For his sake, I hope his NWU teammates are sympathetic to his cause, rather than afraid of him or judgmental.
Ditto for the prospective employers of the 2 defendants out in the job market.
^ True. There’s lots of potential collateral damage from this suit.
I went to college with the father of one of the defendants. Apple, tree and all that.
It’s obvious to me that this “tradition” was cruel, gross, and humiliating. For anybody to have agreed to carry it on shows, in my mind, a lack of character. I don’t find any part of it to be harmless hijinks. I’m also always skeptical when the coach is shocked, shocked to learn that this sort of thing is going on–when it goes public.
Now, whether the plaintiff has a good cause of action is less clear to me. Perhaps some of the defendants are from rich families, and will settle with him.
Or, if the claims are weak, the rich parents won’t settle because they can afford to defend it.
It will be curious to see what of all this is long standing tradition (and I am sure some of it is) and what may be fairly new or perhaps even initiated by these guys . If you look at some of the swimming boards, there are some old time UVa swimmers (from 80’s , 90’s but still when the old coach was there) saying there was drinking but saying they did not see any of this other stuff (the elephant walk type stuff). I wouldn’t doubt that even old alumni swimmers could be pulled into this, to speak to the “traditions.”
I agree wholeheartedly.
And just from quick googling just now- at least one of the kids has a lawyer father. Kyle’s father is a partner in a Pittsburgh law firm.
If the same hijinks were bestowed upon the defendants when they were first-years and on the two or three classes who came after them, then none of it would seem shocking to anyone on the team, I assume.
Except a truly decent person would think, “There’s no way I will inflict this sort of degrading initiation on people who come after me.” Is UVA unable to recruit decent men of character to swim there?
Before judging too harshly, remember that we only have the plaintiff’s side of the story.
I honestly do not think the objective of this lawsuit is money. Financial recovery from any of these boys will be years down the road if at all. This is not my son --but if I try and put myself in the shoes of Marcantonio’s parents I can understand what their objectives are.
First, they have to be concerned about the message they are sending to their son. Don’t forget he made it through the two nights like everyone else and was not the one who brought it to the attention of the coach. What he would not do was lie when asked what happened. Because of that he was told he could not practice with the team and that his safety could not be guaranteed. His parents have to stand behind him on his decision to be forthright. I think the lawsuit is a message that you do not" lie down" when your rights are trampled on and your life is interrupted through no fault of your own.
I also think they want to “get it out here” to other parents of athletes and expose their son’s experience. This guy is very smart – you can’t tell me the timing of this lawsuit was coincidental. He filed June 26th and open contact season for Division 1 coaches begins on July 1. Just enough time for the press to pick up the story of the litigation. So now families are on notice.
Also, setting aside anything that transpired that may have been unlawful (like serving alcohol to minors), people are being morally judgmental about activity that is neutral. An elephant walk, defecating in a bucket, yelling and playing loud music, are things people choose to do. You may not like them, but it doesn’t make them “wrong.”
I might agree with your theory, HarvestMoon, if he was suing the coach and UVA too.
If they were suing UVA and the coach then it would be about money - they aren’t. In my opinion this is not about UVA or the coach. It’s about the behavior of 5 boys who obviously can’t handle even the slightest bit of power over other human beings. People who mock the sensibilities of others and then proceed to subject them to their own.
Ok, but you described his issue as being unable to practice with the team, and that would be the coach’s fault.
@Bay I initially was very critical of the coach but am re-thinking that position. Especially after seeing the Virginia statute which requires the school to take action and report to the authorities.
He had some really bad actors on his hands who were making real threats, verbal and in emails, against a team member. I think he knew he ultimately had no control over these kids – it was alluded to in the complaint that one of the words they were required to chant as soon as they walked in was one the coach had repeatedly told them to stop using. So I think knowing that all eyes were on him, he did what he actually felt was in the best interest of Marcantonio. If something else had happened he would have been held accountable.
That’s interesting. I don’t know what the word was, but coaches in public schools cannot abridge their athletes’ First Amendment rights. I learned that from an incident with a coach at my kids’ high school.
Sure they can - if the word is sexual in nature and creates a hostile environment for the women practicing in the same pool then they would be on solid legal ground.
Not saying that he could extend that prohibition to the Swim House, but my point is that the implication is that the upperclassmen were making it especially clear that they were not abiding by the coach’s request.