<p>Who says they would have been eligible to play if they were to have transferred? The NCAA has rules that would likely require them to lose a year of eligibility if they transferred.</p>
<p>That was a big issue for many of the LAX players HOPS - many had 'found' other schools - but the were not going to be able to play - or coaches could not promise play time - or positions were filled - etc..... - no matter what tho - they did loose their ability to play - and their names and faces were pretty smeared all over the media - and certainly not in a positive manner. They were harrased and essentially abused by their peers/profs - and I am sure it was not a very comfortable time for them to be on campus at all.</p>
<p>the three accused in fact transferred and are playing this season at their new schools</p>
<p>Ummm one graduated the May/June after this occured - and the other 2 lost a full semester of school over this</p>
<p>JeepMOM,</p>
<p>How do you know they were harrased by peers and profs because of the city's wrong doing? Even if the city didn't file any charge, they might still get that kind of reaction from peers just because of the accusation. The fact that a team of rich white boys hired a black escort to perform in front of them while drinking underage is enough to tick some people off. Those players were not indicted and obviously got nothing to do with any crime. I don't think we need someone smart enough to get into Duke to understand this. So to me, the profs and peers didn't like them because they despised those players' behavior. It seems to me a lot of people already complained about their past behavior and they just used this opportunity to vent their anger. Based on what I read, I am not sure if these players were innocent angels that other Duke students loved to begin with.</p>
<p>Based on my memory of the situation at the time - their pictures posted on campus on a poster - comments on this board from parties involved - how the university reacted to them in general - sure they aren't pure as the driven as far as their actions as being a LAX team - hey - they are not alone in that by any means - but it was how they were treated as a group - because of a charge that was filed was unwarrated.</p>
<p>As a Duke student, I want to clarify that the general attitude of students on campus has been far from vindictive. Most of the students have supported the laxers from the start, and especially after the case began to show its weaknesses as far back as a few months into the case. Students on campus can be seen wearing lax tshirts and wristbands, and turnout to lax games at the beginning of the season was the highest in history. Students DO show support for the laxers, who are our fellow students. Keep in mind that student groups that were vocal against the laxers at the start of the case were only going by the information made available to them, as well as all of us, by DA Nifong and the media, which were skewed heavily against the players. All people make mistakes, those that prejudged (students, faculty, and the school administration) did so on the basis of misguided information provided to them. What we need is to learn a lesson from this case and move forward, not mire it in frivolous litigation over and over again.</p>
<p>JeepMOM</p>
<p>
[quote]
Ummm one graduated the May/June after this occured - and the other 2 lost a full semester of school over this
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And they were paid a lot of money; rumor has it that it's a 30-million settlement!</p>
<p>WebCite</a> query result
4 returned for 5th year.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Most of the students have supported the laxers from the start, and especially after the case began to show its weaknesses as far back as a few months into the case.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I recall reading this too but I am sure the players are going to exaggerate the opposite--"harassment and abuse". ;)</p>
<p>
[quote]
And they were paid a lot of money; rumor has it that it's a 30-million settlement!
