Adman

Cheese, just a couple quick responses. 1) Definitely agree they already have PR disaster. 2) I’m as frustrated as you are. The time this has taken - with video evidence apparently available - is incomprehensible. 3) My points were only i) an attempt to find another explanation as to why they might not be playing. (not saying I like it!) If my theory was right and an accuser was part of basketball production, and an altercation occurred in-game, not only would the University be negligent in knowingly allowing the safety of the parties to be put at risk via close contact, the PR nightmare would be immense. No one plans to get in altercation. Coaches don’t intend to get technicals either (usually!) You think people can’t lose their tempers at basketball games? and ii) If I was right, I could understand the jam SLU was in. Rock and hard place 4) The fact they’re on campus does not shread the argument. The U has wide latitude of things they can do. I don’t know exactly how they do this, but logically they would view initial evidence and any prior issues with these students, then determine “reasonable” steps to keep them away from each other, maintain safety. The U could say it’s within reasonable risk to allow the accused to still go to class, go to practice, travel with team, but maybe living arrangements and class schedules should be altered, and presence in arena on game day/playing in games where accuser(s) may come in close contact in high emotion game setting is only asking for trouble. Very possible other steps put in place to keep practices free of accusers and vice versa. BTW, I wasn’t making this stuff up. While specific play/no play option isn’t listed, these broad types of interim options are all part of and listed in SLU’s policy. You can read it. 5) i was absolutely not holding info back; I knew/know nothing more about the accusers. No one affiliated with the University has provided any info to me. I read this board. And after reading SLU’s policy too many times, I was just making alternate guess as to why players could still be in school but not in games (besides an official suspension.) This theory was possible explanation

Wendelprof, First, thanks for your contributions to this Board. I appreciate the experience in this area you seemingly have, the balance you bring that’s important (and hard) to have, and your passion for the Bills and SLU. I won’t repeat many of the valid points that other posters have contributed. But I’ll add a few new ones which may further underscore the aggravation many of us feel, and add an alternate theory for your - and everyone’s - response. I’ve read SLU’s sexual assault policy and adjudication process multiple times. Based on all that’s known, we’re nowhere near an end. The preliminary report was provided to the parties and they responded to it within the 5-day window. The investigator/lawyer then created the final report likely including opinion as to whether prohibited conduct indeed happened. It is non-binding; the SLU Hearing Officer ultimately must make the decision. It went to the parties by all accounts about a week before Christmas. But at this stage of the process, no decision is expected. Rather, the Hearing Officer then meets separately with the parties to review the final report recommendations. (Apparently this step begins tomorrow.) The HO also accepts any written questions the parties would like the HO to ask the other party. After review of the questions for appropriateness and relevance, the HO submits the questions. (This functions as a quasi-cross examination step since parties are not allowed to cross-examine each other.) After this series of meetings and written questions/answers are complete, the HO finally makes the decision as to whether a violation occurred and the punishment. This is communicated simultaneously to both parties in a written "Notice of Outcome." There is NO SPECIFIC TIME FRAME for these steps in SLU's policy. Doubtful quicker than two weeks; I’m guessing more likely three. But not over yet. The parties involved can then appeal the HO’s ruling. I would be shocked if neither does. Per SLU policy, it is a 10-day process. Parties have 3 business days to file the appeal, 3 more business days for parties to review and comment on each other's appeals, which then leaves about 4 business days for final adjudication. This is not done by single HO; rather by 3-person board. This timeline can be extended, too. Given already long delays for this case, can’t believe it won’t also be extended. Even in realistically best case scenario, we’re looking at Feb 1. Maybe later. I hope I’m wrong. Even if the adjudication allowed them to play then, would they do so, blow a year of eligibility to play for a month? I think they’re done for year. Start fresh next year. But even that’s problematic. Players have only 5 years to play 4 seasons.. Some of these players are transfers and have already sat out a year or part of a year. Now sitting out a second. The NCAA would have to grant them their year of eligibility back. And no guarantee of that happening. None of us want those who commit sexual assault representing the University or on this team. But I don’t have to remind you about the old axiom on need for swift justice. This process has been seemingly ridiculous. Now an alternate theory. Most of us have rightly felt angry about suspension pre-adjudication. The process is seemingly so heavily weighted against the accused. But what if it’s not a suspension? The Title IX guidelines include much counsel regarding taking interim measures to create a safe environment. Generally speaking, this is wise counsel. If there’s a rapist or likely rapist on campus, the University has a huge responsibility to protect the accuser from retaliation and to protect the student body in general. SLU’s policy thus provides wide latitude to keep everyone safe - everything from immediate expulsion of the accused, suspensions, creating spaces where accused and accusers are separated, changing class schedules, moving the accused’s dorm room further away from the accuser’s, and many other possible solutions. In general, it’s good to keep the parties from running into each other more than necessary. Now for a moment, let’s make assumption that at least one of the accusers is officially involved with the Athletic Dept/basketball team, such as a student PR assistant, game day production assistant, cheerleader, dance squad, band, et al. (I have NO idea if this is the case.) If the accused players are allowed to play or even sit on the bench, they would be mere feet away from the accuser(s). Regardless of whether the accuser(s) were really assaulted or the accuser(s) filed a false accusation against the players, there is huge opportunity for heat of the moment angry words in-game between them, even an altercation. Not only is this potentially dangerous, but with media, TV cameras and 5-10,000 fans - a PR disaster of the highest order. Not to mention the U facing likely lawsuits by placing the parties in a situation where this could happen. If this is actually the case, SLU is in real jam. Beyond safety, PR and lawsuit fears, they would also have a very hard time applying these interim measures equally to both the accused and the accusers because of the chilling effect it would have against those who rightly bring forward sexual assault claims in the future. But it still feels unfair, similar to an accused criminal who can’t make bail and waits years for trial upon which he’s exonerated. Maybe cross-Title IX complaints are a solution. I don’t know. I must also emphasize: I have no intention of revealing anyone’s identities. Please do not. Anonymity is crucial. And I have no inside info on this. I’m sure plenty of people can easily de-bunk this theory. But if it is the case - and it is possible - I think SLU deserves some balance and understanding from us. They’d be in a jam. Another reason swift justice so important. Make a decision.

Wiz, thanks for the effort you put into this -the game spreads, overall rankings, and responding to the various questions you’re asked. Always entertaining and informative. Hopefully we get some players back soon and we meet or exceed your best case!

The thing that's frustrating is that, even if the full investigation/final report is now in hand with a recommendation, and even if SLU DOES work through the holidays to resolve this, we are not at the final decision point. First, the Hearing Officer must make a decision. That decision must then be communicated to the parties in an official "Notice of Outcome". I doubt we're at this step yet. Then... each side has 3 business days to file an appeal. After appeals are filed, each party has 3 more University business days to file a written response to the other party's appeal. Then a 3-person SLU panel will make the final decision. This appeal process -- including the two sets of 3-day appeals/written responses plus the final adjudication -- is supposed to be complete within 10 University business days of the Notice of Outcome. But that timing is the recommended guideline, subject to "extraordinary circumstances", which if the appeal process is anything like the rest of the process, will be extraordinary. Just a guess. If they're working the holidays, maybe early next year. If not, mid/late January. At this point, some of this is in SLU's hands, some is not (attys submitting appeals, reviews of other party appeals.) I hope I'm wrong and this is faster. Otherwise I fear attorneys filing injunctions, players leaving or both. And lawsuits later.

Yes, agree, that’s the umbrella language I was referring to. Highly likely the posting of video was not consensual and would be violation. But other than that, what else is anyone highly clear about?

They are a private institution for sure. However, what specific student code violation are you clear they violated? I’m not trying to be snarky in the least; I’m truly just curious. Do you know with certainty the details of what happened or was alleged to have happened and has been proven - that makes it clear? I don’t. I’ve read the complete SLU sexual harassment policy with definitions, prohibited behavior, etc. But since I don’t have certainty of the details of what was alleged and has been proven, for me it is impossible to determine. So far, about the only thing I think is a student code violation - if rumor/evidence is correct - is the posting of video by one (of the three) players, presumably without consent to do so. This is not expressly prohibited in SLU’s policy, but seems to reasonably fall under a higher umbrella of other/related prohibited behavior. What do you know??

Thanks for your excellent input. A question: while it would certainly be enlightening if the investigator’s report came to light, given need for confidentiality in Title IX investigations, no adjudication has happened, the likely lawsuits from both sides which would occur with release of preliminary report, and University’s complete news lockdown to date, don’t you think the chance of the report coming to light is highly improbable?

60 days is the guideline. As I've read the Title IX documents from the federal government, the clear intention is to adjudicate quickly. But some flexibility is given on complicated cases, as mentioned in Dr. Pestello's communication. It seems odd there would be long delay here given video evidence, but we don't know the facts. They want to get it right. But I agree with you, due to possible lawsuit/injunction, I would think they won't dawdle.

I'm sorry, meant to add that I share your concern of players being punished (not sure if officially suspended or what their official status is) without adjudication. Guilty until proven innocent. Then if no punishment rendered, still punished. Yikes is the nicest word for that. But we don't really know because of required confidentiality.

