Quote from: izzy stradlin on September 22, 2017, 02:40:37 PM
http://abcnews.go.com/US/documents-show-wheaton-college-doubted-story-alleged-hazing/story?id=50023705

That is an interesting read. The article seems to suggest that the letter to the alleged victim focused on whether or not a "sexual assault" occurred and Wheaton concluded the allegations of "sexual assault" were not believable but did conclude other allegations were accurate. The article says the letter references the alleged victim being "bound and blindfolded."

A lot of missing pieces but some holes are being plugged in my mind as to how Wheaton and the SA reached different conclusions.

Has anyone heard who the "outside firm" Wheaton hired was? I assume law firm but that has never been explicit. Whatever firm it is may be really happy its name remains a secret.

Quote from: GoldandBlueBU on September 20, 2017, 04:30:42 PM

Quote from: AndOne on September 20, 2017, 04:16:57 PM
Some things I've read over the last several pages..........and some conclusions and questions that arise from that information.


3. Lastly, a question. If the charges against the 5 players warranted being indefinitely suspended from the team as of last night, how is it that they did not warrant the same action immediately upon their coming to light and the Wheaton administration and Coach Swider being made aware of them? What has changed since then?
The internal "investigation" seems either a complete sham at worst, or something whose prescribed punishment of community service and writing an 8 page paper seems misguided and lacking at best.

With so many questions about the rest of it, and us nobody here really having the facts, this one really sticks out to me, and reflects very poorly on Wheaton.  Classic, "we're sorry that we got caught" reaction.

When Wheaton decided the appropriate punishment was community service, an essay, and other undefined actions, it had to know that if the DA's investigation reached a different result that it would be criticized and left with no good choices.

After the charges were filed, either Wheaton: 1) suspends the players this week because they faced criminal charges or 2) Wheaton says "we did our own investigation, disagree with the DA's decision and stand by our prior punishment." Neither option is good and Wheaton gets criticized regardless (including but lots and lots of alumni I know) but option 2 is the way harder route to take in light of public pressure so these five guys will probably never play another down at Wheaton.

Quote from: USee on September 20, 2017, 12:08:07 AM

Or maybe the family found a friendly D.A. that wants another notch in his belt and could help them get a settlement to pay some bills?

To Quote You Again:
This is just inflammatory and wrong to post. Shame on you for having no facts and saying stuff like this about a school DA with an impeccable record.

USee, this works both ways.

Also, I don't want to equate Swider to any other person. He deserves to be judged on his own record but there are plenty of football coaches with impeccable records who had their reputation wiped out quickly so let's not pretend its impossible anything bad happened (e.g., Art Briles, Joe Paterno, Hugh Freeze)

Chicago Tribune reports the players have all been suspended from practice and games.

We don't know all the information but if I were the alleged victim's attorney I'd be salivating at the case Wheaton College is laying out today. There are, of course, limits to what the school can say but it all but admits there was a hazing incident and it reacted to it. Now that hazing incident leads to felony charges and the school describes the events as "entirely unacceptable and inconsistent with the values we share as human beings". That's an opening statement to the jury that writes itself in any civil lawsuit.

Quote from: washdupcard on September 19, 2017, 05:27:25 PM

Quote from: izzy stradlin on September 19, 2017, 04:52:21 PM
I just heard the other side to this story (there is a lot more to this) and as a Wheaton alum it made me feel somewhat better.   What's reported currently is obviously one account. 

Again, I would agree with others if what is reported actually happened, these guys should not being playing for Wheaton, period.

Whats the gist of the "other side" of the story?  The allegations are pretty detailed and heinous..unless the other side is none of this happened, there's quite a lot that would need to be contradicted (i.e. duct taped, hauled away, beaten, attempted insertion of an object into the victim's rectum, left injured and half naked to fend for himself).

Agreed.

Wheaton's statement described the events as: "entirely unacceptable and inconsistent with the values we share as human beings and as members of an academic community that espouses to live according to our Community Covenant". Regardless of any other side of the story that is the sort of description that warrants a firmer response than community service, an essay and a maybe a 1-game suspension.

