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!

Investigation completed: Meyer suspended three games

Buffnik said:
fwiw, my initial position was that it is unfair and a can of worms we don't want as a society if an accusation is enough to put a person on administrative leave. That this would cause irreparable harm to a person's career even if he was cleared in the investigation. After talking to people on this board, reading up on things and thinking it through, I have changed my mind. Domestic violence is such a pervasive and serious problem with such difficulties inherent for the person reporting (particularly that she could piss the guy off but have nothing done to protect her in the aftermath) that I don't believe that there's any choice but to put someone on leave pending investigation if there is a complaint against the person that has a modicum of credibility. For that reason, I also changed my mind about whether DiStefano along with MacIntyre and George screwed up by not removing Tumpkin from football operations right away.
Click to expand...
I'm not following your reasoning. specifically, I don't see how placing an accused violent offender on leave from their employment does anything to protect the victim. arguably, it increases risk to the victim as the accused now has more time to commit crimes. Incarcerating the accused person would accomplish that, but do we want to go there?
 
Buffnik said:
fwiw, my initial position was that it is unfair and a can of worms we don't want as a society if an accusation is enough to put a person on administrative leave. That this would cause irreparable harm to a person's career even if he was cleared in the investigation. After talking to people on this board, reading up on things and thinking it through, I have changed my mind. Domestic violence is such a pervasive and serious problem with such difficulties inherent for the person reporting (particularly that she could piss the guy off but have nothing done to protect her in the aftermath) that I don't believe that there's any choice but to put someone on leave pending investigation if there is a complaint against the person that has a modicum of credibility. For that reason, I also changed my mind about whether DiStefano along with MacIntyre and George screwed up by not removing Tumpkin from football operations right away.
Click to expand...

It is a tough question balancing the impact of placing a public figure (football coach in this case) on administrative leave inviting at the very least speculation about why against the seriousness of domestic violence.

That is why the right choice should be in almost all cases to as quickly and completely turn the situation and all evidence available over to the appropriate law enforcement authorities and let them along with the DAs office decide on the validity of the evidence.

In order to ease the potential damage you could have a policy of not announcing the leave for a period of say 48 hours. You can defer questions for this period of time calling it a personal situation or something similar.

What is clear is that situations involving DV cannot be ignored. The impact on the victims and society is great enough that our public institutions must take the lead in not tolerating it and certainly not in covering it up.
 
hokiehead said:
I'm not following your reasoning. specifically, I don't see how placing an accused violent offender on leave from their employment does anything to protect the victim. arguably, it increases risk to the victim as the accused now has more time to commit crimes. Incarcerating the accused person would accomplish that, but do we want to go there?
Click to expand...
Someone being told by his employer that he is being investigated and being watched while on administrative leave sends a very different message than that same person being told by his employer that his wife called to accuse him, there are no repercussions for him, and that he needs to take care of his home situation.

The old school approach did not work.
 
Duff Man said:
Because organizations are giving abusers cover. If Zach Smith actually has to face the music by himself instead of being backed by Urban Meyer and Ohio State football, much better chance he will not escape punishment.
Click to expand...

Then we're getting into statute of limitations and things like that. One thing is obvious though-Zach Smith will never coach in college athletics again.

Buffnik said:
fwiw, my initial position was that it is unfair and a can of worms we don't want as a society if an accusation is enough to put a person on administrative leave. That this would cause irreparable harm to a person's career even if he was cleared in the investigation. After talking to people on this board, reading up on things and thinking it through, I have changed my mind. Domestic violence is such a pervasive and serious problem with such difficulties inherent for the person reporting (particularly that she could piss the guy off but have nothing done to protect her in the aftermath) that I don't believe that there's any choice but to put someone on leave pending investigation if there is a complaint against the person that has a modicum of credibility. For that reason, I also changed my mind about whether DiStefano along with MacIntyre and George screwed up by not removing Tumpkin from football operations right away.
Click to expand...

Again, much different scenario as we all know Nik (both MM and RG reported the DV complaint against Tumpkin......could MM have called the defense in the Alamo Bowl or taken the initiative in conjunction with RG to suspend Tumpkin before the bowl game? Sure, but its well known that both complied with CU policy as they understood it and Title 9/the Cleary Act). We don't know if Meyer, his wife, or anybody else on their football staff (who would be required as I understand it to report this up the chain-my guess is Voltolini or whatever the football ops guy's name is also knew-his wife's name popped up in the texts that McMurphy got from Courtney Smith yesterday) knew about the 2015 allegation and what they did with it.
 
Last edited:
ahoelsken said:
Then we're getting into statute of limitations and things like that. One thing is obvious though-Zach Smith will never coach in college athletics again.



Again, much different scenario as we all know Nik (both MM and RG reported the DV complaint against Tumpkin......could MM have called the defense in the Alamo Bowl or taken the initiative in conjunction with RG to suspend Tumpkin before the bowl game? Sure, but its well known that both complied with CU policy as they understood it and Title 9/the Cleary Act). We don't know if Meyer, his wife, or anybody else on their football staff (who would be required as I understand it to report this up the chain-my guess is Voltolini or whatever the football ops guy's name is also knew-his wife's name popped up in the texts that McMurphy got from Courtney Smith yesterday)
Click to expand...

Statute of limitations is for the courts to decide, it does not preclude action from an employer.
 
ahoelsken said:
Then we're getting into statute of limitations and things like that. One thing is obvious though-Zach Smith will never coach in college athletics again.



Again, much different scenario as we all know Nik (both MM and RG reported the DV complaint against Tumpkin......could MM have called the defense in the Alamo Bowl or taken the initiative in conjunction with RG to suspend Tumpkin before the bowl game? Sure, but its well known that both complied with CU policy as they understood it and Title 9/the Cleary Act). We don't know if Meyer, his wife, or anybody else on their football staff (who would be required as I understand it to report this up the chain-my guess is Voltolini or whatever the football ops guy's name is also knew-his wife's name popped up in the texts that McMurphy got from Courtney Smith yesterday)
Click to expand...
Oh, I'm off on a tangent from this thread because @Bread hadn't been here when we had the Tumpkin discussion. There's no comparison between the two situations except under the broad umbrella of "handling domestic violence issues by football assistant coaches". Urban sheltered and enabled a wife beater for years and lied about it - leaving her in that dangerous situation for years. MacIntyre made an error in judgment in waiting to suspend a coach based upon hearing an accusation from the alleged victim that he found credible, after he'd made sure she was safe. Urban's behavior is obscene. MacIntyre's behavior was an honest mistake easily fixed with some re-training on the subject.
 
Buffnik said:
Someone being told by his employer that he is being investigated and being watched while on administrative leave sends a very different message than that same person being told by his employer that his wife called to accuse him, there are no repercussions for him, and that he needs to take care of his home situation.

The old school approach did not work.
Click to expand...
This is a very complex issue. I agree with everything you said in your last few posts, in principle. The thing I struggle with balancing is the impact of false accusations in these types of cases...particularly as it relates to high profile sports. This isn't the norm, but there are cases where false accusations are lobbed at an athlete specifically hoping that the specified course you've outlined will happen to the accused. The FB player in Tennessee comes to mind as a potential example (disclaimer, I am not stating he is a good guy, bad guy, innocent or guilty....it is simply an interesting example). A.J. Johnson was accused in 2015 of rape, he was an NFL prospect by all accounts, he was removed from the team within 48 hours, and 3 1/2 years later, he was acquitted. The reason I point this out is this..... 3 1/2 years is a lifetime in high profile sports.....even a single year to sort this out is a lifetime for a senior in college. The same cannot be said for a high profile executive. I am not sure what the right answer is, because the protections you outline are essential and necessary for DV victims....you will get no argument from me there. But how do you balance that against protecting the falsely accused that will literally have their careers ruined while it gets sorted out? Or in these new cases....those that might have known about the DV, and didn't report it. Not sure what the answer is there.....
 
Bill Cody said:
This is a very complex issue. I agree with everything you said in your last few posts, in principle. The thing I struggle with balancing is the impact of false accusations in these types of cases...particularly as it relates to high profile sports. This isn't the norm, but there are cases where false accusations are lobbed at an athlete specifically hoping that the specified course you've outlined will happen to the accused. The FB player in Tennessee comes to mind as a potential example (disclaimer, I am not stating he is a good guy, bad guy, innocent or guilty....it is simply an interesting example). A.J. Johnson was accused in 2015 of rape, he was an NFL prospect by all accounts, he was removed from the team within 48 hours, and 3 1/2 years later, he was acquitted. The reason I point this out is this..... 3 1/2 years is a lifetime in high profile sports.....even a single year to sort this out is a lifetime for a senior in college. The same cannot be said for a high profile executive. I am not sure what the right answer is, because the protections you outline are essential and necessary for DV victims....you will get no argument from me there. But how do you balance that against protecting the falsely accused that will literally have their careers ruined while it gets sorted out? Or in these new cases....those that might have known about the DV, and didn't report it. Not sure what the answer is there.....
Click to expand...
Sometimes there's no perfect solution so we have to decide which side we should be on. In this case, it's got to be the side of protecting and getting justice for a victim.

But with that said, I'm all for making the penalties for filing a false report much steeper. Maybe even a serious felony with real jail time and we enforce it. I'm totally cool with sending a woman to jail if she tries to destroy a guy's life in this way because she was pissed or had hurt feelings or whatever.
 
Buffnik said:
Sometimes there's no perfect solution so we have to decide which side we should be on. In this case, it's got to be the side of protecting and getting justice for a victim.

But with that said, I'm all for making the penalties for filing a false report much steeper. Maybe even a serious felony with real jail time and we enforce it. I'm totally cool with sending a woman to jail if she tries to destroy a guy's life in this way because she was pissed or had hurt feelings or whatever.
Click to expand...

Yes. But I don't ever see the legislative bodies that be, taking this one on.
 
Buffnik said:
Sometimes there's no perfect solution so we have to decide which side we should be on. In this case, it's got to be the side of protecting and getting justice for a victim.

But with that said, I'm all for making the penalties for filing a false report much steeper. Maybe even a serious felony with real jail time and we enforce it. I'm totally cool with sending a woman to jail if she tries to destroy a guy's life in this way because she was pissed or had hurt feelings or whatever.
Click to expand...

Agree with this-Remember Brian Banks? His accuser (who admitted to lying about him raping her on tape) was ordered to pay $2.6m for her actions. She deserves time in jail for that.
 
Bread said:
Couple things here. First, you’re right I wasn’t on here yet when the Tumpkin situation went down, glad to hear a lot of people were disgusted with it as they should be. Upset to hear that some people were trying to blame the victim. I see where your coming from with the attempts to find ethical “outs” as you say. But reiterate that’s not just a football thing that’s an every day thing. Business people will do the same if their company comes under fire, many academic higher ups would do the same as well. My point was that it’s not at all related to football it’s the way a lot of people in positions of power react because they don’t want to lose that power. Second, really, you’re saying because I capitalized football when it’s what my phone autocorrects it to when I type insinuates that I’m ignorant and that I’m projecting? Jesus dude, I wasn’t offended by your initial post, maybe the text came off as such but trying to say I’m projecting because I’m ignorant myself is churlish. I wasn’t trying to tell you how to arrive at your beliefs, I was stating my opinion that it’s not a football thing, it’s a position of power thing. And clearly you can’t have a conversation without telling someone to go f*** themselves just because their opinion differs from yours. I didn’t call you ignorant, I was saying it’s an ignorant thought to think this is an only football issue. “and the capitalization of "football" in your post is more than a little telling” that’s a good one I’ll have to let my phones natural autocorrect know that apparently it’s too infatuated with Football
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I have been salty as **** today, largely because of things that have nothing to do with this board, so I am sorry I told you to **** yourself. When I got to the "by all means" part of your post, it set me off a little. Mea culpa.

What I will say in response to the substance of your post is this: While I agree with you that DV is a problem in all walks of life, I do think that there is an element in the culture of football that leads to it being a larger issue. (Not unlike other testosterone driven pursuits, such as police work or military service.) My issue is that, when stuff like this happens in football, there often seems to be a subsequent attempt at damage control (which is usually a much higher priority than caring for victims), and then a strong desire from fans to exonerate enablers. A little self-reflection is never a bad thing, and I sometimes question if my support for college football might make me part of the problem.

To wit, when the news of what is going on at Ohio State came down, my immediate reaction was to wonder if this could impact Meyer, and thus Ohio State, and thus the entire sport. I thought of the competitive impact first. Wow, I wonder if their recruiting is going to suffer! It might be fun to watch Urban Meyer go down! Now, I'm not saying that this is a bad thing to consider at some point, but I do believe that the initial reaction on both sides tends to be in terms of how it will impact their enjoyment of football. Oh yeah, there is a woman who got the **** beat out of her, but as long as I act upset enough about that, I can also relish watching the hated Buckeyes get theirs!

