1500 ESPN and Paul McEnroe from Ch 5

I believe Paul McEnroe said the report went from the EOAA to Mark Coyle. I'm not sure where the immediate suspensions entered the response.
 

You keep saying this but it isn't true. You need probable cause to charge someone.

Yes, but for sexual assault DAs usually err on the side of caution. They don't want to arrest someone and tarnish their reputation when they have no intent of charging them with a sexual assault.
 

They haven't published the report yet. I wonder if certain coaches and team leaders get a chance to read it in time, if they will change their mind about the boycott?
 




Yes, but for sexual assault DAs usually err on the side of caution. They don't want to arrest someone and tarnish their reputation when they have no intent of charging them with a sexual assault.

You're right, they usually do err on the side of caution. . . the other way. I completely support it, but most sexual assault cases go down like Reggie Lynch - - arrest, gather evidence, then decide to gather charges.
 

He is on right now and hopefully someone will be able to get a link to it and podcast later. He has read and is breaking down the 82 page EOAA report. Started at 11:30am.

-It's Coded and does not use names. Police report uses names.
-Graphic and Dark
-Contrasts to Police Report
-EOAA report comes to conclusions, opinions, recommendations. He says calling it opinionated is being kind.
-2-3 players who did not have contact likely knew about it and lied when asked. Violation of Code.
-Many gray areas around consent. Woman took notes and texted people after the incident and called police.

Channel 5 will be putting the full police report and EOAA report on their site this afternoon for public consumption.

This report is hard to read in a moral way.

McEnroe was correct in all his points.

I hope the team realizes this and ends their boycott.
 

You keep saying this but it isn't true. You need probable cause to charge someone.

Probable cause is what is needed to arrest someone for a crime. Preponderance of the evidence is the standard of proof need for a non-criminal civil hearing. Big difference.
 

You should jump over to the other thread where it talks about the threshold for arrest is merely probable cause, which is lower than preponderance of the evidence. They were not arrested.

Probable cause is related to arrest for criminal acts. Preponderance of the evidence is the standard of proof needed in non-criminal hearings. There is a huge difference. If you don't believe then educate yourself.
 






Top Bottom