BrooksBearLives said:

---

I hear what you're saying. But there is no WAY there's a head football coach in existence (much less P5 school) who can pretend to not know what to do after the Paterno/Sandusky scandal.

That is impossible to me.

The ENTIRE case was about proper reporting and disclosure. Period. Anyone trying to argue otherwise isn't being an honest prevaricator.

---

We agree and that's kind of my point. Having a system that intentionally creates separation between the HMFIC and knowledge of what's going on off the field is no excuse. Maintaining that system in light of everything going on just makes it worse, if that did happen.

For those asking the University Policy at the time:

"Under Title IX and Clery, a University must have campus policies and procedures for the reporting and investigation of reported sexual assaults. This is in addition to any criminal law enforcement action a victim may seek. Many university employees have reporting responsibilities and if they learn of a reported sexual assault, they must share the report with the designated official on campus. In 2013, Athletic Department coaches and staff should have reported the incident to one of three places: the University's Title IX Coordinator (then the VP of Human Resources), Judicial Affairs, or the Baylor University Police Department, all of whom would have been in a position to assist the victim and take responsive action. While a victim may choose where or how to report a sexual assault, once informed of the report, athletics personnel may not exercise discretion to not report."

https://www.baylor.edu/thefacts/news.php?action=story&story=174834

Keyser Soze said:

---

For those asking the University Policy at the time:

"Under Title IX and Clery, a University must have campus policies and procedures for the reporting and investigation of reported sexual assaults. This is in addition to any criminal law enforcement action a victim may seek. Many university employees have reporting responsibilities and if they learn of a reported sexual assault, they must share the report with the designated official on campus. In 2013, Athletic Department coaches and staff should have reported the incident to one of three places: the University's Title IX Coordinator (then the VP of Human Resources), Judicial Affairs, or the Baylor University Police Department, all of whom would have been in a position to assist the victim and take responsive action. While a victim may choose where or how to report a sexual assault, once informed of the report, athletics personnel may not exercise discretion to not report."

https://www.baylor.edu/thefacts/news.php?action=story&story=174834

---

Uh oh...

Mandatory report to specific personnel. If HR is worth their salt, they have a signed acknowledgement of that Employee Handbook. I did a new one last week for my higher education employer.

So Ian and Briles were in violation. If Barnes called Judicial Affairs as alleged, then he was fine. Would not mean Ian and Art are in compliance. Ian being "aware" means absolutely nothing for Briles.

Crimes?! What crimes?!

https://tineye.com/query/77bb78cde16074efaebc8da5e52af0bdee6a541f?size=160

NoBSU said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

For those asking the University Policy at the time:

"Under Title IX and Clery, a University must have campus policies and procedures for the reporting and investigation of reported sexual assaults. This is in addition to any criminal law enforcement action a victim may seek. Many university employees have reporting responsibilities and if they learn of a reported sexual assault, they must share the report with the designated official on campus. In 2013, Athletic Department coaches and staff should have reported the incident to one of three places: the University's Title IX Coordinator (then the VP of Human Resources), Judicial Affairs, or the Baylor University Police Department, all of whom would have been in a position to assist the victim and take responsive action. While a victim may choose where or how to report a sexual assault, once informed of the report, athletics personnel may not exercise discretion to not report."

https://www.baylor.edu/thefacts/news.php?action=story&story=174834

---

Uh oh...

Mandatory report to specific personnel. If HR is worth their salt, they have a signed acknowledgement of that Employee Handbook. I did a new one last week for my higher education employer.

So Ian and Briles were in violation. If Barnes called Judicial Affairs as alleged, then he was fine. Would not mean Ian and Art are in compliance. Ian being "aware" means absolutely nothing for Briles.

---

Missing a few points here.

1) The "report" made directly to Barnes was 14 moths after the incident. This was well beyond the reporting period limitation under the OCR guidance at the time, and beyond the later extended report time under the further guidance which is now the standard.
2) The parent of the player was involved and neither the player, nor the parent wanted the incident reported to police or university.
3) Barnes (as the recipient of the first-hand "report") made the others (who received the "report" second-hand) aware of his call to JA.
4) The player was withdrawn from school the next day, meaning no T9 investigation would have occurred. (How long does an employee have to report second-hand information? Ten minutes, One hour, Close of Business, End of the week, 24 hours, 48 hours?) Less than 24 hours later she was no longer a student.
5) All of the football players involved had either already left school, or, in the case of the one player left, on suspension for other things. If the complainant had still been a student (which she was not as of the next day), the T9 process would have lasted only as long as the last football player had been enrolled.
6) Barnes was fired (and no one else), and his replacement hired, two years before the PH investigation.

Finally, what "responsive action" could the Baylor University Police Department provide a "victim" (who didn't want to report) 14 months after an incident?

