Chase Scanlan suspended indefinitely

Capt. Tuttle

Living Legend
Joined
Aug 22, 2011
Messages
18,922
Like
23,434
There is NO federal law that prohibits the coach of a college team from deciding who is on the team, and who is not. (Assuming someone is not prevented from being on the team due to race, religion, s e xual orientation, religion, etc.) Being suspected of violence is not a protected class, and playing on a team is not a right.
 

Capt. Tuttle

Living Legend
Joined
Aug 22, 2011
Messages
18,922
Like
23,434
think this falls under the old innocent until proven guilty category and right to due process, but I think the teams actions yesterday provided some writing on the wall as to validity the claims
That standard doesn’t apply to being on a sports team
 

Capt. Tuttle

Living Legend
Joined
Aug 22, 2011
Messages
18,922
Like
23,434
Well said. The stuff DOE is currently reviewing and will almost certainly change are the enhanced protections for the accused put in by the prior administration, e.g. presence of third parties at a hearing.
Yeah. God forbid that accused persons have a right to counsel, especially when a property right (scholarship) is at stake.
I was one of the last lawyers to participate in one of those proceedings. It was such a kangaroo court that I got the conviction thrown out on the internal appeal. (Got a nice thank you from coach Edsall)
This complaint against him made because the girl was pissed the guy kicked her out of his apartment on a Saturday morning because his girlfriend was coming from out of town to visit. No one from the judicial board asked her any questions about the myriad inconsistent statements. Nothing. They believed her before she sat down to testify.
The board is generally made up of social justice anti-male, anti-athlete, milk toast followers looking to “get even” rather than effect justice under the rules.
 

Mareiniss

2nd String
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
785
Like
1,711
Yeah. God forbid that accused persons have a right to counsel, especially when a property right (scholarship) is at stake.
I was one of the last lawyers to participate in one of those proceedings. It was such a kangaroo court that I got the conviction thrown out on the internal appeal. (Got a nice thank you from coach Edsall)
This complaint against him made because the girl was pissed the guy kicked her out of his apartment on a Saturday morning because his girlfriend was coming from out of town to visit. No one from the judicial board asked her any questions about the myriad inconsistent statements. Nothing. They believed her before she sat down to testify.
The board is generally made up of social justice anti-male, anti-athlete, milk toast followers looking to “get even” rather than effect justice under the rules.
I gave you a “like” for the “milk toast” reference. It’s an under-used term :)
 

Shrmdougluvr

You're more of a games guy.
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
4,694
Like
7,330
There is NO federal law that prohibits the coach of a college team from deciding who is on the team, and who is not. (Assuming someone is not prevented from being on the team due to race, religion, s e xual orientation, religion, etc.) Being suspected of violence is not a protected class, and playing on a team is not a right.

You're most likely right. (Courts can be funny with what constitutes a property interest/right, and if the complainant withdraws, and Chase is run off, there's probably multiple cognizable claims there as well)

But the University stands to gain nothing by removing Chase from the team right now. He's a Native American from a reservation, playing on a team made up of mostly upper middle class white men, with all white captains, and all white coaches, and a white AD, and a white University President. He's essentially persona non grata from the Team, who are in South Bend as I type. From accounts, the alleged victim/complainant is also alway from campus. The semester is nearly over. Financial aid for the year is almost finished.

The last thing the University needs to do is screw up the process, or create a claim for a student that otherwise would not exist. This is especially true when the outcome is likely certain.

Also, you're kind of talking out both sides here. While the preserving the sanctity of the team and affording a student due process are not necessarily mutually exclusive, they do tend to go arm and arm.
 

Willy75

2nd String
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
516
Like
478
Yeah. God forbid that accused persons have a right to counsel, especially when a property right (scholarship) is at stake.
I was one of the last lawyers to participate in one of those proceedings. It was such a kangaroo court that I got the conviction thrown out on the internal appeal. (Got a nice thank you from coach Edsall)
This complaint against him made because the girl was pissed the guy kicked her out of his apartment on a Saturday morning because his girlfriend was coming from out of town to visit. No one from the judicial board asked her any questions about the myriad inconsistent statements. Nothing. They believed her before she sat down to testify.
The board is generally made up of social justice anti-male, anti-athlete, milk toast followers looking to “get even” rather than effect justice under the rules.
You're most likely right. (Courts can be funny with what constitutes a property interest/right, and if the complainant withdraws, and Chase is run off, there's probably multiple cognizable claims there as well)

But the University stands to gain nothing by removing Chase from the team right now. He's a Native American from a reservation, playing on a team made up of mostly upper middle class white men, with all white captains, and all white coaches, and a white AD, and a white University President. He's essentially persona non grata from the Team, who are in South Bend as I type. From accounts, the alleged victim/complainant is also alway from campus. The semester is nearly over. Financial aid for the year is almost finished.

The last thing the University needs to do is screw up the process, or create a claim for a student that otherwise would not exist. This is especially true when the outcome is likely certain.

Also, you're kind of talking out both sides here. While the preserving the sanctity of the team and affording a student due process are not necessarily mutually exclusive, they do tend to go arm and arm.
Interesting points all around, and as a (mostly) retired lawyer I appreciate the back and forth. As a practical matter I agree the University very much does not want to screw up a mostly positive relationship with Native American communities.
Separately I think the impending changes to the DOE guidelines/rules (back to the Obama standards) are misguided and will not fare well in court for those who can afford lawyers to challenge them. As they say though, elections have consequences.
 

GoSU96

Living Legend
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
15,455
Like
22,355
You're most likely right. (Courts can be funny with what constitutes a property interest/right, and if the complainant withdraws, and Chase is run off, there's probably multiple cognizable claims there as well)

But the University stands to gain nothing by removing Chase from the team right now. He's a Native American from a reservation, playing on a team made up of mostly upper middle class white men, with all white captains, and all white coaches, and a white AD, and a white University President. He's essentially persona non grata from the Team, who are in South Bend as I type. From accounts, the alleged victim/complainant is also alway from campus. The semester is nearly over. Financial aid for the year is almost finished.

The last thing the University needs to do is screw up the process, or create a claim for a student that otherwise would not exist. This is especially true when the outcome is likely certain.

Also, you're kind of talking out both sides here. While the preserving the sanctity of the team and affording a student due process are not necessarily mutually exclusive, they do tend to go arm and arm.
Well said.

This will be resolved properly.

Rushing to terminal outcomes is never a good idea, even if the conclusion seems to be inevitable.

just let it play out
 

wgdsr

Walk On
Joined
Feb 7, 2019
Messages
199
Like
120
Both versions are acceptable. But one version is more milk toast than the other :)

have to disagree with m-w here. and i'd have to wonder when this secondary entry was posted. i get it the language is an evolving thing, but this smells like a cop out.

i'm passing judgment.
 

wgdsr

Walk On
Joined
Feb 7, 2019
Messages
199
Like
120
You're most likely right. (Courts can be funny with what constitutes a property interest/right, and if the complainant withdraws, and Chase is run off, there's probably multiple cognizable claims there as well)

But the University stands to gain nothing by removing Chase from the team right now. He's a Native American from a reservation, playing on a team made up of mostly upper middle class white men, with all white captains, and all white coaches, and a white AD, and a white University President. He's essentially persona non grata from the Team, who are in South Bend as I type. From accounts, the alleged victim/complainant is also alway from campus. The semester is nearly over. Financial aid for the year is almost finished.

The last thing the University needs to do is screw up the process, or create a claim for a student that otherwise would not exist. This is especially true when the outcome is likely certain.

Also, you're kind of talking out both sides here. While the preserving the sanctity of the team and affording a student due process are not necessarily mutually exclusive, they do tend to go arm and arm.
this looks like the deal. and anyone that thinks they "know" that desko ran this on his own to reinstate, without being given either directions, ultimatums, or a list of risks and consequences... please... fill us in on those meetings' minutes.
 

Capt. Tuttle

Living Legend
Joined
Aug 22, 2011
Messages
18,922
Like
23,434
Could be very relevant in a civil suit, however...
Ummm, no. As long as he has his scholarship, he has no case.
1. No right to be on a team. None. Coaches suspend players all of the time. If the coach doesn’t like his socks, he can kick him off.
2. No damages. He didn’t get to play in some games. Boo Fing Hoo. Guess what, he can play all of next year.
3. Even if someone says he was “damaged” by not being on the team, how does he get compensated? More games? He gets a whole other year already.

Now, if he did nothing, and this is a false allegation, he can sue the girl.
 
Last edited:

Bigtime

Walk On
Joined
Aug 22, 2019
Messages
50
Like
74
Ummm, no. As long as he has his scholarship, he has no case.
1. No right to be on a team. None. Coaches suspend players all of the time. If the coach doesn’t like his socks, he can kick him off.
2. No damages. He didn’t get to play in some games. Boo Fing Hoo. Guess what, he can play all of next year.
3. Even if someone says he was “damaged” by not being on the team, how does he get compensated? More games? He gets a whole other year already.

Now, if he did nothing, and this is a false allegation, he can sue the girl.
I hear from a source that it wasn't nothing to report it was a third party that was even there seen a hole in wall told frilly pants she thought chase must have thrown her in to the wall. And and boom wild fire arms legs add.why do u think no charges. 2 weeks tomorrow it dont take that long 4 a Investigation
 

CuSeLaX

Walk On
Joined
Mar 2, 2017
Messages
220
Like
263
I hear from a source that it wasn't nothing to report it was a third party that was even there seen a hole in wall told frilly pants she thought chase must have thrown her in to the wall. And and boom wild fire arms legs add.why do u think no charges. 2 weeks tomorrow it dont take that long 4 a Investigation
Is your source Chase Scanlan and are you or are you not his second cousin twice removed?
 

FreakTalksAboutSU

All American
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Messages
4,799
Like
5,747
I'm the long lost voice of reason. I'm the middle of a modern day lynching. Performed by clowns that dont know what there talking about.
Oh my god. It’s not a lynching to say “These are serious charges. We aren’t arresting anyone. But we are going to temporarily remove you from team activities while we investigate.”

lynchings involved people being killed by being hung from trees, not being asked to hang up a lax stick for a couple weeks. Let’s get some perspective.
 

Bigtime

Walk On
Joined
Aug 22, 2019
Messages
50
Like
74
Oh my god. It’s not a lynching to say “These are serious charges. We aren’t arresting anyone. But we are going to temporarily remove you from team activities while we investigate.”

lynchings involved people being killed by being hung from trees, not being asked to hang up a lax stick for a couple weeks. Let’s get some perspective.
Oh my god. It’s not a lynching to say “These are serious charges. We aren’t arresting anyone. But we are going to temporarily remove you from team activities while we investigate.”

lynchings involved people being killed by being hung from trees, not being asked to hang up a lax stick for a couple weeks. Let’s get some perspective.
Modern day lynching and his ces
Oh my god. It’s not a lynching to say “These are serious charges. We aren’t arresting anyone. But we are going to temporarily remove you from team activities while we investigate.”

lynchings involved people being killed by being hung from trees, not being asked to hang up a lax stick for a couple weeks. Let’s get some perspective.
I said modern day. And I was referring to his career. So there my prospective
 

dollarbill44

All American
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
6,790
Like
9,089
Scott?
10654082.jpg
 

EnviroSciGuy

Resident woody plant obsessive
Joined
Dec 17, 2012
Messages
3,837
Like
13,067
Ummm, no. As long as he has his scholarship, he has no case.
1. No right to be on a team. None. Coaches suspend players all of the time. If the coach doesn’t like his socks, he can kick him off.
2. No damages. He didn’t get to play in some games. Boo Fing Hoo. Guess what, he can play all of next year.
3. Even if someone says he was “damaged” by not being on the team, how does he get compensated? More games? He gets a whole other year already.

Now, if he did nothing, and this is a false allegation, he can sue the girl.
If it's a false allegation, then he can absolutely make a case that Desko kicking him off the team further damaged him and his reputation, which is absolutely fair game in a civil suit. When you're as high-level of a player as Scanlan, you can argue all kinds of financial damage resulting from this move (i.e., endorsements, impending professional contracts, etc.).

Would he win? I'm not so sure. But this is the sort of exposure that athletic departments and their legal consultants try to minimize.
 

Online statistics

Members online
206
Guests online
709
Total visitors
915

Top Bottom