moytoy12 Posted January 19, 2018 Share Posted January 19, 2018 Just now, slufan13 said: Would SLU really let the accused attend classes for a week and then kick them out even though they had the report findings? I guess SLU would but I would think a normal school wouldn't. Given how risk/litigation averse we believe SLU to be, I have to believe that if the decision was going to be really bad for the players, it would have been communicated as a final decision prior to the 2nd semester beginning. The only reasonable explanation for the timing is that the final decision isn't horrible for the guys and SLU wanted to give the accused every possible opportunity to exercise her/their rights. CBFan likes this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoBills73 Posted January 19, 2018 Share Posted January 19, 2018 1 minute ago, Slu let the dogs out? said: Forgive me if the answer is in another tweet or post but it doesn't say WHEN the findings were reported, correct? If they were reported last week, we could be half way through the appeals process by now in theory. It is not stated elsewhere. But Chris Gardner's tweet reported a couple weeks ago was accurate when he said 'a decision was expected the week of Jan 15'. So it is possible the decision was communicated sometime earlier this week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2010andBeyond Posted January 19, 2018 Share Posted January 19, 2018 1 minute ago, Slu let the dogs out? said: Forgive me if the answer is in another tweet or post but it doesn't say WHEN the findings were reported, correct? If they were reported last week, we could be half way through the appeals process by now in theory. True. Assuming the appeals phase just started today however, the Feb 3 home game against Fordham would be the first game after the completion of the gold standard process. If we don’t see the three in that game, we aren’t gonna see them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slufan13 Posted January 19, 2018 Share Posted January 19, 2018 Also is it a coincidence that a decision comes just hours after Uncle Tony emails the Title IX board? crymdg2, BillIkenFan_Dan, Littlebill and 1 other like this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slu let the dogs out? Posted January 19, 2018 Share Posted January 19, 2018 Just now, slufan13 said: Also is it a coincidence that a decision comes just hours after Uncle Tony emails the Title IX board? Freaking T Murks, man. The guy gets results. I want to throw him a bachelor party in Vegas even though he's not getting married. TheChosenOne likes this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keyser soze Posted January 19, 2018 Share Posted January 19, 2018 1 minute ago, slufan13 said: Also is it a coincidence that a decision comes just hours after Uncle Tony emails the Title IX board? Then Damn It, get Uncle Tony down to the clock tower for a sit in/down/strike!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billikenfan05 Posted January 19, 2018 Share Posted January 19, 2018 3 minutes ago, slufan13 said: Also is it a coincidence that a decision comes just hours after Uncle Tony emails the Title IX board? I was going to give Cooz the credit for going on radio but we can give it to TMurda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slufan13 Posted January 19, 2018 Share Posted January 19, 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeSmetBilliken Posted January 19, 2018 Share Posted January 19, 2018 9 minutes ago, White Pelican said: Since when does "each" mean only two? Upon further review, I suppose it could mean more than 2, but Stu Durando seems to have interpreted it the same way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheeseman Posted January 19, 2018 Share Posted January 19, 2018 8 minutes ago, Pistol said: And I'm 100% sure they were put in place. Maternity leave is not a surprise, after all. From what I can tell, Pestello removed himself from the situation on day one. Completely. Responsibilities were delegated to the third party investigator and Title IX office - which would've made arrangements for Kratky's impending leave, if she wasn't out already (returning mid-February means she's been gone since at least mid-November). I personally don't want the University president meddling in cases like this. It seems corrupt and irresponsible, and opens the school up to lawsuits. But that doesn't mean he had to go silent. To me, it's hard to put 100% of the blame on Pestello because there are other people running point on this and we don't know exactly who they are, or why it's taking so long. I personally think Pestello's failure here is a lack of communication. I don't buy the theory that he's personally telling anyone to drag their feet. I don't think he's doing anything related to this case - and that's back to my issue. Even if he's supposed to stay out of the process as president of the school, he could at the very least keep himself up to date on where everything stands and be communicating internally and publicly. He's issued one statement, at about the 60-day mark. When that happened, it felt way too late. Why couldn't he have given that statement within the first couple weeks? Why couldn't he have updated us at each milestone (investigation complete, recommendation is being discussed, etc.)? Why couldn't he be sending an assistant to check on this daily and convey a sense of urgency? He's getting destroyed on social media and among fans and alums right now, and this could have been prevented if he just talked to us. He doesn't have to give an opinion, but there's no reason he couldn't say something like "I can't be involved in this process because of my position, but here's where it currently stands, and we hope for a fair and timely resolution". Something like that given to the public periodically would've gone a long way. Instead, he's going to keep getting criticized - and experiencing the financial pain, as people pull donations and stop buying tickets - until this wraps up. It seems mostly avoidable, and it's a shame. I agree this is not all of Fred's fault but since he is the sheriff so to speak he has to use his badge at some point. As far as Fred meddling - define meddling, is it giving a time line that requires a fair but speedy resolution meddling? is keeping people appraised of the process and progress meddling?. I get that SLU has always taken the path that since they are a private institution they are not obliged to release any information of any kind regarding the school and its operation but just because you don't have to do something does not necessarily mean you shouldn't. Today people want transparency from all institutions - private and public. You can not expect people to give donations, buy tix, and support your institution if you run it as a closed system. I believe Fred should have released several statements about the process and progress - no need to use names - as a way to make everyone feel as if nothing shifty is going on. Should he be fired for this - no but he will pay the price for the fallout. I know lawyers will always tell you to say and do nothing but you pay the lawyer and you ultimately make the final decisions. It is not uncommon for a leader to listen to the advice of lawyers but decide not to do it. Mark McGuire when he testified to Congress was advised to admit to nothing and while this may have been sound advice to stay out of jail but nobody involved with the PED situation who talked to Congress was ever charged with perjury and they never were going to be so McGuire should have realized this and come free with the info. All he accomplished was getting roasted in public and falling out of voting contention for the HOF. He paid the price for taking the advice of lawyers but I am not sure he made the right decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2010andBeyond Posted January 19, 2018 Share Posted January 19, 2018 So now the question becomes, does slu let them play during the appeals process IF the decision was favorable to the players?? And would the players take the risk of blowing a year of eligibility for a couple of games in the event the decision is overturned? I’m guessing we won’t see them until it’s truly over if at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HenryB Posted January 19, 2018 Share Posted January 19, 2018 4 hours ago, HenryB said: Frank just said it appears to be bad news. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoBills73 Posted January 19, 2018 Share Posted January 19, 2018 Just now, HenryB said: Frank just said it appears to be bad news. Please explain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillyCan Posted January 19, 2018 Share Posted January 19, 2018 First time poster here but long-time lurker. I have it on good authority that one of the girl's fathers is a big-time lawyer in town. And he is the fly in the ointment here. Has anyone else heard that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Box and Won Posted January 19, 2018 Share Posted January 19, 2018 2 minutes ago, DeSmetBilliken said: Upon further review, I suppose it could mean more than 2, but Stu Durando seems to have interpreted it the same way. Some lawyers are lousy writers. Most aren't. As you know, precision is important when it comes to stuff like this. Presumably they would've used "both" to indicate two. While "each" could be used to refer to two parties, it's much more likely that it's referring to more than two. /lamethreadhijack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slu let the dogs out? Posted January 19, 2018 Share Posted January 19, 2018 1 minute ago, HenryB said: Frank just said it appears to be bad news. Care to provide more detail for those of us not listening to race cars roaring around the track on Frank's hot takes show? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slu let the dogs out? Posted January 19, 2018 Share Posted January 19, 2018 1 minute ago, BillyCan said: First time poster here but long-time lurker. I have it on good authority that one of the girl's fathers is a big-time lawyer in town. And he is the fly in the ointment here. Has anyone else heard that? Jesus, so instead of assigning any blame to his daughter he's hell-bent on ruining the lives of 3 black men? Sounds about right... This could also partially be why they lawyered up with Rosenblum. Probably not though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HenryB Posted January 19, 2018 Share Posted January 19, 2018 Not a lot of details at this time but he thinks the ruling went against the players Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billikenfan05 Posted January 19, 2018 Share Posted January 19, 2018 1 minute ago, HenryB said: Not a lot of details at this time but he thinks the ruling went against the players The ruling could be Time served and still be noted as “against the players” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnyJumpUp Posted January 19, 2018 Share Posted January 19, 2018 2 minutes ago, BillyCan said: First time poster here but long-time lurker. I have it on good authority that one of the girl's fathers is a big-time lawyer in town. And he is the fly in the ointment here. Has anyone else heard that? There's only 2 "big time" lawyers in town and neither are the father of one of the girls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spoon-Balls Posted January 19, 2018 Share Posted January 19, 2018 34 minutes ago, brianstl said: SLU has sat on the hearing officers findings this long? Jesus. The question we will continue to ask is why they sat on these findings for so long. What could possibly have taken them 2 months to come up with a decision? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billiken_roy Posted January 19, 2018 Share Posted January 19, 2018 wouldnt surprise me if the videographer gets slammed hard and the others walk with time served. but again, if the video wasnt done, the players could be sitting in jail waiting trial for false charges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keyser soze Posted January 19, 2018 Share Posted January 19, 2018 4 minutes ago, BillyCan said: First time poster here but long-time lurker. I have it on good authority that one of the girl's fathers is a big-time lawyer in town. And he is the fly in the ointment here. Has anyone else heard that? So the Cheerleader's Dad is an Attorney in town.... Shouldn't be to hard to figure out who both of them are..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HenryB Posted January 19, 2018 Share Posted January 19, 2018 3 minutes ago, billikenfan05 said: The ruling could be Time served and still be noted as “against the players” You could be right but Frank speculated they might be losing their scholarships. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillyCan Posted January 19, 2018 Share Posted January 19, 2018 Correction: So of the 3 girls involved, 2 are students. 1 of the 2 is a cheerleader and has been cheerleading all along. Of the 2 students, one of the girl's dads is big money. Unclear if he is attorney or not. I apologize. But big-money Dad is hell-bent on these players not playing, I am told. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts