It seems to me that all signs point to bishop returning

[Macallan 18]

30 minutes ago, Taj79 said:

Nark's questions sum s up my frustration totally -- the school has been allowed to skate by with no explanations whatsoever. 

SLU is a private institution and they don’t owe anyone other than those involved an explanation.  Not sticking up for SLU but it is what it is.  Some of those involved may not want anything said publicaly.

Not sure how Bishop can play when he is not enrolled in school and can’t enroll for some time???

 

30 minutes ago, Taj79 said:

Nark's questions sum s up my frustration totally -- the school has been allowed to skate by with no explanations whatsoever. 

 

[slu72]

12 minutes ago, Macallan 18 said:

SLU is a private institution and they don’t owe anyone other than those involved an explanation.  Not sticking up for SLU but it is what it is.  Some of those involved may not want anything said publicaly.

Not sure how Bishop can play when he is not enrolled in school and can’t enroll for some time???

 

 

Bishop's situation definitely is bizarre. Not even a tweet or Instagram. I can't see any kid putting his playing days on hold for two freaking years. By the way, I like your posting moniker. Good stuff.

[brianstl]

20 minutes ago, Macallan 18 said:

SLU is a private institution and they don’t owe anyone other than those involved an explanation.  Not sticking up for SLU but it is what it is.  Some of those involved may not want anything said publicaly.

 

 

This is one reason why SLU always had has trouble breaking through to a wider audience.  If you act like you don't care about your ticket buyers and potential buyers, don't expect them to care or keep caring about investing in your product.

[brianstl]

47 minutes ago, TRN said:

Don’t worry, the P-D is working on a hard hitting investigative piece on S2. They’ll get to the bottom of things and publish it, around 2025.

The Post has had to shift all their resources to covering the Creve Coeur municipal violation beat.

[moytoy12]

6 minutes ago, slu72 said:

Bishop's situation definitely is bizarre. Not even a tweet or Instagram. 

In no way do I expect himto play for SLU again,  but this sums up my thoughts re: Bishop and S2.  

Although I don’t expect him to play for SLU, Bishop is exactly what the 18-19 team could use.  

[RiseAndGrind]

6 minutes ago, brianstl said:

The Post has had to shift all their resources to covering the Creve Coeur municipal violation beat.

I thought they decided to split time between that and cookie baking with Pestello?

[Old guy]

There are two facts about this issue that cannot be ignored: 1. No one knows what kind of sanction was used on Bishop, and 2. We have heard absolutely nothing coming out of Bishop.

As long as this situation remains, all I think can be done within reason is to wait and see what happens, when and if it happens.

Personally I think Bishop will not be back but there is no way I can be 100% sure either.

[Macallan 18]

36 minutes ago, brianstl said:

This is one reason why SLU always had has trouble breaking through to a wider audience.  If you act like you don't care about your ticket buyers and potential buyers, don't expect them to care or keep caring about investing in your product.

That is certainly a takeaway from the silence of SLU and Bishop.  In this age of social media many think everything should be "put out there," but everything thing is not for public consumption.  If my son were involved no one would hear a peep from us and I would request and expect the same from the university.  I respect Bishop for keeping his head down until he gets the next chapter of his life in order.

[slu72 fan]

1 minute ago, Macallan 18 said:

That is certainly a takeaway from the silence of SLU and Bishop.  In this age of social media many think everything should be "put out there," but everything thing is not for public consumption.  If my son were involved no one would hear a peep from us and I would request and expect the same from the university.  I respect Bishop for keeping his head down until he gets the next chapter of his life in order.

Agreed and the school has privacy issues. They won't say anything about Bishop. If he goes public, they may retweet it. 

[billikenfan05]

It’s very possible that Bishop wants to come back, will there be a spot for him in 2 years would be the important question. This would be a reason for him not outwardly expressing any sentiments concerning staying or going 

[DeSmetBilliken]

3 hours ago, Taj79 said:

Nark's questions sum s up my frustration totally -- the school has been allowed to skate by with no explanations whatsoever. 

 

3 hours ago, TRN said:

Don’t worry, the P-D is working on a hard hitting investigative piece on S2. They’ll get to the bottom of things and publish it, around 2025.

One possible snag is that Ashley Jost, the higher education reporter for the P-D, left to take a job at Mizzou. There’s goes the lead writer and probably and probably the best authority for the story.

 The other thing is this: while many here, myself included, suggested that the players were railroaded by a crooked administration that was hellbent on persecuting male students, I did some additional research after the decisions were handed down. In as briefly as I can put it, slu probably enforced their rules exactly as they are allowed to do. If anyone here thinks that the SLU definition of “sexual assault” is the same as it is under criminal law, get rid of that thought right away, because it’s not. Having read SLU’s policy and an explanation of it, I feel more confident than not thinking that  if things that night happened the way most of us understand them to have happened, that behavior would not be considered to be consensual under SLU’s policies. Blame the snail’s pace of the investigation, or the policy that I’m sure isn’t unique to SLU, but I’m not sure you can call it administrative corruption. Therefore, not an exciting story to do a bunch of research and decide that SLU’s rulings were completely justified under their policy.

[Glorydays2013]

In other news, Adonys posted 37 points last night... what could have been. We have to make sure this never happens again

[cheeseman]

5 minutes ago, Glorydays2013 said:

In other news, Adonys posted 37 points last night... what could have been. We have to make sure this never happens again

What do you suggest = castration?  Maybe we should only recruit eunuchs.

[WVBilliken]

4 hours ago, slu72 said:

Bishop's situation definitely is bizarre. Not even a tweet or Instagram. I can't see any kid putting his playing days on hold for two freaking years. By the way, I like your posting moniker. Good stuff.

Maybe he is in a deep state of depression.........😜

 

[Quality Is Job 1]

5 minutes ago, WVBilliken said:

Maybe he is in a deep state of depression.........😜

 

Not the kind of thing to poke fun at.

[billikenfan05]

1 minute ago, Quality Is Job 1 said:

Not the kind of thing to poke fun at.

Everything is a thing to poke fun at 

[slufan13]

Henriquez and Graves quickly and quietly moved on. Goodwin's suspension was reduced to a manageable length, even if still unfair. Bishop could be the one person looking to fight this out with a lawsuit and that's potentially why we haven't heard anything from him. 

If his punishment was upheld, I don't see any way we can reserve a scholarship for him. By the time he was eligible, it will have been at least 2.5 years since he last played in a game and at least 2 years since he practiced with the team. 

I guess it's possible his suspension was also reduced. Frank said that the other 3's suspensions were upheld and they would never play for SLU again so that makes me doubt that theory. I also don't see any harm whatsoever in Bishop or somebody close to the situation announcing that Bishop's suspension was reduced and that he'd be back at SLU again in the fall. So that theory wouldn't really make sense to me but this whole situation has been a disaster so who knows.

Most likely could be that Bishop basically put himself out there as a free agent and didn't love his options. Maybe everyone interested was a drop-off from SLU so now he's waiting out transfer season to see if anyone more appealing has a spot for him. 

[Bills_06]

Somebody asked BenFred about it today but sounds like until the police report comes out and if that has anything, there probably won't be a story.  

[cheeseman]

1 hour ago, DeSmetBilliken said:

 

One possible snag is that Ashley Jost, the higher education reporter for the P-D, left to take a job at Mizzou. There’s goes the lead writer and probably and probably the best authority for the story.

 The other thing is this: while many here, myself included, suggested that the players were railroaded by a crooked administration that was hellbent on persecuting male students, I did some additional research after the decisions were handed down. In as briefly as I can put it, slu probably enforced their rules exactly as they are allowed to do. If anyone here thinks that the SLU definition of “sexual assault” is the same as it is under criminal law, get rid of that thought right away, because it’s not. Having read SLU’s policy and an explanation of it, I feel more confident than not thinking that  if things that night happened the way most of us understand them to have happened, that behavior would not be considered to be consensual under SLU’s policies. Blame the snail’s pace of the investigation, or the policy that I’m sure isn’t unique to SLU, but I’m not sure you can call it administrative corruption. Therefore, not an exciting story to do a bunch of research and decide that SLU’s rulings were completely justified under their policy.

I agree with you - the question is do you think SLU's policy is correct or not?  I know in this "me too" environment that some may think that you need a tough policy to protect women at all costs.  I generally have no problem with that but given the sort of loose approach to sexual encounters young people have - not making a judgment - should SLU consider reviewing the policy to bring it up to the 21st century?  I get that the videoing of the encounter really complicated things and until we actually find out how/why the punishments were reached we are all just bumping around in the dark.  My question is had there not been and videoing of the event would the same punishment been handed out? - I would think if that is so then I do question how relevant the school's current policy is.

[moytoy12]

3 hours ago, DeSmetBilliken said:

The other thing is this: while many here, myself included, suggested that the players were railroaded by a crooked administration that was hellbent on persecuting male students, I did some additional research after the decisions were handed down. In as briefly as I can put it, slu probably enforced their rules exactly as they are allowed to do. If anyone here thinks that the SLU definition of “sexual assault” is the same as it is under criminal law, get rid of that thought right away, because it’s not. Having read SLU’s policy and an explanation of it, I feel more confident than not thinking that  if things that night happened the way most of us understand them to have happened, that behavior would not be considered to be consensual under SLU’s policies. Blame the snail’s pace of the investigation, or the policy that I’m sure isn’t unique to SLU, but I’m not sure you can call it administrative corruption. Therefore, not an exciting story to do a bunch of research and decide that SLU’s rulings were completely justified under their policy.

A couple of thoughts:

1.  Were the male students treated differently than similarly situated female students? It seems the female students likely violated some provisions of the SLU code of conduct, yet we haven't heard a single thing about any punishment for them.

2.  Did the punishments fit the violation(s)? I think many on this board realize the bball players likely violated the SLU code of conduct. However, I think many (myself included) would disagree with the severity of the punishment.

 

 

[DeSmetBilliken]

2 hours ago, cheeseman said:

I agree with you - the question is do you think SLU's policy is correct or not?  I know in this "me too" environment that some may think that you need a tough policy to protect women at all costs.  I generally have no problem with that but given the sort of loose approach to sexual encounters young people have - not making a judgment - should SLU consider reviewing the policy to bring it up to the 21st century?  I get that the videoing of the encounter really complicated things and until we actually find out how/why the punishments were reached we are all just bumping around in the dark.  My question is had there not been and videoing of the event would the same punishment been handed out? - I would think if that is so then I do question how relevant the school's current policy is.

I haven’t done thorough research on any other school’s sexual assault policy, but my guess is that SLU isn’t an outlier in its policy. Whether it’s good policy? I don’t know. My theory in this is that slu’s  sexual assault policy is worded in a way that it could  (“could” being the operative word”) find all or almost all sexual activity that takes place on campus to not meet their standard for consent. With that burden out of the way, the only thing that needs to happen is for someone to feel like they were assaulted/didn’t consent, which triggers the investigation, at which it’s almost certain that something will be found to not meet their consent standard. Result? Student is held out to be a sexual predator.

I should probably clarify which part of the policy I am discussing. The policy requires consent throughout  “all stages” of the encounter, and places a premium on that consent being given verbally. I contend that the “all stages” language could separate everything that happens into a separate stage, and if someone doesn’t repeatedly and obtain that verbal consent, there isn’t consent under slu’s policy. For example, if everything was consensual, but then somebody pulls out a phone and snaps a picture or video, if the camera wasn’t verbally consented to, the whole encounter becomes non-consensual.

[DeSmetBilliken]

2 hours ago, moytoy12 said:

A couple of thoughts:

1.  Were the male students treated differently than similarly situated female students? It seems the female students likely violated some provisions of the SLU code of conduct, yet we haven't heard a single thing about any punishment for them.

2.  Did the punishments fit the violation(s)? I think many on this board realize the bball players likely violated the SLU code of conduct. However, I think many (myself included) would disagree with the severity of the punishment.

 

 

1) I think there would have to be a complaint filed by the male students. As I mentioned in the post above, the most important thing here is if a report gets filed. Under the language of the policy, I would think that the female students could be punished as well if a report was filed.

2) in theory, I agree with you. The problem is SLU is calling the behavior that took place “sexual assault” and their policy likely agrees with it. It’s hard to hand out any other sort of punishment until they change the policy or come up with a lesser offense like “mistaken consent” that doesn’t give the connotation that the guy acted with criminal intent.

[Bills_06]

7 hours ago, DeSmetBilliken said:

 

One possible snag is that Ashley Jost, the higher education reporter for the P-D, left to take a job at Mizzou. There’s goes the lead writer and probably and probably the best authority for the story.

 The other thing is this: while many here, myself included, suggested that the players were railroaded by a crooked administration that was hellbent on persecuting male students, I did some additional research after the decisions were handed down. In as briefly as I can put it, slu probably enforced their rules exactly as they are allowed to do. If anyone here thinks that the SLU definition of “sexual assault” is the same as it is under criminal law, get rid of that thought right away, because it’s not. Having read SLU’s policy and an explanation of it, I feel more confident than not thinking that  if things that night happened the way most of us understand them to have happened, that behavior would not be considered to be consensual under SLU’s policies. Blame the snail’s pace of the investigation, or the policy that I’m sure isn’t unique to SLU, but I’m not sure you can call it administrative corruption. Therefore, not an exciting story to do a bunch of research and decide that SLU’s rulings were completely justified under their policy.

I don't disagree with you and a big part of the problem is the system and not just SLU. There were a lot of examples of this that were pulled up during the investigation that occurred at other schools of men getting in trouble with no evidence but it is considered sexual assault by the school because they just need to feel it's better than 50% chance it happened.  As you said in your other post, consent needs to be given throughout (which how often would that ever happen) and if the girl has had some drinks, she isn't able to give consent but a guy having drinks doesn't excuse him not being able to tell the girl is too drunk to give consent.  The system is set up for too many things that are impossible to prove or disprove later setting the guy up to be guilty in the eyes of the school.  Sexual assault is obviously a very serious thing and allowing basically regret to be used to accuse guys is not a good pattern colleges are starting because it will then bring questions when it actually does happen.

With SLU, my biggest question is still JG.  His dad said he felt his rights were violated and Frank said that it was "process of elimination" that found him guilty.  His punishment was reduced so what happened there?  Whoever was the original hearing officer (Weathers based on Gardner's tweet) should be looked into for how she arrived at her punishment.  There is the Winston case that was also very shocking to read that she was a part of.  I would be happier with SLU right now if I knew that the Title IX process and how it was handled and why it took so long from when they received the report to the punishment to the survey were being looked into by people in charge.  

[Cowboy]

-I do hope the U is doing an analysis, thorough analysis,  of their policies and procedures for its own good, I don;t know if we will hear if anything is being done until it is complete and the analysis can;t be done by the T9 folks or other SJW's 

[SLU_Lax]

12 hours ago, Bills_06 said:

I don't disagree with you and a big part of the problem is the system and not just SLU. There were a lot of examples of this that were pulled up during the investigation that occurred at other schools of men getting in trouble with no evidence but it is considered sexual assault by the school because they just need to feel it's better than 50% chance it happened.  As you said in your other post, consent needs to be given throughout (which how often would that ever happen) and if the girl has had some drinks, she isn't able to give consent but a guy having drinks doesn't excuse him not being able to tell the girl is too drunk to give consent.  The system is set up for too many things that are impossible to prove or disprove later setting the guy up to be guilty in the eyes of the school.  Sexual assault is obviously a very serious thing and allowing basically regret to be used to accuse guys is not a good pattern colleges are starting because it will then bring questions when it actually does happen.

With SLU, my biggest question is still JG.  His dad said he felt his rights were violated and Frank said that it was "process of elimination" that found him guilty.  His punishment was reduced so what happened there?  Whoever was the original hearing officer (Weathers based on Gardner's tweet) should be looked into for how she arrived at her punishment.  There is the Winston case that was also very shocking to read that she was a part of.  I would be happier with SLU right now if I knew that the Title IX process and how it was handled and why it took so long from when they received the report to the punishment to the survey were being looked into by people in charge.  

I worry that S3 is just around the corner.

If you ask a girl if you can kiss her and she verbally provides permission, but then you stop to take a breath and then kiss her again without regaining consent....you may be in deep trouble.