Fall 2017 allegations against unnamed players (aka Situation 2)

[Littlebill]

5 minutes ago, Quality Is Job 1 said:

I wonder if it's really a good idea for fans to be tweeting at Henriquez and Bishop.  Seems like it may cause more harm than good.

 

[Quality Is Job 1]

5 minutes ago, wgstl said:

Its the "agreed" gif, the rest just isn't showing

Ah.

Excuse my pop-culture ignorance, but what show/movie character is that?  I've seen a number of memes involving him, but I don't know who it is.  (I'm not a big TV watcher; probably only Old Guy is less hip than I.)

[Quality Is Job 1]

4 minutes ago, Littlebill said:

 

I don't mean "ever," but just that the continual questioning of when they can play seems like it's designed to goad them into revealing something that probably shouldn't be made public and might wind up making sanctions harsher than otherwise.

[crymdg2]

 

[majerus mojo]

I imagine the players like seeing fans perturbed at the process and still invested in them vs. the general apathy that has been taking over my Bills brain... day by day... inch by inch... 

Also what happened to our friend Wendelprof, who admitted even he couldn’t defend this ordeal were it to drag through the winter break?

[Billboy1]

The school has totally dropped the ball and delayed this thing so that it serves no purpose if they can play in future games or not.

[gobillsgo]

#FireFred #CratkyOut

[Quality Is Job 1]

10 minutes ago, majerus mojo said:

I imagine the players like seeing fans perturbed at the process and still invested in them vs. the general apathy that has been taking over my Bills brain... day by day... inch by inch... 

Also what happened to our friend Wendelprof, who admitted even he couldn’t defend this ordeal were it to drag through the winter break?

Well, I'm not saying to stop tweeting on the issue altogether -- like at Pestello, Durando, et al.  I'm just saying maybe asking the players each and every game, "Are you playing tonight," and "When will you be able to play," might not be prudent.  I could be wrong, but that's just what I wonder.

[Quality Is Job 1]

It seems to me that, like how whenever an elite program gets caught with NCAA violations a lesser school winds up bearing major sanctions (at least, that's how the "joke" goes), the Billikens' "unnamed" suspended players seem to be bearing the brunt of society's desire to suddenly begin punishing men who've been practicing sexual misbehavior for decades, simply because it has all been coming out in the news recently.  However, there's a major difference: those other men were in powerful or influential positions and were abusing their status for gain, but these student athletes were merely interacting with peers, to whom they give nothing other than possibly a good time.  What they did was not equivalent to what society and the media wants to punish men for.

[Wendelprof]

9 minutes ago, majerus mojo said:

I imagine the players like seeing fans perturbed at the process and still invested in them vs. the general apathy that has been taking over my Bills brain... day by day... inch by inch... 

Also what happened to our friend Wendelprof, who admitted even he couldn’t defend this ordeal were it to drag through the winter break?

I did say that, and I still stand by it - but I assume the winter break is not over (again, I don't teach at SU and do not know the details of their academic calendar).  I don't know of any school that has started classes back up yet, so I assume SLU is still within my window of acceptable timetable (but I agree, it is starting to push the limit - at least my limit). 

I haven't had time to go back and sweat the few details that we do know about the timeline, but it sure seems to me that matter should have been in the hands of the hearing officer (or whatever title that person has at SLU) by now and that an initial decision by the hearing officer should not take too long once all the evidence is in (though following that decision there is the appeal process).

What would be interesting to know is what the respective parties know at this time.  I assume the attorneys for both parties have seen the investigator's report and know the investigator's recommendation - though I admit that is pure speculation.  But if my recollection of the process is correct (and the information on the board is correct), both parties saw the initial report and were given an opportunity to respond to it.  That alone would give the parties' attorneys a sense of at least what the investigator was likely to recommend (at least where on the spectrum he or she was more likely to come down).  I assume the attorneys are sharing that information with the respective parties.  If so, the above comment from one of the players is encouraging. It MAY (I emphasize MAY) reflect his understanding of the investigator's report.  I agree that it appears to indicate that he still considers himself a part of the team.  One would have to think that means he thinks there is a good chance he will be back.  Whether that turns out to be the case remains to be seen, but I take it as an encouraging sign for the basketball team.  It is very interesting how closed mouthed everyone has been even though the investigator's report was made available to the parties.  Sure seems like no one wants to chance rocking the boat as the matter heads down the stretch.  

All speculation, but I agree with those who are starting to see a more positive outcome for the basketball program.  Who knows, we may even be in the appeals process already (again, something I think would have been conveyed to the respective parties by their attorneys).

 

[keyser soze]

An on cue Winkieprop crawls out...

and yes the players attorneys have the report..

[moytoy12]

1 hour ago, Quality Is Job 1 said:

I wonder if it's really a good idea for fans to be tweeting at Henriquez and Bishop.  Seems like it may cause more harm than good.

Henriquez had his tweets protected, which, at a minimum, meant they couldn't be retweeted.  It appears he has unprotected his tweets.  Whatever that may mean, which is likely nothing. 

In any event, you'd have to think the 3 players have been told, told again, and told again not to say anything stupid on twitter (or social media at large). 

[moytoy12]

12 minutes ago, Wendelprof said:

I did say that, and I still stand by it - but I assume the winter break is not over (again, I don't teach at SU and do not know the details of their academic calendar).  I don't know of any school that has started classes back up yet, so I assume SLU is still within my window of acceptable timetable (but I agree, it is starting to push the limit - at least my limit). 

I haven't had time to go back and sweat the few details that we do know about the timeline, but it sure seems to me that matter should have been in the hands of the hearing officer (or whatever title that person has at SLU) by now and that an initial decision by the hearing officer should not take too long once all the evidence is in (though following that decision there is the appeal process).

What would be interesting to know is what the respective parties know at this time.  I assume the attorneys for both parties have seen the investigator's report and know the investigator's recommendation - though I admit that is pure speculation.  But if my recollection of the process is correct (and the information on the board is correct), both parties saw the initial report and were given an opportunity to respond to it.  That alone would give the parties' attorneys a sense of at least what the investigator was likely to recommend (at least where on the spectrum he or she was more likely to come down).  I assume the attorneys are sharing that information with the respective parties.  If so, the above comment from one of the players is encouraging. It MAY (I emphasize MAY) reflect his understanding of the investigator's report.  I agree that it appears to indicate that he still considers himself a part of the team.  One would have to think that means he thinks there is a good chance he will be back.  Whether that turns out to be the case remains to be seen, but I take it as an encouraging sign for the basketball team.  It is very interesting how closed mouthed everyone has been even though the investigator's report was made available to the parties.  Sure seems like no one wants to chance rocking the boat as the matter heads down the stretch.  

All speculation, but I agree with those who are starting to see a more positive outcome for the basketball program.  Who knows, we may even be in the appeals process already (again, something I think would have been conveyed to the respective parties by their attorneys).

 

This is a good summary.  

[slufan13]

Both sides have the report and winter break is over.

[brianstl]

11 minutes ago, moytoy12 said:

Henriquez had his tweets protected, which, at a minimum, meant they couldn't be retweeted.  It appears he has unprotected his tweets.  Whatever that may mean, which is likely nothing. 

In any event, you'd have to think the 3 players have been told, told again, and told again not to say anything stupid on twitter (or social media at large). 

I don’t think the school can officially restrict any party involved in the case when it to communicating.  I think the Title IX guidance strongly recommends schools not to do this.  I would think Rosenblum would make it clear that there is no benefit to them to dicuss specifics of their case at this time.

[teamarete]

59 minutes ago, brianstl said:

I don’t think the school can officially restrict any party involved in the case when it to communicating.  I think the Title IX guidance strongly recommends schools not to do this.  I would think Rosenblum would make it clear that there is no benefit to them to dicuss specifics of their case at this time.

I don't think the school or such is telling them they can't, I think all parties are advising they shouldn't.

[STL Hoops Insider]

11 hours ago, JohnnyJumpUp said:

I really don't mind him shooting set shots, the problem is 80% or more of his shots are shots he's creating off the dribble and/or when the shot clock is running out. The ball should definitely be in someone else's hands under 5 seconds.

What did he do tonight?

[JohnnyJumpUp]

1 hour ago, STL Hoops Insider said:

What did he do tonight?

I'm not sure, I wasn't able to watch the game, maybe someone else can answer that. Looking at the box score, he had the highest usage percentage of any player from either team, by a large margin. His player efficiency was not very good.

