Atlantic Article

[jersey shore lax]

Didn’t Wayne Gretzky’s dad make a rink for him in the backyard by flooding the lawn with a garden hose?

DocBarrister

Pretty much every kid in the NHL from Canada, Minnesota, Maine and many other places will talk about their dad's putting up plywood and flooding the backyard. It has only been cold enough on Long Island to do it twice since I had kids 30 years ago but it was a lot of fun. need about 8 days when the temperature never goes above 32F, your enemies are Sun and Snow.

[houndace1]

In regards to Terry Foy's comments, it seems abundantly clear he's talking about these programs in the context of their academic standing, not the success of their lacrosse programs (the whole point of this article is parents using athletics to get their kid into their desired academic institution). Whether it was wise for Foy to make those comments publicly is certainly an interesting discussion to have, but I see no error in anything he said given the context. Academically speaking (at least as far as reputation is concerned), Yale > Georgetown > Loyola, and I really don't think it's debatable.

Talk to coaches in the Patriot League about Loyola. I have had lots of players recruited in that league. One of Loyola's competitors flat out told me they feel Loyola does not belong in their league. They feel Loyola's academic standards for lacrosse players does not match theirs.

please expand upon this

[Henpecked]

I didn't write that comment about Loyola versus other Patriot League schools, but I have heard that same thing from other parents and players in the Patriot League. Most of the "argument" has to do with admission standards. They seem to think that Loyola plays by a different set of rules where virtually any student can get in.

Let me start by saying that Loyola is a very good school and I know a bunch of very successful people who attended the University over the years. However, versus other Patriot League teams the admission acceptance rate at Loyola (80%) and average SAT scores of the student population in general does not compare favorably to those of Colgate (23%), Bucknell (34%), Lehigh (32%), Holy Cross (34%), Boston University (19%), Lafayette (31%), West Point (10%) and Naval Academy (8%). All that said, I am sure that there are quite a few players on those teams that were accepted specifically for their lacrosse skills and not necessarily for any outstanding academic prowess (and I know a few of those exceptions personally).

To me, I couldn't give a crap. Loyola has had a great run over the last 10 years, but there are other outstanding and competitive teams (and GREAT coaches) in this conference. I would not expect to see one team dominating for any extended period.

[jhu06]

" But the coronavirus killed sports at a time when a focus on equity was already causing universities to re-evaluate the patrician leanings of their athletic programs. The course was shutting down; the dream of Dartmouth was becoming the reality of Michigan State."

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/23/nyre ... hotel.html

savage

[Laxxal22]

There were some issues with the article.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/ar ... ns/616474/

Editor's note here if you don't feel like clicking through: After The Atlantic published this article, new information emerged that has raised serious concerns about its accuracy, and about the credibility of the author, Ruth Shalit Barrett.

We have established that Barrett deceived The Atlantic and its readers about a section of the story that concerns a person referred to as “Sloane.” We are sharing with our readers what we have learned so far.

The original version of this article stated that Sloane has a son. Before publication, Sloane confirmed this detail to be true to The Atlantic’s fact-checking department. After publication, when a Washington Post media critic asked us about the accuracy of portions of the article, our fact-checking department reached out to Sloane to recheck certain details. Through her attorney, Sloane informed us that she does not, in fact, have a son. We have independently corroborated that Sloane does not have a son, and we have corrected the story to remove the reference to her having a son.

In explaining Sloane’s reasoning for telling our fact-checker she had a son, Sloane’s attorney told The Atlantic that she wanted to make herself less readily identifiable. Her attorney also said that according to Sloane, Barrett had first proposed the invention of a son, and encouraged Sloane to deceive The Atlantic as a way to protect her anonymity.

