Posted by mauiturtle on July 8, 2008 at 9:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I read yesterday that she did not show to the judicial board hearing at the advice of her own attorney. It leaves him in good standing with the school, but it does not mean this is going away.

Posted by Nonsense on July 8, 2008 at 9:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The woman probably had her reasons and was scared to show up. Just imagine if she were your sister or daughter - how would you feel about this guy still being on the team?

Posted by sbs920 on July 8, 2008 at 9:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

did you expect anything less from little tammy bowden. . .
Lets see. . . 6 months will turn into 8 months. . .
season will be over. . . Then pretrial intervention. . .
IPTAY will squash any and all factors and more orange kool-aid will be served to all. Case Closed. . . Book'em Dano!
SOP@CU "standard operating procedure @ clemson university"

Posted by Rggr on July 8, 2008 at 10:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I'll start by saying I'm a Clemson fan. The alleged victim in this case has no mandate to show up at the school hearing so I don't put much weight behind that. I don't buy the sweeping things under the carpet argument because having been a student there and a fan for years, I have seen no evidence of it. Having said that, Tommy needs to make a decision and letting it go while the legal process unfolds is a cop out.

Posted by fantasy5 on July 8, 2008 at 11:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Thanks you for clarifying what SOP stands for sbs, you continue to amaze me with your nifty acronyms... Who is Tammy Bowden by the way? Should we call Steve "Stephanie?" That's retarded pal. On to the matter at hands, we continue to beat around the bush about how this "sop" should be performed... There's no right way to approach this situation. If TOMMY kicked him off the team and then we come to find out in the small chance that this kid is actually innocent of most of these charges, which I'm not saying he is, then we're the fool because despite this guy's off-field issues he's a hell of a ball player and he'd be going somewhere else because we were to quick and made a brash decision. Now, it looks as though Tommy is going to allow him to stay on the team for the time being to take in more facts on the case, because they will come in over the course of the next few months. If Tommy thinks this kid is guilty, he's not going to risk our university's reputation by allowing him to play another down.

Now the University has allowed him to remain in "good-standing" for now do to the fact that only his side of the story has been heard, and regardless of whether the young girl was scared or was told not to show up, she wasn't there so the school only has one side to base their decision on. Once the legal process has taken its course, should he be found guilty I guarantee you he will no longer be in "good-standing" with the school and will not play for Clemson. I promise you STEVE would do the same thing, because you can only go on the facts presented to the school thus far. The facts which the police have are not warranted until they have been presented to the court, and therefore the school has made the appropriate decision based on what they know and have been told. Any school judicial board would have to do the same thing if the same situation happened anywhere else, so don't act like it's "SOP@CU," b/c it's SOP ANYWHERE. SBS, I know you like to pick on Clemson now because we've picked on you about all the inappropriate things that have happened down in Columbia, but throwing out stupid logic about "SOP@CU" doesn't help your case. If you want to be taken seriously, don't write stupid stuff like "Tammy Bowden" and MEOOOW or "putty kats" or whatever other childish things you have to say, because NO ONE, including your SC friends, will be able to take you seriously. Just food for thought...

Posted by mcfadden00 on July 8, 2008 at 11:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)

This thing will never succeed at trial...if it ever gets that far. You people continue to ignore the fact that he has THREE witnesses that claim she was pissed b/c he was with another girl and let it be known that she will make him pay for that. One of the witnesses is another female that lives in his building.

To try someone on charges you need evidence and the bruising she has is not consistent with a linebacker beating the crap out of her (including allegedly punching in the face) and throwing her down stairs. No blood...no broken bones...a female witness that was awoken by her laughing and yelling at him. This female witness stated the supposed victim looked unharmed as she drove away. HELLO why would Bowden do anything right now?

Posted by sbs920 on July 8, 2008 at 11:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

fantasy5, you know they have rehab for folks like you who have addictions to Orange Kool-Aid. I guess you feel the DUI player situation in Atlanta last year was handled properly? Yeah Right. . . So by your astute point of view tigers players in clemson get the same treatment as say a USC player in columbia? All coaches want to get their players out of bad situations, period. How 'bout this. . . What about an expediant trial rather than 6 to 8 months on a aggrevated assault charge. Does that sit well with you. Not me. I guess I'm just a deranged tigger hater, dang. . .

Posted by BotanyIsland on July 8, 2008 at 12:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

This reflects very poorly on Clemson University and their head football coach Tommy Bowden.

Sticking with the acronym theme in this thread, s.o.p. at most schools would be to suspend him until the matter is closed in court. A simple glance over college football disciplinary actions is all it takes to verify what other institutions have done recently.

If this girl was your daughter, how would you feel about the situation?

Posted by ashleyriver on July 8, 2008 at 2:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Botany Island----misbehavior by athletes reflects poorly on any university---period. For Mr. McDaniel to be suspended from football activities would be no problem to anyone, should that be what the head coach deems necessary to protect the reputation of the program and the school.

However, your assertion that SOP at "most" schools would be to suspend him from the pursuit of his degree prior to any sort of legal adjudication would be inviting a lawsuit and most certainly be a violation of the young man's rights as a student and a citizen. No person in legal authority witnessed what happened. Mr. McDaniel has proclaimed his innocence and provided witnesses to back his claim. He has not gone to trial much less been found guilty regarding these very serious charges-----he has, however, gone before a University hearing in the matter and, at least partially, because the young lady (also a student I'm informed) declined to appear before the hearing and give evidence of McDaniel's wrongdoing while he did provide in-person witnesses and a written statement by another witness, the University had little recourse other than to maintain his good standing until such time as other evidence in the matter comes to light

Again, the dust has barely settled on the Duke Lacrosse case before people are calling for McDaniel to be suspended from Clemson before he's had his day in court. Because of settlement particulars, none of us know exactly how much those Duke athletes and coaching staff received from Duke as remuneration for the damage done to their names by Duke's actions, but you can bet it was substantial. And former Durham Co. District Attorney Mike Nifong has been sued, disbarred, and has criminal charges pending.

Clemson University MUST tread wisely and correctly in this situation.

The football program, on the other hand, is an entirely different situation.

Posted by Chanticleer on July 8, 2008 at 2:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Why is this still being dicussed?

USC fans are upset because he is still in "good standing" with Bowden and the school and they have already painted this kid as guilty.

Most Clemson fans are satisfied because we understand that sometimes women lie when they feel disrespected (see Duke LAX case), and there is at least a 50/50 chance that he is innocent.

Imagine that, Clemson and USC fans not agreeing!!!!

It was a lose-lose situation for Tommy because of what Fantasy said in the above post.

If Mcdaniel is found to be guilty, he will not take another class or snap at Clemson.

And please stop with the "if it was your daughter or sister" because that brings emotion into it and emotion gets in the way of facts, which are there are 4 against 1 that says this didn't happen.

Posted by rebel1 on July 8, 2008 at 3:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I told you so. Tammy will not suspend him unless he has a rpl player for him. we will find out once they start pratice. For all you puttykats fans that say she didnt show up so all the kangaroo board has to go on is his side. You people have got to be kidding me. Drive to pd and get a copy of police report. You puttykats should be careful to point fingers at USC. YOU know the glass house thing. I frankly dont care if he plays or not, but like I said before tammy will let him play if he needs him. Case closed.

Posted by fjms on July 8, 2008 at 3:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

S.C. fans please stop referring to Bowden as tammy. You can refer to him as your daddy or Tommy! Enjoy another mediocre season.

Posted by youmanyo on July 8, 2008 at 5 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Why do chicken fans call their Daddy Tammy ? Is he that cruel to you , is it because he has been Spurrier 3 out of 4 ( I am already counting this years whupping ) ?

Posted by ConcernedinCHS on July 9, 2008 at 9:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)

This is similar to when Bowden decided to suspend a number of players for the brawl against SC. Instead of suspending them for the first game of the season he waited until they played Duke which was like five games into the season.

Bowden will always do what is best for him

Of course he is going to let him play

Posted by fjms on July 9, 2008 at 10:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Of course he is going to do what is the best for the team. That is what he is paid millions of dollars to do!

Posted by BotanyIsland on July 9, 2008 at 11:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I appoligize if I did not make myself clear in the previous statement. The suspension would be from the extra caricualar activity of playing football. If you'd like to believe that most schools don't suspend their players pending legal investigations, that's your right. Please forgive me though as I look at the situation without the passion that most of you carry towards either football team though.

I'm neither a Clemson or USC fan, but I tend to agree with the vantage point of the USC fans on this one. While it may be for different reasons (rooting against a football team as opposed to rooting for moral gumption), it seems as if an alleged crime against another human is being brushed aside in the name of winning football games. Clemson will neither be the first or the last institution to take this type of action, but when you do it be prepared to face the consequences of negative perception. That's the assertion I am here to make.

Posted by Rebel_Yell on July 9, 2008 at 2:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

This guy is not a lacrosse player and could not get into Duke. This is not a rogue prosecutor--i garantee the prosecutor is a thugger fan but has to move this forward since it's a violent crime. The arresting officer reported seeing injuries that were not capable of being self-inflicted so the thuggers can stand behind 10 immaterial witnesses if they wish but it does not explain the injuries and the fact that this thug went too far. Clemson fans are just humiliated because they have mud in their face and prefer to do all the hazing. Rednecks!!

Posted by dereksmith on July 10, 2008 at 8:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)

So now it has come to name calling....very classy (must be a gamecock fan).