All Things Gopher Players Appeals Process

[Ewert86PC]

What is drunk? Is it .08% even though no one was driving a car? Is it based on how you feel or what your BAC is? Do you know what your BAC is on a given night when you are having a few beers? I don't. Drunk is subjective.

If the "officials" to whom she reported the incident took a blood sample, wouldn't the be able to determine the BAC at the time of the draw?

If that blood sample had a BAC of over 0.08% then there would be a basis to make an argument for her being drunk.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

 

[Tucker32]

Sorry to interrupt the argument but who got suspended and who didn't? I dont want to read all 62 pages

Shenault, Winfield, Green, McCrary cleared. Djam and Williams suspended, rest expelled.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Tlsbhansen]

If the story had started and ended with the first group of 5, this would not have become such a big story, or become so heated on the Hole and media in general.

But then Coyle wouldn't have had a cover to fire Claeys and hire the boatman.

 

[GoGophersUMN]

Whoever at the U - Coyle, Kaler, etc, made the decision to suspend the second group of 5 should be facing some serious questioning from the Board of Regents.

They can easily say that they just went with the recommendations and get out of all responsibility. The EOAA won't face questioning because they did what they were set up to do - investigate with limited resources and draw conclusions based on whatever information they have and a preponderance of evidence. It's set up perfectly so no one ever has to take any responsibility.

 

[upnorthkid]

Are you really that dumb? Comparing a conviction rate with an appeal overturn rate? The 'conviction rate' here was 100% percent. The rate at which they were overturned on appeal is currently 50%.

The bottom line is this: once both parties had their cases heard, the decision changed 50% of the time. That is a HUGE indictment of the EOAA.

...now consider how many poor schmucks don't have the resources or public standing to get lawyers for their appeal. This is a massive strike against the EOAA.

Yes he/she really is

 

[Ewert86PC]

Absolutely, I do. Most GopherHolers thought the EOAA investigation was pile of lies put together by women who hate men. Anyone who read the entire report would know how much work and detail they put into the report and their effort to look at what happened from all sides. The EOAA was not involved in the hearing process. They have been out it it since they completed their investigation. The U's Student Code of Conduct hearing process is administered by a different office at the U. Most GopherHolers who posted on the subject thought the hearings would be a travesty of a mockery of a sham (in the words of Woody Allen). It didn't turn out that way, did it? All 10 players got due process especially if one or more of the remaining six win their appeal to the provost.

No. The problem with the EOAA bias is more insidious because their investigators included additional players in their report. Those players were added because they did not believe their stories and much worse, they did not believe coaches who vouched for a players location on campus (Sawvel vouching for Green.)

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

 

[Ewert86PC]

My quick take: today's outcome suggests that the U had at least some justification for the suspensions of the original group of 5.

BUT - it also suggests that the U screwed up by adding the second group of 5. Those players had their names, pictures - and yes, their reputations, splashed across the media. A lot of people, including several on this board, concluded that they were "rapists," or at the very least, had committed violations serious enough to require suspensions.

Whoever at the U - Coyle, Kaler, etc, made the decision to suspend the second group of 5 should be facing some serious questioning from the Board of Regents.

If the story had started and ended with the first group of 5, this would not have become such a big story, or become so heated on the Hole and media in general. The second group of 5 was overreach by the U, and someone should have to answer for it.

+1,000

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

 

[PMWinSTP]

They can easily say that they just went with the recommendations and get out of all responsibility. The EOAA won't face questioning because they did what they were set up to do - investigate with limited resources and draw conclusions based on whatever information they have and a preponderance of evidence. It's set up perfectly so no one ever has to take any responsibility.

Based on the comments from the most recently vocal regents, including the Chair, he is in trouble. Posted many times that the Chair knew exactly what he was saying in his public comments about his concerns with this process. Many chimed in and posted that he was clueless.

 

[bizzle22]

If the "officials" to whom she reported the incident took a blood sample, wouldn't the be able to determine the BAC at the time of the draw?

If that blood sample had a BAC of over 0.08% then there would be a basis to make an argument for her being drunk.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

They would. I don't recall how long after the incident she went to the hospital, but I'm sure they took a blood sample. Again, my main point with that was about a few posters trying to say that her changing from being drunk to not being drunk meant that she was lying. I'm simply saying that doesn't mean she is lying. I just don't like the concept of saying you know how someone felt. If her BAC was .07% does it make her a liar for saying she "felt" she was drunk? I don't think so. I just don't think it's right to go down that road

 

[TruthSeeker]

Fire Kaler.

Sue the University in Federal Court when the entire appeals process is over.

Eliminate the EOAA.

 

[Spoofin]

Yes he/she really is

Are you worried people will get upnorthkid mixed up with upnorthgo4?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Spoofin]

They would. I don't recall how long after the incident she went to the hospital, but I'm sure they took a blood sample. <b>Again, my main point with that was about a few posters trying to say that her changing from being drunk to not being drunk meant that she was lying. I'm simply saying that doesn't mean she is lying.</b>

Except it does.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Spoofin]

No. The problem with the EOAA bias is more insidious because their investigators included additional players in their report. Those players were added because they did not believe their stories and much worse, they did not believe coaches who vouched for a players location on campus (Sawvel vouching for Green.)

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

But Green got cleared so all good.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ewert86PC]

But Green got cleared so all good.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

After unnecessarily going through public humiliation and shame of having his name irrevocably linked to this incident in the public mind? No, not all good by a long shot.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

 

[Spoofin]

After unnecessarily going through public humiliation and shame of having his name irrevocably linked to this incident in the public mind? No, not all good by a long shot.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

Of course. It was a shot at UpN.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Spoofin]

And, as everyone engages UpNorthGo4, let's not forget that he posted on here, before the report was ever released, "I'm sure not going to believe a bunch of football players over this girl".


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[bizzle22]

Except it does.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If you disagree that is fine. I don't believe it does. You took 6 shots 2 hours ago. Are you drunk? Would get different answers from different people.

I also agree with Shenault being cleared based on the poor questioning from the EOAA. (Just so you know I'm not really on one side over the other.) Can you guarantee me that they didn't also ask her a confusing question about her level of intoxication?

 

[Spoofin]

If you disagree that is fine. I don't believe it does. You took 6 shots 2 hours ago. Are you drunk? Would get different answers from different people.

But it wasn't different people. She said she was drunk. Then she said she wasn't. How on earth is that not lying under these circumstances?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[GoGophersUMN]

If you disagree that is fine. I don't believe it does. You took 6 shots 2 hours ago. Are you drunk? Would get different answers from different people.

Different people having different answers is very different from the same person having a different answer over time.

If someone asks you whether or not you were drunk on 9/2/16 at 3:00am once a week for the next year, your answer should be the same every time, especially if saying "yes" could lead to up to 10 people being expelled.

 

[Deleted_User]

You people have no clue how memory works, at all. Memory is not real. It is not stored as a single, stable idea. It is malleable and dynamic. So, if she said 15 minutes ago that she was drunk and 15 seconds ago said she was sober, it is technically possible that both memories are perceived as true by the speaker. Memory is not a fact.

 

[bizzle22]

But it wasn't different people. She said she was drunk. Then she said she wasn't. How on earth is that not lying under these circumstances?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So she thought about it more and decided that maybe she wasn't drunk. She's willing to admit that. So if she thought about it, decided she might not have been drunk, and continued to claim she was drunk then she's not a liar? I guess I don't fault someone for reflecting on a situation and determining things weren't exactly how she thought they were. Should we not believe her that some of those encounters were consensual? You can't pick and choose which parts to believe.

 

[Spoofin]

So she thought about it more and decided that maybe she wasn't drunk. She's willing to admit that.

As I said, you could work for the EOAA. That is exactly how they explained all of her changes in memory. If you believe the above quoted is a legitimate explanation in this case then I'm not sure what else to say.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[GoGophersUMN]

You people have no clue how memory works, at all. Memory is not real. It is not stored as a single, stable idea. It is malleable and dynamic. So, if she said 15 minutes ago that she was drunk and 15 seconds ago said she was sober, it is technically possible that both memories are perceived as true by the speaker. Memory is not a fact.

Why was the same not true for the players who got in trouble for "lying"?

So she thought about it more and decided that maybe she wasn't drunk. She's willing to admit that. So if she thought about it, decided she might not have been drunk, and continued to claim she was drunk then she's not a liar? I guess I don't fault someone for reflecting on a situation and determining things weren't exactly how she thought they were. Should we not believe her that some of those encounters were consensual? You can't pick and choose which parts to believe.

That might be reasonable if she went from a little buzzed to not drunk. She went from very drunk to not drunk. You make it sound like it was a slight change.

 

[bizzle22]

As I said, you could work for the EOAA. That is exactly how they explained all of her changes in memory. If you believe the above quoted is a legitimate explanation in this case then I'm not sure what else to say.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Look, I think the EOAA report is clearly biased and shouldn't be taken as fact. But to dismiss it altogether is silly.

 

[Spoofin]

Look, I think the EOAA report is clearly biased and shouldn't be taken as fact. But to dismiss it altogether is silly.

Sure. I would never assume everything in there is false. However, when I don't know which parts I can and which parts I can't believe I will default to "innocent until proven guilty", because, well, America.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[bizzle22]

Why was the same not true for the players who got in trouble for "lying"?



That might be reasonable if she went from a little buzzed to not drunk. She went from very drunk to not drunk. You make it sound like it was a slight change.

I'm not coming at this from the perspective that her story is perfect. It's not. What I am saying is that it's ridiculous to say she is lying about the whole thing. It is very possible that no sexual assault occurred and she still believes she was sexually assaulted. Those two are not mutually exclusive. People get that, right? I take issue with anyone who calls her an outright liar.

 

[bizzle22]

Sure. I would never assume everything in there is false. However, when I don't know which parts I can and which parts I can't believe I will default to "innocent until proven guilty", because, well, America.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And I have no problem with that. But innocent until proven guilty doesn't mean that she is lying.

 

[Spoofin]

And I have no problem with that. But innocent until proven guilty doesn't mean that she is lying.

You are right. But now we have strayed from the drunk/not drunk topic, haven't we?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Tucker32]

If you disagree that is fine. I don't believe it does. You took 6 shots 2 hours ago. Are you drunk? Would get different answers from different people.

I also agree with Shenault being cleared based on the poor questioning from the EOAA. (Just so you know I'm not really on one side over the other.) Can you guarantee me that they didn't also ask her a confusing question about her level of intoxication?

You're not ok with Winfield, Green, & McCrary being cleared?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bob_Loblaw]

You people have no clue how memory works, at all. Memory is not real. It is not stored as a single, stable idea. It is malleable and dynamic. So, if she said 15 minutes ago that she was drunk and 15 seconds ago said she was sober, it is technically possible that both memories are perceived as true by the speaker. Memory is not a fact.

I get what you're saying with this, but I think you're being way too easy on her with this whole thing. In the report, she wasn't just saying that she was kind of tipsy, she was making it sound like she could barely comprehend anything going on (people were arguing on here that there is no way she could have given consent she was so drunk). I think if I asked you if you were black out drunk three weeks ago and you said "yes" today and then "no" a week from now, it's a sign of dishonesty. She may have remembered it differently, I get your point, but that's pretty drastic.

Additionally, memory usually works the other way. Your memory is usually of the memory (if that makes sense). You see this in a lot of cases of false eyewitness testimony (it was a pretty big part of Making a Murderer). You'll have a witness see a lineup and say "I think it was #4". If you asked them at that time, they'd say that they were about 60% sure (I'm just throwing that number out there). At the trial, they are normally at 100%. To them, there memory strengthens, they can see the face, etc. Most of the cases of false eyewitness IDs, when you look at them, the witness is 100% at trial but when you read the police report (if it's done well), they were "pretty sure" or they "think that was him". So the brain is mushing them together and they usually remember the memory and it gets emboldened.

My point. . .if it was a memory issue, it would have been a better chance that she would have "remembered" she was drunk.