Nestor/NST reaches new low

**Greg** · 08-30-2006, 04:19 PM

I won't flame away.

And I don't think he is a child molester.

But he picked up a girl from her HS, 16, 18, legal, whatever. That screams "SHE HAS NO BUSINESS GETTING SEXUALLY INVOLVED WITH MEN MORE THAN THREE TIMES HER AGE!" Even if she were 18.

And didn't he pay her for the act? If so, I think there is another charge you are missing, and that is one I have not committed. And the only time I fooled around with teenaged girls was when I was a teenager.

Okay, he is not a child molester. He's still a dirty old man.

And are we to assume this was the first time he engaged in this kind of thing?

P.S. If Nestor hires him that wil be the last time I turn WNST on.

**df1570** · 08-30-2006, 04:25 PM

Greg - according to Art's story and the charges that were dropped, he gave her $20 AFTER the act occurred and did not "promise" her any money prior to the meeting. Evidently, that's why the charges (on that count) were not pursued. Had they agreed on money/compensation BEFORE the act occurred he would have been charged - along with her.

Again, I'm not in any way, shape or form condoning what he did. He got what he got from the court in Howard County and it's up to THEM to decide if the crime met the punishment.

A 61-year old and a 16 (or 18) year old is wrong. We all know that. He knows that.

But there's a big difference between "wrong" and "illegal". Art was "wrong" on probably a dozen counts in that incident. He was "illegal" on just one count.

**Losac** · 08-30-2006, 04:26 PM

Originally Posted by Greg

Okay, he is not a child molester. He's still a dirty old man.

**larrylater** · 08-30-2006, 05:01 PM

Hey Drew, I'm a standup guy, when you're right, you're right. According to the law, Art did not molest a child and I retract the inference. I was disgusted by the whole thing and made a sarcastic statement.

You know what would have been cool though? You using that same anger and words like "asinine" and "dangerous" towards Art this morning, instead of practically coddling him. I realize that you guys have a long relationship but wow! A 61 year old man in the public eye going after a 16 year old girl?!? It's kind of infuriating, maybe you'd feel the same if she was your daughter. Anyways, my wording was 100% wrong and I apologize to Art. All I'm asking for is the same 'coddling' deal. Thanks man.

**df1570** · 08-30-2006, 05:06 PM

Larry, you're right, you evidently are a stand-up guy. Thanks.

I didn't have to beat up Art today. He did that to himself, I thought.

He called himself "dangerous" and "irresponsible" and "reckless" and "sick".

Had I thought at any time he was seeking to downplay what happened, I might have very well stepped in. But that didn't happen. If you thought I coddled him, so be it. I just thought it was more appropriate for Art to chastise himself since he seemed relegated to doing so.

If you recall, the day the story broke and I was talking about it on the air, I was quite vocal in my displeasure for Art, friend of mine since 1981 or not.

But today, like YOU just did, Art was a stand-up guy and took the blame for what he did and was extremely open about how it happened, why it happened and what steps he's taking to ensure it won't happen again.

**larrylater** · 08-30-2006, 05:17 PM

Drew, fair enough, thanks. I was a huge Blast fan in the mid 80's and met Art & Charlie quite a few times at the games. They treated us great even though we were, uh, sort of rowdy teenagers at the time.

The whole thing just shocked me I guess & it was the last thing I expected to hear this morning.

Anyways, let's move on & wish all concerned the best.

**purplepoe** · 08-30-2006, 05:30 PM

More evidence of the horrendous sports radio in this town.

And then the co-host of the show comes on and repeatedly says how his buddy "thought" she was 18 even though he went to her school and picked her up?

Oh, and way to explain away the 20 bucks. He didn't promise it to her before? Good for him. What a guy. He just gave it to her out of the kindness of his heart.

How pathetic.

Drew, we've disagreed on the other board before about sports stuff and but at least we kept it to sports.

You were best served to remain just a reader and not gotten involved in this thread.

Or at least just typed one line about him not technically being a child molestor. That's a real feather in his cap.

Unreal.

PP

**df1570** · 08-30-2006, 05:42 PM

Purple, you are no doubt always going to win these "debates" because, as most people will attest who have seen your work, you're never wrong.

The $20 bucks thing was brought up to merely point out why he wasn't charged with a crime. It doesn't change the overall nature of what Art did and it certainly doesn't make him any less reckless. No one said that. What the issue DOES relate to is "CRIMINAL ACTIVITY"...breaking the law, etc. And because he didn't promise her any money BEFORE they met or during any of their on-line conversations, he was not found to have committed a crime.

Giving her $20 after the fact because he felt guilty or felt it somehow made it more "acceptable" (in his distorted mind -- his words today, not mine) is WRONG, but it's not a criminal act in our great state and in the court of Howard County.

I'm far more "best served" to talk about and write about this than you, PP.

You have an agenda, as usual. And when someone's ideas or comments don't mesh with yours, you attack. It's what you do best, actually.

In reality, YOU are probably best served to sit this one out, not me.

Art doesn't have any feathers in his cap. He nearly ruined his life. He spent time in jail. He doesn't have a job. He probably won't get one anytime soon. And he did that to himself and very few people feel sorry for him. Not many feathers in that cap he's wearing.

But, just like The Sun saw fit to give 28 column inches to Keith Mills last week to "tell his story", WNST saw fit to give Art Sinclair time today to "tell his story". There's no difference, really. Except The Sun costs you 50 cents.

And, if somewhere out there today, someone listening heard Art's story and it sounded painfully like something they're going through in their life right now, then some good WAS done out of Art being there today if that person decides to change their lifestyle before another 16-year old girl gets hurt.

Once the football writings start again, PP, feel free to contribute.

**Losac** · 08-30-2006, 05:46 PM

Originally Posted by purplepoe

And then the co-host of the show comes on and repeatedly says how his buddy "thought" she was 18 even though he went to her school and picked her up?

Lots of 18 year olds are still in high school. Most are 18 when they graduate. It's not unreasonable to think a girl you meet who says she is 18 is still a senior in HS.

**B-more Ravor** · 08-30-2006, 05:47 PM

Originally Posted by df1570

The young lady was NOT a minor (by law) and she was NOT a child.

Sorry, but you are confusing what a "minor" is and what the "age of consent" is. The girl (not young lady) was a minor - she is under 18, the age of majority in Maryland. She is also a "child" - by any definition.

She is however, over the "age of consent" under the laws in this State.

**df1570** · 08-30-2006, 05:51 PM

Fairly noted, B-More.

I think our great state needs to revisit all the laws pertaining to "age of consent", IMHO. I'm not sure how on earth that one got passed, but a 16-year old should NOT be allowed to consent to having sex.

Maybe our next new Governor will take that one on.

**BaltimoreRon** · 08-30-2006, 05:52 PM

Originally Posted by df1570

Hi guys (and gals) -- that "other site" devoted to Ravens coverage taught me the valuable lesson of NOT posting, so in my new role as "reader only", I'm much less involved. Nonetheless, I like what Tony has done with 24x7 and this site so I'm an occasional reader here.

Having read everyone's thoughts and opinions on the Art Sinclair "issue", I think it's important to point out something that is in direct contrast to something that LarryLater posted. I don't do this to defend Art. What he did was wrong. He knows it was wrong. He was punished. He's paying his debt as the court deemed appropriate. But Art isn't here to defend himself against the lies, so I will.

In one asinine sentence, LarryLater proved why message boards such as these can be VERY dangerous open forums. Hopefully Tony and his staff will take note of dumb behavior like this and figure out some way to more carefully review some of the nonsense (also called "lies") that people post.

In Larry's rant, he threw a line in there about "molesting a child", connecting Art Sinclair with such an act.

If you listened today. Really, truly listened, you would have heard the whole story. Art did NOT molest a child. Nothing of the sort happened. Art made contact with a young lady that he believed to be 18 (that's what she told him). Yes, she was 16. But - you sittin' down for this, all you parents of 16 year olds? - in our great state of Maryland, 16 is the LEGAL age for sexual consent. Great state we live in, eh?

The young lady was NOT a minor (by law) and she was NOT a child.

Art's home computer was confiscated and the obvious search was made to connect him in some way with "child pornography". No such content was found on his computer and no charges relating to "child pornography" were ever filed.

Art plead guilty to, essentially, having sex with someone in public. That's it.
I'm not downplaying it. But the truth is, that was the ONLY charge that ever made it to court. The four charges initially against him were, surprise, surprise, dropped when the District Attorney didn't have enough evidence to proceed with the case.

He is not a registered sex offender in the state of Maryland. He is not a child molester. He is, though, a guy who had a sexual encounter with a 16-year old female while he was married and that is absolutely W-R-O-N-G. He knows it, you know it, we all know it. He plead guilty to having sex in a public place (unnatural act, the state calls it). Guess what? If you and your wife/husband/girlfriend/boyfriend etc. go out to dinner tonight and have a drink or two too many and decide you can't wait until you get home to "do your thing", if you decide to hop in the back seat of your car in the parking lot of the restaurant, you are committing a crime in this state, even if you're married and even if it's consensual.

I've probably violated that law about 15 times in my life...just never with a 16-year old girl I met on-line. Any of you ever violate that law in your life? Show of hands, please. Thought so.

So before you read LarryLater's drivel and assume he's speaking the gospel, please understand he doesn't know what he's talking about.

Child molester? Nope. Guy who exercised extremely poor judgement and got caught and RIGHTFULLY paid the price for that transgression? Yes.

OK, flame away. I'll put my reading glasses back on and return to my previous position as "reader only".

Drew,

I only caught a few minutes of the show today. Thanks for filling in the blanks.

Your post should be the end of the story, but I have a feeling it won't be.

I would hope that Art would be given every chance to redeem himself, much as Keith Mills has done/is doing.

When can we expect the Schmuck article. ;)