** 2023 Opponent Preview : Michigan State (Game 9) **

[gobiggergoredder]

Will see where this goes.  Says he has the receipts.
 

 

https://www.clickondetroit.com/sports/local/2023/09/11/msu-coach-mel-tucker-responds-to-sexual-harassment-allegations/

[funhusker]

15 minutes ago, gobiggergoredder said:

Will see where this goes.  Says he has the receipts.
 

 

https://www.clickondetroit.com/sports/local/2023/09/11/msu-coach-mel-tucker-responds-to-sexual-harassment-allegations/

If he actually has the "provocative picture", and it shows they shared a sexual relationship; sorry lady...

[Ulty]

35 minutes ago, funhusker said:

If he actually has the "provocative picture", and it shows they shared a sexual relationship; sorry lady...

Maybe, maybe not. 

 

If he has the evidence, he should have provided it during the investigation. If so, it would be reviewed during the hearing and the hearing officer would weigh it out. But the hearing is not the place to provide new evidence, if he did not provide it during the investigation, why not? 

 

And additionally, a "provocative picture" would not necessarily mean she consented to phone sex and masturbation at a later time. Even if they did have a sexual relationship in the past (which is not what he is saying, unless I misread something), that also does not necessarily imply future consent for all other acts. But it certainly adds more intrigue and complexity to the matter. 

 

It's still an absolutely dumb situation for him to get himself into.

[teachercd]

50 minutes ago, funhusker said:

If he actually has the "provocative picture", and it shows they shared a sexual relationship; sorry lady...

Yeah, I agree.  

 

This entire thing sounds just a bit off.

[teachercd]

57 minutes ago, funhusker said:

If he actually has the "provocative picture", and it shows they shared a sexual relationship; sorry lady...

Okay, reading over it, it sounds bad for her.

 

 

[Ulty]

Let's play "Choose Your Own Adventure." Remember those books?

 

You work for a school that is still reeling from one of the worst sexual misconduct scandals ever. You hire a nationally known woman, a sexual assault survivor, to speak to your team about preventing sexual misconduct. You are still married. 

 

Do you decide to:

A: Thank this woman for providing educational services to your team, maintain strictly professional contact, and focus on coaching your team? Turn to page 95.

or

B: Try to have phone sex with this woman and have her listen to you masturbate? Turn to page 144.

 

How would any reasonable person expect this story to end?

[Ulty]

2 hours ago, gobiggergoredder said:

Will see where this goes.  Says he has the receipts.

Did he provide these "receipts" during the investigation? If so, the hearing and eventual conclusion should be interesting. But if he had sufficient evidence to exonerate himself, I'm guessing he would not be making public statements about the investigation being unfair and the upcoming hearing being a "sham."

 

I could be wrong, but it rarely works in your favor to lash out the way he is. Tucker clearly did something incredibly stupid and unprofessional. Whether it meets the policy definition of sexual harassment remains to be seen, but either way he is a dumbass.

[gobiggergoredder]

6 minutes ago, Ulty said:

Did he provide these "receipts" during the investigation? If so, the hearing and eventual conclusion should be interesting. But if he had sufficient evidence to exonerate himself, I'm guessing he would not be making public statements about the investigation being unfair and the upcoming hearing being a "sham."

 

I could be wrong, but it rarely works in your favor to lash out the way he is. Tucker clearly did something incredibly stupid and unprofessional. Whether it meets the policy definition of sexual harassment remains to be seen, but either way he is a dumbass.

From what I gather, there really hasn't been an investigation(yet).  She went to USA Today with the information (her version of the events).  I'm assuming all that is just getting started.

 

If his claims are accurate and he's able to back it up, she just looks like a gold digger.

[funhusker]

1 hour ago, Ulty said:

Maybe, maybe not. 

 

If he has the evidence, he should have provided it during the investigation. If so, it would be reviewed during the hearing and the hearing officer would weigh it out. But the hearing is not the place to provide new evidence, if he did not provide it during the investigation, why not? 

 

And additionally, a "provocative picture" would not necessarily mean she consented to phone sex and masturbation at a later time. Even if they did have a sexual relationship in the past (which is not what he is saying, unless I misread something), that also does not necessarily imply future consent for all other acts. But it certainly adds more intrigue and complexity to the matter. 

 

It's still an absolutely dumb situation for him to get himself into.

IIIFFFF....

 

The picture shows they've hooked up in the past, it means she's okay with messing around.  It was on the phone.  If he didn't stop when asked, hang up.  Again: IF.

 

How many guys tried to drunk dial ex's or try to hook up with them later.  Was it right? No.  Would it be worth all this?  Absolutely not.

 

And per the Tucker statement, the investigation was a sham.  Maybe he never got the opportunity to share?  My guess, is he's trying to cover his a$$.  But again, IF he has a picture that shows a sexual relationship (to me "provocative" means sexy): sorry lady.

[Ulty]

5 minutes ago, gobiggergoredder said:

From what I gather, there really hasn't been an investigation(yet).  She went to USA Today with the information.  I'm assuming all that is just getting started.

 

If his claims are accurate and he's able to back it up, she just looks like a gold digger.

 

There was an investigation, and now it's going to hearing. From the article you posted:

 

Quote

Upon being contacted by the claimant regarding Mel Tucker, MSU’s Office for Civil Rights immediately commenced a review and subsequent investigation, per university protocol, using a third-party investigator. Vice President and Director of Athletics Alan Haller, members of the Board of Trustees and I were made aware in late December that there was a complaint. Upon the external investigator concluding their evidence gathering, their report was submitted to the parties of the case on July 25. In these cases, the investigator does not make findings or determinations, but instead refers the matter to a third-party resolution officer to hold a hearing. That formal hearing will occur on Oct. 5 and 6 – dates mutually agreed upon by the claimant, respondent and third-party resolution officer.

 

[gobiggergoredder]

3 minutes ago, Ulty said:

 

There was an investigation, and now it's going to hearing. From the article you posted:

 

 

My mistake. 

 

What I heard on the radio this morning is that she was not satisfied with response she received or thought it should be moving faster so she went to USA Today.  I'm assuming that response was a result of the initial investigation.

[Ulty]

4 minutes ago, funhusker said:

The picture shows they've hooked up in the past, it means she's okay with messing around.

He never even claimed this. He said they had a "personal relationship." Nowhere did he say they previously had a sexual relationship. And even for the sake of argument, being okay with messing around in the past does not imply consent to mess around in the future. 

 

Regarding the photo, his statement said: 

Quote

sent me a  provocative picture of the two of us together, suggested what she may look like without clothes

 If she suggested what she MAY look like without clothes, that implies that this photo was clothed. What does "provocative" mean? Why did she send it (if true)? We don't know this yet, this will be interesting. 

 

 

9 minutes ago, funhusker said:

And per the Tucker statement, the investigation was a sham.  Maybe he never got the opportunity to share?

If he never got the opportunity to provide evidence during the investigation, yes that would be a sham. But according to MSU's statement, the parties had a chance to review the investigative report in July (which is a typical part of the Title IX process). So if he actually did have a chance to review, he also would have had a chance to respond. 

[Ulty]

2 minutes ago, gobiggergoredder said:

My mistake. 

 

What I heard on the radio this morning is that she was not satisfied with response she received or thought it should be moving faster so she went to USA Today.  I'm assuming that response was a result of the initial investigation.

This is possible. If so, I have a couple of conflicting thoughts on this.

 

First of all, these processes can be slow, and it is not unusual for parties to become frustrated. Sometimes the pace, and the due process that necessitates that pace, can make it appear to a party that nothing is happening. Further, this woman has been through complaints and investigations in the past that did not go anywhere (that is why she does what she does now), so she likely also has a traumatic response to this kind of situation. 

 

On the other hand, given her experience and knowledge, I would also expect her to understand better than most how these processes work (a slow investigation which is not even supposed to render a conclusion, which then leads to a hearing). 

 

I'm not quite clear on how this first came to USA Today's attention. Did the Complainant take it public first? If that is the case, I'm not sure why she would do that unless she herself had problems with how MSU was handling it. That would not be surprising, since MSU has famously mishandled these issues before. But if that is the case, then both parties are unhappy with the process (which is also not unusual). 

[gobiggergoredder]

1 minute ago, Ulty said:

 

 

I'm not quite clear on how this first came to USA Today's attention. Did the Complainant take it public first? If that is the case, I'm not sure why she would do that unless she herself had problems with how MSU was handling it. That would not be surprising, since MSU has famously mishandled these issues before. But if that is the case, then both parties are unhappy with the process (which is also not unusual). 

My understanding is that she went to USA Today.  

 

Could it also not be surprising that you're going to go after MSU because they have such a poor history?  Easy mark?

[funhusker]

1 hour ago, Ulty said:

He never even claimed this. He said they had a "personal relationship." Nowhere did he say they previously had a sexual relationship. And even for the sake of argument, being okay with messing around in the past does not imply consent to mess around in the future. 

 

Regarding the photo, his statement said: 

 If she suggested what she MAY look like without clothes, that implies that this photo was clothed. What does "provocative" mean? Why did she send it (if true)? We don't know this yet, this will be interesting. 

 

 

If he never got the opportunity to provide evidence during the investigation, yes that would be a sham. But according to MSU's statement, the parties had a chance to review the investigative report in July (which is a typical part of the Title IX process). So if he actually did have a chance to review, he also would have had a chance to respond. 

I don’t mean to be rude, but do you know what “if” means?