[dlarry]

Make a decision 

[Westy03]

This will not be finalized before the end of the basketball season 

[kshoe]

25 minutes ago, Westy03 said:

This will not be finalized before the end of the basketball season 

At this point I think a hochman or Ortiz “WTF is taking so long” piece may be the only thing that moves this forward. The silence from the public only emboldens the toe dragging from Pestello and Kratsky.

[Bills_06]

14 hours ago, Wendelprof said:

I did say that, and I still stand by it - but I assume the winter break is not over (again, I don't teach at SU and do not know the details of their academic calendar).  I don't know of any school that has started classes back up yet, so I assume SLU is still within my window of acceptable timetable (but I agree, it is starting to push the limit - at least my limit). 

I haven't had time to go back and sweat the few details that we do know about the timeline, but it sure seems to me that matter should have been in the hands of the hearing officer (or whatever title that person has at SLU) by now and that an initial decision by the hearing officer should not take too long once all the evidence is in (though following that decision there is the appeal process).

What would be interesting to know is what the respective parties know at this time.  I assume the attorneys for both parties have seen the investigator's report and know the investigator's recommendation - though I admit that is pure speculation.  But if my recollection of the process is correct (and the information on the board is correct), both parties saw the initial report and were given an opportunity to respond to it.  That alone would give the parties' attorneys a sense of at least what the investigator was likely to recommend (at least where on the spectrum he or she was more likely to come down).  I assume the attorneys are sharing that information with the respective parties.  If so, the above comment from one of the players is encouraging. It MAY (I emphasize MAY) reflect his understanding of the investigator's report.  I agree that it appears to indicate that he still considers himself a part of the team.  One would have to think that means he thinks there is a good chance he will be back.  Whether that turns out to be the case remains to be seen, but I take it as an encouraging sign for the basketball team.  It is very interesting how closed mouthed everyone has been even though the investigator's report was made available to the parties.  Sure seems like no one wants to chance rocking the boat as the matter heads down the stretch.  

All speculation, but I agree with those who are starting to see a more positive outcome for the basketball program.  Who knows, we may even be in the appeals process already (again, something I think would have been conveyed to the respective parties by their attorneys).

 

Actually, on December 19th you posted is " I would, however, hope and expect a rather quick decision after school re-opens after the first of the year" which is now, not when the semester starts.  The start of classes should have zero impact on the decision as the hearing officer should be an administrator and they should be working now.  

What we know is December 11th, Rosenblum told Stu that they had reviewed the initial report.  That means they received it before then since he said they reviewed it but even 5 days from then puts it at the end of that week, the 15th for comments in.  Since the firm just has to add the information to the initial report that was submitted, it should have been done the week of the 18th and given to the hearing officer.  That is speculation but we know Rosenblum told Stu on the 26th that they had finished reviewing the final report.   I honestly don't know how anybody can defend SLU right now when it's in their hands and no decision has been made still.  If one is made and it goes to appeal, announce it. 

This is one of the most embarrassing times right now to be an alumnus.  Every time over Christmas break you run into somebody that knows you are a SLU fan and asks, "what happened with the sexual assault thing" you have to answer, well it's been 3 months and SLU still doesn't know if these kids committed sexual assault and are still on campus or were falsely accused and they are punishing innocent kids.  Absolutely embarrassing.  

[The Wiz]

On 11/29/2017 at 10:08 AM, The Wiz said:

In a recent study by Harvard on Title IX investigations, they found the average case takes 3-4 months ( which is why the recent change to loosen up the 60 day rules.)  The study showed the quickest cases were completed in 30 days and the longer ones took  6 months.  Time variable was related to the complexity of the case. Many times the complexity related to number of people involved....ie  more than 2. 

The wheels of justice turn at their own rate.

Thought this might be a good time to bring back this post from 76  pages ago....The study results indicate that this is now an average case from a time perspective.

[Billboy1]

Unfortunately, the season has been ruined no matter what the decision. The three should not have to loose any eligibility.

[Bills_06]

25 minutes ago, The Wiz said:

Thought this might be a good time to bring back this post from 76  pages ago....The study results indicate that this is now an average case from a time perspective.

See and keeping that in mind I was annoyed but fine waiting for the investigation to conclude.  My problem now is that over a week ago Rosenblum said they had reviewed the final report.  Why does it take over a week for a Hearing Officer SLU assigned to come to a decision on what the punishment should be?  The final report has all the evidence and a recommendation and we still don't know what the decision is?  Doesn't make any sense to me other than just SLU is in no hurry to resolve it.