ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1997, Roanoke Times
DATE: Tuesday, April 15, 1997 TAG: 9704150078
SECTION: VIRGINIA PAGE: C-1 EDITION: METRO
COLUMN: WHAT'S ON YOUR MIND?
SOURCE: RAY REED
Q: Maybe you can straighten me out on Virginia Tech's new disciplinary policy for athletes. From TV and your news reports, I understood the coaches were to be removed from the discipline phase of the policy. Yet, an April 4 story on a player's removal from the team says "head coach Frank Beamer and Braine [Dave Braine, athletic director] decided to take swift action." Another story, on April 8, says the policy "calls for more counseling of athletes and for Braine, rather than coaches, to mete out discipline."
If Beamer was involved in this player's discipline, then to me the new Tech disciplinary policy has not changed; it is the same-O same-O. J.C., Blacksburg
A: Final authority on disciplining athletes who are accused of crimes rests with the athletic director. There's no ambiguity about that in Tech's policy.
Coaches weren't shut out of the decision process, though, and none of those media reports said Dave Braine would make his decisions without their input.
You cite our news reports correctly. Perhaps, however, the quotes led some readers to an incorrect conclusion.
The policy that Braine presented to the Board of Visitors in February set out, for the first time, a procedure Tech will follow if a player is: 1. charged with a felony; 2. convicted of one; and 3. charged or convicted in a misdemeanor.
Penalties are: a felony charge brings immediate suspension from the team; a felony conviction brings dismissal from the team; and misdemeanor charges or convictions lead to a review process.
The misdemeanor review process was used in the case of Pedro Edison, a tight end who was charged on April 2 with two counts of destroying property and one count of obstructing justice. Police said he kicked out two car windows and resisted arrest.
In this situation the policy states: "The athletic director will review the charges and all of the surrounding circumstances."
The factors he must consider include prior behavior and cooperation during the investigation.
The people most likely to have this information are the coaches, and Braine can't make decisions in a vacuum.
To exclude Beamer or any coach from Braine's review process would remove vital elements of both justice and management.
The coach's input might favor the athlete, or hurt his chances of staying on the team. Either way, Braine needs to know about his past actions and attitude.
From a management standpoint, a coach would lose a vital element of control if the players felt he'd lost all authority to enforce discipline.
Larry Hincker, a university spokesman who provided some of the information you cited in previous stories, said that in the Edison case, "it's fair to say Dave and Frank communicated and were of the same mind" about the action that was taken.
First Hokie in space
Q: There have been several stories in the Roanoke Times recently about the Virginia Tech physics graduate (Roger B. Crouch) who was on the last space shuttle. Many of those stories have claimed that he was Tech's first astronaut. That is not true. Tech's first astronaut was John B."Jack" McKay, a 1951 graduate of the aeronautical engineering program. J.M., Blacksburg
A: You present us with a fact, which we acknowledge.
McKay, a combat pilot during World War II, became a test pilot after earning his degree.
He was one of the first seven pilots to fly the X-15 rocket plane that bridged the gap between aircraft and space vehicle Mc Kay took the X-15 to a height of 56 miles and a speed of 3,938 mph - Mach 5, or five times the speed of sound.
Cresting the 50-mile altitude earned McKay his astronaut wings from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
LENGTH: Medium: 74 linesby CNB