ud: We're dealing with this s**t again....

[LutherRackleyRulez]

Per Blackburn Review.....



http://www.blackburnreview.com/pierre-out-for-fall-semester

[ballyhoohoo]

http://images.tapatalk-cdn.com/15/09/20/98ff8980ddcfb35f3aba497cf4814872.jpg

[Masterofreality]

You know, I really don't care about those toothless hill jacks anymore. Let them wallow in the A10.

Not having Pierre does help us though if we do somehow wind up playing them in the Milkhouse, but I believe that was never much of a chance.

[Lamont Sanford]

According to Blackburn Review, they are dealing with another Kavanaugh issue here.

[Smails]

Bunch o rapers

[GIMMFD]

Dear lord that place is literally a dumpster fire.

[gladdenguy]

Hahahaha. Sorry had to laugh because when the Dez fiasco was hot they went after the Xavier basketball program.

Dyshawn Pierre could have had the Dez treatment. The fact that college girls can scream foul is getting out of control. We all know how I feel about Dez. The dude got screwed royally. If I were a college basketball player I would seriously just use my hand along with pornhub and stay away from girls in the bedroom during my career. Is that impossible? Maybe. But these girls are ruining careers of young men when the sex is probably consensual. It is getting absolutely ridiculous. These players can't trust anybody besides hopefully their families, coaches, and teammates. Other than that they have to watch themselves. I don't know whether I'm hoping Dyshawn comes out of this okay or if the girl legitimately deserved to voice her allegations.

For the UD basketball program that royally sucks. The girl doesn't seem to be enrolled at UD any longer and Dyshawn is just out for the semester. That makes me think there is something in the corner of Dyshawn.

I would hate for Xavier to have to go through the Dez situation again. Total bullshit. Screw Fr. Graham and the reflection sessions. Had to get that in.

[muskiefan82]

Perhaps universities should draw up affidavits to be signed beforehand indicating consent as well as a videotaped consent of the parties. By the time all of this was complete, the moment would have passed or the parties would have passed out. This world is a disaster.

[ammtd34]

We also have to be careful not to immediately vilify the accuser in these cases. Obviously when the details of the Dez case came out, it was pretty clear that the punishment was too severe. We can't simply assume that's the case here or in any other situation, though. While each case is different, the lack of charges doesn't necessarily mean a crime wasn't committed. This is a really difficult crime to prosecute. I read through the UD Pride thread on it and it's gross.

Edit: I'm not saying Pierre committed a crime. I'm speaking of sexual assault in general.

[xudash]

We also have to be careful not to immediately vilify the accuser in these cases. Obviously when the details of the Dez case came out, it was pretty clear that the punishment was too severe. We can't simply assume that's the case here or in any other situation, though. While each case is different, the lack of charges doesn't necessarily mean a crime wasn't committed. This is a really difficult crime to prosecute. I read through the UD Pride thread on it and it's gross.

Edit: I'm not saying Pierre committed a crime. I'm speaking of sexual assault in general.

Say it isn't so!

Seriously, it must be a tragi-comedy over there.

Isn't this three years in a row now: the scarecrow creep, the two felons last year, and now this?

UD is in our rearview mirror and needs to stay there.

[DC Muskie]

I wonder if they still refer to us as "Thugs."

Actually, no I don't.

[X-band '01]

I thought I'd check out their thread, but I lost interest after about 3 or 4 DP and AM references.

But at least they also have some off-topic threads devoted to CC/GW.

[pickledpigsfeet]

Perhaps universities should draw up affidavits to be signed beforehand indicating consent as well as a videotaped consent of the parties. By the time all of this was complete, the moment would have passed or the parties would have passed out. This world is a disaster.

Like the Chappelle Show sex contract. "Kobe!"

on second thought...1765

[94GRAD]

I wonder if they still refer to us as "Thugs."

Actually, no I don't.

They definitely do

[xudash]

They definitely do

They reinstated the scarecrow. That was flat out stupid.

They let those two idiots terrorize women and loot dorm rooms repeatedly before taking action.

I have to believe their is a group of those poor idiots on Pride that are already discussing how to weave this Pierre guy back into the rotation in a way that they think will allow them to move forward without many bumps.

Archie probably has had about enough of this. Why not get to a major program where you don't have to recruit such questionable players.

[blobfan]

Hahahaha. Sorry had to laugh because when the Dez fiasco was hot they went after the Xavier basketball program.

Dyshawn Pierre could have had the Dez treatment. The fact that college girls can scream foul is getting out of control. We all know how I feel about Dez. The dude got screwed royally. If I were a college basketball player I would seriously just use my hand along with pornhub and stay away from girls in the bedroom during my career. Is that impossible? Maybe. But these girls are ruining careers of young men when the sex is probably consensual. It is getting absolutely ridiculous. These players can't trust anybody besides hopefully their families, coaches, and teammates. Other than that they have to watch themselves. I don't know whether I'm hoping Dyshawn comes out of this okay or if the girl legitimately deserved to voice her allegations.

For the UD basketball program that royally sucks. The girl doesn't seem to be enrolled at UD any longer and Dyshawn is just out for the semester. That makes me think there is something in the corner of Dyshawn.

I would hate for Xavier to have to go through the Dez situation again. Total bullshit. Screw Fr. Graham and the reflection sessions. Had to get that in.

Apples to Oranges. In Dez's case, the woman that reported the situation never claimed rape and did not ask for his prosecution or his dismissal. The reality is it's more likely that a sexual assault will not be reported than that a false report is made. And the reason women don't report when they should is because that have to face this type of attitude. Find me one instance where a man was accused of assault when the woman said 'yes' as opposed to not saying no loud enough.

[Juice]

Apples to Oranges. In Dez's case, the woman that reported the situation never claimed rape and did not ask for his prosecution or his dismissal. The reality is it's more likely that a sexual assault will not be reported than that a false report is made. And the reason women don't report when they should is because that have to face this type of attitude. Find me one instance where a man was accused of assault when the woman said 'yes' as opposed to not saying no loud enough.

Often people say an accused person is innocent until proven guilty but when a woman says she was sexually assaulted people like to then claim that she's a liar until proven truthful.

I love people's logic on stuff like this.

[Milhouse]

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/13727438/dyshawn-pierre-dayton-flyers-fight-suspension

Pierre now fighting the suspension....pull up some popcorn dis gonna be good.

[Chalmers0]

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/13727438/dyshawn-pierre-dayton-flyers-fight-suspension

Pierre now fighting the suspension....pull up some popcorn dis gonna be good.

Same lawyer as Dez I believe...

[DC Muskie]

It looked like the school half-assed it. Not surprisingly coming from Dayton.

[X-band '01]

Same lawyer as Dez, also a very familiar track to the Dez case. Neither guy was criminally indicted, but were either suspended or expelled for violating the university's code of conduct. If Pierre remains suspended until the end of the fall semester, then he would be eligible to re-enroll for the spring semester and rejoin the Flyers in late December. I don't know if he would ultimately be expelled like Wells was. But if he were expelled, then he'd probably get a waiver to enroll at another school and be eligible to play immediately thanks to the Dez precedent.

[jcubspoe]

Same lawyer as Dez, also a very familiar track to the Dez case. Neither guy was criminally indicted, but were either suspended or expelled for violating the university's code of conduct. If Pierre remains suspended until the end of the fall semester, then he would be eligible to re-enroll for the spring semester and rejoin the Flyers in late December. I don't know if he would ultimately be expelled like Wells was. But if he were expelled, then he'd probably get a waiver to enroll at another school and be eligible to play immediately thanks to the Dez precedent.

I just don't see him playing for another school, at least not this year. Practice starts in what? 3 weeks or so. Season in 5 weeks? No way he could gel into another team at this point.

We will see how this plays out for Pierre. It's ugly ugly ugly ugly over at UD right now.

[xudash]

I just don't see him playing for another school, at least not this year. Practice starts in what? 3 weeks or so. Season in 5 weeks? No way he could gel into another team at this point.

We will see how this plays out for Pierre. It's ugly ugly ugly ugly over at UD right now.

But at least they got their logo right....

[xudash]

VD, the gift that keeps on giving. After this latest ESPN article, I at least allowed myself to see how the conversation is going on the A10 board. Some of the better - I mean that disparagingly - VD tools are in full bloom.

Flyer 75 takes every opportunity he can to keep bringing up the Dez Wells case at Xavier. It's like disguised deflection.

But perhaps the most gifted among them is the guy who calls himself Tman. It's telling that his Avatar is a picture of the bombastic W.C. Fields. In what could be an award winning post, he publishes this:

Why the rape talk?
The woman herself was asked if it was rape and she replied "NO".
SHE SAID THAT HERSELF...

She never reported it to anyone that she had been raped.
She did mention the encounter to a couple of girl friends weeks later.
( I didn't want to do it but he persuaded me)
(oh girl, you've been sexually assaulted)

Dayton had themselves a dream team.
They pissed it all away.

Dayton had a great coach.
They just guaranteed themselves Archie's departure.

This program is hopeless.....

Even if you find a dream coach who puts together a dream team the U doesn't have the know-how to make things work.

This is a small town.
This is a small school.
With small minded people calling the shots.
Who for the most part can barely find their way to work.
That's always been the case.
That will never change.

If you gave UD the Kentucky roster they would screw it up....

The scarecrow, the two felon thugs and now Pierre. Three years in a row. Perhaps Archie has another problem outside of Montgomery County, and that is that some amount of balance must exist between winning and winning with kids who have a clue. Perhaps he had better start concerning himself with his reputation as a coach and recruiter.

[bobbiemcgee]

Odd, the former holier than thou UD bunch have become huge Dez Wells fans.

[xubrew]

The fact that he didn't break the law is likely irrelevant. He's not being accused of committing a crime. A university can have their own code of conduct and their own definition of sexual misconduct. They have to have due process and follow their own rules, and if they don't then he's probably got a case, but they can have their own standards. If Dayton clearly defines what they consider sexual misconduct to be, and he violated it, and he was given due process before being suspended, then there really isn't a case here. If they just went off the handle and didn't follow their own procedures then there probably is a case. We shall see, I guess.

[Juice]

A copy of the report

http://www.blackburnreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/15-00633-combined-redacted-9-23-151.pdf

[ammtd34]

A copy of the report

http://www.blackburnreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/15-00633-combined-redacted-9-23-151.pdf

That looks worse than I originally thought.

[gladdenguy]

Shut down all females and males being together after drinks at a party or a bar.

This is absolutely ridiculous. And this girl has had a boyfriend for 5 years. Sounds like a swell girl.

[Juice]

Shut down all females and males being together after drinks at a party or a bar.

This is absolutely ridiculous. And this girl has had a boyfriend for 5 years. Sounds like a swell girl.

She's a college kid and cheated on her significant other?! What a novel concept. I have never, ever heard of that before. What a harlot. Give her a scarlet letter and let's burn her at the stake. Let's ignore the part where DP said that he had to leave his apartment to meet another girl because he was seeing her and didn't want that girl to see the accuser in his bed. Sounds like a swell guy (I honestly have no problem with DP having multiple girls, just don't be a creepy asshole about how you handle it).

That being said, reading the two stories between the accuser and the accused I can see why this wasn't indicted but at the same time I can kind of see why UD suspended him. At the very least, he's guilty of being that creepy, persistent dude we have all seen before.

[gladdenguy]

She's a college kid and cheated on her significant other?! What a novel concept. I have never, ever heard of that before. What a harlot. Give her a scarlet letter and let's burn her at the stake. Let's ignore the part where DP said that he had to leave his apartment to meet another girl because he was seeing her and didn't want that girl to see the accuser in his bed. Sounds like a swell guy (I honestly have no problem with DP having multiple girls, just don't be a creepy asshole about how you handle it).

That being said, reading the two stories between the accuser and the accused I can see why this wasn't indicted but at the same time I can kind of see why UD suspended him. At the very least, he's guilty of being that creepy, persistent dude we have all seen before.

By the boyfriend for 5 years comment I am inferencing that this is probably a good reason for her to claim sexual assault after talking with her friends. Either way. Yes, I do side with Dyshawn Pierre and I have absolutely no sympathy for this girl. I also believe it's bullshit that because of this accusation he can be immediately suspended and guilty til proven innocent.

I understand that Dayton takes the precautionary side so I don't blame the University. The whole process and the relative ease of this conclusion of him being suspended is ridiculous.

[xubrew]

By the boyfriend for 5 years comment I am inferencing that this is probably a good reason for her to claim sexual assault after talking with her friends. Either way. Yes, I do side with Dyshawn Pierre and I have absolutely no sympathy for this girl. I also believe it's bullshit that because of this accusation he can be immediately suspended and guilty til proven innocent.

I understand that Dayton takes the precautionary side so I don't blame the University. The whole process and the relative ease of this conclusion of him being suspended is ridiculous.

Here is Pierre's problem. Dayton is a private school that can basically define sexual misconduct however they'd like to define it. Pierre isn't being charged with a crime. Judging from what's in the report, he committed no crime. The question is how exactly does UD define sexual misconduct?? At some schools, the definition is the exact same as what the law states. At others, such as BYU, any kind of sexual behavior or activity can be considered misconduct. Even if it's consensual. This happened to Brandon Davies a few years back.

If UD defines sexual misconduct as sexual intercourse with someone who is intoxicated, and it's in writing, and the procedures as to how this will be handled are also in writing, he's basically toast. He implicates himself when he states that both had been drinking. Under most circumstances, I personally don't consider sex while intoxicated to be any sort of a life foul. Most college students who have sex probably do so while intoxicated. But, if that's Dayton's stated rule, and it was reported, and he was given due process (IE a hearing, etc), then I don't see how he has much of a case here. Whether or not you agree with the rule or agree with how it was handled doesn't really matter. Due process doesn't necessarily mean having rules that make sense. It merely means that the rules are stated and the procedures are followed. Schools can make up their own rules so long as they follow them. If UD did that, then he's basically got no choice other than to eat his shit sandwich.

[X-man]

Here is Pierre's problem. Dayton is a private school that can basically define sexual misconduct however they'd like to define it. Pierre isn't being charged with a crime. Judging from what's in the report, he committed no crime. The question is how exactly does UD define sexual misconduct?? At some schools, the definition is the exact same as what the law states. At others, such as BYU, any kind of sexual behavior or activity can be considered misconduct. Even if it's consensual. This happened to Brandon Davies a few years back.

If UD defines sexual misconduct as sexual intercourse with someone who is intoxicated, and it's in writing, and the procedures as to how this will be handled are also in writing, he's basically toast. He implicates himself when he states that both had been drinking. Under most circumstances, I personally don't consider sex while intoxicated to be any sort of a life foul. Most college students who have sex probably do so while intoxicated. But, if that's Dayton's stated rule, and it was reported, and he was given due process (IE a hearing, etc), then I don't see how he has much of a case here. Whether or not you agree with the rule or agree with how it was handled doesn't really matter. Due process doesn't necessarily mean having rules that make sense. It merely means that the rules are stated and the procedures are followed. Schools can make up their own rules so long as they follow them. If UD did that, then he's basically got no choice other than to eat his shit sandwich.

This is the crux of the issue, and I believe is the reason why Xavier had no choice but to expel Dez Wells even though he had committed no (legal) crime. When you define consensual sexual activity (and even consent) as not possible when alcohol is involved, the die is cast. And if the only stated remedy is expulsion, that is what has to happen to comply with OCR.

[D-West & PO-Z]

I wonder how well schools with that rule, in their student handbook or school conduct code or whatever, educate their students about the rule? Does anyone on campus know that is the rule? Are they told that when they step on campus? Did the rule change recently and where there classes discussing the rule and what it means and the ramifications? Or is it just buried in a student handbook somewhere and is a rule every student accepted without truly knowing it was there?

[xubrew]

This is the crux of the issue, and I believe is the reason why Xavier had no choice but to expel Dez Wells even though he had committed no (legal) crime. When you define consensual sexual activity (and even consent) as not possible when alcohol is involved, the die is cast. And if the only stated remedy is expulsion, that is what has to happen to comply with OCR.

I don't remember all the particulars about the Dez Wells incident. Perhaps I'm just choosing to forget. But, I do know that he sued and won some sort of settlement. My impression (which could be wrong since I don't remember the specifics) was that he was denied his due process. There was no hearing, or if there was he wasn't allowed to be there, or if he was there then Xavier didn't follow their exact protocol. If I'm wrong, then please correct me.

In the case of Pierre, it appears as though there was a hearing. I don't know exactly what their stated procedure is, but if it was followed, then I don't see how he can win his case.

[Masterofreality]

I don't remember all the particulars about the Dez Wells incident. Perhaps I'm just choosing to forget. But, I do know that he sued and won some sort of settlement. My impression (which could be wrong since I don't remember the specifics) was that he was denied his due process. There was no hearing, or if there was he wasn't allowed to be there, or if he was there then Xavier didn't follow their exact protocol. If I'm wrong, then please correct me.

In the case of Pierre, it appears as though there was a hearing. I don't know exactly what their stated procedure is, but if it was followed, then I don't see how he can win his case.

There was no "settlement", at least as to any payment on the suit. Each side just decided to end it.

[kyxu]

Here is Pierre's problem. Dayton is a private school that can basically define sexual misconduct however they'd like to define it. Pierre isn't being charged with a crime. Judging from what's in the report, he committed no crime. The question is how exactly does UD define sexual misconduct?? At some schools, the definition is the exact same as what the law states. At others, such as BYU, any kind of sexual behavior or activity can be considered misconduct. Even if it's consensual. This happened to Brandon Davies a few years back.

If UD defines sexual misconduct as sexual intercourse with someone who is intoxicated, and it's in writing, and the procedures as to how this will be handled are also in writing, he's basically toast. He implicates himself when he states that both had been drinking. Under most circumstances, I personally don't consider sex while intoxicated to be any sort of a life foul. Most college students who have sex probably do so while intoxicated. But, if that's Dayton's stated rule, and it was reported, and he was given due process (IE a hearing, etc), then I don't see how he has much of a case here. Whether or not you agree with the rule or agree with how it was handled doesn't really matter. Due process doesn't necessarily mean having rules that make sense. It merely means that the rules are stated and the procedures are followed. Schools can make up their own rules so long as they follow them. If UD did that, then he's basically got no choice other than to eat his shit sandwich.

Exactly. I don't see why this is so difficult to understand and why people are going nuts that he's suspended when "no charges have been filed."

UD, like Xavier, is a private institution, which can dictate it's own code of conduct and discipline students for such violations. It doesn't require an "innocent until proven guilty" or "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard, like in a criminal proceeding, before someone can be punished.

Like Brew said, as long as the code of conduct is made available to him, as well as the consequences of such violations, and he essentially agrees to be governed by this code by way of enrolling at the school, whether it's right or fair is immaterial.

[XU 87]

UD, like Xavier, is a private institution, which can dictate it's own code of conduct and discipline students for such violations. It doesn't require an "innocent until proven guilty" or "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard, like in a criminal proceeding, before someone can be punished.



That's not really accurate in this situation. Xavier and UD are required to follow the federal guidelines and rules when it comes to sexual assault cases. And those federal rules and guidelines are completely unfair to the accused, as Dez Wells learned.

[Milhouse]

There was no "settlement", at least as to any payment on the suit. Each side just decided to end it.

um.... http://www.cincinnati.com/story/sports/college/xavier/2014/04/24/dez-wells-xavier-settle-lawsuit/8111709/

[Cheesehead]

um.... http://www.cincinnati.com/story/sports/college/xavier/2014/04/24/dez-wells-xavier-settle-lawsuit/8111709/

Ppretty sure Dez got some money, why would he bring action against the University and then accept nothing?

[paulxu]

Maybe he got attorney fees.

[Masterofreality]

um.... http://www.cincinnati.com/story/sports/college/xavier/2014/04/24/dez-wells-xavier-settle-lawsuit/8111709/

There is nothing in that article that states that there was any financial payment. The suit was resolved. That's it. No payment.


Ppretty sure Dez got some money, why would he bring action against the University and then accept nothing?

Lawyer publicity. Peter Ginsberg is well known for glomming onto press-rich cases. He contacted Dez family and they figured Dez had nothing to lose. I doubt that Ginsberg even charged the family anything. Ginsberg did it for the free pub. Dez got no money. Xavier admitted no guilt. Nothing there.

Close the book on this ridiculous case. Gonzo.

[Milhouse]

Just like how Xavier didn't walk away from Kipper Nichols right?

[Juice]

Just like how Xavier didn't walk away from Kipper Nichols right?

Once X got Kaiser Gates they did.

[Masterofreality]

The Cryer Nation is unbelieveable.
1767

[xudash]

The Cryer Nation is unbelieveable.
1767

Ha!

The incident itself is nothing to laugh at; I feel badly for both him and the young woman.

However, given that it has happened, the remarkable tools that comprise a lot of the UD fanbase make for extraordinary entertainment.

[xeus]

There is nothing in that article that states that there was any financial payment. The suit was resolved. That's it. No payment.

This article mentions a financial settlement:

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2014-04-24/sports/bal-dez-wells-lawsuit-against-xavier-dismissed-following-financial-settlement-20140424_1_dez-wells-maryland-basketball-player-xavier-university


(http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2014-04-24/sports/bal-dez-wells-lawsuit-against-xavier-dismissed-following-financial-settlement-20140424_1_dez-wells-maryland-basketball-player-xavier-university)Which would make sense after the motion to dismiss was denied and the case was proceeding to trial:

http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/eye-on-college-basketball/24481299/judge-upholds-most-of-dez-wells-lawsuit-claims-against-xavier

[Masterofreality]

This article mentions a financial settlement:

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2014-04-24/sports/bal-dez-wells-lawsuit-against-xavier-dismissed-following-financial-settlement-20140424_1_dez-wells-maryland-basketball-player-xavier-university


(http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2014-04-24/sports/bal-dez-wells-lawsuit-against-xavier-dismissed-following-financial-settlement-20140424_1_dez-wells-maryland-basketball-player-xavier-university)Which would make sense after the motion to dismiss was denied and the case was proceeding to trial:

http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/eye-on-college-basketball/24481299/judge-upholds-most-of-dez-wells-lawsuit-claims-against-xavier

There wasn't a financial settlement, no matter what that Baltimore writer alleges.

[xeus]

There wasn't a financial settlement, no matter what that Baltimore writer alleges.

Don't believe everything you hear MOR.

Do you really think Dez just had a change of heart about his lawsuit, and dismissed it to be a nice guy? Call me crazy, but I don't buy it. Maybe Dez received a heartfelt apology from Fr Graham in lieu of payment, but he got something. Let's agree to disagree...

[Masterofreality]

Don't believe everything you hear MOR.

Do you really think Dez just had a change of heart about his lawsuit, and dismissed it to be a nice guy? Call me crazy, but I don't buy it. Maybe Dez received a heartfelt apology from Fr Graham in lieu of payment, but he got something. Let's agree to disagree...

And don't believe everything you read, Xeus. It was dismissed because the parties agreed to let it drop after all the discovery that there was nothing there to hold XU culpable about. Ginsberg filed the suit for publicity and there was nothing further to be gained.

Why Ginsberg decided to extricate himself at that point is a matter of question, but the fact that he got himself involved in a much higher profile and publicity driven case- that of Ray Rice- may have a lot to do with it.

Please. Can we walk away from this case finally? Next time don't lie and just use a condom, kid.

[xeus]

And don't believe everything you read, Xeus.

I'm not basing my opinion on what I read. I am basing my opinion on common sense as an attorney. You don't survive a motion to dismiss in federal court, proceed through discovery, and then decide, "You know what? We were wrong all along. Xavier did nothing wrong. Let's dismiss this case."

X screwed Dez in a more painful manner than Dez screwed that girl.

But as I said, we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

Hey, how about the Pope??


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwSc0KThwZQ

[Masterofreality]

Whatever. You have the last word.

Done. This case is more than over.

[xeus]

[QUOTE=Masterofreality;514073 This case is more than over.[/QUOTE]

The case might be over, but the controversy isn't.

[paulxu]

I'm not basing my opinion on what I read. I am basing my opinion on common sense as an attorney. You don't survive a motion to dismiss in federal court, proceed through discovery, and then decide, "You know what? We were wrong all along. Xavier did nothing wrong. Let's dismiss this case."

Attorney fees AND free publicity.

[bjf123]

Often people say an accused person is innocent until proven guilty but when a woman says she was sexually assaulted people like to then claim that she's a liar until proven truthful.

I love people's logic on stuff like this.

But if the guy claims it was consensual, shouldn't he also be presumed innocent?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[xubrew]

But if the guy claims it was consensual, shouldn't he also be presumed innocent?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

He was presumed innocent. Hell, he wasn't even charged with a crime. It's a university issue and not a criminal issue.

[Juice]

But if the guy claims it was consensual, shouldn't he also be presumed innocent?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree. But everyone came out calling the girl a liar or that she has some motive or that she didn't want to get caught cheating on her boyfriend. It's far too common that the general public slut shames an accuser and doesn't give the same "innocent until proven guilty" deference that we do with the accused in these situations.

[gladdenguy]

But if the guy claims it was consensual, shouldn't he also be presumed innocent?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We have a winner of the Internet. The situation is absolute bullsh!t both in Pierre's case and Dez Wells case as well. Criminally nothing happened and nobody is charged. The University Administration in both cases (Dayton and Xavier) are absolute baffoons and continue to play extra careful at the dispense of potentially innocent basketball players because of all the mishaps they've already screwed up on......especially Xavier and Mike Sham.

Also, whatever sport she plays, this "girl" needs to be suspended as well. She proves irresponsible by having a few drinks and going back to an apartment without supervision. If Dyshawn is suspended for accusations she needs to be suspended for making the allegation until this is settled. Also, she needs to be named publicly. If Dyshawn has to go through a court of public opinion this girl should as well. College basketball players getting railroaded for all they do for the University, then only to be thrown under the bus for an "accusation" from a girl who knows she fu#%ed up as well. Through this hopefully her boyfriend of 5 years has thrown her to the curb.

[xubrew]

It's amazing to me how so many people are not able to avoid juxtaposing a criminal rape charge with a non-criminal violation of university policy. They're not the same. He broke no laws. He's not being accused of breaking any laws. Law enforcement is not just treating him as innocent until proven guilty. They're treating him as being completely and totally not accused of anything.

At Cedarville in Ohio, students are required to attend chapel. If they don't, they could actually be suspended or dismissed entirely. Missing chapel is not a crime. Any student who misses chapel will not be charged with a crime. But, universities are allowed to make mandates even if disobeying them is not criminal. So, to say that anyone who breaks the rule of not going to Chapel shouldn't be expelled because they weren't committing a crime is kind of silly. Drinking alcohol, smoking cigarettes isn't illegal either, but at some schools it's still grounds for expulsion.

Do I think mandatory chapel is somewhat silly?? Yes. But, do I understand that it's their rule, and if you're going to be a student there you need to follow it?? Yes. I think it's silly to have a rule against drinking for students that are 21, but some schools do. Breaking that rule will not result in criminal charges, but it could result in disciplinary action.

That's what's happening here. It's a university issue, not a criminal issue. Do I think the rule is stupid?? Yes, I do. But, that is the rule, it's in writing, he admitted to breaking it, and that's why he's been suspended. He's not a criminal. No one is saying that he is a criminal. No one is really even saying he committed any sort of a life foul or did anything that poorly reflects his character. Universities are allowed to have stupid rules and policies if they so choose. You can say it's a stupid policy and I'd agree. But, from the looks of it he was not denied due process. It sucks, but I don't see how it can really be litigated either.

[muskiefan82]

What does Dayton's (or for that matter - Xavier's) student code of conduct state about these types of things? And if there was no crime, that would make it consensual and wouldn't they both need to be suspended from school?

[xubrew]

What does Dayton's (or for that matter - Xavier's) student code of conduct state about these types of things? And if there was no crime, that would make it consensual and wouldn't they both need to be suspended from school?

I'm not entirely sure about Xavier. UD's basically states that it's a violation to have sex after consuming alcohol, and their reasoning is that giving full consent is impossible if you've been drinking. I think that's kind of ridiculous, but that is the rule, and he admitted to breaking it when he gave his statement.

From what I understand, the girl is no longer at UD, so since it's a university matter and not a criminal matter, they can't really do anything to someone that is no longer at the university.

[GoMuskies]

UD's basically states that it's a violation to have sex after consuming alcohol

So UD's code of conduct completely bans sex. Bummer.

[muskiefan82]

So UD's code of conduct completely bans sex. Bummer.

Although a case could be made that UD students should not be allowed to procreate so perhaps this is just good planning for the future.

[xubrew]

So UD's code of conduct completely bans sex. Bummer.

Well, all normal forms of it anyway.

[xudash]

Well, all normal forms of it anyway.

So livestock in Montgomery County beware?

[Lamont Sanford]

Should Kroger near the Edwin Moses Blvd exit stock up on produce for the long winter ahead???

[gladdenguy]

I'm not entirely sure about Xavier. UD's basically states that it's a violation to have sex after consuming alcohol, and their reasoning is that giving full consent is impossible if you've been drinking. I think that's kind of ridiculous, but that is the rule, and he admitted to breaking it when he gave his statement.

So there should be more than half of the athletes (probably more) who should be suspended from their respected sports if all of the girls or guys experienced some sort of regret for a night in which they made a stupid adult decision (aided of course by alcohol or drugs) and complained to police or university officials.

As you said, the rule is ridiculous and it needs to be changed.

[X-man]

I'm not entirely sure about Xavier. UD's basically states that it's a violation to have sex after consuming alcohol, and their reasoning is that giving full consent is impossible if you've been drinking. I think that's kind of ridiculous, but that is the rule, and he admitted to breaking it when he gave his statement.

From what I understand, the girl is no longer at UD, so since it's a university matter and not a criminal matter, they can't really do anything to someone that is no longer at the university.

I believe that accurately describes Xavier's policy as well. It makes very little sense, IMHO, because it is unrealistic, unbalanced, and removes all personal responsibility from one's decisionmaking.

[Juice]

I believe that accurately describes Xavier's policy as well. It makes very little sense, IMHO, because it is unrealistic, unbalanced, and removes all personal responsibility from one's decisionmaking.

It also covers X's ass because they can just cite the very strict code of conduct rule and do as they please without actually doing the right thing.

[xubrew]

So there should be more than half of the athletes (probably more) who should be suspended from their respected sports if all of the girls or guys experienced some sort of regret for a night in which they made a stupid adult decision (aided of course by alcohol or drugs) and complained to police or university officials.

As you said, the rule is ridiculous and it needs to be changed.

I agree to a point, but not entirely. Yes, more than half of the students (actually, probably more than 75% of the students) violate this policy. But, if it's not reported, then it's not an issue. On that note, I'd say well over 75 percent of students (and a very high percentage of former students as well) have violated drunk driving laws. But, of all the people who get behind the wheel while legally intoxicated, a very small percentage of them actually get pulled over. But, I don't think you can just say that drunk driving shouldn't have such a stiff penalty on the grounds that so many people do it, but so few get caught.

I also think universities should be allowed to make ridiculous rules if they want to. I think most of Cedarville's rules are ridiculous, but I also feel they have every right in the world to make those rules, and if I don't like them then I have every right in the world to go elsewhere. On an even smaller scale, I think having a rule that you must wear a jacket and tie to a football game is ridiculous, but if a fraternity wants to make that rule, then they have the right to do so. And, if they want to kick people out who don't follow the rule, that's okay too. I personally think it's a waste of time and a bunch of nonsense, but I also don't want to deny anyone the right to waste their time with nonsense if that's what they choose to do.

If Dayton wants this rule, then that's their prerogative as long as they follow due process. Again, all due process means is that you follow your own rules, even if those rules are ridiculous.


I believe that accurately describes Xavier's policy as well. It makes very little sense, IMHO, because it is unrealistic, unbalanced, and removes all personal responsibility from one's decisionmaking.

I agree. But, like I said above, that's the school's prerogative. If a school wants to make a rule requiring students to wear their pants inside out, that's crazy, but if that's what they want to do, and the students who enroll understand that they need to follow it, then so be it.

[waggy]

The consequences to the university for the recklessness of very young adults can be expensive and public damaging. Alchohol rules might provide universities an easy out, but they can't realistically police all the students behavior 24/7, and the students sure don't really want to be policed. And after the fact it's near impossible to get to the truth. So if I'm a university prez alchohol rules are not going away. NFW.

[X-man]

I agree. But, like I said above, that's the school's prerogative. If a school wants to make a rule requiring students to wear their pants inside out, that's crazy, but if that's what they want to do, and the students who enroll understand that they need to follow it, then so be it.

The rule now being actively considered is the "yes means yes" rule. Under this rule, consensual sex requires that each participant actually say "yes" to each other before doing so (ideally in a written contract so there is proof of consent). In other words, jumping into bed because both parties don't say "no" to each other isn't enough. Raise your hands if this is something you have EVER done.

[Cheesehead]

I met my wife after a night of drinking at Octoberfest while were both students at XU. There was some actvity in my dorm that night. I guess I am glad she didn't say it wasn't consensual but it worked out. Been married for 22 years.

[xubrew]

The rule now being actively considered is the "yes means yes" rule. Under this rule, consensual sex requires that each participant actually say "yes" to each other before doing so (ideally in a written contract so there is proof of consent). In other words, jumping into bed because both parties don't say "no" to each other isn't enough. Raise your hands if this is something you have EVER done.

So, they basically want to take the approach that the adult film industry takes. Or, adult online entertainment industry takes. Or, whatever the hell they're calling it these days. They want both parties to sign a consent to sex form. Well, better safe than sorry I guess.

For those who are not in that line of work, I foresee stopping and asking for written confirmation of consent resulting in somewhat of a mood killer for anyone who attempts this.

[xubrew]

I met my wife after a night of drinking at Octoberfest while were both students at XU. There was some actvity in my dorm that night. I guess I am glad she didn't say it wasn't consensual but it worked out. Been married for 22 years.

Congrats!! Next time, spring the consent to sex form on your wife and then let us all know how that goes!

[D-West & PO-Z]

The rule now being actively considered is the "yes means yes" rule. Under this rule, consensual sex requires that each participant actually say "yes" to each other before doing so (ideally in a written contract so there is proof of consent). In other words, jumping into bed because both parties don't say "no" to each other isn't enough. Raise your hands if this is something you have EVER done.

And the contract would only be valid if the people signing it are not drunk, correct? So if one or both parities is drunk and says yes and signs a contract that says yes it is invalid because the rule is a drunk person can't give consent to sex?

[xubrew]

I'm having way too much fun with this. It really is a bad situation.

[muskiefan82]

And the contract would only be valid if the people signing it are not drunk, correct? So if one or both parities is drunk and says yes and signs a contract that says yes it is invalid because the rule is a drunk person can't give consent to sex?

This is why you have them sign early in the evening before any drinking. It eliminates the wondering if you might get lucky all night because it is already in the contract.

[paulxu]

Sorta like those dance cards the girls filled out for HS senior prom.

[D-West & PO-Z]

This is why you have them sign early in the evening before any drinking. It eliminates the wondering if you might get lucky all night because it is already in the contract.

Yeah and there needs to be a no take backs clause in the contract.

[X-man]

And the contract would only be valid if the people signing it are not drunk, correct? So if one or both parities is drunk and says yes and signs a contract that says yes it is invalid because the rule is a drunk person can't give consent to sex?

That is correct, sir. Under these new rules, I am quite sure that I have never engaged in consensual sex in my entire life.

[GoMuskies]

Raise your hands if this is something you have EVER done.

Sure, as a married dude. I pretty much have to make an appointment.

[muskiefan82]

So, if the guy has been drinking too does that mean that he could complain and have the female removed from school?

[Cheesehead]

Congrats!! Next time, spring the consent to sex form on your wife and then let us all know how that goes!

I think she has taken advantage of me!! :laugh:

[xubrew]

So, if the guy has been drinking too does that mean that he could complain and have the female removed from school?

I think this is a really good question. I also think that anyone who's in charge who heard it would dismiss it as being cynical, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a good question.

[X-man]

I think this is a really good question. I also think that anyone who's in charge who heard it would dismiss it as being cynical, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a good question.

It is an excellent question, and the answer to that question (as I understand it) is "No". That is why I said in an earlier post that the policy is not only unrealistic but also unbalanced.

[LA Muskie]

There is nothing in that article that states that there was any financial payment. The suit was resolved. That's it. No payment.
It doesn't say there was no payment. But we know SOMETHING had to happen within 2 months to complete the settlement. Typically, that something is the payment of money.

[blobfan]

The rule now being actively considered is the "yes means yes" rule. Under this rule, consensual sex requires that each participant actually say "yes" to each other before doing so (ideally in a written contract so there is proof of consent). In other words, jumping into bed because both parties don't say "no" to each other isn't enough. Raise your hands if this is something you have EVER done.

So basically all guys except the ones I've been close to are frogs? They hop on and stay on until someone speaks up? That's disgusting. It seems to me the reason this is a rule is because when guys are accused of rape they do not claim the accuser said yes. They claim she didn't say no. If I'm wrong, please show me the case. You guys act like girls are saying yes then denying it later.

And for the record, I've said no and yes. Even as a married woman.

[LA Muskie]

It is an excellent question, and the answer to that question (as I understand it) is "No". That is why I said in an earlier post that the policy is not only unrealistic but also unbalanced.
That's not entirely true. The rules as written are gender neutral. The difference isn't in the enforcement, it's in the process. Violations begin with a report. For a variety of reasons, very few (if any) men report alleged misconduct against women. I suspect there are, however, a not-insignificant number of same-sex claims involving men.

[ArizonaXUGrad]

This makes sense, I have been grabbed by chicks at bars. Hot ones I welcome it, d.u.f.f.'s I don't. It all stopped with me telling the offending party to back off, mine never progressed past that.

That said, I read that report over lunch. I get there are two parts to the story and the truth is somewhere in the middle. This one just feels like Pierre is getting the short end. There are a lot of strange facts in this one that just don't add up for the female's story.


That's not entirely true. The rules as written are gender neutral. The difference isn't in the enforcement, it's in the process. Violations begin with a report. For a variety of reasons, very few (if any) men report alleged misconduct against women. I suspect there are, however, a not-insignificant number of same-sex claims involving men.

[bobbiemcgee]

This one just feels like Pierre is getting the short end.....


I think this has been covered, or in dez's case....

[XUMIOH12]

Screw Dayton! they suck!

[X-man]

That's not entirely true. The rules as written are gender neutral. The difference isn't in the enforcement, it's in the process. Violations begin with a report. For a variety of reasons, very few (if any) men report alleged misconduct against women. I suspect there are, however, a not-insignificant number of same-sex claims involving men.

I am talking about a slightly different issue here. Suppose that both the man and women have been drinking, and then engage in sexual activity afterwards. My understanding is that if the women claims later that it was not consensual because alcohol was involved, that option is not also available to the male. In other words, he is responsible for the "assault" even if he is alcohol-impaired while the women bears no responsibility herself. If that is true, it strikes me as grossly unfair. If both drank, they both are either liable or it is consensual.

[muskiefan82]

I am talking about a slightly different issue here. Suppose that both the man and women have been drinking, and then engage in sexual activity afterwards. My understanding is that if the women claims later that it was not consensual because alcohol was involved, that option is not also available to the male. In other words, he is responsible for the "assault" even if he is alcohol-impaired while the women bears no responsibility herself. If that is true, it strikes me as grossly unfair. If both drank, they both are either liable or it is consensual.

So, a group of men need to complain immediately that this happened to them and demand the university address it. This is the only way for the university to see the absurdity of this issue OR lose in court due to disparate punishments based SOLELY on the sex of the complainant.

[kyxu]

Now Pierre is suing UD...

http://www.sportingnews.com/ncaa-basketball/story/2015-10-07/dyshawn-pierre-dayton-lawsuit-sexual-assault-allegations

[casualfan]

Now Pierre is suing UD...

http://www.sportingnews.com/ncaa-basketball/story/2015-10-07/dyshawn-pierre-dayton-lawsuit-sexual-assault-allegations

Same lawyer Dez had.

[ammtd34]

Now Pierre is suing UD...

http://www.sportingnews.com/ncaa-basketball/story/2015-10-07/dyshawn-pierre-dayton-lawsuit-sexual-assault-allegations

Is there any way his goal is to actually re-enroll at Dayton? I don't see how you return to a school after suing them.

[xubrew]

I say that on a scale of one-to-ten, my understanding of the law is probably a 6. I have a basic understanding of how it works and know enough to get by, but am no lawyer and no legal expert. So, as someone who is at a 6, I don't understand how this can be litigated. From the article....


Dyshawn Pierre suing Dayton over 'fundamentally unfair' sexual assault investigation

What does "fundamentally unfair" even mean?? It sounds generic. Don't they have to state something specific?? "Pierre sues Dayton for suspending him without giving him a hearing," or "Pierre sues Dayton for suspending him for a violation hot stated in the code of conduct," or "Pierre sues Dayton for denying him due process," all make sense. "Pierre sues Dayton for being fundamentally unfair." Ummm, isn't that the reason anyone sues anyone else??


Dyshawn Pierre is suing the University of Dayton for what his lawyer called a "fundamentally unfair and defective internal process that deprived him of vital rights."

This makes sense, but only if the handbook granted him rights that he was denied. All due process means is that a school follows their own rules. If the rules are ridiculous or unfair, but in writing and followed, then they gave him due process.


"This University’s decision, unsupported by any objective or credible evidence of any sort, flies in the face of law enforcement’s determinations about the charge of sexual assault,"

I would think this would be a non-issue. Am I wrong?? He is not being charged with a crime, and he wasn't suspended for committing a crime. Cheating on a test is not a crime, but it is still a punishable offense that could even result in dismissal.


"ignored that the medical evidence provided objective evidence contradicting the accuser’s allegations and refused to have that medical evidence presented properly during the internal hearing"

This might actually have teeth, but only if he was suspended for a reason that the this evidence clearly refutes. They could have ignored it and suspended him for something else.


"impermissibly shifted the burden to Dyshawn to prove consent, thus creating essentially an impossible obstacle to what should have been the ultimate goal of reaching a fair result consistent with the facts."

Again, this is a stupid and ridiculous procedure. But, is it an impermissible procedure that can be litigated against if it's clearly stated in the handbook that this is how it will be handled??


"What has been done to me has been grossly unfair. The allegations against me are false.

I agree that it's unfair, but just because it's unfair doesn't mean it can be litigated against. Why was he suspended?? If he was suspended for having consensual sex with someone who had been drinking, then.....it's not false. I think it's stupid for that to be an offense worthy of suspension, but if that's what the handbook says then he's kind of screwed.

I understand his lawyer knows way more than I do. But, I also understand that stupid rules and policies isn't necessarily illegal. If a college follows its own stupid rules, they're not denying anyone due process. I don't think this is a case that he can win, especially if his defense involves arguing that it wasn't charged with a crime. Well, he wasn't suspended for committing a crime.

[LA Muskie]

Is there any way his goal is to actually re-enroll at Dayton? I don't see how you return to a school after suing them.
In some ways he's worse off than Dez. Dez was expelled, which allowed him to seek a waiver from the NCAA (which was granted) to let him play immediately at MD. Since Dayton merely suspended him, Pierre's argument that he should be able to transfer and play immediately is weaker.

[LA Muskie]

Brew, there is "process" and there is "due process". They are similar, but not identical. Dayton may technically have followed its process, but if that process was fundamentally flawed then it may still be a due process violation.

[xudash]

I think he should be thrown into prison for thinking that Dayton could win a national championship.

Seriously, if the school's code states that thou shall not mix alcohol with sex PERIOD, then he's toast on this issue. That may be harsh. But, not only would it be in the stated policy, which I have to imagine would have been explained to him and his fellow athletes, so he knew what NOT to do, but he otherwise had just lived through watching two convicted felons getting tossed out of that program, and that after the episode with the scarecrow.

Perhaps the attorney's strategy is to throw noisy mud at UD in hopes that they'll settle on some basis.

I just can't see how UD could possibly reinstate him now without looking idiotic.

[paulxu]

In some ways he's worse off than Dez. Dez was expelled, which allowed him to seek a waiver from the NCAA (which was granted) to let him play immediately at MD. Since Dayton merely suspended him, Pierre's argument that he should be able to transfer and play immediately is weaker.

Given the timing, and the rumor he is seeking to transfer, maybe that becomes a quick settlement goal. Let me transfer and help waive the 1 year sit out rule. Even that seems doubtful at this late date. Too late to enroll and catch up academically at another school. Strange doings.

[xubrew]

A thought just came to me....

Could it be that this is simply the most ingenious way ever for a school to get around the rules of not being able to pay players??

[muskiefan82]

That's an awful big character assassination you would have to willing to take for a couple $$, but there are many who would do it I imagine.

[jcubspoe]

Given the timing, and the rumor he is seeking to transfer, maybe that becomes a quick settlement goal. Let me transfer and help waive the 1 year sit out rule. Even that seems doubtful at this late date. Too late to enroll and catch up academically at another school. Strange doings.

IMO, he's gonna file for a quick injunction to get let back into Dayton asap. If this fails, he's gone and will sue for $$$. It's rumored it's in the law suit that if he's let back in, they will drop the law suit completely at that point. I don' see UD buckling on this. So next step would be a court order. Iffy but has happened before. Can't remember the player but I think a Rutgers football player just won a court order last week to be let back into school and to play immediately.

Does anyone know what court has jurisdiction on something like this? Would have to be a federal court I would imagine.

The biggest disservice the school did to him is by delaying the whole process (the excuse is given that these kangaroo courts don't meet during the summer...well, if someone's career is at stake, then you should meet ASAP and at all months.) Unlike the Wells situation, Pierre is a senior and due to the late decision on this, is out of options as it stands today. He can wait and transfer and play next year somewhere I suppose but that's easier to do going into your second year versus your fourth.

[xubrew]

The transfer rule isn't simply that you have to sit out a year. It's that you have to complete an academic year at your new school. If he waits and transfers, he'll have to sit out one year from the day he enrolls at his new institution. By then his five year clock will run out. If he transfers after the fall semester, he'll have to complete the spring and fall semesters at his new school before he is able to play, but in that situation he'd at least get half the year.

Now, having said that, he could file for a waiver, and may stand a decent shot at getting it.

[Cheesehead]

he lost his injunction in federal court.

[Masterofreality]

he lost his injunction in federal court.

He claimed in his case that he had a "learning disability" . I don't know whether to clown him or feel sorry for him.

[bobbiemcgee]

He claimed in his case that he had a "learning disability" . I don't know whether to clown him or feel sorry for him.

Yes, after 15 yrs. of schooling, he didn't understand "no".

[xudash]

He claimed in his case that he had a "learning disability" . I don't know whether to clown him or feel sorry for him.

What a mess. This specific episode won't cause Archie to leave, but I have to imagine it will contribute to him leaving sooner than later.

UDPride must be in meltdown mode over this. Then again, they probably still believe UD was considered initially for one of the three Big East openings; they are capable of taking delusion to an entirely new level. Never have so many thought so much about so little.