cgeldmacher

If they're truly looking to play together and one is getting big offers and the other is not, SLU might be a decent compromise to keep them in one place.

I also think that we are overestimating some. However, given the depth we have, even if a few guys aren't what we thought, we still should have a solid 5-7 players.

I get the impression that Ford looks at his present situation as being one where he had a lot of guys who are ready to play from the get go. Pearson seems like his opportunity to take a kid that has a huge upside, but that might take a few years to develop.

Wow. You might be right. They have been putting pictures of the players on the tickets in recent years. They may send them all back and ask for something generic looking.

The recent shake up was only because the government got involved. Until the federal government creates a Sports Commission that oversees college and pro sports, the corruption will continue.

The media guys who have been critical of SLU closing practice better not show up, ask about the Situation II, and then leave when they aren't told anything about it. I will also be upset if they are told that they get no info about Situation II and only offer up some crappy token questions, because they feel compelled to. It will be a litmus test to see if they have just been trying to stir up a sensationalized story about the recent problem or are actually interested in the team this year.

My group is going to Indy this year. Waiting on a headcount before getting tickets.

I didn't have that much of a problem with the article. I think the main point was that it is unfortunate that this situation is holding SLU back from promoting the team. That is an accurate sentiment in my opinion.

You're absolutely right. I see it now. My mistake. I was looking at the wrong section.

Last one, I promise. Just wanted to get the pertinent sections out there. D. Determination of Responsibility and Sanctions The Hearing Officer is an administrator designated by the University to determine responsibility and impose, as appropriate, any sanctions. The Hearing Officer will provide both the Reporting Party and Accused Party an opportunity to review the final investigative report and meet with the Hearing Officer separately to discuss the recommended findings and underlying facts. Alternatively, the parties may submit written comments in lieu of an in-person meeting with the Hearing Officer. Any Party may submit written questions that they want to be asked by the Hearing Officer of another Party. The Hearing Officer will review the questions prior to them being asked of another Party to ensure they are appropriate and relevant. At the conclusion of the individual meetings, or upon receipt of additional written comment, the Hearing Officer will make a determination as to whether, based on the preponderance of the evidence standard, the Accused Party committed an act or acts of Prohibited Conduct in violation of this policy. If the Hearing Officer determines that the Accused Party is responsible for one or more forms of Prohibited Conduct, the Hearing Officer will determine the appropriate sanctions. A determination of sanctions will be based on the facts and circumstances of each case and will be designed to eliminate the Prohibited Conduct and prevent any reoccurrence of such Prohibited Conduct. Any determination for sanctions will be rooted in the University’s educational mission, institutional values, and Title IX obligations. Sanctions for Employees and University Contractors are found in the University’s Harassment Policy and Faculty Manual. Sanctions for Students for a violation of this policy may include: expulsion; suspension; disciplinary probation; mandated counseling assessment which may include anger management course(s), alcohol and/or drug education program(s), and other requirements based upon the counseling assessment; restrictions on campus privileges including restrictions on campus housing or participation in student activities; community service; and/or other education sanctions. In determining the appropriate sanction, the Hearing Officer may consider the following factors: • the nature and violence of the conduct at issue; • the impact of the conduct on the Reporting Party; • the impact of the conduct on the University community; • prior misconduct by the Accused Party, including the Accused Party’s relevant prior discipline history, both at the University or elsewhere, and any criminal convictions; • how the University has previously sanctioned similar conduct; • whether the Accused Party has accepted responsibility for the conduct; • maintenance of a safe and respectful learning, living and working environment; • protection of the University community; and • any other mitigating, aggravating, or compelling circumstances in order to reach a just and appropriate outcome in each case. Both the Reporting Party and Accused Party will simultaneously receive a written notice of the outcome of the Hearing Officer’s findings, any sanctions, the rationale for each and the right to appeal. If an Accused Party wishes to return to campus after completing their period of suspension, the University shall notify the Reporting Party if a.) the Accused Party’s request to return has been approved and b.) the Reporting Party is currently enrolled in the University.

Here is the section about the timeframe of an investigation B. Timeframe for Investigation, Determinations and Appeal Except for good cause, the University will conclude its investigation, hearing, and appeal process within sixty (60) calendar days following receipt of a report. Best efforts will be made to complete the process in a timely manner by balancing principles of thoroughness, fairness, and impartiality. The University may extend this time frame for good cause and will communicate any delay in the process in writing to the parties, including an updated timeframe for completion and the reason(s) for any delay. Good cause may exist for a variety of factors, including the complexity of the circumstances of each allegation, the integrity and completeness of the investigation, to comply with a request by external law enforcement, to accommodate the availability of witnesses, to account for University breaks or vacations, or to address other legitimate reasons.

Another potentially problematic section: “Aiding or Facilitating” is when any individual or group of individuals aids, facilitates, promotes, colludes or encourages another to commit a violation under this policy. Aiding or facilitating may also include failing to take action to prevent an imminent act when it is reasonably prudent and safe to do so. Aiding or facilitating includes gaining academic or personal advantage or privilege with negative impact on others or the community through violation of the policy or any other community standards.

Also, here is the applicable section. Just thought I'd post it so that others didn't have to search through the policy. “Sexual Exploitation” occurs when an individual takes non-consensual or abusive sexual advantage of another for their own advantage or benefit, or to benefit or advantage anyone other than the person being exploited, and that behavior does not otherwise constitute any other form of Prohibited Conduct. Examples of Sexual Exploitation include, but are not limited to: • invasion of sexual privacy, including observing or allowing another individual to observe another’s nudity or sexual activity without the Effective Consent of all individuals’ involved; • prostituting another person; • non-consensual video or audio-taping of sexual activity; • engaging in voyeurism; • knowingly exposing another individuals to a sexually transmitted infection or virus without that individuals’ knowledge of the exposure; • exposing or inducing another to expose their genitals without consent; or • inducing incapacitation for the purpose of making another person vulnerable to non-consensual sexual activity.

So, it prompted a funny discussion, but the word "things" does not appear at all in the policy. Unless I'm missing something. “Sexual Assault” refers to engaging or attempting to engage in any form of sexual contact or sexual intercourse with another without Effective Consent and/or by force. Sexual Contact is: • any intentional contact with the breasts, buttocks, groin, genitals, or mouth with any object or body part, whether it is over or under clothing; • making another touch you or themselves with or on any of these body parts; or • any other intentional bodily contact in a sexual manner, though not involving contact with/of/by breasts, buttocks, groin, genitals, mouth or other orifice. Sexual Intercourse is: • vaginal penetration, however slight, by a penis, object, tongue or finger; • anal penetration, however slight, by a penis, object, tongue, or finger; or • oral copulation (mouth to genital or anal contact or genital or anal to mouth contact).

Didn't realize until seeing those videos that we are just keeping up by making these renovations. Someone at SLU needs to make a video like this.

The rule used to read that students cannot "cohabitate." As is the case with most laws, it is written to be intentionally vague. Back in my day, the 90s, the enforcement was basically a don't ask don't tell situation. The university knew students had sex. They had a policy against it. However, they never enforced the policy unless pushed into doing so. If a roommate complained, they had to take action. If you were plowing the girl up against a window of Greis, they had to take action. If you were caught by someone stumbling out of a girl's room wearing only a comforter, they had to take action. Unfortunately, this is a situation where they will probably have to take action because of the press that this matter has gotten. As far as Slufanskip's comment above, this sort of thing puts a Catholic university in a tough spot. It is a private institution, and even the outstanding lawyers these kids have cannot prevent a Catholic university from enforcing its own private rules. If the speculation is correct, if heard the supposed scenario many times so I'm basing my comments on it, that the players were engaged in a group sex situation, that alone might trigger them to have to take action. Forget that it was recorded, that would make it worse. Forget that a recording my have been shown to others, that would make it even worse. Forget that the recording may have been sent through social media, that would be even worse. Think of it this way, if they don't punish the players that were involved, then how do they punish anyone going forward for anything that's done that's less than what these kids did. It's not the fact that it happened, it's the fact that it went public due to the girls making allegations to the police. Now the university cannot look the other way like it, arguably, correctly has countless times over the years.

I agree with what you are saying, but on games where they give out t-shirts the old folks in the expensive seats won't even put them on to get the crowd looking all the same color. I've given up yelling at them about it. When they schedule a blue-out or white-out game, only the ends and upper deck appear color coordinated because the old farts refuse to throw a t-shirt over their plaid button downs. If the bigger donors don't care about an intimidating color scheme on those games, I'm not sure the younger fans should have cool looking black jerseys kept from them in the name of uniformity.

I think that this is still at the very beginning stages. If it gets resolved quickly and within Title IX guidelines and the players involved are not charged and found to not be the subject of discipline, then there would never need to be a reason to divulge their names. I'm assuming that this is the reason that Ford, the Athletic Dept., and the University are acting the way they are. They want to, if possible, have a situation where the names don't have to come out.

If he agrees to answer questions, the first one he would get would be about the accusations. Ford would respond that he can't talk about it. He would then get three or four other token questions about the season. The only question that would get used on video and in print would be the one about the accusations showing that he refused to talk. That would become the story. Best just to avoid giving the press that sound bite. I think he did the right thing.

Absolute garbage. Can't believe he is upset that SLU won't let him figure out who the accused kids are so that he can publish their names in his paper and get a nice pile of clicks. That is completely what his article is about. He's whining that he can't write a story naming the players. A true journalist would write an article about the situation going on and include the fact that the practices are closed mostly likely due to the University's own policies, Title IX rules regarding investigations, and a general sense of decency toward young men who have only been accused of terrible acts. I canceled my Post subscription recently as the result of this kind of stuff and others. It is just not a credible source of news anymore. Not sure what is, but the Post certainly isn't.

High profile only in that it gets his name in the local news which is all he’s looking for. Just by the fact that he took their cases, this board has turned into an advertisement for him. How many guys on this site, many of whom have some money, are talking about him being the guy to use for an important criminal matter. He’s getting exactly what he wants and deserves for that matter out of helping out our players.

Attorneys like Rosenbloom often take high profile cases like this without charge. I don't like the term pro bono, because that implies the person cannot afford representation. In these situations, the attorney handles the case for free just for the exposure. By keeping his name out there as the go to guy for criminal matters, which he his, Rosenbloom more than makes up for it on other clients he gets during the year due to being known as the guy to call.

Oh, no. Just looked it up. Rosenblum is a Mi$$ou grad. Graduated in 1979. Looks like Cuonzo has the fix in to get all of our guys. I heard he's making calls to see how strong their commitment is to SLU now.

In an apartment and not knowing you're being taped is an expectation of privacy. That language is for when someone is doing something in public.

Then allow me to turn it right back around and fix your error. This was cited before, but comes right out of Missouri statutes (RSMo. 565.252): A person commits the offense of invasion of privacy if he or she knowingly: (1) Photographs, films, videotapes, produces, or otherwise creates an image of another person, without the person’s consent, while the person is in a state of full or partial nudity and is in a place where one would have a reasonable expectation of privacy Just making the tape is a Class A misdemeanor. Once you start showing it to other people, it goes to a felony Invasion of privacy is a class A misdemeanor unless: (1) A person who creates an image in violation of this section distributes the image to another or transmits the image in a manner that allows access to that image via computer; (2) A person disseminates or permits the dissemination by any means, to another person, of a videotape, photograph, or film obtained in violation of this section; (3) More than one person is viewed, photographed, filmed or videotaped during the same course of conduct; or (4) The offense was committed by a person who has previously been found guilty of invasion of privacy in which case invasion of privacy is a class E felony.