SLU_Lax Posted January 31, 2018 Share Posted January 31, 2018 6 hours ago, slufanskip said: If you willingly get in my car and everything is good and I drive away am I now guilty of kidnapping because you didn't verbally agree to go? I love this analogy. I want to get an Uber and then file a kidnapping charge. Yes, I requested and paid for a ride, but you never even stopped to ask me if it was ok with me that we go. William Iken likes this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CBFan Posted January 31, 2018 Share Posted January 31, 2018 2 hours ago, STL Hoops Insider said: Worst case scenario, we lose all three Pgs Goodwin, Graves, and Bishop in addition to graduating Hines and Roby, don’t we need at least 2-3 Pgs in the class since none of the current signees are Pgs? Hopefully the JUCO player coach Tate has been watching is a strong candidate. I wish Ramey was in play but that will not happen and that is a shame. What are the 2018 possibilities that you have seen coach? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NextYearBill Posted January 31, 2018 Share Posted January 31, 2018 9 minutes ago, CBFan said: Hopefully the JUCO player coach Tate has been watching is a strong candidate. I wish Ramey was in play but that will not happen and that is a shame. What are the 2018 possibilities that you have seen coach? umm..... there are no possibilities.... this program has been dealt the death penalty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chillinthemost Posted January 31, 2018 Share Posted January 31, 2018 16 minutes ago, NextYearBill said: umm..... there are no possibilities.... this program has been dealt the death penalty Just like it was after situation 1? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianstl Posted January 31, 2018 Share Posted January 31, 2018 11 minutes ago, chillinthemost said: Just like it was after situation 1? Situation one didn’t involve a local player, wasn’t coming off 3 straight awful seasons, actually did involve questions of sexual consent, we didn’t of our better players eligible to graduate transfers and was the first situation of its kind at SLU. The last one is the biggie. People are now going to say there is a pattern to how SLU treats young black man that have sex with young white women. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kmbilliken Posted January 31, 2018 Share Posted January 31, 2018 Isn't this slander per se? Accusing someone of a crime they didn't commit. Sue the girl and the lady that released the statement for slander. Sue the school for race and sex discrimination. This thing has legs. It will run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tilkowsky Posted January 31, 2018 Share Posted January 31, 2018 18 hours ago, Clock_Tower said: You have now proven how really stupid you are. Obviously, you are not a SLU student or former SLU student because SLU students simply are not that dumb. First, no one said the boys, 2, 4 or 6 of them did not make bad decisions that night. Should all bad decisions result in expulsions and 2 year suspensions? And if so, who receives counseling and community service and for what, how are non-student athletes treated, how have similar students/athletes been treated both at SLU and at other colleges across the nation, why did SLU move the 3 players back on campus and reinstate certain privileges? Did the Hearing Officer confirm the decisions of the outside counsel's investigative report? What did the outside counsel, who are familiar with Title IX issues and precedent across the nation recommend? Did all 3, 4 or 6 players participate equally? and if so, in what? Second, what did the police report document? and allege? Sexual assault? or non-consensual posting of pictures/videos? Did all participate in the filming and posting? Did all the boys consent to the filming and posting? It is now becoming quite clear that no sexual assault occurred -- see lack of criminal charges, lack of initial expulsions, lack of more serious suspensions. I call you stupid because "due process" does NOT require 60 to 120 day investigations by any and all actions. Physical violence, sexual assault, battery all are easy examples of conduct which would not require the police to wait, for SLU to wait or for a Title IX investigation to wait before "due process" is reached to levy immediate punishment. No one wants to sweep anything under the rug. I guess that is your "catch all" for the mantra of investigation = guilt and that if basketball players are not punished severely = sweep under the rug and "win at all cost" No other possibilities exist in your world. Sad. What have I done? For one, I voted to change our President who is starting to implement fairness and balance into the Title IX "due process" of his predecessor. At the same time, what other involvement would I have had to know what has been truly going on these past 8 years. And why is Kratky not immediately adopting the new Department of Education informal guidelines as express by Secretary Betsy DeVos? As to discussion of what is the proper punishment for posting private pictures or videos? I am not sure. Guess I would need to see the pictures/videos, see now many there are, see what they depicted, see who they were sent to, see how long they went "public", find out why they went "public", etc. But I would suggest to you that this is a completely different topic than committing sexual assault upon an unwilling female. Is it still wrong? of course. Should there still be some punishments? of course. Again, let's see that the outside counsel recommended. # release the memo Graduated from SLU. Something the players won't have the privilege of doing. Nor should they. Not all bad decisions should result in the types of suspensions handed out - these more than likely should. I would hope non student athletes would be treated the same. Having said that student athletes should be held to a higher standard of conduct. Being a student athlete is a privilege, not a right. I don't know what the outside counsel recommended. I would like to know. If they recommended the same will you accept the suspensions. You are grasping at straws. Due process has no timeline. Voting for the President is something you do every four years. What else have you done? I have no idea why the new guidelines have been implemented. Why not contact Kratky directly? I am all in favor of releasing the outside counsel recommendation. If it is the same, will you accept? Look these players who committed this act in my opinion are not the type of people SLU should be entering into an agreement with (by providing a scholarship) to represent the University. I would guess there is a morals clause in the scholarship agreement (if there isn't there should be). Again these players should be held to a higher code of conduct. They are high profile representatives of the University. Their conduct is reprehensible. If they choose to have orgies, film them and post them online that is their business. However, if they are representing SLU (by being on the Men's Varsity Basketball team through a scholarship) then they have no place at the University and committing the acts above. Are students not required to take Ethics and Morals classes? Evidently not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NextYearBill Posted January 31, 2018 Share Posted January 31, 2018 29 minutes ago, chillinthemost said: Just like it was after situation 1? There's only one Rick Majerus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Box and Won Posted January 31, 2018 Share Posted January 31, 2018 1 hour ago, TheOne said: The term “survivor” used in this statement makes me absolutely sick... “survivor”.... like this was an act that threatened the woman’s life. In reality she was wholly or at least in part responsible for the organization of this group sex act. The only thing she’s a “survivor” of is the embarrassment associated with her own false filing of a “sexual assault” that is proving to be an angled myth. Her use of the word "survivor" cheapens its meaning. It's disrespectful to all the women who actually are survivors of sexual assault. Littlebill, NextYearBill, majerus mojo and 1 other like this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianstl Posted January 31, 2018 Share Posted January 31, 2018 17 hours ago, slufan13 said: This guy is a prick That is Tilk's Twitter account. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wgstl Posted January 31, 2018 Share Posted January 31, 2018 couldn't have planned a bachelor party any better. I'll get to be in Scottsdale when the horrific news comes out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
615Billiken Posted January 31, 2018 Share Posted January 31, 2018 4 minutes ago, brianstl said: That is Tilk's Twitter account. I don't think its a real account, and my sense is that the person is just trolling. Everything about that Twitter account is almost sarcastic it appears. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianstl Posted January 31, 2018 Share Posted January 31, 2018 19 hours ago, moytoy12 said: This section (and the policy in general) is so poorly drafted, I can't believe that any worthwhile attorney participated in the creation of this document. The poor drafting does serve the purpose of providing SLU substantial latitude to levy any punishment it sees fit regardless of the facts of the situation. Edit: Notwithstanding the ridiculous and poorly drafted misconduct policy, I suspect the accusers likely said that they couldn't give effective consent because they were (a) incapacitated and/or (b) forced/coerced/intimidated (you know, because big black dudes are really scary). It doesn't appear from either Wessling's release or Rosenblum's statements that consent when it comes to the sexual contact was an issue in this case. So if those two things were not issue when it came to the sexual contact, I don't know how it could be argued they were with anything else in this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Littlebill Posted January 31, 2018 Share Posted January 31, 2018 16 minutes ago, wgstl said: couldn't have planned a bachelor party any better. I'll get to be in Scottsdale when the horrific news comes out. but the Waste Management will help you forget for a few hours Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
majerus mojo Posted January 31, 2018 Share Posted January 31, 2018 I don’t understand how the guys who did not have their phones out are also not “victims” or “survivors” of this incident. Did they look into the phone and give explicit consent? Did they all have their phones out? I’m assuming they did not, due to the differing length of the suspensions, though it’s possible that the expulsion is for the player who uploaded their video to snapchat or whichever social medium. Also assuming, at this point, SLU is scrambling for a reason for the suspensions of those who were not wielding phones. $5 that the conclusion they will reach is, “well the phone was passed around at one point” or “they all had their phones on them, they texted about what was transpiring, etc.” Maybe AD got a lighter sentence for being 21+, if alcohol was involved? Redact what you have to, and release the report from the outside investigation. Will we ever see that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wgstl Posted January 31, 2018 Share Posted January 31, 2018 2 minutes ago, Littlebill said: but the Waste Management will help you forget for a few hours Ideally the news comes out late Saturday when im extra toasted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cowboy Posted January 31, 2018 Share Posted January 31, 2018 -is there a time limit, just like the 60 days, that the appeals board has to render a decision? if so, when does that clock strike zero? but again, i have to think the recommended time will not be met Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
almaman Posted January 31, 2018 Share Posted January 31, 2018 4 minutes ago, wgstl said: Ideally the news comes out late Saturday when im extra toasted March 12th is the day punishment should come down. 40 days is all we need to finish regular season with mystery player #4. David King likes this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quality Is Job 1 Posted January 31, 2018 Share Posted January 31, 2018 1 minute ago, Cowboy said: -is there a time limit, just like the 60 days, that the appeals board has to render a decision? if so, when does that clock strike zero? but again, i have to think the recommended time will not be met It's supposed to be 10 businesses days, but can be longer if needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Iken Posted January 31, 2018 Share Posted January 31, 2018 48 minutes ago, Tilkowsky said: Graduated from SLU. Something the players won't have the privilege of doing. Nor should they. Not all bad decisions should result in the types of suspensions handed out - these more than likely should. I would hope non student athletes would be treated the same. Having said that student athletes should be held to a higher standard of conduct. Being a student athlete is a privilege, not a right. I don't know what the outside counsel recommended. I would like to know. If they recommended the same will you accept the suspensions. You are grasping at straws. Due process has no timeline. Voting for the President is something you do every four years. What else have you done? I have no idea why the new guidelines have been implemented. Why not contact Kratky directly? I am all in favor of releasing the outside counsel recommendation. If it is the same, will you accept? Look these players who committed this act in my opinion are not the type of people SLU should be entering into an agreement with (by providing a scholarship) to represent the University. I would guess there is a morals clause in the scholarship agreement (if there isn't there should be). Again these players should be held to a higher code of conduct. They are high profile representatives of the University. Their conduct is reprehensible. If they choose to have orgies, film them and post them online that is their business. However, if they are representing SLU (by being on the Men's Varsity Basketball team through a scholarship) then they have no place at the University and committing the acts above. Are students not required to take Ethics and Morals classes? Evidently not. You're not the life of a party, are you mate. Why aren't the three other men also victims here - if only one filmed, all the others are in the same boat as the ladies. All willingly participated in an orgy. All were filmed. And I highly doubt the three men gave verbal consent. So why are they suspended and the women vistims? I don't get it. Is it because they are men? Black? Athletes? All of the above? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Iken Posted January 31, 2018 Share Posted January 31, 2018 19 minutes ago, majerus mojo said: I don’t understand how the guys who did not have their phones out are also not “victims” or “survivors” of this incident. Did they look into the phone and give explicit consent? Did they all have their phones out? I’m assuming they did not, due to the differing length of the suspensions, though it’s possible that the expulsion is for the player who uploaded their video to snapchat or whichever social medium. Also assuming, at this point, SLU is scrambling for a reason for the suspensions of those who were not wielding phones. $5 that the conclusion they will reach is, “well the phone was passed around at one point” or “they all had their phones on them, they texted about what was transpiring, etc.” Maybe AD got a lighter sentence for being 21+, if alcohol was involved? Redact what you have to, and release the report from the outside investigation. Will we ever see that? You really think that during group sex the guys were texting each other? If that's the case, the women were lame it's not only them who had buyer's remorse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moytoy12 Posted January 31, 2018 Share Posted January 31, 2018 26 minutes ago, brianstl said: It doesn't appear from either Wessling's release or Rosenblum's statements that consent when it comes to the sexual contact was not an issue in this case. So if those two things were not issue when it came to the sexual contact, I don't know how it could be argued they were with anything else in this case. Agreed. Nevertheless, I see the intimidation/coercion angle being played..."These were big strong men and we couldn't force them to stop filming blah blah blah." It's not a strong argument given the context, but it doesn't appear the HO needed particularly strong evidence to throw the book at these guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillyCan Posted January 31, 2018 Share Posted January 31, 2018 11 minutes ago, William Iken said: You really think that during group sex the guys were texting each other? If that's the case, the women were lame it's not only them who had buyer's remorse. HA! That's funny. William Iken likes this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kshoe Posted January 31, 2018 Share Posted January 31, 2018 24 minutes ago, almaman said: March 12th is the day punishment should come down. 40 days is all we need to finish regular season with mystery player #4. Who gives a flying F about the rest of this season? This season is toast. I just care about next year and making sure that player number 4 is back on the team in the future. slufan13 likes this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
majerus mojo Posted January 31, 2018 Share Posted January 31, 2018 18 minutes ago, William Iken said: You really think that during group sex the guys were texting each other? If that's the case, the women were lame it's not only them who had buyer's remorse. Lol. More like texting folks not present. Didn’t one of the players arrive late? I’m grasping at straws. Guessing the school never even had access to the player’s phones, aside from the one filming, who probably needed to show the footage to exonerate them all from even worse allegations. Who the hell knows. William Iken likes this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts