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

Clean Undies said:
As a matter of record, Tumpkin was charged by the courts on Feb 1.

Say what you will about CU not acting fast or fast enough. But truth is CU has acted a heck of a lot faster than the legal system.
Click to expand...

Actually, there was a restraining order issed by the legal system in December. CU, according to DiStephano, didn't take any personnel action until the press made the restraining order public. So CU new before the police and acted after the police, or legal system.
 
Ok, well that's a question. Why did they wait? Why the **** would you wait till it was public, some kind of legal precedent?
 
Clean Undies said:
But truth is CU has acted a heck of a lot faster than the legal system. Tumpkin was forced out before charges were even filed. There's no telling how long it will take for a judge to deliver the verdict.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but that's being ignorant to the current climate. CU was slow here in the court of public opinion, which should be so f*cking obvious to everyone associated with CU given our history, and everything we give Baylor sh*t for, hence the SI article.
 
TDbuff said:
I'm sorry, but that's being ignorant to the current climate. CU was slow here in the court of public opinion, which should be so f*cking obvious to everyone associated with CU given our history, and everything we give Baylor sh*t for, hence the SI article.
Click to expand...
Can anyone really equate this to the Baylor stuff though? 52 rapes over 4 years, apologize if the numbers are wrong. That doesn't belong in the same stratosphere imho. We had a bad egg and sent him packing. Patience isn't exactly a virtue anymore.
 
BuffLuKe said:
Can anyone really equate this to the Baylor stuff though? 52 rapes over 4 years, apologize if the numbers are wrong. That doesn't belong in the same stratosphere imho. We had a bad egg and sent him packing. Patience isn't exactly a virtue anymore.
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter if it doesn't logically equate, the SI headline and author made that connection already.
 
Big Jim said:
Actually, there was a restraining order issed by the legal system in December. CU, according to DiStephano, didn't take any personnel action until the press made the restraining order public. So CU new before the police and acted after the police, or legal system.
Click to expand...
****ing Alternative Facts, we just can't get away from them.
 
Based on many comments that I've read I don't think a lot of people here know what Title IX is. It covers rights and access to public education in regards to sex, as it was part of the Education Amendments of 1972. That said, yes, situations relating to abuse could relate to Title IX, but due to where it happened and the fact that the victim wasn't related to the university in any way, MM, RG, and PD didn't do what they should have done, which is refer this issue to the OIEC. The OIEC handles issues that fall under Title IX and many other areas related to equal right to education as well as compliance with the law. The OIEC would have known how to handle the situation properly and Mike, Rick, and Phil probably wouldn't have come off looking like the Three Stooges in the SI article, if there would've been one at all (I doubt it).

To be clear, I am not saying that MM, RG, or PD did anything wrong legally, but Phil makes it clear in his statement that they ****ed up by not taking things to the OIEC, which should've been very clear from the start. Unless you're evil and dealing with Baylor and Penn State sized cover-ups, people like MM, RG, and PD should've wanted to let experts help with the situation, as Phil made it clear that they had no clue what they were doing. The problem with all this is that CU probably did nothing wrong in the legal sense, although it looks bad from a humanity level and the higher-ups at CU have a history of not knowing how to properly handle controversial issues, and because of that, shooting themselves in the foot. Hopefully everyone learns from this, the victim finds closure, and people look at CU's role in this as Barney Fife, rather than Mr. Burns.
 
Last edited:
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...
Yes, the optics are far better, but doing so would inevitably lead to questions that MM wouldn't be able to answer. I suppose he could always say "that's an internal matter", but then this whole thing caught MM and RG off guard, and they weren't prepared for how to handle it. I think they did the best they could, given the circumstances.
 
Big Jim said:
Actually, there was a restraining order issed by the legal system in December. CU, according to DiStephano, didn't take any personnel action until the press made the restraining order public. So CU new before the police and acted after the police, or legal system.
Click to expand...

Its taking the criminal justice system 42 days and counting to resolve this issue in the courts. That's the time between the 12/20/16 date the complaint was filed and the 2/1/17 date that Tumpkin was formally charged with a crime. It may still take weeks and weeks before a judge renders a verdict. He's not guilty of a crime yet in the court of law.

It took CU 28 days to suspend him and 49 days to force him out.

Dec 9 - convo between Doe and Mac.
Dec 20 - TRO issued
Dec 29 - Alamo Bowl
Jan 5 - Tumpkin suspended
Jan 27th - forced out.
Feb 1 - Tumpkin charged

According to SI, MacIntyre was told by Jane Doe she felt safe as long as Tumpkin kept his job. By that perverse standard, MacIntyre indirectly kept Jane Doe "safe" from Tumpkin for 21 days, keeping him with the team with her implied blessing during the holidays and away from Jane Doe who was back in Michigan.

That said, CU should have known about Tumpkin's TRO before the Alamo Bowl. That should have been sufficent for Tumpkin to have been relieved of play calling duties. Mac was traveling the country being recognized as COTY while Leavett and Tumpkin were either unavailable or unfit to coach the defense. What a mess.

Maybe MacIntyre should have bailed on the awards circuit and put more focus on doing right by all parties involved. Woulda coulda shoulda.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This caught my attention from Jake Shapiro's time line:


"Jan. 6, 2017:
BSN Denver becomes aware of the story and is informed by multiple sources that George wants to fire Tumpkin on the spot, he is advised against it."

There was no foot-dragging by CU. They simply adhered to the legal advice they received.
 
sackman said:
Yes, the optics are far better, but doing so would inevitably lead to questions that MM wouldn't be able to answer. I suppose he could always say "that's an internal matter", but then this whole thing caught MM and RG off guard, and they weren't prepared for how to handle it. I think they did the best they could, given the circumstances.
Click to expand...

Having to answer the inevitable questions would not have been easy, but it would have been clear to the public at large once the TRO was reported in the media.

More than anything, I hope this situation helps change things for the future and that we continue to expect more from administrators put in uncomfortable situations.
 
Duff Man said:
Having to answer the inevitable questions would not have been easy, but it would have been clear to the public at large once the TRO was reported in the media.

More than anything, I hope this situation helps change things for the future and that we continue to expect more from administrators put in uncomfortable situations.
Click to expand...

I think we need new leadership, because obviously Phil is dense, and hasn't learned his lessons.
 
TDbuff said:
I'm sorry, but that's being ignorant to the current climate. CU was slow here in the court of public opinion, which should be so f*cking obvious to everyone associated with CU given our history, and everything we give Baylor sh*t for, hence the SI article.
Click to expand...

By current climate, I think you are referring to zero tolerance for sexual assault in relation to college athletics.

I agree that we expect justice from our college football program to be much faster than anything our courts can provide.

Think about that. Not a good look for trust in the legal system, either.
 
Why the hell don't guys running CU know what to do? That's my only gripe. Jesus Christ, I'm assuming you got your respective positions for a reason. Here is a clue, fix it. Having it scroll across on espn is a bad look. Perception is reality these days, doesn't make it fair or right but it is what it is.
 
Big Jim said:
I apologize to you Mtn. There are a few people on this board that I feel are too easy of a target and should be protected, not picked on. Again, I am sorry.
Click to expand...

See you still haven't addressed your obvious lack of reasoning capacity.

Shouldn't be a surprise. Ever since you showed up on this board, coincidentally when your good buddy scoop went off the deep end and lost his platform, you have been here to troll as you try to adjust to the idea that your hero JE isn't coming back to coach the Buffs.

You have been caught in enough lies and deceptions as well as flat out BS that you would think a sane person would give up and go find someplace he is welcome. Somehow you haven't figured it out so continue to troll on. I should probably join the others wise enough to put you on ignore.
 
GoonieBuff said:
Based on many comments that I've read I don't think a lot of people here know what Title IX is. It covers rights and access to public education in regards to sex, as it was part of the Education Amendments of 1972. That said, yes, situations relating to abuse could relate to Title IX, but due to where it happened and the fact that the victim wasn't related to the university in any way, MM, RG, and PD didn't do what they should have done, which is refer this issue to the OIEC. The OIEC handles issues that fall under Title IX and many other areas related to equal right to education as well as compliance with the law. The OIEC would have known how to handle the situation properly and Mike, Rick, and Phil probably wouldn't have come off looking like the Three Stooges in the SI article, if there would've been one at all (I doubt it).

To be clear, I am not saying that MM, RG, or PD did anything wrong legally, but Phil makes it clear in his statement that they ****ed up by not taking things to the OIEC, which should've been very clear from the start. Unless you're evil and dealing with Baylor and Penn State sized cover-ups, people like MM, RG, and PD should've wanted to let experts help with the situation, as Phil made it clear that they had no clue what they were doing. The problem with all this is that CU probably did nothing wrong in the legal sense, although it looks bad from a humanity level and the higher-ups at CU have a history of not knowing how to properly handle controversial issues, and because of that, shooting themselves in the foot. Hopefully everyone learns from this, the victim finds closure, and people look at CU's role in this as Barney Fife, rather than Mr. Burns.
Click to expand...
Ok simple question. How the **** are you gonna be a higher up at CU and not know how to handle ****? I agree with your post. I'm just wondering how it could even get to this point? Think it was Duff, not sure, be proactive instead of reactive. I'd agree with that.
 
if nothing else, we are growing up and becoming much, much more sophisticated in responding to problems than we were in 2002. that statement from distef was well-considered. mistakes were made here. but, we responded far better than before. and, compared to baylor, ol' miss, ku basketball, and a host of other timely incidents, i feel like we are trying to make sure we do the right thing and be transparent and responsive.

folks can decide to focus on the mistakes or on the improvements.
 
8Jah said:
The BSN timeline implies that Mr. Banashek advised MM and RG, and therefore worked on behalf of CU. The SI article states that Mr. Banashek asked 'Jane' if he would like to be paid; and by proxy the University of Colorado asked 'Jane' if she wanted to be paid. Not good if true.
Click to expand...
Da fuq?
 
onealcd said:
Da fuq?
Click to expand...

From BSN timeline:

"Dec. 9-12, 2016: Attorney Jon Banashek is hired, he informs MacIntyre and George to not talk to Emma or Tumpkin, at least about anything other than football."

One excerpt from SI article:

"Would you like to have all of that paid for? Banashek asked, according to Jane."
 
8Jah said:
From BSN timeline:

"Dec. 9-12, 2016: Attorney Jon Banashek is hired, he informs MacIntyre and George to not talk to Emma or Tumpkin, at least about anything other than football."

One excerpt from SI article:

"Would you like to have all of that paid for? Banashek asked, according to Jane."
Click to expand...
Again you are implying a lot. A lawyer told mac and RG not to talk to EITHER party other than their day to day duties as a football coach and athletic director. And there is a big difference between tumpkin paying for an out of court settlement and CU.
 
8Jah said:
From BSN timeline:

"Dec. 9-12, 2016: Attorney Jon Banashek is hired, he informs MacIntyre and George to not talk to Emma or Tumpkin, at least about anything other than football."

One excerpt from SI article:

"Would you like to have all of that paid for? Banashek asked, according to Jane."
Click to expand...

I didn't read that from that quote at all. I read that as Tumpkins attorney,he told MM and RG not to contact his client and/or the victim, as they shouldn't once council is retained. As for the payment thing, that is basic, slimy layer talk trying to settle between Tumkin and her, independent of CU.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top