Wisconsin WR Quintez Cephus taking leave of absence from team...

Donate To GopherHole
It's what defense lawyers do: cast doubt, confuse the issues, make fine distinctions, and attack the victim. Who know's what really happened other than those involved. There is a certain level of accountability and decorum major D1 athletes should be held to above the general student population. I still think back at my college days, finding someone to hook-up with was simple. . . I can't imagine how easy it would be if you're a stud football player. Why bang a pass-out girl? Take them to chipotle or a move and do what every want . . . . in consensual fashion.
 

abrams said:
Why bang a pass-out girl? Take them to chipotle or a move and do what every want . . . . in consensual fashion.
Click to expand...

I think the point is that he's saying that he didn't "bang a pass-out girl". If it can be proven (beyond a reasonable doubt) that he did, lock him up and throw away the key.
 

SSWWMAS said:
If what the defense says in this article is event remotely true, it sounds like the DA withheld video and cell phone evidence and the two women weren't nearly as intoxicated as the complaint states and could have consented to relations.

Of course it could also be a way for the defense to spin public opinion, but things aren't looking good for the DA's case if the Cephus' attorneys really do have this evidence. This is only for the second degree sexual assault charge.

https://madison.com/wsj/news/local/...cle_b70e17b6-38e1-5b66-97b9-c559e12e2de6.html
Click to expand...

I don't think it's fair to say that the DA "withheld" anything. I don't think he was obliged to provide anything to the defense until either after charges were filed on Monday or the arraignment (if that's the right word) this morning. My guess is that the defense obtained this information on its own.
 

You should read the policy. It spells out specific situations where suspension is automatic. Outside of those situations, coaches/AD have discretion on suspensions
Click to expand...

We're on the same page here.

We were told Quintez could not be suspended because he was not arrested/charged. We are now being told that suspensions can be brought by coaches/AD.
 

SSWWMAS said:
If what the defense says in this article is event remotely true, it sounds like the DA withheld video and cell phone evidence and the two women weren't nearly as intoxicated as the complaint states and could have consented to relations.

Of course it could also be a way for the defense to spin public opinion, but things aren't looking good for the DA's case if the Cephus' attorneys really do have this evidence. This is only for the second degree sexual assault charge.

https://madison.com/wsj/news/local/...cle_b70e17b6-38e1-5b66-97b9-c559e12e2de6.html
Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with the DA. What is being claimed is that the defense found some security camera footage that appears to show the woman, claiming to have been too intoxicated to give consent, as not being very intoxicated at all. That's why they want to dismiss that charge, which is based on that woman's claim.
 



fraternity2017 said:
We're on the same page here.

We were told Quintez could not be suspended because he was not arrested/charged. We are now being told that suspensions can be brought by coaches/AD.
Click to expand...

You weren't told that. The 8th post in this thread is a link to the policy. If you didn't read it or can't understand it, that's on you. I mean, the second bullet point reads, "All UW student-athletes are subject to team rules developed by the head coach of each sport." That's what resulted in Davis's suspension, not the over-arching "Student-Athlete Discipline Policy" that forced Cephus's suspension.

You'll also note that not every legal transgression triggers the Student-Athlete Discipline Policy. For example, an underage drinking citation wouldn't trigger the policy, any discipline would be left up to the coach or fall under UWS 17, Student Nonacademic Disciplinary Procedures (also referenced in the link that was posted).
 


fraternity2017 said:
We're on the same page here.

We were told Quintez could not be suspended because he was not arrested/charged. We are now being told that suspensions can be brought by coaches/AD.
Click to expand...

No, we're not, at all. The policy is very specific in it's application, and written with very plain language.
 
Last edited:



happygophersgolucky said:
Call me cynical, but are these two threads related. First, Davis is projected to be a starting WR on a team going for the gold. Cephus is not on the 2 deep. Second, Cephus appears to be "taking the fall" by resigning and maybe even the prosecution. Davis will probably survive and thrive.

My cynicism is based on a long, observant and reflective life. For guidance on this matter, see the thoughts of GH member Sparlimb whose mantra is "My life has become a single, ongoing revelation that I haven't been cynical enough." - Chrisjen Avasarala
​

Reply
​
Click to expand...

FWIW, before Cephus was injured last year, he was their #1 WR. Was expected to be that this year. He was likely off the 2 deep due to already being suspended when you looked.
 

fraternity2017 said:
I get that. I'm saying we were told Quintez was not suspended because of the policy.

I was told on Twitter by several Wisconsin fans that the policy was followed and that's why he wasn't suspended. Now all of a sudden the policy doesn't need to be followed to suspend a player.
Click to expand...

Cephus took a leave of absence on Saturday before any charges were announced. That had nothing to do with Athletic Department policy and was basically preemptive. Once the charges were announced the AD policy kicked in and he was automatically suspended from the team. Because Davis hasn't been charged with anything the AD policy is irrelevant and any punishment is up to Chryst. Should Davis be charged with a crime, the policy would kick in.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom