Criminal Ball Players

[Guest Jim]

I think by now we’ve all seen the assault accusations towards Trevor Bauer. Let’s say for instance they go forward with these chargers. Now bring this to college and high school….

If a player we’re to have criminal charges that he was being accused of, such as assault, domestic violence, anything of that nature, would they be aloud to play?

Is he…

Aloud to play until proven guilty

OR

Not aloud to play until proven innocent

[The Man in Blue]

I'm not sure why his volume level has anything to do with this.

[SeeingEyeDog]

OP, there's the world how we wish it was...and the world the way it really is.

Now, I'm sure if you put 50 high school principals, college/university presidents in a room representing all 50 U.S. states and asked them what their school's policies are regarding students who have been accused of/charged with crimes and whether they are permitted to compete for their schools...you're going to get 50 responses because every state handles this a bit differently.

Constitutionally (and I am a gentleman but far from a scholar and certainly not an attorney...), I'd like to think we live in a country where "innocent until proven guilty" fully guides us. No one...not someone working for minimum wage or a professional athlete should have their livelihood taken away (or be prohibited from participating in sporting events in the case of a student athlete)  because they have simply been accused or charged with a crime.

~Dawg

[Senor Azul]

From the website findlaw.com: the short answer is it depends upon the school.

Most colleges and universities hold student athletes to a written code of ethics, which typically includes disciplinary procedures. While most of the listed violations are not criminal in nature, such as disrespecting your coach or failing a class, they often include administrative penalties for criminal arrests, charges, or convictions. Unlike under criminal law, schools are free to impose certain penalties even before the case has been adjudicated.

Schools vary in how they handle criminal matters, but most schools have an extrajudicial process for addressing an alleged (or admitted) violation of the code of ethics. This may consist of an elected board with a mixture of students and administrators that hear arguments from both sides and imposes sanctions. However, the school's athletic director often decides the fate of student athletes who are accused, charged, or convicted of a crime.

University of Washington - "When a student-athlete has been arrested or charged with a violation of criminal law, the student-athlete will be placed on administrative suspension from all team activities pending further investigation. If the alleged criminal activity would constitute a misdemeanor offense, the head coach may lift the administrative suspension after obtaining the approval of the sport administrator. If the alleged criminal activity would constitute a felony, the administrative suspension may be lifted only upon authorization of the Director of Athletics." (Student-Athlete Handbook)

Lassen Community College - "If charged with a misdemeanor, a student-athlete will be automatically suspended from athletic participation by the Head Coach, pending the Assistant Director of Athletics’ investigation. Appropriate disciplinary action will be taken which may include such progressive discipline as mandated counseling sessions, ineligibility to practice, ineligibility to start in contests, sitting out contests, or continued suspension from the team." (Student Athlete Handbook)

[beerguy55]

9 hours ago, SeeingEyeDog said:

"innocent until proven guilty"

First, this is a misnomer...we are not guilty until proven guilty.   It's a convenient/easy way (or attempt anyway) to explain it in laymen terms...terms a child could understand (much like good vs evil), but it's not accurate.   If we were "innocent" until proven guilty we would never be arrested...we'd simply be given notice of our charges, and invited to the preliminary hearing/trial to defend ourselves.

Probable cause, custody, bail, holding cells, arrest procedures, resisting arrest, etc all trump "innocent until proven guilty".

 

Second, it only applies to the courts.

As such, I am free to believe and conclude that OJ is in fact guilty, criminally, of a double homicide.

This also applies to anyone who died (by whatever means) before they were brought to trial.   Technically speaking, John Wilkes Booth is "not guilty". 

So, yeah, it would be awfully hard for me as a parent to see a player/coach/umpire on the field with my child who has been accused of attempted murder or sexual assault

Likewise, we also live in countries that don't really care if you've paid your debts...convicted people are criminals, and suffer the consequences of such, long after their sentence and parole obligations are met. 

[The Man in Blue]

You are all wrong ... the correct answer is "It depends on how good the player is."

 

Careful you don't poke your self on my jaded cynicism.  😉

[aaluck]

7 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

all trump "innocent until proven guilty".

True. And I suggest it insinuates you will be proven guilty, thus lowering the burden.  I believe it should be "innocent UNLESS proven guilty".

7 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

Likewise, we also live in countries that don't really care if you've paid your debts...convicted people are criminals, and suffer the consequences of such, long after their sentence and parole obligations are met. 

I do believe this is generally true. However, I also suggest that it greatly depends on the crime committed. Although a child molseter will never get hired to do anything...should they?  Also, serving time is not necessarily paying your debt. It is just the prescribed time for rehabilitation/punishment/deterrence/incapacitation/retribution--pick your time/place in history.   

[SeeingEyeDog]

12 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

First, this is a misnomer...we are not guilty until proven guilty.   It's a convenient/easy way (or attempt anyway) to explain it in laymen terms...terms a child could understand (much like good vs evil), but it's not accurate.   If we were "innocent" until proven guilty we would never be arrested...we'd simply be given notice of our charges, and invited to the preliminary hearing/trial to defend ourselves.

Probable cause, custody, bail, holding cells, arrest procedures, resisting arrest, etc all trump "innocent until proven guilty".

 

Second, it only applies to the courts.

As such, I am free to believe and conclude that OJ is in fact guilty, criminally, of a double homicide.

This also applies to anyone who died (by whatever means) before they were brought to trial.   Technically speaking, John Wilkes Booth is "not guilty". 

So, yeah, it would be awfully hard for me as a parent to see a player/coach/umpire on the field with my child who has been accused of attempted murder or sexual assault

Likewise, we also live in countries that don't really care if you've paid your debts...convicted people are criminals, and suffer the consequences of such, long after their sentence and parole obligations are met. 

Yep, Bill Cosby...guilty.

~Dawg

[KayTup]

On 6/29/2021 at 11:39 PM, The Man in Blue said:

I'm not sure why his volume level has anything to do with this.

Nice one, clever!