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

Donate To GopherHole
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.

It was an embarrassment for the U and the people involved. Lots of grey areas but many people continue to see it in black and white with no nuances. Hoped for outcome is that students remember it as an object lesson in how stupid choices can mess up your life and not put themselves in those situations.
 

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.

It was an embarrassment for the U and the people involved. Lots of grey areas but many people continue to see it in black and white with no nuances. Hoped for outcome is that students remember it as an object lesson in how stupid choices can mess up your life and not put themselves in those situations.
Click to expand...

That’s for sure.

I actually agree with most of your post except the part about everyone predicting a massive payday. I’d like anyone to present some proof of that. It was pointed out at the time the case was first brought its a difficult win in terms of proving discrimination or defamation even if that we feel that may be the case here. It’s more about having a biased EOAA office, a poor process, and a troubling conflict of interest between the school and the EOAA/SSMS members. When people across the political spectrum agree you might want to listen Mulligan.
 

Pompous Elitist said:
That’s for sure.

I actually agree with most of your post except the part about everyone predicting a massive payday. I’d like anyone to present some proof of that. It was pointed out at the time the case was first brought its a difficult win in terms of proving discrimination or defamation even if that we feel that may be the case here. It’s more about having a biased EOAA office, a poor process, and a troubling conflict of interest between the school and the EOAA/SSMS members. When people across the political spectrum agree you might want to listen Mulligan.
Click to expand...

Mulligan's post is 100% correct and your post is only partially correct. Not everyone was predicting massive paydays for the football players but such predictions were a constant theme by multiple posters in most of the threads about this scandal. The one thing you got right in your post was your agreement with Mulligan that students should "remember it as an object lesson in how stupid choices can mess up your life and not put themselves in those situations." It might be the only thing about this whole sorry mess where I have agreed with you.
 
Last edited:

short ornery norwegian said:
Sometimes, life just isn't fair.

I still believe that some of the players involved in the investigation were not treated fairly. "fairly" in the broader sense of the word - not about the specifics of the U's policies and procedures.

But, legally, they probably have no recourse. And they will have to live with this for the rest of their lives.

Make no mistake - the players who were involved in this case are paying a penalty. Some may think they weren't punished enough. some may think they were punished too severely.

Just be glad you don't have to walk in their shoes.
Click to expand...
Concur. I think that there is probably a player or two in that situation. If you tag-teamed a girl with a recruit, texted your buddies to join, responded to the text and joined in, you deserve what you got. If you stopped by because you were curious and left, then maybe not. Good lesson. When your buddy texts you to come train a girl just stay home.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk
 

rugger14 said:
Good lesson. When your buddy texts you to come train a girl just stay home.

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

And one of the biggest issues with this case is that some people think group sex (consensual or not) is wrong and deserves punishment.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 


Spoofin said:
And one of the biggest issues with this case is that some people think group sex (consensual or not) is wrong and deserves punishment.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
That is not the case with me. I don't care what you do consensually. Consensual is everyone agrees to have sex. Not a three way and then there is some question as to whether or not it is consensual. Don't invite your buddies to train the girl you just had a three way with. Don't show up when your buddy invites you. If it had ended with the three way there would never have been a complaint.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk
 

6IAPwW5.gif
 

Spoofin said:
And one of the biggest issues with this case is that some people think group sex (consensual or not) is wrong and deserves punishment.
Click to expand...

Please provide a link to any post in GH that took the position that consensual group sex is wrong. I don't recall seeing even one post like that. My guess is you are referring to posts that might have stated it is wrong to have a threesome with a female who recently consumed 6, 7, or 8 vodka drinks and assume she is also:

1. Mentally, emotionally, and legally capable of consenting to group sex.

2. Consenting to sex with anyone or everyone who receives a text message inviting them to come and join in all the fun.

3. Consenting to having an uninvited audience watch and take videos of the sexual activity and text it to their friends who then re-text it to their friends.

4. Giving up her right to withdraw her consent to sex with late arrivals through words and actions witnessed by several people who declined to participate in all of the fun because it didn't seem like she was into it. It has escaped the attention of most people that there were more than 10 students in the apartment that night but some of them weren't accused of violating the Student Code of Conduct because they left without participating in any way with what was going on.
 
Last edited:

Cruze said:
Please provide a link to any post in GH that took the position that consensual group sex is wrong. <b>I don't recall seeing even one post like that.</b>
Click to expand...

Your memory is quite poor.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 



Group consent?

Spoofin said:
And one of the biggest issues with this case is that some people think group sex (consensual or not) is wrong and deserves punishment.


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


And, at what point in a train is consent not consent and a threat? The issue is not crystal clear in a group sex situation and consent becomes very tricky and nothing is clear. And, if anyone think group sex is a good idea, how does a person reveal to the group an STD? Pregnancy? Scabies? Do you even know the participants? I can't think of a more screwed up culture than a train, or group sex.
 

A_Slab_of_Bacon said:
6IAPwW5.gif
Click to expand...

I post a board for an entirely different sport and one of the things I like about that board is that it has a "Thanks" feature, where a poster can simply thank a different poster about what they consider to be a great post. Lacking that feature here, I can only say that this is the best post on this entire thread.
 

Dean S said:
And, if anyone think group sex is a good idea, how does a person reveal to the group an STD? Pregnancy? Scabies? Do you even know the participants? <b>I can't think of a more screwed up culture than a train, or group sex.</b>
Click to expand...

Thanks for proving my point - and providing Cruse with his example.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

rugger14 said:
Concur. I think that there is probably a player or two in that situation. If you tag-teamed a girl with a recruit, texted your buddies to join, responded to the text and joined in, you deserve what you got. If you stopped by because you were curious and left, then maybe not. Good lesson. When your buddy texts you to come train a girl just stay home.

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

Does this apply to everyone? Yeah, I didn’t think so. Everyone deserves a fair hearing. Ironically part of the indoctrination training regards implicit bias.

I think some here are confusing crass behavior with criminal behavior
 



Pompous Elitist said:
Does this apply to everyone? Yeah, I didn’t think so. Everyone deserves a fair hearing. Ironically part of the indoctrination training regards implicit bias.

I think some here are confusing crass behavior with criminal behavior
Click to expand...

Some are confusing criminal with a student conduct violation.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk
 

rugger14 said:
Some are confusing criminal with a student conduct violation.

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

And some are confusing the EOAA and SSMS as legitimate, disinterested investigative and adjudication entities. Pretty easy to prove plagiarism and well within the lane of the school. Nigh impossible to prove consent or lack thereof, fairly investigate assault/harassment in he said; she said etc
 

Pompous Elitist said:
And some are confusing the EOAA and SSMS as legitimate, disinterested investigative and adjudication entities. Pretty easy to prove plagiarism and well within the lane of the school. Nigh impossible to prove consent or lack thereof, fairly investigate assault/harassment in he said; she said etc
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:

Spoofin said:
And one of the biggest issues with this case is that some people think group sex (consensual or not) is wrong and deserves punishment.
Click to expand...

Group sex has literally zero to do with this case.

The exact same process and outcome would've been observed it had been just one football player with the woman, albeit then only one expulsion would've been handed out.


Horrible strawman
 

Cruze said:
Giving up her right to withdraw her consent to sex with late arrivals through words and actions witnessed by several people who declined to participate in all of the fun because it didn't seem like she was into it. It has escaped the attention of most people that there were more than 10 students in the apartment that night but some of them weren't accused of violating the Student Code of Conduct because they left without participating in any way with what was going on.
Click to expand...

^^^^^ +1 million !!!
 

Dean S said:
The issue is not crystal clear in a group sex situation and consent becomes very tricky and nothing is clear.
Click to expand...

Girl consents to have sex with two men. That sexual act is performed. Then one of the men texts his friends downstairs to come up and have sex with the girl. The girl at that point is too drunk to resist, or give consent. Some of the downstairs men have sex with her.

Seems pretty crystal clear to me.
 

Pompous Elitist said:
Nigh impossible to prove consent or lack thereof
Click to expand...

Depends what burden of proof you are using.

Since losing your student status means relatively nothing in the grand scheme of life, a lower burden of proof should be used, and using that burden of proof does allow consent to be reasonably established from the interviews.
 

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. 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 parties to the action 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.
Click to expand...

What it seems he wants to happen, like sadly many people do, is that if there are no criminal charges filed, they want it to be that the school can take no action.

Sad, and wrong.
 

Gophers_4life said:
Depends what burden of proof you are using.

Since losing your student status means relatively nothing in the grand scheme of life, a lower burden of proof should be used, and using that burden of proof does allow consent to be reasonably established from the interviews.
Click to expand...

You’re being ridiculous but I think you know that. Otherwise God help anyone under your thumb.
 
Last edited:

Not at all ridiculous, and it’s quite well established. Just because you don’t like it and it defeats your main arguments, doesn’t make it ridiculous.
 

Gophers_4life said:
Not at all ridiculous, and it’s quite well established. Just because you don’t like it and it defeats your main arguments, doesn’t make it ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Yes. It’s ridiculous. Since when is the prospect of prison time the bar to determine if something is serious?

“Hey, your house burned down. No insurance? Don’t worry relatively nothing.”
“Well, you still have the other leg. At least no prison time! It’s nothing, relatively speaking”
“I’ve been sleeping with your wife for 10 years. But don’t worry, no jail time!”
“ date raped? Hey...think about how this could be worse!”
 

Spoofin said:
None of the players benefitted from the leak. None of them could have expected a positive outcome from doing so. Keep looking.


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

It was Buford's lawyer who leaked it. There was an interview with him (the lawyer) where he tried to say that the letter actually helped the players' case. A lawyer doesn't say something like that if they think the other side leaked it.
 

bizzle22 said:
It was Buford's lawyer who leaked it. There was an interview with him (the lawyer) where he tried to say that the letter actually helped the players' case. A lawyer doesn't say something like that if they think the other side leaked it.
Click to expand...

Not talking about the suspension letter. Talking about the EOAA “report”.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Spoofin said:
Not talking about the suspension letter. Talking about the EOAA “report”.


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

The report was included with the letter that was sent to each player. I don't know how you get to 82 pages otherwise.

https://twitter.com/DWolfsonKSTP/st...0-players-suspended-indefinitely-tracy-claeys

EDIT: It actually says right on the letter that the report is attached. So we know every player received the report as well. Seems odd to think that the letter would get leaked from one party and the report would be leaked from another.

Also, the lawyer talked about how the report helped some of the players as well, because it made clear that some were not actively involved in the act itself. Again, a lawyer doesn't say those things publicly about a document leaked by the other side.

It's pretty clear Buford (or Buford's lawyer) leaked the report and letter.
 
Last edited:

bizzle22 said:
It's pretty clear Buford (or Buford's lawyer) leaked the report and letter.
Click to expand...

I don’t recall this part of the story. Do you have a link? If his lawyer actually said they are the ones who leaked it then my assumption would be wrong. Makes no sense they would tho.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

bizzle22 said:
It was Buford's lawyer who leaked it. There was an interview with him (the lawyer) where he tried to say that the letter actually helped the players' case. A lawyer doesn't say something like that if they think the other side leaked it.
Click to expand...

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
 

Pompous Elitist said:
Yes. It’s ridiculous. Since when is the prospect of prison time the bar to determine if something is serious?

“Hey, your house burned down. No insurance? Don’t worry relatively nothing.”
“Well, you still have the other leg. At least no prison time! It’s nothing, relatively speaking”
“I’ve been sleeping with your wife for 10 years. But don’t worry, no jail time!”
“ date raped? Hey...think about how this could be worse!”
Click to expand...

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.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom