Fall 2017 allegations against unnamed players (aka Situation 2)

[keyser soze]

13 minutes ago, brianstl said:

That is why they went with the silent suspension of the players.

Well the Tuna is going to blow that narrative right up.

[brianstl]

1 minute ago, keyser soze said:

Well the Tuna is going to blow that narrative right up.

It is going to get ugly quick.

[cheeseman]

38 minutes ago, DeSmetBilliken said:

I don’t. From my observations and comments from others well before the current situation started, Pestello seems very focused on the perception that he’s making everyone happy. Watch him at games. He’s walking around and making it look like he’s interested in everyone. Maybe I’m cynical, but I think it’s an act. He definitely doesn’t want to announce that the players are cleared and risk offending people. The same probably applies to suspending the players, but I think he’s a little more comfortable with that. So the investigation goes on...

That is his job to walk around and show interest in people.  How else does he develop relationships that he can rely on to raise money.  If all he wants to do is make people happy then there is the ying and the yang thing.

[slufan13]

Since nobody will tell us anything, I think it's fair to question/blame Pestello. 

#FireFred

[Old guy]

Wait a second here, who ever heard that lawyers, who are paid by the amount of hours they dock doing work for a client, ever found the way to speed things up and cut down their own pay? They do the exact opposite. If they were asked to be thorough in this investigation, well they are being thorough to the 4th power, and collecting their money for doing so. You can blame the administration for not having taken the responsibility to handle things themselves, that is fair. However once they send something like this to a large law firm who really expects that this cow will not be milked for that all it can produce?

[kmbilliken]

8 minutes ago, Old guy said:

Wait a second here, who ever heard that lawyers, who are paid by the amount of hours they dock doing work for a client, ever found the way to speed things up and cut down their own pay? They do the exact opposite. If they were asked to be thorough in this investigation, well they are being thorough to the 4th power, and collecting their money for doing so. You can blame the administration for not having taken the responsibility to handle things themselves, that is fair. However once they send something like this to a large law firm who really expects that this cow will not be milked for that all it can produce?

I disagree. I recognize lawyers have a profit incentive just like everyone, but they continuously work with deadlines. A large law firm can bill this thing into the ground in 60 days by prioritizing it and assigning more personnel. Big law firms routinely have 3 lawyers working on cases. One lawyer and one investigator working on this full time should be able to wrap something like this up in 30 days and be ready for hearing. I'm sure the players lawyers can be ready within two weeks of receiving the exhibits and witness statements. To not have it done indicates they were not told to get it done within the 60 day guideline. 

[Old guy]

Suppose then that they were not told to get it done in a hurry or within the 60 day guideline, then what? If they do not have any incentive to deal with the issue within 60 days, why not 120 then? I have no doubt that large law firms have all kinds of personnel they can assign in a blink to a rush case, but what tells you this was taken as a rush case? What does the University gain by rushing this case?

[slufan13]

If lawyers or the independent investigator are the ones slowing this up, then the University should provide that update. The silence is one of the biggest problems 

[moytoy12]

20 minutes ago, Old guy said:

Suppose then that they were not told to get it done in a hurry or within the 60 day guideline, then what? If they do not have any incentive to deal with the issue within 60 days, why not 120 then? I have no doubt that large law firms have all kinds of personnel they can assign in a blink to a rush case, but what tells you this was taken as a rush case? What does the University gain by rushing this case?

The university is the client. If lawyers are dragging their feet/creating billables, then the university needs to put a stop to it.  There is a happy medium of thorough investigation and cutting off the billables. They are not mutually exclusive. 

[cheeseman]

51 minutes ago, kmbilliken said:

I disagree. I recognize lawyers have a profit incentive just like everyone, but they continuously work with deadlines. A large law firm can bill this thing into the ground in 60 days by prioritizing it and assigning more personnel. Big law firms routinely have 3 lawyers working on cases. One lawyer and one investigator working on this full time should be able to wrap something like this up in 30 days and be ready for hearing. I'm sure the players lawyers can be ready within two weeks of receiving the exhibits and witness statements. To not have it done indicates they were not told to get it done within the 60 day guideline. 

Those deadlines are usually put on them my the courts or when contracts will run out.

[moytoy12]

25 minutes ago, cheeseman said:

Those deadlines are usually put on them my the courts or when contracts will run out.

Or by the client. 

[AnkielBreakers]

1

[JohnnyJumpUp]

We aren't talking a criminal trial going through state or federal courts, this is a fμcking Title IX case involving non criminal acts. 60+ days is in no way rushing to a decision. If something isn't determined quickly, we are gonna lose this team and the program will sink. The coaches look like they wanna give up, it's unbelievable. Get this team back together before its too late.

[TFord and TRavs]

16 minutes ago, JohnnyJumpUp said:

We aren't talking a criminal trial going through state or federal courts, this is a fμcking Title IX case involving non criminal acts. 60+ days is in no way rushing to a decision. If something isn't determined quickly, we are gonna lose this team and the program will sink. The coaches look like they wanna give up, it's unbelievable. Get this team back together before its too late.

+1

[Clock_Tower]

6 hours ago, 615Billiken said:

My reading of Doctor B’s post does not lead me to believe he is comparing SLU’s situation to Matt Lauer’s situation. My reading is that high profile cases and the social context around sexual assault inevitably impacts how this case is being handled.

I suggest you reread then. Sexual assault and abuse is all that is mentioned. Doc B chose to include Matt Lauer for some reason in this thread. A Sexual encounter between peers after a night of drinking  subsequent decision-making by 19 or 20 year olds is a lot different that repeated, sexual encounters between those with authority and power (middle age men while sober at the office) in the work place. 

[Quality Is Job 1]

50 minutes ago, Clock_Tower said:

I suggest you reread then. Sexual assault and abuse is all that is mentioned. Doc B chose to include Matt Lauer for some reason in this thread. A Sexual encounter between peers after a night of drinking  subsequent decision-making by 19 or 20 year olds is a lot different that repeated, sexual encounters between those with authority and power (middle age men while sober at the office) in the work place. 

Sorry, but I have to agree with 615: you're putting words in Dr. B's mouth.  All Dr. B is saying that the current climate because of recent scandals must be an influence that gives SLU's administration pause in its treatment of the case.  It's not a comparison of the events.

To put it another way, you're saying that Dr. B is saying "A is like B."  However, what he really means is "Because of A, we have to tread carefully on B."

[DeSmetBilliken]

4 hours ago, Old guy said:

Wait a second here, who ever heard that lawyers, who are paid by the amount of hours they dock doing work for a client, ever found the way to speed things up and cut down their own pay? They do the exact opposite. If they were asked to be thorough in this investigation, well they are being thorough to the 4th power, and collecting their money for doing so. You can blame the administration for not having taken the responsibility to handle things themselves, that is fair. However once they send something like this to a large law firm who really expects that this cow will not be milked for that all it can produce?

I can’t speak for all law firms, but where I work, but if we “milked the cow for all it can produce”, there’s a good chance our clients would cut some of the bill.

[Old guy]

Deleted

[Clock_Tower]

30 minutes ago, Quality Is Job 1 said:

Sorry, but I have to agree with 615: you're putting words in Dr. B's mouth.  All Dr. B is saying that the current climate because of recent scandals must be an influence that gives SLU's administration pause in its treatment of the case.  It's not a comparison of the events.

To put it another way, you're saying that Dr. B is saying "A is like B."  However, what he really means is "Because of A, we have to tread carefully on B."

Thanks but Doc B can speak for himself. 

And even so, I stand by my statements that Situation 2 appears to be quite different. 

In the meantime, the timeline of events does not support your point. I had been frustrated with the handling of Situation 2 long before the news broke on Matt Lauer. 

[DoctorB]

OK I'll speak.  Clock, you are misreading my remarks, irresponsibly but not necessarily willfully.  (Not willful, since It's possible you are simply a very poor reader.)  And thanks to guys like 615 and Quality, whose reading skills are superior to yours, for stepping up to my defense.  They and others were more successful in unravellling my very very complex prose.  In a morbid way, I actually admire the creative reading of my comments by Clock, since it so expertly reveals the epistemological confusions that more and more people are recognizing as essential to the Facebook media culture of our current mess.  Bravo Clock for that ingenious reading, coupled with your savvy, Fox News-like pivot away from my actual point!

The passage in question is this:  "Evidently some are clueless to the general tone of these issues in the media and culture right now;  when a guy like Matt Lauer can be summarily fired like he was the other day, I think it's pretty clear that we've reached some sort of unprecedented tipping point on issues of sexual abuse/assault, not to mention simply stupid sexual nonsense like has been alleged in this case."

I was making a fairly obvious observation about the "general tone" of sexual misconduct in our culture right now, and my sense that we've reached some kind of "tipping point," meaning we've become ultra-sensitive about these things.  One recent illustration of this is Lauer but I could name a couple dozen more, all of which have contributed to this context. As for the timeline of this emergin tipping point, , I suspect a lot  of it went on steroids when out great leader's idiotic comments to Billy Bush broke in October 2016, showing the world that he was a serial predator.  So Lauer is simply the latest in a long series of idiot sexual conduct being exposed (no pun intended).  I even showed how Lauer and the basketball situation are different, by distinguishing Lauer from "simply stupid sexual nonsense."  Actually, now that I think of it -- the sentences are not really all that complicated, after all...

I am a cultural historian by trade so perhaps I take for granted some of the underlying premises of my remarks.  But you don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows....

[billiken_roy]

Typical arrogant liberal elitism.  DictorB now off my need to read list.   

[Tilkowsky]

21 hours ago, DeSmetBilliken said:

Give me a break. If Notre Dame had a situation like this (they have), you wouldn’t be pronouncing the players guilty and deserving of punishment like you have been here.

Do me a favor.

Show me where I ever said the players were guilty and deserving of punishment.

 

[LindellWest]

5 hours ago, DoctorB said:

OK I'll speak.  Clock, you are misreading my remarks, irresponsibly but not necessarily willfully.  (Not willful, since It's possible you are simply a very poor reader.)  And thanks to guys like 615 and Quality, whose reading skills are superior to yours, for stepping up to my defense.  They and others were more successful in unravellling my very very complex prose.  In a morbid way, I actually admire the creative reading of my comments by Clock, since it so expertly reveals the epistemological confusions that more and more people are recognizing as essential to the Facebook media culture of our current mess.  Bravo Clock for that ingenious reading, coupled with your savvy, Fox News-like pivot away from my actual point!

The passage in question is this:  "Evidently some are clueless to the general tone of these issues in the media and culture right now;  when a guy like Matt Lauer can be summarily fired like he was the other day, I think it's pretty clear that we've reached some sort of unprecedented tipping point on issues of sexual abuse/assault, not to mention simply stupid sexual nonsense like has been alleged in this case."

I was making a fairly obvious observation about the "general tone" of sexual misconduct in our culture right now, and my sense that we've reached some kind of "tipping point," meaning we've become ultra-sensitive about these things.  One recent illustration of this is Lauer but I could name a couple dozen more, all of which have contributed to this context. As for the timeline of this emergin tipping point, , I suspect a lot  of it went on steroids when out great leader's idiotic comments to Billy Bush broke in October 2016, showing the world that he was a serial predator.  So Lauer is simply the latest in a long series of idiot sexual conduct being exposed (no pun intended).  I even showed how Lauer and the basketball situation are different, by distinguishing Lauer from "simply stupid sexual nonsense."  Actually, now that I think of it -- the sentences are not really all that complicated, after all...

I am a cultural historian by trade so perhaps I take for granted some of the underlying premises of my remarks.  But you don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows....

That may be the most condescending and self righteous thing I've read on the board in a long time. Although I could just be confused by my lack of superior reading skills as I'm not a cultural historian...

