Damn more to this than I thought. I can see why the players would be pissed off.
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!
We now take you to Minneapolis, MN
- Thread starter Buffnik
- Start date
Ahhh, toe the line or we won't honor our contract. Doubt the scholarship agreement had anything about "don't protest" written into it.
If they truly had no clue, then sure. Doubt that a multi-party "event" of that nature was contained in 1 room with no knowledge of those outside.
No, not on here. 1 opinion limit per poster
Don't think that students participating in a legal protest that is part of the campus environment would ever violate a scholarship agreement. What would violate the agreement is a refusal to practice and/or participate in games or other scheduled team activities. The scholarship is given specifically with the intention that the student athlete will represent the school in athletic competition, participate in the preparation for that competition, and comply with team rules including reasonable rules of conduct that relate to the image of the school that is projected.
If these student/athletes refuse to participate in a bowl game then yes they would be subject to losing their scholarships.
The problem here for the university is that the attention drawn by dropping the students will put a lot of scrutiny on why it happened and from the looks of things this whole thing has been mishandled from the start. No way the university gets out of this without significant embarrassment or worse.
Media is being blocked at work so can't see the content.
I just said the university could. Unless some significant information comes out that we don't currently have I think they would be very foolish to do so. This is a situation where some decisions were made that have no positive outcome. The school needs to sit down with the players and figure out a way to resolve this thing. At the same time they have backed themselves into a corner that is going to make them look like they don't take sexual assault seriously, again regardless of what the facts of the case may say.
Probably the only way that this thing has any kind of reasonable conclusion is if an administrator falls on his sword for it, takes the blame, and resigns. Not holding my breath on that one either.
SerenityBuff
Well-Known Member
That's always bothered me too. The old adage which has always made sense to me is if a woman is drunk and decides to drive, she is responsible for that. But if she is drunk and consents to sex, she's not responsible for that decision. It's patronizing.
Yep. Perpetuates the unhealthy and immoral myth that heterosexual sex is something that is done to a woman by a man. As if it's already kind of rapey whenever sex occurs and the man & woman are not equal in the decision. If the man is drunk, it is irrelevant. If the woman is drunk, it is rape.
Not joking here: I plan on having a "consent and non-disclosure" agreement prepared for my son once he comes of age that he can have girls and later women sign on his mobile before they have sexual relations.
jumped ship
Well-Known Member
A car cannot coerce someone into having sex with them against there better judgement though. I'm all for equal rights but we have to remember there is a long history of men being perpetrators, so that will naturally be the default assumption in most cases.
Really tough situation all around, especially given the odd nature of the initial act, and the fact that there was footage. The number of suspensions seems high, and I support the players boycott in hopes that it incites a quick resolution so they all can play in the Holiday bowl.
The woman never claimed that she consented to multiple sex partners. She said that she went to have sex with one player, and that the procession was foisted upon her. That is why she went to the police. it is entirely possible that she became ashamed of her involvement in the proceedings, and that she decided to complain after that, however...
It is not unreasonable to suggest that football players who are receiving scholarships from a university should understand the sexual consent policy of that university. U of M has a very specific "affirmative consent" policy that states that people who are incapacitated by drugs and alcohol are incapable of giving consent. In this case, the woman stated that she had several shots before this happened. I know that things were different when I was in college, but the fact of the matter is that getting someone drunk is not an acceptable strategy for getting laid. Furthermore, people just need to be smart enough to realize that participation in a gang bang does not have a lot of positive outcomes. Is it really unreasonable to tell college students that? Is not participating in gang bangs really going to deprive anyone of a positive college experience?
I think it at least begs for some self reflection when we are critical of how Baylor handled rape complaints, while also being critical of U of M for going in the opposite direction. I know that this case really brings up some gray areas on both sides of the issue, but I think that part of being a functioning adult in this day and age is having some discretion when it comes to things like this.
It is not unreasonable to suggest that football players who are receiving scholarships from a university should understand the sexual consent policy of that university. U of M has a very specific "affirmative consent" policy that states that people who are incapacitated by drugs and alcohol are incapable of giving consent. In this case, the woman stated that she had several shots before this happened. I know that things were different when I was in college, but the fact of the matter is that getting someone drunk is not an acceptable strategy for getting laid. Furthermore, people just need to be smart enough to realize that participation in a gang bang does not have a lot of positive outcomes. Is it really unreasonable to tell college students that? Is not participating in gang bangs really going to deprive anyone of a positive college experience?
I think it at least begs for some self reflection when we are critical of how Baylor handled rape complaints, while also being critical of U of M for going in the opposite direction. I know that this case really brings up some gray areas on both sides of the issue, but I think that part of being a functioning adult in this day and age is having some discretion when it comes to things like this.
Interestingly (to me at least), your response closely aligns with what my wife just said to me and got me thinking about. That she would give zero ****s if this young woman had fallen into bed with one of the players and then decided afterwards she regretted it. But to her it sounded like this was a situation that escalated beyond having some fun with a guy and turned into something skeezy where things got out of hand with a bunch of guys present, getting involved, watching and even taking video of the thing. That it's unlikely that very many women would consent to that.
Also, that this is totally different than what goes on in our own homes or what law enforcement would prosecute because it's a matter of violating well-known university policy and a condition of their scholarship.
In short, Nikita opened my eyes here. (She did agree with our son having a consent & non-disclosure agreement app in the future, though.)
Last edited:
How many women (or for that matter, men, but in this case it was a woman) would sober, consent to a multi-party sexual encounter? Most who are into that world don't do it at a football party after a game. There is a world where that sort of thing is normal, but it is not a fly by night, hey let's have a 6-way cause you just won the big game.
Then think about it from this stand point: Which is more believable - 1. She willingly, pre-alcohol consented to running a train on 1/4 of the team; or 2 - she willing started to hook up with 1 player, then got drunk (either her choice or with "help") and was beyond the ability to stop things when it escalated.
Yes, it is possible she consented, regretted it later, then pressed charges. But is that really the most likely case?
Then think about it from this stand point: Which is more believable - 1. She willingly, pre-alcohol consented to running a train on 1/4 of the team; or 2 - she willing started to hook up with 1 player, then got drunk (either her choice or with "help") and was beyond the ability to stop things when it escalated.
Yes, it is possible she consented, regretted it later, then pressed charges. But is that really the most likely case?
SerenityBuff
Well-Known Member
From the ESPN article:
"According to police records, a woman told officers she was drunk when she was sexually assaulted in Djam's apartment by several men on Sept. 2, including some of the suspended players. She said her sexual contact with two men may have been consensual, but her contact with four of them was not. Several players told police it was consensual, and an investigator who watched a video Djam took of the incident wrote that "she does not appear to be upset by the sexual activity and does not indicate that she wants it to stop ... and the sexual contact appears entirely consensual."
Maybe unfairly, but in most of these cases I tend to side with or at least believe that the woman's complaint should be investigated as if it were credible unless proven otherwise. The comments about her willingly having activity with multiple partners certainly makes sense.
The university is right in taking this situation seriously but unfortunately it seems that they completely botched the situation. At this point it may be impossible to get justice for either side.
The university is right in taking this situation seriously but unfortunately it seems that they completely botched the situation. At this point it may be impossible to get justice for either side.
How, specifically, do you think they botched it? From what I can tell, they performed an investigation as required by Title IX, and doled out discipline that they saw as appropriate.
Well, for starters, the kid who was in his dorm room when the alleged assault took place being suspended indefinitely.
I haven't seen any mention of this. Source? (Not doubting you - Would really like to see this information.)
Players suspended then returned to the team then long after suspended again even in the absence of any significant new evidence. Guys suspended now who weren't the first time even though they knew they were there when it first came down.
Perfect example as well.
Just smells of a poorly handled situation.
I'm at happy hour, I'll look later for source.
Fair enough. Let me ask you this - What should they have done differently? Should they have not suspended the students in the first place? If they had information that led them to believe that these ten players were complicit in a sexual assault, should they have not acted?
As for the dorm room accusation, I have looked for any mention of this, and I can't find one.
Prolly
If the evidence is now sufficient to suspend the players it should have been done earlier since the evidence they are basing this on has been in their hands for a long time.
It seems as if they simply couldn't decide if it was credible or not and eventually decided they had to "do something." If you are going to suspend then suspend, don't wait for this long then do a general suspension of everyone associated regardless of evidence of their specific involvement.
I remember, it was from a poster on another board who I liken to Buffnik. so nothing concrete, apologies.
Is anyone just a little appalled at the participants' behavior whether "consensual" or not? I mean, I'd hope my kids would never put themselves in a situation like that to begin with. But then, I guess, this isn't a "morality" issue in the "religious" sense, but rather, in the societal sense because societal morality no longer corresponds to "religious" morality.
Last edited:
This is conjecture, and it is untrue. The suspensions were based upon an a report form the university's E.E.O.C. The actions suggested in that report (five players expelled, four suspended, and one placed on probation) were taken immediately upon completion of the report.