Anyone else hearing this is a possibility?
The Hines article today seems to hint it's a little more than the rumor mill...
The Hines article today seems to hint it's a little more than the rumor mill...
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlike the US Government where a Lieutenant Colonel can be the fall guy for an arms for cash deal with a country you've prohibited such sales to in order to fund a contra group to overthrow a dictator (also against US law), no one would ever believe an assistant coach or quality control coach would ever have enough authority to take control of such a serious matter without the head coach knowing.Fall guy for the Board of Directors? I don't see how he could be a fall guy, he is not low enough on the totem poll. That just sounds like an excuse for people trying to expain away their wishing they hadn't canned him.
and he probably has learned his lesson.
As Gold and many know, I have worked in student affairs at Baylor, TU, and now at ORU. TUs process for for Title IX investigations and sexual assault/harassment is very thorough and leaves no questions. Individuals on either side may not like the outcome or result but it is thorough and fair. Many felt Pat Swilling got hosed, but TU took the necessary steps to make sure it would not end up in the same place Baylor is now. I do believe the young lady filed a Title IX suit against TU which eventually was dismissed.Baylor has been proven to be a win at all costs school despite their Baptist affiliation just look at their sports department over the years. TU is greatly supervised compared to Baylor. I have no inside info on what TU will do. However, if they do give Briles a second chance make no mistake he will be walking the straight and narrow. As a fallout will be placed on Monty's shoulders.
**puke** The Red Dirt Tradition continues. Something you can count on year after year.That would be a great move on our part. Keeps the system the same if Monty gets the big offer. Who cares what happened at Baylor. The guy is a great coach and he probably has learned his lesson.
TU screwed up the Swilling ordeal. They let him continue his classes for two years, forcing the victim to leave the school. While there have not been any more high-profile cases in recent years, I still don't fully trust our system. I hope Dr. Clancy has a better mind for allowing such people at TU considering he has at least one daughter still at TU.
Briles is not named in any civil case as I am aware of, and the title IX suits generally only name the university (and perhaps president and BOT). And the NCAA already said they aren't touching this case as they feel the title IX investigation the DOE/DOJ have initiated should handle it sufficiently (I feel the NCAA is making a mistake as this is a clear case of Lack of Institutional Control w/ regards to athletics). Right now Briles is clear and the only suit with his name on it is the one he brought against Baylor.Is there a case against Briles and is he under NCAA investigation with possible sanctions?
If those conditions are in play we need to steer clear. If this is based on innuendo and another institition finding a scapegoat, he deserves another chance.
Honestly I only have the time and inclination to follow TU closely so don't know any particulars about Baylor. I am a TU fan and not a college sports fan in general.
In Mondays sports section, Guerin Emig writes about OU's lack of "character screening "by letting someone like Dede Westbrook on the football team. His personal history of violence is awful and it is inferred that academics are not his forte. I am disinclined to agree with Emig's opinion that TU should not have Art Briles attending TU bowl practices because it sends the same message as allowing Westbrook enrolling at OU.Is there a case against Briles and is he under NCAA investigation with possible sanctions?
If those conditions are in play we need to steer clear. If this is based on innuendo and another institition finding a scapegoat, he deserves another chance.
Honestly I only have the time and inclination to follow TU closely so don't know any particulars about Baylor. I am a TU fan and not a college sports fan in general.
The fact that a witness files multiple sworn statements against someone asserting that he used violence against her, but then refuses to cooperate and therefore frustrates a criminal prosecution does not mean that the person is innocent or guilty. It establishes an inference that the acts occurred but that conviction was not possible under our system of criminal justice adjudication or that for policy reasons, prosecution was declined as not practicable. (Nobody gets re-elected throwing domestic violence victims in jail for recanting their stories).Westbrook was not convicted. I thought you were innocent until proven guilty in America. I could be wrong tho.
The morality comparisons by local journalists are alsome.
Gold this is in your field of expertise, however whenever I have been in depositions I sure didn't get the feeling of being innocent until proven guilty. I had to fight tooth and nail with a healthy dose of anguish. I know anyone can be accused of wrongdoing and its the attorney's obligation to defend his client, but a boy or man hitting a woman is the lowest form of incompetence.Police reports aren't admissible in court. I don't know what happened and you don't either.
Domestic violence is a significant problem. I have represented both victims and the accused in these situations. I have a lot of stories. My personal opinion is to stick to the facts. Westbrook has no criminal liability in these cases.
+By the way, if you have Netflix watch "Last Chance U" about Eastern Mississippi Junior College football. Its sad, funny and revealing.Gold this is in your field of expertise, however whenever I have been in depositions I sure didn't get the feeling of being innocent until proven guilty. I had to fight tooth and nail with a healthy dose of anguish. I know anyone can be accused of wrongdoing and its the attorney's obligation to defend his client, but a boy or man hitting a woman is the lowest form of incompetence.
Gold this is in your field of expertise, however whenever I have been in depositions I sure didn't get the feeling of being innocent until proven guilty. I had to fight tooth and nail with a healthy dose of anguish. I know anyone can be accused of wrongdoing and its the attorney's obligation to defend his client, but a boy or man hitting a woman is the lowest form of incompetence.
Baylor has been proven to be a win at all costs school despite their Baptist affiliation just look at their sports department over the years. TU is greatly supervised compared to Baylor. I have no inside info on what TU will do. However, if they do give Briles a second chance make no mistake he will be walking the straight and narrow. As a fallout will be placed on Monty's shoulders.
TU is obligated to make sure the female student is able to pursue her education without undue interference from the assaulter. If PS2 and the young lady did not share classes, PS2 would have been instructed that he is in no way to retaliate, threaten, or even do anything that could be construed as intentionally making her uncomfortable...and this would include PS2's friends. You don't have to kick him out of school but you do take reasonable measures to make sure she can pursue her education. Even if they did share a class, arrangements could be made that one or both of them could get their lecture notes and materials at separate times. I said it earlier, one or both of them might not like the terms and may not be completely satisfied with the findings, but that doesn't mean TU did not do its due diligence in making sure the young lady could continue to pursue her education at TUTU screwed up the Swilling ordeal. They let him continue his classes for two years, forcing the victim to leave the school. While there have not been any more high-profile cases in recent years, I still don't fully trust our system. I hope Dr. Clancy has a better mind for allowing such people at TU considering he has at least one daughter still at TU.
That is eerily similar to the Greg Hardy incident...Conviction or not, the police reports are alarming. I mean, bite marks?! And then the state's witness (ie the victim) went MIA? OU allegedly didn't know anything about it?
The implication is that the victim(s) were pressured/threatened to shut up.
That program doesn't get the benefit of the doubt considering recent history. I'm glad the World ran the story.
The Westbrook situation/past is in line with what occurred with the player at Baylor who left Boise State after a similar incident and Briles said that the Broncos coaching staff did not disclose the info to Baylor (Boise St said they did). Why would you take that type of chance? Is it worth it?The fact that a witness files multiple sworn statements against someone asserting that he used violence against her, but then refuses to cooperate and therefore frustrates a criminal prosecution does not mean that the person is innocent or guilty. It establishes an inference that the acts occurred but that conviction was not possible under our system of criminal justice adjudication or that for policy reasons, prosecution was declined as not practicable. (Nobody gets re-elected throwing domestic violence victims in jail for recanting their stories).
His situation was different than Swilling in that there was only one incident known to TU. The "victim" had to be tricked into talking with the authorities and she declined to say that a crime occurred when interviewed. With Westbrook it is on going series of incidents with the same person who has family ties to him.
It seems to me, and you may be completely right, that Briles' biggest problem was a contract that was heavy on incentives. That is always my beef with the incentive contracts. If you have a coach that has a gambling debt or a wife who is a spend thrift or what not, suddenly there is a direct financial incentive to break the rules to get yourself clear of your financial problems. If memory serves, he wasn't making Stoops and Mack Brown money unless he won, but he was expected to have the same type of lifestyle and profile. This has to be a problem for more than one coach.Briles is the poster child for the "win at all cost" mentality. He brought in questionable players because they were good and looked the other way (at best) or covered up the sexual assaults of his players (at worst). For the record, I don't think Briles is a bad guy. I think he got caught up in big time college athletics. Got caught up in the pressure to build a new stadium and facilities. Got caught up in the fame of being a national coaching figure. Unfortunately, he is now caught up in a entirely different type of fame.
I cant speak for Oklahoma criminal court, but in Florida and certain circumstances in federal criminal court, so long as the witness is available to be confronted as a witness in court, prior sworn inconsistent statements under oath can be introduced so that the fact finder, whether that be the judge, jury, or in our case, public opinion, can, but is not required to, draw an inference that the incident the person is accused of did actually occur if the persons introduces any evidence or mounts any defense that tends to negate or discount the prior inconsistent statement.I don't know what that inference means. An inference in court of public opinion? Is that a thing?
You are right one thing, though. I'm still waiting for an accuser to be prosecuted for false testimony. Sadly, that happens, too.