What happened

[stlodoyle]

It doesn't appear to me that there is going to be a press release. I think they may just let the thing play out and we will see from practice on Friday

If they are suspended for a semester can they still practice with the team?

[Westy03]

If they are suspended for a semester can they still practice with the team?

I would doubt it

[Clock_Tower]

If they are suspended for a semester can they still practice with the team?

Of course.

Seems to me that there are three (3) levels of compliance. State law -- not/no longer an issue. NCAA compliance -- apparently not an issue. SLU/team rules -- the source of what's at issue.

If this is SLU's rules and SLU's punishment, then SLU can make the punishment/probation anything it wants. The State and NCAA don't appear to care if the players play, practice, live on-campus, etc. -- and why would they??

By comparison, though, when a player red-shirts or is otherwise ineligible, they still practice with the team.

[Billiken Rich]

Of course.

Seems to me that there are three (3) levels of compliance. State law -- not/no longer an issue. NCAA compliance -- apparently not an issue. SLU/team rules -- the source of what's at issue.

If this is SLU's rules and SLU's punishment, then SLU can make the punishment/probation anything it wants. The State and NCAA don't appear to care if the players play, practice, live on-campus, etc. -- and why would they??

By comparison, though, when a player red-shirts or is otherwise ineligible, they still practice with the team.

Well put.

It seems we need a C-T scan to cut throught the BS around here......

[Billikenbooster]

I have read every post in this thread from the very beginning. I would have to say the most substantive thing that can be said is that one of the Billiken players is no longer working out with the team in the pre season workouts. That would be a clear indication that that one player and no others will be disciplined by the AD/SLU Administration. I would find it hard to believe there would only be a one semester suspension for the offense which generated all this speculation.

The silence from the admininstration on this has been deafening, and led to more wild accusations and scenarios than I could ever have imagined. To wait until the first day of practice on Friday is such a half xssed way to run a program, I cannot contain myself.

We are the passionate ones, those who spend our disposable time reading and posting our opinions out there for all to read and lambast. Why, for the good of God, has there been absolutely NOTHING from the AD or the administration on this? If a player is not at practice on Friday, his absence will be noted and need an explanation. Why not head off weeks of speculation and wild rumors by putting out a press release and be done with it.

It is SO hard being a Billiken fan. Just when we are on the cusp of turning this thing around, we have this.

mhg

[Westy03]

Why not head off weeks of speculation and wild rumors by putting out a press release and be done with it.

mhg

Maybe a decision hasnt been made yet.

[b.hayes]

Sorry, when I saw the truncated URL I thought it was this one

http://www.unewsonline.com/2010/09/dear-slu-there-is-still-something-very-wrong

which appeared a week earlier and was a letter to the editor (and to which the commentary was apparently replying/follwing up).

That said, would someone care to cite the so-called "glaring errors" (aside from a typo, which I would lay odds happened when a copy editor deleted the "t." in a big hurry and filled in the "ain" without catching the slip)?

Without any training in English beyond high school (aside from getting yelled at in my English 190 night class), and without really caring to subject the board to a meaningless debate over a worthless article, I'd consider the following to be additional errors:

"I know you have institutional duties that guide your decision on such issues, but there is a point where the good of the whole supersedes bureaucracy."

If there are multiple issues here, there are multiple decisions to be made.

"You failed the victim by not upholding her dignity."

Which category do you think this belongs in? I would've said glaring error but maybe you just think it is an inflammatory statement. Either way its a crock of ###### to say something like that.

"You failed the students by hiding the allegations."

I don't have a copy of the e-mail SLU sent, but (A) If they e-mailed the student body how did they hide the allegations? ( They failed they student body by hiding allegations? Again, maybe I shouldn't consider this an error as it is an "opinion" piece, but I'd love to see an explanation of how "hiding" (which they didn't - error) something that may or may not have happened (which perhaps the author was unaware is the gist of an allegation) is failing the student body. If it isn't an error to make a baseless claim, is it at least an error to publish something riddled with them?

"How can I forgive when you violate sole identities of our Catholic Jesuit Mission?"

Which sole identities of our Catholic Jesuit Mission were violated again? That's right, no one would know because its just another baseless claim but the words "violate" and "sole identities" sounded really convincing.

"You have not been open to growth or change,"

Anything?

"How can we forgive if we never know the truth? I am willing to forgive, but I will not do so until you apologize for denying the many victims of sexual, ethnic, cultural, gender, discrimination and rape the right to have their stories heard to have justice."

This is a doozy here. (A) As it is written there are victims of sexual at SLU. There are also victims of ethnic. And victims of discrimination. Not to mention the worst of them all: victims of gender. I'm not sure what the first two are but they must be bad to get lumped in with discrimination. ( Still a bunch of strong words with no meaningful backup in the form of examples, etc. Mostly I think this passage was inserted for the purpose of using the word rape (again) without specifically saying this dealt with rape since the author presumably knows better.

"The truth is that we are safe as we sit in our rooms,"

If we are going to get really picky, there is an extra space after "are".

"Something is terribly wrong, and when will you admit it to yourself and to us, Saint Louis University?"

Something is terribly wrong with that "sentence". That being the way the author leaves us really sums up this piece for me.

This article sucks. It is poorly written and it is full of nonsense.

[Billiken Rich]

I have read every post in this thread from the very beginning. I would have to say the most substantive thing that can be said is that one of the Billiken players is no longer working out with the team in the pre season workouts.

Where exactly did you read that in this thread? The only person who came close to that was "Berny," an obvious troll.

[bonwich]

Are you grading this as a news article (which it isn't) or a commentary piece? I'd suggest it's no more "inflammatory" than a majority of the Sunday morning news shows or the "talk shows" aired on CNN, Fox, MSNBC, CNBC or anywhere else -- except, of course, if you disagree with his/her point of view (which it is). I'd also suggest it's representative of more than a tiny segment of the SLU population.

[Billikenbooster]

Where exactly did you read that in this thread? The only person who came close to that was "Berny," an obvious troll.

I agree about the Berny thing.

Don't know where that 'exactly' was in the 300 posts in this thread. I thought that was from more reputable sources than B. I believe it is true that one of the players has not been working out with the team. I have heard it separate from the Board as well.

mhg

[tourist]

I agree about the Berny thing.

Don't know where that 'exactly' was in the 300 posts in this thread. I thought that was from more reputable sources than B. I believe it is true that one of the players has not been working out with the team. I have heard it separate from the Board as well.

mhg

Have been informed with the same information and the suspension has nothing to do with the situation that has everyone speculating about , the team training suspension is for a different infringement altogether only 1 player involved.

[Billiken Rich]

I agree about the Berny thing.

Don't know where that 'exactly' was in the 300 posts in this thread. I thought that was from more reputable sources than B. I believe it is true that one of the players has not been working out with the team. I have heard it separate from the Board as well.

mhg

If that is true, then that is probably the worst news I've read. Especially given that organized practices haven't started yet, why wouldn't a player be working out with the team? It's not like a contract dispute before training camp.......

[Westy03]

Have been informed with the same information and the suspension has nothing to do with the situation that has everyone speculating about , the team training suspension is for a different infringement altogether only 1 player involved.

Awesome...

Some closure on all these situations would be nice. Its gotten to a point that I almost dont even care about the upcoming season...

[Billiken Rich]

Have been informed with the same information and the suspension has nothing to do with the situation that has everyone speculating about , the team training suspension is for a different infringement altogether only 1 player involved.

What a cluster#######.......

[Bizziken]

Have been informed with the same information and the suspension has nothing to do with the situation that has everyone speculating about , the team training suspension is for a different infringement altogether only 1 player involved.

A whole lot of people on this board are going to look really stupid if this is truly the case...

[BERNY]

I agree about the Berny thing.

Don't know where that 'exactly' was in the 300 posts in this thread. I thought that was from more reputable sources than B. I believe it is true that one of the players has not been working out with the team. I have heard it separate from the Board as well.

mhg

Oh no someone agreed with what I posted. Man I thought I was a troll just trying to stir up crap. Yes, all summer one player has not been with the team. At all. For anything. This coming straight from the players.

[BERNY]

To add to this, the players dont know if RM is refusing to let him participate or if the player himself is refusing to participate. Either way hes not been there for anything.

[slufan13]

I've read tweets and facebook statuses from that player about being excited for the season to start on Friday.

[BERNY]

I've read tweets and facebook statuses from that player about being exciting for the season to start on Friday.

Well one if I was this player I would also be saying the same thing. Maybe this was just RM way of telling the kid, "listen we dont have to put up with your crap". Since this player came to SLU hes been a bit of a prima dona.

[cheeseman]

Where exactly did you read that in this thread? The only person who came close to that was "Berny," an obvious troll.

My exact question also?

[MB73]

Have been informed with the same information and the suspension has nothing to do with the situation that has everyone speculating about , the team training suspension is for a different infringement altogether only 1 player involved.

That had been reported very early in the string of posts... but ignored with all of the subsequent misinformation and disinformation.

One kid, based upon violations not associated with the original "incident".

We shall see.

[bleedtheblue]

Berny if there has been a player that hasnt participated with ANYTHING like you say.... how come I have seen all of said players scrimmaging?

[bauman]

I beg to differ - I do understand all the fine points you made. I simply did not go into a full discussion of them since until further evidence is brought to light the players should not be assumed to be anything but not charged thus making them as innocent as they can be without a trial. I also understand that because you are acquitted, you can not be recharged with the same crime - double jeopardy which apparently you missed. My point simply was, without a trial, the best we may ever know is that there was not enough evidence to support charges being brought and it may not get any clearer than just that but that does not mean the players should be treated as guilty. I would guess that if you were in their shoes you would be willing to accept that if no charges were made then you should be able to get on with your life. Not being able to prove that somebody did something may be the best that person can get regarding clearing his/her name.

Excuse me, did you not tell Bonwich his #1 was incorrect? I thought you were pretty clear that the dropping of charges (or a NG finding) equated to a finding of innocence?

Where was Double Jeopardy discussed or even mentioned, that you claim I missed? I'm still missing it.

By the way your understanding "that because you are acquited, you cannot be recharged with the same crime" is also incorrect in the context of your argument. You can be retried for the same crime or set of facts without it being a violation of the double jeop. rule. You just can't be tried by the same govt. entity. In other words the state of Missouri (or an employer or a school) can "try" you for the same crime or set of facts that resulted in a not guilty finding in a Fed. Ct. Dbl Jeop just prevents the Feds from retrying you or if acquited in a state ct, then the Feds can still try you.

[Clock_Tower]

That had been reported very early in the string of posts... but ignored with all of the subsequent misinformation and disinformation.

One kid, based upon violations not associated with the original "incident".

We shall see.

Steve/Moderators. Is there a reason this Board is not discussing, or is afraid to discuss, the name and incidents around why the lone player is not working out/practicing with the team? If not related to the original "incident", then why the secrecy?

I get it about the need not to disclose alleged criminal conduct and/or truly private information which is the source of the Student Court/Appeal. I also applaud this Board for using discretion these past months. Unless I am missing something, though, this latest info is fair game - violations of team rules - just like being late for a practice/game, insubordination of coaches, bad grades/test scores...

Thanks.

[kshoe]

Steve/Moderators. Is there a reason this Board is not discussing, or is afraid to discuss, the name and incidents around why the lone player is not working out/practicing with the team? If not related to the original "incident", then why the secrecy?

I get it about the need not to disclose alleged criminal conduct and/or truly private information which is the source of the Student Court/Appeal. I also applaud this Board for using discretion these past months. Unless I am missing something, though, this latest info is fair game - violations of team rules - just like being late for a practice/game, insubordination of coaches, bad grades/test scores...

Thanks.

Maybe the question should be why do you feel the need to publiclly embarass any of our current players any more than they have already been?

Any idiot can figure out which player is being talked about. If any poster on here discloses reasons then they are just spreading rumors that may or may not be true. Given the number of times the story has changed in this thread alone, people should be smart enough not to believe everything they hear and thus spreading it in a public forum is wholly irresponsible.