[RiseAndGrind]

33 minutes ago, DoctorB said:

OK I'll speak.  Clock, you are misreading my remarks, irresponsibly but not necessarily willfully.  (Not willful, since It's possible you are simply a very poor reader.)  And thanks to guys like 615 and Quality, whose reading skills are superior to yours, for stepping up to my defense.  They and others were more successful in unravellling my very very complex prose.  In a morbid way, I actually admire the creative reading of my comments by Clock, since it so expertly reveals the epistemological confusions that more and more people are recognizing as essential to the Facebook media culture of our current mess.  Bravo Clock for that ingenious reading, coupled with your savvy, Fox News-like pivot away from my actual point!

The passage in question is this:  "Evidently some are clueless to the general tone of these issues in the media and culture right now;  when a guy like Matt Lauer can be summarily fired like he was the other day, I think it's pretty clear that we've reached some sort of unprecedented tipping point on issues of sexual abuse/assault, not to mention simply stupid sexual nonsense like has been alleged in this case."

I was making a fairly obvious observation about the "general tone" of sexual misconduct in our culture right now, and my sense that we've reached some kind of "tipping point," meaning we've become ultra-sensitive about these things.  One recent illustration of this is Lauer but I could name a couple dozen more, all of which have contributed to this context. As for the timeline of this emergin tipping point, , I suspect a lot  of it went on steroids when out great leader's idiotic comments to Billy Bush broke in October 2016, showing the world that he was a serial predator.  So Lauer is simply the latest in a long series of idiot sexual conduct being exposed (no pun intended).  I even showed how Lauer and the basketball situation are different, by distinguishing Lauer from "simply stupid sexual nonsense."  Actually, now that I think of it -- the sentences are not really all that complicated, after all...

I am a cultural historian by trade so perhaps I take for granted some of the underlying premises of my remarks.  But you don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows....

More words doesn’t always mean better, btw. 

[Tilkowsky]

20 hours ago, Clock_Tower said:

DocB

This may  be one of your worst posts I have ever read.  Before I jump down your throat, I am giving you a chance to better explain.  I assume you clearly understand the difference between the Matt Lauer, Senator Franken, etc. situations you apparently are trying to compare Situation 2 with.   Matt Lauer's sins were not based upon sex among peers (fellow students of similar age here in Situation 2) and possible uploading of pictures and videos on social media but instead Lauer was swiftly fired based upon an abuse of power.  Calling female staffers and interns into his office without windows to the public, using a button from his desk to close and lock the door, using his status and power to intimidate these women not discuss publicly, a pattern of conduct over years going back to 2001.  Repeated, similar complaints but multiple, credible women over years, similar fact patterns accusing Harvey Weinstein --- sex with him or no future in Hollywood/their dream career.  Groping/displaying/sex with politicians or risk losing job and/or no future advancement.  Charlie Rose is the same as Lauer, etc.  Yes, sex and inappropriate sexual atmosphere is involved  but the real sins are the abuse of power -not the sex.  Situation 2 involves none of that your post clearly appears to draw a comparison.  

Again, if our basketball players raped fellow students, then expel them immediately.  Don't let them go to class, practice with the team, travel with the team, etc.  

I find it interesting that you and Troll pants are quite sure the players did something wrong and yet I hear no outcry for why they are not expelled, why they are not charged with a crime, etc.  Instead, patience for this Title IX investigation seems like the appropriate remedy for you guys b/c the boys are clearly being punished (missing games, their names are sullied with these allegations/this investigation) on the basis that they must have done something wrong because there is an investigation and if they did something wrong then they deserve to punished.  Patience = punishment without having to prove misconduct.  Sure smells like Code of Conduct violations instead of state law crimes.  Sure smells of a higher standard for basketball players than regular SLU students in general.  Sure seems like alot of smoke so there must be a fire somewhere.  Let's just drag this Title IX drama out to obtain the justice we know we cannot prove.  Sad.

They have done something. The investigation will show whether it was wrong or not.

Pleae show me where I said that the players have done something wrong.