Lloyd Tubman Update...
- Thread starter sluggercatfan
- Start date
- Status
Probably.
Aren't there a lot of posters on here even now saying we should just forget about it?
And the sad part is that the board is probably right, how long do you think this thread is going to last?
I started the post and I think it is time to move on...Talked to my guy yesterday and it is over...Lloyd is headed to JC in Tx and probably be back in P5 conf after a couple of years...Let's just say that Lloyd's weakness was/is girls and he was beguiled by an ex and he fell ...Says Lloyd has learned a lesson the hard way...On a last not, he and his mom wanted him back at UK so she could watch him play , but it is not gonna happen...Good luck and the best to Lloyd
Wrong again. Marv Albert = biter. Al Michaels = dui. At least you are consistent.
![[laughing]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/classic/laugh.r191677.gif "Laughing [laughing]")
Oh I agree, it will be forgotten by most fans pretty fast------but that doesn't mean it should be. And I still believe that the REAL drop in donations by a lot of football fans upset about this unfair (JMO, but shared by MANY) action mostly justified by fear of lawsuits and bad publicity (look how UL and jurich is suffering, LOL) will be a real cost that will be more than a lawsuit MIGHT have ever cost UK. To start with if Tubman hasn't learned enough from this to not ever get accused again he isn't smart enough to stay in college very long anyway-----well, maybe at UL. Wouldn't be surprised at all to see him there before it is all over, if he is a rapist his best choice by far.
Not to mention that I don't think the right thing was done, shame on UK.
Not to mention that I don't think the right thing was done, shame on UK.
UK isn't going to be negatively impacted by this financially. That's silly. Only the most hardcore fans are even aware of or care about the incident. It isn't basketball related so that removes about 80% right off the top.
Thus far, I haven't seen any SEC school or our feathered friends west of Lexington rushing the Tubman home for his services.
Right, that's silly, no money in football and UK will never have a team, still no money being spent on it OR donated because of it, witness the $45,000,000 football center to be built with donations.
Quit living in the past and hope UK's winning streak which has a very good chance of starting this year doesn't go to double digits instead of stopping at four.
There are times in life after you have fought the good fight you should just fold your tent and move on.
The PC people who don't believe in the" innocent until proven guilty concept" when it doesn't fit THEIR AGENDA won this one .
Not the first legal lynching in America.
Now is time for those of us disappointed to move on.
No I don't think it will costs us ten cents in donations.
But that is irrelevant .
It's done . Over. Fini. Past tense.Final.
No fighting City Hall.
As the Pharaoh said "Let it be said,let it be written,let it be done."
Who are we as mere mortals to argue with the PC Pharaohs?
Last post on this subject. Second time I have said that.
PEACE
GBB!!!
Lou
Lou, again, I appreciate your posts on this subject. If you are referring to me when you say "The PC people who don't believe in the" innocent until proven guilty concept" when it doesn't fit THEIR AGENDA won this one" you are wrong. I am definitely disappointed that Tubman will not return. I have no agenda other than asking UK fans to not look at everything blinded by blue goggles because they are UK fans. I have only said that I don't know what was proven at the UK board. It is not fair to assume that the no true bill means that there was not proof that he violated school policy. I'm not saying he did, but I'm not willing to say it was political correctness that banned him from UK.
I realize that I've screwed up on posts here, e.g. Al Michaels instead of Marv Albert, but I stick with my point is that I don't know whether he did it. I hope he didn't. I just don't know whether he violated school policy. I just don't like this UK board saying he should play without knowing what happened, and then the next thread being about a UL player accused of a crime (not yet convicted) and the same people here supporting Tubman criticizing UL.
I agree that this horse is dead. I'm done too.
Unless something makes me want to respond.
We should all wish Mr. Tubman all the best and hope he moves on with his life to be the best he can be.
Why is it blue colored lenses to question this decision, but it is not wearing blue colored lenses to assume UK got it right?
To me that makes zero sense.
To me that makes zero sense.
I think this is a great point. Those of us who question the process at UK are criticizing the university, not defending it. Those who cannot even entertain the possibility that UK might be making decisions based on things other than its standard of proof are defending the university without any solid evidence to support that conclusion. The known facts of the case provide a reason to have some doubt about the process. The people defending UK have to invent possible scenarios that are not known facts in order to try and explain away the decision. The homer position is the one who thinks the university can do no wrong in the face of facts that suggest there might be a problem. I have never said I know what happened or that UK definitely did something wrong here. I have only said that when you look at the known facts, coupled with UK's written standard of proof, it is reasonable to have some questions and doubt about the process. That is based solely on the known facts and not trying to create scenarios that might explain it away.
The saddest part? If Tubman was a basketball burger boy, he would've been reinstated to school and team hours after the GJ decision, HOURS! No actually he would've never been thrown out of school or off the team, maybe suspended games at the most, until he was found not innocent and convicted.
Here is the problem with your argument. Both the GJ and the SRB hearing are held in private. None of the findings, evidence or arguments made in either will ever be known and were not shared between the two. While we know the GJ only considered rape charges, we have no idea what indesgressions were considered by the SRB. While some of us have "made up scenarios", we have to be wrong about every single scenario to be ultimately wrong while you have to be right that none of those things occurred.
To those wondering why if biteing was his crime and the fact that she bit him too... You really don't see the difference?
If he is holding her face down and covering her mouth so she can't scream, she isn't allowed to fight back? Come on, don't tell me that you are that dense.
If he was a basketball player, he'd be back. What evidence do you have of that? Seems to me that the treatment of all athletes at UK has been pretty even handed. There have been a couple of high profile basketball players that were expelled. Dwight Anderson and Shawn Kemp come to mind.
Did the GJ only consider rape charges? That would be unusual, I think. Often, a lesser included offense is also considered.
So much here that has already been debated. But, if you scenario were true, there would have been a prosecution on that attack. Under your hypothesis, Tubman have to have been charged with a school violation that was not a crime and, yet, given one of the harshest penalties permitted under school rules. Far fetched.
You always avoid the crux of the argument. The point is that you won't even allow yourself to think the board could have done anything wrong, even though by your own admission, you don't know any details that would clear up the doubt. You have to assume facts that will never be known in order to arrive at your conclusion. That is being a homer. Looking objectively at what we know would cause any reasonable person to have questions about the objectivity and fairness of the process.
I was hoping you would make the point you made about the biting issue because it further illustrates my point. You have to accept the rape occurred in order to conclude that her biting was self defense. If he was holding her head down, covering her mouth, and doing the other things she said, then at the very least you conclude he assaulted her and probably raped her. He wouldn't have been kicked out for biting her if you assume the other acts in her story are fact. He would have been kicked out for assault or rape. If there isn't evidence to conclude he assaulted or raped her, then his bite doesn't violate the code of conduct any more than hers. The argument being made that he might have been kicked out for biting is absurd because if you could prove the other acts, he would have been kicked out for those. If you can't prove the other acts, then her biting violates the code of conduct just as much as his does. It's just a made up scenario that has very little logic behind it.
Finally, all the people who made up events don't have to be wrong for me to be right. I've never said UK screwed this up. I've said the known facts create a lot of justifiable questions and doubt about the nature of the process and the decision they reached. I still think it does.
SMH, was there prosecution of the bar fight in Richmond? We all saw it, know that it happened yet no prosecution. Many, many crimes go un-prosecuted.
All I am saying is that there is a wide range of possibilities for which Tubman could have been found in violation of the student code of conduct that are less than a provable 1st degree rape charge. None need to have been provable beyond reasonable doubt.
Over the years many athletes have gotten in trouble, only a few have been expelled. There is no reason to believe that Tubman was singled out, no reason to assume he was mistreated as there is no history with athletes at UK being mistreated. Sometimes jury's get it wrong and sometimes I'm sure that the SRB gets it wrong. A perfect system doesn't exist. Until we have evidence to the contrary I'm going to assume that right or wrong both bodies did the best they could with the information they had with to work. That is all you can ask.
Good Lord. The over/under for the number of times that both BBBLazing and myself have suggested that the SRB may have gotten it wrong is in this thread is 10.
It's tough to prove objectivity or lack thereof based on one case. What other evidence do you have that a pattern either way exists?
I'm not trying to prove anything. I'm suggesting that given what we know, we should be asking questions to try and insure that the process is fair and objective and is not being influenced by politics or outside interests.
Just stop it!!
You are trying to confuse Fuzz with facts, and the only important fact to him is that UK MIGHT get sued sometime in the future if they allowed him to stay in school, and MONEY is the most important thing in life to a lot of people.
Better to screw up a couple of years of someone's life (definitely one year at least so far) than take a chance, haven't you read about all the other things Tubman is guilty of? Well, I haven't either, but who knows.
The process is published, the cases are all held in private. UK is never going to comment on any case so whom are you going to ask?
I can answer that question. I would ask that UK, or state government, hire an independent third party to audit a sample of its code of conduct cases to judge how the evidence stands up to the written standard and whether or not the decision was consistent with the level of evidence in the case. I also think the independent auditor should look at the process and make recommendations on how to improve the objectivity of the process. For example, do we really want faculty, who have a financial relationship with UK, to sit on the board and review cases? That sounds like a bad idea on its face. I think there is room for improvement and I think an independent auditor would be a good first step in determining what they do well and what they do poorly.
Jauk,
Great post as usual . Love your last line. Speaks volumes very succinctly as to what our complaint is all about.
Oops I said last night I was done with this thread. Kind of feel like the guy on the MTA.
Lou
How do you know that this isn't already being done on a periodic basis? Having experience working for public institutions of higher learning as well as private organizations, all written, documented procedures are subject to periodic review. Add the fact that if documented procedures weren't followed we'd know as those complaints would be part of public record.
As for any relationship that SRB members may have with UK...I realize that this is a foreign concept for many but as I have said many times in this thread...you have no right to attend UK. Your attendance is a privilege. You must apply and be accepted, you continue to attend at their digression. So if for some reason a student's attendance put at risk some aspect of the university, then the university is well within its rights to remove that student. The only exceptions to that are that the university must adhere to equal opportunity guidelines and "provide opportunities to people regardless of economic or social status and not discriminate on the basis of race, color, ethnic origin, national origin, creed, religion, political belief, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, age, veteran status, or physical or mental disability.". If you can show that they discriminate against any of those classes of people, you've got something.
It would seem extremely odd that the prosecutor would allege felony rape and not include sexual assault or some other lesser included. I think it safe to assume no credible evidence supported the claim. So, we can both shake our heads.
No, it isn't "safe to assume". Again, we know that Barker, Baker, et al. were in a bar fight and no charges were brought forward. Is it "safe to assume" that there wasn't enough evidence to support the claim that a fight occurred? How about Barker being sucker punched...not enough evidence to bring charges?
DA's and the courts show discretion, they "pick their fights". They have limited capacity, limited resources and have a pretty good idea of what crimes they can prove. The conviction rate of cases like Tubman's is very low because it ultimately comes down to believing one person's word vs another's beyond a reasonable doubt. The SRB doesn't require that level of certainty and it has a much broader spectrum of considerations.
There seems to be this idea out there that the courts want to prosecute every single crime...nothing could be further from the truth.
Ridiculous. The Tubman case was prosecuted before the GJ. I think you are trying too hard, for unknown reasons.
How do you know they are periodically reviewed. If they are, there should be a report that is a public document that we can read to see the audit results. I'm not aware of any such report, but if you are, I would love to see it.
Have a board of unbiased people has nothing to do with anyone having a right to attend the university. UK isn't a private organization. With a private organization, I can understand that the board will be stacked with biased people charged with protecting the organization instead of the people involved. However, with a publicly funded organization like UK, a biased board should not exist. The taxpayers right to fair and equal treatment should supersede UK's concern to protect itself. The board should be made up of third party members with no relationship with UK. Even though he doesn't have a right to attend the university, he does have the right to be treated the same as any other student and in accordance with the universities written policies. That means in order to be expelled, the evidence must meet the standard of proof in the written policy. Maybe it does, but you have to assume a lot of things that aren't facts in order to get to that conclusion. I'm always skeptical when I have invent scenarios in order to justify what someone else does.
You are uncomfortable making up senarios but it is exactly what you are doing.
The people elect the governor, the governor selects the board of trust, the board of trust hires the university president, the president appoints the SRB.
If there is something you don't like then I suggest you take it up with the governor.
The people elect the governor, the governor selects the board of trust, the board of trust hires the university president, the president appoints the SRB.
If there is something you don't like then I suggest you take it up with the governor.
Read the new thread about the new atmosphere on college "Here's a very interesting article---", very interesting,
What do you mean, unknown reasons. He has always been the official spokesman for UK on these boards.
- Status
Similar threads
