Quality Is Job 1 Posted January 22, 2018 Share Posted January 22, 2018 37 minutes ago, moytoy12 said: Or he and his attorney are taking a little longer to file an appeal (they have 3 biz days). Either way, it suggests to me that the punishments were effective immediately and the one player that played Saturday filed an appeal quickly. Although it would have been quickly filed, I suspect the attorneys had the appeal 90% ready to go even before the final determination came out. Or perhaps, contrary to what many media outlets and posters here have been reporting as fact, no one who has been playing for SLU this season has been under investigation by the Title IX office and no one who has been playing in games for SLU this season played Saturday after having been suspended Friday and no one who has been playing was represented by Rosenblum. SLU won't comment, Rosenblum won't name his clients, and the team won't comment, so how exactly can anyone state as fact that Goodwin or any other player who's been playing this season has been suspended and had to file a quick appeal in order to play Saturday? If any currently playing player was a client of Rosenblum's along with Henriquez and Bishop (as it seems reasonable to assume), then why would two of them not have appeals ready to go while the other one did? Also, nothing I've read from Rosenblum suggests that only some of his clients had been suspended in interim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheeseman Posted January 22, 2018 Share Posted January 22, 2018 14 minutes ago, billiken_roy said: anyone that ever donated even $1 to saint louis university needs to let the school know they will not do so ever again unless these punishments are reduced to Time served and probation at the most. if you have donated considerably more than that $1 please, this is the time to call in it all in. Make a personal or at the very least telephone call to the powers to be at saint louis university. this school exists because of benefactors. i believe at this point the benefactors are really the only thing that might change this as the people making the decisions on this case are either tremendously biased or stupid. so now is the time to go to a higher power. If SLU decides to let the Title IX department be unaccountable to anyone at the school then this will only lead to more trouble in the future. While I understand that the investigation should be free of influence from without that does not mean that it operates totally in a vacuum. All the departments have to mesh together eventually. The BOT does not have to get involved but they certainly can let Fred know that they want a compromise to this matter. In the long run the U is better served with staking out a position that protects the girl and yet recognize that 18 year olds while technically adults still have not had the full mental development yet therefore they are still capable of not making good decisions at times and thus the U has an obligation to be compassionate in their handling of all student discipline. I doubt seriously that the Feds will care much about a case that was found in favor of the girl and provides some reasonable punishment. They have much bigger fish to fry. If the U comes across as a "death within 24 hours" place that will also have an impact on future student enrollment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
almaman Posted January 22, 2018 Share Posted January 22, 2018 You must get a lot of bang for your $ rewatching movies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kshoe Posted January 22, 2018 Share Posted January 22, 2018 9 minutes ago, Quality Is Job 1 said: Or perhaps, contrary to what many media outlets and posters here have been reporting as fact, no one who has been playing for SLU this season has been under investigation by the Title IX office and no one who has been playing in games for SLU this season played Saturday after having been suspended Friday and no one who has been playing was represented by Rosenblum. SLU won't comment, Rosenblum won't name his clients, and the team won't comment, so how exactly can anyone state as fact that Goodwin or any other player who's been playing this season has been suspended and had to file a quick appeal in order to play Saturday? If any currently playing player was a client of Rosenblum's along with Henriquez and Bishop (as it seems reasonable to assume), then why would two of them not have appeals ready to go while the other one did? Also, nothing I've read from Rosenblum suggests that only some of his clients had been suspended in interim. All other players are accounted for on the bench. So if there are truly 4 players involved, only 3 have been missing from game day activities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeSmetBilliken Posted January 22, 2018 Share Posted January 22, 2018 8 minutes ago, kshoe said: All other players are accounted for on the bench. So if there are truly 4 players involved, only 3 have been missing from game day activities. What if the theory that Henriquez, Bishop, and Graves were kept out of games due to a “no-contact” rule with an accuser has legs? Further, what if the same reason explaining Goodwin playing could apply to another player playing or sitting on the bench? In theory, it could be another player no one is thinking of besides Goodwin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bay Area Billiken Posted January 22, 2018 Share Posted January 22, 2018 The VCU game tomorrow on CBSSN is going to be interesting to say the least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bay Area Billiken Posted January 22, 2018 Share Posted January 22, 2018 The next question is if otherwise eligible players were kept out of games due to a "no contact" measure, which primarily involved home games, then why were they not allowed to play in most of the road games? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeSmetBilliken Posted January 22, 2018 Share Posted January 22, 2018 1 minute ago, Bay Area Billiken said: The next question is if the three were kept out of games due to "no contact," which primarily involves home games, then why were they not allowed to play in most of the road games? How do you explain that publicly? SLU can’t give out information about the investigation, especially facts and names. If we’re playing 2/3 guys only in road games, that’s going to lead to questions. There’s no way SLU or Ford can say “those three guys are under investigation for sexual misconduct involving a cheerleader, so they are prohibited from playing while she’s cheering, so they’re only playing in the road when she’s not there.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bay Area Billiken Posted January 22, 2018 Share Posted January 22, 2018 2 minutes ago, DeSmetBilliken said: How do you explain that publicly? SLU can’t give out information about the investigation, especially facts and names. If we’re playing 2/3 guys only in road games, that’s going to lead to questions. There’s no way SLU or Ford can say “those three guys are under investigation for sexual misconduct involving a cheerleader, so they are prohibited from playing while she’s cheering, so they’re only playing in the road when she’s not there.” SLU doesn't say anything. But I get your point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeSmetBilliken Posted January 22, 2018 Share Posted January 22, 2018 10 minutes ago, Bay Area Billiken said: SLU doesn't say anything. But I get your point. Yeah, that’s not something that you can “no comment” your way through. With that said, this thing has been so weird, it would be about par for the course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gobillsgo Posted January 23, 2018 Share Posted January 23, 2018 30 minutes ago, Bay Area Billiken said: The next question is if otherwise eligible players were kept out of games due to a "no contact" measure, which primarily involved home games, then why were they not allowed to play in most of the road games? This has been my question all along. The whole “they can’t play because the cheerleader is in the building” doesn’t add up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billiken Rich Posted January 23, 2018 Share Posted January 23, 2018 I'm going to be holding up a sign in section 108 during free throws. Limited space. Should I go with "FREE THE 3" or "FIRE FRED" you make the call......... TheOne likes this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billikenfan05 Posted January 23, 2018 Share Posted January 23, 2018 1 minute ago, Billiken Rich said: I'm going to be holding up a sign in section 108 during free throws. Limited space. Should I go with "FREE THE 3" or "FIRE FRED" you make the call......... Pestello Out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillIkenFan_Dan Posted January 23, 2018 Share Posted January 23, 2018 2 minutes ago, Billiken Rich said: I'm going to be holding up a sign in section 108 during free throws. Limited space. Should I go with "FREE THE 3" or "FIRE FRED" you make the call......... Fred Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spoon-Balls Posted January 23, 2018 Share Posted January 23, 2018 4 minutes ago, Billiken Rich said: I'm going to be holding up a sign in section 108 during free throws. Limited space. Should I go with "FREE THE 3" or "FIRE FRED" you make the call......... How about Black Lives Matter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billiken Rich Posted January 23, 2018 Share Posted January 23, 2018 Just now, Spoon-Balls said: How about Black Lives Matter? Definitely not going there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattyMo213 Posted January 23, 2018 Share Posted January 23, 2018 6 minutes ago, Billiken Rich said: I'm going to be holding up a sign in section 108 during free throws. Limited space. Should I go with "FREE THE 3" or "FIRE FRED" you make the call......... one on each side Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billiken Rich Posted January 23, 2018 Share Posted January 23, 2018 Just now, MattyMo213 said: one on each side Not a bad call. Although I'm talking about one of those rollout signs they gave out a while back like 2 feet by maybe 6 or 8 in wide..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slufan13 Posted January 23, 2018 Share Posted January 23, 2018 The idea of playing a player on the road and not letting him in the building for home games is laughable to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VeniceMenace Posted January 23, 2018 Share Posted January 23, 2018 1 hour ago, Bay Area Billiken said: The VCU game tomorrow on CBSSN is going to be interesting to say the least. We’re weeks away from a final verdict, what’s changing between now and then that will make tomorrow nights game more interesting than usual? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bay Area Billiken Posted January 23, 2018 Share Posted January 23, 2018 14 minutes ago, VeniceMenace said: We’re weeks away from a final verdict, what’s changing between now and then that will make tomorrow nights game more interesting than usual? Fan reaction. TheOne likes this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juniorbill76 Posted January 23, 2018 Share Posted January 23, 2018 Tomorrow night is also the annual game for members of the St. Louis Sports Commission. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChangeOfPace Posted January 23, 2018 Share Posted January 23, 2018 Were multiple cheerleaders allegedly involved? If not, and it’s only one, the no contact theory becomes pretty crazy and somewhat unbelievable IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kmbilliken Posted January 23, 2018 Share Posted January 23, 2018 The post article linked on page 106 of this thread refers to the 2014 overnight bag incident. In that case the guy was suspended after his hearing based on ridiculous evidence. Two months later the assistant Vice President of Student Affairs, after having no contact with the case up to that point, stepped in, reviewed the evidence and set aside the ruling. Apparently the administration had the power to throw out the Title IX decision then. Why not now? GoBills73, Spoon-Balls and JohnnyJumpUp like this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattyMo213 Posted January 23, 2018 Share Posted January 23, 2018 15 minutes ago, ChangeOfPace said: Were multiple cheerleaders allegedly involved? If not, and it’s only one, the no contact theory becomes pretty crazy and somewhat unbelievable IMO. One current cheerleader, one ex-cheerleader who quit either late 2015 or early 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts