Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="CamrnCrz1974, post: 3363686, member: 1052"] With all due respect to the positions of [USER=74]@Wbbfan1[/USER] and [USER=7492]@DefenseBB[/USER] , I have to add a few points of clarification. First, as I noted in my previous post, the complaint that led to the investigation was initiated by [URL='http://www.dukechronicle.com/article/2016/05/duke-womens-basketball-head-coach-joanne-mccallie-remains-following-program-investigation']Elizabeth Williams, who said [/URL][I]no mistreatment was physical or criminal in nature but described the program's atmosphere with McCallie at the helm as negative[/I]. Second, one of the big components of the investigation was the number of potential witnesses (among alumni and former coaches) who did not or would not speak to the investigation team or who could not (in the case of former Duke assistant coaches and players who transferred, who either did not or could not obtain permission from their current universities to participate). Third, it is an incorrect statement to say that McCallie has the backing of Coach K -- or had the backing of Coach K at the time of the investigation. I would not refer to Coach K as a supporter of the women's program, but I would also not characterize him as someone who is anti-McCallie. At the time of the investigation and continuing through to today, he is neutral regarding McCallie and the women's program, per my inside sources. Fourth, Coach K was not part of the decision process for whether Duke retained McCallie after the investigation. Rather, the results of the investigation would have dictated the course of action (see my two points after this one for additional information). Fifth, had the investigation revealed [I]abuse[/I] of players/assistant coaches, McCallie's contract would have been terminated (at the time of the investigation, she had three years remaining on her deal). Finally, it is important to remember that this was an HR administrative investigation, not a criminal one, not a civil lawsuit, and certainly not a proceeding before a tribunal with subpoena power to compel cooperation. If only certain potential witnesses participate -- and others do not or cannot -- then the investigation can only reach conclusions based on the evidence and witness statements provided. Personally, I have had conversations and communication with parents of former players whose daughters chose not to participate in the investigation because they had graduated, gone on to achieve bigger and better things, and moved on with their lives. They did not want to revisit their experiences with McCallie, but chose to keep that chapter of their respective lives closed. I have spoken several times with a former staff member whose subsequent university employer would not let her speak to the investigation team (the concern from the other university was that speaking with investigators could result in an accusation that the testimony was provided in order to hamper recruiting and the program at Duke; the university simply did not want to wade into that minefield or deal with any of the PR issues that come with it, preferring to let Duke's "problem" be just that - Duke's problem. [/QUOTE]

Verification: First name of men's bb coach

Forum statistics

Threads: 164,444

Messages: 4,396,570

Members: 10,209

Latest member: gemini*trvl