Barnett still in denial

[Flagstaffsooner]

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=3145020


Thursday, December 6, 2007
Former Buffs coach Barnett says lawsuit held school 'hostage'

Associated Press

DENVER -- Former University of Colorado football coach Gary Barnett says the lawsuit brought by two women who claimed they were gang-raped by football players and recruits at a party held the school "hostage".


CU announced it was settling the lawsuit on Wednesday, three months after an appellate court revived the case. Without admitting fault or liability, the school agreed to pay Lisa Simpson $2.5 million, while the other woman, who did not wish be identified publicly, will receive $350,000.


In a posting on his Web site, Barnett said the settlement means CU and its athletic department will never get their day in court.


"It is hard to believe that we live in a society where allegations have enough clout to hold a wonderful and well respected university hostage," he said.


No sexual assault charges were filed as a result of the women's complaints. A grand jury investigation resulted in a single indictment against a former football recruiting aide for soliciting a prostitute and misusing a school cell phone.


A separate inquiry, backed by the university's governing Board of Regents, concluded that drugs, alcohol and sex were used to entice blue chip recruits to the Boulder campus but said none of the activity was knowingly sanctioned by university officials.


The scandal prompted broad university reforms and led to a shake-up of the school's top leaders. CU President Betsy Hoffman and Athletic Director Dick Tharp resigned but Barnett survived. He later accepted a buyout after a 70-3 loss to Texas in the 2005 Big 12 championship game.


Simpson's lawyer, Baine Kerr, said he wasn't surprised by Barnett's reaction.


"It's just ironic that that the guy who was responsible for causing so much damage would be blaming others, but it's to be expected from him," Kerr said.





He must be looking for someone to hire him.:pop:

[Whet]

well, there is meatchicken, arkie-saw, Houston, Ramblin' Wreck, and Colorado State, to name a few.

[okienole3]

He's right.

[SoonerMajic]

He's right.


A public university would not have paid $2.5 million dollars to one of the plaintiffs if there had not been a great deal of merit to her claims.

[Big Red Ron]

A public university would not have paid $2.5 million dollars to one of the plaintiffs if there had not been a great deal of merit to her claims.Actually this is false. Look at the amount of $$$ their legal team would have cost, the length of time he trial would have taken, the negative impact of leaked information (true and false) and at the end of the day, say they win but who cares they look guilty because of the media frenzy. 4 Mill to make it go away is probably a good deal.

[Jimminy Crimson]

I've heard his name a little in SMU circles.

[SoonerMajic]

Actually this is false. Look at the amount of $$$ their legal team would have cost, the length of time he trial would have taken, the negative impact of leaked information (true and false) and at the end of the day, say they win but who cares they look guilty because of the media frenzy. 4 Mill to make it go away is probably a good deal.


I disagree.

Look at the disparity between the settlement numbers of the 2 plaintiffs.

$325,000 vs. $2,500,000.

$325,000 is much closer to the number you settle for based upon nuisance issues, and defense cost.

[A-M]

There is no way that the University would settle out of court if there was not enough evidance to allow the ladies to win. CU does not want people to hear what would come out if they went to court. Score one for the good ladies this time.

[Big Red Ron]

I disagree.

Look at the disparity between the settlement numbers of the 2 plaintiffs.

$325,000 vs. $2,500,000.

$325,000 is much closer to the number you settle for based upon nuisance issues, and defense cost.The difference is that one woman was named publicly, the other wasn't. Huge difference in public humiliation and just plain humiliation.

You may disagree, this is America after all. There's room for people like you and Ellen.:D

[Big Red Ron]

You two should study a little law and a little "cost benifit analysis." You'll get it after both.

[SoonerMajic]

You two should study a little law and a little "cost benifit analysis." You'll get it after both.


Actually, I am a lawyer and have been involved in numerous settlement conferences and negotiations.

I have also been on both sides of the ball with public entities. My experience is that they are tougher to settle with because they do not engage in the same risk/benefit analysis as a business would. They have no profit motive, and have no losses since they are a public entity. No one is really personally invested in the financial outcome of the case. Instead, everything is more politically motivated.

Based upon that experience, I believe that there is no way CU would have agreed to the $2.5 Million settlement with the one girl unless the Chancellors, Trustees or whomever made the call felt like the claim had a great deal of merit.

Of course, if I am wrong I need to find someone and sue CU.

[Big Red Ron]

Actually, I am a lawyer and have been involved in numerous settlement conferences and negotiations.



Of course, if I am wrong I need to find someone and sue CU.BS and if you are an attorney, you're a baby lawyer. I don't brag on message boards but lets just say you're ****ing in the wind here.

[SoonerMajic]

BS and if you are an attorney, you're a baby lawyer. I don't brag on message boards but lets just say you're ****ing in the wind here.

I was not intending to brag, if that is what you were implying. Being an attorney is no big deal. I was merely trying to give some credence to my opinion as the possible meaning behind the CU settlement figure and respond to your suggestion that perhaps I needed a JD to fully appreciate why CU settled at such a large figure.

I am also no baby lawyer, but I am no Matlock either. I have practiced about 15 years.

[Big Red Ron]

I've seen weaker cases get settled for a lot more. Simply because the negative PR (which effects the bottom dollar across the board), plus the attorneys fees and the crisis communications firm would cost A LOT more to try to win.

[SoonerMajic]

Here's the 10th Circuit Decision:

http://ca10.washburnlaw.edu/cases/2007/09/07-1182.pdf

The rape culture around the CU team is truly extraordinary, and Barnett's failure to deal with it is incredible. According to the opinion, he made a football player run extra for raping a female trainer and then apparently encouraged her not to pursue charges.

Anyone thinking of hiring Barnett should read this opinion.

[A-M]

Here's the 10th Circuit Decision:

http://ca10.washburnlaw.edu/cases/2007/09/07-1182.pdf

The rape culture around the CU team is truly extraordinary, and Barnett's failure to deal with it is incredible. According to the opinion, he made a football player run extra for raping a female trainer and then apparently encouraged her not to pursue charges.

Anyone thinking of hiring Barnett should read this opinion.

The courts decision is very long so I did not read all of it. However the parts that I did read tells me that there was rape and that CU knows that it is true is why they wanted it out of court. Sounds like CU was warned many times to take care of the problem and Gary B and the others did not take it seriously. I sure would not want to be a girl on that campus.

[RedstickSooner]

I dig that plenty of spurious lawsuits get brought all the time.

However, rape is the rare one -- and usually women who bring rape/sexual harassment suits on a spurious basis don't stop at one. With all the media attention this case got, we would've heard had this been a repeat allegation.

So, from the outset, my tendency was to believe the accusers. Sounds like I was correct to do so. A head coach sets the tone for his program, and I really wonder what the fudge is wrong with Barnett.

[L Buff]

Sorry to bring this back to the front page, but I stumbled across this thread while looking for something else, and can't pass up the chance to fill some of you in on the true nature of this case.



Here's the 10th Circuit Decision:

http://ca10.washburnlaw.edu/cases/2007/09/07-1182.pdf

The rape culture around the CU team is truly extraordinary, and Barnett's failure to deal with it is incredible. According to the opinion, he made a football player run extra for raping a female trainer and then apparently encouraged her not to pursue charges.

Anyone thinking of hiring Barnett should read this opinion.

Well .. if you're truly a lawyer, then you should know that in a ruling on a Rule 56 summary judgment motion, the court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, here the plaintiffs. The district court did so and still found for CU as a matter of law. The Court of Appeals bent over so far backwards that it didn't just view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party ... it presumed that all the allegations of the plaintiffs were absolutely true. Thus all benefit of the doubt went to the plaintiff's side in this hoilding ... no assurance that the same thing would happen at trial.

Especially given the true facts of the case ....


Link to depositions (http://web.dailycamera.com/buffzone/recruit/dep.html)


These make for some interesting reading ... that is, if you really want to know what the hell you're talking about before you spout off.

What put CU in a settlement stance was the way in which the 10th Circuit radically expanded the scope of Title IX liability for higher ed instiutions, and totally went against all Title IX case law precedent, thus putting CU in the postion of being held responsible for a party held OFF-CAMPUS by some female students, who then INVITED some football players one of them knew who happened to bring some recruits they were hosting that weekend. It was NOT a "party for recruits" as the press would have everyone believe. What it WAS was young people behaving badly, and if you bother to read Lisa Simpson's depo, you'll see that she admits that she didn't say anything at first, and when she did eventually say "No" ... the players/recruits stopped what they were doing. There was no rape ... which is why the most agressive DA in prosecuting sexual assault cases in the state didn't even bring charges.


And speaking of the press .. if you read nothing else ... read this. (http://www.dpkpr.com/en/art/index.asp?16) It's a critique of how the media largely handled the situation ... basically getting spoon-fed leaked information by a PR firm hired BY THE LEAD PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEY.


:mad:

[MextheBulldog]

I guess that settles that.

[Rock Hard Corn Frog]

I know Barney Rubble gave us a classic with the Mulligan comments but seriously if Stoops were to leave for another job in the next year or two Barnett would probably be high on my list for the HC job. The dude can coach.

[soonerboomer93]

no way, no how would I want Barnett here. Yes he can coach, but he's a **** poor representative for the University.

[Sooner70]

Barnett may be a good football technician, sorta a OK TV/radio game analyst, & coach, but he needs a lesson in Public Affairs 101 & when/how to talk to the media + when he'd be better off just shutting up. When the deal broke about the female CU kicker, he absolutely fumbled the ball big time. He coulda handled that so many better ways, rather than more or less saying publicly, "...well, she was a pretty sorry kicker after all....". How about recognizing the woman for the guts & valor she exhibited for even trying out & getting in uniform? (I'm not female, so this isn't a libber post.)

[Crucifax Autumn]

Barnett's not worth ****ing on...as a coach, an analyst, or otherwise.

[KantoSooner]

Barnett = Steamer

end o' story