Have you heard any rumblings at all about the possibility of him being reinstated in school and back on the team next year?
Question for Patrick Loney... Lloyd Tubman?
- Thread starter sluggercatfan
- Start date
He will probably have to win a lawsuit to get back on campus, while I am pretty sure jurich has been trying his best to get in touch. I hope he shows some character and tells him to get lost. Although IF he does have character defects pretty sure that (or maybe TU) would be the best place for him as far as staying out of trouble goes.
The family has no ties to Louisville. They moved there because his father got transferred for his job. If he keeps doing what he's doing, he will have his pick of several schools. It Loney not Looney.
Do you have some info on what he is "doing", getting his grades back, getting bigger, dominating on the field?
What ever he does, I wish him well, unless of course he does the unspeakable.
Don't think it would take a lawsuit , but Dr. Capiluto will have to become involved and overide the earlier decision...he has NO Character issues and is a young man who was an excellent student and was for a lack of a better word framed by someone who was pissed off at him
Stoops needs to make it known that he, Stoops wants him on the team. Anyone involved in the Kangaroo Court that run him off should go someplace else to be politically correct.
Like I stated earlier have been told that MS was him back on the team , but Dr Capiluto must take the lead on this...just what I've heardi
You have no earthly idea if he was framed or not. Two people KNOW what happened and even those two might see the real truth differently. The rest is all pure speculation. Why is that so difficult for people to grasp?
Most UK football fans want Tubman back because they think he will help the program, me included. To state anymore than that is speculative and dishonest.
We know a grand jury and a prosecutor believe that the evidence against him did not reach the low level of probable cause. We know a hearing was held at UK and that Tubman never testified at that hearing in his own defense. We know that the appellate process did not permit him to testify at the UK hearing after he was released from prosecution by the grand jury. We know that a surveillance video after the claimed act does not add credence to the claim of harm. We know a full evidence hearing would have required his side of the story being told in this he said/she said scenario. We know that most defense counsel would not have permitted Tubman to on all of his evidence at a college hearing before he was cleared at the criminal level.
I believe we can state those additional things without being dishonest or reduced to conjecture. I suspect there is more. No need to attempt to intimidate people into denying what they know by accusing them of dishonesty.
You are right, but I do know someone who is very close to him and he really wants to come back to UK and how do you KNOW he wasn't framed...he says he was and there is some history there between the two...I do want him back you are right, but more than that HE WANTS to come back...he is a free man man and has broken NO LAW...his case was dismissed TOTALLY except by some progressives at UK
...
This is still the United States, you are still supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. And I don't think that has been done, he was acquitted by the grand jury which should have more resources than the profs, and DEFINITELY less biased, IMO. And, like you were so worried about in the long thread on this subject UK MIGHT get sued (seemed to be your primary concern) and lose some precious money IF he was a repeat offender (assuming he is guilty) and it involved UK. Shouldn't they give screening tests to all the males enrolling at UK, is that the next step?
I really find it hard to believe he has to resort to rape to get some, BMOC with a bright future. And what do we know about her, some bad rumors around, was he raping her before this, and why did she let him in anyway? Why no outcries and according to the surveillance cameras no big change in her demeanor in escorting him in and out?
The man has already has lost about a year of his life for a lot of purposes, and put his future in jeopardy, he has already paid a pretty big price. In his position it would just seem to be really dumb more than criminal to throw his whole future in jeopardy over something that can be replaced, probably pretty easily by him.
Personally I would rather let a guilty person go (especially when it seems no violence was involved) than take a chance on sending an innocent man to prison.
Read "Adams vs Texas" some time, a real eye opener about our justice system, and not just about the lawyers that run our justice system but the other lawyers wearing the robes.
I hate it that in today's society that a young man's life can be turned upside down over an accusation of which there is no proof and everybody seems to automatically assume that because this young lady accused him of this heinous crime that it actually was committed without any proof whatsoever
Hillary says the accuser should always be believed,unless it involves Bill.
Wouldn't you expect that someone "close to him" to take his side of the story? I'd bet that if you knew someone "close to her" that they would be equally convinced that she was raped. Don't you think?
He has not been convicted of breaking any law and thus is not serving any criminal sentence. Nobody has a right to attend UK. He is free and clear to go most anywhere else he chooses.
The administration at UK has to be more concerned with the student population as a whole than any single individual's desires therefore they are generally going to take the "better safe than sorry" route when it comes to admissions. That sucks for Tubman but it also creates an opportunity for someone else who will be called to replace his spot.
I'll just assume that none of us were on the grand jury so none of us knows whether there was any "proof" or not. As much as I hate it, UK doesn't need proof beyond a reasonable doubt. They are not holding criminal court. And just because it didn't go to trial doesn't mean there wasn't some evidence against him. It just means there wasn't enough for them to feel good about getting a conviction. I feel terrible for the him. I don't know the kid but I have a friend who knows him and he said he's a really good kid and was shocked at the allegations. He will move on with his life. Hopefully he will be able to continue his education somewhere and be able to get his degree somewhere else because he's not coming back to UK. Let's just drop the whole conversation. It accomplishes nothing.
You realize that most rapes, especially those on college campuses go un-prosecuted because proof doesn't exist other than someone's word. She says it was rape, he says it was consensual. If it happened in a room behind closed doors or the back seat of a car parked out of the sight of others, what other proof do you expect?.
How did you feel about the young lady's charges against Jamis Winston???
Patrick Loney is a writer for scout. Not sure why you are asking this on a Rivals.com message board
It would be nice to have an objective panel HEAR his side of the story. Had she been unable to tell her side of the story at the hearing would that have been fair to her? And, as you know, he is not free and clear from these accusations and UK's findings. There is a real unjust harm to him for his life if he did nothing wrong. Put that on your resume as a young man and see how your life choices are suddenly limited.
Again, he never had the chance to say it was consensual. But, with real attorneys involved, even without his testimony, a grand jury said no true bill. Had he presented his case, one must think that would have been even more convincing. UK's process is not a fair one to the accused, that is why their finding should be attacked.
BS, he has had his whole life disrupted and corrupted, and had been under house arrest or had to live at home for a considerable amount of time. And the profs are probably like you, more concerned that they "might" cost UK some money AND jealous, see the LOAN for the scoreboards they raised cane about even though it was well secured AND paid interest on the money that athletics has GIVEN UK for years.
Except there was tons of evidence supporting his story, and none hers. Presumption of innocence. Its not what you know, its what you can prove; and she cant prove anything. Not even close.
I actually don't care about his ability to help this team, because Id say that's greatly diminished at this point. As a man, Im tired of my gender being immediately convicted and stigmatized by the media at even the most ridiculous allegation against us; before any proof is presented.
That's a very weak argument. The same can be said of the general population. The government (federal, state, and local) has to be concerned with the general population as a whole, but in spite of that we have decided that it's better to turn the guilty free than it is to convict an innocent person. That is why the standard of proof is set up the way it is. There is no reason that universities should follow a different logic.
I know nothing about whether Tubman is being framed or not, but I am not at all comfortable with the idea that UK is punishing persons that have been accused of a crime.
There is another thread about FSU agreeing to pay a substantial settlement in the case filed by Jameis Winston's accuser. Winston was not charged criminally, but that didn't stop his accuser from suing the university. Let's face it - sexual assault on college campuses is a big issue. Obviously we are not privy to what UK knows about the Tubman case, i.e. the facts and allegations that were not made public. The result of the situation may seem unfair to Tubman, but UK had to do what's best for UK from an overall (including legal) perspective.
I hope he does well in his personal and football life, but at some point folks need to move on. Lloyd could be a tremendous addition to this football program or he could be a flop. Just for his sake, he is probably better off staying away from UK and accomplishing his goals somewhere else.
Do you realize that the government itself has different standards of proof required in different courts?
The standard of proof in a criminal case is not the same as the standard of proof in a civil case.
The government can deprive you of freedom and extract monetary fines, UK can deny you admission...period. Nobody has a right to attend UK or any other state or private university. They set rules and they can admit and dismiss whomever they please as long as they are consistent in their process.
Those bringing up Tubman's time in house arrest. That wasn't UK's doing, it was the state's.
Hmmm.. The Constitution says differently (at least how it's interpreted by the Supreme Court - see Brown v. Board of Education), but please carry on...
I spoke to his Coach at Trinity Valley JC (Darius Hart) he said Lloyd wants to come back to UK if allthe hurdles can be crossed.That was in December.no news since then.
They are two completely different cases but with one completely common thread. They both admit to sex with the plaintiff and claim in was consensual.
If Winston played for UK then UK fans would be making the same excuses for Winston that my FSU fans make. If Tubman played for FSU then most UK fans would just assume he is guilty. FSU kicked Winston off of the baseball team as punishment.
I take it that you're not a legal genius. Brown v Board of Education applied to compulsory public education, not Higher Ed. Further, it said that it was unconstitutional to have separate systems for students based upon their race.
Please expand on your legal gymnastics on how Brown v Board of Education applies to this case.
This should be really good.
opcorn:You said:
I said:
I did not mention Tubman or his situation, but if you think that UK could set a "consistent process" of denying admission to persons based on race and you think such a "consistent process" would not implicate Brown v. Board, then I must bow to your constitutional law intellect because it is beyond my grasp...
Someone recently suggested that Tubman was probably guilty if he was able to "pester" the young lady until she agreed to have sex. That someone sure isn't a legal genius himself. Unless my memory is failing me, the legal scholar in question was none other than you.I take it that you're not a legal genius. Brown v Board of Education applied to compulsory public education, not Higher Ed. Further, it said that it was unconstitutional to have separate systems for students based upon their race.
Please expand on your legal gymnastics on how Brown v Board of Education applies to this case.
This should be really good.
True, UK cannot discriminate based upon any protected class (race, gender, sexual orientation, etc...)...unfortunately for him, "accused of a crime" is not a protected class. Seeing that UK admits plenty of people who would fall into Tubman's Constitutionally protected class that would be a pretty tough nut to crack unless it was found that only black men accused of sex crimes are being expelled. Then he might have a case.
Brown v BoE put in simplest terms
Issue
- Is the race-based segregation of children into “separate but equal” public schools constitutional?
- No. The race-based segregation of children into “separate but equal” public schools violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and is unconstitutional.
this is beyond my comprehension..I take it that you're not a legal genius. Brown v Board of Education applied to compulsory public education, not Higher Ed. Further, it said that it was unconstitutional to have separate systems for students based upon their race.
Please expand on your legal gymnastics on how Brown v Board of Education applies to this case.
This should be really good.