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!
SI: CU Assistant Coach's Victim Seeks Justice
- Thread starter TDbuff
- Start date
It is very clear that while all three statements acknowledge that the response could have been better it is also very clear that this program is not going to put winning football games over the lives of innocent people.
I have no question that some of the actions that have led to suspensions of players over the past four years would have been swept under the rug at many other schools. Had this Tumpkin thing happened at Baylor or any number of other schools they would have acted much more quickly, acted to try to get her paid off and shut up so they didn't disrupt the coaching staff during recruiting (or whatever else they had happening at the time.)
I have no question that some of the actions that have led to suspensions of players over the past four years would have been swept under the rug at many other schools. Had this Tumpkin thing happened at Baylor or any number of other schools they would have acted much more quickly, acted to try to get her paid off and shut up so they didn't disrupt the coaching staff during recruiting (or whatever else they had happening at the time.)
Mac's was lame, lame enough to indicate that it was probably actually written by him, not by some lawyer or PR person and handed to him for his signature. I'm sure that they had somebody else check it before it went out but I think it is from the heart, not simply something thrown together to try to get the heat off.
Again, the question is, if Jane doesn't decide to go to the cops, what happens? If they weren't going to go to the OIEC, what were they doing? It sounds like nothing.
Sadly, it sounds like if Jane didn't decide to fly to Colorado to talk with the authorities, this could've festered for longer, and the acceptable timeline everyone thinks makes this process acceptable looks much worse.
Thank god the victim in this case forced the issue, which is sad that it came to that.
Sadly, it sounds like if Jane didn't decide to fly to Colorado to talk with the authorities, this could've festered for longer, and the acceptable timeline everyone thinks makes this process acceptable looks much worse.
Thank god the victim in this case forced the issue, which is sad that it came to that.
vinniew_11
Well-Known Member
Maybe. Maybe not. We will never know. They very well might have gone to OIEC with their questions shortly. Everyone is upset that they didn't immediately go to them and there is no way to know if they would have run it by them.
Well it's not mentioned in any of their statements, which I was hoping for something about what they were doing or thinking besides general paralyzing confusion. It also implies there'd be no statements from anybody if there weren't an SI article to point out what they did or really didn't do. We were all ready to go with the story that was in the publicized police reports.
I dunno If she doesn't step up and go to the police then what does MM and RG have to go on? The only record is the 911 call in which she later told police nothing happened. After that its her word againnst his, and I haven't seen anything on what Tumpkin's reaction was before the temp restraining order.
A lengthy phone call from the victim. A victim who can and did share her story to those who would do something. Can't believe a story like this bit CU again, like it's never happened before.
vinniew_11
Well-Known Member
Not trying to be argumentative, but isn't the phone call considered hearsay? I'm sure Mac believed her, hence him bumping it up, but they are basically sitting on a he said/she said situation and a huge hot button issue.
Here he comes- the valiant knight riding in to defend the program from anyone with a less-than-rosy perspective on the program.
A fair point, but it doesn't mean he couldn't say "I wish I could have done more," or "I'm sorry that I didn't handle things differently." I think most folks in this thread have agreed that things were handled in a suboptimal fashion- in fact, the administration obviously thinks the same thing as they are implementing changes to policy. MM's statement comes off as awfully defensive and with zero remorse, which is not a good look.
I know, and I also am cynical enough to know that's exactly why MM handled everything through his lawyer after the second phone call. Perhaps the lawyers here on the forum can comment- is there any reason that MM saying that he wish he'd handled the situation differently (like both Distefano AND RG said) expose him or CU?
That's my point, a huge hot button issue should've been obvious to the triumvirate in charge, doesn't seem like it was till the police and SI came calling.
vinniew_11
Well-Known Member
You can't believe that they thought this was not a big deal? You guys honestly dont think that, do you? I know what we all WANTED to do, which is exactly what RG wanted to do and to fire JT on the spot. But without corroborating evidence, they are walking on eggshells (not to use that slimy attorneys words, but it's the truth). I don't know exactly what the OIEC is or what they do, and from my understanding, it's fairly new? So they probably don't have a ton of experience using them? But I know, from a legal standpoint, their attorneys were being extremely cautious. And, like every report from this instance says, MM made sure she was safe and not in danger. Legally, they were in a very precarious situation.
Edit: and do we know how quickly the OIEC people would work and do their own investigation?
8Jah
Well-Known Member
MM did the right thing, and I truly believe he is a man that does the right thing. Perhaps his statement lacks a little humility; perhaps the same lack of humility that caused him to never give any credit to JL...but there is no wrong doing that we can trace to MM. The fact that he clarifies there were two calls...the last to indicate to Jane that he had done what he sad (tell his superiors)...is very telling. So high moral standards: yes, they are impeccable. Humility: we will see.
The only issue here is the lawyer, Mr Banashek. Who does he work for and what is his relation to the university? That is not a MM thing, but an AD thing that needs to be clarified.
The only issue here is the lawyer, Mr Banashek. Who does he work for and what is his relation to the university? That is not a MM thing, but an AD thing that needs to be clarified.
Nederland Buff
New Member
I think the lawyer is getting off easy here. Who knows what was actually said to her, but after reading over her comments, she may have been left the impression that the school was offering money when that was not the case. And that would piss anyone off and force things up a notch or two. His actions set a lot of this in motion.
I have no experience with this, but I still don't get what she expected the coach to do if she wasn't going to the police. Field day for lawsuits.
I have no experience with this, but I still don't get what she expected the coach to do if she wasn't going to the police. Field day for lawsuits.
There are many options available that didn't include firing JT. MM made sure she was safe during the phone call, but then he told JT his ex was accusing him of abuse and did no more. God forbid JT didn't fly back to MI and try to make amends.
I don't know what the OIEC would've done, but telling them would've been a lot better than not telling them. MM's "Well, I tossed it up the food chain, not my deal" statement wouldn't have been needed. And maybe we're not in this endless thread, with an SI article, corresponding statements from those that probably did something wrong but they made a statement about fixing it, and the media echo chamber behind it.
vinniew_11
Well-Known Member
They DIDN'T do anything wrong, dude. Was it handled smoothly and with sparkles, no. But there was no wrongdoing on the part of CU. Tumpkin is the only one who did anything wrong.
And we are in this endless post because people keep trying to throw shade on CU when in reality, they handled it decently. Was it optimal? Absolutely not. But certainly better than Baylor and other issues in CUs past.
If we didn't do anything wrong, there wouldn't be an SI article saying there was, and follow up articles in the media, plus 5 paragraph apology statements from the leadership. There was a way to handle this, and CU **** on themselves, again. That's my problem.
Yeah, we're legally clear here dude. Say that while CU get's **** on again in the media. Totally wasn't CU's fault. Scream it from the mountain tops.
Last edited:
CVBuff
Well-Known Member
ESPN has a follow up article. It makes CU and Coach Mac, even if imperfect, look very reasoned in their response. This viewpoint resonates as valid when contrasting CU to Baylor with its abetting of disgusting illegal behavior with a massive coverup, or to the over reactions at Minnesota or Duke lacrosse with their failure to protect the individual rights of players, some of whom were free of any involvement. Balancing justice for a victim against the rights of the accused is, in the early stages, difficult to achieve perfectly.
Because of the American legal system and the need to avoid providing fodder for any eventual lawsuit, we have not received, nor should we receive, full disclosure. The SI article is, by necessity, a one sided expose'. To make the assumption that we have all the facts, facts enough to draw concrete conclusions about intent, is asinine and naive. In a similar situation, if one of my supervising employees had acted much differently than it appears Coach Mac has acted, I would verbally skin them alive.
Trolls will try and keep this going. This horse is legally dead. The victim is safe, Tompkins is criminally charged, those responsible for decision making at CU have apologized, CU has improved protocols. Time to stop the flagellation and move on.
Because of the American legal system and the need to avoid providing fodder for any eventual lawsuit, we have not received, nor should we receive, full disclosure. The SI article is, by necessity, a one sided expose'. To make the assumption that we have all the facts, facts enough to draw concrete conclusions about intent, is asinine and naive. In a similar situation, if one of my supervising employees had acted much differently than it appears Coach Mac has acted, I would verbally skin them alive.
Trolls will try and keep this going. This horse is legally dead. The victim is safe, Tompkins is criminally charged, those responsible for decision making at CU have apologized, CU has improved protocols. Time to stop the flagellation and move on.
vinniew_11
Well-Known Member
Thank you. This is exactly the conclusion to be drawn.
Deleted member 807
Guest
The sentiment to "move on" is ignoring an inconvenient detail. The legal system hasn't convicted Tumpkin of his charges. This story will remain a matter of public interest throughout the trial. And after the verdict in the criminal case against Tumpkin has been delivered, there still is the open issue of what additional actions the victim might take.
vinniew_11
Well-Known Member
I honestly don't know what actions she can take towards CU. they did nothing legally incorrect.
Deleted member 807
Guest
What's obvious is your strong desire to wish away the story and never speak of it again.
Last edited by a moderator:
Deleted member 807
Guest
Apologies to CV for playing caption obvious again.
The first thing to recognize is that the victim sent a public message through her decision to speak to sports illustrated.
The response to that message has been publically addressed by CU leadership.
What is unknown is the victim's reaction to CU's side of the story.
Will additional facts be uncovered in Tumkin's trial? What happens if Tumpkin is exonerated? Once the victim is in a safe-space, will she pursue a civil suit or write a book or hit the lecture circuit?
Or will she remain obscure?
Truth is that we don't know what twists and turns may still come out.
The ball is in the court of the victim and her legal counsel.
Last edited by a moderator:
Maybe it's time to move on from posts imploring others to move on. This was on the front page of the biggest sports website yesterday, but apparently it is off limits to discuss on a dedicated Buffs message board.
Moral superiority is in the eye of the beholder, apparently.
Moral superiority is in the eye of the beholder, apparently.
I'm not going to stop posting here until we catch the Baylor thread! They lead 2,450 to 537. We have a long way to go but, dang it, we can do it!!
Moral superiority. We need to keep it visible. Stay woke, ya'll
I agree. I have actually said all I wanted to say, and am satisfied with the official response. I just get annoyed with all of the CU-did-nothing-wrong-at-all-and-shame-on-those-who-talk-about-it posts. They reek of a more arrogant "moral superiority" than the posters they call out.