FB: College Conference of Illinois and Wisconsin

[Pat Coleman]

Yes, the statement might not have been out for the TV broadcast but it was added to the Tribune story and to ours when it was issued.

[lmitzel]

These men are innocent until proven guilty.  That said, the alleged crime occurred months ago, and was supposedly investigated by an independent reviewing body.  DuPage County has determined there is enough evidence to bring felony charges against all five.  This didn't happen yesterday.  Three of the accused played on Saturday.  It seems very odd that these players were allowed to play on Saturday.  Shouldn't they at least be suspended from the team until this is resolved or they are found innocent? 

I'm a Wheaton parent and father of a former athlete.  These allegations sicken me.  Hoping that the charges are found to be untrue, but struggling to understand the apparent "business as usual" approach, allowing them to play under this cloud.

First, just need to be clear that these allegations sicken me as well.  Disgusted by this news.

If the charges were just brought today, perhaps that explains why they played last Saturday. 

Given that they will be surrendering themselves later this week, I'd fully expect Wheaton to tell these men they're not playing until further notice.

It is strange that this event happened 18 some months ago, but the charges are just being brought now. I know there's not a rush to bring charges and investigating takes time.

Under the administration of the previous DuPage County Prosecutor (States Attorney), charges would likely have been brought within 18 minutes of news of the (alledged) incident becoming public. That's because he had higher political aspirations (Atty General, Governor, Senator) and had no qualms about using high profile cases to draw attention to himself in an effort to make himself appear as tough on crime, and thus a desireable candidate for those higher offices. A quick conviction, in a overwhelmingly conservative environment at the time, was the the primary objective, not actual guilt or innocence.
Conversely, the current occupant of the office has, for the most part, demonstrated a more restrained approach with regard to the initial filing of charges. He is more apt to let concerned medical, police, and assistants from his own office complete their investigations and reports, and then objectively review those reports before bringing charges. Accordingly, it's not surprising that it has been 18 months since the (alledged) incident occurred, and there is little doubt he doesn't feel he has a strong case against the defendants.
Going forward, there is no way to determine if some of the charges will be dropped, additional charges may be added, a trial may commence, or a plea agreement might be reached in which the defendants may or may not admit any degree of guilt.

A la the Paterno case, its difficult to comprehend how the WC coaching staff hasn't had some degree of knowledge of the incident since shortly after it (alledgedly) occurred.

At the end of the NBC newscast tonight, they said Wheaton was issuing a statement about what action they would next be taking. However, as of a few minutes ago, I see nothing new on the internet, and all 5 of the players still appear on the roster.

While I agree that Wheaton's administration and football staff find themselves in a tough spot today, I think invoking Paterno is a bridge too far.  This, while awful if true, isn't the same thing as Penn St.

I have no love for Wheaton (respect, sure, but not love), but I agree with this take. Penn State doesn't deserve to have a football program (but that's another topic for another place and time), so that's a high bar to meet. I don't think the transgressions here, if true, merit the same kind of reaction. I doubt Swider tried to cover anything up. The optics of it may not look the best from the outside, though like USee said, there's more that to the story that isn't public knowledge. I would say as long the accused don't see the field for a while, the punishment would fit the alleged crime, though it's a tricky balance between due process and trying to make sure that you're prioritizing student safety over winning a few football games.

[WooClone15]

So I have no connection to Wheaton or any of the schools in the CCIW, but after reading both the story on d3 football and the chicago tribune I'm still left wondering why 3 of the 5 players were playing last year. Cooksey and Tebos missed the season due to injury, but Kregel, Pettway, and Spielman all played. Wheaton learned of the accusations in March and I'm assuming started the investigation before the season. Why didn't they suspend the players pending the investigation? Even if they wanted to wait for their own investigation to end, why were they playing this year? The college obviously thought there was enough evidence to punish them in some way, but they didn't think it was necessary to suspend them from the team? To an outsider, it looks like the college wanted to sweep this all under the rug and didn't want to do anything which would hurt their football team until they had to

[Kovo]

So I have no connection to Wheaton or any of the schools in the CCIW, but after reading both the story on d3 football and the chicago tribune I'm still left wondering why 3 of the 5 players were playing last year. Cooksey and Tebos missed the season due to injury, but Kregel, Pettway, and Spielman all played. Wheaton learned of the accusations in March and I'm assuming started the investigation before the season. Why didn't they suspend the players pending the investigation? Even if they wanted to wait for their own investigation to end, why were they playing this year? The college obviously thought there was enough evidence to punish them in some way, but they didn't think it was necessary to suspend them from the team? To an outsider, it looks like the college wanted to sweep this all under the rug and didn't want to do anything which would hurt their football team until they had to

Perhaps it was because none of the players were charged with a crime and the results of the internal investigation resulted in a different conclusion than that of the State Attorney.

But I know-----there are so many people out there who hate it when that darn Constitution (and what it stands for) gets in the way of the lynch mob.

[Kovo]

So I have no connection to Wheaton or any of the schools in the CCIW, but after reading both the story on d3 football and the chicago tribune I'm still left wondering why 3 of the 5 players were playing last year. Cooksey and Tebos missed the season due to injury, but Kregel, Pettway, and Spielman all played. Wheaton learned of the accusations in March and I'm assuming started the investigation before the season. Why didn't they suspend the players pending the investigation? Even if they wanted to wait for their own investigation to end, why were they playing this year? The college obviously thought there was enough evidence to punish them in some way, but they didn't think it was necessary to suspend them from the team? To an outsider, it looks like the college wanted to sweep this all under the rug and didn't want to do anything which would hurt their football team until they had to

Perhaps it was because none of the players were charged with a crime and the results of the internal investigation resulted in a different conclusion than that of the State Attorney.

But I know-----there are so many people out there who hate it when that darn Constitution (and what it stands for) gets in the way of the lynch mob.

And while I'm at it (as a former state prosecutor)  has anyone on this board reviewed the medical reports?  Read the eyewitness statements? Know if any of the accused gave a confession? Or at least a statement against interest?  Taken possession of the object that was allegedly used and processed it for DNA?  Viewed the college security camera tapes?  Viewed security camera tapes from the park?  Processed the vehicle for evidence?  Interviewed the doctors and nurses?  Listened to the 911 or call to the police.  Interviewed the alleged victim?  Conducted background checks on all those involved?

I didn't think so.  In other words, all of us actually know nothing except that the State Attorney has charged these five.  And, that happened yesterday.

[wm4]

So I have no connection to Wheaton or any of the schools in the CCIW, but after reading both the story on d3 football and the chicago tribune I'm still left wondering why 3 of the 5 players were playing last year. Cooksey and Tebos missed the season due to injury, but Kregel, Pettway, and Spielman all played. Wheaton learned of the accusations in March and I'm assuming started the investigation before the season. Why didn't they suspend the players pending the investigation? Even if they wanted to wait for their own investigation to end, why were they playing this year? The college obviously thought there was enough evidence to punish them in some way, but they didn't think it was necessary to suspend them from the team? To an outsider, it looks like the college wanted to sweep this all under the rug and didn't want to do anything which would hurt their football team until they had to

Perhaps it was because none of the players were charged with a crime and the results of the internal investigation resulted in a different conclusion than that of the State Attorney.

But I know-----there are so many people out there who hate it when that darn Constitution (and what it stands for) gets in the way of the lynch mob.

Nobody is convicting these student athletes in this discussion.  Save the lynch mob stuff.  There is due process and the responses in this thread have understood that.  That said, towards the university, it is extremely fair to question how and why these young men were playing, given the charges that have ultimately been filed now. 

There are few details on Wheaton's investigation, nor would I expect there to be.  For all we know, these players were suspended from the team while the investigation was taking place, and the suspensions just were not during the season.  Nobody knows. 

[jknezek]

The WP story with the lurid headline even got picked up on my Bloomberg Top Sports News section this morning. Not good publicity for the school at the very least.

[WooClone15]

So I have no connection to Wheaton or any of the schools in the CCIW, but after reading both the story on d3 football and the chicago tribune I'm still left wondering why 3 of the 5 players were playing last year. Cooksey and Tebos missed the season due to injury, but Kregel, Pettway, and Spielman all played. Wheaton learned of the accusations in March and I'm assuming started the investigation before the season. Why didn't they suspend the players pending the investigation? Even if they wanted to wait for their own investigation to end, why were they playing this year? The college obviously thought there was enough evidence to punish them in some way, but they didn't think it was necessary to suspend them from the team? To an outsider, it looks like the college wanted to sweep this all under the rug and didn't want to do anything which would hurt their football team until they had to

Perhaps it was because none of the players were charged with a crime and the results of the internal investigation resulted in a different conclusion than that of the State Attorney.

But I know-----there are so many people out there who hate it when that darn Constitution (and what it stands for) gets in the way of the lynch mob.

And I was a student prosecutor this summer; as a former state prosecutor (I'm assuming in Illinois), you know more than I do, but it's not like I don't know anything.

Here's my issue: innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt applies to the criminal law (as it should), but it doesn't bind Wheaton's hands until then. Wheaton did an investigation, and likely punished the students in some way. If that is the case, then they have already decided they are not going to wait until the DA made a charging decision, so why wait to suspend them? To an outsider like me, it looks like they didn't want to do something which would hurt the football team.

And this may be an unpopular opinion, but I don't think colleges should operate using an "innocent until proven guilty" standard. Because as a former state attorney, I'm sure you saw cases where you were sure the accused did it, but didn't think you'd be able to prove it to the jury. Because colleges aren't imprisoning individuals, I don't think they need to use that high of a standard.

[wally_wabash]

Nobody is stomping on the Constitution.  No need to take it all the way to 11 here. 

The criminality of whatever happened- and we know something happened per Wheaton's statement- can be left up to the judicial system.  I think it's fair to question whether or not these players have been afforded Honor Code leniency because they are players.  I don't know the answer to that, but I think it's a fair thing to be curious about. 

[wm4]

And this may be an unpopular opinion, but I don't think colleges should operate using an "innocent until proven guilty" standard. Because as a former state attorney, I'm sure you saw cases where you were sure the accused did it, but didn't think you'd be able to prove it to the jury. Because colleges aren't imprisoning individuals, I don't think they need to use that high of a standard.

Completely agree!  We've seen far too many examples where big time college football programs have kept kids on rosters and playing, while charges have been made or are under investigation. 

Mark D'Antonio of Michigan State did it right last January.  They had a sexual assault incident and he had them suspended then off the team well before any charges were filed.  D'Antonio and MSU simply said they were suspended.  Kids who have that serious of a crime alleged against them should be focused on their legal issues and have no time or ability to focus on football. 

Minnesota also handled things better as well, after a sexual assault was reported in early September last year.  While it was being investigated, the (10!) players involved were suspended and did not play. 

This is Wheaton college and it's D3 football.  It's not anywhere near scrutinized like D1.  Looks like Wheaton handled it in a way they felt was appropriate, however now the county prosecutor has brought charges.

[Kovo]

So I have no connection to Wheaton or any of the schools in the CCIW, but after reading both the story on d3 football and the chicago tribune I'm still left wondering why 3 of the 5 players were playing last year. Cooksey and Tebos missed the season due to injury, but Kregel, Pettway, and Spielman all played. Wheaton learned of the accusations in March and I'm assuming started the investigation before the season. Why didn't they suspend the players pending the investigation? Even if they wanted to wait for their own investigation to end, why were they playing this year? The college obviously thought there was enough evidence to punish them in some way, but they didn't think it was necessary to suspend them from the team? To an outsider, it looks like the college wanted to sweep this all under the rug and didn't want to do anything which would hurt their football team until they had to

Perhaps it was because none of the players were charged with a crime and the results of the internal investigation resulted in a different conclusion than that of the State Attorney.

But I know-----there are so many people out there who hate it when that darn Constitution (and what it stands for) gets in the way of the lynch mob.

And I was a student prosecutor this summer; as a former state prosecutor (I'm assuming in Illinois), you know more than I do, but it's not like I don't know anything.

Here's my issue: innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt applies to the criminal law (as it should), but it doesn't bind Wheaton's hands until then. Wheaton did an investigation, and likely punished the students in some way. If that is the case, then they have already decided they are not going to wait until the DA made a charging decision, so why wait to suspend them? To an outsider like me, it looks like they didn't want to do something which would hurt the football team.

And this may be an unpopular opinion, but I don't think colleges should operate using an "innocent until proven guilty" standard. Because as a former state attorney, I'm sure you saw cases where you were sure the accused did it, but didn't think you'd be able to prove it to the jury. Because colleges aren't imprisoning individuals, I don't think they need to use that high of a standard.

Actually, Florida.   And yes, it would be unpopular to many to use a guilty until proven innocent standard.  With that said, now that charges have been brought, the usual protocol that I have witnessed is that athletes are suspended until the charges are resolved notwithstanding the presumption of innocence.  My suggestion is that that the College conducted its own investigation and imposed its own discipline.  It had no way of knowing if or when charges would be brought, so suspension during the investigation may or may not have been appropriate---we don't know.

Yes, I have seen many cases in with I was convinced of guilt but did not have sufficient admissible evidence, or times that the jury verdict did not go the way I thought it would.  Heck, O.J. Simpson was found not guilty in his murder trial.  It is difficult to handicap criminal proceedings. 

[wm4]

I would caution everyone to avoid any speculation and rush to judgement. Speculating on these types of issues without facts can damage these kids, coaches and the school inappropriately. I don't know everything but I know enough to know this is a lot more like the Duke Lacrosse incident than the Penn State/Joe Paterno incident. From what I know the school, coaches and administrators have handled this appropriately.

The college did, in fact, issue a statement on the incident last night for anyone who wanted to find it:

http://wgntv.com/2017/09/18/5-wheaton-college-football-players-charged-in-hazing-incident/

According to the schools statement (and what I know independently), the incident was promptly addressed and investigations by the school and independent 3rd parties were conducted. The players involved were punished last year (this incident happened in March 2016).

I have the utmost respect for the coaches and players (former and current) at Wheaton and nothing I know about this situation has affected that opinion formed over 35 years of watching this program.

These two statement above seem to conflict with each other. It appears you have at least some details many aren't privy to. But to put it more on the Duke lacrosse end of the spectrum here is speculation in itself.

It does not follow the Duke Lacrosse timeline . With 18 or so months gone by there appears to be at least some careful consideration of what charges should be pursued. Nifong was in front of the media from day one, and pursued charges within weeks of the house party. Within two weeks he had categorized the team as "hooligans" and the coach was fired and the program temporarily shutdown. Within four weeks he presented the incomplete and one sided investigation to a grand jury.  At around six months the case starts to fall apart as the DNA lab makes statements against Nifong and other pieces of the investigation breakdown.

From afar it looks like the school and the DA came to very different conclusions, and someone will have egg on their face down the road. I would anticipate a lot of this hangs on the 2nd player noted to be hazed. Does he corroborate the story? Time will tell.

This Wheaton story seems to be similar to the Carmel, Indiana basketball hazing incident a few years ago.  Very similar in some ways, which is just mind boggling.  Note charges were brought on a much shorter timeline.  Coaches resigned as well.

http://www.wthr.com/article/carmel-students-charged-four-basketball-coaches-resign

Ultimately the players plead to lesser charges.

http://www.wibc.com/blogs/plea-deal-way-hendricks-countycarmel-hazing-case

Also, there's Lake Zurich and their high school football hazing incident and culture.  New coaches and AD this year, as a result.  Charges were ultimately not brought, but a law suit has been filed by the victim

http://www.dailyherald.com/news/20170826/new-coach-athletic-director-changing-culture-after-lake-zurich-hazing-scandal

[bluestreak66]

I can't really figure out the coach at all here. Assuming I'm reading correctly, it looks like the players in question hazed/beat the crap out of a fellow football player (a transfer). As a coach, it is your duty to protect your players, and I can't imagine how he could be okay playing guys who had beaten a fellow player. that seems to defy the very fabric of the football team dynamic. regardless of what the college should or shouldn't have done, the coach should have disciplined his players. From an outside view, it looks like he was turning a blind eye to star players while giving no concern for a player that hadn't contributed to the team yet.
In a way, I feel like he should face some type of disciplinary action.

[USee]

I would caution everyone to avoid any speculation and rush to judgement. Speculating on these types of issues without facts can damage these kids, coaches and the school inappropriately. I don't know everything but I know enough to know this is a lot more like the Duke Lacrosse incident than the Penn State/Joe Paterno incident. From what I know the school, coaches and administrators have handled this appropriately.

The college did, in fact, issue a statement on the incident last night for anyone who wanted to find it:

http://wgntv.com/2017/09/18/5-wheaton-college-football-players-charged-in-hazing-incident/

According to the schools statement (and what I know independently), the incident was promptly addressed and investigations by the school and independent 3rd parties were conducted. The players involved were punished last year (this incident happened in March 2016).

I have the utmost respect for the coaches and players (former and current) at Wheaton and nothing I know about this situation has affected that opinion formed over 35 years of watching this program.

These two statement above seem to conflict with each other. It appears you have at least some details many aren't privy to. But to put it more on the Duke lacrosse end of the spectrum here is speculation in itself.

It does not follow the Duke Lacrosse timeline . With 18 or so months gone by there appears to be at least some careful consideration of what charges should be pursued. Nifong was in front of the media from day one, and pursued charges within weeks of the house party. Within two weeks he had categorized the team as "hooligans" and the coach was fired and the program temporarily shutdown. Within four weeks he presented the incomplete and one sided investigation to a grand jury.  At around six months the case starts to fall apart as the DNA lab makes statements against Nifong and other pieces of the investigation breakdown.

From afar it looks like the school and the DA came to very different conclusions, and someone will have egg on their face down the road. I would anticipate a lot of this hangs on the 2nd player noted to be hazed. Does he corroborate the story? Time will tell.

To be clear, I said it appears to me to be more like Duke than like Penn State. I did not say it was, in fact, like Duke as far as details or process. I do know more than most and less than some so I won't comment much more on this. 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.

Remember, per the school's statement,  this happened last year, during the offseason, and the players in question were punished based on the results of the investigation. I do know those players missed time during last season, though I can't say whether that was or was not related. I don't have any information on what's going on this week at the school  but I would be surprised if those players were playing this weekend.

[ncc_fan]

More from the Chicago Tribune:
"Sources told the Tribune that several players were required to perform 50 hours of community service and write an eight-page essay reflecting on their behavior."