Art Briles…

[Dusty]

Well congratulations on buying the media and marketing hype. I have some ocean front property in Arizona you might be interested in as well.

I don't think you can point to me saying "Well I think it's different, but hey that's what the courts said so case closed"? I think the stuff you're referring to has ample evidence including multiple court decisions, but it was far from the only reason I've come to certain conclusions.

And on this topic, there's little doubt in the mind of anyone that has paid attention just how dirty Brile's hands are with this stuff. The fact that they couldn't get him on gross negligence a decade later is disappointing, but it doesn't really change anything. It certainly doesn't "vindicate" him.

 

[QuilterFrawg]

I re-watched "Disgraced" on Showtime yesterday and it really rekindled my Baylor hatred. Watch it, if at all possible. It shows the corruption of the university, as well as the court system in Waco. Basketball coach Dave Bliss was a dishonest, disgusting scum of the earth. The fact that Baylor would hire him after the crap that went on at SMU when he was there, demonstrates their policy of "Win at all cost" and hire whatever scumbag can get us wins. Bliss was even stupid and arrogant enough to be interviewed at the end of the documentary and bold-face lie, without blinking an eye! Patrick Dennehy was most likely shot to death by a teammate, and all Bliss was concerned about was discrediting Patrick and covering his butt to avoid the scandal that would result from all his mismanagement. Did he ever think about that young man lying dead in a field?
Here is the trailer:

 

[Zubaz]

Actually the BOR members that made the accusations had to testify under oath. They were asked if Briles covered up sexual assaults or anything similar. All said, under oath, no. When the AD testified he stated that the head of the BOR came to him and said they were going to role it up and hang it around Briles neck and drop it there. The AD resigned over it and is now at Liberty University. The reason Briles was fired was to save face for Baylor's actions. He was told he was not the right person to lead the program any longer. Why do you think Baylor paid him $18m to have him leave. But to push the football narrative the BOR hired the marketing firm that smeared Coach Briles and built the scenario. The only problem is it still came back on Baylor. Personally I hope Briles sues them all now that they have stated under oath he did none of the things he was accused of.

Well congratulations on buying the media and marketing hype. I have some ocean front property in Arizona you might be interested in as well.

You took a wrong turn somewhere. Allow me to help.
http://SicEm365.com

You'll fit in better with the rest of the #CAB apologists.
(I would use https, but I assume their web security is as lax as their assault prevention)

 

[Moose Stuff]

Well, like I said…. Rough day for a large chunk of our fan base.

 

[Moose Stuff]

Meh, the courts can say whatever they want. Anyone that was paying attention knows Briles was a slimeball that covered up sexual assault.

The idea that Briles was unfairly "cancelled" and is now "vindicated" tells you all you need to know about what of a person Clay Travis is.

Whether you like him or not he’s basing his opinion on way firmer ground than you are.

 

[Zubaz]

Whether you like him or not he’s basing his opinion on way firmer ground than you are.

 

[froginmn]

I don't have deeply held feelings about this situation but this thread got me curious. I don't think this trial exactly exonerates Briles, as some here are implying. What appears to be the case is this:

In 2016 a suit was filled with 15 or 16 complainants; that trial never completed because it was settled.

One of the complainants had her claims "dismissed"/ set aside in that trial but decided to refile in 2018. She (Delores Lozano) is the one whose case is now active. In this particular trial the judge has determined that the complaints against Briles and McCaw aren't appropriate so they have been removed as defendants.

Tell me where I'm inaccurate.

 

[froginmn]

In looking at the above I did see this Texas Monthly article which raises some questions about Briles' testimony:

The Most Puzzling Moments From Art Briles’s Testimony in the Baylor Title IX Lawsuit

Former Baylor University head football coach Art Briles was called to testify on Thursday—and made some surprising assertions.

www.texasmonthly.com

 

[froginmn]

Actually the BOR members that made the accusations had to testify under oath. They were asked if Briles covered up sexual assaults or anything similar. All said, under oath, no.

I'm curious where you are seeing this. Was this in the 2016 trial or this one? Can you cite it?

It seems a little odd that any regent would be in position to know whether Briles did or didn't cover something up. Although you did say "or something similar" so not sure what this means exactly...

Edit: perhaps you're referring to a separate lawsuit where three regents made specific off the cuff remarks about Briles covering up things, and THAT is what they had to walk back?

 

[Froglaw]

On some things you're very much a "that's what the courts determined, case closed" kind of guy (2020 election shenanigans, Jan 6, etc) but on this topic you're like, the courts....whatever.

Kinda odd.

OJ was acquired by a jury after a trial by jury. Burden of proof was “beyond a reasonable doubt”. The State of California did a horrible job of presenting its evidence and most legal experts have taken the position that the State failed to meet its burden.

Art Briles was dismissed from a civil case where the burden of proof is “by a preponderance of the evidence“ or more likely than not. Prior to the conclusion of a jury trial, the trial Judge has now dismissed the case against Briles. No jury acquittal. Without reading the Motions, Responses, the evidence, and hearing the arguments of the attorneys, it is impossible to form an opinion one way or another.

That said, Art Briles knew or should have known a group of his players were preying on co-eds and ruining their lives. His job was to run a clean program at the largest Baptist university in the world.

He failed miserably.

 

[TopFrog]

Briles was known scum when he coached high school. High school coaches said as much. That reputation continued at the college level and certainly did at Waco.

A judge can say what he wants. Because they might not have the evidence to prove an accusation doesn't mean it is not true.

Every coach knows wat is going on within their program and often directs it. You will never convince me that AB did not know what was going on and did nothing to stop it.

They accepted a transfer player accused of sexual assault at the school he left. They had no problem recruiting thugs and everything and everyone was secondary to wins.

Sad to see anyone try to defend him as a human being.

 

[Frog-in-law1995]

OJ was acquired by a jury after a trial by jury. Burden of proof was “beyond a reasonable doubt”. The State of California did a horrible job of presenting its evidence and most legal experts have taken the position that the State failed to meet its burden.

Art Briles was dismissed from a civil case where the burden of proof is “by a preponderance of the evidence“ or more likely than not. Prior to the conclusion of a jury trial, the trial Judge has now dismissed the case against Briles. No jury acquittal. Without reading the Motions, Responses, the evidence, and hearing the arguments of the attorneys, it is impossible to form an opinion one way or another.

That said, Art Briles knew or should have known a group of his players were preying on co-eds and ruining their lives. His job was to run a clean program at the largest Baptist university in the world.

He failed miserably.

Impossible to form an opinion? You think the judge just flipped a coin? The plaintiff obviously didn’t present evidence that Briles was grossly negligent. And as you know, the burden for a judge to take that question away from the jury, is WAY higher than a preponderance.

 

[froginmn]

Impossible to form an opinion? You think the judge just flipped a coin? The plaintiff obviously didn’t present evidence that Briles was grossly negligent. And as you know, the burden for a judge to take that question away from the jury, is WAY higher than a preponderance.

It seems pretty clear that in this particular case, she didn't have evidence against Briles or McCaw (and maybe not against Baylor; we'll see).

I'm just curious; is my above read correct that this was just one of the 15 complainants who went out on her own with a case rather than accepting a settlement in the 2016 trial? And does that mean that she dropped out of the group lawsuit at that time? Seems a little strange, especially given that her particular claims were "dismissed" in that earlier suit. I would think that makes this the case least likely to succeed... Are the others unable to bring additional suits because of the 2016 settlement, or will there be more trials forthcoming?

 

[Moose Stuff]

Impossible to form an opinion? You think the judge just flipped a coin? The plaintiff obviously didn’t present evidence that Briles was grossly negligent. And as you know, the burden for a judge to take that question away from the jury, is WAY higher than a preponderance.

At the end of the day there are people who could find out tomorrow that Art Briles is actually the second coming of Jesus Christ and they would stil hate him. That’s what it comes down too. Nothing will ever change their minds.

 

[froginmn]

At the end of the day there are people who could find out tomorrow that Art Briles is actually the second coming of Jesus Christ and they would stil hate him. That’s what it comes down too. Nothing will ever change their minds.

There's certainly a lot to question but we can't pretend that there isn't plenty of public stuff that makes him undeniably slimy.

I guess you could try to pretend that taking on a freshman All-american who was kicked off his team happened without Briles realizing there was ugly baggage, but publicly stating that Sam Ukwuachu was coming back to play the next year and somehow not knowing that he was on trial REALLY strains credibility.

And yes, I know it was Bennett and not Briles who said that, but again Briles didn't come out with that information.

I'm not sure why you're suddenly so motivated to defend him.

 

[tyler durden]

Briles was known scum when he coached high school. High school coaches said as much. That reputation continued at the college level and certainly did at Waco.

A judge can say what he wants. Because they might not have the evidence to prove an accusation doesn't mean it is not true.

Every coach knows wat is going on within their program and often directs it. You will never convince me that AB did not know what was going on and did nothing to stop it.

They accepted a transfer player accused of sexual assault at the school he left. They had no problem recruiting thugs and everything and everyone was secondary to wins.

Sad to see anyone try to defend him as a human being.

So let’s hire his son who was right there with him to mold our student athletes into fine men just like himself and his dear old dad. I mean, what could possibly go wrong?

 

[Moose Stuff]

There's certainly a lot to question but we can't pretend that there isn't plenty of public stuff that makes him undeniably slimy.

I guess you could try to pretend that taking on a freshman All-american who was kicked off his team happened without Briles realizing there was ugly baggage, but publicly stating that Sam Ukwuachu was coming back to play the next year and somehow not knowing that he was on trial REALLY strains credibility.

And yes, I know it was Bennett and not Briles who said that, but again Briles didn't come out with that information.

I'm not sure why you're suddenly so motivated to defend him.

You’re gonna have to show me where in this thread I’ve defended him. Kinda proves my point doesn’t it??? People want to dislike him so badly that they don’t actually care about anything else.

As for me, I don’t really have an opinion on Art Briles. I don’t know Art Briles. I hated him because he was the coach at Baylor and some bad stuff happened while he was there. That was 10 years ago and time has allowed me to move on from that. It’s very likely he is neither the horrible human he’s made out to be by so many nor is he “vindicated” as Clay suggests. It’s somewhere in between that.

 

[tcudoc]

OJ was acquired by a jury after a trial by jury.

Modern day slavery.

 

[tyler durden]

You’re gonna have to show me where in this thread I’ve defended him. Kinda proves my point doesn’t it??? People want to dislike him so badly that they don’t actually care about anything else.

As for me, I don’t really have an opinion on Art Briles. I don’t know Art Briles. I hated him because he was the coach at Baylor and some bad stuff happened while he was there. That was 10 years ago and time has allowed me to move on from that. It’s very likely he is neither the horrible human he’s made out to be by so many nor is he “vindicated” as Clay suggests. It’s somewhere in between that.

Even if you polish poop to a fine gleam, it’s still poop.

 

[Prince of Purpoole II]

Exactly. A court “vindicated” OJ too.

There is a difference. In Cali, a jury said the prosecution did not eliminate all reasonable doubt of guilt for OJ. In this case a judge found that there is not sufficient evidence to even ask a jury if clear and convincing evidence exists to hold AB responsible. That is a fairly strong statement.

I suppose there might still be a case out there where Briles bears some legal responsibility but this one is not it