Haverford Runner Leaves Team After Allegation of Sexual Assault, No Charges Brought, Sues to Get Back on Team

I'm 7nclear from the first post if John Doe was the victim or perpetrator. If the former why would you want back on the team. If the later no conviction, not merely allegation or even charges, no punishment.

If I were the male student in this case, I'd transfer. If he'd just done that it looks like he'd been able to move on in life and run elsewhere. Now, it looks like he is in for a long and expensive legal battle in a world where women are always right even if they are going by feelings and their feelings are not consistent with reality. According to some women, asking them out is a form of sexual assault. More often than not these cases occur when 2 people consensually have sex and the woman regrets it later - maybe she cheated on a so. Of course something horrible could have happened. I can understand the coach and other runners not wanting this guy on the team even if they knew nothing of the story - better safe than sorry.

Just a bit confused, as the original post said "There was an allegation or rumor of sexual assault at Haverford."

So what was the "allegation or rumor"?

A list???

I thought it was just the one guy.

What's going on?

Student activism is nothing new and has been going on longer than the US has existed. Haverford is the type of liberal college where activism is pretty common. Nothing special.

What is the deal with this. Is someone trolling on letsrun or is there more to this.

Whether any of that is correct, the point here is precisely that there was no Title IX process, which is why there was no hearing. The athlete in question may or may not have done anything, but collegiate processes should not allow him to be kicked off the team after such an allegation without some sort of hearing.

Some of us do know. It’s pretty much a black and white situation, but you rumor mongers read a complaint chock full of unsupported allegations and hyperbole and assume it is true. It is not.

It has to be added, since you are painting a picture of a world gone mad in which men can be destroyed with no real evidence, that only 0.7% of rape cases lead to felony conviction.

washingtonpost.com

Analysis | Less than 1% of rapes lead to felony convictions. At least 89% of victims face emotional and physical consequences.

The gap in consequences is vast: Fewer than 6 percent of rapes end in arrest, and fewer than 1 percent end in conviction. Meanwhile, nearly 9 in 10 victims face emotional and physical consequences.

Open link

This is all I need to know so as not to go along with the poster(s?) saying the team must know something we don’t about the truth of the rumor here. Maybe they do, but it’s at least very likely they don’t - kids who are in college in 2023 have now spent most of their school years being educated in critical theory, not critical thinking. They believe what they want rather than what they can prove is true. The scientific method, critical thinking, and evidentiary processes are racist and sexist and homophobic after all!

I know it is long, but there is a ton of information posted in the court filings that help clarify certain elements of this situation.

He was not kicked off the team. He was pressured to voluntarily step down from the team because of the alleged allegation, which he did. When the Title IX office cleared him (because no complaint was ever filed) he tried to get back on the team and they refused to allow him back.

I know it feels like the same thing, but procedurally it isn't and that is why the judge denied the injunction.

It sounds like they just don't like him.

For those of you capable of forming a more nuanced view, read the judge’s opinion here:

I think everyone who has posted knows this. Fact remains that someone was able to get an adverse result against him without even having to go through any process, Title IX or otherwise. One earlier poster’s use of “weaponized” is apt. Someone weaponized a procedure (or even, the potential of going through a procedure) to get a guy off the team. I think we all understand why a court wouldn’t intervene, but this case deserves to be used against the kind of people who would do this to a guy, or who claim it’s no big deal.

I also don’t care how many former runners show up saying what a great guy their old coach is, or was circa 2004, or whatever: he screwed the pouch in this one and deserves to be criticized.

I read it and I would now give the more nuanced take, "It sounds like Doe's teammates really do not like him and also believe the victim."

I didn't mean to imply there was anything wrong with how the team feels about Tom. I certainly understood and wanted him to be my coach 100% but Haverford tuition wasn't going to work for me. I also think any indignation about rumors and speculation is understandable from insiders but the reason for those things is the pretty strange way this all went down. It feels like there have been 5-10 formal opportunities to say wth is going on and it's come down to this guy being bad for team culture. That is a valid reason to not want someone on a team but he was a captain for a reason and I can't imagine nobody has a concrete reason they don't want him and should have just said it. Whether you like the guy or not or if he's a sociopath trying to manipulate the situation, he has a right to advocate for himself when the world is against him.

Not trolling. Obviously it's coming from the complaint so it lacks context but they included a quote from an apparent social media post by a Haverford student listing 6 men who treated women poorly in some way (unclear) and the quote said they should be bullied etc etc. It's in there. Obviously no context but if it's quoted I doubt a semi-competent lawyer would file a complaint with a verifiable fact misstated.

That part made me a bit uneasy because I'm thinking the judge is saying "if you were kicked off it might be a different case".

This is a D3 school with no scholarships.

Is this the scenario: Some on team think he is a rapist. They rightfully don't want him on team.

Coach says "he can you step away, until this gets cleared up?".

Athlete : "Sure, but I didn't do anything". Whether this is "voluntary" or not makes no difference to me almost. If the coach says "how about you don't come to practice until this is cleared up vs "You're not welcome at practice until this is cleared up" is very little difference when you're dealing with some college kid and a coach.

(No way does the athlete step away here if he believes when no charges are brought he will still be kicked off the team. No one in there right mind would do that. )

Being on the team tehcnically means nothing at a D3 school as their is no scholarship.

It sounds like within a very sort time frame like under 2 weeks, athlete come back and says "there is no case I'm ready to come back to practice and coach is like "you're not welcome"."

that doesn't seem right procedurally to me if there are rules against a kid being punished wtihout a Title IX hearing as there is 0% chance this kid voluntarily steps away from the team if he thinks he'll be cleared and still kicked off.

What am I missing?

If the case is a coach can pick and choose who they want on his team no matter what then fine but I don't think that is what the judge is saying.

That to me is the crux of the problem. If you are pressured to do something it is not done voluntarily.

But the judge doesn't seem to care.

Reminds me of the time when LetsRun had a multiyear advertising contract guaranteeing us so much money a month. Economy tanked and we were getting the best end of the deal. They said "We want to work with you on this." I said "sure". My ex-wife said "they're going to try and screw you over." I then called the lawyer who wrote the contract (only time I've done that) and he said "you're good"."

There was one line in our contract that if the "ad code was altered by us" they could cancel the contract. Then ad partner started saying "hey put up the video player, take it down, put it back up, turn on the sound (we told them sound was a no no"). Eventually at one point the sound was back on and I turned it off. The said "You altered the ad code without us telling you to, we're terminating the contract." The only reason I started doing any of this was they had established a relationship of me changing the code. Technically I had altered the ad code, and they got a really expensive law firm who ran circles around our guy.