Syracuse Asst. Basketball Coach Bernie Fine Fired Amid Allegations *Updated*

[Rogah]

I was defending ESPN and Fine earlier but today's allegations certainly changes that opinion. While this whole thing still seems very strange, obviously what has recently come out shows a degree of guilt.

And while I was defending ESPN before, I am now somewhat sickened by them. Of course, I'm sure there's more to come out that hasn't yet but right now they look really bad. And what sickens me is that the constant, unending stream of talking heads on ESPN are allowed to criticize anything and everything they can - except ESPN itself. So I fully expect the "Worldwide Leader" to do everything they can to sweep their culpability under the rug as much they can.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

Fine's dismissal was just because the school reportedly interviewed Laurie Fine back in 2005 and she said she saw or knew nothing about Davis' allegations. I'm assuming Fine said the same thing. So...even if Fine was making advances or having sex with a legal age Davis...the University was still lied to.

I kinda have a hard time believing that if somebody like Davis was telling the truth, that 4 different entities (Post Standard, ESPN, Police and the University) could not get those allegations corroborated or show some evidence towards them. I'm not saying it could not happen...but I think it would be extremely unlikely given the amount of people involved.

That's what makes me lean towards Fine making sexual advances at Davis of legal age. But then again...I'm not quite sure I believe somebody would house a teenage boy and wait precisely at the age they are legal to make advances.

The problem with ESPN is what Jason Whitlock alluded to. Even if Fine is stone cold guilty...this is not how investigative reporting is conducted. You are supposed to find proof and get somebody to corroborate the evidence (that isn't related to the original accuser) before reporting a serious allegation. For instance, if ESPN waited and found out that the police were investigating the matter and were just about to press charges (which still hasn't been done, yet)...then it's responsible to come forward with the report.

By jumping the gun like they did, now they would have to report every allegation that came to them without any evidence or proof. That would obviously cause a mess.

I also think if you read the headlines on ESPN.com versus those from the Post Standard (www.syracuse.com) you will see 2 completely different tones. I don't think anybody would disagree with the Post-Standards headlines on the case. They've been accurate and they have not leaned towards convicting or excusing Fine. But, ESPN.com has clearly already convicted Fine.

Personally, I'm glad that Fine has been fired and I think we still need to know who knew what and when they knew it. But, I still don't think it's incredible that Fine may have made sexual advances towards a legal age boy. I can't really imagine a mother and wife talking so casually to a man who was molested as an underage boy by her husband. I can imagine a mother and wife talking casually about her accepting the fact that her husband is gay and tried to make advances towards a legal age male.

But, the entire thing has been pretty surreal so far.







YR

 

[TNCowboy]

Ouch. What was Boehiem thinking, making such a public defense of this guy? He had to believe that the original accusation was proven false and this was all just a money grab.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

Ouch. What was Boehiem thinking, making such a public defense of this guy? He had to believe that the original accusation was proven false and this was all just a money grab.

Assuming what Boeheim told us was true, I don't understand what's so hard to understand his defense of Fine at the time.

1. He knew Fine for nearly 50 years.

2. This was originally investigated by the Post-Standard, ESPN, the Police and the University and nobody would corroborate the story or have any evidence.

3. Davis claimed that Boeheim saw him in Fine's room numerous times on road games and Boeheim said he's never been in Fine's room.

So...for *now*...if we are to assume that what Boeheim was saying is true...how do you not defend your friend?

If people make accusations about your friends and you either assume they are right or sit on the fence...you probably won't have many friends in this life.

It's like Boeheim said, he knew Bernie for 50 years and he believes him until evidence say elsewise....then he won't believe Fine. I think most of us would have done the same thing. Since there were *4* different investigations, I would have believed that Davis is lying. Although, it should be noted that Fine has not been arrested at this moment.





YR

 

[joseephuss]

3. Davis claimed that Boeheim saw him in Fine's room numerous times on road games and Boeheim said he's never been in Fine's room.

YR

I find this part difficult to believe. Boeheim and Fine have coached together for many years and many, many road games. The odds just seem too great that Boeheim would never be in Fine's room at some point during all that time even if just for a minute or two. I think it would fall somewhere between "never" and "numerous times".

