What happened

[bsheldon]

If the decision is not to suspend them, I doubt there will be any announcement. It will just fade away, to be resurrected by the Cameron Crazies and other opposing home crowds.

I sure hope you are correct. I agree that they shouldn't/wouldn't make a public announcement out of it. Anything to avoid bringing the spotlight on this situation. Time heals most ills and this too will fade away--especially if they are allowed to play and we have the season everyone is expecting.

[eastsidejoe]

Thats kind of a tough situation.

I wish it was as simple as handling an athletes situation likes everyone else but its not.

The main difference is that the athlete is in the public eye. If this was any other student we would not even know its going on but because these two are athletes it has been all over the news and this board. So in that regard it has already been handled differently. Non-athletes would not be having the skeltons in their closets broadcast on the news and in the paper.

If this type of thing happens to a non-athlete they get their punishment and move on with their lives by either going to another school or staying at SLU and handling whatever punishment was given to them.

With these two their names have been associated with sexual assault and almost everyone has heard something about the situation.

If these two are allowed to play this year they will here taunts and insults at every away game they go too about the situation.

If they end up transferring to another shcool a lot of people will know that they were involved in a sexual assault.

Things like this will follow athletes around for a lot longer than a "noraml" student.

Even if the same punishment is given to an athlete and a non-athlete IMO its harder for the athlete because everyone who follows basketball is going to know that they did something wrong.

Im not sure what the answer. I dont want athlets getting lesser punishments than normal studnets but im also not sure its fair that the athlets is forced to go through this publicly while non-athletes get to keep it within the administration.

It doesn't matter if they are athletes. Yes, the media and fans treat them differently and whatever they do exposes them to everyone. No one ever told the athletes that they had to be athletes. It's their choice. In my opinion, they are at SLU to get a great Jesuit education, just like everyone elso. That is not true of the individuals who think they will play at a higher level. Regardless of the "noise" and i agree there is a lot out there, a real circus, it should be an even playing field for punishment, no special treatment, no harsher penalty than the student with a C+ average making the same mistakes. That would be the most unfair thing they could do.

[Clock_Tower]

I totally disagree with you when it comes to how punishment or penalties should be handed out. They are Students at SLU just like everyone else. Why should their punishment be harsher or more lenient because they happen to be athletes. Based on your scenario, why do the athletes even go to school, they should just play bb. Everyone should be treated the same based on the degree of wrongdoing. I do agree that this whole procedure has been a total disgrace and the procedure itself is questioned as it should be.

East Side.

Go back and read my post. First, I did not say the punishment should be more or less. I said the process is the big issue. To me, if the school is going to expel or suspend the players for the year, then why wait? Make the decision and give RM time to add other players for the benefit of the team/other players who were not involved, the good of the school, its students and its fans. Second, if sexual predators and rapists are on campus (whether athletes or not), then that's a problem. Again, who wants their son or daughter playing Judge/Jury for high profile sexual preditors. Most probably thought of this as a "duty" to ensure students are present so that RA's and SLU Housing doesn't screw over fellow students who get caught with a case a beer. Handling the work that Dee Joyce Hayes punted on by using a lower standard of review is not fair to student/faculty volunteers. Fr. Biondi should stand up, take charge and make a decision. To me, changes to the procedure should be made to allow such situations to be handled more quickly. Loud music, parties, keg of beer violations can wait 4 months. Other violations cannot. Third, high profile people and situations need to be handled differently b/c of they are high profile. Alot is at stake - good and bad -- fot the school and not just the players and coach. It's easy to say they should be treated the same but I'd suggest that it also is extremely naive to say they should be treated the same. No one is suggesting that basketball players get a free pass b/c they are high profile/basketball players. Sorry, I didn't make the rules that society lives by. Fourth, the NCAA is another factor which is probably part of the saga. Limitations on scholarships, rules as to the payments/reimbursement for their meals/housing all complicate the situation. The average student can get a student loan, live off-campus instead of on-campus and keep their studies going. NCAA student athletes cannot. Last year's saga on CE was all about the NCAA. If CE were just some average student, he could have started school while his grades/transcripts were being worked out. If things didn't work out, SLU could have just forgiven the debt/tuition. Not so with an NCAA student athlete. Instead, the NCAA complicated things with their rules which would have made CE personally liable (with follow up scrutiny by the NCAA) that CE repay every dime spent on his behalf if he did not qualify, CE's eligibility to play only 4 years w/in 5 year window, etc. All of this does not apply to the average student.

[For-DaLove]

Lol. If something is wrong with a trasncript they won't let any student start school, athlete or not. This isn't a community college.

[Cowboy]

When does the first day of practice start?

-midnight an attempt at humor

[Cowboy]

-i guess with every passing day we are closer to finding out what the situation is or will be

-part of me wants a decision now to know what the hell our team will be, part of me thinks the longer this goes with nothing OFFICIAL being said the more chance there is that the conclusion is reached that nothing happened against the code and our team is as we thought it would be and part of me goes back to who "broke" this story last month and his reputation with accuaracy regarding SLU and yet another part of me says even a broken clock is correct twice a day so one time he may actually get it right, i hope it is not this time for andy to be correct and by this i mean i hope it is found nothing against the code or injurous (?sp) to another student took place and we can move on with bball and regain the enthusiasm we had

-OFFICIAL is with emphasis to all of the "sources" being submitted to this point and i hope we don't get anything official as i would think if it is found nothing against the code or otherwise took place it would not be announced

[cheeseman]

Lets see if we can add some perspective to this entire situation. 1. SLU can not accuse or convict them in any type of court or hearing regarding sexual assault because according to the police it did not happen based on the evidence that they have. If new evidence has come up then the school or the hearing board will be responsible to make it available to the police and apparently this has not happened. 2. If SLU or this court wants to go after them on principle then that is the school's choice. Why they would do so is beyond me because all it would take is one of the players claiming that they were falsely accused and their NBA or pro career was harmed and sue the school. Had the DA charged them then SLU would have grounds to do this but without charges being filed then they are on very thin ice. 3. If SLU wants to go after them for underage drinking - apparently this is the only thing that has been proven or at least seems to have actually happened then the school can do this but I doubt that this would result in a year suspension from the bb program. It could result in them having to live off campus but that is not a suspension. If SLU was going to suspend kids for underage drinking then they would have a big drop in enrollment since most would have to be sent away. By the way, all the two players would have to prove is that SLU personnel had let some kids off with warnings and not reporting them to the school and this makes the whole thing rather messy for the school - we all know that this happened many times. 4. Since the alleged girl has left school then big donor father or not, she has removed herself from the situation which adds to the speculation about what may or may not have happened - did she leave because she was going to be brought up for underage drinking or what? She can not be allowed to have an unblemished record at SLU while the other two are stuck here because they can not transfer without sitting out a year. 5. All this being said, SLU can still do something dumb which I can attest to personally regarding some high and mighty principal when I went there. I never pushed it because it was 2 years after the fact and all I wanted to do was graduate and move on. By the way, they had no proof what so ever that I or anybody else did anything wrong other than the person admitted their wrong doing and claimed all who were there were guilty even though it was not true regarding everyone. My point simply is, regardless of what makes sense the school can still do something that makes no sense. I along with everyone else will wait patiently to see how it plays out - all we can do.

Let me also say that I want students to be held accountable but in a reasonable manner and yes I am a father of a daughter as well as of a son and I don't want anyone being accused of something unless there is proof.

[slu72]

Let me also say that I want students to be held accountable but in a reasonable manner and yes I am a father of a daughter as well as of a son and I don't want anyone being accused of something unless there is proof.

Again, SLU admin is in between a rock and a hard place. This has nothing to do with justice at this point. The media has insinuated there was a degree of sexual assault or sexual wrongdoing, so SLU is caught in an image problem. Do we tolerate this from high profile BB players and let them play even though it may be nothing more than innuendo? Do we wreck a promising year because of a he said she said case and tick off loyal fans? Do we tear down the lives of two young men? This whole deal has the smell of Duke Lacrosee all over it, without the power of a crazed politically ambitious prosecuting attorney or Al Sharpton being involved. At this point I think we're all just saying do it or dont do it , put the whole sordid mess behind us and move the f*** on. By the way practice starts in 10 days. .

[MB73]

Again, SLU admin is in between a rock and a hard place. This has nothing to do with justice at this point. The media has insinuated there was a degree of sexual assault or sexual wrongdoing, so SLU is caught in an image problem. Do we tolerate this from high profile BB players and let them play even though it may be nothing more than innuendo? Do we wreck a promising year because of a he said she said case and tick off loyal fans? Do we tear down the lives of two young men? This whole deal has the smell of Duke Lacrosee all over it, without the power of a crazed politically ambitious prosecuting attorney or Al Sharpton being involved. At this point I think we're all just saying do it or dont do it , put the whole sordid mess behind us and move the f*** on. By the way practice starts in 10 days. .

Agree 100%. No matter what, SLU loses.

At this point, whatever the decision, it is very possible a protected class will be offended and then who knows how far it will go? Lawsuits? Protests? Could be a national story, makes me sick thinking of all the negative pub that possibly could come down.

In the spring KSDK showed footage of an attorney that I believe the female's father had hired. Does anyone know, is he taking action in any way?

[kmbilliken]

Agree 100%. No matter what, SLU loses.

At this point, whatever the decision, it is very possible a protected class will be offended and then who knows how far it will go? Lawsuits? Protests? Could be a national story, makes me sick thinking of all the negative pub that possibly could come down.

In the spring KSDK showed footage of an attorney that I believe the female's father had hired. Does anyone know, is he taking action in any way?

They can do nothing and the whole thing goes away. The DA has already covered their back by declining to prosecute based on insufficient evidence. They do nothing and the story dies. They discipline the players and they resurrect it.

[davidnark]

They can do nothing and the whole thing goes away. The DA has already covered their back by declining to prosecute based on insufficient evidence. They do nothing and the story dies. They discipline the players and they resurrect it.

Exactly. I think that is why so many of us were surprised to hear this become a story again when it left the news cycle over 5 months ago.

[slu72]

Exactly. I think that is why so many of us were surprised to hear this become a story again when it left the news cycle over 5 months ago.

Agreed, and since we've heard nada from the school to the media reports maybe that's what they're doing. Also of note is the fact that the media hasn't touched it since they started this firestorm on here. The PD's never picked up on it. River Times has said nothing about it. Could it be SLU PR or AD went to the media and said there's nothing here, so we'd appreciate you dropping the whole thing? Am sure those in the know on here will say this is not the case.

[bsheldon]

Here's hoping that there is something to the last several posts.

I, too, hope that the silence means that there is nothing to the stories and that come next thursday at midnight we have a full team.

[slu72 fan]

Story that I've been told is that the 2 players were told to show up at the hearing, but it was no big deal, merely a formality. They attended without legal support. The girl's parents and lawyer attended and the guys were hammered. The extended appeal time was designed to hopefully have a cooling off period and allow the players to have their own lawyers advocate for their positions.

Don't kill the messenger, don't know if it is true, but it comes from someone who could know. If true, it makes some sense to what so far is a fairly senseless time delay. Heck, practice is only 8 days away and the boys (all 13 of them) deserve to know what is going on with their futures.

[slufan13]

Story that I've been told is that the 2 players were told to show up at the hearing, but it was no big deal, merely a formality. They attended without legal support. The girl's parents and lawyer attended and the guys were hammered. The extended appeal time was designed to hopefully have a cooling off period and allow the players to have their own lawyers advocate for their positions.

Don't kill the messenger, don't know if it is true, but it comes from someone who could know. If true, it makes some sense to what so far is a fairly senseless time delay. Heck, practice is only 8 days away and the boys (all 13 of them) deserve to know what is going on with their futures.

If true, that's just terrible.

[NashvilleBilliken]

Story that I've been told is that the 2 players were told to show up at the hearing, but it was no big deal, merely a formality. They attended without legal support. The girl's parents and lawyer attended and the guys were hammered. The extended appeal time was designed to hopefully have a cooling off period and allow the players to have their own lawyers advocate for their positions.

Don't kill the messenger, don't know if it is true, but it comes from someone who could know. If true, it makes some sense to what so far is a fairly senseless time delay. Heck, practice is only 8 days away and the boys (all 13 of them) deserve to know what is going on with their futures.

If true, that is absurd and I hope the school takes action on behalf of the players. That was not a legal proceeding and it's unacceptable for a lawyer to show up and blind side our guys. What right does a lawyer have in a student court? The fact that the "court" even let that happen shows just how effed up this whole process is.

[davidnark]

Story that I've been told is that the 2 players were told to show up at the hearing, but it was no big deal, merely a formality. They attended without legal support. The girl's parents and lawyer attended and the guys were hammered. The extended appeal time was designed to hopefully have a cooling off period and allow the players to have their own lawyers advocate for their positions.

If this is true (and I had not heard this before), it will lend support to the potential rich-white-girl versus poor-black-kids angle. Is it even appropriate to allow a private lawyer to attend an internal disciplinary hearing, particularly one who is not representing the accused? It potentially calls into question the integrity of the process.

[SLU_Nick]

If this is true (and I had not heard this before), it will lend support to the potential rich-white-girl versus poor-black-kids angle. Is it even appropriate to allow a private lawyer to attend an internal disciplinary hearing, particularly one who is not representing the accused? It potentially calls into question the integrity of the process.

Just a clarification...when you say the guys were hammered...you mean that the lawyer gave them a tongue lashing right? Not that they had some Jack Daniels before they showed up...

Just want a clarification before someone else reads it like I read it and runs wild.

[jjray]

If the players were told to show up without lawyers by the university (or even not informed that the girl's lawyers would be there) and the girl's lawyers were allowed to cross-examine them, then I'm appalled. It turns the whole process into a true kangaroo court ... if it went down this way. This could have implications for any future civil case (negatively for the players). I have a hard time believing a SLU administrator was this stupid. Again, it's only a rumor but I'm really pissed if this happened.

[MB73]

Story that I've been told is that the 2 players were told to show up at the hearing, but it was no big deal, merely a formality. They attended without legal support. The girl's parents and lawyer attended and the guys were hammered. The extended appeal time was designed to hopefully have a cooling off period and allow the players to have their own lawyers advocate for their positions.

Don't kill the messenger, don't know if it is true, but it comes from someone who could know. If true, it makes some sense to what so far is a fairly senseless time delay. Heck, practice is only 8 days away and the boys (all 13 of them) deserve to know what is going on with their futures.

Thats why I have mentioned her lawyer several times in these threads... no one picked up on that. He was on KSDK in the spring, why doesn't anyone remember that, it was VERY significant? He was hired by the females father... apparently, NOT to seek a civil suit, again, apparently, to ensure that justice was served, thru the student court process after the SLPD found no evidence, no reason to press charges.

I had heard he was still involved, but had not heard if he was at he student court.

So if the lawyer was allowed to attend the student court and the players were NOT informed of his participation, that is completely inappropriate. One is always required to be told if the other party is bringing a lawyer, so that you may elect to do the same. AND I cannot understand why SLU would let him attend the proceedings. AND hiring a lawyer for this purpose stinks IMO.

[Box and Won]

This is her attorney: http://www.stkclaw.com/korum.html

The players' families had hired one of Scott Rosenblum's associates.

[davidnark]

This is her attorney: http://www.stkclaw.com/korum.html

MU grad.

[slu72]

Story that I've been told is that the 2 players were told to show up at the hearing, but it was no big deal, merely a formality. They attended without legal support. The girl's parents and lawyer attended and the guys were hammered. The extended appeal time was designed to hopefully have a cooling off period and allow the players to have their own lawyers advocate for their positions.

Don't kill the messenger, don't know if it is true, but it comes from someone who could know. If true, it makes some sense to what so far is a fairly senseless time delay. Heck, practice is only 8 days away and the boys (all 13 of them) deserve to know what is going on with their futures.

slu72fan's always been a sensible poster, so there's no reason to doubt he heard this from someone and didn't just whip it off the top of his head. I can see the parents doing this. They're upset because no punishment has been meted out for what they perceive as the grievous wrong done to their daughter. They go in her place and bring an attorney who hammers the players. However, it doesn't seem fair at a student hearing/court that a lawyer would be allowed to grill students. Also, if the players got blindsided by not having the opportunity to bring in their own counsel then the process is truly unfair. Now if no punishment is forthcoming, it's likely the parents' attorney will make a big stink about it publicly. On the other hand if the severe punishment that's been mentioned is handed down the player(s) may line up an attorney and say they were treated unfairly and put under extreme duress. What a freaking mess. If true, whoever is responsible for administering the student court should be relieved.

[bonwich]

MU grad.

And Louisville for law school.

More interesting are his areas of practice: "Litigation; Business Litigation; Commercial Litigation; Contracts; Real Estate; Residential Real Estate; Commercial Real Estate."

Also, student code 2.10.6 (bold added):

The Accused Student and the Complaining Party may be accompanied by a personal advisor. Each party is responsible for presenting his/her own information and therefore, advisors are not permitted to speak or to directly participate in the hearing. Legal counsel (including without limitation, law students, law school graduates not licensed to practice law and licensed attorneys) is not permitted at a hearing, even as a personal advisor, except when criminal charges are concurrently pending against the Accused Student, arising out of the same conduct that is the subject of the hearing. In such cases, the Accused Student and the Complaining Party are permitted, but not required, to have legal counsel present as an advisor. In such instances, legal counsel may only personally advise the client and may not participate in any manner in the hearing. All advisors are subject to final approval of the Director of Student Conduct, or designee. The Director of Student Conduct, or designee may, in his/her sole discretion, prohibit an advisor at any time prior to or during the hearing process and in such instance, the Accused Student will be given a reasonable amount of time to identify a replacement advisor if desired.

In my mind, this makes for a very low likelihood that the lawyer actually questioned the accused student(s). SLU may be clunky, but I can't imagine it violated its own code, which is basically the only procedural manual the administration has to hang its hat on.

[billiken_roy]

And Louisville for law school.

More interesting are his areas of practice: "Litigation; Business Litigation; Commercial Litigation; Contracts; Real Estate; Residential Real Estate; Commercial Real Estate."

Also, student code 2.10.6 (bold added):

In my mind, this makes for a very low likelihood that the lawyer actually questioned the accused student(s). SLU may be clunky, but I can't imagine it violated its own code, which is basically the only procedural manual the administration has to hang its hat on.

and why didnt the players have a "personal advisor" attend with them? shame on the athletic dept/basketball coaches for not being there or at least making sure a mentor/parental type wasnt there. the alegations are of a serious nature enough that the players side should have been more prepared. to assume nothing was going to happen or could happen was naive. not saying our players should have had that foresight they are barely legal age. but i would hope the coaches and athletic dept could see at least the faintest chance of where this could lead. to leave that open to the players own defenses and means was not smart.