this article needs own thread

[goodroc]

http://blog.syracuse.com/opinion/2011/11/why_we_didnt_publish_fine_stor.html

mike lang denied abuse by fine in 2003 when interviewed by post standard

 

[IthacaBarrel]

That is Going to really discredit the story for these two, if there isn't more people who come out or stronger evidence this is going nowhere, I am not saying it won't happen but espn needs to quit reporting the same stuff over and over

 

[MattyL]

Then Schwarz reports that Lang had an "epiphany" after the Penn State scandal, and he now remembers being abused.

Hmmmmm.

 

[IthacaBarrel]

Then Schwarz reports that Lang had an "epiphany" after the Penn State scandal, and he now remembers being abused.

Hmmmmm.

Ie, fell off his gd barstool and saw dollars

 

[longislandcuse]

Finally! Mike Lang was already interviewed in 2002/03. Thats it for me, $ $ $ $ is the motive.

ESPN is straight up screwed if they have nothig more than this.

What comforts me about this story is that Davis pointed them to people he thought may have been molested by Fine and they all said the contrary. This article needs to be linked to OTL's facebook page.

 

[Cuse_1999]

Finally! Mike Lang was already interviewed in 2002/03. Thats it for me, $ $ $ $ is the motive.

ESPN is straight up screwed if they have nothig more than this.

What comforts me about this story is that Davis pointed them to people he thought may have been molested by Fine and they all said the contrary. This article needs to be linked to OTL's facebook page.

If Davis indicated to the PS in 2003 that Lang probably was molested also, we can safely assume he also supplied Lang's name to ESPN in 2003. That means ESPN probably interviewed Lang back then and he denied being molested. Fast forward 8 years and Lang now says to ESPN that he was molested.

OK fine, ESPN has their 2nd source and can run with the story. But shouldn't they at least acknowledge that Lang denied abuse to them in 2003 before switching his story in 2011. Mark Schwartz and his one sided reporting.

 

[pfister1]

That is Going to really discredit the story for these two, if there isn't more people who come out or stronger evidence this is going nowhere, I am not saying it won't happen but espn needs to quit reporting the same stuff over and over

If this were ever to go to court I agree that BF's attorney could make hay with the prior denial by Lang, but in a let's just figure out whether this happened or not context - you could also see how someone who is not comfortable with what happened-feels like they did something to bring it on themselves, etc. might deny that it occurred. Might deny it simply because its reporters inquiring and he is afraid of the storm of attention if it becomes public that he was molested by an SU basketball coach. I think its really hard to draw solid conclusions based on this sort of inconsistent testimony. I'd much rather that someone uncover proof that current allegations are outright lies, ie. the demand for money, proof that they didn't travel when they say they did.... things like that would make me feel a whole lot better about the situation.

 

[Cuse_1999]

If this were ever to go to court I agree that BF's attorney could make hay with the prior denial by Lang, but in a let's just figure out whether this happened or not context - you could also see how someone who is not comfortable with what happened-feels like they did something to bring it on themselves, etc. might deny that it occurred. Might deny it simply because its reporters inquiring and he is afraid of the **** storm of attention if it becomes public that he was molested by an SU basketball coach. I think its really hard to draw solid conclusions based on this sort of inconsistent testimony. I'd much rather that someone uncover proof that current allegations are outright lies, ie. the demand for money, proof that they didn't travel when they say they did.... things like that would make me feel a whole lot better about the situation.

Fair enough that he may not want the public exposure. But do you really think he still would have been a huge SU fan and had his house decked out in SU gear if Bernie had done this to him? I would think he would have great disdain for SU.

 

[longislandcuse]

Remember when you were little and you would injure yourself and keep telling your parents "ouchh it hurts when I do this" and your parents would tell you "well stop doing that"? When you were a kid somehow you would still do it even though it hurt....when you grew up, you realized this friggin hurts so im not gonna do it. Just like how if someone is molesting you at the age of 22...23...24...25...you stop letting them molest you.

 

[netman99]

http://blog.syracuse.com/opinion/2011/11/why_we_didnt_publish_fine_stor.html

mike lang denied abuse by fine in 2003 when interviewed by post standard

Mike waters ststed this a few days ago. I was surprised it did not get much attention. Maybe it does mean much to the investigators. Lang definitely changed his story since 2003.

 

[SoBristol]

What is it that people think is going to court? The two "victims" were adults in 2002-03; the period of alleged abuse ended in the mid-1990s; accusations were investigated by the paper and by SU -- no corroboration of other victims; 9 more years go by; same accusations resurface about incidents that occurred when Bush41 was in office. There are statutes of limitations for both criminal and civil cases.
Absent something that occurred in the past decade (another victim; fraudulent concealment that prevented discovery [not this situation], this isn't going to court.

 

[pfister1]

Fair enough that he may not want the public exposure. But do you really think he still would have been a huge SU fan and had his house decked out in SU gear if Bernie had done this to him? I would think he would have great disdain for SU.

I have no idea what a long course of sexual molestation does to a person? I am sure the effects are different for different people and may not be altogether predictable no matter what the "experts" say. I do know that I am not qualified to answer the question you pose or draw the conclusions you have.

 

[pfister1]

What is it that people think is going to court? The two "victims" were adults in 2002-03; the period of alleged abuse ended in the mid-1990s; accusations were investigated by the paper and by SU -- no corroboration of other victims; 9 more years go by; same accusations resurface about incidents that occurred when Bush41 was in office. There are statutes of limitations for both criminal and civil cases.
Absent something that occurred in the past decade (another victim; fraudulent concealment that prevented discovery [not this situation], this isn't going to court.

I don't think the acts alleged would go to a criminal court. It is very possible that there could be a civil action put together and theories advanced to try to get around the SOL issue. Remember you don't have to prove your case to file a civil action and just because it is brought doesn't mean it won't be kicked later.

 

[rosconey]

you have this article and a ex assistant who said he roomed with bernie on the road durring that time-

thos 2 facts alone give me serious doubt about the motives-

 

[longislandcuse]

you have this article and a ex assistant who said he roomed with bernie on the road durring that time-

thos 2 facts alone give me serious doubt about the motives-

BUT THERES A TAPE!!!!! Caps lock for emphasis! *sarcasm included.

All the facts so far lead even the most cynical person to believe Bernie Fine. Only thing freaking us out is the reported existence of a possibly damaging tape and SPD allegedly leaking info in Day 3...stay classy Cuse, real impressive police work up there.

 

[SoBristol]

I don't think the acts alleged would go to a criminal court. It is very possible that there could be a civil action put together and theories advanced to try to get around the SOL issue. Remember you don't have to prove your case to file a civil action and just because it is brought doesn't mean it won't be kicked later.

Ok -- if some lawyer is dumb enough to file a claim obviously barred by the SOL, the claim will get kicked out on motion. In the situation I described (claim based on incidents that occurred 15-20 years ago; victim became an adult 16 years ago, surfaced his claim to the press 9 years ago), there aren't any "theories" for Davis to get around the SOL and have a viable claim for money against Fine or SU.

 

[Evan P]

Good to know "its on paper" that Lang was interviewed in 2003 and now he's changing his story.

 

[rstone7727]

But ESPN continues it's barrage, Bob Ley even involved and I have respect for him... Bob Ley is well respected by others. My intuition tells me they have more but why are they waiting.?

 

[pfister1]

Ok -- if some lawyer is dumb enough to file a claim obviously barred by the SOL, the claim will get kicked out on motion. In the situation I described (claim based on incidents that occurred 15-20 years ago; victim became an adult 16 years ago, surfaced his claim to the press 9 years ago), there aren't any "theories" for Davis to get around the SOL and have a viable claim for money against Fine or SU.

I know lots of civil attorneys that are more open minded about claims and willing to think creatively to try to get a claim into court. We'll see how things play out. Just because the facts that you know seem to be time barred doesn't mean that there aren't other facts that you don't know that an attorney won't try to work with to make a claim.

 

[Upstate]

This case is done if true. Any deviation from initial investigation will discredit everyone.

 

[pfister1]

But ESPN continues it's barrage, Bob Ley even involved and I have respect for him... Bob Ley is well respected by others. My intuition tells me they have more but why are they waiting.?

Maybe what they have is convincing but can't be sufficiently corroborated, not that what they ran with to begin with was all that well corroborated.

 

[SoBristol]

I know lots of civil attorneys that are more open minded about claims and willing to think creatively to try to get a claim into court. We'll see how things play out. Just because the facts that you know seem to be time barred doesn't mean that there aren't other facts that you don't know that an attorney won't try to work with to make a claim.

There are always unknowns if you want to speculate. Folks who think the main claim by Davis against BF will end up in court (or are just speculating based on "other facts that you don't know" or "I know lots of civil attorneys") -- well, I don't buy it.