Surprise- Illinois No Longer Investigating Shannon

[isucy86]

Well the investigation is over because there is nothing more they can do. If you read the article they don't have enough evidence to do anything more. This is a unique problem because typically the alleged assault takes place on campus or at least involves another student so they could at least call the student in to get her side or get a statement from her. In this case it is an out of state person who made the allegation and is not a student at the university.

Now, I do think it is weird they just continued to play him like nothing happened but Illinois told Underwood to treat him as any other player because they were worried about being in violation of the judges order.

I really wouldn't be surprised though to see more challenges to suspensions based on the reasoning of the district court in the Shannon v. illinois case regarding due process.

But is it Illinois' job to investigate a possible criminal charge against a student? Or make any type of judgement regarding validity of the charge? I realize that Shannon is innocent until proven guilty. But based on the severity of the charges and possible concern for student safety, seems like the University should have a lot of leeway in suspending a student, especially from extracurricular activities like athletics.

Yea it was a very interesting ruling by the Federal Court Judge. Basically saying that Shannon has a bright financial future and Illinois suspending him would cause irreparable harm to future earning potential. So would the same logic apply to a future Bill Gates or Tom Cruise while in college?

That's why I come back to due process. Was the Judge saying that to suspend Shannon there should have been a judicial/disciplinary hearing where both sides could present their case? Wasn't that the issue with Iowa State's suspension of Bubu Palo?

 

[VeloClone]

The judge ruled that the violated his due process rights because basically there wasn't proper due process in the procedure the followed. Part the issues she said with the process was that it didn't give him enough time to present his own evidence or appear before the panel to plead his case.

Well then the school is NOT off the hook. Apparently the judge didn't say they couldn't suspend, just that they had to do it the right way. Instead of reinstating him and then following the process so he could defend himself then suspending him again if warranted, they chose to reinstate him and do nothing.

It's still a joke that the guy played the whole season.

 

[swiacy]

I wonder if Bubu would like to make a comment.

 

[Cycsk]

Is it fair to say that Hoiberg did what many think Underwood should have done, namely, not playing the person under suspicion? Or are there enough differences in the situations to make them incomparable?

 

[Cyfan1965]

 

[chuckd4735]

While I agree, someone should tell their fans that Illinois did the right thing and suspended him. Also, the judge didn't tell Brad Underwood he had to play him.

When everyone is clear on that, then more power to them on their Elite Eight* appearance.

Edit: Not Elite Eight, but rather Elite Eight*.

The judge essentially did say they had to play him. The court order said that it hurt his draft prospects and future earnings by being suspended. Based on that ruling, you run a legal risk by not playing him when he's fully capable to play, and has the talent.

 

[RezClone]

Is it fair to say that Hoiberg did what many think Underwood should have done, namely, not playing the person under suspicion? Or are there enough differences in the situations to make them incomparable?

I suspect Leath had something to do with that given how Leath was.

Also, we have the benefit of hindsight and the ultimate outcome for Bubu's situation which at least somewhat justifies Bubu's position that an injustice occurred. The same cannot be said for Shannon and we have no reason to assume otherwise.

It is just as likely Terrance Shannon did it and the book should be thrown at him at every turn, in which case the judge's order that lost income and earning potential was affected by Illinois's suspension seems speculative, and in no way less speculative than for the University to err on the side of caution by suspending him.

Now, as far as due process goes. Due process is actually currently being given actually, it is just in "process" portion of it right now. Sure, maybe he's guilty maybe he's not. You could argue either way. But to say you cant suspend him. Why? Thems the breaks, as they say. Illinois is just supposed to absorb the risk here because they arent fortune tellers? What if he does it again in an Illinois uniform? Now they have an alleged serial SA'er actively representing the team. What if the fanbase objects and stops buying tickets (i know, never gonna happen but theoretically its possoble) What about Illinois earning potential? Why can't Shannon just be remedied in civil court for lost income and earning potential AFTER being found not guilty and process has played out.

Lots of things can affect his earning potential. After the injunction, let's say he tears both ACL's or gets the yips at the free throw line? Is Illinois liable for lost income, earning potential and hurting his draft stock for for that too? For not suspending him hard enough? lol. Maybe he could say he was rusty from the games he sat out and got injured or lost his flow because of their "hasty" suspension. Just a weird biased ruling IMHO. On the surface, ok, maaaybe. But beyond a surface level shallow examination, it just doesn't seem that well thought out and reactionary to the player empowerment trend in general.

It's not my place to speculate to the veracity of the claims against Mr. Shannon nor his character, other than to say we don't currently have reason to disbelieve the claims and take his side whatsoever, as we do now with Bubu, who got and stayed suspended.

 

[alarson]

The judge essentially did say they had to play him. The court order said that it hurt his draft prospects and future earnings by being suspended. Based on that ruling, you run a legal risk by not playing him when he's fully capable to play, and has the talent.

That's also a terrible precedent to set. Players can be in a coach's doghouse for anything, even if not illegal. The idea that a coach couldnt say 'you're not playing because you showed bad judgment' is questionable.

Something tells me Illinois didn't fight the court appeal of the suspension too hard. They had to suspend due to policy but were happy to play him. They certainly weren't going to appeal the ruling

 

[RezClone]

That's also a terrible precedent to set. Players can be in a coach's doghouse for anything, even if not illegal. The idea that a coach couldnt say 'you're not playing because you showed bad judgment' is questionable.

Something tells me Illinois didn't fight the court appeal of the suspension too hard. They had to suspend due to policy but were happy to play him. They certainly weren't going to appeal the ruling

Yes 100%!!!! Maybe he gets hurt and says the coach makes him sacrifice his body on defense in order to play. Maybe the school hurt his draft stock by grading his work too harshly and now he's ineligible.

It's a slippery slope. It's a half-baked knee jerk reaction to the player empowerment NIL rulings, I think.

 

[VeloClone]

I have no doubt they went judge shopping to make sure they got a judge who would be sympathetic to Shannon's cause. Unfortunately now it is legal precedent.

 

[FriendlySpartan]

That's also a terrible precedent to set. Players can be in a coach's doghouse for anything, even if not illegal. The idea that a coach couldnt say 'you're not playing because you showed bad judgment' is questionable.

Something tells me Illinois didn't fight the court appeal of the suspension too hard. They had to suspend due to policy but were happy to play him. They certainly weren't going to appeal the ruling

I don’t agree with it but it doesn’t set a horrible precinct. Underwood could have easily said he cut his mins or didn’t start him due to dogging it at practice or something. He just couldn’t do it based on the pending charges or fallout from them until they were settled which is what the judge ruled.

I agree due to his ability Illinois didn’t really make a huge effort but they were also given cover by the judge.

 

[chuckd4735]

That's also a terrible precedent to set. Players can be in a coach's doghouse for anything, even if not illegal. The idea that a coach couldnt say 'you're not playing because you showed bad judgment' is questionable.

Something tells me Illinois didn't fight the court appeal of the suspension too hard. They had to suspend due to policy but were happy to play him. They certainly weren't going to appeal the ruling

I don't disagree, but it's a slippery slope with the judgement that came down. Sometimes decisions have to be made to avoid legal costs in the long run. I'm not a fan of it, but certainly understand.

 

[chuckd4735]

No NCAA ban during sexual misconduct inquiries

New federal regulations released Friday will prevent colleges and coaches from suspending athletes accused of sexual misconduct while school officials investigate complaints against them.

www.espn.com

 

[VeloClone]

No NCAA ban during sexual misconduct inquiries

New federal regulations released Friday will prevent colleges and coaches from suspending athletes accused of sexual misconduct while school officials investigate complaints against them.

www.espn.com

Probably fair to the athlete, but any protection such as this should expire as soon as the athlete asks for delay in any criminal proceedings.

Illinois has no real way to investigate a matter that occured out of state and Shannon's legal team simply had to get the trial postponed until after the season.

 

[drmwevr08]

It's hard to fault IL for any decision. Technically everybody should be presumed innocent until proven guilty, and Shannon hasn't been convicted of anything yet. While that doesn't seem "right" in many ways, they can't really get into a situation where they're deciding who to suspend and who not to based on a perception of the expected court outcome. That would open them up to a whole different set of issues.

In today's world, I would expect this to be the norm going forward. Unless there is video evidence to cause public outrage (like the elevator beating video a few years ago, I think it was an NFL player), money is what matters to these people and it's been proven there is no downfall to letting them play while things progress legally.

Except that many people who aren't lottery picks would have been fired immediately for bringing negative attention to the organization.

 

[flycy]

OJ Simpson was leading the investigation while at the same time finding the real killers of his wife and the waiter. When OJ died they ended the investigation at Illinois. So yes they did do an investigation. Not Illinois fault OJ died

Damn it, now we'll never know who killed Nicole.

 

[isucy86]

Not a lawyer, so I don't know if I accurately understood the Justice Department's guidance. I originally thought the guidance said schools couldn't suspend an athlete until the criminal process concluded. But in rereading, it sounding like the ruling just applied to the university process which would include an investigation and a formalized hearing (due process) with the accused athlete.

IMO it shouldn't be a university's role or core competency to investigate criminal activity of any student. A university suspension should be the result of a criminal indictment or charges by law enforcement.

I appreciate the presumption of innocence in considering a person's fundamental rights, but didn't realize being able to play sports was a right protected by our laws. Would be curious if this ruling is a result of the professionalization of college athletics and the same guidance would apply to a collegiate Olympic sport athlete or HS athlete.