Back in August, Wilcox said he could not talk about it.

SFCityBear said:

---

Back in August, Wilcox said he could not talk about it.

---

He is no longer on the team. You can draw your own conclusions.

Last I heard, there was an active investigation going on and therefore, nobody could comment. The investigation did not involve Cal football as far as I know.

If I'm wrong about this, I apologize, I'm going from memory.

DJ was a highly rated recruit from the 2020 class but we have another highly rated TE coming in for 2021 and we have some good TEs playing in the meantime, so I'm not drowning in my tears regarding Rogers. I hope things work out for him though.

Wilcox could comment on it, but it wouldn't be prudent. No point. The player was involved in an incident last year. Given his involvement, the staff didn't believe he should be in the program. Maybe also the university didn't feel he should be admitted (don't know for sure about that).

He will likely go to a JC or otherwise bide his time. Likely another school will give him a shot after a year or two. I hope the young man is able to make a good life for himself.

Type of incident?
-oh never mind. I don't even know who the guy is.

SFCityBear said:

---

Back in August, Wilcox said he could not talk about it.

---

He's enrolled at TCU.....

heartofthebear said:

---

Last I heard, there was an active investigation going on and therefore, nobody could comment. The investigation did not involve Cal football as far as I know.

If I'm wrong about this, I apologize, I'm going from memory.

DJ was a highly rated recruit from the 2020 class but we have another highly rated TE coming in for 2021 and we have some good TEs playing in the meantime, so I'm not drowning in my tears regarding Rogers. I hope things work out for him though.

---

The TE's are fair in a system that wants to use them more. Its water under the bridge, but Rogers would have been a big addition. Let's hope that Terry doesn't flip.

Big C said:

---

Wilcox could comment on it, but it wouldn't be prudent. No point. The player was involved in an incident last year. Given his involvement, the staff didn't believe he should be in the program. Maybe also the university didn't feel he should be admitted (don't know for sure about that).

He will likely go to a JC or otherwise bide his time. Likely another school will give him a shot after a year or two. I hope the young man is able to make a good life for himself.

---

Your last statement makes you a lot more generous than I am. I hope the other person involved in the incident is able to make a good life for themself.

Alkiadt said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

Back in August, Wilcox said he could not talk about it.

---

He's enrolled at TCU.....

---

Good to hear. Glad there are some places where you're still innocent until proven guilty and not the other way around.

OaktownBear said:

---

Big C said:

---

Wilcox could comment on it, but it wouldn't be prudent. No point. The player was involved in an incident last year. Given his involvement, the staff didn't believe he should be in the program. Maybe also the university didn't feel he should be admitted (don't know for sure about that).

He will likely go to a JC or otherwise bide his time. Likely another school will give him a shot after a year or two. I hope the young man is able to make a good life for himself.

---

Your last statement makes you a lot more generous than I am. I hope the other person involved in the incident is able to make a good life for themself.

---

Yeah, you're right.

Wow, TCU already? They didn't waste any time. Usually there's at least a year's time in there, for things (like the publicity) to die down. What does TCU stand for again?

To poster "WalterSobchak", I think the thing was, he admitted involvement in the incident, at which point he was no longer an "OKG".

I'm surely not going to talk about the specifics of the incident, but he is from Washington and there is a thing called google...

Not only was this young man never convicted of any crime, he was never even charged. Let that sink in. What he "admitted" to was consensual sex. The attorneys who are paid to apply the facts to the law in this case agreed no crime occurred. Yet many here and obviously within the university clearly view him as having culpability. So an unsupported accusation has branded him and cost him a scholarship to attend a university that has the potential to open doors to a life few others can. Truly terrifying.

WalterSobchak said:

---

Not only was this young man never convicted of any crime, he was never even charged. Let that sink in. What he "admitted" to was consensual sex. The attorneys who are paid to apply the facts to the law in this case agreed no crime occurred. Yet many here and obviously within the university clearly view him as having culpability. So an unsupported accusation has branded him and cost him a scholarship to attend a university that has the potential to open doors to a life few others can. Truly terrifying.

---

I don't blame Cal from making a conservative decision but, at the same time, I am glad to hear that he may be innocent. Is there still an investigation? Is this ever going to amount to more than he said/she said? As long as those questions are out there, Cal has to err on the side of caution, even though he may end up an innocent victim. That is not a personal attack on Rogers, that is the way of the world for everybody.

heartofthebear said:

---

WalterSobchak said:

---

Not only was this young man never convicted of any crime, he was never even charged. Let that sink in. What he "admitted" to was consensual sex. The attorneys who are paid to apply the facts to the law in this case agreed no crime occurred. Yet many here and obviously within the university clearly view him as having culpability. So an unsupported accusation has branded him and cost him a scholarship to attend a university that has the potential to open doors to a life few others can. Truly terrifying.

---

I don't blame Cal from making a conservative decision but, at the same time, I am glad to hear that he may be innocent. Is there still an investigation? Is this ever going to amount to more than he said/she said? As long as those questions are out there, Cal has to err on the side of caution, even though he may end up an innocent victim. That is not a personal attack on Rogers, that is the way of the world for everybody.

---

This is where the discussion starts to veer off the rails. In essence, this is an enormously complex issue. Any effort to boil it down to a couple paragraphs does an grave injustice to the victim. I would strongly suggest the moderator lock this one.....

71Bear said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

WalterSobchak said:

---

Not only was this young man never convicted of any crime, he was never even charged. Let that sink in. What he "admitted" to was consensual sex. The attorneys who are paid to apply the facts to the law in this case agreed no crime occurred. Yet many here and obviously within the university clearly view him as having culpability. So an unsupported accusation has branded him and cost him a scholarship to attend a university that has the potential to open doors to a life few others can. Truly terrifying.

---

I don't blame Cal from making a conservative decision but, at the same time, I am glad to hear that he may be innocent. Is there still an investigation? Is this ever going to amount to more than he said/she said? As long as those questions are out there, Cal has to err on the side of caution, even though he may end up an innocent victim. That is not a personal attack on Rogers, that is the way of the world for everybody.

---

This is where the discussion starts to veer off the rails. In essence, this is an enormously complex issue. Any effort to boil it down to a couple paragraphs does an grave injustice to the victim. I would strongly suggest the moderator lock this one.....

---

Why?

Absolutely, how DARE anyone speak openly that this guy is INNOCENT, right?
Just let silent speculation continue to condemn him.
You're a real piece of work.

I wasn't going to discuss any of the details of the incident, nor will I, except to say that your simple description doesn't quite do it justice. It isn't a question of legality so much as optics. Sorry to the "purists" out there, but sometimes it's just not worth it to have to deal with the negative baggage, especially considering some of the things the program and the campus have had to deal with lately. Okay, he is "INNOCENT" of any crime. Great, we can leave it at that.

heartofthebear said:

---

WalterSobchak said:

---

Not only was this young man never convicted of any crime, he was never even charged. Let that sink in. What he "admitted" to was consensual sex. The attorneys who are paid to apply the facts to the law in this case agreed no crime occurred. Yet many here and obviously within the university clearly view him as having culpability. So an unsupported accusation has branded him and cost him a scholarship to attend a university that has the potential to open doors to a life few others can. Truly terrifying.

---

I don't blame Cal from making a conservative decision but, at the same time, I am glad to hear that he may be innocent. Is there still an investigation? Is this ever going to amount to more than he said/she said? As long as those questions are out there, Cal has to err on the side of caution, even though he may end up an innocent victim. That is not a personal attack on Rogers, that is the way of the world for everybody.

---

Mods asked us not to discuss. There is no investigation. It is not he said she said. It is she said, he said he said he said he said he filmed it he Snapchatted it to a bunch of schoolmates and got his scholarship to Stanford pulled, and she went into substantial therapy for trauma over what she said he did he did he did he did and what he said and he said and he said and he said she wanted, but the police couldn't find the video so they don't have any evidence to prove that she didn't want it so they couldn't bring charges.

If the ass in the post above wants to give that presentation of the situation then this is the cleanest opposition I can give you.

OaktownBear said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

WalterSobchak said:

---

Not only was this young man never convicted of any crime, he was never even charged. Let that sink in. What he "admitted" to was consensual sex. The attorneys who are paid to apply the facts to the law in this case agreed no crime occurred. Yet many here and obviously within the university clearly view him as having culpability. So an unsupported accusation has branded him and cost him a scholarship to attend a university that has the potential to open doors to a life few others can. Truly terrifying.

---

I don't blame Cal from making a conservative decision but, at the same time, I am glad to hear that he may be innocent. Is there still an investigation? Is this ever going to amount to more than he said/she said? As long as those questions are out there, Cal has to err on the side of caution, even though he may end up an innocent victim. That is not a personal attack on Rogers, that is the way of the world for everybody.

