sswiento said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Makes it tough to really sink your teeth into Baylor sports anymore, at least for me personally. This led me on a roundabout way to agree with the witch hunters on one thing .... I did decide to re prioritize. Baylor sports just aren't that important. What a sad mess.

---

Baylor has gotten about $25 out of me and my extended family since May 2016. I bought 1 football ticket in 2017. I have replied to every email from anyone from Baylor with "Please don't contact me ever again," including a few from Linda Livingstone.

---

and yet here you are wasting time on this board....

---

Chuckroast said:

---

Bearish said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

BellCountyBear said:

---

EvilTroyAndAbed said:

---

BellCountyBear said:

---

BI don't care that the guy is coaching in America again. But to allow a documentary to be made about his "triumphant return" to coaching tells all I need to know about his ridiculous ego.

---

How do you know what it's about?

---

I know it's about Art Briles. Duh.

If I were him, I would be appreciative to have a job I love in the state I love and leave it at that.

---

If I were him, I would feel outrage at the way I've been portrayed. Any story that sheds light on the truth should be welcomed.

---

The media has unfairly crucified the guy, without knowing anything beyond what the rest of us do. That's fair. But, Art had a chance to control much of this narrative with the libel lawsuit. He sold that right for more than $15MM.

---

Not the right chronology. He accepted a buyout of his contract. Many months later as certain board members began pushing a narrative that mischaracterized him, Briles filed his libel suit. I think he dropped that suit when it became apparent his son would become a target. He decided to take it on the chin himself so that his son and the other coaches could move on.

---

BarleyMcDougal said:

---

CNC said:

---

BarleyMcDougal said:

---

CNC said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

That federal court answer by Briles (Cannon and Nesbitt) is a pretty good read, since some people around here read court pleadings as if they are 100% gospel. Covers both the WSJ article and the volleyball player incident in reasonable detail.

http://media.graytvinc.com/documents/Defendant+Art+Briles'+Original+Answer+filed+8-30-18.pdf

---

Only skimmed it, didn't get to read it. Going to mention only a tiny bit: Page 20, Paragraph 58.

Quote:

---

58. The young woman at issue in this allegation alleged in a federal lawsuit that she had reported the incident to the Baylor University counseling center, and named names of football players. According to the complainant, the counselor tried to talk her out of reporting the incident. The Counseling Center is under the auspices of Judicial Affairs.

---

How does X and his crew defend this? A young woman comes to you and claimed she has been raped with details and with names and wants to pursue legal action.

And you try to talk her out of it? This is our counseling center, which is under JA. This is the version of BU you defend. It has nothing to do with CAB or CABers or whatever stupid nicknames you use.

No Title 9 office at the time, with a counseling center/JA department that's evidently a complete joke. So we fire the football coach & AD?

To me this is more disgusting than anything that will come out of these "hidden facts" people on here claim to know.

---

Lozano never claimed she was raped, only a victim of domestic abuse from Chafin. Just fyi.

---

I think that paragraph #58 was the volleyball player's testimony.

---

Did the volleyball player testify that she went to the counseling center? I don't recall that, but obviously it could have happened. I definitely remember Lozano saying they handed her some pamphlets about self worth.

The naming of (multiple) names that I remember was supposedly the volleyball player's mother giving a coach (supposedly Kaz) a list. This is what happens when lawsuits start running together. But, it does say "this allegation", so I'd assume that's in reference to the lawsuit that required a rebuttal.

I have to say that paragraph 56 is the most compelling, in my opinion, and one that I had not read before. The policies it references are a pretty compelling defense.

Anybody want to refute that? Keyser normally has a different take.

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

BarleyMcDougal said:

---

CNC said:

---

BarleyMcDougal said:

---

CNC said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

That federal court answer by Briles (Cannon and Nesbitt) is a pretty good read, since some people around here read court pleadings as if they are 100% gospel. Covers both the WSJ article and the volleyball player incident in reasonable detail.

http://media.graytvinc.com/documents/Defendant+Art+Briles'+Original+Answer+filed+8-30-18.pdf

---

Only skimmed it, didn't get to read it. Going to mention only a tiny bit: Page 20, Paragraph 58.

Quote:

---

58. The young woman at issue in this allegation alleged in a federal lawsuit that she had reported the incident to the Baylor University counseling center, and named names of football players. According to the complainant, the counselor tried to talk her out of reporting the incident. The Counseling Center is under the auspices of Judicial Affairs.

---

How does X and his crew defend this? A young woman comes to you and claimed she has been raped with details and with names and wants to pursue legal action.

And you try to talk her out of it? This is our counseling center, which is under JA. This is the version of BU you defend. It has nothing to do with CAB or CABers or whatever stupid nicknames you use.

No Title 9 office at the time, with a counseling center/JA department that's evidently a complete joke. So we fire the football coach & AD?

To me this is more disgusting than anything that will come out of these "hidden facts" people on here claim to know.

---

Lozano never claimed she was raped, only a victim of domestic abuse from Chafin. Just fyi.

---

I think that paragraph #58 was the volleyball player's testimony.

---

Did the volleyball player testify that she went to the counseling center? I don't recall that, but obviously it could have happened. I definitely remember Lozano saying they handed her some pamphlets about self worth.

The naming of (multiple) names that I remember was supposedly the volleyball player's mother giving a coach (supposedly Kaz) a list. This is what happens when lawsuits start running together. But, it does say "this allegation", so I'd assume that's in reference to the lawsuit that required a rebuttal.

I have to say that paragraph 56 is the most compelling, in my opinion, and one that I had not read before. The policies it references are a pretty compelling defense.

Anybody want to refute that? Keyser normally has a different take.

---

They claim all things being reported to JA had to go through a liaison Paul Bradshaw - so why didn't they report things to Paul Bradshaw ?

This is what Baylor says

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

---

BarleyMcDougal said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

BarleyMcDougal said:

---

CNC said:

---

BarleyMcDougal said:

---

CNC said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

That federal court answer by Briles (Cannon and Nesbitt) is a pretty good read, since some people around here read court pleadings as if they are 100% gospel. Covers both the WSJ article and the volleyball player incident in reasonable detail.

http://media.graytvinc.com/documents/Defendant+Art+Briles'+Original+Answer+filed+8-30-18.pdf

---

Only skimmed it, didn't get to read it. Going to mention only a tiny bit: Page 20, Paragraph 58.

Quote:

---

58. The young woman at issue in this allegation alleged in a federal lawsuit that she had reported the incident to the Baylor University counseling center, and named names of football players. According to the complainant, the counselor tried to talk her out of reporting the incident. The Counseling Center is under the auspices of Judicial Affairs.

---

How does X and his crew defend this? A young woman comes to you and claimed she has been raped with details and with names and wants to pursue legal action.

And you try to talk her out of it? This is our counseling center, which is under JA. This is the version of BU you defend. It has nothing to do with CAB or CABers or whatever stupid nicknames you use.

No Title 9 office at the time, with a counseling center/JA department that's evidently a complete joke. So we fire the football coach & AD?

To me this is more disgusting than anything that will come out of these "hidden facts" people on here claim to know.

---

Lozano never claimed she was raped, only a victim of domestic abuse from Chafin. Just fyi.

---

I think that paragraph #58 was the volleyball player's testimony.

---

Did the volleyball player testify that she went to the counseling center? I don't recall that, but obviously it could have happened. I definitely remember Lozano saying they handed her some pamphlets about self worth.

The naming of (multiple) names that I remember was supposedly the volleyball player's mother giving a coach (supposedly Kaz) a list. This is what happens when lawsuits start running together. But, it does say "this allegation", so I'd assume that's in reference to the lawsuit that required a rebuttal.

I have to say that paragraph 56 is the most compelling, in my opinion, and one that I had not read before. The policies it references are a pretty compelling defense.

Anybody want to refute that? Keyser normally has a different take.

---

They claim all things being reported to JA had to go through a liaison Paul Bradshaw - so why didn't they report things to Paul Bradshaw ?

This is what Baylor says

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

---

Well, I don't know for sure what Baylor's policy was at the time, but it looks like they relied on the student's permission, which would differ from official Title IX guidelines. I suppose that's the quandary. It wouldn't have been included in Cannon's rebuttal otherwise. Also, Bradshaw is part of the AD staff. I've never heard a mention of him in any of this. Do we know for sure that he wasn't given a report?

---

BarleyMcDougal said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

BarleyMcDougal said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

BarleyMcDougal said:

---

CNC said:

---

BarleyMcDougal said:

---

CNC said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

That federal court answer by Briles (Cannon and Nesbitt) is a pretty good read, since some people around here read court pleadings as if they are 100% gospel. Covers both the WSJ article and the volleyball player incident in reasonable detail.

http://media.graytvinc.com/documents/Defendant+Art+Briles'+Original+Answer+filed+8-30-18.pdf

---

Only skimmed it, didn't get to read it. Going to mention only a tiny bit: Page 20, Paragraph 58.

Quote:

---

58. The young woman at issue in this allegation alleged in a federal lawsuit that she had reported the incident to the Baylor University counseling center, and named names of football players. According to the complainant, the counselor tried to talk her out of reporting the incident. The Counseling Center is under the auspices of Judicial Affairs.

---

How does X and his crew defend this? A young woman comes to you and claimed she has been raped with details and with names and wants to pursue legal action.

And you try to talk her out of it? This is our counseling center, which is under JA. This is the version of BU you defend. It has nothing to do with CAB or CABers or whatever stupid nicknames you use.

No Title 9 office at the time, with a counseling center/JA department that's evidently a complete joke. So we fire the football coach & AD?

To me this is more disgusting than anything that will come out of these "hidden facts" people on here claim to know.

---

Lozano never claimed she was raped, only a victim of domestic abuse from Chafin. Just fyi.

---

I think that paragraph #58 was the volleyball player's testimony.

---

Did the volleyball player testify that she went to the counseling center? I don't recall that, but obviously it could have happened. I definitely remember Lozano saying they handed her some pamphlets about self worth.

The naming of (multiple) names that I remember was supposedly the volleyball player's mother giving a coach (supposedly Kaz) a list. This is what happens when lawsuits start running together. But, it does say "this allegation", so I'd assume that's in reference to the lawsuit that required a rebuttal.

I have to say that paragraph 56 is the most compelling, in my opinion, and one that I had not read before. The policies it references are a pretty compelling defense.

Anybody want to refute that? Keyser normally has a different take.

---

They claim all things being reported to JA had to go through a liaison Paul Bradshaw - so why didn't they report things to Paul Bradshaw ?

This is what Baylor says

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

---

Well, I don't know for sure what Baylor's policy was at the time, but it looks like they relied on the student's permission, which would differ from official Title IX guidelines. I suppose that's the quandary. It wouldn't have been included in Cannon's rebuttal otherwise. Also, Bradshaw is part of the AD staff. I've never heard a mention of him in any of this. Do we know for sure that he wasn't given a report?

---

This is what Rusty Hardin wrote in the regents reply in Shillinglaw:

When initially interviewed by Pepper Hamilton, Coach Briles said he recalled only "bits

and pieces" of the gang rape allegation. In follow-up interviews, Coach Briles said he did not
remember meeting the coach but recalled hearing about the victim because she had been in his
office about another incident. Later, Coach Briles, the victim's coach, and McCaw each blamed a
lack of clear University guidelines for not reporting the incident to Judicial Affairs.

