jason kidd beat his wife and is also said to drink alcohol more than he should and chauncey billups settled a lawsuit in a rape case, so do you care about it or you look at them strictly bball related how would people in portland/oregon react at their hire
This very subject has been covered in like 4 other threads, lol. ... If someone like Pops had once hit his wife and gotten a DUI I would hold my nose and welcome them as coach of the Blazers. I would hold out hope that the Blazers would hold him accountable if further problems arrived. But Pops has a proven track record of finding and coaching talent. I'm tired of not winning shit as a Blazer fan. But Jason Kidd?!? Someone who has a poor track record as coach? No, too much risk for too little reward. I know it's hypocritical to have such a stance but I don't care. I want to celebrate the Blazers winning a championship.
If the Jail Blazers would have won a championship I would be fine with retiring as many of their numbers as we did with our first championship team.
Damn forgot about the Billups rape lawsuit. Those are tough ones. You never know for sure if they were really guilty or someone looking for money. Did not seem to hurt Kobe or Bill Clinton, but this is Protest City we are talking about, so my guess it will eliminate both from consideration.
You nailed it Sly! I agree with this. That’s why I want Billiups and not Kidd. Atleast Chauncey hasn’t coached before and could be a hidden gem
from what ive read, its been proved that woman was raped and the fact that billups settled a lawsuit leads to conclusion that he did it otherwise, why would he settle a lawsuit, the story was already out, his name has been damaged already, so there would be no point to "keep it quiet"
Sure there is. Going to court is a hassle. If you can avoid it, you do so. He had the means to. No criminal charges. Never arrested.
A conviction on criminal charges would prove what the woman is saying is true. A dismissal of a civil suit because of an undisclosed settlement does not. Two Former Celtics Settle Lawsuit in Rape Case Former Celtics players Ron Mercer and Chauncey Billups settled the lawsuit of a woman who said she was raped at the home of Boston F Antoine Walker in 1997. Mercer and Billups, now with the Nuggets, agreed to pay the unidentified woman an undisclosed sum, the Boston Herald reported yesterday. ... U.S. District Judge Richard Stearns hasn't entered a final judgment since granting a motion to dismiss the case. https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...pe-case/9c07ef60-f73f-4a65-a7d7-1c99ef0ba384/ This was from 1997 in Boston and was settled in 2000 while Billups was playing in Denver.
thats in the case if he did it but if he didnt, why would he settle... that only leads to conclusion he did it it would make sense if the story wasnt out, so he just "kept it quiet" by settlement
Most all players have personal liability insurance. It could have been something so simple that the insurance company reached a settlement and told Billups if he wanted to continue the case it would be on his own dime. Considering that he would be losing $33k per game missed during depositions and possible trial the math quickly works out to settle even if he were innocent.
@SlyPokerDog chauncey billups wikipedia says this: A medical examination on the following day revealed injuries consistent with the victim's testimony. i know, wikipedia can be edited by anyone, but still, there are a lot of truthful info on wikipedia
https://www.igtc.com/archives/celtics/1999/Oct/msg00106.html @SlyPokerDog doesnt this mean she was either raped or had consensual rough sex sorry, its difficult for me to talk about a complex theme like this in english language
Sure. But for some reason, and let's hope it's the right reasons, criminal charges were never filed. I'm just not seeing enough here to not consider Billups for the Blazer's coaching position. I would have no problem with this being brought if he were to be interviewed by the Blazers.
I voted for the first one, but it's just a part of the equation. I consider it, but the details matter. If they are quality enough candidates I think you look into those issues more deeply. I don't think they are good enough candidates to even look into deeper. However, in this instance I would look into it deeper to appease Dame. But if there is no clear evidence they are completely innocent then you say "Sorry Dame, we looked into it, but we just can't hire people with this kind of history."
