Fall 2017 allegations against unnamed players (aka Situation 2)

[Coach314]

1 hour ago, RiseAndGrind said:

Then they would have been arrested on the spot. Next. 

Well...He wasn't.  But ok.  👌

[moytoy12]

38 minutes ago, Coach314 said:

Well...He wasn't.  But ok.  👌

Obviously, you have some information that leads you to believe the pics/video were taken and distributed without permission.  I suspect that is the main issue before the Title IX office.  My guess, everyone involved knew that pics/vids were being captured.  The main issue is whether there was consent to sharing and/or an expectation of privacy?  Based on what we think we know, the police won’t press charges because the charges won’t stick.  Nevertheless, SLU can comfortably decide that there was a violation of the student code.  SLU is probably technically correct; however, the punishment doesn’t fit the violation. 

[Coach314]

2 minutes ago, moytoy12 said:

Obviously, you have some information that leads you to believe the pics/video were taken and distributed without permission.  I suspect that is the main issue before the Title IX office.  My guess, everyone involved knew that pics/vids were being captured.  The main issue is whether there was consent to sharing and/or an expectation of privacy?  Based on what we think we know, the police won’t press charges because the charges won’t stick.  Nevertheless, SLU can comfortably decide that there was a violation of the student code.  SLU is probably technically correct; however, the punishment doesn’t fit the violation. 

I agree with you.. the punishment is excessive.

[majerus mojo]

2 hours ago, HenryB said:

I notice you made no mention of filing false police reports..that's a crime, too.  Why is that ignored? The police didn't want anything to do with this.  For the administration to react like this is unconscionable. 

the aretes (I think there are two posters with that in the name?) are trolls. don’t waste your time. not nearly as clever as they think.. it’s pretty easy to discern when they only come around for the negative stuff

25 minutes ago, moytoy12 said:

Obviously, you have some information that leads you to believe the pics/video were taken and distributed without permission.  I suspect that is the main issue before the Title IX office.  My guess, everyone involved knew that pics/vids were being captured.  The main issue is whether there was consent to sharing and/or an expectation of privacy?  Based on what we think we know, the police won’t press charges because the charges won’t stick.  Nevertheless, SLU can comfortably decide that there was a violation of the student code.  SLU is probably technically correct; however, the punishment doesn’t fit the violation. 

From all I’ve gathered, one of the guys posted some, presumably, 10 second (the Snapchat limit, though you can take multiple videos back to back etc.) video to his Snapchat story, which is visible by the user’s “friends”, on the app. The university has no idea how to govern such an incident, and it’s also possible the females knew this was happening at the time. The university is making their ruling because this is the outcome they want, not due to prior rules, or precedent, as I imagine there is none. Snapchat is new ground.. or you could presumably make the case that it is very easily. It’s the university’s own “code of conduct” we’re talking about. It’s all a joke 

[William Iken]

8 hours ago, Coach314 said:

What if the pics or videos were taken without permission and shared without permission 🤔

No sense in exploring scenarios which are not present here... 

Unless there was a hidden camera, I cannot even imagine your scenario anymore.

I'll bet you any amount you want that the videos were taken by a handphone, and double-or nothing that comments were being made at the time. You willing to play my game?

And beyond that, as a matter of course if I were in the US right now I would think of recording sexual encounters so as to not be accused of rape after the fact. #metoo loses credibility when buyer's remorse becomes something different in the mind with the passage of time, but innocents can still be caught up in all the bs.

[William Iken]

5 hours ago, majerus mojo said:

the aretes (I think there are two posters with that in the name?) are trolls. don’t waste your time. not nearly as clever as they think.. it’s pretty easy to discern when they only come around for the negative stuff

From all I’ve gathered, one of the guys posted some, presumably, 10 second (the Snapchat limit, though you can take multiple videos back to back etc.) video to his Snapchat story, which is visible by the user’s “friends”, on the app. The university has no idea how to govern such an incident, and it’s also possible the females knew this was happening at the time. The university is making their ruling because this is the outcome they want, not due to prior rules, or precedent, as I imagine there is none. Snapchat is new ground.. or you could presumably make the case that it is very easily. It’s the university’s own “code of conduct” we’re talking about. It’s all a joke 

This is, I have to say, turning me off SLU. Bad judgment on the player, sure, as a student-athlete he has a different code to live by - it's the price in exchange for a free education. But it seems (if what we think is true) the punishment does not fit the 'crime', at all. And beyond that, the manner in which this has been handled is in itself borderline criminal. How can I continue to support this?

 

[Bobby Metzinger]

13 minutes ago, William Iken said:

This is, I have to say, turning me off SLU. Bad judgment on the player, sure, as a student-athlete he has a different code to live by - it's the price in exchange for a free education. But it seems (if what we think is true) the punishment does not fit the 'crime', at all. And beyond that, the manner in which this has been handled is in itself borderline criminal. How can I continue to support this?

 

This.  SLU kids have to unfortunately govern themselves by two books, one being the laws and the justice system of the United States, then the laws of SLU. It’s hard to comprehend one of them, much less having to comprehend both. So you could be Scott free on one hand, but cuffed on the other, simply because you are a student at SLU. This is the definition of a Kangaroo Court. Justice, in this court of law, is not blind. It’s abhorently slanted in the defense of the accusers/victims in our woe is me Society. 

[cheeseman]

6 hours ago, majerus mojo said:

the aretes (I think there are two posters with that in the name?) are trolls. don’t waste your time. not nearly as clever as they think.. it’s pretty easy to discern when they only come around for the negative stuff

From all I’ve gathered, one of the guys posted some, presumably, 10 second (the Snapchat limit, though you can take multiple videos back to back etc.) video to his Snapchat story, which is visible by the user’s “friends”, on the app. The university has no idea how to govern such an incident, and it’s also possible the females knew this was happening at the time. The university is making their ruling because this is the outcome they want, not due to prior rules, or precedent, as I imagine there is none. Snapchat is new ground.. or you could presumably make the case that it is very easily. It’s the university’s own “code of conduct” we’re talking about. It’s all a joke 

The interesting thing here is that social media has taken the entire country to places that create confusion - Facebook's role in the 2016 election is being questioned as an example.  Usually when society is faced with something new it simply flounders around for awhile before it gets its balance.  At this point, SLU finds itself in the same spot but they really can not just use the floundering excuse - they are dealing with individuals not some nameless broad aspect.  Hopefully, they will have had time to figure this out and not make a bad situation worse.  See the Post's article by Ben H - today he clearly lays out what actually happened and it makes the school look even worse.  Get it together SLU before you completely step off the cliff.

[slusam]

Good article by Ben Hochman in the Post. Can someone please post it. Explains what is happening fairly clearly.

[Westy03]

9 minutes ago, slusam said:

Good article by Ben Hochman in the Post. Can someone please post it. Explains what is happening fairly clearly.

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/columns/benjamin-hochman/hochman-today-slu-celebrates-despite-unknown-ahead/article_653ac825-f4c3-5411-b2e7-891490ebde4a.html

[CBFan]

37 minutes ago, Westy03 said:

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/columns/benjamin-hochman/hochman-today-slu-celebrates-despite-unknown-ahead/article_653ac825-f4c3-5411-b2e7-891490ebde4a.html

I hope many will go to this link read it and more importantly comment.  It is time to fill up the comment sections and voice our disgust in other forums.

[kmbilliken]

11 hours ago, TJHawk said:

Were the pictures shared with friends or did they make posters and paste them on campus?  If it's the latter then the players deserve punishment but if it's the former who cares.  Kids of that generation photograph everything.  I get the feeling these racist are trying to make an undefendable excuse for a racist decision.

I agree. I think they plays out differently if it were four white guys.

[Spoon-Balls]

4 hours ago, Westy03 said:

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/columns/benjamin-hochman/hochman-today-slu-celebrates-despite-unknown-ahead/article_653ac825-f4c3-5411-b2e7-891490ebde4a.html

Loving the comments on the article. These young men and coach Ford need our support. It's an absolute travesty that Katherine Weathers is being allowed to destroy their futures. 

[TFord and TRavs]

1 hour ago, Spoon-Balls said:

Loving the comments on the article. These young men and coach Ford need our support. It's an absolute travesty that Katherine Weathers is being allowed to destroy their futures. 

Weathers has destroyed more futures at Slu than just the basketball players. It’s been an issue for awhile

[Clock_Tower]

On 1/27/2018 at 9:07 AM, Tilkowsky said:

ACE - Or the posters on stltoday.com could be telling the truth and they are alumni.

Sad Billikens.com posters don't want to go over to SLU Talk and defend the players - don't want to leave your safe space?

Clocktower said something to the effect that SLU needs to decide if they want to be Division I or not. He said the players did nothing that night (how would he know) to be suspended this long.

The STLPD is not backlogged by four months (even though they could be because they are 100 officers down from where they should be) but explain why the case is still open then?

Tilky.  Are you really that stupid?  We know your reading skills are deficient and that you have some unexplained anger and resentment toward SLU.  Seriously, put down the kiddie porn, come out of your parents' basement and wake up.  In the meantime, you posts are personally offensive.

You equate investigation with guilt.  You also suggest that ANY investigation or any guilt, or placing such guilt into context, constitutes me (and others) to be insensitive to women and women's rights (with your over the top comments asking me if I have a daughter) and your comments to me (and others) suggest that I  (and others) support making SLU a "win at all costs" "program.  Your comments are not only your own comments (free country and free to express on this Board) but are personal, offensive and intentional mischaracterization of me. 

How would I know what happened that night?  As mentioned multiple times -- I don't.  At the same time, SLU is my alma mater and I give deference and respect to their  ability to handle this matter and their decisions and I feel it is just and appropriate to make assumptions based upon SLU's actions/inactions.  Facts:  SLU knows what happened.  SLU allowed all 3, 4 or 6 players to keep their scholarships and attend class,  practice, travel, live in student housing, move them back to on-campus student housing and apparently to allow 1 of them to play.  I am NOT suggesting that "the players did nothing that night" --- you are 100% wrong and you either know better or should know better.  Again, you post is offensive.  Instead, I said that if they did something so bad that night, they should have been gone -- and I trust that SLU would have made them be gone.   If 1 or 6 boys truly did something wrong, they should be gone.  And if they are still at SLU having truly done something wrong, then I am also upset that SLU would have kept them around.  I also said, that because they were not gone, that they could not possibly be deserving of any greater punishment that already levied -- "time served." 

"Win at all cost" is usually referred to D1 colleges that pay their players, fix grades, provide improper benefits, apply influence with police and prosecutors to "contain" or make criminal violations of their players "go away" have boosters violate NCAA rules and then bail them out afterwards. None of that applies to SLU.  SLU is not facing ANY NCAA violations and has never been on athletic probation with the NCAA.  Your repeated posts citing the Title IX investigation suggests otherwise and tries to draw comparisons with the true NCAA violators -- N. Carolina, Louisville, etc.  - even Mizzou and the Illini have had their multiple violations.  SLU has done none of this and does not belong in a category with them.  Again, you know better or should know better and therefore a deserving of your title -- troll.  Also, I believe you and your aliases should be banned.

Why is there an investigation if the sex was consensual?  Because apparently alcohol was involved (and SLU is questioning consent), because girls may have changed their mind(s) about consent (and SLU is investigating) and because a complaint was filed (and SLU is investigating apparently even if all the girls are no longer interested in pursuing).  If SLU did not investigation, then there would be problem.   I am glad that SLU is taking female student complaints serious and have investigated.  I am not pleased that this investigation has taken longer than 60 days, etc.

Violations of SLU's moral policies/student code of conduct as interpreted by the Kratky's office and in the face of threats by the Obama Administration to withhold federal funding is at stake.  SLU cannot, and should not, establish "higher" moral standards for both its athletes and students than that required by their competition (and I would suggest by current Department of Education guidelines).  In my opinion, something does not appear correct.  I get that investigations take longer than 60 days but I don't get the moving of players back on campus, of including them in pictures/social media, etc. and then the harsh punishments levied against 4 -- not 3 players. If these players are truly deserving of this, then why did SLU take all of its actions which would appear to be contrary to these punishments.

[Spoon-Balls]

19 minutes ago, TFord and TRavs said:

Weathers has destroyed more futures at Slu than just the basketball players. It’s been an issue for awhile

Care to elaborate? 

[Billiken Rich]

Maybe the girls react differently if the boys are white but I sincerely doubt that the title ix social justice warriors would cut any slack if was the SLU diving team on tape rather than the basketball team. These people don't see color.  They see penises.   They hate penises and everything connected to them.   

[almaman]

2 minutes ago, Billiken Rich said:

Maybe the girls react differently if the boys are white but I sincerely doubt that the title ix social justice warriors would cut any slack if was the SLU diving team on tape rather than the basketball team. These people don't see color.  They see penises.   They hate penises and everything connected to them.   

deep down is the big black ones that they fear the most

[BillsBeliever!!!]

Mizzou point guard Terrence Phillips is under title IX investigation. I wonder if tigerbkard will start a #FreeTP chant

[TFord and TRavs]

49 minutes ago, Spoon-Balls said:

Care to elaborate? 

There have been groups of those wronged  trying to sue Slu but they just don’t have the money 

[Billiken Rich]

3 minutes ago, almaman said:

deep down is the big black ones that they fear the most

Maybe so but ALL of them are bad, really bad.   

[cheeseman]

9 minutes ago, Billiken Rich said:

Maybe the girls react differently if the boys are white but I sincerely doubt that the title ix social justice warriors would cut any slack if was the SLU diving team on tape rather than the basketball team. These people don't see color.  They see penises.   They hate penises and everything connected to them.   

I agree with your assumption regarding the school's reaction.  I don't think that the girls cared if the boys were white or black, they knew who was going to be there that night.

[Clock_Tower]

2 minutes ago, cheeseman said:

I agree with your assumption regarding the school's reaction.  I don't think that the girls cared if the boys were white or black, they knew who was going to be there that night.

You are probably right about the girls. Wonder if their fathers cared if the boys were white or black. 

[Spoon-Balls]

3 minutes ago, Clock_Tower said:

You are probably right about the girls. Wonder if their fathers cared if the boys were white or black. 

If they're Catholic school girls from the suburbs of STL, you better believe it. 

[cheeseman]

18 minutes ago, Clock_Tower said:

You are probably right about the girls. Wonder if their fathers cared if the boys were white or black. 

They may very well but that is their problem.  These girls were old enough to make the decision to want to participate so I would tell the father get over it - if you are upset take it up with your daughter and your own racist point.