Baylor outside the lines Espn.
- Thread starter T_R_U_T_H
- Start date
While individuals are responsible for their own actions, it doesn't help that Division 1-A schools use pretty coeds as a recruiting tool. Schools also protect athletes as a financial asset after committing crimes. Institutions have to change the way they do business, but they are making too much money to change. As a result, we will continue to see headlines and stories like these. Florida State paid a Winston accuser $950,000. But, Winston helped Florida State get FAR more $$$ than that. Strictly from a financial perspective, Florida State got a phenomenal deal!
Last edited:
Florida State paid $950,000. Then, the accuser paid the attorneys from that and kept the remaining. Point being, Florida State only paid $950,000. Winston helped them rake in tens on millions of dollars. That's a great return on investment and that is why this problem won't go away.
How much is Ken Starr's background influencing this behavior at Baylor?
The Constitution clearly states - Innocent until proven guilty. Ken Starr has been leveraging that throughout his career.
Should different standards apply to college athletes? I would say - NO.
The key thing is - What did the coaches and staff know about the different situations? Did they knowingly "ignore" the situation until the "innocent" was proven "guilty"?
IMO, such institution wide issues merits a lot more scrutiny and investigation that a Jameis Winston incident. Not sure it will.
The Constitution clearly states - Innocent until proven guilty. Ken Starr has been leveraging that throughout his career.
Should different standards apply to college athletes? I would say - NO.
The key thing is - What did the coaches and staff know about the different situations? Did they knowingly "ignore" the situation until the "innocent" was proven "guilty"?
IMO, such institution wide issues merits a lot more scrutiny and investigation that a Jameis Winston incident. Not sure it will.
Sexual assault and rape is an epidemic across universities and athletic departments in college football.
http://www.si.com/college-football/...players-sexual-assault-harassment-retaliation
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/as-college-football-season-sexual-assault_b_5658186.html
Problem: Many Universities allow their own athletic departments to conduct their own internal investigations. This only fosters protection of the athletes. An outside, unbiased department/agency should conduct all of these investigations.
http://www.si.com/college-football/...players-sexual-assault-harassment-retaliation
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/as-college-football-season-sexual-assault_b_5658186.html
Problem: Many Universities allow their own athletic departments to conduct their own internal investigations. This only fosters protection of the athletes. An outside, unbiased department/agency should conduct all of these investigations.
Problem: Some universities don't investigate at all, until the press finds out about it.
Problem: CDC says that approximately 20% of all college women experience sexual violence.
Problem: Despite having sexual assault claims filed, approximately 40% of responding universities (to a questionarrie) have not conducted an investigation within the past 5 years.
Problem: CDC says that approximately 20% of all college women experience sexual violence.
Problem: Despite having sexual assault claims filed, approximately 40% of responding universities (to a questionarrie) have not conducted an investigation within the past 5 years.
Last edited:
http://time.com/3270898/florida-state-investigates-jameis-winston-for-alleged-sexual-assault/ Florida State didn't start their investigation until a year after Winston's accuser came forward. By that time:
1. She was receiving many death threats and feared for her life
2. Therefore, she transferred to another university
3. Tallahassee police tried to get her to avoid filing a complaint against Winston because Florida State football is such a big deal
Florida State did not act fast enough to protect both students equally and provide a safe environment for the accuser to remain at Florida State.
That is why outside agencies should always investigate these cases. IMO, the DOJ should be on this.
1. She was receiving many death threats and feared for her life
2. Therefore, she transferred to another university
3. Tallahassee police tried to get her to avoid filing a complaint against Winston because Florida State football is such a big deal
Florida State did not act fast enough to protect both students equally and provide a safe environment for the accuser to remain at Florida State.
That is why outside agencies should always investigate these cases. IMO, the DOJ should be on this.