And when I think about it, that really sucks. We have threads on this board that announce every college football scandal, and they inevitably are just about whether or not the NCAA will crack down on a program, and whether we will be treated to the grand spectacle of a scandal. Not to mention the fact that it has become commonly understood among college football fans that everyone is cheating. We don't talk (much) about how bad the DV was at OSU, or the impact on all of the girls that were raped at Baylor - we talk about whether the institution tried to cover it up. (I'm guilty - Check out my outrage in the Baylor thread, or the title of the Michigan State thread that I started.) We (not you, everyone) love scandals at other programs, because we believe they make our program look better by comparison, even if we do not explicitly state it (or even realize it).

You and I both know for a fact that young men are plied with promises of sex and power in exchange for their football skills. We know for a fact that they are treated in such a way that they enjoy privileges that their peers do not. We know for a fact that football is a hyper-masculine culture, with all that goes with that. And, we know for a fact that football creates injuries that cause psychological disorders among some its participants that last a lifetime - the very type of disorders that are also prevalent among perpetrators of domestic violence. So, is it wrong to ask if football has a little bit to do with crimes involving football players and coaches?

And yet we hide behind statements like "It's not just a football thing." Well, no ****, but football certainly seems to have created a culture where this stuff thrives, and creates an incentive for men who are put in charge of molding young men - like Urban Meyer - to cover it up and enable it. Is it unreasonable to wonder if the money and importance of winning contributes to that? If I vote for someone that ends up doing things that I do not believe in, I still have to own the fact that I voted for them. In football, like with other things, we vote with our eyeballs (as ratings figures) and with our wallets.

So, my comment about you capitalizing "football" was meant to be a little zinger at your expense, but I do believe that, as a culture, we tend to treat things like football as important cultural institutions. And, the more ugly stuff that happens around the sport (and you have to admit that there has been quite a bit as of late), the more it makes me question my enjoyment of it on Saturdays and Sundays. I'm just saying that, as a lifelong football fan, the tipping point of my turning away is a lot closer than I ever thought it would be, and I would really like it if the sport would do something substantive to address the problems it has.
 
NWD Buff said:
Fair enough. I have been salty as **** today, largely because of things that have nothing to do with this board, so I am sorry I told you to **** yourself. When I got to the "by all means" part of your post, it set me off a little. Mea culpa.

What I will say in response to the substance of your post is this: While I agree with you that DV is a problem in all walks of life, I do think that there is an element in the culture of football that leads to it being a larger issue. (Not unlike other testosterone driven pursuits, such as police work or military service.) My issue is that, when stuff like this happens in football, there often seems to be a subsequent attempt at damage control (which is usually a much higher priority than caring for victims), and then a strong desire from fans to exonerate enablers. A little self-reflection is never a bad thing, and I sometimes question if my support for college football might make me part of the problem.

To wit, when the news of what is going on at Ohio State came down, my immediate reaction was to wonder if this could impact Meyer, and thus Ohio State, and thus the entire sport. I thought of the competitive impact first. Wow, I wonder if their recruiting is going to suffer! It might be fun to watch Urban Meyer go down! Now, I'm not saying that this is a bad thing to consider at some point, but I do believe that the initial reaction on both sides tends to be in terms of how it will impact their enjoyment of football. Oh yeah, there is a woman who got the **** beat out of her, but as long as I act upset enough about that, I can also relish watching the hated Buckeyes get theirs!

And when I think about it, that really sucks. We have threads on this board that announce every college football scandal, and they inevitably are just about whether or not the NCAA will crack down on a program, and whether we will be treated to the grand spectacle of a scandal. Not to mention the fact that it has become commonly understood among college football fans that everyone is cheating. We don't talk (much) about how bad the DV was at OSU, or the impact on all of the girls that were raped at Baylor - we talk about whether the institution tried to cover it up. (I'm guilty - Check out my outrage in the Baylor thread, or the title of the Michigan State thread that I started.) We (not you, everyone) love scandals at other programs, because we believe they make our program look better by comparison, even if we do not explicitly state it (or even realize it).

You and I both know for a fact that young men are plied with promises of sex and power in exchange for their football skills. We know for a fact that they are treated in such a way that they enjoy privileges that their peers do not. We know for a fact that football is a hyper-masculine culture, with all that goes with that. And, we know for a fact that football creates injuries that cause psychological disorders among some its participants that last a lifetime - the very type of disorders that are also prevalent among perpetrators of domestic violence. So, is it wrong to ask if football has a little bit to do with crimes involving football players and coaches?

And yet we hide behind statements like "It's not just a football thing." Well, no ****, but football certainly seems to have created a culture where this stuff thrives, and creates an incentive for men who are put in charge of molding young men - like Urban Meyer - to cover it up and enable it. Is it unreasonable to wonder if the money and importance of winning contributes to that? If I vote for someone that ends up doing things that I do not believe in, I still have to own the fact that I voted for them. In football, like with other things, we vote with our eyeballs (as ratings figures) and with our wallets.

So, my comment about you capitalizing "football" was meant to be a little zinger at your expense, but I do believe that, as a culture, we tend to treat things like football as important cultural institutions. And, the more ugly stuff that happens around the sport (and you have to admit that there has been quite a bit as of late), the more it makes me question my enjoyment of it on Saturdays and Sundays. I'm just saying that, as a lifelong football fan, the tipping point of my turning away is a lot closer than I ever thought it would be, and I would really like it if the sport would do something substantive to address the problems it has.
Click to expand...

Nearly every football player I’ve met (at CU and in my professional life meeting NFL guys) have said that they usually need at least a few hours to decompress after practices and games to interact with their WAGs. This is why you’ll see team dinners and/or long baths after games without WAGs for a lot of guys: they need to rev down the major testosterone and adrenaline high they’ve been on for hours.
 
E
NWD Buff said:
Fair enough. I have been salty as **** today, largely because of things that have nothing to do with this board, so I am sorry I told you to **** yourself. When I got to the "by all means" part of your post, it set me off a little. Mea culpa.

What I will say in response to the substance of your post is this: While I agree with you that DV is a problem in all walks of life, I do think that there is an element in the culture of football that leads to it being a larger issue. (Not unlike other testosterone driven pursuits, such as police work or military service.) My issue is that, when stuff like this happens in football, there often seems to be a subsequent attempt at damage control (which is usually a much higher priority than caring for victims), and then a strong desire from fans to exonerate enablers. A little self-reflection is never a bad thing, and I sometimes question if my support for college football might make me part of the problem.

To wit, when the news of what is going on at Ohio State came down, my immediate reaction was to wonder if this could impact Meyer, and thus Ohio State, and thus the entire sport. I thought of the competitive impact first. Wow, I wonder if their recruiting is going to suffer! It might be fun to watch Urban Meyer go down! Now, I'm not saying that this is a bad thing to consider at some point, but I do believe that the initial reaction on both sides tends to be in terms of how it will impact their enjoyment of football. Oh yeah, there is a woman who got the **** beat out of her, but as long as I act upset enough about that, I can also relish watching the hated Buckeyes get theirs!

And when I think about it, that really sucks. We have threads on this board that announce every college football scandal, and they inevitably are just about whether or not the NCAA will crack down on a program, and whether we will be treated to the grand spectacle of a scandal. Not to mention the fact that it has become commonly understood among college football fans that everyone is cheating. We don't talk (much) about how bad the DV was at OSU, or the impact on all of the girls that were raped at Baylor - we talk about whether the institution tried to cover it up. (I'm guilty - Check out my outrage in the Baylor thread, or the title of the Michigan State thread that I started.) We (not you, everyone) love scandals at other programs, because we believe they make our program look better by comparison, even if we do not explicitly state it (or even realize it).

You and I both know for a fact that young men are plied with promises of sex and power in exchange for their football skills. We know for a fact that they are treated in such a way that they enjoy privileges that their peers do not. We know for a fact that football is a hyper-masculine culture, with all that goes with that. And, we know for a fact that football creates injuries that cause psychological disorders among some its participants that last a lifetime - the very type of disorders that are also prevalent among perpetrators of domestic violence. So, is it wrong to ask if football has a little bit to do with crimes involving football players and coaches?

And yet we hide behind statements like "It's not just a football thing." Well, no ****, but football certainly seems to have created a culture where this stuff thrives, and creates an incentive for men who are put in charge of molding young men - like Urban Meyer - to cover it up and enable it. Is it unreasonable to wonder if the money and importance of winning contributes to that? If I vote for someone that ends up doing things that I do not believe in, I still have to own the fact that I voted for them. In football, like with other things, we vote with our eyeballs (as ratings figures) and with our wallets.

So, my comment about you capitalizing "football" was meant to be a little zinger at your expense, but I do believe that, as a culture, we tend to treat things like football as important cultural institutions. And, the more ugly stuff that happens around the sport (and you have to admit that there has been quite a bit as of late), the more it makes me question my enjoyment of it on Saturdays and Sundays. I'm just saying that, as a lifelong football fan, the tipping point of my turning away is a lot closer than I ever thought it would be, and I would really like it if the sport would do something substantive to address the problems it has.
Click to expand...
Extremely well said and I can't really disagree with any of your points on here. I guess I never stopped to realize what my very first thought is whenever I hear something like this, but you're absolutely correct. My first thought was "I can't wait to see Ohio State go down for this." And the testosterone issue is very present, it seems like as you said a lot of this ugly crap has been going on as of late. I get where you are coming from.
 
We shouldn't be too hard on ourselves.

After all, we're fans and do not know these folks personally.

Kind of like how when Carrie Fisher died my first thought was about what that meant for the Star Wars franchise, not about the drug epidemic or what her friends/family must be going through.

What I'm trying to say is that when you only relate to someone on a certain level it's normal and natural to think in terms of that level even when something happens in their lives that is outside of it.
 
NWD Buff said:
Fair enough. I have been salty as **** today, largely because of things that have nothing to do with this board, so I am sorry I told you to **** yourself. When I got to the "by all means" part of your post, it set me off a little. Mea culpa.

What I will say in response to the substance of your post is this: While I agree with you that DV is a problem in all walks of life, I do think that there is an element in the culture of football that leads to it being a larger issue. (Not unlike other testosterone driven pursuits, such as police work or military service.) My issue is that, when stuff like this happens in football, there often seems to be a subsequent attempt at damage control (which is usually a much higher priority than caring for victims), and then a strong desire from fans to exonerate enablers. A little self-reflection is never a bad thing, and I sometimes question if my support for college football might make me part of the problem.

To wit, when the news of what is going on at Ohio State came down, my immediate reaction was to wonder if this could impact Meyer, and thus Ohio State, and thus the entire sport. I thought of the competitive impact first. Wow, I wonder if their recruiting is going to suffer! It might be fun to watch Urban Meyer go down! Now, I'm not saying that this is a bad thing to consider at some point, but I do believe that the initial reaction on both sides tends to be in terms of how it will impact their enjoyment of football. Oh yeah, there is a woman who got the **** beat out of her, but as long as I act upset enough about that, I can also relish watching the hated Buckeyes get theirs!

And when I think about it, that really sucks. We have threads on this board that announce every college football scandal, and they inevitably are just about whether or not the NCAA will crack down on a program, and whether we will be treated to the grand spectacle of a scandal. Not to mention the fact that it has become commonly understood among college football fans that everyone is cheating. We don't talk (much) about how bad the DV was at OSU, or the impact on all of the girls that were raped at Baylor - we talk about whether the institution tried to cover it up. (I'm guilty - Check out my outrage in the Baylor thread, or the title of the Michigan State thread that I started.) We (not you, everyone) love scandals at other programs, because we believe they make our program look better by comparison, even if we do not explicitly state it (or even realize it).

You and I both know for a fact that young men are plied with promises of sex and power in exchange for their football skills. We know for a fact that they are treated in such a way that they enjoy privileges that their peers do not. We know for a fact that football is a hyper-masculine culture, with all that goes with that. And, we know for a fact that football creates injuries that cause psychological disorders among some its participants that last a lifetime - the very type of disorders that are also prevalent among perpetrators of domestic violence. So, is it wrong to ask if football has a little bit to do with crimes involving football players and coaches?

And yet we hide behind statements like "It's not just a football thing." Well, no ****, but football certainly seems to have created a culture where this stuff thrives, and creates an incentive for men who are put in charge of molding young men - like Urban Meyer - to cover it up and enable it. Is it unreasonable to wonder if the money and importance of winning contributes to that? If I vote for someone that ends up doing things that I do not believe in, I still have to own the fact that I voted for them. In football, like with other things, we vote with our eyeballs (as ratings figures) and with our wallets.

So, my comment about you capitalizing "football" was meant to be a little zinger at your expense, but I do believe that, as a culture, we tend to treat things like football as important cultural institutions. And, the more ugly stuff that happens around the sport (and you have to admit that there has been quite a bit as of late), the more it makes me question my enjoyment of it on Saturdays and Sundays. I'm just saying that, as a lifelong football fan, the tipping point of my turning away is a lot closer than I ever thought it would be, and I would really like it if the sport would do something substantive to address the problems it has.
Click to expand...

I haven't seen research on it but I would doubt that sports is at the top of the list in terms of DV frequency.

We can talk about the stress and the culture in sports but many other professions have combinations of stress and dominance culture as well. I know that there is a high incidence of DV in the military and among first responders. It also exist among people in sales and finance. In fact it exist in all areas. Is it higher or lower with some occupations than others, probably but reality is that it exist in all walks of life and needs to be dealt with as a societal problem, not just an athletics problem.

I am not turned off to sports by individuals doing ugly things, as stated it is unfortunately a fact of life in our culture. I do get turned off to certain team or organizations because they put winning ahead of the life and safety of people.

When it happened I was one of the most vocal against Penn State and JoPa, to the point that some posters asked me to lighten up a little. I didn't and won't because of the damage their desire to cover up Sandusky did to those boys who were his victims. Same with Baylor and the young women who will carry the burden what the rape culture at Baylor did to them for life. I don't forgive Michigan State and others who have facilitated the damaging of the lives of innocent people in the name of protecting their "reputations" and not damaging their chances to win.
 
I’m curious. Anyone know how the state / county resolved the Tumpkin domestic violence case? Settlement? Trial? Sentencing? Is Tumpkin in custody or in jail or a free man?

Lots of media attention about CU being held accountable.

Very little attention is paid to how society’s judicial system is addressing the man who is charged with the crime.
 
MtnBuff said:
I haven't seen research on it but I would doubt that sports is at the top of the list in terms of DV frequency.

We can talk about the stress and the culture in sports but many other professions have combinations of stress and dominance culture as well. I know that there is a high incidence of DV in the military and among first responders. It also exist among people in sales and finance. In fact it exist in all areas. Is it higher or lower with some occupations than others, probably but reality is that it exist in all walks of life and needs to be dealt with as a societal problem, not just an athletics problem.

I am not turned off to sports by individuals doing ugly things, as stated it is unfortunately a fact of life in our culture. I do get turned off to certain team or organizations because they put winning ahead of the life and safety of people.

When it happened I was one of the most vocal against Penn State and JoPa, to the point that some posters asked me to lighten up a little. I didn't and won't because of the damage their desire to cover up Sandusky did to those boys who were his victims. Same with Baylor and the young women who will carry the burden what the rape culture at Baylor did to them for life. I don't forgive Michigan State and others who have facilitated the damaging of the lives of innocent people in the name of protecting their "reputations" and not damaging their chances to win.
Click to expand...

High rate of DV in the military? Do you have a link or reference?
 
BehindEnemyLines said:
High rate of DV in the military? Do you have a link or reference?
Click to expand...

We had some family support personnel from Fort Carson come in along with our school psychologist who specifically addressed the issue as it relates to our students, a large number of which are from active duty families.

One of the things they told us is that even among service members who are not deploying to active combat zones the rate of DV is higher than the general population, among those with a family member returned from a combat deployment it is dramatically higher.

Legally we cannot as a school refer a student or suggest to their parents that a student might need counseling or support. All we can do on an individual basis is report signs of child abuse if are aware of them (and these we are required by law to report.) What we can do and the reason the Ft. Carson people were there is that we can and do make the general student population aware of support services available to them and again in a general manner not aimed at a specific student or students encourage them to seek help for themselves or family members if they have things happening in their lives.

The information they provided us stated very clearly that DV was a significant issue in the military and close to 30 years of anecdotal experience with students would support that.

Does this mean that every military family (or family from any other occupation) harbors DV, of course not. The large majority are normal, loving, supportive families that handle conflict appropriately. For those where the violence exist though the impact can be huge and beyond the normal resistance to report military families often worry that reporting could result in negative career consequences that impact the whole family.
 
MtnBuff said:
We had some family support personnel from Fort Carson come in along with our school psychologist who specifically addressed the issue as it relates to our students, a large number of which are from active duty families.

One of the things they told us is that even among service members who are not deploying to active combat zones the rate of DV is higher than the general population, among those with a family member returned from a combat deployment it is dramatically higher.

Legally we cannot as a school refer a student or suggest to their parents that a student might need counseling or support. All we can do on an individual basis is report signs of child abuse if are aware of them (and these we are required by law to report.) What we can do and the reason the Ft. Carson people were there is that we can and do make the general student population aware of support services available to them and again in a general manner not aimed at a specific student or students encourage them to seek help for themselves or family members if they have things happening in their lives.

The information they provided us stated very clearly that DV was a significant issue in the military and close to 30 years of anecdotal experience with students would support that.

Does this mean that every military family (or family from any other occupation) harbors DV, of course not. The large majority are normal, loving, supportive families that handle conflict appropriately. For those where the violence exist though the impact can be huge and beyond the normal resistance to report military families often worry that reporting could result in negative career consequences that impact the whole family.
Click to expand...

You said high rate - perhaps I should have asked what you considered high.

I saw the link vinniew_11 provided and that one surprised me. Most of what I saw on various sites indicate that the DV rates/percents were comparable between military and non. The rates for veterans is disturbingly higher.
 
BehindEnemyLines said:
You said high rate - perhaps I should have asked what you considered high.

I saw the link vinniew_11 provided and that one surprised me. Most of what I saw on various sites indicate that the DV rates/percents were comparable between military and non. The rates for veterans is disturbingly higher.
Click to expand...

I apologize for not having the numbers but the information that was given to us indicated that it was higher than the general public by a notable margin.

I can see a lot of reasons it would happen. Among the enlisted you have a lot of couples who married young. They are then transferred to various postings in and out of the US but away from extended families and support systems. Because of the fairly frequent transfers it is hard for spouses to progress normally in a career like they would married to someone in the civilian world. Certain military jobs involve the service member being away from home for extended periods of time and each time he/she returns the dynamics in the household have to be reset.
 
My comparison with the OSU situation is if the restraining order hadn’t have hit the press close to a month after HCMM and the admin knew about it, CU could’ve have been in a similar situation eventually, and that’s scary.
I think we got somewhat lucky there. Because no one in the administration seemed to be proactive about it, and were forced to respond to the press calling them. If it had came out at a significant time later, I’m not sure anyone in the know would’ve done anything about it till then.
They ****ed up, but they got out of it relatively unscathed. I’m tired of CU ****in up in the first place, they should know better. I could blame Phil, he sucks, but everyone should know better. Cause otherwise, we’ll get tied up in this type of drama again.
 
TDbuff said:
My comparison with the OSU situation is if the restraining order hadn’t have hit the press close to a month after HCMM and the admin knew about it, CU could’ve have been in a similar situation eventually, and that’s scary.
I think we got somewhat lucky there. Because no one in the administration seemed to be proactive about it, and were forced to respond to the press calling them. If it had came out at a significant time later, I’m not sure anyone in the know would’ve done anything about it till then.
They ****ed up, but they got out of it relatively unscathed. I’m tired of CU ****in up in the first place, they should know better. I could blame Phil, he sucks, but everyone should know better. Cause otherwise, we’ll get tied up in this type of drama again.
Click to expand...
PD would have gotten in more trouble but the situations are completely different because the issue was reported to the admin and excalaled. Go listen to that video I posted with Feldman on with cowherd. If urban told his boss at OSU just like he did in 2009 at Florida it would change pretty much everything. Instead he kept it to himself and decided he should take the word of his friend.
 
Really interesting interview of Brett McMurphy on The Audible podcast with Bruce Feldman and Stewart Mandel. Made me more sure than ever Urban is done at Ohio State. On top of everything that has already been published there are texts from coaches wives saying "Urban doesn't know what to do" and "Urban is talking to Zach now".

McMurphy did say that he has zero concrete evidence but I have to imagine something is going to come up in a phone record somewhere that is going to damn Urban. McMurphy also pointed out he thinks Ohio State parts ways with Urban because the blowback would be enormous (and lawsuits could be filed) if they kept him and a reporter found proof 6 months from now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top