Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by ClarkC, Aug 28, 2011.
Boston Globe story. Seems to be a lot of corroboration.
wow...quite a.... despicable...story
"Is there a right time to come clean?" - Bob, now's the time for you to come clean.
"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.’’"
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.
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...
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
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.
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.
"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.
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:
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.
uh, did you read the article?
Thanks, I had no idea about this story until the most recent report.
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?
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.
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, 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.
"There may be a time and place for that, but I definitely would not think it's right now!"
Right. Let another 25 years pass until everyone is deceased.
"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. "
I forgot to add, again, from my rather limited understanding (that article) there isn't going to be a criminal investigation. And a private organization can often get information easier.
Remember when Davydenko was investigated for match fixing. There wasn't a criminal investigation to my knowledge. Nor could a government agency compel him (at least in the US) to provide his telephone records (though they might get it themselves). Some entity (I don't remember if it was the ATP or the ITF) did an investigation. Started based on betting patterns, info from some site I think and rumor. They got the telephone records. Because if you don't provide them they presume you're guilty. Was it all knee-jerk. Should they wait for some government entity to step in and pass on it if no government acts.
You're the one who said all Jews should be rounded up and killed! Oh...wait...you didn't say that at all....just as I never said any of the things above. LOL!
Why would you take such a serious issue, and start using straw men, and misrepresenting people?
This thread had some thoughtful posts going until now.
I don't participate once a thread starts devolving.
I'll let my points stand. Other people can decide whether I misrepresented you.
Don't know if he did or didn't,but it still makes me sick to my stomach to even read about accusations like this.
Right. I appreciate that you aren't going to continue with the litany of alleged paraphrasing. I stand by post #19 and all points in it:
I'll start by emphasizing that I'm not attacking you, only your extremely unconvincing arguments.
And I think I paraphrased you accurately.
I got it the first time. You're stuck on this notion that some other (presumably government) agency is supposed to investigate first.
I think from reading the article we can posit this isn't happening for the reasons I already stated. And the notion makes absolutely no sense anyway, also for reasons I already argued.
Is this how it works in any organization ? A school, a business, a club, anything ? We pass. We don't investigate until some government agency decides to and if they pass we pass.
How about this. Hello, it's the USPTA bobbie. We've learned of some rather serious accusations regarding your behavior that, if true, clearly violate out rules of conduct and we've decided to OPEN OUR OWN INVESTIGATION.
I think we've beaten this horse to death. I get your point. I don't agree with it. I think I paraphrased your position quite fairly.
Incorrect. Please do not lie, you attributed far more than the above, I will quote and number them for convenience:
None of the 6 points above, which you claimed in direct response to my post, are equivalent to my comment that a criminal investigations should be undertaken by law enforcement authorities first.
I disagree. I believe that extremely presumptuous on your part. This would be a very complex criminal and legal matter. I have no idea what bodies might be investigating and clearly you do not either, so I would hardly say we can presume that from the article.
YES?!! That's how it works in my part of the world. When a criminal matter comes to light, particularly one as serious as ****, child molestation, murder etc., the matter is passed to law enforcement authorities....INDEED, the school principal, the manager, the club president, does NOT try to concurrently run his own "investigation". These are SERIOUS CRIMINAL allegations, they should not be trivialized.
WTH?! LOL. This kinda makes me think you're joking. Anyways, I think it's completely inappropriate to do so if any authorities are investigating, and certainly the police and/or judicial system here would actually be quite upset about "USPTA bobbies" poking around concurrently.
No, as outlined above, you did not.
Of course you are right. In fact these amateur hour 'private' inquiries running concurrent with or prior to trial will inevitably lack one thing, cooperative and candid testimony from the accused or defense witnesses with relevent testimony on the facts. Facing criminal charges, no attorney worth their bar exam test number will allow his or her client to offer any statements beyond vague denials or answer any questions involving the charges. Counsel will also discourage witnesses with exculpatory testimony to participate in any way providing the prosecution with either hints at defense strategy or statements of record on which to impeach using percieved inconsistencies. All such hearings will provide is another venue to smear without rebuttal beyond character testimonials from a high school teacher, favorite niece and the church janitor. Only after any possible criminal or civil liability is nullified can any such hearing produce anything close to a fair result. Assuming this process isn't more about protecting 'image' than finding truth. It won't be and it can't. These are dog and pony shows that are about carefully measuring risk to image and damage to their bottom line if they don't look like they are 'doing something' and the risk of a civil tort claim and its costs if they take action that might represent compensatory damages in a libel suit .
How on earth is any committee going to get at truth with thirty answers beginning with " On advice of counsel, I must decline to answer..." or maybe that is enough to condemn him with as uncooperative. They need to stay out of it if they really care their integrety about more than their image.
After all criminal investigation, and civil litigation is done (if any), I would have no problem with the USPTA reviewing the case. Certainly if guilty, he shouldn't be a member.
