Team 548 has released a statement regarding the events on Einstein.
You can read it here, along with FIRST’s official response.
Please keep this civil!
-Nick
You need to work on your url skills, how civil was that?
1 Like
The statement is here:
Seems like the first thread he posted was deleted, and the new one has the incorrect link. Original link is here.
For additional consideration, from Frank:
Blog Date:
Monday, August 20, 2012 - 09:38
Hello Teams,
Team 548 contacted me recently and asked if I would be willing to publish a statement from them regarding the events on Einstein on the FRC Blog. You can find their statement here. This statement represents, in part, their Steering Committee’s understanding of events that took place during the Einstein matches. To be clear, there are some differences between this understanding of events and the events as presented in the Einstein Report. FIRST continues to stand by its report. (My emphasis).
A dozen people can watch the same bank robbery and provide twelve different accounts of what happened (and likely twelve different descriptions of the burglar’s appearance).
It gets you thinking, though, doesn’t it? Was banning him from ever participating in FIRST again really the right thing to do?
(At least) one match was tampered with knowingly and purposefully. I’m sure whoever made the final decision regarding consequences did not take it the least bit lightly.
Unfortunately, creating an interruption is not the way to ‘make a point’. Sorry, I’m not giving anyone a pass on this one. You’re supposed to listen to staff and volunteers, and this person didn’t.
Good on 548 for coming forward, although the major discrepancies between their statement and FIRST’s report still leaves questions for me.
I dont remember ever reading that he got a lifetime ban from FIRST.
From http://www3.usfirst.org/node/2426
In addition, FIRST has prohibited the individual from participating in any future FIRST event as a coach, mentor, volunteer or in any other capacity. This is the penalty associated with an intentional act of interference.
I think it’s a good thing 548 came out and said this. I very much hope that they stay a respected team in our FIRST community and continue to be successful. In regards to the individual, what’s been said has already been said and I don’t need to go into that. Great job 548, you guys have done nothing wrong in this process, and have my respect for coming out about it.
There are some major discrepancies present here. While not to start another famous “CD-Massacre” the report and this letter do not match up. I applaud 548 for coming forth with this, it takes a lot of bravery to do that. However, the information they have been given and the conclusions they came to simply don’t make sense when you stack them up against the report and individual accounts of that afternoon.
Still, kudos 548 for at least making the statement in the first place.
Now we can move on a little more.
-Nick
Assuming 548’s account to be accurate, what would have happened if he hadn’t made his point? The field personnel appear to have brushed him off originally. There may have never been an Einstein investigation, and we never would have known what happened. We also wouldn’t have known that there was a vulnerability, and as such it may have been years before it was fixed.
Because the individual did this only after attempting to interact with the field personnel, I feel his actions were entirely warranted and correct.
Of course, this is all predicated on 548’s version of events being correct. It seems believable to me, primarily because FIRST was so vague in this area.
So, intentionally attempting to alter the course of the finals (or any match via interference methods) is okay to you for the sake of protest?
Wow.
-Nick
It’s a slippery slope.
Before passing judgment on this, I had to ask myself ‘Had he been listened to, would things have played out differently?’
I’m not sure of the answer, and in turn not sure how I feel.
I think he was trying to say that the action of telling the field personnel about the issue was theright thing to do. Or that coming forward after the matches was the right thing to do.
PS: ^ look at this Lawrence guy.
No. That would not be okay with me. However, a brief (three second) interruption that does not influence match outcome is.
The intent is okay with me too, don’t get me wrong. But proving it on the biggest stage possible? That’s not cool with me.
Even a three second interruption interferes with the outcome of the match. For many teams, it takes them only that much time to shoot three baskets.
^ Look at this Koscielski guy, he can’t even spell my name right.
Okay, before this thread crashes, lets go back to praising 548 for saying “we’re sorry.”
-Nick
I think Nick is saying what most of us are thinking.
This mentor did not tell his team the full story, in my opinion. And this statement makes him look even worse (to me) because none of the other accusations that many are thinking about are addressed. Maybe he said this was the reasoning and that it only happened on Einstein and was a method of protest to protect team 548’s wins last season? Maybe he did this at other events to gain competitive advantage? Those are my beliefs, and I’d like to see this same person address those beliefs. Even if he confirms or denies this, I honestly think more than just the Einstein teams deserve an apology. Yes these are bold statements, but I am perfectly confident that I am not the only one with these beliefs.
Kudos to the rest of 548 for releasing this statement. A bit late, but that is understandable. Yes you still have the support of other teams in FIRST (at least mine).