4:10:26 PM)

Google to the rescue again! I figured out the riddle! You mean THIS, don't you:

http://mgmroastbeef.com

Yeah, nope. I've been to College Park one time ever. It was more than 10 years ago, on a GW trip. (I told you GYHP's math is terrible.) Anyway, now GYHP's Terrapin rant makes more sense too. Still waaayyyyy off base, and kinda funny, but at least a smidge less batshit. 

Nowwww I'll wait (forever) for the "deniers" to spill, and since they won't, I'll be the "crazy" one, disengaged, still hoping for #kumbaya 

By: GW69 (7/31/2016 4:24:52 PM)

I practiced psychotherapy for 31 years full time and the last 6 part-time.

I worked with many lawyers-what can I say I learned to love them.

This thread is a remarkable testament to their compulsive intellectualization,that I at once admire and recoil from.

I thank all the attorneys on this thread reminding me of why I retired.

I'll take on therapists at another time.

By: Bo Knows (705 posts) - 7/31/2016 4:28:17 PM

Thinker -

I have no idea whether practices were taped for the purposes you claimed. I will tell you that practices are standardly taped even down to the Division 3 level. How do you think Eric Murdock got the Mike Rice tapes? So the fact that it was taped is not surprising in the least because coaches will review practice tapes. Also those tapes are usually taken from such a distance that the audio is suspect - they are really only good for determining physical action - remember Bobby Knight choking Neil Reed? Now if the tapes were ordered to be reviewed each day by someone outside the coaching staff that would be surprising but there is no evidence of that as of yet.

And as for whether Ed Scott accompanied the team on the road, my information is that he did. However, I can tell you that when KH was coaching, either JK or DP (at least one of them) would regularly travel with the team. So nothing surprising about an administrator travelling with the team on the road in and of itself. The question and the crux of the matter is if it was for some other reason other than in the manner JK or DP did with KH. Again no evidence yet to support that.

By: Bo Knows (705 posts) - 7/31/2016 4:30:52 PM

And Thinker let me ask you this - if ML knew he was being watched both by tape and by Ed Scott doesn't it stand to reason he would have been on his best behavior in 2015-16?

By: Bo Knows (705 posts) - 7/31/2016 4:35:56 PM

GW69 -

Shakespeare - "The first thing we do is kill all the lawyers" LOL

Of course, half of GW's fanbase would be dead including me.

I hate to tell you but we are in Washington, there are tons of lawyers, this is a big deal here and at GW, and I didn't care to watch the DNC. Next week absent some new information this will die down at least on my part, I have too much work/travel.

By: GYHP (7/31/2016 4:40:04 PM)

Bo, I agree with everything you just said. Someone with Post access can correct me, but I believe the video question is actually about the claim in the Post article from the player that Lonergan made a comment about why Nero was asking for the practice tapes that I'm not going to bother to rehash her. But yeah, practices are taped. 

--- 

Bea is a brand-new GW basketball fan who doesn't know who Shawnta Rogers is, but who was at the university at some point between 2000-2005, at a time of tremendous success for the basketball program, at which time she must have lived under a rock to not have a passing acquaintance with the basketball program.

"She" doesn't know why a GW fan would take a shot at Maryland, a ACC now Big Ten program with a national championship under its belt during that same time period. 

A GW student-athlete during 2000-2005 who not only doesn't harbor a dislike of the Terps but actually sees them as a poor little program that wouldn't at all be insulted to have their program compared to ours. Very likely.

Gotta say I might have been off though, this reads a lot more now like a holdover from Catholic, not UMD. Can't imagine a true Terp categorizing themselves as "she" did. 

My Terrapin "rant" though was about the rapidly-diminishing liklihood of Lonergan's dream of being HC there actually happening. It would have been a stupid move for Maryland even before this. 

By: thinker (2,825 posts) - 7/31/2016 4:43:33 PM

Bo, yes it would make sense that ML wouldn't say problematic things in front of Scott. But it would also make sense that ML wouldn't say problematic things ever regardless of who was witnessing. Nonetheless I don't know what was actually said by anyone.

But did practices get recorded and did Scott go on road trips? That's a really simple question.

By: Poster (5 posts) - 7/31/2016 5:13:40 PM

Bo,you missed a great convention much better than the RNC's.

By: Bo Knows (705 posts) - 7/31/2016 5:35:06 PM

Thinker asked and answered as to your simple questions.

By: Bea (7/31/2016 5:52:27 PM)

 

Dear GYHP, 

This obviously means a lot to you. What did John Doe #1 say to ESPN "he had this weird obsession"? It's "odd."

I HATE Maryland. I never said otherwise; that's why I called your rant "bizarre." I know who I am; my words are all true. You continue to be dead wrong in your assumptions; you just keep misquoting me and fucking it up. If you're going to play Sherlock Holmes, you need to read MUCH more carefully, or at least smoke out the old-timer members here who know me in 3D, like the guys who attended my wedding and baby shower.

Or best yet? Let it go. Stand down. Less with the "odd" and creepy.

Debate the guys still willing to spar you on the issues raised in this thread, because I am no longer willing. Who I am was irrelevant anyway, but it is even less relevant now. I'm done discussing whether Patrick is a Poweful Predator or Mike is a Malicious Monster or who I might be. It doesn't fucking matter. Stop addressing me.  Any non-response to you moving forward is not a tacit admission of your allegations or suggestions. It's me refusing to give any additional biographical info to some (allegedly also "new") faceless Internet bro who can't seem to let go of my real identity. 

Many thanks,

Bea

By: Poster (5 posts) - 7/31/2016 6:20:07 PM

Yea!!!! Good-bye Bea!!!! Please!!!!

By: thinker (2,825 posts) - 7/31/2016 7:00:56 PM

You go Bea.

#GottaGetMeSomeOfDemRoastBeefSamiches

Bo,

I'm fairly confident that this isn't a deposition. I didn't recall if you'd said before that YES practices were recorded and YES Scott accompanied the team. I didn't want to read through 600 posts to verify one way or the other.

But this is a great example of why you and others get the Truther label. "Facts" or only interesting if they work to ML's advantage. If there were no outstanding issues about ML's behavior after the "exonerating letter" last year, then why was the University recording his practices and sending Scott on all road trips? It can't be that there were ZERO issues related to ML's behavior.

But you are hesitant to say YES PRACTICES WERE TAPED. You want to bury that. You want to obscure it by saying asked and answered. You want to run away from this particular fact, because this particular fact doesn't work very well with the rest of the Truther arguments. If there were no issues with ML's behavior, they WHY WERE THEY TAPING HIS PRACTICES? WHY WAS SCOTT GOING ON ALL OF THE ROAD TRIPS?

I don't know what anyone said or didn't say, but GW isn't taping practices and sending someone on road trips unless there's real concern about ML's behavior.

It's the same with the disingenuous concern about anonymous "poster" and anonymous witnesses to the Washngton Post while sitting comforatbly behind your anonymous "Bo Knows." As far as I know, there isn't a single regular poster on this board who knows you personally. You do have an extensive backstory but no one to back it up. I've posted the names of all the people on this board that know me to show that I am only partially anonymous. I can't play around with my backstory because plenty of people could dispute it.

So anonymity is cowardly or dishonest (or whatever you actually have called it) for others but great and harmless for you (or whatever you've called it). You've actually made the point that someone posting under "poster" shouldn't have any credibility because they didn't post under some other name like "The Roast Beef Lady" (my example of a name not yours).

When someone posts something that is unfavorable to ML then this is almost a blood libel that threatens a good and decent man. When someone posts something favorable to ML and horrible vis-a-vis someone else - that is just helping bring the truth to light and truth is the ultimate defense - it's this is just a niche message board it doesn't matter.

It's why the term Truther is so apt for you and the others in your informal group whether you know each other or not and whether you are coordinating with ML or not. It's completely

#BowieStrong

By: Poster (5 posts) - 7/31/2016 7:05:07 PM

The fact that all of a sudden - and at the very same time - a few anonymous ML defenders came out of the woodworks and posted outrageous rumors about PN on this blog tells me all I need to know about this story. Wouldn't be shocked if one is ML himself.

By: Hoopfan78 (7/31/2016 7:13:19 PM)

Bo,

practices are normally taped by teams.  The difference here is the university asking for copies of the recordings.  ML was obviously not happy about this request.  

it wasn't a special request that practices be recorded, it was that recordings that existed be provided.  

 

 

By: Buffman (38 posts) - 7/31/2016 7:41:27 PM

new anonymous poster names appearing out of the blue to defend ML? haha that's been any ML thread with even a small criticism for 2 years here... take a wild guess who it is friends???

By: ELJ (2,207 posts) - 7/31/2016 8:01:13 PM

Been away from the board for a few days, and just checked over some of the posts..Sounds like lots of sound and fury, signifying what has yet to be determined.  And BC, thanks for the heads up.  That post of 7/29 was absolutely not mine.  May have been a simple mistake; if not, I'm asking whoever misapproriated my name to stop it, right now.

By: NewGWFan (510 posts) - 7/31/2016 8:34:47 PM

I'm just really sad right now about all of this.  Until further notice all the adults are to blame until more facts are known.  Just so disappointed in everything.  As for ML we have seen the apex, there is now no recovery, reputation is tarnished regardless of earned or unearned.  The program will be effected for a while in form of recruiting.  The university has been embarrassed.  Just so sad.  The fans didn't deserve any of this and either did the players.  Things seem like they will only get worse before they get better.  I can't wait to read the details of what happened when the official report is released.

By: thinker (2,825 posts) - 7/31/2016 8:59:15 PM

Hooperfan78,

That's a very interesting piece of information. Thanks for sharing that.

By: Poster (5 posts) - 7/31/2016 9:09:11 PM

Great post NewGWfan;thoughtful,caring,sensitive and mature.

Everyone please read.

By: GW Alum Abroad (2,456 posts) - 7/31/2016 9:10:10 PM

Hoopsfan78 is correct. And Lonergan was so incensed about the request that he started the "masturbation" diatribe to players.

By: Bo Knows (705 posts) - 7/31/2016 9:42:24 PM

Thinker, we can also fairly give you and others the Denier Label. You deny the obvious to find the mere possibility that suits your position. For example, why would Ed Scott only need to travel to away games? Were these offensive statements only capable of occurring on the road? I guess when Jack or Dom went on the road it was only because KH or TP or MJ needed monitoring. In case you didn't know most teams travel with an athletic dept. representative. 

Practice was always taped. Do you think that someone might have asked for the tapes before as part of the 2014-15 investigation? As an investigator who wouldn't look at these tapes? So what? Did they prove anything in 2014-15? Apparently not.

But all of this begs the question if ML was so pissed about being monitored do you think he would give them more ammunition let alone discuss this with players all under the watchful eye of the University? 

As far as who knows you here, you and I know each other. That's all I'll say because this obsession with identity and cv on an anonymous niche message board is amazing. Either you agree with what I write or you don't. I don't think it makes it any more or less agreeable because you know my identity. 

Lastly I know you think this is all some black ops psychological warfare. Sorry to disappoint. It really isn't that complex or that coordinated. But you keep on believing what you want ...

 

By: The Dude (529 posts) - 7/31/2016 10:35:54 PM

the CV fixation is indeed odd, when I began posting here the same poster was obsessed with mine, I answered (reluctantly) fact is, only the strength of your observations and thoughts matter on anonymous poster niche board, I have found in my few decades on this earth, that sometimes the greatest wisdom comes from men and women whose jobs aren't prestige jobs (Janitors, Taxi Drivers, Doormen etc etc) and the lawyers I deal with every day, a lot of damn egg heads! I ran the GW law softball program for 3 years, and let me tell ya, 9 in 10 were also awful athletes!

Book smart and well read on some issues perhaps but their sports opinions and thoughts aren't any greater than a random cross section of folks at the local watering hole!  This board has a lot of JDs, some have great observations and some .. well you finish the thought as you like.

As for NewGWFan's post, SPOT on... sadly.  Sad as it is, the truth (and the truth alone) shall set you free.

By: The Dude (529 posts) - 7/31/2016 10:43:09 PM

Worth repeating though (apologies for the double post) what I want and I think almost everyone wants, is for ML to write his own final chapters on the ML era. It would be a damn shame if that's not how things play out.  

IF and I emphasize IF the era is nearing an end for this reason, what a G-d damn shame that would be for all, players fans, everyone.

By: Poster (5 posts) - 7/31/2016 10:55:56 PM

"Until further notice all the adults are to blame until more facts are known".  So New GW Fan,  you believe that one is guilty until proven innocent rather than the more traditional innocent until proven guilty.  How's this for a thought...lets wait until the investigation in completed before trashing the program and everyone associated with it.   

By: thinker (2,825 posts) - 7/31/2016 11:22:41 PM

Bo,

I doubt they do Black Ops Psychological warfare in Bowie unless burning couches is Black Ops -- so that thought never occured to me. I don't think any of the Truthers are being clever AT ALL.

You were free to explain that all practices are recorded 570 posts ago. I've never claimed I knew that kind of stuff -- that's why I was asking. And whether they are normally recorded or not -- apparently everyone agrees that it wasn't usual for the AD to request to view them. So the point is still valid to the exact same degree.

Apparently there were concerns about ML's behavior with players/staff. Apparently that concern continued even after ML got his Title IX exoneration letter.

Your whole "do you think he would have done that knowing what we think we know now about what was going on then?" argument is not very persuasive. Almost always people who are in serious trouble made mistakes in judgment and did stupid things. If people didn't do stupid things this situation would not be happening.

Now I don't know who did what so I don't know if Nero did stupid things and ML responded by doing stupid things and whoever else might have done stupid things. I sincerely don't know if ML said the masterbation type stuff. I sincerely don't know what kind of relationship Nero was having with anyone.

BUT I do know that ML's "intense" communication style bothered lots of people. Elsewhere in this thread I've referred to him as being a dick in my opinion - whatever that means. And you just don't get all of this happening with players, staffers, the media, twitter accounts like @coachingchanges if a bunch of people don't really dislike you or feeled aggreived by you.

Maybe ML didn't do or say any of the wildly offensive stuff reported - Obviously I don't know. But he still made a fundamentally stupid decision to treat people the way that he has such that it led to so many people disliking him so intensly that this should all come out in the way that it has. 

That's the case whether you think he should be able to call kids cunts or not (if he in fact did - since I don't know). You all may approve of everything he says -- but if that ends up getting lots of people mobilized to fuck you then it's a mistake to do things that way. That's just common sense to me.

By: Bo Knows (705 posts) - 8/1/2016 8:43:09 AM

I have no idea what ML specifically said to players nor to any specific player at practice or elsewhere. And the fact is neither do you. You don't know what allegations are new other than possibly the PN statements in the Post and weren't  already investigated and ML absolved in 2014-15. You've spent many posts spinning stuff but then claiming not to really know. I've only told you and any one else here 3 definitive things:

1. ML was absolved in 2014-15 and no further action was taken in relation to Title IX issues. This buttressed by a letter stating such from the University.

2. ML denies the conduct attributed to him.

3. PN did not oversee men's basketball in 2015-16 to the extent and manner he did in previous years. I still have offered no definitive explanation for that and only have discussed possible reasons therefor.

On your side you have attributed conduct and statements to ML for which you cannot cite one live human being as support for. PM has not confirmed. Ed Scott has not confirmed. No player has gone on public record. Apparently you have confused Mr. Anonymous with a former player :-). All you have is air right now. 

Now perhaps the investigation shows otherwise. But until then who is entitled to the benefit of the doubt. Mr. Anonymous witness? Or the guy who is identified and accused? The idea that because someone thinks ML should get that benefit makes them a Truther suggests that you don't really understand due process nor the facts. People simply should not lose their jobs over unsubstantiated anonymous quotes in a newspaper article. Are you suggesting otherwise? Because that is ALL there is right now.

But perhaps the fact that you cite an anonymous Twitter account as your source for yet another unproven charge against ML is more telling than anything. Wasn't that the same site that claimed to have all the goods on ML but then had its witnesses get cold feet? Lolololol. By the way you might want to start attributing the term Lonergan Truthers to that site since you don't want to be accused of Melania type plagiarism. 

 

By: hoopfan78 (8/1/2016 8:54:04 AM)

Bo,

The only think i hope you can agree on is if ML does lose his job we will never formally know (the report will also keep players names "Anonymous". (obviously the names will be tossed around on here as one already has, but we most likely will not get formal confirmation.

Also, "protected sources" and "Anonymous' are two different things.  The players making thse allogations may not be known to us, but they are not "anonymous" as they are known to the Washington Post and ESPN.  If they were truly anonymous the allegations would have come from random email accounts and names would not have just not been printed they wouldn't have been known.  I doubt anyone would have printed anything in that case. 

If the independent investigator determines that not only are the quotes true, but that the behavior rises to the level of termination for cause it won't matter who it was said to.  Now, if as some mention a law suit comes out of this, names would become public through depositions and other court proceedings. 

By: GW69 (8/1/2016 9:00:26 AM)

Yes poster---the adults are responsible for this mess.

By: GYHP (8/1/2016 9:31:06 AM)

Bo, John Feinsten stated that Ed Scott was with the team this year to investigate the only allegations that existed that that time, which were against Lonergan. His behavior, as multiple other posters have stated, could have easily not broken federal law and yet be found to require further scrutiny from the University.  

That was from John Feinstein. He added that it was also to "provide a buffer" between the AD and the coach. 

We did not make up that reason wholesale. That was from Feinstein, who was otherwise providing a "players need to be men" defense of Lonergan, so, do with it what you will. 

All of the allegations against the athletic director have been crafted to try to excuse Lonergan from the claim that he had repeatedly accused more than one of the players of a sexual relationship with Nero. Because you all know it's the worst, most damning comment from Lonergan in there, if it is found to be true that Lonergan said it. Yet instead of just saying he didn't say it, people are crafting scenarios how it would be acceptable to say it. 

For the record, as couched by the player and presented by the Post, it would NEVER be acceptable behavior by a coach to treat a player like that. 

By: Bo Knows (705 posts) - 8/1/2016 9:39:52 AM

Correct hoopfan but at least we will have some trust in the process - an investigation by independent folks trained to investigate these matters who will have interviewed witnesses and reviewed evidence. Right now, all we have is one reporter's parsing of information teed up for him. I highly doubt whoever teed this up also provided any information that would be exculpatory to ML.

Your distinction between "anonymous" and "protected" is a distinction without ultimate relevance except for purposes of the Post article. While they may be known to the Post reporter, he is not the decision-maker here. He can protect them forever. But in order for an investigation to proceed, they will need to reveal themselves to investigators in some form or fashion by verifying the information contained in the article to investigators.

The investigation report may show john doe witnesses unless a player or other individual agrees to have his/her name released. But that may be more related to statutes like FERPA. But if this goes to lawsuit, there is decent chance the world is going to know because there are exceptions to FERPA in the case of litigation. You can't use FERPA as a sword and shield.

In one sense, I truly hope these anonymous sources did not get railroaded into saying something untrue either by another player or parent or reporter. If they did, it's just a matter of time before the shroud of secrecy will be lifted and KIlgore isn't going to be able to protect them any longer.

By: Poster (5 posts) - 8/1/2016 9:49:09 AM

So Bo Knows, if (when) Lonergan is fired because of what the investigators found, but no details are made public, are you finally going to believe that what the players said to the school and the Post are true?? Or are you still going to cling to the ridiculous idea that Nero is behind it all?

By: hoopfan78 (8/1/2016 9:54:37 AM)

Bo, I agree with just about everything you say. 

I will add that the individual who spoke to the post and espn will be there with bells on to speak with the investigator.  It is more important was the other players who have been on the team for the past two seasons (the period where alleged activity was to have taken place... meaning the cause of previous investigation and the PN comments).

Also, if MN is removed (not saying he will be); i believe that players come out from the shadows.  (obviously that is just my opinion and can easy be argued)

By: The MV (4,915 posts) - 8/1/2016 9:55:30 AM

If Lonergan tells a player that maybe he should transfer to a transgender league, that sounds awful.  If he tells a player wearing bright pink sneakers as a joke that maybe he should transfer to a transgender league, and everyone including said player laughs realizing that the line was clearly a joke, that sounds very different.

If Lonerrgan makes inappropriate sexual remarks at Pat Nero's expense with Nero having been a perfect gentleman and not having done anything wrong, this is terrible.  If these remarks are made with Nero having had an inappropriate but sexually unspecified relationship with a player, then context helps explain this but the remarks are still regrettable and over the line.  If however, there was an inappropriate relationship and it is known by Lonergan to be of a sexual nature, then Lonergan still probably showed poor judgement with his remarks but context enables us to understand why he was outraged.  And every one on this earth has made a remark that they would rather take back when outraged but at the same time, others can understand why the remark was made.  There would have been a better way for Lonergan to express himself but clearly, the circumstances provoked his remarks under this scenario.

Again, Skittles's track record around here is such that I tend to believe him.  Not because he presents Lonergan in a better light.  But because Skittles is not in the habit of making stuff up.  Anyone is free to believe or not believe JJ's account (which Skittles has confirmed) but it's really pointless to continue in this accusatory belligerent manner until the investigation is completed or next steps are determined.

By: Bo Knows (705 posts) - 8/1/2016 10:03:02 AM

For the record, GYHP, I have never said it was acceptable to say those things.I have told you that ML has denied saying it. Just told you again in my response to Thinker a few posts above.

Whether or not the alleged PN conduct occurred is not relevant to ML's statements. Even if all that has been alleged against PN were true, ML should not be discussing that with his players and certainly not in the manner alleged. At a minimum it would be poor judgment even if everything ML said was absolutely true.

But the alleged PN conduct could be relevant to why Ed Scott was involved instead of PN? Correct? I believe if you go back and read JJ's initial post that was the reason stated. So it has a relevance to that extent only.

And part of JF's statement which you seem to ignore was the "buffer" part. Why did there need to be a buffer? And who decided that there should be a buffer? 

And why is that relevant - to show why Ed Scott was there. Not to convict PN of anything but to show ML was not being monitored in the sense that some think here. And if he wasn't being monitored and Ed Scott was there for a different reason, then what else did the Post article get wrong since they clearly didn't mention the "buffer" part.

I believe JJ's and Skittles' information were offered as a means to impeach the Post's credibility not offered as a complete defense of ML. (Again, I have repeatedly said I wouldn't have posted that information here even if I knew it to be 100% true). Because even if true via a vis PN, ML still could have done other things that would or could get him in trouble.

 

By: Bo Knows (705 posts) - 8/1/2016 10:10:51 AM

Poster -

I never said PN is behind it all. You must have me confused with someone else. I'm pretty sure PN was an unwilling participant being dragged into the story.

And yes, if (and I stress if) the investigation leads to ML's ouster then obviously there was fire where there was smoke. 

But let's play the other game, if ML is cleared are you going to agree that Kilgore needs to be fired and those who brought these false allegations should be condemned in the strongest possible terms?

 

By: The Dude (529 posts) - 8/1/2016 10:23:46 AM

I'll say this, whoever posts as Skittles did have the Kethan is transfering before it was announced, and tipped off the board (in a painfully uncecssary way making the 2 dozen die hards twist in the wind for half a day!) and when seemingly every other GW fan here didn't yet know.  So there's at least one prime example of Skittles having a scoop.  MV seems to know of other examples as well. 

We shall see.

By: The Dude (529 posts) - 8/1/2016 10:23:52 AM

I'll say this, whoever posts as Skittles did have the Kethan is transfering before it was announced, and tipped off the board (in a painfully uncecssary way making the 2 dozen die hards twist in the wind for half a day!) and when seemingly every other GW fan here didn't yet know.  So there's at least one prime example of Skittles having a scoop.  MV seems to know of other examples as well. 

We shall see.

By: GW69 (8/1/2016 10:28:12 AM)

Bo Knows--you mentioned yesterday that your posting would

decrease because of work and travel commitments.

When does that start?

By: Poster (5 posts) - 8/1/2016 10:31:04 AM

Yes skittles has had "scoops" before because he is obviously quite close to ML.

By: Poster (5 posts) - 8/1/2016 10:35:52 AM

Bo knows, no I will never agree to that., because I know that he said those things and many more.

By: hoopfan78 (8/1/2016 10:36:24 AM)

Bo,

I wouldn't think Kilgore should be fired as he didn't write this in a bubble.  Obviously others at the post were aware of the article and reviewed prior to post. 

Would i expect any GW fan or anyone following the story to believe or trust him going forward?  absolutely not. 

If the article was well written or fair has been well debated.  If he has 5 former or current players and 1 for "staff member" (unclear if this individual actually worked in the athletic department or just at the University) speaking to him his supervisors/editers felt he had enough to run with.

Now if he had once source (hard to believe ESPN would have the same 'fake' source) and made up parts of the story, now that is grounds for him being fired. 

lot's of twists, turns and speculation to come over the next few weeks.  Nine more days before team leaves for Japan. 

By: bro'd (8/1/2016 10:45:56 AM)

This thread is nausiating.  Too many walls of text with too much repitition. Although, I did enjoy bea's anecdote about circle jerks...Anyone have any insider knowledge on that whole scene?  

By: Bo Knows (705 posts) - 8/1/2016 10:48:17 AM

GW69 in about one hour lol.

By: GW69 (8/1/2016 10:54:13 AM)

There is NO excuse in ANY context for ML to have brought up 

PN,if that's what occurred,with his group of young men.I have no 

idea of the legal consequences or universiy policies and I don't  care.

Mature adults should be aware of boundaries and be able to 

withstand their impulses to lash out.And it wouldn't matter how it  was

stated.At the very least MLis remarkably immature.At worst?Well see.

By: GW69 (8/1/2016 11:01:58 AM)

Bo Knows--Have a good week. Seriously. I continue to admire all 

the work of all "all in""posters. I don't have that in me anymore,I miss it.

By: Bea (8/1/2016 11:08:07 AM)

I exist only to entertain. 

Someone should put together a chronology with known (and alleged) facts, and a list of known actors (the adults and John Does). I'm not volunteering. There seems to be a some disagreement about what happened when, so having events laid out in time might clear up any confusion.

 

By: GW69 (8/1/2016 11:17:04 AM)

Is the hour up?

By: Bo Knows (705 posts) - 8/1/2016 11:34:07 AM

Last post for most of the day I think ... 

To GW69 - thanks and you too. 

 

By: Remember Fort Myer (14 posts) - 8/1/2016 12:40:53 PM

"BEA"  - from one of those baby name websites:  Diminutive of Beatrice, which is sometimes shortened to Trixie.  #657 in popularity in 2016.  Latin origin meaning "Bringer of Joy". Apologize for this post, but you did say that you "exist only to entertain."  ("Bo", "Skittles" and others had no listing.)

By: Skittles (178 posts) - 8/1/2016 12:45:51 PM

appreciate the kind words MV and others. Idk Remembering Fort Myer, if someone named their baby skittles it would at minimum bring me a little joy, as I would certainly be laughing my ass off. 

By: thinker (2,825 posts) - 8/1/2016 1:08:22 PM

Obviously Skittles is Marshawn Lynch. Why did you have to retire? You still had good years left!!!!!

By: The Dude (529 posts) - 8/1/2016 1:32:11 PM

To avoid CTE duh, and if he does have scoops for us, lets hope his brain like Lynch's avoids getting CTE.  As for Trixie, reminds me of AL Swearnegen's lady friend in the Gem saloon from Deadwood!

By: Skittles (178 posts) - 8/1/2016 1:41:27 PM

im just here so I won't get fined Thinker

By: NewGWFan (510 posts) - 8/1/2016 3:34:03 PM

My first try ever posting a GIF 

By: NewGWFan (510 posts) - 8/1/2016 3:34:29 PM

And I failed

By: Mike K (1,177 posts) - 8/1/2016 3:45:03 PM

Skittles also had Kethan's injury info....if I recall.

By: Bigfan (2,829 posts) - 8/1/2016 6:05:09 PM

Skittles, JJ,anyone on any side with REAL information or context that the Post failed to provide, keep posting.

We need less circle jerk,ironically,a phrase that would get ML in trouble with marsmallow millennials, and more insight.

 

By: The Dude (529 posts) - 8/1/2016 7:17:50 PM

Truth is, there's been zero additional info and 1,000 posts of mostly empty "lets pick a side and say partisan nonsense"  - the rest are just the fans posting reasonable WTF is going on concerns.  Every other post, most of them from suddenly brand new poster names reads like a transcript from CNN's awful canceled show with Tucker Carlson and Paul the Forehead Begala.

By: Bea (8/2/2016 12:08:36 AM)

The Dude, if I looked like that woman, I'd give you permission to hunt me down, take that gun, point it at me and pull the trigger. It would be a favor not only to me, my spouse, and the GW athletics family at large, but it also would be your patriotic duty as an American. Yikes. 

Does anyone know: 

Does Kilgore have any legal or moral duty to give up his sources at this stage? What if he won't and they won't come forward?

(If they can/do remain protected and silent, except for their anonymous media interviews, what happens if everyone, or most everyone with whom the investigators speak, refute the Post claims? To be clear, Thinker et al, I'm asking  a hypothetical. There could be a dozen reasons why people - esp the athletes - would elect not to corroborate the Post to investigators, having nothing to do with whatever is the actual "truth.")

Trixie

 

By: The Dude (529 posts) - 8/2/2016 12:58:47 AM

Trixie, Deadwood was a "Helluva Place to make a Living"

Even more helluva for the ladies

By: bobo (3,178 posts) - 8/2/2016 1:44:26 AM

Kilgore has a professional and ethical duty to NEVER give up his sources.  They trusted him to maintain thier animosity and should not reveal thier names unless those players/staff specifically tell Kilgore to reveal them.  If he ever gave them up, he'd never be able to get any future source to trust him going forward.

By: Bigfan (2,829 posts) - 8/2/2016 2:51:47 AM

He also had a professional and ethical duty to write an article that is fair, to follow up all leads,putting quotes and allegations in context,work diligently to get comments on the record,be concerned about source' s motives,not have a point of view and tell the WHOLE STORY and not abuse the power of press to sensationalize things just to get attention.

 

By: hoopfan78 (8/2/2016 8:26:53 AM)

Bae,

the individual who went to the post and spoke with ESPN will 100% cooporate with the investigation. 

The only real chance for us finding out who it is/was is if after the conclusion of the investigation the individual is not happy with the results and decides to push the story further, or if (contrary to the belief of many on this thread) ML is removed and the individual(s) no longer fears any sort of retribution for going to the post.  Obviously door number 3 is that they never reveal themselves publically and we are left to listen to speculation on this board of who the evil 5 are that dared to take down the king (last line intended to be sarcastic).

By: Long Suffering Fan (4,106 posts) - 8/2/2016 8:47:59 AM

The name will come out.   It will be leaked on this board.

By: hoopfan78 (8/2/2016 8:52:43 AM)

LSF,  based on the fact that someone already leaked a name of one person involved i'm surprised it hasn't come out.

I agree it will most likely be leaked on this board... but we won't have confirmation of the accuracy. 

 

By: Rich Maier (17 posts) - 8/2/2016 9:32:33 AM

Skittles really screwed up leaking a name. No one else has leaked a name to my knowledge so Skittles would be the front-runner for more names. 

By: bballfan (8/2/2016 1:55:27 PM)

Dan Guest

By: GYHP (8/2/2016 2:38:13 PM)

And it shouldn't. No kid's name should be leaked on this board, and especially not without any developments that come out. Period. 

The "does Kilgore have an obligation to give up his sources" is so asnine that I almost can't touch it -- let alone from an attorney in the Washington DC area from an alleged GW graduate, allegedly in school during the early days of the Iraq war. 

Some people really do want their witch hunt. 

By: 2cents (32 posts) - 8/2/2016 2:45:06 PM

I'm tired of scrolling down this thread on my iPhone. When this post began, my thumbs could only bench press 50lbs. Now they are doing reps with 185lb. 

By: Bea (8/2/2016 3:44:56 PM)

GYHP,  What happens if, when the investigation has concluded, someone named and/or embarrassed by Kilgore, thinks he has a legal claim and pursues litigation, through discovery? Then what? My earlier question stands. 

By: Florida Colonial (562 posts) - 8/2/2016 3:51:17 PM

Given one of the quotes listed on @CoachingChanges , we already know who one of the individuals is. I wont say but if you just do a bit of research its obvious.

By: Poster (5 posts) - 8/2/2016 3:53:39 PM

After the investigation is concluded?  With everything that will be told to the investigators Lonergan will not be pursuing a legal claim against the Post. He'll be thanking his lucky stars if the report doesn't go public.

By: BACCAS92 (705 posts) - 8/2/2016 3:54:56 PM

I should have just gone to Georgetown like I wanted to or University of Texas.  I would have been much better off without this stress. 

By: hoopfan78 (8/2/2016 4:00:20 PM)

Florida,

I don't see any quotes posted by coaching changes that isn't atributed to a player by name.  Some of the points he tries to make in some of his other tweets are not about the individual who spoke with the post however. 

By: Remember Fort Myer (14 posts) - 8/2/2016 4:00:57 PM

 

thanks for bball fan:

http://we-ha.com/picking-up-the-pieces-of-a-division-i-basketball-career-after-loss-of-mom/ 

By: Bea (8/2/2016 4:01:25 PM)

Hang on, Poster.

There was a question pending to GYHP. I didn't name any names. 

The post is Global; the story ran on the web first.  I admit that I'm assuming that the damages would be substantial. 

I'm being serious right now. 

By: Poster (5 posts) - 8/2/2016 4:04:45 PM

oh, are you talking about Nero suing Lonergan, Bea? That's a different story.  One I can see happening.I still don't believe Kilgore will have to name names.

By: Poster (5 posts) - 8/2/2016 4:11:56 PM

Nevermind, duh, I think I finally figured out your post. You think Nero was embarrassed by what the Post wrote and could sue. The post was just reporting what was reported to them by 5 current and former players and a former staff member. The person he should sue is Lonergan for spreading all of the lies about him, not the Post.

By: Bea (8/2/2016 4:12:25 PM)

no. 

I'll wait. 

By: hoopfan78 (8/2/2016 4:15:22 PM)

Bae,

even if the GW investigation found nothing it would be hard for ML to prove intent/negligence. 

The reporter has 6 sources (5 players and 1 for employee) speaking to the subject and providing quotes. 

Now ML's attorny's could easily depose all players from 14/15 &15/16 and ask under oath if they spoke to the post.  It is a limited number of individuals that it could have been (and he probably knows or has a good idea who it was). 

While some are angry that the story "wasn't fair" and didn't present both sides, that is a question of ethics not a legal question.  It would be extremely hard for anyone mentioned in that article to prove harm worthy of damages.

PN would also not have a claim against Nero as long as Kilgore has a reasonable belief that what he printed was true.  Again ethics question vs legal question. 

By: hoopfan78 (8/2/2016 4:25:58 PM)

"the false statement must be defamatory, meaning that it actually harms the reputation of the other person, as opposed to being merely insulting or offensive. "

" The statement(s) alleged to be defamatory must also be a false statement of fact. That which is name-calling, hyperbole, or, however characterized, cannot be proven true or false, cannot be the subject of a libel or slander claim.

The defamatory statement must also have been made with fault. The extent of the fault depends primarily on the status of the plaintiff. Public figures, such as government officials, celebrities, well-known individuals, and people involved in specific public controversies, are required to prove actual malice, a legal term which means the defendant knew his statement was false or recklessly disregarded the truth or falsity of his statement."

By: Florida Colonial (562 posts) - 8/2/2016 4:48:24 PM

Hoopfan78.. It appears that tweet was removed. It specifically referred to someones background and where he was from. I wont repeat it

By: Bea (8/2/2016 4:50:55 PM)

I was actually thinking per quod; the standard is a little different. To the best of my understanding, both VA and MD recognize those claims. 

They also report to the 4th Cir. Appeals Court. Like I said, I'd expect the damages to be substantial.

Admittedly, DC does not recognize those claims, but that's why I made the point about the post being global and the story being electronic. I would make the case (correction: I would hire a colleague smarter than I am to make the case) that at least one person, and very likely the other, named by the Post, would be able to file in one of those two places with such a claim. 

So to be clear, this morning, I was asking a specific question about the procedure of an investigation like this. I will be the first to admit that I don't know the specifics. 

Just spitballing,

Bae-Bea

PS: Even with a straight defamation claim, "The Athletic Director" could argue he wasn't or famous or well-known, and the "controversy" didn't exist until Kilgore made it exist, as some sort estoppel to Kilgore using that defense. Obviously, I haven't given any of these things any great deal of thought, so if there is good law to refute it, I didn't know.

By: BACCAS92 (705 posts) - 8/2/2016 4:53:23 PM

Bea, YOUR HIRED!

By: Florida Colonial (562 posts) - 8/2/2016 4:54:05 PM

I can confirm the tweet was deleted. Found it when I googled the quote. So because it is still out there because others retweeted, I will post it here.

Coaching Changes @CoachingChanges

One time when Mike Lonergan wanted a kid with a Latino surname to hurry up showering, he told him he should just take a Puerto Rican shower

 

 

By: Bea (8/2/2016 6:15:13 PM)

Wait. Let me correct myself. DC probably hears per quod defamation and per de libel etc. I meant that DC recognizes the journalist-anonymous source priv. 

Sorry 

By: Bea (8/2/2016 6:19:10 PM)

*se 

fuck you, autocorrect. 

double secret sorry. 

By: Poster (5 posts) - 8/2/2016 7:32:18 PM

Coaching Changes lololololol. The barriers to entry to social media are quite low. Whoever runs that account is a joke. Just read it 

By: GYHP (8/2/2016 7:40:41 PM)

As a journalist, Kilgore would have an ethical obligation to reveal his sources even if a court ordered him to. Similar cases with much larger stakes have resulted in sources giving permission to the journalist to avoid jail, or the journalist taking his jail term. You could argue that, should he feel that the source truly deliberately lied to him, he doesn't owe the duty anymore, but that's hotly debated in journalism circles. Furthermore, if that was really the case -- if the article was truly made up wholesale -- the Post would try to settle it quietly and Kilgore still wouldn't be naming his sources. 

Of course, any litigator worth her salt wouldn't bother to limit herself to a desperate libel case when you could also name GW as a party/co-defendant and bring separate claims against them, and then GW would likely have to turn over the student's original Title IX complaints and emails to Nero as part of that discovery. But, of course, everything that is discoverable is not admissible and the Post would no doubt seek some heavy-duty confidentiality agreements regarding any discovery in a libel matter. 

In your original scenario about players not corroborting the investigators claims -- I think you're misguided in assuming the investigators would use the Post article as a framework, when depending on how far-searching an investigation GW wants them to do, they'd theoretically have access to every email sent by every player, Title IX coordinator, compliance manager, athletic director, etc. You said yourself that the Post article didn't do a great job hiding identities, so imagine how easy it would be for them to piece it together with that knowledge. 

I also think you're a bit misguided on the ease of getting witnesses to lie in coordinatated ways, and the University can order the players to cooperate with the investigation and dimiss them if they don't. Student-athletes have very little rights and students at private universities have even less. If you're expecting a sea of "I don't recall," I doubt it would happen. 

I also think that the utter last thing Mike Lonergan would ever do is get into a public relations nightmare with the Washington Post, the newspaper that protected two rookie reporters against Nixon, by trying to force a sports reporter to reveal his sources on the record in open court. 

By: GYHP (8/2/2016 7:40:46 PM)

As a journalist, Kilgore would have an ethical obligation to reveal his sources even if a court ordered him to. Similar cases with much larger stakes have resulted in sources giving permission to the journalist to avoid jail, or the journalist taking his jail term. You could argue that, should he feel that the source truly deliberately lied to him, he doesn't owe the duty anymore, but that's hotly debated in journalism circles. Furthermore, if that was really the case -- if the article was truly made up wholesale -- the Post would try to settle it quietly and Kilgore still wouldn't be naming his sources. 

Of course, any litigator worth her salt wouldn't bother to limit herself to a desperate libel case when you could also name GW as a party/co-defendant and bring separate claims against them, and then GW would likely have to turn over the student's original Title IX complaints and emails to Nero as part of that discovery. But, of course, everything that is discoverable is not admissible and the Post would no doubt seek some heavy-duty confidentiality agreements regarding any discovery in a libel matter. 

In your original scenario about players not corroborting the investigators claims -- I think you're misguided in assuming the investigators would use the Post article as a framework, when depending on how far-searching an investigation GW wants them to do, they'd theoretically have access to every email sent by every player, Title IX coordinator, compliance manager, athletic director, etc. You said yourself that the Post article didn't do a great job hiding identities, so imagine how easy it would be for them to piece it together with that knowledge. 

I also think you're a bit misguided on the ease of getting witnesses to lie in coordinatated ways, and the University can order the players to cooperate with the investigation and dimiss them if they don't. Student-athletes have very little rights and students at private universities have even less. If you're expecting a sea of "I don't recall," I doubt it would happen. 

I also think that the utter last thing Mike Lonergan would ever do is get into a public relations nightmare with the Washington Post, the newspaper that protected two rookie reporters against Nixon, by trying to force a sports reporter to reveal his sources on the record in open court. 

By: GYHP (8/2/2016 7:41:15 PM)

NOT to reveal his sources, is that the first sentence would say. 

By: Bigfan (2,829 posts) - 8/2/2016 9:14:10 PM

Yes,would certainly compare this to Watergate. 

Kilgore has a lot of ethical obligations. Whether he protects his great sources who need to be anonymous in this great matter of national security relating to pink sneakers,he failed in a number of ethical obligations.

And we are paying for it. Both in damage to GW' s reputation and having to read a thousand-plus posts (on two threads) and still having  no clear idea of what the hell the story is.

Great job. Right up there with Watergate.

By: Poster (5 posts) - 8/2/2016 9:32:49 PM

You just don't like what he had to say. He had multiple sources, and GW and Lonergan likely warning it was coming down the pike. (Standig stated on Twitter he'd heard that the article was coming). If there was no truth to any of it, they'd have come out guns blazing. They didn't. 

The irony is that out of all the allegations, the ones that probably shouldn't have seen the light of day are the one that's the focus of this thread, because it's the most salacious and Kilgore still won't attribute it. That's what moved the story from garden-variety coaches are jerks to something else entirely. 

Yet we've got insiders bending over backwards to give it credence. 

By: GYHP (8/2/2016 9:33:26 PM)

That last post is me. I forgot to change the name. 

By: Bea (8/2/2016 10:07:31 PM)

GYHP, 

Did you REALLLLY just write that? Oh, FOR THE LOVE. You're assuming that any student who legitimately didnt recall would be lying? And it more than one could not recall it would be collusion? Holy... what? NO. You just said that the university would threaten the validity of their recollection (or lack thereof) with dismissal because they have minimal rights as students.

ANY GW ATHLETE READING THIS, IF YOU HAVE ATTORNEY, OR YOUR PARENTS DO, CONTACT THEM.  IF YOU DON'T, THE DCBAR HAS PRO BONO (free) HELP FOR PEOPLE WITH LEGAL QUESTIONS. YOU CANNOT BE BULLIED INTO DELIVERING ANY TESTIMONY OR GIVING ANY STATEMENT THAT ISNT TRUTHFUL.

Jesus, GYHP. I don't know where you practice, and I already admitted ignorance to investigations, but you can't just fuck with witnesses to get them to tell you what you want to hear -- whatever that is. That's, at a minimum, badgering, and more likely, tampering or intimidation. "I don't recall" is a perfectly acceptable answer when it's true. And if your client is 100% completely certain of their answer? They don't recall. Depositions 101. It would look pretty ugly for GW or anyone to give the appearance of having strong-armed students into giving a story (one way or another) under penalty of dismissal. You're equating incidents that didn't stick in a person's memory as notable, or that a person didn't hear (other end of court) to perjury. Those aren't the same thing. And it would be pretty ugly for the university for it to come out that a Plaintiff was essentially barred from bringing a legitimate claim out of fear of retaliation to students, whether that person were their coach or administrator. So I'm thinking no.  

Many litigators also know - whether salt is involved, or smoked Paprika, or oregano - that not all clients litigate for the monetary damages. Unfortunately, that's how we make people whole in our country, but many well-fed and well-heeled clients are more concerned about the blemish on their public persona. They want their "name cleared." They want their reputation back, and in many cases, to be able to do business or continue to find employment in the future. What monetary value offered in settlement is (likely) going to be far less than the long-term losses so they aren't interested in settling. Enter defamation and libel litigation, complete discovery, trial. I'll grant that you point is valid regarding discoverability versus admissibility, but in places where there is no privilege, that chasm is much smaller. Settlement might be neat and tidy for the Post, but not for the Plaintiff who isn't after the most money, but rather after a public apology. They want the Kilgore figure to issue it. I could see that happening here. 

You can't unring a bell.

I was not under the impression that the Title ix complaint included each of the quotes in Kilgore's article. It's interesting that you're aware of that. I was also unaware that the former staffer mentioned by the Post was part of that Title IX inquiry. I don't see it above from the "insiders," I haven't seen it published, and Kilgore's timeline was vague. So, my question, this morning, was exactly that: how on earth does the university get the entire story from those John Does directly (not hearsay), when the only one who knows who they are is Kilgore?

It seems like a very dangerous game to play to call on former athletes, those who have graduated and have no tie to the university any longer, and ask pointed questions about specific instances. How do you threaten them? What if they don't remember? The alternative is to call a bunch of people who have no obligation to speak, and ask general questions about the worst that ever happened, but that's when plaintiff's attorneys go nuts about -- what did you call them? Witch hunts. So who is left? The current players? Oh, right. And you're going to threaten them. Fantastic. 

It doesn't matter whose "side" you're on here, even hinting to an athlete that he could be "dismissed" for not remembering "enough" (or worse, the "right" story) is horrible, horrible practice. The vindictive John Doe, who is no longer a student at GW, no longer with the program, wasn't the victim of a crime, moved on with his life, let me get this straight: he gets protection and a cushy spot (on a shittier team in a shittier city, but he could have gone elsewhere) with no liability for his words and actions, even if he lied, exaggerated, or even just remembered incorrectly.  Meanwhile CURRENT GW players, by your math, will be threatened with getting kicked out of school if they don't remember what this little prick alleged happened? What if they recall one story? What if they were with the trainer that day, but don't remember that day. What if they were taking a leak? What if another coach was speaking to them and they were paying attention? What if they were dribbling? I'm not even saying the statements weren't made right now, I'm saying that you just advocated threatening with dismissal athletes who may not have any idea about those stories, while at the SAME TIME, protecting someone who legally isn't entitled to be protected here, and will suffer no ill effects from his own statements. Something isn't right with that scenario, GYHP. I'd love to see a handful of guys ACTUALLY not have a damn clue what was said, and be "dismissed" or even threatened, because I would love to see their attorneys eviscerate the investigators, GW top brass, and whomever else essentially suborned perjury as a prerequisite to continued education.  

There is no quid pro quo for false testimony.

And I get that you are so anti-coaching staff that you think the only way the athletes may not recall is if they are lying, but I just gave you a half-dozen very plausible reasons a person may not know or recall, even if Vindictive John Doe 1 is 100% verbatim accurate in his recollection. Add to my list: humans are shitty witnesses with fallible memories. Often.  Even if JD1 (and JD2 to the extent he spoke affirmatively) and Kilgore were right, which wasn't necessarily where I was going at first, it's unethical and potentially unlawful to threaten or pressure or bully witnesses into giving statements that the witness has reason to believe may not be accurate. As my kid says: "totes nopes."

As to your statement even trying to compare W&B taking down a sitting President and WATERGATE, to this scandal by some menial sports writer (particularly in light of the decision)? I have no logical argument. just LOLZ. 

Until the investigation is over, I don't know who might have a claim against who. But I am willing to bet that the Post has already met with its attorneys on this one, because while you keep focusing on one person, I was focused on another - at least until you brought up threatening athletes. I think least one individual may have a legitimate claim, based on what we know so far.  

 PS: I'm worth far more than salt; even that bullshit pink Himilayan kind that hipsters use. I told you; you can't afford me. 

 

By: The Dude (529 posts) - 8/2/2016 10:11:14 PM

Sounds like a budding romance btwn these 2 posters, of the gwhoops.com kind.  "You may now post 2,000 more words the bride" (broken glass sounds, its a Jewish message board wedding) 

By: GYHP (8/2/2016 10:31:09 PM)

The bit about the students not having many rights was about the idea of the current players not cooperating. Big difference between not cooperating and answering I don't know or I don't recall and actually not knowing or not recalling. Someone else mentioned just saying "I don't recall." Well, if there was evidence that placed them in a position of recalling, surely they'd tell the truth. The investigators will know what student sent the complaints to the Title IX coordinator and I'm sure that that student, or students, named students that witnessed the incidents complained of.  

I don't see Lonergan, or anyone else, being deep-pocketed enough to spent years locked in litigation with the Post, no, I don't, or wanting to face the attendant horrible publicity in a fight getting a reporter to name his sources. Wanting a statement from the Post that absolutely cleared him, sure. Negotating that, absolutely. 

I haven't advocated anything. 

It seems like a very dangerous game to play to call on former athletes, those who have graduated and have no tie to the university any longer, and ask pointed questions about specific instances. 

You could say that about any former workers involved in any litigation. although it's usually the reverse, that it's risky bc of the perceived bias depending on the circumstances of them leaving (that they have an ax to grind). It works both ways. Lawyers still do it everyday. 

By: Bea (8/2/2016 10:32:07 PM)

my husband might pay him.  imagine living with this. 

By: Long Suffering Fan (4,106 posts) - 8/2/2016 10:36:45 PM

People yak-it-ti-yak a streak 
and waste your time of day, 
but Mister Ed will never speak, 
unless he has something to say... 

By: Long Suffering Fan (4,106 posts) - 8/2/2016 10:37:28 PM

People yak-it-ti-yak a streak 
and waste your time of day, 
but Mister Ed will never speak, 
unless he has something to say... 

By: Long Suffering Fan (4,106 posts) - 8/2/2016 10:37:30 PM

People yak-it-ti-yak a streak 
and waste your time of day, 
but Mister Ed will never speak, 
unless he has something to say... 

By: bobo (3,178 posts) - 8/2/2016 10:38:13 PM

Very hard to see GWU or any university to compell a student-athlete to say ANYTHING to investigators.  I'm sure they can have them meet with the investigators but they certainly can not force them to say say or remember anything.  If the player questioned says they don't recall ML or PN saying anything in particular, there's nothing the university can do about it.  I doubt they would be upset if the student-athletes suddenly got amnesia anyways.  And 4 or the 5 ananymous players are supposively transfer students anyways so there's absolutely nothing they can do about them. 

I'm sure there will be students that do recall harsh or even over the line things ML has said in his 5 years at GWU.  My guess is that there are even more player defending ML as a coach.

 

 

By: Long Suffering Fan (4,106 posts) - 8/2/2016 10:38:34 PM

Its great advice, but I didn't mean to post it 3 times.

By: The Dude (529 posts) - 8/2/2016 10:40:15 PM

I can imagine.  I can imagine the husband is a heavy drinker and invested in a set of ear plugs.  Welcome to the board though, if you really are a brand new poster and a married lady passionate fan, we're glad to have you here, this board could use fresh voices, gender related and otherwise.

By: doug sandels (783 posts) - 8/2/2016 10:52:40 PM

I hope Levinator can entice little Levinator to help him untangle the absolute traveshamamockery that is this thread for people like me.

By: Bea (8/2/2016 11:02:56 PM)

Scout's honor, Dude. He drinks enough. Not as much as I do, obviously, but...

I cheered as loudly as anyone for Professor Kasmir when he got tossed because we were getting the back end of some bad refs.     And that was many years ago now.  

 

GYHP, I don't agree with you, but I respect the effort. 

By: thinker (2,825 posts) - 8/2/2016 11:25:46 PM

ML is not going to sue the Post. No one in this case is going to sue the Post. A story like this would have been carefully vetted by the Post. I'd be willing to bet that some things might have been removed from a draft but that the Post is very comfortable about any liability for the story.

That doesn't mean everything is correct in the story because I'm sure there are errors. The Post has an infinite amount of resources to hire the very finest laywers to litigate to the ends of the earth. None of the parties to this dispute are suing the Post.

By: The Dude (529 posts) - 8/2/2016 11:28:55 PM

Life is short, short enough that heavy drinking is often required, and a marriage will take another several years off your life.  These days I feel compelled to crack a White Russian just to read GWhoops.com on some threads.  I've had enough Jack Daniels though tonight to get Nick Nolte and Mel Gibson drunk, suddenly the posts seem less painful and more entertaining.  Ah, the elixir of the Gods!

That's all I have to offer on this thread, this ML/Nero saga, as Green Day sings, "Wake me Up When September Ends"

 

 

By: Bea (8/2/2016 11:29:17 PM)

"These are not the droids you're looking for." 

By: Hoopfan78 (8/3/2016 6:55:59 AM)

florida, that quote was NOT from the individual who brought the story to the post/ESPN 

Bae, the email cited in the post article is related to the most recent title IX investigation.  The investigator will have that email and will speak to the individual it was sent to (this is 'JD1').  While not using the post article as a framework for the investigation, they will most certainly use emails and other university records and follow that where it leads them.

By: Poster (5 posts) - 8/3/2016 8:33:40 AM

Wake up;Bea DOES NOT EXIST!!! You guys are idiots.

By: Poster (5 posts) - 8/3/2016 8:33:45 AM

Wake up;Bea DOES NOT EXIST!!! You guys are idiots.

By: Poster (5 posts) - 8/3/2016 8:33:49 AM

Wake up;Bea DOES NOT EXIST!!! You guys are idiots.

By: Poster (5 posts) - 8/3/2016 8:46:20 AM

Oh I think anyone with half a brain has come to see what Bea's motives are.

Bea, ML will never sue anyone over this. First of all, people are telling the truth. Second of all, there are lots of things that haven't been made public, and I'm 99.99999% sure he will not want them to be made public.

By: Bea (8/3/2016 9:05:26 AM)

Hoop: Doesn't that mean that the individual who sent the email (JD1) is still a GW student? This goes back to my initial question: I took the article to read that JD1 was no longer with the program (had transferred), which was why I asked, in response to you saying he would cooperate 100%, whether he wanted to or had to. It seemed like an important distinction to me. 

Maybe the Post did a better job hiding identities than I thought. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 

Poster, you're totally right. I'm a mass hallucination brought on by cheap ink used to print tickets. Better not use yours this year. 

By: Bea (8/3/2016 9:24:59 AM)

Motives? Who has motives? This could be entertaining to read.

In terms of potential litigants, your'e very stuck on one person and one scenario.

 

By: Nero Stole My Boyfriend (8/3/2016 10:03:12 AM)

Bea is definitely a guy and a fake poster. 

By: Buffman (38 posts) - 8/3/2016 10:27:40 AM

Bea pops up overnight and posts all day long winded ML defenses, and as a woman no less, something this board hasn't seen in 15 years at any time.  Hmmm sure sounds like Bo Knows, the protect ML at all costs has found his latest character to create to bolster his agenda.

In the alternative, you can believe that a woman who never once posted suddenly decided to spend a few weeks endelssly posting in the summner including an entire weekend writing 10,000 words on gwhoops.com

By: Remember Fort Myer (14 posts) - 8/3/2016 11:04:31 AM

Agreed that it is getting like the MTV show "Catfish" on this Board.  A female poster would be nice, but "Bea"?  What person under age 60 would remember Aunt Bea (Andy Griffith) or Trixie (Ed Norton's wife)?  Suppose there are reruns.  And maybe I am old fashioned, but I prefer women who don't say "fuck".

By: The MV (4,915 posts) - 8/3/2016 11:15:46 AM

Levinator would need to take 5 weeks of vacation in order to attempt to recap this.

I applaud LSF and his beautiful if not coincidental tribute to the late Alan Young (Wilbur Post) who passed away earlier this year.  Unlike the vast majority of this thread, that was painless to read.

Oh, are some of you just coming around to the notion that Bea may not be a unique individual posting here for the first time?  You are very late to the party but you are to be acknowledged nevertheless.  What I find humorous is the simplistic logic that goes into trying to figure out who is who around here.  Buffman thinks "she" sure sounds like Bo Knows due to the pro-ML stance.  My advice, which is merely a guess, is to abandon that logic.  Because if someone wants to fuck with you, they are going to be someone with a different persona/different viewpoints who wants you to think that Bo is behind this.  I think the better way to go is to notice writing styles and use of phrases.  For example, Bea recently invoked "Sherlock Holmes" into one of "her" posts.  Enter gwhoops.com Sherlock Holmes into google and you'll see which other poster also invoked "Sherock Holmes" into one of his posts.  Hint:  It's the same poster who claimed to be gone all day at a conference in Baltimore the very same day (or within a day) that Bea started posting here almost non-stop.  I know, I know,  nothing more than a coincidence.

By: Bea (8/3/2016 11:40:25 AM)

RFM, I give as good as I get, so join the dogpile, it looks dandy. But I think you personally may have just fucking shattered a long-held view of one of my favorite former bosses, who used to use an expression about his "Aunt Bea." I assumed she was real, his literal aunt. Your response leads me to believe he was quoting a fucking black and white television show so nauseating and saccharine that even Nick at Night stopped running it, because it was too boring. That's really sad.  Until this moment, I had no reason to question whether his "Aunt Bea" existed. (how's that for coming full circle?) The SN is one I use often, a nod to that mentor. 

 Trixie is a reference to a post above. Scroll. 

Regarding the use of the word "fuck," and the general use of sentence enhancers, you can't have it both ways: either you think I'm a man (LOL), and you'll rescind the sexist remark and I can say what I want, or you think I'm a woman, in which case you'll STFU about me being a man. Which is it? 

You'd think the "long-winded" would be proof-positive that I'm a woman, but maybe some of you haven't had much interaction with actual women in your lives? Zing.

We aren't known for our brevity.

I'm telling you, guys. It's the ink. It's toxic, a hallucinogen, and every time you touch your tickets, you're just getting crazier. Poster was right.  Cue the horror-movie music. A good solution would be putting your (already-purchased) tickets in a giant envelope, and sending them to a kid who would enjoy them. Because let's face it, any "fan" more concerned with the sex chromosomes of an anonymous message board poster (and her verbosity - common trait in the legal profession) than the future of his team during a tumultuous time really should take the season to reevaluate his loyalty to the program in general. That is true for both "Team Lonergan" and "Team John Doe," BTW. I'm not afraid of a little ink poisoning, or of myself, or maybe it just affects Y chromosomes, so I'll be there, as promised, as usual.  

 Bo, to you personally, I'm sorry. At first it was funny, but now it's getting less so. Who you are doesn't matter to me. Safe travels.  

Now. There are questions - actual, substantive questions - pending.  Ad hominem attacks are adorable, and food fights are super fun, but I asked: doesn't Hoop's point about the email suggest that the student (JD1) is a current student? Because if not, then of course he may want to be involved, but much like graduates, I don't see how he can be forced. It was a sincere question. 

Where am I at now? 11,000?

By: Rich Maier (17 posts) - 8/3/2016 11:50:51 AM

MV, you're hitting on all cylinders. Trust but verify. So I can attest to your research skills. Coincidence maybe but I'm not buying it either. Fits the profile.

By: Bea (8/3/2016 11:51:30 AM)

MV: I would have said "Nancy Drew," but I didn't think it would translate. 

This has gone from baffling to offensive to amusing. If I weren't certain of who I am, I'd actually be beginning to question it myself.

By: Harold (28 posts) - 8/3/2016 12:00:30 PM

Bea, one thing to recall about The MV.  He is a very dumb person, and has the unfortunate mixture of not being aware how dumb he is, in fact, he thinks he is smart.  It yields great comic theater on this website.

By: Poster (5 posts) - 8/3/2016 12:04:26 PM

I highly doubt the person who went to Nero, then Muhammed, will not participate in the investigation, whether current or former student.

By: The MV (4,915 posts) - 8/3/2016 12:14:00 PM

Well, The Bea, in retrospect you probabaly should have gone with Nancy Drew as it would have a shot a hole in my theory.  But of course, you didn't.  FWIW, I'm reasonably certain that your identities don't stop at just these two.  In fact, well before the current story broke, I had The Dude pegged as one of our regular posters.  I'll opt to keep that one to myself.  But I must say that it must be exhausting posting so many times under so many names.  I guess you are taking it as a personal challenge to keep it all straight.  This is why I'm glad to post only under one name.  So much simpler not having to have to worry about which of my multiple personas said what to whom.

 

By: Florida Colonial (562 posts) - 8/3/2016 12:17:45 PM

The best part of the getting to know Adam Mitola video is when he is  asked if his brother inflluenced his decision to come to GW. His answer was "yeh he told me what the coaching staff was like". Very ironic considering this 700 long thread.

By: Nero Stole My Boyfriend (8/3/2016 12:21:07 PM)

Bea's writing style is very similar to The Dude's. Remember when The Dude suddenly appeared out of nowhere with the bloviating posts? Now Bea suddenly arrives with similar drivel. 

By: GYHP (8/3/2016 12:54:56 PM)

Because if not, then of course he may want to be involved, but much like graduates, I don't see how he can be forced. It was a sincere question. 

--

I'm legitimately confused by the question. 

No one can be "forced" to cooperate with the investigation. People can be heavily leaned upon to cooperate with the investigation. And a current player that reported all of these concerns and asked for a Title IX investigation, and cooperated with the Post and then decided not to cooperate with a formal University investigation -- that person's credibility would be called into great question, which likely would lead to some kind of student court session or something like that. I'm sure that there is some type of regulation calling on students to be truthful during any University investigation and if you don't think student courts are capable of those types of rulings that issue real punishment, check out the Yale and Baylor cases. They are real, and they have broad and sweeping powers to issue punishmens (for better or worse).

The player who sent the email easily could have transferred post-email or been in the process of transferring and still a student when he sent it.

I guess I'm unclear as to why Bea's theory is that a player motivated enough to send an email knowing he was transferring and telling a couple of media outlets his motivation was to protect the current guys and prevent it from happening in the future, wouldn't cooperate now with a university investigation into what he thought was very important. And even if he wouldn't let himself be interviewed, all of his GW emails would be made available to the investigators.  

By: Nero Stole My Boyfriend (8/3/2016 1:07:02 PM)

GYHP is another fake poster who suddely showed up at the same time as Bea and continues to blow a lot of boring, self aggandizing hot air.  

By: Bea (8/3/2016 1:12:59 PM)

GYHP, You just answered my question. I was trying to piece together how witness/interview lists would be compiled. I can see JD1 wanting to speak, but I was asking procedural questions, or trying to. I'm now very clear about all of it. 

Thank you. 

 

Regarding my existence, it shouldn't matter, but at least it's become amusing. Why has no one made the same claims of the others, like "Nero Boyfriend," or GYHP (who knows far more about the nuts and bolts of this board than I do, and I read it for several days before jumping in)? I hope when you've either decided I've taken enough, or proved that I'm not the alternate personality of a man, that you'll at least recognize I've been a pretty good sport throughout the To Bea or Not To Bea crap.

It's a long time until the thick of the conference schedule: you can be cruel and foolish in the name of conspiracy; you can let it go; or you find a safe, acceptable way for me to prove my existence.  It's up to you. I'll wait. 

One vote for Let it go.

 

By: The Dude (529 posts) - 8/3/2016 1:19:14 PM

Zero interest in the ML saga until the truth and finality of it is revealed.  

Mailvan not only as many have noted you are too dumb to try to play the sleuth, its YOU who is the king of BLOVIATION.  Could well be you, you pathetic, bored, lazy minded clown of a Mailman, no offense to postal employees, or clowns.

I have more respect for a Postal employee who goes Postal, than you Mailvan, you are hands down the worst poster here, easily the dumbest.

By: GW69 (8/3/2016 2:09:47 PM)

I think it's clear by now that Bea is a fake.He or she,however ,

would like to continue her nonsense. It's time for me to take advice

I've often given; If you don't like the program turn the station------ an

oldie but a goodie.

By: The MV (4,915 posts) - 8/3/2016 2:26:14 PM

Many?  Really?

I've had enough of this.  You are just a sick fuck with some serious mental health issues that I probably shouldn't be poking fun at.  Stop ruining this board.  ALL of you.
 

By: Remember Fort Myer (14 posts) - 8/3/2016 2:52:48 PM

Bea:  Don't you think this 'tit for tat' warrants a separate thread? I don't have the authority to start one.

And I don't object to anyone's right to use graphic language, regardless of chromosomes; it is just not my preference. Besides "fuck" is so overused.  As would Aunt Bea, I am trying out "dang".

p.s.  "I Stole Nero's Boyfriend" is pretty dang funny.

 

 

By: Bea (8/3/2016 3:33:19 PM)

GW69, That I'm "fake" is a pretty surprising assessment from someone who alleged to have been a psychologist for 30+ years. 

MV, Could you hurry up that sleuthing, please, so this could be put to rest? You say it's "ruining" the board, then hustle. I can't keep straight who thinks I'm who (because I can't be everyone's second persona...), but you thought you had it and someone backed you up. You're so wrong it should be hilarious, so let's get the show on the road. i won't expect an apology, but maybe you can help me understand a moving screen better as a sign of goodwill; they still confuse me.

Anyone else, look. I survived middle school as a girl.  By contrast, this is nothing.  If any of you have any suggestions for how I can safely verify my existence, play along, "earn my stripes," and fade into the group, please share. I won't tolerate my real life, my family's real life, my job, etc., being disrupted, but anything else (safe) I'll consider. I can handle my ideas and questions being called stupid; I've said I want to learn and debate. But what I don't want is to be called stupid as a person, because you assume that I am not an actual person. 

If there is one thing I took from middle school? Backing down from bullies is the worst thing you can do. So you tell me, gentlemen: I don't see GYHP, or the oh so tastefully-named "Nero Boyfriend"-guy, or "Poster" or the other "new" posters you were rioting about standing up, willing to be vetted and eventually accepted. I'm the only one still standing, being a good sport, being called out persistently, taking it on the chin. But rather than that being to my credit, it's viewed by most as more evidence that I'm not real. That doesn't even make sense. So here I am saying: tell me what to do so that this stops.

Because can't have it both ways.

You can't say pretty terrible things to me and about me based on this idea that I don't exist (or that I exist but I'm an Internet troll), but give me no opportunity to prove that I do exist, and I'm not an Internet troll. And that's particularly troubling in light of the fact that from what I read, no one else has had to be vetted to this degree. And yet.

Tell me what to do. I'll wait. 

By: Bigfan (2,829 posts) - 8/3/2016 3:41:45 PM

1) Not saying at all that Bea is other than Bea. And in any case, she has a right to post. Let Bea be Bea.

 And as a humorous aside: at this point, wouldn't we be even happy to have a fake female poster on the board?

It's like a bad men's life sentence prison wing, with less thoughtful debate.

2)  Please lobotomize me before I turn to this thread again.

 

 

By: Poster (5 posts) - 8/3/2016 3:53:47 PM

Bea you are an internet troll. Stop the blathering. 

By: Poster (5 posts) - 8/3/2016 3:56:34 PM

I truly have no idea what Bea is talking about

By: Remember Fort Myer (14 posts) - 8/3/2016 4:09:40 PM

Bea, there should be no higher standard for you, but since you asked,

1)  What all us pervs would like is neck down photo of you in a dress, but seriously, since you said somewhere that you go to most games,

2)  A photo of your season ticket renewal form with identifying details removed.

By: Nero Stole MY Boyfriend (8/3/2016 4:22:34 PM)

Great suggestions by Remember Fort Myer for "Bea".

I would also add that "Bea" limits (his) posts to 140 characters max or better yet stop posting in general. Who needs a sleeping pill when you have "Bea's" posts to read? 

By: Bea (8/3/2016 4:26:53 PM)

 2) is doable. I just checked; I don't have it at work, so it's either at home or my husband has it, but I will make sure to get a photo and figure out how to post it today.  That really doesn't prove anything about the past though, although I keep a lot of old tickets for sentimental value, so I can photograph those too? 

1) that is definitely not doable, the husband mentioned above would not approve, but I trust you're kidding. I do follow a handful of you on Twitter, even those I'm not friends with in reality (or on Facebook). 

Does that work?

By: Remember Fort Myer (14 posts) - 8/3/2016 4:35:55 PM

Bea, you are being such a good sport, above and beyond the call of duty, that you should not even bother.  Personally I feel horrible for even encouraging you.

"Good sport" - sounds like a prep school term.  Sort of like "she was a 'keen' squash player". 

By: chrisw (399 posts) - 8/3/2016 4:39:30 PM

Finally there's something that I feel willing to deal with on this armageddon of a thread!

Bea, a screen is when an offensive player stands still in an area of the court, allowing a teammate to use him/her as a wall to stop the defensive cover on them. The screener must not move his/her feet, staying in their position.

A moving screen is when the screener moves their feet in order to move into the path of the defender. If the screener is unable to block the defender, any movement is not a foul. And this is the part I don't quite get, by rights the defender running into the stationary screener SHOULD be penalized for charging, but usually they aren't. (Any errors to this post should be handled by the coaches, players and BB experts on the board...I have to admit that when it comes to the rules, I'm better with Baseball and Football).

Hope I contributed to this wonderful thread, and I hope Bea sticks around. She smells good.

 

By: Poster (5 posts) - 8/3/2016 4:41:07 PM

This Bea stuff is getting really weird.

By: Bea (8/3/2016 4:52:01 PM)

I can't figure out how to post a photograph. 

It's not the ticket renewal yet, and it's definitely not the neck down, but I think it'll suffice until I get home. I didn't get much done here today. You're stunned, I know. Gimme a minute.

Chrisw, I'm going to screen shot that.  Thank you; that is a far better explanation than most people give. Half of the time, I think they don't know... sincerely, thank you. 

 

 

By: GW 03 (92 posts) - 8/3/2016 5:04:20 PM

The MV, stop it guy, you really are the worst.  

As for Bea, welcome to the website, do not let an asshole like The MV dissuade you from posting here, most of us are not at all like that guy.

Welcome and post away, nice to have a lady among us.

By: Bo Knows (705 posts) - 8/3/2016 5:15:18 PM

I have to laugh. Haven't been able to post since Monday am until now and will have limited access to do so regularly in the next few days.

Somehow this thread keeps going and going without me - I think more than 100 posts since I last posted. I am not even going back to read them all. Guys/Girls keep claiming this thread is a trainwreck but keep posting nonetheless.

So GW69 your thoughts on the psychology of all of this?

Any new information on the investigation or are we at the same place we left it on Monday? I have no new information.

By: Poster (5 posts) - 8/3/2016 5:17:49 PM

Grrrrr. posting photos is not intuitive. How do I do it?

By: The MV (4,915 posts) - 8/3/2016 5:24:55 PM

Agree GW03 that you probably are nothing like me.  For starters, I'm going to guess that I am far less gullible than you are.

But that's fine..you go have fun with Bea.

By: Bea (8/3/2016 5:50:07 PM)

Oh, MV. don't be like that. There's plenty of bandwidth to share.

Ok I set up a Twitter account to get the photos up faster and I made my husband fax the form. That's dedication. If you somehow figure out who I am, keep it to yourself. Here is the letter with two seats (we do coordinate with others), with our ID info blocked off by stuff that proves I'm probably not a dude, and then my GW ID, bar card, etc., with personal info obscured. I even went to alumni weekend a few times. Now, can we PLEASE please let this go? Please? 

https://twitter.com/bea_gw_20052/status/760952684824432641

https://twitter.com/bea_gw_20052/status/760954271202471936

By: Poster (5 posts) - 8/3/2016 8:58:41 PM

Doesnt prove a thing. What a load of ----p.

By: Poster (5 posts) - 8/3/2016 8:58:59 PM

Doesnt prove a thing. What a load of ----p.

By: Bea (8/3/2016 9:21:40 PM)

What is ----p? I can't think of any word that has five letters and ends in "p."

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 

Poster, where are your GW ID and ticket renewal form?

We'll wait.

Anyone else need more proof? We can play a giant game of You Show Me Yours, and I'll Show You Mine, GW bona fides edition. Like GWopology, only with higher stakes.

You first, Poster. We're just dying to see your face with a coin over it. 

 

By: Poster (5 posts) - 8/3/2016 9:27:35 PM

You seem bent out of shape--Gotya "Bea".or whoever you are.

By: Bea (8/3/2016 9:36:10 PM)

Does that mean you won't be posting your own evidence?

By: Dootie Bubble (1,850 posts) - 8/4/2016 5:18:34 AM

By: GW69 (8/4/2016 7:56:10 AM)

Bo Knows --I'm not trying to be cute or obtuse,but this whole thread

reminds me of a quote from Carl Jung--"underneath neurotic suffering

is real suffering".The neurotic suffering on this thread is the cacophony 

of competing positions on ML and PN and the sleuthing going on around

Identity. The real suffering is accepting the reality that no matter what the outcome  this situation is just very,very sad.

By: GW69 (8/4/2016 7:56:11 AM)

Bo Knows --I'm not trying to be cute or obtuse,but this whole thread

reminds me of a quote from Carl Jung--"underneath neurotic suffering

is real suffering".The neurotic suffering on this thread is the cacophony 

of competing positions on ML and PN and the sleuthing going on around

Identity. The real suffering is accepting the reality that no matter what the outcome  this situation is just very,very sad.

By: Bo Knows (705 posts) - 8/4/2016 11:44:08 AM

GW69 - I agree for the most part. Nobody escapes unscathed here no matter the truth. I guess this is largely a competition to see if humpty dumpty can be put back together again. I am hoping it can and it would be best for all if the Post article were completely false - so my first position is to see what supports that thesis. If that fails then we are probably at the point where depending on the what can be demonstrated, either ML, PN or both might be in huge trouble. No one should be rooting for that. If ML goes this program that we all purport to love will be devastated for years to come. Look at how long it has taken Rutgers to recover - oh that's right it still hasn't recovered yet. Everyone should say a prayer that this is some big misunderstanding and there is a resolution short of any personnel changes because as the old adage goes if we don't hang together we will all hang separately.

By: GW69 (8/4/2016 12:14:35 PM)

Bo Knows---from your mouth to Gods ear.Something like that.

By: thinker (2,825 posts) - 8/4/2016 12:41:36 PM

1) The chances that all of this is false is close to 0% The truth will be somewhere within the giant middle in between of it's nothing and it's the apocolypse. 

2) GW is going to have a tough task to try and reach a reasonably happy result from all of this.

3) A big part of the problem is that it's really centered around employer/employee issues -- not basketball.

4) The most hopeful thought that I've had is that IF ML can remain at GW, then I think the basketball part can recover quickly. I think in the situations where there have been complaints about the coaches treatment of players, if the coach stays -- what happens to all of the unhappy players on the team still? 

Here we have SEVEN players who are completely new to the team so obviosuly there wouldn't be any hard feelings there. Also I have to imagine that Cavanaugh, Sina, and Yuta don't have a significant issue so that only leaves Roland and Goss as the only players who might need some mending of fences IF they had a problem with ML.

So if ML can stay then I think things get back to normal pretty quickly.

By: Bo Knows (705 posts) - 8/4/2016 1:15:36 PM

Thinker when I said false I primarily meant the PN statements. Because to me if you take those out of the equation then most likely there isn't much there other than ML is a tough demanding coach who is like most coaches. 

By: Bea (8/4/2016 8:05:25 PM)

Thinker, concurred in full. Cheers.

 

Have there been other modern situations of this type or magnitude, where no battery was alleged? How did they end? 

How long do these investigations usually take? 

By: herve (9,159 posts) - 8/4/2016 9:00:01 PM

 Thread Stats

1. bo knows: 15% (111)

2. poster: 6.9% (51)

3. bea: 5.9% (44)

4. hoopfan78: 5.8% (43)

5. gyhp: 5.3% (39)

6. the dude: 4.6% (34)

7. ziik: 4.3% (32)

8. thinker: 4.2% (31)

9. the mv: 3.9% (29)

10. bballfan: 3.5% (26)

By: thinker (2,825 posts) - 8/4/2016 11:06:56 PM

How long does it take?

I think most investigations are of more complicated things like:

- Louisville and the hookers/strippers

- Baylor and response to reports of sexual assault

- UNC and academic fraud

As I've continued to reflect on this I've changed my mind a bit about what might be going on, I think that GW MIGHT actually already know MOSTLY what was said or not. So then, to me the investigation is more for political reasons than anything else. I don't know what their political goal is but the investigation is more likely designed to help them do what they already wanted to do.

So if they wanted to fire ML, then they'd try to use the investigation to do that or to force a better settlement from him.

If they wanted to keep ML then they'd use the investigation to show everyone that they had been very thorough and they were comfortable with ML staying.

Maybe the investigation turns up something they weren't expecting that could shift things.

Overall though this couldn't take that long because you have a pretty limited number of witnesses - basically all the players from the timeframe they're looking at and all the staff. What's that? 20 players and 10-15 staff? Then presumably you interview ML and that's the most complicated one. But once you do those interviews, there's not much else you can do except maybe doing a shorter second round of interviews to collaborate what other witnesses said or clarify something. Then you just compile that and turn it into some type of narrative -- and that doesn't necessarily take that long either.

Then you add some conclusion of sorts -- along the lines of we believe this constitutes a violation of X, Y, or Z rule, law, procedure, standard or not or whatever.

I would imagine that they'd try to talk to the key people before the Japan trip otherwise everything gets set back for at least two full weeks. 

So guesstimating - interviews of everybody before Japan trip, then draft report during trip, then possibly final interviews, confirming, clarifying, collaborating with witnesses upon return. Then a week or two to finalize report and then delivery of report to GW first/second week of September?

By: thinker (2,825 posts) - 8/5/2016 12:41:55 AM

As I continue to ponder this question I'll add:

It also depends on the scope of the investigation. If it's something like "what did ML say regarding PN during the 2015-16 season," then you have fewer witnesses to question and everything is simpler. Presumably the investigation is mostly about ML/PN because most of the allegations are Title IX things.

When they seek to talk to players, do they try to do that in person? Generally these kinds of things they do really want to talk in person. What about Garino and Larsen, for instance? Where are they right now? Are they even able to speak right now (Garino in Rio)? If some witness in unavailable for awhile, do they wait or move on without that witness?

If the investigation has a fairly narrow scope like JUST ML/PN things in 2015-16 then I think my estimate in the previous post is a reasonable projection.

By: The Dude (529 posts) - 8/5/2016 1:42:19 AM

Love the thread stats Herve. Shocked I've posted 34x, errrr make that 35, although at least its not been 111 posts on a single thread.  Like I said Doc 69, you could make a fortunate if you actually were paid for gwhoops.com pyschotherapy. Hell, you might have 2 more clients in ML and PN

By: Bo Knows (705 posts) - 8/5/2016 9:21:35 AM

Due when you add the 3 or 4 names you posted under together well you've exceeded 111 for sure. Sorry.

By: Bo Knows (705 posts) - 8/5/2016 9:22:26 AM

Dude

By: SHOFAZ+1 (71 posts) - 8/5/2016 9:32:54 AM

 

111 in one thread?!! 

please demystify this for me - what do you do for living? 

if you're retired and you hang out DMV basketball courts imagining ML is your friend, that's fine, you get a pass on 10 of those 111. Please don't tell me you have a job and having imaginary friends in the DMV bball circles and posting 111 times on one thread is your hoby, because I don't want to know what the job is. 

If you're unemployed and hanging around DMV basketball circles is your "job" then please tell us how are you affiliated with GW? are you an alum? took one class over the summer in the 60s? 

if, on top of all this,  you have a diagnosis which i have zero doubts that you do, please let us know (even in vague terms) what it is. 

 

 

By: Buffman (38 posts) - 8/5/2016 10:27:37 AM

post of the decade on gwhoops.com from Shofaz...post of the decade

So, Bo Knows, what's the answers to those Qs??

By: Bo Knows (705 posts) - 8/5/2016 11:02:45 AM

I am studying for an advanced degree in bullshit detection. I get practice credit hours here from reading the posts of Dude, Buffman, Shofaz+1 et. al. My 111 posts are designed as an experiment to see how much bullshit I can elicit from these folks. Thanks for participating.

By: Poster (5 posts) - 8/5/2016 12:41:27 PM

Wow, that's a pathetic use of one's short time on this earth Bo Knows.  Its also a waste of everyone else's time. the bullshitter is you

By: Tennessee Colonial (1,179 posts) - 8/5/2016 2:55:26 PM

Herve? Don't I have 1 or 2? This thread is amazing, and I don't recognize most of the posters. Bob, did Mike ever fully recovere from his injury that kept him out of the lineup in 1970?  Strange twist of fate that GU won only a few (3?)  games in '71-'72 then shot up.  The mess will clear up. Heck, if Syracuse and Louisville can go through some kind of mess every other year,  we look good compared to them. And the Russians? Cheaters win.

By: bobo (3,178 posts) - 8/5/2016 3:09:19 PM

To Thinker's timing post, the Col of Charleston started an investigation on alleged verbal abuse by head coach Doug Wojcik in the beginning of June 2014.  They interviewed 50 people including both players, staff, boosters and the coach and came out with a reporet June 26.  July 3 they suspended Wojcik and required him to get councilling.  Apparently the AD wanted him fired but the school president didn't want to fire him, thus the suspension. 

They must have had 2nd thoughts, started a 2nd investigation in order to dig up more dirt and force to be able to fire the coach "with cause".  They fired the coach anyways on Aug 5 "with cause".  Wojcik sued and they settled for about 1/3 of his remaining contract.  C of C hired a new coach the beginning of Sept.

So they should be done with any investigation shortly after they return from Japan and probably will know most of the info prior to the team leaving for Japan. 

I think it will be very telling whether or not ML goes with the team to Japan. If the university has information that leads them to believe that the players are in any jeapardy, they attorneys probably would try to prevent ML from leading the team abroad.  If, on the other hand, if we see ML on the trip to Japan, then I think that's a very good sign for ML's long-term tenure at GWU.

By: Poster (5 posts) - 8/5/2016 3:35:50 PM

Oh I think this is going to take awhile. Most of the 2015-2016 guys have yet to be contacted. 

By: longtime fan (91 posts) - 8/5/2016 3:45:46 PM

anyone posting 111 separate times on a single thread about an Atlantic 10 bball team is a giant loser. that is the only thing that I can determine about this thread, that bo knows is total loser with severe mental problems

By: JP (438 posts) - 8/6/2016 1:14:56 AM

Some sad loser named Bo Knows posted 111 different times on this thread alone? That is deeply disturbing. If you thought the allegations were disturbing, at least something has trumped them.  111 posts, exceptionally pathetic is right

By: Bo Knows (705 posts) - 8/6/2016 9:34:56 AM

What is disturbing JP is that you post under various names here saying exactly the same thing and think no one knows. You are fooling exactly no one. Keep up the tremendous work. 

 

By: Bea (8/6/2016 11:37:58 AM)

So everyone is just going to gloss over Poster's response from 3:35 yesterday, which included: "Most of the 2015-2016 guys have yet to be contacted."

Huh. You know that ... How... exactly? 

If the statement had read "Not all of the 2015-2016 guys..." well, ok; that's a fair guess, a hunch, a "monkey throwing darts." But "most" says that someone has access to "most" if not all of those people.  

What say you, Poster? 

Bobo, thank you for the seemingly-analogous timeline. You answered exactly what I was asking. 

By: Poster (5 posts) - 8/6/2016 12:18:46 PM

Bea, I say let us all kick back and let the info unfold.  I also say that everyone who thinks Bo Knows posting 120 times on one thread needs immediate medical mental health attention, Knows more about Bo Knows than Bo Knows knows

By: bobo (3,178 posts) - 8/6/2016 1:18:26 PM

Not sure why they wouldn't want to move quickly to at least interview the current players. If the university truly thought they players were in jeapardy of abuse, they'd want to move faster to get to the bottom of it and at least suspend ML as a temporary solution. 

If GW is thinkiing of firing ML, they'd want to do that soon as the practices for the season start in Oct.   You'd have to issue a report, fire the coach and then begin the search for a new coach.  Ussually when a coach gets fired for some type of abuse of his players, the school does NOT put one of his assistant coaches in charge. If they make a change they make a clean break and bring someone new in.   

By: Bballfan (8/6/2016 2:27:03 PM)

ML is going to Japan - I am certain of it. Investigation will be over soon.  Hopefully the truth will come out, but regardless of what information is actually disclosed, I believe GW will be looking for new AD. 

By: ziik (2,950 posts) - 8/6/2016 2:50:33 PM

I hope to hear that from Neil

By: Bea (8/6/2016 3:41:41 PM)

Poster, I don't know Bo, or what Bo Knows, but you know the expression:

"What Suzy says of Sally says more of Suzy than of Sally."

I notice also that you didn't answer my question. 

Bobo, that all makes really good sense.  

By: thinker (2,825 posts) - 8/6/2016 4:54:24 PM

Remember Bobo that it seems like the "investigation" refers to the stuff that is outside of the scope of Title IX stuff. The investigation is likely largely about ML/PN stuff and thus is unlikely to yield something that requires immediate action to protect the players. There most likely is a parallel second Title IX investigation as well. Who knows whether GW is trying to get both of these wrapped up at the same time or not.

I also think that if things are discovered that the school can't accept then a move will be made regardless of where we are in the cycle of the season. At a certain point things get bigger than basketball. 

By: 2cents (32 posts) - 8/6/2016 6:15:53 PM

I have to say, this is an interestingly timed tweet. I hate to add to this thread, but can't help wonder if this is related. 

https://twitter.com/coachcarm/status/762045564171190272

By: Neil (314 posts) - 8/7/2016 9:22:34 AM

ML will stay and survive. PN will be gone.

By: Skittles (178 posts) - 8/7/2016 10:46:31 AM

neil is correct. 

By: Poster (5 posts) - 8/7/2016 2:33:20 PM

By: Bea (8/7/2016 2:36:51 PM)

The painting reaction shot was me, not "Poster," I didn't know it had auto-populated someone else's name, and I was still trying to figure out how to post an image before I could stop it from going out. 

Gross. Sorry. Totally me. 

By: Willie (36 posts) - 8/7/2016 4:16:01 PM

Neil and Skittles when do you think this will be confirmed?

By: bobo (3,178 posts) - 8/7/2016 6:03:45 PM

But if the non Title IX investigation is just about PN/ML stuff, that's seem pretty straight forward and wouldn't take months to get to the bottom. They'd still want to move quickly if the they tought it was trending to removing ML. If they're going to keep ML, they could take more time.

By: RKelley (152 posts) - 8/7/2016 11:34:27 PM

​Until I see real evidence, I don't necessarily buy this. What I think happened is some yellow f'ing journalism, some dots being connected with assumptions and presumptions that are being sold as fact, and maybe some internal conflict that is fueling an internal fire that is now spilling over publicly because everyone is watching closely. I believe in ML, and I believe this school, the press and the city surrounding it are smothering the hell out of it. We just had some positive results for the first time in a decade these last few years. What a shame.

​Is anyone looking more closely at Kilgore? What does he have to say? "I have my sources, I'm not revealing them and that's that?"

By: RKelley (152 posts) - 8/7/2016 11:36:02 PM

​If it's not JoeMac, Alex Mitola or Matt Hart, I promise I won't cry.

By: RKelley (152 posts) - 8/7/2016 11:43:15 PM

And the fact that there's an investigation means nothing more than someone made an allegation or had a suspicion, or was just out to try to f' someon's day up. All of that is meaningless. If you say Sloth from The Goonies stole a Baby Ruth from Paul Jorgensen's well-stocked mini fridge, the school probably would've investigated. 

By: Levinator (1,535 posts) - 8/14/2016 7:38:52 AM

I am certain that I will never get that hour of my life back reading through this thread...but anyone who is anyone who is anyone at GWhoops- knows that I'm somewhat obligated now  to provide a Levinator Recap for guys like Dougie Fresh, steveg202, elcoachE, and Mentz - so they get all the major and vital points brought up here in this thrilling and riveting thread of GWhoops hospital.   I can't wait to waste hours of your lives making you read an hour long summary 😜

By: hungryhungrytrachtenberg (8/14/2016 8:05:08 AM)

Can we do a pre-game reception sometime where you need to use your GWHOOPS poster name(s) on your nametag?    Who is open to this?

By: Poster (5 posts) - 8/14/2016 8:09:33 AM

I can't believe the Post didn't report that GW flew to Japan and Mike was on board and he then coached the team to a victory against the Japanese NATIONAL Team. Instead Steinberg is busy writing about the Redskins missing an injured teammate and Kilgore is in Rio writing hard hitting stories about the Zika threat there and the amount of trash in the bay. Couldn't anyone at the Post write three inches or more to get the GW trip on record? Did I miss it?

By: Maine Colonial (487 posts) - 8/14/2016 8:50:56 AM

That was my brilliant post. 

By: The MV (4,915 posts) - 8/16/2016 11:26:20 AM

Sorry to disappoint those who wanted this thread to have retired with the symmetrical number of 777 posts (though 666 would perhaps have been more appropriate).  Have thought some more about the bazaar unfoldings of the past month and wanted to pass along some thoughts:

1) One way or the other, we are likely to be disappointed with the results of the investigation.  This can be interpreted multiple ways.  First, damage has been done and can not be undone regardless of who may or may not be exonerated.  Second, there is a real possibility that either Lonergan and/or Nero will lose their job.  And even if both were to keep their jobs, we would all have the working knowledge that our AD and head coach are not fond of one another to put it mildly.  Finally, I don't believe that any of us will ever receive the level of detail regarding this fiasco that we would like.  Private school, private matter.  The school will not owe students, alumni or fans any salient explanations over the investigation and what it discovered.  Therefore, I am not expecting any.

2) Not only did Mike Lonergan board that plane to Japan but so did all of his players.  The exception of course is Darnell who has nothing to do with this mess.  I do find it somewhat telling that not a single player on the current team sought a release from the program.  If ML were completely unjustified in his statements or actions, I would have thought that at least one player might have bailed.  Similarly, not a single parent refused to let their son go on the Japan trip.  Again, if ML were this monster that the Post has set him up to be, wouldn't some parent conclude that having their son travel across the globe with this monster might be a really bad idea?

3) While we have not received a verbal from a H.S. Class of 2017 recruit yet, it is interesting that at least two recruits have narrowed their list of choices with GW remaining on their final candidate lists.  What this tells me is that ML is likely sharing with families of recruits (and families of his own players) what really happened (ML's version anyway) and this version is being accepted.  Otherwise, why would any player who would ordinarily consider GW & ML do so right now?  Much easier to just cut them from the list.

4) Let's assume for argument's sake that Pat Nero did enter into an inappropriate relationship with a player and let's not even be concerned about whether this was either sexual or consensual.  Let's assume that the player willingly went to Pat's home on several occasions and that the two became friends with nothing sexual going on.  How are you feeling about this if you are Mike Lonergan?  First, it is inappropriate for any player to privately visit the home of an Athletic Director.  Second, ML takes his job very seriously and that job includes protecting and looking after his players.  He makes sure they go to class and graduate.  He helps them mature into responsible young men.  If you werre ML and you saw that your boss was acting inappropriately with one of your players, wouldn't you go ballistic?  How could you not if you cared at all about the welfare of your players?

5) Without worrying about which specific players were involved in speaking to the Post, I will say generally that my feelings about these players lie somewhere in no man's land.  They are young, young men make mistakes, and there isn't a guarantee right now that they even did make a mistake.  I am far more troubled by the former staffer who was quoted in the Post article.  That person is presumably older.  He went on to say that any player revolt was not due to lack of playing time, the symptom behind why many players transfer.  He said the players couldn't stand Lonergan, couldn't take being with him for another second.  This quote immediately resonated with me because he got way out in front by insisting that this was not the norm..disgruntled players revolting over a lack of playing time.  That gave instant credence to the whole story.  But since then...former players say it was ridiculous, current players are all in Japan, and none of the five who corroborated have been willing to identify themselves, which they clearly don't have to do but which would add some credibility to their side of the story.  If Lonergan is cleared as a result of the investigation, my sincere hope is that the identity of this former staffer is revealed.  That person, under those circumstances, should be ashamed of himself (or herself) and would certainly come off sounding like someone with an ax to grind.

6) I don't know enough about the law to comment on whether ML would have a case against the Washington Post if he were exonerated in an investigation.  What I do know is right from wrong, and fair vs. unfair.  If exonerated, the Post would have been completely unfair in its treatment of ML.  Unfortunately, small businesses are sometimes wronged by major corporations, and lack the deep financial resources to legally challenge them in court.  It sucks.  It sucks for a small business to be in the right but not be able to have their day in court.  Sadly, that is what I would also sense here from the ML camp if he is exonerated.  Too expensive to take them on patrticularly if he retains his job.  Frustrrating as hell but you simply have to bite the bullet and move on.

 

By: Poster (5 posts) - 8/16/2016 11:38:55 AM

The investigators have talked to many, many people and are still talking. ML is not surviving this. 

By: Still Here (8/16/2016 11:46:00 AM)

 If Nero had any involvement with the article, it's not crazy to think he could have found a staffer he knew to be disgruntled. He also could have implied that assistance in this field could lead to better opportunities in the future. Either way its not crazy to think the staffer just stretched a version of the truth in order to help advance their career.

By: Still Here (8/16/2016 12:00:29 PM)

There are so many people posting with 100% certainty that he is getting fired. Have people not paid attention to similar in the past? If the NCAA isn't involved, and he hasn't been fired yet. There is a probably a 20% chance, that he is fired. The university is looking at this as a PR problem and a liability problem more than anything else. The PR problem is largly weathered at this point. The liability problem is by not firing anyone are they opening themselves up to lawsuits, additionally what if this happens again?

Either way when organizations take action on these types of cases, they act swiftly. They try not spread out the news of action vs the breaking news. When organizations are just trying to weather the storm, they often say things like "we are going to conduct an investigation", and "We need to get all the facts." Also when coaches get fired on this, they are often not allowed to operate under the full capacity of their role. That isn't happening here people. It is just so humorous to me that people who claim to be "close to the investigation" know what the course of action is going to be. Update, look at the facts MV laid out... The writing is on the wall. He is probably not going anywhere.

By: Bo Knows (705 posts) - 8/16/2016 12:46:56 PM

The identity of the former staffer is well known MV. The saying in Baltimore is snitches end up in ditches ... well fortunately in college basketball terms we don't have that kind of violence but its probably fair to expect that this person will have a hard time finding another job should he want one in the future. I can tell you many in the DMV know who this is and are astounded not only at the comments but at the apparent willingness to backstab anonymously. Sad really. Do you think that any head coach would employ this person knowing that what he says/does could one day end up in the WAPO or equivalent news source? Best of all what he said was false in a general sense. Every kid did not transfer because they didn't like ML not even most kids. 

By: ziik (2,950 posts) - 8/16/2016 1:02:32 PM

Nice write up MV. 

I found the Post article repugnant. I have no idea as to Kilgore's reputation, but, the guy seems to be in  wrong business.

 

I was a working journalist for 4 years. I had a job I did not much enjoy, but, the benefits kept my ass in my seat.  I had a boss who seemed like a dope, until I was at a big time interview, and he spoke up to 'discipline" another reporter, who was throwing himself into his questions. He took the time to explain what our jobs were supposed to be: to ask questions, gather facts, and, maybe the opinions of the legal experts who were giving us their presentations. 

I have admired the Post for its investigative work in the past. But, I know they have hurt people, too. The Kilgore story was masterful only in its insinuating nature. If implied a lot, it shows a knowing intent to grind axes, and, it was destructive. It was intended to force investigations into ML, Nero, GW. and its athletics. The guy (Kilgore) clearly is waiting to do a follow up. I expect more of the same, and, it is shameful. 

By: ziik (2,950 posts) - 8/16/2016 1:02:37 PM

Nice write up MV. 

I found the Post article repugnant. I have no idea as to Kilgore's reputation, but, the guy seems to be in  wrong business.

 

I was a working journalist for 4 years. I had a job I did not much enjoy, but, the benefits kept my ass in my seat.  I had a boss who seemed like a dope, until I was at a big time interview, and he spoke up to 'discipline" another reporter, who was throwing himself into his questions. He took the time to explain what our jobs were supposed to be: to ask questions, gather facts, and, maybe the opinions of the legal experts who were giving us their presentations. 

I have admired the Post for its investigative work in the past. But, I know they have hurt people, too. The Kilgore story was masterful only in its insinuating nature. If implied a lot, it shows a knowing intent to grind axes, and, it was destructive. It was intended to force investigations into ML, Nero, GW. and its athletics. The guy (Kilgore) clearly is waiting to do a follow up. I expect more of the same, and, it is shameful. 

By: squid (1,510 posts) - 8/16/2016 1:11:53 PM

Well if we are going to anonymously post stuff, what I've heard from people who seem to know what's up is that this all old news and basically dealt with, as the Post said. So it seems to these folks that's all good.

By: Poster (5 posts) - 8/16/2016 1:14:12 PM

ML isn't going anywhere and will leave GW when he's ready to retire. He did what any ethical person should do when becoming aware one of his player's was having inappropriate contact with the AD. He reported it to the school. Sad that he had to go through hell for a year because of this. Have you ever heard of a college AD who had a major sport removed from their responsibility? Have you ever had to work directly under somebody who wasn't allowed to directly supervise you yet was still your boss? The original complaint made by a player who was asked to leave because he couldn't follow the rules (like go to class) and who followed Hobbs to UConn (yet never played another game in college) was investigated by GW and found to be untrue. This was a re-hash of that complaint with a couple more ex-players added to the complaint with crazy homo-phobic allegations (which leads me to believe PN had a part in this). Let's all hope the few idiots on this post who bought this BS will go away once the investigation is over.

By: Bo Knows (705 posts) - 8/16/2016 1:20:58 PM

Last "poster" has the story pretty much correct from what I am told.

By: squid (1,510 posts) - 8/16/2016 1:21:16 PM

Also, I concur on MV's writeup. Seems reasonable.

By: Poster (5 posts) - 8/16/2016 1:40:32 PM

I know the ivestigation will never be made public....but Bo knows and poster at 1:14 and MV etc would never, ever be able to handle what will be in it. Good luck boys.

By: Bo Knows (705 posts) - 8/16/2016 2:13:02 PM

Well the good thing is that when this is all over "poster" will desperately still be claiming "but I had sources" lol. Good luck with the future job hunting. 

By: NewGWFan (510 posts) - 8/16/2016 2:55:27 PM

I have trouble thinking any school would have let ML attend this trip if they ultimately will find him at fault.  They would have likely suspended him until the investegation exonartated him.  I have a tough time following "Poster" claims based on recent developments.  We'll know when the investegation is complete.

By: bobo (3,178 posts) - 8/16/2016 4:42:04 PM

Yes, GW could have easily suspended ML before the Japan trip pending the results of the investigation.  If GW thought based on all the evidence gathered so far that firing ML was the ultimate outcome, he would not have been on the Japan tour.

By: thinker (2,825 posts) - 8/16/2016 5:41:04 PM

MV,

I don't know what anyone said to anyone and I don't know how this all turns out, BUT I am confident that:

1) No is going to apologize or admit wrongdoing

2) No one is going to sue the Washington Post nor are they retracting anything. The crux of thier story is "these players and staffers we talked to (and are keeping their names private) said ML said these things." I'm sure their sources DID say ML said those things. The story isn't "ML said these things." ZERO % chance of suit.

3) I really don't see the relevance of what Nero did or didn't do with regards to what happens to ML. I don't think that factors in too much because whatever he did or didn't do, ML shouldn't have said the things he is alleged to have said (if in fact he said them).

4) That ML went on the Japan trip shouldn't be seen as proof that he's surviving at GW. Perhaps GW might have made themselves legally vulnerable if they suspended him. He might have been able to argue that the decision to fire him was already made before the investigation was completed and therefore was biased (or some type of argument like that).

5) If ML survuves, and I hope he does, then he is going to have to wratchet down his "intensity" going forward.

 

By: Bigfan (2,829 posts) - 8/16/2016 6:16:20 PM

MV's post is excellent. Would quibble over whether GW owes a public explanation to the fans. They sure as hell do.

Been saying since day one, when within an hour, literally several posters called for ML's head, that this Post article is slanted, biased, bullshit. It is, as Ziik noted "repugnant" and masterful repeats insinuation without any real facts.

If ML was hauled out of the Smith Center in leg irons, rather than getting past this as seems far more likely at the moment, the story is still unprofessional and unfair. Why would John Feinstein, a respected college basketball writer, go after it so hard?

Why did it take Dan Steinberg, a workhorse professional, to report anything contrary to the narrative that former players support ML? Even that was taken from Twitter. Why could or WOULDN'T Kilgore seek out any of the just-graduated players? The old maxim is there are two sides to every story. We just got one. With no context.

The transgender league, which turns out to be pink sneakers. The weird comment inserted in the story from Nero's LAWYER, a sexual harassment specialist. No context.

Because context doesn't fit the narrative.

If this is peddled by Dan Guest, as some have alleged,why would he be offered anonymity? He's already on public record with an op-ed that HE WROTE in a newspaper about his GW experience. How can the reader judge the comments? How does the reader know he was a Hobbs recruit? Was the player a starter, a deep reserve or a walk-on? What are his motivations? There are no descriptions of the ex-players and the current player (can only think of one, if indeed a "current" player exists.

In fact, would imagine the absolutely anonymous sourcing on this article violated the Washington Post's own stylebook and public pronouncement on anonymous sourcing. This type of sham reporting is why the public is so skeptical of the media, even though there are times of national security and furthering an issue, when carefully used anonymous sourcing is necessary. Lives are not at stake here, except for the person  (ML) is accused. The anonymous sourcing is totally unwarranted. Got a problem; stand up like a man and say it.

Been saying for a long time, that while it may not be libelous since ML is a public figure, it is skating on the edges of being close. Because the exemptions for libel involving a public figure are absolute malice and reckless disregard of the facts. This irresponsible reporting, totally against a father of five who has sacrificed millions to remain in a job he loves, has affected lives and maybe health, frankly including some of us.

Why wasn't there anything at all about the Nero allegations? Even the idea that someone on the basketball staff felt Nero was getting too close to a player. That seems like a purposeful omission. No reporter worth even a penny could miss this. Inspector Closeau could find it. Why was it left out of the story? Because it didn't fit the narrative. This, though not strictly criminal, is morally criminal in a newspaper, which still retains a few ounces of power as essentially a public institution of trust (or once was). It and Adam Kilgore are morally bankrupt.

Now, another piece of crap in the story was quoting Nancy Hogshead Whatever, saying absolutely and flatly ML committed sexual harassment. Interesting view from an outsider. Not may have committed sexual harassment. But did so legally. Seems like ML could sue for defamation on that one.

 Mostly want to know who the former staffer is. This is intriguing. Note former staffer, not former coach. This could be anyone, even a former student manager. But note, we had someone who had a consultant title for a year. Doesn't seem in the character of someone like Strickland, but if it was someone like him, would want to know why he left.

Why in the world would you give anonymity to a former staffer, without even saying his position? Some potential names are essentially retired. And if you are making a quote like that, you need to back it up with your name. Again, be a man (or a woman if it was an academic adviser or someone like that).

All of this is part of the missing context,which was omitted on purpose. Because the context didn't fit the narrative. This is so wrong.

Bo Knows and others seem to know the name of the former staffer. They should post it here. We need to evaluate this story and that is important.

Post that name--and anything else everyone knows and is keeping quiet.  This is very important to all of us here who love GW basketball so much.

Tell us what the Post deliberately, recklessy and disingenously omitted. Now is the time to get the real story out to those here who care the most.

By: The MV (4,915 posts) - 8/16/2016 6:17:32 PM

Thinker, were you in the habit of referring to Mike as Saint Lonergan before any of this unfolded?  He seems to have disappointed you essentially for reacting and responding in an unsaintly (yet very human) manner.  A few points:

1) I agree that there will not be a lawsuit but my reasons are financial and not out of principle.  This can't be viewed through the prism of "well, he did say that" so the Post wasn't wrong for printing it.  Remember the discussions we've had here regarding context?  By reproducing the transgender line, the Post gave its readers the distinct impression that Lonergan is homophobic and bigoted against the LGBT community.  With proper context (a player wearing pink sneakers while Jenner was in the news), we learned (assuming what we learned is the truth) Lonergan's remark was clearly a joke.  But while 50 of us now understand this, thousands do not and are potentially willing to lump Lonergan together with Mike Rice, Bob Knight, and others who have badly crossed a line.  This is called severely damaging a reputation and I would have to believe that legal retribution does exist against this.

2) You've said on a few occasions that you don't believe that Nero's actions have anything to do with this.  For the life of me, I can't comprehend that sentiment.  Again, assuming an inappropriate action involving Nero and a player, Lonergan was reacting to what was going on presumably behind his back.  Nero's actions, if true, have everything to do with what Lonergan has said on the subject.  Now, should he have brought it up individually to players?  Of course not, bad judgment on his part.  It's why I do agree with your last point.  But again, only a saint would witness what was allegedly going on and not blow a fuse over it.  How could you possibly have expected Lonergan  to "not react at all" to this?

3) Am not sure if you are attributing a remark to me which I did not say, but to be clear, in no way is Lonergan cleared of any or all wrongdoing BECAUSE he went on the Japan trip.  My comments about this had to do with the fact that no players opted not to go on the trip or have bailed on the program since this story broke.  This also does not guarantee ML's complete innocence but I do think these facts help make a case on his behalf.  Again, if he was so despicable, why would a parent allow their son to play for him, or to travel to Japan with him?

By: Poster (5 posts) - 8/16/2016 8:39:12 PM

MV,  the pink sneakers thing is untrue.  ML said the trasngender comment after a game. The player in question was not wearing pink sneakers. This has been communicated to the investigating committee. By many people.  The Nero stuff is also completely, 100 percent untrue, and made up by ML to cover his butt.  This is also being communicated to the committee.  Get a clue.    

 

 

 

 

 

By: Tim4 (821 posts) - 8/16/2016 8:57:51 PM

Man I just dipped back in here to see if there's any new info after a week and i couldn't stomach more than 3 posts. Anyone have a summary of new facts - if there are any?

By: Bea (8/16/2016 9:55:09 PM)

I found this board trying to figure out who the staffer was. 

I don't think it was Strickland. He has a much less colorful media history than some of the others, and his other quotes just don't seem to have that kind of vitriol. Plus, he was interviewed only a few weeks before the story broke, by Steinberg, about something else. Steinberg had to know the story was coming, and he doesn't seem to buy it. If it were him, you'd think it would have had an impact on Steinberg's willingness to work with him at that specific time.

I spent two days in a deep Internet dive of "former staffers," including former coaches. I have two guesses. One doesn't have a loyal bone in his body, and his appearance and then disappearance from the "staff" were both very conspicuous. His anonymity probably has something to do with yet ANOTHER NDA. (conjecture) Dude seems to collect them. My other guess was referred to as a "staffer" for a reason. 

I don't know either of them personally, but from what I read, neither would rank high for me in terms of credibility. 

By: ziik (2,950 posts) - 8/16/2016 10:24:04 PM

Coach Old Chubby?

By: thinker (2,825 posts) - 8/16/2016 10:33:04 PM

MV,

Do I think ML can successfully sue the Post - VERY unlikely. The legal requirements for that kind of suit are just too difficulat for him to meet. Again the Post reported what people told the Post. Could he sue the Post to get them to reveal their sources? Yes. Could he win? VERY unlikely. And suing would hurt him way more than he could possibly gain. Lots of people these days think the press has too much power to print things that hurt people's reputations - just look at all the stuff connected to the Gawker situation. But that's the system we have right now and ML doesn't really have any recourse. Fair or unfair as it may be.

Nero's actions - whatever those may have been have a lot to do with what happens to HIM but not ML - IMO. To me, IF Nero had some inappropriate relationship with a player that would not excuse ML saying the things about masterbating to videos, etc. to the players. And I'm not willing to assume that there was an inappropriate relationship. Two wrongs don't make a right kind of thing. Whatever ML's boss did doesn't excuse him saying those things to players (again I don't know what was said or done).

I don't need or expect ML to be a saint but yes I do expect him to keep his mouth shut about that kind of thing with his players because that's what professionals are expected to do. Complain all you want to your wife not the players. Complain to the GW General Counsel or Knapp or whoever but not the players. Leak it to the press or his buddies on the Junkies if you must just don't talk to the players about it.

I was making a generic comment to the board about him going to Japan not to you specifically.

By: Poster (5 posts) - 8/16/2016 10:34:09 PM

Bea--Who are you?Just complete crap.Who are you pimping for?

why are you so deep in the weeds?Feels completely inauthentic.

By: Poster (5 posts) - 8/16/2016 10:34:10 PM

Bea--Who are you?Just complete crap.Who are you pimping for?

why are you so deep in the weeds?Feels completely inauthentic.

By: Bea (8/16/2016 10:58:52 PM)

 

Poster, I've put up with your shit since Day 1. I fouled off your attacks, as long as I could, proved who I am, and then ignored you. 

But now, now I'm fucking tired of you. So here's the thing: GO FUCK YOURSELF, YOU LONELY, MISOGYNIST, LOSER. That you bawl me out personally, still, speaks to your real life. Do you feel tough? Coming at the woman JUST for being a fucking woman? That's still cool in your world? Did that work in primary school too, the last time you had friends in 3D? The men I know? It hasn't worked for them since then, but then, they have real lives and haven't behaved like this since puberty. 

GIVE IT A FUCKING REST. 

You know what, HHT? I'm in. 

I'm at fucking B&BF events. I'm at MBB receptions. I'm at non-MBB events. I'm at non-athletics events. I'm on campus at least once per week. I'll write "Bea" on my fucking name tags. Hell, I'll put it on a sign on my back. And when "Poster" doesn't show his pathetic face to me, personally, we'll see who is actually fucking tough. I'm probably 1/3 his size, and 1/2 his age, but I have TWICE the gumption. 

And that makes since, since I'm real. And Poster? Probably some Internet Troll or alter-ego in his mom's basement, pissed off that she didn't buy him enough pizza rolls. 

Poster, either put your money where your cowardly fucking mouth is, man up and show yourself at least to the extent that I did, or SHUT THE FUCK UP.

By: ziik (2,950 posts) - 8/16/2016 11:56:07 PM

Nice writing, as always, Bea. 

By: JP (438 posts) - 8/17/2016 12:19:55 AM

Thread count stats, 805 posts.  119 and counting from Bo Knows alone

By: thinker (2,825 posts) - 8/17/2016 1:40:55 AM

Bea,

I think you're an interesting new poster here that brings a fresh perspective that has and will add a lot to the board. For my part, you are very welcome here. Don't feel like you have to grab onto everything poster(s) heave at you. That seems like your basic trolling action that you are probably better off just ignoring.

Just my 2 cents

By: Bigfan (2,829 posts) - 8/17/2016 1:56:41 AM

Bea,you have the same right to post as anyone. Don' t let anyone tell you otherwise.

We only have a fragment of a story that is very important to us. A huge failing of the Washington Post.

Names,details,need to come out.

Post them if you have them.

By: Poster (5 posts) - 8/17/2016 5:53:47 AM

Bea how odd that you're at MBB events, yet in other posts you've said you don't know much about men's basketball. Didn't know who Yinka was, if I remember correctly. And not many professional classy women talk the way you do. Rather "salty", no?

By: Poster (5 posts) - 8/17/2016 7:07:22 AM

More than one 'Postter'.Obviously. "Bea": Put your big boy pants on.

Don't sweat the small stuff.

By: Poster (5 posts) - 8/17/2016 7:07:23 AM

More than one 'Postter'.Obviously. "Bea": Put your big boy pants on.

Don't sweat the small stuff.

By: JP (438 posts) - 8/17/2016 7:21:14 AM

Just throwing this out there, but I've been posting as JP on this site since the 90's.  The "JP" that's posting on the board currently isn't me.

By: Bea (8/17/2016 8:17:47 AM)

OMG.

So we know "Poster," either isn't married, or his wife/partner won't go to events with him. We can also conclude that his friends won't take him places.

We also know that he ducks every call to step up face the same abuse and scrutiny he tosses casually from his keyboard between pizza rolls. There is no way he'll show himself to me at any GW event, ever, to say any of the things he's said here to my face. For one thing, he'd have to have a Screen Name. 

And lastly, we know he didn't go to GW. His reading comprehension skills are suspect, and he confuses former players. Not only is the comparison of YD to SR potentially racist, but it's pretty obnoxious to Dare's memory. I'll read more on Darnell, but I can tell you this much: his father is alive. 

 

 

Thinker,

Your point is valid. But if you had the time (if you have the time, you're retired), you could see that literally every comment I've made, on any topic, since arriving, has been attacked by "Poster." (poster/s) Even when I took MV's (RFM's?) advice and "proved" myself - long hair, cowl neck, pumps, boobs and all - it was a problem, still. Vindicated, finally no longer believed by everyone else to be a faux name, I tried ignoring him. No dice. Most other message boards I'm on either don't have this level of immaturity or have a "block"/"hide" feature. I don't seem to have that luxury here, but I do have the right to remain. The personal attacks and accusations of "pimping" need to end. If a profanity-fueled rant gets the attention of EVERYONE, not just Poster, that he's still going (the Energizer Bunny of dickheads; posting two or three times every time, repeating his same post!) after *everything* that I say, maybe he'll stop or at least someone else will tell him to stand down also, so we can all move on. Wouldn't that be great? Yes. It would be great.

 

Even when I ignore him, he doesn't stop. Without your disapproval, he won't stop. He's like a toddler, or a Korean dictator, or Trump. 

I have to know, is this sort of thing normal around here?

 

 

You know what started it this time? I agreed that I didn't think the "staffer" was Strickland. I said I'd gone back through news articles quoting our former coaches, and "staffers," from the Hatchet and major media, and comparing quotes and CVs, I had quickly, IMHO, ruled him out. The person I think it is - not a good guy, it seems. Not shy in the media, not quiet, not new to scandal, and definitely the type to kiss and tell, or lie about it. I said I didn't know him personally, and that I was only basing my opinion on many years of news and Twitter and Bios, blogs, and even threads here. That was it. "Pimping."

I agree that the Staffer does not deserve anonymity. If I'm right, he's never wanted it before.  

By: The MV (4,915 posts) - 8/17/2016 9:54:14 AM

Bea, FWIW, I don't believe I ever asked you to prove yourself.  I also don't believe that you are a unique poster to this site.  In an earlier post, you had some familiarity with Bob Tallent but claimed to have no idea who Shawnta Rogers was.  I can look past a millenial perhaps not knowing who Shawnta was but someone who knows of Bob Tallent but not Shawnta?  Sorry Bea but that's where you dug your own grave.

That said, far be it from me to tell you to stop posting.  There are a handful of people here, maybe more than a handful, who are obviously getting their shits and giggles by posting under multiple names.  It seems infantile to me and certainly violates the spirit of how this board is supposed to work in my opinion.  It's a distinct sign of weakness, as if to say that one needs to build consensus of their points and positions so they'll invent other posters to agree with said points and positions so one looks like they're right.  Like I said, infantile is the best way I know to describe this.  But asking people to stop has only exacerbated the problem so I've jumped off that bandwagon.

 

By: Rich Maier (17 posts) - 8/17/2016 12:15:56 PM

MV +1  don't care if Bea continues to post. I don't read them anyway. 

OK Bo posts too much. HOWEVER, Bo has something to say so I read his posts knowing he is a huge ML supporter. He's provided us with info during the season. Rather have 119 Bo posts than people using second/third anonymous names.

By: Skittles (178 posts) - 8/17/2016 2:57:12 PM

Poster is just lashing out with these vague "The Investigation will end ML career...you couldn't handle what I know" comments because he knows that his buddy is DONE at GW. All these flavors and you continue to choose to be salty. Lol. 

By: The MV (4,915 posts) - 8/17/2016 3:36:26 PM

Agreed Rich.  Bo has plenty to say.  And, he presumably knows stuff that he can't or won't say here.  He does have a tendency which he has just demonstrated again where he lets on that he knows something but won't share it here.  The latest example is his statement that he knows who the former staffer was that was quoted in the Post article.  He positions this as if to suggest that this is common knowledge.  Only it isn't.  Bigfan flat out asked him to tell the board who it was.  He hasn't responded.  Bo, if you're willing to share this information, I'll apologize in advance for having suggested that you wouldn't share this information (though to be fair, you haven't yet).  However, and this is the problem I have had with Bo in the past, and I'll put this in CAPS for emphasis, THERE IS NO POINT IN LETTING THIS BOARD KNOW THAT YOU ARE AWARE OF SOMETHING THAT MANY HERE WOULD WANT TO KNOW BUT YOU CAN'T DISCUSS IT HERE.  This comes across as either attempting to pull a power play (kind of like Howard Cosell dropping celebrity names all over the place during the 1970's), a feeble attempt to let everyone know that you "really" are an insider of sorts without offering any proof of this.  Assuming you will not comment here on this, it would have been better to never mention the fact that you know who the former staffer was.

Skittles, I'm happy to give you the benefit of the doubt insofar as your knowing the complete ML/PN story as opposed to myself who is waiting to hear.  However, my inclination right now is to not feel at all celebratory should PN lose his job which is how I took your post (let's face it, proving "Poster" wrong should not be worth anyone losing their job.)  The exception of course is if PN was guilty of "trying to get ML fired" in a premeditated manner or something to this effect.  Right now, Nero is innocent until proven guilty, same as Lonergan.  I realize that what you know might be altering this a bit.

By: Bigfan (2,829 posts) - 8/17/2016 4:13:22 PM

Skittles, Bo Knows and anyone else who is making points about where this is going to go, or someone who hasn't publicly emerged. Post names and details.

Also tell us how a former player tried to sell the story elsewhere and outlets refused to carry it. That speaks volumes. But also names of former staff members and players you know. The only one who would deserve anonymity is an actual current player. If you think ML is so different from the norm, and honestly I don't, man up and say it.  Other "kids" much younger than them are fighting wars for us overseas. Standing up for what you believe in is a good lesson about being an American.

We have only a viciously unfair article on the newspaper to go on. It's not right that we know half and those who support GW basketball the most can't make an informed decision. In addition to wreaking havoc with our season tickets and recruiting, our psyches (such as they are) have been affected.

There's been enough innuendo about this story to last pretty much a basketball lifetime. We need details and context that was badly missing from the malicious article.

Come forward.

 

By: Bo Knows (705 posts) - 8/17/2016 4:14:54 PM

To be candid, I didn't see Bigfan's request but how about this MV and Bigfan, I'll tell you who it isn't according to my information ... Kevin Sutton or Matt Lisiewski. So let's exclude them from the suspects list.

By: Bigfan (2,829 posts) - 8/17/2016 4:17:35 PM

Also, in a lighter vein, another reason to provide details and end speculation: with this topic trudging toward 1,000 posts, without more real details instead of speculation, GWhoops readers are in danger of getting carpal tunnel syndrome from scrolling down.

Details, context, before our wrists are wrecked.

By: The MV (4,915 posts) - 8/17/2016 4:23:37 PM

Bo, to use your own words, 'The identity of the former staffer is well known."  Well, if that's the case, why can't you mention who it is here?  It doesn't sound like you would be revealing a well-kept secret or breaking any confidences, would you?

And, if you can't or won't let us know, why would you let on that you do know when you can't or won't tell us?  Ego stroke?

By: Rich Maier (17 posts) - 8/17/2016 4:36:23 PM

MV and Bigfan, many of us would like the names of individuals involved. Bo may have meant the name of the former staffer was 'well known' in basketbll circles. Apparently Bo and Skittles(?) don't want to devulge the names. If they did the first question is who gave you this information. 

By: Bo Knows (705 posts) - 8/17/2016 5:09:33 PM

MV, if you read carefully throughout this thread I think you would have a good idea. I'm not telling you anything you probably don't already know but because this is a sensitive matter, I am not going to list names of players or coaches referenced in that article. However, I think you can read between the lines. Sorry that's the best I can do right now.

By: Poster (5 posts) - 8/17/2016 5:18:12 PM

MV,Bo told you who it was. Look at who he said it wasn't.

By: Bigfan (2,829 posts) - 8/17/2016 6:37:18 PM

Who else left?

Coaches at least Stickland and that special consultant guy,whom I think made an appearance at Kenner this year.

And note it wasn' t specifically a coach but a staff member,though that could be  meant to be technically accurate,but throw people off.

Like to think am good reading between the lines,but this seems obtuse. Of course,personally obtuse on a good day.

Maybe identify by weight class or something,if not actual name.

Or just spit it out.

Why would they be granted anonymity or deserve it.

Especially since article doesn' t describe how they left.

Probably violates Post' s on rules on anonymous sourcing of not being used by someone with an ax to grind.

Prob best to just come out and say it.

Whoever it was for sure  doesn' t deserve anonymity.

By: Poster (5 posts) - 8/17/2016 9:33:39 PM

Most likely suspects: KH, RH, BE.

By: Poster (5 posts) - 8/17/2016 10:11:47 PM

Bigfan why would Bo mention Sutton and Lisiewski as non suspects if he wasn't pointing at ML staff meaning Strickland? I think Bo told us that's the way I read it. Don't know for 100 percent but seems to be the case. Bo dropped a hint because I don't think he wants to name names directly.

By: Playa (8/17/2016 11:30:44 PM)

Nero relationship story true, pink shoes true, bitter former player from CT true,  ML stays, Nero leaving, Kilgore from newspaper has commented as "Poster" a few times including around 5AM from Brazil on the Wichita Coach attacks refs thread. 

By: Bea (8/20/2016 12:38:06 AM)

Wait, what? 

That seems like one hell of a bombshell post.

Can you prove it? Please? Esp the part about Kilgore? I 100% believe Kilgore or another WaPo sports hack is a "Poster." It would explain how how he knows so much about sports and legal rights of reporters. It would also explain why he took umbrage with being called a hatchet-job-writing, biased, potentially-corrupt, morally-bankrupt sucker/pussy (paraphrasing).

Interesting Gregg Marshall catch. From my POV, that's the strongest argument. I'll buy that hypothesis. 

 

MV, 
Just for the record, Bob Tallent attends GW events. I've admitted that I do too. You'd have to be dead or blind not to have met him; he's very sweet. While I don't "know" him, I've met him and chatted with him many times. Maybe call him a family friend? I have no idea what caliber athlete he was. I was speaking to his character. "awwww. <3"

Also, I never said that I didn't know who Shawnta is. I said I didn't know who Darnell is. I said I didn't "know shit" about Shawnta - meaning how many kids he has, his scoring average, where he's from, where he lives now, why he didn't start on time, etc. That isn't the same thing as being "unfamiliar" with who he is. I know OF Shawnta, but we've never met, and we aren't friends. 

I hope the fact that I've met Bob, but not Shawnta isn't the crux of your indictment because it's a terrible arguement. Better make sure it's ... Redacted. (That one was for you, Kilgore, in case "Playa" is right. Give your cronies my best.) For the last time: I'm a real person. FFS, I know some of you. But don't believe me, ask Adam Kilgore and his muckraker friends.

See y'all Sunday!

By: Bigfan (2,829 posts) - 8/20/2016 1:15:51 AM

 Would like to know more on Playa's post,i,how one knoes it is Kilgire posting,more details,etc.

Being too understated in how I and some others view Kilgore' s lack of professionalism and ignorance of both sides. He should stay in Rio.

Bea,did you to A 10 tournament? Also,what is Sunday?

By: Poster (5 posts) - 8/20/2016 7:10:29 AM

This board really is a case study for any psychologist. Let's continually blame Kilgore, Nero, "disgruntled" former and CURRENT players, a former staff member, etc. etc. instead of actually facing the truth. Smh. 

Stop worrying about those who have chosen to be anonymous. It's really not anybody on this board's business who they are. They aren't anonymous to those that matter--the Post, the school, and most importantly, the investigators.

By: Long Suffering Fan (4,106 posts) - 8/20/2016 7:59:44 AM

Anonimity isn't the issue.  With few exceptions (i.e. Rich Maier), all of us hide behind fake names, but most of use use the same fake name as a means of identifying ourselves for consistency purposes...so others can hold them accountable for wrong or inflamatory information or others can praise them for astute observations or accurate information.   Some of us, under the default name of "Poster", have posted some pretty strong statements which may or may not turn out to be true.  To those persons, I would simply ask them to select a fake name (preferably something clever or entertaining but it doesn't have to be)  and stick by it so we can carry on the dialogue later.  Or to put it another way, if someone who has been coming on the board for 15 years posting as the same person states something, I am far more likely to give it creedence than someone who posts as "poster".

By: Maine Colonial (487 posts) - 8/20/2016 8:26:15 AM

I give Kilgore credit for trying to hold Coach K accountable after Rashid Sulaimon was rumored to have sexually assaulted two students while he was at Duke and after Coach K kicked him off the team. LINK That's a case where the truth never emerged, Kilgore failed to put a dent in Coach K's armor, and Rashid moved to the University of Maryland to help save Turgeon's job. GW is definitely more transparent than programs like Duke and the one across Rock Creek and I think that's a positive thing in the long run. Whatever the outside counsel discovers and whoever ends up leaving might cause a temporary setback but the truth can only help improve the athletics program over the long run.

"There are, in the body politic, economic and social, many and grave evils, and there is urgent necessity for the sternest war upon them. There should be relentless exposure of and attack upon every evil man whether politician or business man, every evil practice, whether in politics, in business, or in social life. I hail as a benefactor every writer or speaker, every man who, on the platform, or in book, magazine, or newspaper, with merciless severity makes such attack, provided always that he in his turn remembers that the attack is of use only if it is absolutely truthful."

--Theodore Roosevelt

 

By: bobo (3,178 posts) - 8/20/2016 8:31:39 AM

Exactly, LSF.  To "Poster", why even post here if you are too lazy resistent to criticism to at least take a fake name on gwhoops.com?  If it's not worth your valuable time to care, just go away.  If you care about the ML/PN situation enough to go onto a websie multiple times to "set the record straight", take the time to pick a unique handle and stick by it.  That's how people communicate to each other: we know who's speaking and those people either build or lose credibilty over time by the value they bring to the table.

So "Poster": shit or get off the pot: pick a name and stick with it or just go away.

By: Bo Knows (705 posts) - 8/20/2016 9:56:25 AM

I think he is using a consistent name "Poster" lol as in Washington Post employee. I believe for example Washingtonian magazine calls them "Posters". But in the end bullshit by any name still stinks. 

By: Poster (5 posts) - 8/20/2016 10:39:19 AM

Bo Knows, good luck on your quest for 200 posts on one single thread

By: Hoop78 (8/20/2016 11:57:00 AM)

if by "bitter former player" you are talking about the person who approached the post and ESPN you are dead wrong as he is absolutely NOT from CT

By: Bballfan (8/20/2016 1:13:54 PM)

I am sick of hearing about this former player from CT  - he had problems at UCONN too. Grown man with lawyer father who has yet to take responsibility for his own bad behavior.  Everyone had hardships in life - it's how you handle them which matters. 

By: Poster (5 posts) - 8/20/2016 1:18:19 PM

He had nothing to do with any of this

By: Bballfan (8/20/2016 1:31:35 PM)

Poster you go ahead and think that - or as you are so fond of saying - good luck with that!

 

By: GW69 (8/20/2016 3:49:24 PM)

I just got back from Sifnos an island in the 

Cyclades (Greece).Didnt run into one 

person who knows about this.Loved it!!!

I'm here now,however,So---Poster---Grow 

up.Infantile.Cant even use alias?

 

By: Bigfan (2,829 posts) - 8/20/2016 6:27:59 PM

All Kilgore did in that Sulaimon article is quote a STUDENT newspaper extensively and package it with his own opinions. No  teo-sided or any independent reporting on Coach K or anything else.

Oh wait, sounds about par for the course.

By: ziik (2,950 posts) - 8/20/2016 6:42:36 PM

Bigfan, no further need to slam the guy, he does sports investigations, so how low can he go?

By: Rock Hudson (8/20/2016 8:49:20 PM)

Been busy and haven't been able to post in awhile so here goes:

LSF, don't be so naive, Rich Maier is not a real name. It's a fake name like all the other 12 names used on this board (by 8 different people). If Rich Maier proves it's real, I will offer a sincere Ryan Lochte apology.

I don't think Gilgore is posting under the name poster. It's one of the "anonymous" sources, likely Guest who couldn't handle the academics at GW and who went running back to Hobbs only to never play another college game again. Now he's got no degree, no job and plenty of time to post. Kilgore is too busy with his job search since the Washington Post and all other print nedia are in financial dire straights. Could also be PN (no ill will intended by the Rock Hudson name).

My college friend is coming out to visit next week. He's currently working in Silicon Valley for a security firm (prior stint with NSA). For letting him stay with us, he's going to do his magic and identify some poster on this site for me. I will find out their server info (which will give me a workplace or home address), name they registered with their provider under and other gems of info. Everyone will know who Poster is soon and others I have wanted to identify (Rich Maier, Shofaz(so I can share with the Butler fans)m etc, Maybe a few ex-players and their family members will pop up.

Pissed about Darnell. So much for legacy admits. Nero didn't want to go to the NIT this past season - good thing the administration saw fit to reject his opinion on that. Nero didn't want Darnell admitted - because he was prevented from hitting on student athletes. If Georgetown can take chances on kids (and every other top 20 academic school), then why can't we? Darnell will be better off at Siena until our school does what they should have done a year ago when PN was turned in and deals with the problem.

Love the play, bonding and attitude of the guys in Japan.

Don't worry, Poster will be going away soon!

By: ziik (2,950 posts) - 8/20/2016 9:36:55 PM

If Nero has that kind of clout-to decide (even strongly argue) the NIT and veto Darnell, something else seems to be going on. No one employee ought to run the big (even not really big) GW show.

By: ziik (2,950 posts) - 8/20/2016 9:37:01 PM

If Nero has that kind of clout-to decide (even strongly argue) the NIT and veto Darnell, something else seems to be going on. No one employee ought to run the big (even not really big) GW show.

By: Bea (8/20/2016 11:40:42 PM)

Ziik, I think what Rock Hudson was saying is that Patrick may have thought initially that he had the authority to make those unilateral decisions, but it turned out that he was mistaken. I'd believe that; sounds very plausible.

Why did Patrick want to skip the NIT? Do schools actually do that? Or does this mean that as an INDIVIDUAL he didn't want to go? Because that makes sense. 

I'm confused.

To whomever asked whether I was at A-10 2016: not this year. Pesky career. I did go to every NIT game except Monmouth. After Rock exposes everyone, we could do a 2016 group photo swap. Ha ha.

As for Sunday: other GW sports begin this weekend. 

 

By: ziik (2,950 posts) - 8/21/2016 12:30:57 AM

Got it, Bea, thanks. I read too fast.

Before your time, (thought you may have read all about this stuff), a few schools turned down the NIT as beneath them, if they missed out on the NCAA. (Now, with the same guys essentionally running both shows, I doubt any school wants to alinate them. Another reason why the PN thought process seems off kilter)

Also, during pre-history, the NCAA was simply not, "all that." In 1972 or so, a great Marquette team refused to accept a crappy seeding or site, chose the NIT instead. Al McGuire could do that, few others could.

Find a way to end this string, huh? You Bea? Dude? Neil? the Other Neal? Poster? Phoney Poster?

 

By: Kilgore (8/21/2016 12:31:18 AM)

I made it all up. I have small dick.

By: ziik (2,950 posts) - 8/21/2016 12:40:16 AM

How would you know? Do you have a little brother?

By: Long Suffering Fan (4,106 posts) - 8/21/2016 8:59:15 AM

To any of the mental health professionsl who post...is it possible for a fanbase to develop PTSD as a result of off season developments?   SInce you are aware of the symptoms and clinical history, could you give us a diagnosis?  Maybe prescribe meds?

By: GW69 (8/22/2016 7:11:14 PM)

 

 

On another thread I noted that under "neurotic suffering" is real 

suffering. The "fill in the blank" nonsense that's almost all conjecture 

is the neurotic suffering,which although full of sturm and drang is

presumably, less painful than the real suffering,which COULD be a 

 

devastating blow to our program and school.

On another level,paranoia always surfaces without reality checking.

We are desperate here,but we are not privy to "real" info.

 

By: GW69 (8/22/2016 7:11:16 PM)

 

 

On another thread I noted that under "neurotic suffering" is real 

suffering. The "fill in the blank" nonsense that's almost all conjecture 

is the neurotic suffering,which although full of sturm and drang is

presumably, less painful than the real suffering,which COULD be a 

 

devastating blow to our program and school.

On another level,paranoia always surfaces without reality checking.

We are desperate here,but we are not privy to "real" info.

 

By: GW69 (8/22/2016 7:16:04 PM)

Diagnosis; Existential,Neurotic and Real Anxiety.

Great Publicity!

GW basketball players report coachs verbal and emotional abuse; many fled school

READ MORE

Top Transfers Sitting Out Next Season

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2451008-ranking-the-best-college-basketball-players-sitting-out-the-2015-16-season/page/11 (Includes Kethan Savage)

READ MORE