Osodecentx 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.

---

I respect Keyser. I think he is incorrect, but he is sincere.

You, on the other hand, are not

---

No, I m sincere when I post Jerry Sandusky and Art have something big in common and it is not Baylor's, mine, any poster without a financial incentive to post or anyone else not associated.
Do you want me to reveal what they have in common this week or next week with the 1 year anniversary of the "one foot out the door" proclamation?

TellMeYouLoveMe said:

---

The working premise of this thread is:

Art has not been convicted in a court of law.

Therefore he should not only be given millions in salary, he deserves to be coaching at Baylor University and should have a statue built in his honor.*

Because I(generic reference, not me) paid Baylor tuition and am entitled to choose the coach.

*disregarding the fact he shielded and protected players accused of rape, theft, drug use and lied to his employer.

---

Ouch!

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.

---

As it has been stated by many professors and coaches, BU did not have Title 9 in place so the mandatory reporting was not in place. Also, any decent person may also give advice such as call the police. What did Briles hide? Baylor wrote a letter saying they didn't find he hid anything. As we have all seen on here for the past year, you actively try to show that Briles is guilty. Your mind is made up and you will smear him any chance you get. You're about as credible as Brenda Tracy.

Its always fun when people take accusations and innuendo at truth, and any available information as evidence.

Threads like this is why we have a legal system.

mmodine said:

---

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.

---

As it has been stated by many professors and coaches, BU did not have Title 9 in place so the mandatory reporting was not in place. Also, any decent person may also give advice such as call the police. What did Briles hide? Baylor wrote a letter saying they didn't find he hid anything. As we have all seen on here for the past year, you actively try to show that Briles is guilty. Your mind is made up and you will smear him any chance you get. You're about as credible as Brenda Tracy.

---

School policy was in place even if T9 was unknown

How sincere is it to tell someone who has said they don't want to call the police, to call the police?

You need to reread that letter a few times - covers very little

Keyser Soze said:

---

mmodine said:

---

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.

---

As it has been stated by many professors and coaches, BU did not have Title 9 in place so the mandatory reporting was not in place. Also, any decent person may also give advice such as call the police. What did Briles hide? Baylor wrote a letter saying they didn't find he hid anything. As we have all seen on here for the past year, you actively try to show that Briles is guilty. Your mind is made up and you will smear him any chance you get. You're about as credible as Brenda Tracy.

---

School policy was in place even if T9 was unknown

How sincere is it to tell someone who has said they don't want to call the police, to call the police?

You need to reread that letter a few times - covers very little

---

If it is a crime they should tell the police.

mmodine said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

mmodine said:

---

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.

---

As it has been stated by many professors and coaches, BU did not have Title 9 in place so the mandatory reporting was not in place. Also, any decent person may also give advice such as call the police. What did Briles hide? Baylor wrote a letter saying they didn't find he hid anything. As we have all seen on here for the past year, you actively try to show that Briles is guilty. Your mind is made up and you will smear him any chance you get. You're about as credible as Brenda Tracy.

---

School policy was in place even if T9 was unknown

How sincere is it to tell someone who has said they don't want to call the police, to call the police?

You need to reread that letter a few times - covers very little

---

If it is a crime they should tell the police.

---

Most rape victims want to crawl into a shell and die. PTSD is common as is not going to police.

Not speaking to you - but the constant "only one conviction" crap is crass and shows no grasp on the realities of sexual assault.

mmodine said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

mmodine said:

---

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.

---

As it has been stated by many professors and coaches, BU did not have Title 9 in place so the mandatory reporting was not in place. Also, any decent person may also give advice such as call the police. What did Briles hide? Baylor wrote a letter saying they didn't find he hid anything. As we have all seen on here for the past year, you actively try to show that Briles is guilty. Your mind is made up and you will smear him any chance you get. You're about as credible as Brenda Tracy.

---

School policy was in place even if T9 was unknown

How sincere is it to tell someone who has said they don't want to call the police, to call the police?

You need to reread that letter a few times - covers very little

---

If it is a crime they should tell the police.

---

It's been estimated that 80 percent of rape victims don't report it to the police.

Thee University said:

---

TellMeYouLoveMe said:

---

The working premise of this thread is:

Art has not been convicted in a court of law.

