Fall 2017 allegations against unnamed players (aka Situation 2)

[Cowboy]

1 minute ago, Pistol said:

 

My last question is: Say these guys are appealing the whole interim suspension, including time served and any time yet to be served as this plays out in full. They've already missed 6 games (7, with exhibition) and there's no indication they're playing tomorrow. What would it mean in practical terms if they're fully exonerated? Just "sorry about your luck" for that time already served (i.e. suspensions)? Restitution of some kind?

-this is where I was going with what % of these investigations lead to no punishment as in this case the kids have been punished just because they were accused

[Iggy]

I don't understand why the RAMMER! can't just waive his hand and declare an end to all of this.

[keyser soze]

If I were the team, I'd go on strike till the University publicly addressed the "situation." 

[RiseAndGrind]

1 minute ago, Pistol said:

To me, it reads like the attorney is saying they initially appealed for the ability to play (i.e. not face interim suspension during investigation), were denied, and now will appeal again because they're all getting impatient as the process drags beyond its handbook-defined parameters. If this went past 60 days without a Notice of Outcome, the attorneys probably figured that gave them cause for an appeal.

The questions I have are: Would the University release "exhibits and videos" before a ruling? Is this them saying that there has been a ruling, and they're appealing the official Outcome? It doesn't read like the latter, but to be honest, it's kind of a sloppy statement.

My last question is: Say these guys are appealing the whole interim suspension, including time served and any time yet to be served as this plays out in full. They've already missed 6 games (7, with exhibition) and there's no indication they're playing tomorrow. What would it mean in practical terms if they're fully exonerated? Just "sorry about your luck" for that time already served (i.e. suspensions)? Restitution of some kind?

To me the statement pretty clearly indicates that SLU has been withholding information and is dragging its feet, which has made the full defense of the players impossible. The statement by Glass will be pretty easy to verify: 1) Did SLU provide you additional information recently? 2) Does that information portray the players in a positive/negative light? If SLU is withholding exculpatory evidence, this reads as a precursor to litigation. 

[Cowboy]

-I just looked at the aggregator and notice the statement is not from Rosenblum but someone in his firm.....who graduated from SLU Law

[juniorbill76]

Agree with Pistol - sloppy statement.

[Tilkowsky]

4 minutes ago, Cowboy said:

-I just looked at the aggregator and notice the statement is not from Rosenblum but someone in his firm.....who graduated from SLU Law

So where are all the Rosenblum is going to get tough on SLU posters?

[billikenfan05]

8 minutes ago, keyser soze said:

If I were the team, I'd go on strike till the University publicly addressed the "situation." 

I wouldn’t hate that 

[pakapablo]

24 minutes ago, brianstl said:

From what I have heard, is the fourth guy isn't in trouble because one of three original accusers recanted her claim.

I thought one of the three accusers was not a SLU student. Maybe that is why the fourth player is being treated differently.

[Slu let the dogs out?]

2 minutes ago, Tilkowsky said:

So where are all the Rosenblum is going to get tough on SLU posters?

^^^Is this the troll who use to spend his entire life on the stltoday.com forums trolling people about soccer and SLU?

[William Kenneth]

7 minutes ago, NH said:

 

Yes, I think the last part is correct. Assuming that’s the case, not exactly sure why they released them to the lawyers now.

If that's the case, then I don't know why SLU would suddenly decide to release the evidence because one of the sides expressed frustration.  Assuming they've had it and been sitting on it for quite some time now, not sure how releasing it helps the process along...unless of course providing it justifies the investigation duration (i.e. interpreting it is virtually impossible because it's grainy from being shot in poor lighting with an antiquated camera, thereby making it impossible to determine who was involved and what took place without help from FBI and CIA forensics).

[Box and Won]

1 minute ago, Slu let the dogs out? said:

^^^Is this the troll who use to spend his entire life on the stltoday.com forums trolling people about soccer and SLU?

Yep.  Please ignore.

[slu06]

3 minutes ago, juniorbill76 said:

Agree with Pistol - sloppy statement.

Agreed, refers to a vague "complete failure" of the Title IX process and an "interim suspension" from playing basketball. No mention of any specific dates, deadlines, etc.  

 

[juniorbill76]

1 minute ago, slu06 said:

Agreed, refers to a vague "complete failure" of the Title IX process and an "interim suspension" from playing basketball. No mention of any specific dates, deadlines, etc.  

 

It's actually reminiscent of some posts by Gloryravs.

[HenryB]

13 minutes ago, Tilkowsky said:

So where are all the Rosenblum is going to get tough on SLU posters?

Seems to me his statement confirms what many of us have suspected all along.....the administration has completely bungled the process and players, fans, and the university are suffering as a result.  I think the facts he brought to light, as limited as they are, cast the administration in a very poor light... hopefully this will pressure SLU to start utilizing common sense.  I am not, however, holding my breath.  Your continual support of this travesty of an investigation is nauseating.

[brianstl]

1 minute ago, slu06 said:

Agreed, refers to a vague "complete failure" of the Title IX process and an "interim suspension" from playing basketball. No mention of any specific dates, deadlines, etc.  

 

I don't think the intention of that statement was to address any specifics.  It was a shot across SLU's bow and the start of the players' side generating public outrage.

[Pistol]

15 minutes ago, RiseAndGrind said:

To me the statement pretty clearly indicates that SLU has been withholding information and is dragging its feet, which has made the full defense of the players impossible. The statement by Glass will be pretty easy to verify: 1) Did SLU provide you additional information recently? 2) Does that information portray the players in a positive/negative light? If SLU is withholding exculpatory evidence, this reads as a precursor to litigation. 

https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/qa-title-ix-201709.pdf

Any rights or opportunities that a school makes available to one party during the investigation should be made available to the other party on equal terms. Restricting the ability of either party to discuss the investigation (e.g., through "gag orders") is likely to deprive the parties of the ability to obtain and present evidence or otherwise to defend their interests and therefore is likely inequitable.

There's a chance that "rights or opportunities" does not refer to actual evidence. I can't tell from reading through this whether all evidence must be made available to both parties throughout the investigation or not. Maybe they don't have to turn anything over, as long as they're not giving it to one side and not the other.

[William Kenneth]

3 minutes ago, brianstl said:

I don't think the intention of that statement was to address any specifics.  It was a shot across SLU's bow and the start of the players' side generating public outrage.

Agree.  I think the statement was a good opening salvo given that there has been NOTHING said about the investigation in over 2 months.  If it doesn't grease the skids and elicit some sort of response, I wouldn't be surprised if the next shot addresses the lack of communication, updates, timeline expectations, etc.

[keyser soze]

4 minutes ago, William Kenneth said:

Agree.  I think the statement was a good opening salvo given that there has been NOTHING said about the investigation in over 2 months.  If it doesn't grease the skids and elicit some sort of response, I wouldn't be surprised if the next shot addresses the lack of communication, updates, timeline expectations, etc.

But the larger issue is that the SLU leadership is so tone deaf that you'd need a nuclear bomb to get their attention.

[brianstl]

Just now, keyser soze said:

But the larger issue is that the SLU leadership so tone deaf that you'd need a nuclear bomb to get their attention.

Which is why the fact that Tuna is chatting with Rosenblum about the case should grab the attention of someone at SLU.  If Rosenblum wants to go nuclear with certain issues involved in this case, Tuna would be an ideal delivery system for that bomb. People should assume Rosenblum called and invited Tuna over to discuss the case.

[billiken_roy]

22 minutes ago, Slu let the dogs out? said:

^^^Is this the troll who use to spend his entire life on the stltoday.com forums trolling people about soccer and SLU?

yes tilk is your man (and i use that word usely)

[AnkielBreakers]

On 12/1/2017 at 2:25 PM, brianstl said:

I don't think the intention of that statement was to address any specifics.  It was a shot across SLU's bow and the start of the players' side generating public outrage.

1

[CBFan]

25 minutes ago, Tilkowsky said:

So where are all the Rosenblum is going to get tough on SLU posters?

Please moderators ban this horrid troll.

This post is about inciting anger and nothing else.

The troll has been banned on other sites.

[Pistol]

11 minutes ago, keyser soze said:

But the larger issue is that the SLU leadership is so tone deaf that you'd need a nuclear bomb to get their attention.

To be fair, Pestello did respond to Nark's tweet the other day, which was unexpected. Attention and action aren't the same thing. They're well aware of how people might feel no matter what the outcome of this is.

[kappy96]

3 minutes ago, brianstl said:

Which is why the fact that Tuna is chatting with Rosenblum about the case should grab the attention of someone at SLU.  If Rosenblum wants to go nuclear with certain issues involved in this case, Tuna would be an ideal delivery system for that bomb. People should assume Rosenblum called and invited Tuna over to discuss the case.

While I agree with your premise that Tuna would be a good person to stir the pot, just because he brags about how he's marching down to Rosenblum's office doesn't mean he was actually invited.  He's been known to stretch (or ignore) the truth when it suits his cause.