If the allegations were not believed by a prosecutor or a grand jury, I fail to see how women would be at risk. Are allegations enough today to ruin a person's reputation and create a false sense of fear? And, if anyone was at risk, one would think that he would have been prosecuted and that other schools would reject him.
Lloyd Tubman Update...
- Thread starter sluggercatfan
- Start date
- Status
If the allegations were not believed by a prosecutor or a grand jury, I fail to see how women would be at risk. Are allegations enough today to ruin a person's reputation and create a false sense of fear? And, if anyone was at risk, one would think that he would have been prosecuted and that other schools would reject him.
Did he testify? Good question. Was the hearing held before the grand jury proceedings? If so, he probably never was permitted to testify and it would scream an injustice to have a hearing when a person must take the fifth.
Also, the standard may be different, but the grand jury's standard is not high.
So, if he is innocent and the grand jury did not find the young woman credible, then punishment is still acceptable? Would it not be a better result to tell them both to leave campus? If we punsh innocense, why not punish them both?
Isn't it a shame that a group of supposedly educated people who call themselves things like DR. and professor don't understand that under the American constitution ALL people are innocent until proven guilty. Tubman does not have to be proven innocent . He IS innocent under our constitution. As discussed above Larson's folks are the REAL professionals in this area and their standard of going forward was less than the 50.1% standard in a civil case.
Our US Constitution took a hit on this one. Not a good day for UK.
Our US Constitution took a hit on this one. Not a good day for UK.
Bunch of pencil necked needle dicks decided this guy's future. Outrageous.
I'm assuming you are saying that Lloyd is guilty since you are saying he would be a threat to other women on campus
I'm guessing you are saying that Lloyd is guilty by what you have been told...Well, I have been pretty spot on so far so just remember the quote "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned"...I won't say anymore, but there is more , but not what you are thinking...
These are my last strokes on this well-beaten dead horse....
Because someone isn't indicted...or has charges dropped does not mean that they are totally innocent. People are given breaks. I have a nefew who stole about $10,000 worth of merchandise from the place where he was working when he was 19 yrs old and in college. He was arrested and charged with felony theft. The store owner liked him and didn't want him sent to prison yet wanted him to learn a lesson so they put him through the ringer... In the end the store owner allowed him to pay him back, at wholesale no less and the store owner worked with the DA and all of the charges were eventually dropped.
Was he innocent? Hell no! He was handed a break.
I don't think anyone in this situation wanted to see LT's life ruinned over a teenage love afair gone bad. I don't think the girl wanted him sent off to prision...she just wanted him to go away.
As I've said, there is more to this puzzle than what we have seen. What that "more" is, I don't know. Are they txt messages passed betwen the two that make LT look more guilty??? I don't know.
What I know is that in general boards like the SRB at UK try the best they can to be fair and that if LT has appealed and been denied at every level then there is at least a little smoke on which they have made their decision. Maybe it's a 51%-49% thing... Regardless we need to drop it and move on.
Because someone isn't indicted...or has charges dropped does not mean that they are totally innocent. People are given breaks. I have a nefew who stole about $10,000 worth of merchandise from the place where he was working when he was 19 yrs old and in college. He was arrested and charged with felony theft. The store owner liked him and didn't want him sent to prison yet wanted him to learn a lesson so they put him through the ringer... In the end the store owner allowed him to pay him back, at wholesale no less and the store owner worked with the DA and all of the charges were eventually dropped.
Was he innocent? Hell no! He was handed a break.
I don't think anyone in this situation wanted to see LT's life ruinned over a teenage love afair gone bad. I don't think the girl wanted him sent off to prision...she just wanted him to go away.
As I've said, there is more to this puzzle than what we have seen. What that "more" is, I don't know. Are they txt messages passed betwen the two that make LT look more guilty??? I don't know.
What I know is that in general boards like the SRB at UK try the best they can to be fair and that if LT has appealed and been denied at every level then there is at least a little smoke on which they have made their decision. Maybe it's a 51%-49% thing... Regardless we need to drop it and move on.
Just reporting the latest man ...what the hell is your problem...I wish Lloyd the best and as far as cheering for Lloyd , I have been a season ticket holder for 35+ years and will be at EVERY UK game this season...Will you?...All I'm telling you is the kid is getting a raw deal
No. Not at all. I was responding to the person saying that the 5 year penalty allows the accuser an opportunity to finish undergraduate school and a couple of years of graduate school before Tubman is allowed back on campus. I was pointing out how flawed that logic is, if that is what they are thinking, because if they are trying to protect the student body, the accuser is not the only person at risk. If they think he is a risk, then all female students would be at risk, not just the accuser. I think these issues should be settled on the facts. If there is no evidence to support her accusation, then he should be allowed to enroll and get on with his life.
More "facts" will come out about what really transpired and we should be able to get a more clear picture as to what really happened. Until then, everything is speculation.
I'd love to see Tubman's mother tell her story in front of a camera. Not holding my breath though.Just reporting the latest man ...what the hell is your problem...I wish Lloyd the best and as far as cheering for Lloyd , I have been a season ticket holder for 35+ years and will be at EVERY UK game this season...Will you?...All I'm telling you is the kid is getting a raw deal
It's pretty clear that you have talked to someone that knows Lloyd for what his obviously HIS side of the story. Have you heard the other side of the story from the woman or someone close to the woman?? Just wondering.
That's why I said "her side" of the story, douche. I'd also like to hear the gf's side of the story, which we've been told would be screamed at the top of her lungs often if Tubman were allowed back in school.
So if the accuser's mother spoke on this it would be from an unbiased source?...Only two folks know what actually happened and with zero evidence evidently who do you believe?...Now that would be an unbiased source!
I guess you missed the sarcasm. Someone's mother is the last person I want to comment on their child's guilt or innocence.
True, only two people know what actually happened but even that doesn't mean that they see what happened in the same way.
This fits in very well with how UK has treated football for decades. I don't think too many on here, even Fuzz, will argue that basketball program has been a huge plus for UK for decades-----and I would argue that football could have been a MUCH bigger plus for decades if it had gotten even close to the same support from UK. The way that the administration is so scaredy cat of the incompetent NCAA while others flaunt the rules and bend every one they can is ridiculous------and they profit tremendously from it. A very good chance this will just be another costly incident . And no, I do think that UK should never sink close to the level of the OTIS, campaigned against BP to UK even though I think he is a great OC. .
This ruling also fits in with how the academic community feels about football, turning down the financing for the new scoreboards and sound system (two years overdue) when they would be loaning SOME of the money with interest that UK football has GIVEN them over the years should give you an idea about how they view the sport.
And I disagree with the post that this is just another three star, the coaches raved about him and said all he had to do was work hard and gain needed weight. Sounds like he did that in spades, and even grew some during the process.
I also think the risk factor has been way overdone, has he really been in trouble before? Does he have walking around sense, seems like it since he graduated from high school and wasn't in academic trouble here, how could anyone in his position be the least bit tempted to put himself in this situation again, seems like he would know how much grief even an accusation that you were found innocent of can cost you. Wouldn't he be (and was probably) a BMOC, doesn't he have a great body (important to me in the opposite sex), is he that big a loser that he has to rape women? Geez, he could even get married if he is that desperate for sex, but maybe you should be careful there also, LOL.
Just how much more information did this tribunal have than the grand jury? If Fuzz (or anyone else) has more damaging information that isn't just hearsay why not put up or shut up?
UL has a huge advantage in both taking troubled transfers and the way they treat them when on campus, coverups galore, certainly a big inducement to good players that are a risk and already addicted to pot. No way in hell I would ever want UK to follow their example, but the Jarmon fiasco and cases like this will hurt UK's chances with a lot of players.
To throw this person's opportunity to play for a great school in a great conference in his home state for a "crime" that he was investigated for by a competent judicial system that didn't bother to prosecute seems just wrong to me, maybe financially prudent, but morally wrong. At the best he seems to have lost a year of his life. Laughable that Fuzz could say this could be the best thing that has happened to him.
This ruling also fits in with how the academic community feels about football, turning down the financing for the new scoreboards and sound system (two years overdue) when they would be loaning SOME of the money with interest that UK football has GIVEN them over the years should give you an idea about how they view the sport.
And I disagree with the post that this is just another three star, the coaches raved about him and said all he had to do was work hard and gain needed weight. Sounds like he did that in spades, and even grew some during the process.
I also think the risk factor has been way overdone, has he really been in trouble before? Does he have walking around sense, seems like it since he graduated from high school and wasn't in academic trouble here, how could anyone in his position be the least bit tempted to put himself in this situation again, seems like he would know how much grief even an accusation that you were found innocent of can cost you. Wouldn't he be (and was probably) a BMOC, doesn't he have a great body (important to me in the opposite sex), is he that big a loser that he has to rape women? Geez, he could even get married if he is that desperate for sex, but maybe you should be careful there also, LOL.
Just how much more information did this tribunal have than the grand jury? If Fuzz (or anyone else) has more damaging information that isn't just hearsay why not put up or shut up?
UL has a huge advantage in both taking troubled transfers and the way they treat them when on campus, coverups galore, certainly a big inducement to good players that are a risk and already addicted to pot. No way in hell I would ever want UK to follow their example, but the Jarmon fiasco and cases like this will hurt UK's chances with a lot of players.
To throw this person's opportunity to play for a great school in a great conference in his home state for a "crime" that he was investigated for by a competent judicial system that didn't bother to prosecute seems just wrong to me, maybe financially prudent, but morally wrong. At the best he seems to have lost a year of his life. Laughable that Fuzz could say this could be the best thing that has happened to him.
No idea. The article just said he needed to speak with his attorney before he could say more, but that the situation was still playing out? It made a point of saying Tubman contacted them after the information came out yesterday that he wouldn't be back, so who knows. Keeping my fingers crossed for this young man.
I feel pretty confident in saying that the Student Conduct Board's ruling had absolutely nothing to do with whether or not Tubman was an athlete or not. To say this is an example of the university not supporting the football team is idiotic.
fuzz that is an awful comparison, you admitted your nephew stole, and the store owner just wanted his money back, so he paid it back. Where's your angle?
You are entirely correct, never been even close to being involved in it, LOL But I would guess that a lot of people giving their opinions weren't there either, even Fuzz.. I guess I was lost in the long discussion about pot on here also, since I never ever smoked a cigarette, let alone did any drugs. Well, I did start drinking, after going through the Army and working my way through college, but that was at 27. And, except for just being lucky, I could still be in jail from an accident while drinking, I suppose, a huge change in attitudes there also. MUCH older and a little wiser now.
I do know we have prisons full of people and a lot of them don't deserve to be there and there is nothing gained in a lot of cases from them being there. Read "Adams vs Texas", great true story and pretty enlightening about what can happen with our justice system, run by the lawyers, for profit.
I still say Tubman is one of the last persons I would worry about raping someone soon, especially this woman, unless he doesn't have walking around sense. But perhaps this is a good thing for him, much less likely to get in trouble at UL no matter what kind of person he is or what he does.
Probably a lot of prospects out there that see how UK has your back. Another big advantage that UL has, and no, no way I would ever want to stoop to jurich's level.
This is the most asinine comparison imaginable. There was an indictment because there was no case. Not because the girl "didn't want him to go to prison". Not because he settled up financially and the complaining witness dropped the charges. Because there wasn't a case, and there never was a case.
There is no mysterious "more to the puzzle". It was all presented to the grand jury. They declined to even find probably cause; the weakest of all standards.
What if we have the EXACT same facts, except he called a few hours leaving and reported she raped him? No doubt in my mind, theyre both still in school. It probably never even gets presented to the grand jury.
Instead, you and your ilk have created a climate where a male can have his life ruined simply on the basis of an allegation, no matter how weak. Theyre both human beings. Having different reproductive organs does not make one more credible.
The angle is the DA was under no obligation to drop the charges...he did so because nobody involved in the case wanted it to go forward and because my nephew had never had so much as a traffic ticket.
Do we know that this girl wanted LT sent to prison?
Rape cases are no fun for either the accused or the accuser.
You don't know any of what you just wrote unless you are Jim Lowry or Ray Larson.
Fuzz, she filed RAPE CHARGES against the kid, yes I think she wanted him put away. And I don't think she changed her mind like you are implying because the Student Council still made a negative decision against the kid, if the victim reversed her stance he would have been allowed to stay for sure.
And you do? Why would you insinuate there is more to the story when you said yourself no one knows but Lowry or Larson?
Haha nice try at cherry picking but false. The grand jury saw all the evidence; otherwise this girl and her family would've been complaining about it to any and all media they could.
Care to address the rest of your ridiculous post? Or are you just conceding all those points (as you shouldve a long time ago).
You all just need to ignore Fuzz(a.k.a rqarnold). He is a spokesperson for the administration at UK. He is constantly defending every criticism made pertaining to the university's decisions.
This whole situation is a prime example of political correctness. Lloyd was accused of rape, yet the toughest prosecutor in the state couldn't find enough evidence to even take the case to trial. That alone tells me what has gone on here.
This is pitiful.
This whole situation is a prime example of political correctness. Lloyd was accused of rape, yet the toughest prosecutor in the state couldn't find enough evidence to even take the case to trial. That alone tells me what has gone on here.
This is pitiful.
I was hesitant to suggest this while the university was deliberating on the matter, but if they have made a final decision, I think people should be writing the media and trying to get UK to explain and defend the process it uses to determine whether a student can re-enroll or not. I think they should be required to have an objective standard that they apply to the facts in each case, and that objective standard should determine whether a student can enroll. There should not be any subjectivity to the process at all. UK can't comment on the specifics of this case, but they can certainly comment on their process and the standard they use to make a ruling. Being a tax funded institution, in my mind, requires them to have something objective in place to ensure all students are being treated exactly the same. I think it also requires that the process and standard be open to public scrutiny. I would like to see some investigative reporter ask some hard questions about how the university processes these cases.
My guess is the university has a set policy in place. That policy was formed because university lawyers said; "Here is option A, it has the potential to cost us this much money. Here is option B, it has the potential to cost us this much money."
And the shop owner than my nephew stole from setup a sting to catch him and have him arrested...the night that they caught him, the owner was there and pretty pissed off. Perhaps she did want him put away at the time she filed charges... that doesn't mean she doesn't change her mind.
Dude, believe what you want to belive. I've said that I don't know where the real truth lies. I doubt that it's black or white...most likely some shade of gray. I've also said that I hope that he gets to come back and play for UK although I think it's a long shot. I don't think anyone at UK is or was "out to get" LT or that the decision to deny him admittance was desired or easy for anyone involved. These are people for the most part who have chosen as a profession to help young people succeed in life. They are tasked with sometimes having to make tough decisions. The NFL couldn't prove that Tom Brady ordered footballs to be deflated but they felt they were sure enough to suspend him for 4 games and find the Patriots $1 million and take away draft picks.
If LT is truely innocent then it's a shame that he won't be able to play at UK but he is given and will get opportunities to have his education paid and to play college football. If he is guilty, he is lucky he gets a second chance.
About 40% of the kids who apply to go to UK get denied admittance.
Good idea in theory, will never happen because the decisions often involve private information.
The process is standard. They review the facts and make a decision.
What scrutiny can you apply without access to the facts of any case? If the facts involve private information then they can't be made public. It is next to impossible to write a policy manual that can stipulate every possible case senario that could come before the board.
The SRB is not unlike a jury and all jurys are different. The same facts presented to two different jurys may render two different decisions.
Cases are rarely black or white so subjectivity will always be in play.
- Status
Similar threads
