Fall 2017 allegations against unnamed players (aka Situation 2)

[Tilkowsky]

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.

Not allowing the players to play was the best course of action.

It would have been a distraction on telecasts of the games and other fans would have given them unnecessary grief. Out of town media would have asked players and coaches questions.

The players again only have themselves to blame.

They are high profile members of SLU. They should have known better.

 

[billiken_roy]

13 minutes ago, Tilkowsky said:

Not allowing the players to play was the best course of action.

It would have been a distraction on telecasts of the games and other fans would have given them unnecessary grief. Out of town media would have asked players and coaches questions.

The players again only have themselves to blame.

They are high profile members of SLU. They should have known better.

 

the vast majority of our fandom have no problem with the self imposed suspension.   the problem is the overwhelming length of time this has taken when it should have been settled in a matter of 2-3 weeks.   this week will complete the third month of no decision by the school.   that is beyond stupid or selfish on the part of the committee and will undoubtedly garner saint louis university a lawsuit regardless of the outcome.   the concerned parties deserved better than waiting for for the convenience of the committee whims to complete the process.   

make a decision.  

[brianstl]

20 minutes ago, Tilkowsky said:

Not allowing the players to play was the best course of action.

It would have been a distraction on telecasts of the games and other fans would have given them unnecessary grief. Out of town media would have asked players and coaches questions.

The players again only have themselves to blame.

They are high profile members of SLU. They should have known better.

 

That sounds like SLU protecting their institutional interests.  

Look, I can understand the players being suspended from the team.  Other schools have done that.  I can understand SLU letting the players play until a conclusion is reached.  Other schools have done that.  

To me it appears that SLU tried to make a decision that was best for SLU and not any of the people in the process.  They don’t want the embarrassment of the guys being on TV, but they want the guys ready to go when the process is over.

If I was a lawyer for the players I would argue that SLU’s actions sent a message to those involved that the players are guilty.  If I was a lawyer for the accusers, I would argue that SLU not suspending the players from the team sends a message that the players are innocent.  

[slu72 fan]

10 minutes ago, billiken_roy said:

the vast majority of our fandom have no problem with the self imposed suspension.   the problem is the overwhelming length of time this has taken when it should have been settled in a matter of 2-3 weeks.   this week will complete the third month of no decision by the school.   that is beyond stupid or selfish on the part of the committee and will undoubtedly garner saint louis university a lawsuit regardless of the outcome.   the concerned parties deserved better than waiting for for the convenience of the committee whims to complete the process.   

make a decision.  

I'm curious, since you think this should have been concluded in 2-3 weeks, how many people were interviewed? Do you know what the circumstances were when the kids hooked up? I've heard rumor that it was at a big party. Do you think the people at the party may have been interviewed? If it was a large party, that may have been many interviews.

I've had plenty of final reports from attorneys. Each one has a tab for each exhibit. I'm guessing this report has many exhibits. Is there one report or is there three? I don't know, but I'd bet three.

The truth is we don't know anything, so please keep your uninformed opinion to yourself. Stirring the pot doesn't help anyone. If you really feel that this should have been completed in 2-3 weeks, you haven't paid any attention to what's been going on in colleges all over the country.

I too think this is dragging on way too long. From last week forward, I believe, is the responsibility of Pestello. I plan to write him and the Board of my displeasure. I encourage you, and everyone else, to do likewise.

[Cowboy]

-if there is concern about what someone on tv might say while broadcasting a game to me that is completely ridiculous

[brianstl]

3 minutes ago, Cowboy said:

-if there is concern about what someone on tv might say while broadcasting a game to me that is completely ridiculous

What other motivation would there be for having the players suspended from games instead of suspended from the team?

[slu72 fan]

If they are cleared to play, they are ready to go. 

[JMM28]

11 minutes ago, brianstl said:

What other motivation would there be for having the players suspended from games instead of suspended from the team?

If this was the reasoning - it was pretty flawed. The suspensions create a really huge obvious void on the roster which then leads to ESPN ,FS1 type telecasts to have to explain why SLU only has a couple guys dressed on the bench. No suspensions and no one besides this forum and rumor folks on twitter would know names of the individuals involved, which seems to be a pretty big flaw with the suspensions. 

[brianstl]

1 minute ago, JMM28 said:

If this was the reasoning - it was pretty flawed. The suspensions create a really huge obvious void on the roster which then leads to ESPN ,FS1 type telecasts to have to explain why SLU only has a couple guys dressed on the bench. No suspensions and no one besides this forum and rumor folks on twitter would know names of the individuals involved, which seems to be a pretty big flaw with the suspensions. 

I think they feared that the names would leak on social media and then they would be confronted with coverage showing the players in games while they were under investigation.  They didn't want to be asked questions about allowing them to play.

To @slu72 fan point, I understand that logic.  The only problem with it is that is not how interim measures are supposed to be determined in these types of cases. That would be putting an institutional interest ahead of fairness and impartiality to the individuals involved in the process. 

[Tilkowsky]

1 hour ago, billiken_roy said:

the vast majority of our fandom have no problem with the self imposed suspension.   the problem is the overwhelming length of time this has taken when it should have been settled in a matter of 2-3 weeks.   this week will complete the third month of no decision by the school.   that is beyond stupid or selfish on the part of the committee and will undoubtedly garner saint louis university a lawsuit regardless of the outcome.   the concerned parties deserved better than waiting for for the convenience of the committee whims to complete the process.   

make a decision.  

Can you name one Title IX investigation that was wrapped up in three weeks?

[cheeseman]

1 hour ago, brianstl said:

What other motivation would there be for having the players suspended from games instead of suspended from the team?

During the Butler game they broadcasters talked about the situation.  No names but common sense would allow you to figure out who they were so nothing gained from this approach.

[David King]

I'll admit that I haven't read all 123 pages of post yet, so maybe I missed some of the details. From what little information I have seen, four players were involved in the incident, but we only think we know the names of three of them. Who was the fourth, and why is he being treated differently?

[gobillsgo]

13 minutes ago, David King said:

I'll admit that I haven't read all 123 pages of post yet, so maybe I missed some of the details. From what little information I have seen, four players were involved in the incident, but we only think we know the names of three of them. Who was the fourth, and why is he being treated differently?

Yeah, we aren’t gonna play this game. It’s pretty pathetic that you’re asking. 

[Quality Is Job 1]

17 minutes ago, David King said:

I'll admit that I haven't read all 123 pages of post yet, so maybe I missed some of the details. From what little information I have seen, four players were involved in the incident, but we only think we know the names of three of them. Who was the fourth, and why is he being treated differently?

I don't know who the fourth player is, but I think I know who it is.  It has been indirectly revealed in this thread.  As for why, that question has been asked and answered in this thread: the accusation was recanted.

[Slu let the dogs out?]

20 minutes ago, David King said:

I'll admit that I haven't read all 123 pages of post yet, so maybe I missed some of the details. From what little information I have seen, four players were involved in the incident, but we only think we know the names of three of them. Who was the fourth, and why is he being treated differently?

I heard it was H Waldman

[615Billiken]

3 minutes ago, Quality Is Job 1 said:

I don't know who the fourth player is, but I think I know who it is.  It has been indirectly revealed in this thread.  As for why, that question has been asked and answered in this thread: the accusation was recanted.

And thank God for that. we may be 0-11 if we were without him. Not that he is the sole reason we win games, but I can't imagine holding up physically being yet another player down. 

[Cowboy]

1 hour ago, brianstl said:

What other motivation would there be for having the players suspended from games instead of suspended from the team?

 

1 hour ago, brianstl said:

I think they feared that the names would leak on social media and then they would be confronted with coverage showing the players in games while they were under investigation.  They didn't want to be asked questions about allowing them to play.

To @slu72 fan point, I understand that logic.  The only problem with it is that is not how interim measures are supposed to be determined in these types of cases. That would be putting an institutional interest ahead of fairness and impartiality to the individuals involved in the process. 

-I'm not sure I am warped enough to determine what the U has going with this, i hope they know and more immediately hope that we have resolution today or tomorrow as if not I fear with the semester ending we won't know for several more weeks

[jimbofive]

On 12/15/2017 at 2:13 PM, Wendelprof said:

Drinking tends to lead to diminished capacity.  Diminished capacity tends to make people vulnerable.  Taking advantage of one who is vulnerable is frowned upon, both morally and legally.   That fact that SLU is a Catholic institution definitely complicates that situation, but this is not a Catholic issue per se.  This is a sexual misconduct issue that we as a society are clearly struggling with.

We don't need a lecture on drunk chicks.  If not for drunk chicks, there'd be a whole lot less sex going on.  And drunk chicks know this as well.  They just like sex.  So do drunk dudes.  End of story.

[JMM28]

50 minutes ago, David King said:

I'll admit that I haven't read all 123 pages of post yet, so maybe I missed some of the details. From what little information I have seen, four players were involved in the incident, but we only think we know the names of three of them. Who was the fourth, and why is he being treated differently?

It was Fred Pestello. 

[Box and Won]

30 minutes ago, Slu let the dogs out? said:

I heard it was H Waldman

Jolly cut a glory hole in his wash basin. 

[almaman]

47 minutes ago, Box and Won said:

Jolly cut a glory hole in his wash basin. 

Then he doubled dribbled

[cheeseman]

3 hours ago, David King said:

I'll admit that I haven't read all 123 pages of post yet, so maybe I missed some of the details. From what little information I have seen, four players were involved in the incident, but we only think we know the names of three of them. Who was the fourth, and why is he being treated differently?

The fourth player was absolved because one of the girls recanted her story about him.  It would best to leave his name out of it given that he is no longer a part of the investigation.  No need to tie him to all the nasty rumors when he was not a part of it.  It would be no different if I said it was you.

[VeniceMenace]

4 hours ago, David King said:

I'll admit that I haven't read all 123 pages of post yet, so maybe I missed some of the details. From what little information I have seen, four players were involved in the incident, but we only think we know the names of three of them. Who was the fourth, and why is he being treated differently?

I think this VCU fan is crossing the line!!!

[TheOne]

22 hours ago, slu72 fan said:

I'm curious, since you think this should have been concluded in 2-3 weeks, how many people were interviewed? Do you know what the circumstances were when the kids hooked up? I've heard rumor that it was at a big party. Do you think the people at the party may have been interviewed? If it was a large party, that may have been many interviews.

I've had plenty of final reports from attorneys. Each one has a tab for each exhibit. I'm guessing this report has many exhibits. Is there one report or is there three? I don't know, but I'd bet three.

The truth is we don't know anything, so please keep your uninformed opinion to yourself. Stirring the pot doesn't help anyone. If you really feel that this should have been completed in 2-3 weeks, you haven't paid any attention to what's been going on in colleges all over the country.

I too think this is dragging on way too long. From last week forward, I believe, is the responsibility of Pestello. I plan to write him and the Board of my displeasure. I encourage you, and everyone else, to do likewise.

I have a tendency to believe that if this message board were to rally together and get a handful of signatures on a petition for the Pestello/the board to resolve the situation or AT LEAST speak up and clarify the status, that they would have no choice but to respond.

[slufan13]

Are we allowed to criticize SLU if we still don't have a decision today once the semester is over?