Bubu Appealing
- Thread starter cy4prez7
- Start date
Well said. I thought the same thing, at this point even if overturned, CFH could say "no thanks, not worth the drama/distraction."
And certainly have to think CFH going against what Leath thought could not be worth it long term (or JP may also have a say, too)
Does anyone think of Brian Banks' story anytime Bubu's case is brought up?
A 10-year nightmare over rape conviction is over - Los Angeles Times
A 10-year nightmare over rape conviction is over - Los Angeles Times
I'm sure Bubu has talked to Fred about this... Why would he even bother appealing if Fred wasn't going to play him or let him back on the team anyway? I'm sure if that were the case, Fred would have told him that it wouldn't make a difference.
Really, I think it's a no-brainer. If he's reinstated, he'll play a big role for the team.
Really, I think it's a no-brainer. If he's reinstated, he'll play a big role for the team.
Why punish a kid if Leath made a bad call? I see no reason to treat him badly if the BoR overturns Leath's decision.
Prez judgement call, which I can't help but feel like its a CYA situation to avoid any legal issue.
I don't even see why this is something that can be appealed, because it just seems to be a call that the President can/should be able to make. I'm not saying that I agree (or disagree) with the decision, but why should Leath have to answer to anyone on this? Weird is all I can say.
Lmfao do people really think Fred would be afraid to play Bubu if he's aloud to? He's not going to just not play someone because the president kicked him off the team once. He's going to do what's best for the team to win, because you know that's what you do in sports.
Are you serious? President Leath have to answer to the Board of regents on any issue brought before them. After all they are the boss of the state universities Presidents. The 9 board members will have the opportunity to review the same evidence that was available to President Leath. Let's see if they affirm or overturn that decision.
You do know that BoR is Leath's boss right?Hoiberg or Leath wouldn't a have a choice.
From the Trib: "Charges were dropped in January at the request of prosecutors, and Palo was immediately reinstated to the Cyclones after a 17-game suspension. Palo was also found innocent of a student code of conduct violation by ISU’s Office of Judicial Affairs, according to the school.
That decision, though, was appealed to and overturned by Leath, who made the decision to remove Palo from the men’s basketball team, ISU executive director of university relations John McCarroll told the Ames Tribune in an email last month."
I may have this wrong, but a person who was not named appealed the decision of the Judicial Affairs office. Without hearing from both parties, Leath overturned that decision, and Palo was notified AFTER the decision was made. I have problems with that. Specifically:
Why wasn't Palo allowed to present his case in this secret appeals process, or even told that there was an appeal in process? Why have an office of Judicial Affairs listen to evidence, weigh it, and issue a decision, if the President essentially makes his own rulings regarding conduct violations? If President Leath determined that Palo violated the student conduct code, why was he not expelled from the University? Why just kick him off the team? The code applies to ALL students, doesn't it? There's just too much that doesn't add up in all of this.
Obviously we don't know all the facts in the case. However, the prosecutors declined to pursue the case, and the Office of Judicial Affairs determined that the conduct code had not been violated. I daresay THEY knew the facts in the case. President Leath is not above making errors in judgement, nor is he omnipotent. If he is going to go against what the other two entities determined to be true, he should be held accountable for his decision. I'm not particularly concerned with his level of embarrassment.
That decision, though, was appealed to and overturned by Leath, who made the decision to remove Palo from the men’s basketball team, ISU executive director of university relations John McCarroll told the Ames Tribune in an email last month."
I may have this wrong, but a person who was not named appealed the decision of the Judicial Affairs office. Without hearing from both parties, Leath overturned that decision, and Palo was notified AFTER the decision was made. I have problems with that. Specifically:
Why wasn't Palo allowed to present his case in this secret appeals process, or even told that there was an appeal in process? Why have an office of Judicial Affairs listen to evidence, weigh it, and issue a decision, if the President essentially makes his own rulings regarding conduct violations? If President Leath determined that Palo violated the student conduct code, why was he not expelled from the University? Why just kick him off the team? The code applies to ALL students, doesn't it? There's just too much that doesn't add up in all of this.
Obviously we don't know all the facts in the case. However, the prosecutors declined to pursue the case, and the Office of Judicial Affairs determined that the conduct code had not been violated. I daresay THEY knew the facts in the case. President Leath is not above making errors in judgement, nor is he omnipotent. If he is going to go against what the other two entities determined to be true, he should be held accountable for his decision. I'm not particularly concerned with his level of embarrassment.
Right now, we're all playing Jeoprady with a tarp over the big board. We don't even know what the question is, so how can we get an answer? Did the appeal bring up previously unknown information? Did it contain lab results that bolstered the prosecution's case (but were not in a position to be falsified by the orginal alleged victim)? Did it simply say "If he ever plays again, we will sue the Unversity for tens of milions"?
We don't know. And that bothers me. Secret proceedings with secret evidence provided by secret appellants? That's a big leap of faith.
We don't know. And that bothers me. Secret proceedings with secret evidence provided by secret appellants? That's a big leap of faith.
Normally, in any type of appellate process internal, legal, grievance etc. appeals do not allow for new evidence/discovery but a review of how a decision was made and that the correct decision was made by using the the facts at hand or process was followed. If information was not considered that should have been he would have or should have returned it to the office of student conduct to consider and rehear. So this idea of new evidence influencing his decision doesn't hold water.
Given that he did not expel him I gather that the facts he saw led to a conclusion that there was not evidence to conclude he committed forcible sexual assault but, there was a preponderance of evidence to suggest he acted wrongly and in some lesser degree, like sexual misconduct (possibly as has been suggested, sleeping with a person in a incapacitated state thus unable to provide legal consent, much like a minor). While the legal standard for incapacitation is high and the facts I have heard would question that was met, my guess is someone in his position would err on the side of protecting the victim in this situation. Especially since the University's reputation (in the wake of Penn State and NCAA pressure on sexual misconduct enforcement) is on the line and the fact that regardless of whether he legally committed any form of sexual misconduct or assault he certainly acted with very poor ethical judgement in "tag teamming" a very intoxicated girl while completely sober himself. Regents and/or district court likely will look at this from a strictly legal lens and may come up with a different conclusion. As a result, regardless of the final conclusion, Leath and the University would be more insulated from legal action from the victim.
In other words, I wonder if he felt it was uncertain as to her level of incapacitation at the time of the alleged assault and erred on the side of the victim while the student code office erred on the side of the accused (as they probably should given the fact that she already has been shown to have lied in fabricating evidence) in which case this was a) nothing more than a "punt" to keep ISU out of court, pushing the tough call up the food chain while covering the Universities behind.
b). Reflects Leath's view of justice
C) his honest belief that such a threshold was met (incapacitation or some other conduct violation cf posters have not concieved of) and the Office of student conduct was wrong.
I do however STRONGLY doubt he felt there was evidence to suggest a forcible assault occurred as was alleged. Doing so and then letting him stay on campus, that would be an obviously huge liability to the University.
Last edited:
What would someone sue the University for in this case? I could see a smear campaign or a secret donor withholding funds to the foundation being a reason for the appeal and kicking off the team, but outside of Bubu trying to take the school to court, I am not sure anyone else would have a legit reason.
