What happened

[davidnark]

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.

Criminal charges are not pending against the students, so based upon what you copied and pasted (i.e. "Legal counsel is not permitted at a hearing, even as a personal advisor") his attendance at the hearing would be a violation of the code. If this is true, it really calls into question the credibility of the process.

[davidnark]

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.

No criminal charges are pending. In fact, the prosecutor made a public announcement to this effect, so everyone should have been clear on the matter. This means neither side should have had a personal legal advisor present.

[bonwich]

No criminal charges are pending. In fact, the prosecutor made a public announcement to this effect, so everyone should have been clear on the matter. This means neither side should have had a personal legal advisor present.

Which is why I doubt the latest nth-hand story of "what happened." If SLU would have violated its own explicit rules for the hearing, its endowment would eventually drop almost as much as it did due to the stock market crash. (I'm being hyperbolic, but I think you get my gist.)

[NashvilleBilliken]

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.

....unless nothing really happened. The more this drags on, the more i'm convinced that nothing "bad" happened. The police didn't find anything and obviously whatever was done was insignificant enough that it could wait half a year to play out. At this point, i'd bet the farm that it's a regretted sexual encounter that daddy is appalled by. If what we hear is accurate...that daddy has a lot of money...and Biondi's known agenda as a business man...then this is all starting to fit together. I agree that it was probably bad judgement not to send an advocate for the players, but perhaps it was such a stupid incident that the coaches didn't feel it was necessary at the time. Poor decisions by two consenting adults should not result in what we are seeing right now. I have a record on here as being quick to criticize those who play the "race card", but I'm starting to think that is becoming the case here.

[billiken_roy]

per the student code that joe provided:

"The Accused Student and the Complaining Party may be accompanied by a personal advisor."

as i said, considering the seriousness of the accusation, to not bring an advisor was foolish. i wouldnt necessarily expect the players to understand that, but i darn would expect the coaching staff and athletic dept to be more in tune to the worst case scenario and be there to whisper in their ear, lend support and steady the nerves of the young student athletes who have likely never been in that kind of a pressured situation in their lives.

dont be mad at me. be mad at the men and women who's jobs are to guide these young men through saint louis university both on and off the court. my gosh. why would they be allowed to flounder for themselves?

i also would not be upset at the young girl and whomever made sure she was indeed accompanied to the hearing.

now if the atty indeed presented cross examination, that appears to have been wrong. if the atty who may have been a personal friend and acting as the advisor (which to me would be a simple deduction by a question from the counsel "how are you related to the young woman?" ) only served to keep her wits about herself and whispered in her ear and was there for support, sorry i have no problem with that. we dont know the exactness and this is just another rumor we have to speculate about.

[billikenbilly]

here we go again. majerus's fault.

per the student code that joe provided:

"The Accused Student and the Complaining Party may be accompanied by a personal advisor."

as i said, considering the seriousness of the accusation, to not bring an advisor was foolish. i wouldnt necessarily expect the players to understand that, but i darn would expect the coaching staff and athletic dept to be more in tune to the worst case scenario and be there to whisper in their ear, lend support and steady the nerves of the young student athletes who have likely never been in that kind of a pressured situation in their lives.

dont be mad at me. be mad at the men and women who's jobs are to guide these young men through saint louis university both on and off the court. my gosh. why would they be allowed to flounder for themselves?

i also would not be upset at the young girl and whomever made sure she was indeed accompanied to the hearing.

now if the atty indeed presented cross examination, that appears to have been wrong. if the atty who may have been a personal friend and acting as the advisor (which to me would be a simple deduction by a question from the counsel "how are you related to the young woman?" ) only served to keep her wits about herself and whispered in her ear and was there for support, sorry i have no problem with that. we dont know the exactness and this is just another rumor we have to speculate about.

[slu72]

....unless nothing really happened. The more this drags on, the more i'm convinced that nothing "bad" happened. The police didn't find anything and obviously whatever was done was insignificant enough that it could wait half a year to play out. At this point, i'd bet the farm that it's a regretted sexual encounter that daddy is appalled by. If what we hear is accurate...that daddy has a lot of money...and Biondi's known agenda as a business man...then this is all starting to fit together. I agree that it was probably bad judgement not to send an advocate for the players, but perhaps it was such a stupid incident that the coaches didn't feel it was necessary at the time. Poor decisions by two consenting adults should not result in what we are seeing right now. I have a record on here as being quick to criticize those who play the "race card", but I'm starting to think that is becoming the case here.

What is probably the only known fact about the actual incident is that it came down to a he said she said case. The STLPD and DA couldn't find enough evidence beyond this and felt it was not worth prosecuting. So, w/o a smoking gun, not that there is one, the student court's left with the same dilemma, ie who's more credible. How can they call the parents credible when they weren't there?

[davidnark]

now if the atty indeed presented cross examination, that appears to have been wrong. if the atty who may have been a personal friend and acting as the advisor (which to me would be a simple deduction by a question from the counsel "how are you related to the young woman?" ) only served to keep her wits about herself and whispered in her ear and was there for support, sorry i have no problem with that. we dont know the exactness and this is just another rumor we have to speculate about.

So Roy, you are ready to kick these kids out of the school because they may have been in technical violation of a section of the student code that the majority of the students on campus routinely violate, but you are completely OK with this girl bringing an attorney as an advisor in direct violation of the rules? Whatever suits your agenda I guess.

[billiken_roy]

here we go again. majerus's fault.

ok, based on the seriousness of the accusations, what would you have done?

obviously if the recent account is true, letting the players go on their own was not a good move.

you cant say "just dont even have the hearing" slu code documents it can happen.

so please, let us all know what would have been best to protect the interests of these two players?

[billiken_roy]

So Roy, you are ready to kick these kids out of the school because they may have been in technical violation of a section of the student code that the majority of the students on campus routinely violate, but you are completely OK with this girl bringing an attorney as an advisor in direct violation of the rules? Whatever suits your agenda I guess.

so now you cant read either? i said it would have been wrong for the council/board to have allowed the attorney to speak/cross examine.

i agree with joe i dont think the board would have allowed the atty to speak or present.

i do think if a personal connection could be made i.e. relative, godfather, that person should be allowed to be there for moral support and whisper in her ear etc. if the only connection was that he was a hired gun, he shouldnt have been allowed to be in the room.

i hope you can understand that.

[billiken_roy]

so now you cant read either? i said it would have been wrong for the council/board to have allowed the attorney to speak/cross examine.

i agree with joe i dont think the board would have allowed the atty to speak or present.

i do think if a personal connection could be made i.e. relative, godfather, that person should be allowed to be there for moral support and whisper in her ear etc. if the only connection was that he was a hired gun, he shouldnt have been allowed to be in the room.

i hope you can understand that.

david, you have a young son, what if in his sophomore year in college something similar happens and he is accused and has to go in front of this board. you are an atty. but if i was your son, i would want you as my father to be there for me.

are you going to tell your son, "sorry, i cant go in with you, i am an atty."?

[billikenbilly]

we have no idea what was told to the players. maybe they were told the coaches couldn't be there. maybe the coaches tried to be there and were told they couldn't. we have no idea what happened, yet you once again jump at the chance to blame this on majerus, like you always do.

you really have no credibility on this issue because of the coach, who has jaded your view of everything that happens. if sodie was at the helm right now, your posts would be completely different.

ok, based on the seriousness of the accusations, what would you have done?

obviously if the recent account is true, letting the players go on their own was not a good move.

you cant say "just dont even have the hearing" slu code documents it can happen.

so please, let us all know what would have been best to protect the interests of these two players?

[billiken_roy]

we have no idea what was told to the players. maybe they were told the coaches couldn't be there. maybe the coaches tried to be there and were told they couldn't. we have no idea what happened, yet you once again jump at the chance to blame this on majerus, like you always do.

you really have no credibility on this issue because of the coach, who has jaded your view of everything that happens. if sodie was at the helm right now, your posts would be completely different.

that is totally ridiculous. who the coach is makes no difference on how i view ethical issues. i think i have been consistent about ethical questions about not just slu but any university issue over the years we have been on this message board. i defy you to find an issue during soderberg, romar, or any coaching regime anywhere where i took an opposite viewpoint.

you are way out of line and should apologize. never mind. that would require you to demonstrate an ethical backbone. just forget i brought that apology thing up.

[bonwich]

This jumping on Roy stuff is almost as ridiculous as some of the various back-and-forth about what happened, what might have happened and what should have happened.

The name "Majerus" is irrelevant to what Roy is saying. Two or more basketball players were questioned by the police. Someone in the athletic department administration had the absolute, undeniable responsibility to monitor the resulting activities -- just as much as someone in the AD has the absolute, undeniable responsibility to do everything possible to ensure that players stay in shape, maintain their grades and adhere to anything else involved in team rules.

If no one on the athletic/basketball staff basically locked down all of the players' statements and actions related to disciplinary action, then that staff was grossly negligent.

[davidnark]

david, you have a young son, what if in his sophomore year in college something similar happens and he is accused and has to go in front of this board. you are an atty. but if i was your son, i would want you as my father to be there for me.

are you going to tell your son, "sorry, i cant go in with you, i am an atty."?

This wasn't a case of her father attending. I was just told that her family hired multiple attorneys who presented piles of information and that the players were blind-sided. If what I was told is correct, then it is an absolute outrage. The university's internal process should not allow paid attorneys to present a case against in an internal student disciplinary process--particularly when the players' lives and futures are at stake. Let's call it what it is -- rich girl's daddy hiring a group of attorneys to get her revenge. I don't fault the father. I would probably be just as angry and willing to do the same for my daughter, but I can certainly fault the university for allowing the dad to get away with it.

[jimbofive]

so now you cant read either? i said it would have been wrong for the council/board to have allowed the attorney to speak/cross examine.

i agree with joe i dont think the board would have allowed the atty to speak or present.

i do think if a personal connection could be made i.e. relative, godfather, that person should be allowed to be there for moral support and whisper in her ear etc. if the only connection was that he was a hired gun, he shouldnt have been allowed to be in the room.

i hope you can understand that.

roy, this one is as clear as can be.

"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."

i really think you're just going on the assumption that these two players wronged that girl and that in order to bring "justice" to the situation, you're able to cling to one rule (drinking and banging = sexual assault) and totally ignore another (no legal counsel in student court)

we don't know if that girl was drunk, we don't know if she got eiffel towered, and we don't know if there was a lawyer in that room. but assuming that all three are true, you side with the girl every time. just doesn't seem very impartial to me.

and even w/in the confines of the drinking and banging rule, the players should technically be able to say they were drunk, too, and offset penalties. repeat third down.

i'm thinking more and more this situation is going to blow over. from what i've heard thus far, it damn well better.

[billiken_roy]

This wasn't a case of her father attending. I was just told that her family hired multiple attorneys who presented piles of information and that the players were blind-sided. If what I was told is correct, then it is an absolute outrage. The university's internal process should not allow paid attorneys to present a case against in an internal student disciplinary process--particularly when the players' lives and futures are at stake. Let's call it what it is -- rich girl's daddy hiring a group of attorneys to get her revenge. I don't fault the father. I would probably be just as angry and willing to do the same for my daughter, but I can certainly fault the university for allowing the dad to get away with it.

and if what truly happened is what you detail above, i stated on both of the posts above that the hearing would be wrong to allow that atty to even be there let alone cross examine or present. i even presented an example of a question the hearing committee could have easily have asked to disqualify the atty.

yet you attacked me for saying the same. but i guess you have an agenda as well which has become typical.

[SLUDrew]

Roy, I hate to continually harp on this but as has been mentioned above, you were the sunshine and puppy dogs fan of all Billiken fans until Soderberg was let go. Since then it seems you have denigrated the program at every turn. Clearly if Sodie was still at the helm you would feel completely different about this situation. I don't think you can look at this situation, or any situation in which Majerus might be tied to impropriety, with any objectivity whatsoever.

[RiseAndGrind]

roy, this one is as clear as can be.

"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."

i really think you're just going on the assumption that these two players wronged that girl and that in order to bring "justice" to the situation, you're able to cling to one rule (drinking and banging = sexual assault) and totally ignore another (no legal counsel in student court)

we don't know if that girl was drunk, we don't know if she got eiffel towered, and we don't know if there was a lawyer in that room. but assuming that all three are true, you side with the girl every time. just doesn't seem very impartial to me.

and even w/in the confines of the drinking and banging rule, the players should technically be able to say they were drunk, too, and offset penalties. repeat third down.

i'm thinking more and more this situation is going to blow over. from what i've heard thus far, it damn well better.

This whole thing is a cluster ######. As an alum, I'm embarrassed at this whole situation .

Let's just call it a draw.

[slufanskip]

This wasn't a case of her father attending. I was just told that her family hired multiple attorneys who presented piles of information and that the players were blind-sided. If what I was told is correct, then it is an absolute outrage. The university's internal process should not allow paid attorneys to present a case against in an internal student disciplinary process--particularly when the players' lives and futures are at stake. Let's call it what it is -- rich girl's daddy hiring a group of attorneys to get her revenge. I don't fault the father. I would probably be just as angry and willing to do the same for my daughter, but I can certainly fault the university for allowing the dad to get away with it.

I would think that if the players end up being suspended and legal counsel was present at the student council hearing, the students would have a legal case against SLU. Also, shouldn't the student council then have to suspend themselves for breaking a rule?

The longer this goes on, the more I think that this is a case of a girl who can't tell daddy she had sex with two (or was it 3 or 4) black guys.

I'd also bet the student council, board, circus, or whatever you call it is a bunch of academics who don't have the best view of the athletes. They probably subscribe to the theory that the athletes are spoiled, and shouldn't even be allowed in school in the first place.

[Band Legend]

I'm sure you guys have all heard of the game where a bunch of people sit around a table and one person starts by whispering a statement in someone's ear. By the time the statement makes it back to the person who started it's usually completely different than what was first stated, or at least incredibly embellished. Billikens.com has become two straight weeks of all of us playing that game. You have to admit it's sort of fun, or at least like watching a train wreck; you can't take your eyes off of it.

[billikenfan05]

Ok THIS IS ACTUAL FOOTAGE OF HOW IT WENT DOWN!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcim-B-H5Ks

[slufan13]

One question about all of this. I thought that since the girl doesn't attend SLU, she can't even be involved can she? I thought it was SLU vs the players now and not the girl vs. the players. I could be completely wrong, but I'm just asking.

[moytoy12]

I would think that if the players end up being suspended and legal counsel was present at the student council hearing, the students would have a legal case against SLU. Also, shouldn't the student council then have to suspend themselves for breaking a rule?

Regardless of it being a university forum, I'm sure there would be, rightfully or wrongfully, a due process argument.

I'd also bet the student council, board, circus, or whatever you call it is a bunch of academics who don't have the best view of the athletes. They probably subscribe to the theory that the athletes are spoiled, and shouldn't even be allowed in school in the first place.

Just living out their philosopher king wet-dream.

[slufan13]

Ok THIS IS ACTUAL FOOTAGE OF HOW IT WENT DOWN!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcim-B-H5Ks

+1