hawkwing wrote:Thanks for posting that info, Stirfry. So it looks like there have been claims of sexual abuse while at the U of U. While obviously no where near the severity of the Sandusky case it is now repeated examples of abuse.
Hawkwing. As owner of this site, don't you feel some responsibility to be accurate about something this serious?
Where did you get this conclusion from what he posted.
Read it. The allegations of SEXUAL misconduct of this coach are from when he was employed by ASU 6 or 7 years ago. He apparently was involved in some youth program because the girl was 15 at the time and not an ASU student.
That girl, as a college age teen, came to the U and joined the swim team. A friend of hers on the team has been quoted as saying that this girl told her that the coach bought beer for her during or after a trip. The friend also reported that the girl told her that the coach had called her at night on several occasions to complain about his wife. She said there was no sexual relationship, but that the two clearly had an inappropriate personal closeness for a coach and an athlete and would joke with each other at times and yell at each other at times.
That is all that has been reported and the inappropriate relationship part was 2nd hand and it is not clear that the friend ever reported it.
Perhaps there was more to the reunion of coach and student than what was told to her friend. That would not shock me as the student seemed to want the relationship even at the U when she was no longer a minor. But apparently, the relationship soured, because now, 6 years later, she filed the complaint in Arizona about the incident when she was 15. Nothing has been reported involving sexual misconduct at U. So until there is a report of it - your comment is inaccurate.
The U and Hill knew nothing about sexual misconduct of the coach until about December when ASU law enforcement informed them of their investigation and asked them to keep it confidential.
Now - as to the independent investigation Hill requested the U President to make. It is independent of the AD Office. But it is being conducted by a local attorney with close ties to U and an out of state attorney known for helping universities clear up purported violations. So IMHSO with the S meaning SPECULATIVE, this independent investigation is far more about damage control than transparency.
The U messed up big-time in dealing with complaints about abusive coaching tactics, punitive actions against whistle blowers, and may or may not have been aware of his alcohol problem or buying of beer for an underage team member. This alone will be enough for them to lose several lawsuits and to possibly get some NCAA reprimands.
No need to go over the top and accuse the U of covering up sexual abuse - unless such a complaint gets filed. It may. It may not. If there was some, it appears to have gone unreported.
As to the people who keep wigging out about "did not report directly to" Hill. Hill is responsible for the entire athletic department. He had several Assistant ADs between him and other parts of the organization just like the hierarchy in any organization has a chain of command. But delegation of authority does not absolve the person delegating it from responsibility for it. This is why the supposedly independent investigation was started outside of the athletic department. It will be independent of the AD department for sure, but it will be covering the U's butt.