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



No one has ever said Bradshaw received a report. It would be in Briles' best interest to put that out there if it had happened. Also, they fired just about everyone who had knowledge of this and did not act including Tom Hill - which even I think was harsh considering how little Hill appeared to know. If Bradshaw had know he likely would have been fired too.

---

It seems very strange that countless people would have known about this and not reported. You have to take the position that they were all (a) trying to hide it (b) confused about protocol or (c) respecting the girl's wishes to keep it private. For the life of me I can't see it being a cover-up. This feels like Baylor was trying to re-write ambiguous university policy after the fact, at least to me.

The exceptionally weird part is the mom providing a list of names and then expecting some punishment in response to an alleged rape. I don't know what kind of discipline you expect for rapists. But that's another topic.

---

Chuckroast said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

Bearish said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

BellCountyBear said:

---

EvilTroyAndAbed said:

---

BellCountyBear said:

---

BI don't care that the guy is coaching in America again. But to allow a documentary to be made about his "triumphant return" to coaching tells all I need to know about his ridiculous ego.

---

How do you know what it's about?

---

I know it's about Art Briles. Duh.

If I were him, I would be appreciative to have a job I love in the state I love and leave it at that.

---

If I were him, I would feel outrage at the way I've been portrayed. Any story that sheds light on the truth should be welcomed.

---

The media has unfairly crucified the guy, without knowing anything beyond what the rest of us do. That's fair. But, Art had a chance to control much of this narrative with the libel lawsuit. He sold that right for more than $15MM.

---

Not the right chronology. He accepted a buyout of his contract. Many months later as certain board members began pushing a narrative that mischaracterized him, Briles filed his libel suit. I think he dropped that suit when it became apparent his son would become a target. He decided to take it on the chin himself so that his son and the other coaches could move on.

---

The lawsuit he filed while his son was looking for a job and dropped after he had a job. Is there any cup of Briles' made Kool Aid you won't guzzle down and ask for more?

He dropped it so he would not get slammed with paying Baylor's legal fees like Shillinglaw. Funny thing, there is no libel if what you say is the truth.

---

The spin machine strikes again . . . just because his son may have just received a job at Florida Atlantic doesn't mean Art no longer needs to concern himself with protecting his son's (or the other coaches)reputation. I'll admit I'm just speculating here, but whether my son has a job or not, I would look out for his career before my own.

---

Malbec said:

---

MilliVanilli said:

---

You have to be pretty damn infamous to haunt your family with the specter of generational sin. Think about that for a moment.

---

Not in the age of social media. Just having your picture taken with someone at a party decades ago can connect you to that person as far as the mob is concerned. Heck, they will taint you in a scandal if you had a summer job in the same office building emptying waste baskets.

Even though KB had gotten the job at FAU, there were continuous calls for him to be dismissed on social media even after the start of the season. Having a job is no guarantee that the SJW horde isn't going to harass your employer into capitulating.

---

Timbear said:

---

Hey X, fellow hater, Thee, is going to be mad at you for continuing to post on a high school thread.

---

Malbec said:

---

You have the best WiFi of any other trailer park in America. Do you pay extra for that?

---

Malbec said:

---

MilliVanilli said:

---

You have to be pretty damn infamous to haunt your family with the specter of generational sin. Think about that for a moment.

---

Not in the age of social media. Just having your picture taken with someone at a party decades ago can connect you to that person as far as the mob is concerned. Heck, they will taint you in a scandal if you had a summer job in the same office building emptying waste baskets.

Even though KB had gotten the job at FAU, there were continuous calls for him to be dismissed on social media even after the start of the season. Having a job is no guarantee that the SJW horde isn't going to harass your employer into capitulating.

---

Timbear said:

---

Hey X, fellow hater, Thee, is going to be mad at you for continuing to post on a high school thread.

---

Reverend said:

---

This place has become a vile **** hole. Someone let me know when the haters are gone.

---

Malbec said:

---

It was a statement in general, not specific to Briles or his staff. How you can honestly claim that someone subject to the wrath of the SJW throng is merely immersed in a state of victimhood says much about your agenda and why you would side with a cabal of reprobates who did anything they could to avoid the very plight that you poohpooh.

---

Reverend said:

---

This place has become a vile **** hole. Someone let me know when the haters are gone.

---

MilliVanilli said:

---

Malbec said:

---

It was a statement in general, not specific to Briles or his staff. How you can honestly claim that someone subject to the wrath of the SJW throng is merely immersed in a state of victimhood says much about your agenda and why you would side with a cabal of reprobates who did anything they could to avoid the very plight that you poohpooh.

---

The fact you think a now irrelevant 3A coach had any negative bearing on his son's employment is laughable.

On the contrary, had he not been a nepotistic hire at Baylor with the last name Briles he would not be near college football right now.

---

Reverend said:

---

This place has become a vile **** hole. Someone let me know when the haters are gone.

---

Malbec said:

---

MilliVanilli said:

---

Malbec said:

---

It was a statement in general, not specific to Briles or his staff. How you can honestly claim that someone subject to the wrath of the SJW throng is merely immersed in a state of victimhood says much about your agenda and why you would side with a cabal of reprobates who did anything they could to avoid the very plight that you poohpooh.

---

The fact you think a now irrelevant 3A coach had any negative bearing on his son's employment is laughable.

On the contrary, had he not been a nepotistic hire at Baylor with the last name Briles he would not be near college football right now.

---

Come on man.

---

MilliVanilli said:

---

Malbec said:

---

It was a statement in general, not specific to Briles or his staff. How you can honestly claim that someone subject to the wrath of the SJW throng is merely immersed in a state of victimhood says much about your agenda and why you would side with a cabal of reprobates who did anything they could to avoid the very plight that you poohpooh.

---

The fact you think a now irrelevant 3A coach had any negative bearing on his son's employment is laughable.

On the contrary, had he not been a nepotistic hire at Baylor with the last name Briles he would not be near college football right now.

---

Malbec said:

---

MilliVanilli said:

---

You have to be pretty damn infamous to haunt your family with the specter of generational sin. Think about that for a moment.

---

Not in the age of social media.

---

Timbear said:

---

If Milli really thinks that Art is irrelevant, she/he wouldn't still be trying to convince us that he is.

---

BarleyMcDougal said:

---

MilliVanilli said:

---

Malbec said:

---

It was a statement in general, not specific to Briles or his staff. How you can honestly claim that someone subject to the wrath of the SJW throng is merely immersed in a state of victimhood says much about your agenda and why you would side with a cabal of reprobates who did anything they could to avoid the very plight that you poohpooh.

---

The fact you think a now irrelevant 3A coach had any negative bearing on his son's employment is laughable.

On the contrary, had he not been a nepotistic hire at Baylor with the last name Briles he would not be near college football right now.

---

That might be true, but it's hard to say that Kendal isn't both good and qualified.

---

Timbear said:

---

If Milli really thinks that Art is irrelevant, she/he wouldn't still be trying to convince us that he is.

---

MilliVanilli said:

---

BarleyMcDougal said:

---

MilliVanilli said:

---

Malbec said:

---

It was a statement in general, not specific to Briles or his staff. How you can honestly claim that someone subject to the wrath of the SJW throng is merely immersed in a state of victimhood says much about your agenda and why you would side with a cabal of reprobates who did anything they could to avoid the very plight that you poohpooh.

---

The fact you think a now irrelevant 3A coach had any negative bearing on his son's employment is laughable.

On the contrary, had he not been a nepotistic hire at Baylor with the last name Briles he would not be near college football right now.

---

That might be true, but it's hard to say that Kendal isn't both good and qualified.

---

if you talk to some players that played under him he failed to impress.

---