Tension between Coach and Compliance Staff
- Thread starter RU76
- Start date
http://www.philly.com/philly/sports...tate_lauded_for_progress_by_ethics_panel.html
"
But a two-paragraph section of the report under the subhead "Football" was less complimentary.
"There is evidence of increased tension, and a mutual lack of trust, between the head football coach and University athletics compliance staff," the report reads.
Scheeler wrote in the report that athletic director Sandy Barbour, football coach James Franklin, director of ethics and compliance Regis Becker, athletics integrity officer Julie Del Giorno, and others in the compliance staff acknowledged the issue.
"Some level of tension is natural," Barbour said Tuesday in a phone interview. "They are highly competitive people."
"
But a two-paragraph section of the report under the subhead "Football" was less complimentary.
"There is evidence of increased tension, and a mutual lack of trust, between the head football coach and University athletics compliance staff," the report reads.
Scheeler wrote in the report that athletic director Sandy Barbour, football coach James Franklin, director of ethics and compliance Regis Becker, athletics integrity officer Julie Del Giorno, and others in the compliance staff acknowledged the issue.
"Some level of tension is natural," Barbour said Tuesday in a phone interview. "They are highly competitive people."
This does make me wonder about the academic advisor(s) who ratted out Flood. What happens to them? Rutgers would be loathe to fire them, due to laws protecting whistleblowers, yet I don't see how Flood ever has trust or a working relationship with them any more. Even more reason why Flood should have been fired.
Not sure I agree. HCKF is an honorable man. I bet he learns from what happened and develops a better working relationship with the academic staff
Can we stop with the honorable man defense?
Anyone that read the report and believes he did not know he was breaking rules is either extremely gullible or delusional (best case - maybe trying to blindly support the program).
Sadly, that was his main quality and its destroyed.
Anyone that read the report and believes he did not know he was breaking rules is either extremely gullible or delusional (best case - maybe trying to blindly support the program).
Sadly, that was his main quality and its destroyed.
There's supposed to be a lack of trust with compliance. That's the whole point of having a compliance director.
If he wants a friend, he should get a dog.