Should Terrence Shannon play while awaiting trial?

spark mandrill

4043
+312/-40

Re: Should Terrence Shannon play while awaiting trial?

« Reply #165 on: May 17, 2024, 01:58:57 PM »

Quote from: ThePAMan on May 17, 2024, 01:50:12 PM

This is laughable. They had a fucking policy in place specifically when Title IX would not apply (which it did not here, as the University argued). They did not follow the policy, which the law requires.

Now you are saying they did it on purpose? They knew Shannon would sue AND would win? (Despite what you argue is the novelty of basing part of the decision on the loss of draft position and NIL income.) GMAFB with this bullshit.

I mean, yes of course they did it on purpose.

There’s no way you really thought that the athletic department were fighting to suspend him the rest of the year, right?

They pretty clearly handled this in a way that would get him back on the court quickly, and quickly and quietly dropped the “investigation” a week after the season was over because - surprise surprise! - their University investigation, as was obviously going to be the case from the beginning, has none of the evidence from the criminal trial and no way of knowing whether he’s guilty or not. Which is also why the requirement that he be found guilty by that university panel to suspend him from basketball is an absurd standard to set to begin with.

Not sure what to even say in reply to the idea that Whitman actually wanted Shannon suspended all year. He did what he was required to by department policy and suspended him. Then he let a judge tell him that he couldn’t suspend him, didn’t fight to get the case in front of an OSCR panel at all, let him play the whole season and then the investigation was dropped shortly after the season ended.

I guess I’ve been giving you too much credit.

Logged

spark mandrill

4043
+312/-40

Re: Should Terrence Shannon play while awaiting trial?

« Reply #166 on: May 17, 2024, 02:00:26 PM »

Quote from: ThePAMan on May 17, 2024, 01:58:52 PM

Tell me where the law has changed, Spark. It has not, in this instance. Illinois set up this process, they did not follow it. It is an administrative University proceeding; not a court proceeding. Title IX did not apply because this was an off-campus incident involving a non-student. How much Illinois incorporated Title IX processes in its policy was up to Illinois. I would think some of the same processes would apply for Due Process reasons. But, we did see people complain that Obama's changes to Title IX (which were revoked by Trump) allowed these proceedings to become "Star Chamber"-like.

There were extreme logistical issues here. She was not a student and she was out-of-state. Was she willing to cooperate with Illinois in its investigation? Was she even asked?

You are just talking out of your ass at this point.

Read her opinion again. She walks through it all.

It’s quite literally the very first sentence of the link.

“New federal regulations released Friday will prevent colleges and coaches from suspending athletes accused of sexual misconduct while school officials investigate complaints against them.”

No, of course she did not cooperate with the University panel investigation. Of course she didn’t - which is why that investigation was such an obvious sham, why it was quickly shuttered as soon as the season was over for that exact reason, and why requiring that investigation find a player guilty to suspend him from basketball is such an insane precedent. No accuser’s lawyer (or accused’s lawyer for that matter) is ever going to let them give evidence to the University Title IX or OSCR board. Those panels will never be able to make a determination of guilt without that evidence. A rule saying those boards need to determine the accused’s guilt or innocence before suspending them are actually rules saying you can’t suspend them, because those boards are never going to be in a position to determine that.

« Last Edit: May 17, 2024, 02:03:42 PM by spark mandrill »

Logged

Judge Judy

11923
+120/-1810

Re: Should Terrence Shannon play while awaiting trial?

« Reply #167 on: May 17, 2024, 02:07:25 PM »

😂 oh Spark 😂

Logged

Because FOX News told me so…

HQ2 Cesspool March Madness champion 🏆

ThePAMan

31768
+609/-2446
Because "PussyMan" and "PenisMan" were trademarked

Re: Should Terrence Shannon play while awaiting trial?

« Reply #168 on: May 17, 2024, 02:12:18 PM »

Quote from: spark mandrill on May 17, 2024, 01:58:57 PM

I mean, yes of course they did it on purpose.

There’s no way you really thought that the athletic department were fighting to suspend him the rest of the year, right?

They pretty clearly handled this in a way that would get him back on the court quickly, and quickly and quietly dropped the “investigation” a week after the season was over because - surprise surprise! - their University investigation, as was obviously going to be the case from the beginning, has none of the evidence from the criminal trial and no way of knowing whether he’s guilty or not. Which is also why the requirement that he be found guilty by that university panel to suspend him from basketball is an absurd standard to set to begin with.

Not sure what to even say in reply to the idea that Whitman actually wanted Shannon suspended all year. He did what he was required to by department policy and suspended him. Then he let a judge tell him that he couldn’t suspend him, didn’t fight to get the case in front of an OSCR panel at all, let him play the whole season and then the investigation was dropped shortly after the season ended.

I guess I’ve been giving you too much credit.

Yes, they all knew the federal court judge was going to buy the draft and NIL argument, which you claim was a stretch. Unbelievable.

If she came forward and cooperated, they would not have proceeded? Seriously?

Didn't they drop the administrative proceeding after the season was over because it was moot?

Their administrative proceeding does not have to be a criminal proceeding requiring "proof beyond a reasonable doubt."

No, Illinois did not do what was required of it by department policy when suspending him. Read the opinion. That was the point of it.

Remember when people were spooging all over Guenther Jr. for his explanation of the process blah blah blah. It came back to bite him in the ass because the judge specifically cited his press conference and how Illinois did not live up to what he said the process was.

Spark = Custard is a match. Who knew?

Logged

Mark Carman: "The Whitlock!...Caleb Williams failed Wayne Whitlock." Been told I need to take my dick out my mouth so maybe I "wont [sic] sound like such a fucking faggot all the time[.]"

Tempo: "PAMan is a pot stirrer and agent provocateur"

spark mandrill

4043
+312/-40

Re: Should Terrence Shannon play while awaiting trial?

« Reply #169 on: May 17, 2024, 02:28:23 PM »

Quote from: ThePAMan on May 17, 2024, 02:12:18 PM

Yes, they all knew the federal court judge was going to buy the draft and NIL argument, which you claim was a stretch. Unbelievable.

If she came forward and cooperated, they would not have proceeded? Seriously?

Didn't they drop the administrative proceeding after the season was over because it was moot?

Their administrative proceeding does not have to be a criminal proceeding requiring "proof beyond a reasonable doubt."

No, Illinois did not do what was required of it by department policy when suspending him. Read the opinion. That was the point of it.

Remember when people were spooging all over Guenther Jr. for his explanation of the process blah blah blah. It came back to bite him in the ass because the judge specifically cited his press conference and how Illinois did not live up to what he said the process was.

Spark = Custard is a match. Who knew?

I think they had a good idea that the judge would 'make them' let him play, yeah. I'm surprised you find that even remotely hard to believe.

Of course the accuser was not going to present her evidence to a UIUC OSCR panel. No accuser is ever going to present their evidence in an upcoming criminal trial to some university's OSCR or Title IX board. Any requirement that those boards determine the accused's guilt or innocence is a non-starter, because those boards are never, ever going to have the evidence to make that determination.

And THAT is why the investigation was dropped - not because the season was over (nominally, anyway), but because the OSCR board wrote that they did not have 'access to the complainant, the complainant's witness', or 'the complete Lawrence Police Department file'. And OF COURSE they didn't. No OSCR or Title IX board is ever going to have access to those things. A regulation stating that those boards need to determine the guilt or innocence of a player is, in practicality, a regulation stating that those players cannot be suspended pre-conviction because those entities will never have access to the complainant's evidence or the police file or any of the other evidence from the upcoming trial.

No, the TRO did not say that UIUC DIA didn't follow its own policies. It said they did, in fact, but that the policies as-written violated Shannon's right to due process and harmed his ability to make NIL money, and that that outweighs the harm done to UIUC by not allowing them to enforce their disciplinary policies. The judge wrote:

"While the Court recognizes the strong interest the University has in acting pursuant to its policies, the court concludes that the irreparable harm to [Shannon] by application of the DIA Policy outweighs the harm to Illinois."

She did NOT say that Illinois DIA didn't follow their policies. She said their DIA policy (the same one every AD has everywhere) violated Shannon's right to make money via NIL, because he wasn't granted a sham OSCR 'trial'. The OSCR later dropped their investigation entirely because, as anyone paying attention knew would be the case, they had none of the evidence they'd need to determine his guilt.

Logged

ThePAMan

31768
+609/-2446
Because "PussyMan" and "PenisMan" were trademarked

Re: Should Terrence Shannon play while awaiting trial?

« Reply #170 on: May 17, 2024, 02:30:14 PM »

Quote from: spark mandrill on May 17, 2024, 02:00:26 PM

It’s quite literally the very first sentence of the link.

“New federal regulations released Friday will prevent colleges and coaches from suspending athletes accused of sexual misconduct while school officials investigate complaints against them.”

No, of course she did not cooperate with the University panel investigation. Of course she didn’t - which is why that investigation was such an obvious sham, why it was quickly shuttered as soon as the season was over for that exact reason, and why requiring that investigation find a player guilty to suspend him from basketball is such an insane precedent. No accuser’s lawyer (or accused’s lawyer for that matter) is ever going to let them give evidence to the University Title IX or OSCR board. Those panels will never be able to make a determination of guilt without that evidence. A rule saying those boards need to determine the accused’s guilt or innocence before suspending them are actually rules saying you can’t suspend them, because those boards are never going to be in a position to determine that.

It was just April, 2024 the feds issued new Title IX regs. They did not apply to Shannon's case.

Quote

No accuser’s lawyer (or accused’s lawyer for that matter) is ever going to let them give evidence to the University Title IX or OSCR board.

That is quite the broad brush you are painting with there. I do not think it is true in all cases.

Logged

Mark Carman: "The Whitlock!...Caleb Williams failed Wayne Whitlock." Been told I need to take my dick out my mouth so maybe I "wont [sic] sound like such a fucking faggot all the time[.]"

Tempo: "PAMan is a pot stirrer and agent provocateur"

spark mandrill

4043
+312/-40

Re: Should Terrence Shannon play while awaiting trial?

« Reply #171 on: May 17, 2024, 02:35:21 PM »

Quote from: ThePAMan on May 17, 2024, 02:30:14 PM

It was just April, 2024 the feds issued new Title IX regs. They did not apply to Shannon's case.
That is quite the broad brush you are painting with there. I do not think it is true in all cases.

Yes, so the law HAS changed to be, practically, that you can't suspend someone pre-conviction. You were arguing the law hadn't changed in that way, but it has. The regulation states they need to be given a hearing with a University panel to determine their guilt or innocence. That University panel, just like the OSCR panel, is simply never going to be in a position to make that determination. And the last thing any University will want is for that board to determine a kid is guilty, the kid to be suspended or booted, and then exonerated in court (or vice versa). The Title IX board or OSCR board is never going to be able to make that call - for the law to state they need to make that call or the kid can't be suspended, the practical implication of that is that you can't suspend a kid without a conviction (or proving the kid is an immediate danger in court) anymore.

No halfway decent lawyer is going to let their client provide their evidence for an upcoming criminal trial to a random university's Title IX board, obviously.

Logged

ThePAMan

31768
+609/-2446
Because "PussyMan" and "PenisMan" were trademarked

Re: Should Terrence Shannon play while awaiting trial?

« Reply #172 on: May 17, 2024, 02:42:31 PM »

Quote from: spark mandrill on May 17, 2024, 02:28:23 PM

I think they had a good idea that the judge would 'make them' let him play, yeah. I'm surprised you find that even remotely hard to believe.

Of course the accuser was not going to present her evidence to a UIUC OSCR panel. No accuser is ever going to present their evidence in an upcoming criminal trial to some university's OSCR or Title IX board. Any requirement that those boards determine the accused's guilt or innocence is a non-starter, because those boards are never, ever going to have the evidence to make that determination.

And THAT is why the investigation was dropped - not because the season was over (nominally, anyway), but because the OSCR board wrote that they did not have 'access to the complainant, the complainant's witness', or 'the complete Lawrence Police Department file'. And OF COURSE they didn't. No OSCR or Title IX board is ever going to have access to those things. A regulation stating that those boards need to determine the guilt or innocence of a player is, in practicality, a regulation stating that those players cannot be suspended pre-conviction because those entities will never have access to the complainant's evidence or the police file or any of the other evidence from the upcoming trial.

No, the TRO did not say that UIUC DIA didn't follow its own policies. It said they did, in fact, but that the policies as-written violated Shannon's right to due process and harmed his ability to make NIL money, and that that outweighs the harm done to UIUC by not allowing them to enforce their disciplinary policies. The judge wrote:

"While the Court recognizes the strong interest the University has in acting pursuant to its policies, the court concludes that the irreparable harm to [Shannon] by application of the DIA Policy outweighs the harm to Illinois."

She did NOT say that Illinois DIA didn't follow their policies. She said their DIA policy (the same one every AD has everywhere) violated Shannon's right to make money via NIL, because he wasn't granted a sham OSCR 'trial'. The OSCR later dropped their investigation entirely because, as anyone paying attention knew would be the case, they had none of the evidence they'd need to determine his guilt.

That was quite the gamble that a federal judge would follow the 7th Circuit's ruling in the Purdue case and would have to, probably in a case of first impression, rule that NIL money and draft positioning gave him a protectable interest here. Hindsight is 20/20.

If anything, don't you think an accused would be very wary of participating in these administrative proceedings?

As you admit, Illinois did not follow its own policies.

It certainly sounds like you think they should have different policies for cases with different levels of alleged misconduct occurring off campus with a non-student. If that is the case, call your guy Gunether Jr. and propose that.

You could also complain to Biden's DOE, since it just issued new Title IX regs (which go into effect in August) which now provide that you cannot be suspended merely based on allegations while an investigation is proceeding.

Logged

Mark Carman: "The Whitlock!...Caleb Williams failed Wayne Whitlock." Been told I need to take my dick out my mouth so maybe I "wont [sic] sound like such a fucking faggot all the time[.]"

Tempo: "PAMan is a pot stirrer and agent provocateur"

spark mandrill

4043
+312/-40

Re: Should Terrence Shannon play while awaiting trial?

« Reply #173 on: May 17, 2024, 02:52:26 PM »

*posts direct quote from the TRO stating the UIUC DIA followed its own policies*

PAMan: "As you admit, Illinois did not follow its own policies".

Logged

ThePAMan

31768
+609/-2446
Because "PussyMan" and "PenisMan" were trademarked

Re: Should Terrence Shannon play while awaiting trial?

« Reply #174 on: May 17, 2024, 02:53:52 PM »

Quote from: spark mandrill on May 17, 2024, 02:35:21 PM

Yes, so the law HAS changed to be, practically, that you can't suspend someone pre-conviction. You were arguing the law hadn't changed in that way, but it has. The regulation states they need to be given a hearing with a University panel to determine their guilt or innocence. That University panel, just like the OSCR panel, is simply never going to be in a position to make that determination. And the last thing any University will want is for that board to determine a kid is guilty, the kid to be suspended or booted, and then exonerated in court (or vice versa). The Title IX board or OSCR board is never going to be able to make that call - for the law to state they need to make that call or the kid can't be suspended, the practical implication of that is that you can't suspend a kid without a conviction (or proving the kid is an immediate danger in court) anymore.

No halfway decent lawyer is going to let their client provide their evidence for an upcoming criminal trial to a random university's Title IX board, obviously.

Tell me where the change in the regulations (after the ruling was issued and which are not in effect for another 3 months) impacted this case.

The fact is accusers making sexual harassment and assault claims have participated in these school proceedings in the past. Understandable why she may not want to participate here in this instance. Why should Shannon, or any other student, be penalized for the accuser's decision not to cooperate?

Sounds like ultimately your bitch is with the US Constitution, the Illinois Constitution, Illinois' processes and procedures, and the DOE regulations effective in August, 2024. Maybe you should talk to your legislative and university representatives.

Logged

Mark Carman: "The Whitlock!...Caleb Williams failed Wayne Whitlock." Been told I need to take my dick out my mouth so maybe I "wont [sic] sound like such a fucking faggot all the time[.]"

Tempo: "PAMan is a pot stirrer and agent provocateur"

ThePAMan

31768
+609/-2446
Because "PussyMan" and "PenisMan" were trademarked

Re: Should Terrence Shannon play while awaiting trial?

« Reply #175 on: May 17, 2024, 03:04:17 PM »

Quote from: spark mandrill on May 17, 2024, 02:52:26 PM

*posts direct quote from the TRO stating the UIUC DIA followed its own policies*

PAMan: "As you admit, Illinois did not follow its own policies".

Yep, Illinois followed its policies in this instance....

Quote

One of those applicable polices is the OSCR Policy wherein students accused of
sexual misconduct at the University have a right to notice of the proceedings,
participation in the administrative hearings, an investigative process, and an ability to
review and respond to the evidence. The policy ensures a measure of objectivity and
notes: “All disciplinary decisions will be based on an objective evaluation of evidence.”
The policy also requires that violations must be proven by a preponderance of evidence.
If formal sanctions are imposed against the student, the Case Coordinator or Panel
provides the student with a rationale for the decision and any imposed sanctions.

When explaining the intersection of policies at play for Plaintiff during a
December 29, 2023 press conference, Whitman stated that Plaintiff was subject to three
actions which ran “in parallel” and could intersect: the criminal prosecution, the DIA
Policy action that led to his suspension, and the OSCR policy action. Whitman specifically
noted that the University “respects due process” when the allegations are criminal in
nature and that Plaintiff’s “presumption of innocence” continues to apply. According to
Whitman, while the criminal prosecution is ongoing, the OSCR policy is designed to
determine what should occur “in that intermediate period of time” and that “we have to
make sure that we are sending the appropriate message in terms of how we will approach
sexual misconduct as an athletic program as a university, while at the same time honoring
Terrence’s due process rights, his presumption of innocence, and so it’s a delicate balance
…”

...The DIA policy states that any interim suspension would be done in compliance with all applicable University policies and regulations. The sensible reading of this means that the OSCR policy—which outlines the University’s regulations for handling allegations of student sexual misconduct—would apply prior to the DIA’s interim suspension. Plaintiff has, therefore, demonstrated some likelihood of success that his reliance on these contractual terms created a legitimate claim of entitlement to not be suspended from the team without good cause.

In Purdue, the Seventh Circuit held that the plaintiff adequately alleged the process
was deficient when he was given notice of the allegations against him, but the university
did not disclose its evidence to him. 928 F.3d at 663. This proved fatal to the process, as
“withholding the evidence on which it relied in adjudicating his guilt was itself sufficient
to render the process fundamentally unfair.” Id. The Seventh Circuit emphasized that the
hearing must be “a real one, not a sham or pretense.” Of particular concern to the Court
was the fact that the committee found the complainant more credible than the plaintiff in
a case that “boiled down to a he said/she said” without ever receiving a statement written
by the complainant herself, much less a sworn statement, or asking the complainant any
questions during the investigation. Id. at 664. The Seventh Circuit reasonably questioned
how the committee could have conducted an evaluation of credibility under those
circumstances.

The same holds true in this case. Plaintiff received notice of the temporary
suspension and the process of evaluation under the DIA Policy on December 28, 2023.
After Plaintiff asked DIA to delay convening the conduct panel, Squire informed Plaintiff
the panel would meet on January 3, 2024. Before the conduct panel convened, Plaintiff
submitted information for consideration, including his personal statement, an 11-page
supporting letter from his attorneys, and nearly 50 pages of exhibits to the attorneys’
supporting letter. The panel was told Plaintiff might receive “discovery” from the
Lawrence criminal prosecution in late January or February 2024.

The conduct panel convened during the afternoon of January 3, 2024, and Squire
provided Plaintiff with written notification of the panel’s decision on that same day,
without any findings of fact or reasoning for the decision. The written notice informed
Plaintiff that the conduct panel determined that the interim action to withhold him from
organized team activities should remain in place pending resolution of the criminal
charges in Kansas.

