Federal judge tosses former football players' lawsuit against University of Minnesota

Donate To GopherHole
Spoofin said:
Wait. You are assuming he leaked it because the lawyer claimed the report helped his client <b>after it had already been leaked</b>? He didn’t say they leaked it, but you are assuming he did because he tried to put a positive spin on it, really? You think it was more realistic for him to say, “oh crap, that hurts our case”???
Click to expand...

I'm happy to be proven completely wrong, and this is just a wild guess (like anyone) .... but .... if you're trying to make the argument that the U of M's process is deeply flawed and unfair, and no one in the public can actually see the workings mechanism of that process ..... then it makes sense to me that they would want to leak it, to try to rally the public behind them and showcase the "unfair" process.
 

Gophers_4life said:
I'm happy to be proven completely wrong, and this is just a wild guess (like anyone) .... but .... if you're trying to make the argument that the U of M's process is deeply flawed and unfair, and no one in the public can actually see the workings mechanism of that process ..... then it makes sense to me that they would want to leak it, to try to rally the public behind them and showcase the "unfair" process.
Click to expand...

Possible, but that would be a pretty naive viewpoint. The only reason to leak the report is for public opinion and most people see the pitch-fork tendencies of the general public. For example, the report did show how unfair (no quotes required) the process was, but I think we all saw what the general public’s response was (in large part because the vast majority don’t actually read the report but just hear the “highlights” the media and folks around the water cooler repeat).

No one on here knows for sure who leaked the report. Anything is possible - including ill-advised reasoning. <I>Could </I>it have been a player? Sure. Bizzle’s reasoning on why that is “clear” reads like looney bird talk tho. “Follow the money” (or in this case <b>follow who benefitted the most</b>) is usually a pretty sound approach. Pretty clear who benefitted the most by having the report leaked - it wasn’t the accused or the accuser.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Mulligan said:
Amazing how many legal experts on GH now are second guessing a lawyer who specializes in these types of cases as having the wrong strategy. Anything but admitting the U did things right according to the policies in place. Of course when Mr. Truth and Integrity himself claims that nobody predicted tons of money was going to be garnered by the players, one shouldn't be amazed at what is brought up.
Click to expand...

Ultimately for some this is what it is about. Placing blame on the U for how they handled the situation even though the procedures in place were followed.

Their complete disdain for President Kaler and AD Coyle won’t allow for admitting the U followed the policies.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:

Spoofin said:
Pretty clear who benefitted the most by having the report leaked - it wasn’t the accused or the accuser.
Click to expand...

100% correct that KTSP benefitted financially from obtaining the leaked report ... but they couldn’t unilaterally cause there leak, they could only pay off someone. But that means there will had to be a person on the inside with access to the report who could then provide it.
 

You can like it or hate it but the U of MN standard is affirmative consent. That means basically you talk about sex beforehand and everyone agrees. That could be two people or 27 people. It does not matter. Everyone needs to agree that they want to have sex with everyone else. Every single Gopher athlete is specifically briefed on affirmative consent and what that means as part of their orientation.
 


Gophers_4life said:
All the thing you listed are patently far, far more serious than being expelled from the University of Minnesota for violating the student code of conduct, and you know it. You're trying to be misleading, because you don't want to lose the argument. That's called LYING.
Click to expand...

The act of trying to tell someone else how they should feel about the consequences of an event is precious. What if someone were to suggest date rape is no big deal, get over it? Life goes on, right?

Yes, I’m clearly losing the argument about the process being biased/shaded/inherently unfair.
 

ComoGopher said:
You can like it or hate it but the U of MN standard is affirmative consent. That means basically you talk about sex beforehand and everyone agrees. That could be two people or 27 people. It does not matter. Everyone needs to agree that they want to have sex with everyone else. Every single Gopher athlete is specifically briefed on affirmative consent and what that means as part of their orientation.
Click to expand...

And...how do you prove consent after the fact??

The sole reason for affirmative consent was to enable easier findings of guilt. The originators of the concept even admit they don’t care that it takes a few broken eggs to make an omelette. Ends justify the means, yada yada. Really lunatic stuff. Think about how crazy that is.
 
Last edited:





Pompous Elitist said:
You didn’t answer my question.
Click to expand...

Oh I absolutely did. You basically need a signed statement to have sex. 99% of the time it does not matter. But when one of the parties decides to say they didn't consent you are screwed. The athletes are all briefed on this. They were 18 year old kids and were stupid. I get it. They were all briefed on this. Sucks for them but the U of MN standard is clear and in this case there is a lot of haziness. Not good in an affirmative consent environment. Like someone else said earlier, if it ended at the threesome it would have been OK.
 

