Eric Tillman’s CFL resurrection - Cam Cole

[WestCoastJoe]

http://www.vancouversun.com/sports/Eric ... story.html

From Cam Cole's article ...

Because two weeks ago, the 52-year-old Tillman — who began his career as a pro football GM here in Vancouver — was a lukewarm candidate carrying too much baggage to be considered a frontrunner for the big job on a community-owned club. “Lukewarm” is the polite word. “Toxic” and “radioactive” were other options suggested in recent days by my colleagues in the column-writing business.

Toxic? Radioactive? In some circles, yes.

“Do I believe this community believes in giving people a second chance? Yes, I do, and I've seen it,” LeLacheur said at a morning news conference to introduce Tillman. “Do I believe that Eric Tillman deserves that chance? Yes, I do. Will people in this community give him that chance? We're asking them to. And Eric is committed to doing everything possible to earn their support.”

Are the Eskimos giving Tillman a second chance out of the charity they feel in their hearts? Or does it have more to do with desperation, a floundering football team, and a BOG and President who are willing to endure a backlash of unknown proportions by bringing in a good football man who has committed a deplorable act?

The demons, you've read about. The 2008 charge of sexual misconduct involving his children's 16-year-old babysitter. The guilty plea. The absolute discharge, with no criminal record. Murky details emerging in court, an admission of bad judgment, a “terrible mistake” while ostensibly under the influence of two types of medication.

Not everyone bought the excuse, but never mind.

Despite the discharge, despite the family's forgiveness, the Saskatchewan Roughriders — the team he built, a team that went to two Grey Cups, winning one of them and nearly both during his time there — decided it could not have his public image and the club's intertwined any longer. He was dismissed, and no one else called.

In the long run, the forgiveness of the family and of the girl is key.

It is difficult not to put two and two together and conclude that the quest for victories overruled the Eskimos' moral compass. It is difficult not to bemoan a franchise that used to find its own uncut diamonds and shape them into legends — the Norm Kimballs, Hugh Campbells, Ray Newmans, Frank Morrises — but now finds itself all out of ideas, bereft of contacts in the football world, reduced to recycling someone else's problems, accepting their warts and all.

"the quest for victories overruled the Eskimos' moral compass ... "

Yes, some would say that.

LeLacheur admitted that probably two-thirds of the calls and e-mails the Esks received from the public regarding the hire had been negative, and there were the usual threats to cancel season tickets and refuse to support the team because of Tillman's history.

How much damage to the image and brand of the team will be suffered? Who knows?

“Some people forgive easier than others,” he said. “A lot of people will take a wait-and-see approach and I understand that. There will be others who feel strongly, and not only do I understand that, I respect it. I have a family, I have a daughter, I understand that girls and women are precious. I understand that this community not only values winning, but just as much they value the good name of the organization.”

If it works out well on the field, it will be interesting to see if this becomes a test case of forgiveness of a prominent person, for an action that most find extremely difficult, if not impossible, to forgive.

[Lionheart]

I can assure you that come opening game next year the sponsors and butts will be in those seats in anticipation of a better year.

[Toppy Vann]

I am with those who say this case cries out for a second chance - forget all the stuff about whether we like him or not.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/arti ... izes-women

This is a good story from January 2010 that does not try and gloss over the incident but suggests that the charges were stupid to begin with which I agree with.

Rosie DiManno usually appears Monday, Wednesday, Friday and Saturday
DiManno: Tillman case patronizes women


"Where is the sex or the assault in the sexual assault charge to which Eric Tillman pleaded guilty?.................


Cops waited nearly six months to lay the charge and did so as a summary rather than indictable offence, indicating that it was at the lesser end of harm inflicted. Summary offences must be laid within six months of the alleged offence. Police said they were "investigating'' but that's an awfully long time for what appears to be such a straightforward misdemeanour. Police would later listen in during three phone calls the victim made to Tillman, in which he, reportedly, emotionally claimed to have no memory of the incident.

Because this was an indictable offence, the case proceeded directly to judge-alone trial without a preliminary hearing. Since there was no trial, those taped phone conversations were not heard in court.


