[oldalum]

two defendants, both cases involve U$C. Will be fun to read about the school's dirty laundry aired out for everyone to see.  Mercury News article 

So we get two trials of interest starting at the same time: Holmes and Varsity Blues

[oldalum]

two defendants, both cases involve U$C. Will be fun to read about the school's dirty laundry aired out for everyone to see.  Mercury News article 

So we get two trials of interest starting at the same time: Holmes and Varsity Blues

[oldalum]

lengthy NY Times article on former Stanford sailing coach Vandemoer, who has a book coming out on Tuesday.
article

[oldalum]

lengthy NY Times article on former Stanford sailing coach Vandemoer, who has a book coming out on Tuesday.
article

[DC 86]

lengthy NY Times article on former Stanford sailing coach Vandemoer, who has a book coming out on Tuesday.
article

An absolute must-read, I just read the article and had come here to post a link.

[DC 86]

lengthy NY Times article on former Stanford sailing coach Vandemoer, who has a book coming out on Tuesday.
article

An absolute must-read, I just read the article and had come here to post a link.

[bl82]

Everybody should read the NYT article.  An interesting quote:

Vandemoer wrote that when he handed over a $500,000 check from Singer to a senior administrator, she excitedly called Bernard Muir, the athletic director, over to show him the check. As Muir offered congratulations, Vandemoer said he started to explain who Singer was, but Muir cut him off, saying, “We know Rick.”

Dee Mostofi, a Stanford spokeswoman, said that Muir — who did not respond to a direct message seeking comment for this article — knew of Singer, but that he had not met him or spoken with him. Muir sent Singer a thank-you letter acknowledging the gift, which is a standard practice for large donations, Mostofi said.

[bl82]

Everybody should read the NYT article.  An interesting quote:

Vandemoer wrote that when he handed over a $500,000 check from Singer to a senior administrator, she excitedly called Bernard Muir, the athletic director, over to show him the check. As Muir offered congratulations, Vandemoer said he started to explain who Singer was, but Muir cut him off, saying, “We know Rick.”

Dee Mostofi, a Stanford spokeswoman, said that Muir — who did not respond to a direct message seeking comment for this article — knew of Singer, but that he had not met him or spoken with him. Muir sent Singer a thank-you letter acknowledging the gift, which is a standard practice for large donations, Mostofi said.

[McKenwood]

Unfortunately MBB assistant Adam Cohen is mentioned in the article as well. He made the introduction to Stanford's ex-sailing coach.

[McKenwood]

Unfortunately MBB assistant Adam Cohen is mentioned in the article as well. He made the introduction to Stanford's ex-sailing coach.

[jonnyss]

“When you learn that John never cashed the check, that Stanford wrote a thank-you letter to the donor and that John’s job required him to fund-raise, I’m sitting there thinking this isn’t as black and white as the prosecution is laying it out.”

[jonnyss]

“When you learn that John never cashed the check, that Stanford wrote a thank-you letter to the donor and that John’s job required him to fund-raise, I’m sitting there thinking this isn’t as black and white as the prosecution is laying it out.”

[BostonCard]

I believe all of those things were taken into account in the sentencing.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/education...y-scandal/

U.S. District Senior Judge Rya W. Zobel delivered the sentence. Noting that Vandemoer had not pocketed bribes for his own gain, in contrast to others accused in the scandal, Zobel said: “I have not heard of anyone who is less culpable.”

He wound up getting a one-day prison sentence and a $10,000 fine (and was fired from Stanford).  I suspect he will wind up ahead once the book sales came in.

BC

[BostonCard]

I believe all of those things were taken into account in the sentencing.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/education...y-scandal/

U.S. District Senior Judge Rya W. Zobel delivered the sentence. Noting that Vandemoer had not pocketed bribes for his own gain, in contrast to others accused in the scandal, Zobel said: “I have not heard of anyone who is less culpable.”

He wound up getting a one-day prison sentence and a $10,000 fine (and was fired from Stanford).  I suspect he will wind up ahead once the book sales came in.

BC

[ca245]

Everybody should read the NYT article.  An interesting quote:

Vandemoer wrote that when he handed over a $500,000 check from Singer to a senior administrator, she excitedly called Bernard Muir, the athletic director, over to show him the check. As Muir offered congratulations, Vandemoer said he started to explain who Singer was, but Muir cut him off, saying, “We know Rick.”

Dee Mostofi, a Stanford spokeswoman, said that Muir — who did not respond to a direct message seeking comment for this article — knew of Singer, but that he had not met him or spoken with him. Muir sent Singer a thank-you letter acknowledging the gift, which is a standard practice for large donations, Mostofi said.

If the above narrative is factual, I get the feeling that Stanford threw him under the bus.

[ca245]

Everybody should read the NYT article.  An interesting quote:

Vandemoer wrote that when he handed over a $500,000 check from Singer to a senior administrator, she excitedly called Bernard Muir, the athletic director, over to show him the check. As Muir offered congratulations, Vandemoer said he started to explain who Singer was, but Muir cut him off, saying, “We know Rick.”

Dee Mostofi, a Stanford spokeswoman, said that Muir — who did not respond to a direct message seeking comment for this article — knew of Singer, but that he had not met him or spoken with him. Muir sent Singer a thank-you letter acknowledging the gift, which is a standard practice for large donations, Mostofi said.

If the above narrative is factual, I get the feeling that Stanford threw him under the bus.

[Goose]

Everybody should read the NYT article.  An interesting quote:

Vandemoer wrote that when he handed over a $500,000 check from Singer to a senior administrator, she excitedly called Bernard Muir, the athletic director, over to show him the check. As Muir offered congratulations, Vandemoer said he started to explain who Singer was, but Muir cut him off, saying, “We know Rick.”

Dee Mostofi, a Stanford spokeswoman, said that Muir — who did not respond to a direct message seeking comment for this article — knew of Singer, but that he had not met him or spoken with him. Muir sent Singer a thank-you letter acknowledging the gift, which is a standard practice for large donations, Mostofi said.

If the above narrative is factual, I get the feeling that Stanford threw him under the bus.

He was already under the bus by his own doing. All this really shows is that the AD should have known what was going on and either willfully did not or is an idiot. Vandemoer can legitimately claim others were as responsible for the improper deeds as he was. He can not claim he bears no responsibility because nobody stopped him.

[Goose]

Everybody should read the NYT article.  An interesting quote:

Vandemoer wrote that when he handed over a $500,000 check from Singer to a senior administrator, she excitedly called Bernard Muir, the athletic director, over to show him the check. As Muir offered congratulations, Vandemoer said he started to explain who Singer was, but Muir cut him off, saying, “We know Rick.”

Dee Mostofi, a Stanford spokeswoman, said that Muir — who did not respond to a direct message seeking comment for this article — knew of Singer, but that he had not met him or spoken with him. Muir sent Singer a thank-you letter acknowledging the gift, which is a standard practice for large donations, Mostofi said.

If the above narrative is factual, I get the feeling that Stanford threw him under the bus.

He was already under the bus by his own doing. All this really shows is that the AD should have known what was going on and either willfully did not or is an idiot. Vandemoer can legitimately claim others were as responsible for the improper deeds as he was. He can not claim he bears no responsibility because nobody stopped him.

[ca245]

Everybody should read the NYT article.  An interesting quote:

Vandemoer wrote that when he handed over a $500,000 check from Singer to a senior administrator, she excitedly called Bernard Muir, the athletic director, over to show him the check. As Muir offered congratulations, Vandemoer said he started to explain who Singer was, but Muir cut him off, saying, “We know Rick.”

Dee Mostofi, a Stanford spokeswoman, said that Muir — who did not respond to a direct message seeking comment for this article — knew of Singer, but that he had not met him or spoken with him. Muir sent Singer a thank-you letter acknowledging the gift, which is a standard practice for large donations, Mostofi said.

If the above narrative is factual, I get the feeling that Stanford threw him under the bus.

He was already under the bus by his own doing. All this really shows is that the AD should have known what was going on and either willfully did not or is an idiot. Vandemoer can legitimately claim others were as responsible for the improper deeds as he was. He can not claim he bears no responsibility because nobody stopped him.

I wasn't saying he had no responsibility. By "under the bus" I meant that Stanford made him the solely culpable person in the Athletic Department when, if his assertions are truthful, others in the department were also culpable or at least need to explain their actions.

[ca245]

Everybody should read the NYT article.  An interesting quote:

Vandemoer wrote that when he handed over a $500,000 check from Singer to a senior administrator, she excitedly called Bernard Muir, the athletic director, over to show him the check. As Muir offered congratulations, Vandemoer said he started to explain who Singer was, but Muir cut him off, saying, “We know Rick.”

Dee Mostofi, a Stanford spokeswoman, said that Muir — who did not respond to a direct message seeking comment for this article — knew of Singer, but that he had not met him or spoken with him. Muir sent Singer a thank-you letter acknowledging the gift, which is a standard practice for large donations, Mostofi said.

If the above narrative is factual, I get the feeling that Stanford threw him under the bus.

He was already under the bus by his own doing. All this really shows is that the AD should have known what was going on and either willfully did not or is an idiot. Vandemoer can legitimately claim others were as responsible for the improper deeds as he was. He can not claim he bears no responsibility because nobody stopped him.

I wasn't saying he had no responsibility. By "under the bus" I meant that Stanford made him the solely culpable person in the Athletic Department when, if his assertions are truthful, others in the department were also culpable or at least need to explain their actions.

[Goose]

Everybody should read the NYT article.  An interesting quote:

Vandemoer wrote that when he handed over a $500,000 check from Singer to a senior administrator, she excitedly called Bernard Muir, the athletic director, over to show him the check. As Muir offered congratulations, Vandemoer said he started to explain who Singer was, but Muir cut him off, saying, “We know Rick.”

Dee Mostofi, a Stanford spokeswoman, said that Muir — who did not respond to a direct message seeking comment for this article — knew of Singer, but that he had not met him or spoken with him. Muir sent Singer a thank-you letter acknowledging the gift, which is a standard practice for large donations, Mostofi said.

If the above narrative is factual, I get the feeling that Stanford threw him under the bus.

He was already under the bus by his own doing. All this really shows is that the AD should have known what was going on and either willfully did not or is an idiot. Vandemoer can legitimately claim others were as responsible for the improper deeds as he was. He can not claim he bears no responsibility because nobody stopped him.

I wasn't saying he had no responsibility. By "under the bus" I meant that Stanford made him the solely culpable person in the Athletic Department when, if his assertions are truthful, others in the department were also culpable or at least need to explain their actions.

It is true that the University did not hold anybody else in the Athletic Department responsible for allowing this to happen. It very well may be that they should have. It appears that legally he was deemed the only one that could be proven responsible for taking money to facilitate admissions. That decision was not Stanford's to make. I am pretty sure Muir didn't know what was going on because he was not doing his job. I think that should be grounds for dismissal, but it isn't legal culpability.

[Goose]

Everybody should read the NYT article.  An interesting quote:

Vandemoer wrote that when he handed over a $500,000 check from Singer to a senior administrator, she excitedly called Bernard Muir, the athletic director, over to show him the check. As Muir offered congratulations, Vandemoer said he started to explain who Singer was, but Muir cut him off, saying, “We know Rick.”

Dee Mostofi, a Stanford spokeswoman, said that Muir — who did not respond to a direct message seeking comment for this article — knew of Singer, but that he had not met him or spoken with him. Muir sent Singer a thank-you letter acknowledging the gift, which is a standard practice for large donations, Mostofi said.

If the above narrative is factual, I get the feeling that Stanford threw him under the bus.

He was already under the bus by his own doing. All this really shows is that the AD should have known what was going on and either willfully did not or is an idiot. Vandemoer can legitimately claim others were as responsible for the improper deeds as he was. He can not claim he bears no responsibility because nobody stopped him.

I wasn't saying he had no responsibility. By "under the bus" I meant that Stanford made him the solely culpable person in the Athletic Department when, if his assertions are truthful, others in the department were also culpable or at least need to explain their actions.

It is true that the University did not hold anybody else in the Athletic Department responsible for allowing this to happen. It very well may be that they should have. It appears that legally he was deemed the only one that could be proven responsible for taking money to facilitate admissions. That decision was not Stanford's to make. I am pretty sure Muir didn't know what was going on because he was not doing his job. I think that should be grounds for dismissal, but it isn't legal culpability.

[jonnyss]

Everybody should read the NYT article.  An interesting quote:

Vandemoer wrote that when he handed over a $500,000 check from Singer to a senior administrator, she excitedly called Bernard Muir, the athletic director, over to show him the check. As Muir offered congratulations, Vandemoer said he started to explain who Singer was, but Muir cut him off, saying, “We know Rick.”

Dee Mostofi, a Stanford spokeswoman, said that Muir — who did not respond to a direct message seeking comment for this article — knew of Singer, but that he had not met him or spoken with him. Muir sent Singer a thank-you letter acknowledging the gift, which is a standard practice for large donations, Mostofi said.

If the above narrative is factual, I get the feeling that Stanford threw him under the bus.

He was already under the bus by his own doing. All this really shows is that the AD should have known what was going on and either willfully did not or is an idiot. Vandemoer can legitimately claim others were as responsible for the improper deeds as he was. He can not claim he bears no responsibility because nobody stopped him.

I wasn't saying he had no responsibility. By "under the bus" I meant that Stanford made him the solely culpable person in the Athletic Department when, if his assertions are truthful, others in the department were also culpable or at least need to explain their actions.

It is true that the University did not hold anybody else in the Athletic Department responsible for allowing this to happen. It very well may be that they should have. It appears that legally he was deemed the only one that could be proven responsible for taking money to facilitate admissions. That decision was not Stanford's to make. I am pretty sure Muir didn't know what was going on because he was not doing his job. I think that should be grounds for dismissal, but it isn't legal culpability.

i think you leave out the possibility that stanford could have had his back, saying that we asked him to fund-raise, his fund-raising occurred in close coordination with the major gifts department, and we knew singer was involved. imo you are correct that prosecutors could still elect to go after vandemoer alone, but maybe it's less likely if the university backs him.

[jonnyss]

Everybody should read the NYT article.  An interesting quote:

Vandemoer wrote that when he handed over a $500,000 check from Singer to a senior administrator, she excitedly called Bernard Muir, the athletic director, over to show him the check. As Muir offered congratulations, Vandemoer said he started to explain who Singer was, but Muir cut him off, saying, “We know Rick.”

Dee Mostofi, a Stanford spokeswoman, said that Muir — who did not respond to a direct message seeking comment for this article — knew of Singer, but that he had not met him or spoken with him. Muir sent Singer a thank-you letter acknowledging the gift, which is a standard practice for large donations, Mostofi said.

If the above narrative is factual, I get the feeling that Stanford threw him under the bus.

He was already under the bus by his own doing. All this really shows is that the AD should have known what was going on and either willfully did not or is an idiot. Vandemoer can legitimately claim others were as responsible for the improper deeds as he was. He can not claim he bears no responsibility because nobody stopped him.

I wasn't saying he had no responsibility. By "under the bus" I meant that Stanford made him the solely culpable person in the Athletic Department when, if his assertions are truthful, others in the department were also culpable or at least need to explain their actions.

It is true that the University did not hold anybody else in the Athletic Department responsible for allowing this to happen. It very well may be that they should have. It appears that legally he was deemed the only one that could be proven responsible for taking money to facilitate admissions. That decision was not Stanford's to make. I am pretty sure Muir didn't know what was going on because he was not doing his job. I think that should be grounds for dismissal, but it isn't legal culpability.

i think you leave out the possibility that stanford could have had his back, saying that we asked him to fund-raise, his fund-raising occurred in close coordination with the major gifts department, and we knew singer was involved. imo you are correct that prosecutors could still elect to go after vandemoer alone, but maybe it's less likely if the university backs him.

[BostonCard]

The key difference is whether other people knew of the scheme to designate individuals as sailing athletes in exchange for donations, even though they were not sailing athletes.

BC

[BostonCard]

The key difference is whether other people knew of the scheme to designate individuals as sailing athletes in exchange for donations, even though they were not sailing athletes.

BC

[Goose]

The key difference is whether other people knew of the scheme to designate individuals as sailing athletes in exchange for donations, even though they were not sailing athletes.

BC

True. However, it can be argued that the AD did not exercise due care in ensuring that all donations were "clean". Ignorance is a good legal defense, but willful ignorance is not the standard that Stanford should use to judge its employees. It does not appear that the AD was at all interested that such a sudden and unusually large donation would show up for a sport that is often on life support. Not that he should have just rejected it, but he should have asked some questions IMHO, like what is this donor's connection to Stanford sailing and was this donation related to a particular athlete. He didn't do that, and he certainly should have.

[Goose]

The key difference is whether other people knew of the scheme to designate individuals as sailing athletes in exchange for donations, even though they were not sailing athletes.

BC

True. However, it can be argued that the AD did not exercise due care in ensuring that all donations were "clean". Ignorance is a good legal defense, but willful ignorance is not the standard that Stanford should use to judge its employees. It does not appear that the AD was at all interested that such a sudden and unusually large donation would show up for a sport that is often on life support. Not that he should have just rejected it, but he should have asked some questions IMHO, like what is this donor's connection to Stanford sailing and was this donation related to a particular athlete. He didn't do that, and he certainly should have.

[BostonCard]

Not disagreeing with you, Goose. Plausible deniability may work for a legal defense, but it’s not a good defense when you should know what is happening in your own department.  I think there are enough “strikes” against Muir to warrant dismissal (I’d like to think “for cause”, but somehow I think that bar will be hard to meet.)

BC

[BostonCard]

Not disagreeing with you, Goose. Plausible deniability may work for a legal defense, but it’s not a good defense when you should know what is happening in your own department.  I think there are enough “strikes” against Muir to warrant dismissal (I’d like to think “for cause”, but somehow I think that bar will be hard to meet.)

BC

[82lsju]

[Laura Janke] former assistant women’s soccer coach at USC testified Monday during the first trial in the nationwide college admissions bribery scandal that she regularly created fake athletic profiles with exaggerated accomplishments coupled with images she found on Google to help get unqualified students admitted
...
When it came time to put together an applicant’s profile, Janke said she generally didn’t even know whether the student played a sport.
...
Their defense attorneys argued in court documents that their clients had no knowledge of any false information submitted about their children, and they thought they were making legitimate contributions to the universities.

https://www.latimes.com/sports/usc/story...sity-blues

[82lsju]

[Laura Janke] former assistant women’s soccer coach at USC testified Monday during the first trial in the nationwide college admissions bribery scandal that she regularly created fake athletic profiles with exaggerated accomplishments coupled with images she found on Google to help get unqualified students admitted
...
When it came time to put together an applicant’s profile, Janke said she generally didn’t even know whether the student played a sport.
...
Their defense attorneys argued in court documents that their clients had no knowledge of any false information submitted about their children, and they thought they were making legitimate contributions to the universities.

https://www.latimes.com/sports/usc/story...sity-blues

[Goose]

[Laura Janke] former assistant women’s soccer coach at USC testified Monday during the first trial in the nationwide college admissions bribery scandal that she regularly created fake athletic profiles with exaggerated accomplishments coupled with images she found on Google to help get unqualified students admitted
...
When it came time to put together an applicant’s profile, Janke said she generally didn’t even know whether the student played a sport.
...
Their defense attorneys argued in court documents that their clients had no knowledge of any false information submitted about their children, and they thought they were making legitimate contributions to the universities.

https://www.latimes.com/sports/usc/story...sity-blues

It is difficult to imagine how an assistant coach could for years falsify player's credentials and get away with it. One might say that such a brazen act seems so unlikely that nobody would even look for it. It also must be that the athletic department endorsements of individuals were never examined by anybody to see how such students were doing athletically and academically. Given the bloated staffs at virtually all Universities, it is hard to imagine how this could happen. What is shows IMHO is that bureaucracy leads not to better ensuring that rules are followed, but rather the assumption that it is somebody else's job and that it is "not my problem". That lets people get away with murder for years and nobody notices.

