Suspended Gophers player Reggie Lynch drops his appeal

If one is going to take advantage of opportunities such as exclusive media tours, media passes, and press conference attendance and questions, that person should probably at least make an attempt to appear to adhere to journalistic / reporting standards (as applicable).

This is a general point, I didn’t see Nadine’s tweets and have nothing against her, I’m just saying if you take the media access and privileges, you have a tougher time hiding behind “but I don’t really call myself a reporter”

I think the Gophers know exactly what they are getting when they give GopherHole access to stuff.

If the U gave me exclusive access to cool stuff, I would not be unbiased. I am not a journalist or a reporter
 

Never underestimate the anger of a white woman scorned by a black man. Racism is alive and well in the good ole USA. s/

Really? Wow....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Nadine and Daniel have every right like any of the press folks to cover Gopher Athletics.
 


If there is only one reason that top recruits should think twice about coming to the U it is the political correctness and brainless logic that passes for justice at the U and apparently with a fair bit the general population here in Minnesota. For example, Cruze has no idea what really happened and neither do I. I think Lynch would have probably gotten a much more fair handling of the accusations if he would have just gone on Jerry Springer and let the applause decide his fate.

Probably - most people will never ever be put under pressure like this with their name, public reputation and future on the line for something they didnt do, or perhaps he did do... People in that situation will likely want more than the ladies in the Human Resources department voting on it and needing to spend $500 an hour to claw back any sort of proper handling of it.

Great job of unbiased investigating journalism (sarcasm). Why are you so quick to assume that the famous athlete is the victim that is being railroaded by some inept girls club?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 



So you are admitting that the process is a problem?
Right!
When the process relies on a he said/she said decision from 2 years back you are at the mercy of the persons who reside as judges. If the judges have made their biased decision then there is no way in h3ll you're going to change their minds...objective facts be d@mned.
 

Great job of unbiased investigating journalism (sarcasm). Why are you so quick to assume that the famous athlete is the victim that is being railroaded by some inept girls club?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I have no idea what happened. I have seen no public accusations and was not in the room at the time. That's the point. Neither do you. Seriously... you have no idea what happened.
 

I have no idea what happened. I have seen no public accusations and was not in the room at the time. That's the point. Neither do you. Seriously... you have no idea what happened.

None of us were in the room, this will never be in a court of law. But we can say statistically that it is more likely than not to have happened.
 



Right!
When the process relies on a he said/she said decision from 2 years back you are at the mercy of the persons who reside as judges. If the judges have made their biased decision then there is no way in h3ll you're going to change their minds...objective facts be d@mned.

What if the judges in this case were unbiased ? How do you know they were biased ?
 

What if the judges in this case were unbiased ? How do you know they were biased ?

MennoSota doesn't know the hearing officers would have been biased. He is just showing his own bias. The only evidence he has are the hearing and appeals officers for the football scandal where 5 out of the 10 players won their appeals. Furthermore, unless Mennosota has read the EOAA report he has no clue what the evidence is.
 

What if the judges in this case were unbiased ? How do you know they were biased ?
Why would Reggie say there was no point in fighting if he is innocent as he claims? That strongly implies that the judges have a bias he feels he cannot overcome.
 




Why would Reggie say there was no point in fighting if he is innocent as he claims? That strongly implies Reggie thinks that the judges have a bias he feels he cannot overcome.

FIFY
 


Pacyga lays out in great detail why he nor the football players last winter (or any accused) receive a fair hearing at the University of Minnesota. He also details the accuser’s stories and the inconsistencies. The deck is stacked from the very beginning. The SSMS panel is indoctrinated prior to the hearing in a pseudoscientific area of psychology claiming “recovered memories” and other memory alterations which is not accepted science and in fact goes against everything that is scientifically accepted about traumatic memory.

There is a small pool of paid expert witnesses/researchers that practice it. It is analogous to the small band of climate change deniers asserting their findings refute the vast majority of accepted science. However, this pseudoscience sounds reasonable when presented to lay people.

In addition, the defense has no ability to cross examine the expert witness/indoctrination or apparently introduce their own expert.

They are not able to introduce evidence, eg videos, that would clear the accused.

The defense is not able to subpoena university employees or police to the hearing. Consider the conflicts of interest.

The interesting part starts at about 16:20 or so on the press conference video on page 1 of the thread. Shame on the University for allowing this to go on.
 

You didn't fix anything. You just added your opinion, which is fine.
In todays climate, if someone accused you of harassment regarding an alleged event from 2 years back, would you receive a fair and unbiased trial? You could shout that you are innocent, but she says you violated her wishes. No matter how loudly you said you didn't do what she claimed you did, you would lose. You would be tossed out on your @$$.
Justice is not served. Injustice wins. The truth doesn't set you free because no one is looking for truth. All that is available is "he said/she said" and since you're a man...you lose.
Welcome to the EOAA kangaroo court if biased judgment.
 

Pacyga lays out in great detail why he nor the football players last winter (or any accused) receive a fair hearing at the University of Minnesota. He also details the accuser’s stories and the inconsistencies. The deck is stacked from the very beginning. The SSMS panel is indoctrinated prior to the hearing in a pseudoscientific area of psychology claiming “recovered memories” and other memory alterations which is not accepted science and in fact goes against everything that is scientifically accepted about traumatic memory.

There is a small pool of paid expert witnesses/researchers that practice it. It is analogous to the small band of climate change deniers asserting their findings refute the vast majority of accepted science. However, this pseudoscience sounds reasonable when presented to lay people.

In addition, the defense has no ability to cross examine the expert witness/indoctrination or apparently introduce their own expert.

They are not able to introduce evidence, eg videos, that would clear the accused.

The defense is not able to subpoena university employees or police to the hearing. Consider the conflicts of interest.

The interesting part starts at about 18:20 or so on the press conference video. Shame on the University for allowing this to go on.
Well said.
 

You didn't fix anything. You just added your opinion, which is fine.
In todays climate, if someone accused you of harassment regarding an alleged event from 2 years back, would you receive a fair and unbiased trial? You could shout that you are innocent, but she says you violated her wishes. No matter how loudly you said you didn't do what she claimed you did, you would lose. You would be tossed out on your @$$.
Justice is not served. Injustice wins. The truth doesn't set you free because no one is looking for truth. All that is available is "he said/she said" and since you're a man...you lose.
Welcome to the EOAA kangaroo court if biased judgment.

Nothing that I said is opinion. I was simply correcting you by pointing out that it is Reggie and his lawyer's OPINION that the "judge" is biased. Not everyone believes there is bias and not everyone believes it is a kangaroo court. I didn't even say I disagreed with your statement, just not a fan of people saying opinions as though they are fact.
 

Pacyga lays out in great detail why he nor the football players last winter (or any accused) receive a fair hearing at the University of Minnesota. He also details the accuser’s stories and the inconsistencies. The deck is stacked from the very beginning. The SSMS panel is indoctrinated prior to the hearing in a pseudoscientific area of psychology claiming “recovered memories” and other memory alterations which is not accepted science and in fact goes against everything that is scientifically accepted about traumatic memory.

There is a small pool of paid expert witnesses/researchers that practice it. It is analogous to the small band of climate change deniers asserting their findings refute the vast majority of accepted science. However, this pseudoscience sounds reasonable when presented to lay people.

In addition, the defense has no ability to cross examine the expert witness/indoctrination or apparently introduce their own expert.

They are not able to introduce evidence, eg videos, that would clear the accused.

The defense is not able to subpoena university employees or police to the hearing. Consider the conflicts of interest.

The interesting part starts at about 18:20 or so on the press conference video on page 1 of the thread. Shame on the University for allowing this to go on.

I watched the whole thing yesterday.

Pacyga makes some good points. I agree with him that the overall process could use some improvement. He's a little over the top with some of his "I'm a busy guy and you should accommodate my schedule" complaining. For example, he pointed out that the university had 3 months to investigate and had only initially offered to push back the hearing a few weeks. He claimed that it was unfair that they had so much time and he didn't get as much. He didn't mention that the EOAA office doesn't have a very big staff, and that on a campus with 50,000 students they had surely spent those three months investigating other cases and not focused solely on Reggie's case. He's used to dealing with police departments that have an abundance of resources, not an EOAA staff of maybe 10 people?

And to be fair, Pacyga is the only one talking about specific details of the case. He has a biased viewpoint just as much as anyone else does, and we are only getting his version of the story, both in terms of details of the actual incident and pre-hearing communications with the Panel Chair.

And each party is allowed to introduce their own witnesses and experts. They are allowed to cross examine witnesses presented by the other party. Each party is allowed to introduce evidence as well.

Is it perfect? Of course not. Even our criminal justice system isn't perfect after centuries of refinement.
 

Pacyga lays out in great detail why he nor the football players last winter (or any accused) receive a fair hearing at the University of Minnesota.

I guess Pacyga forgot to mention that half of the football players won their appeals. Most reasonable people without an axe to grind would say that was a fair and unbiased result. At least Pacyga would agree because he never filed a federal lawsuit against the U to challenge the fairness of the results.
 

Nothing that I said is opinion. I was simply correcting you by pointing out that it is Reggie and his lawyer's OPINION that the "judge" is biased. Not everyone believes there is bias and not everyone believes it is a kangaroo court. I didn't even say I disagreed with your statement, just not a fan of people saying opinions as though they are fact.
You didn't correct anything. You forced your opinion upon what I wrote. Be honest.
 

Seems to me if he was innocent he would fight to the end.

Why, his college career is over, even winning an appeal at this point doesn't alter anything, he's still tainted and it proves nothing, could it be he just wants to put it behind him and move on
 

Why, his college career is over, even winning an appeal at this point doesn't alter anything, he's still tainted and it proves nothing, could it be he just wants to put it behind him and move on

I agree. I'd want to be as far from the U as possible - guilty or not guilty. And how much money would he want to spend in trying to clear his name from this?
 

Why, his college career is over, even winning an appeal at this point doesn't alter anything, he's still tainted and it proves nothing, could it be he just wants to put it behind him and move on
I agree. I'd want to be as far from the U as possible - guilty or not guilty. And how much money would he want to spend in trying to clear his name from this?
Both good points. There is no personal benefit to him at this point. It must be tough for all his teammates as they watch UMN rake their friends name through the mud. It has to make them all look over their shoulder and hope no potentially jilted woman makes false claims about them. We just learned that truth doesn't matter at UMN.
 

Both good points. There is no personal benefit to him at this point. It must be tough for all his teammates as they watch UMN rake their friends name through the mud. It has to make them all look over their shoulder and hope no potentially jilted woman makes false claims about them. We just learned that truth doesn't matter at UMN.

Your phrasing that like you know he is innocent. Actually pretty rare for a woman to make false claims. They gain nothing but scorn. Looks like years and years of players have gone through without being accused.
 

Why, his college career is over, even winning an appeal at this point doesn't alter anything, he's still tainted and it proves nothing, could it be he just wants to put it behind him and move on

Has he already graduated? I’d say that’s a pretty significant deal.
 

Your phrasing that like you know he is innocent. Actually pretty rare for a woman to make false claims. They gain nothing but scorn. Looks like years and years of players have gone through without being accused.

It’s not rare. Is it the majority? No. There is a long list of possible motives that range from embarrassment, to retribution, to personal gain. Just last week a woman slandered members of my staff. Now, I personally dealt with the woman and overheard the discourse with the staff. She blatantly lied for monetary gain, or simply because she has anger management issues, or perhaps is on the antisocial personality spectrum, or all three.

Last year a member of the faculty was accused of sexual assault and was eventually cleared after the facts came out. Turns out she was a serial accuser to boot.

I’ve had colleague falsely accused of wrongdoing. I know expert witnesses that will blatantly lie for monetary gain. People are really, really complicated. I don’t know what sort of fantasy world some of you live in where everything is black and white, good and evil, but you need to wake up.
 

Your phrasing that like you know he is innocent. Actually pretty rare for a woman to make false claims. They gain nothing but scorn. Looks like years and years of players have gone through without being accused.
The woman is entirely anonymous. She has nothing that would compel her to speak truthfully or falsely. We cannot know what truth is. All we can know is that there is a he said/she said disagreement and the judges have declared that what she said is the truth they are going to believe. The truth he said is ignored. Thus, he walks away with no possible means of justice or restitution for anyone.
The fact is that no one at UMN ever considered or sought a restorative justice. All they sought was their biased opinion.
 

It’s not rare. Is it the majority? No. There is a long list of possible motives that range from embarrassment, to retribution, to personal gain. Just last week a woman slandered members of my staff. Now, I personally dealt with the woman and overheard the discourse with the staff. She blatantly lied for monetary gain, or simply because she has anger management issues, or perhaps is on the antisocial personality spectrum, or all three.

Last year a member of the faculty was accused of sexual assault and was eventually cleared after the facts came out. Turns out she was a serial accuser to boot.

I’ve had colleague falsely accused of wrongdoing. I know expert witnesses that will blatantly lie for monetary gain. People are really, really complicated. I don’t know what sort of fantasy world some of you live in where everything is black and white, good and evil, but you need to wake up.

How many students, how many accusers. Pretty simple math. Damn rare. Never said this case was black and white but those that got the complaints and the info and found something was not right. There is no indication that these folks had a agenda to unfairly treat Reggie. In my company we had one complaint in 47 years and it turned out to be true. Everything is viewed by the bias of our own experience and mine says rare.
 

The woman is entirely anonymous. She has nothing that would compel her to speak truthfully or falsely. We cannot know what truth is. All we can know is that there is a he said/she said disagreement and the judges have declared that what she said is the truth they are going to believe. The truth he said is ignored. Thus, he walks away with no possible means of justice or restitution for anyone.
The fact is that no one at UMN ever considered or sought a restorative justice. All they sought was their biased opinion.

He bypassed his own hearing where he is actually allowed to present evidence as well as face witnesses. If i was accused falsely i would show hell or high water to protect my good name. Walk away without a fight !
 




Top Bottom