Wow. It took you five lines of blaming the media, the general public and everyone here before you accidentally slipped in what I take is the actual point of your post: It is well within my(and coach Nardello's) rights to derive pleasure from the beauty of the feminine form. No. Not in the capacity of being their coach, it's not. Never mind the legal issues, of which there are many, and none of which favor Coach Nardiello. And forget about the fact that sexual attraction is actually not always mutual, especially between people in an uneven power situation, and when it isn't and someone forces sexuality into a non-sexual situation, it actually hurts (psychologically, emotionally, and sometimes physically) the people involved. And I'm ignoring the homophobia inherent in everything you've said so far (google Mike Danton or Sheldon Kennedy, to name two, and get back to this thread on that front). Never mind all that. When the dynamic between a coach and athlete is strained like this, it affects performance. And what's a coach doing adding extra pressure to his charges, especially leading up to the marquee event in your sport, simply because he needs his dingle played with? Unless I'm mistaken, you don't run the skeleton course using your sex organs. There are many instances of coaches and athletes finding attraction between each other. And the right thing to do is to wait until the coach is no longer coaching that particular athlete, at which point the two of you can go off and do your thing. SportingRhino, if you've somehow made it to 2005 and you're still ignorant enough to think it's appropriate for a coach to make repeated unwanted sexual advances to the athletes under his care, then I sure as hell don't want you anywhere near my kids. Comment icon posted by chicobangs at 12:11 PM CST on January 1 Chicobangs, Thank you, It seems you did actually read the first five lines of my post, as per your nararration, ( which I am sure is for the members who cannot actually read for themselves ) beyond that I find your post a bit convoluted. I cannot tell if you are taking my words and rearranging them to fit some imagined opposition to your unestablished moral point, or you may just be cofused. I say this because, I think you may be responding to a composited posting which includes some of my points with some other yet undetermined person or persons. The homophobia reference is a complete mystery. I think maybe because I mentioned my opposition to pedophilia, When responding to the member who asked me about "my little boy and his football coach" ? Homophobia does that mean that I am afraid of homosexuals?, Okay that was a joke, but seriously I do appreciate your googling suggestions. I hope you will not be testing me on these subjects any time soon, as I am booked for the next few months. The last two paragraphs get a little hazy. You seem to agree with my basic point, but feel the need to defend the counterpoint.(huh?) Thank you, I did make it to 2005 and now 2006. I promise that I will spend every waking moment the same way I spent the last 40 years. That is trying my best to be less ingnorant. Do you want to make a resolution to the same effect? I would prefer not to meet your children under the current conditions. Happy New Year!!!
I promise that I will spend every waking moment the same way I spent the last 40 years. That is trying my best to be less ingnorant. Then check your alarm clock and wake up. Your understanding of sexual harassment and what's considered permissible behavior is way out of line with what the US courts consider permissible behavior. Likewise, it's ironic that you accuse rcade of having "banteed[sic] about" concepts of the "1950's Father Knows Best variety"; in fact, it is your attitude towards harassment -- women want the attention, how could they not? -- that's antiquated. You then go on to clarify your point: So, again from the top. We " the readers of the given post" do not know all the facts. It is "possible" that the man in question had a reason, whether you or anyone else agrees with it, for his actions. There that was it. ...and, to paraphrase rcade: we understood you just fine. We just don't agree. Yes, the facts are not all known; however, what is mentioned in the article points to one of two things: a clear and persistent pattern of sexual harassment and sexually inappropriate behavior, or a conspiracy that would require the cooperation of many different individuals who stand to gain nothing from it, and possibly lose a great deal. There are quite a few allegations from several sources. Not all of those sources were the victims of the alleged harassment, and at least one of them was another coach. It's pretty clear that you're not very familiar with how these things go, but take it from me, in cases of sexual harassment involving a power imbalance, it's pretty damn rare for one of the harasser's peers to volunteer a complaint. So, yes, we do not know all the facts, but what we do know is pretty damning. You then state that it's possible that Nardiello had a reason for doing what he did. I'm quite sure there is a reason; however, you have failed to differentiate between "reason" and "excuse". Possible reasons? Satyriasis, or some other mental disorder. Selfishness, a sense of entitlement the size of the Grand Canyon. The delusion that "no" means "yes", or that he is irresistible to women, or that -- as you suggested -- sexual tension can be some kind of useful coaching tool. But those are all delusions. None of them excuses his conduct. If you believe even the smallest part of what you've said here, I strongly encourage you to refrain from ever putting any of your beliefs into practice. It will only damage others and, if justice is served, get you into a lot of hot water.
