I think we're being hypocrites

by bruin_nerd on Nov 27, 2009 11:56 PM PST

About half way through tonight's game, it hit me - we're being hypocritical. That doesn't extend to BN in it's entirety. But, as a whole (and as part of the Bruin commuinty), we've dropped the ball. I log in every day. I may be wrong. But, I haven't seen anything critical or even investigative on ND beyond basic facts. In all fairness, I'm beyond frustrated by his play. But, that aside, why is he playing? With all the scandal (alleged and otherwise) across town, we're quick to point out each incident. However, when ND has his second (fairly serious) run in with the law in two seasons why aren't we talking about it more. If we're going to claim to hold ourselves to a higher standard then we should back it up. The fact is that he pushed his girlfriend to the ground (not acceptable ever - especially as a father of three girls) and now has pending charges. I know we want / need to win in bball and have a potential landmark game tomorrow. But, if we don't self-police, how are we any better than Pom Pom's bunch? I don't want to see an asterisk after the four most sacred letters like those clowns. As much as I love CBH and Dan Gurerro(ADDG?), I think we're sending the wrong message. Yes, the charges were dropped last year...but, after the latest issue, who really believes nothing happened before. Fool me twice...

This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of BruinsNation's (BN) editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of BN's editors.

Tweet Comment 9 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

What happened this time?

We don’t know. There isn’t much information yet. We said that we’ll hold off judgment until we know what happened and for now, we’ll give CBH and Guerrero the benefit of the doubt because of their track record. The track record across town doesn’t merit the benefit of the doubt. If it comes out that ND was responsible for what happened and is convicted on the charges then you can bet you’ll hear about how ND should be kicked off the team and how CBH and Guerreo dropped the ball. You need information to determine though.

Formerly ryebreadraz

by Ryan Rosenblatt on Nov 28, 2009 12:19 AM PST reply actions

There actually seems to be a fair amount of information

Sounds like Dragovic pushed someone into a glass case at a concert. It’s the circumstances that are unclear. Dragovic’s defense seems to be that the person had a knife and was threatening to attack them. The other side seems to say otherwise.

by SuperBruinMan on Nov 28, 2009 1:01 AM PST up reply actions

The circumstances are everything, in terms of criminal conduct/liability, or lack thereof

by bruinhoo on Nov 28, 2009 1:21 AM PST up reply actions

To be fair

I think we have questioned and criticized Drago far more than anyone across town has ever questioned any of their players. We have called for his suspension, and we have put up fanshots saying we think he should get out of basketball until his personal life is in order. Many have even called (perhaps prematurely) for his permanent removal from the program, and many have been critical of his on the court performance as well.
While I agree, we should not be playing him at all until the charges are either confirmed or dropped or whatever, we are not being hypocrites.
If he was falsely accused on both accounts, I would not want him to suffer for that, though. Anyone can be falsely accused, if there is any substance he should be punished just like anyone off the streets. In the meantime, I believe he should remain on the bench and even out of team practices until it is resolved.
I heard in an article that Drago’s legal counsel insists that the accusations are sure to be proven false, and advised Guerrero and Howland to reinstate him. Supposedly Drago wasn’t the one who pushed the guy, and they were defending themselves besides.
It is concerning that one of our players would be dumb enough to even be in position to be accused of something twice in a year. The best course of action for anyone is to stay as far away from questionable situations as possible. If you are 500 miles from the edge, there is no way you could come close to falling off the cliff. Toeing the line is a risky and stupid business. Maybe Drago needs better friends?

by sponkey21 on Nov 28, 2009 1:06 AM PST reply actions

A few notes

First, in respect to the first incident that you cite, Drago did not “push his girlfriend to the ground”. What happened in that incident may well have been dumb on Drago’s part, but from what came out, the decision to drop charges sounded reasonable from a legal pov.