Tillman has tearfully taken responsibility, his contrition impressing the judge.

There has been much commendation of Tillman, quite earned. But underpinning revulsion for his behaviour is – to my mind – a patronizing and infantilizing attitude toward the victim. The subtext, unchallenged, is that a teenager who apparently had her bottom rubbed or grinded by an adult male was traumatized or sexually assaulted.

Clearly, her personal space was invaded in a sexual manner. It might have met the threshold of sexual assault at trial, which we'll never know. But I don't accept the premise, implicit in the law, that any of us – including a 16-year-old girl – are such delicate creatures that we require such paternalistic intervention by the state, police and Crown attorneys.

The courts allow for, indeed encourage, mediation and diversionary programs where an accused can accept responsibility for an offence and somehow atone without incurring punishment. This also avoids trial. There is an acknowledgment one size does not fit all.

But there is no such alternative in a society that has embraced the clumsy mantra of zero tolerance for female victimhood. This attitude trivializes the genuine harm caused to women and girls who have been violated.

We are not children who need coddling by the daddy-state.

On the facts presented in the Tillman case, it seems even a 16-year-old girl understood this better than the men in uniforms and robes.

[Sir Purrcival]

If this had been an adult woman, I might have been more inclined to the argument but at what point do we decide to let a minor choose what kind of intervention should be required. I know that today's youth are a lot more worldly than I was at that age but for this woman to suggest that this girl wasn't so fragile as to require paternalist intervention is simply BS. This was a sexual assault albeit of a mild nature and it was against a minor. Whats more, it was perpetrated by a publically known figure and employer. You don't get privacy when you stand in a public spot light and since this was already public knowledge long before the charges were actually pressed, do you suppose that maybe the authorities felt that their hands were somewhat tied? Can you imagine what might have happened if Eric Tillman, the man that led the Riders to a Grey Cup and local hero was implicated in some kind of sexual scandel with a minor and no charges were laid? The screams of coverup would have been huge. As it was, the charges seemed to reflect the degree fo seriousness, the punishment seemed somewhat appropriate for the crime and he gave up his job (was forced to go probably).

Does he deserve a second chance, sure, but did he deserve it so quickly? I think many would say no. Don't forget it was him and his legal team that initially pled "not guilty" and made this drag out far longer than it needed. If he was truly remorseful, you wonder why he did that. Perhaps, he should have fessed up, negotiated with Crown Counsel for an appropriate punishement and simply plead guilty. Would have been more effective if the goal was to acknowlege that he screwed up and was willing to pay the consequences for that. A year off with pay, a severance package and a new job a scant 10 months after the conviction doesn't seem like he got beat up too much.

[Toppy Vann]

If this had been an adult woman, I might have been more inclined to the argument but at what point do we decide to let a minor choose what kind of intervention should be required.;;;

Does he deserve a second chance, sure, but did he deserve it so quickly? I think many would say no. Don't forget it was him and his legal team that initially pled "not guilty" and made this drag out far longer than it needed. If he was truly remorseful, you wonder why he did that. Perhaps, he should have fessed up, negotiated with Crown Counsel for an appropriate punishement and simply plead guilty. Would have been more effective if the goal was to acknowlege that he screwed up and was willing to pay the consequences for that. A year off with pay, a severance package and a new job a scant 10 months after the conviction doesn't seem like he got beat up too much.

I posted on the other thread the Craig McTavish story.

You might not be factoring in the reality that to charge him with the lesser offence it is normally done in 6 months. ET did not drag it out.This dragged on at the police end for a year for a simple few second grab by the belt buckle and pulling her towards him. Does that not raise the antennae here a bit? The police needed that long to investigate that? Something stinks there.

In Canadian law you are entitled to remain silent under the Canada Evidence Act and when you engage legal counsel they make it clear to you that you must not say anything at all. ET did get muzzled as he was immediately out on boards on this. So silence from an accused is not just a legal right but what any good lawyer demands of his client.

