THE PAC 12 THREAD v.5

[WizardHawk]

I like it ... other than it's a bit dark looking. Kind of looks like a night club you'd see over in Eastern Europe.

I guess what matters is the players and recruits like it. We have Oregon to thank for this shit mattering at all as it is.

It's kind of a retarded arms race. The new locker room is actually more fancy/upgraded from what even the Seahawks have for theirs.

 

[JonBlaze]

That USC kicker story has me worried about CU's own similar incident with one of our starting corners. Oh well, next man up!

 

[wazzu31]

When are college girls ever going to learn their lesson about hanging out with kickers

 

[trojanfan12]

That USC kicker story has me worried about CU's own similar incident with one of our starting corners. Oh well, next man up!

Yeah. Unfortunately, it seems like with all of the stuff that's been going on with players both in college and professionally, the schools have no choice but to be over the top on this kind of stuff. It becomes more about making sure they take strong action to show they won't tolerate that kind of thing, than about getting to the truth.

If they determine that no action is necessary and then something else happens down the line, they come off looking like they don't care about assaulting women and open themselves up to lawsuits.

On the other hand, if they take action when none was necessary, then some player receives punishment he didn't deserve.

Given the 2 options and the current climate, schools are going to err on the side of caution and punish the player pretty much every single time.

 

[Vitamike]

While women do lie to protect the abuser...when was the last time you heard of one hiring an attorney to do it?

Of course he was told he couldn't have contact with her. They ruled against him. It's standard procedure any time a person who is accused of assault loses the case.

What were they going to say? We're kicking you off of the team and out of school, but you can have all of the contact with her that you want?

No contact is restraining order language. They do not have the authority to enforce that sort of directive anywhere other than SC governed sites, such as Campus, games & events. She likely views this order as punishment to her, that's why she likely hired the attorney.

Interesting that you think it's her story that doesn't add up.

I am not saying that she is lying, and that he abused her, rather we only have heard her side of the story. It's a one sided story where we knew there was an investigation, and the outcome just doesn't make any sense at all. It takes quite a leap to go from her account to the severe punishment that ensued.

It is also hard to fathom that SC wouldn't try to protect their own player if all there was against him was this 3rd party account of the event, who reported it to a coach who is required to report the incident for investigation as he did under title IX. Too many holes to go from what we were told by her to the actions USC felt it needed to follow through with. The problem is, the investigation is sealed, so we may never know.

 

[AlaskaGuy]

@mrwallace2ku did I call it or what? I knew he'd do something like this.

JUCO transfer Jake Luton named starting QB at Oregon State

 

[trojanfan12]

No contact is restraining order language. They do not have the authority to enforce that sort of directive anywhere other than SC governed sites, such as Campus, games & events. She likely views this order as punishment to her, that's why she likely hired the attorney.

You're really grasping at straws here. USC doesn't have legal authority to issue a restraining order. And again, they ruled against him. So, of course they barred him from contacting her. They can't enforce it anywhere but on campus, but that language is included in any decision like this.

Once more, what would you have them do? Say he's barred from the team and the school, but he can contact her all he wants?

Yeah, she views it as punishment to her because she says nothing happened and they are trying to keep her from having contact with her boyfriend who she says is being punished unjustly.

I am not saying that she is lying, and that he abused her, rather we only have heard her side of the story. It's a one sided story where we knew there was an investigation, and the outcome just doesn't make any sense at all. It takes quite a leap to go from her account to the severe punishment that ensued.

It doesn't make any sense because, according to her, the school overreacted. Also, look at the language that she used to describe her feelings from when she was called in to the Title IX office and questioned. The way they apparently made her feel is how they told her she should feel about him.

It is also hard to fathom that SC wouldn't try to protect their own player if all there was against him was this 3rd party account of the event, who reported it to a coach who is required to report the incident for investigation as he did under title IX. Too many holes to go from what we were told by her to the actions USC felt it needed to follow through with. The problem is, the investigation is sealed, so we may never know.

Pretty naive statement by you. It's Title IX. There have been huge issues at other programs where assaults on women have happened and nothing was done about it. The school is going to protect themselves before the player. After all, if something worse were to happen, the school is who would get sued. They have the far deeper pockets.

If she really was being abused by him, she was safe. He was kicked off the team, out of school and barred from contacting her. All she had to do was keep her mouth shut and allow the school to continue to protect her and she never had to worry about him again. The school would have even provided counseling for her at no cost.

Instead, she speaks out against how both of them were treated and hires a lawyer. As I said, I'm well aware of women lying to protect the abuser, but I've never heard of one going to this extent to do it.

 

[socaljim242]

One of the things I do wonder is that as soon as it happened and he was being accused or investigated why not say something to media or a lawyer then and say hey this is a misunderstanding a mix up were were playing around. Go on TV with a reporter if you have to. But we all heard the news that he was being investigated and heard nothing of what it was about. I think the more time that goes by many women who are (not saying she was or is) in that situation feel losing that guy is worse than the abuse and tend to defend him. I think at some point investigators feel they can't trust her for the truth because of this. It's a fucked up situation but USC is protecting itself in case something happens down the road. Big ass lawsuit if she ends up with a black eye one day .

 

[trojanfan12]

One of the things I do wonder is that as soon as it happened and he was being accused or investigated why not say something to media or a lawyer then and say hey this is a misunderstanding a mix up were were playing around. Go on TV with a reporter if you have to. But we all heard the news that he was being investigated and heard nothing of what it was about. I think the more time that goes by many women who are (not saying she was or is) in that situation feel losing that guy is worse than the abuse and tend to defend him. I think at some point investigators feel they can't trust her for the truth because of this. It's a fucked up situation but USC is protecting itself in case something happens down the road. Big ass lawsuit if she ends up with a black eye one day .

Agree. The only people who know what truly happened and what their relationship is like, is the 2 of them. Unfortunately, with the climate the way it is right now...the school has to protect themselves in a situation like this where there is apparently no video to see what took place.

While, based on the info we have right now, I disagree with what the school did...I understand that by deciding the way they did, they protect themselves and have also done what they can to protect her if it really was/is an abusive relationship.

 

[Vitamike]

You're really grasping at straws here. USC doesn't have legal authority to issue a restraining order. And again, they ruled against him. So, of course they barred him from contacting her. They can't enforce it anywhere but on campus, but that language is included in any decision like this.

Somehow you are not understanding what I am saying, because you say I'm grasping at straws and then repeat the same point I made regarding the USC authority's reach.

Once more, what would you have them do? Say he's barred from the team and the school, but he can contact her all he wants?

Treat them both fairly, and have both of their interest in mind. With that we don't know if they did or not because we have only heard her side of the story.

Yeah, she views it as punishment to her because she says nothing happened and they are trying to keep her from having contact with her boyfriend who she says is being punished unjustly.

Again we agree.

It doesn't make any sense because, according to her, the school overreacted. Also, look at the language that she used to describe her feelings from when she was called in to the Title IX office and questioned. The way they apparently made her feel is how they told her she should feel about him.

Again, we agree because this is her account. The investigation, that is sealed, could have a totally different account. If their stories were so different of the events, it opens the door to doubt. Also their investigation, I would expect, questioned those who are around them and if any of those folks were concerned about other events, showing a pattern, than maybe they are acting in her best interest and it's not just an overreaction.

Pretty naive statement by you. It's Title IX. There have been huge issues at other programs where assaults on women have happened and nothing was done about it. The school is going to protect themselves before the player. After all, if something worse were to happen, the school is who would get sued. They have the far deeper pockets.

If she really was being abused by him, she was safe. He was kicked off the team, out of school and barred from contacting her. All she had to do was keep her mouth shut and allow the school to continue to protect her and she never had to worry about him again. The school would have even provided counseling for her at no cost.

Instead, she speaks out against how both of them were treated and hires a lawyer. As I said, I'm well aware of women lying to protect the abuser, but I've never heard of one going to this extent to do it.

We live in a country were the burden of proof is on the prosecution, you know, innocent until proven guilty. That standard is above what the Title IX folks think. And to base what has happened in other places like Penn St, and Baylor as to the lengths the SC investigation should rule, is a ruling with prejudices, something that would be inadmissible in an actual court of law. I would also think the Kicker has certain rights, under Title IX, if not, maybe I am naive, but he should have at least an appeals process.

Either way, I hope they get this right. It sounds like we haven't heard the rest of the story because she has the attorney. Seems to me that he should have hired an attorney too, maybe he has.

 

[socaljim242]

Agree. The only people who know what truly happened and what their relationship is like, is the 2 of them. Unfortunately, with the climate the way it is right now...the school has to protect themselves in a situation like this where there is apparently no video to see what took place.

While, based on the info we have right now, I disagree with what the school did...I understand that by deciding the way they did, they protect themselves and have also done what they can to protect her if it really was/is an abusive relationship.

What probably makes it harder legally is that shes a student there also and legally have to protect her.

 

[trojanfan12]

Somehow you are not understanding what I am saying, because you say I'm grasping at straws and then repeat the same point I made regarding the USC authority's reach.

You're grasping at straws because you're trying to make this into something that the victim says it isn't. You also find inconsistencies in her story...yet failed to mention that the actual witness wasn't even the one who reported it.

Again, we agree because this is her account. The investigation, that is sealed, could have a totally different account. If their stories were so different of the events, it opens the door to doubt. Also their investigation, I would expect, questioned those who are around them and if any of those folks were concerned about other events, showing a pattern, than maybe they are acting in her best interest and it's not just an overreaction.

Yet again, you only mention inconsistencies in her story. USC said they will release the info if the students waive their confidentiality. We'll see what happens if that happens.

We live in a country were the burden of proof is on the prosecution, you know, innocent until proven guilty. That standard is above what the Title IX folks think.

Again, pretty naive. A Title IX investigation does not hold the same level of burden of proof as a court of law. In fact, they aren't bound by any of the rules of a courtroom since it's not a legal proceeding.

It's like a civil suit which also doesn't carry the same burden of proof as a criminal proceeding. A Title IX hearing doesn't even require the same burden of proof (preponderance of the evidence) that a civil suit does.

