Malbec said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Malbec said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

That is fair

I have agreed with the OP that there is not evidence he covered up rape. I might add that has never been said by Baylor or the regents.

Now word differences are subtle, but the differences in meaning are large, Briles failed to notify Judicial Affairs of an alleged rape (as did several others). There is also a long list, and a clear pattern, of not reporting things to Judicial Affairs. It is that pattern that is the main cause of his termination. As the regents have clearly stated, there is no one thing.

But when challenged, some supporters just double down, and do things like question if the text are even real. At best they are being obtuse.

---

When you say this, are you talking about the case with Barnes and his player?

---

You know I am.

FYI - I just recently finished reading "Violated" . The book does say Barnes called JA but did not give the girl's name or any details. Only asked an unknown person a few questions. In short, Barnes phone call did happen, but does not contradict any earlier accounts of things not reported. The girl also said she made clear allegations of rape.

---

So then. You are stating that Briles had a duty to report the incident even though he was not Barnes' direct supervisor, did not receive the report first-hand but was rather told of the incident by an employee of the university who did get the report first-hand, and was told by Barnes that he had already contacted JA about the incident, and the report had already been made to Briles' direct supervisor who was also Barnes' supervisor?

Not that it matters, but who said the girl made clear allegations (10 months after the incident) of rape? The authors of Violated?

---

ColomboLQ said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Unless there is a court actions to compel them I can not imagine it will happen.

---

I can't imagine it will happen either. But would you not agree that the burden of proof is actually on the FoF, regent comments, etc to be shown as true (yes I know that it's not going to happen, just for discussions sake)?

---

Malbec said:

---

Thin and likely the same reasoning they used on Hill. That's a piss poor reason to fire someone and then let his reputation be trashed without explanation. I understand why they wouldn't want such details out if it were true.

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Agree 100% as to Hill. I was hoping Violated would have shed more light on his story but it did not.

In regards to Briles, his was a very lengthy pattern of not reporting to JA, no one incident.

---

Robemcdo said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

The entire argument that Briles is completely innocent fell apart when he took MUCH less money than he was owed to go away and sign a NDA.

If you're innocent, you would never take less money than you're owed and give up your ability to defend yourself.

---

When your situation affect your children and your other coaches you are forced to make decisions you might not normally make

---

xiledinok said:

---

Keyser is well thought of in the real world. Like it or not he is the most reliable source to those that care to write about this deal.

---

Boatshoes said:

---

Quote:

---

Since there is no legal liability, you mind explaining why Houston took a pass? You think maybe they knew too much?

---

Surely you remember a subset of the regents wandering off the reservation and giving them a call, undoubtedly to spin the same 632/255/5, or whatever the sunshine pumper number has grown to at this point, fairytale?

---

Boatshoes said:

---

xiledinok said:

---

Keyser is well thought of in the real world. Like it or not he is the most reliable source to those that care to write about this deal.

---

So those that care to write about this deal will do so with no evidence.

Pretty much what's happened.

---

TellMeYouLoveMe said:

---

Boatshoes said:

---

Quote:

---

Since there is no legal liability, you mind explaining why Houston took a pass? You think maybe they knew too much?

---

Surely you remember a subset of the regents wandering off the reservation and giving them a call, undoubtedly to spin the same 632/255/5, or whatever the sunshine pumper number has grown to at this point, fairytale?

---

Well considering their previous employment relationship I'm sure they gave him ample opportunity to defend himself.

Wait. What's that? He got busted lying and was responsible for his boss getting fired? I think I can see why no sane AD would hire the lying *******.Let me go over this since some of you wage slaves keep peddling denial.

1)you can't get caught lying to your organization.
2) You can't get your boss fired and expect people to look the other way.

That's not a legal opinion, that's the real world.

Briles needed a handler to keep him from making decisions that were above his intellect. Ian and the board weren't up to the task and it doesn't sound like anyone else wants the risk.

---

Chanceux said:

---

Art lied in his meeting with Baylor? I don't remember hearing that. Or ya mean he hid stuff from the lawyer folk about kids drinking and smoking dope? I agree with ya about Baylor having enough to fire him. Thats not even what Id call a question to most reasonable people. If the sexual assault stuff didnt happen in and out of the program I wonder if they would have fired him.

---

Chanceux said:

---

TellMeYouLoveMe said:

---

Boatshoes said:

---

Quote:

---

Since there is no legal liability, you mind explaining why Houston took a pass? You think maybe they knew too much?

---

Surely you remember a subset of the regents wandering off the reservation and giving them a call, undoubtedly to spin the same 632/255/5, or whatever the sunshine pumper number has grown to at this point, fairytale?

---

Well considering their previous employment relationship I'm sure they gave him ample opportunity to defend himself.

Wait. What's that? He got busted lying and was responsible for his boss getting fired? I think I can see why no sane AD would hire the lying *******.Let me go over this since some of you wage slaves keep peddling denial.

1)you can't get caught lying to your organization.
2) You can't get your boss fired and expect people to look the other way.

That's not a legal opinion, that's the real world.

Briles needed a handler to keep him from making decisions that were above his intellect. Ian and the board weren't up to the task and it doesn't sound like anyone else wants the risk.

---

Art lied in his meeting with Baylor? I don't remember hearing that. Or ya mean he hid stuff from the lawyer folk about kids drinking and smoking dope? I agree with ya about Baylor having enough to fire him. Thats not even what Id call a question to most reasonable people. If the sexual assault stuff didnt happen in and out of the program I wonder if they would have fired him.

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Chanceux said:

---

Art lied in his meeting with Baylor? I don't remember hearing that. Or ya mean he hid stuff from the lawyer folk about kids drinking and smoking dope? I agree with ya about Baylor having enough to fire him. Thats not even what Id call a question to most reasonable people. If the sexual assault stuff didnt happen in and out of the program I wonder if they would have fired him.

---

They had enough to fire him (but apparently not for cause). They didn't have so much that they had to fire him. That's why the room wasn't in 100% agreement. This is where a decent cost/benefit analysis and some PR (in favor of us - not attacking our ownselves as we in fact did) might have come in handy.

---

xiledinok said:

---

Keyser is well thought of in the real world. Like it or not he is the most reliable source to those that care to write about this deal.

---

ScottS said:

---

none

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

... That BOR response is publicly available to anyone who cares to read it, and, before it is said otherwise, testimony -is- evidence by its very definition. Given that the BOR made those statements in a separate case, there is no reason to believe that they would not share the same information in any subsequent case.

Anyone who incorrectly claims that testimony is not evidence is looking for something other than evidence.

---

Thee University said:

---

Who gives a flying _______!?

He did the impossible........he got fired from Baylor University after posting an above .500 record, winning 1 Big 12 Championship & getting us into the Fiesta & Cotton.

Nobody above .500 has ever been fired from Baylor!

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

We also basically pressured out Teaff.

Another great decision.

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

We also basically pressured out Teaff.

Another great decision.

---

Yep

he was the "hot" OC and we had to lock him up

In all fairness to Reedy, he was better than Roberts or Steele

---

Brian Ethridge said:

---

BEAR RAMMAGE said:

---

From a legal standpoint. Absolutely ZERO evidence.

---

I wouldn't step out on tree branch for anyone.

---

mmodine said:

---

Thee University said:

---

Who gives a flying _______!?

He did the impossible........he got fired from Baylor University after posting an above .500 record, winning 1 Big 12 Championship & getting us into the Fiesta & Cotton.

Nobody above .500 has ever been fired from Baylor!

---

What coaches have we had above .500?

---

Malbec said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Malbec said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

That is fair

I have agreed with the OP that there is not evidence he covered up rape. I might add that has never been said by Baylor or the regents.

Now word differences are subtle, but the differences in meaning are large, Briles failed to notify Judicial Affairs of an alleged rape (as did several others). There is also a long list, and a clear pattern, of not reporting things to Judicial Affairs. It is that pattern that is the main cause of his termination. As the regents have clearly stated, there is no one thing.

But when challenged, some supporters just double down, and do things like question if the text are even real. At best they are being obtuse.

---

When you say this, are you talking about the case with Barnes and his player?

---

You know I am.

FYI - I just recently finished reading "Violated" . The book does say Barnes called JA but did not give the girl's name or any details. Only asked an unknown person a few questions. In short, Barnes phone call did happen, but does not contradict any earlier accounts of things not reported. The girl also said she made clear allegations of rape.

---

So then. You are stating that Briles had a duty to report the incident even though he was not Barnes' direct supervisor, did not receive the report first-hand but was rather told of the incident by an employee of the university who did get the report first-hand, and was told by Barnes that he had already contacted JA about the incident, and the report had already been made to Briles' direct supervisor who was also Barnes' supervisor?

Not that it matters, but who said the girl made clear allegations (10 months after the incident) of rape? The authors of Violated?

---

57Bear said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

... That BOR response is publicly available to anyone who cares to read it, and, before it is said otherwise, testimony -is- evidence by its very definition. Given that the BOR made those statements in a separate case, there is no reason to believe that they would not share the same information in any subsequent case.

Anyone who incorrectly claims that testimony is not evidence is looking for something other than evidence.

---

Webster says: Testimony is "a solemn declaration usually made orally by a witness under oath in response to interrogation by a lawyer or authorized public official"

Has any of your evidence been given under oath?

---

Boatshoes said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Boatshoes said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

The "for his kids and assistant coaches" is such a load of BS.

He dropped the lawsuit AFTER KB and many others had gained employment.

---

Precisely what an honorable man at an adequate age for early retirement with enough funds for the same would do if his former employer threatened to drag his kid's reputation through the mud.

---

Of course you have absolutely nothing to substantiate that, pure CAB apologetics

KB's do you like white girls comment came out from one to the T9 lawsuits not from the regents. KB and no assistants were mentioned in the Shillinglaw response.

---

What evidence do you have that the alleged text messages exist? I assume more than the 59 gang rapes alleged by other T9 lawsuits? There's so much lying going on by those who defend the board's actions that trying to sort out one from the other gets to be a bit difficult.

Speaking of which, did you ever deal with that matter regarding the hotel room in vegas and the dead hooker?

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Malbec said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Malbec said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

That is fair

I have agreed with the OP that there is not evidence he covered up rape. I might add that has never been said by Baylor or the regents.

Now word differences are subtle, but the differences in meaning are large, Briles failed to notify Judicial Affairs of an alleged rape (as did several others). There is also a long list, and a clear pattern, of not reporting things to Judicial Affairs. It is that pattern that is the main cause of his termination. As the regents have clearly stated, there is no one thing.

But when challenged, some supporters just double down, and do things like question if the text are even real. At best they are being obtuse.

---

When you say this, are you talking about the case with Barnes and his player?

---

You know I am.

FYI - I just recently finished reading "Violated" . The book does say Barnes called JA but did not give the girl's name or any details. Only asked an unknown person a few questions. In short, Barnes phone call did happen, but does not contradict any earlier accounts of things not reported. The girl also said she made clear allegations of rape.

---

So then. You are stating that Briles had a duty to report the incident even though he was not Barnes' direct supervisor, did not receive the report first-hand but was rather told of the incident by an employee of the university who did get the report first-hand, and was told by Barnes that he had already contacted JA about the incident, and the report had already been made to Briles' direct supervisor who was also Barnes' supervisor?

Not that it matters, but who said the girl made clear allegations (10 months after the incident) of rape? The authors of Violated?

---

That's precisely what Title IX says. It's called mandatory reporting.

It's also what any decent person would do. If you hear something, you pass it on to either a coordinator or your superior. At that moment, it's not your responsibility anymore.

Once again, we do know that Briles actively hid things from Judicial Affairs.

---