Oh, bull.
Talk about a slanted article. Where the evidence "shows the sex was consensual." Yeah, really objective. What any evidence may or may not show is subjective, to be determined by a trier of fact. Apparently in that guy's case, the trier of fact determined that more like than not the rape occurred. The article doesn't state all the evidence or give the name or anything else about the case. It's a puff piece for guys to complain to each other about.
Besides, I just LOVE it when men scream "there's no evidence!" When, in fact, there is. A victim's statement IS evidence. As such, it is to be considered by the trier of fact. Is she lying? Maybe. The trier of fact can determine that. ALSO EVIDENCE is the testimony of the alleged perp, whose testimony is ALSO considered by the trier of fact.
Sounds like a whiney baby is upset because he got caught and held to judgment.
I assume, but don't know, that he could have chosen to be tried in criminal court, where the crime is judged on a "no reasonable doubt" basis. But the tribunal used apparently goes by the civil case law of "more probable than not." But apparently he wanted to go this route.
Still, waiting for almost 2 years to report something is a red flag. There could be reasons for that. The article doesn't say what reason she gave. I wonder if that part is true. But even if she was raped, waiting that long to report it sort of does away with any right to allege that later, unless there was a good reason for it. I can understand waiting a few days. But 21 months? Hmmmm. Makes me wonder why she repoted it at that time. If something happened.