If it did, assuming her account is true that they told her that "she must be afraid of Matt" and saying she is "a battered woman" would have been thrown out as leading the witness.

 

[trojanfan12]

What probably makes it harder legally is that shes a student there also and legally have to protect her.

Agree.

 

[TheDayMan]

Kickers...

 

[nddulac]

All I can say is that the USC kicker case is bizarre. I have heard of the alleged victims of violence recanting, and am generally skeptical when I see it. But I don't ever recall an alleged victim claiming with such insistence that no abuse occurred.

It seem unlikely to me that any school would hit a student with a title IX violation under these circumstances alone. So I figure there has to be other witnesses from whom we are not hearing.

I'm not saying he did or did not do anything wrong, but it sure looks to me like there is a lot more to this story than we are seeing in the LA Times.

 

[AlaskaGuy]

Female student: USC threatened me because I said my boyfriend didn't beat me up - The College Fix

 

[AlaskaGuy]

 

[Vitamike]

You're grasping at straws because you're trying to make this into something that the victim says it isn't. You also find inconsistencies in her story...yet failed to mention that the actual witness wasn't even the one who reported it.

The investigation is at odds with her story, not I. I just see the possibility that USC is doing the right thing here by protecting her. (If indeed the 'battered woman' syndrome is in play) I have no clue to what actually occurred, and as a matter of fact I did mention the that the actual witness wasn't the one who reported it.

It is also hard to fathom that SC wouldn't try to protect their own player if all there was against him was this 3rd party account of the event, who reported it to a coach

As kids, teachers would demonstrate an exercise to show how rumors, without an actual account, can go unchecked. Most remember this exercise, where one person whispers a sentence in the ear of another only once, and then they whisper what they heard in the ear of another only once. The exercise quickly demonstrates how the original account is completely unrecognizable after just a few re-accounts, and why hearsay or 3rd party accounts are not reliable.

The way she described the 3rd party account reminded me a lot of that childhood exercise.

Again, pretty naive. A Title IX investigation does not hold the same level of burden of proof as a court of law.

It's like a civil suit which also doesn't carry the same burden of proof as a criminal proceeding. A Title IX hearing doesn't even require the same burden of proof (preponderance of the evidence) that a civil suit does.

Actually it does. Title IX is a federal civil right, and the standard is a 'preponderance of the evidence'.

Title IX also provides the 'victim or accuser' and the 'accused' the same rights, and an appeals process for both.

The problem I see here, is the accuser is not the victim. Not sure if there is a victim, and without a victim, USC is not bound by Title IX except to the extent of 'knowing' there is a victim or that they 'should know' there is a victim. This is where the investigation details would be enlightening.

TF, I am no different than you. I want the girl to be protected as much as all other males and females at our Universities and Colleges from these sorts of things, if need be. It should never be overly protected at the expense of the innocent, where mere appearances threaten the schools Title IX federal funding, and that goes for every school.

It's hard for any of us to want for anything other than that.

If the young man is innocent of these actions, I am troubled with that, and since due process is part of Title IX, because it's a civil right for both of these young people! Not just the right of the accuser, which in this case isn't even the alleged victim. It's a messy situation, but it's why I think, as I originally stated, that there is more to the investigation, whether it is legit or not, that we don't know about, other than what she has stated.

I'm done with this because I can see that my opinion bothers and it's not my intent. I've actually defended USC, the girl and the young man. It's the process and what has been reported that's in question here.

Bottom line, I'd be pissed as hell, if that were my son and he was wrongfully accused, and delighted to no end if that were my daughter, and she was blinded by the 'battered woman's syndrome'.

 

[mrwallace2ku]

@mrwallace2ku did I call it or what? I knew he'd do something like this.

JUCO transfer Jake Luton named starting QB at Oregon State

BIG KID…but i wouldn't doubt GA has ol Luke on a fucking short leash.


goood call, i remember.

 

[trojanfan12]

The investigation is at odds with her story, not I. I just see the possibility that USC is doing the right thing here by protecting her. (If indeed the 'battered woman' syndrome is in play) I have no clue to what actually occurred,

There is no inconsistency in her story. The Title IX office chose not to believe her even though she is the victim.

Unless she went to counseling with a licensed psychologist who told USC that she was suffering from battered women's syndrome...USC had no business saying anything like that to her and are protecting themselves first,

As kids, teachers would demonstrate an exercise to show how rumors, without an actual account, can go unchecked. Most remember this exercise, where one person whispers a sentence in the ear of another only once, and then they whisper what they heard in the ear of another only once. The exercise quickly demonstrates how the original account is completely unrecognizable after just a few re-accounts, and why hearsay or 3rd party accounts are not reliable.

The way she described the 3rd party account reminded me a lot of that childhood exercise.

And yet you claim to find inconsistencies in her story which is a 1st person account and somehow think USC is doing the right thing in believing the 3rd person account.

I'm done with this because I can see that my opinion bothers and it's not my intent.

Yeah, it has to be that I'm bothered...not that you're wrong or jumping to any conclusions.