Westchester Community College issues-

[beast of the east]

Maybe we shouldn't speculate about a kid doing wrong when there is zero indication that he has done anything wrong. Guilt by association is terribly unfair.

A tweet by a basketball writer mentioned that it COULD impact a player on our team. If the same writer wrote something that COULD be a positive for a player on our team or recruit should we also not speculate either? I mean that would only be fair right?

No. They are not equal. Once you unfairly associate a person with a shameful act they are branded. Without even getting into simple, common decency, In a court of law one form of falsehood/lie/untruth is called slander and it has legal consequences both civil and criminal. Another form is called "puffing" (exaggerating in a positive way) which is legal in NY state law for example when selling real estate.

Paul, I believe you are being unduly harsh on Moose in this matter, and by introducing legalities as the basis for your condemnation of his post. There is no allegation by Moose, Zagoria, or anyone that Thomas is somehow suspect. There is however, a legitimate concern when a player who comes from a program where there was criminal falsification of academic records, at a college where talented but academically deficient players land to improve grades. Jucos, prep schools, and community colleges become powerhouse teams overnight by attracting players needing to improve academics. The meteoric rise in some of these programs is not always attributed to great coaching and great recruiting, but scurrilous activities to get great players with serious academic issues into their schools and to insure they will get good enough grades to qualify for D1 play.

You are correct, though, to warn not to make allegations about Thomas when there is no supporting evidence to do so, even by inference. I do not believe this is the case here in the above posts

 

[Marillac]

Maybe we shouldn't speculate about a kid doing wrong when there is zero indication that he has done anything wrong. Guilt by association is terribly unfair.

A tweet by a basketball writer mentioned that it COULD impact a player on our team. If the same writer wrote something that COULD be a positive for a player on our team or recruit should we also not speculate either? I mean that would only be fair right?

No. They are not equal. Once you unfairly associate a person with a shameful act they are branded. Without even getting into simple, common decency, In a court of law one form of falsehood/lie/untruth is called slander and it has legal consequences both civil and criminal. Another form is called "puffing" (exaggerating in a positive way) which is legal in NY state law for example when selling real estate.

Are any of us posting here Adam Zagoria? He 'branded' the name saying it COULD have an impact. So are you saying we can't speculate about it? But good to know the army of lawyers here can help out Thomas when he slams Zags with a slander suit

Technically it would be libel

 

[Red.Fans]

Just directly answering Moose's question. He is saying they are equal, I am saying they are not. If I speculate that Joe Panik will end up being the all time post season hit leader for a rookie Giant, that is one thing. If I say that maybe he went to the Sammy Sosa school of hitting that would permanently smear his name even if he never corked his bat and never had any dealings with Sosa whatsoever.

 

[jumbo_peanuts]

Maybe we shouldn't speculate about a kid doing wrong when there is zero indication that he has done anything wrong. Guilt by association is terribly unfair.

A tweet by a basketball writer mentioned that it COULD impact a player on our team. If the same writer wrote something that COULD be a positive for a player on our team or recruit should we also not speculate either? I mean that would only be fair right?

No. They are not equal. Once you unfairly associate a person with a shameful act they are branded. Without even getting into simple, common decency, In a court of law one form of falsehood/lie/untruth is called slander and it has legal consequences both civil and criminal. Another form is called "puffing" (exaggerating in a positive way) which is legal in NY state law for example when selling real estate.

So you want Keith Thomas to go after him for libel? Is that what you are saying?

 

[Moose]

Just directly answering Moose's question. He is saying they are equal, I am saying they are not. If I speculate that Joe Panik will end up being the all time post season hit leader for a rookie Giant, that is one thing. If I say that maybe he went to the Sammy Sosa school of hitting that would permanently smear his name even if he never corked his bat and never had any dealings with Sosa whatsoever.

I never said anything about equality. You brought that up. The OP said it wasn't fair to talk about. Why? Because it has a hint of negativity? We speculate on good things and its celebrated. Sorry but thats backwards to me. It's not like someone here started the story.

