SportsFilter: Sports Community Weblog
Comments

Crime has no color, unfortunately neither does ignorance. Race has no color either. It is a distinction of ancestory. Crime has no color, but criminals do have a skin and that skin has a color. The classification of skin color, or race or any other singular point of analysis for purposes of negative judgement is a form of ignorance. judgement is a skill essential for human survival. It is our greatest defense mechanism. You have to recognize threats and take the appropriate action to protect yourself. Criminals are threats to society. People who make judgement with out all the facts are likely to make the wrong judgements. People who make the wrong judgements and learn from their mistakes are likely to be productive to society. People who are afraid to make judgements at all. are useless to society. People who make judgements based solely on one category or fact( race, skin color ) are less likley to be accurate with their judgement than a person who examines all the facts available. These people are ingnorant. There is a cure for ignorance. It is called learning and understanding. Don't believe me. Than judge for yourself! Maurice Clarett is no more guilty or innocent because he is a black man, than he is guilty or innocent because he is an ex-football player. I will always remember him for his come from behind ball stripping of a defender returning an interception in the Championship game. It was one of the most "heads-up" plays I had ever scene in such a big game. That play changed the whole momentum of the game. I also remember how he challenged the authority of the mighty NFL. He was a pioneer in this respect. That is how I will remember him.

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.

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!!!

Your points were pretty clear the first time around, Rhino. Consider the possibility that people who disagree with you don't necessarily misunderstand you. I think your view of human sexuality in regard to women is reductive and gross. When you claim to be defending the coach's right to "derive pleasure from the beauty of the feminine form," and you declare that you "luvs da ladies," it's pretty clear which organ dictates your thinking on this issue. Comment icon posted by rcade at 11:50 AM CST on January 1 rcade, The reason I though that you misunderstood my points was that your responce seemed a to smack of a pecking order style of self righteous projection on your part. The morality of the group being dictated by yourself " the great emancipator of woman rights." The concepts you have banteed about are of the 1950's Father Knows Best" variety. This seemed incredulous to me. So I felt a need to explain further my point which you so dearly missed. 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. See how I did it with out casting any aspersions on your character. I did not refer to my opinion of you or your lifestyle, just on your opinion as expressed through your posting. I did not take two seperate postings and apply them out of context, in order to project a point that was irrelevent to my post (as if any intelligent reader could not easily see this abberation ) I just reponded to your post. I do enjoy the feminine form and I do "luvs da ladies" I also have a sense of humor about myself. While I will always defend your right to not share my opinion on human sexuality. I am curious as to why you think my veiws are "reductive and gross"

We have made the girls fully aware of why and how being "taken advantage of" can manifest itself. This way situations like the one being discussed in this thread will be less likely to happen to them.( unless they want it for their own satisfaction ) I am confused. Rhino are you saying the girls must have done something to encourage this? We don't know all the circumstances but IMHO I don't think the girls asked for sexual harrassment so they could cry foul against the guy. Comment icon posted by skydivemom at 11:29 AM CST on January 1 Skydivemom, I do not know anything about this situation beyond what was posted in the thread. It was my understanding that this forum was designed for discussion about the threads as they are posted. I appreciate yor interest in my posting and I thank you for asking me to clarify my point without challenging my character or parenting skills. I did not mean to imply that the woman in this story did not have a legitimate right to expect a certain type of treatment from a trusted coach. I believe that coaching is all the woman were looking for from coach Nardello I made the point of explaining a few coaching theories, that might have led to the situation. I offered my opinion as to what might happen if a natural attraction was cultivated to be used for a positive effect, in terms of athletic success. People are taken advantage of everyday in many ways not just sexual.It is never a pleasant thing. It is however unpleasant, a part of life. I mentioned the way we have raised our daughters, who are both aspiring dancers and actresses, because I thought that it was relevant to the discussion. They have choosen a vocation which is infamous for the way it uses people. We drew upon our personal experiences, their mother especially, to prepare them for the mistreatment they may encounter. We hoped to establish in them a sense of self worth, which could be part of their sexuality without being dependent upon it completely. Dancing and acting are often forms of sexual expression. I especially feel that you cannot "world proof" your children. They will ultimately have to make their own decisions.

There could be no sexual energy between my little boy and his football coach because they are of the same sex. You're confusing the things that make you tingle in your special place with the things that make other people tingle in theirs. Sexual attraction is not universal. And thank God for that, because your titillation over the "sexual role based relationship" that could grow from a "father/child" relationship, coupled with your belief that your daughter's sexuality is some kind of asset she can exploit, is disturbing. The women on the U.S. skeleton team are Olympic-class athletes. There's nothing motivational about Coach Grabass slobbering over their bodies before a race, unless you think it inspires them to get away more quickly at the start. Comment icon posted by rcade at 7:00 AM CST on January 1 Happy New Year to you sir, There are so many directions to go with this, that I must first thank you for the opportunity to respond to such a multi-dimentional thread as the one we now read. I am a bit surprized that a person of who is a founding member of such a great forum, would respond in such a reactionary manner. You have taken my statements and arranged them for your own muddled attack upon the premise which they support. It's a tactic which is often employed by many of the spin doctors currently working within the media. I am glad that I have a chance to correct your mistakes of both courtesy and fact. I can only hope that anyone who would respond as being disturbed by my understanding of the basic concept of "sex sells", could remain calm long enough to actually read all the words in all the of the posts to which they are responding. If you would care to take the time to review my first post in this thread, you will read that I begin the whole premise with the word "perhaps". I don't like to do straight word definitions, but it seems necessary. The word "perhaps" implies that what is about to follow could be one possible reality in the realm of many. Now, back to the basics of my post, sexual attraction while not universal is often mutual. If you think that there has never been a mutual attraction between a male coach and a female athlete you are being naive. Perhaps( there's that word again ) you should come out of cyberspace long enough to get a taste of the real world. It is full of all kinds of nasty and unseemly things but, the sooner you acknowledge that it does exist, the more you will be able to understand about it. It is well within my(and coach Nardello's) rights to derive pleasure from the beauty of the feminine form. These athletes were woman long before they were athletes. If you deny a woman the privilege of being a sexual creature you are committing a grave injustice. Womans sports have an element of "titillation" whether you accept it or not. You seem to run several of my points together in order to make a "non existant" point about my daughter and a sexual relationship. This is certainly a low point of your reply. I can only hope that you were slightly confused, because if you were trying make a lucid point, it would seem inflammatory in nature and a little "mean spirited" as well. The father coach / child athlete point was a seperate theory about a type of inspirational strategy. The sexual role based theory was meant to be a seperate "adults only" strategy. It was not my intent to imply that they are the same strategy. Finally, the way we have choosen to raise our daughters ( we have two) is to make them aware that there are people in this world that are not very nice and that will take advantage of you , if you let them. We have made the girls fully aware of why and how being "taken advantage of" can manifest itself. This way situations like the one being discussed in this thread will be less likely to happen to them.( unless they want it for their own satisfaction ) If "my parts" did not "tingle" then my daughters would not exist, and that would be truely disturbing. I hope that the new year brings you many more opportunities to open your mind and "perhaps" even experience a little bit of the real world. Good luck sir!

When the athlete and coach are of opposite sexes a sexual role based relationship can develop. It does not have to be acted upon physically, but the energy that comes from the relationship can be redirected toward a successful athletic performance. Hey, why just the opposite sex? Why not the same sex? How about if some football coach tries it with your little boy? SportingRhino, you're a complete jackass. Why just the opposite sex you ask? You see for a relationship to have the type of energy that I am speaking about, and that you may have never felt, is the energy that is created when a man and a women come together. I could explain it biologically, but that would only confuse you more. There could be no sexual energy between my little boy and his football coach because they are of the same sex. Please do not confuse the lust of a pedophile for the kind of positive sexual energy that inspires athletes and artists. My little boy is actually a little girl, so it could be possible, but to be honest with you she really has shown no interest in football. I hope she does receive her share of advances(she's 13), because she has been taught well about respect and integrity. She already knows the value of a well timed flirt. She also knows that all "men" want the same thing. That thing has great value and needs to be valued highly. I would suggest that, if you have had some personal "experience" with a football coach or a "little boy", that there is therapy available, but you need to make the first step, Come on, start the New Year off right!..Just pick up the phone and make the call. It's the first step toward recovery. Happy New Year!!!!

Everyone has the right to complain about the way they have been treated in life. I would like to take another approach with this event. There is more to coaching than just strategy and training techniques. There is inspiration. Some coaches are able to inspire athletes through various mechanismsm. A common one is that the athlete has so much respect for the coach that the athlete would feel shame, if they let the coach down with a poor performance or did not meet the coach's expectations. There is a father/child development in the coaching relationship. When the athlete and coach are of opposite sexes a sexual role based relationship can develop. It does not have to be acted upon physically, but the energy that comes from the relationship can be redirected toward a successful athletic performance. When a coach has success with any type of technique, he is likley to repeat it. Eventually somebody can cross the line, especially if an added emotion of disappointment (over being cut) is added to the mix. This is all speculation on my part, but I believe it is plausable. It would take a bigger man than me to resist all of the temptations that ten years or so of coaching physically perfected women is likley to bring about. I am reminded of the coach of the North Carolina womens soccer team, they won about 15 NCAA titles over the years . Then allegations came out about several "physical relationships", that had occurred during his tenure. So this kind of daliance does happen from time to time in the heterosexual world. I do not condone it, but I understand.

Maybe I'm a bit slow but it sounds like you're saying the Cuban missles were unproven? If this is correct I say again, are you serious? STl, your use of the word "maybe" implies some understanding of the word itself. However your assuptions of my intent belies the actual meaning of the word in it's given context. I hope that my statements don't cause you any further issues with your dogmatic reality. I had only hoped to inspire some discussion(ie thought) as to the reality of a punitive embargo. I wanted to establish that political "ends" are often established by illogical '"means". The denial of a friendly baseball tornament because of an embargo which is based upon a supposed ideological indifference or an idle threat(idle because the technology of ICBM's make Cuba the strategical equivilent of the moon.) I do agree my spelling is suspect at best. I seem to spell Israel as Isreal as a hideous inside joke ( like i can't beleive that this place isreal ) This is a cheap and somewhat tawdry way of drawing attention to a somewhat tawdry political situation( or should I say "state"). you are correct: Israel is fighting for its existence( with some help from the USA ) That is because it's existance is political. The State of Israel was established, much like the UN to serve a political agenda. Which is in stark contrast to Cuba which was fought for in a standard winner( Castro ) takes all historical sense. Now as to question of my "seriousness". I will leave that for you to decide. I am not sure what your level of understanding of Russian or Cryllic language you have achieved. So, if you do get the chance to review the UN tape s of the Kennedy/Kruschev debate. You known ."... Mr. Kruschev will you remove your missles..." Kruschev actually replies by asking Kennedy if he was in fact a "Donut", what kind would he be? Kennedy refused to answer so, Kruschev stormed out. Cuba has never fired an "official" shot on American troops, Israel sunk one of our destroyers in the Gulf of Tonkin(1967). They said it was an accident. It amazes me that we can show that kind of resilience when one of our ships is attacked and our soliders are killed, but yet won't allow a baseball game to be played because of an embargo which ceases to have relevence in the modern global economy. The continuence of the Cuban embargo seems a bit too much "buisness as usual". It just lends itself to ridicule when compared part and parcel to the whole world of bad guys agenda(Iraq,Iran,North Korea) While China and Israel run unfettered.This fact is especially embarissing, when you acknowled their total lack of a quality baseball product!

The Monroe Doctrine was a flag staking declaration. Where the Marshall Plan was more of a US led capitalist protectionism outline presented as a care package. You obviously know the history of neither. The primary purpose of the Marshall plan was to avoid the conditions that existed after WW1 where Germany, in particular, was left for dead thus creating the conditions that led to WW11. The Monroe Doctrine's purpose was to keep European powers out of the Americas. If your teachers are filling your head with something different, I guess I'm not surprised. This of course is a matter of opinion and is open for conjecture. Today in class Miss Jones taugh us about "revisionist history" I did not pay real good attention because the girl in front of me got her braces off to day and she was real cute..oh but again I digress, so I think the gist of what the teacher had to say was; The winners write history. How do you think 1930's Germany got to their retched state? They lost the previous war. They were forced in to unfair reparations,taxations and embargos. Their dire economic state allowed Hitler rise to power because the people were desperate. Now back to the winners, they impliment their plans as divine right. The key to an effective colonization is to destroy the history and culture of the defeated peoples. Then you can build the emerging culture as your own costruction( the US was a major investor in Germany after both world wars) . Which then can be replicated for many generations of happy consumers. One world, One store,One bank.One consumer culture. This is not a "bad" thing as long as "bad" people don't control it. I am not sure what Miss Jones has been filling our heads with...but even she would never make reference to "WW 11(eleven)". Unless that...,she really is a robot from the future! SCF if you know about WW !! then you too could be a ...Robot from the future! Either that or you are getting you info from Wikipedia". You know they don't edit that stuff right? If the Marshall plan was so great, then why are there no great "german" baseball players?