MSU pres. Resigns

[Spartanmack]

Still reducing it to one thing. It's not one thing, it's a pattern.

ESPN sues MSU, MSU loses.
MSU sues ESPN, MSU loses.
They redact way past what can claimed is just names.
Their internal investigation is designed to inhibit transparency and future discovery.
They strip the conclusions of a Title IX investigation to the bare minimum and admit nothing.
They tell the government they want their Title IX investigation ended because they are acting in good faith while leaving out the Nassar investigation.

That's not just protecting the names of the innocent or doing what anyone else would do. That's pushing as far as the institution thinks it can push to protect itself.

couldn't care less that they sued ESPN - I think they should have. As for the redacting, maybe they're redacting entire stories where no charges were filed to protect those involved rather than just names. Who knows, but if that's what ESPN got, f 'em - I don't care. That's not at all the same thing as what dubbs is accusing me of saying. I wouldn't trust ESPN to report fairly on this so I wouldn't cooperate with their requests without significant controls. If they're stonewalling actual investigators (law enforcement, the NCAA, etc), that's another issue.

Are you sure about the stripping the conclusion part? If we're talking about the same thing, I thought they removed the internal recommendations from the reports shown to victims but the conclusions were the same. I don't think that's a big issue unless again, they're keeping that information from external investigators (other than ESPN).

 

[Spartanmack]

I don't know what to tell you man. You guys have your heels dug in on this case and don't seem willing to give ANY chance that people did anything wrong. So I don't know how much further this discussion can go.

this is definitely not true. If that's what you're taking from this thread, there isn't much point continuing.

 

[Spartanmack]

Here's a key quote in here as to why MSU is under the microscope so much, and I'm using your words here:"

maybe some of the trainers and the Title IX investigators he was close with who obviously failed miserably in their roles

If those Title IX investigators did a crap job and were more worried about covering their own ass, why should anyone outside of MSU trust them to do the "right" thing for the basketball and football program??

This is EXACTLY why all these questions are being asked. The entire culture in that program is rotten right now, so there damn well is some things that need to be dug up.

The mob didn't take Simon or Hollis down. They did that to themselves.

It's not just title ix investigators where the football and basketball programs are concerned - virtually all of those cases were investigated by law enforcement. And I've already said if actual investigators (i.e. not espn) find fault and/or reasons to reopen the investigation, then they should. My whole point that you and mc are missing is that the OTL piece is garbage, unsupported by any of the known facts. That's clear - it's garbage. It's also clear that's all I've been talking about.

I don't think there is institutional cover-up of sexual assault at MSU. I believe the instances cited in the ESPN reports were investigated, including reviewing MD and TI's roles and they were found to have followed proper protocols. People who weren't, were dismissed along with the student athletes who were charged after those investigations. I think Nassar is a completely separate issue. I think he is a monster and what he did was despicable and I think the title IX investigators allowed themselves to be manipulated and/or fooled by him and were quite possibly grossly negligent in carry out their duties. I don't think they were actively covering for him, I think their bias led them to rely on Nassar's perceived expertise. I don't see how that could be the case with MD or TI - they weren't investigated for assault, they were investigated for following protocol. That's MUCH, MUCH different - there's no perceived expertise a coach would have re: protocol. Unlike Nassar, they have no expertise that the investigators would be relying on. For ESPN to tie the two together, particularly in light of the available evidence, is flat out bad journalism.

 

[gotime909]

Actually, if you've taken time to read through the thread, I've been siding with letting the facts come out and letting the case breathe.

But, I appreciate the complement.

Not gonna lie. This thread has been going awhile and I don?t look every day. I?m more familiar with the others I?ve mentioned so sorry if I lumped you with them unfairly.

 

[dubbsco]

this is definitely not true. If that's what you're taking from this thread, there isn't much point continuing.

I can contribute whatever the hell I'd like to. You have no right to tell me otherwise.

Yeah, I think the OTL piece was a stretch. But I think there's a lot the entire athletic department needs to clean up. And that'll come out in the coming days. Izzo has never been a good public speaker, and every time he's had a press conference, I don't think he's done himself any favors. The Walton story is a mess, and it's not a good look.