 

[Yakuza Rich]

I find this part difficult to believe. Boeheim and Fine have coached together for many years and many, many road games. The odds just seem too great that Boeheim would never be in Fine's room at some point during all that time even if just for a minute or two. I think it would fall somewhere between "never" and "numerous times".

Yeah...I wonder if they ever go over anything before the game. Although I don't think it's impossible to believe that they haven't. That's what conference rooms and locker rooms are for.

However, when Boeheim stated that Davis was lying and that he had never been in Fine's room on road games...Davis' rebuttal never addressed Boeheim's claim. Instead, Davis said 'how would Boeheim know what happened in Bernie's house?'

Well...he wouldn't. But, Davis accusing Boeheim of seeing Davis in a hotel room and that's what Boeheim is replying to. It makes me wonder why Davis would forget to refute this.

I'm probably more interested in what the Police have to say. I believe that ESPN has a lot more information that they are letting people to believe and I think some of that information contradicts Davis' story. I have FAR more closer, personal ties to the Syracuse police than I do the University and the basketball program. I just have a hard time believing that the police would just say 'sorry, statute of limitations ran out' and leave it at that. To me, it would look worse for the police than the University and that really bothers me because if that's the case...for every incompetent Syracuse police officer, there are 100 police officers who are downright fantastic and upstanding servants to the community.








YR

 

[Cajuncowboy]

So ESPN had these tapes since 2002. Hmmmm. That means they are complicit in a coverup since they didn't "Do more". They didn't go to the police. Does ESPN have a campus police? I wonder.

I think the only fitting punishment is that they should be pulled off the air. The remaining MNF season be split among the other networks, Berman et all fired and the ESPN logo burned in effigy.

How many more boys were hurt because of their cover up? They all should pay a steep, steep price for their egregious and inconsiderate actions.

 

[joseephuss]

So ESPN had these tapes since 2002. Hmmmm. That means they are complicit in a coverup since they didn't "Do more". They didn't go to the police. Does ESPN have a campus police? I wonder.

I think the only fitting punishment is that they should be pulled off the air. The remaining MNF season be split among the other networks, Berman et all fired and the ESPN logo burned in effigy.

How many more boys were hurt because of their cover up? They all should pay a steep, steep price for their egregious and inconsiderate actions.

Wrong again. They didn't get the tape until 2003. :

 

[Cajuncowboy]

Wrong again. They didn't get the tape until 2003. :

That make it better?

This story says 2002

http://www.9wsyr.com/sports/content...-Fine-tape-wasn-t/I0Bn-4AKZU2tyosOS8_57g.cspx

 

[Rogah]

Ouch. What was Boehiem thinking, making such a public defense of this guy? He had to believe that the original accusation was proven false and this was all just a money grab.

I'm thinking he honestly didn't know. Otherwise he would have taken the same route everyone at Penn State took when asked about Sandusky: "No comment."

 

[Rogah]

So ESPN had these tapes since 2002. Hmmmm. That means they are complicit in a coverup since they didn't "Do more". They didn't go to the police. Does ESPN have a campus police? I wonder.

I think the only fitting punishment is that they should be pulled off the air. The remaining MNF season be split among the other networks, Berman et all fired and the ESPN logo burned in effigy.

How many more boys were hurt because of their cover up? They all should pay a steep, steep price for their egregious and inconsiderate actions.

I think what ESPN did (as well as what they didn't do) was reprehensible. They definitely deserve a ton of criticism and, as usual, they will sweep their own shortcomings under the rug.

However, as far as the law is concerned, I believe the fact that the victim was an adult absolves them of any legal responsibility to report the incident to police. If they found out a 10 year old was being abused, like what happened at Penn State, they would have to report it. But if a 25 year old goes to them and says he was abused 15 years ago, they don't have any legal responsibilities.

Whether or not they have any moral or ethical responsibilities is a whole other matter.

 

[Cajuncowboy]

I think what ESPN did (as well as what they didn't do) was reprehensible. They definitely deserve a ton of criticism and, as usual, they will sweep their own shortcomings under the rug.

However, as far as the law is concerned, I believe the fact that the victim was an adult absolves them of any legal responsibility to report the incident to police. If they found out a 10 year old was being abused, like what happened at Penn State, they would have to report it. But if a 25 year old goes to them and says he was abused 15 years ago, they don't have any legal responsibilities.

