I agree. This is a disgrace for the young man. Yeah, yeah, yeah... All the "life isn't fair" crap is nice.. but I sure hope Tubman sues the hell out of the University for getting rid of him because he was NOT GUILTY and NEVER WENT TO COURT of... take a short breath folks.... "rape".. Crappy for a kid... They need to let him back on the football field to be with his friends/teammates. Bunch of jerks.
Its the stigma that goes with being accused. I taught and coached 32 years in Georgia. About 15 years ago one of my friends was accused by a parent of providing alcohol for a minor. The minor was a friend of my friend's son and had gone on a camping trip with my friend's family. Beer was one of the supplies my friend had. Anyway, the kid got home, told his mama he got drunk on the camping trip, mama pressed charges, my friend was charged, indicted, tried, aquitted. But was also suspended, fired and lost teaching certification. Couldn't get his certification back or his job, because of being accused of the crime he was aquitted of. Yes he went the legal route to get it back, which drug on forever it seemed and still couldn't get it back. Was that fair, absolutely not, but it was the stigma of committing a crime, which will follow this kid for some time.
y'all need to face the reality we currently live in where sexual assaults on college campuses are the number one issue for national journalists, and quite a few powerful politicians. we all see it from the point of view of football fans. Try and look at the issue if you were the UK President - there still is a female current UK student & she still says this young man raped her.
I don't think there is anyone that would disagree that the whole situation stinks for the young man. As for "had he gone to trial" aspect...
It seems like to me there was more evidence in the Winston case than this one. Also a MUCH bigger attempt to just make it go away.
Where in the world did I ever bring money into the conversation?
Winston was never charged. Tubman was charged and the case was presented to a grand jury that determined there was not probable cause. Probably picking nits but Tubman's case went farther through the legal process than Winston's. Having said that, there is little difference in the two cases legally. Both were he said, she said where no one other than the people involved will ever know whether the sex was consensual. I feel horrible for Tubman if he didn't rape the girl. I feel horrible for the girl if he did rape her. We will never know unless one of them comes out and says "I did it" or "he didn't do it" which is unlikely. I hope the kid gets to play for the Cats. But I understand the process and don't think either of them have a winnable lawsuit regardless of what happens.
"FWIW, you too would be into covering your ass
Oh for the love of god.....
I'll take it that neither of you have ever had a class in logic.
Two initial thoughts if this story is true - One, unfortunately it confirms that I was correct in assuming Tubman would never play for UK, just had bad vibes about this for some time now. Two, given the ruling of the UK conduct board, I am also afraid there was more than just he said/she said to support their decision. Sure, not enough for a Grand Jury to indict, but as we have said all along, the criminal standard of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is not (and should not) be the standard for a college board of conduct.
What in the world. You're talking absolutely crazy. Please don't ever vote. That type of thinking is ruining society. Tell me where the logic is in that statement.Originally posted by fuzz77:
FWIW, you too would be into covering your ass if you could find yourself personally liable if someone you allowed back in school, back on a job, etc and that person committed another act that brought harm to someone. If Tubman is readmitted and if he were to again be accused of a similar or any act that brought harm to someone else, everyone who was involved in his readmission could find themselves being held personally liable for his actions.Originally posted by Beavis606:
Universities are all about covering their asses today.
I think it's clear that fans all want Tubman back because of the potential he brings to the team. How many of us would feel the same if 1), we were staking our jobs and family future on the future actions of someone you don't really know?.. and 2), Tubman wasn't a football player?
I have zero inside info on this issue and I really dislike when someone says to the effect...I'm not going to say something but if I did you should all be royally pissed...but in today's world you cannot fault administrators and admission boards for erring on the side of better safe than sorry.
Hate to say it Tskware, but this may be a case of who it is and nothing else. I'm sorry but that board needs revamping so that justice can prevail. If its just about the sex on campus, why didn't Chuck Hayes face the conduct board when his little situation happened on campus at the Wildcat Lodge?
You are correct. I have served on a grand jury and the standard for bringing a back a true bill is very low. It has nothing to do with whether or not you think there will be a conviction or whether or not you think the suspect did it. It's about whether there is enough evidence to suggest a crime might have been committed. It's hard to imagine that if the prosecution could not even meet this standard that the University would have any evidence to deny admission.
Let me get something straight. I have 2 Daughters, a grand daughter and 2 sisters. None of which would have led a man out of anywhere that had just raped them without yelling rape as soon as they got somewhere where they felt safe enough to do so. This girl might have been in a closed room but she wasn't in a closed room when she calmly led the dude out of the building past people that she could have screamed rape very loudly at. I will bet that was the major reason the dude wasn't indicted. If I had been sitting that grand jury I would have been inclined to not indict because that just doesn't make sense. Girls if you want to be taken seriously in a situation like this don't do that. Scream your lungs out as soon as you feel safe enough to do so.
The University of Kentucky is a public institution, funded by tax dollars. Public institutions do not have the right to pick and choose based on arbitrary variables. He may not have the right to go to UK, but he does have the right to be considered for admittance in the same manner as any other person who has not been convicted of a crime. It is a form of discrimination to refuse admittance to any individual for something he was falsely accused of.