I would say that since news of Drago’s arrest broke, there has been quite a bit of discussion regarding his legal trouble on this site – much of it critical of him and (before the decision to reinstate him was made) calling for a longer suspension from the team. The Drago discussions were focused around a number of fanposts (such as this), rather than front page posts (maybe you missed them), but attracted a variety of opinions from a number of perspectives on the matter.

In terms of the decision to reinstate, I can see where Howland and Guerrero are coming from. I don’t know if I would have made the decision this early were I in their shoes, but there are legitimate reasons for having done so.

The length of criminal proceedings. The latest reports have a preliminary hearing for this case scheduled in mid-December. While I am not a whiz at criminal law or procedure (a couple of semesters in law school + just enough to pass a bar exam), I can say that if this case goes to trial, the season will likely be over before a trial is completed. Even in the case of a negotiated ending (plea agreement), much of the season will have lapsed. If Drago were kept in limbo during the entirety of the proceedings, and it turns out that his actions were justifiable, he will have lost his senior season (and the chance of improving his game, impressing foreign teams…) due to simply defending a friend.

by bruinhoo on Nov 28, 2009 2:04 AM PST reply actions

Didn't mean to post that yet - to continue...

As Ryan noted in his comment above, the track record of the decisionmakers has to be considered to some degree. Here, Howland and Guerrero have earned some level of trust, or benefit of the doubt – no other criminal issues have arisen in UCLA Basketball under CBH, while only Medlock’s DUI comes to mind as far as similar conduct under Guerrero’s reign in Morgan Center, and I believe that was handled as well as could be.

When it comes to trust, I trust that the decisionmakers (the above, + UCLA counsel) looked at the facts currently known, Drago’s side of the incident, and the surrounding circumstances and made a rational decision that Drago’s explanation of the event has merit. This does not necessarally mean that they are 100%, iron-clad certain that he is innocent, but believe with enough of a probabiltiy to think that holding him out indefinately would be too great of a detriment to him. The flip side to this, of course, is if they have gotten this wrong, and the plea or trial demonstrate that Drago acted criminally and the university/team did not sanction him, that the reputation of not only Drago, but that of the university, Morgan Center, and CBH/DG take a hit. I assume that this is known, and has been part of the internal discussion in deciding to reinstate Drago.

Alternatively, a decision could have been made to summarally dismiss Drago from the team, as recently occurred in Tennessee’s Football program following multiple player’s involvment in an armed robbery. In that case, reports have shown a strong link between the players and the criminal act (and an act not easily explained away, as Drago conceviably can). Coach Kiffin then decided to dismiss players, not after a conviction, but because the severity of the crime together with the likelihood that his players were culpable of the crime.

If there is or was a strong uncertainty by our decisionmakers as to Drago’s criminal culpability, I could defend a longer suspension. While the prospect of unfairness to Drago would remain, that would be balanced by the risk to UCLA’s reputation and that of the individuals involved in the decision, if the legal process had shown that they allowed a felon to continue to play for the Bruins, while harboring a strong idea that the player may well be a ‘bad guy’.

by bruinhoo on Nov 28, 2009 2:48 AM PST up reply actions

Have you read any of the other threads here that have dealt with this in detail?

You might want to read a pretty strong body of work that has been up since the incident first occurred and is more thorough and accurate than your initial post.

sjh

by Class of 66 on Nov 28, 2009 8:19 AM PST reply actions

No kidding

A total ignorant post in which the poster obviously didn’t do cursory research whatsoever on the discussion we have already had on this topic. If not for the substantive responses in this thread (which a sloppy post like this didn’t deserve), would have just deleted this for its sheer stupidity.

by Nestor on Nov 28, 2009 8:54 AM PST up reply actions

Totally Agree

We debated the issue ad nauseum on several threads and thoroughly discussed it from almost every angle imaginable. Let’s not go back there. I found classof66’s comments back then to be the most useful. You, nerd, should go back and read them. Particularly telling of your lack of information (at least so it seems) is to say he “pushed his girlfriend to the ground.” 66 did his homework and says there was no physical touching. Good day mate.

by classof67 on Nov 28, 2009 9:29 AM PST up reply actions