I get what you’re saying, I just disagree there is anything problematic about it. There are 4 phases to stuff like this:
1. The story
2. Investigation
3. Charges / trial
4. Conviction / Acquittal
From an AD perspective, you could choose to draw a line at any of these phases in deciding how to treat players, regardless of what you think as far as the truth or falsity if the claims.
It seems pretty clear to me that the Mustang has drawn a red line at step 3 for all cases. You might disagree and think an AD should draw that line at steps 1, 2, or only 4, but I don’t have a problem with it personally.
In this case, the KSU AD sat Wainright once the story broke expecting that he might get charged. That didn’t happen, so he was not suspended. Once more information came out and charges were filed, Wainright was suspended pending a final judicial decision as whether or not he did anything wrong (which sure seems likely in this case). Again, I don’t see a problem with this process and I certainly don’t think it was unfairly applied to Wainright.
Your issue seems to come from the fact that you think the KSU AD should have done its own investigation independent of the police and made a preliminary determination as to Wainright’s culpability. I get that, and if that is what we did here I wouldn’t be complaining either. But as far as I can tell the Mustang is going with a process that defers completely to the discretion of law enforcement as far as likelihood of guilt, and that seems totally appropriate to me.
Obviously this all changes if there is ANY indication KSU had information that the OP PD did not and chose not to share that information. I just haven’t seen even a whiff of that in this case.