Having said that...even then, I find it rather...silly...like some kind of dark comedy. "we believe that you have sexually abused multiple victims for years....SO we're withdrawing your USPTA membership! Oh....and the newsletter? You will NOT be receiving it any longer!!"
I'd actually be embarrassed to tell the victims that "good" news.
It won't be much of a hardship for Hewitt either, if he did still want to give lessons, and people were willing, now all he'd have is his grand slam credentials and experience...no USPTA certification for him! Ha!
This matter is just way beyond the USPTA in every way.
I believe once read that Ivan Lendl's wife was 14 when they started dating.
More accurately, no criminal defendant facing trial (assuming he/she is out on bail), will make any statement, of any nature, to anyone, whatsoever!
Actually usually they are allowed something like."I am innocent of all charges and I am eager to put them to rest." for the cameras
I am sure that kind of detail will do wonders to factfinding efforts.
Yeah, that's tennis for ya. Sweep it under the rug like the Pope and the Vatican.
How old was ivan Lendl? 16?
^ she was identifed as being 18 in an '86 SI article about the USO (when Lendl was 26), but I'm pretty sure she had been traveling with him for a few years before that.
wouldn't be surprised if tour officials told him to keep her at the hotel during events earlier in his career.
I'm pretty creeped out by the amount of wta players that date/marry their coaches. esp when some of those coaches have been coaching the player since they were like 13.
I remember the furor by the press one year when it was obvious 15/16 year old Kournikova was dating that much older hockey player(Federov?)
There is still something to be said for tennis parents traveling the tour.
The comments from John Korff, Director at Large of the USTA, are disgusting. Reading this article is like stepping in to the dark ages. I hate the fact that I give money to the USTA even more now.
Well now we have an apple (Tennis Hall of Fame) and an orange (USPTA on his coaching certification) on my equation.
When they measure 'the risk to image and damage to their bottom line if they don't look like they are 'doing something' and the risk of a civil tort claim and its costs if they take action that might represent compensatory damages in a libel suit' ( Quoting my own post) those respective risks will look very different but not as different as if he actually was coaching anymore. I imagine the Hall's standard for review can afford to be less stringent than charge and conviction. It is still virtually impossible for him to vigorously defend charges 3o years old in both a criminal matter and to the Hall of Fame committee.
from the new globe article:
Perhaps he would better fit in the The Tennis Hall of Infamy...
This Is Sickening! I Stopped Reading.
"The Hall of Fame announced yesterday it has formed a committee to review the case"
No, you're not allowed to unless and until a governmental authority has first run a full blown investigation, indictment and trial.
'said Mary Carillo, a former professional player who is a member of the Hall’s nominating committee and long has served as a national broadcast tennis analyst. “I would like to think that this gets fully investigated by everybody.’’'
Sorry Mary, see above.
"Hall of Fame president Tony Trabert said a panel of senior staffers has begun looking into the matter."
You can't look into it if the D.A. doesn't want to proceed. For reasons I don't know but I read it on Talk Tennis.
“We’re going to be diligent about it and see what we can discover.’’
You can't do that. You're just a private group. You can't have your own investigation.
“Come on, tennis authorities, step up and do something.’’
Sorry. It's the criminal justice system or nothing.
"asked why Conner was “bringing it up now’’ and declined to comment on the allegations."
Yeh, and while were at it. Why did all those kids sexually abused by Priests bring it up so many years later. Those darn kids.
Nobody said they couldn't. Dog and pony shows are a dime a dozen. Everybody needs to look like they are accomplishing something. Thats why every major political scandal obliges two investigative committees in each house of Congress to have hearings whether or not amnesty is offered. As I said its all about risk management. Fairness demands that both sides are able to put forth a credible case. That ain't happening.
"Dog and pony shows are a dime a dozen"
What to make of that statement ?
I can only speculate and don't intend to put words in your mouth but I guess either (1) investigations after some X period of years from the events are by their nature dog and pony shows or (2) USPTA in particular or other non-governmental entities don't have the resources, skill or desire to do other than a D+P show.
If I'm even close, I don't agree that they are inevitably D+P shows.
Here is a recent such investigation for your enjoyment. 60+ years after the grotesque events.
I realize we're getting way off of Former Pro Talk....
You have to love a person who is willing to post a diatribe complete with quotes from an outside source...but then has to make up quotes when representing, or rather, misrepresenting, the posters in the thread.
Very intellectually dishonest, Tshooter.
"Very intellectually dishonest, Tshooter."
Thanks, I always appreciate ad hominem attacks, in fact that's why I go online, but it would be better if you actually pointed to the made up quote.
Okay, but this is not about love or even sex.
There's a difference between two individuals falling in love and later marrying and a person using power and influence to take advantage of others.
Separate names with a comma.