Whether or not they have any moral or ethical responsibilities is a whole other matter.

Now wait. On one hand Paterno did what his legal responsibility was and was fired. But the same issues don't hold true for ESPN?

 

[Yakuza Rich]

Now wait. On one hand Paterno did what his legal responsibility was and was fired. But the same issues don't hold true for ESPN?

Paterno didn't have legal responsibility. Everybody said that he did the bare minimum to protect himself legally. And that he was fired because morally he should have done more and people believe he is lying that he didn't know about the 1998 incident.

I don't know about the others here, but I agree with Jason Whitlock...ESPN pulled a Paterno...they did the bare minimum legally to cover themselves.

I think ESPN had the tapes in 2002-2003, but I think if you read the transcript...it points to Davis having a sexual relationship with Fine when he was of age. I think this would explain A LOT more from every entity involved.

Let's say nobody could corroborate the story and everything pointed to Davis being of legal age when this happened. This would mean:

1. Post-Standard didn't see any evidence of under age sexual contact and was left with the allegation and basically the only evidence showing that Fine was a closet homosexual, but not a sexual predator. Thus...reporting this story is irresponsible.


2. ESPN didn't see any evidence of under age sexual contact and was left with the allegation and basically the only evidence showing that Fine was a closet homosexual, but not a sexual predator. Thus...reporting this story is irresponsible.


3. The police would not have arrested Fine because it's not against the law to be homosexual or a closet homosexual and they didn't see any evidence or corroboration of underage molestation. Furthermore, it would seem more probable that they would end the investigation instead of saying 'statute of limitations ran out...sorry.' I honestly cannot believe the Syracuse PD would just say that unless all evidence pointed to a legal age sexual relationship.


4. The University may have seen the same thing. Also, the University appears to have well documented their investigation along with the interviews and claims they never got a copy of the tape from Davis.


5. Sexual predators who have access to children don't molest 1 boy. I have a hard time believing the 3rd accuser's story (Tomaselli) and at best, Lang's story is iffy. OTOH, a closet homosexual is more likely to have 1 relationship with 1 person.


6. It would better explain Laurie Fine's casual conversation with Davis.

Believe me...I'm not a supporter of ESPN in any way, shape or form. I think most people here could vouch for this. I think their reporting in this was still irresponsible. And *if* they did have very strong evidence that there was child molestation back in 2002-2003 and didn't report it to the authorities, I think they should be facing criminal prosecution.

But, it appears that they did the bare minimum like Paterno and since Fine hasn't been arrested, yet....it's difficult to figure out what exactly they knew and if Fine actually molested an underage Davis or not.

I have no tears for Bernie and Laurie Fine. And I would have no tears for Jim Boeheim if it's found that he knew a helluva lot more than he did. But, until somebody gives me more solid evidence, I cannot even confidently conclude that Fine molested an underage boy. Still, he lied the the University in their investigation and had he at least stated he was gay and had sexual relations with a legal age Davis...at least the University could have investigated that part of it.








YR

 

[Rogah]

Now wait. On one hand Paterno did what his legal responsibility was and was fired. But the same issues don't hold true for ESPN?

The problem is that to everyone except the most foolhardy and gullible, Paterno didn't do what he was legally obligated to do. Anyone who still doesn't believe that Paterno knew what was going on in his own athletic complex is invited to purchase some prime Florida swampland from me.

I am not absolving ESPN of their responsibilities. I don't see how they could possibly have such a tape in their possession and not run the story. However, there is a very important distinction between what Penn State did and what ESPN did. People at Penn State had knowledge of the sexual abuse of a minor as it was taking place and they did everything they could to cover it up. ESPN came about their information from the victim himself, who was already well into adulthood, years and years after the incident occured.

As far as I'm concerned, ESPN is absolutely bankrupt when it comes to journalistic integrity. This incident does nothing to change my opinion of that. However, legally they were under no obligation to do anything.

 

[joseephuss]

That make it better?

This story says 2002

http://www.9wsyr.com/sports/content...-Fine-tape-wasn-t/I0Bn-4AKZU2tyosOS8_57g.cspx

Dude, I was joking. Hence the emoticon.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

The problem is that to everyone except the most foolhardy and gullible, Paterno didn't do what he was legally obligated to do.

Actually, Paterno *did* do what he was legally obligated. He just did the bare minimum to protect himself legally. The difference is that morally most people expect more from any person in that situation, particularly Joe Paterno.

Where it angers people is that it was pretty apparent that Paterno knew before 2002 and he denies that. And even if he didn't know anything before 2002...everything still suggests he tried to cover it up. Just knowing it before 2002 makes it worse.

We just don't know what exactly ESPN knew at this point. But, they probably did the bare minimum legallly. As far as morally, they may have fell well short on this and I think they should be fired if that's the case (or if that's the case with Boeheim, the University, the police, etc.)

That's why Paterno has not been arrested. No legal grounds for doing so. Morally it's a different story and that's why he may face lawsuits and why he got fired.

Although people forget that he really got fired because he continued to make an arse out of himself with leading pep rallies in front of his house, then making an unauthorized statement and telling the Board of Trustees to not bother investigating his stance anymore because he had already determined he would coach the rest of the season and retire. I think it's pretty obvious that any support he had on the Board was lost after that.

I think with Boeheim, he was told after his initial comments sticking up for Fine to basically quiet down by the Board and he obliged. I think he was told to make his last statement after Fine was fired and he obliged.







YR

 

[Rogah]

Actually, Paterno *did* do what he was legally obligated. He just did the bare minimum to protect himself legally. The difference is that morally most people expect more from any person in that situation, particularly Joe Paterno.

It depends on what you believe Paterno knew and when he knew it. We can't demonstrate McQueary told Paterno the whole story so there's no legal basis to indict Paterno alongside Curley and Schultz. But my belief is he knew exactly what was going on. I don't believe for a single second he acted as a go-between for McQueary and the PSU higher-ups regarding such a volatile situation without someone somewhere along the way telling him the whole story. In fact, I'd be willing to bet pretty much anything that McQueary told him the whole story during their first meeting that weekend. But that can't be proved and they both deny it so there's no probable cause.

We just don't know what exactly ESPN knew at this point. But, they probably did the bare minimum legallly.

I honestly don't think they were legally obligated to do anything. As I said in another post, if a 10 year old went to ESPN and said he was being abused, they are obligated to act. But if a 30 year old goes to them and says he was abused when he was 10, they have no legal responsbility.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

I honestly don't think they were legally obligated to do anything. As I said in another post, if a 10 year old went to ESPN and said he was being abused, they are obligated to act. But if a 30 year old goes to them and says he was abused when he was 10, they have no legal responsbility.

Perhaps. I don't know the law and how it works with the media because there are laws that are in place to protect the media and freedom of press.

That said...I think it would fall into the moral obligation category. Davis came to ESPN *before* he went to the police. They may not know all of the laws and should have gone to the police with Davis to get him to confess. They could have easily said 'if you don't investigate, then based on what we have we will report this on our station.'

My guess is that all of the evidence that the Post-Standard, ESPN, the University and the Police had pointed to a legal age relationship.

What Laurie Fine said and how she said, would make much more sense with her alluding to gay sex with a legal age person. It doesn't really jive that a woman would talk so casually about her husband having 'issues' and 'needing male companionship that I can't give him' with a man that was molested by her husband as an underage boy.

It could be the case, but it just doesn't seem likely. And it would better explain why the police, university, ESPN and P-S never got anywhere with it. I think in the end, the prosecutors should subpoena ESPN for what information they have.






YR

 

[Rogah]

Perhaps. I don't know the law and how it works with the media because there are laws that are in place to protect the media and freedom of press.

That said...I think it would fall into the moral obligation category. Davis came to ESPN *before* he went to the police. They may not know all of the laws and should have gone to the police with Davis to get him to confess. They could have easily said 'if you don't investigate, then based on what we have we will report this on our station.'

Yes, absolutely. I agree 100% it falls into both a moral responsibility as well as journalistic ethics. Don't get me wrong, I am nowhere near being an expert on journalistic ethics but I don't see how any responsible media outlet could sit on such a tape once the identities of the people on the phone call were confirmed.

 

[casmith07]

Sounds like Davis got caught up in a pretty ugly swingers' club, in my opinion.