Jump to content

Fall 2017 allegations against unnamed players (aka Situation 2)


DoctorB

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

7 hours ago, HenryB said:

You have proved the point of the double standard.  How about telling your daughter that goes out drinking and willingly goes to a dorm room what the outcome will be? Before you reply back why don't you follow the example of the SLU administration and take at least 3 months to think about it.  In your case, why don't you take 3 years.

Agree 100 percent on the girls. They potentially are to blame as well.

When the investigation is over we will find out who is to blame.

No double standard here.

Disappointing how many SLU fans are more worried about winning basketball games than justice or the truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Billiken Rich said:

They sent out the same tix last year......the students are on break and they know those student tickets aren't going to be used.......

They’ve sent the same tickets out for at least the past 10 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Westy03 said:

the process is starting to make a lot more sense now.  This is not good for the players 

I dont know why you think it’s not good for the players.  This is not close to the Baylor situation.  Baylor was a fiasco.  

There is a video that shows what happened but law firms are milking SLU for as long as they can “investigating”.  It’s almost as if the administration if trying to absolve themselves of responsibility.

I wonder if Pestello even knows that at some point he is gonna have to make a decision that might Not please everyone.

Also, there are a lot of frustration on here but I’m not really sure what “pressure” slu is feeling.  

RealTalk likes this
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Westy03 said:

the process is starting to make a lot more sense now.  This is not good for the players 

Not sure I would agree with that.  

First, the university hired what is arguably the best investigator there is for Title IX matters.  Anyone who is thinking about suing the university for the way they handled it is going to have a very big hill to climb.  And I doubt the threat of litigation is going to have any influence on the university in light of who they hired to handle it (not that I think it would have anyway, but this really puts that to rest).

Second, the immediate optics of the this matter were not good for the players (at least as reported on this board).  It is going to take a seasoned investigator who has seen it all to not jump to conclusions based on first impressions and to perform a thorough investigation of the complaint before reaching a conclusion.  I actually think this will increase the chances that the players will get a full and fair investigation and hearing.  I'm not saying anything about the punishment, but the players got about a fair a process as one could hope for.  On the spectrum of Title IX matters, the alleged SLU matter is no where near the Baylor situation.  The key will be the issue of consent.  What did the girls say, when, and to whom.  In addition, an experienced investigator like this is less likely to bunch all the players together and automatically treat them all the same.  This increases the possibility that maybe there will be nuanced differences in what the players did that may result in different punishments.  

The university has handled the matter as well as one could hope.  They didn't got cheap, they got the best there is. 

And obviously she's got a lot on her plate right now - hence the delays.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, 615Billiken said:

Why?

 

 

I have personal reasons for my dislike for Pestello where he treated my family extremely poorly. I won't talk about it on the main board but some people already know via private messaging. Because of his handling and views on that particular incident, I have no faith that he will give a fair shake to the players involved in this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are 3 certainties in life. 

1. Death

2. Taxes

3. Me cringing everytime I see a Wendelkin post. 

Well, maybe 4.  4th, being a SLU fan is the hardest thing in the world. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Wendelprof said:

Not sure I would agree with that.  

First, the university hired what is arguably the best investigator there is for Title IX matters.  Anyone who is thinking about suing the university for the way they handled it is going to have a very big hill to climb.  And I doubt the threat of litigation is going to have any influence on the university in light of who they hired to handle it (not that I think it would have anyway, but this really puts that to rest).

Second, the immediate optics of the this matter were not good for the players (at least as reported on this board).  It is going to take a seasoned investigator who has seen it all to not jump to conclusions based on first impressions and to perform a thorough investigation of the complaint before reaching a conclusion.  I actually think this will increase the chances that the players will get a full and fair investigation and hearing.  I'm not saying anything about the punishment, but the players got about a fair a process as one could hope for.  On the spectrum of Title IX matters, the alleged SLU matter is no where near the Baylor situation.  The key will be the issue of consent.  What did the girls say, when, and to whom.  In addition, an experienced investigator like this is less likely to bunch all the players together and automatically treat them all the same.  This increases the possibility that maybe there will be nuanced differences in what the players did that may result in different punishments.  

The university has handled the matter as well as one could hope.  They didn't got cheap, they got the best there is. 

And obviously she's got a lot on her plate right now - hence the delays.

 

“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.”

Couldn’t either side in this argue that SLU violated this part of the latest guidance depending on how the facts shake out?  The players could argue tha SLU just suspended them from games to protect the school from a PR hit before the ruling.  The accusers could argue the school didn’t fully suspend the players to protect the basketball team’s prospects to make the school money.  Either way SLU allowed their institutional interest to interfere with the adjudication of this matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, brianstl said:

 

“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.”

Couldn’t either side in this argue that SLU violated this part of the latest guidance depending on how the facts shake out?  The players could argue tha SLU just suspended them from games to protect the school from a PR hit before the ruling.  The accusers could argue the school didn’t fully suspend the players to protect the basketball team’s prospects to make the school money.  Either way SLU allowed their institutional interest to interfere with the adjudication of this matter.

Good points, Brian, but you are forgetting that the accusers are a protected class. You can argue the semantics or the optics of the proceedings and the length of the process, but when it comes to the legality of the situation, SLU, the Title IX people, etc., are going to lean towards the behest of the accusers unless there's evidence which dissolves the accused of any wrong-doing or not enough evidence to merit a punishment. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...