---

Mods asked us not to discuss. There is no investigation. It is not he said she said. It is she said, he said he said he said he said he filmed it he Snapchatted it to a bunch of schoolmates and got his scholarship to Stanford pulled, and she went into substantial therapy for trauma over what she said he did he did he did he did and what he said and he said and he said and he said she wanted, but the police couldn't find the video so they don't have any evidence to prove that she didn't want it so they couldn't bring charges.

If the ass in the post above wants to give that presentation of the situation then this is the cleanest opposition I can give you.

---

There is no current investigation. There was an investigation that resulted in a decision not to bring charges. And to be clear, the case didn't turn on the absence of a video - there is very rarely a video of alleged crimes and even if there were, it very well could have exonerated the young men. The police and DA gathered other evidence (witness statements, forensics, etc.) and made the decision not to press charges.

The young woman may have felt traumatized and sought therapy (you're stating that as a fact, so I assume so), and she certainly deserves support and to have her allegations fully vetted. But going to therapy doesn't mean a crime occurred. The truth is, none of us know what happened, other than the fact that: (i) charges were not brought after a police investigation; and (ii) all of the males in involved claimed the acts were consensual whereas the girl did not.

Our society typically operates on a presumption of innocence. And while that applies, strictly speaking, only in a criminal law context, I think the general consensus is that the presumption is thought to apply to some extent in everyday life based on a loose notion of fairness. That doesn't mean a student is entitled to a scholly/college admission which is a separate issue. However, before people are so quick to support the yanking of admissions, they should speak with Brian Banks or the duke lacrosse players and consider how they would feel if they were punished for allegations that were not legally proven.

OaktownBear said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

WalterSobchak said:

---

Not only was this young man never convicted of any crime, he was never even charged. Let that sink in. What he "admitted" to was consensual sex. The attorneys who are paid to apply the facts to the law in this case agreed no crime occurred. Yet many here and obviously within the university clearly view him as having culpability. So an unsupported accusation has branded him and cost him a scholarship to attend a university that has the potential to open doors to a life few others can. Truly terrifying.

---

I don't blame Cal from making a conservative decision but, at the same time, I am glad to hear that he may be innocent. Is there still an investigation? Is this ever going to amount to more than he said/she said? As long as those questions are out there, Cal has to err on the side of caution, even though he may end up an innocent victim. That is not a personal attack on Rogers, that is the way of the world for everybody.

---

Mods asked us not to discuss. There is no investigation. It is not he said she said. It is she said, he said he said he said he said he filmed it he Snapchatted it to a bunch of schoolmates and got his scholarship to Stanford pulled, and she went into substantial therapy for trauma over what she said he did he did he did he did and what he said and he said and he said and he said she wanted, but the police couldn't find the video so they don't have any evidence to prove that she didn't want it so they couldn't bring charges.

If the ass in the post above wants to give that presentation of the situation then this is the cleanest opposition I can give you.

---

Okay, I'm out. I could only assume that the mods. feel at this point that the topic is okay because the title makes it pretty obvious where this thread was going to end up and it has not been removed. I suspect it will be removed very soon but, in the meantime, I was simply trying to answer a question with limited knowledge and defend Cal's decision. In the process I sought assistance from those that might know more because I think that at least we should be accurate about these things and not spread damaging rumors.

BearGoggles said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

WalterSobchak said:

---

Not only was this young man never convicted of any crime, he was never even charged. Let that sink in. What he "admitted" to was consensual sex. The attorneys who are paid to apply the facts to the law in this case agreed no crime occurred. Yet many here and obviously within the university clearly view him as having culpability. So an unsupported accusation has branded him and cost him a scholarship to attend a university that has the potential to open doors to a life few others can. Truly terrifying.

---

I don't blame Cal from making a conservative decision but, at the same time, I am glad to hear that he may be innocent. Is there still an investigation? Is this ever going to amount to more than he said/she said? As long as those questions are out there, Cal has to err on the side of caution, even though he may end up an innocent victim. That is not a personal attack on Rogers, that is the way of the world for everybody.

---

Mods asked us not to discuss. There is no investigation. It is not he said she said. It is she said, he said he said he said he said he filmed it he Snapchatted it to a bunch of schoolmates and got his scholarship to Stanford pulled, and she went into substantial therapy for trauma over what she said he did he did he did he did and what he said and he said and he said and he said she wanted, but the police couldn't find the video so they don't have any evidence to prove that she didn't want it so they couldn't bring charges.

If the ass in the post above wants to give that presentation of the situation then this is the cleanest opposition I can give you.

---

There is no current investigation. There was an investigation that resulted in a decision not to bring charges. And to be clear, the case didn't turn on the absence of a video - there is very rarely a video of alleged crimes and even if there were, it very well could have exonerated the young men. The police and DA gathered other evidence (witness statements, forensics, etc.) and made the decision not to press charges.

The young woman may have felt traumatized and sought therapy (you're stating that as a fact, so I assume so), and she certainly deserves support and to have her allegations fully vetted. But going to therapy doesn't mean a crime occurred. The truth is, none of us know what happened, other than the fact that: (i) charges were not brought after a police investigation; and (ii) all of the males in involved claimed the acts were consensual whereas the girl did not.

Our society typically operates on a presumption of innocence. And while that applies, strictly speaking, only in a criminal law context, I think the general consensus is that the presumption is thought to apply to some extent in everyday life based on a loose notion of fairness. That doesn't mean a student is entitled to a scholly/college admission which is a separate issue. However, before people are so quick to support the yanking of admissions, they should speak with Brian Banks or the duke lacrosse players and consider how they would feel if they were punished for allegations that were not legally proven.

---

To be clear, the only thing I'm supporting here is the right of some combination of Wilcox/Knowlton/Admissions to offer, honor or withdraw scholarships/admission slots based on... a) everything they know and... b) their good judgement about what is best for Cal and for Cal Football.

Big C said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

WalterSobchak said:

---

Not only was this young man never convicted of any crime, he was never even charged. Let that sink in. What he "admitted" to was consensual sex. The attorneys who are paid to apply the facts to the law in this case agreed no crime occurred. Yet many here and obviously within the university clearly view him as having culpability. So an unsupported accusation has branded him and cost him a scholarship to attend a university that has the potential to open doors to a life few others can. Truly terrifying.

---

I don't blame Cal from making a conservative decision but, at the same time, I am glad to hear that he may be innocent. Is there still an investigation? Is this ever going to amount to more than he said/she said? As long as those questions are out there, Cal has to err on the side of caution, even though he may end up an innocent victim. That is not a personal attack on Rogers, that is the way of the world for everybody.

---

Mods asked us not to discuss. There is no investigation. It is not he said she said. It is she said, he said he said he said he said he filmed it he Snapchatted it to a bunch of schoolmates and got his scholarship to Stanford pulled, and she went into substantial therapy for trauma over what she said he did he did he did he did and what he said and he said and he said and he said she wanted, but the police couldn't find the video so they don't have any evidence to prove that she didn't want it so they couldn't bring charges.

If the ass in the post above wants to give that presentation of the situation then this is the cleanest opposition I can give you.

---

There is no current investigation. There was an investigation that resulted in a decision not to bring charges. And to be clear, the case didn't turn on the absence of a video - there is very rarely a video of alleged crimes and even if there were, it very well could have exonerated the young men. The police and DA gathered other evidence (witness statements, forensics, etc.) and made the decision not to press charges.

The young woman may have felt traumatized and sought therapy (you're stating that as a fact, so I assume so), and she certainly deserves support and to have her allegations fully vetted. But going to therapy doesn't mean a crime occurred. The truth is, none of us know what happened, other than the fact that: (i) charges were not brought after a police investigation; and (ii) all of the males in involved claimed the acts were consensual whereas the girl did not.

Our society typically operates on a presumption of innocence. And while that applies, strictly speaking, only in a criminal law context, I think the general consensus is that the presumption is thought to apply to some extent in everyday life based on a loose notion of fairness. That doesn't mean a student is entitled to a scholly/college admission which is a separate issue. However, before people are so quick to support the yanking of admissions, they should speak with Brian Banks or the duke lacrosse players and consider how they would feel if they were punished for allegations that were not legally proven.

---

To be clear, the only thing I'm supporting here is the right of some combination of Wilcox/Knowlton/Admissions to offer, honor or withdraw scholarships/admission slots based on... a) everything they know and... b) their good judgement about what is best for Cal and for Cal Football.

---

I agree.

Big C said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

WalterSobchak said:

---

Not only was this young man never convicted of any crime, he was never even charged. Let that sink in. What he "admitted" to was consensual sex. The attorneys who are paid to apply the facts to the law in this case agreed no crime occurred. Yet many here and obviously within the university clearly view him as having culpability. So an unsupported accusation has branded him and cost him a scholarship to attend a university that has the potential to open doors to a life few others can. Truly terrifying.

---

I don't blame Cal from making a conservative decision but, at the same time, I am glad to hear that he may be innocent. Is there still an investigation? Is this ever going to amount to more than he said/she said? As long as those questions are out there, Cal has to err on the side of caution, even though he may end up an innocent victim. That is not a personal attack on Rogers, that is the way of the world for everybody.

---

Mods asked us not to discuss. There is no investigation. It is not he said she said. It is she said, he said he said he said he said he filmed it he Snapchatted it to a bunch of schoolmates and got his scholarship to Stanford pulled, and she went into substantial therapy for trauma over what she said he did he did he did he did and what he said and he said and he said and he said she wanted, but the police couldn't find the video so they don't have any evidence to prove that she didn't want it so they couldn't bring charges.

If the ass in the post above wants to give that presentation of the situation then this is the cleanest opposition I can give you.

---

There is no current investigation. There was an investigation that resulted in a decision not to bring charges. And to be clear, the case didn't turn on the absence of a video - there is very rarely a video of alleged crimes and even if there were, it very well could have exonerated the young men. The police and DA gathered other evidence (witness statements, forensics, etc.) and made the decision not to press charges.

The young woman may have felt traumatized and sought therapy (you're stating that as a fact, so I assume so), and she certainly deserves support and to have her allegations fully vetted. But going to therapy doesn't mean a crime occurred. The truth is, none of us know what happened, other than the fact that: (i) charges were not brought after a police investigation; and (ii) all of the males in involved claimed the acts were consensual whereas the girl did not.

Our society typically operates on a presumption of innocence. And while that applies, strictly speaking, only in a criminal law context, I think the general consensus is that the presumption is thought to apply to some extent in everyday life based on a loose notion of fairness. That doesn't mean a student is entitled to a scholly/college admission which is a separate issue. However, before people are so quick to support the yanking of admissions, they should speak with Brian Banks or the duke lacrosse players and consider how they would feel if they were punished for allegations that were not legally proven.

---

To be clear, the only thing I'm supporting here is the right of some combination of Wilcox/Knowlton/Admissions to offer, honor or withdraw scholarships/admission slots based on... a) everything they know and... b) their good judgement about what is best for Cal and for Cal Football.

---

If I understand your position correctly, I probably agree. My feeling is. We don't know the facts and circumstances surrounding what DJR did, so we are in no position to say he was guilty or even to hint that he was guilty; so we should presume him to be not guilty.
But likewise we do not know what facts JW and Knowlton uncovered in their review of the situation; so we are in no position to say they were wrong or right in their decision to pull the scholarship (Operating on the same basis of innocence until proven guilty).
So the best position we can take (because of our lack of knowledge) is not to let both matters (DJR's actions and the decision by JW/Knowlton) lie and not endlessly argue the point.

Big C said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

WalterSobchak said:

---

Not only was this young man never convicted of any crime, he was never even charged. Let that sink in. What he "admitted" to was consensual sex. The attorneys who are paid to apply the facts to the law in this case agreed no crime occurred. Yet many here and obviously within the university clearly view him as having culpability. So an unsupported accusation has branded him and cost him a scholarship to attend a university that has the potential to open doors to a life few others can. Truly terrifying.

---

I don't blame Cal from making a conservative decision but, at the same time, I am glad to hear that he may be innocent. Is there still an investigation? Is this ever going to amount to more than he said/she said? As long as those questions are out there, Cal has to err on the side of caution, even though he may end up an innocent victim. That is not a personal attack on Rogers, that is the way of the world for everybody.

---

Mods asked us not to discuss. There is no investigation. It is not he said she said. It is she said, he said he said he said he said he filmed it he Snapchatted it to a bunch of schoolmates and got his scholarship to Stanford pulled, and she went into substantial therapy for trauma over what she said he did he did he did he did and what he said and he said and he said and he said she wanted, but the police couldn't find the video so they don't have any evidence to prove that she didn't want it so they couldn't bring charges.

If the ass in the post above wants to give that presentation of the situation then this is the cleanest opposition I can give you.

---

There is no current investigation. There was an investigation that resulted in a decision not to bring charges. And to be clear, the case didn't turn on the absence of a video - there is very rarely a video of alleged crimes and even if there were, it very well could have exonerated the young men. The police and DA gathered other evidence (witness statements, forensics, etc.) and made the decision not to press charges.

The young woman may have felt traumatized and sought therapy (you're stating that as a fact, so I assume so), and she certainly deserves support and to have her allegations fully vetted. But going to therapy doesn't mean a crime occurred. The truth is, none of us know what happened, other than the fact that: (i) charges were not brought after a police investigation; and (ii) all of the males in involved claimed the acts were consensual whereas the girl did not.

