W-T-F Now Poole is in jail

[tnt]

Maybe they use Costco packaging theses days.......

 

[grizcountry420]

Question?

Person in Question buys 2 pills. Why 2, has he done them before and knows what goes on? Or did he buy two to give one to some unsuspecting victim? If I were going to experiment I think I would just buy 1 to start. Just trying to get in the mind of the younger generation.

You just made coffee spew out of my nose...... :lol:

 

[GrizMusician]

If Poole is convicted of a felony, he's done under the school's conduct code, right? If, however, as I believe is likely (provided he has no significant priors, of course), he pleads to a misdemeanor, gets probation, and satisfactorily completes it, I think there is a path back to football for him. Are we really prepared to eliminate all possibility of redemption just because this young man committed one criminal offense (note that I didn't use the "mistake" or "bad judgment" dodge)? That's pretty harsh.

Good question Bearister.

What if Poole was convicted on a misdermeanor of MIP? Would we still be screaming for his removal from the team? X isn't my drug of choice by any means and I would have more issues if my child was found to have X more so than alcohol but it does beg the question, what drug choices do we accept as a society?

Absolutely. The school & the team are already under the microscope & he decides to break the rules set forth by the team, school, & NCAA - let alone breaking the law? Idiotic. It's clear that he doesn't have the best interests of the team or the program he represents in mind & he is a liability.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S3 using Tapatalk 2

 

[garizzalies]

What looked like a cover-up?

how 'bout when Oday literally covered up (edited) portions of the Bartz report?

Don't think it was O'Day who did that anyway, but don't recall for sure. Anyway, editing is not covering up. Reports and documents in draft form are edited all the time. The edit was done to make the report accurate. It said players were involved in something, and was changed to students. This was the matter for which the police declined, twice, to charge, and players won the student code hearing 7-0 and were allowed to graduate in the spring. Some kind of cover-up that was.

I wasn't talking about some ordinary, internal "document in draft form." Editing an "independant" report is covering it up. You can't have it both ways: either its "independent" or its not. And it wasn't done to "make it more accurate." Quite the contrary. the most critical info was covered up: that pflu was the "gap." Meanwhile, griznation is furious that "no reason" is given for firing pflu even though the penn state cover-up is front and center and it dealt with the same "gap" (lack of reporting). If the matter was such a non sequitur, why cover it up in the first place? no harm, no foul, right?

 

[AllWeatherFan]

If Poole is convicted of a felony, he's done under the school's conduct code, right? If, however, as I believe is likely (provided he has no significant priors, of course), he pleads to a misdemeanor, gets probation, and satisfactorily completes it, I think there is a path back to football for him. Are we really prepared to eliminate all possibility of redemption just because this young man committed one criminal offense (note that I didn't use the "mistake" or "bad judgment" dodge)? That's pretty harsh.

I'm sorry, bearister, but your post is way too nuanced and contains way too much ambiguity. In other words, it's way too intelligent for eGriz.

 

[tnt]

What looked like a cover-up?

how 'bout when Oday literally covered up (edited) portions of the Bartz report?

Don't think it was O'Day who did that anyway, but don't recall for sure. Anyway, editing is not covering up. Reports and documents in draft form are edited all the time. The edit was done to make the report accurate. It said players were involved in something, and was changed to students. This was the matter for which the police declined, twice, to charge, and players won the student code hearing 7-0 and were allowed to graduate in the spring. Some kind of cover-up that was.

I wasn't talking about some ordinary, internal "document in draft form." Editing an "independant" report is covering it up. You can't have it both ways: either its "independent" or its not. And it wasn't done to "make it more accurate." Quite the contrary. the most critical info was covered up: that pflu was the "gap." Meanwhile, griznation is furious that "no reason" is given for firing pflu even though the penn state cover-up is front and center and it dealt with the same "gap" (lack of reporting). If the matter was such a non sequitur, why cover it up in the first place? no harm, no foul, right?

People only get dinged for bad cover-ups. If they were GOOD coverups, no one would know. In PR's world unless they weren't charged tried and convicted there was "no" incident. He continues in denial honestly believing "nothing happened" or stupid actions that have effected a lot of good players (and people.) Don't waste your breath.

 

[br fan]

how 'bout when Oday literally covered up (edited) portions of the Bartz report?

Don't think it was O'Day who did that anyway, but don't recall for sure. Anyway, editing is not covering up. Reports and documents in draft form are edited all the time. The edit was done to make the report accurate. It said players were involved in something, and was changed to students. This was the matter for which the police declined, twice, to charge, and players won the student code hearing 7-0 and were allowed to graduate in the spring. Some kind of cover-up that was.

I wasn't talking about some ordinary, internal "document in draft form." Editing an "independant" report is covering it up. You can't have it both ways: either its "independent" or its not. And it wasn't done to "make it more accurate." Quite the contrary. the most critical info was covered up: that pflu was the "gap." Meanwhile, griznation is furious that "no reason" is given for firing pflu even though the penn state cover-up is front and center and it dealt with the same "gap" (lack of reporting). If the matter was such a non sequitur, why cover it up in the first place? no harm, no foul, right?

People only get dinged for bad cover-ups. If they were GOOD coverups, no one would know. In PR's world unless they weren't charged tried and convicted there was "no" incident. He continues in denial honestly believing "nothing happened" or stupid actions that have effected a lot of good players (and people.) Don't waste your breath.

The Barz report was requested under FOIA. UM had an obligation to turn it over, but also had the obligation to not release privacy protected information. The situation's really no different than the release yesterday of the Barkus/Rehberg boat wreck report, with the redacted personal information. Redacting the personal information from the Barz investigative report may play well on e-griz as a "cover-up," but it's pretty common in any kind of FOIA request.

 

[tnt]

Don't think it was O'Day who did that anyway, but don't recall for sure. Anyway, editing is not covering up. Reports and documents in draft form are edited all the time. The edit was done to make the report accurate. It said players were involved in something, and was changed to students. This was the matter for which the police declined, twice, to charge, and players won the student code hearing 7-0 and were allowed to graduate in the spring. Some kind of cover-up that was.

I wasn't talking about some ordinary, internal "document in draft form." Editing an "independant" report is covering it up. You can't have it both ways: either its "independent" or its not. And it wasn't done to "make it more accurate." Quite the contrary. the most critical info was covered up: that pflu was the "gap." Meanwhile, griznation is furious that "no reason" is given for firing pflu even though the penn state cover-up is front and center and it dealt with the same "gap" (lack of reporting). If the matter was such a non sequitur, why cover it up in the first place? no harm, no foul, right?

People only get dinged for bad cover-ups. If they were GOOD coverups, no one would know. In PR's world unless they weren't charged tried and convicted there was "no" incident. He continues in denial honestly believing "nothing happened" or stupid actions that have effected a lot of good players (and people.) Don't waste your breath.

The Barz report was requested under FOIA. UM had an obligation to turn it over, but also had the obligation to not release privacy protected information. The situation's really no different than the release yesterday of the Barkus/Rehberg boat wreck report, with the redacted personal information. Redacting the personal information from the Barz investigative report may play well on e-griz as a "cover-up," but it's pretty common in any kind of FOIA request.

Thats not quite what happened. In any event if there motive was to redact personal iNformation, thats what they would have done. Instead they had a protracted email exchange about how tobest edit the report. Surley they knew the emails were subject to FOIA too...... Including some of Jim Foleys greatest moments.

 

[PlayerRep]

What looked like a cover-up?

how 'bout when Oday literally covered up (edited) portions of the Bartz report?

