Fall 2017 allegations against unnamed players (aka Situation 2)

[DeSmetBilliken]

 

[TheChosenOne]

Nice! Pretty sad that the Tweet of a 23 year old can alter my mood on a Thursday afternoon!

[almaman]

39 minutes ago, TheOne said:

Not that I want S2 to continue to draw out, but I must admit this board will be a little less entertaining when there aren’t new comments to check up on every time I navigate to Billikens.com

We will have lots to chat about if we get those guys back on court

[GoBills73]

https://twitter.com/studurando/status/941403996992000002

Hmmmm, Ash is flying up as well?? With the other S2?

[wgstl]

2 minutes ago, GoBills73 said:

https://twitter.com/studurando/status/941403996992000002

Hmmmm, Ash is flying up as well?? With the other S2?

ash is there for scout team.

[Pistol]

2 minutes ago, GoBills73 said:

https://twitter.com/studurando/status/941403996992000002

Hmmmm, Ash is flying up as well?? With the other S2?

This would've been at practice before departure (the tweet says that Henriquez, Graves, Santos, Bishop, and Ash Yacoubou were the scout team today). Stu responds to a question about Graves traveling with the fact that he's not eligible to travel until after this semester.

[brianstl]

I think the fact that both AD and Bishop are playing scout team instead of Markos means neither of them have been given the OK to play.

[kshoe]

Did they travel to Butler? A trip to NYC is one thing but going on a single game trip does feel different.

[Pistol]

5 minutes ago, brianstl said:

I think the fact that both AD and Bishop are playing scout team instead of Markos means neither of them have been given the OK to play.

This is probably the case. But it also means the worst-case scenario isn't playing out, either...at least for now.

[slufan13]

I fear that the athletic department has been told that a decision is nowhere in the near future and that they should just operate as usual. Or that they have heard nothing from the administration and are choosing to operate as usual. 

This is definitely not a bad thing though. SLU has had the final report for almost 24 hours now and unless I don't understand the process, they've had the initial report for almost a full week at this point. 

[TFord and TRavs]

I bet 1 Schrute Buck that AD and bishop play Saturday 

[Bills_06]

From reading the process, it's now an administrator to review the report and can hear from both sides.  With as long as this has gone on so far, I see no reason SLU shouldn't be pushing to get this done over today and tomorrow and make a decision on the punishment.  They have no excuses now for this to continue on.  

[TheOne]

4 minutes ago, TFord and TRavs said:

I bet 1 Schrute Buck that AD and bishop play Saturday 

How sweet it’d be...

[brianstl]

The non suspensions from the team, but suspension from games has to be the strangest action ever by a school in one of these cases.  That normally only happens when a player has NCAA eligibility questions and even then the player can still be on the bench.  

It feels to me like SLU is just worried that the names would leek out before the investigation was completed.  That lead them to be more worried about how the institution looked than being fair to anyone involved.  That is an action that is clearly forbidden in the Title IX guidance. 

[Pistol]

3 minutes ago, brianstl said:

The non suspensions from the team, but suspension from games has to be the strangest action ever by a school in one of these cases.  That normally only happens when a player has NCAA eligibility questions and even then the player can still be on the bench.  

It feels to me like SLU is just worried that the names would leek out before the investigation was completed.  That lead them to be more worried about how the institution looked than being fair to anyone involved.  That is an action that is clearly forbidden in the Title IX guidance. 

Where?

I'm not arguing whether they should or shouldn't have been suspended from games only, I'm just curious where Title IX says that, because I don't think there's a guideline for that.

[Bills_06]

1 minute ago, brianstl said:

The non suspensions from the team, but suspension from games has to be the strangest action ever by a school in one of these cases.  That normally only happens when a player has NCAA eligibility questions and even then the player can still be on the bench.  

It feels to me like SLU is just worried that the names would leek out before the investigation was completed.  That lead them to be more worried about how the institution looked than being fair to anyone involved.  That is an action that is clearly forbidden in the Title IX guidance. 

The only thing I can think of is the rumor somebody posted that one of the girls is a cheerleader.  I am sure part of what SLU wants to do is to not put the accused with the accuser so what is the best way to proceed in that case until it's solved?  Can't prevent somebody who said they were assaulted from performing in their club if it's true and would look bad to continually let them around her if true as well.  And can't let them play on the road then because it would be even more strange.  Would make sense why they aren't in building on game days but can practice.  

[slu72]

I don't think the school ever really concerned itself w/ the names leaking out, since that ship sailed the morning after the girls made the accusations. All they had to do was look on here since every Billiken.com poster knew who the culprits were. One thing I think the school should have done, or the STLPD maybe, was announce case closed if it really has been closed.

[brianstl]

6 minutes ago, Pistol said:

Where?

I'm not arguing whether they should or shouldn't have been suspended from games only, I'm just curious where Title IX says that, because I don't think there's a guideline for that.

 

Quote

Schools are cautioned to avoid conflicts of interest and biases in the adjudicatory process and to prevent institutional interests from interfering with the impartiality of the adjudication.

Question 8 answer on page 5 in this link.

https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/qa-title-ix-201709.pdf?utm_content=&utm_medium=email&utm_name=&utm_source=govdelivery&utm_term=

[brianstl]

1 minute ago, slu72 said:

I don't think the school ever really concerned itself w/ the names leaking out, since that ship sailed the morning after the girls made the accusations. All they had to do was look on here since every Billiken.com poster knew who the culprits were. One thing I think the school should have done, or the STLPD maybe, was announce case closed if it really has been closed.

The names didn't appear on this board until Stu tweeted that they were not in warm ups.

[Pistol]

1 minute ago, brianstl said:

Question 8 answer on page 5 in this link.

https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/qa-title-ix-201709.pdf?utm_content=&utm_medium=email&utm_name=&utm_source=govdelivery&utm_term=

That's about how the proceedings themselves must be equal to both parties. It doesn't say anything about the students' possible participation in non-related school activities.

[wgstl]

1 minute ago, davidnark said:

Have the mystery 3 been going to all the road games because it would appear from a tweet a few minutes ago that they are en route to Oregon with the team?

no.  

[brianstl]

15 minutes ago, Pistol said:

That's about how the proceedings themselves must be equal to both parties. It doesn't say anything about the students' possible participation in non-related school activities.

I would think any form of interim measures that SLU takes are considered part of adjudication.  I am not not a lawyer.  Can Nark, Bay or Moytoy give us a ruling on this?

[davidnark]

5 minutes ago, brianstl said:

I would think any form of interim measures that SLU takes are considered part of adjudication.  I am not not a lawyer.  Can Nark or Moytoy give us a ruling on this?

I know nothing about this crazy process, but the concept of "time served" is certainly a well-accepted legal practice. 

[Cowboy]

37 minutes ago, Bills_06 said:

The only thing I can think of is the rumor somebody posted that one of the girls is a cheerleader.  I am sure part of what SLU wants to do is to not put the accused with the accuser so what is the best way to proceed in that case until it's solved?  Can't prevent somebody who said they were assaulted from performing in their club if it's true and would look bad to continually let them around her if true as well.  And can't let them play on the road then because it would be even more strange.  Would make sense why they aren't in building on game days but can practice.  

-if one of the girls is a cheerleader I can't believe she is cheering because if there is a chase for a basketball leaving the court (I took me a while to determine the words I wanted to use on this) and she gets run over what would stop her from saying she was targeted as retaliation? with what some are posting about the leader of SLU's Title IX Dept it is very possible she would find a sympathetic ear and I would think the guys playing know who she is

-if one of the girls is a cheerleader how awkward would that be for her to be cheering for any of our players and especially any of the ones involved if there is a miracle and they get to play given what she said and filed as to what happened to her?

[Pistol]