According to The Annapolis Capital, Navy sophomore slotback Marcus Curry will stay at the Naval Academy despite a positive drug test and recommendations he be dismissed.
The newspaper, citing sources, reported that Curry tested positive for marijuana.
David Ausiello of GoMids.com writes that Curry should be suspended from the football team.
The situation is a potential nightmare for the Navy program-nice of the superintendent to put the onus of solving the problem solely on the shoulders of the football coach.
If the kid has already amassed 335 demerits in less than two years of time there, as well as been involved in alleged honor violations and now a positive drug test, it sounds like he has some major problems to resolve that playing football won’t help. Honestly, the command decision here is inexplicable, except for the obviously cynical view that this was done strictly to preserve their edge in football. If that isn’t the reason, take him off the football team and let’s see how his Navy career develops. Otherwise, this simply reinforces the idea that there is a double standard at Annapolis-one for the big sport jocks, and one for everyone else.
Chicago Zoomie — Good thing there are no double standards at Air Force, like big sport jocks serving out their 5 yr commitments coaching football while everyone else has to go to real military jobs.
Nobody knows the details to this case except the individual and his chain of command … and that includes the press. The person involved is legally unable to defend himself. A 3-star Admiral who has consistently shown his willingness to place military training on a higher pedestal than extracurricular activities weighed the evidence and decided to retain him. What evidence do you have to say this was the wrong decision? You and I have none, and so to call the Superintendent’s ruling inexplicable is exactly what you mentioned – cynicism.
I agree with you TJ. I would rather give the student the benefit of the doubt, and as you say – the Naval Academy’s Supe has a track record of showing llittle to no leniency in past cases (I recall he kicked the football teams’ top player off the team just before the season started last year for an honor offense). I don’t think we have the full story here – and probably never will.
I recall a couple years ago two AFA student-athletes were given the benefit of the doubt for taking steroids, and hopefully both have used the experience as a wake-up call and are serving productive lives inthe miiltary.
I don’t think you should look at reasons why to expel someone; but look for reasons why you think they are salvagable and can still serve as leaders of men and women in the military.
TJ, you are wrong about “big sport jocks” serving out their 5 year commitments coaching football…. That is simply not true.
Yes, a small handfull (4) get to be graduate assistant coaches for 1 year after graduation. But after that, they serve the remainder of the 5 year commitment in a real military job.
@ jimbo84
you said: “Supe has a track record of showing llittle to no leniency in past cases ”
whatever – your smoking crack! you do know that he allowed a number of mids recently be retained even as they were caught stealing credit cards right?
i find it ironic (and hypocritical) that a community of largely conservative “non-tolerant” types (mission first…) would be okay with a kid who HAS AN HONOR VIOLATION and over 300 demerits to be allowed to stay when he is caught doing drugs. whats this say about “standards?”
then the defense becomes (from generic navy fan who has a vested interest to see him remain on the team): “…we dont know all the details so we cant assume….” – thats a sick excuse.
saying that he thought it was a cigarette is a load of crap. and saying he can get someone to vouch for it is even worse. only an idiot decisionmaker can fall for this one.
and this is supposed to be subjected to the “zero tolerance” policy – what a joke. i think taxpayers deserve better than this crap. Fowler should be ashamed.
wow bob-o, you really sound like you know what you’re talking about. I really feel like an idiot – thanks for straightening me out.
bob-o, you say:
“then the defense becomes (from generic navy fan who has a vested interest to see him remain on the team): “…we dont know all the details so we cant assume….” – thats a sick excuse.”
So what you mean is, “We don’t know all the details, so we CAN assume…”
Hey if you’re pre-disposed to find someone guilty without knowing any facts, that’s your prerogative — it’ll probably even help you get out of jury duty. But at least curb your self-righteousness and stop pretending that yours is an un-biased opinion.
And Scott, you’re wrong too. Just ask your head coach.
http://thebirddog.wordpress.com/2008/02/18/unappreciated-warriors/
TJ, let me say as an initial matter that your faith in the competence of flag officers to make the correct decision in the face of recommendations going in the other direction from all of their subordinate commanders is, quite frankly, touching. Unfortunately, my experience with generals who reverse the recommendations of their subordinate commanders, all of whom are closer to the problem and have a much better picture of the individual involved, is less positive. In fact, it’s disastrous.
Notwithstanding your blanket assertion, there is plenty of “evidence” for what is alleged to have occurred at Annapolis. It takes the form of a heavily sourced and, almost certainly, carefully checked news story that relates events there in significant detail. If you or anyone else has some fact-based reason to believe that this account is wrong, or is in possession of facts that point the other way (other than the Superintendent’s unsupportable decision), please give us the benefit of your insight.
The midshipman in question is not without legal remedies. If the story reported is not true, then I would expect his lawyer to publicly demand an immediate retraction, followed by the filing of a lawsuit against the newspaper for defamation. I would also expect the midshipman’s family members to immediately grant interviews to the Washington Post and anyone else that would listen about the miscarriage of justice that is taking place as a result of the newspaper story.
My understanding is that none of this has happened, which is further “evidence” that the very detailed published account is correct.
With respect to the propriety of the admiral’s actual decision to retain the midshipman, I would challenge you to identify another midshipman with a comparable record of conduct who was not a football player and was allowed to remain at the Academy. Again, my understanding is that this midshipman has compiled a disciplinary record that would result in dismissal in any other circumstance. That is why you are hearing about complaints from other members of the Brigade. At the very least, the admiral’s decision, without further explanation, sends a problematic message to the rest of the Brigade, and to the outside world.
Your attempt to draw some type of parallel between post-commissioning assignment decisions and criteria for remaining at a service academy misses the mark. The two decisions are not even remotely comparable, and, in fact, all the services have a long history of placing commissioned athletes–Olympic, professional, etc.– in slots other than those identified as purely military in function. The standard in this current double standard issue is the one that relates how much misconduct can be tolerated before an individual no longer has the privilege of remaining a cadet.
But just to show you that I’m not a total “homer”, the double standard perception, especially with regard to football players, was quite common at Air Force when I played there, and also during the tenure of Fisher DeBerry. In some cases, the perception was simply wrong, but in many other cases, football players did receive special treatment with regard to disciplinary infractions or academic problems. And those situations had a similarly poisonous effect on the attitude and outlook of the cadets who knew about them. But I’m unaware of any situations that rose to the height of this player’s problems. And I’m also unaware of a similar situation where there was relative unanimity from the ranks below regarding disenrollment, that was reversed by the Superintendent.
I think the litmus test will be as I indicated above-if this midshipman remains on the football team, then this is a decision made less for his ultimate benefit to the Navy and more for his short-term benefit to the option offense. Time will tell.
Heavily sourced? I don’t think that means what you think it means.