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!

NEW: Regents Meeting, Benson Decision, Investigation Report -- Monday, 6/12

Status
Not open for further replies.
Someone enables this behavior for two years, fools the police & the abuser's employers, and in the end informs the abuser's boss but requests that he do nothing. Mac was put in an impossible position. Rick reacted with anger but was told by his bosses to wait and do nothing. Its all b.s.

Enough!
 
146f6e564d40b35738675c76aaa12d8f_leave-britney-alone-leave-britney-alone-meme_481-359.png
 
bombay said:
Someone enables this behavior for two years, fools the police & the abuser's employers, and in the end informs the abuser's boss but requests that he do nothing. Mac was put in an impossible position. Rick reacted with anger but was told by his bosses to wait and do nothing. Its all b.s.

Enough!
Click to expand...
She is brilliant to fool police into 5 felonies and 3 misdemeanors and then "confuse" a HC, AD and Chancellor of a university. She would have had to have known that all 3 of them would not follow policy and procedure and promote him after she called in order to play out her master plan.
 
Bufffalo1 said:
She is brilliant to fool police into 5 felonies and 3 misdemeanors and then "confuse" a HC, AD and Chancellor of a university. She would have had to have known that all 3 of them would not follow policy and procedure and promote him after she called in order to play out her master plan.
Click to expand...

So what would you have liked to see happen? You still have yet to respond to nik with what your proposed solution would be.
 
Bufffalo1 said:
She is brilliant to fool police into 5 felonies and 3 misdemeanors and then "confuse" a HC, AD and Chancellor of a university. She would have had to have known that all 3 of them would not follow policy and procedure and promote him after she called in order to play out her master plan.
Click to expand...


Tell me what happened when the police responded to a domestic violence call placed by someone else in the victim's apartment building. Why did they leave without making an arrest?
 
You should never call organizations like the OIEC if you don't have to.
 
Last edited:
Bufffalo1 said:
She is brilliant to fool police into 5 felonies and 3 misdemeanors and then "confuse" a HC, AD and Chancellor of a university. She would have had to have known that all 3 of them would not follow policy and procedure and promote him after she called in order to play out her master plan.
Click to expand...

Enough with the false facts. How many times do people have to tell you that he wasn't promoted? You can bend the truth all you want, but all it does is hurt the cause you're attempting to defend. Further, an employee has rights and at the time that the MM team was notified, the alleged perpetrator hadn't been charged with anything. CU clearly was looking into it. If they weren't then a lawyer wouldn't have told MM to stop all communication with the alleged victim (the victim is alleged until the alleged perpetrator is convicted). The legal advice that was given in that situation would have been the same regardless of whether the proper department was notified or not. Further, even if the proper department was notified, the alleged perpetrator wouldn't have been immediately suspended. Instead, there would have been a very similar delay to what you're complaining about. Bottom line in this case is that people are innocent until proven guilty and that CU has to protect itself from any and ALL possible lawsuits, whether they be from the alleged perp. for falsely suspending or terminating him or the alleged victim. The sad part about these situations are the number of victims they create. If the alleged perp is guilty then he has created a victim that should never have to face such actions. If the alleged perp is innocent then he has also had to face things that no one should have to face. Then there is everyone else, a bunch of innocent people and an innocent University can now become liable for the actions of others regardless of the choices they make and regardless of whether they follow policy or not.

I am sure my response here isn't making you happy @buffalo1, but lets remember the words of John Adams here, because they still apply today.

“It is more important that innocence be protected than it is that guilt be punished, for guilt and crimes are so frequent in this world that they cannot all be punished. But if innocence itself is brought to the bar and condemned, perhaps to die, then the citizen will say, “whether I do good or whether I do evil is immaterial, for innocence itself is no protection,” and if such an idea as that were to take hold in the mind of the citizen that would be the end of security whatsoever.”
 
bombay said:
Someone enables this behavior for two years, fools the police & the abuser's employers, and in the end informs the abuser's boss but requests that he do nothing. Mac was put in an impossible position.
Click to expand...

Saying that a woman that was physically beaten for two years is at fault for those beatings and that she is the perpetrator making MacIntyre the victim in this story is the lowest point in all of the threads on this subject on this website. Yes, "enables" is classic victim blaming language.

The good news here is that this discussion cannot much lower.
 
CitizenKane said:
Enough with the false facts. How many times do people have to tell you that he wasn't promoted? You can bend the truth all you want, but all it does is hurt the cause you're attempting to defend. Further, an employee has rights and at the time that the MM team was notified, the alleged perpetrator hadn't been charged with anything. CU clearly was looking into it. If they weren't then a lawyer wouldn't have told MM to stop all communication with the alleged victim (the victim is alleged until the alleged perpetrator is convicted).
Click to expand...

CitizenKane said:
Bottom line in this case is that people are innocent until proven guilty and that CU has to protect itself from any and ALL possible lawsuits, whether they be from the alleged perp. for falsely suspending or terminating him or the alleged victim.
Click to expand...

This. Tumpkin had rights. And CU seemed to have followed protocol and did they best they could with the facts in hand at the time.

It's only hindsight born out of what became public after the fact that makes this appear ugly. I dont think that MM, RG, and even PD are going to get fired over the way this was handled. I'd also say this doesnt have nearly the media stink that other schools are having and CU has had in the past. That factor tends to drive the bus on people losing their jobs.
 
It appears that many allbuffers have sociology degrees, so I guess those degrees are good for something. Like posting on message boards.
 
