The Alex Bohac Situation Is Crazy (nope, now its crazier)

I don’t care about the kids at my school there is one cuber and I have a group of friends who hang out with and I try my absolute best to stay away from the girls because they are demons
3 people accept my existence in school (That includes staff), and does anyone think Alex Bohac has any chance of not being found guilty( I dont)
 
the people at the competition would not want to be around him
As a competition organiser, "not wanting to be around someone" is not a valid reason to reject a competitor's registration.

---

This is obviously an emotionally charged topic for many of you, but this is also all the more reason to think about the situation rationally rather than contributing to kneejerk responses.
 
As a competition organiser, "not wanting to be around someone" is not a valid reason to reject a competitor's registration.

As a competition organiser, "not wanting to be around someone" is not a valid reason to reject a competitor's registration.

---

This is obviously an emotionally charged topic for many of you, but this is also all the more reason to think about the situation rationally rather than contributing to kneejerk responses.

As a competition organiser, "not wanting to be around someone" is not a valid reason to reject a competitor's registration.

---

This is obviously an emotionally charged topic for many of you, but this is also all the more reason to think about the situation rationally rather than contributing to kneejerk responses.
sorry for sort of replying 3 times, I couldn't figure out how to undo that.

anyway it is right that simply not wanting to be around him would not be a good justification for rejecting his registration and you probably still should accept it. But honestly speaking, no one will accept being around him and will likely just kick him out or just get mad at him.
 
As a competition organiser, "not wanting to be around someone" is not a valid reason to reject a competitor's registration.

---

This is obviously an emotionally charged topic for many of you, but this is also all the more reason to think about the situation rationally rather than contributing to kneejerk responses.
If u are organizing a comp and you know that there will be kids at the comp then how can you let a guy who has a track record of doing terrruble things to kids join your comp? Imho it is just common sense not to let him join like if someone has a criminal record for abusing kids then why would you let him near kids again.
 
As a competition organiser, "not wanting to be around someone" is not a valid reason to reject a competitor's registration.

---

This is obviously an emotionally charged topic for many of you, but this is also all the more reason to think about the situation rationally rather than contributing to kneejerk responses.
Technically, he has not broken WCA legality (afaik), so he should technically be allowed to compete with any penalties. Not that I agree with that decision.
 
If u are organizing a comp and you know that there will be kids at the comp then how can you let a guy who has a track record of doing terrruble things to kids join your comp? Imho it is just common sense not to let him join like if someone has a criminal record for abusing kids then why would you let him near kids again.
That is completely valid, but if Alex Bohac was there, I'm guessing Delegates would keep a hard watch on him, but it's kinda your choice to reject or accept his registration...
 
does anyone think Alex Bohac has any chance of not being found guilty( I dont)

Yes, of course. How do you not? Accusers can make things up, the accused might've been impersonated/framed, police can get things wrong or overstate what they have, and the media can distort the facts (have you ever read articles about cubing or other topics you know well so you notice how many errors they make?).

Does anyone know if Alex Bohac has been sentenced to 340 years in prison yet?

Even if he does get all 17 times 20 years, from what I've seen it seems likely he'd serve them concurrently, so really "only" 20 years.

He can’t go even if he wasn’t banned from the wca because he is in prison

In prison? Since when, and how do you know? As far as I know, he's in jail. Which is not the same. In particular, prison suggests "convicted" whereas jail suggests "pre-trial".
 
Last edited:
As a competition organiser, "not wanting to be around someone" is not a valid reason to reject a competitor's registration.

---

This is obviously an emotionally charged topic for many of you, but this is also all the more reason to think about the situation rationally rather than contributing to kneejerk responses.
Would being a registered offender be a valid reason?
 
Yes, of course. How do you not? Accusers can make things up, the accused might've been impersonated/framed, police can get things wrong or overstate what they have, and the media can distort the facts (have you ever read articles about cubing or other topics you know well so you notice how many errors they make?).



Even if he does get all 17 times 20 years, from what I've seen it seems likely he'd serve them concurrently, so really "only" 20 years.



In prison? Since when, and how do you know? As far as I know, he's in jail. Which is not the same. In particular, prison suggests "convicted" whereas jail suggests "pre-trial".
True honestly we really can't say he is guilty and say stuff like "how could he". We won't get to know the truth until trial has finished.
 
Yes, of course. How do you not? Accusers can make things up, the accused might've been impersonated/framed, police can get things wrong or overstate what they have, and the media can distort the facts (have you ever read articles about cubing or other topics you know well so you notice how many errors they make?).



Even if he does get all 17 times 20 years, from what I've seen it seems likely he'd serve them concurrently, so really "only" 20 years.



In prison? Since when, and how do you know? As far as I know, he's in jail. Which is not the same. In particular, prison suggests "convicted" whereas jail suggests "pre-trial".

The police had a search warrant to confiscate his devices and found evidence of his crimes. It isn't a baseless claim or accusation. He was investigated both by police and Internet Crimes Against Children. His arrest and 17 charges were based on forensic evidence, not a story.
 
The police had a search warrant to confiscate his devices and found evidence of his crimes.

Yes, I think we've all read something like that in the media. Unclear to me what evidence they found and where they found it, e.g., whether they found any on his devices. You made it sound like they did. Have you read that somewhere? And again, police and media might've made mistakes.

His arrest and 17 charges were based on forensic evidence, not a story.

I think they were based on both.
 
Back
Top