Keyser Soze said:

---

Amarillobear said:

---

chukronos said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

chukronos said:

---

So, either the leaders of our university were lying when they made it seem like Briles was at fault, or they are lying in the letter. Either way, they are dirtbags and an embarrassment to our school and , even more so, to Christianity.

---

Nope

---

yep.

---

Remember that Coach Grobe vetted all the assistant coaches and determined that they had done nothing wrong either. Art Briles and his assistant coaches all are not guilty. The BOR simply wanted to appease the media so they blamed everything on the coaching staff. It was the wrong thing to do.

---

Grobe told reporters he knew of "absolutely no issues or problems" involving assistant coaches in those findings.

Not knowing of any problems is not the same thing as vetting.

---

Do you suppose that the BOR vetting is any more stringent?

Dia del DougO said:

---

I started pondering today, if there's anyone who could really help Briles and his reputation for potential future employment it's Grant Teaff. His word would mean something to a lot of people, more than this goofy letter. But he's been pretty quiet about this whole thing as far as I can remember. He either doesn't have anything good to say, or he's almost as out of the loop as most of us are, or he just doesn't want to be involved in any part of it. But it seems like he's the kind of guy who would normally step up one way or another.


The other major thing that still baffles me is how Butch Jones, who told a player he was a traitor if he reported a rape by two teammates, still holds that job after victims were payed off. But Briles couldn't even get a job at Jimmy Johns if he wanted to. It seems like bull***** How is the perception that widely different, other than just Tennessee isn't Baylor and SEC isn't Big 12?

---

Grant was the first person on the phone the day Art was fired. I think he is still deeply involved and he choses not to make an ugly situation uglier. He just remains silent and supports the program going forward. But you are correct. If Grant blessed Art, Art would have a job this year.

Keyser Soze said:

---

Was kinda hard for the admin to step it up sooner when all the status reports were coming from an AD that was simi-complicit with it all.

---

Kinda hard for the admin to step it up when they were gleefully reporting 0 sexual assaults for years in a row.

Judge said:

---

Dia del DougO said:

---

I started pondering today, if there's anyone who could really help Briles and his reputation for potential future employment it's Grant Teaff. His word would mean something to a lot of people, more than this goofy letter. But he's been pretty quiet about this whole thing as far as I can remember. He either doesn't have anything good to say, or he's almost as out of the loop as most of us are, or he just doesn't want to be involved in any part of it. But it seems like he's the kind of guy who would normally step up one way or another.


The other major thing that still baffles me is how Butch Jones, who told a player he was a traitor if he reported a rape by two teammates, still holds that job after victims were payed off. But Briles couldn't even get a job at Jimmy Johns if he wanted to. It seems like bull***** How is the perception that widely different, other than just Tennessee isn't Baylor and SEC isn't Big 12?

---

Grant was the first person on the phone the day Art was fired. I think he is still deeply involved and he choses not to make an ugly situation uglier. He just remains silent and supports the program going forward. But you are correct. If Grant blessed Art, Art would have a job this year.

---

Didn't GT give a great recommendation for Ian?

80sBEAR said:

---

The ongoing problem is not the King's ransom that Baylor paid Briles to leave, but Baylor's willingness to write seven figure checks to any female that dated a Baylor Football player, did not get a next day call back, and did not make her grades. The Baylor Lotto will continue. The letter pretty much confirms how grossly incompetent these people are. The Baylor BOR says THANK you for your $$$$$. Please send more green and gold is accepted as well. Embarrassing.

---

Have you forgotten The Good Ole Baylor Line: "We'll fling our green and gold afar"

Keyser Soze said:

---

... You are spouting off wild speculation ..... again

---

I've always heard that it takes one to know one.

Keyser Soze said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Sam U didn't get Briles in legitimate trouble. Most of the media backlash over this was not justified.

Sam U did get the PH ball rolling and they unearthed plenty of real problems.

---

I would love to know what was unearthed that wasn't already known. I think PH was hired at Starr's suggestion to show that Baylor was serious about supporting sexual assault victims. Starr probably didn't think it was going to come back and bite him.

---

Agree

I think PH was rightfully hired to get an outside independent party to check things out. The results were more than anyone expected.

---

First we went to the BU law professor. He punted recommending an outside firm.

NoBSU said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Sam U didn't get Briles in legitimate trouble. Most of the media backlash over this was not justified.

Sam U did get the PH ball rolling and they unearthed plenty of real problems.

---

I would love to know what was unearthed that wasn't already known. I think PH was hired at Starr's suggestion to show that Baylor was serious about supporting sexual assault victims. Starr probably didn't think it was going to come back and bite him.

---

Agree

I think PH was rightfully hired to get an outside independent party to check things out. The results were more than anyone expected.

---

First we went to the BU law professor. He punted recommending an outside firm.

---

He may be the smartest guy around here.

When he punted it should've gone to a defense team with a title ix consultant.

Robert Wilson said:

---

True

And I think it is fair to say that the PH report should not be quoted like it is some kind of gospel. It is one angle from an investigator. It is not the product of a process that includes any advocacy on the behalf of its targets.

---

Surely you must have typed that in sarcastic font. The prosecutors from PH are paragons of virtue and without fault (except that one cost Philadelphia $250,000 for her illegally holding a WITNESS as prisoner even after the date that the judge had said the witness should be released.)

In reply to 57Bear:

I said "it has been reported....".

REX, however said..."

No no no. Delores DID NOT meet with Leb.
Kaz DID NOT meet with parents. That is just incorrect BS. Are you a regent?"

without any support whatsoever.

I'm not trying Briles in court. I'm questioning just why the wording of his letter is so specific

I have no problem if he works again in the pros.

BU84BEAR said:

---

I'm not trying Briles in court. I'm questioning just why the wording of his letter is so specific

I have no problem if he works again in the pros.

---

I have no problem with Briles working as a head coach or coordinator, anywhere he wants.

Oldbear83 said:

---

BU84BEAR said:

---

I'm not trying Briles in court. I'm questioning just why the wording of his letter is so specific

I have no problem if he works again in the pros.

---

I have no problem with Briles working as a head coach or coordinator, anywhere he wants.

---

Well my feelings on that would depend if anything were ever proven against him. I do realize that is not likely, but until a couple of lawsuits and trials play out it is possible.

BU84BEAR said:

---

In reply to 57Bear:

I said "it has been reported....".

REX, however said..."

No no no. Delores DID NOT meet with Leb.
Kaz DID NOT meet with parents. That is just incorrect BS. Are you a regent?"

without any support whatsoever.

I'm not trying Briles in court. I'm questioning just why the wording of his letter is so specific

I have no problem if he works again in the pros.

---

Without any support? How about straight from Leb. No Facebook post no he said she said just straight from the coach. That's support

BU84BEAR said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BU84BEAR said:

---

I'm not trying Briles in court. I'm questioning just why the wording of his letter is so specific

I have no problem if he works again in the pros.

---

I have no problem with Briles working as a head coach or coordinator, anywhere he wants.

---

Well my feelings on that would depend if anything were ever proven against him. I do realize that is not likely, but until a couple of lawsuits and trials play out it is possible.

---

I don't think Briles would have sued the 3 board members for defamation if he had anything to hide. Once the defendants made it clear they would employ a scorched earth policy against Kendall and anyone close to Briles, he backed off of his lawsuit. I think Briles was simply acting to protect those he cared about by dropping the suit. I wonder if Briles was given the exoneration letter in order to appease him from reconsidering legal action.

BU84BEAR said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BU84BEAR said:

---

I'm not trying Briles in court. I'm questioning just why the wording of his letter is so specific

I have no problem if he works again in the pros.

---

I have no problem with Briles working as a head coach or coordinator, anywhere he wants.

---

Well my feelings on that would depend if anything were ever proven against him. I do realize that is not likely, but until a couple of lawsuits and trials play out it is possible.

---

There has been more than enough time for evidence to show up against Art Briles, if any existed.

I am more convinced than ever that he was scapegoated, and for that I will never forgive the BOR.

Oldbear83 said:

---

BU84BEAR said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BU84BEAR said:

---

I'm not trying Briles in court. I'm questioning just why the wording of his letter is so specific

I have no problem if he works again in the pros.

---

I have no problem with Briles working as a head coach or coordinator, anywhere he wants.

