Now can we talk about Tillman?

Will he be back? Should he?

Respectively, no, and. . . no.

Had he pled not guilty and been acquitted, my answers to both question would likely have been different.

But given an admission of guilt on his part. . . no he won't be back and no he shouldn't be back.

Hard to say. If the post gets deleted, oh well, then the censorship continues. Although I see nothing wrong with stating personal opinions on indisputable facts. My opinon is this, It sounds like he never said “he didn’t do it”, he said he wasn’t guilty of sexual assault. He obviously changed it to guilty to spare further pain (like the victim testifying, media attention). I’m no lawyer (I only play one on T.V.), but I think if this was sexual assault, then it is likely the furthest and the very minimum defination of the crime. When I think of sexual assault, to me that means rape.

What strikes me though is that to me, this looks like he’s been made an example of. I’m not saying what he did was right (at the end of the day, this WAS a child), but you and me have seen more people with previous criminal histories get away with way more serious crimes on technicalities. Tillman is obviously not a rapist, and had not committed a crime prior to this.

I think at the end of the day, these charges should have been stayed considering he doesn’t have a record, the victim didn’t want him to be charged, and the fact that he wasn’t in a correct state of mind. The guy isn’t a criminal, he just made a goofy mistake, probably trying to be funny in his medicated state of mind at the time. Staying the charges would allow the Crown to resurrect them in the future if he repeats.

Still needs to be let go whether it was on purpose or not.

You plead guilty to spare the young woman more difficulty? The Robaxacet made you do it?

Okay........

"Eric... you dry humped a sixteen year old creeping her out. Fifty year old married men who subscribe to the Christian faith should not do such things. Once you publically claimed to live by the Judeo-Christian ethic you immediately place yourself on a higher level of behaviour than humanistic heathens like me by your own definition. Tisk, tisk... I slap your wrists for that one and she should have slapped your face."

Personally Mr. Tillman is still a good GM in my opinion. Just a little creepier one now.

Without commenting on the individual it would be truly frighting if everyone was held to the same legal standard as used in this case. There is dumb moves and illegal moves and clearly after reading the TSN story someone clearly was unable to differentiate the 2. What ever the outcome I hope both parties can move past this and get on with their lives at this point - where ever their lives take them.

Re: Now can we talk about Tillman?

I was giving this some thought earlier in the day and specifically the “ban” on this topic of conversation and thought I would bring them up for discussion here:

As far as this topic is concerned it falls into an extremely grey area, doesn’t it? The resolution of this matter is strictly personal - ie between the defendant and accused - and on that level I can agree that it shouldn’t be discussed in this forum. However, because of who the accused is, our GM, talking about his future as our GM (especially given the image the team is trying to shape for itself currently) is completely relevant to this forum. The concern about this latter discussion occurs when it switches from a conversation about Tillman’s future with the team into the realm of personal attacks which don’t belong here (or any forum for that matter). While I don’t make the rules and the mods can certainly override me and delete this at a whim, I imagine that so long as the discussion remains inside the realm of the Roughrider Football Club and outside of the realm of personal attacks/other things best left to the court systems then I personally don’t see any reason for this topic not to continue.

HOWEVER. That being said, there is something else which needs to be taken into consideration. Eric Tillman did, at one point anyway, grace these forums to engage and discuss things with us. While it is certainly questionable whether he will do so again, for any number of legitimate reasons, it seems to be in generally bad form to be discussing an issue of this severity like a brood of gossiping hens. Not that this has stopped gossiping before but how bad a form it is does need to brought to light.

So…
Can it be discussed? Within reason and without attacks, I think it can (again, not that I have any actual say that’s for the Mods)
Should it be discussed? I really don’t think so. The courts will resolve the legal end of things and Jim Hopson/Board of Directors will resolve everything else that concerns us.

I wont comment on the situation, all i will say is that this team was suppose to be held to higher moral standard with Tillman being the spokesman for this. If he is allowed back, I will sell off my season tickets.

No, it really isn't. It's up to the admins.

I stand corrected, though the heart of my post generally remains the same. Which is to say "This is my opinion on whether the topic can be discussed but keep in mind my opinion doesn't hold any weight"

Just in, according to live reports on CKOM - absolute discharge.

Here’s the link to the article on NTR

http://www.newstalk650.com/story/20100105/27456

Nice Segue there Tillman shinning the spotlight on mean Bomber fans...You are a master :cowboy:

Where are they? If they're better than mine, I'll take 'em and let mine go.

Well the verdict is in, but wait, a deal is cut to avoid the consequences of horrible actions of a prominent member to the CFL. I will not comment on the actions of the court or prosecutors office. This CFL however should hold Mr. Tillman to a higher standard, which will not take much given the deal cut with the court. I for one will boycott the CFL if he is not terminated at once. SHE was 16 and he is a respected member of the community. If he were a priest we would shrug and say here we go again and the church would write another big cheque. But his standing in the community is no different and if the CFL does not fire him, they are saying that they condone the behavior.

There was no "deal cut"! :roll: The judge made his sentence decision based on the facts, so it is what it is!

What is very telling to me is that: I have yet to find a woman who thinks this was justice. Not a one. That speaks volume.

The "moral outrage" is somewhat laughable.
With my entire career being spent in the bar, pub and nightclub industry,
(as both an employee and owner)
i can assure you that innaproriate behavior by buzzed old men is neither newsworthy nor criminal.

Regrettable.....yes, inappropriate......yes, Criminal.....no.

While I concede that Mr. Tillman's home is neither a bar nor nightclub,
and that his 16 year old babysitter is not an 18 year old cocktail waitress,
his behavior is no different than the leers, "bumps", and sexual innuendo by tipsy,
happily married, "church-going family men" that you see all day, everyday.

This will blow over,
I for one would think it a mistake if the Riders dumped him.

Tillman should be fired and Blackballed from the CFL end of story. What he did was wrong and he should not be allowed to be the face and spokesperson for a community owned football team.

I agree with you.
I would like to add that couples with young children go through difficult times. That combined with chronic pain for years can affect a man psychologically so that he might do something he wouldn't in different circumstances.