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

Well the original 5 are still suspended for at least a year if not expelled. The 4 that were cleared were never on the restraining order that she filed so I don't think she would have a problem with them being cleared.
 

Does the alleged victim get to appeal?

Yes. All parties (players and accuser) have the right to appeal any of the decisions. They have 5 days to do so.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Yes. All parties (players and accuser) have the right to appeal any of the decisions. They have 5 days to do so.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That is absolute insanity that she gets to appeal the decision.

She won't appeal it (i'd think), but it's crazy that is even an option.
 

That is absolute insanity that she gets to appeal the decision.

She won't appeal it (i'd think), but it's crazy that is even an option.

It is crazy. To this point, however, nothing about this process is logical. Why start now?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

That is absolute insanity that she gets to appeal the decision.

She won't appeal it (i'd think), but it's crazy that is even an option.

Considering that she is not the one who drove the hearing (EOAA office did that) it would make sense that she would have the same right of appeal that the players do.

As others have said though, she won't appeal because I think like all of us she just wants this whole mess to go away at this point. Plus it would be pretty foolish to appeal and try to get the players that were cleared in trouble after they have been cleared by the police twice and now the Universities witch hunt as well.
 


She won't, the university blow this thing way out of proportion... IMO she's moved on long time ago.

I agree she wont/can't because she does not have that right. Really curious as to How you assess "she's moved on." At some point the event became traumatic, that doesn't just go away; the video was shared, that also doesn't go away; TCarter outs her on Twitter for some damn reason; she has to appear at the disciplinary hearings. I'm guessing she's ready for it to be over, but not sure she's moved on.

When everyone is discussing the fallout, and players suing the University, don't forget she has some options also. Standard of proof in a civil case is lower than criminal cases. Guessing Pacyga and Hutton should be on speed dial.
 

I agree she wont/can't because she does not have that right.

She does have the right to appeal these decisions. Not saying she will.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

She does have the right to appeal these decisions. Not saying she will.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No, this is a University hearing panel. She is not a party to the proceedings; she is a witness.
 

When everyone is discussing the fallout, and players suing the University, don't forget she has some options also. Standard of proof in a civil case is lower than criminal cases. Guessing Pacyga and Hutton should be on speed dial.

That would be interesting considering she had that the player's couldn't sue her as a condition of dropping the restraining order.

Seems those with intimate knowledge of the case felt like she would most likely be the person subject to a civil suit.
 



No, this is a University hearing panel. She is not a party to the proceedings; she is a witness.

I have heard it reported by a couple sources (who claim sources at the U) that either side can appeal any of the decisions. So if it isn't the accuser that would appeal from "that side", who would it be? The U?

None of it is logical, that's for sure.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

The woman admitted that her encounters with Djam and the recruit were consensual. Any punishment that Djam would receive for letting the recruit drink would be outside of the authority of Title IX. It would be a different thing.

I'm not sure what the alleged victim would be punished for in her encounter with Djam and the recruit.

It all depends on the justification for the punishment. If Djam's punishment is predicated on allowing a recruit to drink alcohol while under his stewardship that's one thing. However, if his punishment is based on allowing a recruit to have sex with a member of game day operations, that is another.
 

Great idea. They would have been champions if they would have said they are boycotting for 1/2 the kids while throwing the other half under the bus.

The boycott wasn't for you. It was for people with the ability to think big picture, and realize afterwards what it did accomplish. National attention on this subject was achieved. Sorry dude, you don't get it and frankly are below the target audience of these college kids.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Only on GH could someone make a botched gang bang into a cause for social justice. What a bunch of absolute BS by someone who's lived on this site for the past months setting people straight. First, these guys were pissed and surprised when the suspensions came down. That's on Claeys and Coyle. They thought it was unfair, and they got even more pissed after Coyle met with them. Simply put, they thought they had enough power to make the University back down and get everyone to San Diego. Been that age; been on athletic teams; and done some coaching. Only an idiot or someone rewriting history would claim the boycott was about anything but themselves. Any education that has come from this certainly didn't happen because of anything these guys planned.

Not like after two days they went, "Well, we didn't get them reinstated, but we achieved our larger goals, so let's go play." They were surprised at the pushback, especially nationally. Some read the report and thought I'm risking all this for them? Am sure more than a few received calls from home asking what in the hell are you doing? Some admitted they saw things from a woman's point of view for the first time. I believe 3 regents met with them and did listen. More than anything though, they saw they weren't going to get their way. They caved so they could play. BTW, I don't think you're an idiot.

Should they have thrown the original bunch under the bus? Absolutely. One, the entire team threw their coach under the bus. Pretty evident Coyle had his sights on an elite coach. Without the boycott, it's debatable whether or not he would have had the guts to fire TC. Second, you could argue those guys so greedily at the head of the line threw the rest of the team under the bus. It put the whole team in a negative light because they had no respect for that woman, and, more importantly, themselves. They were willing to let their teammates risk athletic scholarships for their questionable actions. Hell, even young Winfield by himself threw the other 9 "under the bus." Richest guy gets his kid his own lawyer to give his kid a better chance? Smart, but it should fall into the category of "under the bus."

Figured it would be a split decision, but have still been somewhat surprised at each side claiming the outcome proves they were right. Neither is right and neither is wrong. Best that can come of this is more students start thinking. Guys making sure they really are that irresistible and women thinking it through before they put themselves in a situation they can't control. Still think the Title IX directive is okay. This they couldn't prove it in court so it was okay and the University can't do anything about it is also wrong. I'll wait until the Supreme Court rules it all unconstitutional before accepting that it is instead of relying on any self-proclaimed legal expert on GH. Have seen anyone who reminds of Felix Frankfurter or Thurgood Marshall yet.
 

I do have a feeling our fearless leader may do away with title nine threats to colleges.

That said I have 2 daughter's and I want them to be safe, on the other hand I once had a psychotic girlfriend who would threaten to call the police and say I raped her. You can't even imagine the nightmare that was, you really can't. I was in fear of my life.

Where is the balancing point, it's very difficult to say.

I do know one thing, the absolute most power a woman can exert over a man is to say he raped her. Hell I would rather she beat the shot out of me or anything, I felt my whole life was in jeopardy. Just thinking about it ten years later and my adrenaline surges.
 



Only on GH could someone make a botched gang bang into a cause for social justice. What a bunch of absolute BS by someone who's lived on this site for the past months setting people straight. First, these guys were pissed and surprised when the suspensions came down. That's on Claeys and Coyle. They thought it was unfair, and they got even more pissed after Coyle met with them. Simply put, they thought they had enough power to make the University back down and get everyone to San Diego. Been that age; been on athletic teams; and done some coaching. Only an idiot or someone rewriting history would claim the boycott was about anything but themselves. Any education that has come from this certainly didn't happen because of anything these guys planned.

Not like after two days they went, "Well, we didn't get them reinstated, but we achieved our larger goals, so let's go play." They were surprised at the pushback, especially nationally. Some read the report and thought I'm risking all this for them? Am sure more than a few received calls from home asking what in the hell are you doing? Some admitted they saw things from a woman's point of view for the first time. I believe 3 regents met with them and did listen. More than anything though, they saw they weren't going to get their way. They caved so they could play. BTW, I don't think you're an idiot.

Should they have thrown the original bunch under the bus? Absolutely. One, the entire team threw their coach under the bus. Pretty evident Coyle had his sights on an elite coach. Without the boycott, it's debatable whether or not he would have had the guts to fire TC. Second, you could argue those guys so greedily at the head of the line threw the rest of the team under the bus. It put the whole team in a negative light because they had no respect for that woman, and, more importantly, themselves. They were willing to let their teammates risk athletic scholarships for their questionable actions. Hell, even young Winfield by himself threw the other 9 "under the bus." Richest guy gets his kid his own lawyer to give his kid a better chance? Smart, but it should fall into the category of "under the bus."

Figured it would be a split decision, but have still been somewhat surprised at each side claiming the outcome proves they were right. Neither is right and neither is wrong. Best that can come of this is more students start thinking. Guys making sure they really are that irresistible and women thinking it through before they put themselves in a situation they can't control. Still think the Title IX directive is okay. This they couldn't prove it in court so it was okay and the University can't do anything about it is also wrong. I'll wait until the Supreme Court rules it all unconstitutional before accepting that it is instead of relying on any self-proclaimed legal expert on GH. Have seen anyone who reminds of Felix Frankfurter or Thurgood Marshall yet.

Other than the fact that the EOAA is, in fact, a social injustice, not a bad rant.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Other than the fact that the EOAA is, in fact, a social injustice, not a bad rant.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Really? I thought the social injustice was the 40% chance of an STD, or the ten-fold increase in the risk of suicide to the woman; or, the billions of dollars in cost to society. The threshold of "justice" for women doesn't exist. Estimates of reported rape are so small because the chance of prosecution on he said/she said cases is near zilch. Yet, women suffer damage to their vagina, anus, thighs, arms, neck, head, breasts, etc. and nothing is done for them.

The U of M did a study on the cost of being a rape victim. Average cost: $110,000. Eleven percent of rape victims become pregnant.

Social costs to the victim

Cost of the initial exam, treatment for STDs, pregnancy, chronic conditions (headaches, panic attacks, sexual dysfunction), suicide attempts, chemical abuse, PTSD, dissociation, depression, anxiety, fear, blame, helplessness, legal costs (evidentiary exams, trial readiness, impact statements, legal costs), academic impacts (reduced class attendance, performance, skills-abilities, job, position), DNA testing, etc.

When due process is discussed, it seems to be in a Constitutional vacuum. When the players were discussed, it was in the vacuum of life long costs to the players. Yet, in the grand calculus, the woman was always ignored as having a lifelong cost. Constitutional norms apply to everyone involved, including the woman. The social long term costs need to be recognized as it applies to the woman, any and all women.
 

Estimates of reported rape are so small because the chance of prosecution on he said/she said cases is near zilch.

From a determining the truth standpoint.... it would seem there is good reason for that...
 

Too many legal experts in GH land.

Dr. Don, we need your help.
This is absolutely true. As well as a lot of people who "know" every detail of the case even though there are many gaps in the timeline that has been provided publicly.
 

Wait wat?

I don't think the players were punished for group sex.... so neither would she be.

They were punished because it wasn't consensual.... and there isn't much to back up the idea that she forced herself on anyone....
 

Wait wat?

I don't think the players were punished for group sex.... so neither would she be.

They were punished because it wasn't consensual.... and there isn't much to back up the idea that she forced herself on anyone....

And that is the problem that I have with this. If it wasn't consensual, it is rape and rape should be punished in court of law, not in a EOAA hearing. But, the authorities have stated more than once, that it was not rape, that it was consensual. So, why again are the individuals being expelled?
 

So can someone tell me if the 4 that got originally suspended back in September are the same one's who were given the recommendation for expulsion. If that's the case then the other 6 have been dragged through the mud for no reason then. If it's the same 4 then they have already served their suspension, at least in terms of football activities.
 

So can someone tell me if the 4 that got originally suspended back in September are the same one's who were given the recommendation for expulsion. If that's the case then the other 6 have been dragged through the mud for no reason then. If it's the same 4 then they have already served their suspension, at least in terms of football activities.
There were originally 5 recommended for expulsion. Djam is the one who was reduced. Williams was the only one in the second group who wasn't cleared.
 

I honesty don't understand Djam's penalty being reduced to the one year suspension. Not only did he participate in a supposed consensual threesome with a 17 year old recruit, but I can't imagine he wasn't present for the activities that led to the expulsion of the four players. I doubt he'll be allowed back on the team.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

I honesty don't understand Djam's penalty being reduced to the one year suspension. Not only did he participate in a supposed consensual threesome with a 17 year old recruit, but I can't imagine he wasn't present for the activities that led to the expulsion of the four players. I doubt he'll be allowed back on the team.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is how I have felt since the results of the hearing have come out. I'm sure Fleck has his own plans in regard to players not expelled. It seems inckmprehensible the person who started this whole trainwreck would be back.
 

Really? I thought the social injustice was the 40% chance of an STD, or the ten-fold increase in the risk of suicide to the woman; or, the billions of dollars in cost to society. The threshold of "justice" for women doesn't exist. Estimates of reported rape are so small because the chance of prosecution on he said/she said cases is near zilch. Yet, women suffer damage to their vagina, anus, thighs, arms, neck, head, breasts, etc. and nothing is done for them.

The U of M did a study on the cost of being a rape victim. Average cost: $110,000. Eleven percent of rape victims become pregnant.

Social costs to the victim

Cost of the initial exam, treatment for STDs, pregnancy, chronic conditions (headaches, panic attacks, sexual dysfunction), suicide attempts, chemical abuse, PTSD, dissociation, depression, anxiety, fear, blame, helplessness, legal costs (evidentiary exams, trial readiness, impact statements, legal costs), academic impacts (reduced class attendance, performance, skills-abilities, job, position), DNA testing, etc.

When due process is discussed, it seems to be in a Constitutional vacuum. When the players were discussed, it was in the vacuum of life long costs to the players. Yet, in the grand calculus, the woman was always ignored as having a lifelong cost. Constitutional norms apply to everyone involved, including the woman. The social long term costs need to be recognized as it applies to the woman, any and all women.

The victims of child abuse, murder, etc. suffer costs equal or greater than those you detail above. Do we need extra-judicial proceedings in those cases as well, or is it that the white college woman rape victim is for some reason deserving of extra protection?
 

The victims of child abuse, murder, etc. suffer costs equal or greater than those you detail above. Do we need extra-judicial proceedings in those cases as well, or is it that the white college woman rape victim is for some reason deserving of extra protection?

Perpetrators of murder, child abuse, etc. are brought to "justice" probably tenfold, is my guess, more times than rape. Also, murder, child abuse, etc. aren't really simmering problems on college campuses, but rape is. Therefore wouldn't you agree that there is at least some sort of extra attention that needs to be paid to sexual assault on college campuses? Campus codes of law have been around for centuries and they have been rarely complained about this much. IMO half of the uproar is about legitimate problems with how this was handled and how it should change, but the other half isn't much more than "OMG my favorite team won't be able to tackle good next year".
It sounds like you have a problem with "uppity" white women.
 

Perpetrators of murder, child abuse, etc. are brought to "justice" probably tenfold, is my guess, more times than rape. Also, murder, child abuse, etc. aren't really simmering problems on college campuses, but rape is. Therefore wouldn't you agree that there is at least some sort of extra attention that needs to be paid to sexual assault on college campuses? Campus codes of law have been around for centuries and they have been rarely complained about this much. IMO half of the uproar is about legitimate problems with how this was handled and how it should change, but the other half isn't much more than "OMG my favorite team won't be able to tackle good next year".
It sounds like you have a problem with "uppity" white women.

No, there shouldn't be extra attention, at least not in the form of quasi criminal proceedings at universities. Assault and rape has decreased on campuses for decades. There's no such thing as "rape culture" (I almost puked in my mouth typing that).

Here's an idea, keep university judicial proceedings to cheating on tests and plagiarism. Keep everything involving torts and criminal law out. If someone gets convicted, not charged, with sexual assault, then throw them out of school.
 

I honesty don't understand Djam's penalty being reduced to the one year suspension. Not only did he participate in a supposed consensual threesome with a 17 year old recruit, but I can't imagine he wasn't present for the activities that led to the expulsion of the four players. I doubt he'll be allowed back on the team.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I have no idea, but my guess is that the sex between the woman and Djam was consensual and established as such in the hearing. He probably gets a year suspension for not deterring the other guys. I'm not a lawyer so I don't really know, but that would be the logic for me.
 

No, there shouldn't be extra attention, at least not in the form of quasi criminal proceedings at universities. Assault and rape has decreased on campuses for decades. There's no such thing as "rape culture" (I almost puked in my mouth typing that).

Here's an idea, keep university judicial proceedings to cheating on tests and plagiarism. Keep everything involving torts and criminal law out. If someone gets convicted, not charged, with sexual assault, then throw them out of school.

Do you mean rape culture doesn't currently exist on college campuses in America, or that the 'concept' is invalid? I disagree with both options, but one is at least debatable. There have certainly been times in history and places around the world today, that not only 'look the other way' on rape, but encourage it. Heck, even in the U.S. a husband could not be charged with raping his wife until 1975.

I agree that American college campuses may not be the 'ground zero' for rape culture that some suggest, but that doesn't mean it still isn't a big problem that needs fixing.
 

And that is the problem that I have with this. If it wasn't consensual, it is rape and rape should be punished in court of law, not in a EOAA hearing. But, the authorities have stated more than once, that it was not rape, that it was consensual. So, why again are the individuals being expelled?

The authorities did not determine there was consent. Officers who watched a short video thought it appeared as if she was playful and enjoying herself or some words like that. The Hennepin County Attorney determined that they could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a crime committed so they did not charge anyone.
 

Wait wat?

I don't think the players were punished for group sex.... so neither would she be.

They were punished because it wasn't consensual.... and there isn't much to back up the idea that she forced herself on anyone....

No, they were punished because they broke the student code of conduct.
 




Top Bottom