Accusations against former pro Bob Hewitt

[ClarkC]

Boston Globe story. Seems to be a lot of corroboration.

[Tar Heel Tennis]

wow...quite a.... despicable...story

"Is there a right time to come clean?" - Bob, now's the time for you to come clean.

[Tshooter]

"He then acknowledged knowing her as Heather Crowe and asked, “What’s she bringing it up now for?’’"

Nice answer Bob.

"“It was a sad day for tennis,’’ said Tanya Harford, a South African whose professional tennis career overlapped Hewitt’s.

Yeh, it's all about tennis. Another jackass.

"Sheehan said she found no relief at home because her mother, adamant that Hewitt would make her a great player, dismissed Sheehan’s complaints about Hewitt as “rubbish.’’'

Mom of the year.

"“Unless a member is charged and convicted of a crime, he or she is basically allowed to maintain a membership status with us,’’ said USPTA spokeswoman Poornima Rimm."

Why. It's a private organization. This "charged and convicted" standard is absurd.

"In one of his last columns in 2009, Hewitt derided Andre Agassi, a Hall of Fame inductee this year, for disclosing that he used crystal methamphetamine as a player, failed a drug test, and lied to avoid punishment by saying he accidentally sipped a friend’s “spiked soda.’’"

Classic.

[BTURNER]

Originally Posted by Tshooter

"He then acknowledged knowing her as Heather Crowe and asked, “What’s she bringing it up now for?’’"

Nice answer Bob.

"“It was a sad day for tennis,’’ said Tanya Harford, a South African whose professional tennis career overlapped Hewitt’s.

Yeh, it's all about tennis. Another jackass.

"Sheehan said she found no relief at home because her mother, adamant that Hewitt would make her a great player, dismissed Sheehan’s complaints about Hewitt as “rubbish.’’'

Mom of the year.

"“Unless a member is charged and convicted of a crime, he or she is basically allowed to maintain a membership status with us,’’ said USPTA spokeswoman Poornima Rimm."

Why. It's a private organization. This "charged and convicted" standard is absurd."In one of his last columns in 2009, Hewitt derided Andre Agassi, a Hall of Fame inductee this year, for disclosing that he used crystal methamphetamine as a player, failed a drug test, and lied to avoid punishment by saying he accidentally sipped a friend’s “spiked soda.’’"

Classic.

So what standard would you replace it with, " accused' or "accused and charged?" Personally, I'd stick with the current one. Anyone can be accused of anything and as long as you can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich, and you can, charged is no better. Private organisations can throw anyone out who's name is smeared, but that does not mean it ought to.

[Datacipher]

Originally Posted by BTURNER

So what standard would you replace it with, " accused' or "accused and charged?" Personally, I'd stick with the current one. Anyone can be accused of anything and as long as you can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich, and you can, charged is no better. Private organisations can throw anyone out who's name is smeared, but that does not mean it ought to.

Agreed.

Tshooter, on all your points, I will agree if Hewitt really is guilty. We just don't know yet, though it looks bad. We haven't heard of thing from the "other" side yet.

It's interesting this article came out...we all knew it was Hewitt...but now it's out in the open...

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by BTURNER

So what standard would you replace it with, " accused' or "accused and charged?" Personally, I'd stick with the current one. Anyone can be accused of anything and as long as you can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich, and you can, charged is no better. Private organisations can throw anyone out who's name is smeared, but that does not mean it ought to.

Well said!

[NLBwell]

Doesn't mean it ought not to either. There should be judgement involved. Are the accusations plausible? reasonable? likely? Any corroborating evidence?
Organizations, corporations, and governemnt entities don't like to use judgement.
A great book to read: The Death of Common Sense

[Bartelby]

The threshold test for an indictment is quite low so if the DA brings one before a Grand Jury they merely rubber stamp it.

You could get rid of the Grand Jury and have a hearing with a judge and absolutely nothing would change.

Moreover, committal hearings before judges in other common law countries are held publicly, not secretly.

Originally Posted by BTURNER

So what standard would you replace it with, " accused' or "accused and charged?" Personally, I'd stick with the current one. Anyone can be accused of anything and as long as you can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich, and you can, charged is no better. Private organisations can throw anyone out who's name is smeared, but that does not mean it ought to.

