FULMER CUP UPDATE: DUKE ENTERS IN THE WORST WAY POSSIBLE

It does seem morbid to add the points. With an asterisk, perhaps?

Don’t add them at all.

I laughed when Anna Nicole died, I would laugh if Jenn Sterrgerrer electrocuted herself with a vibrator or was decapitated by an exploding implant, but putting this in the Fulmer Cup just wouldn’t seem right.

Here, here…..move to strike from the record.

I move to strike from the record as well. This is tragic and not in the spirit of the games.

Long time reader never commented. DO NOT give points. This was a tragic accident and should not of even been considered for points nor mentioned on your web site. If DUI or under the influence of drugs then automatic winner but not this.

Manlaw – if it makes you almost cry, it’s not Fulmer Cup points appropriate

I second the move…this fateful event has repercussions that noone wants any part of . “There, but for the grace of God, go I…”

What everyone else said. Fulmer Cup is for drunk college kids stealing gay sheep or taxis or something, not this.

As a gay sheep, I take umbrage at that remark.

The Fulmer Cup, as I can tell, was designed for idiotic criminal behavior. If it is determined that this was a complete accident, and was just due to bad roads, bad conditions it should be expunged. Charges can still exist, even if its a tragic accident. If it is determined to be idiocy, I think points are still warranted. People die in order to make the Darwin Awards possible, and I know people laugh at those.

I believe this is what is commonly referred to as an accident. Stealing a cab after a drunken night at a strip club is not an accident. God bless this site and the people who inhabit it for having a conscience. It feels strange, but it is good to have.

I disagree. A charge is a charge. Ellis T. Jones’ taser victims weren’t laughing in “boys will be boys” fashion. Consistency is a price you pay when you play the Fulmer Cup game.

Sad.

From the WRAL-TV site, the following quote: “The patrol said alcohol or drugs weren’t involved in the Sunday wreck, which happened on a curve during heavy rain. Chestnut was driving 65 mph in Stokesdale when his vehicle collided with Smith’s.”

Definitely not Fulmer Cup worthy.

Remove! Remove!

On the side of jurisprudence: Does Mike Nifong see this incident come across his desk or is it a different district?

#8, the Darwin Awards are examples of natural selection…people may die (or at least minimize their ability to procreate), but they are proving a law. This appears to be the overarching “hand of God” and not “college athletes gone crazy”.

#12…isn’t Nifong about to be disbarred, and thus has no desk?

If the Fulmer Cup is supposed to highlight (and reward?) the criminality and stupidity of a school’s players, then I don’t think this deserves points. Charges might be brought, but the Duke player obviously wasn’t out to commit a crime (a la Ellis Jones) and he wasn’t doing anything incredibly stupid and reckless resulting in a crime. It’s just plain bad luck for all involved. Strike the points.

There is a reason some things are called accidents. I toss my $.02 in the “remove” corner.

This makes me want to puke, not laugh.

Why a debate? No one wins anything once the Fulmer Cup is over. This isn’t an official award. No one is going to lose their jobs one way or another. No heads will roll if EDSBS makes an exception for this incident but not the one in two weeks. If the Fulmer Cup decends into chaos and disbands over this incident, no (or very few) riots will occur, no one will die, no (or very few) governments will topple…this is supposed to be fun. What happened in North Carolina isn’t fun.

Another vote for the general sentiment. If Nelson Muntz wouldn’t point and say “Ha Ha” at the perp, then it doesn’t count. Even Nelson would tear up at this.

“He wasn’t doing anything incredibly stupid and reckless resulting in a crime.”

Actually, the point of the charge is that he was doing something stupid and reckless. He was allegedly driving at 65 m.p.h. on a wet road while taking a corner. This reckless driving led to a death and recklessness will be an element of the charge that needs to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt before he can be convicted.

A lot of the crimes in the Fulmer Cup world have victims. If I remember correctly, we have discussed sexual and physical assaults, punters who have had their legs stabbed by teammates, etc. The alleged perpetrators in those situations may be “more” blameworthy because those are intentional acts as opposed to reckless one, but there are victims involved nonetheless.

