Fall 2017 allegations against unnamed players (aka Situation 2)

[billiken_roy]

thats why initially i was kind of for the self imposed ban.   thinking it would only be the 60 day thing, i thought that would be a "fair" compromise.  but now that it is approaching and surely will go past double that when the whole thing is questionable in the first place, it is the biggest miscarriage of justice of all time.   

come on krafty and pesty, make a decision.  

[slusam]

As more information comes out on Lynch he probably should not of been playing. I think Minnesota might regret it.

As far as I know the three accused at SLU had nothing in their past. The games they have missed so far are probably more than enough of a punishment.

[BillIkenFan_Dan]

Again what happened to innocent until proven Guilty. 

[cheeseman]

2 hours ago, Clock_Tower said:

Cheese. Why do you included the accusers in your final sentence?  And you re not the only one but the accusers are getting exactly what they want - the boys to not play. 

And how about the 8 who are playing?  Why does no one mention them?  Their final year of college basketball or 1 of only 4 years turns out to be a thud like this year. Sad. 

I am not saying the players should not play - my point was that if what the post I responded to says they should not play because they may come in contact with the accusers then why let them stay on campus at all.  His point was incongruent.  I agree with you that the players should have been allowed to play until this matter is cleared up one way or the other if they were allowed to stay on campus.

[SLU_Lax]

Hopefully we will have some better understanding in the next 20 or so days.

[Bobby Metzinger]

41 minutes ago, slusam said:

As more information comes out on Lynch he probably should not of been playing. I think Minnesota might regret it.

As far as I know the three accused at SLU had nothing in their past. The games they have missed so far are probably more than enough of a punishment.

Consider who is coaching the U (Ricky Boy) and I’m sure the apple doesn’t fall too far from the tree. Birds of a Pitino feather. 

[dlarry]

1 hour ago, slusam said:

The investigation started in October and is completed. He played during the investigation even though he had been accused before.

This is the most important part of of the Minnesota situation.  

How do they get their situation finished while our seems to have no end in sight. 

It's incredible how badly this has been screwed up.

[Cowboy]

-if there was a cheerleader involved and she was able to cheer during the first semester, why would it be anything but fair to now in the second semester have her not be cheering and have the kids play?

[Billboy1]

1 hour ago, SLU_Lax said:

Hopefully we will have some better understanding in the next 20 or so days.

Why bother it's already too late

[slu72]

1 hour ago, SLU_Lax said:

Hopefully we will have some better understanding in the next 20 or so days.

Great, we'll have them for all of February. Season will be pretty much down the toilet by then.

[keyser soze]

1 minute ago, Cowboy said:

-if there was a cheerleader involved and she was able to cheer during the first semester, why would it be anything but fair to now in the second semester have her not be cheering and have the kids play?

Playing some sort of devils advocate here...

If a cheerleader was involved, shouldn't the whole team be suspended so the arena can become a designated "safe place" for her?  I mean the potential PTSD from seeing the basketball team could cause her to accidently drop another cheermate, hit some 5 year old during the ball toss or worse yet yell when we are shooting free throws...........

[JMM28]

If the timelines being reported are true, there is no resolution to this farce until February. That leaves 8 games plus the conference tournament, if they qualify.

At this point, Graves is best off to take the full year as a redshirt transfer year and maintain his eligibility. He is the easy one. And 3 semesters sitting out isn't terribly unusual for midyear transfers.

Pestello and SLU dragging this out has probably complicated it even more for themselves in the other two cases. Bishop and Henriquez will have some interesting decisions to make. 

Henriquez could sit out the rest of the year and appeal to the NCAA to get an additional year. If he wasn't going to eclipse his 5th year by doing so, it would be an easy thing. But he would be asking for a 6th year to play his 4th year. If there isn't a favorable result for him, it is in his best interests to fight SLU to the maximum ability. Even with a "time served" punishment, he basically loses an entire year of his playing career. Depending on his credits status, he could potentially graduate from SLU and be immediately eligible next year at a better school. 

Bishop is in a similar boat except with a medical redshirt year rather than a transfer year which could hypothetically make it easier for him to get his year of eligibility reinstated if found of no wrong doing. But he also would have to stick around SLU for another year because he would still probably be a year short of eligible for graduation. He could however be a 2 year grad transfer, if he got the 6th year and eligibility back. 

If SLU was run like a professional operation, which it isn't, there would have been clarity for all before winter break and a lot more options would be on the table for everyone. Basically - SLU is going to back Bishop and Henriquez into a corner and they're going to wind up with a huge fight on their hands along with the already well established PR disaster.  What a cluster. 

[Old guy]

1 hour ago, cheeseman said:

I am not saying the players should not play - my point was that if what the post I responded to says they should not play because they may come in contact with the accusers then why let them stay on campus at all.  His point was incongruent.  I agree with you that the players should have been allowed to play until this matter is cleared up one way or the other if they were allowed to stay on campus.

Commenting on your comment, if the players were not allowed to play to maintain separation between players and accusers, then the accusers should not have been allowed to be present during games either. Fair is fair, whether it makes sense or not, right?

[billiken_roy]

19 minutes ago, keyser soze said:

Playing some sort of devils advocate here...

If a cheerleader was involved, shouldn't the whole team be suspended so the arena can become a designated "safe place" for her?  I mean the potential PTSD from seeing the basketball team could cause her to accidently drop another cheermate, hit some 5 year old during the ball toss or worse yet yell when we are shooting free throws...........

please dont send this to krafty or pesty.   they may take you up on it.  well assuming they can work it into their terribly busy schedule.  

[keyser soze]

8 minutes ago, billiken_roy said:

please dont send this to krafty or pesty.   they may take you up on it.  well assuming they can work it into their terribly busy schedule.  

Roy at this point it make sense for Travis to have open gyms so the few that are still left in the building can watch a competitive SLU "game."

Symbolically Travis should start a half with only 2 players on the floor......

[Spoon-Balls]

SLU is going to need a significant tournament run next season to redeem this 4 year nightmare. 

[Quality Is Job 1]

The entire process, including the hearing officer's and appeal panel's contributions, were supposed to come within 60 days.  Apparently, the reason that they aren't is because of the university's outsourcing the investigation to the law firm.  However, if the hearing officer isn't going to use the attorneys' report as a basis for her/his decision of responsibility and sanctions but, rather, then has to conduct her/his own inquiries to further the process, then the use of the law firm was a waste of time and money!  The process makes sense only if the retained legal investigation would have some binding influence on it.

Still, if the administration hadn't imposed an interim suspension, there would be no cause for anyone to complain about the length of the process; no one would care, then, if it took them until April to make the decision.  I really think they goofed royally when they decided to impose an interim suspension applied only to game attendance and participation.  They appear to be going out of their way to apply preemptively some kind of punishment to these young men, without respect to the results of any investigation.

I understand they're suppose to apply protections to the accuser, but they messed this up.  If the accused present so much of a danger or threat to accusers, then they should have been suspended from the campus completely; that's the only way to make sure there's no chance for interaction between them.  It doesn't make sense to allow them to practice and travel with the team but then not be in the arena during games.  So, if the accuser is a member of a spirit squad, I guess I understand why the accusers might be barred from the arena during home games, but then why wouldn't they be allowed to play during road games?  Why would they be left at the hotel then, as the spirit squads aren't even there?!  Is it because then their names would be associated with a Title IX investigation?  As if they weren't by this arrangement?!  If they wanted to retain anonymity for all involved, they should have let the players continue to play, and if the accuser is affiliated with something related to game presentation, then they should have provided the accuser some temporary alternative arrangements.  If a cheerleader doesn't cheer at men's games for a couple of months but then gets an extra year, or something, no one would even notice, and the university wouldn't be embroiled by controversy.  They messed up, big time -- even worse than the young people did.

[Wendelprof]

9 hours ago, Adman said:

Wendelprof,

First, thanks for your contributions to this Board. I appreciate the experience in this area you seemingly have, the balance you bring that’s important (and hard) to have,  and your passion for the Bills and SLU.

I won’t repeat many of the valid points that other posters have contributed. But I’ll add a few new ones which may further underscore the aggravation many of us feel, and add an alternate theory for your - and everyone’s - response.

I’ve read SLU’s sexual assault policy and adjudication process multiple times. Based on all that’s known, we’re nowhere near an end. The preliminary report was provided to the parties and they responded to it within the 5-day window. The investigator/lawyer then created the final report likely including opinion as to whether prohibited conduct indeed happened. It is non-binding; the SLU Hearing Officer ultimately must make the decision. It went to the parties by all accounts about a week before Christmas. 

But at this stage of the process, no decision is expected. Rather, the Hearing Officer then meets separately with the parties to review the final report recommendations. (Apparently this step begins tomorrow.)

