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!

Here we go again, another SI article.....

Get rich quick scheme. Gotta love that this lady hung with Tumpkin long enough to rope his employer into a lawsuit. Instead of going to police to protect herself, make the head coach your point of interest as he has money.

Whatever sympathy I had for this lady's plight is gone. It was never about safety, all about get rich quick scheme.
 
I'm not gonna go that far since Idk what the hell happened. Seems kinda that way though. Throw her some bones and be done with it.
 
I took a ton of flank for criticizing her months ago. She was never in it for justice, she's only in it for the money. I'm sorry for what she went through but she has no morals to do this. Suing a public institution that people give their hard earned money to? The school and all of its employees are not responsible for what she endured, anybody with a conscience would be able to see this.
 
There's likely no harmless way out of this, settling isn't the worst that could happen.

sackman said:
Oh boy. There's a part of me that wants CU to vigorously defend itself and its staff (other than Tumpkin) from this. OTOH, we come across as a bunch of uncaring assholes if we do that. I hate the idea of a settlement, but it might be the best course of action. I just threw up a little in my mouth.
Click to expand...
The bolded is so yesterday. People our age need to get used to saying, "Shat a little in my britches."
 
onealcd said:
IM confused why benson is being thrown in there, I thought the investigation left him out of it and said it escalated to PD and that was it?
Click to expand...
Name everyone who has money or good insurance and can somehow be linked to the complaint. That's step one of the lawyering before the negotiations start.
 
CU will move for summary judgement and will probably have it granted as there is no legal precedence or laws establishing any employer liability for an employee's actions that are outside the course of the employee's job duties. Every major employer in the state should file friend of the court briefs. Could you imagine if someone calls Walmart to say she is being beaten by her boyfriend that is an employee there. Then sues Walmart for not taking action. Or say Walmart does take action, then the boyfriend sues Walmart for wrongful termination if the allegations are not proven.
 
I hate this narrative to "throw her some money" and make it go away. Tumpkin should be the target, period. But way too many times people have gone after the money and it was settled - which is why we are where we are. I just hate it. Morally bankrupt thinking. I'm sorry she was abused. No body deserves that. But it doesn't give you the right to go after everyone with 6 degrees of separation.
 
married2abuff said:
I hate this narrative to "throw her some money" and make it go away. Tumpkin should be the target, period. But way too many times people have gone after the money and it was settled - which is why we are where we are. I just hate it. Morally bankrupt thinking. I'm sorry she was abused. No body deserves that. But it doesn't give you the right to go after everyone with 6 degrees of separation.
Click to expand...
I completely agree with you, I just don't want this bull**** dragging out any more than it has to.
 
bpc5180 said:
Get rich quick scheme. Gotta love that this lady hung with Tumpkin long enough to rope his employer into a lawsuit. Instead of going to police to protect herself, make the head coach your point of interest as he has money.

Whatever sympathy I had for this lady's plight is gone. It was never about safety, all about get rich quick scheme.
Click to expand...
I think it's more like a lawyer roped her into a lawsuit for a nice 30% chunk of the pie.
 
Settling isnt goint to make this go away. It just sets the precedent for further lawsuits.

Unless the plaintiff can prove that a university employee interfered in the poice investigation or tried to get her to stay quiet, we should tell her to pound sand.
 
The money grubbing **** shows some of you guys are blinded by fandom over decency. There are some awful ****ing people on here.
 
Again, avoidable situation. A couple phone calls by those in the know and we'd be beyond this. CU again turned a mole hill into a small mountain by being dense across multiple levels of leadership.
 
Last edited:
TDbuff said:
Again, avoidable situation. A couple phone calls by those in the know and we'd be beyond this. CU again turned a mole hill into a small mountain by being dense across multiple levels of leadership.
Click to expand...

Please expound. I want to know what couple of phone calls made when to whom you think would have made everything so easy and perfect.
 
gone native said:
Please expound. I want to know what couple of phone calls made when to whom you think would have made everything so easy and perfect.
Click to expand...

If you read the report the school released, DiStephano comes off as clueless. He did not even involve the university counsel for almost two weeks (after incorrectly determining the OEIC did not need to be involved), and that really only amounted to a short conversation at a bowl event. Two phone calls right there (or even just one) that could have saved a lot of headaches.
 
Duff Man said:
If you read the report the school released, DiStephano comes off as clueless. He did not even involve the university counsel for almost two weeks (after incorrectly determining the OEIC did not need to be involved), and that really only amounted to a short conversation at a bowl event. Two phone calls right there (or even just one) that could have saved a lot of headaches.
Click to expand...
The same OEIC who contacted the victim right after they saw the report and could've gotten her the to the right resources a month earlier and had CU in the clear.

Instead Mac lawyered up with the worst title 9 expert I can think of who told him to clam up like a criminal. RG felt he was good working things on the dl with Tumpkin's lawyer, who's on the CU AD speed dial(good look), and Phil walked around like this was a gossip item to share when it crossed his mind. Benson got the tail end of the worst game of telephone, and couldn't be bothered. And none of these guys live in a world where Ray Rice, Greg Hardy, Baylor, Penn State, or even CU's previous scandal were a thing apparently.
 
I think she is definitely a victim. But I think she is sort of being manipulated by a lawyer who sees a nice payday. I don't believe she is the one writing the statements being attributed to her though I'm sure, in her mind, she agrees that McIntyre, George, Distefano and Bentsen were enablers and tried to cover up. I do not, personally, believe they are liable for anything other than some poor judgement.
 
how do i say this, um, politely?

we can't worry about this ****. the university did an investigation. the university accepted some blame. the university issued penalties to its employees and implemented new policies to help avoid future issues.

this is all we, as a part of the CU community, can ask for.

what we cannot control is litigation from aggrieved third parties. the plaintiff is, in fact, a victim of abuse. she's hired counsel to help her address the wrongs that were done to her. CU's legal responsibility in a civil court in this matter is not yet known.

i don't blame the victim here. i understand those who wish to declare conclusively that CU has no civil liability in this matter, but that's not yet certain.

fundamentally, and, sadly, once again, we have clueless knee-jerk waffling administrators who want to do the right thing (i think) but are just so far over their heads that they didn't know how to handle this appropriately. there are consequences for incompetence in university leadership positions. facing this litigation is one such consequence.

put this **** to bed. we can't control it; we can't own it; we can't predict it. i feel like CU handled the post-events inquiry well. the main question for fans and boosters should be "how can we avoid pissing all over our own shoes in the future?" and, more basically, "are our administrators properly trained and sufficiently experienced to address employee situations like this one when they occur?"
 
I think, in hindsight, hiring a third party legal team to do an independent investigation was a wise move that will aid the university in its defense. I would think that if that legal team told them they'd better settle, they probably would.
 
bombay said:
Mac got set up.
Click to expand...
He didn't, his leadership let him down, his lawyer should pay part of his $100,000 donation, but he was dense as well.

His human and/or just his cya instinct should have had him asking more questions and not just worrying about who was calling the defense in the bowl game.
 
BuffsRising said:
Settling isnt goint to make this go away. It just sets the precedent for further lawsuits.

Unless the plaintiff can prove that a university employee interfered in the poice investigation or tried to get her to stay quiet, we should tell her to pound sand.
Click to expand...
Disagree. That ship already sailed about 10 years ago. CU has a long standing history of settling claims in this area. Settling this one isn't going to set any new precedent.....it already exists.
 
TDbuff said:
He didn't, his leadership let him down, his lawyer should pay part of his $100,000 donation, but he was dense as well.

His human and/or just his cya instinct should have had him asking more questions and not just worrying about who was calling the defense in the bowl game.
Click to expand...
I think he was caught between following instinct and following advice.

This just popped into my head. So watchout! But I watched the last half of "Sully" last night. The NTSB wanted to nail him to the wall. So during the hearing, they did simulations of exactly what happened to him. In both cases, the pilots in the sims made it back to either LaGuardia or Teterboro. Then they asked him what he had to say and he said something to the effect of "Yeah, but these pilots knew what the situation was going to be ahead of time and reacted immediately." That reminds me of this situation. It's pretty easy to criticise after the fact and to pontificate about how one would react if it were them.
 
Liver said:
how do i say this, um, politely?

we can't worry about this ****. the university did an investigation. the university accepted some blame. the university issued penalties to its employees and implemented new policies to help avoid future issues.

this is all we, as a part of the CU community, can ask for.

what we cannot control is litigation from aggrieved third parties. the plaintiff is, in fact, a victim of abuse. she's hired counsel to help her address the wrongs that were done to her. CU's legal responsibility in a civil court in this matter is not yet known.

i don't blame the victim here. i understand those who wish to declare conclusively that CU has no civil liability in this matter, but that's not yet certain.

fundamentally, and, sadly, once again, we have clueless knee-jerk waffling administrators who want to do the right thing (i think) but are just so far over their heads that they didn't know how to handle this appropriately. there are consequences for incompetence in university leadership positions. facing this litigation is one such consequence.

put this **** to bed. we can't control it; we can't own it; we can't predict it. i feel like CU handled the post-events inquiry well. the main question for fans and boosters should be "how can we avoid pissing all over our own shoes in the future?" and, more basically, "are our administrators properly trained and sufficiently experienced to address employee situations like this one when they occur?"
Click to expand...

Good post, including the reference to pissing, but without the obligatory plastic sheet on the floor reference.

Your assessent is basically that plastic sheet.
 
Bill Cody said:
Disagree. That ship already sailed about 10 years ago. CU has a long standing history of settling claims in this area. Settling this one isn't going to set any new precedent.....it already exists.
Click to expand...
Disagree. While CU has a history of settling, I don't know of any case where a DV victim successfully sued his/her abusers employer. That part is unprecedented as far as I know.
 
sackman said:
Disagree. While CU has a history of settling, I don't know of any case where a DV victim successfully sued his/her abusers employer. That part is unprecedented as far as I know.
Click to expand...
Fair point, and I agree. My view was a bit more simplistic. CU has a history of allowing situations like these to become very (unnecessarily) murky and, as a result, generate bad optics for CU to the layperson....and then, paying money to make it go away. IMO, there is a reason (aside from a lame attempt at trying to establish a trend) that this attorney is dredging up all of the events of the "scandal".....he is saying "pay me, or we're going to publicly go through all of this **** all over again."
 
CU has a legal team and I would think they could litigate the hell out of a case like that. Imagine all the court dates/costs going over title IX procedures arguing if she was even covered by the university since she wasn't an employee/student and it wasn't on campus. Then imagine all the arguments about the training by the OIEC which wasn't done since 2013 (clearly a huge issue since everyone else in the private sector does this type of **** at least once a year). The good thing is that CU already released the report and the information/backlash that comes with that is already out there. I am sure they are fine going over and reviewing the facts that are already out there if they feel like they will get out of any wrong doing.
 
sackman said:
Disagree. While CU has a history of settling, I don't know of any case where a DV victim successfully sued his/her abusers employer. That part is unprecedented as far as I know.
Click to expand...

Particularly, since no additional abuse occurred after the employer was notified.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top