To say it happens everywhere is to simplistic. Of course it does. But Baylor had been told by multiple women that Tevin Elliot raped them and there was no investigating or even taking the women seriously. There should be an investigation when it is reported......will some women probably lie?....yes, but it still needs to be investigated.
I don't care about some of the excuses I have heard. If a woman wants to have sex with 3 men a day at a time, IF she says no to a guy then it means NO. A woman should have control of when, where, how, why and with whom she wants to have sex.
Baylor has sold its soul to win football games. Art Briles is a dirtbag. Realbear thinks this is all a "Longhorn" conspiracy against little ole baylor.
Baylor is supposed to be a Christian school which too me makes it even more tragic. Would Jesus want rapists allowed there so they can win football games?
I don't care about some of the excuses I have heard. If a woman wants to have sex with 3 men a day at a time, IF she says no to a guy then it means NO. A woman should have control of when, where, how, why and with whom she wants to have sex.
Baylor has sold its soul to win football games. Art Briles is a dirtbag. Realbear thinks this is all a "Longhorn" conspiracy against little ole baylor.
Baylor is supposed to be a Christian school which too me makes it even more tragic. Would Jesus want rapists allowed there so they can win football games?
1. Every case has to be investigated
2. A institution doesn't have a soul, people do
3. People are Christians not institutions
4. Some institutions have Christian values
5. No always means no
6. Sex and alcohol don't mix-this type of sex cannot be declared consensual. Don't do it.
2. A institution doesn't have a soul, people do
3. People are Christians not institutions
4. Some institutions have Christian values
5. No always means no
6. Sex and alcohol don't mix-this type of sex cannot be declared consensual. Don't do it.
Last edited:
Charlie Strong kicked 2 UT players off the team without waiting for their day in court (for rape allegations). Baylor could learn from this.
If I was her father, I have killed the crab-stealing rapist by now. And the FSU president. They deserve it.
Saying Baylor sold its soul is a figure of speech. When someone says they "blew their chance" at something, or they say "well that sucks", "scared me to death", do you think that they actually meant those phrases word for word?
Saying it is a Christian School is accurate. They are in fact a Christian School. You said some institutions have Christian values.....Baylor is an institution.
Ok. Sarcasm and innuendo's are better understood in person that in the written word by an unknown individual.
My point is this, rape/sexual assault is bad regardless of the location. According to the Bible, it is no better or worse because one case happens at Baylor and another case happens at UT or Florida State.
Baylor is not a Christian school. Students do not have to be Christians to go to Baylor. Baylor is a private institution that espouses some Christian values.
I don't disagree that no means no. Without baiting and switching, I have a question: Does anyone here feel good about the two UT guys that got the boot, had their day in court, and were found not guilty? It may be that the best response is to suspend them until their case is concluded, but to not honor the scholarship after the verdict is in? From the BU side, clearly they would've been better off to suspend the Boise guy until all the evidence was in, because now it looks really bad.
Innocent until proven guilty only applies in a court of law. A lot of people try to apply the constitution and your "rights" in to every day life. Ypu have freedom of speech but if you tell your boss to screw off he can discipline you or fire you. I don't think the school has to "prove" these things happened. I beleive they are well within rights to take action if there is good reason to beleive the person is guilty. As far as proving it happened that's up to the court.
Now I think the schools have created this culture. Not only do they cover for these guys non stop but you have situations like Louisville basketball where strippers and hookers were brought in. Yet we wonder where the kids get the idea that can do whatever they want?
Now I think the schools have created this culture. Not only do they cover for these guys non stop but you have situations like Louisville basketball where strippers and hookers were brought in. Yet we wonder where the kids get the idea that can do whatever they want?
I think the 2 UT players were talked to and their answers were not satisfactory. Probably got caught in the "don't put yourself in that situation". I do think girls can lie...,that's why there should have been an investigation.
I want to spin this in a pro Baylor way any way possible. So I believe Briles when he said that Peterson did not warn him, coupled with Boise administration denying any knowledge, the high school coach defending Briles, etc. - we have a mentality in this country to require instant judgment. That said, if you are going to let the player stay on campus (even though he did not play or practice once) and the verdict is guilty --- you are going to end up with an unflattering OTL segment. We are still awaiting the results of the private law firm investigation into the matter (yes, I know, the naysayers are going to say it is paid for by BU, but they did hire the law firm that nailed Joe Pa). THAT will be interesting reading.
Companion piece to the OTL story now on espn.com
http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_...-adequately-providing-support-alleged-victims
Sorry but this is nothing short of disgusting. If you send your daughter to Baylor after this, the fault is yours. Baylor couldn't care less if your daughter is raped and won't help one iota.
Don't ever tell me what a man of character Art Briles is ever again either.
Don't ever tell me what a man of character Art Briles is ever again either.
Last edited:
Question:
What does espn and or the CDC use to define "sexual assault"? I only ask this because 20% of all collegiate women seems like a REALLY high number. Not that I don't think it's possible nor am I minimizing what they're saying by any means whatsoever, I'm just curious as to what defines it. If a girl get her butt grabbed in a bar- is that "defined" as sexual assault? If so, I can see how 20% of all women are assaulted in college. If it means they were "grabbed and held down" or hit or something violent, I just find that disgusting but still hard to believe.
Back to the a$$ grabbing in bars- I've had my a$$ grabbed a million times in a bar (granted not as much these last few years) and while I get there's a double standard (come on guys, if a woman grabbed your a$$ in a college bar you know what you'd be thinking) I know that door doesn't swing both ways when a guy does it to a girl. I'm just curious if anybody knows what the CDC uses as a the standard for sexual assault. Anyone??
What does espn and or the CDC use to define "sexual assault"? I only ask this because 20% of all collegiate women seems like a REALLY high number. Not that I don't think it's possible nor am I minimizing what they're saying by any means whatsoever, I'm just curious as to what defines it. If a girl get her butt grabbed in a bar- is that "defined" as sexual assault? If so, I can see how 20% of all women are assaulted in college. If it means they were "grabbed and held down" or hit or something violent, I just find that disgusting but still hard to believe.
Back to the a$$ grabbing in bars- I've had my a$$ grabbed a million times in a bar (granted not as much these last few years) and while I get there's a double standard (come on guys, if a woman grabbed your a$$ in a college bar you know what you'd be thinking) I know that door doesn't swing both ways when a guy does it to a girl. I'm just curious if anybody knows what the CDC uses as a the standard for sexual assault. Anyone??
Did a fact check on this, and found it's pretty much true.
The CDC cites research suggesting that 19% of all undergraduate women claim to have been victims of attempted or completed sexual assault. It's unclear whether that research factored in time spent in school, i.e., if a first-year student hasn't been assaulted, there's no telling if she will be assaulted, just later in her college career. Therefore, the actual percentage of those college women who experience an attempted assault while in college might be significantly higher than the 19% figure, or somewhere near 19%.
The research was done via web-based survey, of 5446 women. Wouldn't a woman who had experienced sexual violence be more likely to complete the survey, thus inflating the results? How did they ensure that the women were actually college students, or even women, or that there weren't accidental repeat submissions? Without having access to the actual research, it's difficult to know how to evaluate the claims.
An important note for parents: not to blame the victim, but the above research also claimed that most assaults occurred after the women voluntarily consumed alcohol.
Ok....... BUT, I'm still waiting to learn what parameters were used to define "sexual assault". I ask this because "legally" if another person touches you without your consent, you have a right to charge them with assault. So what does CDC describe sexual assault AS?
It lost the formatting when I cut and pasted it from the article.
The CSA Web-based survey collected a wide range of information from students. The survey included questions concerning the characteristics of the respondents (eg, age, race, years in college), their substance use, dating experiences, and many aspects of their experiences with sexual assault prior to and since entering college. The sexual assault experiences portion of the CSA survey was prefaced with the following information: This section of the interview asks about nonconsensual or unwanted sexual contact you may have experienced. When you are asked about whether something happened since you began college, please think about what has happened since you entered any college or university. The person with whom you had the unwanted sexual contact could have been a stranger or someone you know, such as a family member or someone you were dating or going out with. These questions ask about 5 types of unwanted sexual contact: • Forced touching of a sexual nature (forced kissing, touching of private parts, grabbing, fondling, rubbing up against you in a sexual way, even if it is over your clothes) • Oral sex (someone’s mouth or tongue making contact with your genitals or your mouth or tongue making contact with someone else’s genitals) • Sexual intercourse (someone’s penis being put in your vagina) • Anal sex (someone’s penis being put in your anus) • Sexual penetration with a finger or object (someone putting their finger or an object like a bottle or a candle in your vagina or anus)
Respondents were then asked about the following 2 general types of sexual assault: (a) physically forced sexual assault and (b) sexual assault when they were incapacitated and unable to provide consent. Each type was described with introductory text. The following is an example: The questions below ask about unwanted sexual contact that involved force or threats of force against you. Force could include someone holding you down with his or her body weight, pinning your arms, hitting or kicking you, or using or threatening to use a weapon against you. Respondents were then asked the following: Since you entered college, has anyone had sexual contact with you by using physical force or threatening to physically harm you? To capture instances in which physically forced sexual assault was attempted but not completed, women were asked the following: Has anyone attempted but not succeeded in having sexual contact with you by using or threatening to use physical force against you? The same 2 questions were asked about victimizations occurring before entering college. The following text prefaced questions about sexual assault when the victim was incapacitated and unable to provide consent: The next set of questions asks about your experiences with unwanted sexual contact while you were unable to provide consent or stop what was happening because you were passed out, drugged, drunk, incapacitated, or asleep. These situations might include times that you voluntarily consumed alcohol or drugs and times that you were given drugs without your knowledge or consent. Respondents were then asked the following: Since you entered college, has someone had sexual contact with you when you were unable to provide consent or stop what was happening because you were passed out, drugged, drunk, incapacitated, or asleep? This question asks about incidents that you are certain happened. Women were also asked about sexual assaults that they suspected had happened while they were incapacitated. These 2 questions were also asked about incapacitated sexual assaults occurring before entering college. Please note that because a primary focus of this paper was completed sexual assaults, women classified as victims of suspected drug-facilitated sexual assault (Figure 1, box 17) were those who experienced a completed assault (an incident they were certain had happened) but were uncertain whether they had been given a drug without their consent prior to the assault. Separate survey modules then asked contextual questions about each type of sexual assault and responses were used to further classify sexual assault types and victims. Regarding any of their physically forced or incapacitated sexual assault victimizations, women were asked which of the following happened: (a) forced touching of a sexual nature, (b) oral sex, (c) sexual intercourse, (d) anal sex, or (e) sexual penetration with a finger or object. Respondents were allowed to check off all behaviors that applied. Women were classified as victims of rape if they selected any of the following: oral sex, sexual intercourse, anal sex, or sexual penetration with a finger or object. Those who selected forced touching but no other behavior were coded as victims of sexual battery. To further an understanding of incapacitated sexual assault, the type of incapacitation was used to classify victims of incapacitated sexual assaults. Women who experienced sexual assault when they were incapacitated and unable to provide consent were asked the following: 1. Just prior to the incident/any of the incidents had you been drinking alcohol? 2. Just prior to the incident/any of the incidents had you been given a drug without your knowledge or consent? On the basis of their responses, we classified the victims into the following four mutually exclusive categories: (a) victims of drugfacilitated sexual assault (DFSA; victims who were sexually assaulted when they were incapacitated after they had been given a drug without their knowledge), (b) victims of suspected drug-facilitated sexual assault (SDFSA; victims who were sexually assaulted while incapacitated but were uncertain whether they had been given a drug without their knowledge), (c) victims of alcohol and/or other drugenabled sexual assault (AOD; victims who were sexually assaulted when they were incapacitated after voluntarily consuming drugs or alcohol), and (d) victims who were sexually assaulted when they were otherwise incapacitated (victims who were asleep or unconscious when they were assaulted but who were not incapacitated due to voluntary or involuntary drug or alcohol consumption).
The CSA Web-based survey collected a wide range of information from students. The survey included questions concerning the characteristics of the respondents (eg, age, race, years in college), their substance use, dating experiences, and many aspects of their experiences with sexual assault prior to and since entering college. The sexual assault experiences portion of the CSA survey was prefaced with the following information: This section of the interview asks about nonconsensual or unwanted sexual contact you may have experienced. When you are asked about whether something happened since you began college, please think about what has happened since you entered any college or university. The person with whom you had the unwanted sexual contact could have been a stranger or someone you know, such as a family member or someone you were dating or going out with. These questions ask about 5 types of unwanted sexual contact: • Forced touching of a sexual nature (forced kissing, touching of private parts, grabbing, fondling, rubbing up against you in a sexual way, even if it is over your clothes) • Oral sex (someone’s mouth or tongue making contact with your genitals or your mouth or tongue making contact with someone else’s genitals) • Sexual intercourse (someone’s penis being put in your vagina) • Anal sex (someone’s penis being put in your anus) • Sexual penetration with a finger or object (someone putting their finger or an object like a bottle or a candle in your vagina or anus)
Respondents were then asked about the following 2 general types of sexual assault: (a) physically forced sexual assault and (b) sexual assault when they were incapacitated and unable to provide consent. Each type was described with introductory text. The following is an example: The questions below ask about unwanted sexual contact that involved force or threats of force against you. Force could include someone holding you down with his or her body weight, pinning your arms, hitting or kicking you, or using or threatening to use a weapon against you. Respondents were then asked the following: Since you entered college, has anyone had sexual contact with you by using physical force or threatening to physically harm you? To capture instances in which physically forced sexual assault was attempted but not completed, women were asked the following: Has anyone attempted but not succeeded in having sexual contact with you by using or threatening to use physical force against you? The same 2 questions were asked about victimizations occurring before entering college. The following text prefaced questions about sexual assault when the victim was incapacitated and unable to provide consent: The next set of questions asks about your experiences with unwanted sexual contact while you were unable to provide consent or stop what was happening because you were passed out, drugged, drunk, incapacitated, or asleep. These situations might include times that you voluntarily consumed alcohol or drugs and times that you were given drugs without your knowledge or consent. Respondents were then asked the following: Since you entered college, has someone had sexual contact with you when you were unable to provide consent or stop what was happening because you were passed out, drugged, drunk, incapacitated, or asleep? This question asks about incidents that you are certain happened. Women were also asked about sexual assaults that they suspected had happened while they were incapacitated. These 2 questions were also asked about incapacitated sexual assaults occurring before entering college. Please note that because a primary focus of this paper was completed sexual assaults, women classified as victims of suspected drug-facilitated sexual assault (Figure 1, box 17) were those who experienced a completed assault (an incident they were certain had happened) but were uncertain whether they had been given a drug without their consent prior to the assault. Separate survey modules then asked contextual questions about each type of sexual assault and responses were used to further classify sexual assault types and victims. Regarding any of their physically forced or incapacitated sexual assault victimizations, women were asked which of the following happened: (a) forced touching of a sexual nature, (b) oral sex, (c) sexual intercourse, (d) anal sex, or (e) sexual penetration with a finger or object. Respondents were allowed to check off all behaviors that applied. Women were classified as victims of rape if they selected any of the following: oral sex, sexual intercourse, anal sex, or sexual penetration with a finger or object. Those who selected forced touching but no other behavior were coded as victims of sexual battery. To further an understanding of incapacitated sexual assault, the type of incapacitation was used to classify victims of incapacitated sexual assaults. Women who experienced sexual assault when they were incapacitated and unable to provide consent were asked the following: 1. Just prior to the incident/any of the incidents had you been drinking alcohol? 2. Just prior to the incident/any of the incidents had you been given a drug without your knowledge or consent? On the basis of their responses, we classified the victims into the following four mutually exclusive categories: (a) victims of drugfacilitated sexual assault (DFSA; victims who were sexually assaulted when they were incapacitated after they had been given a drug without their knowledge), (b) victims of suspected drug-facilitated sexual assault (SDFSA; victims who were sexually assaulted while incapacitated but were uncertain whether they had been given a drug without their knowledge), (c) victims of alcohol and/or other drugenabled sexual assault (AOD; victims who were sexually assaulted when they were incapacitated after voluntarily consuming drugs or alcohol), and (d) victims who were sexually assaulted when they were otherwise incapacitated (victims who were asleep or unconscious when they were assaulted but who were not incapacitated due to voluntary or involuntary drug or alcohol consumption).
Surveys were sent to women at 2 universities, one in the midwest and one in the south. Over 26,000 women met the inclusion criteria (18-25 years old, at 3/4 enrollment) so I am assuming large state schools. 7200 women randomly sampled from the midwest university 42.2% response rate, 5642 from the southern university 42.8% response rate.
Thanks speed. So, per my example, a woman who gets her a$$ grabbed in a bar would fall into the "sexual assault" category. But a woman who is pinned up to the wall by a guy trying to kiss her, grope her boobs in an "aggressive" manner us considered sexual "battery". And of course rape is rape. Now I see why that number, 20%, is so high.
The tables wont post. Just eyeballing looks like from the study 55% rape, 45% battery but the rape category is broken down into attempted and completed looks like 40% were attempted rapes 60% completed. They didn't put the survey in the article so hard to tell what types of questions were asked. The butt grabbing in the bar may or may not count as battery. Curious as to how they defined "attempted" and how that would differ from battery.
every time a football player is arrested for DUI, robbery, assault etc, and right away someone posts the story with the tag line....Bob Stoops on line 2....I know that the guy on line one is Art Bryles
Here's where I see the problem, which sort of goes along with the other poster's concerns. According to your previous post the survey asked:
Well, the problem is that they painted with an awful broad brush. First off, they counted family members. Well, that's not likely to be specific to college. Most likely, being assaulted by a family member would happen at or around home, not at school. It would be outside the purview of the school as well. It also counted incidents with a stranger. Well, is that stranger a student at the school, or is it just some random guy in a bar, etc.? That question is important, because if it's off campus, with someone not even a student, that's again outside the purview of the school. They can't do anything to prevent that.
My point is, the study makes it sound like there is a particular problem on college campuses. However, this study is including incidents that aren't specific to the college. That's making the campus look more dangerous that it actually is. If they said women in general are 20% likely to be assaulted, that would make more sense. They way they presented it, they make it sound like the problem is the college campus, when it seems like it's more a problem for women in general.
http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/sv-datasheet-a.pdf
According to the CDC (link above):
37.4% of female rape victims were first raped between ages 18-24.
19% undergraduate women between ages 18-24 experienced attempted or complete sexual assault since entering college.
Among female rape victims, perpetrators were reported to be: intimate partners 51.1%, acquaintances 40.8%, family members 12.5%, and strangers 13.8%.
According to the CDC (link above):
37.4% of female rape victims were first raped between ages 18-24.
19% undergraduate women between ages 18-24 experienced attempted or complete sexual assault since entering college.
Among female rape victims, perpetrators were reported to be: intimate partners 51.1%, acquaintances 40.8%, family members 12.5%, and strangers 13.8%.
Last edited:
Yeah, but that goes back to my point. "Since entering college" doesn't mean it happened at college. Big difference.
Similar threads
