Doc Holliday said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Bearish said:

---

chorne68 said:

---

Art was a scapegoat for the Board of Regents.

---

And 24 of 30 regents who voted to remove him were culprits in this scam?

The fact that some people consider the idea of Art being a rape-enabling cover-up artist ridiculous, while at the same time posit that 80% of a governing body of a university saved collective face by firing a football coach is something I'll never understand.

---

Until you realize 80% of the governing body would have been personally held accountable for a campus wide problem...

The firing was about protection.

There is no smoking gun. Never has been. The regents would have loved nothing more than exposing an Art Briles smoking gun.

The real smoking gun is Ken Starr and the BOR fought over title IX and nobody did their job which lead to a campus wide problem. Art Briles and football was an easy way out.

---

Complete myth

Personal liability is just about non-existent at the regent level and there was insurance to cover that. This is just the CAB apologist line that get repeated.

---

Not a myth. You can make an easy legal argument for it.

The BOR and higher ups at the time were responsible for oversight which includes having proper title IX requirements and ensuring them.

If you don't believe it answer this. Who is held responsible if the requirements are neglected? Who would be listed in a lawsuit today?

I have to give it to the BOR for being witty enough to craft the perfect narrative and using school funds in settlements to protect themselves.

---

Just No

Title IX is an institutional level obligation, that is why individuals such as Briles were dropped as defendants to Title IX cases. You have to get into the world of conspiring to deny victims rights to attach material liability to individuals.

The lawsuits are all primarily Jane Doe v Baylor -- if there is liability I assure you the plaintiff's lawyers would be shaking the tree .... they are not

Now if you want to call them incompetent or asleep at the wheel you won't get any argument here

---

If the PH report was made public, I guarantee you they would be shaking that tree.
Then you would have the legal evidence to make the case that they were neglectful.

---

So you are saying you know what is in the report no one can read.

Could you pick a few stock for me while that crystal ball you have is working so well.

Keyser Soze said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Bearish said:

---

chorne68 said:

---

Art was a scapegoat for the Board of Regents.

---

And 24 of 30 regents who voted to remove him were culprits in this scam?

The fact that some people consider the idea of Art being a rape-enabling cover-up artist ridiculous, while at the same time posit that 80% of a governing body of a university saved collective face by firing a football coach is something I'll never understand.

---

Until you realize 80% of the governing body would have been personally held accountable for a campus wide problem...

The firing was about protection.

There is no smoking gun. Never has been. The regents would have loved nothing more than exposing an Art Briles smoking gun.

The real smoking gun is Ken Starr and the BOR fought over title IX and nobody did their job which lead to a campus wide problem. Art Briles and football was an easy way out.

---

Complete myth

Personal liability is just about non-existent at the regent level and there was insurance to cover that. This is just the CAB apologist line that get repeated.

---

Not a myth. You can make an easy legal argument for it.

The BOR and higher ups at the time were responsible for oversight which includes having proper title IX requirements and ensuring them.

If you don't believe it answer this. Who is held responsible if the requirements are neglected? Who would be listed in a lawsuit today?

I have to give it to the BOR for being witty enough to craft the perfect narrative and using school funds in settlements to protect themselves.

---

Just No

Title IX is an institutional level obligation, that is why individuals such as Briles were dropped as defendants to Title IX cases. You have to get into the world of conspiring to deny victims rights to attach material liability to individuals.

The lawsuits are all primarily Jane Doe v Baylor -- if there is liability I assure you the plaintiff's lawyers would be shaking the tree .... they are not

Now if you want to call them incompetent or asleep at the wheel you won't get any argument here

---

If the PH report was made public, I guarantee you they would be shaking that tree.
Then you would have the legal evidence to make the case that they were neglectful.

---

So you are saying you know what is in the report no one can read.

Could you pick a few stock for me while that crystal ball you have is working so well.

---

Yes I understand that the school did not follow Title IX requirements.

If we can figure who and why exactly prevented this...then you can make a case.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Bearish said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Bearish said:

---

chorne68 said:

---

Art was a scapegoat for the Board of Regents.

---

And 24 of 30 regents who voted to remove him were culprits in this scam?

The fact that some people consider the idea of Art being a rape-enabling cover-up artist ridiculous, while at the same time posit that 80% of a governing body of a university saved collective face by firing a football coach is something I'll never understand.

---

Until you realize 80% of the governing body would have been personally held accountable for a campus wide problem...

The firing was about protection. Protection from lawsuits against the highest members/BOR at Baylor.

There is no smoking gun. Never has been. The regents would have loved nothing more than exposing an Art Briles smoking gun.

The real smoking gun is Ken Starr and the BOR fought over title IX and nobody did their job which lead to a campus wide problem. Art Briles and football was an easy way out.

That's why the PH report was hidden, why settlements with CAB were made and why we're all still arguing about it.

---

This is a perfect example of what I'm talking about...

"There's no smoking gun on Art, so I'm going to present the following conjectures as undeniable facts."

---

It's just logic. Put the pieces together.
To this day, nobody can explain what it directly was that Mr. Briles did wrong. Not a single person.

No one has said "This sexual assault event happened and Art Briles did so and so which is the basis for his removal".

If there was something, why wouldn't the BOR expose it?

---

Wow. I had no idea it was that simple. Perhaps Briles and Collin Shillinglaw should file libel and defamation lawsuits against the University.

Keyser Soze said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Bearish said:

---

chorne68 said:

---

Art was a scapegoat for the Board of Regents.

---

And 24 of 30 regents who voted to remove him were culprits in this scam?

The fact that some people consider the idea of Art being a rape-enabling cover-up artist ridiculous, while at the same time posit that 80% of a governing body of a university saved collective face by firing a football coach is something I'll never understand.

---

Until you realize 80% of the governing body would have been personally held accountable for a campus wide problem...

The firing was about protection.

There is no smoking gun. Never has been. The regents would have loved nothing more than exposing an Art Briles smoking gun.

The real smoking gun is Ken Starr and the BOR fought over title IX and nobody did their job which lead to a campus wide problem. Art Briles and football was an easy way out.

---

Complete myth

Personal liability is just about non-existent at the regent level and there was insurance to cover that. This is just the CAB apologist line that get repeated.

---

Not a myth. You can make an easy legal argument for it.

The BOR and higher ups at the time were responsible for oversight which includes having proper title IX requirements and ensuring them.

If you don't believe it answer this. Who is held responsible if the requirements are neglected? Who would be listed in a lawsuit today?

I have to give it to the BOR for being witty enough to craft the perfect narrative and using school funds in settlements to protect themselves.

---

Just No

Title IX is an institutional level obligation, that is why individuals such as Briles were dropped as defendants to Title IX cases. You have to get into the world of conspiring to deny victims rights to attach material liability to individuals.

The lawsuits are all primarily Jane Doe v Baylor -- if there is liability I assure you the plaintiff's lawyers would be shaking the tree .... they are not

Now if you want to call them incompetent or asleep at the wheel you won't get any argument here

---

If the PH report was made public, I guarantee you they would be shaking that tree.
Then you would have the legal evidence to make the case that they were neglectful.

---

So you are saying you know what is in the report no one can read.

Could you pick a few stock for me while that crystal ball you have is working so well.

---

They are mad. They are worked up because there are job opportunities. They like to poke me about tornados while I poke them about older forum chats and conversations about needles.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Bearish said:

---

chorne68 said:

---

Art was a scapegoat for the Board of Regents.

---

And 24 of 30 regents who voted to remove him were culprits in this scam?

The fact that some people consider the idea of Art being a rape-enabling cover-up artist ridiculous, while at the same time posit that 80% of a governing body of a university saved collective face by firing a football coach is something I'll never understand.

---

Until you realize 80% of the governing body would have been personally held accountable for a campus wide problem...

The firing was about protection.

There is no smoking gun. Never has been. The regents would have loved nothing more than exposing an Art Briles smoking gun.

The real smoking gun is Ken Starr and the BOR fought over title IX and nobody did their job which lead to a campus wide problem. Art Briles and football was an easy way out.

---

Complete myth

Personal liability is just about non-existent at the regent level and there was insurance to cover that. This is just the CAB apologist line that get repeated.

---

Not a myth. You can make an easy legal argument for it.

The BOR and higher ups at the time were responsible for oversight which includes having proper title IX requirements and ensuring them.

If you don't believe it answer this. Who is held responsible if the requirements are neglected? Who would be listed in a lawsuit today?

I have to give it to the BOR for being witty enough to craft the perfect narrative and using school funds in settlements to protect themselves.

---

Just No

Title IX is an institutional level obligation, that is why individuals such as Briles were dropped as defendants to Title IX cases. You have to get into the world of conspiring to deny victims rights to attach material liability to individuals.

The lawsuits are all primarily Jane Doe v Baylor -- if there is liability I assure you the plaintiff's lawyers would be shaking the tree .... they are not

Now if you want to call them incompetent or asleep at the wheel you won't get any argument here

---

If the PH report was made public, I guarantee you they would be shaking that tree.
Then you would have the legal evidence to make the case that they were neglectful.

---

So you are saying you know what is in the report no one can read.

Could you pick a few stock for me while that crystal ball you have is working so well.

---

Yes I understand that the school did not follow Title IX requirements.

If we can figure who and why exactly prevented this...then you can make a case.

---

Then make you case because they told you in May of 2016 I assume you have never read this

https://www.baylor.edu/thefacts/doc.php/266596.pdf

Bearish said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Bearish said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Bearish said:

---

chorne68 said:

---

Art was a scapegoat for the Board of Regents.

---

And 24 of 30 regents who voted to remove him were culprits in this scam?

The fact that some people consider the idea of Art being a rape-enabling cover-up artist ridiculous, while at the same time posit that 80% of a governing body of a university saved collective face by firing a football coach is something I'll never understand.

---

Until you realize 80% of the governing body would have been personally held accountable for a campus wide problem...

The firing was about protection. Protection from lawsuits against the highest members/BOR at Baylor.

There is no smoking gun. Never has been. The regents would have loved nothing more than exposing an Art Briles smoking gun.

The real smoking gun is Ken Starr and the BOR fought over title IX and nobody did their job which lead to a campus wide problem. Art Briles and football was an easy way out.

That's why the PH report was hidden, why settlements with CAB were made and why we're all still arguing about it.

---

This is a perfect example of what I'm talking about...

"There's no smoking gun on Art, so I'm going to present the following conjectures as undeniable facts."

---

It's just logic. Put the pieces together.
To this day, nobody can explain what it directly was that Mr. Briles did wrong. Not a single person.

No one has said "This sexual assault event happened and Art Briles did so and so which is the basis for his removal".

If there was something, why wouldn't the BOR expose it?

---

Wow. I had no idea it was that simple. Perhaps Briles and Collin Shillinglaw should file libel and defamation lawsuits against the University.

---

They waived that right when Art took the cash settlement

Stranger said:

---

Bearish said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Bearish said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Bearish said:

---

chorne68 said:

---

Art was a scapegoat for the Board of Regents.

---

And 24 of 30 regents who voted to remove him were culprits in this scam?

The fact that some people consider the idea of Art being a rape-enabling cover-up artist ridiculous, while at the same time posit that 80% of a governing body of a university saved collective face by firing a football coach is something I'll never understand.

---

Until you realize 80% of the governing body would have been personally held accountable for a campus wide problem...

The firing was about protection. Protection from lawsuits against the highest members/BOR at Baylor.

There is no smoking gun. Never has been. The regents would have loved nothing more than exposing an Art Briles smoking gun.

The real smoking gun is Ken Starr and the BOR fought over title IX and nobody did their job which lead to a campus wide problem. Art Briles and football was an easy way out.

That's why the PH report was hidden, why settlements with CAB were made and why we're all still arguing about it.

---

This is a perfect example of what I'm talking about...

"There's no smoking gun on Art, so I'm going to present the following conjectures as undeniable facts."

---

It's just logic. Put the pieces together.
To this day, nobody can explain what it directly was that Mr. Briles did wrong. Not a single person.

No one has said "This sexual assault event happened and Art Briles did so and so which is the basis for his removal".

If there was something, why wouldn't the BOR expose it?

---

Wow. I had no idea it was that simple. Perhaps Briles and Collin Shillinglaw should file libel and defamation lawsuits against the University.

---

They waived that right when Art took the cash settlement

---

Weak.

Dman said:

---

Any good attorney will have already told the BoR about their personal exposure. All that's needed is enough information to pierce the veil.

Control of the information was IMPERATIVE to protect themselves personally. Therein lies the BIGGEST reason none of this was done through an outside independent investigation not controlled by the BOR. It's also the reason they claim PH was legal..and therefore client/attorney confidentiality applied. They have done everything exactly right..through careful legal guidance, to minimize PERSONAL exposure.

---

Conjecture.

Dman said:

---

Any good attorney will have already told the BoR about their personal exposure. All that's needed is enough information to pierce the veil.

Control of the information was IMPERATIVE to protect themselves personally. Therein lies the BIGGEST reason none of this was done through an outside independent investigation not controlled by the BOR. It's also the reason they claim PH was legal..and therefore client/attorney confidentiality applied. They have done everything exactly right..through careful legal guidance, to minimize PERSONAL exposure.

---

And those exact same actions protected Baylor, you just choose to read conspiracy into it. They had an obligation to protect Baylor and they did.

Again. Not arguing the didn't screw up on many levels, just that they had no personal loss to fear. It just a far stretch

Keyser Soze said:

---

It is close to three years and a big nothing. No regent named in any T9 lawsuit,

It is black helicopter material to think they have exposure and no one is coming after them.

Why?

---

Why? There was no need. Baylor University paid off like a slot machine at even the threat of a lawsuit and did not push back on anything. Big checks paid to anyone that wanted one.

ILLUMINATE!!!

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

It is close to three years and a big nothing. No regent named in any T9 lawsuit,

It is black helicopter material to think they have exposure and no one is coming after them.

Why?

---

Why? There was no need. Baylor University paid off like a slot machine at even the threat of a lawsuit and did not push back on anything. Big checks paid to anyone that wanted one.

ILLUMINATE!!!

---

Unless your name is Colin Shillinglaw. Then, you just get biitch slapped and sent to your room with your tail between your legs.

And Baylor is suing Shillingshaw for attorney fees when he has nothing.

Bearish said:

---

Dman said:

---

Bearish said:

---

Dman said:

---

Any good attorney will have already told the BoR about their personal exposure. All that's needed is enough information to pierce the veil.

Control of the information was IMPERATIVE to protect themselves personally. Therein lies the BIGGEST reason none of this was done through an outside independent investigation not controlled by the BOR. It's also the reason they claim PH was legal..and therefore client/attorney confidentiality applied. They have done everything exactly right..through careful legal guidance, to minimize PERSONAL exposure.

---

Conjecture.

---

It's conjecture that this was all done under attorney guidance very carefully with little little to NO outside transparency through a group hired by the BoR (and they tried to claim client/attorney confidentiality)? All to control access to damaging information that could be used against them as a collective body and personally?

ARE YOU KIDDING? No one is that naive.

---

Art Briles libel case (dropped when he got paid), Collin Shillinglaw defamation lawsuit (dropped), numerous Jane Doe lawsuits and Department of Education, Texas Rangers, NCAA and Big 12 investigations have found exactly how many regents personally responsible?

Here are my only real points on this matter:

1. It's ridiculous to assume Art deliberately covered up known sexual assaults.
2. It's equally ridiculous to assume the Board of Regents, acting as one, conspired to take down a football coach to save themselves.

The truth, as always, is somewhere in between. Anything else is, yes, conjecture.

---

See now we aren't far apart.

1. I agree Art didn't cover up rape. It's a crime. He'd of been arrested. This doesn't fit the trolls narrative on the board (THEE, X, etc) or the media's...but it's fact

2. I don't think they acted as one. We already know of defectors. But shills want to ignore their inside information. I also don't think any of it was that thought out...I think they panicked in a crisis. Art was a convenient distraction to a problem that existed WELL before he was on campus. A problem they owned far more than Briles.

But I absolutely think they were smart enough when the **** hit the fan to follow legal advice and start protecting their personal exposure.

Keyser Soze said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Bearish said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Bearish said:

---

chorne68 said:

---

Art was a scapegoat for the Board of Regents.

---

And 24 of 30 regents who voted to remove him were culprits in this scam?

The fact that some people consider the idea of Art being a rape-enabling cover-up artist ridiculous, while at the same time posit that 80% of a governing body of a university saved collective face by firing a football coach is something I'll never understand.

---

Until you realize 80% of the governing body would have been personally held accountable for a campus wide problem...

The firing was about protection. Protection from lawsuits against the highest members/BOR at Baylor.

There is no smoking gun. Never has been. The regents would have loved nothing more than exposing an Art Briles smoking gun.

The real smoking gun is Ken Starr and the BOR fought over title IX and nobody did their job which lead to a campus wide problem. Art Briles and football was an easy way out.

That's why the PH report was hidden, why settlements with CAB were made and why we're all still arguing about it.

---

This is a perfect example of what I'm talking about...

"There's no smoking gun on Art, so I'm going to present the following conjectures as undeniable facts."

---

It's just logic. Put the pieces together.
To this day, nobody can explain what it directly was that Mr. Briles did wrong. Not a single person.

No one has said "This sexual assault event happened and Art Briles did so and so which is the basis for his removal".

If there was something, why wouldn't the BOR expose it?

---

Rusty Hardin told you plenty. You can read it here

https://www.insidehighered.com/sites/default/server_files/media/baylorresponse.pdf

There are more than enough reasons there. Fair to question if they can back all that up or not, but don't say you have not been told.

---

When you'd like to have faith in our BOR, but then you remember they're still pushing this thing...

Hope Keyser is on a decent retainer. They've got him working hard cutting and pasting the same old stuff on repeat.

Who are the "rank and file" who sat there with their thumb stuck up their ass?

Reverend said:

---

Who are the "rank and file" who sat there with their thumb stuck up their ass?

---

All of them.

That however does not generate a great personal exposure of liability. Thus the weak case that they covered things up to insulate themselves from liability.

Keyser Soze said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Bearish said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Bearish said:

---

chorne68 said:

---

Art was a scapegoat for the Board of Regents.

---

And 24 of 30 regents who voted to remove him were culprits in this scam?

The fact that some people consider the idea of Art being a rape-enabling cover-up artist ridiculous, while at the same time posit that 80% of a governing body of a university saved collective face by firing a football coach is something I'll never understand.

---

Until you realize 80% of the governing body would have been personally held accountable for a campus wide problem...

The firing was about protection. Protection from lawsuits against the highest members/BOR at Baylor.

There is no smoking gun. Never has been. The regents would have loved nothing more than exposing an Art Briles smoking gun.

The real smoking gun is Ken Starr and the BOR fought over title IX and nobody did their job which lead to a campus wide problem. Art Briles and football was an easy way out.

That's why the PH report was hidden, why settlements with CAB were made and why we're all still arguing about it.

---

This is a perfect example of what I'm talking about...

"There's no smoking gun on Art, so I'm going to present the following conjectures as undeniable facts."

---

It's just logic. Put the pieces together.
To this day, nobody can explain what it directly was that Mr. Briles did wrong. Not a single person.

No one has said "This sexual assault event happened and Art Briles did so and so which is the basis for his removal".

If there was something, why wouldn't the BOR expose it?

---

Rusty Hardin told you plenty. You can read it here

https://www.insidehighered.com/sites/default/server_files/media/baylorresponse.pdf

There are more than enough reasons there. Fair to question if they can back all that up or not, but don't say you have not been told.

---

When you'd like to have faith in our BOR, but then you remember they're still pushing this thing...

Hope Keyser is on a decent retainer. They've got him working hard cutting and pasting the same old stuff on repeat.

---

And two years have past and none of you conspiracy guys have come up with anything to rebut it.

---

Really no need when we continue to have our leadership put a gun to Baylor's head and spit in the faces of the alumni. The message is pretty clear.

Please try rewriting that.

Dman said:

---

Bearish said:

---

Dman said:

---

Bearish said:

---

Dman said:

---

Any good attorney will have already told the BoR about their personal exposure. All that's needed is enough information to pierce the veil.

Control of the information was IMPERATIVE to protect themselves personally. Therein lies the BIGGEST reason none of this was done through an outside independent investigation not controlled by the BOR. It's also the reason they claim PH was legal..and therefore client/attorney confidentiality applied. They have done everything exactly right..through careful legal guidance, to minimize PERSONAL exposure.

---

Conjecture.

---

It's conjecture that this was all done under attorney guidance very carefully with little little to NO outside transparency through a group hired by the BoR (and they tried to claim client/attorney confidentiality)? All to control access to damaging information that could be used against them as a collective body and personally?

ARE YOU KIDDING? No one is that naive.

---

Art Briles libel case (dropped when he got paid), Collin Shillinglaw defamation lawsuit (dropped), numerous Jane Doe lawsuits and Department of Education, Texas Rangers, NCAA and Big 12 investigations have found exactly how many regents personally responsible?

Here are my only real points on this matter:

1. It's ridiculous to assume Art deliberately covered up known sexual assaults.
2. It's equally ridiculous to assume the Board of Regents, acting as one, conspired to take down a football coach to save themselves.

The truth, as always, is somewhere in between. Anything else is, yes, conjecture.

---

See now we aren't far apart.

1. I agree Art didn't cover up rape. It's a crime. He'd of been arrested. This doesn't fit the trolls narrative on the board (THEE, X, etc) or the media's...but it's fact

2. I don't think they acted as one. We already know of defectors. But shills want to ignore their inside information. I also don't think any of it was that thought out...I think they panicked in a crisis. Art was a convenient distraction to a problem that existed WELL before he was on campus. A problem they owned far more than Briles.

But I absolutely think they were smart enough when the **** hit the fan to follow legal advice and start protecting their personal exposure.

---

There you go. Opinions are going to be boundless on this topic for eternity, since we're likely to never know the truth. But as long as we're willing to call them that - opinions - it's all fair game as far as I'm concerned.

Keyser Soze said:

---

Not saying liability is impossible, just saying nothing here has risen to that level.

Conflict of interest was about the athletic committee - it was eliminated due to the perception of a lack of independence. There was nothing nefarious about that conflict and it's head was the biggest Briles supporter on the BOR.

Meddling - agree Buddy Jones is a tool ... really don't see him getting sued.

The Faulk situation .... OK maybe, that is a real possibility - give you that one. Nothing likely to happen and we really don't know if any real legit liability exist.

But the rank and file members of the BOR have zero to worry about. Starr not implementing of T9 and a whole list of shortcomings are not going to give rise to a personal liability. There is also insurance in place. So yes I think the conspiracy stuff to cover their butt is crap.

If you have names and specifics - tell us.

---

You literally have proven my point. You're now admitting there is actually no personal legal protection. You're simply saying no one has proven enough for a successful case.

Yet with all their efforts and lack of transparency, you point to 2 cases that could pierce "personal exposure". Now your telling me that third party scrutiny and an unbiased evaluation wouldn't have led to more?!! That they went into total lock down mode only out of service to Baylor?! Who's seeing black helicopters and who's story is harder to believe as logical?!

You're saying since no law suit has been successful yet.... they aren't guilty. Ok. Point to a successful lawsuit to date against Briles. Does your same logic apply?. You've ALWAYS been hypocritical in your outrage and demand for level of proof.

Its the definition of intellectual dishonesty.

I am openly giving them credit for masterfully controlling their exposure through legal tactics, private university priveleges, and total lock down efforts on any information transparency. You are claiming it's only out of the interest of serving Baylor...and no lawsuits equals innocence. Whatever.