Started By
Message
re: Florida wouldn't take Ukwuachu Transfer
Posted on 8/25/15 at 5:16 pm to therick711
Posted on 8/25/15 at 5:16 pm to therick711
A. Art Briles threw Chris Peterson under the bus regarding the Boise St. Incident and it backfired.
B. Baylor didn't question why Boise St., denied the waiver request to play immediately.
C. Baylor incident occurs, Baylor conducted an internal review and determined there was no evidence and that he would play,
D. He was only sitting out now because the charges were brought after Baylor's review.
Feel free to correct my timeline if needed
B. Baylor didn't question why Boise St., denied the waiver request to play immediately.
C. Baylor incident occurs, Baylor conducted an internal review and determined there was no evidence and that he would play,
D. He was only sitting out now because the charges were brought after Baylor's review.
Feel free to correct my timeline if needed
This post was edited on 8/25/15 at 5:19 pm
1
Posted on 8/25/15 at 5:17 pm to Spirit Of Aggieland
So does Briles bear responsibility for the commission of rape?
Posted on 8/25/15 at 5:20 pm to ShaneTheLegLechler
quote:
Which do you think is more likely, that Boise selected to be more forthcoming with certain schools compared to others, or they told all the schools that asked about him the same thing?
From this article, and Peterson's statement, it certainly appears that the schools did not receive similar communications, since Muschamp spoke with a Boise State "athletic department employee" and Peterson spoke direclty with Briles. Although this is according to two unnamed Florida employees.
So it's absolutely unclear whether the same persons updated both schools. Certainly, we have not seen any written communication from Boise State.
If I am Boise State, I write a script for a single employee who is the point of contact for all inquiries about the guy. And that script would have been released by now.
Human nature being what it is, unless Boise State had a single spokesman who provided a specific number of bullet points to anyone who inquired about the guy, yes, I absolutely think it is more likely that the two schools got different stories.
This is why a claim that witness A telling witness B is somehow evidence of what witness A told witness C is utterly unpersuasive.
Posted on 8/25/15 at 5:22 pm to therick711
You trying to fish for responses out of us for this is odd and pathetic IMO
Posted on 8/25/15 at 5:23 pm to ShaneTheLegLechler
I don't really care what you think.
Posted on 8/25/15 at 5:23 pm to therick711
quote:
So does Briles bear responsibility for the commission of rape?
He and the Baylor Athletic Department bear responsibility for the harm that came to the co-ed. Seems pretty straightforward, given what appears to be the lack of any kind of diligence -- and that's even excluding the conversation he had with Peterson.
This post was edited on 8/25/15 at 5:24 pm
Posted on 8/25/15 at 5:25 pm to oman
Why does Boise not bear any responsibility for shopping this POS around if they knew he was so bad? What was Baylor supposed to know that Boise didn't?
Posted on 8/25/15 at 5:26 pm to ChiTownBammer
In actual convictions, Zach Mettenburger was a riskier transfer than Ukwuachu.
Posted on 8/25/15 at 5:26 pm to ShaneTheLegLechler
quote:
You trying to fish for responses out of us for this is odd and pathetic IMO
No, just trying to show that your evidence arguments are pathetic and terrible.
Posted on 8/25/15 at 5:28 pm to oman
This is a message board, not a court of law
If you think that's what he's trying to show you are naive
If you think that's what he's trying to show you are naive
Posted on 8/25/15 at 5:29 pm to ChiTownBammer
quote:
Why does Boise not bear any responsibility for shopping this POS around if they knew he was so bad? What was Baylor supposed to know that Boise didn't?
I agree to an extent. Don't know at this point what Boise told anyone. Maybe they could have done more.
It certainly appears that Baylor could have done a whole lot more, just in terms of questions asked and other due diligence.
Posted on 8/25/15 at 5:32 pm to ChiTownBammer
quote:
Why does Boise not bear any responsibility for shopping this POS around if they knew he was so bad? What was Baylor supposed to know that Boise didn't?
It is hard enough to pin this on Briles, imagine what SI would have to do to get people mobilized against a coach and school that dismissed the kid, especially now that the coach is at a new school. Low hanging fruit is Briles. He's the target of this.
Posted on 8/25/15 at 5:36 pm to ShaneTheLegLechler
quote:
This is a message board, not a court of law
So?
You sending another poster a private message isn't any more proof that you sent me a private message (let alone proof of what you actually allegedly said in the message). Whether on this board or in a court of law.
I don't think you are being realistic about the situation. Boise had to deal with a bad apple. A bad apple who has some privacy rights. Any conversations they have with a third party are going to be guarded, and coded, and close to the vest. And fraught with legal peril. The idea that one of their employees had with Muschamp proves what one of their other employees (or even the same employee) had with Briles is just a terrible reach. It wouldn't matter to me if I were a judge or a just a casual observer.
I'd want to hear to hear the Baylor witnesses and the Boise witnesses who spoke with them. Anyone else would be irrrelevant. ESPECIALLY regarding a loaded issue like this.
This post was edited on 8/25/15 at 5:38 pm
Posted on 8/25/15 at 5:36 pm to therick711
Yeah but still. Its not like they dismissed him and moved on. Petersen obviously thought the kid had redeeming qualities and thus shopped him around.
I feel like Petersen should get more flak for this.
"Hey! When I called and begged you to take this kid I told you he was a future rapist! Why didn't you listen to me?"
I cant believe NOBODY has picked up on this angle.
I feel like Petersen should get more flak for this.
"Hey! When I called and begged you to take this kid I told you he was a future rapist! Why didn't you listen to me?"
I cant believe NOBODY has picked up on this angle.
This post was edited on 8/25/15 at 5:38 pm
Posted on 8/25/15 at 5:40 pm to oman
I don't think they were just shopping him to anyone. When Peterson wasn't keeping him, my understanding is that he requested potential destinations to transfer to. So then Peterson contacted his choices...
Posted on 8/25/15 at 5:42 pm to oman
quote:
A bad apple who has some privacy rights. Any conversations they have with a third party are going to be guarded, and coded, and close to the vest.
Why would it make sense that they would be significantly more guarded in one case vs another?
Posted on 8/25/15 at 5:47 pm to Spirit Of Aggieland
But Baylor knew, at most, what Boise knew. Possibly less.
If people are claiming that that should have been enough for Briles to have passed on him, why, then, is Petersen not complicit in this?
If people are claiming that that should have been enough for Briles to have passed on him, why, then, is Petersen not complicit in this?
Posted on 8/25/15 at 5:53 pm to ShaneTheLegLechler
quote:
Why would it make sense that they would be significantly more guarded in one case vs another?
I'm not sure of the question. If I was an ex-employer, and you were calling me for a reference for an employee who I thought was violent, I would be more guarded than if he wasn't violent. I'd be concerned about the guy suing me for libel, while at the same time concerned about the guy doing harm with the prospective employer.
I could have the same conversation with two different prospective employers and the conversation would be different, depending on my relationship with the caller, and that caller's skill at cross examining me.
Posted on 8/25/15 at 5:55 pm to therick711
quote:
So does Briles bear responsibility for the commission of rape?
This is an incredibly loaded question and not really the point of the article.
The point in all of this is in response to Brile's statement that no one warned him that this guy was trouble. Now we have two division one schools who have come right out and said that BSU was forthright about who this guy was and what he did.
Briles obviously lied. He took this young man in knowing and having been warned that he was trouble. Does that mean he was directly responsible for the sexual assault on another student athlete? No, but he should be a man and step up and admit that he was warned about Ukwuachu rather than try to through another coach and athletic department under the bus in order to save his own skin.
Posted on 8/25/15 at 5:55 pm to ChiTownBammer
quote:
But Baylor knew, at most, what Boise knew. Possibly less.
If people are claiming that that should have been enough for Briles to have passed on him, why, then, is Petersen not complicit in this?
Briles had a duty to Baylor students, and Peterson to Boise students. Peterson got rid of the guy.
Briles appeared to fail both in finding out about the guy, and in acting when the guy was charged.
I think that what comes of this may be that schools like Boise might have their duty to provide information clarified, but no matter how you slice it, Peterson didn't have the same responsibility to Baylor students as Briles has.
Page 4 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News