Just as in Purdue, Plaintiff was given notice and the opportunity to submit evidence
but only in the form of a written statement and documents. He was unaware of the
alleged victim’s identity and there is no indication that he was given an opportunity to
view the evidence against him. In reliance on the DIA policy, the conduct panel did not
investigate the alleged offense, consider a written statement by the complainant, or have
the ability to weigh the credibility of evidence in light of the nature of the allegation.
Plaintiff was not allowed in the hearing and no recording or transcript of the proceeding
was provided to him. The conduct panel is not required to submit a written decision or
findings of fact for Plaintiff to ascertain the basis for the interim decision, and there is no
avenue to appeal an interim decision.

Conversely, the procedural safeguards awarded to Plaintiff under the OSCR
policy do not appear fundamentally unfair as written. The policy provides adequate
safeguards through detailed notice, levels of review, an actual investigation, disclosure
of evidence, witness participation, a defined burden of proof, and a written decision.
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff has demonstrated a likelihood of success as to the
inadequate procedural safeguards afforded to him during the DIA disciplinary process.

Logged

Mark Carman: "The Whitlock!...Caleb Williams failed Wayne Whitlock." Been told I need to take my dick out my mouth so maybe I "wont [sic] sound like such a fucking faggot all the time[.]"

Tempo: "PAMan is a pot stirrer and agent provocateur"

spark mandrill

4043
+312/-40

Re: Should Terrence Shannon play while awaiting trial?

« Reply #176 on: May 17, 2024, 03:05:06 PM »

I did not say that these new regulations affected this case, you just are trying to move the goalposts because you were proven wrong about the new regs.

Show me an example, then, of a criminally-charged athlete or student having their accuser provide their evidence from the upcoming court trial, and the arresting police department provide their evidence and police report, to a University OSCR or Title IX board. My guess is there aren't any, because no lawyer worth a dollar is going to let their client do that and no police department is going to turn over their reports and collected evidence to a legally unconcerned party.

My only real bitch is that this new regulation in practicality means that it violates an athlete's right to suspend him from a sport unless he's been convicted of a crime, and I don't think that is a reasonable standard. That is completely illogical to me. I recognize, obviously, that it doesn't matter that it's illogical to me or how obviously it's a sham of a standard, that's the law - but it's obviously going to be pretty ugly and contentious in the future as more and more schools are told they're not allowed to suspend kids from sports for 6-12 months until there's a criminal conviction. The Shannon case is to a large degree he-said she-said based on what we know so far, but other more clear/worse cases will have the same standards applied to them. By this standard, even if Brandon Miller had been charged with accessory to murder Alabama would've had to let him play the rest of the season. Even if there's video evidence of someone committing a crime, you gotta let them play.

I'm under no delusions here though. All these principles Illinois fans have been arguing about will be abandoned just as quickly and for the same reason as soon as they're applied to a rival's best player, and the fans of that rival school who were chanting "No Means No" at Shannon all year will argue that there's no way a kid should be suspended without a conviction.

Logged

spark mandrill

4043
+312/-40

Re: Should Terrence Shannon play while awaiting trial?

« Reply #177 on: May 17, 2024, 03:10:54 PM »

Quote from: ThePAMan on May 17, 2024, 03:04:17 PM

Yep, Illinois followed its policies in this instance....

Yep. The DIA policy as-written did not provide adequate safeguards for his civil rights. Literally exactly the thing I said that you just argued against. The judge did NOT find that the DIA didn't apply its own policies correctly. She found that the DIA DID apply the policies correctly, but that the policies as-written violated his civil rights by not allowing him a hearing in front of an OSCR panel without the means to make a determination of his guilt or innocence before he was suspended.

It's literally exactly, to a T, what I said and you argued against. The judge really explicitly says that the DIA followed its policies, but that the policies (which surely are boilerplate and similar to every other AD in the country) as-written did not afford him due process.

Logged

ThePAMan

31768
+609/-2446
Because "PussyMan" and "PenisMan" were trademarked

Re: Should Terrence Shannon play while awaiting trial?