This is just a very bad case to hang terminations on, considering also that all of this was known at the time of Barnes' dismissal. If others should have been dismissed as well, then who made the decision not to dismiss them? That decision had to be based on university policy in effect at the time.

Malbec said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

For those asking the University Policy at the time:

"Under Title IX and Clery, a University must have campus policies and procedures for the reporting and investigation of reported sexual assaults. This is in addition to any criminal law enforcement action a victim may seek. Many university employees have reporting responsibilities and if they learn of a reported sexual assault, they must share the report with the designated official on campus. In 2013, Athletic Department coaches and staff should have reported the incident to one of three places: the University's Title IX Coordinator (then the VP of Human Resources), Judicial Affairs, or the Baylor University Police Department, all of whom would have been in a position to assist the victim and take responsive action. While a victim may choose where or how to report a sexual assault, once informed of the report, athletics personnel may not exercise discretion to not report."

https://www.baylor.edu/thefacts/news.php?action=story&story=174834

---

Uh oh...

Mandatory report to specific personnel. If HR is worth their salt, they have a signed acknowledgement of that Employee Handbook. I did a new one last week for my higher education employer.

So Ian and Briles were in violation. If Barnes called Judicial Affairs as alleged, then he was fine. Would not mean Ian and Art are in compliance. Ian being "aware" means absolutely nothing for Briles.

---

Missing a few points here.

1) The "report" made directly to Barnes was 14 moths after the incident. This was well beyond the reporting period limitation under the OCR guidance at the time, and beyond the later extended report time under the further guidance which is now the standard.
2) The parent of the player was involved and neither the player, nor the parent wanted the incident reported to police or university.
3) Barnes (as the recipient of the first-hand "report") made the others (who received the "report" second-hand) aware of his call to JA.
4) The player was withdrawn from school the next day, meaning no T9 investigation would have occurred. (How long does an employee have to report second-hand information? Ten minutes, One hour, Close of Business, End of the week, 24 hours, 48 hours?) Less than 24 hours later she was no longer a student.
5) All of the football players involved had either already left school, or, in the case of the one player left, on suspension for other things. If the complainant had still been a student (which she was not as of the next day), the T9 process would have lasted only as long as the last football player had been enrolled.
6) Barnes was fired (and no one else), and his replacement hired, two years before the PH investigation.

Finally, what "responsive action" could the Baylor University Police Department provide a "victim" (who didn't want to report) 14 months after an incident?

This is just a very bad case to hang terminations on, considering also that all of this was known at the time of Barnes' dismissal. If others should have been dismissed as well, then who made the decision not to dismiss them? That decision had to be based on university policy in effect at the time.

---

Did you miss the mention of Clery Act? I will read thru your points in me detail later. I am not understanding your point in some. Reporting is usually based on "knowledge of" not date of assault. I am not understanding your timeline of victim and accused. Title IX/Clery hears of something 14 months after the assault, everyone is gone from Baylor, Title IX opens file, Title IX closes file if nobody is talking. If not on campus (defined BU area), Clery personnel move on. I was not aware Barnes waited 14 months to report?

Malbec said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

For those asking the University Policy at the time:

"Under Title IX and Clery, a University must have campus policies and procedures for the reporting and investigation of reported sexual assaults. This is in addition to any criminal law enforcement action a victim may seek. Many university employees have reporting responsibilities and if they learn of a reported sexual assault, they must share the report with the designated official on campus. In 2013, Athletic Department coaches and staff should have reported the incident to one of three places: the University's Title IX Coordinator (then the VP of Human Resources), Judicial Affairs, or the Baylor University Police Department, all of whom would have been in a position to assist the victim and take responsive action. While a victim may choose where or how to report a sexual assault, once informed of the report, athletics personnel may not exercise discretion to not report."

https://www.baylor.edu/thefacts/news.php?action=story&story=174834

---

Uh oh...

Mandatory report to specific personnel. If HR is worth their salt, they have a signed acknowledgement of that Employee Handbook. I did a new one last week for my higher education employer.

So Ian and Briles were in violation. If Barnes called Judicial Affairs as alleged, then he was fine. Would not mean Ian and Art are in compliance. Ian being "aware" means absolutely nothing for Briles.

---

Missing a few points here.

1) The "report" made directly to Barnes was 14 moths after the incident. This was well beyond the reporting period limitation under the OCR guidance at the time, and beyond the later extended report time under the further guidance which is now the standard.

That really would not change school policy.

2) The parent of the player was involved and neither the player, nor the parent wanted the incident reported to police or university.

Per the Victims T9 lawsuit, she never said she didn't want it reported to the University

3) Barnes (as the recipient of the first-hand "report") made the others (who received the "report" second-hand) aware of his call to JA.

Barnes only asked questions about reporting to JA, never reported anything in any fashion. Even if he had fully reported, it would not have changed others obligations to report.

4) The player was withdrawn from school the next day, meaning no T9 investigation would have occurred. (How long does an employee have to report second-hand information? Ten minutes, One hour, Close of Business, End of the week, 24 hours, 48 hours?) Less than 24 hours later she was no longer a student.

Correct, don't know

5) All of the football players involved had either already left school, or, in the case of the one player left, on suspension for other things. If the complainant had still been a student (which she was not as of the next day), the T9 process would have lasted only as long as the last football player had been enrolled.

This was not true at the time Briles was given the five names of the "bad dudes". They were all gone sometime later when Patty Crawford became aware of the event. This is where "posed a risk to campus safety and the integrity of the University" comes from in the Findings of Facts, as univestigated alleged rapist were left unchecked on campus.

6) Barnes was fired (and no one else), and his replacement hired, two years before the PH investigation.

Ian told Barnes they wanted to go in a different direction. He was not officially fired over this, Barnes in "Violated" said he believes he was fired so he and newly hired Title IX Officer Patty Crawford never get together.


Finally, what "responsive action" could the Baylor University Police Department provide a "victim" (who didn't want to report) 14 months after an incident?

Academic accommodations and counseling for the victim for starts - PTSD lingers sometimes a lifetime, 14 months is nothing.

This is just a very bad case to hang terminations on, considering also that all of this was known at the time of Barnes' dismissal. If others should have been dismissed as well, then who made the decision not to dismiss them? That decision had to be based on university policy in effect at the time.

---

(edits spelling)

The Baylor Police Dept doesn't provide "academic accommodation." At least I hope they don't.

Also, I think you may have your "bad dudes" incidents confused.

Barnes was the most successful volleyball coach in school history. Why do you think he was fired?

Barnes did not wait 14 months to report. The player waited 14 months to "report." She reported the day she told Barnes she was leaving school. His efforts were with the intention of trying to get his best player to stay at Baylor. She had already made up her mind to leave before she told Barnes. She was gone the next day.

Read my reply above.

Barnes himself implied Ian was keeping him away from Patty Crawford

Malbec said:

---

The Baylor Police Dept doesn't provide "academic accommodation." At least I hope they don't.

---

They are named to the reporting team so they can start a file to put accommodations in motion. I am surprised to see them named.

I think you are having trouble with the "knowledge of" part. That took about 10 minutes to convey to me by an experienced trainer on my mandatory Title IX/Clery Act training. It isn't a question of when the act occurred. An employee doesn't think the report thru as to whether the report has value. You learn of it. You report it. You are clear.

Keyser Soze said:

---

Read my reply above.

Barnes himself implied Ian was keeping him away from Patty Crawford

---

I read your reply. I wasn't asking you what Barnes thought. I was asking you what YOU thought.

Malbec said:

---

Barnes did not wait 14 months to report. The player waited 14 months to "report." She reported the day she told Barnes she was leaving school. His efforts were with the intention of trying to get his best player to stay at Baylor. She had already made up her mind to leave before she told Barnes. She was gone the next day.

---

Doesn't matter even if she was loading her car as she told him. He has knowledge. He reports. He informs Ian or Art, they report.

I have to run. You two have fun.

Don't know other what I posted above.

100% speculation here: Barnes and Hill may have been collateral damage for the actions / inactions of Briles and McCraw

NoBSU said:

---

Malbec said:

---

The Baylor Police Dept doesn't provide "academic accommodation." At least I hope they don't.

---

They are named to the reporting team so they can start a file to put accommodations in motion. I am surprised to see them named.

I think you are having trouble with the "knowledge of" part. That took about 10 minutes to convey to me by an experienced trainer on my mandatory Title IX/Clery Act training. It isn't a question of when the act occurred. An employee doesn't think the report thru as to whether the report has value. You learn of it. You report it. You are clear.

---

I guess I am not being plain or something. I don't question what your training told you to do, unless you were trained by Baylor University prior to the date that Barnes was told of the incident by his player. Were you?

And I am not having trouble with the "knowledge of" part. I am having trouble with the common sense part and the moot part. If you had not been trained in accordance with the OCR guidance ( and thousands upon thousands of university employees were not in 2013), and you learned about an incident second-hand from another employee who learned of it first-hand (and was the player's coach), and told you they had already contacted Judicial Affairs, it would not be unreasonable to assume there would be no need to re-report the incident (especially since all of the information you had to provide was given to you be the person who had already reported it). And, if you later find out (like in the next 24 hours) that it hadn't been reported, but that the "complainant" was withdrawn from school and was not a student, then it's no longer a T9 issue is it? A report and investigation is moot.

Keyser Soze said:

---

Don't know other what I posted above.

100% speculation here: Barnes and Hill may have been collateral damage for the actions / inactions of Briles and McCraw

---

How can Barnes be collateral damage if he received the report first-hand and failed to make a T9 report? Hill could be considered as such, but he stated that he was not told of an "assault," just a mention in passing about "some incident" at a party the year before. Don't know why he would have any obligation to report anything when he wasn't told that some violation of anything had happened.

