Menu
What's new
By:
Filters
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

Shldr2Shldr said:
Not a single person on this board is defending Tumpkin. None.

Plenty of people in here are unhappy with how CU handled this but realize that the situation is not as black and white as we would all like it to be.
Click to expand...

I think this is spot on. So far I am looking at this like, I don't think CU did anything wrong here, nothing. Did they do everything right? No. But it is a complicated situation. The important thing is that they didn't do anything wrong (fingers crossed).
 
Shldr2Shldr said:
1) While this is a good rule of thumb, and I agree with you, at this point in time it was the victim's word against Tumpkin's. This is probably the only thing I wish CU had done differently. You don't have to suspend him right away, but don't promote him either.
2) Banashek does not work for CU, but is a DA doing his job as a DA.
3) Plati may have been kept in the dark about this. Quite possible that Mac told RG who told DiStephano and that was as far as it went.
4) Banashek does not work for CU, but is a DA doing his job as a DA.
5) Banashek does not work for CU, but is a DA doing his job as a DA.
6) Banashek does not work for CU, but is a DA doing his job as a DA. Also Mac was probably instructed by his legal counsel and/or by his boss to cut contact with the victim as to not involve the university in a criminal investigation. Like it or not, that is smart business.
Click to expand...
I don't think he's a district attorney (i.e. works for and represents the state), if that's what you mean by DA. I think he's a partner at a private firm.
 
I think the author needs a fact check here:
She expected calls that would help her feel as if she and other women were at least a little bit safer than they’d been before Jane entrusted the story of her abuse to her assailant’s boss, who is also the highest paid public employee in Colorado and is required, as a mandated reporter (as is MacIntyre’s boss, Rick George), to notify CU’s Title IX coordinator of such allegations.
Click to expand...

Now there may be or should be some other reporting policies in place, but I don't think Title IX applies here because Jane is not a student or an employee.
 
JWP303 said:
I think the fundamental issue here is that HCMM failed morally. From a legal standpoint maybe he did what he was told - but this woman came to him because she didn't have anywhere else to go and HCMM lawyered up. It's shameful.
Click to expand...
Haha. Right.
 
Mb2658 said:
My question is why was Tumpkin's defense attorney the first person to contact her after she spoke with Mac? Even if they wanted to keep Mac out of it, a CU attorney could have reached out to her and said that they were looking into it. That would have been far more palatable than Tumpkin's defense attorney.
Click to expand...
I thought he was CU's legal council. Not Tumpkin's. Did I misread?
 
Shldr2Shldr said:
Was using DA as short hand for Defense Attorney, can see the confusion though. My apologies.
Click to expand...
thanks, hadn't encountered that before. do lawyers really use the same acronym to describe the attorneys on both sides?
 
DBT said:
I thought he was CU's legal council. Not Tumpkin's. Did I misread?
Click to expand...

Yes.

Banashek is a private defense attorney that has represented a few CU players in the past. He is not on CU's payroll. He is currently serving as Tumpkin's defense attorney.
 
AllStarBuffs said:
I have no agenda. It's unfortunate and slimy how CU handled this situation. I have no sympathy for domestic violence perpetrators but I do have sympathy for domestic violence victims. You know who's taking the L here? CU and the posters defending CU/MM/RG/Tumpkin
Click to expand...
You might be the densest poster I have encountered in a while. No one is defending Tumpkin.
 
You know what? Let this play out. I believe CU will handle it well. My sense tells me that RG, Mac, et al will do or are doing the right thing. I think there is more to all this than we know and should be careful espousing views on the matter without all of the facts.
 
I hope and pray the victim can heal from this!

CU needs to do a full review of the SID/Compliance/Legal protocols from here on.
 
well of course no one is defending tumpkin right now at this exact moment in time but a lot of folks were defending him prior to him getting charged with felonies. The fact is tumpkin should have been put on suspension as soon as this story began unraveling and NOT given DC coordinator duties by MM after the fact MM was made aware of this event. I'm embarrassed the way MM and RG handled this situation, but seems like you and others are not.
leftybuff said:
You might be the densest poster I have encountered in a while. No one is defending Tumpkin.
Click to expand...
 
What a s**t storm. I believe Mac felt he was trying to help Jane, but he failed her. So did RG if he knew right away.

During the first phone call when Jane told Mac what was going on (including that she feared Tumpkin might kill himself or someone else) he should have, immediately after making sure she was in a safe place, told her that there was no way he couldn't go to the authorities and if the allegations we true he would have no choice but to fire him.

The "right thing" is not always following the victim's wishes. She told Mac she was worried he might kill someone - you just can't sit on that no matter what Jane wanted.

You make sure Jane is safe, then contact authorities immediately and suspend Tumpkin while the investigation plays out.
 
AllStarBuffs said:
well of course no one is defending tumpkin right now at this exact moment in time but a lot of folks were defending him prior to him getting charged with felonies. The fact is tumpkin should have been put on suspension as soon as this story began unraveling and NOT given DC coordinator duties by MM after the fact MM was made aware of this event. I'm embarrassed the way MM and RG handled this situation, but seems like you and others are not.
Click to expand...

As someone said above, at that point, it was he said she said. He was friends with Tumpkin so no doubt he was hearing that it was all false. Frankly, her calling MM instead of the cops put him in a very difficult, no win situation.
 
SINKRATZ said:
What a s**t storm. I believe Mac felt he was trying to help Jane, but he failed her. So did RG if he knew right away.

During the first phone call when Jane told Mac what was going on (including that she feared Tumpkin might kill himself or someone else) he should have, immediately after making sure she was in a safe place, told her that there was no way he couldn't go to the authorities and if the allegations we true he would have no choice but to fire him.

The "right thing" is not always following the victim's wishes. She told Mac she was worried he might kill someone - you just can't sit on that no matter what Jane wanted.

You make sure Jane is safe, then contact authorities immediately and suspend Tumpkin while the investigation plays out.
Click to expand...

If that's the case, she really should have called the cops. I honestly don't get that particular part. Why call MM?
 
There's a thing called due process, innocent until proven guilty. Cu/Mac were put in a tough situation. Honestly the fact that this lady routed her abuse through Mac was completely unfair. Go to the authorities. The writer tries to indict cu with every sentence. The "victim" willingly goes along with it referencing phone records, conversation and text dates Helping to try cu in the court of public opinion. Cu didn't cause her abuse. Bet we see a lawsuit from it though.
 
vinniew_11 said:
If that's the case, she really should have called the cops. I honestly don't get that particular part. Why call MM?
Click to expand...
Don't know - I can't imagine what it's like to be a victim of something like that. But she called Mac, and in that situation an overabundance of caution is usually the right move.
 
SINKRATZ said:
What a s**t storm. I believe Mac felt he was trying to help Jane, but he failed her. So did RG if he knew right away.

During the first phone call when Jane told Mac what was going on (including that she feared Tumpkin might kill himself or someone else) he should have, immediately after making sure she was in a safe place, told her that there was no way he couldn't go to the authorities and if the allegations we true he would have no choice but to fire him.

The "right thing" is not always following the victim's wishes. She told Mac she was worried he might kill someone - you just can't sit on that no matter what Jane wanted.

You make sure Jane is safe, then contact authorities immediately and suspend Tumpkin while the investigation plays out.
Click to expand...


This is a common question asked in B-School ethics classes. In the hypothetical situation a woman tells a co-worker she is being sexually harrased by a third co-worker. The victim tells her confidant to not tell anyone. What shold the co-worker do? This isn't a shade of gray situation. The only correct answer is that the co-worker has a responsibility to report accusation to the accused offenders direct boss and HR.

I am always skeptical of a story hearing just one side. I doubt we ever hear CU's side. If in fact she told MacIntyre what you have quoted from the story then you are correct, he failed her. If in fact he knew what the victim says he knew and when he knew, then MacIntyre is in the same bucket of scum as other football coaches that put the program first over women. I don't out-of-hand accept the story as she told it, I am waiting to hear what Coach MacIntyre has to say first. In the end, he is a man of faith and he knows as well as anybody that we all face the same judge on the final day.
 
AllStarBuffs said:
well of course no one is defending tumpkin right now at this exact moment in time but a lot of folks were defending him prior to him getting charged with felonies. The fact is tumpkin should have been put on suspension as soon as this story began unraveling and NOT given DC coordinator duties by MM after the fact MM was made aware of this event. I'm embarrassed the way MM and RG handled this situation, but seems like you and others are not.
Click to expand...
I am so glad you know exactly when this story began to unravel, please tell us the date and time, as well as how you know. Thanks in advance.

Or is it enough that the one phone call was made? I think those of us "defending" are simply cognizant of the fact that hindsight is just that. Hindsight. The facts coming in and the ability to instantly have the appropriate response rarely happens. Others have pointed out 7 weeks from first allegation to being shown the door is very much within the norm where any large employer is concerned. In fact, there are a lot of large organizations that probably would have done nothing. I think CU's response, while not perfect, isn't anything to be ashamed of. They got to the right response as soon as there was a reasonable body of evidence to support termination.

I suppose it is easy with the benefit of hindsight to criticize and say it should have been done faster, or in a different manner. But that is simply an unfair criticism based on facts that did not exist during the time period for which you offer criticism. You completely dismiss the notion that the employer has to have some reasonable evidentiary basis to discharge someone for cause, they simply cannot rely solely on a single accusation.
 
I never said fire the guy without due diligence. I said put him on suspension.
leftybuff said:
I am so glad you know exactly when this story began to unravel, please tell us the date and time, as well as how you know. Thanks in advance.

Or is it enough that the one phone call was made? I think those of us "defending" are simply cognizant of the fact that hindsight is just that. Hindsight. The facts coming in and the ability to instantly have the appropriate response rarely happens. Others have pointed out 7 weeks from first allegation to being shown the door is very much within the norm where any large employer is concerned. In fact, there are a lot of large organizations that probably would have done nothing. I think CU's response, while not perfect, isn't anything to be ashamed of. They got to the right response as soon as there was a reasonable body of evidence to support termination.

I suppose it is easy with the benefit of hindsight to criticize and say it should have been done faster, or in a different manner. But that is simply an unfair criticism based on facts that did not exist during the time period for which you offer criticism. You completely dismiss the notion that the employer has to have some reasonable evidentiary basis to discharge someone for cause, they simply cannot rely solely on a single accusation.
Click to expand...
 
Big Jim said:
This is a common question asked in B-School ethics classes. In the hypothetical situation a woman tells a co-worker she is being sexually harrased by a third co-worker. The victim tells her confidant to not tell anyone. What shold the co-worker do? This isn't a shade of gray situation. The only correct answer is that the co-worker has a responsibility to report accusation to the accused offenders direct boss and HR.

I am always skeptical of a story hearing just one side. I doubt we ever hear CU's side. If in fact she told MacIntyre what you have quoted from the story then you are correct, he failed her. If in fact he knew what the victim says he knew and when he knew, then MacIntyre is in the same bucket of scum as other football coaches that put the program first over women. I don't out-of-hand accept the story as she told it, I am waiting to hear what Coach MacIntyre has to say first. In the end, he is a man of faith and he knows as well as anybody that we all face the same judge on the final day.
Click to expand...

MacIntyre did exactly what the correct answer to that question is then. He immediately reported the situation to his Boss/HR.
 
Yeah. I don't understand her thinking but it sounds like she had a close relationship with Mac and his wife. I just don't know what she thought they were going to do for her? Talk to Joe? Fire Joe? Threaten Joe? Maybe just support her and advise her? Maybe Mac should have told her, "You need an attorney. I can help you find one. However I will have to take a neutral position since I and CU are his employer. But just know we care about you." Or something.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top