[OutsiderFan]

Even Stanford has athletes that run afoul of the law.  It's always better to hate on the individual athletes and refrain from throwing stones at other schools when their athletes get in trouble.  You never know when you will find yourself in a glass house. 

As for Skov, I would imagine he will probably be given the benefit of the doubt if it is his first offense and is remorseful.  If he shows the right attitude by pleading guilty (assuming he is) he could have his license suspended, pay a fine, do community service, spend a day in jail, and then a one or two game suspension would seem like an appropriate punishment.  Anything more than that would seem excessive, unless there are some other facts, like having an open bottle of alcohol in the car, resisting arrest, drug possession, etc.

If Shaw comes down on him too hard, Skov will more than likely enter the supplemental NFL draft.  Will be quite interesting to see how Shaw handles it, and if he has full authority to handle it as he wishes or if some other arm of the university has a say as well.

[OutsiderFan]

Even Stanford has athletes that run afoul of the law.  It's always better to hate on the individual athletes and refrain from throwing stones at other schools when their athletes get in trouble.  You never know when you will find yourself in a glass house. 

As for Skov, I would imagine he will probably be given the benefit of the doubt if it is his first offense and is remorseful.  If he shows the right attitude by pleading guilty (assuming he is) he could have his license suspended, pay a fine, do community service, spend a day in jail, and then a one or two game suspension would seem like an appropriate punishment.  Anything more than that would seem excessive, unless there are some other facts, like having an open bottle of alcohol in the car, resisting arrest, drug possession, etc.

If Shaw comes down on him too hard, Skov will more than likely enter the supplemental NFL draft.  Will be quite interesting to see how Shaw handles it, and if he has full authority to handle it as he wishes or if some other arm of the university has a say as well.

[stanfan]

Shane's arrest covered in the Eugene paper this morning.

[stanfan]

Shane's arrest covered in the Eugene paper this morning.

[socalstanfan1]

Shane's arrest covered in the Eugene paper this morning.

Well, this is a legit news story in Pac-12 country especially.  And in Eugene I imagine they will jump at the chance to point out these types of incidents in any other school, especially one that has had a very clean image.

[socalstanfan1]

Shane's arrest covered in the Eugene paper this morning.

Well, this is a legit news story in Pac-12 country especially.  And in Eugene I imagine they will jump at the chance to point out these types of incidents in any other school, especially one that has had a very clean image.

[dabigv13]

It's on ESPN's college football homepage as well as a sidebar. And EDSBS will no doubt be overjoyed to give Stanford some points in the Fulmer Cup.

[dabigv13]

It's on ESPN's college football homepage as well as a sidebar. And EDSBS will no doubt be overjoyed to give Stanford some points in the Fulmer Cup.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

these cases are not comparable.

I agree these cases are not comparable.  Shayne was driving a real car, which can do a lot more damage than a golf cart.  I'm with Burger on this -- I will be disappointed in Shaw and the athletic department if he's not suspended for at least a few games and probably more.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

these cases are not comparable.

I agree these cases are not comparable.  Shayne was driving a real car, which can do a lot more damage than a golf cart.  I'm with Burger on this -- I will be disappointed in Shaw and the athletic department if he's not suspended for at least a few games and probably more.

[oman]

It would be for the driving, not the drinking.

[oman]

It would be for the driving, not the drinking.

[oman]

Athletes are not ascetic monks.

I think athletic monks are okay to drink the Henries (Weinhards).  They just need to stay away form the ale.

Am I dating myself?

[oman]

Athletes are not ascetic monks.

I think athletic monks are okay to drink the Henries (Weinhards).  They just need to stay away form the ale.

Am I dating myself?

[Griffins78]

The University policy for Drunk Driving

Drunk Driving

No one can deny that drunk driving is a serious problem. In addition to legal consequences for drinking and driving, the real impact is to our Stanford community, friends and peers. Drunk driving breaks our community’s trust. A DRUNK DRIVING ARREST ON-CAMPUS IS AN AUTOMATIC FUNDAMENTAL STANDARD VIOLATION.

The Fundamental Standard has set the standard of conduct for students at Stanford since 1896. It states:

Students at Stanford are expected to show both within and without the University such respect for order, morality, personal honor and the rights of others as is demanded of good citizens. Failure to do this will be sufficient cause for removal from the University.

Penalties for Violating the Fundamental Standard

There is no standard penalty that applies to violations of the Fundamental Standard. Infractions have led to penalties ranging from formal warning and community service to expulsion. In each case, the nature and seriousness of the offense, the motivation underlying the offense and precedent in similar cases are considered.

This is the Fundamental Standard as it applies to driving under the influence:

Driving on Campus under the Influence of Alcohol and/or Drugs

The following guidance supersedes past guidance of the Stanford Judicial Council and Board on Judicial Affairs concerning driving while under the influence of alcohol or drugs:

If a student is charged with violation of a university policy, such as the University's Controlled Substances and Alcohol policy, then the Judicial Panel must look to the policy, which may or may not reference the law.

If a student is charged with violation of the Fundamental Standard, then the Judicial Panel must look to the Fundamental Standard itself:

Students at Stanford are expected to show both within and without the University such respect for order, morality, personal honor and the rights of others as is demanded of good citizens.

Conduct that poses a risk of significant harm to people or property will generally violate this standard. Driving while under the influence of alcohol or drugs is an example of such conduct. If the legal standard for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs is met, the risk is particularly clear, but meeting a legal standard is not necessary for finding a violation of the Fundamental Standard. Additionally, if an outside court or District Attorney's Office, for whatever reason, permitted a student to plea bargain down from a charged DUI offense, Judicial Panels must still decide for themselves what conduct the student engaged in and whether that conduct violates the community's standard for "order, morality, personal honor and the rights of others as is demanded of good citizens."

(Adopted Winter 2010)

[Griffins78]

The University policy for Drunk Driving

Drunk Driving

No one can deny that drunk driving is a serious problem. In addition to legal consequences for drinking and driving, the real impact is to our Stanford community, friends and peers. Drunk driving breaks our community’s trust. A DRUNK DRIVING ARREST ON-CAMPUS IS AN AUTOMATIC FUNDAMENTAL STANDARD VIOLATION.

The Fundamental Standard has set the standard of conduct for students at Stanford since 1896. It states:

Students at Stanford are expected to show both within and without the University such respect for order, morality, personal honor and the rights of others as is demanded of good citizens. Failure to do this will be sufficient cause for removal from the University.

Penalties for Violating the Fundamental Standard

There is no standard penalty that applies to violations of the Fundamental Standard. Infractions have led to penalties ranging from formal warning and community service to expulsion. In each case, the nature and seriousness of the offense, the motivation underlying the offense and precedent in similar cases are considered.

This is the Fundamental Standard as it applies to driving under the influence:

Driving on Campus under the Influence of Alcohol and/or Drugs

The following guidance supersedes past guidance of the Stanford Judicial Council and Board on Judicial Affairs concerning driving while under the influence of alcohol or drugs:

If a student is charged with violation of a university policy, such as the University's Controlled Substances and Alcohol policy, then the Judicial Panel must look to the policy, which may or may not reference the law.

If a student is charged with violation of the Fundamental Standard, then the Judicial Panel must look to the Fundamental Standard itself:

Students at Stanford are expected to show both within and without the University such respect for order, morality, personal honor and the rights of others as is demanded of good citizens.

Conduct that poses a risk of significant harm to people or property will generally violate this standard. Driving while under the influence of alcohol or drugs is an example of such conduct. If the legal standard for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs is met, the risk is particularly clear, but meeting a legal standard is not necessary for finding a violation of the Fundamental Standard. Additionally, if an outside court or District Attorney's Office, for whatever reason, permitted a student to plea bargain down from a charged DUI offense, Judicial Panels must still decide for themselves what conduct the student engaged in and whether that conduct violates the community's standard for "order, morality, personal honor and the rights of others as is demanded of good citizens."

(Adopted Winter 2010)

[oman]

Arrested in the parking lot of a stanford dormitory? 

Get him into a shower, and tell him and his coach there will  not be a next time.

[oman]

Arrested in the parking lot of a stanford dormitory? 

Get him into a shower, and tell him and his coach there will  not be a next time.

[teejers1]

81alum and burger . . . good grief. 

I don't know if redrum was being humorous or not, but IIRC, Floyd was popped 3 times for alcohol-related incidents at ND and missed a total of . . . zero plays (let alone quarter(s) of a game, or a game, or games, or a season).  So using him as an example to follow here? 

And this reminds me of a law school classmate - inattentive, a bit ditsy, worst driver imaginable, put passengers (and others) at risk every time she got behind the wheel.  I can't believe she wasn't kicked out of school.  And what about all those kids who drank and got sick on campus at parties?  I swear, that happened weekly back in the day, and it was a totally embarrassing situation for them and everyone else.  Made complete fools of themselves.  I can't believe they all weren't suspended from school.  And how about SuperFan at midcourt of student section at Maples back in the day?  That guy would ride officials, utter profanities at opposing players, and generally be obnoxious at basketball games . . . sometimes he could even be heard on TV!!    Why wasn't he suspended for half the season?  And how about my dorm mates frosh year at Donner who "acquired" some outdoor lounge chairs from the law school for tanning purposes?  Those criminals should have been summarily booted.

Yes, DUI is a serious matter - and fortunately, much greater awareness exists on dangers of it today than did back in the day.  The kid made a mistake.  He will pay a price through the regular legal system, as well as from AD/University.  He'll learn from it and be the better for it.  But please, let's not go overboard here.  Sanctimony is so unbecoming. 

[teejers1]

81alum and burger . . . good grief. 

I don't know if redrum was being humorous or not, but IIRC, Floyd was popped 3 times for alcohol-related incidents at ND and missed a total of . . . zero plays (let alone quarter(s) of a game, or a game, or games, or a season).  So using him as an example to follow here? 

And this reminds me of a law school classmate - inattentive, a bit ditsy, worst driver imaginable, put passengers (and others) at risk every time she got behind the wheel.  I can't believe she wasn't kicked out of school.  And what about all those kids who drank and got sick on campus at parties?  I swear, that happened weekly back in the day, and it was a totally embarrassing situation for them and everyone else.  Made complete fools of themselves.  I can't believe they all weren't suspended from school.  And how about SuperFan at midcourt of student section at Maples back in the day?  That guy would ride officials, utter profanities at opposing players, and generally be obnoxious at basketball games . . . sometimes he could even be heard on TV!!    Why wasn't he suspended for half the season?  And how about my dorm mates frosh year at Donner who "acquired" some outdoor lounge chairs from the law school for tanning purposes?  Those criminals should have been summarily booted.

Yes, DUI is a serious matter - and fortunately, much greater awareness exists on dangers of it today than did back in the day.  The kid made a mistake.  He will pay a price through the regular legal system, as well as from AD/University.  He'll learn from it and be the better for it.  But please, let's not go overboard here.  Sanctimony is so unbecoming. 

[Leftcoast]

I'm with Teejers on this one.

I didn't wake up at 18 knowing my limits - nor did they appear by applying magic dust at 21.    But they might as well have compared to the painful and public way Shayne Skov just became acquainted with his limits.  ESPN, AP, Yahoo and all local radio and TV outlets are carrying this story and debating his punishment.   

These are 18 and 23 year olds and chances are they are making the same mistakes we made at their age.  Hopefully Stanford treats him the same way they would any other student - and with the same proportional consequences I'd want them to apply to my son or daughter.

[Leftcoast]

I'm with Teejers on this one.

I didn't wake up at 18 knowing my limits - nor did they appear by applying magic dust at 21.    But they might as well have compared to the painful and public way Shayne Skov just became acquainted with his limits.  ESPN, AP, Yahoo and all local radio and TV outlets are carrying this story and debating his punishment.   

These are 18 and 23 year olds and chances are they are making the same mistakes we made at their age.  Hopefully Stanford treats him the same way they would any other student - and with the same proportional consequences I'd want them to apply to my son or daughter.

[Farm93]

First, DUI is terrible.  Skov is lucky he didn't kill a student riding a bike on the edge of the road or pedestrian walking across the street.  So Skov should be thankful he is not looking at a manslaughter or murder charge.  His realm of penalties seems trivial compared to what could have happened.

However DUI's seem to happen in college athletics once or twice a month, at least.  So Skov's story will go away soon enough from the major sports headlines.  Skov was a bit unlucky that this story broke after the Super Bowl, which is a notoriously slow time in sports.  Of course, I can only imagine that Skov's problems started with a Super Bowl party.  The irony!

Luckily for Skov, no one was killed.  A few things come to mind.  But perhaps the best would be for Skov to do the public service announcment type path.  Under that path, Skov would be become an asset for fighting college drinking and DUIs.  Skov could step up and do a bunch of NCAA & MADD programs to help raise awareness.

Assuming first offense and without any dramatic hit & run or whatever, I would guess that Skov will be banned from Spring practice and the first two games.  However,dismissal is also in the realm.  http://www.totaldui.com/news/articles/he...letes.aspx
This is the type of stuff that coaches must HATE.  In the end Shaw will probably need to decide what he would do if this was someone deeper down the depth chart.  If that player would get dismissed, then Skov should be too.  I guess we will see.

FWIW - Skov is a big guy.  This is not like some female gymnast that might have been floored by two drinks. Skov would have really needed to drink quite a lot to get to a place where he is weaving around.  Alternatively!!  He could have had some pain medication & alcohol interaction that he was not really aware of.  He only was drinking because it was at a Super Bowl party, did not know that interaction would happen with his knee surgery pain meds, etc.  But that line only works if the BAC was low.

[Farm93]

First, DUI is terrible.  Skov is lucky he didn't kill a student riding a bike on the edge of the road or pedestrian walking across the street.  So Skov should be thankful he is not looking at a manslaughter or murder charge.  His realm of penalties seems trivial compared to what could have happened.

However DUI's seem to happen in college athletics once or twice a month, at least.  So Skov's story will go away soon enough from the major sports headlines.  Skov was a bit unlucky that this story broke after the Super Bowl, which is a notoriously slow time in sports.  Of course, I can only imagine that Skov's problems started with a Super Bowl party.  The irony!

Luckily for Skov, no one was killed.  A few things come to mind.  But perhaps the best would be for Skov to do the public service announcment type path.  Under that path, Skov would be become an asset for fighting college drinking and DUIs.  Skov could step up and do a bunch of NCAA & MADD programs to help raise awareness.

Assuming first offense and without any dramatic hit & run or whatever, I would guess that Skov will be banned from Spring practice and the first two games.  However,dismissal is also in the realm.  http://www.totaldui.com/news/articles/he...letes.aspx
This is the type of stuff that coaches must HATE.  In the end Shaw will probably need to decide what he would do if this was someone deeper down the depth chart.  If that player would get dismissed, then Skov should be too.  I guess we will see.

FWIW - Skov is a big guy.  This is not like some female gymnast that might have been floored by two drinks. Skov would have really needed to drink quite a lot to get to a place where he is weaving around.  Alternatively!!  He could have had some pain medication & alcohol interaction that he was not really aware of.  He only was drinking because it was at a Super Bowl party, did not know that interaction would happen with his knee surgery pain meds, etc.  But that line only works if the BAC was low.

[dabigv13]

The offense was Jan 29.....not super bowl related. Pro bowl party??

[dabigv13]

The offense was Jan 29.....not super bowl related. Pro bowl party??

[teejers1]

And ftr, we're all taking as true the statement that Skov was weaving before he was pulled over.  That may well be true, but none of us knows that for sure.  Some of you may think that is totally irrelevant, provided SS's BAC numbers exceeded .08.  But some others may think the Fourth Amendment should have some meaning/effect.

Bottom line: SS should receive no special treatment when it comes to university-based repercussions, and that cuts both ways.  And btw, do you think there are "regular students" at Stanford who get popped for DUIs who handle them privately with law enforcement?  I do.  But I have no facts to back that up, only a gut take.  Some of you may think that is also irrelevant.  I do not. 

[teejers1]

And ftr, we're all taking as true the statement that Skov was weaving before he was pulled over.  That may well be true, but none of us knows that for sure.  Some of you may think that is totally irrelevant, provided SS's BAC numbers exceeded .08.  But some others may think the Fourth Amendment should have some meaning/effect.

Bottom line: SS should receive no special treatment when it comes to university-based repercussions, and that cuts both ways.  And btw, do you think there are "regular students" at Stanford who get popped for DUIs who handle them privately with law enforcement?  I do.  But I have no facts to back that up, only a gut take.  Some of you may think that is also irrelevant.  I do not. 

[dabigv13]

I was pulled over twice on campus while a student and given various traffic citations (not DUI related), in which the SUPD outright lied, both in their ticket and later in court. Very little faith in their trustworthiness.

[dabigv13]

I was pulled over twice on campus while a student and given various traffic citations (not DUI related), in which the SUPD outright lied, both in their ticket and later in court. Very little faith in their trustworthiness.

