Here is Baylor's Letter To Briles
114,075 Views |
978 Replies |
Last: 6 yr ago by Malbec
oh geez this is not good for the narrative
Yep.Tommy_Lou_Ramsower said:
oh geez this is not good for the narrative
Also This letter was written after BU blamed him, released text messages and other information that insinuated he did things to cover up sexual assault.
Crap will this hurt book sales?
Let's wait till Brenda weights in on the letter
Let's wait till Brenda weights in on the letter
Well Ronald Murff et al., we just may have saved our souls.
Just because he didn't talk to anyone directly dosen't mean ***** That's why programs have fixers. This isn't unique. It's built like the mafia.
Well, Baylor, are you lying now, or were you lying when you threw the whole team under the damn bus right before the UT game with the whole failed to report rhetoric?
For who is like the Baylor Board of Regents, compassionate and full of mercy?
"We don't have proof but we still think you're responsible for what transpired...even though nothing suggests you're responsible, it wasn't our fault...its your fault...this is a football problem, not a higher up problem".
-BOR
-BOR
X you okay?
The Liberal Loonies on our BOR wanted Ken Starr gone and seized their opportunity. They also wanted to "protect the brand" and not let the outside world know that Baylor students have premarital sex. Briles and the football program were just collateral damage. Can't put the toothpaste back in the tube. It is still shocking to me that not ONE man or woman on our BOR had the integrity or backbone to step up. Not one.
Well, it's late on the Friday before the home opener, so you knew this would be coming down.
Ya'll are missing the word "directly" in conjunction with the word "victim" and the specificity of the words "after being found responsible"
These leave out having Shillinglaw or an assistant coach or associate AD meet with the victims or discourage them. The lawsuits and text messages would indicate that the former happened. There are players that played after their alleged sexual assaults and domestic assaults. Who knows if Briles knew at the time.
This sounds like a "I don't want to get sued because no one will hire you" letter as opposed to a "total exoneration" letter.
And I never thought Briles was evil, I just think he did things that contributed heavily to the scandal.
These leave out having Shillinglaw or an assistant coach or associate AD meet with the victims or discourage them. The lawsuits and text messages would indicate that the former happened. There are players that played after their alleged sexual assaults and domestic assaults. Who knows if Briles knew at the time.
This sounds like a "I don't want to get sued because no one will hire you" letter as opposed to a "total exoneration" letter.
And I never thought Briles was evil, I just think he did things that contributed heavily to the scandal.
Did I miss something important?
I thought it would be on Pharmaca letterhead.
I thought it would be on Pharmaca letterhead.
BU84BEAR said:
The lawsuits and text messages would indicate that the former happened.
So now we're making up our own theories. GotchaBU84BEAR said:
Ya'll are missing the word "directly" in conjunction with the word "victim" and the specificity of the words "after being found responsible"
These leave out having Shillinglaw or an assistant coach or associate AD meet with the victims or discourage them. The lawsuits and text messages would indicate that the former happened. There are players that played after their alleged sexual assaults and domestic assaults. Who knows if Briles knew at the time.
This sounds like a "I don't want to get sued because no one will hire you" letter as opposed to a "total exoneration" letter.
And I never thought Briles was evil, I just think he did things that contributed heavily to the scandal.
"You didn't do it directly, but you did instruct your minions to do it." Seems like an easy sentence to add. It seems like that would also be worth noting, if they are about to wish him the best and think the letter might be shown to prospective employers.
As baylorfans continue to cling to the hope that one of their most successful coaches is a scoundrel .
Sooner or later Baylor is going to have to explain EXACTLY why they fired Briles.
We now know it wasn't because he had contact with anyone who reported to him directly claiming to be the victim of sexual assault or that he directly discouraged the victim of an alleged sexual assault from reporting to law enforcement or University officials.
If they fired him for INDIRECTLY discouraging an ALLEGED victim of sexual assault...then Baylor has some SERIOUS explaining to do. Specifically why any assistant coach etc. hasn't been named in any lawsuits or guilty under title IX.
If I find out that they took the word of hearsay as fact...then I'm going to be VERY ANGRY.
We now know it wasn't because he had contact with anyone who reported to him directly claiming to be the victim of sexual assault or that he directly discouraged the victim of an alleged sexual assault from reporting to law enforcement or University officials.
If they fired him for INDIRECTLY discouraging an ALLEGED victim of sexual assault...then Baylor has some SERIOUS explaining to do. Specifically why any assistant coach etc. hasn't been named in any lawsuits or guilty under title IX.
If I find out that they took the word of hearsay as fact...then I'm going to be VERY ANGRY.
BearackObama said:So now we're making up our own theories. GotchaBU84BEAR said:
Ya'll are missing the word "directly" in conjunction with the word "victim" and the specificity of the words "after being found responsible"
These leave out having Shillinglaw or an assistant coach or associate AD meet with the victims or discourage them. The lawsuits and text messages would indicate that the former happened. There are players that played after their alleged sexual assaults and domestic assaults. Who knows if Briles knew at the time.
This sounds like a "I don't want to get sued because no one will hire you" letter as opposed to a "total exoneration" letter.
And I never thought Briles was evil, I just think he did things that contributed heavily to the scandal.
I think that is what everyone has been doing since May 26, 2016. Why stop now?
And what theory are you referring to? Most of the lawsuit pleadings as well as the book Violated say that assistant coaches and/or other athletic department employees met with the victims. Ergo, not a made up theory....at least not a new one made up by me.
X!!! X!!! YOU HAVE SOME SPLAINING TO DO!!!
BU84BEAR said:
I think that is what everyone has been doing since May 26, 2016. Why stop now?
And what theory are you referring to? Most of the lawsuit pleadings as well as the book Violated say that assistant coaches and/or other athletic department employees met with the victims. Ergo, not a made up theory....at least not a new one made up by me.
Why hasn't an assistant coach been named or called out in any lawsuits?
Innocence perhaps??
80sBEAR said:
The Liberal Loonies on our BOR wanted Ken Starr gone and seized their opportunity. They also wanted to "protect the brand" and not let the outside world know that Baylor students have premarital sex. Briles and the football program were just collateral damage. Can't put the toothpaste back in the tube. It is still shocking to me that not ONE man or woman on our BOR had the integrity or backbone to step up. Not one.
HAVENT I BEEN SAYING THIS SINCE DAY ONE?? Y'all thought I was lyin!! These people are COWARDS and LIARS!! This whole "scandal" was triggered by prosecutorial misconduct
I may be misreading your post. Assuming the explanations for the texts are not fabrications, he did indirectly attempt to shield University rules violations and criminal behavior from the University. He directly attempted to skirt University rules to keep Tevin Elliott playing after academic rules violations.LBKBEAR said:
"You didn't do it directly, but you did instruct your minions to do it." Seems like an easy sentence to add. It seems like that would also be worth noting, if they are about to wish him the best and think the letter might be shown to prospective employers.
If I am understanding your post, the same logic would apply to these things as well....just add another sentence.
And, because of his lack of discipline, I believe that would make a kid with issues believe he was above the rules.I'm not saying that is evil, I am just saying that it allowed the discipline issues to get out of control.
I'm not trying the assistant coaches. I am pointing out the implications of the word directly in the letter. It does not say ...directly or indirectly....which it could have if that were true.REX said:BU84BEAR said:
I think that is what everyone has been doing since May 26, 2016. Why stop now?
And what theory are you referring to? Most of the lawsuit pleadings as well as the book Violated say that assistant coaches and/or other athletic department employees met with the victims. Ergo, not a made up theory....at least not a new one made up by me.
Why hasn't an assistant coach been named or called out in any lawsuits?
Innocence perhaps??
What? Briles had no power to skirt academic rules. Making a call to the president of the university to advocate for one of your players is hardly some attempt at extortion. If any rules had been broken with regard to Elliot's plagiarism, those would have been done by Starr, if he didn't have the power to grant a reprieve. Briles' actions amount to nothing more than a kid asking him for help so he can play football, and being told, "I'll do what I can." Any coach at any level would have made that call, unless he just flat out hated the kid.BU84BEAR said:I may be misreading your post. Assuming the explanations for the texts are not fabrications, he did indirectly attempt to shield University rules violations and criminal behavior from the University. He directly attempted to skirt University rules to keep Tevin Elliott playing after academic rules violations.LBKBEAR said:
"You didn't do it directly, but you did instruct your minions to do it." Seems like an easy sentence to add. It seems like that would also be worth noting, if they are about to wish him the best and think the letter might be shown to prospective employers.
If I am understanding your post, the same logic would apply to these things as well....just add another sentence.
And, because of his lack of discipline, I believe that would make a kid with issues believe he was above the rules.I'm not saying that is evil, I am just saying that it allowed the discipline issues to get out of control.
You left out the part where they also asked that the Athletic Department handle his probation and then didn't do anything when he violated the probation.Malbec said:What? Briles had no power to skirt academic rules. Making a call to the president of the university to advocate for one of your players is hardly some attempt at extortion. If any rules had been broken with regard to Elliot's plagiarism, those would have been done by Starr, if he didn't have the power to grant a reprieve. Brile's actions amount to nothing more than a kid asking him for help so he can play football, and being told, "I'll do what I can." Any coach at any level would have made that call, unless he just flat out hated the kid.BU84BEAR said:I may be misreading your post. Assuming the explanations for the texts are not fabrications, he did indirectly attempt to shield University rules violations and criminal behavior from the University. He directly attempted to skirt University rules to keep Tevin Elliott playing after academic rules violations.LBKBEAR said:
"You didn't do it directly, but you did instruct your minions to do it." Seems like an easy sentence to add. It seems like that would also be worth noting, if they are about to wish him the best and think the letter might be shown to prospective employers.
If I am understanding your post, the same logic would apply to these things as well....just add another sentence.
And, because of his lack of discipline, I believe that would make a kid with issues believe he was above the rules.I'm not saying that is evil, I am just saying that it allowed the discipline issues to get out of control.
BU84BEAR said:
Ya'll are missing the word "directly" in conjunction with the word "victim" and the specificity of the words "after being found responsible"
These leave out having Shillinglaw or an assistant coach or associate AD meet with the victims or discourage them. The lawsuits and text messages would indicate that the former happened. There are players that played after their alleged sexual assaults and domestic assaults. Who knows if Briles knew at the time.
This sounds like a "I don't want to get sued because no one will hire you" letter as opposed to a "total exoneration" letter.
And I never thought Briles was evil, I just think he did things that contributed heavily to the scandal.
I would bet you are one of the few people left that thinks OJ is innocent and he did not murder Nicole!
This is really stupid80sBEAR said:
The Liberal Loonies on our BOR wanted Ken Starr gone and seized their opportunity. They also wanted to "protect the brand" and not let the outside world know that Baylor students have premarital sex. Briles and the football program were just collateral damage. Can't put the toothpaste back in the tube. It is still shocking to me that not ONE man or woman on our BOR had the integrity or backbone to step up. Not one.
You would be incorrect. And why would I be arguing innocence of one person and responsibility of the other?80sBEAR said:BU84BEAR said:
Ya'll are missing the word "directly" in conjunction with the word "victim" and the specificity of the words "after being found responsible"
These leave out having Shillinglaw or an assistant coach or associate AD meet with the victims or discourage them. The lawsuits and text messages would indicate that the former happened. There are players that played after their alleged sexual assaults and domestic assaults. Who knows if Briles knew at the time.
This sounds like a "I don't want to get sued because no one will hire you" letter as opposed to a "total exoneration" letter.
And I never thought Briles was evil, I just think he did things that contributed heavily to the scandal.
I would bet you are one of the few people left that thinks OJ is innocent and he did not murder Nicole!
That letter is dated May of 2017 nearly a year after he was fired. Why the hell was this letter written and sent in May 2017 first place? I'm very confused by this. It seems to be in response to something Briles said publicly. But he has said nothing publicly about Baylor as I recall since summer of 16.
5 months after University of Houston would not hire him, 3 months after the texts were released/Briles dropped his lawsuit, and a few days after the volleyball lawsuit.PartyBear said:
That letter is dated May of 2017 nearly a year after he was fired. Why the hell was this letter sent in the first place?
This is the Briles public letter they are referring to:
https://www.pressreader.com/usa/houston-chronicle/20170303/282522953254791
You are correct in that there is nothing wrong with asking Starr. He is some more detail:Malbec said:What? Briles had no power to skirt academic rules. Making a call to the president of the university to advocate for one of your players is hardly some attempt at extortion. If any rules had been broken with regard to Elliot's plagiarism, those would have been done by Starr, if he didn't have the power to grant a reprieve. Briles' actions amount to nothing more than a kid asking him for help so he can play football, and being told, "I'll do what I can." Any coach at any level would have made that call, unless he just flat out hated the kid.BU84BEAR said:I may be misreading your post. Assuming the explanations for the texts are not fabrications, he did indirectly attempt to shield University rules violations and criminal behavior from the University. He directly attempted to skirt University rules to keep Tevin Elliott playing after academic rules violations.LBKBEAR said:
"You didn't do it directly, but you did instruct your minions to do it." Seems like an easy sentence to add. It seems like that would also be worth noting, if they are about to wish him the best and think the letter might be shown to prospective employers.
If I am understanding your post, the same logic would apply to these things as well....just add another sentence.
And, because of his lack of discipline, I believe that would make a kid with issues believe he was above the rules.I'm not saying that is evil, I am just saying that it allowed the discipline issues to get out of control.
President Starr's decision prompted a Judicial Affairs official to complain that the Athletics Department had oversight for monitoring probation requirements for football players and this 17 presented a different standard for athletes than for other students. The official's fears were well founded. That fall, Elliott had attendance problems, was in danger of flunking his human performance class and was caught cheating on quizzes. This violated President Starr's probation orders and Elliott's academic plan. But two top Athletics officials shrugged it off. "Wow, what is this kid thinking?" an Athletics Department official wrote on October 21, 2011 to his boss, Ian McCaw. "Unbelievable!" McCaw replied. The Athletics Department's unwillingness to crack down enabled Elliott to stay at Baylor and play football.
Okay, so now it's was Briles' job as well to monitor an "Athletics Department official" and his boss, Ian McCaw; and it is apparently the responsibility of university administrators and Judicial Affairs officers to just complain about preferential treatment of an athlete? No wonder head football coaches get paid so much, they are responsible for just about everything at the university. If the kid violated his academic probation, and the university administrators knew it (including Judicial Affairs as well), then why didn't they take action then?Keyser Soze said:You are correct in that there is nothing wrong with asking Starr. He is some more detail:Malbec said:What? Briles had no power to skirt academic rules. Making a call to the president of the university to advocate for one of your players is hardly some attempt at extortion. If any rules had been broken with regard to Elliot's plagiarism, those would have been done by Starr, if he didn't have the power to grant a reprieve. Briles' actions amount to nothing more than a kid asking him for help so he can play football, and being told, "I'll do what I can." Any coach at any level would have made that call, unless he just flat out hated the kid.BU84BEAR said:I may be misreading your post. Assuming the explanations for the texts are not fabrications, he did indirectly attempt to shield University rules violations and criminal behavior from the University. He directly attempted to skirt University rules to keep Tevin Elliott playing after academic rules violations.LBKBEAR said:
"You didn't do it directly, but you did instruct your minions to do it." Seems like an easy sentence to add. It seems like that would also be worth noting, if they are about to wish him the best and think the letter might be shown to prospective employers.
If I am understanding your post, the same logic would apply to these things as well....just add another sentence.
And, because of his lack of discipline, I believe that would make a kid with issues believe he was above the rules.I'm not saying that is evil, I am just saying that it allowed the discipline issues to get out of control.
President Starr's decision prompted a Judicial Affairs official to complain that the Athletics Department had oversight for monitoring probation requirements for football players and this 17 presented a different standard for athletes than for other students. The official's fears were well founded. That fall, Elliott had attendance problems, was in danger of flunking his human performance class and was caught cheating on quizzes. This violated President Starr's probation orders and Elliott's academic plan. But two top Athletics officials shrugged it off. "Wow, what is this kid thinking?" an Athletics Department official wrote on October 21, 2011 to his boss, Ian McCaw. "Unbelievable!" McCaw replied. The Athletics Department's unwillingness to crack down enabled Elliott to stay at Baylor and play football.
Featured Stories
See All
La Vega OL/DL Eythan Thompson enjoys a visit from the Baylor staff
by Grayson Grundhoefer
Five-Star Prospect Michael Terry recaps visit from Dallas Baker
by Grayson Grundhoefer
How Many Home Games would Fans Trade for the Best Games?
by Kendall Kaut