The HO also accepts any written questions the parties would like the HO to ask the other party. After review of the questions for appropriateness and relevance, the HO submits the questions. (This functions as a quasi-cross examination step since parties are not allowed to cross-examine each other.)

After this series of meetings and written questions/answers are complete, the HO finally makes the decision as to whether a violation occurred and the punishment. This is communicated simultaneously to both parties in a written "Notice of Outcome." There is NO SPECIFIC TIME FRAME for these steps in SLU's policy. Doubtful quicker than two weeks; I’m guessing more likely three.

But not over yet. The parties involved can then appeal the HO’s ruling. I would be shocked if neither does. Per SLU policy, it is a 10-day process. Parties have 3 business days to file the appeal, 3 more business days for parties to review and comment on each other's appeals, which then leaves about 4 business days for final adjudication. This is not done by single HO; rather by 3-person board. This timeline can be extended, too. Given already long delays for this case, can’t believe it won’t also be extended.

Even in realistically best case scenario, we’re looking at Feb 1. Maybe later. I hope I’m wrong.

Even if the adjudication allowed them to play then, would they do so, blow a year of eligibility to play for a month? I think they’re done for year. Start fresh next year. But even that’s problematic. Players have only 5 years to play 4 seasons.. Some of these players are transfers and have already sat out a year or part of a year. Now sitting out a second. The NCAA would have to grant them their year of eligibility back. And no guarantee of that happening.

None of us want those who commit sexual assault representing the University or on this team. But I don’t have to remind you about the old axiom on need for swift justice. This process has been seemingly ridiculous.

Now an alternate theory. Most of us have rightly felt angry about suspension pre-adjudication. The process is seemingly so heavily weighted against the accused. But what if it’s not a suspension?

The Title IX guidelines include much counsel regarding taking interim measures to create a safe environment. Generally speaking, this is wise counsel. If there’s a rapist or likely rapist on campus, the University has a huge responsibility to protect the accuser from retaliation and to protect the student body in general. SLU’s policy thus provides wide latitude to keep everyone safe - everything from immediate expulsion of the accused, suspensions, creating spaces where accused and accusers are separated, changing class schedules, moving the accused’s dorm room further away from the accuser’s, and many other possible solutions. In general, it’s good to keep the parties from running into each other more than necessary. 

Now for a moment, let’s make assumption that at least one of the accusers is officially involved with the Athletic Dept/basketball team, such as a student PR assistant, game day production assistant, cheerleader, dance squad, band, et al. (I have NO idea if this is the case.) If the accused players are allowed to play or even sit on the bench, they would be mere feet away from the accuser(s). 

Regardless of whether the accuser(s) were really assaulted or the accuser(s) filed a false accusation against the players, there is huge opportunity for heat of the moment angry words in-game between them, even an altercation. Not only is this potentially dangerous, but with media, TV cameras and 5-10,000 fans - a PR disaster of the highest order. Not to mention the U facing likely lawsuits by placing the parties in a situation where this could happen.

If this is actually the case, SLU is in real jam. Beyond safety, PR and lawsuit fears, they would also have a very hard time applying these interim measures equally to both the accused and the accusers because of the chilling effect it would have against those who rightly bring forward sexual assault claims in the future. But it still feels unfair, similar to an accused criminal who can’t make bail and waits years for trial upon which he’s exonerated. Maybe cross-Title IX complaints are a solution. I don’t know.

I must also emphasize: I have no intention of revealing anyone’s identities. Please do not. Anonymity is crucial. And I have no inside info on this. I’m sure plenty of people can easily de-bunk this theory.

But if it is the case - and it is possible - I think SLU deserves some balance and understanding from us. They’d be in a jam.

Another reason swift justice so important. Make a decision.

Adman,

I applaud you for taking time to stop and read the SLU process (something I admit I haven't bother to do).  I agree with almost all of your comments and concerns.  The problem at this point is the university can't just make a decision, it has to follow its process.  Once an institution adopts a process, it essentially makes a public declaration that it thinks this is the best and fairest process.  Obviously when the university adopts a process, it does its best to take into consideration how it might apply to different types of students, but once adopted, it must be applied the same way to all students or the school immediately opens itself up to a easy claim of unfair/unequal treatment if it tries to accelerate the process for certain students.  The only thing that can be done now to accelerate the process is if the HO is sensitive to the situation and decides quickly, and/or the attorney for the players submits his or her documents in a manner that minimizes the time associated with that step.

