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.
buff4bcs1985 said:
This is a tired ****ing topic that's been rehashed to death... I'm all for deleting those new threads that pop up as well
Click to expand...

It's a current news story that involves drama, intrigue, and potentially material repercussions involving our university.

Act 1: The Bowl Prep - coaching changes
Act 2: The disclosure - SI, the TRO and Tumpkin's dismissal
Act 3: The investigation - a waiting game behind the Regent's closed doors
Act 4:MacIntyre's contract extension and the big reveal of policy and repercussions
Act 5: Tumpkin's sentencing and the CU civil suit.

There are still two more acts in this drama. To lock the thread and claim it's old and tired is a classic ostrich head-in-sand maneuver.

Keep the damn thread open. Closing it now doesn't make the mess go away.
 
I'm confused by the S.I. article saying the victim wants no money and today's Denver Post story saying the victim wants $3.7 million.
 
bombay said:
I'm confused by the S.I. article saying the victim wants no money and today's Denver Post story saying the victim wants $3.7 million.
Click to expand...

The victim talked to a lawyer. I'm sure several called after the SI article.
 
bombay said:
I'm confused by the S.I. article saying the victim wants no money and today's Denver Post story saying the victim wants $3.7 million.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing the same son who pushed her to go to the police and the media, pushed her to say yes to the attorneys that kept calling. Just a guess.
 
bombay said:
I'm confused by the S.I. article saying the victim wants no money and today's Denver Post story saying the victim wants $3.7 million.
Click to expand...

No, no, no. The attorney wants 50% of the biggest dollar amount our legal system can justify awarding.
 
The article sounds more like CU knew Tumpkin had a drinking problem and knew of his driving under the influence issues. I think it ties the fact the attorney is making, CU knew Tumpkin had issues and chose to ignore them because of football taking precedent. Tying that then into her reporting the issue and them kind of ignoring it from a University standpoint by not following procedures that are spelled out and CU admits to misinterpreting.

And, above all while she said don't have him lose his job or call the police. That's what a victim does. Protects the person she loves for two reasons: Love and concern if he loses his job, he will come kill her. A common thing that happens. She wanted CU to get Tumpkin help. CU didn't do that. That's another overriding issue on her end.

$3 million plus is crazy talk. And, as a father to two daughters, I would want them to pursue legal action for 3 reasons: 1. To show there was fault on CUs behalf (there is) 2. To pay for the legal costs 3. To pay for the damages of being dragged through the mud and being called a bitch and money chaser and all that **** and lifelong impact for actually speaking up and not just staying quiet.

There is no lawsuit if CU doesn't shut her off and break communication with her. They ****ed up. If CU ever uses Banashek's firm again they are idiots. Banashek and DiStefano really muddied this situation.
 
DiggerBuffs said:
The article sounds more like CU knew Tumpkin had a drinking problem and knew of his driving under the influence issues. I think it ties the fact the attorney is making, CU knew Tumpkin had issues and chose to ignore them because of football taking precedent. Tying that then into her reporting the issue and them kind of ignoring it from a University standpoint by not following procedures that are spelled out and CU admits to misinterpreting.

And, above all while she said don't have him lose his job or call the police. That's what a victim does. Protects the person she loves for two reasons: Love and concern if he loses his job, he will come kill her. A common thing that happens. She wanted CU to get Tumpkin help. CU didn't do that. That's another overriding issue on her end.

$3 million plus is crazy talk. And, as a father to two daughters, I would want them to pursue legal action for 3 reasons: 1. To show there was fault on CUs behalf (there is) 2. To pay for the legal costs 3. To pay for the damages of being dragged through the mud and being called a bitch and money chaser and all that **** and lifelong impact for actually speaking up and not just staying quiet.

There is no lawsuit if CU doesn't shut her off and break communication with her. They ****ed up. If CU ever uses Banashek's firm again they are idiots. Banashek and DiStefano really muddied this situation.
Click to expand...


I have zero issues with CU not communicating with her. None at all. She just dropped a giant bomb on them and expected CU to keep her appraised, victim or not? And to expect CU to not lawyer up is just plain dumb.
 
CU needs to settle any and all lawsuits ASAP and massively raise football and basketball ticket prices to recoup the money.
 
Is being too open and accountable actually a weakness? Does it make us an easier target for lawsuits, negative articles, rock throwing?
 
Fault on CUs behalf? Wut?


I still can't process how there's any fault on CUs behalf in any of this. Giving Tumpkin play calling duties in the bowl game did not endanger the victim. Nothing that CU did or didn't do endangered the victim in any manner, shape or form.
 
11 business days passed from when the temporary restraining order was issued and Tumpkins was finally suspended. That is an odd definition of a coverup, especially where no one suggests that CU knew about the order until Jan 6, and action was taken upon finding out.

The suit is an interesting one, and something I would find fascinating if I didn't care about CU. The essence of the contention is that CU is culpable for Tumpkins' abusive actions because they didn't predict them, or hire someone to place surveillance on him. It also contends that where CU is culpable for failing to find out about the abuse, the victim is free from any meaningful responsibility even though she not only failed to report the abuse, but flew to Colorado from a safe place in Michigan to meet up with Tumpkins. The idea that because he was given the things necessary to his job and misused them, making CU a partner in the abuse is also interesting. It then makes any adverse action at any scholarship athlete's off campus apartment the responsibility of CU and the state of Colorado. Hum, if I trip on a sidewalk crack or slip because snow is left unshoveled at a basketball players off campus housing, does that allow me to sue CU/Colorado because it is a "CU event"?
 
Where are you guys seeing a lawsuit? I searched and have not seen any confirmation one has been filed. I read she just sent a notice of intent to sue, which I understand is required when you wish to sue the gubmint, usually at a later time. To my knowledge, no suit is pending unless you guys are seeing something else. TIA.
 
leftybuff said:
Where are you guys seeing a lawsuit? I searched and have not seen any confirmation one has been filed. I read she just sent a notice of intent to sue, which I understand is required when you wish to sue the gubmint, usually at a later time. To my knowledge, no suit is pending unless you guys are seeing something else. TIA.
Click to expand...

We're pessimisticly assuming that a case will be filed at some point after the victim's attorney has the chance to review the Cozen O'Connor report and the outcome of Tumpkin's legal proceding.

Clearly the victim and her people are capable of trying this case in the Front Range media, which has a tendency to eat this kind of story up.
 
Clean Undies said:
We're pessimisticly assuming that a case will be filed at some point after the victim's attorney has the chance to review the Cozen O'Connor report and the outcome of Tumpkin's legal proceding.

Clearly the victim and her people are capable trying this case in the media.
Click to expand...
Got it.
 
Big Jim said:
Yes. There are two sides to the lawsuit and CU can only make it go away fast by sttling or getting it tossed. It isn't going to get tossed. I suppose it will have to be settle because any righteousness on CU's part has been long thrown out the window with the actions since it became public.
Click to expand...

It very well could get tossed. It's unclear to me what civil duty the Plaintiff would allege she was owed by CU. If she tries to assert some type of constitutional claim, that's a tough row to hoe. It's pretty well established that governmental entities have no duty to protect a plaintiff from harm, even with knowledge of potential harm, unless they created the danger or are in a special relationship with the plaintiff. If it's based some type of state law negligence claim, I believe she's going to have to prove (1) that CU owed her a duty and (2) CU's breach of that duty was not just negligent, but willful and wanton. Willful and wanton conduct is hard enough to define let alone prove. I suspect CU will be able to move to dismiss any complaint on the basis of qualified immunity and move again for summary judgment. If the plaintiff asserts federal law claims, those are likely going to be subject to an immediate appeal even if the plaintiff prevails on a motion for summary judgment.

This isn't a case I'd want on a contingency.
 
Last edited:
Fight CU said:
row* to hoe /peeve
Click to expand...

Road to hoe
7.jpg


Row to hoe
FEMM9LGHVTPZPL1.RECT2100.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top