I think what makes this alleged crime different is that it is one that most of us can envision actually committing ourselves, while the random acts of violence that permeate the college football seem unlikely to occur in our world. Perhaps it is also the first death related to the Fulmer Cup, which of course, makes the topic solemn.

So include it or don’t, but Mr. Smith is not the only victim, and a lot of the times we are laughing, we are doing so at some victim’s expense.

We’re leaning toward remove. But keep ’em coming.

I suggest we don’t count this in the Fulmer Cup for the reason you already said -
in no way resembles fun, funny, or even titter-worthy.

Keep the points only if it’s DUI, otherwise this is just a horrible accident that could have happened to anyone.

MY main point: What if for the sake of argument alcohol WAS involved. Would it not be just as tragic? Would points be awarded then?

Just curious as to whether its the “tragic” aspect or the “blameworthiness” aspect that really removes this from Fulmer Cup Contention.

I understand the argument about laughing at the expense of victims. I also understand the Law of Unintended Consequences.

Who among us hasn’t driven a bit too fast for the conditions, or cut the angle on a curve like Jeff Gordon, or simply drifted over because junior dropped his Big Mac in the back seat? Stabbing a punter in the leg can be funny because the victim still wanders the earth. There’s just no way to make this one funny.

I struggled with this one. The Fulmer Cup is about bashing programs that recruit/keep players who make and are known to make poor decisions. I was going to argue that the program couldn’t have known that this sort of thing was possible, but that’s not true. Reckless driving is certainly common to people who exhibit poor decision-making skills, and that is definitely something of which the coaching staff must have been aware. I can’t draw parallels to some crime that couldn’t possibly be seen coming. The coaching staff should have known that this was a possibility.

I’d leave the points.

Wow. I played against Chestnutt in high school (he went to dreaded rival Reidsville) and know that he’s a nice kid. I know exactly where Stokesdale is and for those who are concerned, the roads aren’t awful in Stokesdale, but we’re talking about one of the poorest counties in NC. I say don’t add the points—this shouldn’t even be a debate. My condolences to the families of those injured in this tragedy.

I don’t care if alcohol was involved, it’s the tragedy of it that removes it. The guy who got stabbed in the leg could laugh at it someday. Mrs. Smith is never going to laugh at this.

I’ve had a moment where I blacked out at the wheel (momentarially) and got into a minor accident. I just lost a moment in time. No one was hurt (except for my bumper) but it happens sometimes. I agree with striking the points; the big linkage between most previous Fulmer points is that usually there was some criminal intent or lack of self control. This sounds like a car on a rainy road and a loss of control due to the conditions. It’s not his dumb move that caused it; he happens to be the one assigned the blame for this particular event.

http://www.reidsvillereview.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RVR/MGArticle/RVR_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1149193425695&path=%21frontpage

That will be the definitive newslink until somebody else picks the story up. Sad, sad story.

Speeding on a rain soaked road: Reckless? Probably. Stupid? Possibly. Criminal intent? No. I think that this last element is what separates this incident from being legitimately Fulmer worthy.

ANd is this REALLY the worst way possible? I mean, you could have a “Auburn cornerback found making surfboard out of dead babies” or a “Tennessee O-lineman founded an alleged ‘snuff-film’ studio.” I can think of worse.

Prayers to the families involved. Don’t count ’em

Strike from the record.

On the rare chance that the family somehow heard that the death of a husband and father had factored into some sort of game, the Fulmer Cup, would cease to be funny and we’d all feel very badly.

Maskedavenger in #20 is dead on. Kudos, brother.

The excessive speed of Chestnut’s vehicle in inclimate conditions is the kicker in this awful sequence of events. IF Chestnut was drunk (thank goodness he wasn’t) , would the story be any “funnier”? If he were drunk he most certainly would be tagged with FC points, commensurate with every other “DUI” arrest that has warranted FC points.

Bottom line is that he made a however-momentary bad decision; a decision that had unintended and irreparable consequences. I’m under the impression that the scope of the FC is to capture the legally-chargable, bad decisions of NCAA student-athletes. (The “scope” is different than the “spirit”, but that’s for another time.) My heart aches for this young man, but unfortunately he falls within the scope of the FC scoring system.

I vote that points stay, but I will also not have a chapped ass if [POINTS REDACTED] happens either.

Since we are apparently going to have an ethics/line-drawing day, here is a situation that just came up in Detroit. The Red Wings signed Todd Bertuzzi, who in 2002 sucker punched Steve Moore and broke three of his vertebrae. Bertuzzi was suspended for 17 months and Moore has never played again. But he is alive, so is this funny? How about Rudy Tomjonavich? It has been nearly 30 years since Kermit Washington’s punch and Tomjonavich eventually fully recovered. Is this now funny and if so when did it become so?

I, like I presume everyone who reads this blog, have enjoyed the Fulmer Cup (at time immensely) , and probably will do so in the future. But I don’t think it is easy to draw lines with how much harm/trauma a victim has to endure before we decide not to laugh.

motion to strike from the record!

“Speeding on a rain soaked road: Reckless? Probably. Stupid? Possibly. Criminal intent? No. I think that this last element is what separates this incident from being legitimately Fulmer worthy.”

#31, please review previous FC cup points for “Criminal Intent”. Only the Ellis kid comes to mind. DUI is not “criminal intent”. Stealing a taxi is not “criminal intent”. Theft of a gay sheep is not “criminal intent”. Fightin’-in-the-club is not “criminal intent”. Abusing the gf in a domestic dispute is not “criminal intent”. I could go on, but I won’t, because I think you catch my drift. VERY few of our FC offenses are the result of someone looking to do wrong.

Please reconsider your logic.

Stabbing a punter in the leg can be funny because the victim still wanders the earth.

This is a bull shit statement. What about the victims of sexual assault? They still wander the earth but their lives probably won’t ever be the same. And I’m talking in the “fucked up beyond repair” type of way.

Junior year I took an interstate curve too fast in the rain and ended up slamming into (and skidding along) the median. By the grace of God I wasn’t hurt and no one else was involved, but the car that saw the accident and stopped to help contained a family of 4.

Now, I’m not lecturing or looking down upon anyone – I have made just as many jokes and find as much humor in the Fulmer Cup as the next guy – but maskedavenger is pretty dead on: Something like this could happen to any of us, thus we’re a bit squeemish when it comes to applying the incident to something we look upon as humorous.

I still don’t think we should count the points – it’s tragic and asking for bad karma – I just wanted to share additional thoughts.

This one just feels wrong. Still waiting on Marshall to give us one that feels right.

Would we be feeling different if this Thug McSmith at Tha U?

Part of me wants to be cold-hearted and award the points. Then I remember that I read this site to be entertained, and even occasionally informed.

Here’s a thought/qualification for entry: Would Jeff Ross make fun of this? If the answers no, then strike the points. Otherwise, fuck ’em.

Definitely no points for this tragedy. DOesn’t fit the spirit or intent of the Fulmer Cup.

PD’sL

This is just tragic.
No Fulmer Cup points for this accident.

Interesting points of debate brought up on both sides. I’m in favor of no points for this, but not due to any rational or logical reasons. It just doesn’t feel right.

In the end, I have to use the (unfortunate) pornography analogy- I know it when I see it.

I know Fulmer Points when I see them, and I ain’t seeing ’em here…

Do Fulmer Cup points attach only for convictions? Or does any arrest qualify? My point being, I don’t see this kid actually being convicted.

Maskedavenger in Comment #20 echoes my feelings.

I don’t get the “remove” thing…the rules are clear – kid on football team gets arrested, gets points. Just because this one makes you feel uncomfortable, you want to strike it from the record. We laughed about a midshipman committing sexual assault at Navy, we laughed about a kid getting stabbed for the crime of kicking a football better than someone else, we laughed at peoples’ lives being rent asunder by the actions of college football players.

Let me repeat: We laughed/cracked wise about a man committing rape/sexual assault at the US Naval Academy. Now that one hits too close to home it’s off limits? Bunch of self-centered fucks, you are.

Masked avenger makes a very well thought out arguement, but I have to say we should remove this. The Fulmer cup is for our enjoyment. I for one will not enjoy looking at the 2 points for Duke on the leader board. So, for purly selfish reasons, please remove, as it would dampen my joy of the cup.

It is a misdemeanor to cause the unintentional death of a person while operating a vehicle in violation of any state law or local ordinance applying to the operation or use of a vehicle or to the regulation of traffic, other than impaired driving, if such a violation is the proximate cause of death.

I strike what I said in #44.

Orson,

Someone just above wrote about coming to edsbs because of its ability to charm, amuse, entertain and even inform.

The truly classiest aspect of this site has been, and shall remain your ability to talk with such humorous irreverence on any given subject, and downshift to a more solemn tone as the tragic need occasionally and unfortunately arises.

I’ve been reading from the start, and reading the comments since shortly thereafter, and the commenters generally share the same sense of humor as the author. Sure people here make fun of the North Colorado punter here. Sure we bash Gary Barnette for his Gary Barnetteness (and all its subsequent ramifications) and you’ve even recently taken Florida-cooler-skull-bashing guy to task, but this feels different to everyone that’s commented. Even those that have argued for the points have listed a caveat to the specific situation.

All of this That says that, despite all your own tailgating and inherent marginally-safe driving conditions that fundamentally you’re considerate people. Somehow the spirit of the game doesn’t allow for this.

Secondarily, it doesn’t follow the hot, hot, hot corollary.

The whole thing will still be in the slow wheels of justice long after the Fulmer Trophy is awarded anyway.

This is simple…if this were a true, unpreventable accident handed down by the grace of God, then the police would not have been forced to formally charge the kid. Bottom line is that the kid was doing 65 in a 50, in the rain, around a curve. Call it what you want (e.g., neglegence, ignorance, stupidity, lack of common sense, bad luck, etc.), but the accident was preventable, thus fairly warranting the misdemeanor charge that was received.

I know we try to shy away from “facts” on this site, but sometimes they have to be used to form a (semi)logical thought; even though that thoguht might pull at the heart the wrong way.

PeteJayhawk-

another good arguement. Really this is a discussion about US. My feelibng is this tragedy says little about the program in question. Where as (an some didt “laugh” at rape) Navy and the punter stabbing points to lack of institutional control and sanity.

PeteJayhawk-

another good arguement. Really this is a discussion about US. How do we outline a contest based on black humer. My feelibng is this tragedy says little about the program in question. Where as (an some didt “laugh” at rape) Navy and the punter stabbing points to lack of institutional control and sanity.

I revise my assertion that he wasn’t doing anything “stupid and reckless” because, as several have pointed out, taking a curve going 65 on rain soaked roads is pretty stupid and reckless. But I stand by the “intent” part of the scoring. #37 makes a good point that a lot of the previous recipients of FC points didn’t “intend” to break the law, but every one of them knew what they were doing was wrong (and if they didn’t, then God help them). You know you shouldn’t drive after you’ve been drinking, you know it’s wrong to steal (even if you are just stealing gay sheep), you damn well ought to know that abusing your girlfriend is wrong, and so on. Though we all know that obeying the traffic laws and operating our vehicles with all due caution is the right thing to do, we all do boneheaded things while driving without even noticing (speeding, not using a blinker, zoning out while fiddling with the radio/ipod/cell phone, etc) and very rarely does it amount to anything. That doesn’t make it right, but the consequences are few and far between. Most of us will have a few tickets or fender benders in our lifetime, and that’s it, and that’s what makes it easy to do something stupid while driving. However, most of us also understand that doing something like, oh, I don’t know, stabbing a teammate in the leg, will wind up with very serious consequences every time we do it. So I say the points are stricken because this kid suffered from a “true” momentary lapse of judgement (i.e. there was no intent to harm anyone) that will wind up hurting him and another family for the rest of their lives, while some bonehead thug that wants to steal a cab after brawlin in da club can’t plead that it was a momentary lapse because there was intent to harm someone.

Further, and I hate to be the Debbie Downer here, should there be some sort of revision of the Fulmer Cup to exclude stories where the victim will be harmed for life? The punter that got stabbed gets a good story for the rest of his life (“Oh, you’re THAT guy?!”), so that’s funny, but some poor girl gets raped and that’s a whole different kind of story to have to carry around with you.

To add a different focal point for this so called “If it was…” Fulmer Cup Points Awarded debate.

I’d like to know what kind of car the kid was driving.

If it was a ‘99 used Dodge Stratus or the like, then chances are I’d be less inclinded to support the points to this collegic program.

But give me a brand spanking new Escalade or anything the typical college student couldn’t afford or consider if he didn’t think he was hot shit, then nail ’em to the wall.

Im am very intrigued by this discussion. upon further thought ….

masked avenger, Arobab, smg and Petjayhawk-

I doubt any of you is ruled by pure reason. If this site is enjoyable for its good taste in humer, then that is what we should protect.

Orson, you have to strike this one and forget it. The Fulmer Cup is intended to poke fun at college kids behaving immature. This sounds like a kid at the wrong place at the wrong time. But beyond that, when people die it’s not funny anymore. If I were the spouse I would be horrified to read this post.

#53…he was driving a 2002 Chrysler Seabring, cited in the link in #30.

Although I think everyone’s made good points on both sides of the debate, I would like to point out that, in my opinion, there is a huge difference between what transpired in this event, and what happened at Navy, etc. First off, I say strike the points, but not because of the victim— not because it’s any less tragic, but because there’s always a victim (well, almost always). Strike the points because of the accused. Fulmer Cup points (and the dark humor associated with them) are directed at the accused, not the victims. No one’s making light of the victims of sexual abuse or FNDC, instead we make light of the poor judgment exercised by the players involved.

And, based on this standard, there’s a world of difference between “exceeded the speed limit” and “cracked a bottle over someone’s head” or “sexually assaulted a girlfriend” or “tasered people met on craigslist.” Yes, in the end, they’re all chargeable offenses. But as a matter of lack of judgment, or likelihood of resultant harm, this incident is miles away from just about anything else I’ve seen in the Fulmer Cup so far.

Weep for the sake of the victim, always. In this instance, strike the points, for the sake of the accused.

Don’t go overboard and make a “ban” on certain stories. Do it case by case, lest the PC police seep into the blogosphere……that precious last frontier of free speech

On a purely subjective basis, I request removal of the points.

Would the EDSBS community vote to strike an incident in which a player was playing around with a gun (say an AR-15?) and it went off accidentally and killed someone? Chances are high he didn’t mean to do it, but it’s still criminally reckless.

Unbaweevable Dept:

Amazing and nice to read that most people have a heart.

I agree with Hook em tide, and this will be possible because of SKLM’s observation.

I think Tracer Bullet #57 makes the best point here. This isn’t, and hasn’t been, about laughing at the victims, it’s about laughing at the perps for being dumbassish and/or thugalicious. I have no problem laughing at Ellis T. Jones for what he did, despite my sympathy for those poor chumps that got tazered and “detained”. This guy will be scarred for a long time through mere carelessness, with no intent to harm anyone or break the law. I can’t laugh at him. And, like I said above, Nelson Muntz wouldn’t either. WWNMD?

Plus, what’s with all this supposed integrity of the point systems for the Fulmer Cup, as if it’s the scoring system for an olympic event or a federal vote counting system? The FC isn’t about the integrity of the system. It’s about humor. Specifically, it’s about laughing at those programs that recruit and/or coddle dumbass thugs. This instance simply does not qualify. Even if no one had died, it wouldn’t qualify.

I don’ t think that it’s setting the bar too high to have negligent vehicular manslaughter stricken from the list of Fulmer Cup elegible offenses when there’s no compounding factors, like drunkenness or high-speed car chase.

It’s not like we’re eliminating any incidents involving death, just decreeing that it’s only funny when the winner is loaded or fleeing and is responsible for their own death only.

Now if you want to wring your hands over this, you could ponder the underlying ethics of deliberately recruiting and rewarding undersocialized adolescents with a propensity for violence and poor impulse control, and then hoping that they’ll confine that to the field… but that would 1) be uncomfortable, and 2) leave us only with scheming asshats like Pat Lazear, and where’s the fun in that?

That looks like an overwhelming strike. The logical reason applies via DC Trojan’s logic: no confounding factors of “Fulmerness.”

The illogical reason is because we said so.

I’d say leave the points in the competition. Otherwise i can see too many future situations where "that’s not funny for the victim’ is going to come up.

The Fulmer cup was about keeping track of a team’s crimes, not just the funny ones. My instant gut reaction was to strike the points but after thinking about it I switched sides on the issue.

“Now if you want to wring your hands over this”

so your saying its bad/sad that the most poignent ethical challenge I am to face today was issued to me from a blog? Hmmmmm, you may be right.

“you could ponder the underlying ethics of deliberately recruiting and rewarding undersocialized adolescents with a propensity for violence and poor impulse control, and then hoping that they’ll confine that to the field… but that would 1) be uncomfortable, and 2) leave us only with scheming asshats like Pat Lazear, and where’s the fun in that?”

This, to me, was always the essence of the humor in the Fulmer Cup – the self-mocking that occurred because we are all aware that our football enjoyment was too often tied to unsavory, yet talented youngsters (which perhaps ties in to Orson’s forthcoming opus on socio-economics and football recruiting). Its funny when this hypocrisy is exposed at a rival’s school and embarrassing when it is your own. Ironically, Duke, at least in football, is perceived to be one of the institutions that was unwilling to severely compromise its academic principles for athletic success.

“Fulmerness”:

2007’s ‘Truthiness’.

Nice neologism, Orson.

There’s way too much reason and “fact” being applied here. Given that most of us here are Heros, we know that “facts” and reason aren’t important, it’s what we know in our gut.

Clearly the large majority of our guts say no points here. Let’s keep the families in our thoughts and move on to something footballier.

so your saying its bad/sad that the most poignent ethical challenge I am to face today was issued to me from a blog? Hmmmmm, you may be right.

I think it’s an indicator that for tzubear, life is good.

No points awarded certainly wouldn’t leave a bad taste in anyone’s mouth. Clearly, awarding points would disappoint, disgust, and dishearten many of us (me inlcuded). That being said, what if he in this young man’s bit of reckless driving, he slid into a pasture of cows, a dellivery truck full of tampons, or an empty UNC activity bus. Would the story be funnier, yes? Worthy of points?- I doubt anyone would argue against points, even though the athlete may very well be as remorseful in one of those situations. Still, no points seems to be the honorable thing to do in this situation. It’s really up to the originator of the FC to make the decision, but we all appreciate you being considerate enough to have asked those that enjoy the FC the most.

when I said “funnier” previously, I was in know way meaning that even a bit of the actual story is funny. I have infant twins and the thought of leaving them and my wife alone in this world terrifies me beyond belief.

“know” = “no”
&$%$#^&&*

I tend to agree with my learned colleagues (if I may call ‘the regulars’ that, and you know who you are ) – strike the points. We may once again need the Fulmer Cup rules published. My feel on this one: the kid was not doing something stupid with thuggish intent. In a relative sense, if he had stolen an Escalade, and was headed down the highway with stolen guns and an open bottle of Grey Goose, and on his way to shut up a witness, then yes, Fulmer Cup points. This one, no. It tugs at the heart too much.

To the Smith family, and also to Raphael Chestnut and his family, our prayers should go out. Hopefully the Duke officials will get the kid some counseling. This wasn’t a teenage prank: it was an accident. Even if the rules say the points should go up, he deserves the mulligan.

To CBG, TCOAN, PSUgirl, and the other fine ladies who read and contribute, as the father of 2 daughters, I say rape or sexual assault does not count for FC point totals. There should be a special treatment for these guys, like funds for the local prosecutor’s office to ensure a “fair” trial before the bastards get put into the population sector that really knows rape.

Don’t start codifying too many rules, O. The Florida Statutes runs 6 volumes and everyone’s miserable. You’re the Benevolent Dictator of Fulmercupstan. Accept input from the masses, consider the public relations, weigh the pros and cons, but ultimately, dowatchalike.

FWIW, this peasant was leaning towards “leave the points,” but after reading the whole thread I admit I’m swayed… but cautious of the precedent you’re setting, by potentially changing your call after some direct democracy.

Off to dig up my Federalist Papers…

Don’t worry about codifying too much. The Red Queen rule is always in effect, which means Red Queen Orson makes the decisions as he sees fit.

Okay, reseach done:

This is a 2003 Chrysler Sebring:
http://www.autogaleria.pl/tapety/img/chrysler/chrysler_sebring_cabrio_2003_01_m.jpg

Pricing is between $10k to $16k.

I’m leaning towards rich parents over sudden money in pocket disease. So a certain amount of youthful imortality has been struck down by the fates that be, tragically perhaps, none the less reckless behavior. Welcome to the Fulmer Cup, Raffy. Prove your remorse by not showing up here again.

longtime reader…please don’t award fulmer cups points. if you or your’s were on the tragic end of this accident, i truly doubt this would be fulmer cup worthy. the cup is my favorite aspect of this site. it may be ruined with this addition.

My $0.02 — this is not Fulmer material, even if it takes Duke out of the running. I agree with others before me — I’m impressed at the humanity displayed here.

Sorry, I think points are in order. Deduct 1 for it being an accident maybe, but a college student (particularly at Duke) should be smart enough not to be driving 65 mph in unsafe conditions. Dumb behavior, accident or no.

DUIs are dumb behavior accidents too but we happily track ’em. And you award 5 points for Riverside, no?

Tragic — but stupid and preventable.

Condolences to the family.

You think he has rich parents? That’s laughable. I know the kid, he doesn’t have ‘rich’ parents, nobody is rich in Reidsville my friend. This is coming from somebody who grew up 10 minutes down the road from the place.

Driving in a fashion not suited to the conditions is reckless.

Recklessness is a criminal act.

Fulmer Cup measures criminal activity.

The points should stay.

While inclusion may be uncomfortable for some – quite understandably – it is necessary to maintain the consistency and integrity of the F.C.

The F.C., by its nature, walks a slippery slope by discussing and making light of these criminal activities which, almost always, involve victimization. It is a slap in the face to rape victims, victims of violence, and, yes, even the gay sheep that we trivialize their injury while getting in a rankle over this death.

If, in fact, an injustice anywhere is an injustice to all – we should have stopped the F.C. no later than the Navy rape cases and probably sooner. So the fact is we are all guilty, by virtue of going this far, of deriving some pleasure (albeit derivitavely) from these unfortunate events.

As such, I propose the following:
Include the points – OR – kill the Fulmer Cup

This is either black humor which disregards consideration of how crappy it is to be a victim of these events or it is wrong for all events.

Besides – administration by what is good crime and bad crime will result in a squishyness of standards and an administrative nightmare of determining (possibly by 1000s of guts) these standards.

SO – I vote to include the charges in the points.

IF the general consensus is to strip the charges from the contest, I move to pull the plug on the feature on the basis that it trivializes the suffering of rape and violence victims.

“I’m impressed at the humanity displayed here”

I’m unimpressed by the selective morality here.

FWIW, giving Fulmer Cup points for sexual assault makes me uneasy. However, I view the Fulmer Cup less as “boys will be boys” hijinks and more as a shameful indictment of lack of institutional control in a given school, and of the ridiculous leeway given to athletic stars (who, for instance, throw their pregnant girlfriend down the stairs by her hair) while simultaneously giving them extremely harsh punishments for a (relatively) victimless crime like smoking marijuana or taking GHB.

For that reason, I think the Navy points should stand and the Duke points should go. The kid driving the Sebring most likely wasn’t intentionally scoffing at the law because he knew he was protected as an athlete. It’s the abuse of an athlete’s privileged status that sticks in my craw.

But then, my wandering womb makes me a hysterical moral relativist, so take what I say with a grain of salt. And a Midol.

Cock D-

All morality is selective, becauce it is a personal choice. Hence my comment about ‘no one is ruled by pure reason’.

Fulmerity?

WWSWD?

I suck at driving. I always have. I don’t know how many accidents I’ve had. I don’t know how many speeding tickets I’ve had. A lot. I don’t mind admitting that I am a lousy driver. I drive every day. I love to go fast, too. Always have. On the roads daily, right along with the “good” drivers.

Let’s forgive him.

This shouldn’t get points. Swindle, I think the EDSBS philosphers have spoken, and the ethical debate has been outlined. I am reminded of the inappropriate joke the crazy poster made about the USC kicker after his tragic death, where you insisted he apologize or be the second person barred from the site. Why the different Swindle this time?