ComoGopher said:
Oh I absolutely did. You basically need a signed statement to have sex. 99% of the time it does not matter. But when one of the parties decides to say they didn't consent you are screwed. The athletes are all briefed on this. They were 18 year old kids and were stupid. I get it. They were all briefed on this. Sucks for them but the U of MN standard is clear and in this case there is a lot of haziness. Not good in an affirmative consent environment. Like someone else said earlier, if it ended at the threesome it would have been OK.
Click to expand...

So, setting an impossible standard is ok? This is a good thing?

Has the U eradicated date rape with these changes? Somehow...I expect not. Hit me with some stats.
 

Pompous Elitist said:
So, setting an impossible standard is ok? This is a good thing?

Has the U eradicated date rape with these changes? Somehow...I expect not. Hit me with some stats.
Click to expand...

Yes. Don't have sex with someone who does not absolutely want to have sex with you. We are not wild animals who can't control what we do.
 

ComoGopher said:
Yes. Don't have sex with someone who does not absolutely want to have sex with you. We are not wild animals who can't control what we do.
Click to expand...

That’s not the point. Nobody disagrees with your statement. What about instances of regret, embarrassment, attention-seeking, revenge, etc.

It’s almost unconscionably naive to believe every accusation at face value.
 



Pompous Elitist said:
That’s not the point. Nobody disagrees with your statement. What about instances of regret, embarrassment, attention-seeking, revenge, etc.

It’s almost unconscionably naive to believe every accusation at face value.
Click to expand...

Get over yourself. This girl did not want to train the football team. Maybe the first threesome was consent.
 

ComoGopher said:
Get over yourself. This girl did not want to train the football team. Maybe the first threesome was consent.
Click to expand...

So, you tell me to get over myself then go on to state you know what happened and now the entire team was involved. The last sentence is an instant classic.
 

ComoGopher said:
Get over yourself. This girl did not want to train the football team. Maybe the first threesome was consent.
Click to expand...

You don’t know who wanted or didn’t want what. Get over yourself.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Spoofin said:
You don’t know who wanted or didn’t want what. Get over yourself.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Hmmm. Unless you have affirmative consent you should not have sex. How is that possibly negative? Yet you want to make that a negative. She said she did jot want to. We have evidence of text massages and train running and you still defend the men? WTF?

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk
 

rugger14 said:
Hmmm. Unless you have affirmative consent you should not have sex. How is that possibly negative? Yet you want to make that a negative. She said she did jot want to. We have evidence of text massages and train running and you still defend the men? WTF?

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Evidence? Where do these urban legends originate from? At times I feel like we’ve been reading two separate accounts of the same event.
 

rugger14 said:
Hmmm. Unless you have affirmative consent you should not have sex. How is that possibly negative? Yet you want to make that a negative.
Click to expand...

What are you even talking about?

rugger14 said:
She said she did jot want to. We have evidence of text massages and train running and you still defend the men? WTF?

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

We have evidence she said she didn’t want to? You should have shared that with the police.

Never once have I claimed to know what happened. However, you and others with your assumption of guilt is wildly dangerous. You are living in the right time.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Spoofin said:
What are you even talking about?



We have evidence she said she didn’t want to? You should have shared that with the police.

Never once have I claimed to know what happened. However, you and others with your assumption of guilt is wildly dangerous. You are living in the right time.



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

Not at all. Do not have sex without affirmative consent. That is all.
 

ComoGopher said:
Not at all. Do not have sex without affirmative consent. That is all.
Click to expand...

And who would dispute that? Did you miss what the debate was about?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Spoofin said:
What are you even talking about?



We have evidence she said she didn’t want to? You should have shared that with the police.

Never once have I claimed to know what happened. However, you and others with your assumption of guilt is wildly dangerous. You are living in the right time.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
The police should have seized cellphones and done a real investigation. What they did was a joke.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk
 


rugger14 said:
The police should have seized cellphones and done a real investigation. What they did was a joke.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

More assumptions of guilt. You got this one all figured out. Good thing we had the EOAA to run a real investigation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

rugger14 said:
The police should have seized cellphones and done a real investigation. What they did was a joke.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I’m pretty sure they did that. Are you talking about hiring a forensic firm like in capital cases to painstakingly recover any shreds of deleted flash drive data to help determine where Seth Green and Kiondre were and the rest of the guys were. I wonder if the basketball team was there. I bet Claeys was there too. He seems like the type.
 

Spoofin said:
Wait. You are assuming he leaked it because the lawyer claimed the report helped his client <b>after it had already been leaked</b>? He didn’t say they leaked it, but you are assuming he did because he tried to put a positive spin on it, really? You think it was more realistic for him to say, “oh crap, that hurts our case”???


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

I'd think he would be pointing out exactly what someone said above...which is that it would be a violation of his clients rights that it was leaked without his consent. But he never went down that road.

Any halfway decent lawyer could win a decent settlement for their client if the report was leaked by someone at the U. And it could be the basis for the discrimination suit. But it's not. That should tell you something.
 
Last edited:

bizzle22 said:
I'd think he would be pointing out exactly what someone said above...which is that it would be a violation of his clients rights that it was leaked without his consent. But he never went down that road.

Any halfway decent lawyer could win a decent settlement for their client if the report was leaked by someone at the U. And it could be the basis for the discrimination suit. But it's not. That should tell you something.
Click to expand...

What tells me something is the U launched a high $ high powered investigation into an alleged leak of EOAA findings vs a public employee of the athletic department but crickets when the privacy rights of a student were violated.

Who had more to gain at the time by leaking the report? In the midst of a team boycott and PR nightmare (of their own making)?

I don’t know what happened here (with the leak), just like I don’t know what really happened or was communicated/miscommunicated the night in question. You guys don’t have a definite answer here? Surprising.
 
Last edited:

Cruze said:
There was no he said/she said in the Gopher football sex scandal. There were many people with first hand information about what transpired inside and outside the apartment either because they were an eye witness or because they received texts and videos sent by people in the apartment. For starters, the accused players were interviewed about their participation in the goings on and more than a few of them provided information about what the alleged victim said or didn't say and how her demeanor changed over time. Some information provided by players directly implicated other players in violations of the student code of conduct.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding about how administrative hearings work in every public institution in America. The body of law that govern such hearings has been around for over a century or two. The U didn't invent their student disciplinary process last year. It was developed over decades to help the U's administrators manage one of the largest universities in the country. It can't happen any other way.

The U followed their process right down the line and the result was as fair to all the parties involved as any other process you can possibly dream up. What you want to happen can no longer exist in a country where women and minorities are asserting their rights everywhere and they are acquiring the political power and influence to change the way things happen in America forever. The U is NEVER turning back the clock to a time when administrators were reluctant to even do a thorough investigation much less initiate student code of conduct hearings in sexual assault and harassment cases.
Click to expand...

Just so you know, I didn’t read any of that. You have been wrong on virtually every point you’ve ever made on this topic including your last post here stating cross-examination of accusers is allowed. No comment on that?
 

bizzle22 said:
I'd think he would be pointing out exactly what someone said above...which is that it would be a violation of his clients rights that it was leaked without his consent. But he never went down that road.
Click to expand...

Seriously, this theory has so many flaws in it I don’t know where to start. Once leaked, public perception is all that matters.

bizzle22 said:
Any halfway decent lawyer could win a decent settlement for their client if the report was leaked by someone at the U. And it could be the basis for the discrimination suit. But it's not. That should tell you something.
Click to expand...

It tells me that no one could prove who leaked it. As far as I know, you are the only one who has cracked the case so far.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Pompous Elitist said:
What tells me something is the U launched a $1 million+ high powered investigation into an alleged leak of EOAA findings vs a public employee of the athletic department but crickets when the privacy rights of a student were violated.

Who had more to gain at the time by leaking the report? In the midst of a team boycott and PR nightmare (of their own making)?

I don’t know what happened here (with the leak), just like I don’t know what really happened or was communicated/miscommunicated the night in question. You guys don’t have a definite answer here? Surprising.
Click to expand...

I'll agree that there is no definitive answer, because there are only a few people who truly know who leaked it.

I do think it is oversimplifying it to say that leaking the report helped the U more than the players. Remember, news reports were throwing around the number of players involved at like 20. The report shows it to be far less than that. The report also shows that not all of the suspended players were accused of actually participating in the act. Both of those factors means the players benefit from getting that information out there. Frankly I don't think the release of the report was particularly helpful for either side.

The only people talking to the media about it were the players and their lawyers. The players each received a letter along with the report which totaled up to 82 pages. Coincidentally, the document that was leaked was exactly what each payer would have received. And again, any lawyer would be going nuts that the report was released without their consent. That is a direct violation of their clients rights and the easiest path to winning a lawsuit. Maybe I'm going a little far to say it is "clear" that the report was released by the players, but to me it definitely looks like it was released by one of the players and/or their lawyers.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom