Attorney: Dayton's Pierre will fight suspension - Page 5

rollo · #**401** 10-02-2015, 01:23 PM

Originally Posted by Gazoo

...some statistician somewhere who will "prove" that DP was exactly the kind of candidate who would have had a breakout senior year...

If Pierre thought he was NBA material, he'd have applied for and received the NCAA allowed Exception Student Athlete Insurance Program to protect him in case of a career ending injury. But to get this insurance, the NBA executives have to verify that you are a probably 1st round draft pick.

Odds are, as the 90th rated senior, he's not on anyone's 1st round draft pick list. So if this brilliant lawyer wants to make the claim that UD somehow wronged Pierre and cost him millions, it wouldn't take much to prove that claim to be a joke.

And I'm sure Ginsburg is smart enough to know that.

http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/...rance-programs

"Student-athletes with remaining athletics eligibility at NCAA institutions in the sport of...men's or women's basketball... who have demonstrated they have professional potential to be selected in the first round of the upcoming draft of the National Basketball Association...are eligible for this program."

N2663R · #**402** 10-02-2015, 01:36 PM

Originally Posted by Flyer 86

I STILL think this is a "possibility" but one lower down the scale. Big risk to take that to court imo. However i don' t know Ginsburg or what his approach is.

If someone knows he's a "balls to the wall" guy - then this might be first choice. Hard to tell which way this pool table breaks

I don't know what Ginsberg's demeanor is, but clearly, given his resume and client roster, he is "the" guy. I'm guessing that he will turn over ever rock and pursue every party including the Feds, the U and the complainant. Remember his statement:

"A false accusation against University of Dayton student-athlete Dyshawn Pierre has recently become the subject of media attention in light of Dyshawn's semester-long suspension," Pierre's lawyer, Peter R. Ginsberg, said in a statement released Wednesday night. "Dyshawn adamantly denies that he engaged in any inappropriate conduct of any sort. Law enforcement clearly agreed and decided not to pursue prosecution of him. Ignoring that decision made by qualified professionals, the University of Dayton subjected Dyshawn to fundamentally defective and unfair University disciplinary procedures orchestrated to appease a broken Department of Education policy. We will be challenging the University's handling of this matter in the near future."

The only thing working against us, from a fan perspective, is time . . . .

Gazoo · #**403** 10-02-2015, 01:43 PM

Originally Posted by rollo

If Pierre thought he was NBA material, he'd have applied for and received the NCAA allowed Exception Student Athlete Insurance Program to protect him in case of a career ending injury. But to get this insurance, the NBA executives have to verify that you are a probably 1st round draft pick.

Odds are, as the 90th rated senior, he's not on anyone's 1st round draft pick list. So if this brilliant lawyer wants to make the claim that UD somehow wronged Pierre and cost him millions, it wouldn't take much to prove that claim to be a joke.

And I'm sure Ginsburg is smart enough to know that.

http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/...rance-programs

"Student-athletes with remaining athletics eligibility at NCAA institutions in the sport of...men's or women's basketball... who have demonstrated they have professional potential to be selected in the first round of the upcoming draft of the National Basketball Association...are eligible for this program."

So, you're taking the "aw shucks, you're right, I give up" approach as the most likely. So noted.

And that's why you're not a lawyer.

flyerfanatic86 · #**404** 10-02-2015, 03:40 PM

Originally Posted by Gazoo

So, you're taking the "aw shucks, you're right, I give up" approach as the most likely. So noted.

And that's why you're not a lawyer.

This thread is full of people who suddenly think they are though. Also detectives and clairvoyants. That's why I think I appreciated Chris' response the most.

San Diego Flyer · #**405** 10-02-2015, 04:10 PM

Originally Posted by rollo

Odds are, as the 90th rated senior, he's not on anyone's 1st round draft pick list. So if this brilliant lawyer wants to make the claim that UD somehow wronged Pierre and cost him millions, it wouldn't take much to prove that claim to be a joke.

And I'm sure Ginsburg is smart enough to know that.
"

C'mon rollo, of course he is smart enough to know that. He is also smart enough not to lead with his chin. His job is to twist public perception any way he can to get the job done. Not just make the U think twice, but make them think 5 times over regarding the penalty they have levied vs the supposed Code of Conduct. Common knowledge is that Ginsburg is REALLY good at what he does. He will have the U on the defensive before he is finished with this. Will it be enough? Stay tuned.

San Diego Flyer · #**406** 10-02-2015, 04:23 PM

Originally Posted by FlyerNation23

My source at UD has told me that do not rule out the option of Pierre scenario following the same path as Kavanuagh in which DP would sit out this year and return next year.

The above theory is probably one that has not been probed much in this whole discussion. That being what provided Kavanaugh some incentive to see the whole issue through to graduation---there is some motivation to not throw away 3 years of education at the University of Dayton. Dyshawn just might want to graduate from UD. Imagine that. He just might be lucid enough and listen to advice that a degree is as important as whatever shakes out of this basketball stuff.

Coming back, enrolling again, making up missed credits, making grades, and playing a full year---not so stupid.

FlyerNation23 · #**407** 10-02-2015, 04:23 PM

Saw a short clip of the flyers first practice on instagram. From a distance, I saw what looked like Pierre shooting. He has a unique form and the player warming up had
the same form.. Stay tuned

CE80 · #**408** 10-02-2015, 04:31 PM

Originally Posted by San Diego Flyer

The above theory is probably one that has not been probed much in this whole discussion. That being what provided Kavanaugh some incentive to see the whole issue through to graduation---there is some motivation to not throw away 3 years of education at the University of Dayton. Dyshawn just might want to graduate from UD. Imagine that. He just might be lucid enough and listen to advice that a degree is as important as whatever shakes out of this basketball stuff.

Coming back, enrolling again, making up missed credits, making grades, and playing a full year---not so stupid.

I might have bought that if he hadn't signed on with an attorney like Ginsberg.

CE80 · #**409** 10-02-2015, 04:33 PM

Originally Posted by FlyerNation23

Saw a short clip of the flyers first practice on instagram. From a distance, I saw what looked like Pierre shooting. He has a unique form and the player warming up had
the same form.. Stay tuned

I saw that too except the guy had black glasses, a big nose and a mustache. Everything else was the same.

San Diego Flyer · #**410** 10-02-2015, 04:39 PM

Hiring an attorney to defend your honor and right a wrong versus formulating a plan to finish school and enjoy your last season of basketball, are not mutually exclusive. Both objectives can be achieved in reasonable harmony. It's just good bidness.

As far as "an attorney like Ginsburg", I don't know the guy. But I do know several defense attorneys who are wildly successful and know no bounds in serving their clients. Neither of them would win a popularity contest.

CE80 · #**411** 10-02-2015, 04:53 PM

Originally Posted by San Diego Flyer

Hiring an attorney to defend your honor and right a wrong versus formulating a plan to finish school and enjoy your last season of basketball, are not mutually exclusive. Both objectives can be achieved in reasonable harmony. It's just good bidness.

As far as "an attorney like Ginsburg", I don't know the guy. But I do know several defense attorneys who are wildly successful and know no bounds in serving their clients. Neither of them would win a popularity contest.

That's my point. I think there are attorneys that you would hire to defend your honor. I don't know Ginsberg but based upon some of his past cases, it doesn't sound like he would be the guy you hire for that purpose and that is why I am less than optimistic about DP returning to UD. The exception would be that Ginsberg really has a bug up his butt about the Title IX crap and wants to use this case to make some changes.

LIBob · #**412** 10-02-2015, 05:24 PM

Somehow, Louisville just became a potential landing spot for a transfer

http://thebiglead.com/2015/10/02/lou...-and-recruits/

longtimefan67 · #**413** 10-02-2015, 05:50 PM

Originally Posted by CE80

That's my point. I think there are attorneys that you would hire to defend your honor. I don't know Ginsberg but based upon some of his past cases, it doesn't sound like he would be the guy you hire for that purpose and that is why I am less than optimistic about DP returning to UD. The exception would be that Ginsberg really has a bug up his butt about the Title IX crap and wants to use this case to make some changes.

What's really at stake in my mind far surpasses DP's NBA potential and my 21 college age son agrees - what's really at stake here is his reputation that he carries with him the rest of his life. And I'd spare no expense at this point. It it were me in his spot- I'd clear my name, sue the university for defamation of character and transfer to another school and finish my degree there. If the a NBA happens then that's a bonus. If pro ball in Europe happens, same thing. But at some point basketball ends and who wants a "rape" stigma hanging over your head the rest of your employment life. I'm rooting for him to win while realizing that likely I never see him play with a UD jersey on ever again. The selfishness in me wants him back in time to start the season as though it never happened; but I doubt it plays out anywhere close to that.
Posted via Mobile Device

UDTradition · #**414** 10-02-2015, 06:28 PM

I am sick about this situation............

DP has lost his sterling reputation........................................ .........forever. He is a public figure..............not a lost face in the crowd.

Every single game, they will broadcast that DP is not playing because of some indiscretion.

Bringing a lawsuit on UD only further publicizes his guilty misdeeds (in the court of public opinion). People who never heard who the heck he is will now know. Unless he is labeled as today's Curt Flood, he has lost the battle and depending upon his future strategy (lawsuit) will lose the lifetime war.

DP - don't sue, regardless of what your lawyer wants. He wants to become famous at your expense. If you win...you lose. If you lose....you lose BIG-TIME. If I were your Father I would advise you to drop out of school and go to another high-profile school. Maybe this would provide you with the label of "Senior Transfer"...not...........

Shame on you UD. I think that the student council...etc...should be mentioned by NAME for every public communication. They should be PROUD of their wisdom and just deeds. This will make them famous in the "court of public opinion".

Like I said, I'm sick about this situation. UD...bad form.

longtimefan · #**415** 10-02-2015, 07:02 PM

Originally Posted by UDTradition

I am sick about this situation............

DP has lost his sterling reputation........................................ .........forever. He is a public figure..............not a lost face in the crowd.

Every single game, they will broadcast that DP is not playing because of some indiscretion.

Bringing a lawsuit on UD only further publicizes his guilty misdeeds (in the court of public opinion). People who never heard who the heck he is will now know. Unless he is labeled as today's Curt Flood, he has lost the battle and depending upon his future strategy (lawsuit) will lose the lifetime war.

DP - don't sue, regardless of what your lawyer wants. He wants to become famous at your expense. If you win...you lose. If you lose....you lose BIG-TIME. If I were your Father I would advise you to drop out of school and go to another high-profile school. Maybe this would provide you with the label of "Senior Transfer"...not...........

Shame on you UD. I think that the student council...etc...should be mentioned by NAME for every public communication. They should be PROUD of their wisdom and just deeds. This will make them famous in the "court of public opinion".

Like I said, I'm sick about this situation. UD...bad form.

So you are saying that DP should make no attempt to clear his name, just move on and hope this all goes away. I would be suing the he!! out of UD and the girl. And Ginsberg is already famous (and I assume rich) - he doesn't need DP for that.

Avid Flyer · #**416** 10-02-2015, 07:04 PM

Originally Posted by UDTradition

I am sick about this situation............

DP has lost his sterling reputation........................................ .........forever. He is a public figure..............not a lost face in the crowd.

Every single game, they will broadcast that DP is not playing because of some indiscretion.

Bringing a lawsuit on UD only further publicizes his guilty misdeeds (in the court of public opinion). People who never heard who the heck he is will now know. Unless he is labeled as today's Curt Flood, he has lost the battle and depending upon his future strategy (lawsuit) will lose the lifetime war.

DP - don't sue, regardless of what your lawyer wants. He wants to become famous at your expense. If you win...you lose. If you lose....you lose BIG-TIME. If I were your Father I would advise you to drop out of school and go to another high-profile school. Maybe this would provide you with the label of "Senior Transfer"...not...........

Shame on you UD. I think that the student council...etc...should be mentioned by NAME for every public communication. They should be PROUD of their wisdom and just deeds. This will make them famous in the "court of public opinion".

Like I said, I'm sick about this situation. UD...bad form.

Wow, really, where have you been. This man is very famous and does not need DP's case. I truly believe he sees DP as the perfect accused to go after title IX and the broken school policies.

Have no inside info but truly believe we are in the closed doors segment right now. If there are no meeting of the minds then I'd expect a legal proceeding to follow.

Smitty10 · #**417** 10-02-2015, 10:29 PM

Originally Posted by San Diego Flyer

The above theory is probably one that has not been probed much in this whole discussion. That being what provided Kavanaugh some incentive to see the whole issue through to graduation---there is some motivation to not throw away 3 years of education at the University of Dayton. Dyshawn just might want to graduate from UD. Imagine that. He just might be lucid enough and listen to advice that a degree is as important as whatever shakes out of this basketball stuff.

Coming back, enrolling again, making up missed credits, making grades, and playing a full year---not so stupid.

Without knowing full details of either cases. What we do know is that Kavanaugh is from the area and probably decided staying and face the music was necessary because he's going to be in the area for many of his remaining years.

We also know that Kavs was suspended for the whole school year while Pierre was only 1 semester giving us an idea that what Kavs did was deemed much worse than what DP did. Kavs was humble and admitted he made a mistake and put the blame mainly on himself. Hard to blame the school when you feel that way. From what I can see DP is not taking the blame and denying anything happened. If he truly feels he did nothing wrong(and he might or might not have, we dont know), then it would be natural for him to have a deep resentment toward the school.

Pierre might have looked as Dayton as home for no more than 4 years and clearing his name through the courts and then leaving the area asap is in his best interest. Kavs, maybe feeling shame felt the most redemption he could get was UD forgiving him and letting him come back for his senior season. DP feeling like he did nothing wrong probably is not going settle for "forgiveness".

224 · #**418** 10-02-2015, 10:44 PM

Originally Posted by Smitty10

Without knowing full details of either cases. What we do know is that Kavanaugh is from the area and probably decided staying and face the music was necessary because he's going to be in the area for many of his remaining years.

We also know that Kavs was suspended for the whole school year while Pierre was only 1 semester giving us an idea that what Kavs did was deemed much worse than what DP did. Kavs was humble and admitted he made a mistake and put the blame mainly on himself. Hard to blame the school when you feel that way. From what I can see DP is not taking the blame and denying anything happened. If he truly feels he did nothing wrong(and he might or might not have, we dont know), then it would be natural for him to have a deep resentment toward the school.

Pierre might have looked as Dayton as home for no more than 4 years and clearing his name through the courts and then leaving the area asap is in his best interest. Kavs, maybe feeling shame felt the most redemption he could get was UD forgiving him and letting him come back for his senior season. DP feeling like he did nothing wrong probably is not going settle for "forgiveness".

Kavs lives in Chicago

Smitty10 · #**419** 10-02-2015, 11:04 PM

Originally Posted by 224

Kavs lives in Chicago

So? What's your point? I live in Wisconsin but I still spend a lot of time in my home town of Dayton. He lives in Chicago, but some day he might want the option of coming home to the Dayton area and didn't need the public's last perception of him being getting booted his Senior season for a sexual scandal with an underage girl. Trust me the hardest place to burn the bridge is where you were born, grew up and have roots.

cj · #**420** 10-02-2015, 11:15 PM

Originally Posted by 224

Kavs lives in Chicago

He lives in Columbus.

UDTradition · #**421** 10-02-2015, 11:49 PM

I don't even recall the Kavs incident...

rollo · #**422** 10-03-2015, 07:34 AM

Ginsberg is in this for himself and nobody else. Title IX travesties happen every week across this nation and he could take any case he wants to make his point.

If Pierre wasn't a basketball player with some name recognition, Ginsberg wouldn't have taken the call. It's that simple.

N2663R · #**423** 10-03-2015, 08:40 AM

Originally Posted by rollo

Ginsberg is in this for himself and nobody else. Title IX travesties happen every week across this nation and he could take any case he wants to make his point.

If Pierre wasn't a basketball player with some name recognition, Ginsberg wouldn't have taken the call. It's that simple.

I wonder who contacted who first?

San Diego Flyer · #**424** 10-03-2015, 10:00 AM

Originally Posted by rollo

Ginsberg is in this for himself and nobody else. Title IX travesties happen every week across this nation and he could take any case he wants to make his point.

If Pierre wasn't a basketball player with some name recognition, Ginsberg wouldn't have taken the call. It's that simple.

omg, who would have thought? You mean there is another Gloria Allred out there? Seriously, it's what they do, and who they are. It's the template for high profile civil cases. They go after the deepest pockets and make a splash while doing it. And by gathering the press corp often, they create leverage on the institutions they attack. Dayton wants it to go away. The
lawyer wants to try the case in the press.

You are absolutely correct.

UDTradition · #**425** 10-03-2015, 10:04 AM

“These Title IX suits are not faring well so far, but all it takes is one good win with the right set of facts and the right attorney, and a whole new venue of litigation will open up,” said Brett Sokolow, the president of NCHERM Group, a risk management firm that works with colleges. “I’m not ready to say that these suits hold no hope, but I am seeing campuses readjust their approaches to ensure fairness for all, which should quiet the need for such suits, over time.”

Interesting read...

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/...-bias-lawsuits

Personally, I would not advise my Son to be the pioneer. It's tough going...spending years of feeling disappointment and hate. If you win, what do you really win? It keeps you in a harsh spotlight. Let it go and move on. He needs to talk heart-to-heart with MK.

rollo · #**426** 10-03-2015, 11:00 AM

Originally Posted by San Diego Flyer

omg, who would have thought? You mean there is another Gloria Allred out there? Seriously, it's what they do, and who they are. It's the template for high profile civil cases. They go after the deepest pockets and make a splash while doing it. And by gathering the press corp often, they create leverage on the institutions they attack. Dayton wants it to go away. The
lawyer wants to try the case in the press.

You are absolutely correct.

Now that we both admit he's an ambulance chasing opportunist, let's hope Pierre gets the legal advice he needs from someone who really cares about getting his playing status reinstated ASAP.

shocka43 · #**427** 10-03-2015, 02:13 PM

Originally Posted by UDTradition

If you win...you lose. If you lose....you lose BIG-TIME.

Couldn't disagree more.

Potential legal action, if done for the right purpose, isn't just to fight for the rights of the individuals involved, but also to change policies/procedures/law/rules so that the same situations don't happen to the next guy/gal.

I hate bogus litigation as much as the next guy....but DP's fight just may be a win down the road if any other student is put in this same situation. And if he does win, it isn't a loss. This whole thing is a loss all the way around but a win, or reversal on UD's part, is the only way for DP to repair his name in the general public opinion. He then has backing to state that he was hit in the backdoor by the UD disciplinary process.

rollo · #**428** 10-03-2015, 03:28 PM

What exactly is Pierre fighting and why?

No rape charges resulted, so don't start there. And supposedly he withdrew and was not suspended by the U. Which brings his only true grievance to the Hearing Board...

As for the Hearing Board, UD followed the same protocol they've used on every male who has been accused of similar violations of the CoC. If you've seen the Hearing Board graphic, it's obviously a very thorough process with multiple opportunities for each side to be heard, giving the decision makers more than enough information to make a decision, one that even more obviously is made with care.

I think Pierre is getting screwed...but I also don't see how he can justify starting the process over simply because he got nailed for doing something he knew had the very real potential to backfire.

If he wants to fight Title IX and the Feds, I say 'have at it'. If he wants to fight UD, I honestly (a) think he's wasting his time and (b) don't want him back

Yes, I just said exactly what you think I said. But what did you expect me - a non jock sniffer - to say??

UDEE79 · #**429** 10-04-2015, 12:54 AM

http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/23709/

Posted w/o comment.

UDEE79 · #**430** 10-04-2015, 12:54 AM

http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/23709/

Posted w/o comment.

udflyerhoops2 · #**431** 10-04-2015, 05:04 AM

What a novel concept...

San Diego Flyer · #**432** 10-04-2015, 08:55 AM

I've wondered lately how our student body feels about this Pierre incident. Do their opinions reflect the spectrum of this MB, or is there a clearer consensus? Do we have many students frequenting this board?

jack72 · #**433** 10-04-2015, 09:39 AM

Originally Posted by UDEE79

http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/23709/

Posted w/o comment.

Frickin unbelievable!!!!!!!!!

Dillomernda · #**434** 10-04-2015, 03:58 PM

Originally Posted by San Diego Flyer

I've wondered lately how our student body feels about this Pierre incident. Do their opinions reflect the spectrum of this MB, or is there a clearer consensus? Do we have many students frequenting this board?

As a current student, I can say that there is a good portion of the student body that is not aware of the incident or that Pierre is not on campus (about 50%). These people are those who have, or never will care about the basketball program. I would say that there is another portion of the student population that knows that Pierre is not on campus but don't know why (about 45%). Then there is probably the rest of the student body that knows as much as what we know on this board.

I will say the people that I have explained the whole situation have come up with the opinion that Pierre was poorly treated. HOWEVER, most of the people when they ask me what happened with Pierre, I mention the word rape and they automatically assume that he is guilty no questions asked. I have to explain them the whole story to get all of their heads straightened.

Based on my very small sample size, the student body jumps to conclusions to quickly and in some cases, don't care. They also don't want to dig up the details of what happened and are ill-informed on the incident as a whole.

UDEE79 · #**435** 10-04-2015, 05:36 PM

Thanks for the field report Dilomernda.
Posted via Mobile Device

longtimefan · #**436** 10-04-2015, 07:17 PM

Originally Posted by rollo

If he wants to fight Title IX and the Feds, I say 'have at it'. If he wants to fight UD, I honestly (a) think he's wasting his time and (b) don't want him back Yes, I just said exactly what you think I said. But what did you expect me - a non jock sniffer - to say??

So if he comes back I assume you will boycott the season again.

rollo · #**437** 10-04-2015, 08:07 PM

Originally Posted by longtimefan

So if he comes back I assume you will boycott the season again.

No...experience has shown it's easier to boycott stupid people.

Gazoo · #**438** 10-05-2015, 08:48 AM

Originally Posted by rollo

If he wants to fight Title IX and the Feds, I say 'have at it'. If he wants to fight UD, I honestly (a) think he's wasting his time and (b) don't want him back Yes, I just said exactly what you think I said. But what did you expect me - a non jock sniffer - to say??

Because you know he's guilty of a terrible act? I think we're all clear that if he really did something terrible none of us want him back.

But to say you don't want him back because he's fighting to clear his name seems like an odd position to take.

If I was accused by an anonymous person of a innuendo crime without actually being accused, and then the adults in the room (UD admin) made it their duty to take the easy route to make it go away (CoC violation! Bad boy!) while allowing all the terrible bits to be part of the public record, you better believe I would be fighting back. So would you.

And if you want to throw this person under the bus and move on by hiding behind the CoC excuse, it seems just as bad as UD administration. No one seems to care that this "thing that happened that didn't actually happen but might have happened but will always be assumed to have happened" will follow DP for the rest of his life. And that's just not acceptable (as always, assuming he's innocent).

Personally, I would be happy if UD admitted fault, paid him an undisclosed amount of money, gave him his immediate release, he got an NCAA waiver to transfer, and DP had a great senior season somewhere else.

San Diego Flyer · #**439** 10-05-2015, 09:14 AM

I was with you all the way until the last sentence.

Personally, I would be happy if UD admitted fault & paid him an undisclosed amount of money and DP had a great senior season at UD.

But that's just me.

rollo · #**440** 10-05-2015, 09:52 AM

Originally Posted by Gazoo

But to say you don't want him back because he's fighting to clear his name seems like an odd position to take.

I don't think UD did anything wrong. They followed protocol mandated by Federal laws. Many a male at UD has been held to a similar standard, received the same punishment and was met with...what's that...crickets? Yup.

I do believe Pierre did something wrong and after reading the UDPD report, I don't see how anyone can say differently. The fact that the Mont. Co. prosecutor stated there's insufficient evidence to pursue anything - to me - clears his name of anything heinous.

Regardless, to sue UD for following Federal laws and protocol is BS and just screams of an attitude of 'basketball player privilege' . Does Pierre think he's bigger than UD?! I have news for Pierre, UD and their basketball program was here long before his arrival and will be around long after he's pushing up daisies. And if Dillomernda's summary is correct, he's already forgotten around campus.

If he wants my Royal respect, he'll shut up, take the punishment he knew from 3+ years of training and the whole #35 disaster could occur, and show up Dec 22 ready to keep his pants on and play some hoops.

King Rollo OUT!

ud2 · #**441** 10-05-2015, 10:31 AM

Rollo, so Dez Wells was also wrong to sue Xavier then too, right? These cases might be identical.

SC_Flyer · #**442** 10-05-2015, 10:53 AM

Originally Posted by ud2

These cases might be identical.

Did someone say identical?

http://41.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m9...86mo1_1280.jpg

rollo · #**443** 10-05-2015, 10:54 AM

Originally Posted by ud2

Rollo, so Dez Wells was also wrong to sue Xavier then too, right? These cases might be identical.

I don't know much or give a rat's ass about what happened to Wells and _avier.

But since you asked, I looked up and read a bunch of old articles and while there are some similarities to the situations, it appears that _avier made serious and specific allegations against Wells before expelling him.

Meanwhile, at UD, UD didn't expel Pierre and made no serious or specific allegations other than saying Pierre is no longer enrolled' at the school.

As I've said multiple times, assuming - as it appears - that Pierre withdrew on his own, what grounds can be used to sue UD? Maybe Pierre should have stood his ground and made UD suspend him...but it appears he didn't.

Wells was expelled...Pierre withdrew. That's a major difference. So they're unidentical.

Right??!

Sea Bass · #**444** 10-05-2015, 11:13 AM

If Pierre withdrew and was not suspended then IMO he has no intention of coming back.

ud2 · #**445** 10-05-2015, 11:15 AM

Originally Posted by rollo

I don't know much or give a rat's ass about what happened to Wells and _avier.

But since you asked, I looked up and read a bunch of old articles and while there are some similarities to the situations, it appears that _avier made serious and specific allegations against Wells before expelling him.

Meanwhile, at UD, UD didn't expel Pierre and made no serious or specific allegations other than saying Pierre is no longer enrolled' at the school.

As I've said multiple times, assuming - as it appears - that Pierre withdrew on his own, what grounds can be used to sue UD? Maybe Pierre should have stood his ground and made UD suspend him...but it appears he didn't.

Wells was expelled...Pierre withdrew. That's a major difference. So they're unidentical.

Right??!

Wrong...Xavier apparently mishandled previous sexual assault cases...I believe X was put on notice/probation by the Feds as a result...thus, Wells was sacrificed to appease the Feds, even though he was likely totally innocent.

X never said what Wells did to get expelled. Still, to this day, no reason has ever been given for his expulsion. What were the specific and serious allegations against Wells?

Wells case summarized: a group of students were playing truth or dare...she took off a good amount of clothing, she gave him a lap dance and kissed him, and then they had consensual sex in her dorm room...she then filed a complaint against him, leading to his expulsion.

How do you know that DP withdrew?

Sea Bass · #**446** 10-05-2015, 11:18 AM

Read elsewhere that Pierre has changed his twitter feed and removed all references to Dayton. Seems as if he may have no intention of returning.

FlyerNation23 · #**447** 10-05-2015, 11:23 AM

Originally Posted by Sea Bass

Read elsewhere that Pierre has changed his twitter feed and removed all references to Dayton. Seems as if he may have no intention of returning.

Correct - Pierre updated his Twitter bio and picture and removed all Dayton related tweets. No more 12/22 return date. He is probably on a recruiting trip to Louisville as we speak

rollo · #**448** 10-05-2015, 11:28 AM

Originally Posted by ud2

Wrong...Xavier apparently mishandled previous sexual assault cases...I believe X was put on notice/probation by the Feds as a result...thus, Wells was sacrificed to appease the Feds, even though he was likely totally innocent.

Which supports the 'unidentical' claim I made...

Originally Posted by ud2

X never said what Wells did to get expelled. Still, to this day, no reason has ever been given for his expulsion. What were the specific and serious allegations against Wells?

Xavier said Wells was expelled for a "serious violation" of the code of student conduct. UD said nothing remotely identical.

Originally Posted by ud2

How do you know that DP withdrew?

I don't know and never said I know...in fact, I use the word 'assume' a lot when discussing what probably happened. But based on history, when someone on this team has been suspended, UD has used that word. And since UD's only comment was to say that Pierre is no longer enrolled as a student, it seems to me that he wasn't suspended...otherwise they would setting themselves up for a lawsuit by implying that Pierre left on his own when in fact, he didn't.

ud2 · #**449** 10-05-2015, 11:35 AM

Originally Posted by rollo

Which supports the 'unidentical' claim I made...

Xavier said Wells was expelled for a "serious violation" of the code of student conduct. UD said nothing remotely identical.

I don't know and never said I know...in fact, I use the word 'assume' a lot when discussing what probably happened. But based on history, when someone on this team has been suspended, UD has used that word. And since UD's only comment was to say that Pierre is no longer enrolled as a student, it seems to me that he wasn't suspended...otherwise they would setting themselves up for a lawsuit by implying that Pierre left on his own when in fact, he didn't.

Fair enough.

As far as the actual alleged offense, IMO, the cases could be identical.

X may have used that "serious violation" reason to cover their own butts. After all, X settled with Wells out of court, indicating that Wells probably would have won his lawsuit.

Wells was vocal about what he considered to be a wrongful expulsion.

It sounds like DP may not be coming back, we may never get any more details about this case other than what has already been made public.

Sea Bass · #**450** 10-05-2015, 11:38 AM

If Pierre actually withdrew it is hard to see on what ground he could fight a battle and win.

Gazoo · #**451** 10-05-2015, 12:01 PM

Originally Posted by San Diego Flyer

I was with you all the way until the last sentence.

Personally, I would be happy if UD admitted fault & paid him an undisclosed amount of money and DP had a great senior season at UD.

But that's just me.

I would be happier if your scenario played out. I'm making the point that it's not just about basketball for me, it's about the assault on men. For those that know me, this has been something that has caused me serious angst for many years.

Originally Posted by rollo

Xavier said Wells was expelled for a "serious violation" of the code of student conduct. UD said nothing remotely identical.

C'mon rollo, you're better than that. Don't hide behind technicalities. You know that it's entirely possible that UD could make it clear to him that he's got zero chance of ever competing at UD again and that a later review board will be taking action to expel him, and he will lose. So UD gets to publicly destroy his reputation + effectively end his UD education + as an added benefit DP withdraws of his own accord so UD doesn't even have to say they expelled him. Cowardly.

Whether he withdrew or was expelled is likely a technicality that means very little to screw job UD appears to have given him. It's a legal point, to be sure, but kings don't need laws. WE WANT THE TRUTH!

This isn't some vague CoC violation that will never be public. Ever future potential employer will see DP played college basketball, do an internet search, and result #1 or #2 will be allegations of rape. And then that employer has a serious decision to make: hire DP and risk the sexual harassment lawsuit (you KNEW his history when you hired him!) or hire applicant B. DP's future as a non-basketball player has been nearly destroyed. . . but you're OK with it because of a poorly written CoC policy. If I was a UD administrator I would not be able to live with myself knowing what I've allowed to happen to DP.

I don't know how anyone, as a general matter of fairness, can believe this is OK.

ud2 · #**452** 10-05-2015, 12:08 PM

I see DP suing UD...hopefully more will come out in court, when this eventually makes it way into a court room...Wells's case wasn't settled until approximately two years after the alleged assault.

Wells timeline:

June 2012, alleged assault occurs

August 2012, Wells is expelled from X

August 2013, Wells sues X

April 2014, Wells and X settle lawsuit out of court

rollo · #**453** 10-05-2015, 12:10 PM

Gazoo, I'm with you on this (for the most part), but in all seriousness, does Pierre own any of this??

BTW...I think he's getting screwed*

Buster Goode · #**454** 10-05-2015, 12:19 PM

I think we've beat this to death. Shall we move onto a fresh take on whether we should make a run to bring Detwon Rogers back to replace Pierre?

longtimefan67 · #**455** 10-05-2015, 12:29 PM

Rollo,

Pierre does own some of this; it's the part about clearing his name. As I stated in a previous post - he's got a lifetime of non-basketball years to tend to and protect. If he's guilty of nothing more than bad judgement (as is the unidentified woman in this case) - then he definitely needs to force the issue and get a full admission in court that clears his name. Suing for defamation of character is part of that in my opinion. What's more important than your reputation? I'm rooting for him. A degree is important. He's already been wrongfully judged in the opinion of the public, the internet, etc...His lawyer made it plain.

rollo · #**456** 10-05-2015, 12:41 PM

Originally Posted by longtimefan67

Suing for defamation of character is part of that in my opinion.

What, exactly, did UD say that defamed his character.

UD has said little to nothing so think before you answer as I don't think putting him in front of the CoC constitutes defamation of anything. If it did, then this should be a class-action suit!

FYI...defamation is either Slander or Libel...and is explained clearly here.

So what is UD guilty of?

N2663R · #**457** 10-05-2015, 12:48 PM

Originally Posted by Gazoo

You know that it's entirely possible that UD could make it clear to him that he's got zero chance of ever competing at UD again and that a later review board will be taking action to expel him, and he will lose. So UD gets to publicly destroy his reputation + effectively end his UD education + as an added benefit DP withdraws of his own accord so UD doesn't even have to say they expelled him. Cowardly.

We probably will never know the direct chain of circumstances that led to DP's withdrawal versus the other options that might have been available to him. BUT, would it be fair to assume that he had help in making that decision? This issue has been going on from Apr 23 through the first week in Sept? and when the final decision was made, DP was an enrolled student. I have to believe that DP, AM and the Athletic Dept. understand: the seriousness of the issue, the possibilities and consequences of all outcomes, the fact that they have to be extremely careful in how Athletics and the U interact on this issue, etc. And, given all that is at stake, wouldn't you think DP had some sort of outside legal/professional assistance, providing him advice/help? I have to believe he knew what his course of action was going to be for every decision that the U made, along the way. Maybe Peter Ginsberg was involved before it was publicly announced. DP had a lot of time to prepare for what happened in September and I want to believe he had a lot of help.

As for his Twitter feed, I agree, that does not look good. But, again, maybe this is being done at the insistence of his legal team - I hope!

Gazoo · #**458** 10-05-2015, 01:18 PM

Originally Posted by rollo

Gazoo, I'm with you on this (for the most part), but in all seriousness, does Pierre own any of this??

BTW...I think he's getting screwed*

Do I think DP owns any of this? Let me answer with a question for you:

Are you thankful in the knowledge that, due to DP's now obvious poor judgement (

), that UD basketball players will from now on and forevermore NEVER engage in relations while either party us under the influence of alcohol--even within a long term relationship?

rollo · #**459** 10-05-2015, 01:40 PM

Originally Posted by Gazoo

Are you thankful in the knowledge that, due to DP's now obvious poor judgement (), that UD basketball players will from now on and forevermore NEVER engage in relations while either party us under the influence of alcohol--even within a long term relationship?

You know, during the 1700-1800's, Indians in this area withheld from such relations before all battles thinking that doing so would make them meaner and better warriors, so if keeping their pants on means they'll take their frustrations out on their opponents, I'm all for it!!!

On second thought, we all know what happened to those Indians, so maybe we need to follow Louisville's lead and just hire some 'help'.

Or de-emphasize drinking...for the UD coeds!

TMPH66 · #**460** 10-05-2015, 02:39 PM

drinking....for the UD coeds? Nae drinking with UD coeds. Yah that going to happen.

cj · #**461** 10-05-2015, 02:45 PM

Originally Posted by rollo

Or de-emphasize drinking...for the UD coeds!

So if a co-ed is sober and the guy drank 3 beers in 2 hours he could claim rape if relations occurred?

N2663R · #**462** 10-05-2015, 03:16 PM

Dillomernda may be correct regarding student knowledge about DP and that may in part be due to the fact that the esteemed Flyer News has yet to run a story about the situation. Two issues have been published since the beginning of the year, without any mention - in print or online. Tomorrow the next print edition comes out . . . I can hardly wait!

San Diego Flyer · #**463** 10-05-2015, 06:19 PM

Until Dyshawn Pierre, or some one acting officially in his camp, publicly reveals that his intentions are to not play any more basketball at UD, the innuendos, Tarot card readings, and Ouija Board projections simply have no meaning as regards his intentions. We can be pretty confident that he has been significantly schooled in the ins and outs of social media and how it could affect his case. Nothing more.

Flyer 86 · #**464** 10-05-2015, 07:02 PM

Yes SDF, i agree for the most part. However if he changed his Twitter feed and took out anything pertaining to UD.... that can't play out well for those of us holding onto hope.

truly a wait and see , as you say. Let's see how this pans out. Fingers crossed!

Flyer 86 · #**465** 10-05-2015, 07:04 PM

Originally Posted by Dillomernda

As a current student, I can say that there is a good portion of the student body that is not aware of the incident or that Pierre is not on campus (about 50%). These people are those who have, or never will care about the basketball program. I would say that there is another portion of the student population that knows that Pierre is not on campus but don't know why (about 45%). Then there is probably the rest of the student body that knows as much as what we know on this board.

I will say the people that I have explained the whole situation have come up with the opinion that Pierre was poorly treated. HOWEVER, most of the people when they ask me what happened with Pierre, I mention the word rape and they automatically assume that he is guilty no questions asked. I have to explain them the whole story to get all of their heads straightened.

Based on my very small sample size, the student body jumps to conclusions to quickly and in some cases, don't care. They also don't want to dig up the details of what happened and are ill-informed on the incident as a whole.

I"m sorry - why is it you are using the R word Dillomernda? When discussing this. Nowhere is the that word mentioned anywhere.

And it shouldn't be characterized as that at all. Are you kidding me.... why don't you just put words in peoples mouth?

Astounded! Did not anyone else read this post?

shocka43 · #**466** 10-05-2015, 07:49 PM

Originally Posted by Gazoo

C'mon rollo, you're better than that. Don't hide behind technicalities. You know that it's entirely possible that UD could make it clear to him that he's got zero chance of ever competing at UD again and that a later review board will be taking action to expel him, and he will lose. So UD gets to publicly destroy his reputation + effectively end his UD education + as an added benefit DP withdraws of his own accord so UD doesn't even have to say they expelled him. Cowardly.

The old resign or be fired argument....

Avid Flyer · #**467** 10-05-2015, 08:02 PM

I have read Rollo's post claiming DP should have known because he signed the student code of ethics just like all the other students and therefore should not have broken the code. So from his posts I assume that Rollo has read every license and users agreement for every software and/or website that he has used or access to. After all it is put in your face so to speak before you can begin to use the software/website etc. therefore no one should be surprised when they are affronted with the misuse thereof.

I would go so far as to say the average student has not read the code of conduct in its entirety as most would assume it would not be something they would think would affect them. And surely if it did they would expect due process.

Very few people, students, adults etc read the fine print, and the sellers or those making those fine prints know that. It is one of those things that people feel won't affect them.

rollo · #**468** 10-05-2015, 09:06 PM

Originally Posted by Avid Flyer

I have read Rollo's post claiming DP should have known because he signed the student code of ethics just like all the other students.

I've never said or implied anyone has ever signed the Student CoC.

But I have said that the men's basketball team is trained on the CoC and, specifically, and with emphasis on the 'effective consent' meaning as well as why they are being singled out with respect to that definition...and it's not done in fine print...more like a Vegas billboard!

Just clarifying.

rollo · #**469** 10-05-2015, 09:12 PM

Originally Posted by Gazoo

Are you thankful in the knowledge that, due to DP's now obvious poor judgement (), that UD basketball players will from now on and forevermore NEVER engage in relations while either party us under the influence of alcohol--even within a long term relationship?

If you're asking me whether or not I'm upset that our basketball players supposedly can't have unlimited drunken sex 24/7 and may have to think for a nanosecond about what they are about to do with whom and the consequences that may follow, the answer to that is...is...is...ummmm...

NO!

After all, isn't college supposed to teach you real life lessons? Even the tough ones?!

N2663R · #**470** 10-05-2015, 09:38 PM

Originally Posted by Flyer 86

I"m sorry - why is it you are using the R word Dillomernda? When discussing this. Nowhere is the that word mentioned anywhere.

And it shouldn't be characterized as that at all. Are you kidding me.... why don't you just put words in peoples mouth?

Astounded! Did not anyone else read this post?

If you read the UD Incident report, on line 2 it lists the crime as rape.

oldfan · #**471** 10-06-2015, 08:02 AM

Do the events that have transpired mean that DP may not ever make it into the UD Hall of Fame?

That would be the travesty of justice.

31770 · #**472** 10-06-2015, 08:30 AM

Originally Posted by Flyer 86

I"m sorry - why is it you are using the R word Dillomernda? When discussing this. Nowhere is the that word mentioned anywhere.

And it shouldn't be characterized as that at all. Are you kidding me.... why don't you just put words in peoples mouth?

Astounded! Did not anyone else read this post?

Astoundeder! Did not you report read!?!?!?

Avid Flyer · #**473** 10-06-2015, 08:41 AM

Originally Posted by rollo

I've never said or implied anyone has ever signed the Student CoC.

But I have said that the men's basketball team is trained on the CoC and, specifically, and with emphasis on the 'effective consent' meaning as well as why they are being singled out with respect to that definition...and it's not done in fine print...more like a Vegas billboard!

Just clarifying.

Just like the warnings before you use a website or software. These Terms of service glare you in the face. The truth is most people don't pay all that close attention to them. The same is probably true for the CoC and the preaching to the players. If you are not of that disposition (rapist, or sexual offender) you kinda disregard it as you feel it don't really pertain to you. Then wham out of nowhere a situation where you thought everything was cool only to discover weeks later perhaps it wasn't. An investigation by PD and your are not charged with a crime, remain on campus finishing your classes then re-enroll for summer classes and again thinking everything is cool. Then a second wham, the kangaroo court and the U applying a CoC violation and the rest is current events.

If the U felt that he had breached a serious CoC or worse was a potential sexual offender, left him on campus for 5 plus months. All based on a federal oversight of a letter from dept of education leader being taken as law when it had no such enactment by the legislature who are the only ones who can enact law.

31770 · #**474** 10-06-2015, 08:41 AM

Originally Posted by FlyerNation23

Saw a short clip of the flyers first practice on instagram. From a distance, I saw what looked like Pierre shooting. He has a unique form and the player warming up had
the same form.. Stay tuned

https://instagram.com/dyshawnpierre/
It appears DP is back at his high school in Ontario practicing...

Avid Flyer · #**475** 10-06-2015, 08:43 AM

What is surprising is the report that State schools enforce CoC and hearings of such in a way that equals due process, while the private schools do not.

An article explained that State schools must honor the constitution, hmmm.

If true then UD honors the education board more than they do the consitution. Not good for anyone.

Beatty Town Coach · #**476** 10-06-2015, 09:17 AM

Originally Posted by flyerfanatic86

This thread is full of people who suddenly think they are though. Also detectives and clairvoyants. That's why I think I appreciated Chris' response the most.

flyerfanatic86, provide a list of posters who have been playing lawyer, or detectives and clairvoyants.????????

That would help if you could do that.

longtimefan · #**477** 10-06-2015, 09:20 AM

Originally Posted by Avid Flyer

All based on a federal oversight of a letter from dept of education leader being taken as law when it had no such enactment by the legislature who are the only ones who can enact law.

Excellent point. People keep saying UD's procedures are based on law. I'm wondering specifically what law they are based on. (And probably so is Ginsberg.) In the article posted above, it appears they are based on a letter from the Department of Education which would not have the force of law or even regulation.

flyerfanatic86 · #**478** 10-06-2015, 09:23 AM

Originally Posted by longtimefan

Excellent point. People keep saying UD's procedures are based on law. I'm wondering specifically what law they are based on. (And probably so is Ginsberg.) In the article posted above, it appears they are based on a letter from the Department of Education which would not have the force of law or even regulation.

Letters from administrative agencies are important in understanding how they will interpret/enforce various laws and regulations.

San Diego Flyer · #**479** 10-06-2015, 09:29 AM

Originally Posted by 31770

https://instagram.com/dyshawnpierre/
It appears DP is back at his high school in Ontario practicing...

I'm confused. Thought I read where he had deleted all references to UD on twitter. But his instagram is full of UD uniforms and he is working out.

CE80 · #**480** 10-06-2015, 09:38 AM

Originally Posted by longtimefan

Excellent point. People keep saying UD's procedures are based on law. I'm wondering specifically what law they are based on. (And probably so is Ginsberg.) In the article posted above, it appears they are based on a letter from the Department of Education which would not have the force of law or even regulation.

Obvious conclusion - this is all Obama's fault.

Lifelong Flyer Fan · #**481** 10-06-2015, 10:21 AM

Originally Posted by oldfan

Do the events that have transpired mean that DP may not ever make it into the UD Hall of Fame?

That would be the travesty of justice.

This whole debacle is a travesty, but I believe you have to get your degree to be considered. Not sure if it has to be a UD degree. Bill Chmielewski is not in the Hall of Fame, and Johnny Davis wasn't inducted until 1993.

shocka43 · #**482** 10-06-2015, 10:47 AM

I definitely agree with Rollo in that the basketball players all know the "rules"...and yes...those rules are stuffed down the throats of ball players...it was stuffed down my throat and I didn't play at a high profile DI school...I knew the rules...but it was my choice to follow them...

Now...the second part...is it realistic to believe that because you are a ball player that you won't get bagged up and hop in the sack with someone? No...it happens all over college campuses everywhere...

Much of this, IMO, deals with application of rules. If the rule is simply...don't engage in relations under the influence...realistically...this isn't going to happen...

He knew the rules and the potential consequences...it doesn't mean it is right...as the consensual encounter turned buyers remorse bit him in the ass...but for every time a girl made this claim against a ball player, there are probably hundreds of times where they didn't.

The issue is that rules like this are only enforced when something bad happens...the rules that are on the books so if there are allegations of misconduct, UD can put the hammer down. If this rule isn't on the books, and a rape claim is unfounded, UD has no recourse to deal with ****ed off parents of kids who they thought were little angels.

N2663R · #**483** 10-06-2015, 10:51 AM

Originally Posted by longtimefan

Excellent point. People keep saying UD's procedures are based on law. I'm wondering specifically what law they are based on. (And probably so is Ginsberg.) In the article posted above, it appears they are based on a letter from the Department of Education which would not have the force of law or even regulation.

Let's face it, EVERY U in the US has to deal with Title IX. EVERY U has developed it's own set of policies and procedures. UD has its own internal counsel, its own Law School, and unlimited access to outside counsel, and probably has compared it's polices/procedures with other U's. I think UD has policies and procedures in place that are mainstream and in line with a large majority of other U's. I do not think UD is an outlier in any way regarding Title IX.
EVERY U in the US got the same letter from the Dept. of Ed. and has reviewed their policies and procedures. UD is no different. The only way anything will change, is if more of these cases are challenged (or if Donald Trump becomes president, but I digress).

rollo · #**484** 10-06-2015, 11:12 AM

Any basketball player at UD who is stupid enough to ignore the antics of their teammates for the past 4 or 5 years, the CoC/Title IX training and how they are related and relevant to their world - keeping in mind that the school repeatedly forces down this stuff down their throats - gets exactly what they deserve.

Let's stop making excuses for Pierre. It only gives the rest of the team and future players excuses to continue the behavior...as will any impulsive changes to the current policies in place motivated solely to appease a basketball player.

31770 · #**485** 10-06-2015, 11:15 AM

Originally Posted by ce80

obvious conclusion - this is all obama's fault.

thanks obama

Gazoo · #**486** 10-06-2015, 11:17 AM

Originally Posted by rollo

If you're asking me whether or not I'm upset that our basketball players supposedly can't have unlimited drunken sex 24/7 and may have to think for a nanosecond about what they are about to do with whom and the consequences that may follow, the answer to that is...is...is...ummmm...

NO!

After all, isn't college supposed to teach you real life lessons? Even the tough ones?!

Nice job avoiding the question, since the answer is so painfully obvious. Reading on:

Originally Posted by shocka43

I definitely agree with Rollo in that the basketball players all know the "rules"...and yes...those rules are stuffed down the throats of ball players...it was stuffed down my throat and I didn't play at a high profile DI school...I knew the rules...but it was my choice to follow them...

Now...the second part...is it realistic to believe that because you are a ball player that you won't get bagged up and hop in the sack with someone? No...it happens all over college campuses everywhere...

Much of this, IMO, deals with application of rules. If the rule is simply...don't engage in relations under the influence...realistically...this isn't going to happen...

He knew the rules and the potential consequences...it doesn't mean it is right...as the consensual encounter turned buyers remorse bit him in the ass...but for every time a girl made this claim against a ball player, there are probably hundreds of times where they didn't.

The issue is that rules like this are only enforced when something bad happens...the rules that are on the books so if there are allegations of misconduct, UD can put the hammer down. If this rule isn't on the books, and a rape claim is unfounded, UD has no recourse to deal with ****ed off parents of kids who they thought were little angels.

If the university makes ridiculous rules, with no intention of ever attempting to enforce them except in cases of CYA, then call that what it is: COWARDICE. It's not to benefit students, it's not to benefit the community, it's COWARDICE to protect themselves at the expense of their students.

Do I think our basketball players should be allowed to have unlimited drunken sex 24/7? Sure, why not? The same is true of other UD students. Do I think they should have to think for a nanosecond about what they are about to do with whom and the consequences that may follow? Yes, I do. Why do you assume DP did not??

Tell me this, rollo: if it was his longtime girlfriend who made the same claim instead of what appears to be a 1 night stand, would you feel any differently?

hawkoooo · #**487** 10-06-2015, 11:34 AM

Originally Posted by Avid Flyer

What is surprising is the report that State schools enforce CoC and hearings of such in a way that equals due process, while the private schools do not.

An article explained that State schools must honor the constitution, hmmm.

If true then UD honors the education board more than they do the consitution. Not good for anyone.

UD is a private school. It is not a state actor and doesn't have to "honor the constitution."

San Diego Flyer · #**488** 10-06-2015, 12:05 PM

I don't think Pierre felt he was violating anything. It was mutual brief co-habitation where one party, after an inordinate amount of time, got buyer's remorse. Get off your high horses.

rollo · #**489** 10-06-2015, 12:09 PM

Originally Posted by Gazoo

Tell me this, rollo: if it was his longtime girlfriend who made the same claim instead of what appears to be a 1 night stand, would you feel any differently?

When was the last time a UD bball player was held in contempt of the CoC for actions he and his longtime gf enjoyed? Never. I don't know or care what Pierre and his 2-year gf did in the privacy of their apartment(s), but I'll assume it didn't break any laws or policies since none have been held against him/them. So instead of extreme, emotionally driven hypotheticals, let's deal with realities.

When you represent a business, agency, family or school, there often times are higher expectations of behavior for you. I know a couple people who have been fired from their jobs for gambling in casinos while at conventions in Vegas, getting a DUI, getting drunk at a corporate Christmas party, another for calling in sick before heading to the golf course and lastly, for causing a minor car accident.

Why were these people held to such seemingly unreasonable standards? People gamble all the time...so why is that a fireable offense?? DUI's happen all the time...why fire the guy?? Everyone drinks at a Christmas party...so why fire the guy for something so petty?? Sick/golf...I mean, who really cares? A Fender-bender...time to clean out your office!?

The answer is simple...so simple I'm not going to share it. And Pierre's case falls into the same category.

N2663R · #**490** 10-06-2015, 12:34 PM

2 additional useless pieces of information:

UD's state run newspaper, the Flyer News who's latest edition was published today, did not contain any mention of the DP story. The lead story on the front page was about human rights, though.

The UD Incident Report lists the crime as rape, but 2 lines down there is a section called "Additional Categories." In that section there is a box labeled "Alcohol Related." That box was not checked in spite of all the testimony contained in the report regarding the use of alcohol by both parties. Innocent oversight? Don't know. Something Ginsberg will pursue, probably.

rollo · #**491** 10-06-2015, 12:49 PM

My oldest son plays for the Ohio State Marching Band (TBDBITL)...next to playing football at tOSU, nothing is cooler.

Regardless, he just called me to say he just found out that 2 kids have been kicked off the squad this week...one for smoking dope, the other for 'inappropriate touching' of a female.

I guess these idiots didn't read the fine print in their Honor Code...

...but I'm sure Ginsberg will be there any minute to assist and correct these travesties.

Runnin' Rebel · #**492** 10-06-2015, 01:08 PM

At this point I'm somewhat confused as to DP's current status... does anyone know if he really can re-join the team once the second semester starts?

Buster Goode · #**493** 10-06-2015, 01:10 PM

Gazoo · #**494** 10-06-2015, 01:21 PM

Originally Posted by rollo

When was the last time a UD bball player was held in contempt of the CoC for actions he and his longtime gf enjoyed? Never. I don't know or care what Pierre and his 2-year gf did in the privacy of their apartment(s), but I'll assume it didn't break any laws or policies since none have been held against him/them. So instead of extreme, emotionally driven hypotheticals, let's deal with realities.

When you represent a business, agency, family or school, there often times are higher expectations of behavior for you. I know a couple people who have been fired from their jobs for gambling in casinos while at conventions in Vegas, getting a DUI, getting drunk at a corporate Christmas party, another for calling in sick before heading to the golf course and lastly, for causing a minor car accident.

Why were these people held to such seemingly unreasonable standards? People gamble all the time...so why is that a fireable offense?? DUI's happen all the time...why fire the guy?? Everyone drinks at a Christmas party...so why fire the guy for something so petty?? Sick/golf...I mean, who really cares? A Fender-bender...time to clean out your office!?

The answer is simple...so simple I'm not going to share it. And Pierre's case falls into the same category.

You're completely off the rails here, rollo. If DP got a DUI, I say it's fair game to kick him off the team. If he got in a fender bender, got drunk at a public corporate event, lied to his boss and went to play golf, all of those are acts that I'm totally with you: he's done something wrong.

But here's what you can't seem to get through your head (or you know something I don't): HE DIDN'T DO ANYTHING WRONG.

So I'll take each of your examples and apply it as it applies to DP, a representative of the university:
1. DP was accused of driving drunk. There is no evidence to support this, and actually there is evidence to support that DP did not drive drunk. DP has admitted to drinking but denied he drove his car while drunk. Conclusion by rollo: as a representative of the university, DP should be kicked out (don't start with semantics about "he withdrew on his own").

2. DP is accused of conspicuously gambling at a casino and drawing inappropriate attention to UD. DP admitted gambling, but there is no evidence to support this, and actually there is evidence to support that DP had permission to gamble small amounts of loose change and that's all he did. Conclusion by rollo: as a representative of the university, DP should be kicked out.

3. DP is accused of getting drunk at a UD team event for season ticket holders. DP was told, "you are permitted to consume alcohol, but YOU ARE STRONGLY CAUTIONED against getting drunk." There is no evidence he was drunk and actually there is proof he had only 1 drink. Conclusion by rollo: as a representative of the university, DP should be kicked out.

4. DP is accused of telling coaches he is too injured to practice but then going to play golf. There is no evidence that he was golfing, and actually there's evidence that he was in his apartment the whole time. DP has admitted to calling the coaches to tell them he was too injured to participate in practice. Conclusion by rollo: as a representative of the university, DP should be kicked out.

You see how this works?

You, and everyone else here, knows darn well that DP and his longtime girlfriend at one time or another a) consumed alcohol and then b) had relations. C'mon rollo, don't play that game. The only difference is the COWARDICE of the university policy.

The Fly · #**495** 10-06-2015, 01:28 PM

Rollo: Honest point of clarification ..

How can you say, as you have multiple times, that Pierre is getting screwed, yet defend his screw job as if you own the high moral ground. Aren't you trying to have it both ways?

For the record, I think DP acted in a way as to paint himself either ignorant of the code of conduct or unwilling to abide by it (ditto the girl, apparently). So I have no issue with some appropriate punishment. But I understand the arguments about whether the punishment fits the crime.

So Rollo, is it the punishment that makes you think DP is being royally (pardon the pun) screwed?

rollo · #**496** 10-06-2015, 01:44 PM

Originally Posted by Gazoo

HE DIDN'T DO ANYTHING WRONG.

There are 6 layers of review by highly trained and paid people whose job it is to know right from wrong, so while I understand your position, and personally feel he's getting screwed, I cannot go as far to say that he didn't do anything wrong...he did.

Originally Posted by Gazoo

C'mon rollo, don't play that game. The only difference is the COWARDICE of the university policy.

While I have little doubt this statement is 100% correct, this is the wrong decade to be dissing any laws and/or policies related to the empowerment of women*.

Or LBGTs.

Or bullying.

Or Muslims.

When you're up against a protected class, you can't win.

*Back in the 90's when I first went thru Sexual Harrassment (SH) training, we were told that possession of the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue is an example of SH. I asked 'what if you have a copy in your desk that nobody knows of?' and was told it's still SH. One liberal b*tch then stood up and said that if she thinks someone has a swimsuit issue in their desk, whether she sees it or not, it should be considered a SH issue. I said 'What if you think it's in my desk but really isn't...is it still an SH issue?' She and the Table of Experts up front all said 'yes'!

At that point I realized common sense was gone, the lunatics had taken over and it was time to shut up....and hide those old SI Swimsuit issues in my desk under a couple old issues of TIME!

Flyer 86 · #**497** 10-06-2015, 01:54 PM

Originally Posted by San Diego Flyer

I don't think Pierre felt he was violating anything. It was mutual brief co-habitation where one party, after an inordinate amount of time, got buyer's remorse. Get off your high horses.

yes.

so got it about the reports. The police one was not convincing enough to press charges.

The UD one says R... , as she changed her mind (after the fact).

But why would current school kids and fans refer to it as that? Why not just fan the flames some more. And imply guilt!

rollo · #**498** 10-06-2015, 01:56 PM

Originally Posted by The Fly

How can you say, as you have multiple times, that Pierre is getting screwed, yet defend his screw job as if you own the high moral ground. Aren't you trying to have it both ways?

Since I'm King, I can say what I want.

Originally Posted by The Fly

So Rollo, is it the punishment that makes you think DP is being royally (pardon the pun) screwed?

Yes. 100% yes, it's all about the punishment. However...

After reading the CoC and having been trained by UD in Sexual Harassment and my obligation to report even the rumor of such, I know what's expected of the process and feel UD and their Review Court did their job.

But I also read the UDPD Report, and personally feel that Gazoo is right...this is an obvious case of 'regret' and both parties should be held equally responsible under the 'It Takes 2-to-Tango' clause. Unfortunately, women's lib'ers haven't figured out that by making women the victim of every mistake they make doesn't empower them, it only makes them weaker.

Regardless...Pierre knew the policy - and has first hand experience with its application thanks to the behavior of a couple of his former teammates - and should be held at least partially responsible for causing his own troubles. And IMRO, suspension/forced withdraw is wayyyyyyy, wayyyyy, wayyyyy to harsh a punishment for an obvious consensual one-night stand. I mean, seriously, with witnesses everywhere, Devon Scott dragged his baby-momma to the street, tossed her clothes all over Brown Street and was never taken in front of the Hearing Board...if that isn't against the CoC, nothing is.

Figgie123 · #**499** 10-06-2015, 02:04 PM

Originally Posted by rollo

*Back in the 90's when I first went thru Sexual Harrassment (SH) training, we were told that possession of the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue is an example of SH. I asked 'what if you have a copy in your desk that nobody knows of?' and was told it's still SH. One liberal b*tch then stood up and said that if she thinks someone has a swimsuit issue in their desk, whter she sees it or not, it should be considered a SH issue. I said 'What if you think it's in my desk but really isn't...is it still an SH issue?' She and the Table of Experts up front all said 'yes'!

Man, does that hit home. SI Swimsuit Calendar, in my cubicle, that could only be seen if you were completely in my cubicle, sitting on my desk, looking at the entrance. Nevermind, that you couldn't be sitting on my desk, while I'm sitting in my chair, inside my cubicle.

Was told to take it down. Sexual harassment. Poor Kathy Ireland.

Smitty10 · #**500** 10-06-2015, 02:16 PM

Originally Posted by rollo

*Back in the 90's when I first went thru Sexual Harrassment (SH) training, we were told that possession of the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue is an example of SH. I asked 'what if you have a copy in your desk that nobody knows of?' and was told it's still SH. One liberal b*tch then stood up and said that if she thinks someone has a swimsuit issue in their desk, whether she sees it or not, it should be considered a SH issue. I said 'What if you think it's in my desk but really isn't...is it still an SH issue?' She and the Table of Experts up front all said 'yes'!

At that point I realized common sense was gone, the lunatics had taken over and it was time to shut up....and hide those old SI Swimsuit issues in my desk under a couple old issues of TIME!

Oh for Pete's sake, admit that you had a cover of SI swimsuit issue but the guts contained the latest edition of Hustler. I hate when you leave out the full story.