He wasn't very good, the FO was probably happy they had a reason to cut him.
Would’ve Spurs acted differently if it were a Wemby? Sochan perhaps? Had Primo been “that good”, would Spurs tried to have kept him instead? It seems the policy of “zero tolerance” would be applied on everyone regardless. And Primo was no chopped liver. He was Spur’s future, a very high pick.
Primo was the lowest of the last 4 lottery picks, #11.
I'm not sure what point you're exactly referring to, but speaking very generally, I think people put up with all sorts of weird in order to keep their jobs. Not only is she low on the totem pole, she would have to be the one to tell Wright, who got off to a bad start as a GM, that his prized choir boy is actually a deviant freak. The fact that Wright seems to have avoided dealing with this on some level suggests that calculation may be correct. As for training, I don't know what exact aspect you are referring to. Personally, I work with therapists daily in my job, granted not psychologists, but I see a wide range of ethical behavior. I think that's human nature.
Well that's kinda my point. Basically you're saying that she abandoned all professional aspects and ethical obligations of her profession while setting aside her expertise in the field because of self preservation. That's a huge dereliction of duty and if anything lacks some serious self awareness considering her field is all about mental health.
My opinion would be different if she was a weight trainer or paper pusher. In this instance if what your suggesting is true she abandoned her job and all of its responsibilities. She is the very first person in line to take action when it comes to being a victim. She's supposed to be trained to advise others in this very situation.
People go to therapists and psychologists for guidance when they're sexually harassed or assaulted. But somehow all that expertise goes out the door because there's a out in the room.
None of this makes sense. Especially bringing her back. How can she advise people on their mental health when she couldn't advise herself or her previous patient?
Unfortunately - everyone here is going on half the story/facts.
We really are missing a huge chunk of the complete picture and as much as I was high on Primo and was hoping the spurs long-shot gamble would pay off...
Everyone is responsible for their own actions. No mental health pro is responsible for someone else's actions/crimes/mistakes.
If she was doing her job in good faith and at some point reported Primo's behavior then the burden immediately shifted to the Spurs and it might very well be that they dropped the ball because of their investment and their affection for Primo and other considerations.
I am pretty confident that if this woman was shady and/or some kind of bad actor that the Spurs would have felt confident letting her go also and confident in fighting her "alleged bogus" lawsuit that she would have inevitably brought.
The Spurs did not and it appears after all is said and done, she acted responsibly and the spurs ultimately were forced to act responsibly also.
Primo should fix himself if he really wants to have a career but it is his own responsibility.
I am pretty sure her role is not as some kind of shrink to help players make free throws as someone posted but more of a professional person that players can sit with and see how going from a 17-18 year old nobody to a traveling professional with no real permanent home and sudden wealth, popularity, pressures, temptations, etc...
can be safely and successfully navigated.
In this scenario, she was nowhere responsible for "fixing" anyone of their own issues and/or defects but more of a person to assist players in navigating their new lives and new iden ies in the world.
I agree isn’t starts with Primo but she has a professional obligation to provide care or shift her patient to more appropriate care. She also has an ethical obligation when it comes to crimes.
She’s not working a desk job or at McD’s. She absolutely failed her professional responsibilities but I agree much is unknown.
might be the case…
but without the full story- we dont know if she failed or dropped the ball or is a bad actor imo
You seem to have unrealistic expectations for psychologists. There's no guarantee that any treatment will work, especially in the timeline that is known. There is simply not enough information to be able to draw these sweeping conclusions about her professional conduct. Her current status with the Spurs and her licensing organization contradict your assertion.
Last edited by ChumpDumper; 09-02-2023 at 11:38 AM.
I’m looking at the most stripped down possibilities. The red flag for her isn’t that she failed to “fix” him. It’s that she was aware of his repeated offenses and then had repeated offenses against herself. Way early on she should have shifted his care to someone else.
That’s what therapists/psychologists do. If they’re not equipped to treat a patient you don’t continue to live with multiple crimes, multiple flashes, allowing him to repeat the offenses over and over against her. You move the patient onto other care.
But for some reason no one including her moved him onto to different care.
It’s the first thing every therapist would do. I guess she escalated to management but that should have been the end of her treatment for him. Instead we get 9 more times and a threat of litigation.
She should not be a mental health care professional.
Everything she was trained to do she didn’t do. She completely abandoned her professional training. I’m okay I guess with blaming the front office but she is trained to handle situations like Primo. That’s right in her wheel house. Yet protocol was abandoned and she wanted to sue? This just doesn’t add up.
I don't think you're accurately portraying what she was trained to do or obligated to to. If you have the protocol for this situation handy, I'd love to see it.
I assume she has a degree if not doctorate. She’s not a life coach as a side hustle. She’s a professional health care provider.
Her degree is a matter of record. That wasn't what I asked.
Here is a resource that discusses ethical or legal framework for terminating treatment.
https://www.apaservices.org/practice...ent-issues.pdf
This situation falls under A B and C subsets. B comes to mind immediately.
Psychologists may terminate therapy when threatened or otherwise endangered by the client/patient or another person with whom the client/patient has a relationship.
OK, the word "may" is the operative word here. It's not an obligation with consequences if it's not done. Not to minimize the crime, but it is a misdemeanor in Texas and she is indeed there to try to help with his mental disorder before it possibly escalates. Without looking at her patient notes and communications with management and other mental health professionals she might have consulted, I can't draw any conclusions that she didn't act within the guidelines of her profession.
I draw the conclusion based on the repeated offenses both publicly and against her.
Let’s say her intention was to continue treatment… or she thought she was making progress. Then there be no threat of lawsuits etc.
The very nature of how it ended with a settlement speaks precisely to the failure I’m pointing to. She failed to terminate treatment so much so that it resulted in her being a victim to the tune of a settlement.
Had it been a good faith effort to avoid terminating treatment then there would be no victim. No settlement.
You can’t have it both ways. Either she decided terminating treatment wasn’t necessary or she should have terminated treatment because she was threatened and endangered.
The Spurs' failure to do anything about her notification is a separate issue. They were legally obligated to take action as soon as the notification was received. From that perspective she was a victim and they had to act accordingly.
They have their own professional responsibilities they clearly did not fulfill.
She had a certain amount of discretion as you illustrated with your apa do ent. The Spurs did not.
Can't really conflate the two.
I can agree with this point and still be right. Because you’re really strengthening my stance. She went to the team somewhat early on and they did nothing.
So by that fact and your point that team had an obligation to act… their lack of action as you said should have resulted in the perspective that she was a “victim”.
Great. I agree.
I’ll reference my link again and point to subsection B. She failed to terminate treatment or seek to move the patient to another provider because she was being victimized.
Just a couple points.
Sending Primo to another psychologist or a psychiatrist would have required spending the team’s money. It is unlikely that she had authority to spend the team’s money beyond the expenses of her own office. So, who did have authority to spend team money on another professional? The Spurs front office under GM Wright did, of course.
If Primo was going to be sent to somebody else, it was up to the Spurs front office to order that (and pay for it.)
Her obligation, then, was to report the matter to the Spurs GM. According to what’s been reported, she did so.
Also, she had no direct authority to fine Primo, or suspend him, or take serious disciplinary action against him. Who did? Again, the GM. It was the team who held Primo’s contract, not her.
It’s worth repeating, she was consulting with all the Spurs players. One reason she endured the situation with Primo was probably because she wanted to continue to be available to the other players.
If I recall correctly - which is not guaranteed - she did at some point refuse to see Primo any further. As far as consulting another professional, that was up to the team.
That was all within her discretion. Again, your link clearly states it's her choice -- with the added complicating factor that a third party is paying for his treatment. She had already given them the reason he should be treated somewhere else at the Spurs' expense. Again, the ball was in the Spurs' court.
The Spurs had no discretion. They had to act and they didn't. While they didn't she still tried to do her job without straight going to the police and blowing it up for everyone. That does not change her status as a victim of Primo's crimes at all, nor her status as an HR complainant whose complaint required action.
It was a difficult situation. She acted within her discretion while the Spurs failed to do what was required of them. There is no universe in which her actions can be seen as a plot for personal gain.
She can’t fail to act at her personal discretion and then claim victim. It directly calls her “discretion” into question. Like I’ve been saying.
But I’ll concede that the team ed up and if she did terminate treatment she should have done it much sooner.
Anyway. I’m done beating the horse. I’m disappointed to see her back within the organization.
She didn't fail to act at her personal discretion. She acted within the set of choices she could make as you showed in your link. Also, her being a victim of a crime and workplace harassment was solely due to the choices made by Primo and Primo alone and there is no reason her job should have been in jeopardy because of him. Claiming anything else is straight up victim blaming.
This isn't anything close to a normal situation for therapy that she is working in. It's a billion dollar business, not someone on Medicaid. Furthermore, she isn't just working for the client but really the organization. That's an inherently complicated situation. A very weird middle ground. Players often complain that they can't trust the team medical staff to do what's in their best interest, though the Spurs typically are better on that.
BTB, I'm surprised you have so little empathy for her situation. I mean, ultimately she works for the Spurs not Primo. Primo isn't paying for his sessions. To me, this situation played out like I expect it would, totally chaotic.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
