Bufffalo1
Member
I am actually not trolling. You can have a dissenting opinion and not be a troll. I have attended all spring games in the MM era and as many home games as I could afford. I am a CU Buff fan, which you can be, and still question the people in the program.
I have been called a troll. I have been told that I lack comprehension skills. I have been jumped on when making valid points because they are all negated if I don't use the word "elevated" instead of "promoted". You assume that your posts make me unhappy when all along I have said that a healthy, intelligent debate is good for all. No name calling. No attacks on MM or RG or anyone on here. I see it differently and not once have I felt the slightest bit unhappy or upset by opinions that differ from mine.
Nik, what do I think should happen?
I think if the facts are proven to be as stated in the SI story...
PD needs to be terminated. He helped establish the OIEC and didn't call them as he sat misinterpreting the guidelines because he was so "confused". I simply do not believe him. His first press release talked about not knowing until Dec 30. That is not true. Why has he nor anyone else answered a very simple question....if you have enough insight to decide as a group to never commubicate to the victim again and you 3 meet and all decide to elevate Tunpkin, but tell him you cannot name him interim because of the allegations and RG can have phone calls with Banashek right before he calls the victim on Dec 15th......why couldn't any of these men (all trained responsible parties) in any of these discussions, pick up the phone and ask OIEC about this confusing issue of a man MM believed was dangerous coaching and recruiting on campus? One call. Clearly, there were numerous conversations. They now say "we should have". Why didn't you?
Which leads to RG and MM. If they followed PD's instructions and nothing more, then only PD should be fired. Everyone saying MM reported to his supervisor like he was supposed to continue to state that incorrectly. It doesn't matter how many times you are shown that MM was required to report to OIEC. Period. If anyone has a link that shows that responsible parties shall report to their supervisor, then please include it. Otherwise, we will be the in the same cyclical conversation.
I think that the delay has been because the SI story is not the scope of this investigation. This is only conjecture, obviously. However, if it was established that as with this case there are others (named in SI) that follow the same playbook (athlete/coach gets in trouble. It's not reported to anyone but Banashek. He then offers payments, etc to the victims and charges are dropped) then whomever is the conduit for this connection between program/attorney/victim would be responsible for his or her role in executing the playbook in these scenarios.
I hope the report shows that it was only due to a misunderstanding of procedure. I am just not one of the people who believes that based on a lot of reasons....RG's statement on Jan 6 and PD's on Feb 3, for starters.
That is my opinion. I am sure that all of our questions/assumptions/speculations will be answered soon. I expect there to be surprises and twists that even 16 pages of message boards haven't addressed.
I understand and respect our differences, however, it really bothers me to read attacks on the victim.
As I told you yesterday, Nik. I appreciate the intelligent discourse with the understanding that we will probably not find much of a common ground on this issue. I hope that at the very least, we agree that victim shaming is disgusting and that honesty and transparency are always best when looking into really difficult situations.
Troll out.