I hope you will not be testing me on these subjects any time soon, as I am booked for the next few months. For someone who is "booked" for the next few months you sure do have plenty of time to sit and type your long winded "stories" on this post. What he said/did was wrong. I don't find it to be that offensive. But I am a man. He did not say that he wanted to have sex with her, just that he didn't want to see her legs spread that far apart while she is going down the hill. It causes more resistance and slows her down. His choice of words might have been quit rough, but his intention, probably, was to get her a faster time for her trials.
The age old conflict of men and women ( sexual ) is not inhibited by sports. If one member of the team willfully responded to his advances, then a president was esablished. I am passing on any Clinton jokes. But if you can't raise the problem while you're directly involved in it, I don't have much sympathy for you. I find it sad that his behavior has been acceptable, seemingly, until there was no hope of making the team. However, this is where the HARRASSMENT part comes into play. This man had power over these athlete's careers. Their dreams were, in part, tied to his discretion. As long as he had some control over their dreams, they felt forced to tolerate his behavior. If the accusations are true, he has abused his authority and should be replaced. It is odd that his defenders are still on the team, while his accusers aren't. Sour grapes or liberation? I'll lean towards the latter. Not being able to raise the problem while you're directly involved in it, for fear of losing your job is exactly the premise that determines whether "sexual harrassment" has occurred. Without power over the harrassed, one is simply an asshole. With power over those whom are harrassed, one is simply... a criminal.
SportingRhino: Did he suggest through his advancements that a skier could make the team if they responded to the advancements It's skeleton, damn it. Please read the posts and linked articles before commenting.
SportingRhino: Did he suggest through his advancements that a skier could make the team if they responded to the advancements It's skeleton, damn it. Please read the posts and linked articles before commenting. Comment icon posted by qbert72 at 11:14 PM CST on January 1 I hope you can excuse my ignorance on this "crucial" fact of the story! Please humor me with an explanation. Don't they wear skiis when they perform this sport? So, where as the sport itself may be called "skeleton", I am again ignorant of the facts. How should I refer to the participants. Are they skeletons? or skeletors? thank you
I promise that I will spend every waking moment the same way I spent the last 40 years. That is trying my best to be less ingnorant. Then check your alarm clock and wake up. Your understanding of sexual harassment and what's considered permissible behavior is way out of line with what the US courts consider permissible behavior. Likewise, it's ironic that you accuse rcade of having "banteed[sic] about" concepts of the "1950's Father Knows Best variety"; in fact, it is your attitude towards harassment -- women want the attention, how could they not? -- that's antiquated. You then go on to clarify your point: So, again from the top. We " the readers of the given post" do not know all the facts. It is "possible" that the man in question had a reason, whether you or anyone else agrees with it, for his actions. There that was it. ...and, to paraphrase rcade: we understood you just fine. We just don't agree. Yes, the facts are not all known; however, what is mentioned in the article points to one of two things: a clear and persistent pattern of sexual harassment and sexually inappropriate behavior, or a conspiracy that would require the cooperation of many different individuals who stand to gain nothing from it, and possibly lose a great deal. There are quite a few allegations from several sources. Not all of those sources were the victims of the alleged harassment, and at least one of them was another coach. It's pretty clear that you're not very familiar with how these things go, but take it from me, in cases of sexual harassment involving a power imbalance, it's pretty damn rare for one of the harasser's peers to volunteer a complaint. So, yes, we do not know all the facts, but what we do know is pretty damning. You then state that it's possible that Nardiello had a reason for doing what he did. I'm quite sure there is a reason; however, you have failed to differentiate between "reason" and "excuse". Possible reasons? Satyriasis, or some other mental disorder. Selfishness, a sense of entitlement the size of the Grand Canyon. The delusion that "no" means "yes", or that he is irresistible to women, or that -- as you suggested -- sexual tension can be some kind of useful coaching tool. But those are all delusions. None of them excuses his conduct. If you believe even the smallest part of what you've said here, I strongly encourage you to refrain from ever putting any of your beliefs into practice. It will only damage others and, if justice is served, get you into a lot of hot water. Comment icon posted by lil_brown_bat at 8:03 PM CST on January 1 Lilbrownbat, I appreciate your responce and it's candor. I have read your bio, I see that you are much closer to the world of skiing than I am, so I would imagine you know more of it's inner workings. I made no excuses for coach Nardellos behavior, I just said that I understood what may have happened. I specifically wrote that I did not condone his type of behavior. I understand that we are entitles to our own opinions. I welcome any and all intelligent discussion, However I feel that the opinion that you are opposing is not mine. You and rcade are having a debate with am imaginary villian. People on this forum are constantly asked to read the links and post carefully. So, I am not placed in the position of defending a point which I never made as my own. I think that this forum is a great place to vent your frustrations with an unfair world. Just try to remember that I live in the same world as you. I hold no power over you or anyone else on this board. I offer my unsolicited opinions, just like you. You are just like me in that respect. Good luck! I wish you well this year, I hope you get the tickets you wrote of in your profile.
> I hope you will not be testing me on these subjects any time soon, as I am booked for the next few months. For someone who is "booked" for the next few months you sure do have plenty of time to sit and type your long winded "stories" on this post. What he said/did was wrong. I don't find it to be that offensive. But I am a man. He did not say that he wanted to have sex with her, just that he didn't want to see her legs spread that far apart while she is going down the hill. It causes more resistance and slows her down. His choice of words might have been quit rough, but his intention, probably, was to get her a faster time for her trials. Grabofsky74- Long winded? I could say the same of you, sir. I have been blessed with a certain amount of wind, I will grant you that. While my next few months are "booked" as far as referencing "homophobia, it's roots and origins" as suggested in the post. I am living in the United States and these last few days have been a holiday, so I found the time to be long winded mostly defending "points" I never made. You seem to be the only one who has posted a similar view on the story. My whole point was just to show how accusations such as these are impossible to judge from a distance. I have always prefered the role of "devils advocate."
But if you can't raise the problem while you're directly involved in it, I don't have much sympathy for you. I find it sad that his behavior has been acceptable, seemingly, until there was no hope of making the team. However, this is where the HARRASSMENT part comes into play. This man had power over these athlete's careers. Their dreams were, in part, tied to his discretion. As long as he had some control over their dreams, they felt forced to tolerate his behavior. If the accusations are true, he has abused his authority and should be replaced. It is odd that his defenders are still on the team, while his accusers aren't. Sour grapes or liberation? I'll lean towards the latter. Not being able to raise the problem while you're directly involved in it, for fear of losing your job is exactly the premise that determines whether "sexual harrassment" has occurred. Without power over the harrassed, one is simply an asshole. With power over those whom are harrassed, one is simply... a criminal. You have raised the same questions that I wanted to express in my post. It is possible to question the accuser's motives with out dismissing the crime or agreeing with the motives of the accused. I knew somebody would eventually get the point. I only wish that I expressed myself as clearly as you have done. Thank you! Comment icon posted by tselson at 10:41 PM CST on January 1
I hope you can excuse my ignorance on this "crucial" fact of the story! Please humor me with an explanation. Don't they wear skiis when they perform this sport? So, where as the sport itself may be called "skeleton" It's a sledding sport like luge. Clearly, you're just trolling to get a rise out of people.
I hope you can excuse my ignorance on this "crucial" fact of the story! Please humor me with an explanation. Don't they wear skiis when they perform this sport? So, where as the sport itself may be called "skeleton" It's a sledding sport like luge. Clearly, you're just trolling to get a rise out of people. No, I actually was ignorant to the fact, that this is a sledding sport. My knowledge of winter sports is very limited. The story seemed to crux on the behavior of the coach more than the sport itself. I now see that I should have done more research as to the actual sport itself. Now that I know it is a sledding type sport, I think they should lock up that coach Nardello and throw away the key!
Mental.
So what did the rhino say to finally get the boot? While I found his mindset offensive I didn't think he said anything on this thread at least that would warrant him being kicked off the site, then again I may not have seen all the comments.
See locker room, tron. That wasn't a mindset, it was a game.
