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
- Thread starter Buffnik
- Start date
- Status
Guys- MM and the AD ****ed up here. I know there are differences in the situations (and I also know that this is an unpopular viewpoint), but you can't get mad and say that "Paterno didn't do enough pushing the Sandusky case to the authorities" or say that "**** bailer tried to cover everything up" and say that this is a witch hunt. MM didn't do enough to get authorities involved, and regardless of circumstance it's bad optics that Tumpkin faced no disciplinary action and that all communications from CU with the victim ran through Tumpkin's defense lawyer until this story became very public.
CB17Cubed
Well-Known Member
The authorities were involved fairly quickly after MM went to RG. The victim told MM that she would be going to the police. Do I think mistakes were made? Yes, but to say they weren't the most outrageous thing out there. It was wrong to put Tumpkin in charge of the defense for the bowl game. Should have gone to Jeffcoat or MM should have taken over the play calling. Let's just hope this is a learning experience for all involved and if I get my wish, DiStefano is ousted by the situation.
Tumpkin was fired within 4 weeks. That's pretty damned quick. Mac should not have made him interim DC. That's the one thing that bugs me. One other awkward thing is the tie with the AD and Tumpkin's attorney. I'm not sure how that plays out. But, dammit, Mac was stuck in the middle of a domestic dispute between two people he apparently cared about. I think he was trying to avoid taking sides and being put in the position of being a "judge."
letsgoavs192
I support systemic racism
Accusations don't prove guilt. They were only accusations when he coached the bowl game. Once charges were filed he was fired. End of story
Exactly.
[Any comparison of this incident to ****bailer and ped state]
8Jah
Well-Known Member
The scope of the offense isn't remotely comparable to what happened at PSU and Baylor. Tumkin's ex-girlfriend unwittingly tried to get MM to arbitrate a domestic dispute that happened in the past, off campus and with non-students. As we know MM reported the situation to the AD, but even if he DID try to cover it up, even if the worst possible is actually true, the situation is still incomparable to Baylor and especially PSU. It is the equivocation between these situations and CU that justifies calling this a 'witch hunt.'
Tumpkin did face disciplinary action; he was suspended and then fired...but only after there was legal justification to do so.
The relation of the lawyer to the AD is a concern and I look forward to finding out the truth there. However, see my point above.
Last edited:
Wow. Could they have handled it better, sure. Is it in the same universe as bailer merrily covering up a string of rapes that numbered in the high double digits (allegedly) or Pedo St. having a DC who raped little boys in the locker room? Hell no.
MikMac and CU were in between a rock and a hard place. If they fire Tumpkin immediately, and the allegations fall apart, hello wrongful termination suit. If they wait and the allegations are true, hello media ****storm. Making him interim DC was a bad move, but that aside, I don't think they were that far off.
Given the administration's tendency to pee in their own mess kit, I am more than a little nervous at this point....
immediate indefinite suspension was the right course of action - not fired, not coaching a bowl game in a promoted capacity
You want to start suspending people based on accusations and not even a legal action to go along with it? Damn. Destroying someone's reputation because of an accusation is now considered the ethical thing do do these days, I guess.
Well I guess we'll flip the script, guilty until proven innocent by word of mouth. That'll work I'm sure lol.
in cases of domestic violence? yes.
Just to re-cap the timeline for those who forgot:
12/10: Victim calls MM
12/10: MM talks to RG
12/11: Victim calls MM again
12/14: Banashek, defense lawyer for Tumpkin, calls victim
12/16: Victim tells MM via text and voicemail she's going to Colorado on 12/19 to get a protective order against Tumpkin. 1 hour later, Banashek calls the victim again
12/16: MM names Tumpkin interim DC for the bowl game
12/20: Protective order issued after interview on 12/19. Broomfield PD informs Banashek.
12/29: CU plays in bowl game with Tumpkin acting as DC
1/5: Banashek contacts victim again; she says she's planning on getting a permanent restraining order on 1/31
1/6: Daily Camera story breaks. RG comments. Later that day, Tumpkin is suspended.
1/27: Charges filed, Tumpkin resigns.
Regardless of what happened in context, the optics and facts are not good:
Like many of you, I am disgusted with what happened at PSU and bailer. I know that their sins were several orders of magnitude larger than what happened at CU, even if the absolute worst is true. But I want to be assured that CU is not going to turn into either of those programs where winning trumps all.
12/10: Victim calls MM
12/10: MM talks to RG
12/11: Victim calls MM again
12/14: Banashek, defense lawyer for Tumpkin, calls victim
12/16: Victim tells MM via text and voicemail she's going to Colorado on 12/19 to get a protective order against Tumpkin. 1 hour later, Banashek calls the victim again
12/16: MM names Tumpkin interim DC for the bowl game
12/20: Protective order issued after interview on 12/19. Broomfield PD informs Banashek.
12/29: CU plays in bowl game with Tumpkin acting as DC
1/5: Banashek contacts victim again; she says she's planning on getting a permanent restraining order on 1/31
1/6: Daily Camera story breaks. RG comments. Later that day, Tumpkin is suspended.
1/27: Charges filed, Tumpkin resigns.
Regardless of what happened in context, the optics and facts are not good:
- CU did not involve the authorities at all
- CU had multiple chances to put Tumpkin on leave until these (very serious) allegations were sorted out. They did NOTHING until the story was public knowledge.
Like many of you, I am disgusted with what happened at PSU and bailer. I know that their sins were several orders of magnitude larger than what happened at CU, even if the absolute worst is true. But I want to be assured that CU is not going to turn into either of those programs where winning trumps all.
This.
BerkeleyBuff
Well-Known Member
Really? You want a simple accusation to end someone's career? That's an incredibly stupid stance. I'm not trying to be harsh; there's simply no other way to put it.
A major reason that most DV victims and sexual assault victims do not go to the police or other authorities is the perception that the authorities will not support the victims even if they report. This attitude is part of the reason why.
Also, as I mentioned, there was legal action (a PPO issued) prior to CU's bowl game, and CU's lawyer knew about it. Why wasn't Tumpkin suspended then?
Finally, if the dichotomy is that we have to choose between endangering DV or assault victims by not supporting them after they make accusations or risking damaging reputations of the people who are accused, I will support the victims every time.
Very surprised to see some of the same voices most active in denouncing bailer on this board arguing the opposite.
This,
Reported that MM verified with the victim that she was safe, she said she was.
At this point you act with reasonable deliberation. CU had nothing, zero, other than the victims statement to go on. A P5 assistant coach is a public figure, if you suspend him from the bowl game the media immediately reports it and wants to know why. Even if he is completely innocent his name is now linked with an "incident" and tarnished permanently.
First priority has to be the safety of the woman in every instance. beyond that the nature of the situation is serious enough that you don't jump into something that can't be undone later.
vinniew_11
Well-Known Member
Tumpkins lawyer knew about the PPO. Not CUs attorneys. Big difference.
I am quite certain we are safe on that score....
SINKRATZ
PhD in Analogy
Why would it end his career? It doesn't even have to be an announced suspension - just say he has a personal, family matter to deal with and won't be accompanying the team to San Antonio. And you pay him while he's away. If nothing comes of the accusation, you reinstate him with your apologies but explain that it was out of abundance of caution given the serious nature of the accusations.
Instead CU involved only lawyers and no authorities and now looks really bad for only taking action when the DC story was published.
I'm going to anonymously leave a message with your employer today and say that I have reason to believe you are abusing women.
It would only be fair if it cost you your job, right?
And even if it comes to nothing you get to miss out on some future opportunities because somebody remembers that "there was some kind of trouble a while ago, don't remember the details but don't want to mess with it."
Completely agree
This is just not acceptable at all. You do not destroy someone's career because there might have been a problem. Were there chances in this string of events to do things differently. Absolutely and CU should if there is a next time. It should have been escalated to the correct office within CU and it should have gone to the authorities. I am not as sure as you are about when CU lawyers knew about the PPO being issued. Either way, there were policies and steps that should have been taken.
And there is a reason that the authorities should handle this with care and investigate it correctly. Once action is taken, be it deserved or not, that person's reputation and ability to be productive is shattered. You do not err on the side of and default to destroying someone because it might have happened. You just cannot.
place me on leave, make sure the authorities are contacted, and the woman is safe. bring me back when investigation is complete. then I sue you for false reporting. 'k?
Wow.
vinniew_11
Well-Known Member
And Mac was assured the woman was safe.
You would actually be ok with that? Are you ****ing kidding me? Your career would be over either way because the stain would be on you. Sue Nik all you want and when he files bankruptcy, pays you nothing and your are mysteriously laid off from your job and cannot get another one, we will talk.
Do you seriously believe Mike MacIntyre or Rick George have this mentality even in the slightest? Damn. CU finally has a coach and AD that are doing things "the right way" in building the program and we have fans that are questioning whether they would do illegal or immoral things in the name of winning. SMFH
- Status