Menu
What's new
By:
Filters
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!

Breaking: Joe Tumpkin out at CU (update - resigned)

And Mickey Mantle had a HOF career. Would have been better if he had taken better care of his body and mind.
 
Buffnik said:
And Mickey Mantle had a HOF career. Would have been better if he had taken better care of his body and mind.
Click to expand...
Yeah. If he'd known he was going to live that long, he'd have taken better care of himself. Bobby Layne was notorious for showing up with booze on his breath.
 
I respect RG, a lot! I believe he is the best thing to happen with CU athletics in 20+ years. However, if this is true that drinking the night before (not the day or night of) is an issue, then that would mean there is a no drinking policy within a certain time frame of a game? Would RG be subjected to that policy as well, at let's say the parking lot of Levi's Stadium, in front of fans/faithful prior to the Pac 12 Championship game? I would think this has more to do with the abuse of a woman than drinking the day before a game...
 
BuffinCali said:
I respect RG, a lot! I believe he is the best thing to happen with CU athletics in 20+ years. However, if this is true that drinking the night before (not the day or night of) is an issue, then that would mean there is a no drinking policy within a certain time frame of a game? Would RG be subjected to that policy as well, at let's say the parking lot of Levi's Stadium, in front of fans/faithful prior to the Pac 12 Championship game? I would think this has more to do with the abuse of a woman than drinking the day before a game...
Click to expand...
I don't think drinking the night before the game is the issue. I don't think anyone is saying that. It's when it leads to police getting involved that is the issue. It would also be an issue if it effected job performance.
 
DBT said:
I don't think drinking the night before the game is the issue. I don't think anyone is saying that. It's when it leads to police getting involved that is the issue. It would also be an issue if it effected job performance.
Click to expand...


He must have had a jim morrison night out before the bowl game.
 
BuffinCali said:
I respect RG, a lot! I believe he is the best thing to happen with CU athletics in 20+ years. However, if this is true that drinking the night before (not the day or night of) is an issue, then that would mean there is a no drinking policy within a certain time frame of a game? Would RG be subjected to that policy as well, at let's say the parking lot of Levi's Stadium, in front of fans/faithful prior to the Pac 12 Championship game? I would think this has more to do with the abuse of a woman than drinking the day before a game...
Click to expand...
Well it does have everything to do with abuse of a woman, but they are making a secondary point above about the drinking.

Rick George can get sauced, before, during and after the game for all I care.
I'd expect our players (and coaches) to not get hammered for a few days before the game. After the game, I really don't care, as long as they stay out of trouble.
 
Last edited:
buffaholic said:
Well it does have everything to do with abuse of a woman, but they are making a secondary point above about the drinking.

Rick George can get sauced, before, during and after the game for all I care.
I'd expect our players to not get hammered for a few days before the game. After the game, I really don't care, as long as they stay out of trouble.
Click to expand...

Yep.

But if RG got sauced the night before he's supposed to present his budget proposal to Bruce, Phil and the Regents, then I would worry that the guy has a drinking problem. Just as I worry about any coach who decides to tie one on the night before a game.
 
Buffnik said:
Yep.

But if RG got sauced the night before he's supposed to present his budget proposal to Bruce, Phil and the Regents, then I would worry that the guy has a drinking problem. Just as I worry about any coach who decides to tie one on the night before a game.
Click to expand...
Yes - and I edited my post because when I said players, I meant that to apply to coaches. Be your best on gameday, lay off getting hammered!
 
Tumpkin may be in a very bad position. Over the past year or two, nationwide, any choking is often seen as the basis for felony charges, so he may have that.
Also, everybody loves the judge or da who shows he is tough on DV and will real punish a defendant harshly.
Fact is, in most places, a minor 1st time DV assault results in treatment and no jail. The 'tough guy' attitude that all DV perps should lose their jobs and have their live's ruined is dumb.
 
cu2x said:
Tumpkin may be in a very bad position. Over the past year or two, nationwide, any choking is often seen as the basis for felony charges, so he may have that.
Also, everybody loves the judge or da who shows he is tough on DV and will real punish a defendant harshly.
Fact is, in most places, a minor 1st time DV assault results in treatment and no jail. The 'tough guy' attitude that all DV perps should lose their jobs and have their live's ruined is dumb.
Click to expand...
You can't be serious?! There is plenty of evidence showing he bit her, hit her, dragged her by her hair, threw her around. This is a pattern over nearly two years.

Tumpkin is lucky if this isn't a felony. Should the women stay quiet? Maybe Joe should have realized she was trying to get him help and she shouldn't come visit him again because his immense anger and passion spilled out in a very wrong way.

You bet your ass he should have lost his job at CU. this isn't the Baylor rug.

I wish Joe luck getting his **** together and getting work as a coach again but this needed to be spoken out on. And this action was right. There is no excuse for abusing a person, let alone someone you love or care for. Pull your head out of your ass cu2x.
 
DiggerBuffs said:
You can't be serious?! There is plenty of evidence showing he bit her, hit her, dragged her by her hair, threw her around. This is a pattern over nearly two years.

Tumpkin is lucky if this isn't a felony. Should the women stay quiet? Maybe Joe should have realized she was trying to get him help and she shouldn't come visit him again because his immense anger and passion spilled out in a very wrong way.

You bet your ass he should have lost his job at CU. this isn't the Baylor rug.

I wish Joe luck getting his **** together and getting work as a coach again but this needed to be spoken out on. And this action was right. There is no excuse for abusing a person, let alone someone you love or care for. Pull your head out of your ass cu2x.
Click to expand...

Women are suffering, women are ending up in the hospital, women are ending up dead. That is why this is important.

In those few cases where the women falsely report, just like the false rape reports they should also be prosecuted to the full extent but those few cases in no way justify not taking every case of abuse seriously, there is just to much damage caused by it.

In the long run the victims health, mental and physical, is much more important than the abusers job or their bank account.
 
The fact that some people are defending Tumpkin by saying "I don't know what happened" or "let the case play out" is pretty damn scummy. The dude hit a woman on numerous occasions and will be charged for this and its not very hard to read about the details of what he did to his ex gf.
 
cu2x said:
Tumpkin may be in a very bad position. Over the past year or two, nationwide, any choking is often seen as the basis for felony charges, so he may have that.
Also, everybody loves the judge or da who shows he is tough on DV and will real punish a defendant harshly.
Fact is, in most places, a minor 1st time DV assault results in treatment and no jail. The 'tough guy' attitude that all DV perps should lose their jobs and have their live's ruined is dumb.
Click to expand...
Sounds like a ****bailer fan's reasoning to me.
 
Was this a situation where they gave him the opportunity to resign and, if not, they would've fired his ass anyway? Sure as hell seems that way.
 
AllStarBuffs said:
The fact that some people are defending Tumpkin by saying "I don't know what happened" or "let the case play out" is pretty damn scummy. The dude hit a woman on numerous occasions and will be charged for this and its not very hard to read about the details of what he did to his ex gf.
Click to expand...
Yup, we should just dispense with trials altogether and go with the allegations...I mean they are always true.

Personally, I am glad Tumpkin is gone, from an employment viewpoint, the fact some are ready to hang the guy without a trial is ridiculous from a criminal standpoint.
 
AllStarBuffs said:
The fact that some people are defending Tumpkin by saying "I don't know what happened" or "let the case play out" is pretty damn scummy. The dude hit a woman on numerous occasions and will be charged for this and its not very hard to read about the details of what he did to his ex gf.
Click to expand...

cu2x talks like he is part of the defense team which wouldn't surprise me.

This is a repeated abuser. If it's once and they got into a shoving match, okay agree. But this is a pattern of disgusting abuse.

You are right, scummy to make light of it or cover it up.
 
leftybuff said:
Yup, we should just dispense with trials altogether and go with the allegations...I mean they are always true.

Personally, I am glad Tumpkin is gone, from an employment viewpoint, the fact some are ready to hang the guy without a trial is ridiculous from a criminal standpoint.
Click to expand...

He will have his constitutionally guaranteed opportunity to defend himself in a court of law and will have the right to qualified counsel for his defense. In that court of law the standard will be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

If it comes out in court that this entire thing is a fabrication, that he is in fact innocent of what he has been charged with, then I will accept that and consider him as such.

Unfortunately the university doesn't have the time or luxury to wait for that court decision. He is a highly paid employee in a very public position. Had the evidence in his favor been that clear I am certain that his attorney would have told him not to resign but rather to insist on completing his contract.

I know it doesn't fit the mentality of the defense attorney but based on what we have seen so far the university had no choice but to remove him from employment. To not do so puts us in the same group as Baylor, or Miami, or Nebraska, or those other schools that are willing to sacrifice innocent individuals for wins.
 
MtnBuff said:
He will have his constitutionally guaranteed opportunity to defend himself in a court of law and will have the right to qualified counsel for his defense. In that court of law the standard will be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

If it comes out in court that this entire thing is a fabrication, that he is in fact innocent of what he has been charged with, then I will accept that and consider him as such.

Unfortunately the university doesn't have the time or luxury to wait for that court decision. He is a highly paid employee in a very public position. Had the evidence in his favor been that clear I am certain that his attorney would have told him not to resign but rather to insist on completing his contract.

I know it doesn't fit the mentality of the defense attorney but based on what we have seen so far the university had no choice but to remove him from employment. To not do so puts us in the same group as Baylor, or Miami, or Nebraska, or those other schools that are willing to sacrifice innocent individuals for wins.
Click to expand...
Constitutional rights seem a little iffy right now...
 
Be
hawg1 said:
Why did he waive his right to defend himself against the TSO letting it become a PSO?
Click to expand...
Because he did it. He knows the evidence is damning.

Though I am sure cu2x will say why didn't she take pictures? And like I have said because she covered for his ass for years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top