I used the word ultra optimistic to talk about another posters post's of late. In the case and for a lot of the site lately its been ultra sensitive IMO. But I'm done on this topic now. In the words of the OP, SMH. That's how I feel a great deal lately reading the site. It's the reason I came out of my hibernation but honestly might not have been the right move.

 

[Class of 72]

Just directly answering Moose's question. He is saying they are equal, I am saying they are not. If I speculate that Joe Panik will end up being the all time post season hit leader for a rookie Giant, that is one thing. If I say that maybe he went to the Sammy Sosa school of hitting that would permanently smear his name even if he never corked his bat and never had any dealings with Sosa whatsoever.

I never said anything about equality. You brought that up. The OP said it wasn't fair to talk about. Why? Because it has a hint of negativity? We speculate on good things and its celebrated. Sorry but thats backwards to me. It's not like someone here started the story.

I used the word ultra optimistic to talk about another posters post's of late. In the case and for a lot of the site lately its been ultra sensitive IMO. But I'm done on this topic now. In the words of the OP, SMH. That's how I feel a great deal lately reading the site. It's the reason I came out of my hibernation but honestly might not have been the right move.

Moose, I am not defending Paul's response to you but you did postulate that the situations were equal when you said: "A tweet by a basketball writer mentioned that it COULD impact a player on our team. If the same writer wrote something that COULD be a positive for a player on our team or recruit should we also not speculate either? I mean that would only be fair right?"
As a moderator here and Global moderator on JJ, you know we do not speculate about the positives but only accentuate the negatives on both sites. A hot topic in Chapel Hill as we speak is how many of the hundreds of athletes over 20 years should have been eligible to play football and basketball. The university says it only occurred in the African American Studies program. I "speculate" that was not the case.

 

[simplyred]

I didn't want to revisit this issue but... Speculating that this situation might affect WCC players in general is fair. For Zags to mention two kids by name, unless he has more information, is unfair. And if there is some information that directly connects those two kids, then he should say so. What he did, in my opinion, is unfair. I'm not a journalist and I don't know the standards that they use, but it just doesn't seem right.

Anyone who equates positive speculation with a negative smear job, which is often irreversible, is deluded.

 

[monte]

I didn't want to revisit this issue but... Speculating that this situation might affect WCC players in general is fair. For Zags to mention two kids by name, unless he has more information, is unfair. And if there is some information that directly connects those two kids, then he should say so. What he did, in my opinion, is unfair. I'm not a journalist and I don't know the standards that they use, but it just doesn't seem right.

Anyone who equates positive speculation with a negative smear job, which is often irreversible, is deluded.

Agree WCC shouldn't have mentioned kids by name in spite of the fact that they seemed to be questioning more than anything. But where's the smear job? I doubt Thomas was involved. If he wasn't, what exactly was said that would damage the kid's rep? I report like this comes out and IMO its completely fair game to wonder if one of our players may be impacted by it.

 

[monte]

I didn't want to revisit this issue but... Speculating that this situation might affect WCC players in general is fair. For Zags to mention two kids by name, unless he has more information, is unfair. And if there is some information that directly connects those two kids, then he should say so. What he did, in my opinion, is unfair. I'm not a journalist and I don't know the standards that they use, but it just doesn't seem right.

Anyone who equates positive speculation with a negative smear job, which is often irreversible, is deluded.

Meant Zagoria shouldn't have mentioned names.

 

[Andrew]

Our first exhibition game is Saturday. I would imagine if there was any problem Thomas would be held out of that game.

 

[Amaseinyourface]

I didn't want to revisit this issue but... Speculating that this situation might affect WCC players in general is fair. For Zags to mention two kids by name, unless he has more information, is unfair. And if there is some information that directly connects those two kids, then he should say so. What he did, in my opinion, is unfair. I'm not a journalist and I don't know the standards that they use, but it just doesn't seem right.

Anyone who equates positive speculation with a negative smear job, which is often irreversible, is deluded.

Agree WCC shouldn't have mentioned kids by name in spite of the fact that they seemed to be questioning more than anything. But where's the smear job? I doubt Thomas was involved. If he wasn't, what exactly was said that would damage the kid's rep? I report like this comes out and IMO its completely fair game to wonder if one of our players may be impacted by it.

Threads like these on the internet questioning the kids academic integrity. Not a smear job?

 

[Moose]

Our first exhibition game is Saturday. I would imagine if there was any problem Thomas would be held out of that game.

You really shouldn't speculate on that. Some on here might get their panties is a twist

 

[monte]

I didn't want to revisit this issue but... Speculating that this situation might affect WCC players in general is fair. For Zags to mention two kids by name, unless he has more information, is unfair. And if there is some information that directly connects those two kids, then he should say so. What he did, in my opinion, is unfair. I'm not a journalist and I don't know the standards that they use, but it just doesn't seem right.

Anyone who equates positive speculation with a negative smear job, which is often irreversible, is deluded.

Agree WCC shouldn't have mentioned kids by name in spite of the fact that they seemed to be questioning more than anything. But where's the smear job? I doubt Thomas was involved. If he wasn't, what exactly was said that would damage the kid's rep? I report like this comes out and IMO its completely fair game to wonder if one of our players may be impacted by it.

Threads like these on the internet questioning the kids academic integrity. Not a smear job?

Show me where the kid is "smeared" and maybe I'll see your point. From what I can tell, his prior school is being called in to question. Is that not newsworthy?

 

[Amaseinyourface]

I didn't want to revisit this issue but... Speculating that this situation might affect WCC players in general is fair. For Zags to mention two kids by name, unless he has more information, is unfair. And if there is some information that directly connects those two kids, then he should say so. What he did, in my opinion, is unfair. I'm not a journalist and I don't know the standards that they use, but it just doesn't seem right.

Anyone who equates positive speculation with a negative smear job, which is often irreversible, is deluded.

Agree WCC shouldn't have mentioned kids by name in spite of the fact that they seemed to be questioning more than anything. But where's the smear job? I doubt Thomas was involved. If he wasn't, what exactly was said that would damage the kid's rep? I report like this comes out and IMO its completely fair game to wonder if one of our players may be impacted by it.

Threads like these on the internet questioning the kids academic integrity. Not a smear job?

Show me where the kid is "smeared" and maybe I'll see your point. From what I can tell, his prior school is being called in to question. Is that not newsworthy?

This, no?
Adam Zagoria
‏@AdamZagoria That WCC transcript story could have implications for Keith Thomas at St. John's & Gio McLean at Quinnipiac.


Now zagoria mentions his name and immediately, St johns fans and big east fans, begin to speculate about what went on with Keith or whats going on at St. John's. Hopefully nothing comes of it, and hopefully people dont question St. John's or its players academic legitimacy.

 

[monte]

I didn't want to revisit this issue but... Speculating that this situation might affect WCC players in general is fair. For Zags to mention two kids by name, unless he has more information, is unfair. And if there is some information that directly connects those two kids, then he should say so. What he did, in my opinion, is unfair. I'm not a journalist and I don't know the standards that they use, but it just doesn't seem right.

Anyone who equates positive speculation with a negative smear job, which is often irreversible, is deluded.

Agree WCC shouldn't have mentioned kids by name in spite of the fact that they seemed to be questioning more than anything. But where's the smear job? I doubt Thomas was involved. If he wasn't, what exactly was said that would damage the kid's rep? I report like this comes out and IMO its completely fair game to wonder if one of our players may be impacted by it.

Threads like these on the internet questioning the kids academic integrity. Not a smear job?

Show me where the kid is "smeared" and maybe I'll see your point. From what I can tell, his prior school is being called in to question. Is that not newsworthy?

This, no?
Adam Zagoria
‏@AdamZagoria That WCC transcript story could have implications for Keith Thomas at St. John's & Gio McLean at Quinnipiac.


Now zagoria mentions his name and immediately, St johns fans and big east fans, begin to speculate about what went on with Keith or whats going on at St. John's. Hopefully nothing comes of it, and hopefully people dont question St. John's or its players academic legitimacy.

I said in one of my earlier posts that IMO it was irresponsible of Zags to mention the kids' names, but that's way way way short of smearing them. As for this site, you better believe fans are going to question whether there is a connection. But there's a far cry between questioning and accusing.

 

[mjmaherjr]

I didn't want to revisit this issue but... Speculating that this situation might affect WCC players in general is fair. For Zags to mention two kids by name, unless he has more information, is unfair. And if there is some information that directly connects those two kids, then he should say so. What he did, in my opinion, is unfair. I'm not a journalist and I don't know the standards that they use, but it just doesn't seem right.

Anyone who equates positive speculation with a negative smear job, which is often irreversible, is deluded.

Agree WCC shouldn't have mentioned kids by name in spite of the fact that they seemed to be questioning more than anything. But where's the smear job? I doubt Thomas was involved. If he wasn't, what exactly was said that would damage the kid's rep? I report like this comes out and IMO its completely fair game to wonder if one of our players may be impacted by it.

Threads like these on the internet questioning the kids academic integrity. Not a smear job?

Show me where the kid is "smeared" and maybe I'll see your point. From what I can tell, his prior school is being called in to question. Is that not newsworthy?

This, no?
Adam Zagoria
‏@AdamZagoria That WCC transcript story could have implications for Keith Thomas at St. John's & Gio McLean at Quinnipiac.


Now zagoria mentions his name and immediately, St johns fans and big east fans, begin to speculate about what went on with Keith or whats going on at St. John's. Hopefully nothing comes of it, and hopefully people dont question St. John's or its players academic legitimacy.

he got that from reading this thread

 

[tom in salem]

Assuming the NCAA Clearinghouse has done their due diligence, no reason this guy shouldn't be playing at all.

 

[newsman13]

I didn't want to revisit this issue but... Speculating that this situation might affect WCC players in general is fair. For Zags to mention two kids by name, unless he has more information, is unfair. And if there is some information that directly connects those two kids, then he should say so. What he did, in my opinion, is unfair. I'm not a journalist and I don't know the standards that they use, but it just doesn't seem right.

Anyone who equates positive speculation with a negative smear job, which is often irreversible, is deluded.

Agree WCC shouldn't have mentioned kids by name in spite of the fact that they seemed to be questioning more than anything. But where's the smear job? I doubt Thomas was involved. If he wasn't, what exactly was said that would damage the kid's rep? I report like this comes out and IMO its completely fair game to wonder if one of our players may be impacted by it.

Threads like these on the internet questioning the kids academic integrity. Not a smear job?

Show me where the kid is "smeared" and maybe I'll see your point. From what I can tell, his prior school is being called in to question. Is that not newsworthy?

This, no?
Adam Zagoria
‏@AdamZagoria That WCC transcript story could have implications for Keith Thomas at St. John's & Gio McLean at Quinnipiac.


Now zagoria mentions his name and immediately, St johns fans and big east fans, begin to speculate about what went on with Keith or whats going on at St. John's. Hopefully nothing comes of it, and hopefully people dont question St. John's or its players academic legitimacy.

What Zagoria did was "localize" the story to create interest outside Westchester and FAMU. It's a common practice to generate audience. It "could have implications" for two players...true. It doesn't mean it will. Far from it.

 

[paultzman]

Hearing Thomas will be fine.

 

[monte]

Assuming the NCAA Clearinghouse has done their due diligence, no reason this guy shouldn't be playing at all.

Tom except in unusual circumstances(IE Sanchez), who generally clears these kids the schools or the NCAA?