Bubu Thread
- Thread starter capitalcityguy
- Start date
No I don't think you understand. If the court hearing isn't until April, then there is no possibility of removing Bubu from the team during the basketball season now that the Supreme Court denied the request. So what exactly would be the point again?
I'm going to cheer my *** off on senior night for him. I feel so bad for him because he really is a great kid.
As for playing time, I've heard he could play now if Hoiberg wanted him too and that he's been amazing in practices, but he likely won't see any playing time this year.
As for playing time, I've heard he could play now if Hoiberg wanted him too and that he's been amazing in practices, but he likely won't see any playing time this year.
Are there immunity provisions that obstruct or limit the liability of University officials and the Board of Regents actions in this matter? If so, is it reasonable to suggest that anecdotal evidence would imply that immunity promotes corruption and a misuse or abuse of power?
It would seem to me the rule of law should serve as a constraint upon behavior, including behavior of university officials. A form of tyranny may be described and observed when students are forced to live by and under different sets of laws and codes of conduct than those applied to university officials or the board of regents. Such tyranny is especially scandalous when university officials are free to breach tacitly understood, but potentially unwritten codes of conduct without consequences being uniformly applied. At issue here is the fact that Leath sat on Bubu’s appeal for 3 months before suspending him from the team. This virtually eliminated any assurance of an effective transfer. Those specific actions seem to have been "universally condemned" by the majority of those in the cyclone nation as has the rubber stamp process applied by the board of regents in this matter.
That said, such condemnation does not in any way discount what I believe to be the University’s right to rule and function within the purview of their jurisdiction with regard to the established code of conduct. Nonetheless Leath’s inaction and the board's rubber stamp does point out a very troubling breach of a code of conduct that should also be applied to university officials and the board of regents in the handling of such matters. A parallel to such reasoning has been clearly established in the American concept of “equality before the law.” This establishes that no one shall be above the law and that the law should be implemented uniformly and evenly.
Obviously, high-profile cases with sordid facts receiving the current level of media attention tend to appeal to voyeuristic tendencies. Egregious errors in judgment are evident on both sides of this issue. Nonetheless, I look forward to the time we can put this matter to rest and sincerely hope this serves as “smelling salts and teaching moment” for counsel, university officials, the board of regents and the student body.
It would seem to me the rule of law should serve as a constraint upon behavior, including behavior of university officials. A form of tyranny may be described and observed when students are forced to live by and under different sets of laws and codes of conduct than those applied to university officials or the board of regents. Such tyranny is especially scandalous when university officials are free to breach tacitly understood, but potentially unwritten codes of conduct without consequences being uniformly applied. At issue here is the fact that Leath sat on Bubu’s appeal for 3 months before suspending him from the team. This virtually eliminated any assurance of an effective transfer. Those specific actions seem to have been "universally condemned" by the majority of those in the cyclone nation as has the rubber stamp process applied by the board of regents in this matter.
That said, such condemnation does not in any way discount what I believe to be the University’s right to rule and function within the purview of their jurisdiction with regard to the established code of conduct. Nonetheless Leath’s inaction and the board's rubber stamp does point out a very troubling breach of a code of conduct that should also be applied to university officials and the board of regents in the handling of such matters. A parallel to such reasoning has been clearly established in the American concept of “equality before the law.” This establishes that no one shall be above the law and that the law should be implemented uniformly and evenly.
Obviously, high-profile cases with sordid facts receiving the current level of media attention tend to appeal to voyeuristic tendencies. Egregious errors in judgment are evident on both sides of this issue. Nonetheless, I look forward to the time we can put this matter to rest and sincerely hope this serves as “smelling salts and teaching moment” for counsel, university officials, the board of regents and the student body.
Last edited:
If this is true, I would be very dissapointed in Fred if he doesn't get him on the court.
What precedent. The reason it is in the court is because of Iowa Code and ISU policy. Otherwise it wouldn't be. Distict court is part of the grievance policy for student dicipline. If you don't want it to go to court. 1.Change your policy 2. Make kicking someone off the team distinct from CoC violatuons. 3. Just kick some off the team outside of formal dicipline. 4. Don't send to BoR (then Iowa judicial review code doesn't kick in).
The idea that this is some big legal principle is asinine. The executive branch and the legislative branch independently granted the court's judicial review over student dicipline at ISU (the legislature indirectly). If they don't want the court's involved they should change their process. The idea that this was about whether sports is a right is a privilage was a crazy premise and a huge smokescreen from the get go.
Last edited:
I gotcha now.
I think the whole thing was an exercise in delay from ISU's standpoint from day 1. They were always going to go as far as Bubu took it in order to defend Leath's decision. The only thing that got in the way was the district court issuing a stay that permitted him back or ISU likely would have just run out the clock on the whole thing, rendering Bubu's complaints irrelevant to the outcome. They were counting on the wheels of justice turning slow, and this whole thing being a footnote.
Last edited:
I do believe ISU was trying to create a win/win as was Palo by not fighting all the allegations. The line was drawn at basketball. I just wish ISU would have anticipated the fight and decided to cut their losses and done the smart thing as opposed to making the wrong choice in an attempt to do the "right" thing (from their perspective).
Palo probably will, and should, file a civil suit and I like his chances of getting a settlement. How much more will this wrong choice cost ISU in addition to what its already cost both in tax payer dollars and bad publicity?
He is fighting all allegations. He didn't seek a stay on all punishments because the other ones did not create irreparable harm while the appeal played out. This was a weak argument by ISU to try and make it like the court was only interested in the basketball outcome.
If The Mayor decides to play him, the moment Bubu steps on the court Hilton will go absolutely NUTS! The idea of The Mayor "sticking it to the man" (in this case Leath) from a player/student perspective would also be a great motivational factor for the team I think.
[FONT=&]From the article: “A complaint filed with the university’s Office of Judicial Affairs against Palo resulted in an administrative law judge ruling that Palo didn’t violet the student code of conductâ€
Well, duh. He would have to be some kind of a maroon to do that...[/FONT]
Well, duh. He would have to be some kind of a maroon to do that...[/FONT]
Re: Bubu back again
Good to see there is some sort of resolution, as convoluted and drawn out as it may have been. Now let's focus on actual basketball!
Good to see there is some sort of resolution, as convoluted and drawn out as it may have been. Now let's focus on actual basketball!
I get your point in that he wasn't "fighting" them in regards to the stay. I was referring to the win/win as accepting the consequences of those allegations (by default or otherwise) is a very small price to pay if it means getting the one thing he wants, which is to play.
ehhh.... yeah didn't think of that.
true. Fred is a player's coach but also wise enough not to start a pi**ing match with his bosses even though he holds 100% of the power and everyone knows it.
I think the idea that more than a handful of fanatics are invested and spun up about this is incorrect.
Don't know if this was posted, just saw this on KCCI:
The state Supreme Court, in a news release sent Friday, announced it will not hear the case.
The state Supreme Court, in a news release sent Friday, announced it will not hear the case.
