Adman

Thomas Crone, I echo everyone else's compliments. An outstanding read. And must also say, you spent a lot of time researching. Thanks for the time and effort you devoted. It truly shows.

Not sure if willing, but some of the names you mention in your first sentence can write checks of the size needed.

Leadership.

10 of them on the offensive glass.

Pistol, interesting journey you've pieced together! I know you mentioned you didn't know the Creighton Prep story, but any sense of the overall story here? Usually a guy in his 5th high school/prep school would set off alarms.

Thanks a lot for the summary. He clearly didn't do his homework. He's usually better than this. But since he doesn't like basketball or pay attention to us...

roy, i'll go one further. the title ix people hide behind title ix itself, saying, in effect, we have to play by the Fed Gvmt's rules, we're limited in what we can do, if it's unfair to the accused, can't be helped, our policy must be consistent with guidance, etc. this is utter nonsense. there are a couple reasons why. no one is forcing the university to make an unfair decision, a decision weighted against the men. let's not be silly. trump and devos aren't going to march into grand & lindell and pull their funding. if anything, the trump administration - like them or not - leans the other direction and is beginning reform. even more amazing, in the 2017 title ix guidance from the fed gvmt, universities were offered the option of making rulings based on the "clear and convincing evidence standard" -- a medium-level burden of proof of requiring 70-75% confidence -- rather than the existing "preponderance of the evidence standard" -- a low-level 50.1% likely burden of proof. i don't have to tell you which option slu chose to implement in its Policy. given that title ix already eliminates some basic rights of the accused which are hallmarks of our legal system, and this would have, you know, added a modicum of fairness, it is particularly troublesome. they chose to keep it unbalanced. 50.1% likely? GUILTY. but it gets worse. for a moment, forget title ix. let's focus only on the other parts of the SLU Student Handbook/Code of Conduct; the non-sexual assault parts, the parts actually NOT under the fed gvmt's thumb. to slu's great credit, there is a huge "Community Standards" section which prohibits all kinds of behavior unbecoming in a Catholic, Jesuit university. things like bias, hate crimes, theft, filing false or misleading complaints, cheating, alcohol, drugs, assaults and lots more. these are slu's rules, underscoring their mission and values. slu has wide latitude to throw the book at students in these areas. (apparently it is in this area that mr goodwin received his two months for something.) with a caveat that few know the complete story of this situation -- yet much has been reported via various and multiple credible sources -- there are at least 4 areas of the Community Standards likely or highly likely violated by one or more of the women complainants. These areas include Indecent Conduct, Inappropriate Conduct, Abusive Behavior, Filing a false or misleading complaint, and if a false police report was filed, Violation of Law and the University Community Standards. These charges can be brought in the form of a student complaint, or as I read it, the University can initiate this on its own when they become aware of bad behavior and believe it risk to community. Planning and executing an orgy in a dorm room? "2.7.21 Indecent Conduct... Engaging in sexual acts in a residence hall while others are present will be a violation under this community standard." A good attorney would argue that organizing an orgy in the dorm room of a Catholic university is at least as unbecoming as posting and quickly deleting a non-consensual video. This or less got three students expelled or suspended for 1.5 to 2 years. Would we say they're 50.1% likely to have violated the code? GUILTY. So I ask: will the University actually punish the women for planning, organizing and executing an orgy? Office of Diversity: it's section 2.7.21 in case you didn't see above. Did they make misleading statements, later recanted? This is your chance to actually lay down the law about this kind of behavior on campus -- like you did against the men. Your chance to authentically and fairly underscore slu's jesuit, catholic mission. Higher Purpose. Greater Good. Highly doubtful. Because of student confidentiality - a good thing - we won't know officially. But we will. Next game, let's see who if cheer team has full squad. One last thing. This is NOT a defense of the men. Only a diatribe on how disappointed I am about my University's BIAS. Sadly, bias they are largely in control of.

Dlarry, By any chance, have you seen either a written transcription or the actual audio of Bernie's take? I checked website and didn't see. Would like to see/hear what he said. Like him or not, he usually does his homework and I'm surprised he apparently didn't here.

He has become laser-focused on his core audience, like a politician playing to his base. He must have data that shows his audience is avid NFL and college football fans, a sprinkling of Blues fans -- and then talks a bit of BB when he feels guilty about avoiding it. That's too bad - for a couple reasons. First, under Rickma who was his friend, he covered the Billikens well as columnist at the P-D. Coverage sometimes late, but better than not at all. He should be open to it. It seems like a focused effort from Travis with him could pay dividends long term. No idea whether this has already been done. Second reason: Bernie is a guy with strong opinions, takes on stories when injustice is potentially involved. The best writer in town, period. This is a Bernie-type of story. Third: sad because despite the building of Chaifetz and hiring top flight coach, SLU has still not yet become a perennial sports success - a story that must be covered. This could of course change if we'd get out of our own way.

Brian, where has Bernie Milkasz been on this topic? Have you heard anything on his morning show?

Bobby, it's the second oldest in the US period, regardless of river.

Outstanding points. I am not sure whether the HO is biased. But there is no doubt in my mind that any attorney half as good as Rosenblum will show there's plenty of evidence to support reasonably perceived conflicts of interest and biases. Should never have been assigned to this job. Can you imagine the PR nightmare of a motion being filed in Federal Court for the social media accounts? And press conference announcing? Holy moly.

I went back to the most recent Title IX guidance from the Federal Government this evening and found this most relevant Q & A topic (bold mine): Q. What constitutes an “equitable” investigation? A. In every investigation conducted under the school’s grievance procedures, the burden is on the school—not on the parties—to gather sufficient evidence to reach a fair, impartial determination as to whether sexual misconduct has occurred and, if so, whether a hostile environment has been created that must be redressed. A person free of actual or reasonably perceived conflicts of interest and biases for or against any party must lead the investigation on behalf of the school. Schools should ensure that institutional interests do not interfere with the impartiality of the investigation. This doesn't require actual biases. It says "...or reasonably perceived conflicts of interest and biases." This doesn't say someone free of bias "should lead" or "best efforts to find someone to lead." It says "must lead." To be clear, this was answering a question about investigation. By limited definition of investigation, it could be argued that the investigation was done by outside investigator(s) who by nature of their arm's length relationship with the school, should be free of bias. But the investigation is much bigger than that. Once report is given to school, all kinds of additional investigation occurs. The HO meets with the parties, investigates more, learns more via the cross-examination questions from each party, learns of new evidence presented during these hearings. They investigate all the way to the end. And I seriously doubt the spirit of the Fed. Govt's intention was to exclude the HO who, after all, oversees the investigation.

Much worse. The announced “official” attendance was 5,227. The building was about 20% full. Perhaps 2,000. It’s bad when you lose casual fans. But how sad and embarrassing that likely 50% of your season ticket holders stayed home. I’ll say this: those there got pretty loud in spots and the student section was outstanding, particularly celebrating Roby’s 1000 career points.

I have no intel on what’s happening. Purely speculating. But parties are given 3 business days to file appeal. So it is possible that if decision was really handed down Thursday, they must wait until Tue/Wed (depending on whether Mon is holiday) to see if appeal filed. Or maybe one was filed. Just speculating.

That's right. And if I remember correctly, he made them either back-to-back or two out of three. Unbelievable, regardless.

I'm another half-full guy, trying to remain optimistic. But hate to say it, I don't think there will be final decision until February, earliest. First, there is no official clock in SLU's policy for this stage of the process. They take as long as they think warranted. HO meets with both parties, explains what the investigator found and possible punishments. Then allows each party to submit written questions they'd like the other party to answer. HO then reviews those questions, submits to the other parties, then gets answers back from them. This is a quasi-cross examination. Again, no time clock. Then the HO renders a decision. But even if rumors you mention are correct -- the above steps are complete, and HO decides to make decision this week -- it is not the final decision. Nor will it be announced to the public. Only to the parties. If we hear anything, it will be more rumors, leaks. Then the appeals phase begins. We don't know if one or more parties will appeal the HO decision. If no one does, it's over. But can't imagine no one will. A clock DOES then start, a 10-day clock. Long story short, the University has 10 "business days" (no weekends, holidays, etc) to render a final/final decision on appeal. But that's only if they maintain the 10-day clock in their policy. The SLU policy for every facet of the process, start to end, to be accomplished -- investigation, reports, HO meetings, decision and appeal -- is 60 days unless extraordinary circumstances. And Dr. Pestello has already announced they'll take the time necessary to do a good job. So I wouldn't hold my breath that they'll keep to the 10-day appeals clock any more than they have the overall 60-day clock. By my count, even in the most optimistic scenario with a decision tomorrow, SLU keeping its 10-day appeals clock and counting "business" days only, the earliest final appeals decision date would be Jan 25. But realistically, it's February, or worse.

Yeah, I've been thinking about counter Title IX charges for weeks. But for this to hold water, the players would have to have a believable story about how they did not consent to the activities or were too drunk to consent which, with video available, would be relatively unbelievable. That's why I was leaning towards threat of post-adjudication charges - criminal and with SLU - if falsely accused.

You're preaching to the choir, Clock. My original post on this subject shares this sentiment. Title IX is so slanted towards the accuser. Very, very frustrating. I was wondering about cross-Title IX complaints as a solution. Perhaps a separate criminal complaint? I don't know. But definitely a problem. And the time it has taken just as big a problem. BTW, from everything I've read from the dept of education and SLU's own policy, my understanding is that Title IX does NOT apply to non-students. Agree that other schools have allowed players to play during investigation. But I'm not sure if in those specific instances, it is has been 100% confirmed that the accusers were part of athletic dept operations. My point was that IF our accusers were among this group, I could see not being able to play as a reasonable precaution. Then my strong feeling was that if players couldn't play, in the interest of fairness to both parties, the accusers should have to sit out or have equal interim measure, too. But then I reconsidered after I was reminded by a good atty friend the chilling effect this would cause. And I think those of us with sisters, daughters, moms would understand. On its face, the punishment of an accuser simply for bringing forward a sexual assault would be wrong. So perhaps the solution - if the accused are eventually absolved - is the filing of false accusation lawsuits. I don't know.

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?