[Goose]

[Laura Janke] former assistant women’s soccer coach at USC testified Monday during the first trial in the nationwide college admissions bribery scandal that she regularly created fake athletic profiles with exaggerated accomplishments coupled with images she found on Google to help get unqualified students admitted
...
When it came time to put together an applicant’s profile, Janke said she generally didn’t even know whether the student played a sport.
...
Their defense attorneys argued in court documents that their clients had no knowledge of any false information submitted about their children, and they thought they were making legitimate contributions to the universities.

https://www.latimes.com/sports/usc/story...sity-blues

It is difficult to imagine how an assistant coach could for years falsify player's credentials and get away with it. One might say that such a brazen act seems so unlikely that nobody would even look for it. It also must be that the athletic department endorsements of individuals were never examined by anybody to see how such students were doing athletically and academically. Given the bloated staffs at virtually all Universities, it is hard to imagine how this could happen. What is shows IMHO is that bureaucracy leads not to better ensuring that rules are followed, but rather the assumption that it is somebody else's job and that it is "not my problem". That lets people get away with murder for years and nobody notices.

[BostonCard]

Not to mention that a lot of the staff bloat is “compliance”.

BC

[BostonCard]

Not to mention that a lot of the staff bloat is “compliance”.

BC

[OutsiderFan]

Anyone see the WSJ story today about how 2/3 of federal judges didn't recuse themselves in cases the defendant was a company in which they owned stock? What in the holy hell has happened to our moral compass in this society?

Lying and cheating is being so accepted, even enabled, that people are seeing that is the best way to get ahead in life. It's absolutely vomit-inducing how many truly shitty, dishonest people there are amongst us.

The moral rot must be purged and replaced with integrity and honesty or the whole society is going to implode.

[OutsiderFan]

Anyone see the WSJ story today about how 2/3 of federal judges didn't recuse themselves in cases the defendant was a company in which they owned stock? What in the holy hell has happened to our moral compass in this society?

Lying and cheating is being so accepted, even enabled, that people are seeing that is the best way to get ahead in life. It's absolutely vomit-inducing how many truly shitty, dishonest people there are amongst us.

The moral rot must be purged and replaced with integrity and honesty or the whole society is going to implode.

[Goose]

Anyone see the WSJ story today about how 2/3 of federal judges didn't recuse themselves in cases the defendant was a company in which they owned stock? What in the holy hell has happened to our moral compass in this society?

Lying and cheating is being so accepted, even enabled, that people are seeing that is the best way to get ahead in life. It's absolutely vomit-inducing how many truly shitty, dishonest people there are amongst us.

The moral rot must be purged and replaced with integrity and honesty or the whole society is going to implode.

While I basically agree with you analysis of our current society, I am not of the opinion that this is necessarily an example of it. The presumption has to be that if the judge does not recuse himself it is because he believes he can make an unbiased judgement even though he may own some stock in companies appearing before him. Assuming that is not true is not of itself warranted. A better question would be did the judge inform the parties of that situation to allow them to challenge his decision to continue as the judge. If that was done and nobody did challenge, its fine IMHO.

[Goose]

Anyone see the WSJ story today about how 2/3 of federal judges didn't recuse themselves in cases the defendant was a company in which they owned stock? What in the holy hell has happened to our moral compass in this society?

Lying and cheating is being so accepted, even enabled, that people are seeing that is the best way to get ahead in life. It's absolutely vomit-inducing how many truly shitty, dishonest people there are amongst us.

The moral rot must be purged and replaced with integrity and honesty or the whole society is going to implode.

While I basically agree with you analysis of our current society, I am not of the opinion that this is necessarily an example of it. The presumption has to be that if the judge does not recuse himself it is because he believes he can make an unbiased judgement even though he may own some stock in companies appearing before him. Assuming that is not true is not of itself warranted. A better question would be did the judge inform the parties of that situation to allow them to challenge his decision to continue as the judge. If that was done and nobody did challenge, its fine IMHO.