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!

SI: CU Assistant Coach's Victim Seeks Justice

Shldr2Shldr said:
I guarantee Mac was instructed to forward all communication on the CU's legal team. I am sure the lawyers shared the info. I highly doubt Mac would share information with the defense attorney unless instructed to do so by his higher ups.
Click to expand...

Most probably that instruction was given. However, CU is right now attempting to justify not having their legal team reach out to the victim because they were letting the process play out. That was not exactly true. They engaged in a one sided sharing with a lawyer tied to defending persons involved with the program in the past. At the time they did, CU was not legally bound to share that information. Discovery was not in place with any proceedings that would compel them to do so. They did that all on their own volition.

They likely used a legal channel for all this. However, in doing so, they are also subjecting themselves to criticism for how it played out. Rightfully so. The legal thing to do is not always the right thing to do, and it seems that CU is trying to play both. Depending on the facts of this, they may have also set themselves up. If not legally, than for a boatload of negative PR.
 
Last edited:
There appears to be some here who either dislike Mac or have some sort of issue with him who are very quick to cast blame without knowing the facts. That said, I'm done with this thread. It is spiraling down a rabbit hole based on inuendo.
 
Did CU do everything right? No. Hindsight is always 20/20 but they did the right thing in the end. Ultimately the focus should be on the victim if charges are true, hope she is OK in the long run, and Tumpkin gets his time in court and punishment from the law if found guilty. At least Phil is defending CU and the AD (while admitting they still can do better) which sure didn't happen during the Barnett 'scandal'.
 
ladyblaise said:
Most probably that instruction was given. However, CU is right now attempting to justify not having their legal team reach out to the victim because they were letting the process play out. That was not exactly true. They engaged in a one sided sharing with a lawyer tied to defending persons defending the program in the past. At the time they did. This, CU was not legally bound to share that information. Discovery was not in place with any proceedings that would compel them to do so. They did that all on their own volition.

They likely used a legal channel for all this. However, in doing so, they are also subjecting themselves to criticism for how it played out. Rightfully so. The legal thing to do is not always the right thing to do, and it seems that CU is trying to play both. Depending on the facts of this, they may have also set themselves up. If not legally, than for a boatload of negative PR.
Click to expand...

Definitely not going to argue that they deserve criticism, because they do.
 
Shldr2Shldr said:
How? They didn't do anything wrong legally. They caused no damage and they didnt take part in a cover up.
Click to expand...

Did you read the SI article? They are screaming from the mountain tops that CU actively participated in a cover up. I don't know if CU purposefully covered up or not, none of us do.
 
Shldr2Shldr said:
I guarantee Mac was instructed to forward all communication on the CU's legal team. I am sure the lawyers shared the info. I highly doubt Mac would share information with the defense attorney unless instructed to do so by his higher ups.
Click to expand...

How can you know any of this? Who is your source?
 
There is one question I have, probably can't get an answer to. Anybody know if Blumpkin had a past of this before CU?
 
Does anyone know if tschekler is okay?
Last I saw she said I took an L but I'm worried because I haven't seen her since. I hope she was able make it out of her moms basement this morning and at least have a descent breakfast.
 
DBT said:
There appears to be some here who either dislike Mac or have some sort of issue with him who are very quick to cast blame without knowing the facts. That said, I'm done with this thread. It is spiraling down a rabbit hole based on inuendo.
Click to expand...

The basis of "like" or "dislike" is exactly how this **** gets off the rails so fast. The ultra majority reaction is to attack or defend with massive pieces of missing information.
 
Big Jim said:
The basis of "like" or "dislike" is exactly how this **** gets off the rails so fast. The ultra majority reaction is to attack or defend with massive pieces of missing information.
Click to expand...

I feel as if other options are not supported in this. It is not as simple as like or dislike. There was a tangible item that I object to. I criticize CU for that failing. I however am not going to turn in my degree over it. Nor will I be silenced about it.

I like the direction MM took the team this year. I do not know him personally, so I cannot say if I like him. That is irrelevant.
 
One other question I have (without looking to place blame): from what we know, is there a clear reason the AD chose the forced resignation versus firing?
 
Duff Man said:
One other question I have (without looking to place blame): from what we know, is there a clear reason the AD chose the forced resignation versus firing?
Click to expand...
My opinion is that it is a legal technicality. I assumed all along that this path simply allowed CU to gain a full and unconditional release from Tumpkin. Small chance of being successful, but firing him still opens the possibility of him bringing a case against them in the future if he is found innocent.
 
Big Jim said:
The basis of "like" or "dislike" is exactly how this **** gets off the rails so fast. The ultra majority reaction is to attack or defend with massive pieces of missing information.
Click to expand...
I'm glad you said that. I'd like to hear the facts.
 
Big Jim said:
Did you read the SI article? They are screaming from the mountain tops that CU actively participated in a cover up. I don't know if CU purposefully covered up or not, none of us do.
Click to expand...
They covered what up though? The guy lost his job? I dont understand what you think they covered up.
 
Big Jim said:
How can you know any of this? Who is your source?
Click to expand...
It doesn't take a genius to figure out the logical steps in how an orginization would defend itself in a legal situation. It also wouldn't be a surprise for counsel to advise a client to cut all communication.

The only way that you would be blind to that chain of events is if you are a willing participant in a witch hunt.
 
Shldr2Shldr said:
They covered what up though? The guy lost his job? I dont understand what you think they covered up.
Click to expand...

You clearly do not understand.

I am not stating a belief that CU covered up anything; I would like to hear from CU before deciding that.

It appears you did not read the story linked in the first post on this thread. Read that and then start asking about accusations of coverups.
 
Duff Man said:
One other question I have (without looking to place blame): from what we know, is there a clear reason the AD chose the forced resignation versus firing?
Click to expand...
I asked the same thing awhile back, I don't have the first damn clue. Somebody might.
 
Shldr2Shldr said:
It doesn't take a genius to figure out the logical steps in how an orginization would defend itself in a legal situation. It also wouldn't be a surprise for counsel to advise a client to cut all communication.

The only way that you would be blind to that chain of events is if you are a willing participant in a witch hunt.
Click to expand...

You said you "guarantee" and "I am sure". Nobody can accurately make those statements without direct, first hand knowledge. So how do you have first hand knowledge that that is the absolute "chain of events"?
 
Big Jim said:
You clearly do not understand.

I am not stating a belief that CU covered up anything; I would like to hear from CU before deciding that.

It appears you did not read the story linked in the first post on this thread. Read that and then start asking about accusations of coverups.
Click to expand...

DiStephano released a statement from CU last night. Maybe you should read it.

They are accusing CU of a coverup because of the radio silence for a week. Maybe two. CU could not fire Tumpkin without cause. They did not have cause until he signed the permanent protection order. That was seen as an admission of guilt and they cut the guy lose.

Before that point all they had was her word against his. There is no way to fire a state employee on that flimsy of a case.

The only thing CU could have realistically done differently is leave Tumpkin home for the bowl game. But even in that situation, I doubt the admin was ready to answer the questions that would accompany that decision. Especially given the fact that if the press had reason to question their response could FOIA the school and then this whole thing happens anyway.

The victim contacting her abusers employer personally makes this issue much more complicated than it needed to be.
 
Big Jim said:
You said you "guarantee" and "I am sure". Nobody can accurately make those statements without direct, first hand knowledge. So how do you have first hand knowledge that that is the absolute "chain of events"?
Click to expand...
Fine. "I can assume with an extremely high degree of certainty"

Better?

Continue on your witch hunt.
 
Shldr2Shldr said:
Continue on your witch hunt.
Click to expand...

Of what?

Your reading and interpretation skills are abysmal. I thought you were just stringing me along but it is now clear that you've gone full Don Quixote. We all hope CU is cleared of all wrong doing. We don't know anything beyond a short release written by DeStiphano as to who/how/what/why/etc CU is reponding. I agree that CU is probably being lead by attorneys here, but unless you are in the room you can't possibly "guarantee" anything.
 
Shldr2Shldr said:
DiStephano released a statement from CU last night. Maybe you should read it.

They are accusing CU of a coverup because of the radio silence for a week. Maybe two. CU could not fire Tumpkin without cause. They did not have cause until he signed the permanent protection order. That was seen as an admission of guilt and they cut the guy lose.

Before that point all they had was her word against his. There is no way to fire a state employee on that flimsy of a case.

The only thing CU could have realistically done differently is leave Tumpkin home for the bowl game. But even in that situation, I doubt the admin was ready to answer the questions that would accompany that decision. Especially given the fact that if the press had reason to question their response could FOIA the school and then this whole thing happens anyway.

The victim contacting her abusers employer personally makes this issue much more complicated than it needed to be.
Click to expand...

Not pretending it was completely black and white, but the optics are infinitely better for CU if Tumpkin does not coach in the Alamo Bowl. If nothing else, it would show an imperfect but proactive approach by CU.
 
Duff Man said:
Not pretending it was completely black and white, but the optics are infinitely better for CU if Tumpkin does not coach in the Alamo Bowl. If nothing else, it would show an imperfect but proactive approach by CU.
Click to expand...
I agree that they should have taken this step, but if the school got FOIA'd we still end up in this mess anyway.
 
Had it turned out that the accusations were false even leaving Tumpkin home could have had legal consequences.

This isn't like leaving a sales rep back in Cleveland and blaming it on the flu. Had Tumpkin not been at the bowl it would have been hard to pass it off, football coaches coach unless they are clearly unable and then it is seen as a mark against them. Being a P5 assistant coach is a very public job.

This was all around a bad situation. Blaming based on much less than 20/20 hindsight doesn't make the situation any better for anyone. SI threw some crap against the wall and got some clicks to their dying magazine.

As long as the woman was safe during the process and the school came to the right conclusion and actions without having to be prompted to by outside pressure I'm good with it.

The rest is making a story when their shouldn't be one. How about ESPN using their scroll to remind the nation that most of the administrators at Baylor have never admitted wrongdoing and are still in their jobs with the university? How about reminding the public that other P5 universities still have assistants with DUI convicitions driving school paid rental cars while on the road recruiting? How about looking to see in the people who signed off on giving kids at UNC credits for classes they had never heard of much less attended are still working for the university?

No instead we make a big deal because CU forced an assistant to resign his job a week or two later than they could have if they had just jumped to it without considering the legal ramifications.
 
MtnBuff said:
This was all around a bad situation. Blaming based on much less than 20/20 hindsight doesn't make the situation any better for anyone. SI threw some crap against the wall and got some clicks to their dying magazine.

As long as the woman was safe during the process and the school came to the right conclusion and actions without having to be prompted to by outside pressure I'm good with it.

The rest is making a story when their shouldn't be one. How about ESPN using their scroll to remind the nation that most of the administrators at Baylor have never admitted wrongdoing and are still in their jobs with the university?
Click to expand...

I'm not saying the author wasn't out for a headline and sensationalism, he certainly was, but there was some substance to that long winded article. Blaming the media is akin to yelling at the clouds because it's raining. The media will make stories about things like this as long as we exist. CU should have learned this lesson a long time ago. There were ways to get out in front of this, and they didn't, which is dumb.

There should've been at least 2 considerations from an institutional standpoint: 1, we have an accuser who may be safe now, but who knows. Thank god JT didn't think he should fly back to Michigan and try to reconcile which could've lead to more abuse. 2, Jane has a voice too, and she might say something about how CU is handling this.

Both of those considerations should've been obvious to Mac and the administration.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top