Devin Davis and Hanner Mosquera-Perea dismissed from Indiana

  • 05/14/2015 6:19 pm in

Devin Davis and Hanner Mosquera-Perea have been dismissed from the Indiana men’s basketball program for “not living up to their responsibilities to the program,” IU announced late Thursday afternoon.

“Indiana men’s basketball announces that sophomore Devin Davis and senior Hanner Mosquera-Perea have been dismissed from the program effective immediately for not living up to their responsibilities to the program,” a release stated.

Davis was cited on Monday evening for possession of marijuana when officers arrived at a dormitory room on IU’s campus after receiving a complaint about the smell of burnt marijuana. Mosquera-Perea, who was not cited, was with Davis in that room.

Indiana announced an indefinite suspension for Davis on Tuesday and also said that it was reviewing Mosquera-Perea’s involvement in the incident.

Davis, a Warren Central product, missed the entire 2014-2015 season following his involvement in a car accident in the early hours of Nov. 1, 2014, after which he has battled a traumatic brain injury.

Mosquera-Perea, meanwhile, was suspended during part of the 2013-2014 season for a DWI arrest. He started 22 games for the Hoosiers this past season, averaging 6.5 points, 4.3 rebounds and 1.3 blocks per game.

Indiana now has 11 scholarship players for the 2015-2016 season.

Filed to:


    Well, that’s just one more difference between you and me, I’ve read every word in all of your replies to me, as well as the ones to oldiugymnast. Mine couldn’t be worthy of reading completely since, ” you ” have decreed that my words have made it obvious that nothing I’ve said could be right because I’m misinformed and don’t know the true facts. Ok, gotcha, would expect nothing less from you and your kind. So freaking typical ! So I guess you and your kind should be the ones deciding what rights are ok and not ok, for gay people to have, cause they surely can’t know or sufficiently articulate what ” they ” think they want and deserve, but then again what they want and deserve can’t matter, with them having that nasty disorder and all, can it ? Whew, thank goodness they have your kind to tell them and give them the ” facts ” as to why it has to be that way, you know, just so they won’t be misinformed dws. So it’s not alright for them to marry but it’s ok if they have inheritance rights and ” other benefits “, guess you’ll be getting back to me when you and your kind happily divine what ” other ” rights your kind think is appropriate that they have. Obviously you believe in the ability of the type of ” clinics “, like the one the supposedly religious Michelle Bachman and her supposedly religious husband ran, to cleanse gay people of what you now refer to as their ” disorder.” Maybe you didn’t get to that part before my reply became not worthy of reading. Don’t even get me started on Mr. Right Wing, shove my beliefs down your throat, pence, last name not capitalized on purpose as it does not deserve to be. The thinly veiled green light to lawfully discriminate against gay people was so loudly spoke out against, from several different segments of society, your segment excluded of course, because it was so blatantly obvious as to ” exactly ” what it was intended to do, make it lawful to discriminate against a select group of people, the gay community. I know, just more evidence of the gay people destroying our society. NO LAW should be able to target a specific group of people in this way, and before you say it, no terrorists and the like don’t fit here. If it wasn’t intended for what almost everyone knows it was, including many that know but won’t admit it publicly out of fear of be lambasted by you and your kind, why did he sign it, basically privately, in the middle of the night, and surrounded entirely by people that have nothing but viral contempt for gay people and think that they are sick people that deserve no protection on any fronts. Guess it was just a mere coincidence that he was surrounded by only people with that draconian view, smiling from ear to ear. Odd how that kind of coincidence happened isn’t it. If he didn’t do it because of his views than it must have been out of fear of what they would do and say publicly about him, exposing him to have told lies if that isn’t his views. Ruling out of fear is exactly how that kind enjoy trying to do things. Sounds a whole lot like some groups of people, that history had regarded as, let’s be nice and just call it ” really bad people that didn’t deserve to have any kind of power when it came to making decisions that affected other people, cause when they did atrocious and barbaric things seemed to happen to people, most prominently the ones they deemed to have ” disorders .” Guess the liberal label you have so happily affixed to me fits, as I did not tell the truth and made another comment. For a change I really do hope that you reply to me again, in fact I hope you reply to me numerous times, that way it doesn’t appear like I was the one that had to have the last word on these matters. Please proceed to enlighten me at least one more time so that I might be a little less misinformed and better understand how your facts have to right.

  • oldiugymnast

    You clearly don’t have the tools to evaluate the quality of a historical assessment. Davies, for instances, just insists – without much evidence that Stalin caused the death of 1/3 of Russia’s population often attributing natural deaths to Stalin. When someone makes such a wild claim without any evidence that said claim is true, one should ignore the claim – and most historians do. A lot of Russians died during WWII – many from causes related to war that were indirect. There is a tendency for Christians and right wingers to inflate these numbers as evidence that atheism kills people (again, ignoring the reality of Stalin’s regime) or to say that any type of socialism is the same thing as Stalin. This is known as confirmation bias. You should always check to see if you are engaging in said bias. We all do to some degree.

    Nobody is saying that Christians must support gay marriage. So again – straw man comes back. What we are saying is that in places of public accommodation, gay people should not be subject to discrimination because of their sexuality. Clearly, you do not agree – which is fine. However, your reasons for disagreeing are based on a fundamentally flawed historical analysis – which is mostly based in your religious beliefs. Nobody is taking away anyone’s first amendment protections. And this argument is the same argument that bigots used when they were against interracial marriage, when they were supporting Jim Crow laws, when they were disenfranchising black people and so on. I can’t speak for you, but I would be somewhat concerned that I was basing my position on similar ideas to what the odious racists used. And lastly, the idea of “traditional” marriage is bogus. In my grandparents lifetime, marriage was a transfer of a chattel slave. Women could not own property in my grandparents lifetime. And your insistence that we should return to social mores that left lots of human beings out of the “full citizen with volitional rights” is more than a little disturbing. For a person with a Fulbright, you are remarkably epistemically closed.

  • mark

    If you were born in Bhutan, or India, or any number of places, or if you were born 100 or 500 or 1000 years ago, you would think exactly the opposite of how you now “think”, which illustrates that you are entirely ensconced within the weltaschauung of the time and place in which you have lived; like a fish in a fishbowl, you proudly proclaim that your tiny little bowl is reality, the only true way of seeing the world, or perhaps better, like a denizen of Plato’s cave (see the Republic), totally mesmerized by the shadows on the walls which you proudly proclaim as reality and demand that everyone else does the same. The traditional world-view of the religions helps people escape that cave.
    Your premises are false, therefore everything else you say is false. I provided information about works that challenge those premises and you reject them. I could also mention the book Science and the Myth of Progress, which also shines the light on the lies you believe. Best wishes to you.

  • oldiugymnast

    And this is why we can’t have a discussion. I don’t “proudly proclaim” reality. I did a lot of hard work and hard thinking to get to what is true and not. I focused on measurable, testable and repeatable metrics. You, on the other hand, can just invoke whatever current or ancient superstition you want and then proudly proclaim it is true. I don’t need the superstition, because I, unlike Plato, have the tools to measure. In fact, those tools are Plato’s – and more importantly Aristotle’s – legacy. If anyone is still stuck in the cave, it is you who continues to insist that social orders of old, that often were brutal and deadly to minority populations, are superior to an order that is in large part based upon the values of the enlightenment. These “values” allow you to treat my friends and family as though they are second class citizens engaged in a “struggle.” They are not engaged in a struggle and that idea is measurably dangerous. And yet, you still have not provided a cogent explanation of how a gay couple’s existence threatens you in any way – never mind how it actually causes you, or anyone else, harm. No one is being forced to have gay sex, to officiate over gay marriages or to violate their conscious in any way.

  • IUBBallFan

    Sometimes tough love speaks the loudest. It was the right call.

  • mark

    Which is totally false. I fact, I used to think just as you. I was a hardened liberal modernist. I never “just accepted” anything. Have you read Schuon, Guenon, Burkhardt, Coomaraswamy, Lings, Nasr, Schumacher? Have you read Augustine, Irenaeus, Aquinas, Isaac the Syrian, Gregory of Nyssa, Ibn ‘Arabi, Rumi, Nifarri, ad-Darqawi? Have you read Shankara, Ramanuja Ramana Maharshi? Have you read Nagarjuna, Honen? Plato, Aristotle?
    In fact by limiting yourself to “measurable, testable metrics” you have thereby shown your prejudice and “excommunicated”, as it were, everyone before the modern age. The “scientific method” can only know matter , and as St Bonaventure put it, matter is “almost nothing” in total Reality; and in fact, contrary to popular belief, modern science simply confirms the traditional worldview of the religions, as the works of mathematician-physicist Wolfgang Smith have shown. You refuse to consider that, and all the world’s greatest thinkers and all the people all over the globe before modern times knew, there are ways of knowing that far transcend the “scientific method” just as there is Reality that far transcends matter. To you, everyone before us was naïve a ignorant, and you fail to see the enormity an arrogance in what you are saying. That is why I mentioned some of those books … perhaps Schoun’s Light on the Ancient Worlds is the best, but he is a difficult author to read without some understanding of his terminology. Zarandi’s Science and the Myth of Progress might help,, Schumacher’s Guide for the Perplexed is excellent, W. Smith’s books are good for weaning people off of their myopia …

  • oldiugymnast

    World’s Greatest Thinkers? Please. Aquinas? Seriously? And yes, I have read a great deal of what you present. The problem is that you are confusing what you know and what you “believe.” Those aren’t the same thing. It is fine to believe things that you don’t know. I certainly believe some things that I don’t know. Almost everyone does. The problem is that when you confuse the two, it makes you susceptible to “knowing” things like homosexuality is something that can and should be cured, that homeopathy is great medicine, that qigong heals you, that global climate change isn’t real, that global climate change has stopped for the past 15 years, that Ronald Reagan presided over a period of unprecedented growth (he got beat by Carter, Clinton and Nixon, destroyed by Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson), that austerity is the cure for a demand side slump, and that you are the arbiter of what is right and wrong. None of those things are true, but those who hold out the same beliefs as you believe many of those things – regardless of whether they are liberal or conservative (I am just as annoyed with the anti-vax liberals as I am with the “Obamacare has proven to be the worst” conservative). Your system of belief makes you susceptible to racism, bigotry and allows you to ignore that the social orders that you claim to be so wonderful, are really only wonderful for the dominant group.

  • mark

    When you do not understand something, it appears you simply claim it is stupid. You seem extraordinarily bigoted toward anyone who adheres to religion and also toward conservatives, to the point of altering the truth (the foundation of liberalism), and your ideas about racism are bizarre. Can you answer to one of Aquinas’ proofs of God, or to his discussion on synderesis or any other number of his points? I read Aquinas in the original Latin, though, it is much more precise that way … can you read Latin? Greek? Sanskrit? Arabic? I imagine you have read hardly any of those authors and none in the original languages (by the way, I know of a few avid readers of Aquinas whose bodies are lying incorrupt in Europe; funny how that happens sometimes to followers of such teachings, but never to your heroes. Why is that?). So many of the things you say lack any foundation in reality, which must be why, when I have brought a few to light (like your redefinition of bigotry, as if you or anyone has the right to redefine words), you cannot answer, but just move on to the next absurdity.
    So, let’s end this with questions for you to ponder:
    * If humankind was so stupid, illogical and even deluded for countless millennia, how did you and your tiny crew of modernists become so intelligent, logical and clear-minded? What happened to suddenly elevate you and modern scientists to the pinnacle of wisdom? Why did your own ancestors remain so stupid for so long, never using the scientific method?
    * Who was Christ? Muhammad? Moses? Buddha? Lao-Tzu? Confucius? St Paul? If these men were so deluded — and you certainly believe that, since your ideas run exactly counter to what they taught — why have they been more venerated and followed than any others in human history, even unto today? And why has no modern society been able to match the feats of architecture, art, philosophy, theology, or even duration of civilizations founded on their teachings ?
    * Explain the following” the sword of St Galgano; the incorrupt bodies of saints in Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism; the image of the Virgin of Guadalupe; the image of the Shroud of Turin; the Miracle of the Sun at Fatima. I could go on …
    * Why was the “missing link” Lucy’s bones found up to 200′ apart in depth and up to 1.5 miles apart? Why, according to one leading paleontologist, can the fossils said to support the theory of human evolution still fit inside a single coffin with much room to spare? And why does the entire fossil record show the sudden appearance of whole organisms, never half-formed “missing links” in between?
    * What, in your view, is the purpose of human life? To watch basketball? To eat, drink and be merry? To create technology to make this brief life comfortable? Again, why was humankind so deluded for so many millennia in believing otherwise? And when your body dies, what happens to the life which animates it, since life is the opposite of death?
    Bottom line is, your view is very easy these days since you are increasingly surrounded with like-minded people who have lapped it up and have complete, blind, dogmatic faith in it just as you do, but when these ideas are examined more closely, including SCIENTIFICALLY USING YOUR OWN VAUNTED METHODS OF OBSERVATION, all the “science” that you claim supports your ideas falls apart and is left pointing to the perennial, universal wisdom and world-view of a hierarchical universe and hierarchical human being … you can certainly boast of superior technological knowledge these days, but that simply manifests the hypertrophy of the rational, lower mind at the complete expense of the real Intellect. God and the spiritual world are more real that your own body and the world around you, and you (like most of us these days) are too spiritually misshapen to even recognize it; “in Him we live and breath and have our being”, St Paul wrote, and, “He is closer to you than your jugular vein” (Koran). You think these are the ravings of madmen, without ever even pausing to consider the enormous implications of your blind, dogmatic belief.

  • oldiugymnast

    1. Thomas Aquinas’ proofs are about as simple to logically falsify as anything in the world. First mover: If there God was the first mover, who created god. First Cause: same problem – if all things are required to be caused by something else, then God must have been caused by something else. Contingency: Rests on a false premise – that there was a time when nothing existed – why is this necessary. It isn’t. Argument to Degree: Rests on a very human principle that some things/people are better and therefore there must be some thing that is the pinnacle. The argument is flawed from its assumption that 1. all things exists in degrees, and 2. That there is a pinnacle to these degrees. Both things are unknowable. Theological: This one especially makes no sense. It assumes that all things act towards an end. There is no evidence that such is true. It could be equally true that all things act randomly or that they are governed by the laws of physics (which is measurable, quantifiable and repeatable).

    On the other hand, I can prove that the God of the bible does not exist pretty easily. We can all agree that bad things happen to innocents. The Christian bible says that God is three things – always good, omniscient, and omnipotent. SO if that God exists, he must be malevolent OR is not God. Period.

    2. No – I haven’t read your Catholic texts in their original languages, and neither have you. I have learned 4 languages to proficiency and at one point could read, write and make myself understood in 3 (English, Russian and Spanish).

    3. No dead persons body is lying incorrupt. That is absurd on its face.

    4. You clearly haven’t read much evolutionary biology. Otherwise you would not repeat a lie made up by a creationist. Lucy’s bones were found in within a few feet and in the same strata. This lie originated in a book by Tom Willis that has been utterly discredited in every way possible.

    5. It is completely unnecessary for life to have “meaning”-what does that mean in the first place. I live my life to be the best person I can be, and live by a simple creed – do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Maybe that is familiar to you.

    6. I don’t know what happens when you die – and neither does anyone else. You know why? There is nobody you can ask. My guess is you just simply no longer exist other than as energy.

    7. Don’t you think it is a little ironic that you provided me a condescending lecture that consisted of tautology and dogma and then accuse me of being dogmatic? I may be strident, but I don’t have any dogma at all.

    8. Does it not bother you that you believe a religion that is founded on things that are obviously historically false (the Egyptians kept meticulous records and yet, there is no record of any slave uprising and no record of a military defeat that resulted from the Red Sea being parted, the sky is not a “firmament,” it would be impossible for Noah’s Ark to exist, and on and on )? And that clearly repeats the same miracles and dogmas of previous religions? And that you have to lie to defend? That makes you hate? That makes you treat some humans as less than other humans? That allows you to justify genocides? To ignore genocides? To raise Catholicism – one of the most malevolent forces in history – to a pedestal that is entirely undeserved (although I like the new pope – he actually follows Jesus, unlike nearly all of christianity)?

    9. Last but not least – you are welcome to espouse your beliefs. You are welcome to hate gay people. You are welcome to hate black people. What you are not welcome to do is to force your conscious on me – or anyone else. And this is where we strongly disagree. You think that Christians are put upon for having to treat gay people the same way that they have to treat everyone else ONLY in public accommodations. What you want is a special right based upon your beliefs. You don’t get to do that. You already got to shove your superstition down my throat for most of my life – you don’t get that too. This country was founded by people who largely hated Catholicism, hated the Anglican Church and frankly mocked Puritans. This country is secular. It’s in the freaking Constitution, the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers. And on that one thing, you will get no quarter from me and shouldn’t get it from any other American who values freedom.

  • mark

    Dear Sir,
    I began reading #1 and that is enough to prove to me that it is not worth my time to read any more. What gros stupidity, sorry to have to tell you. You do not know how to think, plain and simple (besides which, ,Aquinas himself answered every one of your objections, duh). You are COMPLETELY the product of the time and place in which you were born and raised; every thought, every instinct, every reaction you have is COMPLETELY the function of the time and place in which you have lapped up all the errors which you repeat ad nauseam. I did, however, scan a line in which you claim I have never read works in their original languages. So apparently you do know me even though you don’t — quite a miracle.
    Agimus tibi gratias , shukran jaziil and poituvanga …. oh, forgot , you’re too arrogant to study languages.

  • oldiugymnast

    So you didn’t read my post. And I am the one suffering from Dogma and arrogance? Aquinas did answer the objections – but his answers amounted to “there cannot be infinite, therefore God” – which is illogical, impossible to prove or disprove and not something you can really know right now. And with what we do know it seems like infinite is definitely possible (see the 1st Law of Thermodynamics). You shouldn’t invoke logic when the proof you hold so dear exhibits a huge error in logic, and when you invoke a spiritual answer for all you cannot understand. That is a lazy answer. Always has been always will be.