|
MourningView posted:The Baylor thing should probably get its own thread if someone who is following the story somewhat closely wants to make one. Otherwise it's going to overwhelm all the not horrifying and depressing college football news, and also me talking about Iowa's offensive line. Continuation of the discussion in the general thread, but here's as good a writeup as any: http://www.texasmonthly.com/article/silence-at-baylor/ tl;dr version Texas Monthly posted:We don’t know yet whether Sam Ukwuachu will be convicted of the charges against him—but we know that the program recently (and eagerly) expressed its intention to add the six-foot-four pass rusher to their rotation at defensive end in time for the season opener at SMU. What we do know is that Baylor took a chance on a player they had every reason to suspect had previously presented a threat to students at another campus, and let Baylor’s students assume the risk that entailed. When a student at Baylor leveled accusations of sexual assault against the player, the school’s investigation—in which the burden of proof is significantly lower than in a court of law—ended without action, despite the fact that the McLennan County District Attorney’s Office found cause to take the matter all the way to a trial on second degree felony charges. We know that officials in Baylor’s football program describe rape accusations against players on the team as “some issues” or “violating a team rule,” the same language they might use to describe a player who broke curfew—even after the player has been accused, indicted, arrested, and, in the case of Tevin Elliott, convicted. We know that the Waco Police Department took months to bring the case to a prosecutor, but that when they did present the case to the DA’s office, the DA took the felony charges all the way to court. We know that the Waco sports media, charged with covering one of the country’s most prominent football programs, failed to report on charges against a much-heralded new transfer for nearly fourteen months, even though those charges were readily accessible to anyone who searched his name at the McLennan County Courthouse. We know that when asked about Ukwuachu a few weeks ahead of his scheduled trial date, rather than acknowledge the charges or decline to comment, Baylor defensive coordinator Phil Bennett told Baylor fans that the team was expecting to have him on the field. Edit: Pretty good timeline of events put together by Jason Kirk of SB Nation. Relevant news from today: -Art Briles and Ukwuachu's coach from Boise State Chris Petersen can't seem to agree on how much information on his violent past was conveyed in their conversation when he was seeking a transfer to Baylor. Spoiler- this is going to boil down to Briles saying Petersen may have used some euphemistic language and that he didn't get the full meaning. -Ukwuachu sentenced to 8 years probation, 6 months in jail. Relevant (Fully Loaded) discussion questions: -At what point in the process should Baylor's football program have cut ties with Ukwuachu? -As the school chose not to expel Ukwuachu at the conclusion of its (woefully inadequate) internal investigation, is there reason to believe Baylor's coaching staff is guilty of anything beyond callous indifference to the victim and to the safety of the student body in keeping Ukwuachu on board? -Can the coaches be said to have perpetrated a cover up when the indictment was a matter of public record for eight months? -With the botched or outright disinterested internal sexual assault investigations of football players that we hear about several times every year, it raises the question: are these guys getting off because they're football players, or because the schools are so poorly equipped to deal with this kind of case that they rarely yield results no matter who is being investigated (athlete or not)? General Dog fucked around with this message at 02:33 on Aug 22, 2015 |
#
¿
Aug 22, 2015 02:00
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 11:08 |
|
|
sweet thursday posted:I hope all of these things eventually seeing the light of day maybe pushes some administrations toward not letting it happen in the first place. Putting "Try not to rape" in your code of conduct doesn't do it Banning alcohol might go a long way.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2015 02:17
|
|
|
Drinking doesn't make predators, but it sure as hell makes prey.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2015 05:59
|
|
|
I'm sorry I brought us down this road. It's a shame we're collectively so lovely that it's not safe for women to get drunk in public, but you and I both know that's the state of things in many many places. *This post bought to you by the DAD Council
|
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2015 06:46
|
|
|
I don't literally think banning alcohol would be a practical solution, and it's certainly not a relevant tangent for this thread, so without backing off I said, I do apologize for starting this derail. But getting back on track, I think it's a bit much to say they covered up this guy's past (Briles' denial that he knew about it is really the first true misdirection), though it's maybe more concerning that they didn't seem to give it a second thought. Throw in the fact that his indictment was a matter of public record, the DC is out there saying "yeah I think we'll get him on the field this year." It's not that they didn't want people to know, it's so far off their radar that it doesn't even occur to them that it could be a thing people care about. General Dog fucked around with this message at 14:47 on Aug 22, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2015 14:43
|
|
|
I agree with all of that. Their failure to sever all ties with this guy (or at least keep his rear end away from team facilities) the minute the indictment came down is absolutely what deserves the most ridicule here. The rest of it- the investigation, the lack of concern for the victim's interests, and all that are administrative failings, and I'd venture they have a lot more to do with incompetence than corruption. General Dog fucked around with this message at 17:54 on Aug 22, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2015 17:51
|
|
|
kayakyakr posted:https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-nuENq9AmeSckENpssVafBXZU6N28osZSe4K3nrN-ps/edit?usp=docslist_api Ever noticed how all the top teams have like 15 players arrested every year? If this Baylor thing even registers with anyone as out of step with the sport as a whole, I don't know what they've been watching.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2015 21:51
|
|
|
Chilichimp posted:At this point, I'd like to have the Baylor apologists defend the schools actions after Ukwauchu was charged with rape. I'm only defending (just downplaying really) the actions of the football team, not of the administration. Yes, the football team should have kicked this guy off when he was indicted, but it was administration's job to kick the guy out of school, and to take care of the victim's intetests. And I don't see a lot of evidence that administration handled the case with kid gloves because the guy was a football player, as has been the implication in a lot of the reporting on this story. I think its equally likely that they just sucked at their jobs. That you had non police being asked to handle a police matter. General Dog fucked around with this message at 15:34 on Aug 24, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2015 15:30
|
|
|
Chokes McGee posted:not gonna lie I don't think that'll fit on a billboard Everything's bigger in Texas 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2015 16:42
|
|
|
Between the chaplain's testimony after talking to both people and the relatively light sentence, it's almost like there could be ambiguities to this case that we don't know anything about.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2015 21:33
|
|
|
That Works posted:Yeah I wonder how many years he would have gotten if he wasn't a student athlete? You're severely overestimating how much a random McLennan County jury cares about Baylor football, much less when the defendant is a big scary black man.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2015 21:37
|
|
|
buddhanc posted:Maybe the chaplain shouldn't have taken sides at all, eh? Oh hey, that guy's dad is the interim pastor at my old church. Anyway, reviewing the reports on his testimony, it uh, doesn't look great. But on the other hand, it's possible that he just can't reconcile the impression this guy has made on him with whatever he was told happened. I don't know.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2015 21:54
|
|
|
v2vian man posted:yor a loving idiot jackass......its astounding to me Baylor's not even my team, I just want to assume the best about people. Maybe I'm crazy, but I can't bring myself to believe that administrators, chaplains, and a full jury are all conspiring to try to get a player who doesn't even matter from getting in trouble for rape so they can increase Baylor's win expectancy by 0.15 games or something. Even in a post-Sandusky world, maybe especially in a post-Sandusky world, that seems insane to me.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2015 22:38
|
|
|
Detroit_Dogg posted:This is my favorite thread Mine too. I think the point I've been circling around every time one of these scandals comes up for the past several years is that this idea that football players tend to get preferential treatment from the law strikes me as received wisdom. When player after player gets off without punishment for this kind of thing, the media asks why it is football players always seem to get away with it. It's a fair question, but their scope is too small. The problem isn't that football players are never brought to justice for rape, it's that by and large nobody is ever brought to justice for rape. How many countless nobodies that we've never heard of have gone through the same joke of a system and slipped through the cracks in the same fashion? Whether the culprit is Jameis Winston or Joe Blow, rape is a really difficult thing to prove, and we live in a society that doesn't really want to think about it. Sure, maybe when it's a football player a few people may want to think about it a little less, but I think for the large part our focus on the sports element of these stories is missing the forest for the trees. Now I'll hang up and let you talk Pawlll. I like the way I've posted as poster, a fan, and a human being. General Dog fucked around with this message at 01:30 on Aug 25, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2015 00:40
|
|
|
Again, in our rush to judgement let's remember that Baylor's failure to properly take care of the victims interests doesn't necessarily mean that they did so to protect the football team. Sometimes incompetence is just incompetence.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2016 00:32
|
|
|
You know, having read the article I really don't have a good defense any more, I guess I've just got to admit that the amount of enjoyment I get watching the team outweighs the amount that this actually bothers me. I'm going to go ahead and forfeit my right to discuss this matter any further, because I'm unable to look at it objectively.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2016 00:45
|
|
|
Bump
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2016 14:00
|
|
|
Raku posted:welp My understanding is that the dismissal was due to allegations of something that happened at FAU before he came to Baylor. In which case they're correct, once they wash their hands of him, what he did at FAU is no longer their problem.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2016 03:05
|
|
|
rebel1608 posted:Yeah, precisely. Grobe is saying they'll stop an investigation into a sexual assault to protect a football player's reputation which is exactly what got them in trouble in the first place If he's no longer at the school, and the incident didn't occur at Baylor, then why would the continue the investigation?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2016 03:41
|
|
|
rebel1608 posted:You seem to have missed the bit where he is under investigation for a sexual assault at Baylor in April, in addition to the FAU thing I did. Although, if they've found enough that they've deemed it prudent to kick him out I'm not sure where else they need to go from there. They're wrong to kick them out, they're wrong to let them stay, what exactly is the right way to do this?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2016 03:47
|
|
|
kayakyakr posted:I think the indication was that if he left without making a stink, the rape investigation would go away. Rather than, you know, continuing through to its end. As difficult as rape accusations are to confirm, as we've seen at Baylor and also everywhere, I don't see anything wrong with the administration saying, "look, it's probably in everyone's best interest if you just leave." If he's committed a crime, it's not going to shield him from the criminal charges. If he's guilty, they've managed to get rid of a predator (for once), and if he's innocent, they're sparing him the life-ruining ramifications of going through an investigation under the microscope of the national press (the findings won't matter, he'll have had his name and "rape allegations" showing up together for months by the time it's over). Maybe I'm showing my ignorance, but my impression is that the point of a campus investigation is to determine whether the student deserves punishment up to or including expulsion or not, not to create the all-time authoritative account of what exactly happened. Edit: Make no mistake, I think there are plenty of valid criticisms to make of how Baylor has handled everything, I just think this is an odd thing to key in on. General Dog fucked around with this message at 04:24 on Jun 11, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2016 04:16
|
|
|
Chichevache posted:The right thing to do is turn it over to police. So is the normal flow of reporting victim->university->police? I always assumed it was victim->police->university, if that's not the case then I need to rethink all of this. I was never under the impression that the university passed on information to the police, I thought the investigations ran concurrently.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2016 04:30
|
|
|
v2vian man posted:here you go i googled "campus sexual assault process" then clicked on a link using the mouse, the peripheral device attached to almost all computers http://knowyourix.org/why-schools-handle-sexual-violence-reports/ Thanks. Kind of an obvious statement, but it seems like people in the athletic department shouldn't be tasked with these kind of investigations, as there are going to be inherent conflicts of interest. They were crazy not to have a devoted Title IX office, there's clearly no way you can do anything resembling an acceptable job with this stuff without it. General Dog fucked around with this message at 04:54 on Jun 11, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2016 04:33
|
|
|
If Baylor is going to reinstate Briles, they're going to need to present some new, more specific information about the extent of the coaching staff's involvement in all this and make a pretty compelling case for why they weren't out of line. They'll get crucified no matter what, but they need to be sure everything that's going to get out is out before they make this decision. But that's all irrelevant because there's 0% chance they bring him back (or that he would agree to come back) at this point anyway. You can't hand down punishment and publicly deem him culpable in all of this and then reverse course.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2016 22:41
|
|
|
pillsburysoldier posted:I wonder if they're telling recruits that Briles is coming back I'm sure the recruiting creeps on twitter are on the case.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2016 03:46
|
|
|
v2vian man posted:i'm sorry, i don't follow college football all that much. is baylor not moderate rear end at college football They're historically major rear end, but they're really good now, like legit top ten for several seasons on end, which is basically a miracle.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2016 13:56
|
|
|
Neil Armbong posted:They can and will and we'll be outraged for a month and nothing will happen. God bless Texas and the USA and footbaw. Won't someone think of the victims?  
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2016 17:57
|
|
|
Baylor regents did not vote Monday night on Briles’ status according to a Baylor spokesman, which probably means they voted no.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2016 20:33
|
|
|
Chris James 2 posted:Sports are evil and we're all horrible people for enabling its constant rise. The sooner you realize this, the sooner the healing can begin This guy gets it
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2016 03:08
|
|
|
Eifert Posting posted:Which school will have the first exposed major scandal? Bama or tOSU? OSU already had one bad enough that the coach lost his job, soo
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2016 14:08
|
|
|
Baylor's biggest undoing (post scandal) is that they've tried to pull all of these half-measures- reassigning Starr but not firing him, probating the AD but not firing him (though he had the sense and decency to go ahead and leave), releasing a halfassed summary of the report findings. These people are either culpable or they aren't, same for the university as a whole. You can't cast aspersions on these people and then just leave them around. Just from a pragmatic standpoint Baylor should have either come out with everything they knew, or just sat on everything and weathered the storm. Neither of those are fun options, but where they're at now is even more untenable. It's sticking half of your head in the sand, which is quintessential Baylor.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2016 21:25
|
|
|
Don't doxx me
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2016 23:48
|
|
|
Who is this?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2016 15:30
|
|
|
pillsburysoldier posted:Big 12 asks for report I'd feel pretty comfortable calling their bluff if I was Baylor, I doubt any of the school presidents truly want to set a precedent here.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2016 19:55
|
|
|
I miss Waco.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2016 05:48
|
|
|
pillsburysoldier posted:Regarding players being let out of their NLI's Internet Man Says Dumb Things, more at 11
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2016 04:21
|
|
|
It's obviously not good, but if you read the actual AP report they're quoting from, Deadspin is slapping a fairly sensationalist headline on it. It reads like the alcohol policy acted as a passive deterrent for reporting, but not as something where a surly admin actively used it as a cudgel. It's sad, but it's not really anything we didn't already know.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2016 18:21
|
|
|
But Jesus, am I tired of apologizing for these clowns.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2016 18:47
|
|
|
Phobeste posted:pretty sure this is a cudgel. so it wasn't someone telling a student "if you specifically bring an investigation about a football player raping you BAH GAWD I'LL SEE YOU EXPELLED", but nobody has to do that if they systematically ignore the "Someone raped me" part of the sentence "Someone raped me while I was at a party" in favor of kicking you out for the "at a party" bit I agree, but the Deadspin article strongly implies the former, which is both misleading and does a disservice to the real issue at hand.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2016 20:41
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 11:08 |
|
|
You're right the post history speaks for itself. I probably should have honored my word and stayed out of it, but I stand by all of the posts. I'm okay dying on this hill.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2016 21:08
|
|