Gophers star Reggie Lynch recommended for expulsion in third sexual assault allegatio

I'm curious about the curfew thing too (if it's even true). Maybe they heard some rumors of him hitting on drunk girls too much, but didn't know if he actually crossed the line from creepy to predator? In that case maybe it would make sense for them to talk to him and give him a curfew to prevent him from crossing the line?

I actually don't think the curfew thing is that hard for them to answer. He was arrested for sexual assault (and suspended from the team during the investigation). When there weren't any charges or findings against him, he was reinstated, but a curfew was instituted due to prior arrest. In the future, they would do the same for any other player. That doesn't imply any cover up or anything similar at all.
 

I actually don't think the curfew thing is that hard for them to answer. He was arrested for sexual assault (and suspended from the team during the investigation). When there weren't any charges or findings against him, he was reinstated, but a curfew was instituted due to prior arrest. In the future, they would do the same for any other player. That doesn't imply any cover up or anything similar at all.

Good point.
 

Pitino has followed protocol and the direction of his boss, Coyle. That is, to me, what he should be doing.

The rest of the team has conducted itself faultlessly. I commend and support them. Don't want to forget them as this plays out.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 

To Clarify - what I was saying about Louisville:

Louisville program - problems with off-court activity by players - head coach says "I didn't know anything about it."

Minnesota program - problems with off-court activity by players - head coach says "I didn't see any red flags."

There is a parallel there. the fact that the coaches are father and son is a coincidence. the point is that, for most people, the head coach is considered ultimately responsible for the behavior of his players, whether fair or not.

Richard Pitino has had several instances of off-court problems with player behavior. At the very least, there will be questions asked, and the administration will have to (or should have to) answer those questions. Pitino is not going to get a pass on this deal - especially in the current societal context, with all the publicity surrounding sexual harassment, etc.
 

To Clarify - what I was saying about Louisville:

Louisville program - problems with off-court activity by players - head coach says "I didn't know anything about it."

Minnesota program - problems with off-court activity by players - head coach says "I didn't see any red flags."

There is a parallel there. the fact that the coaches are father and son is a coincidence. the point is that, for most people, the head coach is considered ultimately responsible for the behavior of his players, whether fair or not.

Richard Pitino has had several instances of off-court problems with player behavior. At the very least, there will be questions asked, and the administration will have to (or should have to) answer those questions. Pitino is not going to get a pass on this deal - especially in the current societal context, with all the publicity surrounding sexual harassment, etc.

Your right. No coach would get a pass, especially now and more so for those that have had several problems with character issues by players. It does reflect on the coach and it has to as it reflects poorly on the school.
 


One investigation should get you suspended till cleared. THREE should certainly get you suspended, barred from team activities and denied scholarship benefits where you want to stay in school - you pay your way.

I don't care if he was DPOY. Having him on the team is embarrassing.

Why? What if the investigation determines that you did nothing wrong and you end up missing a portion of the season for no good reason?

I'm fine that Lynch played during investigation.
 

Richard Pitino has had several instances of off-court problems with player behavior. At the very least, there will be questions asked, and the administration will have to (or should have to) answer those questions. Pitino is not going to get a pass on this deal - especially in the current societal context, with all the publicity surrounding sexual harassment, etc.

I don’t think there’s any question there were big problems that occurred in 2015 and 2016. It seemed like Pitino recognized and took ownership of that, both publicly and privately, and made major changes beginning in summer 2016 (the lecture series, the letters to Kaler, among many examples). Those changes continue to this day.

The current incident isn’t current, we are just once again confirming there was a problem 2 years ago. I don’t think that changes anything regarding Pitino’s current status. However, if any similar MORE RECENT incidents come to light, then somebody besides the player himself might also pay the price.
 

I actually don't think the curfew thing is that hard for them to answer. He was arrested for sexual assault (and suspended from the team during the investigation). When there weren't any charges or findings against him, he was reinstated, but a curfew was instituted due to prior arrest. In the future, they would do the same for any other player. That doesn't imply any cover up or anything similar at all.

I think that's very much a possibility. Too many people are assuming the curfew (if true) meant they knew about all of this. Maybe they did, but it's a big assumption. It could be as simple as they thought he was partying a little too much.
 

To Clarify - what I was saying about Louisville:

Louisville program - problems with off-court activity by players - head coach says "I didn't know anything about it."

Minnesota program - problems with off-court activity by players - head coach says "I didn't see any red flags."

There is a parallel there. the fact that the coaches are father and son is a coincidence. the point is that, for most people, the head coach is considered ultimately responsible for the behavior of his players, whether fair or not.

Richard Pitino has had several instances of off-court problems with player behavior. At the very least, there will be questions asked, and the administration will have to (or should have to) answer those questions. Pitino is not going to get a pass on this deal - especially in the current societal context, with all the publicity surrounding sexual harassment, etc.

It wasn't a problem with player activity at Louisville though, it was a director of basketball operations organizing the parties for players and recruits. It was a case of improper benefits that was likely done to give them an unfair edge in recruiting. Personally I find it more likely that Rick knew about the parties being put on by his director of basketball operations than that Richard knew about rumors among classmates about Lynch's sexual behavior.
 



1) While there may be some improvements to be made on handling sexual assaults by the U admin and may be better ways to communicate the penalities assessed, it boggles my mind how much people are focused on those things. How about discussion about getting our athletes and college students to stop assaulting other students. So much focus is on killing the messenger.

2) Get Lynch out of here now. As a U alum I want him out and want him to be loudly condemned. His actions are lower than low. Can we recommend expulsion from the state?
 

I think I'd like to at least see the definitions of sexual assault and sexual misconduct before making any kind of demand that Reggie be gone. I have absolutely no idea exactly what he was accused of and I doubt anyone else here does either yet many are expecting him to be cut from the team immediately based on allegations rather than facts. So far we don't know the facts. Was it an unwanted kiss, a grab of something or something else entirely?. We have no idea what exactly they are calling sexual assault or sexual misconduct. From what I have read neither of these were ever even reported to the police. I'll let the process play out before making any kind of expectation even though it will be a long, drawn out painful process.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

So far we don't know the facts. Was it an unwanted kiss, a grab of something or something else entirely?.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well, you're right. We don't know the facts but I suspect it was more than an unwanted kiss or a grab. Sometimes when these sort of complaints occur, there is a money or power angle so naturally there are some suspicions that the person making the complaint might be looking for money (like say Kobe) or pushed by others (and possibly even paid) to take down someone of some stature (like say Franken). We don't really have these conditions here so I suspect it was something a bit more serious to motivate this person to make a complaint this far past the time period of the alleged incident.
 

According to Pacyga one allegation is forced rape and the other is digital penetration.
 



I think I'd like to at least see the definitions of sexual assault and sexual misconduct before making any kind of demand that Reggie be gone. I have absolutely no idea exactly what he was accused of and I doubt anyone else here does either yet many are expecting him to be cut from the team immediately based on allegations rather than facts. So far we don't know the facts. Was it an unwanted kiss, a grab of something or something else entirely?. We have no idea what exactly they are calling sexual assault or sexual misconduct. From what I have read neither of these were ever even reported to the police. I'll let the process play out before making any kind of expectation even though it will be a long, drawn out painful process.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

https://policy.umn.edu/hr/sexharassassault
 


Both the accuser and the accused are protected so we won’t know what the specific actions were that occurred unless the report is leaked like the football situation. That’s how it should be.

My guess is students aren’t typically expelled for unwanted ass grabbing.

Suggestion from my wife . If Lynch is somehow found not guilty, then expell the female student/s that filed the false charges.. Perhaps could balance the scales of justice.
 

Suggestion from my wife . If Lynch is somehow found not guilty, then expell the female student/s that filed the false charges.. Perhaps could balance the scales of justice.
I don't think Title IX or the EOAA allow that, but it would be the most effective way of curtailing false accusations.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
 

Suggestion from my wife . If Lynch is somehow found not guilty, then expell the female student/s that filed the false charges.. Perhaps could balance the scales of justice.
You'd have to apply a similar threshold that the accusations were intentionally false. Generally, I think that would be tough to do. I agree that a false accusation of this nature is egregious.

Sent from my 2PZC5 using Tapatalk
 

Suggestion from my wife . If Lynch is somehow found not guilty, then expell the female student/s that filed the false charges.. Perhaps could balance the scales of justice.

Yes scaring women further into not reporting sexual assault sounds like a brilliant idea.
 

Suggestion from my wife . If Lynch is somehow found not guilty, then expell the female student/s that filed the false charges.. Perhaps could balance the scales of justice.

That's not happening. He can sue them for defamation of he wants.
 


Yes scaring women further into not reporting sexual assault sounds like a brilliant idea.

I don't think that is what anybody is saying and quite frankly is a clumsy and cliched response. The point is that our legal system has obvious(and enforced) punishment for filing false police reports or lying to authorities in the course of an investigation, the EOAA has none.

Now if in the course of a criminal investigation, the police simply don't find enough evidence to charge, nobody is going to jail or in trouble and rightfully so, only if they knowingly lied to support their claims. That is a safeguard of our legal system. The reason that and other safeguards exist is for one reason only, to insure that the truth is the only important thing and that it should be attained at all costs.

If you create a system and start removing those safeguards, then it is inarguable that the lone goal is no longer the truth. Perhaps truth is one of the goals of the EOAA system, but no longer the only one. When goals other than the truth become part of a process that can deprive an individual of something as important reputation or education, we should all be concerned.
 

Smart players + good culture can help you on and off the court. I fully support what coach Fleck is doing with the football program. Recruit wisely and make the off-field behavior expectations clear to kids coming in & you don't get bit by off court incidents that have NOTHING to do with basketball. You may also OVERachieve on the court like Wisconsin bball does every single year.
 

I don't think that is what anybody is saying and quite frankly is a clumsy and cliched response. The point is that our legal system has obvious(and enforced) punishment for filing false police reports or lying to authorities in the course of an investigation, the EOAA has none.

Now if in the course of a criminal investigation, the police simply don't find enough evidence to charge, nobody is going to jail or in trouble and rightfully so, only if they knowingly lied to support their claims. That is a safeguard of our legal system. The reason that and other safeguards exist is for one reason only, to insure that the truth is the only important thing and that it should be attained at all costs.

If you create a system and start removing those safeguards, then it is inarguable that the lone goal is no longer the truth. Perhaps truth is one of the goals of the EOAA system, but no longer the only one. When goals other than the truth become part of a process that can deprive an individual of something as important reputation or education, we should all be concerned.

Well said, but still think Pete Smith's wife method would be just window dressing (would never be used by the people inclined to work for EOAA), while have a chilling affect (albeit irrationally) on some actual victims.

Perhaps a threshold would be more appropriate. Let's face it, the EOAA has no business investigating the current claims against Lynch. Their team is straight amateur hour. You can't have advocates hoping for a specific result performing investigations with this magnitude.

I think for rape and/or more serious allegations the EOAA should not investigate (nor have authority) until after the Police have taken a look. This would submit them to the same system standards of false allegations, but also help steer victims towards the correct path.
 

3-4+ women coming forward and he might not of done something.... Good one Petey
 

Well said, but still think Pete Smith's wife method would be just window dressing (would never be used by the people inclined to work for EOAA), while have a chilling affect (albeit irrationally) on some actual victims.

Perhaps a threshold would be more appropriate. Let's face it, the EOAA has no business investigating the current claims against Lynch. Their team is straight amateur hour. You can't have advocates hoping for a specific result performing investigations with this magnitude.

I think for rape and/or more serious allegations the EOAA should not investigate (nor have authority) until after the Police have taken a look. This would submit them to the same system standards of false allegations, but also help steer victims towards the correct path.

What do you propose for violations of the code of conduct. Several highly successful coaches have very strict rules for the team.
 

I don't think that is what anybody is saying and quite frankly is a clumsy and cliched response. The point is that our legal system has obvious(and enforced) punishment for filing false police reports or lying to authorities in the course of an investigation, the EOAA has none.

Now if in the course of a criminal investigation, the police simply don't find enough evidence to charge, nobody is going to jail or in trouble and rightfully so, only if they knowingly lied to support their claims. That is a safeguard of our legal system. The reason that and other safeguards exist is for one reason only, to insure that the truth is the only important thing and that it should be attained at all costs.

If you create a system and start removing those safeguards, then it is inarguable that the lone goal is no longer the truth. Perhaps truth is one of the goals of the EOAA system, but no longer the only one. When goals other than the truth become part of a process that can deprive an individual of something as important reputation or education, we should all be concerned.

I will take the judgement of the U's EOAA any day of the week over the average cop in every city in America. Why do I say this? Because I believe most people who serve on EOAA's in every college in America are inherently more trustworthy and have less of an agenda than cops. Oh, and by the way, my brother whom I love dearly is a cop. The criminal justice system in America is drenched in corruption. There is no denying it. Justice doesn't happen for large segments of society. If colleges and universities leave it up to local prosecutors and police departments to enforce law and order and keep students safe there is zero chance of it actually happening.


Why Police Lie Under Oath

THOUSANDS of people plead guilty to crimes every year in the United States because they know that the odds of a jury’s believing their word over a police officer’s are slim to none. As a juror, whom are you likely to believe: the alleged criminal in an orange jumpsuit or two well-groomed police officers in uniforms who just swore to God they’re telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but? As one of my colleagues recently put it, “Everyone knows you have to be crazy to accuse the police of lying.”

But are police officers necessarily more trustworthy than alleged criminals? I think not. Not just because the police have a special inclination toward confabulation, but because, disturbingly, they have an incentive to lie. In this era of mass incarceration, the police shouldn’t be trusted any more than any other witness, perhaps less so.

That may sound harsh, but numerous law enforcement officials have put the matter more bluntly. Peter Keane, a former San Francisco Police commissioner, wrote an article in The San Francisco Chronicle decrying a police culture that treats lying as the norm: “Police officer perjury in court to justify illegal dope searches is commonplace. One of the dirty little not-so-secret secrets of the criminal justice system is undercover narcotics officers intentionally lying under oath. It is a perversion of the American justice system that strikes directly at the rule of law. Yet it is the routine way of doing business in courtrooms everywhere in America.”

The New York City Police Department is not exempt from this critique. In 2011, hundreds of drug cases were dismissed after several police officers were accused of mishandling evidence. That year, Justice Gustin L. Reichbach of the State Supreme Court in Brooklyn condemned a widespread culture of lying and corruption in the department’s drug enforcement units. “I thought I was not naïve,” he said when announcing a guilty verdict involving a police detective who had planted crack cocaine on a pair of suspects. “But even this court was shocked, not only by the seeming pervasive scope of misconduct but even more distressingly by the seeming casualness by which such conduct is employed.”

Read more at: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/03/opinion/sunday/why-police-officers-lie-under-oath.html
 

I will take the judgement of the U's EOAA any day of the week over the average cop in every city in America. Why do I say this? Because I believe most people who serve on EOAA's in every college in America are inherently more trustworthy and have less of an agenda than cops. Oh, and by the way, my brother whom I love dearly is a cop. The criminal justice system in America is drenched in corruption. There is no denying it. Justice doesn't for large segments of society. If colleges and universities leave it up to local prosecutors and police departments to enforce law and order and keep students safe there is zero chance of it actually happening.


Why Police Lie Under Oath

THOUSANDS of people plead guilty to crimes every year in the United States because they know that the odds of a jury’s believing their word over a police officer’s are slim to none. As a juror, whom are you likely to believe: the alleged criminal in an orange jumpsuit or two well-groomed police officers in uniforms who just swore to God they’re telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but? As one of my colleagues recently put it, “Everyone knows you have to be crazy to accuse the police of lying.”

But are police officers necessarily more trustworthy than alleged criminals? I think not. Not just because the police have a special inclination toward confabulation, but because, disturbingly, they have an incentive to lie. In this era of mass incarceration, the police shouldn’t be trusted any more than any other witness, perhaps less so.

That may sound harsh, but numerous law enforcement officials have put the matter more bluntly. Peter Keane, a former San Francisco Police commissioner, wrote an article in The San Francisco Chronicle decrying a police culture that treats lying as the norm: “Police officer perjury in court to justify illegal dope searches is commonplace. One of the dirty little not-so-secret secrets of the criminal justice system is undercover narcotics officers intentionally lying under oath. It is a perversion of the American justice system that strikes directly at the rule of law. Yet it is the routine way of doing business in courtrooms everywhere in America.”

The New York City Police Department is not exempt from this critique. In 2011, hundreds of drug cases were dismissed after several police officers were accused of mishandling evidence. That year, Justice Gustin L. Reichbach of the State Supreme Court in Brooklyn condemned a widespread culture of lying and corruption in the department’s drug enforcement units. “I thought I was not naïve,” he said when announcing a guilty verdict involving a police detective who had planted crack cocaine on a pair of suspects. “But even this court was shocked, not only by the seeming pervasive scope of misconduct but even more distressingly by the seeming casualness by which such conduct is employed.”

Read more at: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/03/opinion/sunday/why-police-officers-lie-under-oath.html

This post has nothing to do with Lynch specifically (doesn’t sound good) but I had to horn in when I saw the above. It’s nice to see Cruze acknowledge sometimes people lie. Sometimes for mundane things like protecting reputations. Surprisingly (to you) it’s one of the reasons our legal system has evolved to contain so many safeguards for the accused. Safeguards that are lacking in the EOAA process despite possible enormous economic damages via loss of educational and professional opportunities. How does this not compute for you?

From your linked article:

Research shows that ordinary human beings lie a lot — multiple times a day — even when there’s no clear benefit to lying. Generally, humans lie about relatively minor things like “I lost your phone number; that’s why I didn’t call” or “No, really, you don’t look fat.” But humans can also be persuaded to lie about far more important matters, especially if the lie will enhance or protect their reputation or standing in a group.

The natural tendency to lie makes quota systems and financial incentives that reward the police for the sheer numbers of people stopped, frisked or arrested especially dangerous. One lie can destroy a life, resulting in the loss of employment, a prison term and relegation to permanent second-class status. The fact that our legal system has become so tolerant of police lying indicates how corrupted our criminal justice system has become by declarations of war, “get tough” mantras, and a seemingly insatiable appetite for locking up and locking out the poorest and darkest among us.

 

This post has nothing to do with Lynch specifically (doesn’t sound good) but I had to horn in when I saw the above. It’s nice to see Cruze acknowledge sometimes people lie. Sometimes

[/I]

I think we are all about ready to give up and stop the battle.
'
The EOAA is not such a great thing and needs some reform, serious reform

Women need to get treated well by law enforcement and need to report all assaults right so some evidence can get collected


Reggie may or may not be a horrible person, but we need to stop worrying him, he is done

There must be a better way moving forward, but these allegations need to be reported right away. An 18 month delay does not help much.
 

Suggestion from my wife . If Lynch is somehow found not guilty, then expell the female student/s that filed the false charges.. Perhaps could balance the scales of justice.

Normally I would think this is a disgusting way to deal with situations like this. People need to understand something: it is possible for two adults to have differing views (and memories) on how a particular incident happened. Even if someone is found not guilty, it does not mean that the person who reported it is lying. A woman can legitimately believe she was raped even if she was not. A finding of not guilty (or "not responsible" or whatever it would be called in terms of the EOAA) does not mean the reporting student was lying about what they believed they saw or experienced.

However, in Reggie's case in particular it may actually make some sense. Because apparently Reggie is saying (according to his attorney's statements at the press conference yesterday) that he literally has no sexual contact with the woman who is saying it was forcible intercourse. He's not saying "we had sex, but it was consensual", he's saying "nothing even happened, there was absolutely no sexual contact and she's completely making it up." Basically, in this particular situation, one of them has to be lying.
 




Top Bottom