Fall 2017 allegations against unnamed players (aka Situation 2)

[billikenfan05]

1 hour ago, TFord and TRavs said:

Got word from my sources I still have. The boys are good to go. Just waiting on slu to draw it out more. They should be cleared. 

You just got word? My sources knew last week. 

[TFord and TRavs]

7 minutes ago, billikenfan05 said:

You just got word? My sources knew last week. 

Hey thanks for sharing

[BillsBeliever!!!]

My Sources knew they were goos to go before the incident happened

[NextYearBill]

my own brain knew they were good when I read 'Rosenblum'

[almaman]

other lawyer on paper did a better job, although we kind of know that isn't the case. I wonder what % fans at our games know who the 4th player is and if he's playing? Only the way obtuse would be in the dark on the Rosenblum 3 are.

[dlarry]

1 hour ago, almaman said:

other lawyer on paper did a better job, although we kind of know that isn't the case. I wonder what % fans at our games know who the 4th player is and if he's playing? Only the way obtuse would be in the dark on the Rosenblum 3 are.

I don't know who the 4th is.

The 3 are pretty obvious.

[615Billiken]

Mmmh this just crossed my mind, but it makes sense if they were waiting until Thanksgiving break to announce anything since it would minimize any reaction from students.

[slufan13]

34 minutes ago, 615Billiken said:

Mmmh this just crossed my mind, but it makes sense if they were waiting until Christmas break to announce anything since it would minimize any reaction from students.

Yup.

[3star_recruit]

Thanksgiving break just happens to coincide with the 60 day interval.  Fortunate timing.

[HoosierPal]

9 hours ago, dlarry said:

I don't know who the 4th is.

The 3 are pretty obvious.

Don't believe what others feed you from twitter.

[slufan13]

52 minutes ago, slufan13 said:

Yup.

Seeing that the original post was updated from Christmas break to Thanksgiving break but I think Christmas could be more likely. I think a "one semester suspension" sounds harsh and would appease both sides. But I admittedly know nothing 

[HoosierPal]

Here is another question for this all wise board.  Assuming this thing does get wrapped up with players still eligible, Henriquez and Bishop will have served a X game suspension.  The number will work itself out.  Graves will have not lost any games, as he is not eligible yet.  So does he sit the same number of games Henriquez and Bishop sat, after he is eligible, or does he get off with no lost games.  At a minimum these three are guilty of making a bad decision which embarrassed the team, and likely have violated a team rule or two.

If yes he sits, give your reasons.

If no he gets off free, give your reasons.

[BilliKat]

9 hours ago, dlarry said:

I don't know who the 4th is.

The 3 are pretty obvious.

Hines?

[billikenfan05]

3 minutes ago, BilliKitty said:

Hines?

We’ve gone this far without anyone revealing the ALLEGED 4th player on this board and we’re not going to do it now. Even playing this guessing game is completely irresponsible.

[slufan13]

12 minutes ago, HoosierPal said:

Here is another question for this all wise board.  Assuming this thing does get wrapped up with players still eligible, Henriquez and Bishop will have served a X game suspension.  The number will work itself out.  Graves will have not lost any games, as he is not eligible yet.  So does he sit the same number of games Henriquez and Bishop sat, after he is eligible, or does he get off with no lost games.  At a minimum these three are guilty of making a bad decision which embarrassed the team, and likely have violated a team rule or two.

If yes he sits, give your reasons.

If no he gets off free, give your reasons.

My prediction (based on nothing) is that he plays once the 2nd semester starts instead of once the 1st semester ends. But I could see him getting off with no lost games 

[BilliKat]

That was a blatant joke meant to call the one person people keep saying they're sick of seeing on the court.... I even thought about a follow up post to state that but assumed it was transparent enough. Lesson learned. Jk and emojis after everything I say to give correct emphasis for you. 😉😛😜 

[Old guy]

BilliKitty if you want to post something as a joke, blatant or not, use the blue font color. That way everyone will know it is a joke or sarcasm or whatever.

[BilliKat]

Thank you

[wgstl]

47 minutes ago, slufan13 said:

 I think a "one semester suspension" sounds harsh and would appease both sides. But I admittedly know nothing 

Suspending innocent players is what makes this harsh.  

[slufan13]

3 minutes ago, wgstl said:

Suspending innocent players is what makes this harsh.  

I agree with this and I think the players should be playing by now but SLU isn't exactly known for handling things well.

[Bobby Metzinger]

41 minutes ago, BilliKitty said:

 

3 minutes ago, slufan13 said:

I agree with this and I think the players should be playing by now but SLU isn't exactly known for handling things well.

It's a shame we are in this situation again; the NFL Rookie Symposium brings out some heavy hitting speakers to talk to players about the dangers of wealth, fame, being in the spotlight, etc; kids will be kids, but you'd think getting these young minds in a room before their freshman year and hitting home hard the ramifications of things like sexual misconduct would be something SLU would invest in across the board to all student-athletes - not even just to cover their asses (no pun intended) but to minimize the odds of "Situations" happening again. 

The quote "SLU isn't exactly known for handling things well" perhaps could imply to both ends of the spectrum; does SLU do enough - more than just a handbook - to prepare our student-athletes for collegiate life? For the freedoms that come with it and the responsibilities of living and socializing with peers and yes, the ramifications of impropriety? SLU wouldn't have to "handle (sic) things well" on the post-alleged-harassment side of things if it "handled (sic) things well" before these kids stepped foot in the dorms. 

[615Billiken]

10 minutes ago, slufan13 said:

I agree with this and I think the players should be playing by now but SLU isn't exactly known for handling things well.

I actually think that SLU has handled things quite well given our social context. 

I am assuming that the players were innocent of the accusations of the tweet, and also innocent of an institutional definition of assault. I am angry/annoyed that since they were innocent, they had to miss games due to an accusation. But this accusation didn't happen in a vacuum. It happened shortly after another on campus incident of sexual assault (or at least an accusation), and in a larger social context of bringing awareness to sexual assault. This context was then thickened by the Harvey Weinstein debacle and the #metoo thing. Now we have Roy Moore, Al Franken, etc.

I don't have any insider knowledge, and know as much as anyone else who follows this board, read the tweet, and read all of the PD articles. It seems (I emphasize 'seems' since we don't know the verdict yet) as if something sexual in nature happened, there was an unhappy party about something that happened, but it didn't meet the definition of assault.The problem with that is that we are at a point in time where the definition of sexual assault is being culturally contested. It seems as if the accusation is all that matters. I think it was smart for SLU to keep this quiet and avoid poking the wasps nest. It sucks that the players had to suffer consequences if they were innocent, but I put the blame for that on the social context and the accusers more than SLU. SLU was handed a crappy situation, they did well with what they had. 

[slufan13]

4 minutes ago, 615Billiken said:

I actually think that SLU has handled things quite well given our social context. 

I am assuming that the players were innocent of the accusations of the tweet, and also innocent of an institutional definition of assault. I am angry/annoyed that since they were innocent, they had to miss games due to an accusation. But this accusation didn't happen in a vacuum. It happened shortly after another on campus incident of sexual assault (or at least an accusation), and in a larger social context of bringing awareness to sexual assault. This context was then thickened by the Harvey Weinstein debacle and the #metoo thing. Now we have Roy Moore, Al Franken, etc.

I don't have any insider knowledge, and know as much as anyone else who follows this board, read the tweet, and read all of the PD articles. It seems (I emphasize 'seems' since we don't know the verdict yet) as if something sexual in nature happened, there was an unhappy party about something that happened, but it didn't meet the definition of assault.The problem with that is that we are at a point in time where the definition of sexual assault is being culturally contested. It seems as if the accusation is all that matters. I think it was smart for SLU to keep this quiet and avoid poking the wasps nest. It sucks that the players had to suffer consequences if they were innocent, but I put the blame for that on the social context and the accusers more than SLU. SLU was handed a crappy situation, they did well with what they had. 

This I agree with. The social climate makes this a situation to tread very carefully and I am fine with holding them out until the investigation is complete. But if the investigation comes back this week and the players are found innocent, I would be disappointed to see the suspension stretch beyond Thanksgiving. Again, I don't know anything and they could be back tomorrow. 

[cheeseman]

I think the idea that SLU is waiting for Thanksgiving break to close the book on this matter does make sense.  If they were going to hand down a significant penalty they would not be concerned with the timing.  As far as the 3 players suffering given that it is possible that they really did nothing wrong per se is a bit much - you are responsible for your actions.  If you get involved in something that has questionable aspects to it then you better expect to be soiled in some respect.  Someone earlier said that the fact that the 2 who could travel per NCAA rules went to NY was right - it speaks volumes about where this may be heading.  Should the transfer sitting out this semester be expected to sit some games in the second semester since he did not miss any games this semester - no.  In life timing is everything - the 2 who have sat out simply are the victims of the investigation and how it has to play out.  The other player is not the victim in the same way but sometimes you get lucky and sometimes you don't.  From the beginning I warned that the school better be careful for several reasons - do you really want to legislate what people do in their bedroom that is not illegal? and they better make sure that this kind of behavior (consensual) has not been overlooked by the school or school reps such as RAs in the past.  I can assure you that  sex between two students was taking place in Greisedick Hall  when I was a student from 1969-73.  I never saw or heard of anyone being disciplined.  I also know that it took place in the coed dorm at the same time and horrors of horrors I know for a fact that you could sneak in to Rogers - all girls dorm - and take care of business.  This is 2017 not 1950 when girls had to be escorted in the evening by another female.

[brianstl]

1 minute ago, 615Billiken said:

I actually think that SLU has handled things quite well given our social context. 

I am assuming that the players were innocent of the accusations of the tweet, and also innocent of an institutional definition of assault. I am angry/annoyed that since they were innocent, they had to miss games due to an accusation. But this accusation didn't happen in a vacuum. It happened shortly after another on campus incident of sexual assault (or at least an accusation), and in a larger social context of bringing awareness to sexual assault. This context was then thickened by the Harvey Weinstein debacle and the #metoo thing. Now we have Roy Moore, Al Franken, etc.

I don't have any insider knowledge, and know as much as anyone else who follows this board, read the tweet, and read all of the PD articles. It seems (I emphasize 'seems' since we don't know the verdict yet) as if something sexual in nature happened, there was an unhappy party about something that happened, but it didn't meet the definition of assault.The problem with that is that we are at a point in time where the definition of sexual assault is being culturally contested. It seems as if the accusation is all that matters. I think it was smart for SLU to keep this quiet and avoid poking the wasps nest. It sucks that the players had to suffer consequences if they were innocent, but I put the blame for that on the social context and the accusers more than SLU. SLU was handed a crappy situation, they did well with what they had. 

They didn't handle it well.  You are never going to make certain SJW people happy and how you handled a case should never take pleasing them into account.  The only consideration should be getting to the facts and adjudicating the matter in a just way for all.  

What we have here are three young black males who now have a cloud of sexual assault hanging over their head unfairly.  In the internet age of nothing ever disappearing and when many employers do deep online background checks, this will unfairly stain their reputation for life.  Did the players violate school and team rules?  No doubt.  If the charges were just that, the suspension would be justified.  The problem is the charges weren't that.  The charges were sexual assault and by even silently suspending the the three you have given reason to some to label them sexual predators.  That isn't just in anyway. 

The school's number one goal should be to not only protect the females on campus, but to protect everyone on campus.  They should have been willing to take the heat for the three players to protect those players' lifelong reputation from being unfairly associated with something as vile as sexual assault.   

The super SJW people you are trying to please are going to be just as angry at the school as they would have been if no suspension occurred.  They will label the whole process as a cover-up to protect "privileged athletes".  They don't care about the facts of the case.  Nothing less than the heads of the three on a platter would make them happy.