|
|
Post by Werebeaver on Jun 8, 2017 17:48:56 GMT -8
If we assume that Pat Casey, OSU AD and Ed Ray all knew about Luke's legal situation at the time of his coming into the program.
Then they also must have considered the real possibility that this information could be made public at a time of someone else's choosing. Worst case timing scenario being considered.
And if we assume the OSU leaders were knowledgeable on the facts comfortable with Luke's legal status as a juvenile offender who has paid his legal debt to society.
Then given the above, it would have made some sense (in retrospect of course) to get out ahead of the story and have either an interview or media availability to present the facts, warts and all, with Pat Casey and Luke together laying it out and taking any questions the Oregonian/GT/RG/Baseball America/ESPN might want to ask. It wouldn't have been easy for anyone but it would have given OSU control of the story and made it clear that this wasn't being done in secret. OSU's leaders have a large reservoir of trust and goodwill within this State and it is precisely times like these when those attributes are called on.
That's all water under the bridge now. Now it is a "scoop" that appears to have taken our university leadership by surprise and has them scrambling to respond at a very inopportune time.
Which only makes their job that much harder.
|
|
bill82
Sophomore
OSU's 10,157th Best Donor
Posts: 1,012 
|
Post by bill82 on Jun 8, 2017 18:13:16 GMT -8
I don't think that would have been fair to the victim. You should not get ahead of the story without thinking of the victim. Just like the Oregonian should have done more research on victims and juvenile perps before rushing to press. IMHO
|
|
|
|
Post by spudbeaver on Jun 8, 2017 18:54:16 GMT -8
If they knew about it I'm incredibly disappointed. If they didn't know, they should boot him at once.
|
|
|
|
Post by beaverbeliever on Jun 8, 2017 19:05:16 GMT -8
Based on what, spud? If the University doesn't have a policy where someone has to disclose a past criminal conviction, how can they enforce a non-existant policy 3 years in?
|
|
|
|
Post by spudbeaver on Jun 8, 2017 20:18:23 GMT -8
Based on what, spud? If the University doesn't have a policy where someone has to disclose a past criminal conviction, how can they enforce a non-existant policy 3 years in? I'm old school. Because it's the right thing to do in my opinion. I'm not so sure there wouldn't have been those questions. It's commonplace on job applications and I can't imagine it's not on current college apps/paperwork. |
|
|
|
Post by lebaneaver on Jun 8, 2017 20:25:12 GMT -8
This whole thing.....everything about it....just makes my heart hurt, and makes me sick to my stomach.
|
|
|
|
Post by beaverbeliever on Jun 8, 2017 20:32:22 GMT -8
Based on what, spud? If the University doesn't have a policy where someone has to disclose a past criminal conviction, how can they enforce a non-existant policy 3 years in? I'm old school. Because it's the right thing to do in my opinion. I'm not so sure there wouldn't have been those questions. It's commonplace on job applications and I can't imagine it's not on current college apps/paperwork. Per the article, OSU does not ask for that anywhere in its application. |
|
|
|
Post by waldo on Jun 8, 2017 21:56:07 GMT -8
I don't think that would have been fair to the victim. You should not get ahead of the story without thinking of the victim. Just like the Oregonian should have done more research on victims and juvenile perps before rushing to press. IMHO It's not fair to the victim to give an athlete the type of platform that makes this newsworthy in the first place. That's worse than what the media has done here. If the story doesn't come out, the victim and her family still likely suffer painful reminders. I imagine it'd be pretty hard for them to watch him win a championship, get drafted, sign a 6 or 7 figure contract, etc., without receiving any backlash for his crime. The victim would've been better off if he had never been given the opportunity to achieve that level of success. |
|
|
|
Post by kersting13 on Jun 8, 2017 22:04:00 GMT -8
I don't think that would have been fair to the victim. You should not get ahead of the story without thinking of the victim. Just like the Oregonian should have done more research on victims and juvenile perps before rushing to press. IMHO It's not fair to the victim to give an athlete the type of platform that makes this newsworthy in the first place. That's worse than what the media has done here. If the story doesn't come out, the victim and her family still likely suffer painful reminders. I imagine it'd be pretty hard for them to watch him win a championship, get drafted, sign a 6 or 7 figure contract, etc., without receiving any backlash for his crime. The victim would've been better off if he had never been given the opportunity to achieve that level of success. I'm not exactly following your logic of how the victim would have been better off if Luke had been denied the opportunity to succeed. |
|
|
|
Post by obf on Jun 8, 2017 22:08:50 GMT -8
I don't think that would have been fair to the victim. You should not get ahead of the story without thinking of the victim. Just like the Oregonian should have done more research on victims and juvenile perps before rushing to press. IMHO It's not fair to the victim to give an athlete the type of platform that makes this newsworthy in the first place. That's worse than what the media has done here. If the story doesn't come out, the victim and her family still likely suffer painful reminders. I imagine it'd be pretty hard for them to watch him win a championship, get drafted, sign a 6 or 7 figure contract, etc., without receiving any backlash for his crime. The victim would've been better off if he had never been given the opportunity to achieve that level of success. I know that the money is root of all evil... but since they are relatives and this has apparently splt the family for years... Luke having some cash to pay "reparations" couldn't have made the situation worse, could it have? Well as I type of course it could, jealousy, etc... Still Luke could have chosen to use some of that money for good, to help his victim (college scholarship?) and or donate to causes that benefit victims of sex crimes, prevention and education, etc... Not anymore... Luke may very well has already thrown his last pitch of his career... |
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Jun 8, 2017 22:10:33 GMT -8
It's not fair to the victim to give an athlete the type of platform that makes this newsworthy in the first place. That's worse than what the media has done here. If the story doesn't come out, the victim and her family still likely suffer painful reminders. I imagine it'd be pretty hard for them to watch him win a championship, get drafted, sign a 6 or 7 figure contract, etc., without receiving any backlash for his crime. The victim would've been better off if he had never been given the opportunity to achieve that level of success. I'm not exactly following your logic of how the victim would have been better off if Luke had been denied the opportunity to succeed. Wow... it's not like the crime somehow enhanced Luke's opportunities or lead to his success. So, tragedy should beget more tragedy... just a never ending downward spiral?  |
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Jun 8, 2017 22:13:17 GMT -8
It's not fair to the victim to give an athlete the type of platform that makes this newsworthy in the first place. That's worse than what the media has done here. If the story doesn't come out, the victim and her family still likely suffer painful reminders. I imagine it'd be pretty hard for them to watch him win a championship, get drafted, sign a 6 or 7 figure contract, etc., without receiving any backlash for his crime. The victim would've been better off if he had never been given the opportunity to achieve that level of success. I'm not exactly following your logic of how the victim would have been better off if Luke had been denied the opportunity to succeed. I can't either. Lots of assumptions all around. |
|
|
|
Post by waldo on Jun 8, 2017 22:19:30 GMT -8
It's not fair to the victim to give an athlete the type of platform that makes this newsworthy in the first place. That's worse than what the media has done here. If the story doesn't come out, the victim and her family still likely suffer painful reminders. I imagine it'd be pretty hard for them to watch him win a championship, get drafted, sign a 6 or 7 figure contract, etc., without receiving any backlash for his crime. The victim would've been better off if he had never been given the opportunity to achieve that level of success. I'm not exactly following your logic of how the victim would have been better off if Luke had been denied the opportunity to succeed. It's pretty simple. Pretend he doesn't receive an athletic scholarship and doesn't have a career in baseball as a result. Is this even a story right now? No. Do they have to watch him receive recognition for a high level of athletic success without receiving any backlash for his crime? No. Would it be easier for the victim and her family to move on in that scenario? I'd assume so. How would you feel if a high schooler sexually assaulted a member of your family and then went on to receive a free education and play professional sports? |
|
|
|
Post by beaverbeliever on Jun 8, 2017 22:21:19 GMT -8
You're making the eye-for-an-eye argument, which is fair enough - but there are plenty of people who have dismissed that ideology over the years...
|
|
|
|
Post by rilesinnewberg on Jun 8, 2017 22:33:19 GMT -8
I'm old school. Because it's the right thing to do in my opinion. I'm not so sure there wouldn't have been those questions. It's commonplace on job applications and I can't imagine it's not on current college apps/paperwork. Per the article, OSU does not ask for that anywhere in its application. It is actually illegal to ask for criminal records on a job application in Oregon. |
|