Therefore he should not only be given millions in salary, he deserves to be coaching at Baylor University and should have a statue built in his honor.*

Because I(generic reference, not me) paid Baylor tuition and am entitled to choose the coach.

*disregarding the fact he shielded and protected players accused of rape, theft, drug use and lied to his employer.

---

Ouch!

---

None can refute it.

This thread is all about entitlement. Look, I want to win games as much as the next fan, but if you let thugs roam the campus then Baylor needs to fire your ass.

GTFO!

TellMeYouLoveMe said:

---

Thee University said:

---

TellMeYouLoveMe said:

---

The working premise of this thread is:

Art has not been convicted in a court of law.

Therefore he should not only be given millions in salary, he deserves to be coaching at Baylor University and should have a statue built in his honor.*

Because I(generic reference, not me) paid Baylor tuition and am entitled to choose the coach.

*disregarding the fact he shielded and protected players accused of rape, theft, drug use and lied to his employer.

---

Ouch!

---

Non can refute it.

This thread is all about entitlement. Look, I want to win games as much as the next fan, but if you let thugs roam the campus then Baylor needs to fire your ass.

GTFO!

---

Thugs are on every football team. All that junk about smoking dope and drinking doesn't even matter. Only issue that should even be talked about is did he cover up rapes. Every other team has bad kids and every other coach hides that minor crap. Aint but one big issue here and thats rape. And did the coaches cover it up. And I dont expect Baylor to be better than other programs because its a Christian school. Mostly because the other stuff that isn't rape is gonna happen regardless. Thumpin the bible ain't gonna make some kid that likes to smoke dope not smoke dope.

Malbec said:

---

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.

---

No, that's not what Title IX says. That's what the OCR suggests institutions do. Baylor had a different reporting policy at the time, and Briles' superior had already been informed as has been sworn to by Barnes, who had the same superior.

Just remember, the fact that I sample a few grapes in the produce section doesn't mean that I walked out the door with 6 cantaloupes under my shirt.

---

You're playing semantics, and you're ****ty at it.

Title IX literally only says: "No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance."

That's all that Title IX REALLY says. The rest is guidance from the DOE (which OCR is a part of). So either you know that and are being intentionally obtuse or you're ignorant and acting like you're not. I personally think you're too smart to do the latter.

Secondly, if you want to use grapes vs cantaloupes analogy. Theft is theft. Now you're arguing degrees. Which, really, is progress.

303Bear said:

---

Its always fun when people take accusations and innuendo at truth, and any available information as evidence.

Threads like this is why we have a legal system.

---

the only side without evidence are the supporters of Briles. BTW, I still love Art Briles. I'm thankful for everything he did. But he earned this the moment it became clear he was hiding things from Judicial Affairs. You simply can't come back from that.

But I still believe in his redemption. I still think he can learn from this and move on and coach. I don't think he's beyond redemption. But I don't see how he could have kept his job here.

BrooksBearLives said:

---

303Bear said:

---

Its always fun when people take accusations and innuendo at truth, and any available information as evidence.

Threads like this is why we have a legal system.

---

the only side without evidence are the supporters of Briles. BTW, I still love Art Briles. I'm thankful for everything he did. But he earned this the moment it became clear he was hiding things from Judicial Affairs. You simply can't come back from that.

But I still believe in his redemption. I still think he can learn from this and move on and coach. I don't think he's beyond redemption. But I don't see how he could have kept his job here.

---

Err dadgum program in the country hides stuff from the people who make the school rules. Its fireable. That aint a question. Some schools dont do diddly when the coach gets caught. Covering up rapes is a whole nother hill of beans.

Quote:

---

Interested to get your perspective on what made it clear Briles was hiding things from Judicial Affairs.

Not reporting something is not hiding per se, and I have not seen anything to indicated he ever told someone not to report or prevented reporting.

---

Everyone is a Baylor fan here, so there is no need for fighting and we can all have constructive dialogue without it devolving into insults.

Briles was -not- fired for breaking the law, so those who take the stance that the only evidence that should considered is evidence that has already been introduced during a trial will not be able to get the evidence that they seek without a lawsuit by Briles given that there will not be any criminal charges, and, considering that he dropped his lawsuit and does not appear to be on course to file another one, that evidentiary issue is what it is at this point.

Briles was -not- fired for covering up sexual assault by directly contacting the victims, and that was conveyed in the Baylor letter.

Briles was -not- fired because sexual assaults took place. Even if 100% of the football players assaulted someone, or, in the alternative, even if 100% of the reported alleged assaults did not actually occur, the outcome would have potentially been the same since he was not fired because they did or did not take place. This makes the "how many convictions?" based arguments relatively mute because the actual answer does not matter.

Can we all at least tentatively agree to the above even if we disagree in regard to a few other issues?

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

Everyone is a Baylor fan here, so there is no need for fighting and we can all have constructive dialogue without it devolving into insults.

Briles was -not- fired for breaking the law, so those who take the stance that the only evidence that should considered is evidence that has already been introduced during a trial will not be able to get the evidence that they seek without a lawsuit by Briles given that there will not be any criminal charges, and, considering that he dropped his lawsuit and does not appear to be on course to file another one, that evidentiary issue is what it is at this point.

Briles was -not- fired for covering up sexual assault by directly contacting the victims, and that was conveyed in the Baylor letter.

Briles was -not- fired because sexual assaults took place. Even if 100% of the football players assaulted someone, or, in the alternative, even if 100% of the reported alleged assaults did not actually occur, the outcome would have potentially been the same since he was not fired because they did or did not take place. This makes the "how many convictions?" based arguments relatively mute because the actual answer does not matter.

Can we all at least tentatively agree to the above even if we disagree in regard to a few other issues?

---

If you asked bout a c notes worth of people who knew any dadgum thing about what happened at Baylor why Briles was fired wadda ya figure they'd say? It sure as heck aint gonna be that he DID NOT cover up rapes. I can guarandamntee that. Ol Art was hiding rapists would be the first thing outta their mouths.

So when you say he was not fired because of raping I don't reckon the general public would agree.

303Bear said:

---

Quote:

---

Interested to get your perspective on what made it clear Briles was hiding things from Judicial Affairs.

Not reporting something is not hiding per se, and I have not seen anything to indicated he ever told someone not to report or prevented reporting.

---

---

sigh... for the 190th ****ING time...

Quote:

---

-- On April 8, 2011, after a freshman defensive tackle was cited for illegal consumption of alcohol, Coach Briles sent a text message to an assistant coach: "Hopefully he's under radar enough they won't recognize name did he get ticket from Baylor police or Waco? Just trying to keep him away from our judicial affairs folks...."
-- On February 11, 2013, an assistant coach notified Coach Briles of a claim by a female student-athlete that a football player brandished a gun at her. Coach Briles responded: "what a fool she reporting to authorities." The assistant coach texted back: "She's acting traumatized Trying to talk her calm now Doesn't seem to want to report though." Coach Briles texted: "U gonna talk to [the player]." The assistant coach concluded: "Yes sir, just did. Caught him on the way to class Squeezed him pretty good." The matter was never reported to Judicial Affairs.
-- On September 13, 2013, Shillinglaw sent a text to Coach Briles about a player who got a massage and "supposedly exposed himself and asked for favors. She [masseuse] has a lawyer but wants us to handle with discipline and counseling." Coach Briles' first response was "What kind of discipline She a stripper?" When Shillinglaw said the player made the request at a salon and spa while getting a massage, Coach Briles wrote, "Not quite as bad."
-- On September 20, 2013, after a player was arrested for assault and threatening to kill a non-athlete, a football operations staff official tried to talk the victim out of pressing criminal charges. Meanwhile, Coach Briles texted Athletics Director Ian McCaw: "Just talked to [the player] he said Waco PD was there said they were going to keep it quiet Wasn't a set up deal... I'll get shill (Shillinglaw) to ck on Sibley (local attorney Jonathan Sibley)." Athletics Director Ian McCaw replied: "That would be great if they kept it quiet!"
-- In October 2013, Shillinglaw and Briles discussed their efforts to intervene on behalf of a player who was suspended for repeated drug violations. "Bottom line, he has to meet with (Vice President for Student Life Kevin) Jackson tomorrow morning. If Jackson does not reinstate President will," Shillinglaw wrote.
-- On May 14, 2014, after Coach Briles learned from an assistant coach that a player had been caught selling drugs, he texted: "I'm hoping it will take care of itself if not we can discuss best way to move on it." The offense was never reported to Judicial Affairs and Coach Briles arranged for the player to transfer to another school. The assistant coach texted: "Him just hanging around Waco scares me. [Another school] will take him. Knows baggage."
-- On August 15, 2015, after a player was arrested for possession of marijuana, Coach Briles texted an assistant coach: "Sh*t how about that he's gonna b (sic) in the system now let me know what you think we should do I can get shill (Shillinglaw) to call Sibley or we can.... Do we know who complained?" The assistant coach responded that the complainant was the superintendent at the player's apartment complex. Coach Briles replied: "We need to know who supervisor is and get him to alert us first."

---

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/baylor/2017/02/02/ex-baylor-coach-art-briles-officials-tried-hide-misconduct-football-players-court-record-shows

Chanceux said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

303Bear said:

---

Its always fun when people take accusations and innuendo at truth, and any available information as evidence.

Threads like this is why we have a legal system.

---

the only side without evidence are the supporters of Briles. BTW, I still love Art Briles. I'm thankful for everything he did. But he earned this the moment it became clear he was hiding things from Judicial Affairs. You simply can't come back from that.

But I still believe in his redemption. I still think he can learn from this and move on and coach. I don't think he's beyond redemption. But I don't see how he could have kept his job here.

---

Err dadgum program in the country hides stuff from the people who make the school rules. Its fireable. That aint a question. Some schools dont do diddly when the coach gets caught. Covering up rapes is a whole nother hill of beans.

---

First off, the "everyone does it" rule doesn't ****ing play for me. We're here to serve God and to be righteous. Any state school fan say that, and I'd roll my eyes and be glad I went to a University where values mean something.

Secondly, people judge you by your actions. When you have a coach who is actively keeping things out of the eyes of Judicial Affairs -which he did when he tried to keep a player asking for a handy quiet- then one can't argue it sets a tone. If you think they would cover up a hand-job, but stop at a guy intimidating or roughing up his girlfriend, then you have more faith in him than his subsequent actions have earned.

BrooksBearLives said:

---

303Bear said:

---

Quote:

---

Interested to get your perspective on what made it clear Briles was hiding things from Judicial Affairs.

Not reporting something is not hiding per se, and I have not seen anything to indicated he ever told someone not to report or prevented reporting.

---

---

sigh... for the 190th ****ING time...

---

Ok guy, unwad your panties, its gonna be ok. Had not seen that article or the excerpts from the texts, so I apologize I guess.

303Bear said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

303Bear said:

---

Quote:

---

Interested to get your perspective on what made it clear Briles was hiding things from Judicial Affairs.

Not reporting something is not hiding per se, and I have not seen anything to indicated he ever told someone not to report or prevented reporting.

---

---

sigh... for the 190th ****ING time...

---

Ok guy, unwad your panties, its gonna be ok. Had not seen that article or the excerpts from the texts, so I apologize I guess.

---

303 if you want the motherload of what all there is you can read the regents response in the Shillinglaw lawsuit here

Obviously such a document is not proof of anything in and of itself, it is a detailed summary of what they have on Briles. If they can back that up, which IMO they can, firing Briles is not a difficult decision.

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Chanceux said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

303Bear said:

---

Its always fun when people take accusations and innuendo at truth, and any available information as evidence.

Threads like this is why we have a legal system.

---

the only side without evidence are the supporters of Briles. BTW, I still love Art Briles. I'm thankful for everything he did. But he earned this the moment it became clear he was hiding things from Judicial Affairs. You simply can't come back from that.

But I still believe in his redemption. I still think he can learn from this and move on and coach. I don't think he's beyond redemption. But I don't see how he could have kept his job here.

---

Err dadgum program in the country hides stuff from the people who make the school rules. Its fireable. That aint a question. Some schools dont do diddly when the coach gets caught. Covering up rapes is a whole nother hill of beans.

---

First off, the "everyone does it" rule doesn't ****ing play for me. We're here to serve God and to be righteous. Any state school fan say that, and I'd roll my eyes and be glad I went to a University where values mean something.

Secondly, people judge you by your actions. When you have a coach who is actively keeping things out of the eyes of Judicial Affairs -which he did when he tried to keep a player asking for a handy quiet- then one can't argue it sets a tone. If you think they would cover up a hand-job, but stop at a guy intimidating or roughing up his girlfriend, then you have more faith in him than his subsequent actions have earned.

---

I think its a big ol leap to say that some kid whippin his ding dong out and beatin up his girlfriend are the same. In fact didn't Chafin's mamacita tell her own coach? How'd that go? I think she got a self worth pamphlet. Keeping a kid that got boozed up away from the folks over in judicious affairs and making him some run the stairs is no more serving God than having him get suspended. Course that aint sexual assault. And if you wanna be glad that your alma mater has values then I reckon you better hold yer nose while you read through the news clippings. It aint pretty.

Keyser Soze said:

---

303Bear said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

303Bear said:

---

Quote:

---

Interested to get your perspective on what made it clear Briles was hiding things from Judicial Affairs.

Not reporting something is not hiding per se, and I have not seen anything to indicated he ever told someone not to report or prevented reporting.

---

---

sigh... for the 190th ****ING time...

---

Ok guy, unwad your panties, its gonna be ok. Had not seen that article or the excerpts from the texts, so I apologize I guess.

---

303 if you want the motherload of what all there is you can read the regents response in the Shillinglaw lawsuit here

Obviously such a document is not proof of anything in and of itself, it is a detailed summary of what they have on Briles. If they can back that up, which IMO they can, firing Briles is not a difficult decision.

---

Thanks Keyser, I have read that, or at least skimmed it previously.

I do not necessarily disagree that Briles should have been fired, nor do I think he should / ever will be re-hired.

I refuse, however, as a rule to take any pleadings in a lawsuit at face value, the complaint or the response.

Chanceux said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Chanceux said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

303Bear said:

---

Its always fun when people take accusations and innuendo at truth, and any available information as evidence.

Threads like this is why we have a legal system.

---

the only side without evidence are the supporters of Briles. BTW, I still love Art Briles. I'm thankful for everything he did. But he earned this the moment it became clear he was hiding things from Judicial Affairs. You simply can't come back from that.

But I still believe in his redemption. I still think he can learn from this and move on and coach. I don't think he's beyond redemption. But I don't see how he could have kept his job here.

---

Err dadgum program in the country hides stuff from the people who make the school rules. Its fireable. That aint a question. Some schools dont do diddly when the coach gets caught. Covering up rapes is a whole nother hill of beans.

---

First off, the "everyone does it" rule doesn't ****ing play for me. We're here to serve God and to be righteous. Any state school fan say that, and I'd roll my eyes and be glad I went to a University where values mean something.

Secondly, people judge you by your actions. When you have a coach who is actively keeping things out of the eyes of Judicial Affairs -which he did when he tried to keep a player asking for a handy quiet- then one can't argue it sets a tone. If you think they would cover up a hand-job, but stop at a guy intimidating or roughing up his girlfriend, then you have more faith in him than his subsequent actions have earned.

---

I think its a big ol leap to say that some kid whippin his ding dong out and beatin up his girlfriend are the same. In fact didn't Chafin's mamacita tell her own coach? How'd that go? I think she got a self worth pamphlet. Keeping a get that got boozed up away from the folks over in judicious affairs and making him some run the stairs is no more serving God than having him get suspended. Course that aint sexual assault. And if you wanna be glad that your alma mater has values then I reckon you better hold yer nose while you read through the news clippings. It aint pretty.

---

No a kid getting drunk is not that big of deal. The documenting it was to support the pattern found



Per the regents:

"At some point, Pepper Hamilton stopped collecting such examples, which were not directly within the scope of its engagement. There could be dozens more, but Pepper Hamilton believed it had compiled enough to support a conclusion that those in charge of the football program, including Shillinglaw, improperly covered up disciplinary problems other than sexual assault. "

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Chanceux said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

303Bear said:

---

Its always fun when people take accusations and innuendo at truth, and any available information as evidence.

Threads like this is why we have a legal system.

---

the only side without evidence are the supporters of Briles. BTW, I still love Art Briles. I'm thankful for everything he did. But he earned this the moment it became clear he was hiding things from Judicial Affairs. You simply can't come back from that.

But I still believe in his redemption. I still think he can learn from this and move on and coach. I don't think he's beyond redemption. But I don't see how he could have kept his job here.

---

Err dadgum program in the country hides stuff from the people who make the school rules. Its fireable. That aint a question. Some schools dont do diddly when the coach gets caught. Covering up rapes is a whole nother hill of beans.

---

First off, the "everyone does it" rule doesn't ****ing play for me. We're here to serve God and to be righteous. Any state school fan say that, and I'd roll my eyes and be glad I went to a University where values mean something.

Secondly, people judge you by your actions. When you have a coach who is actively keeping things out of the eyes of Judicial Affairs -which he did when he tried to keep a player asking for a handy quiet- then one can't argue it sets a tone. If you think they would cover up a hand-job, but stop at a guy intimidating or roughing up his girlfriend, then you have more faith in him than his subsequent actions have earned.

---

You might be more believable with fewer F-bombs. Just sayin'.

Keyser Soze said:

---

Chanceux said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Chanceux said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

303Bear said:

---

Its always fun when people take accusations and innuendo at truth, and any available information as evidence.

Threads like this is why we have a legal system.

---

the only side without evidence are the supporters of Briles. BTW, I still love Art Briles. I'm thankful for everything he did. But he earned this the moment it became clear he was hiding things from Judicial Affairs. You simply can't come back from that.

But I still believe in his redemption. I still think he can learn from this and move on and coach. I don't think he's beyond redemption. But I don't see how he could have kept his job here.

---

Err dadgum program in the country hides stuff from the people who make the school rules. Its fireable. That aint a question. Some schools dont do diddly when the coach gets caught. Covering up rapes is a whole nother hill of beans.

---

First off, the "everyone does it" rule doesn't ****ing play for me. We're here to serve God and to be righteous. Any state school fan say that, and I'd roll my eyes and be glad I went to a University where values mean something.

Secondly, people judge you by your actions. When you have a coach who is actively keeping things out of the eyes of Judicial Affairs -which he did when he tried to keep a player asking for a handy quiet- then one can't argue it sets a tone. If you think they would cover up a hand-job, but stop at a guy intimidating or roughing up his girlfriend, then you have more faith in him than his subsequent actions have earned.

---

I think its a big ol leap to say that some kid whippin his ding dong out and beatin up his girlfriend are the same. In fact didn't Chafin's mamacita tell her own coach? How'd that go? I think she got a self worth pamphlet. Keeping a get that got boozed up away from the folks over in judicious affairs and making him some run the stairs is no more serving God than having him get suspended. Course that aint sexual assault. And if you wanna be glad that your alma mater has values then I reckon you better hold yer nose while you read through the news clippings. It aint pretty.

---

No a kid getting drunk is not that big of deal. The documenting it was to support the pattern found



Per the regents:

"At some point, Pepper Hamilton stopped collecting such examples, which were not directly within the scope of its engagement. There could be dozens more, but Pepper Hamilton believed it had compiled enough to support a conclusion that those in charge of the football program, including Shillinglaw, improperly covered up disciplinary problems other than sexual assault. "

---

Yessir and I aint gonna argue that we had coaches with junior high brains and that all that is fireable. I just dont think ya fire Briles for anything but covering up rapes. Other steps are possible. Making him sign that no talky talk paper is a might suspicious as well.

Dungeon Athletics said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Chanceux said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

303Bear said:

---

Its always fun when people take accusations and innuendo at truth, and any available information as evidence.

Threads like this is why we have a legal system.

---

the only side without evidence are the supporters of Briles. BTW, I still love Art Briles. I'm thankful for everything he did. But he earned this the moment it became clear he was hiding things from Judicial Affairs. You simply can't come back from that.

But I still believe in his redemption. I still think he can learn from this and move on and coach. I don't think he's beyond redemption. But I don't see how he could have kept his job here.

---

Err dadgum program in the country hides stuff from the people who make the school rules. Its fireable. That aint a question. Some schools dont do diddly when the coach gets caught. Covering up rapes is a whole nother hill of beans.

---

First off, the "everyone does it" rule doesn't ****ing play for me. We're here to serve God and to be righteous. Any state school fan say that, and I'd roll my eyes and be glad I went to a University where values mean something.

Secondly, people judge you by your actions. When you have a coach who is actively keeping things out of the eyes of Judicial Affairs -which he did when he tried to keep a player asking for a handy quiet- then one can't argue it sets a tone. If you think they would cover up a hand-job, but stop at a guy intimidating or roughing up his girlfriend, then you have more faith in him than his subsequent actions have earned.

---

You might be more believable with fewer F-bombs. Just sayin'.

---

"I can't argue with what you say, so I'll just critique how you said it."

Thanks for your continued contribution to the conversation.

You'll defend a man who conspired to hide multiple transgressions of his players from the University itself. But you'll clutch your pearls and say I'm not believable because I drop an F-bomb out of frustration from having to make a point about information available for over a year?

Gotcha.

303Bear said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

303Bear said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

303Bear said:

---

Quote:

---

Interested to get your perspective on what made it clear Briles was hiding things from Judicial Affairs.

Not reporting something is not hiding per se, and I have not seen anything to indicated he ever told someone not to report or prevented reporting.

---

---

sigh... for the 190th ****ING time...

---

Ok guy, unwad your panties, its gonna be ok. Had not seen that article or the excerpts from the texts, so I apologize I guess.

---

303 if you want the motherload of what all there is you can read the regents response in the Shillinglaw lawsuit here

Obviously such a document is not proof of anything in and of itself, it is a detailed summary of what they have on Briles. If they can back that up, which IMO they can, firing Briles is not a difficult decision.

---

Thanks Keyser, I have read that, or at least skimmed it previously.

I do not necessarily disagree that Briles should have been fired, nor do I think he should / ever will be re-hired.

I refuse, however, as a rule to take any pleadings in a lawsuit at face value, the complaint or the response.

---

That is fair. There has been next to nothing to refute what they put out. Like a puzzle piece everything fits perfectly with the Findings of Fact summary given nine month earlier. Shillinglaw and Briles both dropped their lawsuits just before and after this was released. Even the upset big money donors went silent after it's release.

BrooksBearLives said:

---

303Bear said:

---

Its always fun when people take accusations and innuendo at truth, and any available information as evidence.

Threads like this is why we have a legal system.

---

the only side without evidence are the supporters of Briles.

---

The absence of evidence is evidence

JXL said:

---

mmodine said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

mmodine said:

---

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.

---

As it has been stated by many professors and coaches, BU did not have Title 9 in place so the mandatory reporting was not in place. Also, any decent person may also give advice such as call the police. What did Briles hide? Baylor wrote a letter saying they didn't find he hid anything. As we have all seen on here for the past year, you actively try to show that Briles is guilty. Your mind is made up and you will smear him any chance you get. You're about as credible as Brenda Tracy.

---

School policy was in place even if T9 was unknown

How sincere is it to tell someone who has said they don't want to call the police, to call the police?

You need to reread that letter a few times - covers very little

---

If it is a crime they should tell the police.

---

It's been estimated that 80 percent of rape victims don't report it to the police.

---

How would anyone be able to estimate this number?

BrooksBearLives said:

---

.... a man who conspired to hide multiple transgressions of his players from the University itself.

---

This isn't true

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Dungeon Athletics said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Chanceux said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

303Bear said:

---

Its always fun when people take accusations and innuendo at truth, and any available information as evidence.

Threads like this is why we have a legal system.

---

the only side without evidence are the supporters of Briles. BTW, I still love Art Briles. I'm thankful for everything he did. But he earned this the moment it became clear he was hiding things from Judicial Affairs. You simply can't come back from that.

But I still believe in his redemption. I still think he can learn from this and move on and coach. I don't think he's beyond redemption. But I don't see how he could have kept his job here.

---

Err dadgum program in the country hides stuff from the people who make the school rules. Its fireable. That aint a question. Some schools dont do diddly when the coach gets caught. Covering up rapes is a whole nother hill of beans.

---

First off, the "everyone does it" rule doesn't ****ing play for me. We're here to serve God and to be righteous. Any state school fan say that, and I'd roll my eyes and be glad I went to a University where values mean something.

Secondly, people judge you by your actions. When you have a coach who is actively keeping things out of the eyes of Judicial Affairs -which he did when he tried to keep a player asking for a handy quiet- then one can't argue it sets a tone. If you think they would cover up a hand-job, but stop at a guy intimidating or roughing up his girlfriend, then you have more faith in him than his subsequent actions have earned.

---

You might be more believable with fewer F-bombs. Just sayin'.

---

"I can't argue with what you say, so I'll just critique how you said it."

Thanks for your continued contribution to the conversation.

You'll defend a man who conspired to hide multiple transgressions of his players from the University itself. But you'll clutch your pearls and say I'm not believable because I drop an F-bomb out of frustration from having to make a point about information available for over a year?

Gotcha.

---

Still rolling with this argument that has no evidence behind it. You may want to believe your story for some reason bc it makes it give the BOR's an escape from the ineptitude, but you are just grasping at straws. We only know what the evidence shows, and that is that 1 person have been proven guilty of anything.

303Bear said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

303Bear said:

---

Quote:

---

Interested to get your perspective on what made it clear Briles was hiding things from Judicial Affairs.

Not reporting something is not hiding per se, and I have not seen anything to indicated he ever told someone not to report or prevented reporting.

---

---

sigh... for the 190th ****ING time...

---

Ok guy, unwad your panties, its gonna be ok. Had not seen that article or the excerpts from the texts, so I apologize I guess.

---

I guess that explains a lot of your reticence to dismiss Briles. But this is REALLY important information. And it's been available for MONTHS.

I sincerely don't know how someone could make a decision on how they feel on this without having read this.

Personally, I was where a lot of y'all are now before I read this. I figured Briles had been sacrificed because so much happened and that the University wanted to move on. My hero worship of him -and it was absolutely that- wouldn't let me see that he was a guy willing to cut moral corners to get a better product on the field.

My perception of him changed the instant I saw he was hiding things from Baylor. In that second, I realized the University had no other choice. Period.

If your employer can't trust you to do what you're told to do, and to tell them the truth, then you can't stay employed. I'd rather have someone work for me that made mistakes and was honest than one who was perfect, but lies all the time.

xiledinok said:

---

Osodecentx 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.

---

I respect Keyser. I think he is incorrect, but he is sincere.

You, on the other hand, are not

---

Jerry Sandusky and Art have something big in common and it is not Baylor's, mine, any poster without a financial incentive to post or anyone else not associated.

---

False

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

.... a man who conspired to hide multiple transgressions of his players from the University itself.

---

This isn't true

---

Yes it is.

On April 8, 2011, after a freshman defensive tackle was cited for illegal consumption of alcohol, Coach Briles sent a text message to an assistant coach: "Hopefully he's under radar enough they won't recognize name did he get ticket from Baylor police or Waco? Just trying to keep him away from our judicial affairs folks...."

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Dungeon Athletics said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Chanceux said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

303Bear said:

---

Its always fun when people take accusations and innuendo at truth, and any available information as evidence.

Threads like this is why we have a legal system.

---

the only side without evidence are the supporters of Briles. BTW, I still love Art Briles. I'm thankful for everything he did. But he earned this the moment it became clear he was hiding things from Judicial Affairs. You simply can't come back from that.

But I still believe in his redemption. I still think he can learn from this and move on and coach. I don't think he's beyond redemption. But I don't see how he could have kept his job here.

---

Err dadgum program in the country hides stuff from the people who make the school rules. Its fireable. That aint a question. Some schools dont do diddly when the coach gets caught. Covering up rapes is a whole nother hill of beans.

---

First off, the "everyone does it" rule doesn't ****ing play for me. We're here to serve God and to be righteous. Any state school fan say that, and I'd roll my eyes and be glad I went to a University where values mean something.

Secondly, people judge you by your actions. When you have a coach who is actively keeping things out of the eyes of Judicial Affairs -which he did when he tried to keep a player asking for a handy quiet- then one can't argue it sets a tone. If you think they would cover up a hand-job, but stop at a guy intimidating or roughing up his girlfriend, then you have more faith in him than his subsequent actions have earned.

---

You might be more believable with fewer F-bombs. Just sayin'.

---

"I can't argue with what you say, so I'll just critique how you said it."

Thanks for your continued contribution to the conversation.

You'll defend a man who conspired to hide multiple transgressions of his players from the University itself. But you'll clutch your pearls and say I'm not believable because I drop an F-bomb out of frustration from having to make a point about information available for over a year?

Gotcha.

---

He's got a deeper agenda than simply defending Briles, just give it time.

Mr. Actuary, yeah right mofo