I don't think it helped that everyone was on vacation at the time.
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!
NEW: Regents Meeting, Benson Decision, Investigation Report -- Monday, 6/12
- Thread starter Buffnik
- Start date
- Status
I don't think it helped that everyone was on vacation at the time.
It isn't really excusable, you also had Leavitt drama, and likely Clark drama, going on at the same time.
SuperiorBuff
Well-Known Member
Line up and get your trophies!
Sure. I get it is a strange timeline with lots of crazy circumstances, but the timing is still troubling.
In a strange twist, the Daily Camera reporting it on the 6th probably saved some more embarrassment. Can you imagine if that story had broke while Tumpkin was on the road visiting recruits?
Deleted member 807
Guest
If this entry in the timeline is confirmed as true, then concerns about the integrity of CU leadership and/or legal counsel are in order.
How could CU have been in the dark about the TRO being filed in Broomfield on 12/20 if Banashek knew about it on that date?
It's been argued earlier in the thread that a TRO is not widely available public information. I was not able to find Bloomfield's TRO's listed on-line.
If Banashek knew on 12/20, why wouldn't he have notified CU's brass right away? It's better to find this out from an attorney that has a history of doing business with CU than from a Daily Camera reporter 19 days after the fact.
I hope that the investigators find that CU leadership were truly ignorant about the 12/20 TRO being issued before the Alamo Bowl, and not just willfully ignorant.
Well it's implied that Tumpkin's lawyer knew because she texted and left a vm for MM to tell him she was going to the cops. And really, if the story's accurate, who the lawyer was representing seemed a bit foggy at times to me, and it certainly was to the victim.
Exactly. I have trouble seeing a reason why an attorney would think it was in his client's interest to notify the client's employer about a TRO. Why would the lawyer tell CU?
Deleted member 807
Guest
How is a TRO client-attorney privilege? Court orders are public records.
SI reported that Banashek represented CU players Jeffrey Hall and Josh Tupoi in assault cases well before Tumpkin set foot on campus. Someone referred Banashek to Tumpkin. SI also reported Banashek had spoken with Mac regarding the assault.
Plati was caught by surprise. He was out of the loop and put up in front of a bunch of reporters and asked for a comment on something he didn't have the first idea about. He should never be put in front of a microphone again. Ever. However, he shouldn't have been conducting that press conference, either.
I'm not saying that CU didn't know about the TRO. Only that CU would almost certainly have needed to lear about it from a different source. Banashek, we can assume, was working in his client's interest and that his client was Tumpkin.
Deleted member 807
Guest
I understand your point. But CU is also a client, of sorts. CU throws business his way. Banashek's role in this episode is wonky. If CU had been alerted in advance about a TRO being filed by the victim and if Banashek knew about the TRO a week before Christmas, then it appears that CU's ignorance might have been willful.
It also seems like we are re-hashing things that have already been discussed several times. There's no new information here. Everybody knows the timeline of events. Everybody knows basically what happened. It's up to personal opinions as to the severity of the actions of the CUAD.
I personally think MM got caught by surprise, did what he thought he needed to do, was never told to do anything other than what he did, and thus ends the issue.
I personally think MM got caught by surprise, did what he thought he needed to do, was never told to do anything other than what he did, and thus ends the issue.
A referral is not tantamount to being a client.
Lost in the discussion and unknown to anyone outside CUAD is exactly what Tumpkin, his attorney and CU attorneys discussed one way or the other. I would think it would be rather unlikely that MM would have been part of daily discussions on the matter after reporting his phone conversations. I would also expect Tumpkin to deny claims; additionally, his attorney would want to avoid any steps that would alert the press/public to the matter until it was legally necessary.
The victim contacting MM, rather than the authorities, is the part that I can't seem to understand. He is a football coach, not an officer nor an attorney. What was her motive in seeking help there? Ultimately, the legal system was set in motion, but I don't see MM as doing anything to slow or avoid that process.
The victim contacting MM, rather than the authorities, is the part that I can't seem to understand. He is a football coach, not an officer nor an attorney. What was her motive in seeking help there? Ultimately, the legal system was set in motion, but I don't see MM as doing anything to slow or avoid that process.
Deleted member 807
Guest
Yup.
Deleted member 807
Guest
Not me. Just want the truth.
Yep. If I refer a lawyer to someone, I would not expect that lawyer to keep me in the loop on the case and the lawyer would probably be committing ethics violations if he did.
The fact that there are dozens of pages on this board alone debating whether or not it was abundantly clear that this was to be reported to OIEC, or whether CU should have known about the TRO, or whether MM should have fired Tumpkin on the spot, etc.....means that by it's very definition, the issues at hand and the governing Policies were not clear cut as it relates to this unusual situation. That is important.
I believe that most people on this board are reasonable people (no matter what side of the issue you fall on), and there is clearly not a consensus when debating the various topics surrounding this. One thing is clear to me (in my humble opinion), the people that knew the most about it when it was actually happening, when live bullets were flying so to speak, did what they thought was best....taking into account all known facts at the time. Were there mistakes made, surely...but who doesn't make mistakes? I believe that all parties involved meant to do what was right by the victim, and the university, and their employees to the best of their ability. But again, it obviously was not clearly drawn out as to what exactly should have been done per CU policy....otherwise, we wouldn't have so many damn "it was obviously clear" opinions on both sides of the subject.
I think the report will say, primarily, that the failure was in the lack of clarity in the policy, and that is why the Regents met for so long the other day.....to address remedies to their policy.
I believe that most people on this board are reasonable people (no matter what side of the issue you fall on), and there is clearly not a consensus when debating the various topics surrounding this. One thing is clear to me (in my humble opinion), the people that knew the most about it when it was actually happening, when live bullets were flying so to speak, did what they thought was best....taking into account all known facts at the time. Were there mistakes made, surely...but who doesn't make mistakes? I believe that all parties involved meant to do what was right by the victim, and the university, and their employees to the best of their ability. But again, it obviously was not clearly drawn out as to what exactly should have been done per CU policy....otherwise, we wouldn't have so many damn "it was obviously clear" opinions on both sides of the subject.
I think the report will say, primarily, that the failure was in the lack of clarity in the policy, and that is why the Regents met for so long the other day.....to address remedies to their policy.
I don't think heads should roll, but there need to be CLEAR guidelines on situations like this one going forward.
That's a great point.
If Tumpkin was denying the charges to CU up until the point he chose to resign and not to challenge the TRO becoming permanent, I still don't understand what people expected CU to do.
Especially if it turns out that CU was unaware of a police report or the TRO and moved quickly to suspend Tumpkin as soon as those things became known.
And I have absolutely no idea what MM did wrong here other than being bad at public relations spin by telling the media that he'd increased Tumpkin's duties for the bowl game.
Deleted member 807
Guest
Yup. Agree about ethical issues regarding kept in the loop about the case.
The existence of a TRO is different.
Do we know which attorneys were representing CU?
Per SI, Banashek is reaching out to the victim and representing conversations with Mac. Wouldn't Banashek know who CU's attorneys might be?
8Jah
Well-Known Member
We inherited some bad optics, but this was out of our control and in the past. The world has now forgot.
In what interest do the regents have in airing this out and keeping it in play? The answer is simple. Certain elements of CU leadership want to paint an image that they will not tolerate the stereotypical scandals that are associated with college sports. They need a windmill to fight. The problem is that the cynical public will judge the size of the scandal by the scope of CU leadership involved and the amount of time it is aired. So ironically this approach makes CU look less tolerant. Talk about bad optics.
How is the existence of a TRO "different?"
Sykobuff
Well-Known Member
Deleted member 807
Guest
It's a court order, a public record. It's not evidence.
- Status