Official Michigan State/Mel Tucker Hate Thread

[Denver_sc]

You don’t know that. Maybe she did give him consent. The current evidence indicates a strong possibility that they had a consensual relationship. Which would make them both scumbag losers. As I have said before, Tucker is a POS. But she may be as well.

She filed a ****ing complaint, publicly, that stated that she didn’t give consent. She did this knowing that people like you would drag her through the mud. Why would she do that if she had given consent?

JFC.

If it helps, picture that someone did this to your mom, wife, mother, or sister. Do you still think she is a POS?

 

[MtnBuff]

Looking at the language of the statute posted in this thread earlier I appears to me that this case meets the criteria for being a Title IX issue.

Both Tucker and MSU though are very interested in making sure it doesn't become a Title IX issue.

If it does that could trigger a federal investigation and federal sanctions. For Tucker that would be one more nail in his coaching coffin. Schools do their best to avoid attention for Title IX because the feds can impose some significant sanctions.

MSU has already pushed that button and held it in with the Nasser situation. We don't know but they might already be under stringent scrutiny and facing significant fines and sanctions if they are found to not be taking the necessary steps to prevent additional incidents and issues.

 

[Buffnik]

Holy ****. We’ll try this one more time.

If you believe that it is the woman’s right to give consent, and she didn’t, then why do you lend any credence to Tuckers assertion that there is a dispute in consent? It literally does not matter.

To put it more bluntly, there’s a “dispute in consent” between a rape victim and the rapist who says “she said no but I could tell she was begging for it.”

Stop. Carrying. Water. For. A. Sexual. Harasser.

I think the dispute on consent centers around that this was something they engaged in and she had consented to and I have no idea whether it's reasonable to assume consent the next time if the guy behaves as he normally has and she does not offer any complaint or objection. That was MT's statement. I think she stated that things had been over, which would remove consent, and that she was shell shocked by his behavior since it brought up past trauma that he was well aware of.

 

[BuffWarHog]

Jerking off for 36 minutes is serial killer ****

This has blister feels

 

[ladyblaise]

For what it’s worth, this was in the follow up USA Today article from today. It appears (based on my non-legal reading of this) the school’s position on this being a Title IX issue revolves around Tucker allegedly cancelling Tracey’s July 2022 planned visit to campus to train players and coaches on sexual violence prevention. From the article:

Indeed. That is a problematic point. His dishonesty to the investigator does not bode well when the investigator found contradicting evidence, which was documented yesterday. I can’t think that is a point in which will go well for his contract and the hearing. There was an excerpt from his lawyer printed yesterday in which she said that almost everything “tilts in Ms. Tracey’s favor,” I would hope to never see my representation write that if I required it.

Which makes sense why he is trying to cast doubt on the process right now. What confuses me is why his lawyer did not advise him to stay silent. Instead they release a statement with “Nasser taint?”

His statement reads like gaslighting, honestly. It betrays an misunderstanding that each act of intimacy requires consent. That could bite him later.

As for those who are sure they had an affair, consider he betrays that the precipitating factor was her suggesting what she “might” look like without clothes. If an affair was a fact, he would know and not have to speculate.

[here is what i know for sure-- married dude in a high profile position of power who is directly benefiting someone less powerful should keep his dick in his pants at all ****ing times.

this isn't that complicated. if he wants to bang outside his marriage, so be it. do it with someone whose livelihood you do not impact and so forth.

**** man this isn't rocket science. all this about the circumstances is irrelevant. he made a criminally stupid choice when he should have known better.

This is all fair.

 

[hawg1]

Holy ****. We’ll try this one more time.

If you believe that it is the woman’s right to give consent, and she didn’t, then why do you lend any credence to Tuckers assertion that there is a dispute in consent? It literally does not matter.

To put it more bluntly, there’s a “dispute in consent” between a rape victim and the rapist who says “she said no but I could tell she was begging for it.”

Stop. Carrying. Water. For. A. Sexual. Harasser.

You stated she did not give consent. How do you know that? That’s not carrying water for a sexual harasser.
. It’s a question about how you know that as fact.

I said I did not THINK she gave consent. But I don’t know whether she did or not. Somehow you seem to know she did not.

 

[Buffnik]

Indeed. That is a problematic point. His dishonesty to the investigator does not bode well when the investigator found contradicting evidence, which was documented yesterday. I can’t think that is a point in which will go well for his contract and the hearing. There was an excerpt from his lawyer printed yesterday in which she said that almost everything “tilts in Ms. Tracey’s favor,” I would hope to never see my representation write that if I required it.

Which makes sense why he is trying to cast doubt on the process right now. What confuses me is why his lawyer did not advise him to stay silent. Instead they release a statement with “Nasser taint?”

His statement reads like gaslighting, honestly. It betrays understanding that each act of intimacy requires consent. That could bite him later.

As for those who are sure they had an affair, consider he betrays that the precipitating factor was her suggesting what she “might” look like without clothes. If an affair was a fact, he would know and not have to speculate.

[here is what i know for sure-- married dude in a high profile position of power who is directly benefiting someone less powerful should keep his dick in his pants at all ****ing times.


This is all fair.

Good point on the "might" thing. That's not something you say if you'd been having a physical relationship.

 

[DBT]

Sure he will. He’ll come out this just fine financially. Bet on it. It won’t be 77m. But he will live happily ever after until his wife sinks her teeth into him.

Sounds like his wife already dumped him. In “his” statement he said they are estranged.

 

[hawg1]

I think the dispute on consent centers around that this was something they engaged in and she had consented to and I have no idea whether it's reasonable to assume consent the next time if the guy behaves as he normally has and she does not offer any complaint or objection. That was MT's statement. I think she stated that things had been over, which would remove consent, and that she was shell shocked by his behavior since it brought up past trauma that he was well aware of.

I think this summarizes the dispute. I know you aren’t defending him. Neither am I. I am merely saying Mel and Tracey have different perspectives on consent. Thus there is a dispute.

 

[ladyblaise]

Good point on the "might" thing. That's not something you say if you'd been having a physical relationship.

Right. Reading his responses have raised so many red flags.

This mother trucker really thinks that the shoes he bought her justifies his actions. He was not paying attention when she taught his athletes to at all times ensure consent.

 

[ladyblaise]

Sounds like his wife already dumped him. In “his” statement he said they are estranged.

Did he say “are” or “were”?

Edit: I went back and checked. He used past tense, as I suspected. He used “had been.”

His poor wife. He is likely blowing up her phone with tears and nonsense. I have no proof on that other than the insight of dealing with those who have made really stupid choices and having to deal with them. And hearing stories from other women who have had to deal with it. So not a fact, but a good guess based on human nature, if you can call it that?

 

[hawg1]

Did he say “are” or “were”?

He said … at this time, my wife and I had been estranged for a long time.

 

[ladyblaise]

He said … at this time, my wife and I had been estranged for a long time.

Some respect would be given if he said and stood by “are.”

But had been or were - that fool is tryna play all angles here.

 

[Hank]

She filed a ****ing complaint, publicly, that stated that she didn’t give consent. She did this knowing that people like you would drag her through the mud. Why would she do that if she had given consent?

JFC.

If it helps, picture that someone did this to your mom, wife, mother, or sister. Do you still think she is a POS?

There are facts, and then there are complaints.

Let it play out.

 

[ladyblaise]

I think he should be remanded to Judge Judy. I feel she is the only one whose credentials show she can handle clowns.

 

[hawg1]

Some respect would be given if he said and stood by “are.”

But had been or were - that fool is tryna play all angles here.

Do you have any insight to what kind of hearing this is and the mechanism? We know what Tucker said. I assume you saw Tracey’s response.

 

[HighlandsBuff]

He's done and will be toxic forever. I see no path to Tucker being vindicated in any meaningful way. As other have said, even if it were consensual it is totally beyond the pale of what he should have been up to. And I doubt it was.

I am a lawyer, though thank the lord I don't handle things like this. Still, I would never let a client release a statement like that...

Both the underlying actions and the statement seem very unhinged and disconnected from reality.

I do know from more serious high-stakes litigators that folks, guilty or innocent, really want to have their side of the story heard. To the point that folks will turn down objectively more reasonable bargains to roll the dice on telling their story. That, or this was his one timely parting shot. Either way, all that statement did was hurt.

I am glad he is a long damn way from Boulder, Colorado. What a horrid situation.

 

[Hank]

I am a lawyer

I think most of us are.

 

[hawg1]

She filed a ****ing complaint, publicly, that stated that she didn’t give consent. She did this knowing that people like you would drag her through the mud. Why would she do that if she had given consent?

JFC.

If it helps, picture that someone did this to your mom, wife, mother, or sister. Do you still think she is a POS?

She has done noble work. I have never said she is a POS, nor do I think that. That’s a lie. Don’t do that.

I have not intentionally drug her through the mud. Yes, I have asked questions that were likely addressed in the report that reportedly is available to the media. I’d like to see those answers.

This hinges on consent. She made a complaint. He disputes it. I don’t know the facts. Let this play out.

 

[4BienemyTDs]

This has blister feels

These lyrics are creepy in this context

 

[ladyblaise]

Do you have any insight to what kind of hearing this is and the mechanism? We know what Tucker said. I assume you saw Tracey’s response.

Are you serious?

This sounds like a preamble to mansplaining.

 

[hawg1]

Are you serious?

This sounds like a preamble to mansplaining.

Don’t assume. Yes, I’m interested in the hearing. I’ll find out otherwise.

 

[DBT]

Do you have any insight to what kind of hearing this is and the mechanism? We know what Tucker said. I assume you saw Tracey’s response.

The hearing sounds very similar to the system the CU Student Affairs, or whatever they are called, use when students are accused of violating rules.

The committee consists of a student, a faculty and an administrator I believe. Something like that.

The accused is not allowed to be represented by an attorney I don’t believe. So, and I’m not defending Tugger, it is a sort of Kangaroo Court in my opinion. It’s the same type of hearing Buff players who have been in, say, a fight, get.

Remember the wording of the “morals” clause in his contract: “in the Universities sole judgement.”

This is not a court of law. He is not being charged with a criminal offense. He is being accused of being involved in an activity “which brings embarrassment to the university” and that is all the justification they need.

Of all the programs in the NCAA, Michigan State was the absolutely wrong place to pull this kind of chinnanagins. They have ZERO tolerance whether even they like it or not. He’s toast.

 

[BuffsNYC]

here is what i know for sure-- married dude in a high profile position of power who is directly benefiting someone less powerful should keep his dick in his pants at all ****ing times.

this isn't that complicated. if he wants to bang outside his marriage, so be it. do it with someone whose livelihood you do not impact and so forth.

**** man this isn't rocket science. all this about the circumstances is irrelevant. he made a criminally stupid choice when he should have known better.

I hate to say it, but Liver's right.

 

[ladyblaise]

The hearing sounds very similar to the system the CU Student Affairs, or whatever they are called, use when students are accused of violating rules.

The committee consists of a student, a faculty and an administrator I believe. Something like that.

The accused is not allowed to be represented by an attorney I don’t believe. So, and I’m not defending Tugger, it is a sort of Kangaroo Court in my opinion. It’s the same type of hearing Buff players who have been in, say, a fight, get.

Remember the wording of the “morals” clause in his contract: “in the Universities sole judgement.”

This is not a court of law. He is not being charged with a criminal offense. He is being accused of being involved in an activity “which brings embarrassment to the university” and that is all the justification they need.

Of all the programs in the NCAA, Michigan State was the absolutely wrong place to pull this kind of chinnanagins. They have ZERO tolerance whether even they like it or not. He’s toast.

It does not seem at all like much of this is true.

This is not a kangaroo court. While not a hearing in a court of law led by a judge, this is a hearing heard by a Title IX officer.

Either side can request that the presiding officer be removed if a conflict of interest can be established.

Both sides can have their advisor with them. Both sides can have a support person with them, subject to FERPA regulations.

Neither side will see each other. They will be in separate rooms, and the testimony happening remotely. It is closed to the public.

Neither side can ask questions directly of the other, and all questions are determined by the Title IX officer for relevancy. The Title IX officer guides the hearing, which will focus on the findings of the 3rd party investigation.

In context of this, it makes sense why Tucker’s statement is so reactive. He will not be allowed to throw random ****. Relevancy.

He has known since July that the 3rd party investigation showed key inconsistencies in his story, and every slick lawyer move has not made this go away (both parts documented in Sunday’s USA Today article). At this point, it seems he is looking to secure a buyout by casting doubt on the process.

Which, if people believe it is a kangaroo court led by students, he has kinda won in the court of popular opinion.

Tucker's suspension sets up key MSU hearing. Here's what to expect

Michigan State football coach Mel Tucker faces a key hearing in a month that could decide his future at the university. Here's what to expect.

www.detroitnews.com

 

[BuffsNYC]

Right. Reading his responses have raised so many red flags.

This mother trucker really thinks that the shoes he bought her justifies his actions. He was not paying attention when she taught his athletes to at all times ensure consent.

Yeah, that was strange and stupid thing to put in his statement.

 

[ladyblaise]

Yeah, that was strange and stupid thing to put in his statement.

I have come to the conclusion that he has the worst lawyer in the state, to allow that.

 

[BuffsNYC]

It does not seem at all like much of this is true.

This is not a kangaroo court. While not a hearing in a court of law led by a judge, this is a hearing heard by a Title IX officer.

Either side can request that the presiding officer be removed if a conflict of interest can be established.

Both sides can have their advisor with them. Both sides can have a support person with them, subject to FERPA regulations.

Neither side will see each other. They will be in separate rooms, and the testimony happening remotely. It is closed to the public.

Neither side can ask questions directly of the other, and all questions are determined by the Title IX officer for relevancy. The Title IX officer guides the hearing, which will focus on the findings of the 3rd party investigation.

In context of this, it makes sense why Tucker’s statement is so reactive. He will not be allowed to throw random ****. Relevancy.

He has known since July that the 3rd party investigation showed key inconsistencies in his story, and every slick lawyer move has not made this go away (both parts documented in Sunday’s USA Today article). At this point, it seems he is looking to secure a buyout by casting doubt on the process.

Which, if people believe it is a kangaroo court led by students, he has kinda won in the court of popular opinion.

Tucker's suspension sets up key MSU hearing. Here's what to expect

Michigan State football coach Mel Tucker faces a key hearing in a month that could decide his future at the university. Here's what to expect.

www.detroitnews.com

The fate of $90 million will not be decided by a university employee hearing unsworn, remote testimony. The hearing officer will surely find that Tugger violated the law and recommend he be fired, but that decision will have no precedential effect in the actual court where MSU and Tugger fight over the money. In fact, the process afforded in this hearing will be a main focus of the actual lawsuit.

 

[BuffsNYC]

I have come to the conclusion that he has the worst lawyer in the state, to allow that.

Unfortunately not. You and I both know that most of the people who hold power in this society (and certainly at a place like MSU) will be receptive to that argument.

 

[hawg1]

The hearing sounds very similar to the system the CU Student Affairs, or whatever they are called, use when students are accused of violating rules.

The committee consists of a student, a faculty and an administrator I believe. Something like that.

The accused is not allowed to be represented by an attorney I don’t believe. So, and I’m not defending Tugger, it is a sort of Kangaroo Court in my opinion. It’s the same type of hearing Buff players who have been in, say, a fight, get.

Remember the wording of the “morals” clause in his contract: “in the Universities sole judgement.”

This is not a court of law. He is not being charged with a criminal offense. He is being accused of being involved in an activity “which brings embarrassment to the university” and that is all the justification they need.

Of all the programs in the NCAA, Michigan State was the absolutely wrong place to pull this kind of chinnanagins. They have ZERO tolerance whether even they like it or not. He’s toast.

Thank you for providing details.