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

Bill Cody said:
I guess the biggest problems I have with all of this is how there is a concerted effort to smear CU and create a story..... and there are a lot people on here getting stuck in the minutia of what occurred and using that as an opportunity to play Monday morning QB. BUT, the facts are that Tumpkin is the bad guy, not CU, not MM, not RG. CU was drug into this and responded very quickly whenever they had an actual actionable item. MOST importantly to me is that there was no perceived effort to cover this up....only to do what was right. Unfortunately, CU is being criticized for doing what was right for CU in some instances. Many people on here want MM to have been more pro active. I would bet he wanted to do more, and he had legal council telling him to stay the **** away and don't say a word. In situations like this, you do what your employer's legal council tells you to. In the end, CU handled a bunch of unknowns the best they could at the time, they didn't harm this woman, the man they fired did.

Unfortunate all around....and that's just how it works sometimes.
Click to expand...

You are doing precisely what you criticize, playing Monday morning qb. You are speculating on CU's actions just as everyone else. You just happen to jump on the institutional imperative side of things. Bolded and all caps words do not make you correct or incorrect, just aggressive.
 
Scotch said:
I think Tumpkin was named Interim DC before Dec. 20th.

Tumpkin is a piece of ****, bottom line. But it always pains me to here how long a woman is willing to take the abuse before doing anything about it. She had to literally fly back and forth half way across the country for 2 years to get abused. Sigh. She only followed through on the charges against Tumpkin because of her son, and otherwise she wouldn't have. Baffling.
Click to expand...

It is equally interesting that we all know he was named Interim DC, yet DiStephano's statement attempts to downplay that. I would like to agree with whomever said the best idea would have MM take on that duty, given awareness of this situation.

As for the second point, that goes to highlight the nature of accommodation women are pressured into in navigating a man's world. A good deal of commentary here goes to highlight the overall struggle. Some see the moral failings, others reluctant to.

Mb2658 said:
My question is why was Tumpkin's defense attorney the first person to contact her after she spoke with Mac? Even if they wanted to keep Mac out of it, a CU attorney could have reached out to her and said that they were looking into it. That would have been far more palatable than Tumpkin's defense attorney.
Click to expand...

This theme, that connects Banashek as the sole responder, connects CU to him. One cannot say that MM and CU are excused from reaching out to her on the grounds that there are legal considerations, and on the other hand ignore the fact that information she gave to MM was promptly passed on to the defense attorney. If MM was to stay clear from involvement, that needs to remain absolute for both sides. Instead, he acted a funnel for information to Banashek.

Mb2658 said:
Jesus, is this really that difficult? Banashek is a private defense attorney who does not represent the University of Colorado. He may have ties to the program and he may even do pro-bono work or cut deals for players and staff when they get jammed up. Since Tumpkin's actions did not occur in his capacity as an employee of the University of Colorado, he is required to obtain his own private council. The fact that there is an appearance that the staff communicated with Tumpkin's private attorney who then contacted the victim is what is the problem. They could have saved themselves the image issue by having a CU attorney reach out the victim and inform them that they were the point of contact for Mac.
Click to expand...

There is an appearance that staff communicated with Banashek who then contacted the attorney? Explain his detailed knowledge otherwise.

Edit: What I am trying to convey is an objection to the word appearance. There is no other explanation for how Banashek got specific information. This is the hill I will die on with respect to displeasure with the University. It shows they will claim one thing to the victim and public (can't contact while legal process plays out), yet do another (actually contact the defense attorney instead of playing Switzerland as they claim). This is slimy and indefensible. I do not back the PR attempt due to this fact.

SINKRATZ said:
She allegedly told Mac she was afraid Tumpkin might kill himself or someone else. How anyone here can defend Mac and RG not going immediately to the authorities is astounding to me.
Click to expand...

It is so much better to give him more duties for the capstone game of the season, and to funnel information to his defense attorney. Let's choose that option. Because nothing wrong can happen.
 
Last edited:
I don't know what was handled wrong.

Let's say that we replace CU with SI, Tumpkin with a sportswriter, and MacIntyre with an editor.

How would SI have handled it different than CU did? I bet it would have taken them a lot longer to suspend an employee over an accusation / legal matter.
 
Big Jim said:
You are doing precisely what you criticize, playing Monday morning qb. You are speculating on CU's actions just as everyone else. You just happen to jump on the institutional imperative side of things. Bolded and all caps words do not make you correct or incorrect, just aggressive.
Click to expand...
Wrong, I am just trying to be objective about who the real bad guy is.....and it ain't CU no matter how you look at it (unless there are facts we do not know). That said, I edited my post because I don't want you feeling threatened by my personal narrative. Hope it suffices.
 
Last edited:
Buffnik said:
I don't know what was handled wrong.

Let's say that we replace CU with SI, Tumpkin with a sportswriter, and MacIntyre with an editor.

How would SI have handled it different than CU did? I bet it would have taken them a lot longer to suspend an employee over an accusation / legal matter.
Click to expand...

Maybe, but that doesn't mean anything, they'd still have a statement from their CEO saying they took too long to figure out what to do, like we got from Phil, and they'd be right.
 
Bill Cody said:
Wrong, I am just trying to be objective about who the real bad guy is.:....and it ain't CU no matter how you look at it (unless there are facts we do no know). That said, I edited my post because I don't want you feeling threatened by my personal narrative. Hope it suffices.
Click to expand...

You have no objectivity here and therefore no credibility since you are claiming to have objectivity. None of us as CU fans have objectivity here. BTW, there are all sorts of facts we do not know; CU's entire side of the story is unknown. You do not know what the people at CU are doing and thinking, you can only speculate like the rest of us.
 
ladyblaise said:
There is an appearance that staff communicated with Banashek who then contacted the attorney? Explain his detailed knowledge otherwise.
Click to expand...

I don't believe that any attorney aside from Banashek was involved, unless you are referencing the attorney that represents the victim. So it appears that Mac either provided details to Tumpkin who then passed them on to Banashek or Mac or George passed the details directly to Banashek. The fact that Banashek has the appearance of representing CU football is what is inappropriate.
 
Buffnik said:
I don't know what was handled wrong.

Let's say that we replace CU with SI, Tumpkin with a sportswriter, and MacIntyre with an editor.

How would SI have handled it different than CU did? I bet it would have taken them a lot longer to suspend an employee over an accusation / legal matter.
Click to expand...
Why would it have taken longer? DV is a hot button issue, particularly among college football programs, so it seems an abundance of caution was warranted here.

After the first call, they could have immediately and quietly suspended Tumpkin (with pay) pending an investigation. Explain that he was dealing with family issues and wouldn't be with the team in San Antonio. Contact authorities and relay what they were told by Jane. Contact the university compliance department and explain the situation and how it's being handled. Then make sure Jane is safe and let her know you are working with the local authorities, Joe, and university compliance to verify the facts, ensure her safety, and ultimately get Joe any help he needs. Then let her know that your attorneys are recommending no further contact with Jane until the investigation is compete. At least then she knows something is being done.

Instead the only person she heard from was Tumpkin's lawyer who appeared to be a CU surrogate trying to make a deal for this to go away. Everything else appeared to be business as usual at CU - Joe kept coaching and it wasn't until the Camera reported on the story that he was suspended. Now you have the Chancellor releasing an apology where he expresses regret for not acting more quickly.
 
Buffnik said:
How would SI have handled it different than CU did? I bet it would have taken them a lot longer to suspend an employee over an accusation / legal matter.
Click to expand...

C'mon, you are one of the most level headed people around here. You can't know that unless you have intimate knowledge of the inner workings of SI and CU. You know a lot about CU, but not enough to have privy to what is going on now. I am pretty sure you don't know what would happen at SI.
 
Big Jim said:
You have no objectivity here and therefore no credibility since you are claiming to have objectivity. None of us as CU fans have objectivity here. BTW, there are all sorts of facts we do not know; CU's entire side of the story is unknown. You do not know what the people at CU are doing and thinking, you can only speculate like the rest of us.
Click to expand...
Come on Jim, it's not that hard. "Trying to be objective". Based what has been reported. My commentary was in response to those claiming that CU and staff are at some fault here and losing sight of the real perpetrator. You're the one that took exception with an opinion that I shared on a fan board....spinning that into an attack on my credibility when I never claimed to have any in the first place is laughable. Typed opinion is criticized for being aggressive and turned into an attack on my character.....what a world
 
Mb2658 said:
So it appears that Mac either provided details to Tumpkin who then passed them on to Banashek or Mac or George passed the details directly to Banashek. The fact that Banashek has the appearance of representing CU football is what is inappropriate.
Click to expand...

Boom. Exactly. That, and CU loses the stance they are trying to project. They did not in fact act like Switzerland and stay out of it.

Bill Cody said:
My commentary was in response to those claiming that CU and staff are at some fault here and losing sight of the real perpetrator.
Click to expand...

There is some fault with the handling of it. See above.

That being said, it in no way excuses Tumpkin, who would be a worthy recipient of a nationwide ritual for a mild karmic return.
 
Last edited:
SINKRATZ said:
Why would it have taken longer? DV is a hot button issue, particularly among college football programs, so it seems an abundance of caution was warranted here.

After the first call, they could have immediately and quietly suspended Tumpkin (with pay) pending an investigation. Explain that he was dealing with family issues and wouldn't be with the team in San Antonio. Contact authorities and relay what they were told by Jane. Contact the university compliance department and explain the situation and how it's being handled. Then make sure Jane is safe and let her know you are working with the local authorities, Joe, and university compliance to verify the facts, ensure her safety, and ultimately get Joe any help he needs. Then let her know that your attorneys are recommending no further contact with Jane until the investigation is compete. At least then she knows something is being done.

Instead the only person she heard from was Tumpkin's lawyer who appeared to be a CU surrogate trying to make a deal for this to go away. Everything else appeared to be business as usual at CU - Joe kept coaching and it wasn't until the Camera reported on the story that he was suspended. Now you have the Chancellor releasing an apology where he expresses regret for not acting more quickly.
Click to expand...
Glad you have it all figured out. Because I come up with several viable scenarios and think it's probably best not to speculate without the facts. We can play the "hypothetical" game all we want.
 
Sinkratz suggestion, while mocked by DBT, would be a reasonable progression for any job in which a moral turpitude clause were in effect.

There are several state level jobs that do have such clauses. I suppose I assumed all would have them. What do we know about the contracts in place at CU?
 
Bill Cody said:
Come on Jim, it's not that hard. "Trying to be objective". Based what has been reported. My commentary was in response to those claiming that CU and staff are at some fault here and losing sight of the real perpetrator. You're the one that took exception with an opinion that I shared on a fan board....spinning that into an attack on my credibility when I never claimed to have any in the first place is laughable. Typed opinion is criticized for being aggressive and turned into an attack on my character.....what a world
Click to expand...

How do you objectively explain how Tumpkin's personal defense attorney was getting information that was only on coach MacIntyre's cell voice mail? This is CU not acting inappropriately, based on what has been reported?

I realize it is frustrating you cannot put on the gold helmet and run onto Folsom Fiels on a fall Saturday morning. I hope you have that helmet on when you are typing.
 
The whole scenario is ****ed up. When other people have to deal with other people's **** ups in a professional way, it's not as easy as it looks. My heart goes out to Jane. Dumpkin sucks, and it pisses me off that among all the busyness of this past year's success and distraction of Leavitt and Clark, Mac and RG are left with Bumpkin's massive **** up to deal with.
 
DBT said:
Glad you have it all figured out. Because I come up with several viable scenarios and think it's probably best not to speculate without the facts. We can play the "hypothetical" game all we want.
Click to expand...
Tell me DBT, what was hypothetical in what I posted? We know Mac found out about this in mid December - Plati and DiStephano both acknowledged as much. I'd love to hear from Mac and/or RG on this matter and I think they almost can't avoid saying something now, but we'll see.
 
Big Jim said:
How do you objectively explain how Tumpkin's personal defense attorney was getting information that was only on coach MacIntyre's cell voice mail? This is CU not acting inappropriately, based on what has been reported?

I realize it is frustrating you cannot put on the gold helmet and run onto Folsom Fiels on a fall Saturday morning. I hope you have that helmet on when you are typing.
Click to expand...
Objectively, if that was done innapropriately, MM should be reprimanded for it. Also, could see a scenario where Jane calls MM, makes a bunch of claims. No legal action has yet been taken toward Tumpkin, so at this point MM and CU are in a legal pickle. MM confronts Tumpkin to discuss what was shared with him (which would include his VM). MM advises that Tumpkin is potentially in a lot of trouble and the University isn't going to stand behind him if any of this is true. Tumpkin engages defense council and as is the standard, shares everything with Banashek that he knows right off the bat.

LOL, I actually, don't miss it at all, I am an old man. But this spin you're attempting to put on my position doesn't make you right, it makes you come across as passive aggressive. I don't like passive aggressive, I prefer regular agressive.
 
I just did a Google search for "moral turpitude Colorado coach". Interestingly, I was able to find out that coaches at CU most likely have moral turpitude clauses associated with their contracts, as an article regarding Barnett's termination shared that his contract specified one. To be clear, GB did not violate his contract.

With the moral turpitude clause in place, and information that the victim was moving forward with reporting to the police, CU would not be liable if they suspended with pay JT while they investigated the matter. This means those calling for a faster timeline are justified in their calls.

That response would certainly have conveyed fairness to all. They did not have to say anything specific to the press that JT could claim was defamatory in nature. Nor could he claim wrongful termination, as he was not terminated.

Here is the link to the article with info on MT. http://www.denverpost.com/2005/12/08/3-million-ticket-out/
 
Big Jim said:
C'mon, you are one of the most level headed people around here. You can't know that unless you have intimate knowledge of the inner workings of SI and CU. You know a lot about CU, but not enough to have privy to what is going on now. I am pretty sure you don't know what would happen at SI.
Click to expand...

I've worked in corporate culture with all you have to document with HR in order to suspend or terminate someone. I'm only assuming that SI isn't unusual.
 
CU made a hand full of mistakes. DiStephano is taking steps to make sure they do not happen again. CU is not covering for an abuser and got rid of him as soon as they had firm legal ground to do so.

I am sorry Jane felt abandoned by her friendside and the University, but she should have known that would happen once legal got involved. The University is going to want no part of any legal proceedings.
 
Big Jim said:
Thankfully the civilized world is moving towards domestic violence as being a black and white issue. We still have a long way to go.
Click to expand...
I'm not talking about domestic violence being a black and white issue. I'm talking about the situation mac was put in. Not very black and white.
 
Bill Cody said:
Objectively, if that was done innapropriately, MM should be reprimanded for it. Also, could see a scenario where Jane calls MM, makes a bunch of claims. No legal action has yet been taken toward Tumpkin, so at this point MM and CU are in a legal pickle. MM confronts Tumpkin to discuss what was shared with him (which would include his VM). MM advises that Tumpkin is potentially in a lot of trouble and the University isn't going to stand behind him if any of this is true. Tumpkin engages defense council and as is the standard, shares everything with Banashek that he knows right off the bat.
Click to expand...

That could plausibly work to explain the first call. But not the second one, which happened an hour and eighteen minutes after she left a voicemail for MM stating she was going to move forward with flying in to contact police. All calls in the progression confirmed by phone records.

If Tumpkin engaged council and shared info in a scenario you described above, then Banashek would not have responded with the timing of the second call that indicated specifics that could have only been passed on by MM with respect to the information in that particular voice mail.

That shows MM and therefore CU placing their information into the hands of the defense while stonewalling the victim. I could get behind the PR if not for that fact. They are going to have to own that instead of playing word games.
 
ladyblaise said:
That could plausibly work to explain the first call. But not the second one, which happened an hour and eighteen minutes after she left a voicemail for MM stating she was going to move forward with flying in to contact police. All calls in the progression confirmed by phone records.

If Tumpkin engaged council and shared info in a scenario you described above, then Banashek would not have responded with the timing of the second call that indicated specifics that could have only been passed on by MM with respect to the information in that specific voice mail.

That shows MM and CU placing their information into the hands of the defense while stonewalling the victim. I could get behind the PR if not for that fact. They are going to have to own that instead of playing word games.
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top