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by NLBwell

Doesn't mean it ought not to either. There should be judgement involved. Are the accusations plausible? reasonable? likely? Any corroborating evidence?
Organizations, corporations, and governemnt entities don't like to use judgement.
A great book to read: The Death of Common Sense

Yes it does. It ought not to. The USPTA has the common sense to know that it is not competent to properly and fairly investigage and/or exercise its judgment in this matter, and correctly leaves it to those who are.

[Tshooter]

"I'd stick with the current one."

I don't know that the "current one" is.

Here it is not a criminal matter so there is no reason the criminal rules of evidence or burden of proof is appropriate.

Think civil. More relaxed rules of evidence and a more relaxed burden.

Apparently several in the South African tennis community thought not all was Kosher. So start there. Talk to these people. See where it goes. Find the women. See if they will talk. Talk to Bob. Consider any credible evidence that would shed light on the events. Weigh it. See if it adds up. Maybe use a preponderance of the evidence test.

In light of the seriousness of the charges and the fact that people out there seem to think it is consistent with what they though may have been going on, simply throwing up your hands with the we can't act until a criminal conviction is a nice way to bury it. But it smells.

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by Tshooter

"I'd stick with the current one."

I don't know that the "current one" is.

Here it is not a criminal matter so there is no reason the criminal rules of evidence or burden of proof is appropriate.

Think civil. More relaxed rules of evidence and a more relaxed burden.

Apparently several in the South African tennis community thought not all was Kosher. So start there. Talk to these people. See where it goes. Find the women. See if they will talk. Talk to Bob. Consider any credible evidence that would shed light on the events. Weigh it. See if it adds up. Maybe use a preponderance of the evidence test.

In light of the seriousness of the charges and the fact that people out there seem to think it is consistent with what they though may have been going on, simply throwing up your hands with the we can't act until a criminal conviction is a nice way to bury it. But it smells.

Sure it smells! But, wouldn't the USPTA engaging in such an investigation 40 years after the fact also smell? Think of the implications. Further, at this point, no one is at immenent risk. I suppose if complaints were made in a timely manner, to the USPTA and the police, and the USPTA had the benefit of a police investigation to support its decision, it would be more reasonable for them to act on it.

[Carsomyr]

Originally Posted by Datacipher

Agreed.

Tshooter, on all your points, I will agree if Hewitt really is guilty. We just don't know yet, though it looks bad. We haven't heard of thing from the "other" side yet.

It's interesting this article came out...we all knew it was Hewitt...but now it's out in the open...

I'm curious, what do you mean by this?

[Moose Malloy]

I'm curious, what do you mean by this?

there was a thread earlier this summer about this, but in that article(from March) his accuser refused to identify him, wonder what caused her to decide to go ahead and name him in this new article.

this new article mentions a police report that was filed just last year by her, maybe someone went digging around & she realized his name was now out in the open.

but on the basis of what she did said in that earlier article, it was easy to figure out who she was referring to:

WEST NEWBURY, Mass. - Bob Hewitt, the Hall of Fame doubles player, has been identified by a tennis website as the likely coach of a protege who says she was sexually abused 35 years ago.
Downthelinetennis.com said it isn't hard to figure out based on clues Heather Crowe Conner, a former student of Hewitt, provided about her abuser when she went public with her story about being molested and raped last week in the Newburyport, Mass., Daily News.
Conner, 50, a former standout in college who played pro tennis for several years, declined to name the coach she said coerced her into sex in return for honing her skills.
But she did say he was 36 and she was 14 when the sexual abuse first started, that he was an International Hall of Fame inductee known for his exceptional skill as a doubles player, and that he now lived in South Africa.
Downthelinetennis.com noted the description likely fit Hewitt, who is now 71 and living in South Africa. He was inducted into the Tennis Hall of Fame in Newport, R. I., in 1992 for his play as a "magnificent doubles player."

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=386179

[El Diablo]

Considering that the women are well into adulthood, the accusations seem rather vague. "Abuse" and "harassment" are mentioned, but nobody seems willing to say what actually happened.