Our society typically operates on a presumption of innocence. And while that applies, strictly speaking, only in a criminal law context, I think the general consensus is that the presumption is thought to apply to some extent in everyday life based on a loose notion of fairness. That doesn't mean a student is entitled to a scholly/college admission which is a separate issue. However, before people are so quick to support the yanking of admissions, they should speak with Brian Banks or the duke lacrosse players and consider how they would feel if they were punished for allegations that were not legally proven.

---

To be clear, the only thing I'm supporting here is the right of some combination of Wilcox/Knowlton/Admissions to offer, honor or withdraw scholarships/admission slots based on... a) everything they know and... b) their good judgement about what is best for Cal and for Cal Football.

Well said. Exactly how I feel.

---

71Bear said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

WalterSobchak said:

---

Not only was this young man never convicted of any crime, he was never even charged. Let that sink in. What he "admitted" to was consensual sex. The attorneys who are paid to apply the facts to the law in this case agreed no crime occurred. Yet many here and obviously within the university clearly view him as having culpability. So an unsupported accusation has branded him and cost him a scholarship to attend a university that has the potential to open doors to a life few others can. Truly terrifying.

---

I don't blame Cal from making a conservative decision but, at the same time, I am glad to hear that he may be innocent. Is there still an investigation? Is this ever going to amount to more than he said/she said? As long as those questions are out there, Cal has to err on the side of caution, even though he may end up an innocent victim. That is not a personal attack on Rogers, that is the way of the world for everybody.

---

This is where the discussion starts to veer off the rails. In essence, this is an enormously complex issue. Any effort to boil it down to a couple paragraphs does an grave injustice to the victim. I would strongly suggest the moderator lock this one.....

---

Yeah that's the answer. It's complex and too sensitive to handle in an anonymous forum. Someone might get hurt. Security!!

LMK5 said:

---

71Bear said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

WalterSobchak said:

---

Not only was this young man never convicted of any crime, he was never even charged. Let that sink in. What he "admitted" to was consensual sex. The attorneys who are paid to apply the facts to the law in this case agreed no crime occurred. Yet many here and obviously within the university clearly view him as having culpability. So an unsupported accusation has branded him and cost him a scholarship to attend a university that has the potential to open doors to a life few others can. Truly terrifying.

---

I don't blame Cal from making a conservative decision but, at the same time, I am glad to hear that he may be innocent. Is there still an investigation? Is this ever going to amount to more than he said/she said? As long as those questions are out there, Cal has to err on the side of caution, even though he may end up an innocent victim. That is not a personal attack on Rogers, that is the way of the world for everybody.

---

This is where the discussion starts to veer off the rails. In essence, this is an enormously complex issue. Any effort to boil it down to a couple paragraphs does an grave injustice to the victim. I would strongly suggest the moderator lock this one.....

---

Yeah that's the answer. It's complex and too sensitive to handle in an anonymous forum. Someone might get hurt. Security!!

---

Nothing is more enlightening than a bunch of people with a very limited knowledge of the facts about a situation attempting to assign blame.

SFCityBear said:

---

Back in August, Wilcox said he could not talk about it.

---

I do not want to talk about specifics of DJ Rogers, but I do want to discuss one item which is the idea that no conviction or no charge as somehow clearing people, because most people do not understand the legal odds against a rape victim.

Studies comparing the responses of women in scientific surveys to FBI crime statistics have indicated that something like 10% of rapes are reported.

Of the rapes that are reported, about 35% get charged. I submit that does not mean that 65% of the women that report rape are lying.

Of the rapes that reported about 18% get a conviction. I submit that does not mean that 82% of women are lying

Of the convictions, about 80% are obvious convictions where the attacker was a stranger who either used a weapon or left the woman severely injured. This is even though a large majority of reported rapes, and an even larger majority of unreported rapes are perpetrated by someone the victim knows.

The bottom line is, if the woman knows her attacker and he does not use a weapon or injure her, she has virtually no shot of getting police to recommend prosecution, have a DA choose to prosecute, and have 12 people choose to convict. If she was raped while she was intoxicated, even less so. The bottom line is that as long as he says it was consensual, he does not get convicted. It is not true that 99% of these women are lying.

The argument that attackers have not been convicted of a crime under circumstances where you have at virtually no shot of conviction has been used as a bludgeon against sexual assault victims. I find this especially frustrating when the investigation is misrepresented, such as in a case where the police chief expresses that he and others in his unit involved in the investigation were surprised and frustrated by the district attorney's decision not to prosecute and it is presented as if the investigation cleared those accused of the attack.

Are people innocent until proven guilty in a court of law? Yes. It takes a lot to put someone in jail. Does that mean you cannot use your own judgment when the facts are known, including what is disputed and what is undisputed to decide what course of action you want to take as an individual or institution? No it does not mean that. Especially when you are an institution that has some duty of care over others.

I'm going to add this with respect to Cal. When a football coach feels sexual assault is an important enough issue that he brings a sexual assault survivor to campus to speak to his coaches and players, and to drive the matter home chooses a survivor whose attacker was a Cal recruit that a former coach chose to bring to campus anyway with the argument that he was never charged, and there is a nice write up in the papers about players and coaches learning so much and understanding the pain and what a catharsis it was for the survivor to be able to walk into the place that accepted her attacker and feel like she could make a difference, I have a lot of respect for that coach. But when not too long after he is faced with the same decision as the prior coach, he better think long and hard about the facts of the case he is looking at and realize how hollow his actions ring if he does the same thing 22 years later. If he can look at those facts and come to the conclusion that it is not the same, fine. If he can't and he chooses not to repeat the mistakes of the past, I can respect the hell out of that.

I apologize to everyone on the football forum for my original question on this topic. I had been isolated for many months due to dealing with important personal matters, and I had posted the question about DJ Rogers in complete ignorance of events that had taken place while I was busy elsewhere. Before I made the post, I did a search on the Bear Insider forums and stories, and there was little information I could find except for the interview with Coach Wilcox in August, where he refused to comment. I had never heard of the incident in which DJ Rogers was allegedly involved, and what happened afterward. In retrospect, before I made the post, I should have done due diligence and searched the internet for information on Rogers, but I did not do that, and based on what I have read here and been told by private message, I deeply regret bringing up this topic again for you, especially in today's atmosphere where the country is deeply divided, and so many topics are political, or politicized, and hotly debated. It was a mistake on my part. I don't want to take anything away from the comments made here, which I assume were made in good faith. The question I asked has been asked and likely answered before in this forum, and I wish I had known that before, and I would have never asked it, and made you all go through it again.

With all due respect to all who posted here, even though I thank you for your efforts to provide information, I would like to request that the moderators remove my post and this thread from the Bear Insider Forum.

SFCityBear said:

---

I apologize to everyone on the football forum for my original question on this topic. I had been isolated for many months due to dealing with important personal matters, and I had posted the question about DJ Rogers in complete ignorance of events that had taken place while I was busy elsewhere. Before I made the post, I did a search on the Bear Insider forums and stories, and there was little information I could find except for the interview with Coach Wilcox in August, where he refused to comment. I had never heard of the incident in which DJ Rogers was allegedly involved, and what happened afterward. In retrospect, before I made the post, I should have done due diligence and searched the internet for information on Rogers, but I did not do that, and based on what I have read here and been told by private message, I deeply regret bringing up this topic again for you, especially in today's atmosphere where the country is deeply divided, and so many topics are political, or politicized, and hotly debated. It was a mistake on my part. I don't want to take anything away from the comments made here, which I assume were made in good faith. The question I asked has been asked and likely answered before in this forum, and I wish I had known that before, and I would have never asked it, and made you all go through it again.

With all due respect to all who posted here, even though I thank you for your efforts to provide information, I would like to request that the moderators remove my post and this thread from the Bear Insider Forum.

---

Wanting to get updated on the status of one of Cal's top recruits because you were out of the loop seems like a good use a fan forum. If people choose to go off from there, that isn't on you. Nor does anyone's opinion change the fact of what Wilcox and the university decided to do.

Saitama said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

71Bear said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

WalterSobchak said:

---

Not only was this young man never convicted of any crime, he was never even charged. Let that sink in. What he "admitted" to was consensual sex. The attorneys who are paid to apply the facts to the law in this case agreed no crime occurred. Yet many here and obviously within the university clearly view him as having culpability. So an unsupported accusation has branded him and cost him a scholarship to attend a university that has the potential to open doors to a life few others can. Truly terrifying.

---

I don't blame Cal from making a conservative decision but, at the same time, I am glad to hear that he may be innocent. Is there still an investigation? Is this ever going to amount to more than he said/she said? As long as those questions are out there, Cal has to err on the side of caution, even though he may end up an innocent victim. That is not a personal attack on Rogers, that is the way of the world for everybody.

---

This is where the discussion starts to veer off the rails. In essence, this is an enormously complex issue. Any effort to boil it down to a couple paragraphs does an grave injustice to the victim. I would strongly suggest the moderator lock this one.....

---

Yeah that's the answer. It's complex and too sensitive to handle in an anonymous forum. Someone might get hurt. Security!!

---

Nothing is more enlightening than a bunch of people with a very limited knowledge of the facts about a situation attempting to assign blame.

---

The only other thing more enlightening is people with an equally limited knowledge acting like they know more than they do.

---

Then it's a good thing that I never claimed that I know more than others do.

Agreed Oaktown.

There is no basis to argue that someone is "innocent" in the context of "should he get a scholarship" until proven guilty in a criminal court. That is an absurdly high bar, even if you are talking about crimes where it is easier to convict than sexual assault. It is kind of insane to suggest the same standard used to decide who should be convicted of a crime should be used to decide who gets a scholarship.

If there is, say, an 75% chance a guy is guilty of some horrible crime, do we want to give him a scholarship, even though the 25% chance he didn't do it (certainly a 25% chance he's not guilty is reasonable doubt and will prevent conviction)? And what if there's a 75% chance he's guilt of a serious crime and a 100% chance he was guilty of really bad judgment? Give that guy a scholarship because maybe his only "crime" is really bad judgment? Does it change the analysis if the really bad judgment happened while he was really drunk, and if so, does that make us more or less likely to give him the scholarship?

Yeah, it is really hard to get a rape/sexual assault conviction based on the victim's inability to consent as a result of intoxication. How different might things have been for Brock Turner if his victim was too drunk to give consent but was conscious? Things get messy when the accused was too drunk to realize the victim was too drunk to give consent, less messy when the victim is unconscious, since being drunk is not any kind of excuse to think the victim is conscious and giving consent.

Remember when three Oregon basketball players who were NOT charged with any crime were booted off the team for their involvement in an alleged sexual assault? The District Attorney's office stated that there wasn't sufficient evidence to bring a case against any of the three. The Oregon AD, however, said that the actions of the players were unacceptable. He said, "When you read the police report it is very clear that it is conduct that isn't befitting of a University of Oregon student athlete."

Of course, the fact that Oregon accepted one of the three as a transfer after he was suspended at Providence for allegations involving sexual assault, and how Oregon responded to the later allegations against Kavell Bigby-Williams, suggest that Oregon isn't exactly the most honorable program. Still, at least in one instance, they seemed to have fair standard for taking the action they did -- the police report is very clear that the player engaged in conduct that isn't befitting of a student athlete at the institution.

If Cal decides, based on good evidence, there is conduct that isn't befitting of a University of Caifornia student athlete, then whether there is a crime is pretty darned irrelevant, "innocent of criminal conduct until proven guilty" doesn't mean squat. Given the incentive of the program to win, we can probably trust the right decision is being made when the program decides to pass on a player or kick a player out for unbefitting conduct, and we can only hope the program is making the right decision when it decides to accept or keep a player with alleged or undisputed inappropriate conduct.

mbBear said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

I apologize to everyone on the football forum for my original question on this topic. I had been isolated for many months due to dealing with important personal matters, and I had posted the question about DJ Rogers in complete ignorance of events that had taken place while I was busy elsewhere. Before I made the post, I did a search on the Bear Insider forums and stories, and there was little information I could find except for the interview with Coach Wilcox in August, where he refused to comment. I had never heard of the incident in which DJ Rogers was allegedly involved, and what happened afterward. In retrospect, before I made the post, I should have done due diligence and searched the internet for information on Rogers, but I did not do that, and based on what I have read here and been told by private message, I deeply regret bringing up this topic again for you, especially in today's atmosphere where the country is deeply divided, and so many topics are political, or politicized, and hotly debated. It was a mistake on my part. I don't want to take anything away from the comments made here, which I assume were made in good faith. The question I asked has been asked and likely answered before in this forum, and I wish I had known that before, and I would have never asked it, and made you all go through it again.

With all due respect to all who posted here, even though I thank you for your efforts to provide information, I would like to request that the moderators remove my post and this thread from the Bear Insider Forum.

---

Wanting to get updated on the status of one of Cal's top recruits because you were out of the loop seems like a good use a fan forum. If people choose to go off from there, that isn't on you. Nor does anyone's opinion change the fact of what Wilcox and the university decided to do.

---

Yeah, I think this has been a reasoned discussion of an issue that has been relevant to Cal Football. Kudos to the mods for letting it ride for a little while. Pretty much everyone who has posted has kept some degree of tact, and this on a topic that could easily veer south at any time. I see no problem with this being here... so far.

Ah. Another YogiHydra head. Ignore.