When will the Grand Jury meet for the missing 6?????
- Thread starter catben
- Start date
This is factual. I am confused why this is still being discussed like there is choice in the matter. UK has a policy that any student athlete who is charged with a felony shall be suspended until the charges are resolved. No one is happy about it, but to sit here and to keep complaining about a reasonable policy, with somewhat unusual and unfortunate circumstances, is the definition of insanity. Barnhardt is not going to risk his job and the potential bad PR by overruling the universities policy. It sucks and some of the players got caught in the wash, but no amount of complaining will change the facts. They will be free to return when the charges are resolved or the amended down to misdemeanors. Now we wait for the slow grind of the justice system to work.
They have that policy? Can you show us? It seems odd that such policy exists when Stoops says he would play them and Barney says it was his decision to hold them out. If a policy exists, there was no decision to make.
Are you asking where in the student handbook it declares breaking a rule or law is wrong and could result in punishment?This has been discussed on other sites, on HOB, etc etc. Several people who claim to be attorneys have looked at the UK Student Athlete Policy Handbook. And can't find it. People have asked, where is it? What is it? Seems something that would be published and easily accessible. Here is the latest UK Athletic Policy Handbook. For those that say " this is a policy decision" , where is it?
2018 19 Student Athlete Handbook updated (PDF) - University of Kentucky Athletics
2018 19 Student Athlete Handbook updated (PDF)ukathletics.com
I have not seen the written policy, but I was involved with many student conduct review boards as an officer in my fraternity and with the tennis team, so I am familiar with the process, though things may have changed since I was there. I also listened to an interview with Barnhardt and he said specifically it was policy decision, not a personal one.
Totally agree if that is, in fact, an option. I thought Barnhardt was relatively clear when he said this was policy and insinuated it was not his decision.
Then that would end this part of the discussion. The second part of the discussion is fairness.
Well it's someone's or some group of people's decision somewhere
And I completely agree it is unfair. If all they did was get in a shoving match and that drew a felony charge, then that's unfortunate. Also, it is a bit of "double jeopardy" since they are being punished twice. I'm not a lawyer, but maybe they can use this incident to amend the policy to prevent this from happening again. Not going to hold my breath with Pastor Barnhart at the helm.
IMO President Capiluto could override the policy, but there's no way Barnhardt is bringing that request to him.
Not punishment. Do you understand what "punishment" means? Black's Law Dictionary defines punishment: "In criminal law, Any pain, penalty, suffering, or confinement inflicted upon a person by the authority of the law and the judgment and sentence of a court, for some crime or offense committed by him, or for his omission of a duty enjoined by law." Removing a privilege is not punishment.
You're an interesting guy. First you proudly explain how the legal system works and UK isn't part of it, then you turn around and use legal definitions for what UK is doing. What a screwball. Look, some of these guys will have a shot at the NFL. Losing an entire year is harmful to their careers. Suspending players from being able to play is a common punishment and it is termed that way. Now, you can play word games but it is still punishment. Since you like definitions, here is punish: "inflict a penalty or sanction on (someone) as retribution for an offense, especially a transgression of a legal or moral code." Now, let me guess, you're going to say this isn't retribution, it's just policy.
As much as I hope they are all cleared, and soon, they are all free to go play for UL if they don't like being at a school that respects a criminal process, especially when felony charges are pending.
getting into a fight is harmful to their careers. At some point they have to realize that these charges aren't the fault of people not involved. If it is ever determined that the charges were fabricated. Completely made up, then they have claims to make against the people that fabricated them. That hasn't happened yet and I'm glad that my University takes felony charges against athletes seriously.
On further thought, the reason behind the decision to suspend as a whole group is likely because that's the way the charges were lodged. If the cases are separated, the suspensions may lift.
We may hate it, but this is how it works.
Would we be in this kind of uproar if it were the soccer team or even the baseball team? Probably if it were basketball....
This is a tough gig for fans, but you know.....if the players account is correct, they could have left. Saying things like we couldn't expect a bunch of alpha guys to walk away and perhaps file their own charges belittles those guys.
At this point, this thing is in the hands of the prosecutor and eventually Grand Jury. If there is a trial date set, trust me it may not be until June.
We may hate it, but this is how it works.
Would we be in this kind of uproar if it were the soccer team or even the baseball team? Probably if it were basketball....
This is a tough gig for fans, but you know.....if the players account is correct, they could have left. Saying things like we couldn't expect a bunch of alpha guys to walk away and perhaps file their own charges belittles those guys.
At this point, this thing is in the hands of the prosecutor and eventually Grand Jury. If there is a trial date set, trust me it may not be until June.
I'm pretty versed on every public comment Barnhart has made on this. Where did Barnhart say this was policy?
And yes if this is a University policy it should be easy to cite or at least tell us where it can be found. Several attorneys on other sites, HOB etc have scoured the UK Student Athlete handbook, emailed administrators etc. Nobody can find it, and nobody can even confirm one exist. Every college that does have a policy in place, we were able to find it.
So I'll ask for the 5th time, what is the policy and where can it be found?
You're the same schmuck who championed the liar against Lloyd Tubman. Pound sand.
I’ll help you out here since you seem to be pretty clueless about how this stuff works and want to blame Barnhart because you don’t know how to process your frustration.
For starters, you won’t find a copy of the policy that speaks specifically to use of interim suspensions in response to criminal charges against a UK student, because it is not a public document. It is a long-standing internal document issued by UK’s General Counsel that provided guidance on the scope of interim suspensions discussed in what’s now referred to as AR 4:10.
The General Counsel is the final authority on any interpretations of UK policies, and this particular guidance has informed UK’s approach for years. Desmond Allison, Jules Camara, Lloyd Tubman, etc. all fell under the purview of this, and the final decision rights are outside of the athletics department.
More broadly, the disciplinary process Barnhart referenced on KSR is governed by AR 4:10,. Under that policy, UK’s VP of Student Success has the sole authority to make the decision to apply an interim suspension. Students can appeal this, but they only have 7 days to do so and the appeal decision is made by the University Appeals Board. So again, this process is something that’s completely outside of Barnhart’s or Stoops’ control.
There are several other “sub-policies” that provide further guidance on the application of AR 4:10 which aren’t public and govern things like the process by which UK or Lexington Police provide information directly to the UK Office of Student Conduct. Only time I can ever recall an official mentioning these types of non-public policies was I believe during the Drew Barker BB gun incident.
Regardless, this is a student conduct issue and the players will be permitted to return once the decision makers on the University side decide to lift their suspensions.
I’d also add that, since this involves disciplinary actions by a school, this process falls under the purview of FERPA. That’s why the school isn’t necessarily forthcoming about some of the specifics. Federal law prohibits them from sharing details unless the students authorize it.
I never championed anyone against Lloyd Tubman. All I ever said was let it play out. You took his side over hers and have no information about what happened. No one was in that room with them. I just don't like people that insist only letting people play a sport as fans before they know all of the facts when the kid is accused of a felony. The cream rises. The kids that have to sit out a year because of this, if are truly NFL players, will make it. The NFL is full of players that had to go to Junior College because of things they did wrong. Not saying these kids did anything wrong, but if they have NFL talent, they will still make it, whether it is from UK or somewhere else.
Stoops Thursday presser he said they hope to have players back real soon
I believe the interview was on KSR where he said it was a policy decision. As for where the policy is located, I do not know, but as someone who has both been in front of the review board and represented other students when they were in front of the review board, I "knew/remembered" this to be true from past experience. To be fair that was back in the 90's so things could very well have changed. If memory serves, the student athlete handbook we received way back when was fairly vague, with a conduct unbecoming of a student athlete clause. But the suspension policy was the same. Had a teammate arrested for a felony of making fake ideas and he was suspended immediately from the team, then he got the charges dropped to misdemeanor use of a fake ID and coach reinstated immediately. Circumstantial evidence, for sure, but similar enough for me to believe the policy is still the same.
The KSR interview was posted on here, it's on page two of this thread. Mitch was very evasive. When Jones asked him who made the decision, he said "us, .....uh the institution". He wouldn't say anymore. He DEFINITELY didn't mention any policy. Go listen to it.
Complete and utter garbage. AR 4:10 isn't a private document, it's very public. And there aren't any secret " sub policies". And besides, this is the UK Student disciplinary code, it doesn't address student athletes at all. Every other college we looked at addressed it in their Student Athletic Handbook. UK's has been posted here, it doesn't address it.
They haven't been disciplined as students, none of their student rights have been taken away. They have only been suspended for athletic activities.
Home | University Regulations
Thanks for your lengthy explanation.
So why aren't isn't the " long-standing internal document issued by UK’s General Counsel that provided guidance on the scope of interim suspensions discussed in what’s now referred to as AR 4:10." available through a Freedom of Information Act request? I mean it's not specific to anyone but is in the public government domain, right?
You are correct he didn't say the word policy, but he did say it was the University's decision and he never said it was his decision. He said "our" decision, which leads me to believe he probably agrees with the decision. Here is a copy of the current code of student conduct. In it it lists vague descriptions of everything a student can do wrong and says that interpretation of the code is referred to the University's General Counsel. https://www.uky.edu/studentconduct/...conduct/files/AR_4-10_Student_Code-2020_0.pdf
I did not say AR 4:10 was a private document.Complete and utter garbage. AR 4:10 isn't a private document, it's very public. And there aren't any secret " sub policies". And besides, this is the UK Student disciplinary code, it doesn't address student athletes at all. Every other college we looked at addressed it in their Student Athletic Handbook. UK's has been posted here, it doesn't address it.
They haven't been disciplined as students, none of their student rights have been taken away. They have only been suspended for athletic activities.
Home | University Regulations
www.uky.edu
I said the memorandum drafted by the General Counsel that provided guidance on when to apply the interim suspensions described in AR 4:10 is not publicly available.
You should learn to read more carefully.
Last edited:
Requests for guidance on how to interpret or apply the student code almost always happen in the context of a specific incident with a student.
Which also means that guidance almost always comes back in the form of a memo from the General Counsel that makes reference to the specific case which prompted the request for clarification, and may often mention the student and some of the specifics facts of the case.
At that point they can be treated as educational records under FERPA.
Kentucky Open Records laws, like FOIA, provides an exception for attorney client privileged documents. The foundation for a public policy may very well be more specifically defined in a white paper or memorandum from legal counsel.
HUZZAHHHHH!!!!!!
Likely too soon for them to rejoin the 1s or provide significant depth for at least the start of the October meat grinder, which is a shame with Florida knocking, but happy to get them back. Ridiculous that it took this long and this much hand wringing to figure out that they could come back. Two investigations/proceedings. Got off both times.
Sheesh.
This is significant as four of these players were fighting for places on the depth chart before they were suspended.
