Fall 2017 allegations against unnamed players (aka Situation 2)

[mrjoelabs]

3 minutes ago, billikenfan05 said:

Friendly reminder that mrjoelabs is a known troll. Do not give him any information.

You want to explain this?   Troll because I criticized people?  Sometimes I wonder about you guys/

[moytoy12]

Best case scenario for all involved is that there was absolutely no assault that occurred.  Assuming that to be the best case scenario (and assuming this involved players on the bball team), I still don't see a way in which they go unscathed.  Our university is in a tough spot financially.  It needs all the donors it can get.  We have a relatively new president that is potentially facing a very public facing crisis.  I anticipate he will take a tough approach.  Again, making these assumptions, we have a relatively recent past with a similar event.  Punishments won't get easier on a repeat scenario.  

Even in the best case scenario, I fully expect this to be very bad for the season and the program.  

[cheeseman]

If the policy is that if you get sexually involved with a women if she has been drinking then you are guilty regardless if content was given. What if both of you were drinking?  How can one be more guilty

[brianstl]

1 minute ago, hsmith19 said:

First, I defy anyone to claim D1 athletes receive no special advantages and have always been treated exactly like every other student. Second, and this goes back to Desmet's point, the presumption of innocence applies to criminal courts only. Trying to apply the presumptions, burdens, and standard of proof from a criminal court to a private school's disciplinary procedures is just as silly and irrelevant as it would be to cry "free speech" and "censorship" when Steve deletes posts on here. It really amazes me how SLU people who lived through 2010 can still be confused on this.

Why should anyone lose the presumption of innocence in any setting before any evidence is reviewed?  What kind of joke is that?  

What standard of proof are you applying here? I know SLU doesn't have to approach the same standards as a criminal case. SLU does need to follow Title IX and meet the preponderance standard.   It seems you are just willing to take one group of people's word over another group's word before any evidence comes out.  It seems the privilege you seem to believe all D1 athletes receive is making you prejudiced here.

[WestCoastBilliken]

4 minutes ago, cheeseman said:

If the policy is that if you get sexually involved with a women if she has been drinking then you are guilty regardless if content was given. What if both of you were drinking?  How can one be more guilty

Ah welcome to the ridiculousness of this entire nationwide debate. 

[3star_recruit]

4 minutes ago, moytoy12 said:

Best case scenario for all involved is that there was absolutely no assault that occurred.  Assuming that to be the best case scenario (and assuming this involved players on the bball team), I still don't see a way in which they go unscathed.   

And therein lies the problem.  It's bigger than basketball.  In your best case scenario, the women falsely accuse the men of sexual assault and the men are still punished.  As men, we're psychologically incapable of holding women accountable. 

I speak with young men on a regular basis on gender issues and they have very little respect for older men on this point.  I try to explain the evolutionary basis for protecting women but they're not trying to hear it.

[Old guy]

Moytoy, we know that two of the women were seen at a local hospital who called the police in. We must assume they went there for a rape check and the police were called because calling them is part of the protocol of dealing with a rape check. However, there is more done in these cases, a physical exam is done noting any king of roughness or abuse done and fluids are checked for semen, etc... By the time the rape check is done there is already testimonial evidence in the police files which is soon followed by lab test results and physical exam findings. Put it this way, there will be evidence that sex took place and of any kind of blows or violent action these women were or were not subject to. The women are most likely not going to go to a hospital for a rape check if nothing happened, there will be evidence substantiating whatever happened at the time. This evidence will not be available to us but it will be available to the police.

You also have to consider that the rules of law dealing with cases like these may be different than the rules issued by the university for the conduct of their students. Someone mentioned that SLU has rules requiring some kind of adverse action in cases involving sex when there is alcohol or (I would assume) drugs involved. These two sets of rules, University and Judicial, are different from one another. The University is required by its own rules to discipline students involved in certain actions, whether or not the case is severe enough to require a criminal trial. The fact that the participants in this event were black or white or rich or poor makes no difference, and should make no difference, when it comes to following the University's own rules. Rules have to be applied regardless of race, color, or status, otherwise the University cannot provide the type of environment Pestello alluded to in his statement. 

I do think that regardless of what the judicial and criminal aspects of this case may be and whether or not the DA decides to prosecute, as long as there is proof that the event took place the University has to take action as defined by its own rules. From the University's point of view it is most important that such events NOT take place at all. I would expect a re enactment of the prior incident's disciplinary actions in this case.

 

[hsmith19]

11 minutes ago, brianstl said:

Why should anyone lose the presumption of innocence in any setting before any evidence is reviewed?  What kind of joke is that?  

What standard of proof are you applying here? I know SLU doesn't have to approach the same standards as a criminal case. SLU does need to follow Title IX and meet the preponderance standard.   It seems you are just willing to take one group of people's word over another group's word before any evidence comes out.  It seems the privilege you seem to believe all D1 athletes receive is making you prejudiced here.

I am saying that in general, colleges do (and should) believe female students who claim they were sexually assaulted. Obviously if there is convincing evidence the women are lying, the accused should not be punished. As I've said multiple times, I would love for such evidence to come out. But I'm more comfortable presuming outside of criminal court that a group of multiple women are telling the truth than presuming they are all lying or wildly exaggerating.

[Coach314]

2 minutes ago, Old guy said:

Moytoy, we know that two of the women were seen at a local hospital who called the police in. We must assume they went there for a rape check and the police were called because calling them is part of the protocol of dealing with a rape check. However, there is more done in these cases, a physical exam is done noting any king of roughness or abuse done and fluids are checked for semen, etc... By the time the rape check is done there are already testimonial evidence in the police files which are soon followed by lab test results and physical exam findings. Put it this way, there will be evidence that sex took place and of any kind of blows or violent action these women were or were not subject to. The women are most likely not going to go to a hospital if nothing happened, there will be evidence substantiating whatever happened at the time. This evidence will not be available to us but it will be available to the police.

You also have to consider that the rules of law dealing with cases like these may be different than the rules issued by the university for the conduct of their students. Someone mentioned that SLU has rules requiring some kind of adverse action in cases involving sex when there is alcohol or (I would assume) drugs involved. These two sets of rules are different from one another. The University is required by its own rules to discipline students involved in certain actions, whether or not the case is severe enough to require a criminal trial. The fact that the participants in this event were black or white or rich or poor makes no difference, and should make no difference, when it comes to following the University's own rules. 

I do think that regardless of what the judicial and criminal aspects of this case may be and whether or not the DA decides to prosecute, as long as there is proof that the event took place the University has to take action as defined by its own rules. From the University's point of view it is most important that such events NOT take place at all. I would expect a re enactment of the prior incident's disciplinary actions in this case.

 

 

5 minutes ago, Old guy said:

Moytoy, we know that two of the women were seen at a local hospital who called the police in. We must assume they went there for a rape check and the police were called because calling them is part of the protocol of dealing with a rape check. However, there is more done in these cases, a physical exam is done noting any king of roughness or abuse done and fluids are checked for semen, etc... By the time the rape check is done there are already testimonial evidence in the police files which are soon followed by lab test results and physical exam findings. Put it this way, there will be evidence that sex took place and of any kind of blows or violent action these women were or were not subject to. The women are most likely not going to go to a hospital if nothing happened, there will be evidence substantiating whatever happened at the time. This evidence will not be available to us but it will be available to the police.

You also have to consider that the rules of law dealing with cases like these may be different than the rules issued by the university for the conduct of their students. Someone mentioned that SLU has rules requiring some kind of adverse action in cases involving sex when there is alcohol or (I would assume) drugs involved. These two sets of rules are different from one another. The University is required by its own rules to discipline students involved in certain actions, whether or not the case is severe enough to require a criminal trial. The fact that the participants in this event were black or white or rich or poor makes no difference, and should make no difference, when it comes to following the University's own rules. 

I do think that regardless of what the judicial and criminal aspects of this case may be and whether or not the DA decides to prosecute, as long as there is proof that the event took place the University has to take action as defined by its own rules. From the University's point of view it is most important that such events NOT take place at all. I would expect a re enactment of the prior incident's disciplinary actions in this case.

 

?

[hsmith19]

21 minutes ago, cheeseman said:

If the policy is that if you get sexually involved with a women if she has been drinking then you are guilty regardless if content was given. What if both of you were drinking?  How can one be more guilty

The short answer is whoever was more responsible for initiating the sexual contact is the one who faces consequences. In practice it is almost always the man found to have initiated it. Maybe not entirely fair but the way it is in these investigations.

[Coach314]

9 minutes ago, Old guy said:

Moytoy, we know that two of the women were seen at a local hospital who called the police in. We must assume they went there for a rape check and the police were called because calling them is part of the protocol of dealing with a rape check. However, there is more done in these cases, a physical exam is done noting any king of roughness or abuse done and fluids are checked for semen, etc... By the time the rape check is done there are already testimonial evidence in the police files which are soon followed by lab test results and physical exam findings. Put it this way, there will be evidence that sex took place and of any kind of blows or violent action these women were or were not subject to. The women are most likely not going to go to a hospital if nothing happened, there will be evidence substantiating whatever happened at the time. This evidence will not be available to us but it will be available to the police.

You also have to consider that the rules of law dealing with cases like these may be different than the rules issued by the university for the conduct of their students. Someone mentioned that SLU has rules requiring some kind of adverse action in cases involving sex when there is alcohol or (I would assume) drugs involved. These two sets of rules are different from one another. The University is required by its own rules to discipline students involved in certain actions, whether or not the case is severe enough to require a criminal trial. The fact that the participants in this event were black or white or rich or poor makes no difference, and should make no difference, when it comes to following the University's own rules. 

I do think that regardless of what the judicial and criminal aspects of this case may be and whether or not the DA decides to prosecute, as long as there is proof that the event took place the University has to take action as defined by its own rules. From the University's point of view it is most important that such events NOT take place at all. I would expect a re enactment of the prior incident's disciplinary actions in this case.

 

?

[moytoy12]

19 minutes ago, 3star_recruit said:

And therein lies the problem.  It's bigger than basketball.  In your best case scenario, the women falsely accuse the men of sexual assault and the men are still punished.  As men, we're psychologically incapable of holding women accountable. 

I speak with young men on a regular basis on gender issues and they have very little respect for older men on this point.  I try to explain the evolutionary basis for protecting women but they're not trying to hear it.

I don't think i disagree with you, but i was just trying to give context to the best case scenario as it relates to the limited world of Billiken basketball. 

[moytoy12]

12 minutes ago, Old guy said:

Moytoy, we know that two of the women were seen at a local hospital who called the police in. We must assume they went there for a rape check and the police were called because calling them is part of the protocol of dealing with a rape check. However, there is more done in these cases, a physical exam is done noting any king of roughness or abuse done and fluids are checked for semen, etc... By the time the rape check is done there are already testimonial evidence in the police files which are soon followed by lab test results and physical exam findings. Put it this way, there will be evidence that sex took place and of any kind of blows or violent action these women were or were not subject to. The women are most likely not going to go to a hospital if nothing happened, there will be evidence substantiating whatever happened at the time. This evidence will not be available to us but it will be available to the police.

You also have to consider that the rules of law dealing with cases like these may be different than the rules issued by the university for the conduct of their students. Someone mentioned that SLU has rules requiring some kind of adverse action in cases involving sex when there is alcohol or (I would assume) drugs involved. These two sets of rules are different from one another. The University is required by its own rules to discipline students involved in certain actions, whether or not the case is severe enough to require a criminal trial. The fact that the participants in this event were black or white or rich or poor makes no difference, and should make no difference, when it comes to following the University's own rules. 

I do think that regardless of what the judicial and criminal aspects of this case may be and whether or not the DA decides to prosecute, as long as there is proof that the event took place the University has to take action as defined by its own rules. From the University's point of view it is most important that such events NOT take place at all. I would expect a re enactment of the prior incident's disciplinary actions in this case.

 

I agree that there are a whole host of variables. I'm just saying that within the context of the current reality, even in the most positive and innocent situation I can't see this resulting in anything other than a net negative for the basketball team.

[BillsBeliever]

New to the board here...been a lurker for awhile though. Can anyone without releasing the names of the players involved say wether they are the younger/older guys or transfers? Obviously not naming names here.

Edited September 27, 2017 by BillsBeliever

[BillsBeliever]

In regards to if it were to come out and be 4 members of the basketball team who were involved. How would our season look come November assuming none of these players were allowed to play this semester? Would we look for immediate walk ons?

[hsmith19]

3 minutes ago, TigerMatt said:

Or perhaps alcohol or other substances impair such judgment?

Maybe just a tad...not saying that's absolutely for sure what happened here, of course. Wouldn't want to let a little familiarity with what goes on at college parties get in the way of observing the presumption of criminal innocence in all settings at all times.

[TFord and TRavs]

2 hours ago, brianstl said:

If SLU punishes the players for a crime a large group of people don't think they committed, the prosecutors have decided to drop the case because there is something that in their opinion clears the player of any criminal charges, add in the fact the accused are young black kids, throw in that the accusers might be rich white kids...........

That seems to be the sure fire way to keep away the protesters.  That will work out great.

But they are males. Therefore they lose in the game of victims vs women 

[hsmith19]

7 minutes ago, TFord and TRavs said:

But they are males. Therefore they lose in the game of victims vs women 

So now we've covered racism against whites and sexism against males. Speaking of victims, any way we can work the War on Christmas in too?

[moytoy12]

1 minute ago, hsmith19 said:

So now we've covered racism against whites and sexism against males. Speaking of victims, any way we can work the War on Christmas in too?

Seems to me that the best idea is to discuss the potential impact on the team and not delve into social issues at large. 

[hsmith19]

2 minutes ago, moytoy12 said:

Seems to me that the best idea is to discuss the potential impact on the team and not delve into social issues at large. 

If memory serves, there were exactly  four players involved in the 2010 situation too. A little eery. I know our roster this year is deep, but is it really much deeper than the one that had the Big Four as freshmen?

[moytoy12]

59 minutes ago, hsmith19 said:

If memory serves, there were exactly  four players involved in the 2010 situation too. A little eery. I know our roster this year is deep, but is it really much deeper than the one that had the Big Four as freshmen?

No, it's not. This is going to have a big negative impact on the season. I also suspect it's going to f up recruiting in a big way.  This is going to be bad.  I'm not saying it will be justified, but this will be really really bad for the program. 

[Quality Is Job 1]

Unbelievable.  Someone must have cursed me early in my life.  Whatever the situation is, I might get close to my breakthrough, but then something comes to manifest disaster.  Nothing I dream about comes to fruition in a positive manner.

[jimbofive]

19 minutes ago, Quality Is Job 1 said:

Unbelievable.  Someone must have cursed me early in my life.  Whatever the situation is, I might get close to my breakthrough, but then something comes to manifest disaster.  Nothing I dream about comes to fruition in a positive manner.

, man.  Sorry for the metaphysical sandwich you're chewing on...

[slufan13]

7 hours ago, hsmith19 said:

I'm going off what I've heard from current students involved in the student government and current faculty. If it's not accurate, great. I really hope it's not.

Sounds like a great student government to tell people that they already think the accused are guilty 

[HoosierBilliken]

6 hours ago, hsmith19 said:

I am saying that in general, colleges do (and should) believe female students who claim they were sexually assaulted.

Wrong.  Colleges should never just believe anyone who accuses someone of a vicious crime.  I know this may come as a shock to you, but females have lied before about sexual assault.  Colleges should do a proper investigation fair to the accuser and the accused to find the truth. 

6 hours ago, hsmith19 said:

Obviously if there is convincing evidence the women are lying, the accused should not be punished.

If there is convincing evidence the women are lying, then the women should be punished.  If there is a preponderance of the evidence that the women are lying, then the accused should not be punished.  That is hopefully what you mean.

6 hours ago, hsmith19 said:

But I'm more comfortable presuming outside of criminal court that a group of multiple women are telling the truth than presuming they are all lying or wildly exaggerating.

They may be telling the truth.  We do not know.  But, what if they (the females) were hooking (yes, I hate to break the news, but some females do this) and the guys did not pay?  What if the guys said something to piss them off, and they (the females) were like, "oh yeah, watch this, I'm going to piss you off too and go to the police."  More breaking news: some females have done this before.  What if their idea of sexual assault was not actually sexual assault as defined by law?  Let the investigations happen and hopefully the truth will come out.