Fall 2017 allegations against unnamed players (aka Situation 2)

[VeniceMenace]

Will be interesting to see the police report on this one...wonder when that will become public...

[Littlebill]

1 hour ago, billikenbill said:

Here's hoping the book written about the inside machinations of the S2 scandal will contain as many bombshells as the book on the Trump campaign/so-called presidency.

🙄

[keyser soze]

Listen here Fred, no gotdamn Thinmints from my daughters brownie troop until WE get an answer, that also includes Do-Si-Dos, Samosas and Tagalongs...

Keep this up and 1 Million Boxes of Trefoils and those god awful Savannah Smiles will magically appear...

[Adman]

On 1/3/2018 at 5:31 PM, Wendelprof said:

 

 

[Adman]

On 1/3/2018 at 5:31 PM, 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).

 

Wendelprof,

First, thanks for your contributions to this Board. I appreciate the experience in this area you seemingly have, the balance you bring that’s important (and hard) to have,  and your passion for the Bills and SLU.

I won’t repeat many of the valid points that other posters have contributed. But I’ll add a few new ones which may further underscore the aggravation many of us feel, and add an alternate theory for your - and everyone’s - response.

I’ve read SLU’s sexual assault policy and adjudication process multiple times. Based on all that’s known, we’re nowhere near an end. The preliminary report was provided to the parties and they responded to it within the 5-day window. The investigator/lawyer then created the final report likely including opinion as to whether prohibited conduct indeed happened. It is non-binding; the SLU Hearing Officer ultimately must make the decision. It went to the parties by all accounts about a week before Christmas. 

But at this stage of the process, no decision is expected. Rather, the Hearing Officer then meets separately with the parties to review the final report recommendations. (Apparently this step begins tomorrow.)

The HO also accepts any written questions the parties would like the HO to ask the other party. After review of the questions for appropriateness and relevance, the HO submits the questions. (This functions as a quasi-cross examination step since parties are not allowed to cross-examine each other.)

After this series of meetings and written questions/answers are complete, the HO finally makes the decision as to whether a violation occurred and the punishment. This is communicated simultaneously to both parties in a written "Notice of Outcome." There is NO SPECIFIC TIME FRAME for these steps in SLU's policy. Doubtful quicker than two weeks; I’m guessing more likely three.

But not over yet. The parties involved can then appeal the HO’s ruling. I would be shocked if neither does. Per SLU policy, it is a 10-day process. Parties have 3 business days to file the appeal, 3 more business days for parties to review and comment on each other's appeals, which then leaves about 4 business days for final adjudication. This is not done by single HO; rather by 3-person board. This timeline can be extended, too. Given already long delays for this case, can’t believe it won’t also be extended.

Even in realistically best case scenario, we’re looking at Feb 1. Maybe later. I hope I’m wrong.

Even if the adjudication allowed them to play then, would they do so, blow a year of eligibility to play for a month? I think they’re done for year. Start fresh next year. But even that’s problematic. Players have only 5 years to play 4 seasons.. Some of these players are transfers and have already sat out a year or part of a year. Now sitting out a second. The NCAA would have to grant them their year of eligibility back. And no guarantee of that happening.

None of us want those who commit sexual assault representing the University or on this team. But I don’t have to remind you about the old axiom on need for swift justice. This process has been seemingly ridiculous.

Now an alternate theory. Most of us have rightly felt angry about suspension pre-adjudication. The process is seemingly so heavily weighted against the accused. But what if it’s not a suspension?

The Title IX guidelines include much counsel regarding taking interim measures to create a safe environment. Generally speaking, this is wise counsel. If there’s a rapist or likely rapist on campus, the University has a huge responsibility to protect the accuser from retaliation and to protect the student body in general. SLU’s policy thus provides wide latitude to keep everyone safe - everything from immediate expulsion of the accused, suspensions, creating spaces where accused and accusers are separated, changing class schedules, moving the accused’s dorm room further away from the accuser’s, and many other possible solutions. In general, it’s good to keep the parties from running into each other more than necessary. 

Now for a moment, let’s make assumption that at least one of the accusers is officially involved with the Athletic Dept/basketball team, such as a student PR assistant, game day production assistant, cheerleader, dance squad, band, et al. (I have NO idea if this is the case.) If the accused players are allowed to play or even sit on the bench, they would be mere feet away from the accuser(s). 

Regardless of whether the accuser(s) were really assaulted or the accuser(s) filed a false accusation against the players, there is huge opportunity for heat of the moment angry words in-game between them, even an altercation. Not only is this potentially dangerous, but with media, TV cameras and 5-10,000 fans - a PR disaster of the highest order. Not to mention the U facing likely lawsuits by placing the parties in a situation where this could happen.

If this is actually the case, SLU is in real jam. Beyond safety, PR and lawsuit fears, they would also have a very hard time applying these interim measures equally to both the accused and the accusers because of the chilling effect it would have against those who rightly bring forward sexual assault claims in the future. But it still feels unfair, similar to an accused criminal who can’t make bail and waits years for trial upon which he’s exonerated. Maybe cross-Title IX complaints are a solution. I don’t know.

I must also emphasize: I have no intention of revealing anyone’s identities. Please do not. Anonymity is crucial. And I have no inside info on this. I’m sure plenty of people can easily de-bunk this theory.

But if it is the case - and it is possible - I think SLU deserves some balance and understanding from us. They’d be in a jam.

Another reason swift justice so important. Make a decision.

[Bobby Metzinger]

It's ironic that St. Louis' own Phyills Schlafly was probably the most ardent and outspoken advocate against the Equal Rights Amendment which is legally the reason Title IX still exists, but if you read articles like this, it's definitely damning as a man if you ever (rightfully or wrongfully) are dragged into the Title IX waters. And just all the allegations and claims in that article - wow. It's sad what influence the media has on young people. 

[cheeseman]

4 hours ago, Adman said:

Wendelprof,

First, thanks for your contributions to this Board. I appreciate the experience in this area you seemingly have, the balance you bring that’s important (and hard) to have,  and your passion for the Bills and SLU.

I won’t repeat many of the valid points that other posters have contributed. But I’ll add a few new ones which may further underscore the aggravation many of us feel, and add an alternate theory for your - and everyone’s - response.

I’ve read SLU’s sexual assault policy and adjudication process multiple times. Based on all that’s known, we’re nowhere near an end. The preliminary report was provided to the parties and they responded to it within the 5-day window. The investigator/lawyer then created the final report likely including opinion as to whether prohibited conduct indeed happened. It is non-binding; the SLU Hearing Officer ultimately must make the decision. It went to the parties by all accounts about a week before Christmas. 

But at this stage of the process, no decision is expected. Rather, the Hearing Officer then meets separately with the parties to review the final report recommendations. (Apparently this step begins tomorrow.)

The HO also accepts any written questions the parties would like the HO to ask the other party. After review of the questions for appropriateness and relevance, the HO submits the questions. (This functions as a quasi-cross examination step since parties are not allowed to cross-examine each other.)

After this series of meetings and written questions/answers are complete, the HO finally makes the decision as to whether a violation occurred and the punishment. This is communicated simultaneously to both parties in a written "Notice of Outcome." There is NO SPECIFIC TIME FRAME for these steps in SLU's policy. Doubtful quicker than two weeks; I’m guessing more likely three.

But not over yet. The parties involved can then appeal the HO’s ruling. I would be shocked if neither does. Per SLU policy, it is a 10-day process. Parties have 3 business days to file the appeal, 3 more business days for parties to review and comment on each other's appeals, which then leaves about 4 business days for final adjudication. This is not done by single HO; rather by 3-person board. This timeline can be extended, too. Given already long delays for this case, can’t believe it won’t also be extended.

Even in realistically best case scenario, we’re looking at Feb 1. Maybe later. I hope I’m wrong.

Even if the adjudication allowed them to play then, would they do so, blow a year of eligibility to play for a month? I think they’re done for year. Start fresh next year. But even that’s problematic. Players have only 5 years to play 4 seasons.. Some of these players are transfers and have already sat out a year or part of a year. Now sitting out a second. The NCAA would have to grant them their year of eligibility back. And no guarantee of that happening.

None of us want those who commit sexual assault representing the University or on this team. But I don’t have to remind you about the old axiom on need for swift justice. This process has been seemingly ridiculous.

Now an alternate theory. Most of us have rightly felt angry about suspension pre-adjudication. The process is seemingly so heavily weighted against the accused. But what if it’s not a suspension?

The Title IX guidelines include much counsel regarding taking interim measures to create a safe environment. Generally speaking, this is wise counsel. If there’s a rapist or likely rapist on campus, the University has a huge responsibility to protect the accuser from retaliation and to protect the student body in general. SLU’s policy thus provides wide latitude to keep everyone safe - everything from immediate expulsion of the accused, suspensions, creating spaces where accused and accusers are separated, changing class schedules, moving the accused’s dorm room further away from the accuser’s, and many other possible solutions. In general, it’s good to keep the parties from running into each other more than necessary. 

Now for a moment, let’s make assumption that at least one of the accusers is officially involved with the Athletic Dept/basketball team, such as a student PR assistant, game day production assistant, cheerleader, dance squad, band, et al. (I have NO idea if this is the case.) If the accused players are allowed to play or even sit on the bench, they would be mere feet away from the accuser(s). 

Regardless of whether the accuser(s) were really assaulted or the accuser(s) filed a false accusation against the players, there is huge opportunity for heat of the moment angry words in-game between them, even an altercation. Not only is this potentially dangerous, but with media, TV cameras and 5-10,000 fans - a PR disaster of the highest order. Not to mention the U facing likely lawsuits by placing the parties in a situation where this could happen.

If this is actually the case, SLU is in real jam. Beyond safety, PR and lawsuit fears, they would also have a very hard time applying these interim measures equally to both the accused and the accusers because of the chilling effect it would have against those who rightly bring forward sexual assault claims in the future. But it still feels unfair, similar to an accused criminal who can’t make bail and waits years for trial upon which he’s exonerated. Maybe cross-Title IX complaints are a solution. I don’t know.

I must also emphasize: I have no intention of revealing anyone’s identities. Please do not. Anonymity is crucial. And I have no inside info on this. I’m sure plenty of people can easily de-bunk this theory.

But if it is the case - and it is possible - I think SLU deserves some balance and understanding from us. They’d be in a jam.

Another reason swift justice so important. Make a decision.

I would suggest to you that SLU already has a PR disaster on their hands - the question now is just how bad do they want it be?  The longer this drags on the more false info and rumors start to take hold in the public's mind.  SLU was always going to be open to possible lawsuits - if they thought they weren't then they are getting bad advice. Given your example of why the players may not be playing I would submit that the fact that the accused are on campus shreds that as a viable argument - do you really think an accused person is going to attack the person accusing them in a stadium full of people on TV?   Also, if the player is practicing and traveling with the team then they could routinely run across the person at any time in the arena going to practices or study halls for example.  At this point, by leaving the player on campus I would think opens the school up to a lot more second guessing then simply removing them pending the outcome on the basis of protecting the accuser.  I think enough stuff about this case has leaked out and from your post you do know more specifics then what you are admitting to - yes this is not speculation on my part - all I am saying is that if you want to drag this out for a long time then what SLU is doing will accomplish this but this is not in their best interest nor the player nor the accuser. 

[Bobby Metzinger]

28 minutes ago, cheeseman said:

I would suggest to you that SLU already has a PR disaster on their hands - the question now is just how bad do they want it be?  The longer this drags on the more false info and rumors start to take hold in the public's mind.  SLU was always going to be open to possible lawsuits - if they thought they weren't then they are getting bad advice. Given your example of why the players may not be playing I would submit that the fact that the accused are on campus shreds that as a viable argument - do you really think an accused person is going to attack the person accusing them in a stadium full of people on TV?   Also, if the player is practicing and traveling with the team then they could routinely run across the person at any time in the arena going to practices or study halls for example.  At this point, by leaving the player on campus I would think opens the school up to a lot more second guessing then simply removing them pending the outcome on the basis of protecting the accuser.  I think enough stuff about this case has leaked out and from your post you do know more specifics then what you are admitting to - yes this is not speculation on my part - all I am saying is that if you want to drag this out for a long time then what SLU is doing will accomplish this but this is not in their best interest nor the player nor the accuser. 

Good post, Cheese. Out of emojis. Maybe counsel for the accusers are just trying to mentally exhaust them or break them down into A. quasi-admitting guilt through the accused leaving/transferring or B. the counsel for the accused is taking this up pro-Bono and know that they can drag the accusers through the same mud to financially exhaust them. But most posters on here are correct in one thing - this isn't going to be resolved any time soon. It's legal/psychological warfare now. 

[Clock_Tower]

34 minutes ago, cheeseman said:

I would suggest to you that SLU already has a PR disaster on their hands - the question now is just how bad do they want it be?  The longer this drags on the more false info and rumors start to take hold in the public's mind.  SLU was always going to be open to possible lawsuits - if they thought they weren't then they are getting bad advice. Given your example of why the players may not be playing I would submit that the fact that the accused are on campus shreds that as a viable argument - do you really think an accused person is going to attack the person accusing them in a stadium full of people on TV?   Also, if the player is practicing and traveling with the team then they could routinely run across the person at any time in the arena going to practices or study halls for example.  At this point, by leaving the player on campus I would think opens the school up to a lot more second guessing then simply removing them pending the outcome on the basis of protecting the accuser.  I think enough stuff about this case has leaked out and from your post you do know more specifics then what you are admitting to - yes this is not speculation on my part - all I am saying is that if you want to drag this out for a long time then what SLU is doing will accomplish this but this is not in their best interest nor the player nor the accuser. 

Cheese. Why do you included the accusers in your final sentence?  And you re not the only one but the accusers are getting exactly what they want - the boys to not play. 

And how about the 8 who are playing?  Why does no one mention them?  Their final year of college basketball or 1 of only 4 years turns out to be a thud like this year. Sad. 

[moytoy12]

My only hope for any type of decision in the near future is for these meetings w/the HO to serve as some type of quasi-mediation.  Get all the parties on board with the same outcome, get a release of the school from any future liability and be done.  Otherwise, what is the f’ing point of these meetings? If the HO isn’t using these meetings to mediate a satisfactory resolution for all, then make the damn decision and let the appeals process occur.

[Westy03]

6 minutes ago, moytoy12 said:

My only hope for any type of decision in the near future is for these meetings w/the HO to serve as some type of quasi-mediation.  Get all the parties on board with the same outcome, get a release of the school from any future liability and be done.  Otherwise, what is the f’ing point of these meetings? If the HO isn’t using these meetings to mediate a satisfactory resolution for all, then make the damn decision and let the appeals process occur.

This seems logical which means the exact opposite will happen

[Billboy1]

At this point they have totally screwed up the entire process for all.  If the accusers are the ones holding this thing up there needs to be some type of action against them.  The time lost for all parties will never be regained.

[ARon]

For those who insist this process has taken too long, Minnesota just suspended their senior starting center in relation to an incident that happened in April of 2016.

[JMM28]

2 minutes ago, ARon said:

For those who insist this process has taken too long, Minnesota just suspended their senior starting center in relation to an incident that happened in April of 2016.

This was his second time being accused of rape and second investigation. The latest report stated that he could have reasonably believed the sex was consensual. His case is not a hill to die on but that last sentence is what is wrong with these things. 

[teamarete]

37 minutes ago, JMM28 said:

This was his second time being accused of rape and second investigation. The latest report stated that he could have reasonably believed the sex was consensual. His case is not a hill to die on but that last sentence is what is wrong with these things. 

It's actually his 4th if you count his time in high school and at Illinois State.

[slusam]

26 minutes ago, ARon said:

For those who insist this process has taken too long, Minnesota just suspended their senior starting center in relation to an incident that happened in April of 2016.

The investigation started in October and is completed. He played during the investigation even though he had been accused before.

[brianstl]

25 minutes ago, ARon said:

For those who insist this process has taken too long, Minnesota just suspended their senior starting center in relation to an incident that happened in April of 2016.

There are some big differences in this case from the SLU case.  First, the points that JMM brought up.  Second he wasn't suspended from the team until the initial determination was made.  Third, this case involved an investigation with a student at another university.  Fourth, none of the articles on this make clear when the complainant reported the incident to the university and that means we don't know how long this investigation actually took.

 

[Clock_Tower]

1 minute ago, slusam said:

The investigation started in October and is completed. He played during the investigation even though he had been accused before.

Must be  different Title IX law and rules in Minnesota if he could play during investigation. 

[moytoy12]

1 minute ago, slusam said:

The investigation started in October and is completed. He played during the investigation even though he had been accused before.

Minnesota doesn't have the gold standard for Title IX offices like SLU, hence the shorter time period.  The gold standard takes time to achieve.  It needs to marinate. 

[brianstl]

3 minutes ago, slusam said:

The investigation started in October and is completed. He played during the investigation even though he had been accused before.

Thanks for this information.  I was looking for when the investigation started.  So Minnesota was able to complete an investigation with a complainant who doesn't attend the school in a more timely manner than SLU who has nearly constant access to everyone involved in this investigation.

[billiken_roy]

6 minutes ago, Clock_Tower said:

Must be  different Title IX law and rules in Minnesota if he could play during investigation. 

i am pretty sure our players could be playing.   it was my understanding we are self penalizing the three in hopes of a "time served" penalty once all is complete. 

[Billboy1]

2 minutes ago, billiken_roy said:

i am pretty sure our players could be playing.   it was my understanding we are self penalizing the three in hopes of a "time served" penalty once all is complete. 

That's what makes no sense-why aren't they playing in games if they can practice and travel.

[Clock_Tower]

4 minutes ago, billiken_roy said:

i am pretty sure our players could be playing.   it was my understanding we are self penalizing the three in hopes of a "time served" penalty once all is complete. 

Then SLU should reinstate them for 2nd semester (and longer after final outcome if so decided for longer) as the punishment will be worse than the crime. 

[Bobby Metzinger]

15 minutes ago, Clock_Tower said:

Must be  different Title IX law and rules in Minnesota if he could play during investigation. 

Franken (sic) Privilege. 

[Clock_Tower]

Missing games is the proper penalty for NCAA violations but I suggest not for Title IX violations in that the same is not available to non-scholarship athletes.