The phrase "inconsistent with the values we share as human beings" is strong. It's not something you say when a college kid drinks underage or steals an iPad.

Quote from: izzy stradlin on September 19, 2017, 03:33:19 PM

Quote from: Gregory Sager on September 19, 2017, 02:28:56 PM
Further research shows that none of the five accused players participated in Wheaton's opening game of the 2016 season, a 26-7 win over Benedictine:

http://wheaton_ftp.sidearmsports.com/custompages/football/fb_archivedstats/2016/whe1.htm

... or, at the very least, none of them appeared in the participation report at the bottom of the box score. Since the game took place at McCully Stadium, and since Wheaton SID Brett Marhanka is as thorough as any SID I know, I'm pretty certain that none of the five players got on the field that day. From Game Two onward, all three of the healthy players (Pettway, Kregel, and Spielman) resumed their roles in the Wheaton starting lineup.

Given that, one can make a reasonable guess that the three of them served a one-game suspension to begin the 2016 season (although we can't say that for certain, as it's possible that they were held out due to injury, just like TeBos and Cooksey). Since Wheaton isn't talking with regard to the "corrective actions", we don't have this on the record. All we can do is guess, unless someone with insider info can prove it one way or the other.

Nice detective work, Greg.  I do think discussion on this board has been fair and directed at the Institution/coaches.   One game is something but to me inadequate given the one side of the account that we have.

I'd agree that a 1 game suspension, if that is what happened, is not sufficient for the alleged crimes. Even if there was never any criminal charge, is 1 game a sufficient punishment for events that Wheaton College describes as: "entirely unacceptable and inconsistent with the values we share as human beings and as members of an academic community that espouses to live according to our Community Covenant"? I would say "No." In addition, a school like Wheaton has to be aware of the additional scrutiny and cries of hypocrisy it will face based on its history and faith background.

I understand there are student privacy laws that prohibit institutions from sharing certain information but there are regular announcements from D1 institutions about the suspensions they hand out to football players (e.g., University of Florida this year). Does anyone know if there is anything that would prevent Wheaton from stating it did suspend these players for one game even if it can't release other "punishments"? If so, any idea why D1 schools can make those announcements?

Quote from: USee on September 19, 2017, 12:01:52 PM
Suffice to say my analogy wasn't meant to speculate as much as it was meant to give perspective, and that we should not simply believe a story, that was leaked to the press by the accuser's attorney, is accurate.

The story came to light after arrest warrants were issued for the five players. The accuser's attorney did not leak anything. He made a statement on the record after the charges were made public.

The accused will get a chance to defend themselves and they may be found not guilty of the specific charges brought against them as well but that doesn't mean Wheaton College looks good or did the right thing in any of this. Wheaton did its own investigation and concluded something inappropriate occurred. In light of the charges, it is more than fair to ask a lot of question of Wheaton, including why are these students still on the football team and would Wheaton have treated non-football players differently.

Todd Blackledge gave a shout to Hope basketball and the Holland peanut store during his weekly food segment on the UM MSU broadcast.

Saturday February 16:

Olivet at Calvin - 4
Hope at Trine - 1
Albion at Adrian - 3
Alma at Kalamazoo - 2

Wednesday, February 13
Olivet at Hope, 4
Alma at Albion, 1
Trine at Calvin, 2
Adrian at Kalamazoo, 3

Saturday, February 9
Calvin at Hope, 1
Kalamazoo at Albion, 3
Trine at Olivet, 2
Adrian at Alma, 4

Wednesday, February 6
Calvin at Alma, 4
Hope at Kalamazoo, 3
Olivet at Adrian, 1
Trine at Albion, 2

Saturday February 2:

Kalamazoo at Calvin - 4
Albion at Hope - 3
Alma at Olivet - 2
Adrian at Trine - 1

Wednesday
Albion @ Calvin - 4
Adrian @ Hope - 3
Alma @ Trine - 2
Kalamazoo @ Olivet - 1

Saturday, January 26:
Hope at Alma - 4
Trine at Kalamazoo - 3
Olivet at Albion - 1
Calvin at Adrian - 2