Presumed Guilty
Look for some fresh new faces on the OSU campus this fall that promise to bring renewed excitement to OSU athletics.
The dividends are already paying off for the women's volleyball squad where coach Terry Liskevych notched his first Pacific-10 victory this weekend against Arizona State.
And Nebraska transfer Jetta Sadusky is off to a solid start scoring three goals in her first nine games for the women's soccer team.
Another 'player' new to campus this fall, though less visible than Liskevych or Sadusky, promises to have an even greater potential impact on the future of OSU athletics.
This 'player,' otherwise known as the student-athlete code of conduct, seeks to govern and regulate the behavior of OSU athletes by setting minimum punishments for five crimes: driving under the influence of intoxicants, minor in possession of alcohol, possession of a controlled substance, physical assault and sexual offenses.
The head coach of each sport is responsible for enforcing the punishment which involves immediate suspension once charges are brought against the athlete.
The policy was initiated as a result of pressure from Sen. Rick Metsger and the Oregon Legislature following the high profile arrests of six OSU football players last spring. Metsger, a former television sportscaster, proposed Senate Bill 416 which sought to establish standards of conduct for Oregon football programs receiving state funds.
After releasing the code of conduct OSU athletic director Bob De Carolis stated: "The fact that we had a number of [arrests] in a short amount of time, which we've never had before, all from one team prompted me to say, 'We've got to disconnect here someplace.'"
An examination of Senate Bill 416 suggests the "disconnect" extends well beyond the halls of the Valley Football Center.
The concept of "innocent until proven guilty" serves as a cornerstone of our American legal system. Under this new code of conduct, once charges are brought against an athlete - regardless of whether the accusation has merit - the individual must submit to the punishment immediately. The process turns an important legal concept on its head, placing the burden on the accused to prove his innocence.
A similar system would likely be ruled unconstitutional if adopted, for example, by the Corvallis Police Department. Imagine the public outcry if a person charged with robbing a convenience store was afforded no trial, and put behind bars in the Benton County jail.
The hypocrisy inherent in Senate Bill 416 is not hard to locate. Metzger utilized his democratic powers as a senator to fashion a discipline policy that blatantly contradicts the most basic rule of democratic law.
Keep in mind, while Metsger pressed his bill in the legislature, thousands of Oregonians remained unemployed, the statewide methamphetamine epidemic raged unabated and the cost of higher education at state schools continued to rise.
The Oregon Legislature surely has more pressing issues than regulating the activities of college athletes.
One has to wonder how this policy will play out. True, the code of conduct may act as a deterrent to future misbehavior. It is equally possible, however, that potential Beaver recruits will regard such a policy with some doubt and suspicion.
It is a potential possibility that this code could impose a hardship on the university in two areas: financial and athletic. For example, imagine if a "Steven Jackson-caliber" football player was wrongly charged with physical assault and forced to miss a few critical games because of the code's strict guidelines. His draft position could fall just as quickly as the team's conference standing. A source close to the athletic department privately expressed to me concerns about the code, citing questions of legal liability.
On the one hand, the NCAA seeks to further the illusion of "student first, athlete second." But on the other, the newly implemented code of conduct imposes special rules on athletes. Ironically, the code in some ways serves to further isolate some athletes from the general student population.
One must agree with De Carolis' message, "Do the right thing." But there is a sense that this code of conduct has more to do with political maneuvering than any genuine concern for athletes' well-being.
The dividends are already paying off for the women's volleyball squad where coach Terry Liskevych notched his first Pacific-10 victory this weekend against Arizona State.
And Nebraska transfer Jetta Sadusky is off to a solid start scoring three goals in her first nine games for the women's soccer team.
Another 'player' new to campus this fall, though less visible than Liskevych or Sadusky, promises to have an even greater potential impact on the future of OSU athletics.
This 'player,' otherwise known as the student-athlete code of conduct, seeks to govern and regulate the behavior of OSU athletes by setting minimum punishments for five crimes: driving under the influence of intoxicants, minor in possession of alcohol, possession of a controlled substance, physical assault and sexual offenses.
The head coach of each sport is responsible for enforcing the punishment which involves immediate suspension once charges are brought against the athlete.
The policy was initiated as a result of pressure from Sen. Rick Metsger and the Oregon Legislature following the high profile arrests of six OSU football players last spring. Metsger, a former television sportscaster, proposed Senate Bill 416 which sought to establish standards of conduct for Oregon football programs receiving state funds.
After releasing the code of conduct OSU athletic director Bob De Carolis stated: "The fact that we had a number of [arrests] in a short amount of time, which we've never had before, all from one team prompted me to say, 'We've got to disconnect here someplace.'"
An examination of Senate Bill 416 suggests the "disconnect" extends well beyond the halls of the Valley Football Center.
The concept of "innocent until proven guilty" serves as a cornerstone of our American legal system. Under this new code of conduct, once charges are brought against an athlete - regardless of whether the accusation has merit - the individual must submit to the punishment immediately. The process turns an important legal concept on its head, placing the burden on the accused to prove his innocence.
A similar system would likely be ruled unconstitutional if adopted, for example, by the Corvallis Police Department. Imagine the public outcry if a person charged with robbing a convenience store was afforded no trial, and put behind bars in the Benton County jail.
The hypocrisy inherent in Senate Bill 416 is not hard to locate. Metzger utilized his democratic powers as a senator to fashion a discipline policy that blatantly contradicts the most basic rule of democratic law.
Keep in mind, while Metsger pressed his bill in the legislature, thousands of Oregonians remained unemployed, the statewide methamphetamine epidemic raged unabated and the cost of higher education at state schools continued to rise.
The Oregon Legislature surely has more pressing issues than regulating the activities of college athletes.
One has to wonder how this policy will play out. True, the code of conduct may act as a deterrent to future misbehavior. It is equally possible, however, that potential Beaver recruits will regard such a policy with some doubt and suspicion.
It is a potential possibility that this code could impose a hardship on the university in two areas: financial and athletic. For example, imagine if a "Steven Jackson-caliber" football player was wrongly charged with physical assault and forced to miss a few critical games because of the code's strict guidelines. His draft position could fall just as quickly as the team's conference standing. A source close to the athletic department privately expressed to me concerns about the code, citing questions of legal liability.
On the one hand, the NCAA seeks to further the illusion of "student first, athlete second." But on the other, the newly implemented code of conduct imposes special rules on athletes. Ironically, the code in some ways serves to further isolate some athletes from the general student population.
One must agree with De Carolis' message, "Do the right thing." But there is a sense that this code of conduct has more to do with political maneuvering than any genuine concern for athletes' well-being.
posted by Andy Darkins at 7:02 PM
18 comments