Don't think it was O'Day who did that anyway, but don't recall for sure. Anyway, editing is not covering up. Reports and documents in draft form are edited all the time. The edit was done to make the report accurate. It said players were involved in something, and was changed to students. This was the matter for which the police declined, twice, to charge, and players won the student code hearing 7-0 and were allowed to graduate in the spring. Some kind of cover-up that was.

I wasn't talking about some ordinary, internal "document in draft form." Editing an "independant" report is covering it up. You can't have it both ways: either its "independent" or its not. And it wasn't done to "make it more accurate." Quite the contrary. the most critical info was covered up: that pflu was the "gap." Meanwhile, griznation is furious that "no reason" is given for firing pflu even though the penn state cover-up is front and center and it dealt with the same "gap" (lack of reporting). If the matter was such a non sequitur, why cover it up in the first place? no harm, no foul, right?

Nope, what you said is not true. An independent report (or expert opinion or anything similar) is not done until it is finalized and sent out. It is not uncommon for a draft of the report to be sent to the "client" for review, nor is it uncommon for a report that purports to be final to be edited and then (re)finalized. Of course, the "client" can't cause something to change so much that the independent person/group is not comfortable with the final product (and a good independent person/group will not permit that). I have been involved in doing, overseeing or requesting such reports for over 35 years.

This edit was quite minor. You can call the edit a cover-up all you want, but the fact is that it wasn't even close to a cover-up. Not saying in the report that Pflu was the gap was no big deal. Are you saying former justice Barz was part of a cover-up? I'd love to see you say that to her face. There was no requirement for Pflu to report up at that time. The incident had been resolved. The university added detail a bit later, saying what the "gap" had been from the coach on up. Later, the students won their honor court hearing 7-0.

 

[PlayerRep]

I wasn't talking about some ordinary, internal "document in draft form." Editing an "independant" report is covering it up. You can't have it both ways: either its "independent" or its not. And it wasn't done to "make it more accurate." Quite the contrary. the most critical info was covered up: that pflu was the "gap." Meanwhile, griznation is furious that "no reason" is given for firing pflu even though the penn state cover-up is front and center and it dealt with the same "gap" (lack of reporting). If the matter was such a non sequitur, why cover it up in the first place? no harm, no foul, right?

People only get dinged for bad cover-ups. If they were GOOD coverups, no one would know. In PR's world unless they weren't charged tried and convicted there was "no" incident. He continues in denial honestly believing "nothing happened" or stupid actions that have effected a lot of good players (and people.) Don't waste your breath.

The Barz report was requested under FOIA. UM had an obligation to turn it over, but also had the obligation to not release privacy protected information. The situation's really no different than the release yesterday of the Barkus/Rehberg boat wreck report, with the redacted personal information. Redacting the personal information from the Barz investigative report may play well on e-griz as a "cover-up," but it's pretty common in any kind of FOIA request.

Thats not quite what happened. In any event if there motive was to redact personal iNformation, thats what they would have done. Instead they had a protracted email exchange about how tobest edit the report. Surley they knew the emails were subject to FOIA too...... Including some of Jim Foleys greatest moments.

"Protracted"? There were 2 or 3 short emails. They probably took at total of 90 seconds to write them. Some kind of "protraction".

The university code process is supposed to confidential. It is not supposed to identify people. That's why the wording of the summaries of each of multiple incidents is so generic and without detail.

 

[tnt]

Whether they won the "honor code hearing" is irrelevent. The "gap" was a poor attempt to make sure the information never got that far. Of course the DOE and DOJ investigations, the subsequent rewriting of policys, the more recent document exchanges with the DOJ to insure the new policys address the "gap" would all have been unneccesary had they simply contacted PR an have been told nothing ever happened and it was all a figment of folks imaginations.

You know sorta like Beau....

 

[br fan]

I wasn't talking about some ordinary, internal "document in draft form." Editing an "independant" report is covering it up. You can't have it both ways: either its "independent" or its not. And it wasn't done to "make it more accurate." Quite the contrary. the most critical info was covered up: that pflu was the "gap." Meanwhile, griznation is furious that "no reason" is given for firing pflu even though the penn state cover-up is front and center and it dealt with the same "gap" (lack of reporting). If the matter was such a non sequitur, why cover it up in the first place? no harm, no foul, right?

People only get dinged for bad cover-ups. If they were GOOD coverups, no one would know. In PR's world unless they weren't charged tried and convicted there was "no" incident. He continues in denial honestly believing "nothing happened" or stupid actions that have effected a lot of good players (and people.) Don't waste your breath.

The Barz report was requested under FOIA. UM had an obligation to turn it over, but also had the obligation to not release privacy protected information. The situation's really no different than the release yesterday of the Barkus/Rehberg boat wreck report, with the redacted personal information. Redacting the personal information from the Barz investigative report may play well on e-griz as a "cover-up," but it's pretty common in any kind of FOIA request.

Thats not quite what happened. In any event if there motive was to redact personal iNformation, thats what they would have done. Instead they had a protracted email exchange about how tobest edit the report. Surley they knew the emails were subject to FOIA too...... Including some of Jim Foleys greatest moments.

I haven't read the e-mails, but the Missoulian's story on what those e-mails said stated that they wanted Barz to amend the report because they felt it's release would violate privacy issues.

You're right that e-mails are also discoverable under FOIA. But to be honest I'm not sure if UM was wrong in requesting Barz amend her report to a read a "university employee" instead of Pflu because that really wasn't a privacy issue, or if UM was actually wrong in releasing the e-mails without redacting the privacy information from the e-mails as well.

 

[garizzalies]

how 'bout when Oday literally covered up (edited) portions of the Bartz report?

Don't think it was O'Day who did that anyway, but don't recall for sure. Anyway, editing is not covering up. Reports and documents in draft form are edited all the time. The edit was done to make the report accurate. It said players were involved in something, and was changed to students. This was the matter for which the police declined, twice, to charge, and players won the student code hearing 7-0 and were allowed to graduate in the spring. Some kind of cover-up that was.

I wasn't talking about some ordinary, internal "document in draft form." Editing an "independant" report is covering it up. You can't have it both ways: either its "independent" or its not. And it wasn't done to "make it more accurate." Quite the contrary. the most critical info was covered up: that pflu was the "gap." Meanwhile, griznation is furious that "no reason" is given for firing pflu even though the penn state cover-up is front and center and it dealt with the same "gap" (lack of reporting). If the matter was such a non sequitur, why cover it up in the first place? no harm, no foul, right?

Nope, what you said is not true. An independent report (or expert opinion or anything similar) is not done until it is finalized and sent out. It is not uncommon for a draft of the report to be sent to the "client" for review, nor is it uncommon for a report that purports to be final to be edited and then (re)finalized. Of course, the "client" can't cause something to change so much that the independent person/group is not comfortable with the final product (and a good independent person/group will not permit that). I have been involved in doing, overseeing or requesting such reports for over 35 years.

This edit was quite minor. You can call the edit a cover-up all you want, but the fact is that it wasn't even close to a cover-up. Not saying in the report that Pflu was the gap was no big deal. Are you saying former justice Barz was part of a cover-up? I'd love to see you say that to her face. There was no requirement for Pflu to report up at that time. The incident had been resolved. The university added detail a bit later, saying what the "gap" had been from the coach on up. Later, the students won their honor court hearing 7-0.

That was another nice try but we're not talking about some expert report you'd file in a lawsuit (there is nothing independent about those). Nor are we talking about an internal document. the report was for the public's benefit, so the U should never have labled it "independent." And if you're right, why didn't penn state edit the Freeh report?

The edit was quite MAJOR and a BIG DEAL. if you haven't noticed, Pflu is gone and we're being investigated by just about every conceivable federal agency. Maybe your arguments would hold water if the penn state debacle didn't pre-date us on the exact same issue (failing to report).

I love the line about how there "was no requirement to report." Ironic. Did you happen to read the news today about Mr. Spanier? i think he raised the same defense.

 

[tnt]

People only get dinged for bad cover-ups. If they were GOOD coverups, no one would know. In PR's world unless they weren't charged tried and convicted there was "no" incident. He continues in denial honestly believing "nothing happened" or stupid actions that have effected a lot of good players (and people.) Don't waste your breath.

The Barz report was requested under FOIA. UM had an obligation to turn it over, but also had the obligation to not release privacy protected information. The situation's really no different than the release yesterday of the Barkus/Rehberg boat wreck report, with the redacted personal information. Redacting the personal information from the Barz investigative report may play well on e-griz as a "cover-up," but it's pretty common in any kind of FOIA request.

Thats not quite what happened. In any event if there motive was to redact personal iNformation, thats what they would have done. Instead they had a protracted email exchange about how tobest edit the report. Surley they knew the emails were subject to FOIA too...... Including some of Jim Foleys greatest moments.

I haven't read the e-mails, but the Missoulian's story on what those e-mails said stated that they wanted Barz to amend the report because they felt it's release would violate privacy issues.

You're right that e-mails are also discoverable under FOIA. But to be honest I'm not sure if UM was wrong in requesting Barz amend her report to a read a "university employee" instead of Pflu because that really wasn't a privacy issue, or if UM was actually wrong in releasing the e-mails without redacting the privacy information from the e-mails as well.

You make a good point. I don't know that the changes in the barz report are as significant as the culture of "the fewer people that know about anything" the less chance it will reflect on the "program" and university and what does come out we will spin as best we can" culture that lead to all the major players in this thing either retiring, being fired or reassigned while moved out. If each of the issues had been handled openly and directly no matter the potential, it would have played out much better.

The weaseling about identities was almost funny (to me) by the time the Barz report came out the whole world (literally) knew who and what......

 

[garizzalies]

yeah br, go back and read the emails and article. The edits were way more than simply covering up identities for privacy purposes--they covered up critical substance too. That's why i like to needle PR over this issue. He adamantly claims there was no "cover up" when the evidence literally shows that is what UM did.

 

[br fan]

yeah br, go back and read the emails and article. The edits were way more than simply covering up identities for privacy purposes--they covered up critical substance too. That's why i like to needle PR over this issue. He adamantly claims there was no "cover up" when the evidence literally shows that is what UM did.

Like I noted above I have not read the e-mails, but I did pull up one of the old Missoulian stories on it:

By BETSY COHEN of the Missoulian

University of Montana President Royce Engstrom speaks during a news conference regarding alleged assaults against two UM students in February.

All references to Grizzlies football players and their coach were removed from a report by an “independent investigator” on allegations of sexual assault at the University of Montana when campus officials released an altered version of the document to the public.

The discrepancies were discovered among hundreds of emails recently released to the Missoulian and the Wall Street Journal, which filed a public records request.

In December 2011, UM President Royce Engstrom commissioned former Montana Supreme Court Justice Diane Barz to conduct an investigation of two separate reports of sexual assaults that occurred in November and December of that year. Additional sexual assault allegations came to light during Barz’s investigation, and her report ended up including a total of nine incidents.

At issue is the report’s description of events that took place in December 2010.

In the original report, which Barz sent on Jan. 31, the description was as follows:

“Alleged rape against student by multiple football players. Police report filed. No charges brought. Police told the football coach. The coach did not tell the Director of Athletics, the Dean of Students, or anyone else up the chain of command. No effort was taken to try to reach out to the student who had reported the rape. The student has just come forward to University (January 2012) Officials and indicated that she wants to proceed with the student conduct code process.”

When the university released the report to the public on Feb. 1, the description was changed to read:

“Alleged rape against student by multiple students. Police report filed. No charges brought. Police provided limited information about allegations to University employee. The situation was addressed with the students allegedly involved. UM does not have guidelines and procedures requiring reporting of information of the nature received in the manner this information was received. UM is currently reviewing its guidelines and procedures. The student has just come forward to University (2012) Officials and indicated that she wants to proceed with the student conduct code process. Investigation ongoing.”

The reason for the changes, Engstrom said Friday, was student confidentiality.

“In full consultation with Ms. Barz we discussed the importance of student confidentiality in her reports,” Engstrom said. “Because of the ongoing nature of the investigation at that time, and because none of those alleged perpetrators had the opportunity for due process at that time, it was ethically essential to remove any identifying characteristics from the report.”

***

As to any apparent conflict surrounding Barz’s assignment to conduct an “independent” investigation and the alteration of the report that was eventually made public, Engstrom said, “I did commission Diane Barz to provide the perspective of an independent investigator to help us. ... There was no requirement to make the report public.

“We chose to do that,” he said. “I chose to make that report public, and in making the report a public document we had to abide by public and state laws that protect student identity.”

The changes, Engstrom said, were made with Barz’s consent and knowledge, and by a small group of UM administrators who had been discussing the nature of the report, including Lucy France, director of equal opportunity and affirmative action, and Charles Couture, former dean of students.

“The final report that is out there is a report that Diane Barz was comfortable with, and approved,” Engstrom said, “and knew was going to become the public document.”

As explained in her report, Barz considered her efforts to be thorough, but less than legendary.

“In this investigation I assumed the process would compare to an ‘internal audit’ on whether (US. Department of Education Office) guidelines were followed in the reporting of sexual assaults on campus and ensure the UM adequately addressed particular cases of sexual assault,” Barz wrote. “The expectation that I would come on campus as a ‘private investigator’ like the Kinsey Millhone character in Sue Grafton’s books to solve the crimes of sexual assault has not happened.”

***

Since the Barz report was made public, UM has worked with the Missoula Police Department to improve the reporting and handling of campus sexual assaults.

Two federal investigations have begun into the handling of sexual assaults at UM and in Missoula.

The university, UM’s Office of Public Safety, the Missoula Police Department and the Missoula County Attorney’s Office are the subject of an investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice, while the U.S. Department of Education is examining UM and the Grizzlies football team.

The NCAA is investigating the Grizzlies football team, though the intent remains unknown.

Engstrom in March fired UM Athletic Director Jim O’Day and head football coach Robin Pflugrad for as-yet-unspecified reasons.

Reporter Betsy Cohen can be reached at 523-5253 or at [email protected].

 

[PlayerRep]

yeah br, go back and read the emails and article. The edits were way more than simply covering up identities for privacy purposes--they covered up critical substance too. That's why i like to needle PR over this issue. He adamantly claims there was no "cover up" when the evidence literally shows that is what UM did.

Looks like the article brfan provided, completely supports my view and shoots down all of your argument. I knew it would.

 

[PlayerRep]

Don't think it was O'Day who did that anyway, but don't recall for sure. Anyway, editing is not covering up. Reports and documents in draft form are edited all the time. The edit was done to make the report accurate. It said players were involved in something, and was changed to students. This was the matter for which the police declined, twice, to charge, and players won the student code hearing 7-0 and were allowed to graduate in the spring. Some kind of cover-up that was.

I wasn't talking about some ordinary, internal "document in draft form." Editing an "independant" report is covering it up. You can't have it both ways: either its "independent" or its not. And it wasn't done to "make it more accurate." Quite the contrary. the most critical info was covered up: that pflu was the "gap." Meanwhile, griznation is furious that "no reason" is given for firing pflu even though the penn state cover-up is front and center and it dealt with the same "gap" (lack of reporting). If the matter was such a non sequitur, why cover it up in the first place? no harm, no foul, right?

Nope, what you said is not true. An independent report (or expert opinion or anything similar) is not done until it is finalized and sent out. It is not uncommon for a draft of the report to be sent to the "client" for review, nor is it uncommon for a report that purports to be final to be edited and then (re)finalized. Of course, the "client" can't cause something to change so much that the independent person/group is not comfortable with the final product (and a good independent person/group will not permit that). I have been involved in doing, overseeing or requesting such reports for over 35 years.

This edit was quite minor. You can call the edit a cover-up all you want, but the fact is that it wasn't even close to a cover-up. Not saying in the report that Pflu was the gap was no big deal. Are you saying former justice Barz was part of a cover-up? I'd love to see you say that to her face. There was no requirement for Pflu to report up at that time. The incident had been resolved. The university added detail a bit later, saying what the "gap" had been from the coach on up. Later, the students won their honor court hearing 7-0.

That was another nice try but we're not talking about some expert report you'd file in a lawsuit (there is nothing independent about those). Nor are we talking about an internal document. the report was for the public's benefit, so the U should never have labled it "independent." And if you're right, why didn't penn state edit the Freeh report?

The edit was quite MAJOR and a BIG DEAL. if you haven't noticed, Pflu is gone and we're being investigated by just about every conceivable federal agency. Maybe your arguments would hold water if the penn state debacle didn't pre-date us on the exact same issue (failing to report).

I love the line about how there "was no requirement to report." Ironic. Did you happen to read the news today about Mr. Spanier? i think he raised the same defense.

I said I was involved with independent investigatioins/reports for companies and institutions, not just expert witness reports. Most of the types of independent investigations/reports I've been involved with over the years are similar to what Judge Barz did.

Penn St should never have hired Freeh. He didn't a horrible job, added "conclusions" that had little or no support, was unnecessarily damaging to Penn St, and will cost Penn St tens of millions of extra dollars, maybe approaching $100 million. Penn St's board of trustees and president goofed that one up badly.

 

[tnt]

yeah br, go back and read the emails and article. The edits were way more than simply covering up identities for privacy purposes--they covered up critical substance too. That's why i like to needle PR over this issue. He adamantly claims there was no "cover up" when the evidence literally shows that is what UM did.

Looks like the article brfan provided, completely supports my view and shoots down all of your argument. I knew it would.

Which part? The part where a coach was failing to report an alleged incident or the part where a university employee failed to report an alleged incident, you know so no one would ever know the football team was involved in an incident that would have fall out for the whole university??? Or could it have been the part where the coach/employee approves of team members involvment in a gang bang (or two) and feels it isn't important enough to the image of the university unless it rises to the level of a gang rape to be reported up the line???

 

[br fan]

yeah br, go back and read the emails and article. The edits were way more than simply covering up identities for privacy purposes--they covered up critical substance too. That's why i like to needle PR over this issue. He adamantly claims there was no "cover up" when the evidence literally shows that is what UM did.

Looks like the article brfan provided, completely supports my view and shoots down all of your argument. I knew it would.

Which part? The part where a coach was failing to report an alleged incident or the part where a university employee failed to report an alleged incident, you know so no one would ever know the football team was involved in an incident that would have fall out for the whole university??? Or could it have been the part where the coach/employee approves of team members involvment in a gang bang (or two) and feels it isn't important enough to the image of the university unless it rises to the level of a gang rape to be reported up the line???

There's no doubt Pflu failed to report the incident up the line, but Engstrom has always been clear in his releases that at least the official position of UM was that Pflu officially did nothing wrong because he was not required to do so under the procedures in place at that time (we can debate whether Pflu was stupid in failing to report it, which unofficially led to his firing).

The thing that intrigues me, however, is you normally are an outspoken advocate for Engstrom and I'm curious if that extends to the Barz report. It's pretty easy to blame the "cover-up" in amending the Barz report, if there was one, on O'Day and Foley, but it appears to me Engstrom was calling the shots. Earlier you stated UM would have been better off being open about what happened, but if that's true, I am curious as to why you don't think that includes Entstrom and what he has stated in his press releases.