[VT Cats Fan]

Lamb had 11 points in 16 minutes last night in GSWs game against Dallas on national TV in prime time. When he checked into the game the announcers mentioned that he is a third year player from Vermont - the first player to make it to the NBA from the University of Vermont. Also, he was mentioned in the half time show. Pretty amazing that he has stuck this long and is getting some attention.

 

[Catamanica]

He's doing more than sticking around and getting attention. He's making plays and becoming an integral part of an elite team.... A lot of people on this board wrote him off (and seemed to be gloating) as far as the NBA.

 

[Mr quint]

Lamb had 11 points in 16 minutes last night in GSWs game against Dallas on national TV in prime time. When he checked into the game the announcers mentioned that he is a third year player from Vermont - the first player to make it to the NBA from the University of Vermont. Also, he was mentioned in the half time show. Pretty amazing that he has stuck this long and is getting some attention.

Technically I’d argue that Marqus Blakely was the first Vermont player to make it to the NBA. He was on the active roster for exactly one regular season game with the Houston Rockets at the very end of the 2011 season. He didn’t play in that one game, so I guess it depends on whether you draw the “make it“ line at being a part of the team or actually seeing game action.

But regardless of semantics, it’s definitely been a better fit for Lamb here than at the previous stops.

 

[VT Cats Fan]

Technically I’d argue that Marqus Blakely was the first Vermont player to make it to the NBA. He was on the active roster for exactly one regular season game with the Houston Rockets at the very end of the 2011 season. He didn’t play in that one game, so I guess it depends on whether you draw the “make it“ line at being a part of the team or actually seeing game action.

But regardless of semantics, it’s definitely been a better fit for Lamb here than at the previous stops.

Yeah, I remembered that. I was just relaying what was said on TBS.

 

[GoCatsGo]

Technically I’d argue that Marqus Blakely was the first Vermont player to make it to the NBA. He was on the active roster for exactly one regular season game with the Houston Rockets at the very end of the 2011 season. He didn’t play in that one game, so I guess it depends on whether you draw the “make it“ line at being a part of the team or actually seeing game action.

But regardless of semantics, it’s definitely been a better fit for Lamb here than at the previous stops.

Moonlight Blakely. Never got his 1 minute, unfortunately.

 

[bearcatbbal22]

There's a non-0 chance he's getting released now after the bad press today, no?

 

[GoCatsGo]

There's a non-0 chance he's getting released now after the bad press today, no?

Despite his recent success, anytime you're kind of on the fringe of employment like Anthony Lamb any change to any number of variables, on court or off, that affect your "value" can leave you on the outside looking in. So yes, it's more likely now than it was at the start of the week.

 

[gocats10]

There's a non-0 chance he's getting released now after the bad press today, no?

Non zero yes but they knew about this before they signed him and have been asked about it before. I think it is still quite unlikely they do anything at least in the near future.

 

[NotDeadYet]

The lawsuit filed this week is against UVM, not Lamb, and it is about how UVM handled the situation. It proves nothing, and as a civil action does not require an oath to be taken before testifying. As of right now there still is no evidence that anything occurred. Even though some people who post here feel that accusation means guilt, you are still innocent until proven guilty in US courts.

 

[UVM04]

The lawsuit filed this week is against UVM, not Lamb, and it is about how UVM handled the situation. It proves nothing, and as a civil action does not require an oath to be taken before testifying. As of right now there still is no evidence that anything occurred. Even though some people who post here feel that accusation means guilt, you are still innocent until proven guilty in US courts.

The Golden State Warriors are not "US Courts" and a personal, first-hand account of what Lamb did is most certainly "evidence," in court or otherwise.

 

[BillMurray_VT]

The lawsuit filed this week is against UVM, not Lamb, and it is about how UVM handled the situation. It proves nothing, and as a civil action does not require an oath to be taken before testifying. As of right now there still is no evidence that anything occurred. Even though some people who post here feel that accusation means guilt, you are still innocent until proven guilty in US courts.

This is VERY wrong. You take an oath before testifying in civil litigation. Where did you get that nonsense. There is absolutely no difference between how one testifies at trial in a civil case and criminal case. Very curious where this came from.

Also, of course there is no evidence. There has not yet been any discovery since the case just started. You use discovery to get information, documents and testimony that you then use to introduce into the record at trial. When the information is part of the record, it is evidence that gets considered by the jury.

You are innocent until proven guilty. But this is a civil case where the burden on the moving party is much lower - a jury just needs to find it is more likely than not that UVM messed up. In criminal trials conviction requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

She filed the suit against UVM - because UVM has the deep pockets and the plaintiff can always add Lamb later if they find any information that may implicate him. But at the end of the day, it will be a lot easier to prove UVM didn't handle the case appropriately than to prove what happened one night years ago when people may have been under the influence.

 

[MileHiCat]

civil action does not require an oath to be taken before testifying

Incorrect.

 

[tizzy]

The Golden State Warriors are not "US Courts" and a personal, first-hand account of what Lamb did is most certainly "evidence," in court or otherwise.

Got to agree with NotDeadYet. The Warriors could just let Lamb go on the basis of allegations. But, again, to date there have been no findings I am aware of re the allegations- by anybody, criminal or other. Those allegations - in particular those just recently detailed and made public - are very disturbing. Barring an outcry from the Warriors fan base I will guess the team will quietly keep him in the fold. I am guessing the civil action related to the University staff conduct will likely not offer any findings specific to the conduct of Lamb - there is no indication he will be directly involved in that lawsuit.

 

[BillMurray_VT]

civil action does not require an oath to be taken before testifying

Incorrect.

Why do I swear in a witness when I am in court on civil matters? Literally did it a few days ago. We do it at depositions even more frequently.

Seriously, why do people think this is the case.

 

[BillMurray_VT]

Why do I swear in a witness when I am in court on civil matters? Literally did it a few days ago. We do it at depositions even more frequently.

Seriously, why do people think this is the case.

Rule 603 of evidence. Please someone tell me Ive been doing my job wrong

 

[MileHiCat]

I don't want to get too deep in the weeds on this, but what BillMurry is saying is correct about the burden of proof, etc. However, an interesting twist on this (from a legal standpoint) is whether or not there is a civil side statute of limitations for any civil case to be brought against Lamb by her. I assume there is. My understanding, and I am not a criminal defense attorney, is that generally (and this would vary state to state) is that there is no statute of limitations for criminal rape charges to be brought. If I am incorrect there, someone please say so.

If this is correct, she would be on the clock, so to speak, to sue Lamb in a civil matter.

With regard to the lawsuit against UVM, if there is no statute of limitation criminally for rape, Lamb would be able to take the 5th with regard to any testimony he is asked to give (in a deposition or in the trial) for the civil matter against the school, and probably could not be compelled to testify. The reverse of this is what happened in the OJ case. Once he was found not guilty of murder, he could not be prosecuted again, and when the Goldman family sued him civilly afterwards he had no right to plead the 5th as he could not be charged criminally.

Her suit against the school is for the cover up. Therefore is it somewhat irrelevant (for purposes of that lawsuit) whether he committed this heinous act or not, as her telling the school it did happen and their subsequent actions or inactions is the crux of the matter. I would think being able to prove in a civil case he did this bolsters her case, but it probably is not an absolute must-have for her and her legal team.

And to muddy the waters a bit more, I believe the article said Lamb may have committed acts in both Vermont and New York, which each would have their own laws regarding statute of limitations.

 

[MileHiCat]

Rule 603 of evidence. Please someone tell me Ive been doing my job wrong

I tell all my clients when testifying that if they cross their fingers while being sworn in it doesn't really count.

 

[godanesgo99]

I said this in another thread, but please remember - Lamb being guilty or not is 100% inconsequential to this lawsuit. This is about the Schools reaction to the accusations and what they did in response. They gave her the big "SSSSHHHHHH don't rock the boat and hurt the university or the basketball program" by going public.

Lamb is 100% innocent until proven guilty, and rape is a tricky thing to prove and get a conviction on. If she has solid enough evidence that he raped her to get a conviction, I would imagine that she would gone after him. There is no reason for Golden State to fire him over this unless it becomes a bigger public story and becomes a PR issue for the team. At this point the case isn't about him or the rape - its about the support the school gives to athletes who make accusations and how that can be considered a title IX violation. Innocent or guilty makes absolutely no difference in this case.

 

[BillMurray_VT]

I said this in another thread, but please remember - Lamb being guilty or not is 100% inconsequential to this lawsuit. This is about the Schools reaction to the accusations and what they did in response. They gave her the big "SSSSHHHHHH don't rock the boat and hurt the university or the basketball program" by going public.

Lamb is 100% innocent until proven guilty, and rape is a tricky thing to prove and get a conviction on. If she has solid enough evidence that he raped her to get a conviction, I would imagine that she would gone after him. There is no reason for Golden State to fire him over this unless it becomes a bigger public story and becomes a PR issue for the team. At this point the case isn't about him or the rape - its about the support the school gives to athletes who make accusations and how that can be considered a title IX violation. Innocent or guilty makes absolutely no difference in this case.

Spot on. But, if I were Lamb, I'd be nervous. A smart plaintiff's lawyer would go after UVM and its deeper pockets first. But at the same time to use discovery to ferret out whatever evidence UVM had as to whether Lamb did or did not do bad things. Plus, UVM's knowledge of whether or not Lamb committed rape will be certainly relevant here.

For us UVM fans, while it may be a bitter pill, this could be the best medicine. Could result in a settlement that requires UVM to implement many changes those fighting the admin for its treatment of sexual assault have been advocating for.

 

[NotDeadYet]

My appology. Not being a lawyer, I only repeated what I thought was the truth about perjury in a civil case. Not being a basketball coach, I may make more appropriate errors on this forum.