01Bear said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

We can relitigate the Yani episode. While not defending his actions as appropriate civil standards it isn't clear that stopping providing off the record inside information is retaliation. Essentially what was alleged is that because she turned down his cringe worthy passes he stopped doing something he shouldn't have been doing ANYWAY. She got mad when (and we don't know whether this was Yani being a d*** or her own failures as a young reporter) a scoop that she thought she had turned out to not be true

(IIRC this was about the Ivan Rabb recruitment).

And lets step slightly back about her allegations. Essentially what is being alleged is that because Yani was her only source and she failed to cultivate that source in a way that wasn't playing to his reptilian brain and was frozen she was harrassed? Hmmm....

I understand the allegation. I am not going to defend Yani to the death. But I can ABSOLUTELY see why this was a leaner and why Martin (or others) referred it to HR and then didn't take any further action. Indeed, IIRC Martin followed policies to the T. Refer to HR and don't engage complaintent. ;-)

---

It's been a while since this went down and I'm not sure I remember all the details. If you have sources you can cite to show Yann only gave the reporter access to information he wasn't supposed to give in the first place, that would be helpful. Otherwise, that would seem to be more of a weak attempt at defending Yann's actions. Additionally, please cite the source stating the reporter was only playing to his reptilian brain.


Lets recall the specifics. This was supposedly "off the record" information regarding recruiting targets and progress. Now while "everyone does it" it actually is against NCAA rules. She was not iced out of press conferences. She could still call people for interviews. She just wasn't getting off the record information from Yanni. If that is retaliation (in the context of harassments) then we are on a VERY slippery slope. And we can also throw some shade on her employer - who thought her usefulness as a reporter dried up when she no longer was able to get off the record information. Hmmm.......


In case it's not readily apparent, women journalists in sports (especially) are often subjected to sexual harassment, even though they maintain strict professional standards. This does not mean they were "playing to [anyone's] reptilian brain." Rather, they get objectified and sexualized by men in sports in a way that few male journalists are or have been similarly subjected.

Hmm #2. I am not going to disagree with the meta point. But Lets recall her social media posts which, if not flirting with players, was not "professional". Lets also chalk it up to being a young 20 something. I tend to be of the opinion that if you want to be treated as a professional and only as a professional it is important to ACT like a professional. Jumping back and forth across boundries isn't licenses to be groped or objectified but CAN be a problem. You can try to google the videos and still see if they are up.

Your attitude is essentially one of "she asked for it" when there is no evidence that is the case whatsoever.

Again - see her videos.

In fact, even Yann admitted he tried to trick her into going to his apartment, this evidencing her prior refusal of his inappropriate advances and Yann's knowledge that what he was doing was unwelcome.


I am _NOT_ defending his behavior. I am not even defending that if it was a clear supervisor and surpverisoree relationship it wouldn't have been harrassment.


If I were in Coach Martin's shoes, I would've been concerned by the allegations and reported both to the AD as well as the Title IX office, at a minimum. I honestly have no idea if he did any of that. Nor do I remember any of Coach Martin's actions during the investigations. However, all of that is irrelevant.

that is what he did. He was still thrown under the bus by the admin and the comical and the complaintant who either willfully or ignorantly didn't understand Martin could NOT take action against Yanni.

What matters is that Yann behaved like a scumbag and sexually harassed a young woman doing her job.

Again - she was NOT the employee of the University. It is NOT a clear cut business relationships (as would be a contractor or contractee to the unversity). It is a BLOG who hired a stringer for a pittance to get off the record recruiting news. Boy. You better not date anyone you EVER met through work if the university (which it did) considers that a protected relationship.

My response was only to that portion. Your attempt to cover up Yann's behavior and blame the victim for "CLEARLY" sending mixed messages is just absurd on its face.

Watch her flirt with football players on the videos. Again, I am happy to excuse that as a young 20 something that doesn't know better. But that is what she was doing.

Yann should not have attempted "to trick" anyone, including a woman reporter, into going to his apartment (implicitly for sex). That he had to resort to such trickery is sufficient to show he knew she did not want to have sex with him. That's not "mixed messages;" that's a "not interested" or a "no."

Again, you care conflating Yanni's boorish behavior which I am not going to defend with a formal claim of harrasment....and your argument that Yanni was oblivious when clearly other public images she was happy to put out there suggested at the MOST innocent certain journalistic boundries being crossed. Lets leave sex out of it - you treat the people you are covering in a professional way.


IIRC, you mentioned you have a kid. Would you be fine with your kid (as an adult) being put in the reporter's shoes and have Yann try to trick your kid into going to his apartment for sex? Would it be okay for your kid to lose his/her job as a result of rejecting Yann's sexual advances? If not, then why is it okay that Yann did this to someone else's kid?

I would understand fully my daughters action and, if I was going to shoot bullets, I might reserve MOST for the BLOG that fired her because she no longer could get off the record information from a single assistant coach who was 15 years her elder and believed she could do this with 2-3 years of experience and a few mass comm classes.



Ultimately, the MeToo movement has helped to reveal a lot of truths about individuals. It's shown that there are countless people (primarily women) who have been sexually harassed, abused, and assaulted. It's also shown that none of this is uncommon. Worse, it's shown that there are some men who think it's not a problem because it either doesn't happen to them or because they support treating women as objects.

Yes. But I would much rather discuss the utter train wreck this started in our program than the bigger point of MeToo - and I think that we do a disservice to that when we take things like Yanni and conflate them with Weinstein - or Sabine.

I grew up in the pre-MeToo era. I came of age sexually when consent was implied. I understand just how difficult it can be to determine if a woman was consenting to sex or if she was refusing. I resolved that issue, though, by asking questions like "are you okay with this?" and "do you want this [sex]?" when I was uncertain. And yeah, I was just as horny as the next guy. But I also took "no" for an answer.

The report sadly does not provide us the texts to see what her answer was. We have her word she said a firm no and Yanni's that she did not until the apartment incident. I agree that if she had firmly stated "No" in a text that he was at fault. Note though - given the report if he at that point had stopped giving her off the record info he would have violated the harrasment policy. The apartment then is irrelavent. It is this definition of retailation where I shake my head at the title IX office.

Those supporting the MeToo movement are saying it's time men (primarily) take "no" for an answer and that women not continue to be treated merely as sex objects. MeToo is basically asking that women be treated the same way men are and have been treated. If you have a problem with that, then there's nothing more to discuss.

We do not disagree except that - and I do believe this - that the myriad of professional women I work with (as do the MEN I work with) that there are professional decorums that are asked for. It doesn't mean that you are "asking for it". But if you flirt on videos and wear less than professional attire It isn't surprising you are going to attract interest from single members of the opposite sex _AND_ are less likely to be taken seriously in your profession.

---

socaltownie said:

---

01Bear said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

We can relitigate the Yani episode. While not defending his actions as appropriate civil standards it isn't clear that stopping providing off the record inside information is retaliation. Essentially what was alleged is that because she turned down his cringe worthy passes he stopped doing something he shouldn't have been doing ANYWAY. She got mad when (and we don't know whether this was Yani being a d*** or her own failures as a young reporter) a scoop that she thought she had turned out to not be true

(IIRC this was about the Ivan Rabb recruitment).

And lets step slightly back about her allegations. Essentially what is being alleged is that because Yani was her only source and she failed to cultivate that source in a way that wasn't playing to his reptilian brain and was frozen she was harrassed? Hmmm....

I understand the allegation. I am not going to defend Yani to the death. But I can ABSOLUTELY see why this was a leaner and why Martin (or others) referred it to HR and then didn't take any further action. Indeed, IIRC Martin followed policies to the T. Refer to HR and don't engage complaintent. ;-)

---

It's been a while since this went down and I'm not sure I remember all the details. If you have sources you can cite to show Yann only gave the reporter access to information he wasn't supposed to give in the first place, that would be helpful. Otherwise, that would seem to be more of a weak attempt at defending Yann's actions. Additionally, please cite the source stating the reporter was only playing to his reptilian brain.


Lets recall the specifics. This was supposedly "off the record" information regarding recruiting targets and progress. Now while "everyone does it" it actually is against NCAA rules. She was not iced out of press conferences. She could still call people for interviews. She just wasn't getting off the record information from Yanni. If that is retaliation (in the context of harassments) then we are on a VERY slippery slope. And we can also throw some shade on her employer - who thought her usefulness as a reporter dried up when she no longer was able to get off the record information. Hmmm.......


In case it's not readily apparent, women journalists in sports (especially) are often subjected to sexual harassment, even though they maintain strict professional standards. This does not mean they were "playing to [anyone's] reptilian brain." Rather, they get objectified and sexualized by men in sports in a way that few male journalists are or have been similarly subjected.

Hmm #2. I am not going to disagree with the meta point. But Lets recall her social media posts which, if not flirting with players, was not "professional". Lets also chalk it up to being a young 20 something. I tend to be of the opinion that if you want to be treated as a professional and only as a professional it is important to ACT like a professional. Jumping back and forth across boundries isn't licenses to be groped or objectified but CAN be a problem. You can try to google the videos and still see if they are up.

Your attitude is essentially one of "she asked for it" when there is no evidence that is the case whatsoever.

Again - see her videos.

In fact, even Yann admitted he tried to trick her into going to his apartment, this evidencing her prior refusal of his inappropriate advances and Yann's knowledge that what he was doing was unwelcome.


I am _NOT_ defending his behavior. I am not even defending that if it was a clear supervisor and surpverisoree relationship it wouldn't have been harrassment.


If I were in Coach Martin's shoes, I would've been concerned by the allegations and reported both to the AD as well as the Title IX office, at a minimum. I honestly have no idea if he did any of that. Nor do I remember any of Coach Martin's actions during the investigations. However, all of that is irrelevant.

that is what he did. He was still thrown under the bus by the admin and the comical and the complaintant who either willfully or ignorantly didn't understand Martin could NOT take action against Yanni.

What matters is that Yann behaved like a scumbag and sexually harassed a young woman doing her job.

Again - she was NOT the employee of the University. It is NOT a clear cut business relationships (as would be a contractor or contractee to the unversity). It is a BLOG who hired a stringer for a pittance to get off the record recruiting news. Boy. You better not date anyone you EVER met through work if the university (which it did) considers that a protected relationship.

My response was only to that portion. Your attempt to cover up Yann's behavior and blame the victim for "CLEARLY" sending mixed messages is just absurd on its face.

Watch her flirt with football players on the videos. Again, I am happy to excuse that as a young 20 something that doesn't know better. But that is what she was doing.

Yann should not have attempted "to trick" anyone, including a woman reporter, into going to his apartment (implicitly for sex). That he had to resort to such trickery is sufficient to show he knew she did not want to have sex with him. That's not "mixed messages;" that's a "not interested" or a "no."

Again, you care conflating Yanni's boorish behavior which I am not going to defend with a formal claim of harrasment....and your argument that Yanni was oblivious when clearly other public images she was happy to put out there suggested at the MOST innocent certain journalistic boundries being crossed. Lets leave sex out of it - you treat the people you are covering in a professional way.


IIRC, you mentioned you have a kid. Would you be fine with your kid (as an adult) being put in the reporter's shoes and have Yann try to trick your kid into going to his apartment for sex? Would it be okay for your kid to lose his/her job as a result of rejecting Yann's sexual advances? If not, then why is it okay that Yann did this to someone else's kid?

I would understand fully my daughters action and, if I was going to shoot bullets, I might reserve MOST for the BLOG that fired her because she no longer could get off the record information from a single assistant coach who was 15 years her elder and believed she could do this with 2-3 years of experience and a few mass comm classes.



Ultimately, the MeToo movement has helped to reveal a lot of truths about individuals. It's shown that there are countless people (primarily women) who have been sexually harassed, abused, and assaulted. It's also shown that none of this is uncommon. Worse, it's shown that there are some men who think it's not a problem because it either doesn't happen to them or because they support treating women as objects.

Yes. But I would much rather discuss the utter train wreck this started in our program than the bigger point of MeToo - and I think that we do a disservice to that when we take things like Yanni and conflate them with Weinstein - or Sabine.

I grew up in the pre-MeToo era. I came of age sexually when consent was implied. I understand just how difficult it can be to determine if a woman was consenting to sex or if she was refusing. I resolved that issue, though, by asking questions like "are you okay with this?" and "do you want this [sex]?" when I was uncertain. And yeah, I was just as horny as the next guy. But I also took "no" for an answer.

The report sadly does not provide us the texts to see what her answer was. We have her word she said a firm no and Yanni's that she did not until the apartment incident. I agree that if she had firmly stated "No" in a text that he was at fault. Note though - given the report if he at that point had stopped giving her off the record info he would have violated the harrasment policy. The apartment then is irrelavent. It is this definition of retailation where I shake my head at the title IX office.

Those supporting the MeToo movement are saying it's time men (primarily) take "no" for an answer and that women not continue to be treated merely as sex objects. MeToo is basically asking that women be treated the same way men are and have been treated. If you have a problem with that, then there's nothing more to discuss.

We do not disagree except that - and I do believe this - that the myriad of professional women I work with (as do the MEN I work with) that there are professional decorums that are asked for. It doesn't mean that you are "asking for it". But if you flirt on videos and wear less than professional attire It isn't surprising you are going to attract interest from single members of the opposite sex _AND_ are less likely to be taken seriously in your profession.

---

---

Your argument is "she flirted with football players therefore she gave mixed signals to Yann?" Seriously!?!?

So if your wife kisses you, does that mean I should expect her to sleep with me? Clearly, the answer would be no. Yet, because the reporter was flirtatious (by your account) with others, she must've therefore been signaling a desire to have sex with Yann?

Also, your "she was wearing skimpy clothing" argument is very much "she asked for it." It doesn't matter what she wore, she already made it clear to Yann that she was not interested in him. HE STILL TRIED TO TRICK HER INTO GOING TO HIS APARTMENT (implicitly for sex). He admitted this. That he had to rely on trickery indicates he knew she was not interested. There were no mixed signals. The signal was clear; he knew she was not interested.

I already addressed that the reporter should've cultivated more sources. But the fact that Yann cut her off after she rejected his sexual advances is retaliation, plain and simple. Sure, maybe he shouldn't have shared inside information with her, but he could still share non-inside information. You have not presented anything to show he continued to do that. Instead, you seem to argue that just because she could attend press conferences, he didn't ice her out. That's not the issue. The issue is he revoked access to him as a source in order to retaliate for not (and/or possibly to coerce her into) having sex with him.

You seem not to have grasped my thought experiment with your daughter and Yann. You reply that you would understand her behavior. The behavior at issue isn't hers, it's Yann's. Would you support/defend or oppose Yann coercing your daughter into sex? If you wouldn't, then why would you support/defend his having done so with the reporter?

You keep harping on her age. That has zero to do with what happened. Sexual harassment and sexual assault happens to women of all ages--including to underaged girls. For what it's worth, what Yann did was sexual harassment. Sexual harassment doesn't only happen when there's an employer-employee relationship. If a man pinched your wife's butt, I'm sure you wouldn't think "that's fine, he's not her boss." If a man kept hitting on your (hypothetical adult) daughter despite having been rejected already and trying to coerce her into sex, I'm sure you wouldn't turn a blind eye if they're not in a supervisor-supervisoree relationship. The activities are sexual assault/harassment, even if they took place outside the workplace.

As for dating a coworker, I'm not sure how long it's been since you dated, let alone what your profession is, but when I dated a coworker, my boss had us sign liability waivers. This is to say, coworker dating is still possible (even if it's rarely ever a good idea), but it can open up a can of worms for an employer. As such, a smart employer would have something in the employee handbook about fraternization and employee dating in addition to anti-sexual harassment policies.

Also, the only reason I mentioned MeToo is because you decided to drag it into the conversation. You seem to have something against a movement that promotes women's equality and supports women not being treated as sex objects. I have no idea why that is, but for your daughter's sake, I really hope you re-evaluate your position. I'm not a parent, so I don't know what it's like to be responsible for another life. I don't know what it's like when my daughter hurts. I'm sure you know much better than I. The movement you're ridiculing/resisting wants to lessen the chance your daughter will be hurt by scumbags who treat her merely as a sex object. If I were a girl dad, I think I'd be all in favor of MeToo and other women's equality/empowerment movements. But, again, I'm not a dad; I don't have a daughter in this fight.

socaltownie said:

---

01Bear said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Big C said:

---

PtownBear1 said:

---

Big C said:

---

calumnus said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

"I think Fox got hired, as well as Knowlton before him, because Cal was coming off an unpleasant experience with high-powered recruiting with Cuonzo, f"


What ****ing "unpleasant experience with high-powered recruiting"!!!????!!!


Cal made the tournament with the highest seed in its history, Was undefeated at home,. and the 2 McD All Americans on that team have represented the University EXTREMELY well. Yes. Brown does not have a degree but talks about Cal often and I would be shocked if he does not return post NBA career.

I do not really care about your opinions on this board. I ABSOLUTELY care about them if they have any currency among the administration because this is precisely one of the reason why Cal is going to be again picked to finish last in the conference and is destined to the dustbin of BB - that you can not BOTH recruit highly AND fulfil the mission of the University. Again, UCLA is doing just f'ing great.

---

Yeah, that makes zero sense.

Moreover, the bizarre idea that Fox was chosen precisely because he is not a high level recruiter, contradicts all the other words defending Fox as a great recruiter. Though Knowlton did buy the whole "doing it the right way" manure.

A lot of fans really didn't like Cuonzo though, even before he left, and I'm not sure why.

---

Just speaking for myself, good God, Cuonzo was plenty good compared to what we have had since. Okay, his offensive schemes and coaching were weak, but nobody's perfect. Okay, his recruiting needed some "fine tuning", but even as it was, it was good (for us).

I don't think we treated Cuonzo Martin all that well, unfortunately. Now look where we are. What a shame... and it's on us.

---

If by "we", you mean the Cal administration, then I agree. The fans largely supported Martin very well though by attending games, buying tickets, and donating to the program. It was the Cal administration post Barbour that treated him poorly.

---

Of course. Not "we" as in you and me, but as in Cal. We didn't back him up right away on the Yanni thing, which he was clearly not involved in, we dawdled on his contract and he had to complain about access to practice facilities. Then there was his son not getting accepted to Cal, but I don't know enough particulars about that to judge. As far as some of his recruits not passing admissions, that was on him; he should've known.

---

The university launched an investigation into Cuonzo himself for "the Yanni thing," just before the NCAA Tournament. The SF Chronicle published a story based on leaked emails indicating that Cuonzo was informed about the situation at least a month before he reported it. It was also leaked that Cuonzo had spent the week getting grilled by UC investigators and turning over all his records. Even his statements to the investigators were leaked to the Chronicke as well. It made national news on March 16th, two days before we played Hawaii in the first round on March 18th. Our highest seed ever, and….

If you want to trace the current demise of the Cal basketball program, that was the beginning. I am pretty sure that a school that values a 4 seed in the NCAA Tournament would have waited a few weeks to launch an investigation into whether reporting requirements were violated and would not have treated the head coach like he was a criminal under investigation and then leaked it to the press. At least, not until after the NCAA Tournament.

---

In many ways it was the LEAKS that were the worst. And the "Yanni thing" was \a stretch even in the me too era. I followed it closely and honestly from the reports it was at BEST as tweener. Now once you get to your 40s you start to walk on egg shells but the reporters behavior CLEARLY sent mixed messages and I think that she could have resolved it MUCH easier with a simple "Not interested" rather than the drama pursued.

Yeah - I am sure I will get flamed for that opinion. So be it.

---

I don't know what you do for work. But would you be okay with losing your job if you refused to have sex with some dude?* That's basically what happened here. The reporter refused to sleep Yann. He had been her source for Cal men's basketball information. After she turned him down, he iced her out. This led to her being let go from her job.

While it's well and good to say she should've cultivated other sources (and I agree that's the case), Yann's behavior was absolutely reprehensible and indefensible. Even by his own admission (see, https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/14982726/ex-cal-coach-yann-hufnagel-admits-repeatedly-trying-solicit-reporter-sex), he tried to trick the reporter into going to his apartment (for sex). That's beyond the pale of acceptable behavior, even when I was in college (over twenty years ago). I never tried to trick a woman back to my apartment. Instead, I would invite one over and if she accepted, great, if not, no big deal. There was never any attempt to "trick" anyone; to do so would've been wrong no matter how one sliced it.

*Then again, maybe that's how you roll. There's no shame if you choose to be a sex worker. You do what you have to do to take care of your family.

---

She lost her job because she no longer was getting off the record information from a source. She could still attend press conferences. She could still work her other sources.

Ignore the apartment garage incident (which I will absolutely agree is boorish and frankly is legally problematic in a criminal sense). Essentially what the Title IX office says is that the Unviersity has a business relationship with BLOGs and stringers to them and that, as such, they are protected from unwanted advances and harrasment. At the point that Yanni asked her out he is guilty. Do you agree? And if you agree do you agree with the way that she comported herself around athletes and coaches as a reporter?

But even if we disagree about ALL of that - remember - waht happened the week before the tournament is that she went to the press to destroy the program BECAUSE she wasn't happy that Martin and the Unviersity were following the letter of the policy - report it to the title IX office and let them work it out and do not take action against the employee/respondent. You are defending her being pissed about that and going to the press.

---

I'm not arguing that her complaint didn't negatively impact Cal's men's basketball team at a crucial time. But that's not what's at issue here. Rather, it's Yann's sexual harassment of the reporter. Frankly, if blame were to be assigned for the destruction of Cal's tourney run that year, it is primarily on Yann's head for causing the situation in the first place (with the rest falling on Martin's head for having mentally checked out before the tournament).

Let's put it this way, if Yann had raped the reporter, would you be upset at her or at Yann if Yann got arrested right before the tournament? If at Yann, why is this any different? If at her, then I'm not sure your sense of morality is balanced properly. (Just like how I find the JoePa and Pedo State fans who attacked Sandusky's victims for ruining the football program to have severely deficient morals.)

calumnus said:

---

The coaches with teams that finish ranked rarely would have done so without all the talent they had.

-Agreed

The lifeblood of college sports is recruiting. It is arguably the most important factor in success. It part of coaching, not exogenous to it.

-Agreed. And Martin was a below average recruiter.

Martin also almost added Caleb Swanigan, and had another McDonald's All American (Lee) transferring in. He had top 100 player Jamari Baker committed who then recommitted and signed with Kentucky. We were being considered by top 4 and 5 star recruits from all over the country.

-...and Braun almost got Lebron James and Dirk Nowitzki. Nobody cares about the misses and they do not help your first two paragraphs. As for Lee, he was a bust at Kentucky and didn't even make the All-conference honorable mention list as a 5th year senior at Cal. Although he was a solid contributer, he's not the caliber of recruit you want to hang your hat on.

Then in his first year at Missouri he landed McDonald's All-American top ranked player Michael Porter and his brother, also a 5 star Jontay Porter. He took a team that went 8-24 and went 20-13, finishing 4th in the SEC a getting an 8 seed but losing to 9 seed Florida State.

-Yes, by hiring the Porter dad as a coach. As mentioned previously in this thread, Martin has had two above average recruiting classes in 14 years, albeit those two classes were exceptional.

However, to your point his recruiting trailed off as he focused on 4 year players as has his results, he made the Tournament again last year, losing in the first round. His Missouri results are a lot like Mark Fox's Georgia results and got fired accordingly. Maybe that is his true level with his Tennessee results and Cal results an aberration? He used to be a hot young coach, now is is an old, defense first retread. The bloom does appear to be off the rose.

-Yes, at this point in Marin's career, his resume looks eerily similar to Fox's when Cal hired him.

But I would also argue that the Ben Braun of Rice was not the Ben Braun at Cal, and late Ben Braun was not early Ben Braun, just like late Tedford was not early Tedford. It does not mean that Jeff Tedford was not a good coach.

Thus Cuonzo Martin was a good coach, at least at Cal. When he was here we were one of the best teams in the county, one of the best in the conference. I miss that.

-He was a good coach for one of his three years at Cal, when he was able to land two top 10 recruits and also have two more NBA prospects in the lineup that he inherited from the previous coach. Without those two additional players Cal got promptly bounced from the tourney by a 12 seed. Unfortunately there were no signs Martin could sustain that succes, and left an empty cupbord when he darted for Missouri.

But yes, Dennis Gates is going to be an improvement at Missouri and would have been an improvement at Cal.

-Yup.

---

My replies are in bold above.

calumnus said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

The coaches with teams that finish ranked rarely would have done so without all the talent they had.

-Agreed

The lifeblood of college sports is recruiting. It is arguably the most important factor in success. It part of coaching, not exogenous to it.

-Agreed. And Martin was a below average recruiter.

Martin also almost added Caleb Swanigan, and had another McDonald's All American (Lee) transferring in. He had top 100 player Jamari Baker committed who then recommitted and signed with Kentucky. We were being considered by top 4 and 5 star recruits from all over the country.

-...and Braun almost got Lebron James and Dirk Nowitzki. Nobody cares about the misses and they do not help your first two paragraphs. As for Lee, he was a bust at Kentucky and didn't even make the All-conference honorable mention list as a 5th year senior at Cal. Although he was a solid contributer, he's not the caliber of recruit you want to hang your hat on.

Then in his first year at Missouri he landed McDonald's All-American top ranked player Michael Porter and his brother, also a 5 star Jontay Porter. He took a team that went 8-24 and went 20-13, finishing 4th in the SEC a getting an 8 seed but losing to 9 seed Florida State.

-Yes, by hiring the Porter dad as a coach. As mentioned previously in this thread, Martin has had two above average recruiting classes in 14 years, albeit those two classes were exceptional.

However, to your point his recruiting trailed off as he focused on 4 year players as has his results, he made the Tournament again last year, losing in the first round. His Missouri results are a lot like Mark Fox's Georgia results and got fired accordingly. Maybe that is his true level with his Tennessee results and Cal results an aberration? He used to be a hot young coach, now is is an old, defense first retread. The bloom does appear to be off the rose.

-Yes, at this point in Marin's career, his resume looks eerily similar to Fox's when Cal hired him.

But I would also argue that the Ben Braun of Rice was not the Ben Braun at Cal, and late Ben Braun was not early Ben Braun, just like late Tedford was not early Tedford. It does not mean that Jeff Tedford was not a good coach.

Thus Cuonzo Martin was a good coach, at least at Cal. When he was here we were one of the best teams in the county, one of the best in the conference. I miss that.

-He was a good coach for one of his three years at Cal, when he was able to land two top 10 recruits and also have two more NBA prospects in the lineup that he inherited from the previous coach. Without those two additional players Cal got promptly bounced from the tourney by a 12 seed. Unfortunately there were no signs Martin could sustain that succes, and left an empty cupbord when he darted for Missouri.

But yes, Dennis Gates is going to be an improvement at Missouri and would have been an improvement at Cal.

-Yup.

---

My replies are in bold above.

---

I posted his overall winning percentage at Cal above. If you want argue he was not good, then 10 or 11 of the last 13 Cal coaches (depending how you rare Bozeman) were not good. In which case he was the best of the rest.

We will never know what would have happened if had stayed at Cal. Or if he had not been sabotaged in the days before that Tournament game….

Similarly, we will not know how Gates would have done if Cal hired him instead of Missouri. I think Gates would eventually be more successful at Cal (he is inheriting a better roster from Cuonzo than he would have inherited from Fox). We will have to judge his performance at Missouri to get an idea, but it is not the same. I think he would be a better fit at Cal, and his being an alum is only part of that.

---

Again, that Cal winning percentage is inflated from the Brown/Rabb fluke and having a couple of other NBA prospects on the roster left by a prior coach (I see it as a fluke since he hasn't come close to repeating that season, even after bribing a couple of 5* twins by hiring their dad). Of course there is no way of knowing what would have happened had he stayed at a Cal, but there is no reason to think he would have done better here than he did at Missouri.

There are those that seemed to think the future was bright and he would have done well at Cal, but those that didn't think so were not surprised Missouri would ultimately regret their hire. And race didn't have anything to do with it.

01Bear said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

01Bear said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

We can relitigate the Yani episode. While not defending his actions as appropriate civil standards it isn't clear that stopping providing off the record inside information is retaliation. Essentially what was alleged is that because she turned down his cringe worthy passes he stopped doing something he shouldn't have been doing ANYWAY. She got mad when (and we don't know whether this was Yani being a d*** or her own failures as a young reporter) a scoop that she thought she had turned out to not be true

(IIRC this was about the Ivan Rabb recruitment).

And lets step slightly back about her allegations. Essentially what is being alleged is that because Yani was her only source and she failed to cultivate that source in a way that wasn't playing to his reptilian brain and was frozen she was harrassed? Hmmm....

I understand the allegation. I am not going to defend Yani to the death. But I can ABSOLUTELY see why this was a leaner and why Martin (or others) referred it to HR and then didn't take any further action. Indeed, IIRC Martin followed policies to the T. Refer to HR and don't engage complaintent. ;-)

---

It's been a while since this went down and I'm not sure I remember all the details. If you have sources you can cite to show Yann only gave the reporter access to information he wasn't supposed to give in the first place, that would be helpful. Otherwise, that would seem to be more of a weak attempt at defending Yann's actions. Additionally, please cite the source stating the reporter was only playing to his reptilian brain.


Lets recall the specifics. This was supposedly "off the record" information regarding recruiting targets and progress. Now while "everyone does it" it actually is against NCAA rules. She was not iced out of press conferences. She could still call people for interviews. She just wasn't getting off the record information from Yanni. If that is retaliation (in the context of harassments) then we are on a VERY slippery slope. And we can also throw some shade on her employer - who thought her usefulness as a reporter dried up when she no longer was able to get off the record information. Hmmm.......


In case it's not readily apparent, women journalists in sports (especially) are often subjected to sexual harassment, even though they maintain strict professional standards. This does not mean they were "playing to [anyone's] reptilian brain." Rather, they get objectified and sexualized by men in sports in a way that few male journalists are or have been similarly subjected.

Hmm #2. I am not going to disagree with the meta point. But Lets recall her social media posts which, if not flirting with players, was not "professional". Lets also chalk it up to being a young 20 something. I tend to be of the opinion that if you want to be treated as a professional and only as a professional it is important to ACT like a professional. Jumping back and forth across boundries isn't licenses to be groped or objectified but CAN be a problem. You can try to google the videos and still see if they are up.

Your attitude is essentially one of "she asked for it" when there is no evidence that is the case whatsoever.

Again - see her videos.

In fact, even Yann admitted he tried to trick her into going to his apartment, this evidencing her prior refusal of his inappropriate advances and Yann's knowledge that what he was doing was unwelcome.


I am _NOT_ defending his behavior. I am not even defending that if it was a clear supervisor and surpverisoree relationship it wouldn't have been harrassment.


If I were in Coach Martin's shoes, I would've been concerned by the allegations and reported both to the AD as well as the Title IX office, at a minimum. I honestly have no idea if he did any of that. Nor do I remember any of Coach Martin's actions during the investigations. However, all of that is irrelevant.

that is what he did. He was still thrown under the bus by the admin and the comical and the complaintant who either willfully or ignorantly didn't understand Martin could NOT take action against Yanni.

What matters is that Yann behaved like a scumbag and sexually harassed a young woman doing her job.

Again - she was NOT the employee of the University. It is NOT a clear cut business relationships (as would be a contractor or contractee to the unversity). It is a BLOG who hired a stringer for a pittance to get off the record recruiting news. Boy. You better not date anyone you EVER met through work if the university (which it did) considers that a protected relationship.

My response was only to that portion. Your attempt to cover up Yann's behavior and blame the victim for "CLEARLY" sending mixed messages is just absurd on its face.

Watch her flirt with football players on the videos. Again, I am happy to excuse that as a young 20 something that doesn't know better. But that is what she was doing.

Yann should not have attempted "to trick" anyone, including a woman reporter, into going to his apartment (implicitly for sex). That he had to resort to such trickery is sufficient to show he knew she did not want to have sex with him. That's not "mixed messages;" that's a "not interested" or a "no."

Again, you care conflating Yanni's boorish behavior which I am not going to defend with a formal claim of harrasment....and your argument that Yanni was oblivious when clearly other public images she was happy to put out there suggested at the MOST innocent certain journalistic boundries being crossed. Lets leave sex out of it - you treat the people you are covering in a professional way.


IIRC, you mentioned you have a kid. Would you be fine with your kid (as an adult) being put in the reporter's shoes and have Yann try to trick your kid into going to his apartment for sex? Would it be okay for your kid to lose his/her job as a result of rejecting Yann's sexual advances? If not, then why is it okay that Yann did this to someone else's kid?

I would understand fully my daughters action and, if I was going to shoot bullets, I might reserve MOST for the BLOG that fired her because she no longer could get off the record information from a single assistant coach who was 15 years her elder and believed she could do this with 2-3 years of experience and a few mass comm classes.



Ultimately, the MeToo movement has helped to reveal a lot of truths about individuals. It's shown that there are countless people (primarily women) who have been sexually harassed, abused, and assaulted. It's also shown that none of this is uncommon. Worse, it's shown that there are some men who think it's not a problem because it either doesn't happen to them or because they support treating women as objects.

Yes. But I would much rather discuss the utter train wreck this started in our program than the bigger point of MeToo - and I think that we do a disservice to that when we take things like Yanni and conflate them with Weinstein - or Sabine.

I grew up in the pre-MeToo era. I came of age sexually when consent was implied. I understand just how difficult it can be to determine if a woman was consenting to sex or if she was refusing. I resolved that issue, though, by asking questions like "are you okay with this?" and "do you want this [sex]?" when I was uncertain. And yeah, I was just as horny as the next guy. But I also took "no" for an answer.

The report sadly does not provide us the texts to see what her answer was. We have her word she said a firm no and Yanni's that she did not until the apartment incident. I agree that if she had firmly stated "No" in a text that he was at fault. Note though - given the report if he at that point had stopped giving her off the record info he would have violated the harrasment policy. The apartment then is irrelavent. It is this definition of retailation where I shake my head at the title IX office.

Those supporting the MeToo movement are saying it's time men (primarily) take "no" for an answer and that women not continue to be treated merely as sex objects. MeToo is basically asking that women be treated the same way men are and have been treated. If you have a problem with that, then there's nothing more to discuss.

We do not disagree except that - and I do believe this - that the myriad of professional women I work with (as do the MEN I work with) that there are professional decorums that are asked for. It doesn't mean that you are "asking for it". But if you flirt on videos and wear less than professional attire It isn't surprising you are going to attract interest from single members of the opposite sex _AND_ are less likely to be taken seriously in your profession.

---

---

Your argument is "she flirted with football players therefore she gave mixed signals to Yann?" Seriously!?!?

So if your wife kisses you, does that mean I should expect her to sleep with me? Clearly, the answer would be no. Yet, because the reporter was flirtatious (by your account) with others, she must've therefore been signaling a desire to have sex with Yann?

Also, your "she was wearing skimpy clothing" argument is very much "she asked for it." It doesn't matter what she wore, she already made it clear to Yann that she was not interested in him. HE STILL TRIED TO TRICK HER INTO GOING TO HIS APARTMENT (implicitly for sex). He admitted this. That he had to rely on trickery indicates he knew she was not interested. There were no mixed signals. The signal was clear; he knew she was not interested.

I already addressed that the reporter should've cultivated more sources. But the fact that Yann cut her off after she rejected his sexual advances is retaliation, plain and simple. Sure, maybe he shouldn't have shared inside information with her, but he could still share non-inside information. You have not presented anything to show he continued to do that. Instead, you seem to argue that just because she could attend press conferences, he didn't ice her out. That's not the issue. The issue is he revoked access to him as a source in order to retaliate for not (and/or possibly to coerce her into) having sex with him.

You seem not to have grasped my thought experiment with your daughter and Yann. You reply that you would understand her behavior. The behavior at issue isn't hers, it's Yann's. Would you support/defend or oppose Yann coercing your daughter into sex? If you wouldn't, then why would you support/defend his having done so with the reporter?

You keep harping on her age. That has zero to do with what happened. Sexual harassment and sexual assault happens to women of all ages--including to underaged girls. For what it's worth, what Yann did was sexual harassment. Sexual harassment doesn't only happen when there's an employer-employee relationship. If a man pinched your wife's butt, I'm sure you wouldn't think "that's fine, he's not her boss." If a man kept hitting on your (hypothetical adult) daughter despite having been rejected already and trying to coerce her into sex, I'm sure you wouldn't turn a blind eye if they're not in a supervisor-supervisoree relationship. The activities are sexual assault/harassment, even if they took place outside the workplace.

As for dating a coworker, I'm not sure how long it's been since you dated, let alone what your profession is, but when I dated a coworker, my boss had us sign liability waivers. This is to say, coworker dating is still possible (even if it's rarely ever a good idea), but it can open up a can of worms for an employer. As such, a smart employer would have something in the employee handbook about fraternization and employee dating in addition to anti-sexual harassment policies.

Also, the only reason I mentioned MeToo is because you decided to drag it into the conversation. You seem to have something against a movement that promotes women's equality and supports women not being treated as sex objects. I have no idea why that is, but for your daughter's sake, I really hope you re-evaluate your position. I'm not a parent, so I don't know what it's like to be responsible for another life. I don't know what it's like when my daughter hurts. I'm sure you know much better than I. The movement you're ridiculing/resisting wants to lessen the chance your daughter will be hurt by scumbags who treat her merely as a sex object. If I were a girl dad, I think I'd be all in favor of MeToo and other women's equality/empowerment movements. But, again, I'm not a dad; I don't have a daughter in this fight.

---

1) Literally the first bullet point of ANY media training is "you never have to talk with a reporter"
2) The second is "Reporters are not your friends even if they seem like they are"
3) The third is "You are both doing a job. Understand that when interacting"

Now yes. A fourth one should be "don't try to sleep with a reporter" But lets look at the first three (and why I am really passionate about this issue). Essentially the title IX office said that Yanni had an obligation, because of his _ALLEGED_ (again, we have never seen her responding textes) unwanted advances, to continue feeding off the record information to a reporter. That stopping that activity constituted retaliation. That BOGGLE my mind as someone who regularly deals with the press.

That and then connecting a reporter who was paid a stipend by a blog as a protected university affliatie (IRCC, she was no longer a student which would absolutely been a problem) feels like a VERY big stretch for SH claim.

But even if we end up agreeing that Yanni harrassed her (in the legally defined use of that term) would you not agree that the Comical, the complaintent, and the TITLE IX office EGGRESIOUSLY threw Martin under the bus because he did EVERYTHING you are trained to do - refer the complain to HR/title IX office, stop contact with the complaintant, take no action pro or con to the respondent? That is the second reason I still have then bone in my mouth - Martin did it PRECISELY by the book at the University should have stuck with him.

socaltownie said:

---

01Bear said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

01Bear said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

We can relitigate the Yani episode. While not defending his actions as appropriate civil standards it isn't clear that stopping providing off the record inside information is retaliation. Essentially what was alleged is that because she turned down his cringe worthy passes he stopped doing something he shouldn't have been doing ANYWAY. She got mad when (and we don't know whether this was Yani being a d*** or her own failures as a young reporter) a scoop that she thought she had turned out to not be true

(IIRC this was about the Ivan Rabb recruitment).

And lets step slightly back about her allegations. Essentially what is being alleged is that because Yani was her only source and she failed to cultivate that source in a way that wasn't playing to his reptilian brain and was frozen she was harrassed? Hmmm....

I understand the allegation. I am not going to defend Yani to the death. But I can ABSOLUTELY see why this was a leaner and why Martin (or others) referred it to HR and then didn't take any further action. Indeed, IIRC Martin followed policies to the T. Refer to HR and don't engage complaintent. ;-)

---

It's been a while since this went down and I'm not sure I remember all the details. If you have sources you can cite to show Yann only gave the reporter access to information he wasn't supposed to give in the first place, that would be helpful. Otherwise, that would seem to be more of a weak attempt at defending Yann's actions. Additionally, please cite the source stating the reporter was only playing to his reptilian brain.


Lets recall the specifics. This was supposedly "off the record" information regarding recruiting targets and progress. Now while "everyone does it" it actually is against NCAA rules. She was not iced out of press conferences. She could still call people for interviews. She just wasn't getting off the record information from Yanni. If that is retaliation (in the context of harassments) then we are on a VERY slippery slope. And we can also throw some shade on her employer - who thought her usefulness as a reporter dried up when she no longer was able to get off the record information. Hmmm.......


In case it's not readily apparent, women journalists in sports (especially) are often subjected to sexual harassment, even though they maintain strict professional standards. This does not mean they were "playing to [anyone's] reptilian brain." Rather, they get objectified and sexualized by men in sports in a way that few male journalists are or have been similarly subjected.

Hmm #2. I am not going to disagree with the meta point. But Lets recall her social media posts which, if not flirting with players, was not "professional". Lets also chalk it up to being a young 20 something. I tend to be of the opinion that if you want to be treated as a professional and only as a professional it is important to ACT like a professional. Jumping back and forth across boundries isn't licenses to be groped or objectified but CAN be a problem. You can try to google the videos and still see if they are up.

Your attitude is essentially one of "she asked for it" when there is no evidence that is the case whatsoever.

Again - see her videos.

In fact, even Yann admitted he tried to trick her into going to his apartment, this evidencing her prior refusal of his inappropriate advances and Yann's knowledge that what he was doing was unwelcome.


I am _NOT_ defending his behavior. I am not even defending that if it was a clear supervisor and surpverisoree relationship it wouldn't have been harrassment.


If I were in Coach Martin's shoes, I would've been concerned by the allegations and reported both to the AD as well as the Title IX office, at a minimum. I honestly have no idea if he did any of that. Nor do I remember any of Coach Martin's actions during the investigations. However, all of that is irrelevant.

that is what he did. He was still thrown under the bus by the admin and the comical and the complaintant who either willfully or ignorantly didn't understand Martin could NOT take action against Yanni.

What matters is that Yann behaved like a scumbag and sexually harassed a young woman doing her job.

Again - she was NOT the employee of the University. It is NOT a clear cut business relationships (as would be a contractor or contractee to the unversity). It is a BLOG who hired a stringer for a pittance to get off the record recruiting news. Boy. You better not date anyone you EVER met through work if the university (which it did) considers that a protected relationship.

My response was only to that portion. Your attempt to cover up Yann's behavior and blame the victim for "CLEARLY" sending mixed messages is just absurd on its face.

Watch her flirt with football players on the videos. Again, I am happy to excuse that as a young 20 something that doesn't know better. But that is what she was doing.

Yann should not have attempted "to trick" anyone, including a woman reporter, into going to his apartment (implicitly for sex). That he had to resort to such trickery is sufficient to show he knew she did not want to have sex with him. That's not "mixed messages;" that's a "not interested" or a "no."

Again, you care conflating Yanni's boorish behavior which I am not going to defend with a formal claim of harrasment....and your argument that Yanni was oblivious when clearly other public images she was happy to put out there suggested at the MOST innocent certain journalistic boundries being crossed. Lets leave sex out of it - you treat the people you are covering in a professional way.


IIRC, you mentioned you have a kid. Would you be fine with your kid (as an adult) being put in the reporter's shoes and have Yann try to trick your kid into going to his apartment for sex? Would it be okay for your kid to lose his/her job as a result of rejecting Yann's sexual advances? If not, then why is it okay that Yann did this to someone else's kid?

I would understand fully my daughters action and, if I was going to shoot bullets, I might reserve MOST for the BLOG that fired her because she no longer could get off the record information from a single assistant coach who was 15 years her elder and believed she could do this with 2-3 years of experience and a few mass comm classes.



Ultimately, the MeToo movement has helped to reveal a lot of truths about individuals. It's shown that there are countless people (primarily women) who have been sexually harassed, abused, and assaulted. It's also shown that none of this is uncommon. Worse, it's shown that there are some men who think it's not a problem because it either doesn't happen to them or because they support treating women as objects.

Yes. But I would much rather discuss the utter train wreck this started in our program than the bigger point of MeToo - and I think that we do a disservice to that when we take things like Yanni and conflate them with Weinstein - or Sabine.

I grew up in the pre-MeToo era. I came of age sexually when consent was implied. I understand just how difficult it can be to determine if a woman was consenting to sex or if she was refusing. I resolved that issue, though, by asking questions like "are you okay with this?" and "do you want this [sex]?" when I was uncertain. And yeah, I was just as horny as the next guy. But I also took "no" for an answer.

The report sadly does not provide us the texts to see what her answer was. We have her word she said a firm no and Yanni's that she did not until the apartment incident. I agree that if she had firmly stated "No" in a text that he was at fault. Note though - given the report if he at that point had stopped giving her off the record info he would have violated the harrasment policy. The apartment then is irrelavent. It is this definition of retailation where I shake my head at the title IX office.

Those supporting the MeToo movement are saying it's time men (primarily) take "no" for an answer and that women not continue to be treated merely as sex objects. MeToo is basically asking that women be treated the same way men are and have been treated. If you have a problem with that, then there's nothing more to discuss.

We do not disagree except that - and I do believe this - that the myriad of professional women I work with (as do the MEN I work with) that there are professional decorums that are asked for. It doesn't mean that you are "asking for it". But if you flirt on videos and wear less than professional attire It isn't surprising you are going to attract interest from single members of the opposite sex _AND_ are less likely to be taken seriously in your profession.

---

---

Your argument is "she flirted with football players therefore she gave mixed signals to Yann?" Seriously!?!?

So if your wife kisses you, does that mean I should expect her to sleep with me? Clearly, the answer would be no. Yet, because the reporter was flirtatious (by your account) with others, she must've therefore been signaling a desire to have sex with Yann?

Also, your "she was wearing skimpy clothing" argument is very much "she asked for it." It doesn't matter what she wore, she already made it clear to Yann that she was not interested in him. HE STILL TRIED TO TRICK HER INTO GOING TO HIS APARTMENT (implicitly for sex). He admitted this. That he had to rely on trickery indicates he knew she was not interested. There were no mixed signals. The signal was clear; he knew she was not interested.

I already addressed that the reporter should've cultivated more sources. But the fact that Yann cut her off after she rejected his sexual advances is retaliation, plain and simple. Sure, maybe he shouldn't have shared inside information with her, but he could still share non-inside information. You have not presented anything to show he continued to do that. Instead, you seem to argue that just because she could attend press conferences, he didn't ice her out. That's not the issue. The issue is he revoked access to him as a source in order to retaliate for not (and/or possibly to coerce her into) having sex with him.

You seem not to have grasped my thought experiment with your daughter and Yann. You reply that you would understand her behavior. The behavior at issue isn't hers, it's Yann's. Would you support/defend or oppose Yann coercing your daughter into sex? If you wouldn't, then why would you support/defend his having done so with the reporter?

You keep harping on her age. That has zero to do with what happened. Sexual harassment and sexual assault happens to women of all ages--including to underaged girls. For what it's worth, what Yann did was sexual harassment. Sexual harassment doesn't only happen when there's an employer-employee relationship. If a man pinched your wife's butt, I'm sure you wouldn't think "that's fine, he's not her boss." If a man kept hitting on your (hypothetical adult) daughter despite having been rejected already and trying to coerce her into sex, I'm sure you wouldn't turn a blind eye if they're not in a supervisor-supervisoree relationship. The activities are sexual assault/harassment, even if they took place outside the workplace.

As for dating a coworker, I'm not sure how long it's been since you dated, let alone what your profession is, but when I dated a coworker, my boss had us sign liability waivers. This is to say, coworker dating is still possible (even if it's rarely ever a good idea), but it can open up a can of worms for an employer. As such, a smart employer would have something in the employee handbook about fraternization and employee dating in addition to anti-sexual harassment policies.

Also, the only reason I mentioned MeToo is because you decided to drag it into the conversation. You seem to have something against a movement that promotes women's equality and supports women not being treated as sex objects. I have no idea why that is, but for your daughter's sake, I really hope you re-evaluate your position. I'm not a parent, so I don't know what it's like to be responsible for another life. I don't know what it's like when my daughter hurts. I'm sure you know much better than I. The movement you're ridiculing/resisting wants to lessen the chance your daughter will be hurt by scumbags who treat her merely as a sex object. If I were a girl dad, I think I'd be all in favor of MeToo and other women's equality/empowerment movements. But, again, I'm not a dad; I don't have a daughter in this fight.

---

1) Literally the first bullet point of ANY media training is "you never have to talk with a reporter"
2) The second is "Reporters are not your friends even if they seem like they are"
3) The third is "You are both doing a job. Understand that when interacting"

Now yes. A fourth one should be "don't try to sleep with a reporter" But lets look at the first three (and why I am really passionate about this issue). Essentially the title IX office said that Yanni had an obligation, because of his _ALLEGED_ (again, we have never seen her responding textes) unwanted advances, to continue feeding off the record information to a reporter. That stopping that activity constituted retaliation. That BOGGLE my mind as someone who regularly deals with the press.

That and then connecting a reporter who was paid a stipend by a blog as a protected university affliatie (IRCC, she was no longer a student which would absolutely been a problem) feels like a VERY big stretch for SH claim.

But even if we end up agreeing that Yanni harrassed her (in the legally defined use of that term) would you not agree that the Comical, the complaintent, and the TITLE IX office EGGRESIOUSLY threw Martin under the bus because he did EVERYTHING you are trained to do - refer the complain to HR/title IX office, stop contact with the complaintant, take no action pro or con to the respondent? That is the second reason I still have then bone in my mouth - Martin did it PRECISELY by the book at the University should have stuck with him.

---

Even assuming your bullet points are true, as to them:
1) It doesn't matter if he was trained not to talk to a reporter, he ignored that training (if anything, this is even more of a reason to terminate his employment rather than retain him in the leadup to the NCAA Tournament). The fact of the matter is he did provide access to the reporter and only shut it down after she refused to have sex with him. What he did was retaliation, even if refusing to speak to a reporter on its face is entirely permissible. This is comparable to an employer being able to fire an employee at will in California, however, if the employer fires the employee because the employee whistleblew or refused sex, the termination would be retaliatory and no longer protected.

2) At best, this is a non sequitor to the issue at hand; at worst, Yann ignored this and thereby created grounds to be disciplined (if not terminated).

3) Yann ignored this and threreby created grounds to be disciplined (if not terminated).

You keep claiming there were only allegations of unwanted sexual advances by Yann. Yet, Yann ADMITTED to trying trick the reporter into going to his apartment (implicitly to have sex with her). You also keep harping on this nonexistent text that's supposed to show the reporter gave Yann mixed signals, but they are entirely irrelevant (even assuming they exist) since Yann essentially conceded he knew the reporter was uninterested in him when he ADMITTED he tried to trick her into going to his apartment.

Frankly, it doesn't matter if she did agree to go up to his apartment. Heck, even if she were naked and underneath him in bed and said "Nope, we're not going to have sex" it's irrelevant. (And for the record, yes, I've had women do this, and yes, I respected their decision. I did not then attempt to coerce, manipulate, nor force them into sex.) The fact of the matter is, Yann knew she was not interested and wouldn't take "No" for an answer.

Finally, the issue here isn't how Martin was treated, but how you tried to malign and attack the MeToo movement because a woman reporter was sexually harassed by a Cal assistant basketball coach. Frankly, the press has its job to do, which is to report stories of interest. Like it or not, by being a public figure and a public-facing employee of the University of California, Yann's actions were of public interest. Given his supervisor was Cuonzo Martin, it was only fair that the press hound him for a response. Since no response was forthcoming (including even something along the lines of "When I was first made aware of these allegations, I reported them immediately to the AD and the university's Title IX department. I have been following the instructions and advice they have provided me since then. I cannot comment any further on this matter as not only is it an ongoing investigation, but I have been advised that I am not permitted to discuss personnel and employment matters.") the press reported what it had, which included allegations of sexual harassment by an assistant coach and that assistant coach was still employed at Cal by the men's basketball team.

If you want to be bitter about how you perceive Cuonzo Martin was treated, go for it. However, you really should reserve your ire for Yann Hufnagel for sexually harassing a young woman, refusing to take "no" for an answer, and then retaliating against her, in the first place.

On the other hand, if you're upset because you fault the reporter for the timing of her complaint or for not remaining quiet after she first reported them, then you have some serious moral balance issues. You're more interested in silencing the victim of sexual harassment and maintaining the status quo than you are in ensuring that sexual harassment is stamped out. God forbid that your daughter ever come home and tell you she was sexually harassed/assaulted, of which, based on current statistics, there is a 81% chance of happening (see, https://www.nsvrc.org/statistics); given your current response, you'd probably tell her that she should just shut up about it if doing otherwise would inconvenience you in some way.

You clearly do NOT understand Sexual harrassment under California law (nor employment law in general)

1) As his supervisor the WORST thing that Martin could have done is comment once the complaint was filed. He could have exposed the university to significant risk really irrespective of the outcome. This is really the sin that irks me the most - the University should have said "It isn't Martin. It is being investigated. Once we are done we will comment. Coach Martin did precisely what we ask all employees to do - refer to the title IX office." Hard stop. This was clear because they had the track record of when the complaint was filed. If there is a gray area it is the precise timing of the referal to the TITLE IX office but this was about a 20 minute examination of the date of her text to Coach and his email/call to the title IX office. THey hung him out to dry and I am at a loss as to why you could not see that.

2) Again, you can do all the "MeToo" virtue signaling you want. The bottom line is that a stringer to a blog that is covering Cal basketball and a reporter hired (by the blog's OWN admission) ONLY to get inside recruiting news is a tenuous relationship to a "university contractor". Now the university believed that is the case as they fired Yanni and believed they were on solid ground in avoiding a wrongful termination case. But this isn't a beat reporter covering a team who is harrassed in a locker room (likely a failure to address a "hostile work environment" claim.) It isn't even a company with a contractual relationship with the university. At MOST the issue is that the university issued her a press pass (and which point my knowledge of CA case law fails).

3) You and I are simply going to disagree. But by your logic she could have filed a harrassment claim if Yanni stopped doing something ILLEGAL. And you missed the point - you do not HAVE to talk to reporters. You CAN talk to The issue is that you are arguing that after he asked her out he had an obligation to CONTINUE to feed her off the record information and refusing to do so would be retaliatory. This is FAR different than firing her or dinging her a grade as a student. It also, to me, feels far different than even pulling her press pass as that would deny her the equal access that other reporters were accorded.

4) You seem to want to lump me into cavemen and continue to social virtue signal. That isn't my point. It is that the title IX office STRETCHED things WAY far. They hung martin out to dry.

5) And of course the REALLY funny part (not laugh laugh but cringe) is that at the VERY SAME TIME the University was bending over backwards to protect a Bolt tenured professor who CLEARLY was harrassing law students in really an egrious fashion. Things that make you say "hjmmmmmmm"

6) Finally, her texts are absolutely relevant. A key part of the law for "peer to peer" harassments (because I am NEVER conceding that Yanni had the kind of relationship with her that a supervisor has) is that the advances need to be "unwanted". THat is why, though a bad idea, why co-workers on the same rung of the org chart can date each other and there isn't an obvious harassments landmine. Rather, it is evidence that the advances were unwanted and rebuffed and, if they continue, then the pursuer and the company are legally exposed (the pursuer for a direct harrasment claim and the employer possible for hostile work environment).

Finally - in rereading your text - You do realize that there is NO evidence that she said "no" at the time? Interesting in all the leaks to the press and all the breathless reporting by the other blog there is not text that says in response to Yanni something along the lines of "Stop" or "You know, we need to keep this professional". My view of the matter would DRAMATICALLY change if you could come up with that. Then I think we CAN agree that Yanni deserves the blame. But that never came to contemporary light. What did com up was her frustration she missed the "scoop" of Ivan's signing. That is when things blew up.

calumnus said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

You clearly do NOT understand Sexual harrassment under California law (nor employment law in general)

1) As his supervisor the WORST thing that Martin could have done is comment once the complaint was filed. He could have exposed the university to significant risk really irrespective of the outcome. This is really the sin that irks me the most - the University should have said "It isn't Martin. It is being investigated. Once we are done we will comment. Coach Martin did precisely what we ask all employees to do - refer to the title IX office." Hard stop. This was clear because they had the track record of when the complaint was filed. If there is a gray area it is the precise timing of the referal to the TITLE IX office but this was about a 20 minute examination of the date of her text to Coach and his email/call to the title IX office. THey hung him out to dry and I am at a loss as to why you could not see that.

2) Again, you can do all the "MeToo" virtue signaling you want. The bottom line is that a stringer to a blog that is covering Cal basketball and a reporter hired (by the blog's OWN admission) ONLY to get inside recruiting news is a tenuous relationship to a "university contractor". Now the university believed that is the case as they fired Yanni and believed they were on solid ground in avoiding a wrongful termination case. But this isn't a beat reporter covering a team who is harrassed in a locker room (likely a failure to address a "hostile work environment" claim.) It isn't even a company with a contractual relationship with the university. At MOST the issue is that the university issued her a press pass (and which point my knowledge of CA case law fails).

3) You and I are simply going to disagree. But by your logic she could have filed a harrassment claim if Yanni stopped doing something ILLEGAL. And you missed the point - you do not HAVE to talk to reporters. You CAN talk to The issue is that you are arguing that after he asked her out he had an obligation to CONTINUE to feed her off the record information and refusing to do so would be retaliatory. This is FAR different than firing her or dinging her a grade as a student. It also, to me, feels far different than even pulling her press pass as that would deny her the equal access that other reporters were accorded.

4) You seem to want to lump me into cavemen and continue to social virtue signal. That isn't my point. It is that the title IX office STRETCHED things WAY far. They hung martin out to dry.

5) And of course the REALLY funny part (not laugh laugh but cringe) is that at the VERY SAME TIME the University was bending over backwards to protect a Bolt tenured professor who CLEARLY was harrassing law students in really an egrious fashion. Things that make you say "hjmmmmmmm"

6) Finally, her texts are absolutely relevant. A key part of the law for "peer to peer" harassments (because I am NEVER conceding that Yanni had the kind of relationship with her that a supervisor has) is that the advances need to be "unwanted". THat is why, though a bad idea, why co-workers on the same rung of the org chart can date each other and there isn't an obvious harassments landmine. Rather, it is evidence that the advances were unwanted and rebuffed and, if they continue, then the pursuer and the company are legally exposed (the pursuer for a direct harrasment claim and the employer possible for hostile work environment).

Finally - in rereading your text - You do realize that there is NO evidence that she said "no" at the time? Interesting in all the leaks to the press and all the breathless reporting by the other blog there is not text that says in response to Yanni something along the lines of "Stop" or "You know, we need to keep this professional". My view of the matter would DRAMATICALLY change if you could come up with that. Then I think we CAN agree that Yanni deserves the blame. But that never came to contemporary light. What did com up was her frustration she missed the "scoop" of Ivan's signing. That is when things blew up.

---

Good post.

Martin followed the book, reported the incident and was treated horribly, made to seem like the perpetrator in public. The university took a year to complete what should have been a simple investigation (two parties, no witnesses) and went public just days before the NCAA Tournament. All as you point out when they were be far less vigorous in dealing with sexual harassment of students by faculty.

Moreover, they cleared Martin of any wrongdoing a week after the Tournament loss. Again, a year after the investigation into Yanni began? With the "investigation" into Martin announced just 2 days before the Tournament? W the F? The timing and treatment of Martin is indefensible.

Note there are differing reports on whether Yanni was fired or he resigned first. He was subsequently hired by Musselman at Nevada. He later started a beverage company with Lindsey Gottlieb (among others) as an investor.

---

And still is. A response above (and on the aforementioned blog) suggested that Martin should have fired Yanni when the victim reported or said something to her to make her feel better. That is precisely what you CAN"T do. You refer to HR/TITLE IX office and don't do ANYTHING. Remain irritated that the press doesn't spend a single moment thinking about the process rather than rail against how they wish the world worked.

socaltownie said:

---

You clearly do NOT understand Sexual harrassment under California law (nor employment law in general)

1) As his supervisor the WORST thing that Martin could have done is comment once the complaint was filed. He could have exposed the university to significant risk really irrespective of the outcome. This is really the sin that irks me the most - the University should have said "It isn't Martin. It is being investigated. Once we are done we will comment. Coach Martin did precisely what we ask all employees to do - refer to the title IX office." Hard stop. This was clear because they had the track record of when the complaint was filed. If there is a gray area it is the precise timing of the referal to the TITLE IX office but this was about a 20 minute examination of the date of her text to Coach and his email/call to the title IX office. THey hung him out to dry and I am at a loss as to why you could not see that.

2) Again, you can do all the "MeToo" virtue signaling you want. The bottom line is that a stringer to a blog that is covering Cal basketball and a reporter hired (by the blog's OWN admission) ONLY to get inside recruiting news is a tenuous relationship to a "university contractor". Now the university believed that is the case as they fired Yanni and believed they were on solid ground in avoiding a wrongful termination case. But this isn't a beat reporter covering a team who is harrassed in a locker room (likely a failure to address a "hostile work environment" claim.) It isn't even a company with a contractual relationship with the university. At MOST the issue is that the university issued her a press pass (and which point my knowledge of CA case law fails).

3) You and I are simply going to disagree. But by your logic she could have filed a harrassment claim if Yanni stopped doing something ILLEGAL. And you missed the point - you do not HAVE to talk to reporters. You CAN talk to The issue is that you are arguing that after he asked her out he had an obligation to CONTINUE to feed her off the record information and refusing to do so would be retaliatory. This is FAR different than firing her or dinging her a grade as a student. It also, to me, feels far different than even pulling her press pass as that would deny her the equal access that other reporters were accorded.

4) You seem to want to lump me into cavemen and continue to social virtue signal. That isn't my point. It is that the title IX office STRETCHED things WAY far. They hung martin out to dry.

5) And of course the REALLY funny part (not laugh laugh but cringe) is that at the VERY SAME TIME the University was bending over backwards to protect a Bolt tenured professor who CLEARLY was harrassing law students in really an egrious fashion. Things that make you say "hjmmmmmmm"

6) Finally, her texts are absolutely relevant. A key part of the law for "peer to peer" harassments (because I am NEVER conceding that Yanni had the kind of relationship with her that a supervisor has) is that the advances need to be "unwanted". THat is why, though a bad idea, why co-workers on the same rung of the org chart can date each other and there isn't an obvious harassments landmine. Rather, it is evidence that the advances were unwanted and rebuffed and, if they continue, then the pursuer and the company are legally exposed (the pursuer for a direct harrasment claim and the employer possible for hostile work environment).

Finally - in rereading your text - You do realize that there is NO evidence that she said "no" at the time? Interesting in all the leaks to the press and all the breathless reporting by the other blog there is not text that says in response to Yanni something along the lines of "Stop" or "You know, we need to keep this professional". My view of the matter would DRAMATICALLY change if you could come up with that. Then I think we CAN agree that Yanni deserves the blame. But that never came to contemporary light. What did com up was her frustration she missed the "scoop" of Ivan's signing. That is when things blew up.

---

Alright, counselor, why don't you educate me on sexual harassment and employment law? BTW, how long have you been practicing employment law?

Incidentally, if you are actually a licensed attorney, you must know that Yann was not terminated because he sexually harassed another Cal employee. Rather, as I mentioned repeatedly in my prior posts, sexual harassment does not only happen in an employment context. It can happen outside of work, but it can still be sufficient grounds to cause someone to be terminated. For instance, if Cal had its employment contracts in order, it would have had a moral turpitude provision; sexually harassing anyone may have been sufficient grounds to terminate Yann under said provision.

Your arguments above, by the by, evince either a lack of reading comprehension or your failure to read my previous posts. You'll note that I actually suggested Coach Martin should've said ""When I was first made aware of these allegations, I reported them immediately to the AD and the university's Title IX department. I have been following the instructions and advice they have provided me since then. I cannot comment any further on this matter as not only is it an ongoing investigation, but I have been advised that I am not permitted to discuss personnel and employment matters." In other words, Martin could've easily provided a "no comment" without actually not commenting. But, I'm sure any licensed attorney would know how to do that, let alone one who purports to work in PR.

Incidentally, you realize that you contradict yourself, right? On the one hand, you argue that the worst thing Martin could've done was comment once a complaint was filed, but on the other hand, you are upset that the Title IX office didn't comment on the complaint. You can't have it both ways, either comments about a pending Title IX complaint are fair game and should be openly discussed by people involved in the investigation or they are not.

As to your claim I miss the point about Yann not having to talk to reporters, the fact of the matter is you are actually missing the point. It's not that Yann didn't have to talk to reporters, it's that he stopped talking to this one reporter as a means to retaliate against her or to coerce her into having sex with him. As a labor law attorney, you must know that while it's entirely permissible to terminate most at-will employees, when such termination is retaliation or an act of coercion (for sex), that would cross into impermissible (i.e., illegal) territory. (I mentioned this analogy before, but you somehow failed to grasp it.) While Yann's actions would likely not lead to liability on the University's part (unless it were something like a repeated pattern of abuse and the University knew about but ignored it) for violation of any employment law, they were still sufficient grounds for Yann to be terminated (as I mentioned above, a moral turpitude provision would likely apply). Furthermore, as I mentioned in my previous reply to you, your position that Yann violated the cardinal rules of dealing with reporters is further grounds for disciplining Yann, which discipline may include dismissal.

As for being upset for Coach Martin, as I mentioned in my last post, if you want to be upset for him, feel free. I'm not arguing he was treated fairly by Cal or not maligned by the press. However, your anger toward the reporter Yann sexually harassed is misplaced. The proper party for your calumny should be Yann Hufnagel whose sexual harassment of the reporter was the direct cause of everything that happened afterward. It's rather disturbing that you don't seem to direct any ire toward Yann but instead repeatedly attempt to defend him while heaping blame on his victim instead.

As for her texts, you're making a lot of hay over something you've never seen. (If you've seen them, then go ahead and produce them.) You seem to think they will show she was fine with being sexually harassed. Otherwise, at best, all you have is your frenzied imagination as to what those texts say. For all you know, the reporter may have repeatedly told Yann to stop and that she was uncomfortable with his actions in her texts. But of course, that wouldn't comport with your defense of Yann, so you must insist that they reveal she wanted to have sex with him (or at a minimum that they gave misleading messages as to her interest in Yann). Never mind that once Yann knew she was uninterested, he should've stopped.

Also, counselor, surely you know that California law does not require a victim to say "No" or "Stop" to any form of harassment (or assault). I'm surprised you would think that the lack of any reporting on her saying "No" or "Stop" would somehow prove your case. Fortunately for you, this isn't a court of law. Still, even for our little Cal sports forum, we do look at the facts. The fact is Yann knew the reporter was so not interested in him sexually that he ADMITTED HE RESORTED TO TRYING TO TRICK HER INTO GOING TO HIS APARTMENT (implicitly, for sex).

Also, your post above makes it clear why you're so upset. You are one of those folks who see supporting equality and treating all people as people is some sort of "virtue signaling." Your use of that term to dismiss something you disagree with is sufficient to show just how closeminded you really are. Incidentally, counselor, being closeminded isn't a good trait to have as an attorney. Even as a 1L you should've learned that you need to be able to view a case from multiple angles, not just your own. Hmm, I'm really starting to wonder whether you even went to law school, let alone were admitted to any state's bar.

calumnus said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

You clearly do NOT understand Sexual harrassment under California law (nor employment law in general)

1) As his supervisor the WORST thing that Martin could have done is comment once the complaint was filed. He could have exposed the university to significant risk really irrespective of the outcome. This is really the sin that irks me the most - the University should have said "It isn't Martin. It is being investigated. Once we are done we will comment. Coach Martin did precisely what we ask all employees to do - refer to the title IX office." Hard stop. This was clear because they had the track record of when the complaint was filed. If there is a gray area it is the precise timing of the referal to the TITLE IX office but this was about a 20 minute examination of the date of her text to Coach and his email/call to the title IX office. THey hung him out to dry and I am at a loss as to why you could not see that.

2) Again, you can do all the "MeToo" virtue signaling you want. The bottom line is that a stringer to a blog that is covering Cal basketball and a reporter hired (by the blog's OWN admission) ONLY to get inside recruiting news is a tenuous relationship to a "university contractor". Now the university believed that is the case as they fired Yanni and believed they were on solid ground in avoiding a wrongful termination case. But this isn't a beat reporter covering a team who is harrassed in a locker room (likely a failure to address a "hostile work environment" claim.) It isn't even a company with a contractual relationship with the university. At MOST the issue is that the university issued her a press pass (and which point my knowledge of CA case law fails).

3) You and I are simply going to disagree. But by your logic she could have filed a harrassment claim if Yanni stopped doing something ILLEGAL. And you missed the point - you do not HAVE to talk to reporters. You CAN talk to The issue is that you are arguing that after he asked her out he had an obligation to CONTINUE to feed her off the record information and refusing to do so would be retaliatory. This is FAR different than firing her or dinging her a grade as a student. It also, to me, feels far different than even pulling her press pass as that would deny her the equal access that other reporters were accorded.

4) You seem to want to lump me into cavemen and continue to social virtue signal. That isn't my point. It is that the title IX office STRETCHED things WAY far. They hung martin out to dry.

5) And of course the REALLY funny part (not laugh laugh but cringe) is that at the VERY SAME TIME the University was bending over backwards to protect a Bolt tenured professor who CLEARLY was harrassing law students in really an egrious fashion. Things that make you say "hjmmmmmmm"

6) Finally, her texts are absolutely relevant. A key part of the law for "peer to peer" harassments (because I am NEVER conceding that Yanni had the kind of relationship with her that a supervisor has) is that the advances need to be "unwanted". THat is why, though a bad idea, why co-workers on the same rung of the org chart can date each other and there isn't an obvious harassments landmine. Rather, it is evidence that the advances were unwanted and rebuffed and, if they continue, then the pursuer and the company are legally exposed (the pursuer for a direct harrasment claim and the employer possible for hostile work environment).

Finally - in rereading your text - You do realize that there is NO evidence that she said "no" at the time? Interesting in all the leaks to the press and all the breathless reporting by the other blog there is not text that says in response to Yanni something along the lines of "Stop" or "You know, we need to keep this professional". My view of the matter would DRAMATICALLY change if you could come up with that. Then I think we CAN agree that Yanni deserves the blame. But that never came to contemporary light. What did com up was her frustration she missed the "scoop" of Ivan's signing. That is when things blew up.

---

Good post.

Martin followed the book, reported the incident and was treated horribly, made to seem like the perpetrator in public. The university took a year to complete what should have been a simple investigation (two parties, no witnesses) and went public just days before the NCAA Tournament. All as you point out when they were be far less vigorous in dealing with sexual harassment of students by faculty.

Moreover, they cleared Martin of any wrongdoing a week after the Tournament loss. Again, a year after the investigation into Yanni began? With the "investigation" into Martin announced just 2 days before the Tournament? W the F? The timing and treatment of Martin is indefensible.

Note there are differing reports on whether Yanni was fired or he resigned first. He was subsequently hired by Musselman at Nevada. He later started a beverage company with Lindsey Gottlieb (among others) as an investor.

---

TBF, we don't know the number of interviews they conducted, the evidence the investigators sifted through, the number of investigators assigned to the case, nor any of the details of the process of the investigation. As socaltownie keeps insisting, there was more than just the testimony of two individuals; there were text messages! It's very possible that it took time to collect all the text messages and to sift through them. It is also very possible that the investigation involved more than just interviewing the two parties, but also included interviewing other members of the coaching staff, the team, and anyone else who may have witnessed how Yann interacted with the reporter.

In short, maybe the investigation really needed to take as long as it did, or maybe not. Absent any evidence to the contrary, it must be assumed that the investigation proceeded in a timely and normal fashion. In any case, any investigation that is influenced by a sporting event (even if it's the NCAA Tournament) would not be a fair one.

While I know many Cal sports fans like to believe that the University is out to destroy the athletics department (or at least, Cal football and Cal Men's Basketball), I'm not necessarily sure that's the case. (Notwithstanding the inexplicable decision to retain Mark Fox as the head coach for the Cal Men's Basketball team.)

01Bear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

You clearly do NOT understand Sexual harrassment under California law (nor employment law in general)

1) As his supervisor the WORST thing that Martin could have done is comment once the complaint was filed. He could have exposed the university to significant risk really irrespective of the outcome. This is really the sin that irks me the most - the University should have said "It isn't Martin. It is being investigated. Once we are done we will comment. Coach Martin did precisely what we ask all employees to do - refer to the title IX office." Hard stop. This was clear because they had the track record of when the complaint was filed. If there is a gray area it is the precise timing of the referal to the TITLE IX office but this was about a 20 minute examination of the date of her text to Coach and his email/call to the title IX office. THey hung him out to dry and I am at a loss as to why you could not see that.

2) Again, you can do all the "MeToo" virtue signaling you want. The bottom line is that a stringer to a blog that is covering Cal basketball and a reporter hired (by the blog's OWN admission) ONLY to get inside recruiting news is a tenuous relationship to a "university contractor". Now the university believed that is the case as they fired Yanni and believed they were on solid ground in avoiding a wrongful termination case. But this isn't a beat reporter covering a team who is harrassed in a locker room (likely a failure to address a "hostile work environment" claim.) It isn't even a company with a contractual relationship with the university. At MOST the issue is that the university issued her a press pass (and which point my knowledge of CA case law fails).

3) You and I are simply going to disagree. But by your logic she could have filed a harrassment claim if Yanni stopped doing something ILLEGAL. And you missed the point - you do not HAVE to talk to reporters. You CAN talk to The issue is that you are arguing that after he asked her out he had an obligation to CONTINUE to feed her off the record information and refusing to do so would be retaliatory. This is FAR different than firing her or dinging her a grade as a student. It also, to me, feels far different than even pulling her press pass as that would deny her the equal access that other reporters were accorded.

4) You seem to want to lump me into cavemen and continue to social virtue signal. That isn't my point. It is that the title IX office STRETCHED things WAY far. They hung martin out to dry.

5) And of course the REALLY funny part (not laugh laugh but cringe) is that at the VERY SAME TIME the University was bending over backwards to protect a Bolt tenured professor who CLEARLY was harrassing law students in really an egrious fashion. Things that make you say "hjmmmmmmm"

6) Finally, her texts are absolutely relevant. A key part of the law for "peer to peer" harassments (because I am NEVER conceding that Yanni had the kind of relationship with her that a supervisor has) is that the advances need to be "unwanted". THat is why, though a bad idea, why co-workers on the same rung of the org chart can date each other and there isn't an obvious harassments landmine. Rather, it is evidence that the advances were unwanted and rebuffed and, if they continue, then the pursuer and the company are legally exposed (the pursuer for a direct harrasment claim and the employer possible for hostile work environment).

Finally - in rereading your text - You do realize that there is NO evidence that she said "no" at the time? Interesting in all the leaks to the press and all the breathless reporting by the other blog there is not text that says in response to Yanni something along the lines of "Stop" or "You know, we need to keep this professional". My view of the matter would DRAMATICALLY change if you could come up with that. Then I think we CAN agree that Yanni deserves the blame. But that never came to contemporary light. What did com up was her frustration she missed the "scoop" of Ivan's signing. That is when things blew up.

---

Good post.

Martin followed the book, reported the incident and was treated horribly, made to seem like the perpetrator in public. The university took a year to complete what should have been a simple investigation (two parties, no witnesses) and went public just days before the NCAA Tournament. All as you point out when they were be far less vigorous in dealing with sexual harassment of students by faculty.

Moreover, they cleared Martin of any wrongdoing a week after the Tournament loss. Again, a year after the investigation into Yanni began? With the "investigation" into Martin announced just 2 days before the Tournament? W the F? The timing and treatment of Martin is indefensible.

Note there are differing reports on whether Yanni was fired or he resigned first. He was subsequently hired by Musselman at Nevada. He later started a beverage company with Lindsey Gottlieb (among others) as an investor.

---

TBF, we don't know the number of interviews they conducted, the evidence the investigators sifted through, the number of investigators assigned to the case, nor any of the details of the process of the investigation. As socaltownie keeps insisting, there was more than just the testimony of two individuals; there were text messages! It's very possible that it took time to collect all the text messages and to sift through them. It is also very possible that the investigation involved more than just interviewing the two parties, but also included interviewing other members of the coaching staff, the team, and anyone else who may have witnessed how Yann interacted with the reporter.

In short, maybe the investigation really needed to take as long as it did, or maybe not. Absent any evidence to the contrary, it must be assumed that the investigation proceeded in a timely and normal fashion. In any case, any investigation that is influenced by a sporting event (even if it's the NCAA Tournament) would not be a fair one.

While I know many Cal sports fans like to believe that the University is out to destroy the athletics department (or at least, Cal football and Cal Men's Basketball), I'm not necessarily sure that's the case. (Notwithstanding the inexplicable decision to retain Mark Fox as the head coach for the Cal Men's Basketball team.)

---

It should not have taken more than 12 months, even if they need to see the message, since both witnesses cooperated and provided them. I cannot believe you would actually defend taking that long to do an investigation. It should have been wrapped up in 6 months with Yanni dismissed before the new school year, and new season, even began. Especially if he is deemed to be a threat. What if he sexually harassed another reporter during that time period? The university could be held liable.

There should have been no announcement of an investigation into Martin "for violations of the sexual harassment" protocols. Investigate, sure, but that announcement, especially given the timing, amounted to a smear and defamation (probably violated university HR protocols) with headlines and reporters asking Martin questions implying HE is a criminal and sexual predator. He had it worse from the press than Yanni, worse than the sexual harrassers on the faculty (who never had to face reporters).

And Martin was completely cleared after a one(?) week investigation. Are you really saying that it was necessary for that investigation to be public and the same week as the NCAA Tournament? More than a year after the incidents in question? The timing maximized the sensationalism of it and you know it.

"Never assume malice when incompetence is an adequate explanation." The fact is, the university damaged the basketball program and Cuonzo Martin with their actions, especially the timing. Whether it was intentional or incompetence, with the timing just a 1 in million coincidence, well, we will never know.

calumnus said:

---

01Bear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

You clearly do NOT understand Sexual harrassment under California law (nor employment law in general)

1) As his supervisor the WORST thing that Martin could have done is comment once the complaint was filed. He could have exposed the university to significant risk really irrespective of the outcome. This is really the sin that irks me the most - the University should have said "It isn't Martin. It is being investigated. Once we are done we will comment. Coach Martin did precisely what we ask all employees to do - refer to the title IX office." Hard stop. This was clear because they had the track record of when the complaint was filed. If there is a gray area it is the precise timing of the referal to the TITLE IX office but this was about a 20 minute examination of the date of her text to Coach and his email/call to the title IX office. THey hung him out to dry and I am at a loss as to why you could not see that.

2) Again, you can do all the "MeToo" virtue signaling you want. The bottom line is that a stringer to a blog that is covering Cal basketball and a reporter hired (by the blog's OWN admission) ONLY to get inside recruiting news is a tenuous relationship to a "university contractor". Now the university believed that is the case as they fired Yanni and believed they were on solid ground in avoiding a wrongful termination case. But this isn't a beat reporter covering a team who is harrassed in a locker room (likely a failure to address a "hostile work environment" claim.) It isn't even a company with a contractual relationship with the university. At MOST the issue is that the university issued her a press pass (and which point my knowledge of CA case law fails).

3) You and I are simply going to disagree. But by your logic she could have filed a harrassment claim if Yanni stopped doing something ILLEGAL. And you missed the point - you do not HAVE to talk to reporters. You CAN talk to The issue is that you are arguing that after he asked her out he had an obligation to CONTINUE to feed her off the record information and refusing to do so would be retaliatory. This is FAR different than firing her or dinging her a grade as a student. It also, to me, feels far different than even pulling her press pass as that would deny her the equal access that other reporters were accorded.

4) You seem to want to lump me into cavemen and continue to social virtue signal. That isn't my point. It is that the title IX office STRETCHED things WAY far. They hung martin out to dry.

5) And of course the REALLY funny part (not laugh laugh but cringe) is that at the VERY SAME TIME the University was bending over backwards to protect a Bolt tenured professor who CLEARLY was harrassing law students in really an egrious fashion. Things that make you say "hjmmmmmmm"

6) Finally, her texts are absolutely relevant. A key part of the law for "peer to peer" harassments (because I am NEVER conceding that Yanni had the kind of relationship with her that a supervisor has) is that the advances need to be "unwanted". THat is why, though a bad idea, why co-workers on the same rung of the org chart can date each other and there isn't an obvious harassments landmine. Rather, it is evidence that the advances were unwanted and rebuffed and, if they continue, then the pursuer and the company are legally exposed (the pursuer for a direct harrasment claim and the employer possible for hostile work environment).

Finally - in rereading your text - You do realize that there is NO evidence that she said "no" at the time? Interesting in all the leaks to the press and all the breathless reporting by the other blog there is not text that says in response to Yanni something along the lines of "Stop" or "You know, we need to keep this professional". My view of the matter would DRAMATICALLY change if you could come up with that. Then I think we CAN agree that Yanni deserves the blame. But that never came to contemporary light. What did com up was her frustration she missed the "scoop" of Ivan's signing. That is when things blew up.

---

Good post.

Martin followed the book, reported the incident and was treated horribly, made to seem like the perpetrator in public. The university took a year to complete what should have been a simple investigation (two parties, no witnesses) and went public just days before the NCAA Tournament. All as you point out when they were be far less vigorous in dealing with sexual harassment of students by faculty.

Moreover, they cleared Martin of any wrongdoing a week after the Tournament loss. Again, a year after the investigation into Yanni began? With the "investigation" into Martin announced just 2 days before the Tournament? W the F? The timing and treatment of Martin is indefensible.

Note there are differing reports on whether Yanni was fired or he resigned first. He was subsequently hired by Musselman at Nevada. He later started a beverage company with Lindsey Gottlieb (among others) as an investor.

---

TBF, we don't know the number of interviews they conducted, the evidence the investigators sifted through, the number of investigators assigned to the case, nor any of the details of the process of the investigation. As socaltownie keeps insisting, there was more than just the testimony of two individuals; there were text messages! It's very possible that it took time to collect all the text messages and to sift through them. It is also very possible that the investigation involved more than just interviewing the two parties, but also included interviewing other members of the coaching staff, the team, and anyone else who may have witnessed how Yann interacted with the reporter.

In short, maybe the investigation really needed to take as long as it did, or maybe not. Absent any evidence to the contrary, it must be assumed that the investigation proceeded in a timely and normal fashion. In any case, any investigation that is influenced by a sporting event (even if it's the NCAA Tournament) would not be a fair one.

While I know many Cal sports fans like to believe that the University is out to destroy the athletics department (or at least, Cal football and Cal Men's Basketball), I'm not necessarily sure that's the case. (Notwithstanding the inexplicable decision to retain Mark Fox as the head coach for the Cal Men's Basketball team.)

---

It should not have taken more than 12 months, even if they need to see the message, since both witnesses cooperated and provided them. I cannot believe you would actually defend taking that long to do an investigation. It should have been wrapped up in 6 months with Yanni dismissed before the new school year, and new season, even began. Especially if he is deemed to be a threat. What if he sexually harassed another reporter during that time period? The university could be held liable.

There should have been no announcement of an investigation into Martin "for violations of the sexual harassment" protocols. Investigate, sure, but that announcement, especially given the timing, amounted to a smear and defamation (probably violated university HR protocols) with headlines and reporters asking Martin questions implying HE is a criminal and sexual predator. He had it worse from the press than Yanni, worse than the sexual harrassers on the faculty (who never had to face reporters).

And Martin was completely cleared after a one(?) week investigation. Are you really saying that it was necessary for that investigation to be public and the same week as the NCAA Tournament? More than a year after the incidents in question? The timing maximized the sensationalism of it and you know it.

"Never assume malice when incompetence is an adequate explanation." The fact is, the university damaged the basketball program and Cuonzo Martin with their actions, especially the timing. Whether it was intentional or incompetence, with the timing just a 1 in million coincidence, well, we will never know.

---

To be clear, I'm not defending how long it took to conduct the investigation. Rather, I'm saying we really don't know what all the investigators reviewed nor how long it should've/needed to take. Additionally, I'm saying we shouldn't jump to the conclusion that the investigation was intentionally set up to take as long as it did to damage to the basketball program (as per your own uncited quote).

As for clearing Martin, it could've been done that quickly specifically because he had been investigated as part of the Yann Hufnagel investigation. I'm not saying this is absolutely the case, but rather it's a possibility.

In short, my position is that absent any evidence, it doesn't make much sense to draw any sort of conclusions as to whether any of the investigations were properly or improperly conducted.

socaltownie said:

---

01Bear said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

You clearly do NOT understand Sexual harrassment under California law (nor employment law in general)

1) As his supervisor the WORST thing that Martin could have done is comment once the complaint was filed. He could have exposed the university to significant risk really irrespective of the outcome. This is really the sin that irks me the most - the University should have said "It isn't Martin. It is being investigated. Once we are done we will comment. Coach Martin did precisely what we ask all employees to do - refer to the title IX office." Hard stop. This was clear because they had the track record of when the complaint was filed. If there is a gray area it is the precise timing of the referal to the TITLE IX office but this was about a 20 minute examination of the date of her text to Coach and his email/call to the title IX office. THey hung him out to dry and I am at a loss as to why you could not see that.

2) Again, you can do all the "MeToo" virtue signaling you want. The bottom line is that a stringer to a blog that is covering Cal basketball and a reporter hired (by the blog's OWN admission) ONLY to get inside recruiting news is a tenuous relationship to a "university contractor". Now the university believed that is the case as they fired Yanni and believed they were on solid ground in avoiding a wrongful termination case. But this isn't a beat reporter covering a team who is harrassed in a locker room (likely a failure to address a "hostile work environment" claim.) It isn't even a company with a contractual relationship with the university. At MOST the issue is that the university issued her a press pass (and which point my knowledge of CA case law fails).

3) You and I are simply going to disagree. But by your logic she could have filed a harrassment claim if Yanni stopped doing something ILLEGAL. And you missed the point - you do not HAVE to talk to reporters. You CAN talk to The issue is that you are arguing that after he asked her out he had an obligation to CONTINUE to feed her off the record information and refusing to do so would be retaliatory. This is FAR different than firing her or dinging her a grade as a student. It also, to me, feels far different than even pulling her press pass as that would deny her the equal access that other reporters were accorded.

4) You seem to want to lump me into cavemen and continue to social virtue signal. That isn't my point. It is that the title IX office STRETCHED things WAY far. They hung martin out to dry.

5) And of course the REALLY funny part (not laugh laugh but cringe) is that at the VERY SAME TIME the University was bending over backwards to protect a Bolt tenured professor who CLEARLY was harrassing law students in really an egrious fashion. Things that make you say "hjmmmmmmm"

6) Finally, her texts are absolutely relevant. A key part of the law for "peer to peer" harassments (because I am NEVER conceding that Yanni had the kind of relationship with her that a supervisor has) is that the advances need to be "unwanted". THat is why, though a bad idea, why co-workers on the same rung of the org chart can date each other and there isn't an obvious harassments landmine. Rather, it is evidence that the advances were unwanted and rebuffed and, if they continue, then the pursuer and the company are legally exposed (the pursuer for a direct harrasment claim and the employer possible for hostile work environment).

Finally - in rereading your text - You do realize that there is NO evidence that she said "no" at the time? Interesting in all the leaks to the press and all the breathless reporting by the other blog there is not text that says in response to Yanni something along the lines of "Stop" or "You know, we need to keep this professional". My view of the matter would DRAMATICALLY change if you could come up with that. Then I think we CAN agree that Yanni deserves the blame. But that never came to contemporary light. What did com up was her frustration she missed the "scoop" of Ivan's signing. That is when things blew up.

---

Alright, counselor, why don't you educate me on sexual harassment and employment law? BTW, how long have you been practicing employment law?

Incidentally, if you are actually a licensed attorney, you must know that Yann was not terminated because he sexually harassed another Cal employee. Rather, as I mentioned repeatedly in my prior posts, sexual harassment does not only happen in an employment context. It can happen outside of work, but it can still be sufficient grounds to cause someone to be terminated. For instance, if Cal had its employment contracts in order, it would have had a moral turpitude provision; sexually harassing anyone may have been sufficient grounds to terminate Yann under said provision.

Your arguments above, by the by, evince either a lack of reading comprehension or your failure to read my previous posts. You'll note that I actually suggested Coach Martin should've said ""When I was first made aware of these allegations, I reported them immediately to the AD and the university's Title IX department. I have been following the instructions and advice they have provided me since then. I cannot comment any further on this matter as not only is it an ongoing investigation, but I have been advised that I am not permitted to discuss personnel and employment matters." In other words, Martin could've easily provided a "no comment" without actually not commenting. But, I'm sure any licensed attorney would know how to do that, let alone one who purports to work in PR.

Incidentally, you realize that you contradict yourself, right? On the one hand, you argue that the worst thing Martin could've done was comment once a complaint was filed, but on the other hand, you are upset that the Title IX office didn't comment on the complaint. You can't have it both ways, either comments about a pending Title IX complaint are fair game and should be openly discussed by people involved in the investigation or they are not.

As to your claim I miss the point about Yann not having to talk to reporters, the fact of the matter is you are actually missing the point. It's not that Yann didn't have to talk to reporters, it's that he stopped talking to this one reporter as a means to retaliate against her or to coerce her into having sex with him. As a labor law attorney, you must know that while it's entirely permissible to terminate most at-will employees, when such termination is retaliation or an act of coercion (for sex), that would cross into impermissible (i.e., illegal) territory. (I mentioned this analogy before, but you somehow failed to grasp it.) While Yann's actions would likely not lead to liability on the University's part (unless it were something like a repeated pattern of abuse and the University knew about but ignored it) for violation of any employment law, they were still sufficient grounds for Yann to be terminated (as I mentioned above, a moral turpitude provision would likely apply). Furthermore, as I mentioned in my previous reply to you, your position that Yann violated the cardinal rules of dealing with reporters is further grounds for disciplining Yann, which discipline may include dismissal.

As for being upset for Coach Martin, as I mentioned in my last post, if you want to be upset for him, feel free. I'm not arguing he was treated fairly by Cal or not maligned by the press. However, your anger toward the reporter Yann sexually harassed is misplaced. The proper party for your calumny should be Yann Hufnagel whose sexual harassment of the reporter was the direct cause of everything that happened afterward. It's rather disturbing that you don't seem to direct any ire toward Yann but instead repeatedly attempt to defend him while heaping blame on his victim instead.

As for her texts, you're making a lot of hay over something you've never seen. (If you've seen them, then go ahead and produce them.) You seem to think they will show she was fine with being sexually harassed. Otherwise, at best, all you have is your frenzied imagination as to what those texts say. For all you know, the reporter may have repeatedly told Yann to stop and that she was uncomfortable with his actions in her texts. But of course, that wouldn't comport with your defense of Yann, so you must insist that they reveal she wanted to have sex with him (or at a minimum that they gave misleading messages as to her interest in Yann). Never mind that once Yann knew she was uninterested, he should've stopped.

Also, counselor, surely you know that California law does not require a victim to say "No" or "Stop" to any form of harassment (or assault). I'm surprised you would think that the lack of any reporting on her saying "No" or "Stop" would somehow prove your case. Fortunately for you, this isn't a court of law. Still, even for our little Cal sports forum, we do look at the facts. The fact is Yann knew the reporter was so not interested in him sexually that he ADMITTED HE RESORTED TO TRYING TO TRICK HER INTO GOING TO HIS APARTMENT (implicitly, for sex).

Also, your post above makes it clear why you're so upset. You are one of those folks who see supporting equality and treating all people as people is some sort of "virtue signaling." Your use of that term to dismiss something you disagree with is sufficient to show just how closeminded you really are. Incidentally, counselor, being closeminded isn't a good trait to have as an attorney. Even as a 1L you should've learned that you need to be able to view a case from multiple angles, not just your own. Hmm, I'm really starting to wonder whether you even went to law school, let alone were admitted to any state's bar.

---

You are simply wrong on so many counts. You are conflating consent, harassment and everything else under the sun. Before you ever manage employees I suggest a training as your views ould easily land your employer in deep dodo.

---

LOL! What a winning argument, counselor! LOL!!!!

I get you've adopted the modern GOP signature move of projection. But that doesn't mean I'm that easily gaslit. You do realize you're the one who tried to conflate sexual harassment with workplace harassment and labor law from the start. Yet, your arguments reveal you have no actual understanding of the law, even as you try to pretend you're some sort of learned counsel in labor law.

The fact that you have to resort to false appeals to authority and to ad hominem arguments, is sufficient to show that your arguments are untenable. I hesitated to point this out from the outset out of a misplaced faith in you. I had assumed you were serious about holding a discussion instead of merely trolling and refusing to reason. Now that it's become clear, I see no reason to continue discussing this matter with you as it would be nothing more than a further waste of my time.

In any case, I wish you nothing but the best. As for your daughter, I wish for her to go through life unmolested and treated as a human being by everyone she encounters. God only knows how you'll further traumatize her should she fall victim to sexual harassment (as do every four out of five women in the US).

01Bear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

01Bear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

You clearly do NOT understand Sexual harrassment under California law (nor employment law in general)

1) As his supervisor the WORST thing that Martin could have done is comment once the complaint was filed. He could have exposed the university to significant risk really irrespective of the outcome. This is really the sin that irks me the most - the University should have said "It isn't Martin. It is being investigated. Once we are done we will comment. Coach Martin did precisely what we ask all employees to do - refer to the title IX office." Hard stop. This was clear because they had the track record of when the complaint was filed. If there is a gray area it is the precise timing of the referal to the TITLE IX office but this was about a 20 minute examination of the date of her text to Coach and his email/call to the title IX office. THey hung him out to dry and I am at a loss as to why you could not see that.

2) Again, you can do all the "MeToo" virtue signaling you want. The bottom line is that a stringer to a blog that is covering Cal basketball and a reporter hired (by the blog's OWN admission) ONLY to get inside recruiting news is a tenuous relationship to a "university contractor". Now the university believed that is the case as they fired Yanni and believed they were on solid ground in avoiding a wrongful termination case. But this isn't a beat reporter covering a team who is harrassed in a locker room (likely a failure to address a "hostile work environment" claim.) It isn't even a company with a contractual relationship with the university. At MOST the issue is that the university issued her a press pass (and which point my knowledge of CA case law fails).

3) You and I are simply going to disagree. But by your logic she could have filed a harrassment claim if Yanni stopped doing something ILLEGAL. And you missed the point - you do not HAVE to talk to reporters. You CAN talk to The issue is that you are arguing that after he asked her out he had an obligation to CONTINUE to feed her off the record information and refusing to do so would be retaliatory. This is FAR different than firing her or dinging her a grade as a student. It also, to me, feels far different than even pulling her press pass as that would deny her the equal access that other reporters were accorded.

4) You seem to want to lump me into cavemen and continue to social virtue signal. That isn't my point. It is that the title IX office STRETCHED things WAY far. They hung martin out to dry.

5) And of course the REALLY funny part (not laugh laugh but cringe) is that at the VERY SAME TIME the University was bending over backwards to protect a Bolt tenured professor who CLEARLY was harrassing law students in really an egrious fashion. Things that make you say "hjmmmmmmm"

6) Finally, her texts are absolutely relevant. A key part of the law for "peer to peer" harassments (because I am NEVER conceding that Yanni had the kind of relationship with her that a supervisor has) is that the advances need to be "unwanted". THat is why, though a bad idea, why co-workers on the same rung of the org chart can date each other and there isn't an obvious harassments landmine. Rather, it is evidence that the advances were unwanted and rebuffed and, if they continue, then the pursuer and the company are legally exposed (the pursuer for a direct harrasment claim and the employer possible for hostile work environment).

Finally - in rereading your text - You do realize that there is NO evidence that she said "no" at the time? Interesting in all the leaks to the press and all the breathless reporting by the other blog there is not text that says in response to Yanni something along the lines of "Stop" or "You know, we need to keep this professional". My view of the matter would DRAMATICALLY change if you could come up with that. Then I think we CAN agree that Yanni deserves the blame. But that never came to contemporary light. What did com up was her frustration she missed the "scoop" of Ivan's signing. That is when things blew up.

---

Good post.

Martin followed the book, reported the incident and was treated horribly, made to seem like the perpetrator in public. The university took a year to complete what should have been a simple investigation (two parties, no witnesses) and went public just days before the NCAA Tournament. All as you point out when they were be far less vigorous in dealing with sexual harassment of students by faculty.

Moreover, they cleared Martin of any wrongdoing a week after the Tournament loss. Again, a year after the investigation into Yanni began? With the "investigation" into Martin announced just 2 days before the Tournament? W the F? The timing and treatment of Martin is indefensible.

Note there are differing reports on whether Yanni was fired or he resigned first. He was subsequently hired by Musselman at Nevada. He later started a beverage company with Lindsey Gottlieb (among others) as an investor.

---

TBF, we don't know the number of interviews they conducted, the evidence the investigators sifted through, the number of investigators assigned to the case, nor any of the details of the process of the investigation. As socaltownie keeps insisting, there was more than just the testimony of two individuals; there were text messages! It's very possible that it took time to collect all the text messages and to sift through them. It is also very possible that the investigation involved more than just interviewing the two parties, but also included interviewing other members of the coaching staff, the team, and anyone else who may have witnessed how Yann interacted with the reporter.

In short, maybe the investigation really needed to take as long as it did, or maybe not. Absent any evidence to the contrary, it must be assumed that the investigation proceeded in a timely and normal fashion. In any case, any investigation that is influenced by a sporting event (even if it's the NCAA Tournament) would not be a fair one.

While I know many Cal sports fans like to believe that the University is out to destroy the athletics department (or at least, Cal football and Cal Men's Basketball), I'm not necessarily sure that's the case. (Notwithstanding the inexplicable decision to retain Mark Fox as the head coach for the Cal Men's Basketball team.)

---

It should not have taken more than 12 months, even if they need to see the message, since both witnesses cooperated and provided them. I cannot believe you would actually defend taking that long to do an investigation. It should have been wrapped up in 6 months with Yanni dismissed before the new school year, and new season, even began. Especially if he is deemed to be a threat. What if he sexually harassed another reporter during that time period? The university could be held liable.

There should have been no announcement of an investigation into Martin "for violations of the sexual harassment" protocols. Investigate, sure, but that announcement, especially given the timing, amounted to a smear and defamation (probably violated university HR protocols) with headlines and reporters asking Martin questions implying HE is a criminal and sexual predator. He had it worse from the press than Yanni, worse than the sexual harrassers on the faculty (who never had to face reporters).

And Martin was completely cleared after a one(?) week investigation. Are you really saying that it was necessary for that investigation to be public and the same week as the NCAA Tournament? More than a year after the incidents in question? The timing maximized the sensationalism of it and you know it.

"Never assume malice when incompetence is an adequate explanation." The fact is, the university damaged the basketball program and Cuonzo Martin with their actions, especially the timing. Whether it was intentional or incompetence, with the timing just a 1 in million coincidence, well, we will never know.

---

To be clear, I'm not defending how long it took to conduct the investigation. Rather, I'm saying we really don't know what all the investigators reviewed nor how long it should've/needed to take. Additionally, I'm saying we shouldn't jump to the conclusion that the investigation was intentionally set up to take as long as it did to damage to the basketball program (as per your own uncited quote).

As for clearing Martin, it could've been done that quickly specifically because he had been investigated as part of the Yann Hufnagel investigation. I'm not saying this is absolutely the case, but rather it's a possibility.

In short, my position is that absent any evidence, it doesn't make much sense to draw any sort of conclusions as to whether any of the investigations were properly or improperly conducted.

---

All we know is that the announcement of the investigation into Martin more than a year after the events but only two days before Cal was to play in the NCAA Tournament as its highest seed ever, was the worst possible timing for the program, maximized the sensationalism and smeared Martin's reputation to the largest possible audience with national headlines of a sexual harassment investigation with Martin's picture below it. That is a fact. Whether that extraordinary timing was intentional or just a freak coincidence and departmental malpractice, we don't know.

The University's own guidelines say "The notice of investigation outcome and accompanying investigation report will be issued promptly, typically within sixty (60) to ninety (90) business days of the initiation of the Formal Investigation, unless extended by the Title IX Officer for good cause, with written notice to the complainant and the respondent of the reason for the extension and the projected new timeline." So clearly, the announcement a year later was highly unusual and violated the universities standard protocol!of resolving cases within 60 to 90 business days.

Furthermore, there was absolutely no need to announce an investigation of Martin and doing so caused harm to his reputation. There was no announcement of an investigation into Yanni a year earlier, and he was the one actually accused.

01Bear said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

01Bear said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

You clearly do NOT understand Sexual harrassment under California law (nor employment law in general)

1) As his supervisor the WORST thing that Martin could have done is comment once the complaint was filed. He could have exposed the university to significant risk really irrespective of the outcome. This is really the sin that irks me the most - the University should have said "It isn't Martin. It is being investigated. Once we are done we will comment. Coach Martin did precisely what we ask all employees to do - refer to the title IX office." Hard stop. This was clear because they had the track record of when the complaint was filed. If there is a gray area it is the precise timing of the referal to the TITLE IX office but this was about a 20 minute examination of the date of her text to Coach and his email/call to the title IX office. THey hung him out to dry and I am at a loss as to why you could not see that.

2) Again, you can do all the "MeToo" virtue signaling you want. The bottom line is that a stringer to a blog that is covering Cal basketball and a reporter hired (by the blog's OWN admission) ONLY to get inside recruiting news is a tenuous relationship to a "university contractor". Now the university believed that is the case as they fired Yanni and believed they were on solid ground in avoiding a wrongful termination case. But this isn't a beat reporter covering a team who is harrassed in a locker room (likely a failure to address a "hostile work environment" claim.) It isn't even a company with a contractual relationship with the university. At MOST the issue is that the university issued her a press pass (and which point my knowledge of CA case law fails).

3) You and I are simply going to disagree. But by your logic she could have filed a harrassment claim if Yanni stopped doing something ILLEGAL. And you missed the point - you do not HAVE to talk to reporters. You CAN talk to The issue is that you are arguing that after he asked her out he had an obligation to CONTINUE to feed her off the record information and refusing to do so would be retaliatory. This is FAR different than firing her or dinging her a grade as a student. It also, to me, feels far different than even pulling her press pass as that would deny her the equal access that other reporters were accorded.

4) You seem to want to lump me into cavemen and continue to social virtue signal. That isn't my point. It is that the title IX office STRETCHED things WAY far. They hung martin out to dry.

5) And of course the REALLY funny part (not laugh laugh but cringe) is that at the VERY SAME TIME the University was bending over backwards to protect a Bolt tenured professor who CLEARLY was harrassing law students in really an egrious fashion. Things that make you say "hjmmmmmmm"

6) Finally, her texts are absolutely relevant. A key part of the law for "peer to peer" harassments (because I am NEVER conceding that Yanni had the kind of relationship with her that a supervisor has) is that the advances need to be "unwanted". THat is why, though a bad idea, why co-workers on the same rung of the org chart can date each other and there isn't an obvious harassments landmine. Rather, it is evidence that the advances were unwanted and rebuffed and, if they continue, then the pursuer and the company are legally exposed (the pursuer for a direct harrasment claim and the employer possible for hostile work environment).

Finally - in rereading your text - You do realize that there is NO evidence that she said "no" at the time? Interesting in all the leaks to the press and all the breathless reporting by the other blog there is not text that says in response to Yanni something along the lines of "Stop" or "You know, we need to keep this professional". My view of the matter would DRAMATICALLY change if you could come up with that. Then I think we CAN agree that Yanni deserves the blame. But that never came to contemporary light. What did com up was her frustration she missed the "scoop" of Ivan's signing. That is when things blew up.

---

Alright, counselor, why don't you educate me on sexual harassment and employment law? BTW, how long have you been practicing employment law?

Incidentally, if you are actually a licensed attorney, you must know that Yann was not terminated because he sexually harassed another Cal employee. Rather, as I mentioned repeatedly in my prior posts, sexual harassment does not only happen in an employment context. It can happen outside of work, but it can still be sufficient grounds to cause someone to be terminated. For instance, if Cal had its employment contracts in order, it would have had a moral turpitude provision; sexually harassing anyone may have been sufficient grounds to terminate Yann under said provision.

Your arguments above, by the by, evince either a lack of reading comprehension or your failure to read my previous posts. You'll note that I actually suggested Coach Martin should've said ""When I was first made aware of these allegations, I reported them immediately to the AD and the university's Title IX department. I have been following the instructions and advice they have provided me since then. I cannot comment any further on this matter as not only is it an ongoing investigation, but I have been advised that I am not permitted to discuss personnel and employment matters." In other words, Martin could've easily provided a "no comment" without actually not commenting. But, I'm sure any licensed attorney would know how to do that, let alone one who purports to work in PR.

Incidentally, you realize that you contradict yourself, right? On the one hand, you argue that the worst thing Martin could've done was comment once a complaint was filed, but on the other hand, you are upset that the Title IX office didn't comment on the complaint. You can't have it both ways, either comments about a pending Title IX complaint are fair game and should be openly discussed by people involved in the investigation or they are not.

As to your claim I miss the point about Yann not having to talk to reporters, the fact of the matter is you are actually missing the point. It's not that Yann didn't have to talk to reporters, it's that he stopped talking to this one reporter as a means to retaliate against her or to coerce her into having sex with him. As a labor law attorney, you must know that while it's entirely permissible to terminate most at-will employees, when such termination is retaliation or an act of coercion (for sex), that would cross into impermissible (i.e., illegal) territory. (I mentioned this analogy before, but you somehow failed to grasp it.) While Yann's actions would likely not lead to liability on the University's part (unless it were something like a repeated pattern of abuse and the University knew about but ignored it) for violation of any employment law, they were still sufficient grounds for Yann to be terminated (as I mentioned above, a moral turpitude provision would likely apply). Furthermore, as I mentioned in my previous reply to you, your position that Yann violated the cardinal rules of dealing with reporters is further grounds for disciplining Yann, which discipline may include dismissal.

As for being upset for Coach Martin, as I mentioned in my last post, if you want to be upset for him, feel free. I'm not arguing he was treated fairly by Cal or not maligned by the press. However, your anger toward the reporter Yann sexually harassed is misplaced. The proper party for your calumny should be Yann Hufnagel whose sexual harassment of the reporter was the direct cause of everything that happened afterward. It's rather disturbing that you don't seem to direct any ire toward Yann but instead repeatedly attempt to defend him while heaping blame on his victim instead.

As for her texts, you're making a lot of hay over something you've never seen. (If you've seen them, then go ahead and produce them.) You seem to think they will show she was fine with being sexually harassed. Otherwise, at best, all you have is your frenzied imagination as to what those texts say. For all you know, the reporter may have repeatedly told Yann to stop and that she was uncomfortable with his actions in her texts. But of course, that wouldn't comport with your defense of Yann, so you must insist that they reveal she wanted to have sex with him (or at a minimum that they gave misleading messages as to her interest in Yann). Never mind that once Yann knew she was uninterested, he should've stopped.

Also, counselor, surely you know that California law does not require a victim to say "No" or "Stop" to any form of harassment (or assault). I'm surprised you would think that the lack of any reporting on her saying "No" or "Stop" would somehow prove your case. Fortunately for you, this isn't a court of law. Still, even for our little Cal sports forum, we do look at the facts. The fact is Yann knew the reporter was so not interested in him sexually that he ADMITTED HE RESORTED TO TRYING TO TRICK HER INTO GOING TO HIS APARTMENT (implicitly, for sex).

Also, your post above makes it clear why you're so upset. You are one of those folks who see supporting equality and treating all people as people is some sort of "virtue signaling." Your use of that term to dismiss something you disagree with is sufficient to show just how closeminded you really are. Incidentally, counselor, being closeminded isn't a good trait to have as an attorney. Even as a 1L you should've learned that you need to be able to view a case from multiple angles, not just your own. Hmm, I'm really starting to wonder whether you even went to law school, let alone were admitted to any state's bar.

---

You are simply wrong on so many counts. You are conflating consent, harassment and everything else under the sun. Before you ever manage employees I suggest a training as your views ould easily land your employer in deep dodo.

---

LOL! What a winning argument, counselor! LOL!!!!

I get you've adopted the modern GOP signature move of projection. But that doesn't mean I'm that easily gaslit. You do realize you're the one who tried to conflate sexual harassment with workplace harassment and labor law from the start. Yet, your arguments reveal you have no actual understanding of the law, even as you try to pretend you're some sort of learned counsel in labor law.

The fact that you have to resort to false appeals to authority and to ad hominem arguments, is sufficient to show that your arguments are untenable. I hesitated to point this out from the outset out of a misplaced faith in you. I had assumed you were serious about holding a discussion instead of merely trolling and refusing to reason. Now that it's become clear, I see no reason to continue discussing this matter with you as it would be nothing more than a further waste of my time.

In any case, I wish you nothing but the best. As for your daughter, I wish for her to go through life unmolested and treated as a human being by everyone she encounters. God only knows how you'll further traumatize her should she fall victim to sexual harassment (as do every four out of five women in the US).

---

Your the one that KEEPS bringing up the apartment incident. Again, it is largely irrelevant. Either ANY of the advances were "unwanted" or they were not. Either he retaliated with a quid pro quo (or fostering a hostile work environment) or he did not. And either Martin followed or did not follow the University's reporting requirements.

Why I don't really want to engage with you is that you want to have a different argument. YOu want to argue about Yanni's behavior and whether it comports to a Me Too standard. I want to argue about whether that the university butchered a Sexual Harassments claim.

Here is the article that you are citing.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/02/21/587671849/a-new-survey-finds-eighty-percent-of-women-have-experienced-sexual-harassment

The problem is that while we can be upset (and should be) that women are verbally assaulted and catcalled that is NOT workplace sexual harassment. It is boorish behavior. It should not be tolerated. But it is NOT subject to a civil complaint without additional factors.

Again, here is what we know.

The investigation was initiated 12 months before the Hawaii game. It corresponded to about the time of the Ivan Rabb signing as what she was mad (reported) about was that she was cut out of the inside scoop that Ivan was picking the Cal Hat.

She was mad (reported at the time) that Martin did not violate university protocals by talking with her about it or firing Yanni. Both would have been bad and CLEARLY would have gone against the advice from the University. Yet Martin was not defended by the university..

SOmeone leaked to the Comical. Probably not Martin. Probably not Yanni. MAYBE the Title IX office to torpedo the tournament....or the complaintent? You figure it out.

PS. And yes. I am not convinced she really had a claim as a stringer to a blog with the alleged quid pro quo to be the ending of off the record inside info about recruiting (which itself is a NCAA violation though EVERYONE does it). But that requires we both be versed in employment law.

calumnus said:

---

01Bear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

01Bear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

You clearly do NOT understand Sexual harrassment under California law (nor employment law in general)

1) As his supervisor the WORST thing that Martin could have done is comment once the complaint was filed. He could have exposed the university to significant risk really irrespective of the outcome. This is really the sin that irks me the most - the University should have said "It isn't Martin. It is being investigated. Once we are done we will comment. Coach Martin did precisely what we ask all employees to do - refer to the title IX office." Hard stop. This was clear because they had the track record of when the complaint was filed. If there is a gray area it is the precise timing of the referal to the TITLE IX office but this was about a 20 minute examination of the date of her text to Coach and his email/call to the title IX office. THey hung him out to dry and I am at a loss as to why you could not see that.

2) Again, you can do all the "MeToo" virtue signaling you want. The bottom line is that a stringer to a blog that is covering Cal basketball and a reporter hired (by the blog's OWN admission) ONLY to get inside recruiting news is a tenuous relationship to a "university contractor". Now the university believed that is the case as they fired Yanni and believed they were on solid ground in avoiding a wrongful termination case. But this isn't a beat reporter covering a team who is harrassed in a locker room (likely a failure to address a "hostile work environment" claim.) It isn't even a company with a contractual relationship with the university. At MOST the issue is that the university issued her a press pass (and which point my knowledge of CA case law fails).

3) You and I are simply going to disagree. But by your logic she could have filed a harrassment claim if Yanni stopped doing something ILLEGAL. And you missed the point - you do not HAVE to talk to reporters. You CAN talk to The issue is that you are arguing that after he asked her out he had an obligation to CONTINUE to feed her off the record information and refusing to do so would be retaliatory. This is FAR different than firing her or dinging her a grade as a student. It also, to me, feels far different than even pulling her press pass as that would deny her the equal access that other reporters were accorded.

4) You seem to want to lump me into cavemen and continue to social virtue signal. That isn't my point. It is that the title IX office STRETCHED things WAY far. They hung martin out to dry.

5) And of course the REALLY funny part (not laugh laugh but cringe) is that at the VERY SAME TIME the University was bending over backwards to protect a Bolt tenured professor who CLEARLY was harrassing law students in really an egrious fashion. Things that make you say "hjmmmmmmm"

6) Finally, her texts are absolutely relevant. A key part of the law for "peer to peer" harassments (because I am NEVER conceding that Yanni had the kind of relationship with her that a supervisor has) is that the advances need to be "unwanted". THat is why, though a bad idea, why co-workers on the same rung of the org chart can date each other and there isn't an obvious harassments landmine. Rather, it is evidence that the advances were unwanted and rebuffed and, if they continue, then the pursuer and the company are legally exposed (the pursuer for a direct harrasment claim and the employer possible for hostile work environment).

Finally - in rereading your text - You do realize that there is NO evidence that she said "no" at the time? Interesting in all the leaks to the press and all the breathless reporting by the other blog there is not text that says in response to Yanni something along the lines of "Stop" or "You know, we need to keep this professional". My view of the matter would DRAMATICALLY change if you could come up with that. Then I think we CAN agree that Yanni deserves the blame. But that never came to contemporary light. What did com up was her frustration she missed the "scoop" of Ivan's signing. That is when things blew up.

---

Good post.

Martin followed the book, reported the incident and was treated horribly, made to seem like the perpetrator in public. The university took a year to complete what should have been a simple investigation (two parties, no witnesses) and went public just days before the NCAA Tournament. All as you point out when they were be far less vigorous in dealing with sexual harassment of students by faculty.

Moreover, they cleared Martin of any wrongdoing a week after the Tournament loss. Again, a year after the investigation into Yanni began? With the "investigation" into Martin announced just 2 days before the Tournament? W the F? The timing and treatment of Martin is indefensible.

Note there are differing reports on whether Yanni was fired or he resigned first. He was subsequently hired by Musselman at Nevada. He later started a beverage company with Lindsey Gottlieb (among others) as an investor.

---

TBF, we don't know the number of interviews they conducted, the evidence the investigators sifted through, the number of investigators assigned to the case, nor any of the details of the process of the investigation. As socaltownie keeps insisting, there was more than just the testimony of two individuals; there were text messages! It's very possible that it took time to collect all the text messages and to sift through them. It is also very possible that the investigation involved more than just interviewing the two parties, but also included interviewing other members of the coaching staff, the team, and anyone else who may have witnessed how Yann interacted with the reporter.

In short, maybe the investigation really needed to take as long as it did, or maybe not. Absent any evidence to the contrary, it must be assumed that the investigation proceeded in a timely and normal fashion. In any case, any investigation that is influenced by a sporting event (even if it's the NCAA Tournament) would not be a fair one.

While I know many Cal sports fans like to believe that the University is out to destroy the athletics department (or at least, Cal football and Cal Men's Basketball), I'm not necessarily sure that's the case. (Notwithstanding the inexplicable decision to retain Mark Fox as the head coach for the Cal Men's Basketball team.)

---

It should not have taken more than 12 months, even if they need to see the message, since both witnesses cooperated and provided them. I cannot believe you would actually defend taking that long to do an investigation. It should have been wrapped up in 6 months with Yanni dismissed before the new school year, and new season, even began. Especially if he is deemed to be a threat. What if he sexually harassed another reporter during that time period? The university could be held liable.

There should have been no announcement of an investigation into Martin "for violations of the sexual harassment" protocols. Investigate, sure, but that announcement, especially given the timing, amounted to a smear and defamation (probably violated university HR protocols) with headlines and reporters asking Martin questions implying HE is a criminal and sexual predator. He had it worse from the press than Yanni, worse than the sexual harrassers on the faculty (who never had to face reporters).

And Martin was completely cleared after a one(?) week investigation. Are you really saying that it was necessary for that investigation to be public and the same week as the NCAA Tournament? More than a year after the incidents in question? The timing maximized the sensationalism of it and you know it.

"Never assume malice when incompetence is an adequate explanation." The fact is, the university damaged the basketball program and Cuonzo Martin with their actions, especially the timing. Whether it was intentional or incompetence, with the timing just a 1 in million coincidence, well, we will never know.

---

To be clear, I'm not defending how long it took to conduct the investigation. Rather, I'm saying we really don't know what all the investigators reviewed nor how long it should've/needed to take. Additionally, I'm saying we shouldn't jump to the conclusion that the investigation was intentionally set up to take as long as it did to damage to the basketball program (as per your own uncited quote).

As for clearing Martin, it could've been done that quickly specifically because he had been investigated as part of the Yann Hufnagel investigation. I'm not saying this is absolutely the case, but rather it's a possibility.

In short, my position is that absent any evidence, it doesn't make much sense to draw any sort of conclusions as to whether any of the investigations were properly or improperly conducted.

---

All we know is that the announcement of the investigation into Martin more than a year after the events but only two days before Cal was to play in the NCAA Tournament as its highest seed ever, was the worst possible timing for the program, maximized the sensationalism and smeared Martin's reputation to the largest possible audience with national headlines of a sexual harassment investigation with Martin's picture below it. That is a fact. Whether that extraordinary timing was intentional or just a freak coincidence and departmental malpractice, we don't know.

The University's own guidelines say "The notice of investigation outcome and accompanying investigation report will be issued promptly, typically within sixty (60) to ninety (90) business days of the initiation of the Formal Investigation, unless extended by the Title IX Officer for good cause, with written notice to the complainant and the respondent of the reason for the extension and the projected new timeline." So clearly, the announcement a year later was highly unusual and violated the universities standard protocol!of resolving cases within 60 to 90 business days.

Furthermore, there was absolutely no need to announce an investigation of Martin and doing so caused harm to his reputation. There was no announcement of an investigation into Yanni a year earlier, and he was the one actually accused.

---

There was the stalling on his contract, there was the jerking around on the facilities and there was this. The way we treated Cuonzo Martin was textbook how-to-be-a-school-that-no-good-coach-would-want-to-be-at and we have seen how that has worked out.

Big C said:

---

calumnus said:

---

01Bear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

01Bear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

You clearly do NOT understand Sexual harrassment under California law (nor employment law in general)

1) As his supervisor the WORST thing that Martin could have done is comment once the complaint was filed. He could have exposed the university to significant risk really irrespective of the outcome. This is really the sin that irks me the most - the University should have said "It isn't Martin. It is being investigated. Once we are done we will comment. Coach Martin did precisely what we ask all employees to do - refer to the title IX office." Hard stop. This was clear because they had the track record of when the complaint was filed. If there is a gray area it is the precise timing of the referal to the TITLE IX office but this was about a 20 minute examination of the date of her text to Coach and his email/call to the title IX office. THey hung him out to dry and I am at a loss as to why you could not see that.

2) Again, you can do all the "MeToo" virtue signaling you want. The bottom line is that a stringer to a blog that is covering Cal basketball and a reporter hired (by the blog's OWN admission) ONLY to get inside recruiting news is a tenuous relationship to a "university contractor". Now the university believed that is the case as they fired Yanni and believed they were on solid ground in avoiding a wrongful termination case. But this isn't a beat reporter covering a team who is harrassed in a locker room (likely a failure to address a "hostile work environment" claim.) It isn't even a company with a contractual relationship with the university. At MOST the issue is that the university issued her a press pass (and which point my knowledge of CA case law fails).

3) You and I are simply going to disagree. But by your logic she could have filed a harrassment claim if Yanni stopped doing something ILLEGAL. And you missed the point - you do not HAVE to talk to reporters. You CAN talk to The issue is that you are arguing that after he asked her out he had an obligation to CONTINUE to feed her off the record information and refusing to do so would be retaliatory. This is FAR different than firing her or dinging her a grade as a student. It also, to me, feels far different than even pulling her press pass as that would deny her the equal access that other reporters were accorded.

4) You seem to want to lump me into cavemen and continue to social virtue signal. That isn't my point. It is that the title IX office STRETCHED things WAY far. They hung martin out to dry.

5) And of course the REALLY funny part (not laugh laugh but cringe) is that at the VERY SAME TIME the University was bending over backwards to protect a Bolt tenured professor who CLEARLY was harrassing law students in really an egrious fashion. Things that make you say "hjmmmmmmm"

6) Finally, her texts are absolutely relevant. A key part of the law for "peer to peer" harassments (because I am NEVER conceding that Yanni had the kind of relationship with her that a supervisor has) is that the advances need to be "unwanted". THat is why, though a bad idea, why co-workers on the same rung of the org chart can date each other and there isn't an obvious harassments landmine. Rather, it is evidence that the advances were unwanted and rebuffed and, if they continue, then the pursuer and the company are legally exposed (the pursuer for a direct harrasment claim and the employer possible for hostile work environment).

Finally - in rereading your text - You do realize that there is NO evidence that she said "no" at the time? Interesting in all the leaks to the press and all the breathless reporting by the other blog there is not text that says in response to Yanni something along the lines of "Stop" or "You know, we need to keep this professional". My view of the matter would DRAMATICALLY change if you could come up with that. Then I think we CAN agree that Yanni deserves the blame. But that never came to contemporary light. What did com up was her frustration she missed the "scoop" of Ivan's signing. That is when things blew up.

---

Good post.

Martin followed the book, reported the incident and was treated horribly, made to seem like the perpetrator in public. The university took a year to complete what should have been a simple investigation (two parties, no witnesses) and went public just days before the NCAA Tournament. All as you point out when they were be far less vigorous in dealing with sexual harassment of students by faculty.

Moreover, they cleared Martin of any wrongdoing a week after the Tournament loss. Again, a year after the investigation into Yanni began? With the "investigation" into Martin announced just 2 days before the Tournament? W the F? The timing and treatment of Martin is indefensible.

Note there are differing reports on whether Yanni was fired or he resigned first. He was subsequently hired by Musselman at Nevada. He later started a beverage company with Lindsey Gottlieb (among others) as an investor.

---

TBF, we don't know the number of interviews they conducted, the evidence the investigators sifted through, the number of investigators assigned to the case, nor any of the details of the process of the investigation. As socaltownie keeps insisting, there was more than just the testimony of two individuals; there were text messages! It's very possible that it took time to collect all the text messages and to sift through them. It is also very possible that the investigation involved more than just interviewing the two parties, but also included interviewing other members of the coaching staff, the team, and anyone else who may have witnessed how Yann interacted with the reporter.

In short, maybe the investigation really needed to take as long as it did, or maybe not. Absent any evidence to the contrary, it must be assumed that the investigation proceeded in a timely and normal fashion. In any case, any investigation that is influenced by a sporting event (even if it's the NCAA Tournament) would not be a fair one.

While I know many Cal sports fans like to believe that the University is out to destroy the athletics department (or at least, Cal football and Cal Men's Basketball), I'm not necessarily sure that's the case. (Notwithstanding the inexplicable decision to retain Mark Fox as the head coach for the Cal Men's Basketball team.)

---

It should not have taken more than 12 months, even if they need to see the message, since both witnesses cooperated and provided them. I cannot believe you would actually defend taking that long to do an investigation. It should have been wrapped up in 6 months with Yanni dismissed before the new school year, and new season, even began. Especially if he is deemed to be a threat. What if he sexually harassed another reporter during that time period? The university could be held liable.

There should have been no announcement of an investigation into Martin "for violations of the sexual harassment" protocols. Investigate, sure, but that announcement, especially given the timing, amounted to a smear and defamation (probably violated university HR protocols) with headlines and reporters asking Martin questions implying HE is a criminal and sexual predator. He had it worse from the press than Yanni, worse than the sexual harrassers on the faculty (who never had to face reporters).

And Martin was completely cleared after a one(?) week investigation. Are you really saying that it was necessary for that investigation to be public and the same week as the NCAA Tournament? More than a year after the incidents in question? The timing maximized the sensationalism of it and you know it.

"Never assume malice when incompetence is an adequate explanation." The fact is, the university damaged the basketball program and Cuonzo Martin with their actions, especially the timing. Whether it was intentional or incompetence, with the timing just a 1 in million coincidence, well, we will never know.

---

To be clear, I'm not defending how long it took to conduct the investigation. Rather, I'm saying we really don't know what all the investigators reviewed nor how long it should've/needed to take. Additionally, I'm saying we shouldn't jump to the conclusion that the investigation was intentionally set up to take as long as it did to damage to the basketball program (as per your own uncited quote).

As for clearing Martin, it could've been done that quickly specifically because he had been investigated as part of the Yann Hufnagel investigation. I'm not saying this is absolutely the case, but rather it's a possibility.

In short, my position is that absent any evidence, it doesn't make much sense to draw any sort of conclusions as to whether any of the investigations were properly or improperly conducted.

---

All we know is that the announcement of the investigation into Martin more than a year after the events but only two days before Cal was to play in the NCAA Tournament as its highest seed ever, was the worst possible timing for the program, maximized the sensationalism and smeared Martin's reputation to the largest possible audience with national headlines of a sexual harassment investigation with Martin's picture below it. That is a fact. Whether that extraordinary timing was intentional or just a freak coincidence and departmental malpractice, we don't know.

The University's own guidelines say "The notice of investigation outcome and accompanying investigation report will be issued promptly, typically within sixty (60) to ninety (90) business days of the initiation of the Formal Investigation, unless extended by the Title IX Officer for good cause, with written notice to the complainant and the respondent of the reason for the extension and the projected new timeline." So clearly, the announcement a year later was highly unusual and violated the universities standard protocol!of resolving cases within 60 to 90 business days.

Furthermore, there was absolutely no need to announce an investigation of Martin and doing so caused harm to his reputation. There was no announcement of an investigation into Yanni a year earlier, and he was the one actually accused.

---

There was the stalling on his contract, there was the jerking around on the facilities and there was this. The way we treated Cuonzo Martin was textbook how-to-be-a-school-that-no-good-coach-would-want-to-be-at and we have seen how that has worked out.

---

Yes, but let's all pile on and say he was a bad coach, one of the worst in Cal history, only won because he got lucky in recruiting, and then did Cal dirty (which is illogical, as some are about Dykes: either the coach is bad and you want him to take another job saving you the expense of firing him, or he is good and you want him to stay).