When we asked Barrett about these allegations, she initially denied them, saying that Sloane had told her she had a son, and that she had believed Sloane. The next day, when we questioned her again, she admitted that she was “complicit” in “compounding the deception” and that “it would not be fair to Sloane” to blame her alone for deceiving The Atlantic. Barrett denies that the invention of a son was her idea, and denies advising Sloane to mislead The Atlantic’s fact-checkers, but told us that “on some level I did know that it was BS” and “I do take responsibility.”

Sloane’s attorney claimed that there are several other errors about Sloane in the article but declined to provide The Atlantic with examples. Barrett says that the fabricated son is the only detail about which she deceived our fact-checkers and editors. Our fact-checking department is continuing to thoroughly recheck the article.

We have already corrected and clarified other details in the story. During the initial fact-checking process, we corroborated many details of Sloane’s story with sources other than Sloane. But the checking of some details of Sloane’s story relied solely on interviews and other communications with Sloane or her husband or both of them.

We have clarified a detail about a neck injury sustained by Sloane’s middle daughter, to be more precise about its severity. We have corrected a detail about a thigh injury, originally described as a deep gash but more accurately described as a skin rupture that bled through a fencing uniform. And we’ve corrected the location of a lacrosse family mentioned in the article: They do not live in Greenwich, Connecticut, but in another town in Fairfield County.

On October 22, we noted and corrected another error in the story: The article originally referenced Olympic-size backyard hockey rinks, but although the private rinks are large and equipped with floodlights and generators, they are not Olympic-size.

We are also updating Barrett’s byline. Originally, we referred to her as Ruth S. Barrett. When writing recently for other magazines, Barrett was identified by her full name, Ruth Shalit Barrett. (Barrett is her married name.) In 1999, when she was known by Ruth Shalit, she left The New Republic, where she was an associate editor, after plagiarism and inaccurate reporting were discovered in her work. We typically defer to authors on how their byline appears—some authors use middle initials, for example, or shorter versions of their given name. We referred to Barrett as Ruth S. Barrett at her request, but in the interest of transparency, we should have included the name that she used as her byline in the 1990s, when the plagiarism incidents occurred. We have changed the byline on this article to Ruth Shalit Barrett.

We decided to assign Barrett this freelance story in part because more than two decades separated her from her journalistic malpractice at The New Republic and because in recent years her work has appeared in reputable magazines. We took into consideration the argument that Barrett deserved a second chance to write feature stories such as this one. We were wrong to make this assignment, however. It reflects poor judgment on our part, and we regret our decision.

We are continuing to review this article. We will correct any errors we find, and we will communicate our findings to our readers as speedily as possible.
Updated at 11:06 p.m. ET on October 30, 2020.

[youthathletics]

Thanks for posting that laxal22.

[NovaHound]

Well if that don't beat all.....Whatever name she uses for whatever purpose she kept us lax power posters entertained for awhile. Over 6 pages of posting for a mostly fabricated and now discredited article. Having said that, there were elements of truth in it

There were some issues with the article.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/ar ... ns/616474/

Editor's note here if you don't feel like clicking through: After The Atlantic published this article, new information emerged that has raised serious concerns about its accuracy, and about the credibility of the author, Ruth Shalit Barrett.

We have established that Barrett deceived The Atlantic and its readers about a section of the story that concerns a person referred to as “Sloane.” We are sharing with our readers what we have learned so far.

The original version of this article stated that Sloane has a son. Before publication, Sloane confirmed this detail to be true to The Atlantic’s fact-checking department. After publication, when a Washington Post media critic asked us about the accuracy of portions of the article, our fact-checking department reached out to Sloane to recheck certain details. Through her attorney, Sloane informed us that she does not, in fact, have a son. We have independently corroborated that Sloane does not have a son, and we have corrected the story to remove the reference to her having a son.

In explaining Sloane’s reasoning for telling our fact-checker she had a son, Sloane’s attorney told The Atlantic that she wanted to make herself less readily identifiable. Her attorney also said that according to Sloane, Barrett had first proposed the invention of a son, and encouraged Sloane to deceive The Atlantic as a way to protect her anonymity.

When we asked Barrett about these allegations, she initially denied them, saying that Sloane had told her she had a son, and that she had believed Sloane. The next day, when we questioned her again, she admitted that she was “complicit” in “compounding the deception” and that “it would not be fair to Sloane” to blame her alone for deceiving The Atlantic. Barrett denies that the invention of a son was her idea, and denies advising Sloane to mislead The Atlantic’s fact-checkers, but told us that “on some level I did know that it was BS” and “I do take responsibility.”

Sloane’s attorney claimed that there are several other errors about Sloane in the article but declined to provide The Atlantic with examples. Barrett says that the fabricated son is the only detail about which she deceived our fact-checkers and editors. Our fact-checking department is continuing to thoroughly recheck the article.

We have already corrected and clarified other details in the story. During the initial fact-checking process, we corroborated many details of Sloane’s story with sources other than Sloane. But the checking of some details of Sloane’s story relied solely on interviews and other communications with Sloane or her husband or both of them.

We have clarified a detail about a neck injury sustained by Sloane’s middle daughter, to be more precise about its severity. We have corrected a detail about a thigh injury, originally described as a deep gash but more accurately described as a skin rupture that bled through a fencing uniform. And we’ve corrected the location of a lacrosse family mentioned in the article: They do not live in Greenwich, Connecticut, but in another town in Fairfield County.

On October 22, we noted and corrected another error in the story: The article originally referenced Olympic-size backyard hockey rinks, but although the private rinks are large and equipped with floodlights and generators, they are not Olympic-size.

We are also updating Barrett’s byline. Originally, we referred to her as Ruth S. Barrett. When writing recently for other magazines, Barrett was identified by her full name, Ruth Shalit Barrett. (Barrett is her married name.) In 1999, when she was known by Ruth Shalit, she left The New Republic, where she was an associate editor, after plagiarism and inaccurate reporting were discovered in her work. We typically defer to authors on how their byline appears—some authors use middle initials, for example, or shorter versions of their given name. We referred to Barrett as Ruth S. Barrett at her request, but in the interest of transparency, we should have included the name that she used as her byline in the 1990s, when the plagiarism incidents occurred. We have changed the byline on this article to Ruth Shalit Barrett.

We decided to assign Barrett this freelance story in part because more than two decades separated her from her journalistic malpractice at The New Republic and because in recent years her work has appeared in reputable magazines. We took into consideration the argument that Barrett deserved a second chance to write feature stories such as this one. We were wrong to make this assignment, however. It reflects poor judgment on our part, and we regret our decision.

We are continuing to review this article. We will correct any errors we find, and we will communicate our findings to our readers as speedily as possible.
Updated at 11:06 p.m. ET on October 30, 2020.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Well if that don't beat all.....Whatever name she uses for whatever purpose she kept us lax power posters entertained for awhile. Over 6 pages of posting for a mostly fabricated and now discredited article. Having said that, there were elements of truth in it

There were some issues with the article.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/ar ... ns/616474/

Editor's note here if you don't feel like clicking through: After The Atlantic published this article, new information emerged that has raised serious concerns about its accuracy, and about the credibility of the author, Ruth Shalit Barrett.

We have established that Barrett deceived The Atlantic and its readers about a section of the story that concerns a person referred to as “Sloane.” We are sharing with our readers what we have learned so far.

The original version of this article stated that Sloane has a son. Before publication, Sloane confirmed this detail to be true to The Atlantic’s fact-checking department. After publication, when a Washington Post media critic asked us about the accuracy of portions of the article, our fact-checking department reached out to Sloane to recheck certain details. Through her attorney, Sloane informed us that she does not, in fact, have a son. We have independently corroborated that Sloane does not have a son, and we have corrected the story to remove the reference to her having a son.

In explaining Sloane’s reasoning for telling our fact-checker she had a son, Sloane’s attorney told The Atlantic that she wanted to make herself less readily identifiable. Her attorney also said that according to Sloane, Barrett had first proposed the invention of a son, and encouraged Sloane to deceive The Atlantic as a way to protect her anonymity.

When we asked Barrett about these allegations, she initially denied them, saying that Sloane had told her she had a son, and that she had believed Sloane. The next day, when we questioned her again, she admitted that she was “complicit” in “compounding the deception” and that “it would not be fair to Sloane” to blame her alone for deceiving The Atlantic. Barrett denies that the invention of a son was her idea, and denies advising Sloane to mislead The Atlantic’s fact-checkers, but told us that “on some level I did know that it was BS” and “I do take responsibility.”

Sloane’s attorney claimed that there are several other errors about Sloane in the article but declined to provide The Atlantic with examples. Barrett says that the fabricated son is the only detail about which she deceived our fact-checkers and editors. Our fact-checking department is continuing to thoroughly recheck the article.

We have already corrected and clarified other details in the story. During the initial fact-checking process, we corroborated many details of Sloane’s story with sources other than Sloane. But the checking of some details of Sloane’s story relied solely on interviews and other communications with Sloane or her husband or both of them.

We have clarified a detail about a neck injury sustained by Sloane’s middle daughter, to be more precise about its severity. We have corrected a detail about a thigh injury, originally described as a deep gash but more accurately described as a skin rupture that bled through a fencing uniform. And we’ve corrected the location of a lacrosse family mentioned in the article: They do not live in Greenwich, Connecticut, but in another town in Fairfield County.

On October 22, we noted and corrected another error in the story: The article originally referenced Olympic-size backyard hockey rinks, but although the private rinks are large and equipped with floodlights and generators, they are not Olympic-size.

We are also updating Barrett’s byline. Originally, we referred to her as Ruth S. Barrett. When writing recently for other magazines, Barrett was identified by her full name, Ruth Shalit Barrett. (Barrett is her married name.) In 1999, when she was known by Ruth Shalit, she left The New Republic, where she was an associate editor, after plagiarism and inaccurate reporting were discovered in her work. We typically defer to authors on how their byline appears—some authors use middle initials, for example, or shorter versions of their given name. We referred to Barrett as Ruth S. Barrett at her request, but in the interest of transparency, we should have included the name that she used as her byline in the 1990s, when the plagiarism incidents occurred. We have changed the byline on this article to Ruth Shalit Barrett.

We decided to assign Barrett this freelance story in part because more than two decades separated her from her journalistic malpractice at The New Republic and because in recent years her work has appeared in reputable magazines. We took into consideration the argument that Barrett deserved a second chance to write feature stories such as this one. We were wrong to make this assignment, however. It reflects poor judgment on our part, and we regret our decision.

We are continuing to review this article. We will correct any errors we find, and we will communicate our findings to our readers as speedily as possible.
Updated at 11:06 p.m. ET on October 30, 2020.

Totally off base article! I have to run out to a lax clinic this afternoon....

https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/summer ... 1596129320

[flyerfan17]

There were some issues with the article.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/ar ... ns/616474/

Editor's note here if you don't feel like clicking through: After The Atlantic published this article, new information emerged that has raised serious concerns about its accuracy, and about the credibility of the author, Ruth Shalit Barrett.

We have established that Barrett deceived The Atlantic and its readers about a section of the story that concerns a person referred to as “Sloane.” We are sharing with our readers what we have learned so far.

The original version of this article stated that Sloane has a son. Before publication, Sloane confirmed this detail to be true to The Atlantic’s fact-checking department. After publication, when a Washington Post media critic asked us about the accuracy of portions of the article, our fact-checking department reached out to Sloane to recheck certain details. Through her attorney, Sloane informed us that she does not, in fact, have a son. We have independently corroborated that Sloane does not have a son, and we have corrected the story to remove the reference to her having a son.

In explaining Sloane’s reasoning for telling our fact-checker she had a son, Sloane’s attorney told The Atlantic that she wanted to make herself less readily identifiable. Her attorney also said that according to Sloane, Barrett had first proposed the invention of a son, and encouraged Sloane to deceive The Atlantic as a way to protect her anonymity.

When we asked Barrett about these allegations, she initially denied them, saying that Sloane had told her she had a son, and that she had believed Sloane. The next day, when we questioned her again, she admitted that she was “complicit” in “compounding the deception” and that “it would not be fair to Sloane” to blame her alone for deceiving The Atlantic. Barrett denies that the invention of a son was her idea, and denies advising Sloane to mislead The Atlantic’s fact-checkers, but told us that “on some level I did know that it was BS” and “I do take responsibility.”

Sloane’s attorney claimed that there are several other errors about Sloane in the article but declined to provide The Atlantic with examples. Barrett says that the fabricated son is the only detail about which she deceived our fact-checkers and editors. Our fact-checking department is continuing to thoroughly recheck the article.

We have already corrected and clarified other details in the story. During the initial fact-checking process, we corroborated many details of Sloane’s story with sources other than Sloane. But the checking of some details of Sloane’s story relied solely on interviews and other communications with Sloane or her husband or both of them.

We have clarified a detail about a neck injury sustained by Sloane’s middle daughter, to be more precise about its severity. We have corrected a detail about a thigh injury, originally described as a deep gash but more accurately described as a skin rupture that bled through a fencing uniform. And we’ve corrected the location of a lacrosse family mentioned in the article: They do not live in Greenwich, Connecticut, but in another town in Fairfield County.

On October 22, we noted and corrected another error in the story: The article originally referenced Olympic-size backyard hockey rinks, but although the private rinks are large and equipped with floodlights and generators, they are not Olympic-size.

We are also updating Barrett’s byline. Originally, we referred to her as Ruth S. Barrett. When writing recently for other magazines, Barrett was identified by her full name, Ruth Shalit Barrett. (Barrett is her married name.) In 1999, when she was known by Ruth Shalit, she left The New Republic, where she was an associate editor, after plagiarism and inaccurate reporting were discovered in her work. We typically defer to authors on how their byline appears—some authors use middle initials, for example, or shorter versions of their given name. We referred to Barrett as Ruth S. Barrett at her request, but in the interest of transparency, we should have included the name that she used as her byline in the 1990s, when the plagiarism incidents occurred. We have changed the byline on this article to Ruth Shalit Barrett.

We decided to assign Barrett this freelance story in part because more than two decades separated her from her journalistic malpractice at The New Republic and because in recent years her work has appeared in reputable magazines. We took into consideration the argument that Barrett deserved a second chance to write feature stories such as this one. We were wrong to make this assignment, however. It reflects poor judgment on our part, and we regret our decision.

We are continuing to review this article. We will correct any errors we find, and we will communicate our findings to our readers as speedily as possible.
Updated at 11:06 p.m. ET on October 30, 2020.

Hahahahaha, what a shock. Something I read is a lie.....never ever blindly believe anything you read or hear. It's more true every day in every aspect of life, now I have to make sure I'm mask compliant again....

[Farfromgeneva]

How did I know this would turn into a political Covid related response.

How about some people are liars but that doesn’t mean one should never trust anyone. The term trust but verify comes to mind...

[Typical Lax Dad]

There were some issues with the article.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/ar ... ns/616474/

Editor's note here if you don't feel like clicking through: After The Atlantic published this article, new information emerged that has raised serious concerns about its accuracy, and about the credibility of the author, Ruth Shalit Barrett.

We have established that Barrett deceived The Atlantic and its readers about a section of the story that concerns a person referred to as “Sloane.” We are sharing with our readers what we have learned so far.

The original version of this article stated that Sloane has a son. Before publication, Sloane confirmed this detail to be true to The Atlantic’s fact-checking department. After publication, when a Washington Post media critic asked us about the accuracy of portions of the article, our fact-checking department reached out to Sloane to recheck certain details. Through her attorney, Sloane informed us that she does not, in fact, have a son. We have independently corroborated that Sloane does not have a son, and we have corrected the story to remove the reference to her having a son.

In explaining Sloane’s reasoning for telling our fact-checker she had a son, Sloane’s attorney told The Atlantic that she wanted to make herself less readily identifiable. Her attorney also said that according to Sloane, Barrett had first proposed the invention of a son, and encouraged Sloane to deceive The Atlantic as a way to protect her anonymity.

When we asked Barrett about these allegations, she initially denied them, saying that Sloane had told her she had a son, and that she had believed Sloane. The next day, when we questioned her again, she admitted that she was “complicit” in “compounding the deception” and that “it would not be fair to Sloane” to blame her alone for deceiving The Atlantic. Barrett denies that the invention of a son was her idea, and denies advising Sloane to mislead The Atlantic’s fact-checkers, but told us that “on some level I did know that it was BS” and “I do take responsibility.”

Sloane’s attorney claimed that there are several other errors about Sloane in the article but declined to provide The Atlantic with examples. Barrett says that the fabricated son is the only detail about which she deceived our fact-checkers and editors. Our fact-checking department is continuing to thoroughly recheck the article.

We have already corrected and clarified other details in the story. During the initial fact-checking process, we corroborated many details of Sloane’s story with sources other than Sloane. But the checking of some details of Sloane’s story relied solely on interviews and other communications with Sloane or her husband or both of them.

We have clarified a detail about a neck injury sustained by Sloane’s middle daughter, to be more precise about its severity. We have corrected a detail about a thigh injury, originally described as a deep gash but more accurately described as a skin rupture that bled through a fencing uniform. And we’ve corrected the location of a lacrosse family mentioned in the article: They do not live in Greenwich, Connecticut, but in another town in Fairfield County.

On October 22, we noted and corrected another error in the story: The article originally referenced Olympic-size backyard hockey rinks, but although the private rinks are large and equipped with floodlights and generators, they are not Olympic-size.

We are also updating Barrett’s byline. Originally, we referred to her as Ruth S. Barrett. When writing recently for other magazines, Barrett was identified by her full name, Ruth Shalit Barrett. (Barrett is her married name.) In 1999, when she was known by Ruth Shalit, she left The New Republic, where she was an associate editor, after plagiarism and inaccurate reporting were discovered in her work. We typically defer to authors on how their byline appears—some authors use middle initials, for example, or shorter versions of their given name. We referred to Barrett as Ruth S. Barrett at her request, but in the interest of transparency, we should have included the name that she used as her byline in the 1990s, when the plagiarism incidents occurred. We have changed the byline on this article to Ruth Shalit Barrett.

We decided to assign Barrett this freelance story in part because more than two decades separated her from her journalistic malpractice at The New Republic and because in recent years her work has appeared in reputable magazines. We took into consideration the argument that Barrett deserved a second chance to write feature stories such as this one. We were wrong to make this assignment, however. It reflects poor judgment on our part, and we regret our decision.

We are continuing to review this article. We will correct any errors we find, and we will communicate our findings to our readers as speedily as possible.
Updated at 11:06 p.m. ET on October 30, 2020.

Hahahahaha, what a shock. Something I read is a lie.....never ever blindly believe anything you read or hear. It's more true every day in every aspect of life, now I have to make sure I'm mask compliant again....

225,000 people are “lying” for sure.

[Farfromgeneva]

Lying in their graves...

[Typical Lax Dad]

Lying in their graves...

Yep!

[molo]

Any idea of the author's major at Princeton? At least in the old days, plagiarism was kind of a big deal at UVA. The Atlantic must be just a tad lenient on checking facts.

[ABV 8.3%]

I didn't write that comment about Loyola versus other Patriot League schools, but I have heard that same thing from other parents and players in the Patriot League. Most of the "argument" has to do with admission standards. They seem to think that Loyola plays by a different set of rules where virtually any student can get in.

Let me start by saying that Loyola is a very good school and I know a bunch of very successful people who attended the University over the years. However, versus other Patriot League teams the admission acceptance rate at Loyola (80%) and average SAT scores of the student population in general does not compare favorably to those of Colgate (23%), Bucknell (34%), Lehigh (32%), Holy Cross (34%), Boston University (19%), Lafayette (31%), West Point (10%) and Naval Academy (8%). All that said, I am sure that there are quite a few players on those teams that were accepted specifically for their lacrosse skills and not necessarily for any outstanding academic prowess (and I know a few of those exceptions personally).

To me, I couldn't give a dump. Loyola has had a great run over the last 10 years, but there are other outstanding and competitive teams (and GREAT coaches) in this conference. I would not expect to see one team dominating for any extended period.

Anyone that has a yard sign with "BLM" or "science is real" or "we believe, in this house" ..........and "argues" about admission standards is a crass person. Is not the advancement for the underachieving, academically at least,HIGH school jock ,part of humanity? In other words, why do people get bent out of shape of admission standards on the one hand, and than scream about systemic racism on the other? What good is a Johns Hopkins, at teaching, if they can't turn around, and TEACH, a 19 year old, "local" kid, physics? Even tho this same kid reads like a 2nd grader. You telling me people can't learn another language at age 19?

Most people, given the right circumstance (s), can flourish. That one brother was completely right.

College diverse admissions Just doesn't include the "under achievers".

[ABV 8.3%]

There were some issues with the article.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/ar ... ns/616474/

Editor's note here if you don't feel like clicking through: After The Atlantic published this article, new information emerged that has raised serious concerns about its accuracy, and about the credibility of the author, Ruth Shalit Barrett.

We have established that Barrett deceived The Atlantic and its readers about a section of the story that concerns a person referred to as “Sloane.” We are sharing with our readers what we have learned so far.

The original version of this article stated that Sloane has a son. Before publication, Sloane confirmed this detail to be true to The Atlantic’s fact-checking department. After publication, when a Washington Post media critic asked us about the accuracy of portions of the article, our fact-checking department reached out to Sloane to recheck certain details. Through her attorney, Sloane informed us that she does not, in fact, have a son. We have independently corroborated that Sloane does not have a son, and we have corrected the story to remove the reference to her having a son.

In explaining Sloane’s reasoning for telling our fact-checker she had a son, Sloane’s attorney told The Atlantic that she wanted to make herself less readily identifiable. Her attorney also said that according to Sloane, Barrett had first proposed the invention of a son, and encouraged Sloane to deceive The Atlantic as a way to protect her anonymity.

When we asked Barrett about these allegations, she initially denied them, saying that Sloane had told her she had a son, and that she had believed Sloane. The next day, when we questioned her again, she admitted that she was “complicit” in “compounding the deception” and that “it would not be fair to Sloane” to blame her alone for deceiving The Atlantic. Barrett denies that the invention of a son was her idea, and denies advising Sloane to mislead The Atlantic’s fact-checkers, but told us that “on some level I did know that it was BS” and “I do take responsibility.”

Sloane’s attorney claimed that there are several other errors about Sloane in the article but declined to provide The Atlantic with examples. Barrett says that the fabricated son is the only detail about which she deceived our fact-checkers and editors. Our fact-checking department is continuing to thoroughly recheck the article.

We have already corrected and clarified other details in the story. During the initial fact-checking process, we corroborated many details of Sloane’s story with sources other than Sloane. But the checking of some details of Sloane’s story relied solely on interviews and other communications with Sloane or her husband or both of them.

We have clarified a detail about a neck injury sustained by Sloane’s middle daughter, to be more precise about its severity. We have corrected a detail about a thigh injury, originally described as a deep gash but more accurately described as a skin rupture that bled through a fencing uniform. And we’ve corrected the location of a lacrosse family mentioned in the article: They do not live in Greenwich, Connecticut, but in another town in Fairfield County.

On October 22, we noted and corrected another error in the story: The article originally referenced Olympic-size backyard hockey rinks, but although the private rinks are large and equipped with floodlights and generators, they are not Olympic-size.

We are also updating Barrett’s byline. Originally, we referred to her as Ruth S. Barrett. When writing recently for other magazines, Barrett was identified by her full name, Ruth Shalit Barrett. (Barrett is her married name.) In 1999, when she was known by Ruth Shalit, she left The New Republic, where she was an associate editor, after plagiarism and inaccurate reporting were discovered in her work. We typically defer to authors on how their byline appears—some authors use middle initials, for example, or shorter versions of their given name. We referred to Barrett as Ruth S. Barrett at her request, but in the interest of transparency, we should have included the name that she used as her byline in the 1990s, when the plagiarism incidents occurred. We have changed the byline on this article to Ruth Shalit Barrett.

We decided to assign Barrett this freelance story in part because more than two decades separated her from her journalistic malpractice at The New Republic and because in recent years her work has appeared in reputable magazines. We took into consideration the argument that Barrett deserved a second chance to write feature stories such as this one. We were wrong to make this assignment, however. It reflects poor judgment on our part, and we regret our decision.

We are continuing to review this article. We will correct any errors we find, and we will communicate our findings to our readers as speedily as possible.
Updated at 11:06 p.m. ET on October 30, 2020.

The whole salad DID seem to have an overall Sid Finch flavor to it, with some Rolling stone editors spice, to you know, spice it up.

possible 4 sides to every story my friends. always 4 possible sides, at least

[bearlaxfan]

Not her first rodeo ride with these issues. Google is your friend. What exactly does it take to be deemed unemployable?

[Typical Lax Dad]

I didn't write that comment about Loyola versus other Patriot League schools, but I have heard that same thing from other parents and players in the Patriot League. Most of the "argument" has to do with admission standards. They seem to think that Loyola plays by a different set of rules where virtually any student can get in.

Let me start by saying that Loyola is a very good school and I know a bunch of very successful people who attended the University over the years. However, versus other Patriot League teams the admission acceptance rate at Loyola (80%) and average SAT scores of the student population in general does not compare favorably to those of Colgate (23%), Bucknell (34%), Lehigh (32%), Holy Cross (34%), Boston University (19%), Lafayette (31%), West Point (10%) and Naval Academy (8%). All that said, I am sure that there are quite a few players on those teams that were accepted specifically for their lacrosse skills and not necessarily for any outstanding academic prowess (and I know a few of those exceptions personally).

To me, I couldn't give a dump. Loyola has had a great run over the last 10 years, but there are other outstanding and competitive teams (and GREAT coaches) in this conference. I would not expect to see one team dominating for any extended period.

Anyone that has a yard sign with "BLM" or "science is real" or "we believe, in this house" ..........and "argues" about admission standards is a crass person. Is not the advancement for the underachieving, academically at least,HIGH school jock ,part of humanity? In other words, why do people get bent out of shape of admission standards on the one hand, and than scream about systemic racism on the other? What good is a Johns Hopkins, at teaching, if they can't turn around, and TEACH, a 19 year old, "local" kid, physics? Even tho this same kid reads like a 2nd grader. You telling me people can't learn another language at age 19?

Most people, given the right circumstance (s), can flourish. That one brother was completely right.

College diverse admissions Just doesn't include the "under achievers".

[Jldlax]

More fake stories from the Atlantic. Same rag that published the “Trump hates the troops” hit piece. Unreal!

[old salt]

.. ....the bastard fictional son. These liars can't even agree on who made him up.

The claim of a backyard Olympic size hockey rink made me suspicious.
Most college rinks aren't even that big. They're 15 ft wider than NHL rinks.
Not that hard to fact check. Give us the address & well google map sat check it.
Jeffrey Goldberg has made the Atlantic a joke.