Frank Shannon's (attorney) Presser

[BoulderSooner79]

SIAP, but I didn't see it here.

It was reported on LT that Shannon's attorney (Timmons) held a press conference today at 2pm CDT.
The LT person was posting the statements via tweets in real time and summarized this way:

To recap: Frank WILL suit up tomorrow, WILL NOT play though by a voluntary action by OU. Frank WAS on the top of the depth chart before OU appealed to the supreme court. Shannon has been TAKEN OUT of "active practice" so the University is playing on the edge of the stay that was issued. Shannon WILL NOT transfer because he wants to not be known as a rapist and will fight for his rights. They also indicated Shannon is willing to go as far as it takes and might take legal action against OU later on. No court dates have been set for the future as the Supreme Court is on summer recess.

The reason for the statement seemed to say that Frank is being treated unfairly by the University and to bring the issue back into public as OU is burying it with silence. It certainly does seem unfair to me as time is totally against Shannon. The Supreme court is in recess and the season goes on without him even though he is eligible to play during the appeal period. The other thing not mentioned in the recap is that Frank will suit up and stand in silent protest on the sidelines tomorrow. I guess that's assuming the team allows him to after the attorney statements today.

[SoonerForLife92]

Good for you Frank! Fight this nonsense crap for as long as it takes

[cherokeebrewer]

Here's a link to NewsOK if anyone is interested. I just want it to all go away. We got games to win...

http://newsok.com/oklahoma-football-...medium=twitter

[SoonerMarkVA]

Ironic with OU's whole "Bring the Wood" campaign, 'cause that lawyer just brought the wood on OU. I admire Shannon for standing tough on this. He is facing a mighty fierce head wind.

[REDREX]

Seminole Fats needs to let him play

[Tear Down This Wall]

Glad OU isn't playing this in the court of public opinion. It's a Title IX thing. Shannon's lawyer can spout off all she wants. OU will be around long after Shannon is gone, and they will have to continue to follow Title IX long after Shannon is gone.

So, kudos to OU for staying silent and trying to get the Title IX problem - that is the result of Shannon's own actions - resolved with a lot of back and forth with a loudmouthed attorney.

[KantoSooner]

You're right that OU has to play it as they have. On the other hand, Shannon has the choice of accepting a mealy mouthed regulatory law procedure labeling him a rapist on the basis of circumstantial and hearsay evidence....or fighting. His lawyer's doing what she has to do, too.

[cvsooner]

Shannon's suspension has been upheld by the OK Supreme Court, or so the newswires are saying. Details to follow.

So no Frank Shannon on the field this year.

[BoulderSooner79]

Pretty much expected. If I understand it correctly, the appeal would only look at whether OU properly followed the title IX process. They were not going to review the committees conclusion. I'm glad they at least ruled quickly to put to bed the question of whether he should play during the appeal period before we hit critical games.

[Tear Down This Wall]

You're right that OU has to play it as they have. On the other hand, Shannon has the choice of accepting a mealy mouthed regulatory law procedure labeling him a rapist on the basis of circumstantial and hearsay evidence....or fighting. His lawyer's doing what she has to do, too.

Title IX is the law, "mealy mouthed" or not. You would have OU break the law for the sake of one player? OU was never going to risk further Title IX action. Nor should they have.

It's shameful enough that OU tried to get the receiver from Missouri eligible, and that they still have Joe Mixon on scholarship.

One player does not make a team. We are doing just fine without that trio. We don't need this university to be turn into Miami, "The U."

[8timechamps]

Pretty much expected. If I understand it correctly, the appeal would only look at whether OU properly followed the title IX process. They were not going to review the committees conclusion. I'm glad they at least ruled quickly to put to bed the question of whether he should play during the appeal period before we hit critical games.

That's the way I understand it too. The State Supreme Court wasn't retrying the case, just reviewing the procedures.

Sucks for Frank. Not sure there's much more that can be done on his part, other than come back next year.

[olevetonahill]

Hey Frank, Next time Bone her ,

[KantoSooner]

TDTW, it is not Title IX that I have a problem with, rather the procedure put in place to 'comply' with Title IX. That process, it seems to me is heavily slanted in favor of the accuser in cases like this and allows for none of the procedural or fact finding protections accorded the accused in a criminal or civil legal action. I suppose a philosophical excuse can be found for this as accused in such proceedings can not be jailed or fined; but, as this case shows, there are real penalties both tangible (loss of playing time, in essence his job interview) and intangible (being labeled a rapist) that attach to the conclusions of the board of review.
Considering that the DA declined to prosecute and the injured party declined to sue, it seems that the factual basis was too weak to support either of those burdens of proof. It was only in the highly flawed (my opinion) procedure (which was set up by OU itself, I believe) of the OU Title IX proceeding that some unspecified burden of proof was met. In closed chambers, no less.
Now, Title IX is the law and OU's procedure was set up long before this case, so, as we are both agreed, OU had to follow the procedure and its conclusions. That much is beyond argument. In my opinion, however, that a grave injustice has been done is equally beyond debate.

[BoulderSooner79]

^This. I understand the burden of proof is different for a DA vs. an internal school procedure. But in a he-says-she-says situation with no other evidence, I can't see how *any* system can conclude there was wrong doing. Yet a 5 person committee concluded a violation of the code of conduct did happen. So they either have more evidence than has been made public or it was something that Shannon himself admitted that made up their minds and he just disagrees with the committee that it was wrong doing. So was there grave injustice? I don't think we'll ever know unless the committee proceedings get published. I don't see that happening.

[EatLeadCommie]

So how is it that Winston can play for FSU after having not one but two girls accuse him of rape, and Frank Shannon can't play for OU? Is OU being overly diligent and cautious, is FSU being lax, or is the right course of action somewhere in the middle?

[bmjlr]

So how is it that Winston can play for FSU after having not one but two girls accuse him of rape, and Frank Shannon can't play for OU? Is OU being overly diligent and cautious, is FSU being lax, or is the right course of action somewhere in the middle?

That is a great question. I am going with a little of both. Of course, I have no idea, but would love to have FSU explain it.

[8timechamps]

So how is it that Winston can play for FSU after having not one but two girls accuse him of rape, and Frank Shannon can't play for OU? Is OU being overly diligent and cautious, is FSU being lax, or is the right course of action somewhere in the middle?

It's hard to say given what we know, but I think it's a combination of OU erring on the side of caution and FSU doing anything it can to keep Winston on the field.

FSU will have to explain their actions (or lack of) soon, and it's going to be interesting.

[BoulderSooner79]

So how is it that Winston can play for FSU after having not one but two girls accuse him of rape, and Frank Shannon can't play for OU? Is OU being overly diligent and cautious, is FSU being lax, or is the right course of action somewhere in the middle?

The big difference is that the OU title IX investigation concluded and ruled against Shannon in June. The FSU one is just getting started. Now as to why it's just getting started, FSU may be a bit lax. A cynic might speculate the process will conclude right after the season as Winston is declaring for the draft. But it's pure speculation.

[cvsooner]

The big difference is that the OU title IX investigation concluded and ruled against Shannon in June. The FSU one is just getting started. Now as to why it's just getting started, FSU may be a bit lax. A cynic might speculate the process will conclude right after the season as Winston is declaring for the draft. But it's pure speculation.

A bit? Uh, yeah.

[SoonerorLater]

I'm sure with the thorough investigative work that's already been done there isn't much of anything to tell.