All Things EOAA, Investigation, Suspension, Overturned Etc. Thread: UPDATED 1 Thread

Donate To GopherHole
Spoofin said:
Swede - meet UpNorthGo4.
UpNorthGo4 - Swede.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
(Pulls up chair. Sits down)
Anyone want some popcorn?

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
 

Iceland12 said:
It was reported that Williams had his suspension upheld not his expulsion and that Djam had his expulsion reduced to a suspension. Is that not the case?
Click to expand...
The news is already three hours old and the confusion has started. GopherHole, you're slipping.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
I don't think she will because of bad PR.

I think the EoAA is still holding that something non-consensual happened.

However (I could be wrong), I thought she admitted on the stand that she wasn't drunk and she told the EoAA she was super intoxicated. . .that's a far cry from cooperating with the process.

So, I think technically, she could be punished. I don't think she will and I don't think she should be.
Click to expand...

Yep.
 

I hope she is punished. Statutory rape, I'm sure, is against the EOAA's policy. Or does it not apply when the Adult is a female and the minor is a male?
 

Absolutely no way unless all of the players are cleared. As of now, the U is saying some of the players are guilty and it would look bad to punish someone who you are saying is a victim of sexual assault, even if they clearly broke the rules. If they punished her without clearing the players first, this story would be in the national news again and the U would be branded as victim blaming and trying to cover up rape.

Even if the rest of the players are cleared, I don't think it is too likely. The EOAA has already said that she went through a traumatic experience and that people in that situation often have trouble remembering what happened.

That being said, punishing her for lying would be consistent with what they did to 5 of the players, although 2 wrongs don't make a right.
 


Ewert86PC said:
The news is already three hours old and the confusion has started. GopherHole, you're slipping.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

From Post #8

And from the TwinCities.com at 6:36pm tonight:

The panel upheld some of the more serious penalties. Ray Buford, KiAnte Hardin, Dior Johnson and Tamarion Johnson will be expelled from school.

However, Carlton Djam had his expulsion reduced to a one-year suspension, according to reports from the Associated Press and KSTP-TV, and a one-year suspension for Mark Williams was upheld.

“The remaining student-athletes are very disappointed by the panel’s rulings and are exploring their options in consultation with their families,” Hutton said.

http://www.twincities.com/2017/02/03...-assault-case/
 

West Fargo Gopher Fan said:
If I'm one of the players cleared I sue for sure. Why were they included and had their names and reputations destroyed. Makes no sense. The U botched this bad.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. Those players from now on only want their names associated with how they play on the field. Why would they want to keep this issue in the public eyes and on the news? We all know they were wronged, but there comes a point where it is not worth being vindictive and to move on.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

RolGnav said:
I hope she is punished. Statutory rape, I'm sure, is against the EOAA's policy. Or does it not apply when the Adult is a female and the minor is a male?
Click to expand...

The recruit was 17. That's of age in Minnesota. As far as I know, the U doesn't have anything that specifically says otherwise.

She now says she was sober when the incident occurred, the recruit was drunk at the time, and she consented to having sex with the recruit. The affirmative consent policy says it isn't consensual if the person is "incapacitated" which I don't think applies here, but I'd certainly agree they'd look at it differently if a sober male had otherwise consensual sex with an equally drunk 17 year old female recruit.
 

I think it's great that 4 of the expulsions got upheld, and it's very entertaining to read all the guys on here that whine about it incessantly in thread after thread. The name calling and emotional tantrums are even better.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 



Every fan,coach, player who were outraged about the other 4 players getting lumped in with the others were right on the money. What joke the U was with this handling of this situation.

I witch hunt it was! Hope Kaler enjoys losing his job over this.

I am sure the apologies will start now from the fans who ripped apart these 4 individuals who had nothing to do with this and had there names dragged through the mud and weren't even involved.

Who will Be first to apologize?? Go!!!
 

As someone who works 100 hours a week during the months of Sep, Oct and Nov, and because of that knows basically nothing about all of this, where can I find information as to what is claimed went on, what are these 10 men actually accused of? I'm clueless, to be honest. Or can someone here, who feels themselves an unbiased observer, relate to me the basic facts about this case?
 

