Didn't one of dipshits think Art Briles deserved a shot?

sthorfinnr said:
Well, in non-Lefty world, empathy is a healthy human connection to others. But since Lefties think families should be done away with altogether (on the way to their godless utopia), they need some kind of other reason to give a sh-t about what happens to girls, like this notion that all men are sexist pigs who want to rape women.
Click to expand...
Yay, lets make rape about left vs right. I remember a day not so long ago when both sides had morals, just differences in political opinion.
 
Both of these things are true.

1. Baylor had a rotten culture throughout, which predated Briles or even Starr. In this way, it's similar to Michigan State/USA Gymnastics.

2. Briles showed extremely troubling behavior at many steps, while there is never a smoking gun. These are texts from a court case:

When a female student-athlete reported that a football player had brandished a gun at her, the court paperwork said, Briles texted an assistant coach: "what a fool -- she reporting to authorities."

In another case, a masseuse asked the team to discipline a player who reportedly exposed himself and asked for favors during a massage, the document said Briles' first response was, "What kind of discipline... She a stripper?"

The filing also laid out the athletic department's response to allegations of gang rape by football players, including when a student-athlete told her coach that five football players had raped her at an off-campus party. The coach then took a list of names to Briles, who said, "Those are some bad dudes. Why was she around those guys?" He also suggested the woman tell the police, according to the filing.

"The football program was a black hole into which reports of misconduct such as drug use, physical assault, domestic violence, brandishing of guns, indecent exposure and academic fraud disappeared," the court filing said.
Click to expand...

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/bay...isconduct-football-players-court-record-shows

Baylor itself has not really come clean IMO either. The Pepper Hamilton report is a vague, 13 page report without specific incidents by specific people. Baylor has said Pepper Hamilton only presented more detailed findings orally to the board. No written, detailed report looks like a blatant attempt to evade discovery. All lawsuits with Baylor have also been settled, not just Briles'. So we just have to go on some early discovery in these cases (i.e. these texts) to evaluate Briles' behavior, plus the vague "football culture" in Pepper Hamilton's brief report.

In short, even though no smoking gun exists with Briles, he was rightfully declared persona non grata in college football. Everything about his time at Baylor stinks to high heaven.
 
floridajacket said:
Both of these things are true.

1. Baylor had a rotten culture throughout, which predated Briles or even Starr. In this way, it's similar to Michigan State/USA Gymnastics.

2. Briles showed extremely troubling behavior at many steps, while there is never a smoking gun. These are texts from a court case:



https://www.dallasnews.com/news/bay...isconduct-football-players-court-record-shows

Baylor itself has not really come clean IMO either. The Pepper Hamilton report is a vague, 13 page report without specific incidents by specific people. Baylor has said Pepper Hamilton only presented more detailed findings orally to the board. No written, detailed report looks like a blatant attempt to evade discovery. All lawsuits with Baylor have also been settled, not just Briles'. So we just have to go on some early discovery in these cases (i.e. these texts) to evaluate Briles' behavior, plus the vague "football culture" in Pepper Hamilton's brief report.

In short, even though no smoking gun exists with Briles, he was rightfully declared persona non grata in college football. Everything about his time at Baylor stinks to high heaven.
Click to expand...
Well,dang it.
 
floridajacket said:
Both of these things are true.

1. Baylor had a rotten culture throughout, which predated Briles or even Starr. In this way, it's similar to Michigan State/USA Gymnastics.

2. Briles showed extremely troubling behavior at many steps, while there is never a smoking gun. These are texts from a court case:



https://www.dallasnews.com/news/bay...isconduct-football-players-court-record-shows

Baylor itself has not really come clean IMO either. The Pepper Hamilton report is a vague, 13 page report without specific incidents by specific people. Baylor has said Pepper Hamilton only presented more detailed findings orally to the board. No written, detailed report looks like a blatant attempt to evade discovery. All lawsuits with Baylor have also been settled, not just Briles'. So we just have to go on some early discovery in these cases (i.e. these texts) to evaluate Briles' behavior, plus the vague "football culture" in Pepper Hamilton's brief report.

In short, even though no smoking gun exists with Briles, he was rightfully declared persona non grata in college football. Everything about his time at Baylor stinks to high heaven.
Click to expand...
Thank you for that link. I am curious to know just how culpable Briles is, so I appreciate this information. I read the article and reviewed the accusations in the pleadings (which of course are not vetted and do not have their credibility tested in any way).

The reporter's characterization of Briles' communications don't seem impartial. The texts are generally ambiguous (as you might expect of texts which are usually between people who already know each other and hence speaking in shorthand), but the reporter reads them as if they are damning, instead of reading them (as they can be read) more favorably to Briles.

For example, "When a female student-athlete reported that a football player had brandished a gun at her, the court paperwork said, Briles texted an assistant coach: 'what a fool -- she reporting to authorities.'" But if you read the entire allegation from the pleading, you can see that "she reporting to authorities" is a question. Briles is saying to his colleague, "The player that brandished the gun is a fool; is the lady going to report this to the authorities?" He's not claiming the woman is a fool nor is he aghast that she's reporting it to the authorities.

Several of the cases where Briles supposedly "did nothing" are cases where the police were already involved (so why would the football coach think he has further investigative duties when the police are already investigating?) or cases where the victim refused to report to the police (should that have any effect on the victim's credibility? – tough question).

The reporter complains that Briles texted to one of his accused players, WTTE, "We've got your back, we're a family, we support you," even though the reporter then notes that ultimately Briles declined to provide character testimony at trial. That sounds like how you want the coach to act – to be "on the side" of players, and give them the benefit of the doubt at first, but as sufficient evidence rolls in to convince you of their guilt, to withdraw that support.

Anyhow, I've yet to see anything that shows that Briles would rather cover up a rape than lose a good football player, which is essentially what people casually accuse him of. But if anyone out there has more links that tend to show that, I'd be curious to see them.
 
Last edited:
323qan.jpg
 
18in32 said:
Thank you for that link. I am curious to know just how culpable Briles is, so I appreciate this information. I read the article and reviewed the accusations in the pleadings (which of course are not vetted and do not have their credibility tested in any way).

The reporter's characterization of Briles' communications are all pretty partial. The texts are generally ambiguous (as you might expect of texts which are usually between people who already know each other), but the reporter reads them as if they are damning, instead of reading them (as they can be read) more favorably to Briles.

For example, "When a female student-athlete reported that a football player had brandished a gun at her, the court paperwork said, Briles texted an assistant coach: 'what a fool -- she reporting to authorities.'" But if you read the entire allegation from the pleading (which is trying to make Briles look bad), you can see that "she reporting to authorities" is a question. In other words, Briles is saying to his colleague, "The player that brandished the gun is a fool; is the lady going to report this to the authorities?" He's not claiming the woman is a fool nor is he aghast that she's reporting it to the authorities.

Several of the cases where Briles supposedly "did nothing" are cases where the police were already involved (so why would the football coach think he has further investigative duties when the police are already investigating?) or cases where the victim refused to report to the police (should that have any effect on the victim's credibility? – tough question).

The reporter complains that Briles texted to one of his accused players, WTTE, "We've got your back, we're a family, we support you," even though the reporter then notes that ultimately Briles declined to provide character testimony at trial. That sounds like how you want the coach to act – to be "on the side" of players, and give them the benefit of the doubt at first, but as sufficient evidence rolls in to convince you of their guilt, to withdraw that support.

Anyhow, I've yet to see anything that shows that Briles would rather cover up a rape than lose a good football player, which is essentially what people casually accuse him of. But if anyone out there has more links that tend to show that, I'd be curious to see them.
Click to expand...
How many did he kick off the team. There’s your answer.
 
ncjacket said:
How many did he kick off the team. There’s your answer.
Click to expand...
How many did he kick off? I don't know the answer but I know there were at least 2 that I can remember. I remember Tevin Elliott being 'suspended indefinitely' but IIRC there was another one at the same time dismissed.

Your question, which appears to be tongue in cheek, makes me believe that you thought the answer was zero though.
 
18in32 said:
Thank you for that link. I am curious to know just how culpable Briles is, so I appreciate this information. I read the article and reviewed the accusations in the pleadings (which of course are not vetted and do not have their credibility tested in any way).

The reporter's characterization of Briles' communications are all pretty partial. The texts are generally ambiguous (as you might expect of texts which are usually between people who already know each other), but the reporter reads them as if they are damning, instead of reading them (as they can be read) more favorably to Briles.

For example, "When a female student-athlete reported that a football player had brandished a gun at her, the court paperwork said, Briles texted an assistant coach: 'what a fool -- she reporting to authorities.'" But if you read the entire allegation from the pleading (which is trying to make Briles look bad), you can see that "she reporting to authorities" is a question. In other words, Briles is saying to his colleague, "The player that brandished the gun is a fool; is the lady going to report this to the authorities?" He's not claiming the woman is a fool nor is he aghast that she's reporting it to the authorities.

Several of the cases where Briles supposedly "did nothing" are cases where the police were already involved (so why would the football coach think he has further investigative duties when the police are already investigating?) or cases where the victim refused to report to the police (should that have any effect on the victim's credibility? – tough question).

The reporter complains that Briles texted to one of his accused players, WTTE, "We've got your back, we're a family, we support you," even though the reporter then notes that ultimately Briles declined to provide character testimony at trial. That sounds like how you want the coach to act – to be "on the side" of players, and give them the benefit of the doubt at first, but as sufficient evidence rolls in to convince you of their guilt, to withdraw that support.

Anyhow, I've yet to see anything that shows that Briles would rather cover up a rape than lose a good football player, which is essentially what people casually accuse him of. But if anyone out there has more links that tend to show that, I'd be curious to see them.
Click to expand...

Good point on the phrasing, though even in that context it sounds like some hope that she wouldn't go to the authorities.

He does not seem to have direct culpability in Title IX investigations. It looks he had a very good case against for-cause firing. He also dropped the defamation claim later, which was a separate suit.

There is some level of willful blindness here, that he knew he equalized Baylor's chances by taking chances other programs wouldn't. So I really cringed when fans want him for FBS jobs. Any FBS job is the very top job among thousands of coaches. Like a CEO who has a big scandal happen without their direct involvement, the scandal becomes bad enough to become disqualifying for new CEO jobs at a certain point.
 
floridajacket said:
Good point on the phrasing, though even in that context it sounds like some hope that she wouldn't go to the authorities.

He does not seem to have direct culpability in Title IX investigations. It looks he had a very good case against for-cause firing. He also dropped the defamation claim later, which was a separate suit.

There is some level of willful blindness here, that he knew he equalized Baylor's chances by taking chances other programs wouldn't. So I really cringed when fans want him for FBS jobs. Any FBS job is the very top job among thousands of coaches. Like a CEO who has a big scandal happen without their direct involvement, the scandal becomes bad enough to become disqualifying for new CEO jobs at a certain point.
Click to expand...
Well, I certainly think willful blindness to rape should get you terminated! My point is that the complaints about Briles (and the CEO's you reference) boil down to "where there's smoke, there's fire." While I certainly think that logic justifies not hiring him, I don't think it requires it.
 
18in32 said:
Well, I certainly think willful blindness to rape should get you terminated! My point is that the complaints about Briles (and the CEO's you reference) boil down to "where there's smoke, there's fire." While I certainly think that logic justifies not hiring him, I don't think it requires it.
Click to expand...
I agree. Presumption of guilt, especially without evidence, is a founding principal of our country.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top