[81alum]

I regret my earlier post that linked the Skov case perhaps too closely with JJ Hones case.  It was really said in the first spasm of grief over the bad news.  The truth is that none of us, in fact, now know sufficient details about either of the cases and the contexts to be able to make a fair comparison.  And we probably never will. 

One thing I learned from my time on the jury--these cases are won or lost during jury selection, since the public is quite divided over how it views DUI cases.  It's pretty clear that this board also reflects the same range of  prosecution-friendly to defense-friendly  types.  Whatever we may think about each others' views on this, though, we are on this board because we are Stanford-friendly.  That can unite us in a sense of sadness for the hurt to the team caused by this young man's poor judgment, and our hope that it will become a positive turning point for him. 

[81alum]

I regret my earlier post that linked the Skov case perhaps too closely with JJ Hones case.  It was really said in the first spasm of grief over the bad news.  The truth is that none of us, in fact, now know sufficient details about either of the cases and the contexts to be able to make a fair comparison.  And we probably never will. 

One thing I learned from my time on the jury--these cases are won or lost during jury selection, since the public is quite divided over how it views DUI cases.  It's pretty clear that this board also reflects the same range of  prosecution-friendly to defense-friendly  types.  Whatever we may think about each others' views on this, though, we are on this board because we are Stanford-friendly.  That can unite us in a sense of sadness for the hurt to the team caused by this young man's poor judgment, and our hope that it will become a positive turning point for him. 

[Cardinal96]

If this is a first offense, I think a one or two-game suspension is sufficient assuming that Skov is sufficiently contrite.  Perhaps I should be more worked up about this but I am not.  And I think people deserve a second chance.

Now if there is a history of Skov violating team rules, my opinion changes.

[Cardinal96]

If this is a first offense, I think a one or two-game suspension is sufficient assuming that Skov is sufficiently contrite.  Perhaps I should be more worked up about this but I am not.  And I think people deserve a second chance.

Now if there is a history of Skov violating team rules, my opinion changes.

[Farm93]

The offense was Jan 29.....not super bowl related. Pro bowl party??

Hmmm, I think the Pro bowl would cause almost any football player to want to reach for a drink.  ::)  That game was horrible.  Allowing a bunch of 10 year olds play flag football would have been a better way to honor the sport.

Still, not an excuse to get into a car after drinking.  I always thought that Stanford had some structural advantages to discourage DUIs.  Realistically driving around campus is time consuming, finding parking is challenging, and off-campus parties are rare, so put that together and DUIs are probably far more common in other places.

[Farm93]

The offense was Jan 29.....not super bowl related. Pro bowl party??

Hmmm, I think the Pro bowl would cause almost any football player to want to reach for a drink.  ::)  That game was horrible.  Allowing a bunch of 10 year olds play flag football would have been a better way to honor the sport.

Still, not an excuse to get into a car after drinking.  I always thought that Stanford had some structural advantages to discourage DUIs.  Realistically driving around campus is time consuming, finding parking is challenging, and off-campus parties are rare, so put that together and DUIs are probably far more common in other places.

[jayasena]

To me, it was a great lesson about how the criminal justice system can turn on the most remote and unexpected things, in this case a 30-year Reader's Digest story about the hazards of construction work.

Don't mean to derail the conversation abut I wonder how many jurors use CSI as a guide to interpreting evidence these days? I mean, if CSI can place a suspect at the specific place and time of a crime based solely on a blade of grass stuck to his shoe or some such thing, surely there must be more convincing evidence than the eye-witness testimony of a distracted bystander...

[jayasena]

To me, it was a great lesson about how the criminal justice system can turn on the most remote and unexpected things, in this case a 30-year Reader's Digest story about the hazards of construction work.

Don't mean to derail the conversation abut I wonder how many jurors use CSI as a guide to interpreting evidence these days? I mean, if CSI can place a suspect at the specific place and time of a crime based solely on a blade of grass stuck to his shoe or some such thing, surely there must be more convincing evidence than the eye-witness testimony of a distracted bystander...

[Spiny_Norman]

I just thought it might be interesting before we take up McClellan's tactics at Antietam, the next logical chain in this thread.

Did McClellan fail a post-battle breathalyzer too? 

[Spiny_Norman]

I just thought it might be interesting before we take up McClellan's tactics at Antietam, the next logical chain in this thread.

Did McClellan fail a post-battle breathalyzer too?