Malbec said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

Malbec said:

---

The Baylor Police Dept doesn't provide "academic accommodation." At least I hope they don't.

---

They are named to the reporting team so they can start a file to put accommodations in motion. I am surprised to see them named.

I think you are having trouble with the "knowledge of" part. That took about 10 minutes to convey to me by an experienced trainer on my mandatory Title IX/Clery Act training. It isn't a question of when the act occurred. An employee doesn't think the report thru as to whether the report has value. You learn of it. You report it. You are clear.

---

I guess I am not being plain or something. I don't question what your training told you to do, unless you were trained by Baylor University prior to the date that Barnes was told of the incident by his player. Were you?

And I am not having trouble with the "knowledge of" part. I am having trouble with the common sense part and the moot part. If you had not been trained in accordance with the OCR guidance ( and thousands upon thousands of university employees were not in 2013), and you learned about an incident second-hand from another employee who learned of it first-hand (and was the player's coach), and told you they had already contacted Judicial Affairs, it would not be unreasonable to assume there would be no need to re-report the incident (especially since all of the information you had to provide was given to you be the person who had already reported it). And, if you later find out (like in the next 24 hours) that it hadn't been reported, but that the "complainant" was withdrawn from school and was not a student, then it's no longer a T9 issue is it? A report and investigation is moot.

---

Why are you interpreting the guidance for this matter unless you are one of the persons at Baylor these coaches were supposed to report an event. Were you?

Otherwise, the above link states the duty to report. You are simply justifying the violation.

My training was not at Baylor, but the logic behind staff having the requirement of mandatory reporting to Title IX and Clery designated officials is the same at all institutions. It protects the school. The decision of what is important or moot are in a trained administrator's hands not a staff members. If you gain knowledge, then you report to a designated person.

I have said many times that I thought the media blew "Briles didn't report this event to Title IX out of proportion. I also said that I had not seen anything stating the Baylor Policy policy at that time. Meaning did Baylor require reporting to designated persons or could you report to a supervisor.

Did Briles have the training or review a written copy of the policy? If not, Ian and somebody at HR are responsible for not forcing compliance. If he is on record as of reviewing his responsibility to report, then didn't. You can quit you spinning Malbec, he is vulnerable on this issue.

Malbec said:

---

Barnes was the most successful volleyball coach in school history. Why do you think he was fired?

---

Players wouldn't play for him

Robemcdo said:

---

Malbec said:

---

Barnes was the most successful volleyball coach in school history. Why do you think he was fired?

---

Players wouldn't play for him

---

Lulz, oh the spin direct from the CAB household itself.

Your boy had him railroaded out of town because he knew too much.

Keyser Soze said:

---

Malbec said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

For those asking the University Policy at the time:

"Under Title IX and Clery, a University must have campus policies and procedures for the reporting and investigation of reported sexual assaults. This is in addition to any criminal law enforcement action a victim may seek. Many university employees have reporting responsibilities and if they learn of a reported sexual assault, they must share the report with the designated official on campus. In 2013, Athletic Department coaches and staff should have reported the incident to one of three places: the University's Title IX Coordinator (then the VP of Human Resources), Judicial Affairs, or the Baylor University Police Department, all of whom would have been in a position to assist the victim and take responsive action. While a victim may choose where or how to report a sexual assault, once informed of the report, athletics personnel may not exercise discretion to not report."

https://www.baylor.edu/thefacts/news.php?action=story&story=174834

---

Uh oh...

Mandatory report to specific personnel. If HR is worth their salt, they have a signed acknowledgement of that Employee Handbook. I did a new one last week for my higher education employer.

So Ian and Briles were in violation. If Barnes called Judicial Affairs as alleged, then he was fine. Would not mean Ian and Art are in compliance. Ian being "aware" means absolutely nothing for Briles.

---

Missing a few points here.

1) The "report" made directly to Barnes was 14 moths after the incident. This was well beyond the reporting period limitation under the OCR guidance at the time, and beyond the later extended report time under the further guidance which is now the standard.

That really would not change school policy.

2) The parent of the player was involved and neither the player, nor the parent wanted the incident reported to police or university.

Per the Victims T9 lawsuit, she never said she didn't want it reported to the University

3) Barnes (as the recipient of the first-hand "report") made the others (who received the "report" second-hand) aware of his call to JA.

Barnes only asked questions about reporting to JA, never reported anything in any fashion. Even if he had fully reported, it would not have changed others obligations to report.

4) The player was withdrawn from school the next day, meaning no T9 investigation would have occurred. (How long does an employee have to report second-hand information? Ten minutes, One hour, Close of Business, End of the week, 24 hours, 48 hours?) Less than 24 hours later she was no longer a student.

Correct, don't know

5) All of the football players involved had either already left school, or, in the case of the one player left, on suspension for other things. If the complainant had still been a student (which she was not as of the next day), the T9 process would have lasted only as long as the last football player had been enrolled.

This was not true at the time Briles was given the five names of the "bad dudes". They were all gone sometime later when Patty Crawford became aware of the event. This is where "posed a risk to campus safety and the integrity of the University" comes from in the Findings of Facts, as univestigated alleged rapist were left unchecked on campus.

6) Barnes was fired (and no one else), and his replacement hired, two years before the PH investigation.

Ian told Barnes they wanted to go in a different direction. He was not officially fired over this, Barnes in "Violated" said he believes he was fired so he and newly hired Title IX Officer Patty Crawford never get together.


Finally, what "responsive action" could the Baylor University Police Department provide a "victim" (who didn't want to report) 14 months after an incident?

Academic accommodations and counseling for the victim for starts - PTSD lingers sometimes a lifetime, 14 months is nothing.

This is just a very bad case to hang terminations on, considering also that all of this was known at the time of Barnes' dismissal. If others should have been dismissed as well, then who made the decision not to dismiss them? That decision had to be based on university policy in effect at the time.

---

(edits spelling)

---

You have to report. Doesn't matter if the student dropped out. Doesn't matter if the student doesn't want it reported. Unless you have privilege (lawyer, clergyman or counselor) you HAVE to report.

It doesn't matter if it happened 10 minutes ago or 10 months ago. When you find out, You report.

And Briles knew this. It's mandatory Training.

You. Have. To. Give. It. Up.

Briles ****ed up. Bad. The BOR didn't make him **** up. He knew what he was supposed to do and he didn't do it.

NoBSU said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

For those asking the University Policy at the time:

"Under Title IX and Clery, a University must have campus policies and procedures for the reporting and investigation of reported sexual assaults. This is in addition to any criminal law enforcement action a victim may seek. Many university employees have reporting responsibilities and if they learn of a reported sexual assault, they must share the report with the designated official on campus. In 2013, Athletic Department coaches and staff should have reported the incident to one of three places: the University's Title IX Coordinator (then the VP of Human Resources), Judicial Affairs, or the Baylor University Police Department, all of whom would have been in a position to assist the victim and take responsive action. While a victim may choose where or how to report a sexual assault, once informed of the report, athletics personnel may not exercise discretion to not report."

https://www.baylor.edu/thefacts/news.php?action=story&story=174834

---

Uh oh...

Mandatory report to specific personnel. If HR is worth their salt, they have a signed acknowledgement of that Employee Handbook. I did a new one last week for my higher education employer.

So Ian and Briles were in violation. If Barnes called Judicial Affairs as alleged, then he was fine. Would not mean Ian and Art are in compliance. Ian being "aware" means absolutely nothing for Briles.

---

That's all swell and all but the vb coach called up the legal beagles and said hey what do I do. They said if it happens off campus there aint nothing they can do (and I reckon here's the big part) unless that girl presses charges. Thats a fact jack. That was good ol Baylor's off campus policy which I know from folks who work around Waco and help victims of sexual assault.

Don't excuse Briles or anybody else but it sure muddies the water like the swampy Brazos.

BrooksBearLives said:

---

You have to report. Doesn't matter if the student dropped out. Doesn't matter if the student doesn't want it reported. Unless you have privilege (lawyer, clergyman or counselor) you HAVE to report.

It doesn't matter if it happened 10 minutes ago or 10 months ago. When you find out, You report.

And Briles knew this. It's mandatory Training.

You. Have. To. Give. It. Up.

Briles ****ed up. Bad. The BOR didn't make him **** up. He knew what he was supposed to do and he didn't do it.

---

If Briles knew this, why didn't LaPrise Harris know it? She had a roster with 50 female athletes on it and has stated that she had more than 40 women come to her office (not all A&T athletes) to say they had been assaulted, yet she didn't make 40+ formal reports to JA or call Baylor police. She came right out and admitted such, then later threatened to sue the university. You keep making assumptions that university employees were properly trained on mandatory reporting, but the evidence shows differently.

Here is the problem, you can't have things both ways. If the incident with the volleyball player was never reported, and there was this conspiracy to cover it up, and the player was gone, and the coach was gone, and all the football players involved were gone, how did the PH investigators know about it in the first place to investigate it?

They knew about it because it WAS reported, all over campus. Barnes made a Herculean effort to try and get the player to stay, he talked to anyone and everyone to come up with some sort of solution. Coaches, administrators, the chaplain, regents, functionaries, JA officers. He made a lot of noise and was told that there was nothing that could be done. And it didn't matter what he did, the player wanted to transfer and that was that.

MilliVanilli said:

---

Robemcdo said:

---

Malbec said:

---

Barnes was the most successful volleyball coach in school history. Why do you think he was fired?

---

Players wouldn't play for him

---

Lulz, oh the spin direct from the CAB household itself.

Your boy had him railroaded out of town because he knew too much.

---

So CAB had him run out of town but he still claimed years later that CAB handled the situation "honorably and with the serious attention it deserved" - makes sense.

Malbec said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

You have to report. Doesn't matter if the student dropped out. Doesn't matter if the student doesn't want it reported. Unless you have privilege (lawyer, clergyman or counselor) you HAVE to report.

It doesn't matter if it happened 10 minutes ago or 10 months ago. When you find out, You report.

And Briles knew this. It's mandatory Training.

You. Have. To. Give. It. Up.

Briles ****ed up. Bad. The BOR didn't make him **** up. He knew what he was supposed to do and he didn't do it.

---

If Briles knew this, why didn't LaPrise Harris know it? She had a roster with 50 female athletes on it and has stated that she had more than 40 women come to her office (not all A&T athletes) to say they had been assaulted, yet she didn't make 40+ formal reports to JA or call Baylor police. She came right out and admitted such, then later threatened to sue the university. You keep making assumptions that university employees were properly trained on mandatory reporting, but the evidence shows differently.

Here is the problem, you can't have things both ways. If the incident with the volleyball player was never reported, and there was this conspiracy to cover it up, and the player was gone, and the coach was gone, and all the football players involved were gone, how did the PH investigators know about it in the first place to investigate it?

They knew about it because it WAS reported, all over campus. Barnes made a Herculean effort to try and get the player to stay, he talked to anyone and everyone to come up with some sort of solution. Coaches, administrators, the chaplain, regents, functionaries, JA officers. He made a lot of noise and was told that there was nothing that could be done. And it didn't matter what he did, the player wanted to transfer and that was that.

---

Your last paragraph has zero conflict with my opinion on this. If Barnes reported this to JA then he is clear. If Harris didn't report issues then she isn't clear. If Briles didn't report then he was not clear.

If Baylor Title IX administrators do not act, then it is on the administrators. Report and you are out of it. Every email that I am required to send on any issue, I print out. I also watch what I text on school phones. I have done that since Houston Nutt at Arkansas.

40+ assaults that Harris knows. Wow! First I am seeing that number. Any idea how many of those were football? How many of the males were athletes in general? Or were some of the accused females?

BearackObama said:

---

MilliVanilli said:

---

Robemcdo said:

---

Malbec said:

---

Barnes was the most successful volleyball coach in school history. Why do you think he was fired?

---

Players wouldn't play for him

---

Lulz, oh the spin direct from the CAB household itself.

Your boy had him railroaded out of town because he knew too much.

---

So CAB had him run out of town but he still claimed years later that CAB handled the situation "honorably and with the serious attention it deserved" - makes sense.

---

I know you're probably in his livngroom right now angry that your 18 months of propaganda has bore no fruit.

But yes, your thuggish boss had him silenced, Barnes problem is he was weak man morally himself and had things to silence him with.

NoBSU said:

---

Malbec said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

You have to report. Doesn't matter if the student dropped out. Doesn't matter if the student doesn't want it reported. Unless you have privilege (lawyer, clergyman or counselor) you HAVE to report.

It doesn't matter if it happened 10 minutes ago or 10 months ago. When you find out, You report.

And Briles knew this. It's mandatory Training.

You. Have. To. Give. It. Up.

Briles ****ed up. Bad. The BOR didn't make him **** up. He knew what he was supposed to do and he didn't do it.

---

If Briles knew this, why didn't LaPrise Harris know it? She had a roster with 50 female athletes on it and has stated that she had more than 40 women come to her office (not all A&T athletes) to say they had been assaulted, yet she didn't make 40+ formal reports to JA or call Baylor police. She came right out and admitted such, then later threatened to sue the university. You keep making assumptions that university employees were properly trained on mandatory reporting, but the evidence shows differently.

Here is the problem, you can't have things both ways. If the incident with the volleyball player was never reported, and there was this conspiracy to cover it up, and the player was gone, and the coach was gone, and all the football players involved were gone, how did the PH investigators know about it in the first place to investigate it?

They knew about it because it WAS reported, all over campus. Barnes made a Herculean effort to try and get the player to stay, he talked to anyone and everyone to come up with some sort of solution. Coaches, administrators, the chaplain, regents, functionaries, JA officers. He made a lot of noise and was told that there was nothing that could be done. And it didn't matter what he did, the player wanted to transfer and that was that.

---

Your last paragraph has zero conflict with my opinion on this. If Barnes reported thus to JA then he is clear. If Harris didn't report issues then she isn't clear. If Briles didn't report then he was not clear.

If Baylor Title IX administrators do not act, then it is on them. Every email that I am required to send on any issue, I print out. I also watch what I text on school phones. I have done that since Houston Nutt at Arkansas.

40+ assaults that Harris knows. Wow! First I am seeing that number. Any idea how many of those were football? How many of the males were athletes in general? Or were some of the accused females?

---

Whats odd is errbody in the athletic department not reporting things. Now that right there is either a conspiracy or Baylor had some piss poor policy. Shoot even if somebody thinks there was all this nasty stuff goin on ya gotta think that stuff would make its way over to the lawyers in the white tower.

And I guess Ill repeater my self. Off campus. Gotta file charges. Common knowledge from folks around Waco that worked with sexual assault victims. Baylor wasnt eager to help them.

NoBSU said:

---

Malbec said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

You have to report. Doesn't matter if the student dropped out. Doesn't matter if the student doesn't want it reported. Unless you have privilege (lawyer, clergyman or counselor) you HAVE to report.

It doesn't matter if it happened 10 minutes ago or 10 months ago. When you find out, You report.

And Briles knew this. It's mandatory Training.

You. Have. To. Give. It. Up.

Briles ****ed up. Bad. The BOR didn't make him **** up. He knew what he was supposed to do and he didn't do it.

---

If Briles knew this, why didn't LaPrise Harris know it? She had a roster with 50 female athletes on it and has stated that she had more than 40 women come to her office (not all A&T athletes) to say they had been assaulted, yet she didn't make 40+ formal reports to JA or call Baylor police. She came right out and admitted such, then later threatened to sue the university. You keep making assumptions that university employees were properly trained on mandatory reporting, but the evidence shows differently.

Here is the problem, you can't have things both ways. If the incident with the volleyball player was never reported, and there was this conspiracy to cover it up, and the player was gone, and the coach was gone, and all the football players involved were gone, how did the PH investigators know about it in the first place to investigate it?

They knew about it because it WAS reported, all over campus. Barnes made a Herculean effort to try and get the player to stay, he talked to anyone and everyone to come up with some sort of solution. Coaches, administrators, the chaplain, regents, functionaries, JA officers. He made a lot of noise and was told that there was nothing that could be done. And it didn't matter what he did, the player wanted to transfer and that was that.

---

Your last paragraph has zero conflict with my opinion on this. If Barnes reported this to JA then he is clear. If Harris didn't report issues then she isn't clear. If Briles didn't report then he was not clear.

If Baylor Title IX administrators do not act, then it is on the administrators. Report and you are out of it. Every email that I am required to send on any issue, I print out. I also watch what I text on school phones. I have done that since Houston Nutt at Arkansas.

40+ assaults that Harris knows. Wow! First I am seeing that number. Any idea how many of those were football? How many of the males were athletes in general? Or were some of the accused females?

---

She didn't specify a number than "more than 40" total. She said something about the ones that did involve football players were among the "more brutal." You can take what she says with a grain of salt, since she was fired and wants to sue Baylor. But, given her motivation, you wouldn't expect she would want to incriminate herself over the reporting issue, unless she was untrained like everyone else.

Bottom line, if Briles knew he had a responsibility to report this incident, he would have. Why? Because he was doing everything he could to help Barnes retain his best player. All of Briles' players were dead soldiers, there was nothing to motivate him to save one to "win at all costs." They were all gone or on suspension and about to be gone. Even Barnes (the only person put under oath in the matter) thinks Briles did what he could to help. And if anyone should be bitter towards Briles, it would be Barnes. He lost his best player because of some of Briles' "bad dudes (if you want to believe that an assault was actually committed). Just remember, Barnes never broached the incident as being an assault. And if the player and her mother had conveyed that to him, you can bet he would have.

No matter what you want to assign to Briles over why he should have been fired, this is not the right case by which to hang your hat. It's a loser and a bad reason to allow him to be labeled as a rape enabler, or someone who covered up rape.

MilliVanilli said:

---

BearackObama said:

---

MilliVanilli said:

---

Robemcdo said:

---

Malbec said:

---

Barnes was the most successful volleyball coach in school history. Why do you think he was fired?

---

Players wouldn't play for him

---

Lulz, oh the spin direct from the CAB household itself.

Your boy had him railroaded out of town because he knew too much.

---

So CAB had him run out of town but he still claimed years later that CAB handled the situation "honorably and with the serious attention it deserved" - makes sense.

---

I know you're probably in his livngroom right now angry that your 18 months of propaganda has bore no fruit.

But yes, your thuggish boss had him silenced, Barnes problem is he was weak man morally himself and had things to silence him with.

---

Please keep posting so I don't even have to try to make you look stupid, you got that covered yourself.

BearackObama said:

---

MilliVanilli said:

---

BearackObama said:

---

MilliVanilli said:

---

Robemcdo said:

---

Malbec said:

---

Barnes was the most successful volleyball coach in school history. Why do you think he was fired?

---

Players wouldn't play for him

---

Lulz, oh the spin direct from the CAB household itself.

Your boy had him railroaded out of town because he knew too much.

---

So CAB had him run out of town but he still claimed years later that CAB handled the situation "honorably and with the serious attention it deserved" - makes sense.

---

I know you're probably in his livngroom right now angry that your 18 months of propaganda has bore no fruit.

But yes, your thuggish boss had him silenced, Barnes problem is he was weak man morally himself and had things to silence him with.

---

Please keep posting so I don't even have to try to make you look stupid, you got that covered yourself.

---

Ok caber, keep spouting the same tired crap for another 18 months.

Malbec said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

Malbec said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

You have to report. Doesn't matter if the student dropped out. Doesn't matter if the student doesn't want it reported. Unless you have privilege (lawyer, clergyman or counselor) you HAVE to report.

It doesn't matter if it happened 10 minutes ago or 10 months ago. When you find out, You report.

And Briles knew this. It's mandatory Training.

You. Have. To. Give. It. Up.

Briles ****ed up. Bad. The BOR didn't make him **** up. He knew what he was supposed to do and he didn't do it.

---

If Briles knew this, why didn't LaPrise Harris know it? She had a roster with 50 female athletes on it and has stated that she had more than 40 women come to her office (not all A&T athletes) to say they had been assaulted, yet she didn't make 40+ formal reports to JA or call Baylor police. She came right out and admitted such, then later threatened to sue the university. You keep making assumptions that university employees were properly trained on mandatory reporting, but the evidence shows differently.

Here is the problem, you can't have things both ways. If the incident with the volleyball player was never reported, and there was this conspiracy to cover it up, and the player was gone, and the coach was gone, and all the football players involved were gone, how did the PH investigators know about it in the first place to investigate it?

They knew about it because it WAS reported, all over campus. Barnes made a Herculean effort to try and get the player to stay, he talked to anyone and everyone to come up with some sort of solution. Coaches, administrators, the chaplain, regents, functionaries, JA officers. He made a lot of noise and was told that there was nothing that could be done. And it didn't matter what he did, the player wanted to transfer and that was that.

---

Your last paragraph has zero conflict with my opinion on this. If Barnes reported this to JA then he is clear. If Harris didn't report issues then she isn't clear. If Briles didn't report then he was not clear.

If Baylor Title IX administrators do not act, then it is on the administrators. Report and you are out of it. Every email that I am required to send on any issue, I print out. I also watch what I text on school phones. I have done that since Houston Nutt at Arkansas.

40+ assaults that Harris knows. Wow! First I am seeing that number. Any idea how many of those were football? How many of the males were athletes in general? Or were some of the accused females?

---

She didn't specify a number than "more than 40" total. She said something about the ones that did involve football players were among the "more brutal." You can take what she says with a grain of salt, since she was fired and wants to sue Baylor. But, given her motivation, you wouldn't expect she would want to incriminate herself over the reporting issue, unless she was untrained like everyone else.

Bottom line, if Briles knew he had a responsibility to report this incident, he would have. Why? Because he was doing everything he could to help Barnes retain his best player. All of Briles' players were dead soldiers, there was nothing to motivate him to save one to "win at all costs." They were all gone or on suspension and about to be gone. Even Barnes (the only person put under oath in the matter) thinks Briles did what he could to help. And if anyone should be bitter towards Briles, it would be Barnes. He lost his best player because of some of Briles' "bad dudes (if you want to believe that an assault was actually committed). Just remember, Barnes never broached the incident as being an assault. And if the player and her mother had conveyed that to him, you can bet he would have.

No matter what you want to assign to Briles over why he should have been fired, this is not the right case by which to hang your hat. It's a loser and a bad reason to allow him to be labeled as a rape enabler, or someone who covered up rape.

---

The rape enabler/cover-up label may be the one that you are on here fighting, but that comes from the media not me. That link that KS posted is the first glimpse of policy that I have seen. If it was policy, then Briles did not follow it. Ian did not follow it. That is the point. You can't twist it that they did. Motivations are irrelevant.

If the current lawsuit discovery continues, some attorney may be bright enough to ask if key players appear on rosters of staff development training classes or acknowledgements that they read & received employee handbooks. Baylor could have trained online. A record of competition would be somewhere on file. Maybe Baylor skipped these standard Higher Ed HR functions. Maybe certain employees skipped the training. Either way, you report SA to specific people if you are designated a reporter. If your supervisor isn't on the list, then that does not count.

Read that post of mine again. See where you might be off.

OK, so here we are several pages later and we're still wondering when anyone is going to present even a shred of evidence that CAB or his staff ever covered up crimes.

bearlyafarmer said:

---

OK, so here we are several pages later and we're still wondering when anyone is going is going to present even a shred of evidence that CAB or his staff ever covered up crimes.

---

Covered them up from whom?

bearlyafarmer said:

---

OK, so here we are several pages later and we're still wondering when anyone is going to present even a shred of evidence that CAB or his staff ever covered up crimes.

---

Your ilk are too dumb to process information, it's been 18 months, and you're worried about several pages of a thread?