Wisconsin Athletics Chadima Update

Submitted by lexus larry on January 25th, 2012 at 9:22 AM

After the abrupt resignation upon the teams return from the Rose Bowl, here's a little more detail that came up this morning with regard to "the rest of the story."

http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/wireStory/report-alleges-uw-athletic-official-grabbed-crotch-15435606 

Quite interesting how the UW AD originally went the route of making sure everyone knew behaviors that wouldn't be tolerated, and even then, there was a bit of an effort to "keep it in-house."

Comments

French West Indian

January 25th, 2012 at 1:15 PM ^

Unfortunately, in a world of increasing social media it's becoming more difficult to keep skeletons in the closet.  And, of course, homosexuality & football is probably a bigger issue than anybody wants to admit.  I doubt fans, writers, players, coaches, etc. will ever have the collective maturity to deal with it.  Certainly, more scandals ahead.

At any rate,  let's blame the BCS for this mess!

Hardware Sushi

January 25th, 2012 at 9:42 AM ^

An adult inappropriately touched another adult. We don't need a damn update everytime this happens.

At least you beat the other thread by being first, so you can put that in your pocket.

Hardware Sushi

January 25th, 2012 at 10:12 AM ^

An adult inappropriately touched another adult. Whether that adult victim would like to press charges against the adult offender is up to him and him alone. Much different than a child abuse case where it is the role of others to protect those that cannot protect themselves.

The public's opinion should matter zero in this case. I don't think we should even be discussing it on MGoBlog, since you want my frank opinion.

panthera leo fututio

January 25th, 2012 at 1:06 PM ^

Statement X is factually correct, therefore my use of X to argue for Y is valid.

Yes, it's true that it's the responsibility of adult assault victims to press charges against their offenders. It does not, however, follow that discussions of the firing of a prominent official overseeing a Big Ten football team are necessarily improper, nor does it mean that repeated arguments for the topic's impropriety aren't really annoying.

lexus larry

January 25th, 2012 at 10:20 AM ^

You may not have seen the original thread by our esteemed media gadfly, Section 1, regarding this abrupt resignation a couple weeks ago.  I thought a little follow-up and closure would be appropriate.

(Wasn't really asking for your frank opinion, but that's OK.)

Hardware Sushi

January 25th, 2012 at 10:29 AM ^

You said "your insight and commentary are always appreciated", so I apologize for responding to your empty gesture.

I did see Section 1's original thread about this. Key word original. It's the same place I'd look if I wanted an update on the situation.

Also keep in mind me hating this thread does not equate to me hating you.

lexus larry

January 25th, 2012 at 10:46 AM ^

I'll make sure to use my /s in the future.

To me, when a follow-up opp presents itself, from something a couple/few weeks ago, I don't feel it's inappropriate to start a new thread.  (And consider that the Drupal doesn't work like Jelsoft blogs, updated threads don't automatically bubble up to the top of the queue.  I know, beginning to read like that cartoon of the guy not coming to bed because someone on the internet needs to get my valuable insight and opinion.)  Like I said before, this thread offers closure to the original Section 1 post...and a couple thoughts about how it played out at the AD and overall UW admins.

 

EZ Bud

January 25th, 2012 at 11:21 AM ^

I don't buy this logic. Is there only one Armani Reeves thread? Joe Paterno? Sandusky? How about we just have one thread to discuss Michigan basketball?

If breaking news or important updates arise, a new thread is warranted. There are two Mike Martin threads on the first page of the MGoBoard right now. Will the "original" Mike Martin thread please stand up?

Section 1

January 25th, 2012 at 10:30 AM ^

I did indeed post about this story before it hit any national news, when a faculty friend at UW Madison tipped me off.  It is a Big Ten football story.  Not off topic in the off season.  Nobody at the time criticized me for it being off topic.

And, as far as the debate over tangential Rodriguez threads, I am consistent (with Magnus, and with a lot of other Board members); those threads could easily be left alone, and a lot of people here might want that news (I do), and it was a minor freakout-fit on the part of the anti-RR fanatics.  I think the mods made a big mistake by elevating the argument.

Chadima = not OT in the offseason.

Rodriguez getting a national-name (Griffey) recruit = not OT in the offseason.

See how that works?  I would not criticize this thread; not at all.  And obviously I did not criticize the Rodriguez/Griffey/recruit thread.  I am consistent.  I do criticize the purging reaction to that RR thread.  But my job is easier than the  MGoModerators.

Needs

January 25th, 2012 at 10:26 AM ^

I think you're blowing the "handle things internally" way out of proportion. 

Timeline: 

12/30-31: Assault occurs. Student notifies superiors

1/3: All parties return to Madison from Rose Bowl.

1/4: "Unidentified parties," presumably the above superiors, contact university police.  University police meet with them, tell them they will inform dean of students and emphasize need to act promptly. Superiors also contact AD's human relations director. She asks them to wait on contacting dean until she can talk to university lawyer.

1/6: Human relations director meets with lawyers. Told to stop any AD investigation. Matter kicked up to chancellor's office. Chancellor and Alvarez quickly decide to place Chadima on administrative leave (with, I suspect, strong hints he will be fired after a proper investigation) and he resigns.

That's 2 days between the AD being informed and Chadima's resignation (and a week between assault and resignation), during which time  the university's various bureaucracies - AD, university police, chancellor's office - are talking with each other, trying to figure out the proper manner in which to proceed. That seems more a marvel of bureaucratic efficiency than sweeping things under the rug.

StephenRKass

January 25th, 2012 at 11:45 AM ^

The student then said Chadima reached over and removed the student's belt, putting his hands inside the student's pants and touching his genitals.

I have several questions for you, Hardware Sushi. These are honest questions, with no snark implied.

  1. When news intersects with the sports world, what is appropriate to post? Given this is off-season, and given that Brian has given so much coverage to Joe Paterno and the Sandusky rape of boys, why wouldn't this be appropriate? This occured in the context of the Rose Bowl, with a Big 10 team, at an event for Wisconsin students.
  2. "Adult inappropriately touched another adult." Your phrasing implies that there are two essentially equal individuals. Chadima was a "senior associate athletic director" who worked there for more than 20 years, meaning that he was at least 41 years of age. The other adult was a student at the University of Wisconsin, presumably 20 - 22 years of age. It seems to me that when there is a significant age differential, and a significant social status differential, it places the younger individual at a significant disadvantage. While not the same as the Sandusky incident, this is very inappropriate. Had Chadima been inappropriately touching someone in a management position who was between the age of 40 & 50, wouldn't it have been much less of a deal? Your phrasing seems to deliberately minimize a very serious incident.
  3. "Inappropriately touched." Again, there is a huge spectrum for this phrase. To touch the buttocks or breast of someone, outside their clothing, is inappropriate touching. But wouldn't you agree that putting your hands inside someone's pants and touching their genitals is a whole different level of "inappropriate touch?" Using the Sandusky case again, vague phrasing (i.e., "horseplay") is vastly different than "anal intercourse."

To sum up, from my perspective your statement, "An adult inappropriately touched another adult" minimizes and obscures the severity of Chadima's action. And I think it is entirely appropriate for something like this to be posted at mgoblog.

CRex

January 25th, 2012 at 10:05 AM ^

All that PSU coverage and yet the Wisconsin Athletic Department still feels it has the right to ask the police to wait on their investigation while they alert some people.  Oh boy.  

Needs

January 25th, 2012 at 10:31 AM ^

I don't read the ABC story as the AD asking the police to wait on the investigation, rather on going to the Dean of Students. And the people they alerted were the university counsel and the chancellor. 

One factor here may be confusion over the proper procedure to follow in an assault not at the university, which is the Dean's purview, but on a AD trip. Regardless, from a results standpoint, the resolution was quick and definitive.

bluebyyou

January 25th, 2012 at 11:20 AM ^

If nothing else, this is another bad piece of publicity for the B1G.  Tressel, Sandusky and now this.  Probably not the greatest of times to dump on the SEC..

aratman

January 25th, 2012 at 11:33 AM ^

So the guy made an unwanted pass, this is a bad thing to do but doesn't get close to the level of the others.  Women deal with this all the time in the work place and while a serious issue this is no worse than what woman have delt with for ever.  Any company in the States would handle this the same way if they didn't want to get sued by the accuser or the accused.  On a side and unimportant note, when did 70% of this site become about what should or shouldn't be said and how it is on or off topic?

StephenRKass

January 25th, 2012 at 11:51 AM ^

Unwanted Pass? Man, am I out of touch. Forget about the gender issue.

The student then said Chadima reached over and removed the student's belt, putting his hands inside the student's pants and touching his genitals. 

In my day, you didn't usually make a pass by putting your hands inside someone's pants and touching their genitals. That wasn't merely an unwanted pass, or sexual harassment. That was assault. Have things changed that much? Is that the nature of a homosexual pass? Frankly, I don't know the answer, but it seems to me to go far beyond what I would call an "unwanted pass."

 

Indiana Blue

January 25th, 2012 at 12:44 PM ^

and the beat-down would begin.  If this student let the "guy" take off his belt ... then WTF did he think was coming next?  Some pretty stupid people up there in Madison.

Go Blue!