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well I'm pretty sure that's just a rumor that they actually got paid that kind of money. The city sure isn't going to "settle" for that amount. And Nifong declared bankrupt so he won't pay a dime! Real nice how he gets out of that one.</p>
<p>
[quote]
while drinking underage
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But underage drinking is "NO PROBLEM. That rule is stupid so high school and college students can drink if they want to."</p>
<p>Sorry, but I'm unclear what the underage drinking has to do with the fabricated and malicious rape charges against the players. Could someone enlighten me?</p>
<p>As for the lawsuit, while it might be about money from the perspective of the players, from where I'm sitting it's about using financial incentive to change the behavior of the institutions that allowed this farce to take place. Think about it - if you as a university or a city had to pay out a bunch of money because you broke the rules for publicity, do you think you would do it again? I certainly wouldn't. That's the point.</p>
<p>1of42, if they weren't at a party with the stripper, then the accusations could have never been made...</p>
<p>Good for them. It is their right and their reputations were ruined for nothing. They deserve it.</p>
<p>hops_scout and 1of42,</p>
<p>I didn't say underage drinking has anything to do with the charge. in fact, if it were up to me, i would set the age to 16 or something, instead of 21. I was just saying if they didn't have support from others, it may have to do with some people resenting the idea of having bunch of rich white kids hiring 2 black strippers to perform in a wild drunken party. But it looks like the kids actually had great support from peers according to leejwwc, an actual Duke student. This seems to be further confirmed by the fact that 4 players came back for 5th year and enrolled in graduate courses.</p>
<p>also, i remember when duke canceled the season, people were saying they were doing the right thing. i thought that's a common thing to do--to have someone and in this case, a team, involved suspended before things are cleared up. it would make duke look arrogant and obnoxious had they let the team continue to play while the team was under investigation. that has nothing do to with admitting guilt or not. the firing of the coach is over the top but are these unindicted players suing the school for "emotional distress" before of it? I guess anyone that's close to the coach can sue Duke and the city then.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Still not seeing what the drinking has to do with it... they could've been at the party without drinking and have hired the stripper and so forth.</p>
<p>In any case, even if the drinking was directly causal of the false accusation, you're getting mighty close to the kind of "well, if that woman hadn't gone down that alley she wouldn't have been raped" kind of crap that should be avoided.</p>
<p>The bottom line is, while they were drinking underage (personally, I don't consider that particularly despicable in any way; if you disagree, you're welcome to take it up with me in PM, but I don't really think this thread is the place to get into it), she still falsely accused them, and they still basically got screwed. The underage drinking is only tangentially relevant.</p>
<p>I'm not going to argue with you over PM. I don't like the PM's you've sent me before.</p>
<p>I'm just reporting what I've read that drinking was involved. I agree there was a false accusation and I think she should be punished for it. Nifong should have received a tougher punishment too.</p>
<p>The underage drinking comes into play with regard to the claim against Duke because it alone would have provided sufficient cause for the school to suspend the team's season. Now, most colleges "know" that most students engage in underage drinking but selective enforcement is typically legally valid unless the "selectivity" involved is against a protected class (race, religion, nationality, gender, and sexual orientation some cases). In fact, most universities have a "fundamental standard" or "honor code" essentially stating that acting in any way against the principles of the school is grounds for dismissal (breaking the law, cheating, even some forms of offensive speech - particularly at private institutions).</p>
<p>To win a judgment against the school, the players would likely have to show that the school either knowingly released false statements that damaged their reputation or that the school released statements that a reasonable person would view as false (depending on the standard applied). I don't every remember the school officially releasing any such statements. They are not going to win a claim based on damages due to a lost season because - given the team's other misconduct - the school was within their right to cancel the season regardless of the claim that turned out to be false.</p>
<p>Good. I hope the judge throws the book at them (City and University). Nifong, Duke, the police, all of them.</p>
<p>$54 million seems like a popular number. Defamation of character, emotional distress, losing a semester at school, possible perjury, I'm sure some litigation consultant somewhere can make the number work.</p>
<p>People need to get their facts strait before posting incendiary remarks. Although I do not agree with some of the action (or rather non-action) that characterized the Duke administration during the case, they in no way committed any sort of crime against the indicted and other players (i.e. defamation of character, emotional distress, losing a semester at school, possible perjury, et al.). Duke never made any public statements harrassing or defaming the indicted players or the team. Rather statements have always stressed the need to let the legal system play its course. While the suit against the City has merit (police department lineup mishap, searching players' rooms without warrants, withholding exculpatory DNA evidence, and of course Nifong's actions), the suit against Duke lacks merit. PABitz brings up a good point. Another point, as per Duke policy, is that any student who has been charged with a felony is automatically placed on leave for the semester or until the charges are no longer standing. The unindicted players, who were not placed on leave, all of whom chose to stay at Duke for their senior years or to get a masters degree to continue playing for Duke, hardly hold any credibility in filing this suit against their alma mater.</p>