While true, people will also be fact-checking these type allegations much more diligently, particularly due to the incredibly, abhorrent piece Rolling Stone did on the alleged UVa rape.
This doesn't sound good for Lloyd
- Thread starter BigBlueFanGA
- Start date
By the letter of the law? Yes. But in actual application - its quite the opposite. Especially so in the court of public opinion.
Falsely accused - An allegation that is completely false in that
the events that were alleged did not occur; An allegation that
describes events that did occur, but were perpetrated by an individual
who is not accused, and in which the accused person is innocent.
Presumption of Innocense - the burden of proof is on he who declares, not on he who denies), is the principle that one is considered innocent until proven guilty.
These are not the same things. Tubman was presumed inocent but that doesn't make him falsely accused.
Many universities do have this committee. Very common, although it is called different names like honor code committee, peer review committee, or student conduct committee. Being judged by one's peers is a common principle throughout our system of justice. If it was a bad way to do things, it would not be so common. It has no effect on Stoops. These people are not vigilantes.
I agree completely. I think what might be influencing this situation is the fact that on-campus rapes have been in the news a lot lately and parents are becoming more concerned about student safety. Universities are becoming more sensitive to that as student enrollment is their life blood. Thus the economics and politics of the broader issue of student rape may have been a factor here - just speculating of course.
None of that justifies punitive action against Tubeman IMO, unless there are facts that I have not heard, and if he winds up not being reinstated, then ironically Tubeman who appears to be innocent, becomes a victim himself.
This post was edited on 2/13 12:59 PM by Deeeefense
Did the Board make it's decision while the criminal case was pending consideration by the Grand Jury?
If that was the case ,it would seem that at least a review might be in order.If I had been in Tubman's situation I would not have made any statement to a Board or offered any defense that might be later used in the criminal case
Even now that might be tricky,as any statement might be enough for the C/A to take another look at the case.Before anyone gets excited I think there is a 98% chance that will never happen
If that was the case ,it would seem that at least a review might be in order.If I had been in Tubman's situation I would not have made any statement to a Board or offered any defense that might be later used in the criminal case
Even now that might be tricky,as any statement might be enough for the C/A to take another look at the case.Before anyone gets excited I think there is a 98% chance that will never happen
Here is my take on whether he was falsely accused. If the kid is innocent of that of which he was accused then he was falsely accused. If he is guilty he was not falsely accused but just skated because of lack of evidence to prove his guilt. I have no idea which is the truth in this situation. Only two people know the truth of this situation and unless one changes their story of the events that happened. I think we have what we call in chess a stalemate.
He is however presumed innocent because he has not been indicted and found guilty in a court of law. The truth may never be known in this case but guilty or innocent the kids reputation has been done a lot of damage. Damage deserved if he is guilty but a travesty of justice if he is innocent.
I know we have freedom of press but it is my opinion that the press should not be allowed to print or broadcast media's broadcast names in such cases when the supposed perpetrator has not even been indicted
He is however presumed innocent because he has not been indicted and found guilty in a court of law. The truth may never be known in this case but guilty or innocent the kids reputation has been done a lot of damage. Damage deserved if he is guilty but a travesty of justice if he is innocent.
I know we have freedom of press but it is my opinion that the press should not be allowed to print or broadcast media's broadcast names in such cases when the supposed perpetrator has not even been indicted
I would think that every piece of paper,tape or other document(except for Grand Jury transcripts or tapes)would be fair game for the media under an open records request.There may be more information to come in the next few days or weeks.
Someone correct me if I am wrong, since I am not a lawyer, but if he is not prosecuted then they sanctuon him shouldn't he have a nice lawsuit against the school? If someone accuses you of something and you are not found to be guilty your life is still ruined?
Are media outlets talking about this?
Is Matt Jones talking about this? I would assume he at least is...or are his hands tied?
*nothing to see here...nobody likes a story about an accused RAPIST!!!! being set free*
Is Matt Jones talking about this? I would assume he at least is...or are his hands tied?
*nothing to see here...nobody likes a story about an accused RAPIST!!!! being set free*
Jones had at least 1 caller ask about it,he(Jones)said that standards of proof in a criminal proceeding and those of a Board ruling on a person being in or out of a school are different and they should be.He said he had no problem with that being the case.
Not direct quote but this was his take on the situation.I don't think he wanted to go down that road very far and I understand why.
