FB: College Conference of Illinois and Wisconsin

[emma17]

I ask this because I wonder if the victim and family didn't enter into an agreement with Wheaton College last year for this matter to be put to bed, only to now have a change of heart for some reason.

I don't get why you think that this hypothetical agreement happened so matter-of-factly.  Wheaton entering into some kind of backroom handshake deal to keep the whole thing quiet makes all of it infinitely worse, doesn't it?  Why would they (Wheaton) want to do that?  There is no upside to that play.

I'm not sure if this is a serious question but I'll answer.
1. The reason I think there is a good chance an agreement of some sort was reached last year is because the length of time that has passed beteeen the event and the charges being brought. I feel it's a more likely explanation than the idea that DuPage was just too busy to devote full resources immediately.
2. Companies and individuals all across this planet, probably since man first walked it, have looked for a cooperative resolution of matters (i.e. agreement) to avoid court involvement (several on this board can quote the scripture that applies). What you refer to in a negative way as a "backroom handshake deal" is actually how the overwhelming majority of disputes are handled. I realize this applies more often to civil cases, but rest assured agreements are made all of the time that involve assurances of privacy about events that one party or the other want to keep out of the public.

Aside from the "let's just let this be our little secret" approach to this incident being ethically distasteful (to say the least), for there to be some kind of nondisclosure agreement without any of it being legally contracted is unbelievably foolish.  I'm not saying there's no way something like what you're describing didn't happen, but I'm finding it incredibly hard to see that Wheaton wouldn't have protected itself better with a legally binding NDA.  Surely the administration there isn't that naive.

You and I will have to disagree about agreements being ethically distasteful. I see no reason why bringing this issue to criminal court makes it any more ethically tasteful.

Exactly.

You didn't read what I wrote.  In the context of this specific incident, the kind of agreement you're suggesting is pretty gross.  Not all agreements are distasteful.  But this isn't a couple of buddies figuring out how to split the check when a shared appetizer got ordered.  This would be a situation where a victim of some degree of assault is being asked to forfeit their rights in order to protect the institution from some bad pub.  That's very much not ok and I really hope that kind of thing is not business as usual at Wheaton (or anyplace for that matter).

I actually did read what you wrote, really I did. Again, we see it differently. You seem to take the position that the victim would somehow have been forced into a one-sided contract favoring the evil.
I'm asking the simple question, couldn't two or more parties have come together to work out a resolution agreeable to all sides?
Are you of the belief that all hazing or certain types of college hazing incidents should always be brought to the Public's attention and any mutual agreement between parties that prevents that is distasteful?

[lmitzel]

For me the shoulder injury is a really interesting topic. If the accuser has no record of shoulder tears pre-incident and there isn't a huge time gap between his last doctor visit and March 2016, Wheaton could really end up with a lot of egg on its face since they seem certain he hid something from them.

He would've needed to have a full physical exam done before he would've been cleared for spring football drills, which his lawyer said that he was participating in around the time of the attack. That physical would've had to have taken place after he came to college; i.e., after his alleged high-school shoulder injury. Schools are very hardcore about enforcing the requirement to have a physical taken, not just because of the pertinent NCAA bylaw:

17.1.5 Mandatory Medical Examination.

• Prior to participation in any practice, competition or out-of-season conditioning activities (or in Division I, permissible voluntary summer conditioning or individual workouts, or permissible required summer athletic activities in basketball and football), student-athletes who are beginning their initial season of eligibility and students who are trying out for a team shall be required to undergo a medical examination or evaluation administered or supervised by a physician (e.g., family physician, team physician). A nurse practitioner whose state medical licensure allows for health care practice independent of physician supervision may complete the medical examination without supervision by a physician. The examination or evaluation must be administered within six months prior to participation in any practice, competition or out-of-season conditioning activities. In following years, an updated history of the student-athlete's medical condition shall be administered by an institutional medical staff member (e.g., sports medicine staff, team physician) to determine if additional examinations (e.g., physical, cardiovascular, neurological) are required. The updated history must be administered within six months prior to the student-athlete's participation in any practice, competition or out-of-season conditioning activities for the applicable academic year. (Adopted: 1/8/07 effective 5/1/07, Revised: 8/5/08, 6/5/15, 10/29/15)
  

... but because of the insurance headache for the school that would be involved if a student-athlete suffered an injury affected by an undisclosed pre-existing medical condition.

I assumed there was some sort of policy (school or NCAA) that required a physical but I wasn't sure what the timeline was for it.

I'm actually more curious about the discrepancy regarding the alleged victim's injuries to his shoulders, because I think that that's a more tangible aspect to the difference of opinion between Wheaton's findings and the findings of local law enforcement. After all, if the alleged assailants were grabbing at the kid's clothing, while one of them (Spielman, apparently) was making sexual threats, then the alleged victim could've interpreted what his tormentors were doing to him in grabbing at his clothing as being sexual in nature, even if that wasn't the actual intent behind the grabbing.

And maybe this is why the SA didn't include attempted sexual assault as one of the charges. Given the disparity between accounts and depending on physical evidence, that aspect may have been too ambiguous.

[Warren Thompson]

Gregory Sager: I suspected Go Thunder would ignore my query, but, ever the optimist, I thought I'd try anyway ....

[wally_wabash]

I actually did read what you wrote, really I did. Again, we see it differently. You seem to take the position that the victim would somehow have been forced into a one-sided contract favoring the evil.

Because it's unheard of for assault victims to be intimidated and leveraged that way.  That sort of thing never happens, right? 

I'm asking the simple question, couldn't two or more parties have come together to work out a resolution agreeable to all sides?

Of course I do.  But there's nothing about this situation that indicates anything like that happened.  As I said previously, which you again have elected to ignore, what you're suggesting has happened doesn't make sense in this instance. 

Are you of the belief that all hazing or certain types of college hazing incidents should always be brought to the Public's attention and any mutual agreement between parties that prevents that is distasteful?

I believe assaults should be investigated and prosecuted if that's where the evidence leads.  I also believe it doesn't help to normalize assaults by labeling them as "hazing".  That word is confusing the matter. 

[AO]

Unless the athlete complained about shoulder pain I doubt the nurse or doctor would diagnose a labrum tear during a physical.  Was there  an MRI on file?   

FWIW I found another person claiming to know the victim who also said he had a pre-existing injury and thought he could get Wheaton's insurance to pay for it.   https://www.reddit.com/r/chicago/comments/712i3f/5_wheaton_college_football_players_face_felony/dn82ddp

[Gregory Sager]

An anonymous post on a Reddit thread? Wow, that's even better than DNA evidence!

[CardinalAlum]

An anonymous post on a Reddit thread? Wow, that's even better than DNA evidence!

Witnessed from the grassy knoll?

[smedindy]

Oh, Reddit, the absolute truth of the internet. The Final Boss of Truth.

[lmitzel]

Oh, Reddit, the absolute truth of the internet. The Final Boss of Truth.

Hey, you have to believe everything you read on the Internet. Abraham Lincoln said so.

[izzy stradlin]

3 botched exchanges with new Wheaton center so far.

[gryfalia]

Wheaton takes it 40-15 at Elmhurst.  A really, really hot day.

[izzy stradlin]

Wheaton takes it 40-15 at Elmhurst.  A really, really hot day.

Great win.  McWilliams looks like he is getting more comfortable/confident. 

Emotional speech by Swider post-game.

[Gregory Sager]

Illinois Wesleyan 18
North Park 0

NPU's defense played solid, bend-but-don't-break football tonight, but the offense of the Vikings did absolutely nothing, gaining only 100 yards on a night in which the Vikings were simply overmatched at the line of scrimmage on both sides of the ball.

Frank Mauigoa got knocked out of the game on the first play from scrimmage, and I certainly hope he's going to be OK. He's too valuable a weapon to lose. The Vikings got nothing going at all under Anthony DiNardo, although it certainly wasn't all his fault.

The Titans moved the ball well, but NPU made some big plays to hold down the score -- two strips and fumble recoveries, an interception, and a goal-line stand that resulted in a missed IWU field goal.

The takeaway for NPU from this game is very positive from the defensive point of view. From the offensive and special teams point of view? File under: Must Get Better.

[Mr. Ypsi]

Illinois Wesleyan 18
North Park 0

NPU's defense played solid, bend-but-don't-break football tonight, but the offense of the Vikings did absolutely nothing, gaining only 100 yards on a night in which the Vikings were simply overmatched at the line of scrimmage on both sides of the ball.

Frank Mauigoa got knocked out of the game on the first play from scrimmage, and I certainly hope he's going to be OK. He's too valuable a weapon to lose. The Vikings got nothing going at all under Anthony DiNardo, although it certainly wasn't all his fault.

The Titans moved the ball well, but NPU made some big plays to hold down the score -- two strips and fumble recoveries, an interception, and a goal-line stand that resulted in a missed IWU field goal.

The takeaway for NPU from this game is very positive from the defensive point of view. From the offensive and special teams point of view? File under: Must Get Better.

I concur with your analysis, Greg, though I would pitch it slightly differently.  The problems with your offense were definitely not primarily due to DiNardo - as you note, IWU dominated both lines, but they also dominated the coverage.  Rarely did DiNardo have an open target, and generally precious  little time to find it if he did.  The Titan defense was absolutely smothering, both line and coverage (and stopping any runner who broke thru the line).  (There's a reason NCC scored their lowest total of the season so far last week.)

As a Titan fan, the three TOs were worrisome, but I thought the TEN penalties for over 100 yards were AT LEAST as significant in making the 400+ yards of offense result in only 18 points.  That, and the missed (chip-shot) FG and two missed PATs by our first kicker: since the replacement (Tata) went 2-2, that is hopefully no longer a problem (though his leg strength is as yet untested - I think the longer of the two was only 33 yards).

We're going to have to play MUCH better next week to even stay on the field with Wheaton, much less have a chance to win.

[Gregory Sager]

Illinois Wesleyan 18
North Park 0

NPU's defense played solid, bend-but-don't-break football tonight, but the offense of the Vikings did absolutely nothing, gaining only 100 yards on a night in which the Vikings were simply overmatched at the line of scrimmage on both sides of the ball.

Frank Mauigoa got knocked out of the game on the first play from scrimmage, and I certainly hope he's going to be OK. He's too valuable a weapon to lose. The Vikings got nothing going at all under Anthony DiNardo, although it certainly wasn't all his fault.

The Titans moved the ball well, but NPU made some big plays to hold down the score -- two strips and fumble recoveries, an interception, and a goal-line stand that resulted in a missed IWU field goal.

The takeaway for NPU from this game is very positive from the defensive point of view. From the offensive and special teams point of view? File under: Must Get Better.

I concur with your analysis, Greg, though I would pitch it slightly differently.  The problems with your offense were definitely not primarily due to DiNardo - as you note, IWU dominated both lines, but they also dominated the coverage.  Rarely did DiNardo have an open target, and generally precious  little time to find it if he did.  The Titan defense was absolutely smothering, both line and coverage (and stopping any runner who broke thru the line).  (There's a reason NCC scored their lowest total of the season so far last week.)

There's plenty of blame to be placed at DiNardo's feet, Chuck. He misfired on a bunch of short and intermediate passes, typically throwing behind his receivers, in instances in which he had time to throw. Ultimately, it's unlikely that it would've made a difference, given the NPU O-line's inability to get any push at all in the trenches to establish a running game (although Mauigoa's absence was felt there, too), but DiNardo's inaccuracy kept the passing game from getting going as well.

BTW, I would be remiss if I didn't mention the fantastic game that Chaun Maiava had: 14 tackles, two for loss, a pair of sacks, a forced fumble, and a fumble recovery.