That was a very expensive recruiting visit interlude for one 17-year old CB who now has landed in the lap of Lane Kiffin at FAU.
 

I feel bad for Claeys. I know he put himself on the line for every single one of the accused, but knowing that he got fired over standing up for innocent players has to hurt deep.
 



GoGophersUMN said:
Too bad not many people will remember this part of the story. If you ask most people about the incident, they'll tell a story about how the team boycotted because their 10 rapist teammates were suspended, not that they were boycotting because 4 of their innocent teammates were suspended and wrongly called rapists.
Click to expand...

I live outstate, am retired, white, and basically socialize with people my age. Sorry to burst your narrative but I haven't heard anyone call all of them rapists. Matter of fact, they're generally disgusted at what happened but realize they don't know all the facts. My wife and two other friends who are liberals accepted my guess that it started out consensual but at some point she wanted it to end. Was surprised at their not having much sympathy for the woman and these are all women who marched in St. Paul against the pussy-grabber. They also accepted my opinion that Kaler might not survive this, BTW. To generalize, most of the people aren't obsessed about this if they're not Gopher football fans.
 

Trisuper said:
After just my two posts here, the great, great Bob Loblaw realizes that I'm "not capable of have a substantive discussion." Yet 60% of those who read my post approve/recommend it. The howling wolves came out in full force as they always do. My original post was substantive. No one has disputed the facts of the case that I outlined. Loblaw didn't discuss them (he's only interested in "the process") except to admit that they were very bad for the players. You yourself said the Washington Post article I sighted was an important one. But I must always keep in mind, I'm not Bob Loblaw. And what about the constitutional challenges to EoAA? Where are they in the federal courts? Most have gone virtually nowhere and you are the guy that keeps bringing up the constitution here.
Finally, since I've admitted to being the A.D. and the president of the U of M (as well as the person behind the Bowling Green massacre), what posters will now admit they are Tracy Claeys? I'm done "yapping" now. Next time I post, I'll get in the flow of things around here and bad mouth the U, its president, its A.D., its new football coach and its awful team.
Click to expand...

(1) Maybe you were capable of having a substantive discussion, but you were unwilling. I discussed the substance of your post and you went down the angle of accusing people here of being racist (in so many words). So yeah, you were either unwilling or incapable of sticking to the substance.

(2) Your original post was substantive and I responded substantively. I talked about a lot of the facts making this a difficult one to bring about change with the EoAA. I agreed with you!

(3) I never have talked about going to law school at the U of MN.

(4) This isn't meant to be a jerk, but I am just going to kind of explain how challenges to the Constitutionality of a law/rule happens. You can run it by your daughter if you think i'm talking whacky.
- - I've always said that the EoAA office and the University's punishment of students is Unconstitutional.
- - I have always said they are also completely within their right to a lower burden (preponderance of the evidence)
- - Here are the potential Due Process problems - - (1) Many people have said "even if it was consensual" they should be punished. That would be Unconstitutional. A public university cannot punish a student for the kind of consensual sex he/she has. That one was the real sticking point for people. They thought that you can make a team rule / student code for anything. (2) The other potential Constitutional issue is that the process used to punish/investigate/rule the incident needs meet the basic Due Process requirements (that's a really complicated isssue that we can discuss later).

The Constitutionality of rules/laws is always challenged at the appellate process. A state, public entity, or even private entities have a rule/procedure/law that negatively impacts someone. That person loses the hearing (they could lose a job, etc.) and then they appeal the ruling. Before the Federal Courts chime into the discussion, the party needs to have "standing", which means, they had to have been negatively impacted by the law. (Think of Brown vs. Board of Education, the parents who brought suit had to actually be from Topeka, they had to have kids affected by the segregation laws, etc. If they didn't, they wouldn't have had standing).

For our case, the process had to have someone be investigated and punished by the EoAA of the U of MN before you can appeal the decision and challenge the Constitutionality of the process. If you don't believe me, ask yourself why the appeals process for this situation goes next to the Provost and then to Federal Court. Why do you think that might be?
 

Some Day...Maybe said:
I think it's great that 4 of the expulsions got upheld, and it's very entertaining to read all the guys on here that whine about it incessantly in thread after thread. The name calling and emotional tantrums are even better.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I'm glad you get a chuckle over the miscarriage of justice.
 

Well she is of legal drinking age and the recruit was above the age of consent so no, she will not face discipline nor should she.
 

GoGophersUMN said:
Too bad not many people will remember this part of the story. If you ask most people about the incident, they'll tell a story about how the team boycotted because their 10 rapist teammates were suspended, not that they were boycotting because 4 of their innocent teammates were suspended and wrongly called rapists.
Click to expand...

They weren't boycotting for just 4 of their teammates.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 



Swede said:
First keep in mind that I am a former prosecutor and father of daughters.

That said, I have reviewed the available reports, etc. Without rehashing it all it seems to me that several student athletes were expelled today for taking part in a disgusting sex act or, in other words, for bad taste. By all appearances, the only evidence is that of a willing participant who after the acts in question, withdrew consent.

Now I don't condone any of the act(s). I find fault in the punished for not recognising that a male on campus might as well consider himself a monk and remain celebate or risk just this type of consequence. However, the "victim" herself ought to have been subject to discipline herself. There is enough actual and circumstantial evidence that this was nothing more than a consensual, disgusting act(s). If we are expelling for poor taste there ought to be one less co-ed on campus.

Will anyone in the media ask that question? Don't hold your breath.
Click to expand...
Thank you! A breath of fresh air in a cesspool of speculation and false accusations.
 


Did I miss something in the news here? Weren't five players' suspensions upheld--the five most serious ones at that? Doesn't this make the "victim" a victim?
 

Trisuper said:
Did I miss something in the news here? Weren't five players' suspensions upheld--the five most serious ones at that? Doesn't this make the "victim" a victim?
Click to expand...

Yep. According to the EoAA, she is a victim of sexual assault. There is no way she will be punished for anything.
 

hungan1 said:
That was a very expensive recruiting visit interlude for one 17-year old CB who now has landed in the lap of Lane Kiffin at FAU.
Click to expand...

Remember the quote in the report, when he said he wasn't going to come to school here, because it's "F----- up?" And now he's stuck with FAU!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Pompous Elitist said:
?...My daughter lies to me prolifically when she feels it will keep her out of trouble. She's good at it.
Click to expand...

That explains a lot. The apple doesn't fall too far from the tree.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

Gopherhole posters have consistently been right on about what would happen next:
1. Hutton would get the suspensions lifted so that players could participate in the Holiday Bowl.
2. No players would benefit from the processes in place to appeal their suspensions.
3. Coyle would be fired.
4. Kahler would be fired.
I can't wait to see how many millions of dollars the University has to pay out to these ten players. Not!
 

Trisuper said:
Did I miss something in the news here? Weren't five players' suspensions upheld--the five most serious ones at that? Doesn't this make the "victim" a victim?
Click to expand...

Much like your point below, some people just make mistake. Nobody was found "guilty" were they? And if "lying" to the EOAA made one "guilty" then yes, maybe she could have been punished for it too.

But why would the Committee or anybody else want to go after her now anyway? What would be the point?

3. Four of the remaining five players were found to have engaged in sexual harassment of the cheerleader, mostly based on Winfield's testimony. The fifth was found guilty of lying to the EEOC investigators.
 

I see the usual suspects are all meeting in one place to whine about only four of the 10 players being cleared of the accusations. I have news for all of you. For most of the rest of America 4 out of 10 being cleared looks like due process and a fair hearing for everyone including the girl.

Here is more news for you:

- Kaler is not getting fired.

- Coyle is not getting fired.

- The federal courts are going to be reluctant to rule that the players didn't get due process when four out of ten of the players were cleared of wrongdoing.
 

5 Punishments Upheld, 4 Cleared, 1 Reduced in Gopher Football Player Sexual Misconduc

Iceland12 said:
Nope. Your turn...
Click to expand...

"The boycott will remain effective until due process is followed and suspensions for all 10 players involved are lifted."

I guess when Wolitarsky made this statement he really only meant 5 players.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom