Michigan State's Donnie Corley, Josh King, Demetric Vance face sexual assault charges

Donate To GopherHole

hungan1 said:
Per Bill Bender, Sporting News:
http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/ncaafb/michigan-states-donnie-corley-josh-king-demetric-vance-face-sexual-assault-charges/ar-BBCaxkc?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp
Click to expand...

The fact that this MSU incident took place in JANUARY and it took until these three were charged YESTERDAY for their names to see the light of day, shows just how slanted things were with the U when our players went through a similar suspension and investigation. Unbelievable. I'm as big of a supporter of the University as there is, but I hope the U pays out the nose to the kids who weren't expelled whose names were run through the mud in the papers while all that sh*t was still ongoing.
 

WriterGoph said:
The fact that this MSU incident took place in JANUARY and it took until these three were charged YESTERDAY for their names to see the light of day, shows just how slanted things were with the U when our players went through a similar suspension and investigation. Unbelievable. I'm as big of a supporter of the University as there is, but I hope the U pays out the nose to the kids who weren't expelled whose names were run through the mud in the papers while all that sh*t was still ongoing.
Click to expand...

With MSU, it happened during the offseason where it's much easier to keep the identity of the players unknown to the public. It's a lot harder to do that in our case where about 5 of the 10 played a decent amount. People would have likely found out eventually who didn't make the trip and would be wondering why Hardin and Buford weren't suiting up at all in the middle of the season.
 

die hard gopher said:
With MSU, it happened during the offseason where it's much easier to keep the identity of the players unknown to the public. It's a lot harder to do that in our case where about 5 of the 10 played a decent amount. People would have likely found out eventually who didn't make the trip and would be wondering why Hardin and Buford weren't suiting up at all in the middle of the season.
Click to expand...

These are good points, but they did manage to work through the spring game without people knowing - even though everyone knew there was a sexual assault case pending. I wonder if anyone at MSU would have leaked the whole internal investigation report if these players had not been charged?
 

WriterGoph said:
These are good points, but they did manage to work through the spring game without people knowing - even though everyone knew there was a sexual assault case pending. I wonder if anyone at MSU would have leaked the whole internal investigation report if these players had not been charged?
Click to expand...

I think it shows more on how the media in East Lansing (is that a real place?) is not as professional as in the Twin Cities. We live in a major city and we have to deal with upper level journalists that know what they are doing. It was probably better for the kids (criminals) involved but we should probably get used to the fact that scandals at our University will be covered in a professional manner and not as if it were a high school newsletter.

Antoine Winfield is perfectly fine today.
 


GopherHomer said:
I think it shows more on how the media in East Lansing (is that a real place?) is not as professional as in the Twin Cities. We live in a major city and we have to deal with upper level journalists that know what they are doing. It was probably better for the kids (criminals) involved but we should probably get used to the fact that scandals at our University will be covered in a professional manner and not as if it were a high school newsletter.

Antoine Winfield is perfectly fine today.
Click to expand...

"UPPER LEVEL JOURNALISTS" ????

Far too much credit given there. Our Twin Cities hacks are about as consistent as a the smell of a fart in swirling winds. Different every time....
 

GopherHomer said:
I think it shows more on how the media in East Lansing (is that a real place?) is not as professional as in the Twin Cities. We live in a major city and we have to deal with upper level journalists that know what they are doing. It was probably better for the kids (criminals) involved but we should probably get used to the fact that scandals at our University will be covered in a professional manner and not as if it were a high school newsletter.

Antoine Winfield is perfectly fine today.
Click to expand...

You can't possibly be serious with that bolded part. That shows breathtaking callousness. I just googled Antoine Winfield Jr., and the fourth and fifth items were about the alleged sexual assault. No matter that you can read the articles and find out that he was exonerated. His connection with those events will live forever thanks to the ham-handed performance of the U.
 

GopherHomer said:
I think it shows more on how the media in East Lansing (is that a real place?) is not as professional as in the Twin Cities. We live in a major city and we have to deal with upper level journalists that know what they are doing. It was probably better for the kids (criminals) involved but we should probably get used to the fact that scandals at our University will be covered in a professional manner and not as if it were a high school newsletter.

Antoine Winfield is perfectly fine today.
Click to expand...

This is literally like a story from The Onion. You've got to be kidding?

The media behaved with shocking irresponsibility and the journalists like Shipley that threw gas on the fire....unprofessional conduct. Are there any standards of ethical practice left in journalism? Is there a professional board or other governing body to censure those that engage in hyperbole, libel? Or are the big city rags so desperate for cash they throw out click bait? From what I've seen getting basic facts such as how many were exonerated, expelled, suspended is too much to ask. Looking deeper at the U's process, accused and accuser rights, false statistics is way beyond the ability or interest of any journalist in the MPLS area. Yes, professionals.
 

Maybe an actual journalist (SON?) can comment on how the following does not qualify as obvious libel. No qualifiers such as "allegedly" or "alleged". Stating the players were guilty/taking the EOAA report as proven fact rather than a one-sided bit of testimony. Failing to communicate none of the players were ever convicted by an impartial jury. There is opinion and then there is wildy irresponsible and inflammatory libel. Prove me wrong.


Let’s start with Sept. 2, when a handful of Gophers football players decided to have sex with an inebriated classmate, one after the other, sometimes together. Another handful watched. None of them tried to stop it, even when it became apparent to some that the young woman was not a willing participant.

One wonders how someone can make such an idiotic decision.

More than three months later, 10 players were suspended for roles in that incident; the rest of the team responded by boycotting “all football activity,” a protest that lasted less than 48 hours, or long enough for disturbing details of the school’s investigation into their teammates’ behavior to appear online.

http://www.twincities.com/2017/01/0...phers-mess-apparently-anyone-but-the-players/
 



He was cleared, so all cool? No worries? No harm done? I simply can't understand how dense one would need to be to think anything that transpired here during the 'investigation' or that the handling of the 'incident' was acceptable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Saw a tweet today that 5 of 11 MSU four star recruits in 2016 are no longer with the program.
 

WriterGoph said:
The fact that this MSU incident took place in JANUARY and it took until these three were charged YESTERDAY for their names to see the light of day, shows just how slanted things were with the U when our players went through a similar suspension and investigation. Unbelievable. I'm as big of a supporter of the University as there is, but I hope the U pays out the nose to the kids who weren't expelled whose names were run through the mud in the papers while all that sh*t was still ongoing.
Click to expand...

During the season you're going to SEE that some guys aren't playing..... kinda changes things.
 

WriterGoph said:
The fact that this MSU incident took place in JANUARY and it took until these three were charged YESTERDAY for their names to see the light of day, shows just how slanted things were with the U when our players went through a similar suspension and investigation. Unbelievable. I'm as big of a supporter of the University as there is, but I hope the U pays out the nose to the kids who weren't expelled whose names were run through the mud in the papers while all that sh*t was still ongoing.
Click to expand...

If it hasn't happened by now I don't think any of the players are going to sue the U. But if they do sue, they probably are going to lose. A large percentage of due process cases that have been won by college students during the last few years have have relied on the fact that their schools did not follow their own student disciplinary procedures. That did not happen at the U. They followed their investigation/hearing/appeal procedures exactly as written.

All ten players were given an opportunity to challenge the rulings against them. Four of them won their appeals and one had his punishment reduced. To most reasonable people this was due process. Every one of the players received a hearing that allowed him to challenge the charges against him with the opportunity to appeal any adverse rulings. Many of the charges against the players were student code of conduct violations that had nothing to do with having sex with the girl involved. Lack of due process does not relate to whether or not some of players were cleared after the hearings and appeals were completed. Defendants are found innocent in the civil and criminal court systems all the time and very few of them claim they did not receive due process. I assume most of them believe the system worked for them. It should be no different for student disciplinary cases.

Because of the prior criminal investigation that was extensively covered by the local and national news media it was all but impossible for the U to prevent the players names from becoming public during the football season. If the U chose not proceed with the student disciplinary hearings after the EOAA investigation they would have been clobbered by the local and national news media, demonstrated against by every women's rights organization in Minnesota, and subject to sanctions by the U.S. Department of Education and NCAA.

Kaler and Coyle did absolutely nothing wrong in this matter. They followed the student disciplinary process exactly as it is written. The player boycott was the result of bad advice from their families and attorneys, and poor leadership by Claeys and the football staff. We know Coyle met with Clayes and the players but none of them wanted to hear that there was absolutely nothing he could do to prevent the suspensions and student disciplinary process from going forward. Since the disciplinary process is described in great detail on the U's website there is no rational way anyone can claim the U was being arbitrary and unfair by the way the matter was being handled. And once the EOAA Report was leaked (probably by a player or family member) the players finally understood how bad the boycott made them look.
 



There is a huge difference between these 2 incidents. At MSU there was a clear charge of rape. The incident here was when did consensual become something else. We can begin to hear a lot of "just like Minnesota" crap...but it isn't anything like Minnesota.
 

Cruze makes some valid points in his (long) post. But, I differ on a couple of points.

While it may be true that the U followed its process, I think that I, and others, have issues with that very process. The EOAA is presented as an unbiased fact-finder - I would dispute that. I believe the EOAA - by its very makeup and demonstrated practices - shows a bias in favor of female accusers and against males who are accused of misconduct.

But, my major complaint with Cruze is that he again absolves Mark Coyle of all responsibility. The players have made it crystal-clear that they met with Coyle looking for information and an explanation of the situation. After meeting with Coyle, the players were so upset that they called for a boycott. Even if Coyle was restricted on what he could say due to privacy rules, I believe he had an obligation to the players - as the AD of the U of MN - to try and help them. If nothing else, by providing a better and more complete explanation of the process and putting the suspensions into a better context. Coyle failed in his obligation to the players. I'm not saying it was intentional - in fact I believe his failure was unintentional - due to Coyle's inability to give a clear explanation of the situation. If Coyle had done a better job of communicating with the players, there never would have been a boycott. He has to assume at least a share of the blame for the way this mess unfolded.
 

The EOAA process was within the U procedure. How the EOAA "investigation" was done was not. It was crap.

Since the EOAA investigation was completed, every player the EOAA dragged in (that the police didn't) was cleared of everything, the head of that investigation skipped town soon after the report went public, and the regents opened another investigation into the U's own investigation. Not really signs of something that was done exactly as it should have been.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

A_Slab_of_Bacon said:
During the season you're going to SEE that some guys aren't playing..... kinda changes things.
Click to expand...

While that's true, they could be suspended for a "violations of team rules" and leave it at that. No reason for dragging these kid's names through the mud without knowing the facts. If certain individuals are found guilty, then sure. But for players like Winfield and the like who did nothing wrong? That's inexcusable.
 

Gopherocious said:
While that's true, they could be suspended for a "violations of team rules" and leave it at that. No reason for dragging these kid's names through the mud without knowing the facts. If certain individuals are found guilty, then sure. But for players like Winfield and the like who did nothing wrong? That's inexcusable.
Click to expand...

It was up to Claeys to suspend players for "violations of team rules". He chose not to do it. The EOAA process is totally separate from the U's student disciplinary process. Once the U was presented with a very thorough and detailed report on the ten players they had no choice but to proceed with the hearings and appeals. If Kaler had decided not to proceed with the hearings the Board of Regents would have had no choice but to fire him. Everything the U did in this matter was being watched very closely by women's rights groups at the U and around the state. Ignoring a process that every college in the country has to abide by was never an option.
 

Gopherocious said:
While that's true, they could be suspended for a "violations of team rules" and leave it at that. No reason for dragging these kid's names through the mud without knowing the facts. If certain individuals are found guilty, then sure. But for players like Winfield and the like who did nothing wrong? That's inexcusable.
Click to expand...

If I remember tight word about the investigation already was out, and it wasn't just from the University.
 

Cruze said:
If it hasn't happened by now I don't think any of the players are going to sue the U. But if they do sue, they probably are going to lose. A large percentage of due process cases that have been won by college students during the last few years have have relied on the fact that their schools did not follow their own student disciplinary procedures. That did not happen at the U. They followed their investigation/hearing/appeal procedures exactly as written.
Click to expand...

Did they follow the process? The Regents didn't seem to think so.

I agree on the suits. The only thing that would change that is if someone who has authority to release items on behalf of the U is the one that released the report. That will come out of the internal investigation. My guess is it was either the victim or one of the accused who released it, but who knows? It could have been a U employee who does not have authority to release things on behalf of the U, then they would be the subject of the suit (the U would likely be named but the judge would likely drop them).

Cruze said:
All ten players were given an opportunity to challenge the rulings against them. Four of them won their appeals and one had his punishment reduced. To most reasonable people this was due process. Every one of the players received a hearing that allowed him to challenge the charges against him with the opportunity to appeal any adverse rulings. Many of the charges against the players were student code of conduct violations that had nothing to do with having sex with the girl involved. Lack of due process does not relate to whether or not some of players were cleared after the hearings and appeals were completed. Defendants are found innocent in the civil and criminal court systems all the time and very few of them claim they did not receive due process. I assume most of them believe the system worked for them. It should be no different for student disciplinary cases.
Click to expand...

Actually, your description is inaccurate. The EOAA gave non-binding recommendations, the review board cleared four players, one would have their punishment reduced (Djam), and five would have their punishment upheld. All five whose punishments were upheld appealed and only one won their appeal to remove their punishment (Williams). The problem is they didn't receive due process when the report was released or when they were linked to the event in the first place.

Cruze said:
Because of the prior criminal investigation that was extensively covered by the local and national news media it was all but impossible for the U to prevent the players names from becoming public during the football season. If the U chose not proceed with the student disciplinary hearings after the EOAA investigation they would have been clobbered by the local and national news media, demonstrated against by every women's rights organization in Minnesota, and subject to sanctions by the U.S. Department of Education and NCAA.
Click to expand...

Their names shouldn't have come out during the criminal investigation. Journalistic integrity says you should not reveal the names of individuals who have not been charged with a crime. The problem was the crime was reported and five people were suspended. Everyone did the math. Had they just held the players out without announcement or explanation (which they could have), people would never have known who was involved other than maybe Buford and Hardin. By reporting the suspension at the same time the charges came out they associated the two.

Admittedly, things got more complex when the restraining order was filed. That is public knowledge and being it barred them from being at the home stadium, had to come out. So regardless yes, they would have been revealed, but it didn't have to happen the way it did. The other five also should have at best been quietly held out of the Bowl game. This isn't the NFL, there isn't an obligation to disclose the same amount of information.

Finally, the question of whether they should have even been suspended (the other five, not the first five) is still there. The EOAA report was beyond sketchy with what they claimed about them. Especially since multiple players had alibis. Coyle could have made a judgment call to not suspend them pending the hearing. He chose to suspend them (guilt by association). Not saying it was wrong, but it didn't HAVE to happen as some have speculated.

Cruze said:
Kaler and Coyle did absolutely nothing wrong in this matter. They followed the student disciplinary process exactly as it is written. The player boycott was the result of bad advice from their families and attorneys, and poor leadership by Claeys and the football staff. We know Coyle met with Clayes and the players but none of them wanted to hear that there was absolutely nothing he could do to prevent the suspensions and student disciplinary process from going forward. Since the disciplinary process is described in great detail on the U's website there is no rational way anyone can claim the U was being arbitrary and unfair by the way the matter was being handled. And once the EOAA Report was leaked (probably by a player or family member) the players finally understood how bad the boycott made them look.
Click to expand...

I would highly disagree with this. Coyle and Kaler openly lied about whether the players were meeting with them, they lied about how Claeys was on board with the punishment, they also didn't give adequate explanation to the players about the process.
 

Gopherocious said:
While that's true, they could be suspended for a "violations of team rules" and leave it at that. No reason for dragging these kid's names through the mud without knowing the facts. If certain individuals are found guilty, then sure. But for players like Winfield and the like who did nothing wrong? That's inexcusable.
Click to expand...

If I remember tight word about the investigation already was out, and it wasn't just from the University.
 

Cruze said:
It was up to Claeys to suspend players for "violations of team rules". ..
Click to expand...

You're such a silly goose!

Mrs.Coyle, and whatever other aliases you've used, Claeys did suspend the players. He suspended them for the Indiana State, Colorado State and Penn State games.

A restraining order, not your husband or Claeys, kept 6 players out of the Rutgers game too.
 

Cruze said:
It was up to Claeys to suspend players for "violations of team rules". He chose not to do it. The EOAA process is totally separate from the U's student disciplinary process. Once the U was presented with a very thorough and detailed report on the ten players they had no choice but to proceed with the hearings and appeals. If Kaler had decided not to proceed with the hearings the Board of Regents would have had no choice but to fire him. Everything the U did in this matter was being watched very closely by women's rights groups at the U and around the state. Ignoring a process that every college in the country has to abide by was never an option.
Click to expand...

Wrong. As Iceland said, he DID suspend them. Not only did he suspend them, he used the EXACT terminology I used. Want to try again?

On Saturday Gopher football coach Tracy Claeys announced he’d suspended four players for a violation of team rules, but didn’t offer specifics.

The four players the coach suspended are cornerbacks KiAnte Hardin and Ray Buford, safety Dior Johnson and defensive end Tamarion Johnson.
Click to expand...
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom