|
Post by mikegarrison on Feb 4, 2020 20:45:15 GMT -5
There are always edge cases, where right and wrong are more cloudy. The Stanford sailing coach apparently took some some money, spent it directly on the sailing program, and designated two prospective applicants as "sailing recruits". Neither actually completed their application to Stanford. He pled guilty and received a $10000 fine and no prison time. Some have speculated that he might not have been convicted had he contested the case because it would have been hard to have proven that he actually harmed anyone. But he thought he did something wrong, and so did Stanford. Ferguson is alleged to have directed half the money he got to his own volleyball camp. If so, this is clearly accepting a bribe and directing it to his own private interests. I don't see how it is possible to call this "the weakest of all the cases", unless you dispute whether he actually did it. There’s always the possibility that I don’t know what I’m talking about. Me too. I guess the courts will decide the law.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Feb 5, 2020 10:25:38 GMT -5
It's a sense of entitlement. He'll go the rest of his life thinking "the rules don't apply to me." You think that a career path from USC men to Wake Forest women to Piedmont International is going to leave him thinking that rules don't apply to him? Excellent point. But, do you feel that regardless of the athletic entity he should be able to still coach? To continue to educate and motivate young people? He might have been the "weakest" of the people involved, but it was proven that he took 50k to provide false information and lie. "Everyone has a price" is a famous saying, guess his was $50,000. At worst, he committed a mild white-collar crime. He ABSOLUTELY should be allowed to still coach. How does that prevent him from being able to 'educate and motivate young people'?
|
|
|
Post by Phaedrus on Feb 5, 2020 15:18:55 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2020 18:14:17 GMT -5
This details out what I believe is the worst punishment most of these parents will face. They have basically demonstrated to their children (and all their kids' friends) that the parents had no faith in their own offspring to accomplish anything. That must be devastating to some of these kids that actually believed their parents thought highly of them. The public embarrassment for the parents who have been bragging about all the great schools their kids got admitted to while their friends are guiding their kids to appropriate schools is also good for these parents (I am cheering for prison time too though...). The real punishment will be from the kids that actually could have been admitted to top 50 schools on their own merit and have been humiliated by their parents' actions will last decades. That being said, I only think this is about 1/4 of the cases. The vast majority of cases had aware kids that were being taught how to cheat the system throughout their life. The only lesson those kids will learn is that getting caught is unfair and they will do better the next time they scam society. future politicians many will become.
|
|
|
Post by baytree on Feb 5, 2020 18:29:35 GMT -5
Excellent point. But, do you feel that regardless of the athletic entity he should be able to still coach? To continue to educate and motivate young people? He might have been the "weakest" of the people involved, but it was proven that he took 50k to provide false information and lie. "Everyone has a price" is a famous saying, guess his was $50,000. At worst, he committed a mild white-collar crime. He ABSOLUTELY should be allowed to still coach. How does that prevent him from being able to 'educate and motivate young people'? If the allegations are true, he "diverted" $50,000. How is it better that it was a white collar crime than if it was regular theft? Would you feel the same about a coach who had stolen an expensive car?
He also lied to his own school. By itself, that should give any employer serious pause bc they know he's a dishonest employee so they can't trust him. Players should wonder about his honesty with them as well. IMO this is why Vandemoer needed to leave Stanford. What he did was probably legal but it was not only unethical, it showed the administrators that he'd lie to them. (Plus it's bad for Stanford's reputation, which may be their most valuable asset.)
|
|
|
Post by colonial2415 on Feb 6, 2020 8:51:07 GMT -5
It's a sense of entitlement. He'll go the rest of his life thinking "the rules don't apply to me." You think that a career path from USC men to Wake Forest women to Piedmont International is going to leave him thinking that rules don't apply to him? Excellent point. But, do you feel that regardless of the athletic entity he should be able to still coach? To continue to educate and motivate young people? He might have been the "weakest" of the people involved, but it was proven that he took 50k to provide false information and lie. "Everyone has a price" is a famous saying, guess his was $50,000. At worst, he committed a mild white-collar crime. He ABSOLUTELY should be allowed to still coach. How does that prevent him from being able to 'educate and motivate young people'? I don't care if he is coaching a Junior High team. Guy lied to his employer about funds given to him to allow non athletes an opportunity to become students there. He is in my opinion completely unethical to coaching standards and any institution regardless of level should be concerned that he might do it again or at worse lie to them. Just because he committed a "white collar" crime, is that not still a crime? Did not affect the lives of people? Did his pockets get larger? Didn't that actress spend two weeks in jail? I'm a psychotherapist by trade, if I were to lie to my employer about money and lie to for my patients in regard to their insurance and how much I charge, I would not only lose my job, I would lose my license to practice in my state if not the country. I understand his wife coaches the women's team, but it is disgusting that this school is allowing him to continue to coach. What is stopping him from making other unethical decisions as a coach? I could care less what division or association he is coaching under.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Feb 6, 2020 10:17:26 GMT -5
At worst, he committed a mild white-collar crime. He ABSOLUTELY should be allowed to still coach. How does that prevent him from being able to 'educate and motivate young people'? If the allegations are true, he "diverted" $50,000. How is it better that it was a white collar crime than if it was regular theft? Would you feel the same about a coach who had stolen an expensive car?
He also lied to his own school. By itself, that should give any employer serious pause bc they know he's a dishonest employee so they can't trust him. Players should wonder about his honesty with them as well. IMO this is why Vandemoer needed to leave Stanford. What he did was probably legal but it was not only unethical, it showed the administrators that he'd lie to them. (Plus it's bad for Stanford's reputation, which may be their most valuable asset.)
Maybe I misunderstand the story. Didn't the person giving the money WANT to give the money? That's how it's different than stealing an expensive car. Typically people don't WANT their car to be stolen.
|
|
|
Post by turk182 on Feb 6, 2020 10:37:30 GMT -5
Colonial- you keep referring to him lying to his employer. Has it been published that he actually lied to Wake? I hadn’t heard that before?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2020 11:04:12 GMT -5
Colonial- you keep referring to him lying to his employer. Has it been published that he actually lied to Wake? I hadn’t heard that before? That is not published. It is unknown. WF received a donation to their booster club and the coach's non profit camp received a donation. I do not know this man and do not know enough details but I really think this is a weak case. I read mike's reply to my post but I contend this is going to come down to who is his judge. Go read Judge Rya Zobel's comments on the Stanford case. It is clear she believed there was NO crime. Go read her background, she is VERY well respected and has had a storied career. I cannot find the link to the federal case where you can read her own words but the LA Times gets the gyst of it. No one has defined clearly the crime this man committed that OVERCOMES Judge Zobel's decision on the Stanford case. A donation to his camp is not a "bribe". Ferguson also did not have the power to admit a student to the university only to submit her for consideration with a number of factors for Admissions to consider. Look at these factors. Plays Volleyball (TRUE, not fraudulent like other cases), Donor to WF (True), Academically desirable (TRUE she was already waitlisted). Girl actually PLAYED on WF team. This will come down to the judge. www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-college-admissions-scandal-stanford-john-vandemoer-sentenced-20190612-story.html
|
|
|
Post by turk182 on Feb 6, 2020 11:46:23 GMT -5
I understand how people have such strong opinions regarding these situations but I’ll never be able to grasp how some let the keyboard get away from them when speaking in such absolutes.
|
|
|
Post by Word on Feb 6, 2020 14:10:30 GMT -5
Colonial- you keep referring to him lying to his employer. Has it been published that he actually lied to Wake? I hadn’t heard that before? That is not published. It is unknown. WF received a donation to their booster club and the coach's non profit camp received a donation. I do not know this man and do not know enough details but I really think this is a weak case. I read mike's reply to my post but I contend this is going to come down to who is his judge. Go read Judge Rya Zobel's comments on the Stanford case. It is clear she believed there was NO crime. Go read her background, she is VERY well respected and has had a storied career. I cannot find the link to the federal case where you can read her own words but the LA Times gets the gyst of it. No one has defined clearly the crime this man committed that OVERCOMES Judge Zobel's decision on the Stanford case. A donation to his camp is not a "bribe". Ferguson also did not have the power to admit a student to the university only to submit her for consideration with a number of factors for Admissions to consider. Look at these factors. Plays Volleyball (TRUE, not fraudulent like other cases), Donor to WF (True), Academically desirable (TRUE she was already waitlisted). Girl actually PLAYED on WF team. This will come down to the judge. www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-college-admissions-scandal-stanford-john-vandemoer-sentenced-20190612-story.htmlIf all of that is true, then there's a lot of coaches that would lose their job. Countless programs take walk-on's that are slightly below level but come from families that donate to the program. If the kid/family that donated to Wake Forest was a volleyball player, who ended up walking on the team, that's not a crime. I think you would find a lot of big name coaches that have done this exact thing, most call it fundraising.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Feb 6, 2020 18:23:13 GMT -5
Colonial- you keep referring to him lying to his employer. Has it been published that he actually lied to Wake? I hadn’t heard that before? That is not published. It is unknown. WF received a donation to their booster club and the coach's non profit camp received a donation. I do not know this man and do not know enough details but I really think this is a weak case. I read mike's reply to my post but I contend this is going to come down to who is his judge. Go read Judge Rya Zobel's comments on the Stanford case. It is clear she believed there was NO crime. Go read her background, she is VERY well respected and has had a storied career. I cannot find the link to the federal case where you can read her own words but the LA Times gets the gyst of it. No one has defined clearly the crime this man committed that OVERCOMES Judge Zobel's decision on the Stanford case. A donation to his camp is not a "bribe". Ferguson also did not have the power to admit a student to the university only to submit her for consideration with a number of factors for Admissions to consider. Look at these factors. Plays Volleyball (TRUE, not fraudulent like other cases), Donor to WF (True), Academically desirable (TRUE she was already waitlisted). Girl actually PLAYED on WF team. This will come down to the judge. www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-college-admissions-scandal-stanford-john-vandemoer-sentenced-20190612-story.htmlTo me, it comes down to two things. 1) Is it normal for coaches to accept "donations to their volleyball camp" of thousands of dollars? That sure AF sounds like a money-laundered bribe, rather than something above board. 2) Did the university know when he flagged this kid as a volleyball recruit that there was a quid pro quo involved? Would he have flagged her as a volleyball recruit if not for the money?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2020 19:11:46 GMT -5
That is not published. It is unknown. WF received a donation to their booster club and the coach's non profit camp received a donation. I do not know this man and do not know enough details but I really think this is a weak case. I read mike's reply to my post but I contend this is going to come down to who is his judge. Go read Judge Rya Zobel's comments on the Stanford case. It is clear she believed there was NO crime. Go read her background, she is VERY well respected and has had a storied career. I cannot find the link to the federal case where you can read her own words but the LA Times gets the gyst of it. No one has defined clearly the crime this man committed that OVERCOMES Judge Zobel's decision on the Stanford case. A donation to his camp is not a "bribe". Ferguson also did not have the power to admit a student to the university only to submit her for consideration with a number of factors for Admissions to consider. Look at these factors. Plays Volleyball (TRUE, not fraudulent like other cases), Donor to WF (True), Academically desirable (TRUE she was already waitlisted). Girl actually PLAYED on WF team. This will come down to the judge. www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-college-admissions-scandal-stanford-john-vandemoer-sentenced-20190612-story.htmlTo me, it comes down to two things. 1) Is it normal for coaches to accept "donations to their volleyball camp" of thousands of dollars? That sure AF sounds like a money-laundered bribe, rather than something above board. 2) Did the university know when he flagged this kid as a volleyball recruit that there was a quid pro quo involved? Would he have flagged her as a volleyball recruit if not for the money? We are not in disagreement. We just do not know the answers to either of those questions. It is not money laundering if he declared the revenue on this camp income tax return (or if non profit on the non profit return). As to the suitability of accepting donations to your camp, it depends if the donation helped lower the cost of the camp for the attendees. If you read Judge Zobel's writings, she clearly does not believe there is a crime if the "victim" cannot clearly define its victimization. In the WF case, I do not see how WF was victimized under HER definition. If he told WF, that he too was getting a donation to his camp along with the Deacon's club donation I would argue he behaved exactly how he should have given the circumstances. This is just nowhere near the level of the typical case in this scandal. No exam cheating, no sport faking, kid is actually on the team, money was not laundered through the Key charity. More information required to fairly judge though -- you are correct on that.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Feb 6, 2020 20:29:14 GMT -5
I will quibble with you about what "money laundering" is. It's not tax evasion. In fact, it's almost the opposite. It's taking taking dirty money and "washing" it through some process that makes it legal, tax-paid, safe and explainable money.
|
|
|
Post by baytree on Feb 6, 2020 21:18:52 GMT -5
If the allegations are true, he "diverted" $50,000. How is it better that it was a white collar crime than if it was regular theft? Would you feel the same about a coach who had stolen an expensive car?
He also lied to his own school. By itself, that should give any employer serious pause bc they know he's a dishonest employee so they can't trust him. Players should wonder about his honesty with them as well. IMO this is why Vandemoer needed to leave Stanford. What he did was probably legal but it was not only unethical, it showed the administrators that he'd lie to them. (Plus it's bad for Stanford's reputation, which may be their most valuable asset.)
Maybe I misunderstand the story. Didn't the person giving the money WANT to give the money? That's how it's different than stealing an expensive car. Typically people don't WANT their car to be stolen. The victim isn't the person making the donation (aka bribe). It's the university, the students there, and the students who didn't get in. If Wake Forest wanted Ferguson to take that money for his camp instead of the person donating that amount to them, I agree with you. Otherwise the victim did not WANT the money to go to Ferguson.
|
|