No, wasn't saying that - though that's possible. What I was saying was, due to the process, need for confidentiality throughout -- likely even after ultimate decision made due to possibility of lawsuits from either side -- makes it highly unlikely there will ever be a news dump, release of details. At best I suspect limited to status updates and ultimate decision. Heck, there are 3 players not playing... and no announcement of what is a fact. That they would now change their approach to confidentiality would be beyond shocking.

I doubt it. This week is only the preliminary investigative report. Then each side has X number of days to respond to it with possible missing information. Then more days till final report is created. Then more days till decision/adjudication from SLU. Then each side has 3 days to appeal. Then more time for 3-person board to make final decision. Other than possible status update announcements - and ultimate decision announcement - will be shocked if any details are released at any time.

Agree 100%. Jeff is always fair to SLU. I think he sometimes even writes about them when he wouldn't otherwise have to. For any journalist, that's great. For an ex-Antler, impressive. As to his articles not being great for super fans, again agree. In fairness, much of his writing responsibility is short form: tipsheet and quick hits, with medium length at best. Thus his job priority seemingly is to most often cover wide range of topics at high level. He's a good writer and would be great to see more in-depth from him.

It was indeed tight. I agree with most of your comments. We weren't on top floor and didn't have issues with rooftop noise, though street noise was tough. Bed was terrific and access didn't bother me. I was neutral on wall pegs vs closet or dresser. Took some getting used to, but eventually was OK. The food in the second floor restaurant Legasea was outstanding. Great to have so many of us together.

The tourney bracket in the official game day program handed out last night at MSG shows 7:30 ET game time.

Think Providence comes out in zone, makes us shoot?

Absolutely right. Other than the first two possessions/turnovers, Bills the better team. That TO was crucial.

Heard this afternoon that this number is capacity. It's a typical single storefront-type bar, so it'll be packed. Have no idea if you'll be successful, but I'd show up and see if you can get in.

Sorry about the duplicate posts. Didn't think the initial one was uploaded.

Wife and I arrive at Moxy Wednesday afternoon. If anyone is in early and wants to check the beer selection on the rooftop bar, say hey. Just checked out pics at hotel website. Take a look: Might have to start there Thursday, too!

Who’s confirmed this coming week for 2K Classic? - wife and I going to both games as well as pre-game alum/fan party Thurs at Foley’s

+1

And Roy, I'll join you and Bonwich. There is indeed bias in the P-D sports department. But the bottom line is, in today's decimated local news business, it's not the paper's job to be a cheerleader and sell tickets for the team. Their job is to deliver news and quasi-entertainment content to meet the marketplace demand. And unfortunately, the University hasn't been successful -- yet -- in building the Billiken basketball brand in a widespread way. Billiken stories at stltoday.com receive only a small fraction of the clicks Mi$$ou does. Thus difficult for the paper to rationalize putting lots of scarce resources behind it. If we can sustain success on the court year after year and market it properly, the brand will grow and the P-D will be forced to dedicate resources. But it kills me to say that. The yesteryear approach Bob Burnes at the Globe and Bob Broeg at the Post brought every day was very different. These two guys -- the best executive sports editors this metro has known -- delivered the news, fought each other to get the story first, and usually expressed opinions in their columns fairly... calling it both ways, not going for click-bait. But what we really miss is they were champions of St. Louis, born and raised here, tremendous fans of all St. Louis sports, and used their passion and power to influence the sports scene. The stories could go on and on about the quiet behind the scenes roles they played in countless areas. Recruiting franchises, for example. The Blues. The Hawks in the 50s. Spoke at more rubber chicken banquets in the community than you'd ever believe. Why? They felt it was their duty to make their city a better place to live, an even better sports town. To grow readership. They wore their hearts on their sleeves and were damn proud to do it. Some might argue they couldn't be objective if they were St. Louis boosters and/or had relationships with franchise owners and athletic departments. But by and large they somehow managed. They rarely were embroiled in controversy because as sports fans, they called it both ways. Ultimately both were huge successes in every which way you'd want to measure it. Personally. Professionally. Historically in the town they called home. They were leaders, not just reporters or columnists or radio guys. One is in Cooperstown, the other nominated and among final four twice. When The Sporting News named St. Louis the best sports city in the country about 15 years ago, after they'd retired or passed away, their names weren't part of the story. Nor should they have been. But the quiet roles they played - over the long term - were important. Obviously, Jack Buck and Bob Hyland at KMOX had an equal hand. The only guy who plays that role today to any extent is Bernie Miklasz. How nice it would be for the Post to have the budget flexibility -- and more importantly -- feel the same duty to help build St. Louis and the Billikens... and readership. But with the current neutral or even worse, adversarial approach in news reporting, a home office in Iowa, and bombed out newspaper economics, it'll be up to us fans and the University to go it alone.