I don't know where the truth lies, it's basically a he said she said thing.

 

[dubbsco]

Not gonna lie. This thread has been going awhile and I don?t look every day. I?m more familiar with the others I?ve mentioned so sorry if I lumped you with them unfairly.

It's fine. This stuff is bringing out some pretty passionate thoughts on both sides. Hope it gets resolved the right way and we can get back to talking about sports.

 

[Spartanmack]

I'm reading a lot of "Durrr... I don't know... I don't think... I haven't read... probably... maybe... who knows..."

your committment to remaining willfully ignorant of the facts so you can continue to argue with a straight face that there was no cover up, and no serious disregard for investigating sexual or physical assaults by athletes at your alma mater is truly admirable.

Your commitment to misinterpreting what I'm saying so you can make more unsubstantiated accusations and moronic ad hominem attacks is definitely not admirable but at least you're consistent. I never gave you much credit for being very bright, but once again you're making me wonder if I overestimated you.

 

[Sbee]

The only person employed by the athletic department that seems guilty of a cover up is Kathy Klages, but you don't see her name in the news since she doesn't generate clicks.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

 

[Spartanmack]

I can contribute whatever the hell I'd like to. You have no right to tell me otherwise.

Yeah, I think the OTL piece was a stretch. But I think there's a lot the entire athletic department needs to clean up. And that'll come out in the coming days. Izzo has never been a good public speaker, and every time he's had a press conference, I don't think he's done himself any favors. The Walton story is a mess, and it's not a good look.

I don't know where the truth lies, it's basically a he said she said thing.

no, you can't misrepresent what I'm saying and tell me I have no right to tell you otherwise. I have every right to correct the record when you make blatantly false statements about me or my opinions. And I've said the same thing about the Walton situation - we don't know and we need to wait until we do before we call for anyone's head.

As for OTL saying MD and TI are part of a cover when they and others have been investigated for procedural compliance is irresponsible. Even if a follow on investigation comes to the same conclusions as the previous Title IX and criminal investigations, a good chunk of the damage to their reputations won't be undone. That's on ESPN.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Are you sure about the stripping the conclusion part? If we're talking about the same thing, I thought they removed the internal recommendations from the reports shown to victims but the conclusions were the same. I don't think that's a big issue unless again, they're keeping that information from external investigators (other than ESPN).

They got rid of everything. The recommendations, but also they listed two failures, failure to adequately explain the procedure and failure to get consent. That was stripped. Even in the 3 sentences they didn't strip, they changed

However, we find the claim helpful in that it allows us to examine certain practices at the MSU Sports Medicine Clinic."

to

However, we find the claim helpful in that it brought to light some significant problems that the practice will want to address.

Personally, this looks to me like priority 1 is avoiding liability, and I'm especially concerned because Michigan has hired the same law firm.

 

[Gulo Blue]

These are $550-600 per hour lawyers and the average Title IX client has a $35k deal with them. Some go more to $600k. Michigan's FOIA office is know to stall excessively. I think it's reasonable to assume we're following the same advice with regard to transparency.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Reading those two sentences, I don't see a significant difference

The difference is that they don't admit to the victim that there is any problem while internally they admit significant problems.

 

[Spartanmack]

They got rid of everything. The recommendations, but also they listed two failures, failure to adequately explain the procedure and failure to get consent. That was stripped. Even in the 3 sentences they didn't strip, they changed

However, we find the claim helpful in that it allows us to examine certain practices at the MSU Sports Medicine Clinic."

to

However, we find the claim helpful in that it brought to light some significant problems that the practice will want to address.

Personally, this looks to me like priority 1 is avoiding liability, and I'm especially concerned because Michigan has hired the same law firm.

sorry, I've edited this post so many times, I'm goign to start over and repost it.


to me leaving out the failures to follow procedure and to gain consent is a problem and someone needs to answer for that. But that's not a transparency problem, that sounds a lot more like fraud.

Reading those two sentences, I don't see a significant difference - I doubt that the victim or her reps would interpret one much differently than the other. I don't think the recommendations are a critical omission either. It does little for the school and doesn't hide anything of value from the victim, like omitting the specific finding of failure does. I'm not defending leaving out certain details, I just don't think it's indicative of a pattern of lack of transparency.

The finding of failure(s) is enough for the victim and University to pursue/take action against those responsible - omitting it from the victims report is indefensible. But I don't see how the other changes/differences harms them - too bad we don't have a respectable lawyer who posts here that might be able to explain what if anything I'm missing. If they omitted those parts in disclosures to investigators or from their internal reports (like it was in a draft and someone took it out) then it's a bigger problem. Taking the recommendations out of the victim's report is not a problem. Not implementing controls based on the internal report recommendations and monitoring compliance with those controls is a HUGE problem.

 

[Spartanmack]

The difference is that they don't admit to the victim that there is any problem while internally they admit significant problems.

wait, isn't that admission more clear in the sentence you say they changed "to" - that's the way I read your post.

 

[Gulo Blue]

wait, isn't that admission more clear in the sentence you say they changed "to" - that's the way I read your post.

Yeah. My bad. "From"

 

[Gulo Blue]

If we're going to point fingers at the "culture" that lets predators victimize over and over and never get caught, I think part of it we need to focus on is the legal advice to avoid transparency and admit no wrong.

 

[Michchamp]

If we're going to point fingers at the "culture" that lets predators victimize over and over and never get caught, I think part of it we need to focus on is the legal advice to avoid transparency and admit no wrong.

it's bad, short-sighted legal advice for sure.

still, it comes from the top. the president and ultimately the BOT call the shots.

lawyers don't create the culture of an organization, (unless it's a law firm). and institutions vary in terms of how involved their lawyers are in the decision making process. some leaders listen to their lawyers; others ignore them or go around them.

focusing on the legal advice won't really get you very far.

 

[Gulo Blue]

it's bad, short-sighted legal advice for sure.

still, it comes from the top. the president and ultimately the BOT call the shots.

lawyers don't create the culture of an organization, (unless it's a law firm). and institutions vary in terms of how involved their lawyers are in the decision making process. some leaders listen to their lawyers; others ignore them or go around them.

focusing on the legal advice won't really get you very far.

Pepper Hamilton advises a lot of universities of this stuff.

 

[Michchamp]

Pepper Hamilton advises a lot of universities of this stuff.

I'm talking about prior to Pepper Hamilton getting involved; although an attorney's advice sometimes doesn't fully align with a client's best interests. that's why there are so many lawyer jokes out there.

lawyer jokes are lame, BTW. I've never heard one that actually made me laugh.

 

[hungry]

Program? you want to argue semantics again. I think his point was obvious. let's see... which State University located in Michigan is currently facing a mountain of scrutiny in the court of opinion, bad press, a mountain of lawsuits, federal and state investigations, and an NCAA investigation?

Hmm... what program could he be talking about? EMU? CMU? Ferris State? those aren't programs!



aside from being in charge and ultimately responsible for everything that happens under their watch according to what the very definition of leadership is, off the top of my head there were also the reports of information regarding Nassar kept from the Feds & victims, and sitting around playing dumb as over 100+ victims came forward, lobbying Betsy DeVos to gut Title IX standards, damaging MSU's reputation, exposing the university to tens of millions of dollars in legal fees potential damages, etc. even if they somehow manage to beat some of the civil cases, and through their actions have shown a callous disregard for female students and student athletes, provoking no confidence votes from the students and faculty (which apparently does not matter to you at all).

aside from all that, like what did they do?

hurrr, anybody know?

Hollis? Well, he retired, so he didn't do anything wrong...

The unreported sexual assault allegation against Travis Walton and 2 unnamed basketball players might be it, though. According to the alleged victim, he told her that he'd do something about it and talk to the team about it. I think that from everything that has come out, he did nothing of the sort.

There very well could be more, though. I do wonder if the ESPN OTL is all they have/had or if there is a part II coming soon.

Conveniently, if anything does come up about Dantonio or Izzo, not saying anything will, but if it does, well, Hollis can fall on those swords, too.