---

Well my feelings on that would depend if anything were ever proven against him. I do realize that is not likely, but until a couple of lawsuits and trials play out it is possible.

---

There has been more than enough time for evidence to show up against Art Briles, if any existed.

I am more convinced than ever that he was scapegoated, and for that I will never forgive the BOR.

---

You are being willfully uninformed. Just spend some time reading. Below is the detail behind the Findings of Fact. What everyone was asking for, yet few have taken the time to read.

https://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/wacotrib.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/b/ac/bacc361a-e9b5-11e6-ad87-5fd2d6e674d8/5893e6dfbdcf3.pdf.pdf

Chuckroast said:

---

BU84BEAR said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BU84BEAR said:

---

I'm not trying Briles in court. I'm questioning just why the wording of his letter is so specific

I have no problem if he works again in the pros.

---

I have no problem with Briles working as a head coach or coordinator, anywhere he wants.

---

Well my feelings on that would depend if anything were ever proven against him. I do realize that is not likely, but until a couple of lawsuits and trials play out it is possible.

---

I don't think Briles would have sued the 3 board members for defamation if he had anything to hide. Once the defendants made it clear they would employ a scorched earth policy against Kendall and anyone close to Briles, he backed off of his lawsuit. I think Briles was simply acting to protect those he cared about by dropping the suit. I wonder if Briles was given the exoneration letter in order to appease him from reconsidering legal action.

---

BS - Briles filed his lawsuit around December 1 when KB was starting to look for a job. He dropped it after he had a job. He dropped it because the statement is the WSJ had PH facts to back them up.

Keyser Soze said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BU84BEAR said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BU84BEAR said:

---

I'm not trying Briles in court. I'm questioning just why the wording of his letter is so specific

I have no problem if he works again in the pros.

---

I have no problem with Briles working as a head coach or coordinator, anywhere he wants.

---

Well my feelings on that would depend if anything were ever proven against him. I do realize that is not likely, but until a couple of lawsuits and trials play out it is possible.

---

There has been more than enough time for evidence to show up against Art Briles, if any existed.

I am more convinced than ever that he was scapegoated, and for that I will never forgive the BOR.

---

You are being willfully uninformed. Just spend some time reading. Below is the detail behind the Findings of Fact. What everyone was asking for, yet few have taken the time to read.

https://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/wacotrib.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/b/ac/bacc361a-e9b5-11e6-ad87-5fd2d6e674d8/5893e6dfbdcf3.pdf.pdf






Oh, I read it. And looked for the evidence to support the claims against Art Briles.

None.

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BU84BEAR said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BU84BEAR said:

---

I'm not trying Briles in court. I'm questioning just why the wording of his letter is so specific

I have no problem if he works again in the pros.

---

I have no problem with Briles working as a head coach or coordinator, anywhere he wants.

---

Well my feelings on that would depend if anything were ever proven against him. I do realize that is not likely, but until a couple of lawsuits and trials play out it is possible.

---

There has been more than enough time for evidence to show up against Art Briles, if any existed.

I am more convinced than ever that he was scapegoated, and for that I will never forgive the BOR.

---

You are being willfully uninformed. Just spend some time reading. Below is the detail behind the Findings of Fact. What everyone was asking for, yet few have taken the time to read.

https://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/wacotrib.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/b/ac/bacc361a-e9b5-11e6-ad87-5fd2d6e674d8/5893e6dfbdcf3.pdf.pdf

---

You've gone from trying to be reasonable in your excoriation of Briles, to the desperation of basing your position on an adversarial lawsuit pleading which uses the very out of context snippets that you, yourself claimed were unfair to use. And, you want to minimize a letter in which the university itself provides statements that exonerates Briles, by claiming that the letter is narrow in scope, as it only shows no direct involvement. Of course direct has multiple applications, and the indirect involvement was already answered by the university when they retained the full coaching staff.

All of which leaves your theory perched on the shoulders of Shillinglaw. You would have to believe that no other coach knew of any reportable offenses outside of Shillinglaw. Since no victim contacted Briles directly, and none of the staff were fired for diversion, suppression, or conspiracy; you would either have to believe that all reports from victims or police went straight to Shillinglaw, who then took direction from Briles. Or you would have to believe that the BOR, whom you have claimed acted appropriately, allowed coaches who committed acts of complicity to stay employed.

I suppose you could claim that Tom Hill could have been another henchman, but even the most rabid BORian knows that to be laughable.

Malbec said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BU84BEAR said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BU84BEAR said:

---

M

I'm not trying Briles in court. I'm questioning just why the wording of his letter is so specific

I have no problem if he works again in the pros.

---

I have no problem with Briles working as a head coach or coordinator, anywhere he wants.

---

Well my feelings on that would depend if anything were ever proven against him. I do realize that is not likely, but until a couple of lawsuits and trials play out it is possible.

---

There has been more than enough time for evidence to show up against Art Briles, if any existed.

I am more convinced than ever that he was scapegoated, and for that I will never forgive the BOR.

---

You are being willfully uninformed. Just spend some time reading. Below is the detail behind the Findings of Fact. What everyone was asking for, yet few have taken the time to read.

https://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/wacotrib.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/b/ac/bacc361a-e9b5-11e6-ad87-5fd2d6e674d8/5893e6dfbdcf3.pdf.pdf

---

You've gone from trying to be reasonable in your excoriation of Briles, to the desperation of basing your position on an adversarial lawsuit pleading which uses the very out of context snippets that you, yourself claimed were unfair to use. And, you want to minimize a letter in which the university itself provides statements that exonerates Briles, by claiming that the letter is narrow in scope, as it only shows no direct involvement. Of course direct has multiple applications, and the indirect involvement was already answered by the university when they retained the full coaching staff.

All of which leaves your theory perched on the shoulders of Shillinglaw. You would have to believe that no other coach knew of any reportable offenses outside of Shillinglaw. Since no victim contacted Briles directly, and none of the staff were fired for diversion, suppression, or conspiracy; you would either have to believe that all reports from victims or police went straight to Shillinglaw, who then took direction from Briles. Or you would have to believe that the BOR, whom you have claimed acted appropriately, allowed coaches who committed acts of complicity to stay employed.

I suppose you could claim that Tom Hill could have been another henchman, but even the most rabid BORian knows that to be laughable.

---

THIS. pleadings are not evidence. They are adversarial statements which may or may not be true.

As I have said many times--I think the BOR was right to fire Briles. Far too much smoke. However, they did not go far enough, not by a long shot. If Briles was the last to know, the assistants knew, yet all were retained. Ramsower retained. Garland the Moron appointed. No defense of Baylor when confronted with false media narratives. Ridiculous.

57Bear said:

---

BU84BEAR said:

---

REX said:

---

BU84BEAR said:

---

REX said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

BU84BEAR said:

---

TellMeYouLoveMe said:

---

chukronos said:

---

So, either the leaders of our university were lying when they made it seem like Briles was at fault, or they are lying in the letter. Either way, they are dirtbags and an embarrassment to our school and , even more so, to Christianity.

---

The letter suggests he did his job but his subordinates didn't and they should have been fired and not him.

What''s the point? Why say a thing? If you want the world to know he did something to get fired, letters like this don't help your case.

---

So, maybe he was terminated for something other than one of the 3 specific things in the letter?

The letter was not addressed to anyone other than Briles. Since Briles did not immediately publish it when received to clear his name, there may have been a reasonable basis to not expect the letter to be made public

---

Winner Winner Chicken Dinner !

Things not addressed in the letter:

Football had it's own internal system of justis
17 alleged victims implicating 19 players with 4 of them being gang rapes.
Briles knew of at least one gang rape and didn't report it outside athletics.
Football managed Elliots academic probation when JA should have.
Briles had a system where he was kept in the dark
Shillinglaw fixed things left and right
Assistant coaches met with victims


this thread is filled with people who have no idea what a venn diagram is

---

What assistant coaches met with victims?
You say this over and over again
Which coaches?????

---

Doris Lozano (domestic assault not sexual assault) met with Lebby. The volleyball player's parents met with 2 assistants one of which was reported as the Strength and Conditioning Coach soon after the rape. Someone sent a Bruin to talk Armstead's victim out of reporting rape to the police. If you can decide the motivation of the BOR based on what is obvious to you, then I can decide who might have sent the Bruin based on what is "obvious" to me.

(I am being facetious, but it is plausible)

---

No no no. Delores DID NOT meet with Leb.
Kaz DID NOT meet with parents. That is just incorrect BS. Are you a regent?

---

The book Violated states "the Strength and Conditioning Coach met with parents" I didnt say Kaz.

Sorry, but this Waco Trib article says she reported it directly to Jeff Lebby:

http://www.wacotrib.com/sports/baylor/football/baylor-graduate-to-file-lawsuit-claiming-coaches-failed-to-act/article_357df960-7622-59f2-8aae-27c5acc30399.html

---

"A Title IX lawsuit against Baylor University will claim assistant football coach Jeff Lebby and former head coach Art Briles did not sufficiently respond to reports made directly to Lebby of violence by a player, according to a Facebook post on an account for ESPN reporter Joe Schad." ...

"Lozano said she reported to Chafin's mother and Lebby after the first incident ,,,"

Yup - that looks like irrefutable evidence to me. Certainly no court would question a Facebook posting or a statement made by a plaintiff.

---

Nobody is saying the evidence is irrefutable. It does have probative value and deserves a day in court. That's all.

57Bear said:

---

Yup - that looks like irrefutable evidence to me. Certainly no court would question a Facebook posting or a statement made by a plaintiff.

---

It will be enough evidence for Milli and Keyser. Case closed.

Malbec said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BU84BEAR said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BU84BEAR said:

---

I'm not trying Briles in court. I'm questioning just why the wording of his letter is so specific

I have no problem if he works again in the pros.

---

I have no problem with Briles working as a head coach or coordinator, anywhere he wants.

---

Well my feelings on that would depend if anything were ever proven against him. I do realize that is not likely, but until a couple of lawsuits and trials play out it is possible.

---

There has been more than enough time for evidence to show up against Art Briles, if any existed.

I am more convinced than ever that he was scapegoated, and for that I will never forgive the BOR.

---

You are being willfully uninformed. Just spend some time reading. Below is the detail behind the Findings of Fact. What everyone was asking for, yet few have taken the time to read.

https://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/wacotrib.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/b/ac/bacc361a-e9b5-11e6-ad87-5fd2d6e674d8/5893e6dfbdcf3.pdf.pdf

---

You've gone from trying to be reasonable in your excoriation of Briles, to the desperation of basing your position on an adversarial lawsuit pleading which uses the very out of context snippets that you, yourself claimed were unfair to use. And, you want to minimize a letter in which the university itself provides statements that exonerates Briles, by claiming that the letter is narrow in scope, as it only shows no direct involvement. Of course direct has multiple applications, and the indirect involvement was already answered by the university when they retained the full coaching staff.

All of which leaves your theory perched on the shoulders of Shillinglaw. You would have to believe that no other coach knew of any reportable offenses outside of Shillinglaw. Since no victim contacted Briles directly, and none of the staff were fired for diversion, suppression, or conspiracy; you would either have to believe that all reports from victims or police went straight to Shillinglaw, who then took direction from Briles. Or you would have to believe that the BOR, whom you have claimed acted appropriately, allowed coaches who committed acts of complicity to stay employed.

I suppose you could claim that Tom Hill could have been another henchman, but even the most rabid BORian knows that to be laughable.

---

I can lead a horse to water but I can't make it drink.

First, obviously this not evidence in the true legal sense, no debate there - should have chosen my wording better. You and I and everyone here are never going to get that evidence. This is the story. It is the detail behind the findings of fact. It is measured and I challenge you to refute it's content rather than be smug and dismissive of the way it has been let out. Stop trying to equate this to the ramblings, throw everything against the wall and hope something sticks, stuff of the weaker plaintiffs. This has made the formal end of the Brile Conspiracy Crowd scatter. Briles dropped right before this came out and Shillinglaw right after. It has even made BLR fade away.

The letter only addresses sexual assault - no other type of offenses. It is not my opinion the letter is narrow, those are the words that are written. For someone who has consistently used the very precise tense and grammar of a sentence to make a point, it is telling that you so blatantly ignore the same when it suits you.

Right or wrong, they have said that if an assistant coach reports things to their HC they have done their job. There certainly is a case to be made the whole staff should have gone (same on admin side as well) but they didn't go down that road. The fact that they didn't go down that road as some kind rebuttal to Shillinglaw is beyond weak.

Tom Hill was not mentioned in the Shillinglaw response. Only Briles & Shillinglaw were named specifically. Personally I think his only sin was knowledge of a gang rape that he could have reasonably assumed others down the hall were addressing.

The normal folks look at this and go wow, why the heck din't they just put this out sooner. #CAB truthers do nothing but dig their heals in and go the rout of the "moon landings were faked" crowd.

The problem with the findings of fact is that they present allegations, but no facts. Calling something 'fact' does not make it so. And PH has a track record of selling assumptions as established.

No one - anywhere - has provided decisive support for the allegations.

Only someone who has emotionally decided to assign guilt can conclude the charges stick.

Oldbear83 said:

---

The problem with the findings of fact is that they present allegations, but no facts. Calling something 'fact' does not make it so. And PH has a track record of selling assumptions as established.

No one - anywhere - has provided decisive support for the allegations.

Only someone who has emotionally decided to assign guilt can conclude the charges stick.

---

It is very much a fact that there were allegations.

So many people here miss the true issue of all this. It is the deliberate and willful failure to respond to allegations. They kept allegations from reaching Judicial Affairs and or Title IX who were the ones to handle such issues. Decisive support of allegations does not matter a lick - only the existence of them matters and that is not in question.

Briles failures exist regardless of finding the whole truth behind each and every allegation.

I think this site has an infestation of TT/TCU fans posing as BU fans. They are anti-Briles and anti-Baylor.

Keyser Soze said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

The problem with the findings of fact is that they present allegations, but no facts. Calling something 'fact' does not make it so. And PH has a track record of selling assumptions as established.

No one - anywhere - has provided decisive support for the allegations.

Only someone who has emotionally decided to assign guilt can conclude the charges stick.

---

It is very much a fact that there were allegations.

So many people here miss the true issue of all this. It is the deliberate and willful failure to respond to allegations. They kept allegations from reaching Judicial Affairs and or Title IX who were the ones to handle such issues. Decisive support of allegations does not matter a lick - only the existence of them matters and that is not in question.

Briles failures exist regardless of finding the whole truth behind each and every allegation.

---

Have we ever seen the Title IX training that Baylor employees received regarding the specifics of responsibility for reporting information about "allegations?" (This is a real question, I do not know the answer to it).

306 posts so I'm going to summarize what we've learned so far for you new readers.

Briles is... BAD!
NO... he's not!

Keyser Soze said:

---

It is very much a fact that there were allegations.

---

One more time: Allegations are not facts.

D. C. Bear said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

The problem with the findings of fact is that they present allegations, but no facts. Calling something 'fact' does not make it so. And PH has a track record of selling assumptions as established.

No one - anywhere - has provided decisive support for the allegations.

Only someone who has emotionally decided to assign guilt can conclude the charges stick.

---

It is very much a fact that there were allegations.

So many people here miss the true issue of all this. It is the deliberate and willful failure to respond to allegations. They kept allegations from reaching Judicial Affairs and or Title IX who were the ones to handle such issues. Decisive support of allegations does not matter a lick - only the existence of them matters and that is not in question.

Briles failures exist regardless of finding the whole truth behind each and every allegation.

---

Have we ever seen the Title IX training that Baylor employees received regarding the specifics of responsibility for reporting information about "allegations?" (This is a real question, I do not know the answer to it).

---

NoBSU answered that above - all parties have responsibility to report and not rely on someone else. I am certain lack of training contributed.

This is a key paragraph from Shillinglaw:

"Pepper Hamilton concluded that a number of factors had contributed to the code of silence within football. Those factors included the absence of a full-time Title IX Coordinator prior to November 2014, unclear reporting procedures, and inadequate Title IX training for Athletics Department personnel. However, Pepper Hamilton also concluded that Coach Briles and McCaw knew that Judicial Affairs had jurisdiction for investigating sexual assaults. Indeed, on April 23, 2013 the very same day Coach Briles learned about the student-athlete's account of being gang raped he was forwarded a letter stating that Judicial Affairs had investigated and cleared another one of his players of sexual assault allegations."

Given all of the Title IX lawsuits that have nothing to do with football (are we at 7 this point?), I'm going to hazard a guess that any training that might have been done was pretty lacking.

Keyser Soze said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

The problem with the findings of fact is that they present allegations, but no facts. Calling something 'fact' does not make it so. And PH has a track record of selling assumptions as established.

No one - anywhere - has provided decisive support for the allegations.

Only someone who has emotionally decided to assign guilt can conclude the charges stick.

---

It is very much a fact that there were allegations.

So many people here miss the true issue of all this. It is the deliberate and willful failure to respond to allegations. They kept allegations from reaching Judicial Affairs and or Title IX who were the ones to handle such issues. Decisive support of allegations does not matter a lick - only the existence of them matters and that is not in question.

Briles failures exist regardless of finding the whole truth behind each and every allegation.

---

OldBear83 - this issue may just be too complex for you - reread above, slowly this time

LBKBEAR said:

---

Given all of the Title IX lawsuits that have nothing to do with football (are we at 7 this point?), I'm going to hazard a guess that any training that might have been done was pretty lacking.

---

You would be correct.

Keyser Soze said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

The problem with the findings of fact is that they present allegations, but no facts. Calling something 'fact' does not make it so. And PH has a track record of selling assumptions as established.

No one - anywhere - has provided decisive support for the allegations.

Only someone who has emotionally decided to assign guilt can conclude the charges stick.

---

It is very much a fact that there were allegations.

So many people here miss the true issue of all this. It is the deliberate and willful failure to respond to allegations. They kept allegations from reaching Judicial Affairs and or Title IX who were the ones to handle such issues. Decisive support of allegations does not matter a lick - only the existence of them matters and that is not in question.

Briles failures exist regardless of finding the whole truth behind each and every allegation.

---

Have we ever seen the Title IX training that Baylor employees received regarding the specifics of responsibility for reporting information about "allegations?" (This is a real question, I do not know the answer to it).

---

NoBSU answered that above - all parties have responsibility to report and not rely on someone else. I am certain lack of training contributed.

This is a key paragraph from Shillinlaw:

"Pepper Hamilton concluded that a number of factors had contributed to the code of silence within football. Those factors included the absence of a full-time Title IX Coordinator prior to November 2014, unclear reporting procedures, and inadequate Title IX training for Athletics Department personnel. However, Pepper Hamilton also concluded that Coach Briles and McCaw knew that Judicial Affairs had jurisdiction for investigating sexual assaults. Indeed, on April 23, 2013 the very same day Coach Briles learned about the student-athlete's account of being gang raped he was forwarded a letter stating that Judicial Affairs had investigated and cleared another one of his players of sexual assault allegations."

---

So, no, we've never seen what the "inadequate Title IX training for Athletics Department personnel" looked like. Have we seen the Title IX training for other employees?

It is a very thin reed of an argument on the part of Pepper Hamilton to say that because McCaw and Briles knew that Judicial Affairs had investigated a sexual assault allegation means that they knew they were obligated under Title IX to report second hand rumors of allegations that the alleged victim did not want to report or that had already been investigated by police. I suspect that "inadequate Title IX training" might actually mean "no Title IX training at all," because I would have noted that "although the Title IX training was inadequate, Athletics Department personnel were informed of their responsibility to report allegations of sexual assault and were provided with the proper reporting channels in a memo dated (fill in date here)."

I know that the Secret Service has the responsibility for investigating forgery. I don't know whether I have any legal responsibility to report it to them if I hear a rumor that there is a counterfeiting ring operating in my neighborhood.

None of this means that removing Briles wasn't reasonable, but it creates a more complex narrative of what went on that some of you want to acknowledge.

Oldbear83 said:

---

The problem with the findings of fact is that they present allegations, but no facts. Calling something 'fact' does not make it so. And PH has a track record of selling assumptions as established.

No one - anywhere - has provided decisive support for the allegations.

Only someone who has emotionally decided to assign guilt can conclude the charges stick.

---

Plus the FOF was written by the regents . Guess which ones