No, he would have zero lawsuit.
Scholarships are 1 year renewable contracts. If UK chooses to not readmit him after this school year it is completely within their rights. Scholarships can be taken away for any reason - or no reason whatsoever, and no athlete can sue a school for doing so. All of this is laid out in the letters of intent papers (contract) that players sign with schools.
His life wouldn't be ruined, he could attend school elsewhere, play football elsewhere. But yeah, the damage of being named an accused rapist is from the girl and is a severe one on Lloyd that will be with him for a long time. Only solution to that is sue the girl for wrongful accusations. But that action is rarely used, or works.
Just curious, if he transfers to another school would he be eligible this fall? Since he did not play last year seems like maybe that would count as the required year a transfer normally has to sit out. On the other hand, I seem to remember a transfer has to be enrolled in the new school for a year before being eligible.
It might be bad on the surface for Loyd but its much much worse for this "disciplinary board". A school gets a reputation in the recruiting world of subjecting student athletes to punishment that is much harsher than even in the court system and that school has a problem. A huge problem.
If I were the board I would do about everything in my power to make this go away. An example is the instate talent in KY in 2016. Many have said its the best in decades and maybe ever.
Every school is going to use some obscure "board" rulling that comes out negative for Lloyd as the first words out of their mouths. Truthfully if I were them I would as well.
Lets face it. Something happened last month that caused 6-8 guys to look elsewhere and walk away from KY. No one has a good idea what might be the cause, but I can promise you that couple our January with the situtation with Lloyd and we have the distinct possibility of losing a good KY high school class.
If I were the board I would do about everything in my power to make this go away. An example is the instate talent in KY in 2016. Many have said its the best in decades and maybe ever.
Every school is going to use some obscure "board" rulling that comes out negative for Lloyd as the first words out of their mouths. Truthfully if I were them I would as well.
Lets face it. Something happened last month that caused 6-8 guys to look elsewhere and walk away from KY. No one has a good idea what might be the cause, but I can promise you that couple our January with the situtation with Lloyd and we have the distinct possibility of losing a good KY high school class.
I don't buy that for a minute. Besides, there are a few other issues and factors that Universities have to concern themselves with other than maintaining the reputation for being lenient on athletes. Do you want to send your daughter to a school that sweeps sexual assault under the rug (FSU anyone??)?
Look, the criminal system has worked, lets let UK do its job and see how it plays out before we all get in a wad.
The problem with universities is you have a lot of people who come with an agenda and that comes before everything else. For example, there was that bogus study (I believe it was Stanford) done that only 2% of claims by women of rape or sexually assault are determined to be false. On its face, that's ridiculous. That number ignores that it's virtually impossible to prove a negative. For example, it's virtually impossible for Tubman to able to prove he didn't rape her. How does anybody know or how is that verified but it doesn't matter to the person with an agenda. A person with an agenda wants to do away with the reasonable doubt burden of proof, wants to effectively shift the burden of proof to the man and wants to convince the public that women who make rape claims and sexual assault claims are almost always (98%) telling the truth. It's absurd because every case should be treated on a case-by-case basis.
This post was edited on 2/13 5:11 PM by C.W.1
This post was edited on 2/13 5:11 PM by C.W.1
How do you know the study was bogus?
It is true that it is impossible for LT to prove he didn't rape the girl. Likewise, it's impossible for the girl to prove she was raped. What's the solution? Put cameras in every building and every room?
"only 2% of claims by women of rape or sexually assault are determined to be false". That may very well be true. DETERMINING that they ARE false is not the same as the claims being false. We don't know, we cannot determine if the girl who accused LT of rape is making a false claim or not. I'll bet that most rape claims fall into that category.
Either we can prove the claim is legit, prove that it is false or not be able to prove either way. I wouldn't doubt for a minute that only 2% of all claims are PROVEN to be false. No agenda needed.
StillBlue83
Re: This doesn't sound good for Lloyd
Couple of questions come to mind here.
1) Do all universities have such boards with this type of authority?
2) What kind of affect will this have on Stoops if this board can get rid of any of his players that are accused of such things?
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Apparently there were no issues at Fla State..
If they make an example of Lloyd and kick him out they will get no more donations from me of any sort. It does sound like it's over..Pitiful.
So many times the students on these boards don't even know the school has sports. Many are nerds as mentioned above.
This post was edited on 2/13 6:32 PM by bigbluedon
Re: This doesn't sound good for Lloyd
Couple of questions come to mind here.
1) Do all universities have such boards with this type of authority?
2) What kind of affect will this have on Stoops if this board can get rid of any of his players that are accused of such things?
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Apparently there were no issues at Fla State..
If they make an example of Lloyd and kick him out they will get no more donations from me of any sort. It does sound like it's over..Pitiful.
So many times the students on these boards don't even know the school has sports. Many are nerds as mentioned above.
This post was edited on 2/13 6:32 PM by bigbluedon
When they say "2% of rapes are proven false", I think they are saying exactly that. In 1 out of 50 rape accusations they have proven that the female was lying. That has nothing to do with the he said, she said situations that unfortunately are what most rapes are. In most cases, I would think, the authorities have little way to prove one way or another, particularly when both parties say they had sex. So, if someone is trying to use this statistic to say its unlikely Lloyd was innocent, I think they are pretty far out on the branch.
What is the basis for your comments about a school getting a "reputation in the recruiting world?" Have you ever been a recruiter? Ever had a kid recruited? Are you just a typical fan that gets on here and spouts off bs? You act like you are in the know.
As for the 6-8 guys that bailed before signing day, you are ignorant to the process if you don't know that it happens. UK encourages guys to verbally "commit" when they know the "commitment" is horseshit and they will never sign. I'm not saying that UK didn't want all of those kids to sign, I'm saying they knew some of them would not sign. But it helps us to have a kid verbally commit to UK over Ohio State. Once Ohio State finally offers, they are going there and we know it, but it builds momentum when they commit to us. Until you all realize that "verbal commitments" are not commitments at all, you are going to wear yourselves out worrying about this shit. There is a national signing day for a reason. We did good on national signing day. Get over it.
I am fairly new to this board, and it is hard to express my frustration with the ignorance of most of you.
I have seen no one say that it "is unlikely Lloyd was innocent." What I've seen is plenty of people saying we don't know, but everyone saying he is definitely innocent don't know either. That is what I've seen on this board.
You that say he is innocent and has been falsely accused are exaggerating what you know or have heard. You do not know. The two of them know what happened, but no one else does.
All of you should go back to arguing about who should play quarterback, because from what I've read, none of you are educated, informed or smart enough to argue about how the legal system applies to this situation.
LOL! Judging from this thread, this is a lot more true of football fans than universities! For the most part, the win at any cost mentality comes from people like those who post here. While organizational leaders sometimes focus on 1 aspect of an issue, for the most part universities only want to create a safe learning environment for students and maintain a competent faculty capable of generating some grant money. The university wants parents to feel that their children will get a good education and be safe on campus. With the exceptions of a few nutty places like FSU and UL, universities are not trying to figure out ways to keep football players on their campus at all costs. And I am not judging Tubman, since I don't know what happened. That's the point. It is someone else's job to do that, and I am content to let those people do their jobs. They are more qualified than me or anyone else who posts on a football board to assess what happened and protect opportunities and rights for all students.
I was responding to the poster who brought it up. He was really making a backhanded statement that Lloyd is probably guilty. I haven't made any statement about guilt in either direction. My complaint is about holding a disciplinary hearing, which, in this case, amounts to a kangaroo court since Lloyd couldn't possibly defend himself.
Do you all understand why a university has to have a mandatory disciplinary policy/procedure to apply in such situations, and why there has to be a swift timetable? A university has to protect itself from a liability perspective. Take the football player angle out of this. You've got one student accusing the other of rape. If the university does nothing and let's the criminal justice system handle it, the university is vulnerable to civil claims by the student "victim" or other students should something similar happen again. The university simply has to have an investigatory procedure to protect itself.
That's right. Liability takes many forms including legal, civic, professional, and public perception.
I beg to differ ,there has been quite a bit of good discussion about how the legal system works,explaination of how it applies to this case and what factors were in play that led to the finding by the Grand Jury.In fact several posters were spot on as to how the criminal case would resolve.Take a look at all the threads on this subject before you tell us how educated or smart we are or are not.
That "2%" seems awfully low to me, even if a lot of rapes would be hard to prove. I wonder what percent of the cases where the man was found innocent were at least thought to be made up, like in Lloyd's case? And with the recent shift in attitude toward prosecuting the crime and a more enlightened attitude toward the victims I wonder how much the percentage will climb, since the attitude seems to have shifted to a lot more sympathy and less tolerance for the crime.
I would think that 2%, if it were valid to start with, will start to climb with the new attitudes------and maybe we are already witnessing it.
Who knows, I don't, but it sounds like double jeopardy in this case to me. But I sincerely hope that whoever is in charge of this now has enough info about both parties and the circumstances to have a pretty good idea about the guilt or innocence of the man, not the football player, and if he is guilty I do not want him playing for my alma mater no matter how good a football player he is.
And if he isn't guilty then there is no way an ethical man should decide to kick him out of school because of the bad perception it might cause.
I would think that 2%, if it were valid to start with, will start to climb with the new attitudes------and maybe we are already witnessing it.
Who knows, I don't, but it sounds like double jeopardy in this case to me. But I sincerely hope that whoever is in charge of this now has enough info about both parties and the circumstances to have a pretty good idea about the guilt or innocence of the man, not the football player, and if he is guilty I do not want him playing for my alma mater no matter how good a football player he is.
And if he isn't guilty then there is no way an ethical man should decide to kick him out of school because of the bad perception it might cause.
Sure, but lets say Lloyd did absolutely nothing wrong in this case and the girl is just lying for some reason. Nobody get riled up, this is just a hypothetical situation. Anyway, you have a case with apparently no actual witnesses or evidence. A girl claims she was raped, a guy claims they had consensual sex. The guy is arrested due to her complaint and the DA works on presenting the case to a grand jury, in the mean time, the University has had a student code of conduct hearing in which no real evidence was presented and no actual witnesses could testify. The difference is, the complainant is the only one with a voice. The respondent can't say anything at all due to the ongoing investigation by the DA. So, by use of some magic 8 ball, the hearing ends in favor of the complainant, presumably because she is the only one to present ANY evidence. Now, how was any time of justice served in this situation? It wasn't. If that is even close to what happened, it is a sham and in the truest sense, a kangaroo court.
There was no ruling. That is my point. It was determined that there was not enough evidence to indict this kid. Doesn't mean he is innocent, or that he won't be charged and indicted next month. All of these people saying "I'm not a lawyer, but," or "double jeopardy" (yes I saw someone say that on this or another thread") are wrong. I hope he didn't rape her, but I don't know if he did. I hope he plays at Kentucky. I've heard he is a good kid. I just am amazed as someone who is new to the forum how dumb some of the people are, how blindly loyal some of the people are, how much some of the people assume, how misinformed some of the people are, and finally, how willing most people are to offer opinions based upon what they have read or heard on similar forums. If you read only the threads on this forum relating to Tubman, you will find post after post about him being innocent, her falsely accusing him, he can sue UK, if he doesn't come back our recruiting will suffer, the UK board that deals with code of conduct is a kangaroo court. Then I hear "due process," "double jeopardy," "defamation," from people that don't know what those terms really mean. Just look at how many posts say that Tubman was "found innocent." No where in our judicial system is someone accused of a crime ever determined to be innocent. You can be not guilty. They can decide not to indict and try you. But you are never declared innocent of anything. It is our system, and it is a good one. But don't tell me that the legal system made a ruling when it did not.
^You can argue wording all you want but the Grand Jury cleared him, period.
ESPN Article: Lloyd Tubman cleared of rape charge
ESPN Article: Lloyd Tubman cleared of rape charge
Your words and your cite prove your ignorance of the system. A Grand Jury can not "clear" anyone. He can be indicted tomorrow for the same crime this Grand Jury decided not to indict him for. It most likely will not unless new information surfaces, but it could. He was not "cleared."
Citing ESPN or any other news source is stupid. They make the same assumptions everyone on here is making. They don't know the law or the procedures. What happens is one outlet reports it, then all of you cite it as fact and it gets traded around the internet as fact.
Argue about quarterbacks. In that argument, only opinions matter. When you argue about this type of thing, facts and law matter, and you don't know the facts or the law.
Having said all of this, I hope Tubman is able to make it back. Hopefully as a cat, but if not, somewhere.
THE CHARGE WAS DISMISSED, FACT.
"It's over."--Commonwealth's Attorney Ray Larson
LHL: Charge Dismissed
"It's over."--Commonwealth's Attorney Ray Larson
LHL: Charge Dismissed