I agree with you that the whole process is particularly unfair to athletes for a number of reasons, particularly if the de facto result is the player(s) loses a year of eligibility (particularly when he may have already lost one for whatever reason - transfer, injury, etc.).  I have a vague recollection that the NCAA is starting to acknowledge the unfairness of that result by granting student-athletes in that situation an extra year of eligibility, but I agree that does not fully cure the problem.  I sure hope if any of the players ends up losing a year of eligibility just because of the process, and not as part of any punishment, I sure hope SLU does everything it can to appeal to the NCAA to get that year back for the player.  I assume that may be part of the athletic department's mentality of letting the players practice with the team and travel with the team.  The athletic department is doing everything it can to send the message to the players that they are still a part of the team (at least until a decision indicates otherwise) and the athletic department is going to do whatever it can to keep them on the team (short term and long term).  I think that approach probably helps to explain why the players haven't transferred yet.  Whoever is responsible for that decision should also be applauded.  The school is investing a lot of time and money trying to make sure that if the players can continue with the program that they will.

Like any business or institution, after the situation is over I hope someone goes back and evaluates all the decisions that were made to see if the university can improve the process.  Obviously one aspect of it that needs to be examined is why the students were not permitted to play while the process ran its course.  I don't know the factual details or the details of SLU's policy on this point.  Your comments and some of the other posts hint that it may be because one of the accusers may be involved in the athletic department/basketball operations.  Can a better approach be developed for the interim period while the matter is under investigation and being decided?  Your post notes the potential problems with letting both sides continue their actions as if nothing had happened.  Another interesting question going back and evaluating how the situation was handled was the decision to out-source the investigation.  Who made it?  Why was it made?  Hindsight is 20-20, but it sure seems to me someone should have thought about the time line of the process as it affects these particular student-athletes.  Could a provision have been put in the contract with the outside investigator's contract that the investigation had to be done by a particular date?  (Counter-argument, what outside investigator is going to agree to a timeline for completing the investigation when he or she doesn't really know the details of the matter?)  Maybe a timeline provision was put in the contract, but what do you do when the investigator doesn't finish on time because she is so busy that she asks for additional time?  Can't start all over again, that would run it out even longer.  So all SLU can do at this point is learn from this situation.  But who made that decision and what was in the contract?  Seems to me that's when SLU lost control of the timeline.  But at this point, all the school can do is let the process play itself out; it can't cut the process short just because the investigation took so long.  Then it should go back and see if the process can be improved going forward, because it is likely that some future student-athlete will get him or herself in trouble again, and the points you raise that the current process as applied to student-athletes is not fair are legitimate.

 

[moytoy12]

17 minutes ago, Quality Is Job 1 said:

The entire process, including the hearing officer's and appeal panel's contributions, were supposed to come within 60 days.  Apparently, the reason that they aren't is because of the university's outsourcing the investigation to the law firm.  However, if the hearing officer isn't going to use the attorneys' report as a basis for her/his decision of responsibility and sanctions but, rather, then has to conduct her/his own inquiries to further the process, then the use of the law firm was a waste of time and money!  The process makes sense only if the retained legal investigation would have some binding influence on it.

Still, if the administration hadn't imposed an interim suspension, there would be no cause for anyone to complain about the length of the process; no one would care, then, if it took them until April to make the decision.  I really think they goofed royally when they decided to impose an interim suspension applied only to game attendance and participation.  They appear to be going out of their way to apply preemptively some kind of punishment to these young men, without respect to the results of any investigation.

I understand they're suppose to apply protections to the accuser, but they messed this up.  If the accused present so much of a danger or threat to accusers, then they should have been suspended from the campus completely; that's the only way to make sure there's no chance for interaction between them.  It doesn't make sense to allow them to practice and travel with the team but then not be in the arena during games.  So, if the accuser is a member of a spirit squad, I guess I understand why the accusers might be barred from the arena during home games, but then why wouldn't they be allowed to play during road games?  Why would they be left at the hotel then, as the spirit squads aren't even there?!  Is it because then their names would be associated with a Title IX investigation?  As if they weren't by this arrangement?!  If they wanted to retain anonymity for all involved, they should have let the players continue to play, and if the accuser is affiliated with something related to game presentation, then they should have provided the accuser some temporary alternative arrangements.  If a cheerleader doesn't cheer at men's games for a couple of months but then gets an extra year, or something, no one would even notice, and the university wouldn't be embroiled by controversy.  They messed up, big time -- even worse than the young people did.

Well said. 

[moytoy12]

5 minutes ago, Wendelprof said:

Adman,

I applaud you for taking time to stop and read the SLU process (something I admit I haven't bother to do).  I agree with almost all of your comments and concerns.  The problem at this point is the university can't just make a decision, it has to follow its process.  Once an institution adopts a process, it essentially makes a public declaration that it thinks this is the best and fairest process.  Obviously when the university adopts a process, it does its best to take into consideration how it might apply to different types of students, but once adopted, it must be applied the same way to all students or the school immediately opens itself up to a easy claim of unfair/unequal treatment if it tries to accelerate the process for certain students.  The only thing that can be done now to accelerate the process is if the HO is sensitive to the situation and decides quickly, and/or the attorney for the players submits his or her documents in a manner that minimizes the time associated with that step.

I agree with you that the whole process is particularly unfair to athletes for a number of reasons, particularly if the de facto result is the player(s) loses a year of eligibility (particularly when he may have already lost one for whatever reason - transfer, injury, etc.).  I have a vague recollection that the NCAA is starting to acknowledge the unfairness of that result by granting student-athletes in that situation an extra year of eligibility, but I agree that does not fully cure the problem.  I sure hope if any of the players ends up losing a year of eligibility just because of the process, and not as part of any punishment, I sure hope SLU does everything it can to appeal to the NCAA to get that year back for the player.  I assume that may be part of the athletic department's mentality of letting the players practice with the team and travel with the team.  The athletic department is doing everything it can to send the message to the players that they are still a part of the team (at least until a decision indicates otherwise) and the athletic department is going to do whatever it can to keep them on the team (short term and long term).  I think that approach probably helps to explain why the players haven't transferred yet.  Whoever is responsible for that decision should also be applauded.  The school is investing a lot of time and money trying to make sure that if the players can continue with the program that they will.

Like any business or institution, after the situation is over I hope someone goes back and evaluates all the decisions that were made to see if the university can improve the process.  Obviously one aspect of it that needs to be examined is why the students were not permitted to play while the process ran its course.  I don't know the factual details or the details of SLU's policy on this point.  Your comments and some of the other posts hint that it may be because one of the accusers may be involved in the athletic department/basketball operations.  Can a better approach be developed for the interim period while the matter is under investigation and being decided?  Your post notes the potential problems with letting both sides continue their actions as if nothing had happened.  Another interesting question going back and evaluating how the situation was handled was the decision to out-source the investigation.  Who made it?  Why was it made?  Hindsight is 20-20, but it sure seems to me someone should have thought about the time line of the process as it affects these particular student-athletes.  Could a provision have been put in the contract with the outside investigator's contract that the investigation had to be done by a particular date?  (Counter-argument, what outside investigator is going to agree to a timeline for completing the investigation when he or she doesn't really know the details of the matter?)  Maybe a timeline provision was put in the contract, but what do you do when the investigator doesn't finish on time because she is so busy that she asks for additional time?  Can't start all over again, that would run it out even longer.  So all SLU can do at this point is learn from this situation.  But who made that decision and what was in the contract?  Seems to me that's when SLU lost control of the timeline.  But at this point, all the school can do is let the process play itself out; it can't cut the process short just because the investigation took so long.  Then it should go back and see if the process can be improved going forward, because it is likely that some future student-athlete will get him or herself in trouble again, and the points you raise that the current process as applied to student-athletes is not fair are legitimate.

 

The 2 things we are not sure of re: SLU's process:

1. Have they previously imposed interim suspensions in a similar situation or, said another way, are interim suspensions of certain privileges the norm during this process?

2. Are they following the process in a timely fashion?  

I suspect the answer is "no" to both questions. 

[cgeldmacher]

I would really like to know who is responsible for the delays.  I know we are all assuming who it is, but the answer will have a lot to do with my ultimate opinion of this.  Is it the University, the attorneys for the accusers, or the attorneys for the players?  It could also be a combination.  I doubt that any requests for continuances of the timeline have come for the attorneys from the players, but you never know.  I would love if someone could ask the attorneys for the players if they have requested any extensions, and, if not, have they been fighting against any extensions asked for by the accusers or the hearing officer.

[ACE]

So we thinking there is a chance for a Friday afternoon news dump today?

[Basketbill]

would be nice but doubt it

 

[Cowboy]

45 minutes ago, ACE said:

So we thinking there is a chance for a Friday afternoon dump today?

-this, yes

[crymdg2]