Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Agreed, when will UK have the guts to make an actual statement. Do they think people are just going to forget about this?
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 LloydProbably.
Aren't there a lot of posters on here even now saying we should just forget about it?
Wrong again. Marv Albert = biter. Al Michaels = dui. At least you are consistent.Are you allowed to bite people? Ask Al Michels.
Wrong again. Marv Albert = biter. Al Michaels = dui. At least you are consistent.
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.
There are times in life after you have fought the good fight you should just fold your tent and move on.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.
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.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
y
GBB!!!
Lou
I think the lynching comment is a bit over the top too.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
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.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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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'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.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.
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'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.
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.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?
Jauk,Just stop it!!
You are trying to confuse Fuzz with facts,
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.
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.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.
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.
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?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.
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.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.
What is your point? That might be the line of progression, but so what?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.
So if I change my name to LazingBBB will no one notice?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
I think they will think you still owe the thousand.So if I change my name to LazingBBB will no one notice?
Ridiculous. The Tubman case was prosecuted before the GJ. I think you are trying too hard, for unknown reasons.
I don't know what this means.I think they will think you still owe the thousand.