Hodge arrested for stealing moped

[Tarlam!]

I'm replying to your constitutional rights, not to you personally...

[Fosco33]

That's not what you said. You said

Their penalties come later regardless of the offense

That sounds very righteous, vindictive. It is pretty vague. You can call upon your Americanism to defend your stance, but, that's not what you meant. You were referring to a higher being, and now, you're backing away and hiding behind false patriotism.

That's fine.

I wasn't referring to a higher power.

In each of the varying cases - vehicular manslaughter, DUI and moped theft - the actual penalties came after (or will come after) playing football again.

It's a fact - not an opinion. I don't need to prove otherwise - I don't even need to bring in 'false patriotism'. That's just BS.

[Tarlam!]

don't even need to bring in 'false patriotism'

Correct, you don't need to. Still, you clearly rely upon it to make your case.

Your original point, Fosco, was not made with the American legal system in mind. It was made in acknowledgement of punishment by an all-knowing being.

You can deny it. Then, you'll be denying your innermost beliefs on account of a silly arbitrary altercation on this forum. Or, you can own up, and stand by what you said.

It's all fine.

[Fosco33]

don't even need to bring in 'false patriotism'

Correct, you don't need to. Still, you clearly rely upon it to make your case.

Your original point, Fosco, was not made with the American legal system in mind. It was made in acknowledgement of punishment by an all-knowing being.

You can deny it. Then, you'll be denying your innermost beliefs on account of a silly arbitrary altercation on this forum. Or, you can own up, and stand by what you said.

It's all fine.

You misunderstood my statement. I would've said God's judgement if that's what I was implying. We're really arguing about nothing - like a married couple

[Tarlam!]

Fine.

[Harlan Huckleby]

We don't decide their guilt/innocence

If they are guilty, their penalties/suspensions/fines/etc come later - after playing while being assumed innocent - this is America

I just don't agree with this at all. By this standard, a coach can't take any action against a player unless an infraction can be proven in court.

If the kid stole a moped, it was wrong for Beliema to allow him to play, regardless of whether he is ultimately found guilty or innocent by the legal system. And Beliema has an excellent idea of what happened just by asking a few questions of Hodge & friends, this is not a complicated caper.

[pbmax]

The UW-Madison now has a student-athlete policy in place that takes individual situations out of the coaches hands. If charges are filed, then the player is suspended. If the player requests an appeal, they can get back on the team temporarily AFTER a hearing.

For the whole process to run its course, obviously the justice system must be done. But players have been suspended and the suspension upheld BEFORE the legal system has run its course. For example, Booker Stanley.

Hodge's, situation sounds like it hasn't hit the panel and he hasn't been suspended yet. But, I haven't read the coverage and its possible they held an expedited hearing and granted an appeal to stay on the team.

The idea is so that a backup player doesn't get made an example of and the star gets back on the field. It also seeks to eliminate the inconsistencies between coaches and programs.

[Harlan Huckleby]

pbmax, I was not aware of this policy. It sounds like an attempt at fairness. I understand the value of forcing a player to be suspended (absent a successful appeal.) But I would think that the Coach always has the discretion to suspend a player.

[Terry]

Get off your pedestal Princess Harlan. It was a damn moped, not auto theft.

Terry - Maybe the person who stole your car did it cuz they wanted to punish you for drunk driving in the past?

Hell, things can get really embarrassing when someone is around with an elephant memory!

I think you'd have to be drunk to steal a moped.

Some people say you'd have to be drunk to steal a Volvo!

[pbmax]

pbmax, I was not aware of this policy. It sounds like an attempt at fairness. I understand the value of forcing a player to be suspended (absent a successful appeal.) But I would think that the Coach always has the discretion to suspend a player.

I think the key word would be suspension. I suspect, but am not sure, that the coach wouldn't be able to suspend independently of the policy.

But Bielema kicked Stanley off the team, the policy didn't seem to deter that. It would also seem that a player could be kept from practicing or getting reps or playing time. There are also the ubiquitous team rule situations. There is still room for the coach to impose discipline.

The appeal is the exasperating one, because it is not at all clear what you would have to have done, or what evidence would have to be presented, for the appeal NOT to overturn the suspension. Of the ones I am aware of, the majority seem to be overturned.

An exception would seem to be Booker, who seemed hell-bent to land himself in jail or off the team. Or he was auditioning for the Bengals.

[Tarlam!]

What sort of bullshit system is this? Innocent until PROVEN guilty should be just that!

How dare anybody get their rights taken away just because of an accusation?

I could accuse Hodge of raping my border collie 1 day before the bowl game, and BOOM, under that stupid policy, he would be "suspended".

Think about the implications of that: Guilty until proven innocent......You wait out the hearing to find out your fine/sentence.

That is really a great thing to be proud of. The "American Way". Bah! Humbug!!

[Patler]

I think Hodge may have been reinstated because formal criminal charges have not yet been filed. Others have been reinstated temporarily in the same situation, but again suspended when formal charges are filed. If formal criminal charges are not filed, he will be outside the new policy.

[Patler]

What sort of bullshit system is this? Innocent until PROVEN guilty should be just that!

How dare anybody get their rights taken away just because of an accusation?

I could accuse Hodge of raping my border collie 1 day before the bowl game, and BOOM, under that stupid policy, he would be "suspended".

Think about the implications of that: Guilty until proven innocent......You wait out the hearing to find out your fine/sentence.

That is really a great thing to be proud of. The "American Way". Bah! Humbug!!

It's not just on an accusation, the DA has to file charges for the suspension to stick. The UW policy is a good one for student athletes. As they explained at the time, a player has more important things to worry about than football if the DA files charges against him.

[Tarlam!]

So, what you are saying is, if the DA files charges, it is a conviction.

Well, I am glad to know the DA is Judge and Jury and id he/she files charges, I am guilty until I prove otherwise...

[Patler]

So, what you are saying is, if the DA files charges, it is a conviction.

Well, I am glad to know the DA is Judge and Jury and id he/she files charges, I am guilty until I prove otherwise...

Do you not agree that the coach can suspend the player in that situation? If so, why can the University simply have an established policy that applies to everyone? A player has no "right" to play football.

The problem UW had was that for a while they had a number of athletes in different sports who had criminal charges filed against them. Some were suspended, others were not. There was a sense that they were lenienet with star players, but suspended players that didn't matter. There was also a rash of activity resulting in charges against players, and the school felt it had to do something to impress upon the athletes that activities like that won't be tolerated.

Some businesses put employees on a leave of absense if criminal charges are filed against them. This is no different.