[Moose Malloy]

"Abuse" and "harassment" are mentioned, but nobody seems willing to say what actually happened.

uh, did you read the article?

Conner, like other alleged victims, said Hewitt began preying on her soon after he recruited her as a student. She had recently turned 15, she said, when he first had sex with her in the fall of 1976 near the tennis courts at Masconomet Regional High School in Topsfield.

In a complaint she filed last year with Topsfield police, Conner said Hewitt was driving her home from babysitting his daughter that October when he detoured to the school and first had sex with her.

Conner said Hewitt had sex with her again when she was 15 at a Springfield hotel in February 1977. She had just turned 16 in the summer of ’77, she said, when Hewitt engaged in sex with her twice more, first in a car at the Longwood Cricket Club in Chestnut Hill, then at a house in Louisville.

“It was a sad day for tennis,’’ said Tanya Harford, a South African whose professional tennis career overlapped Hewitt’s.
In the 1980s, Harford said, she spoke to a 14-year-old girl who alleged that Hewitt lured her into a sexual relationship. Harford recalled that the girl’s father was planning to complain to the South African Tennis Union.

“When I was 9, he started asking me if the other girls were virgins, when I didn’t even know what a virgin was,’’ Sheehan said. “When I was 10, it escalated to him taking it into his own hands that he needed to teach me about what he called the birds and the bees. And that’s what he did.’’
Sheehan said she was too upset to detail her alleged sexual abuse, other than to say she experienced physical and emotional pain and was asked by her mother if she was pregnant. She was not.

[Carsomyr]

Originally Posted by Moose Malloy

there was a thread earlier this summer about this, but in that article(from March) his accuser refused to identify him, wonder what caused her to decide to go ahead and name him in this new article.

this new article mentions a police report that was filed just last year by her, maybe someone went digging around & she realized his name was now out in the open.

but on the basis of what she did said in that earlier article, it was easy to figure out who she was referring to:




http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=386179

Thanks, I had no idea about this story until the most recent report.

[sureshs]

And the parents were comfortable leaving their young girls alone with an older man in places where there were no people around? I can understand leaving them at a club or other facility, but they just to send them off alone to secluded courts with this guy?

[Datacipher]

Originally Posted by Carsomyr

Thanks, I had no idea about this story until the most recent report.

Yes, exactly as Moose said. At the time, she specifically did not name him....though I'd say she clearly wanted people to know....she gave so many hints that it was obvious...now she IS naming him. So I'm just curious as to the timing, and the reasoning.

[Datacipher]

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

Sure it smells! But, wouldn't the USPTA engaging in such an investigation 40 years after the fact also smell? Think of the implications. Further, at this point, no one is at immenent risk. I suppose if complaints were made in a timely manner, to the USPTA and the police, and the USPTA had the benefit of a police investigation to support its decision, it would be more reasonable for them to act on it.

I would definitely say that the USPTA must let the authorities do their investigation in any case. Then, as you say, they will have more "official" info on which to evaluate their actions. Anything right now, would be purely knee-jerk in my opinion.

Tshooter, think of how ridiculous...actually per ver ted...what you're suggesting would be:

"Maam, I know this is extremely difficult to talk about, and that you've had to answer questions and make statements for US and South African law enforcement, as well as interpol, but I need you to answer a few questions as well."

"who are you?"

"Ed Leslie...I'm with the uspta membership committee"

There may be a time and place for that, but I definitely would not think it's right now!

[Tshooter]

"Tshooter, think of how ridiculous...actually per ver ted...what you're suggesting would be:"

I would suggest that it is your notion is *******ed. That organizations don't have ethical standards for their members. That everything is deferred to a criminal investigation by the authorities where the rules of criminal procedure apply and the burden is guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. You must work on Wall Street.

There is absolutely no good reason the USPTA can't have a rule that says we can't tolerate coaches having sexual relations with their students and we will investigate any such charges. And we will use any evidence we think probative and if we determine the activity is more likely than not to have occurred we will kick you out (and forward any evidence we find to the authorities).

The man may be perfectly innocent. But the we don't care unless you are convicted in a court of law is rather lax as far as membership goes.

And if I read the article correctly the women is talking now and there appear to be others out there.