To put the young teen through a trial means she is the key witness. To win, the defence would have to undermine her credibility which a skilful cross examination can do when someone is young. By the time she is ripped apart, she admits that maybe when he pulled her belt loops he didn't actually touch her buttocks. She is now not sure. Her friend and getting her to go the police some days later would be a key defence tactic to get her to agree that it was her friend who thought it should be reported .. not her. We all recall a year later some things and not others. The defence leap on that stuff and try to make the witness change their story. It can be ugly but that is what they do to prosecution witnesses many of whom are horrified and traumatized by the experience.

When you get a deal offered in a case like that you take it. Do not forget a trial means more cost to you personally as the lawyer must prepare and the time in court runs the costs even higher. If it were Joe Sixpack maybe no one would much care if he forced a trial and his lawyer ripped that young girl apart. There was no other way to conduct a defence other than to get the complainant to express doubt that there was any contact . The investigating police would take the stand and the issue would be how come it took a year? How many meetings with the girl? Were her statements consistent? Was the victim just put up to this by a friend? How serious is this? Let me see your notebook of the interviews. If it is not present in court, why not? (Usually with the police, they leave it outside as they know that it can be used to rip their evidence apart.)

These are the ugly avenues of defence as the goal is to raise doubt. The judge as trier of facts (no jury) and trier of law in this case must make a judgment based on the principle of "beyond a reasonable doubt" as this is the standard of proof required in a criminal trial. It is a lower standard in a civil proceeding ergo OJ Simpson wins with the criminal jury as trier of fact and loses at civil as the standard of proof is lesser and they ruled he was responsible for the murders! Something they cannot do in criminal. To get reasonable doubt in this Tillman case means you have to destroy or undermine the credibility of the witnesses and their ability to recall. Some witnesses get so flustered they admit to what is suggested only to walk out the court room door saying they felt the system failed them so they just said that to end this crap.

A public trial with a such high profile person in it could scar a victim for life not to forget if a victim is so crushed they back down. He was in a no win situation and he cannot ever go public with what exactly happened and why. For that young woman to have been spared the witness stand was a good thing for her and her family. No useful purpose would be served.

There are many instances where the victim caves only to be judged as a bad person despite being a victim. Think of whistle blowers and how badly they fare in our society after blowing the whistle. Most do poorly in their careers as even if they do a good thing there seems to be lingering doubt as to their motives. I am not sure if this is because they weren't liked to start and thus are seen to be hostile to begin with or if it stems from our early childhood days in the school yard where the teacher says 'don't tell tales' or 'don't be a fink' or whatever they say. Kids learn not to tell on others and later as teens hide bullying etc or refuse to a fink when others are harmed. This also happens when a witness caves and changes their testimony under pressure. We have some societal issues at play here. I made finking a job requirement and ensured that those who did fink were not punished or ostracized.

I am sure ET would want to tell all here and why it played out as it did but he cannot or risk further public damage. In 20 years he might be able to say how it played out.

[WestCoastJoe]

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/arti ... izes-women

Tillman case patronizes women Published On Mon Jan 11 2010

By Rosie DiManno

Where is the sex or the assault in the sexual assault charge to which Eric Tillman pleaded guilty?

Crown prosecutor Bill Burge told court the girl had been bent over, feeding one of the kids and, after she straightened up, "the accused put his hands on her hips with his fingers in her belt loops and he pulled the rear end of the complainant into himself; while in that position there was physical contact that was clearly of a sexual nature."

Since Tillman didn't dispute this account, it must be accepted as fact.

He pulls her back into him in a sexual gesture, which can really be interpreted in no other way by the girl except as a sexual act. She would have an instinctive emotional reaction. For all she knows in those milliseconds, he is going to go further. He is a large man. They are the only adults in the privacy of this house. She knows the mother is away. That is some basis for trauma.

If he is uncommunicative, drugged, sleepwalking or acting strangely, that could be even more traumatic. Or conversely if he is in complete control of himself that could also be traumatic.

A slim, perhaps sanitized, agreed statement of facts was read into the record describing what happened on that day, Aug. 6, 2008, when Tillman was sent home from a board meeting where his behaviour had been described as "loopy.'' As Tillman later contended, he'd taken a double dosage of sleeping pills and pain medication for a sore back. I am skeptical of his further allegation of not remembering what happened when he arrived at his Regina home that afternoon, where the then-16-year-old girl was babysitting his two young children.

"Skeptical of his further allegation of not remembering"? Yes, I am too.

The girl might have been scared, surely embarrassed and no doubt deeply offended. If I were the teen's father, I would have socked Tillman in the jaw. Had the victim been older and more self-assured, she might have done so herself.

Those are violent emotional reactions for the reporter to have, which contradict her own questioning of the severity of the assault.

Vowing to clean up the Rider team's tarnished image, Tillman was an ardent endorser of the club's newly adopted Code of Conduct that required players to obey the law, act with honesty, respect others and take responsibility for their actions.

Not every man in his condition, sent home from work, medicated, would assault their baby sitter as he did. His actions stigmatize men in general, to some degree, as being sexually predatory, unable to control their more base instincts.

There has been much commendation of Tillman, quite earned. But underpinning revulsion for his behaviour is – to my mind – a patronizing and infantilizing attitude toward the victim. The subtext, unchallenged, is that a teenager who apparently had her bottom rubbed or grinded by an adult male was traumatized or sexually assaulted.

"a patronizing and infantilizing attitude toward the victim" ... I strongly disagree with this statement by DiManno. IMO it is not patronizing the victim, and it is not infantilizing her to see her as the victim of a sexual assault. Her level of trauma can only be guessed at. She obviously didn't think it was a nothing event. If she kept the assault to herself, one can only guess at the developmental problems she would face later in life.

Clearly, her personal space was invaded in a sexual manner. It might have met the threshold of sexual assault at trial, which we'll never know. But I don't accept the premise, implicit in the law, that any of us – including a 16-year-old girl – are such delicate creatures that we require such paternalistic intervention by the state, police and Crown attorneys.

"her personal space was invaded in a sexual manner" ... That is not trivial. That can be traumatic.

"that any of us – including a 16-year-old girl – are such delicate creatures that we require such paternalistic intervention by the state, police and Crown attorneys"

It is patronizing to think that the girl is a delicate creature. And even non-delicate creatures can be traumatized by sexual assault of any level.

But there is no such alternative in a society that has embraced the clumsy mantra of zero tolerance for female victimhood. This attitude trivializes the genuine harm caused to women and girls who have been violated.

Disagree. IMO this article trivializes what happened to the girl as if it should just be shrugged off. A woman bumping into a man at the mail boxes (or vice versa with appropriate apologies) in an office could be shrugged off.

We are not children who need coddling by the daddy-state.

Does this seem like the girl was coddled by the daddy-state? Not IMO. She is a victim for now and for evermore.

Just IMO ...

Is it forgiveness if you say: "I forgive you, but don't really want to see you around too much?" I think that is what a lot of people think and feel.

I guess there are levels of forgiveness. I won't kill you. I won't hit you. I won't wish you ill, but I would be happier if our paths don't cross.
...........

If you respond directly to my opinions in this highly charged issue, please refer to my words, and not with any speculation on, or suggestion of, what I might think or feel, et cetera.

[Stargazer_Girl]

I find DiManno’s article to be a clumsy stab at pop feminism with little relevance to the case at hand. Her argument is that the application of sexual assault law to incidents such as the one involving Tillman assumes women are incapable of reinforcing their own boundaries and need the state to intervene on their behalf. First of all, it is highly inappropriate for her to be making this argument in the context of an incident that occurred between a 51 year old man and a 16 year old girl. She states, “We are not children who need coddling by the daddy-state,” when in fact the very case she’s discussing involves a child. Never mind that, DiManno is just going to lump all women from 16 years and up into one group of developmentally equal adults, in a fantasy world where power imbalances don’t exist, and it’s reasonable to expect 16 year old girls to fight off the sexual advances of 51 year old men. And yes, simulating sex, doggy style, is a sexual advance.

Second of all, it’s presumptuous of her to make assumptions about how the girl felt, and use them to judge the incident as too minor for legal intervention.

“The girl might have been scared, surely embarrassed and no doubt deeply offended.”

“But underpinning revulsion for his behaviour is – to my mind – a patronizing and infantilizing attitude toward the victim. The subtext, unchallenged, is that a teenager who apparently had her bottom rubbed or grinded by an adult male was traumatized or sexually assaulted.”

I would like to ask DiManno if she ever received an unwanted sexual act from an adult, as a child. I kind of doubt it.

If this case involved a 35 year old woman, then I would agree that such a charge would be a bit over the top. However, this was a child we’re talking about. Children look to adults for guidance, safety, and mirroring that they are worthwhile human beings. A 16 year old girl is an emerging adult, who has to build an identity for herself as a whole person in a world full of messages that she is an object. There is an implicit bond of trust between an adult and a child, and when that is violated by sexual behavior, no matter how innocuous it seems by adult-adult standards, there is a violation of trust and, for some, an invalidation of your personhood. It is not a pleasant feeling, and it is innocence lost forever. Did this girl feel that way? Nobody knows but her. The point is that there is more at stake for a child, so yes the law should intervene on their behalf when the adults fail them. Should Tillman be banished from his career and burned at the stake? I don’t think so. Should he have been charged? Absolutely.

[Blitz]

There is no question that Tillman's action was reprehensible and he should have been charged and convicted.

However, there also was evidence, on the day of the incident, that Tillman was sent home from a Riders board meeting for what was referred as 'loopy' behavior and that he was not behaving like himself at all prior to the incident. I've given Tillman the benefit ot the doubt that medications were impacting his behavior prior to the criminal incident.

I believe Tillman deserves a second chance.

[Sir Purrcival]

(Stargazer) and thank you

One can debate the merits of the case till one is blue in the face but because a minor was involved, it really does require state "paternalistic" intervention. I am all for adults who have problems with the actions of other adults trying to find some kind of remedy if possible without resorting to calling in the Feds. I don't however presume that a child (teen or otherwise) is in anyway possessed of the same ability to address an issue of this seriousness. Even an ordinary adult might find themselves in tough with a personality like Tillman who held great status and prestige in the community.

I guess if the girls parents had beat the snot out of Tillman rather than call the authorities, that would have been less patronizing to women and more preferable to Ms. DiManno

And Toppy, one quick reference back to the case. You say charges of that nature are usually leveled sooner. In this case it wouldn't surprise me if the authorities took extra time and caution while investigating and deciding how to proceed given the the status of the aforementioned Mr. Tillman in the community. It wouldn't be the first time that someone of some celebrity has been targeted for malicious accusations and knowing the scrutiny of the case would probably be high, made sure that all the I's were dotted and T's crossed.

[CatsEyes]

Moving this to the pub as it has deviated from Eric Tillman in a football sense, and has become a socio-something or other type of discussion.

[Lionheart]

How can Tillman be anything other than football related on this site??

Kim, unless you've been doing the belt loop hump yourself with Tillman, just put it back.

People will discuss it anyways.

[CatsEyes]

This particular discussion isn't about football or the league any more. It's about Eric Tillman, the man, and something he did 2 years ago. There's no need to put it back-you guys can still discuss it. And MY opinion, for what it's worth, is that he is the GM in Edmonton, and no amount of analyzing and navel-gazing is going to change that. He made a mistake, he wasn't criminally charged for it, he apologized for it, what else is there to discuss? I know people are going to pick this issue to shreds, but to what end? What are you hoping to accomplish?

[Sir Purrcival]

Nothing really. It is just a discussion of viewpoints for the most part. The way you break it down is pretty accurate. Whats done is done. But I can't resist the allure sometimes of disagreeing with people when I think they are wrong. It is a fault of mine alas but at least it helps my typing skills. Hoping someday to maybe sound coherent enough that I might actually convince somebody about something (Faint hope I'm sure)

[KnowItAll]

This particular discussion isn't about football or the league any more. It's about Eric Tillman, the man, and something he did 2 years ago. There's no need to put it back-you guys can still discuss it. And MY opinion, for what it's worth, is that he is the GM in Edmonton, and no amount of analyzing and navel-gazing is going to change that. He made a mistake, he wasn't criminally charged for it, he apologized for it, what else is there to discuss? I know people are going to pick this issue to shreds, but to what end? What are you hoping to accomplish?

that some of us know more than others