From all outward appearances, internal processes were followed: Byrne sought advice of university counsel; Carter was confronted; investigations were opened. Having no concrete evidence and no cooperation by a potential complainant, Arizona was constrained a good deal. Only upon actual evidence (or a hell of a lot more circumstantial evidence than one suspicious complaint) could it act, and then it did so immediately.
Could the coaching staff and athletic department have approached the student directly and began its own ad hoc investigation? One supposes...assuming that investigation is even set forth in Arizona’s policies and procedures manual. But, the purpose of a school’s EOE / Title IX arm is to investigate precisely these sorts of matters, ones involving protected classes and personnel violations. They are trained and equipped to do so while protecting the rights of all involved and following university procedure and applicable law: this is not a situation for amateurs.
In short, Greg Byrne (and Alabama) will soon be asked “some difficult questions” that aren’t so difficult at all -- the law and internal procedure were followed. If there was bad or insufficient advice given, it was by university lawyers. And that’s a big damned if. This is not Baylor, where there is active collusion by coaches and administrators to keep facts from being known or dissuading students from reporting violations. Nor is it Tennessee, where the administration and coaching staff are far too cozy with police and can cut off complaints before they become manifest.
This was the law, and it sometimes isn’t enough to satisfy what seems to be commonsense.
But, what are the odds that becomes the narrative?