FULMER CUP UPDATE: DUKE ENTERS IN THE WORST WAY POSSIBLE
The Fulmer Cup is supposed to be fun–dark fun, sure, but fun nonetheless. However, Duke makes their entrance into the Fulmer Cup in what is arguably the worst way imaginable with misdemeanor charges of death by vehicle and driving left of the center line for wide receiver Raphael Chestnut, and in no way resembles fun, funny, or even titter-worthy.
Chestnut was involved in a collision on a curve during a heavy rainstorm in Stokesdale, North Carolina with a car driven by Douglas Smith, 50. It’s bad enough that the impact killed Smith; it dives into gutpain awful with this sentence:
His wife and infant in his car weren’t injured, and Chestnut wasn’t seriously injured.
A rare and horrible strike of ill fortune just rent one family asunder, made a wife a widow, and took one college student’s psyche and put a guilt dent in it he may never fully recover from in this lifetime. HA ha…um, ha. Yes. No mention of DUI, either. This is just life striking in horrid and inexplicable fashion as an instant of carelessness, inattention, a freak gust of wind, fiddling with the radio, whatever it was metastasized into major personal tragedy.
Duke is awarded two points if the charges stand. But Jesus, we’re queasy about awarding points for something that seems far less “boys will be boys” misbehavior and far more “why oh why cruel fate” in our ledger.
Loading ...
51
tzubear says:
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.
February 28th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
52
Todd says:
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.
February 28th, 2007 at 3:32 pm
53
the walrus says:
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.
February 28th, 2007 at 3:43 pm
54
tzubear says:
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.
February 28th, 2007 at 3:44 pm
55
Mike says:
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.
February 28th, 2007 at 3:52 pm
56
Aerobab says:
#53…he was driving a 2002 Chrysler Seabring, cited in the link in #30.
February 28th, 2007 at 3:59 pm
57
Tracer Bullet says:
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.
February 28th, 2007 at 4:00 pm
58
Hook'em Tide says:
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
February 28th, 2007 at 4:06 pm
59
sb says:
On a purely subjective basis, I request removal of the points.
February 28th, 2007 at 4:09 pm
60
Kahuna says:
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.
February 28th, 2007 at 4:12 pm
61
Stacy Keibler Loves Me says:
Unbaweevable Dept:
Amazing and nice to read that most people have a heart.
February 28th, 2007 at 4:16 pm
62
tzubear says:
I agree with Hook em tide, and this will be possible because of SKLM’s observation.
February 28th, 2007 at 4:21 pm
63
HFS says:
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.
February 28th, 2007 at 4:23 pm
64
DC Trojan says:
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?
February 28th, 2007 at 4:30 pm
65
Orson Swindle says:
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.
February 28th, 2007 at 4:33 pm
66
oc phil says:
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.
February 28th, 2007 at 4:35 pm
67
tzubear says:
“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.
February 28th, 2007 at 4:40 pm
68
maskedavenger says:
“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.
February 28th, 2007 at 4:45 pm
69
dogtown gator says:
“Fulmerness”:
2007’s ‘Truthiness’.
Nice neologism, Orson.
February 28th, 2007 at 4:46 pm
70
PeterPumpkinhead says:
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.
February 28th, 2007 at 5:03 pm
71
DC Trojan says:
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.
February 28th, 2007 at 5:14 pm
72
Out of Conference says:
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.
February 28th, 2007 at 5:25 pm
73
Out of Conference says:
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.
February 28th, 2007 at 5:27 pm
74
Out of Conference says:
“know” = “no”
^&$%^$#^&&*
February 28th, 2007 at 5:28 pm
75
Southern Papa says:
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.
February 28th, 2007 at 6:59 pm
76
Panhandler says:
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…
February 28th, 2007 at 8:09 pm
77
Orson Swindle says:
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.
February 28th, 2007 at 8:12 pm
78
the walrus says:
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.
February 28th, 2007 at 9:23 pm
79
edsbsreader says:
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.
February 28th, 2007 at 9:29 pm
80
PJ from NU in SF says:
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.
February 28th, 2007 at 10:50 pm
81
beattherush says:
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.
February 28th, 2007 at 11:09 pm
82
goheels says:
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.
March 1st, 2007 at 1:12 am
83
Cock D says:
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.
March 1st, 2007 at 8:36 am
84
Cock D says:
“I’m impressed at the humanity displayed here”
I’m unimpressed by the selective morality here.
March 1st, 2007 at 8:37 am
85
The Conscience of a Nation says:
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.
March 1st, 2007 at 9:58 am
86
tzubear says:
Cock D-
All morality is selective, becauce it is a personal choice. Hence my comment about ‘no one is ruled by pure reason’.
March 1st, 2007 at 11:10 am
87
DevilGrad says:
Fulmerity?
March 1st, 2007 at 12:49 pm
88
Out of Conference says:
WWSWD?
March 1st, 2007 at 1:25 pm
89
Boclive says:
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.
March 1st, 2007 at 1:35 pm
90
CrazyVolFan says:
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?
March 2nd, 2007 at 10:25 pm