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

I will always lean toward the side of the victim in nearly all DV cases, as I do in this one, but what was Mac going to do in this situation? He is blindsided by a call from the victim, who he consoles and offers support, and my assumption is that from that point he did exactly what he said he was going to do, consult with the AD and legal team and see what could be done. HCMM was in a no-win situation here, it states in the story that she didn't want police involved and she didn't want Tumpkin to lose his job. What is he supposed to do in that situation other than notify RG and the administration?
 
Duff Man said:
Was it the TRO being filed or the Daily Camera story reporting the TRO being filed what got him placed on leave? It seems like more of the latter than the former.
Click to expand...
Venturing into total speculation mode here: I suspect it was the Daily Camera story that forced their hand. I want to believe that they planned the suspension all along, but were letting the legal process play out in order to not be in a position where they exposed themselves to a wrongful termination lawsuit. Once it got out in the public, they had little choice in the matter.
Again, that's just my speculation.
 
TSchekler said:
So Mac and RG could have suspended Tumpkin a week and a half sooner. Is that the extent of what CU could/should have done here that would have been "right"? Other than Mac personally getting involved with the issue by ensuring that she was safe?
Click to expand...

Good question. Imagine if they had done just that. Buffs would have lost their bowl game, and they would have their integrity. The only thing different now is the latter part of that statement.
 
TSchekler said:
So Mac and RG could have suspended Tumpkin a week and a half sooner. Is that the extent of what CU could/should have done here that would have been "right"? Other than Mac personally getting involved with the issue by ensuring that she was safe?
Click to expand...
I don't think people understand how difficult this type of situation can be for someone stuck in the middle. Especially when there are potential legal ramifications from either side if you mess up. The first part states Mac repeated asked her if she was safe and admitted he wasn't sure how to handle the situation. It sounds like lawyers basically decide how this should play out. Contrast Macs words to the victim compared to Briles. He cares, but he was put in a tough spot. They allowed the legal process to play out rather than trying to cover the situation up. And once they got all the details Tumpkin was let go
 
Guys - it's only complicated legally if you're trying to keep the guy on your staff. The correct move is to put him on immediate leave, escalate to law enforcement, and if Tumpkin is proved innocent then he gets his job back.
 
NWD Buff said:
Good question. Imagine if they had done just that. Buffs would have lost their bowl game, and they would have their integrity. The only thing different now is the latter part of that statement.
Click to expand...
I'm sure the discussion was had on December 20th (or shortly after) about whether they should suspend him or not and it was decided against for reasons that we don't really know. Nothing legal had taken place at that point other than a restraining order being granted, correct?
 
JWP303 said:
Guys - it's only complicated legally if you're trying to keep the guy on your staff. The correct move is to put him on immediate leave, escalate to law enforcement, and if Tumpkin is proved innocent then he gets his job back.
Click to expand...

In a vacuum you are right. But you immediately have to answer questions if you put him on leave. So either you are going to have to lie, or destroy the man's character to the media. If you are wrong that's grounds for a defamation lawsuit.
 
Shldr2Shldr said:
Didn't even have to suspend him really. The optics would have been completely different imo if they had just not promoted him to interim dc.
Click to expand...

I have been thinking about this very point, and I seem to remember that the official line was that he was "assuming play-calling duties", as opposed to acting as interim DC.
 
About the promotion: who else would have gotten that job in that situation?
Jeffcoat? Clark?
Let's think for a second what any of us would have said had MM come out and said that Jeffcoat is the interim defensive coordinator for the Alamo Bowl. Tumpkin was the obvious choice, and while the legal process was playing out, it wouldn't have made sense to promote any of the other defensive coaches.
 
Shldr2Shldr said:
In a vacuum you are right. But you immediately have to answer questions if you put him on leave. So either you are going to have to lie, or destroy the man's character to the media. If you are wrong that's grounds for a defamation lawsuit.
Click to expand...

Well, they are no doubt going to be sued by the victim at this point - so you tell me which would have been the more prudent course of action. Also - this is the heart of the problem - instead of acting with integrity to help a victim it appears everyone went into job protection and personal reputation protection mode. Which in the end will prove to be the wrong thing.
 
JWP303 said:
Well, they are no doubt going to be sued by the victim at this point - so you tell me which would have been the more prudent course of action. Also - this is the heart of the problem - instead of acting with integrity to help a victim it appears everyone went into job protection and personal reputation protection mode. Which in the end will prove to be the wrong thing.
Click to expand...
Why would the university be sued by the victim? No cause at all for that.
 
Shldr2Shldr said:
In a vacuum you are right. But you immediately have to answer questions if you put him on leave. So either you are going to have to lie, or destroy the man's character to the media. If you are wrong that's grounds for a defamation lawsuit.
Click to expand...

I think you are painting two extremes here. When they did suspend him, did that amount to "destroying the man's character to the media?"
 
My question, if she doesn't decide to go to the cops, where was this going to end up? The lawyer sounds like he was just going to try and keep this as quiet as possible, but also not really doing anything. There's gotta be a HR situational checklist for something like this, was that in process or what?
 
JWP303 said:
Well, they are no doubt going to be sued by the victim at this point - so you tell me which would have been the more prudent course of action. Also - this is the heart of the problem - instead of acting with integrity to help a victim it appears everyone went into job protection and personal reputation protection mode. Which in the end will prove to be the wrong thing.
Click to expand...
Pretty doubtful they will get sued considering she didn't go to the cops and didn't want him to get fired. Also she confirmed multiple times she was safe and she was okay so it's not like she was in danger at tumpkins house. It's pretty hard for a bystander to help a victim when she has her own thoughts about what should happen, if she wanted him to get in trouble she should have gone to the police, not contact a football coach.
 
JWP303 said:
Well, they are no doubt going to be sued by the victim at this point - so you tell me which would have been the more prudent course of action. Also - this is the heart of the problem - instead of acting with integrity to help a victim it appears everyone went into job protection and personal reputation protection mode. Which in the end will prove to be the wrong thing.
Click to expand...
I disagree. They handled everything through legal channels. The victim can sue them, but what case does she really have? That he wasn't fired as quickly as she wanted him to after she asked for him not to be fired? Like it or not "doing the right thing" is not always the best thing to do.
 
First and foremost, I am sorry that 'Jane' had to endure this situation, and that 2 years of her life where spent in this type of relationship. It is easy to look from the outside and say she shouldn't have put up with this for a day, and should have dumped his a$$ and filed charges the first time it happened, but relation ships are more complicated than that.

This isn't good, but there are many variables to this situation. At least this isn't a situation where we knew for 2 years, and only did something once the relationship ended. We are talking about a mater of weeks that this took to come to a resolution, which even in today's universe is still relatively quick from a knowledge-gather evidence - assess options - determine outcome in a legal perspective.

Not sure what the legal advise was that was given to Mac and RG, but I'm sure that had a lot to do with the timing of this.
 
vinniew_11 said:
Why would the university be sued by the victim? No cause at all for that.
Click to expand...

Well, for starters, she thinks the CU attorney attempted to threaten or intimidate her into silence.

...

"Jane recalls that Banashek said: I want to devote my time to getting you and Joe healthy, not to helping Joe keep his job and stay out of jail. Can you help me with that?
Despite the severity of the situation, Jane says she couldn’t restrain a chuckle. “I said, ‘Does that work on people?’”
According to Jane, Banashek at that point said, I’m trying to help you, because this could get worse for you.
“That sounds like a threat,” Jane said she replied."
 
TDbuff said:
My question, if she doesn't decide to go to the cops, where was this going to end up? The lawyer sounds like he was just going to try and keep this as quiet as possible, but also not really doing anything. There's gotta be a HR situational checklist for something like this, was that in process or what?
Click to expand...
Yeah that's where I am confused, did RG get council to investigate this situation and find out the truth because you definitely don't want a guy like that on staff. Also can't blame the lawyer for doing what he did, he is doing what is in the best interest of his client, not the victim or the school.
 
Duff Man said:
I think CU could have not acted like they were blindsided by the Daily Camera article. Seems really dumb. They had a heads up that a TRO was going to be filed, so I do not think it is so out of line to argue there could have been more proactive in handling it.
Click to expand...
****ing Plati.

This sounds bad, but it's a hit piece sound bad, not a lots of rapes going on and we knew about it bad.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top