MiamiBuffs said:
CU seemed to have followed protocol and did they best they could with the facts in hand at the time.
Click to expand...

CU did not follow protocol by choosing to not report this to the OIEC. If they had taken this simple action most of this could have been avoided. The OIEC has a process to manage this and the athletic department would have been able to wash their hands of the deal. Reporting this to the OIEC would have protected DiStephano, George, and MacIntyre. They made an error in judgement on this point and it seems to be biting them in the butt.
 
I'm curious. If MM or RG or PD call the OIEC....what happens differently?

Until charges are filed, its hearsay and I don't think anything would significantly change. They couldn't fire JT off of hearsay so status couldn't really change. You can say that they could have suspended him but once again, hard to do without something being filed.

He wasn't promoted and I think MM took care to never say that, but with JL gone someone had to call the LBs and D, and JT by far was the most qualified.

I think that not suspending him right away until charges was filed was the smart thing to do. Football wise, any future coach MM would try to hire would take into consideration that if anyone places an allegation without proof or anything filed legally, that he might get fired....that would turn many coaches away.
 
Big Jim said:
CU did not follow protocol by choosing to not report this to the OIEC. If they had taken this simple action most of this could have been avoided. The OIEC has a process to manage this and the athletic department would have been able to wash their hands of the deal. Reporting this to the OIEC would have protected DiStephano, George, and MacIntyre. They made an error in judgement on this point and it seems to be biting them in the butt.
Click to expand...
Big Jim is right, to a point. Reporting to the OIEC is protocol, though as DiStephano indicated, he didn't believe the policy required him to do that. I would say the policy isn't written as clearly as it should be nor were any of the management team as aware of the details of the policy as they should have been (Including the HR staff at CU). However, to Big Jim's point, reporting would have better protected MM, RG and DiStephano. It certainly would NOT have fully protected them or the University. Nor would it have lead to the immediate suspension of the alleged perpetrator or prevented him from coaching in the bowl game.
 
Big Jim said:
CU did not follow protocol by choosing to not report this to the OIEC. If they had taken this simple action most of this could have been avoided. The OIEC has a process to manage this and the athletic department would have been able to wash their hands of the deal. Reporting this to the OIEC would have protected DiStephano, George, and MacIntyre. They made an error in judgement on this point and it seems to be biting them in the butt.
Click to expand...

Reporting to the OIEC is spelled out clearly when the victim is a student, an employee, or the crime occurs on campus property. This case satisfied none of those criteria. That is why CU found itself in a bit of gray area and caused this perception of ineptitude.

As DiStephano said in his statement, he was unsure of what to do because of the wording of the reporting policy. He will work with the OIEC to revise this policy so this situation can be avoided in the future.
 
As we all know PD is amazingly teflon coated at protecting himself. So if the only way that MM or RG can get fired is if PD gets fired, then everyone is safe.
 
CitizenKane said:
Reporting to the OIEC is protocol, though as DiStephano indicated, he didn't believe the policy required him to do that.
Click to expand...

There have been a lot of posts using examples of how this would have played out in their place of business. Most, if not all, of the examples included reporting the information to HR. Of course we would report this to our HR department because HR has processes to handle these situations and it protects us from being accused of not acting appropriately. Why would anyone choose to not protect themselves and not report this to HR? HR can easily say that any particular incidence is not required to be reported, but then the potential blowup lays at the feet of HR and not the reporting manager.
 
Shldr2Shldr said:
Reporting to the OIEC is spelled out clearly when the victim is a student, an employee, or the crime occurs on campus property. This case satisfied none of those criteria. That is why CU found itself in a bit of gray area and caused this perception of ineptitude.

As DiStephano said in his statement, he was unsure of what to do because of the wording of the reporting policy. He will work with the OIEC to revise this policy so this situation can be avoided in the future.
Click to expand...

What was the upside to not reporting to the OIEC?
 
I guess I'm a 10,000 foot view guy. She called Mac, and he made sure he could never touch her again. An investigation took place and he's in jail and gone from the university. She is safe.
I could get all fired up because I don't like PD, but the end result is exactly what needed to happen.
This thread demonstrates why Boulder is such a tough job. People want a piece of flesh when the outcome is good. There is no systemic weakness in the program. The coaches and administrators strived to do the right thing, and we have fans on message boards wanting people fired. Tough place to run a program.
 
Bufffalo1 said:
If you see 1,2,3 and 4 as a "whole lot of nothing", then we have very different standards of conduct towards the people we pay millions of dollars to and put in charge of leading young men.
To me, it is a whole lot of something and will be incredibly sad to me that a man with a wife and daughter treated an abused woman this way. To me, it's unconscionable. To you, it's nothing. We will not agree on this.
Click to expand...
Standard of conduct? You're trolling a CU fan site. Your standard is loud and clear.
 
Big Jim said:
There have been a lot of posts using examples of how this would have played out in their place of business. Most, if not all, of the examples included reporting the information to HR. Of course we would report this to our HR department because HR has processes to handle these situations and it protects us from being accused of not acting appropriately. Why would anyone choose to not protect themselves and not report this to HR? HR can easily say that any particular incidence is not required to be reported, but then the potential blowup lays at the feet of HR and not the reporting manager.
Click to expand...
CU HR staff were aware of the situation. However, the OIEC was not. Think about what this means when blaming individuals at CU and what this means when it comes to the levels of bureaucracy that CU has created.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top