« Reply #178 on: May 17, 2024, 03:47:54 PM »

Quote from: spark mandrill on May 17, 2024, 03:05:06 PM

I did not say that these new regulations affected this case, you just are trying to move the goalposts because you were proven wrong about the new regs.

Show me an example, then, of a criminally-charged athlete or student having their accuser provide their evidence from the upcoming court trial, and the arresting police department provide their evidence and police report, to a University OSCR or Title IX board. My guess is there aren't any, because no lawyer worth a dollar is going to let their client do that and no police department is going to turn over their reports and collected evidence to a legally unconcerned party.

My only real bitch is that this new regulation in practicality means that it violates an athlete's right to suspend him from a sport unless he's been convicted of a crime, and I don't think that is a reasonable standard. That is completely illogical to me. I recognize, obviously, that it doesn't matter that it's illogical to me or how obviously it's a sham of a standard, that's the law - but it's obviously going to be pretty ugly and contentious in the future as more and more schools are told they're not allowed to suspend kids from sports for 6-12 months until there's a criminal conviction. The Shannon case is to a large degree he-said she-said based on what we know so far, but other more clear/worse cases will have the same standards applied to them. By this standard, even if Brandon Miller had been charged with accessory to murder Alabama would've had to let him play the rest of the season. Even if there's video evidence of someone committing a crime, you gotta let them play.

I'm under no delusions here though. All these principles Illinois fans have been arguing about will be abandoned just as quickly and for the same reason as soon as they're applied to a rival's best player, and the fans of that rival school who were chanting "No Means No" at Shannon all year will argue that there's no way a kid should be suspended without a conviction.

No, you accused the judge of making it law that colleges could not suspend an athlete. That was completely untrue. The regs you cited are not even effective for another 2.5 months.

Does anyone actually compile those statistics? How are we supposed to find that out? No one hears about any of these cases unless there is a civil lawsuit contesting the school's decision. If people do not want to cooperate, how is that fair to the alleged perpetrator? What is your solution?

Quote

Even if there's video evidence of someone committing a crime, you gotta let them play.

I do not believe that is true.

Can you name me a fanbase that is "principled?"

Logged

Mark Carman: "The Whitlock!...Caleb Williams failed Wayne Whitlock." Been told I need to take my dick out my mouth so maybe I "wont [sic] sound like such a fucking faggot all the time[.]"

Tempo: "PAMan is a pot stirrer and agent provocateur"

spark mandrill

4043
+312/-40

Re: Should Terrence Shannon play while awaiting trial?

« Reply #179 on: May 17, 2024, 03:55:19 PM »

Nope, I said the judge ruled that Shannon couldn’t be suspended without a conviction because he wasn’t granted an OSCR hearing - which would by necessity be a sham. Which is true. I also mentioned the updated regulation codifying that. Which is also true. You argued against those things, but those things were still true.

My solution would be to give the athletic departments control over who represents them, allow them to suspend kids absent a criminal conviction and not put it on some University board with none of the evidence to determine someone’s guilt in an upcoming criminal trial, which they are uniformly unqualified to do. Not like that’s some crazy notion, that’s how this has always worked until now. If I had posted on this board in October that it’s a violation of a kid’s civil rights to suspend him from a sport absent a criminal conviction or a determination of guilt by a University panel without all the evidence I’d have been laughed at. This idea is brand new. No one here thought that was some egregious civil rights violation until it affected our basketball team’s best player.

Unless you can prove to a court that a kid is an imminent danger, it IS true that you can’t suspend them even with video evidence. You’re violating their rights unless you hold a Title IX hearing, and no board like that is ever going to have the evidence they need to make that kind of determination before a court does.

No, again, I’m under no delusions. A lot of people in every fanbase are willing to sacrifice what they know is right to win at sports. That doesn’t mean it’s justifiable or positive though - in fact it’s extremely gross.

« Last Edit: May 17, 2024, 03:57:46 PM by spark mandrill »

Logged

Recent

Poll

Should Terrence Shannon play while awaiting trial?

Should Terrence Shannon play while awaiting trial?