After Reading the Report Thoughts

Donate To GopherHole
tmvander

tmvander

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 25, 2012
Messages
2,567
Reaction score
1,907
Points
113
First, I think it be known that the team boycotting the game was to get answers for why their teammates were suspended...it was NOT because they thought the actions that took place that night were ok. Same goes for the coaches backing the players decisions. To our knowledge neither side had access to the report that was released this afternoon.

Second, now that many of us have read what happened I want to know everyone's thoughts. Anyone going to be upset about any of the suspensions? Are the suspensions enough? Should the boycott stand?
 

Haven't finished reading but here are my thoughts:
The recomendations from EOAA should stand
Because of the limits of their findings, their current recommendations are as far as they can go without risking legal issue
The boycott should not stand
 


The report paints a bad picture assuming her accounts presented there are true. If they are true then the players should be kicked off the team. The problem is no one knows the exact truth. Bad decisions being made all around at the very least.
 

That report is really damning. The boycotting players really look like fools right now. But the biggest fool of them all is Tracy Claeys.
 


Reposted from the other thread...

I was disgusted by the players actions before reading this.
It sickens me that we live in a culture (because I know that this is not specific to the Gophers football team) where any of this is considered acceptable behavior that the football team, as a whole, would rally around to support.

I am tired of people on this board acting like if some people are disgusted by this, then they are just prudes who cannot accept other people's "lifestyles."

I hold the coaching staff somewhat accountable for: a) not recruiting players with a decent character, b) creating an environment where such behavior could be deemed appropriate by the non-participating players, and c) acing like the players in question are victims.
 

roone084 said:
That report is really damning. The boycotting players really look like fools right now. But the biggest fool of them all is Tracy Claeys.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. The players weren't standing up for their behavior, they wanted to know why they were suspended. Now if the boycott continues past this weekend, then yea, that's a different issue.
 

I don't think there is any way they end up playing the bowl game. Could see the school pulling the plug on it so that they don't even have to worry about a boycott.
 

Yes, Walitarsky...they should kick all 120 of you off the team.
 




There is a lot of he said she said stuff but one thing is for sure, these players if proven to be involved, should get what was recommended. There is a lot of grey area here between consensual and non-consensual, but fact is, they put themselves into this situation. As did she. Now they all have to live/deal with it. And before you people get mad at me for saying that about her, come on, don't get so drunk. Don't go with guys/gals who you do not trust with your life. Lots of bad people in this world. Lots of stupid people in this world. Protect yourself at all times.
 

I think it provides a whole lot of support for the school's actions.

I also think the report never would have seen the light of day without the team's threatened boycott.

What did the judge say? "Sunlight is the best antiseptic"?

This whole clown show is EXACTLY why the EOAA should be held to higher standards of transparency and due process. If they had been, this is likely a non-issue from step one. It's sort of like police body cameras. For some reason the cops resist, but they are just as likely to vindicate cops as villify them. Maybe more so because the unseen lets the mind run wild.
 

No bowl game for these clowns. They look like a bunch of fools to me right now.
 



The report is sickening. Wow.

If this is true, people should be in jail.
 

The boycott was to get answers to why. Players were not foolish in doing that, nor was Claeys a fool to support them in wanting to know the reasons for the suspensions.

Have not read the report nor do I plan to. Have seen some of what has been posted here about the report, and the suspensions are warranted for those involved.

Very sad day for everyone associated with the U of M.
 

I thought yesterday was the bottom. Now I'm wondering what's in store next.
 

Stan said:
Not necessarily. The players weren't standing up for their behavior, they wanted to know why they were suspended. Now if the boycott continues past this weekend, then yea, that's a different issue.
Click to expand...

This is complete bullsh!t. All ten of the accused had access to this report. Instead of expressing frustration at Coyle not violating FERPA, they could have said to any of the 10, "Hey, before we go out there and make ourselves look like fools, can we see what is in the report they sent you?"

Beyond dumb.
 

My thoughts depend which policies the individuals were in violation of:

Sexual Assault: Good Bye.
Sexual Harassment: Depending on the player, the evidence could be considered pretty sketchy (see A11). If their involvement is purely centered around the messaging, you could make a case that suspension or expulsion from school is fairly extreme. One could argue that suspension from football activities for a period of time and perhaps a probationary period related to continuing as a student could be warranted.
Falsification: These charges are EXTREMELY subjective in nature. A one year suspension would be an extreme punishment in my opinion. Maybe probation and maybe suspension from the bowl game.

That all being said, I can understand the nature of the boycott if the team was also provided with false information from the administration and that a couple of the players are being saddled with potential punishments based solely what could be considered hearsay. If they want to protest the additional five players being punished when their names had never been mentioned previously, I can understand their position. To paraphrase Chris Rock, I wouldn't have boycotted, but I understand....

All in all, the Administration, the Coaching Staff and the Boycotting players share parts of the blame here.
 

I know a lot of the report is he-said, she-said. But even the text messages between the football players are disgusting. Having just graduated from the U of M, I can tell you that normal, respectful "bros" don't talk about women like that. I think that's already pretty telling and will certainly work against them in this whole case.
 

My thoughts are that the pd should reopen the investigation and make arrests if true.
 

One more thing, I think it would be in the University's best interest to remove the team from the bowl game.
 

Haha, ok. Thanks contrarian. Re-read the boycott statement from the players. The problem is they claimed injustice and their brothers' innocence when they should have framed it as they simply want more information. That's it. Because of the expansive way they framed their statement they look like major fools.
 

Everybody looks bad.
Yeah!

I get the feeling that the suspensions were planned all along, but they tabled them until after the conclusion of the regular season, not wanting to hurt already dwindling attendance and fan interest. Get those scumbags out there and try to win as many games as possible.
 

roone084 said:
Haha, ok. Thanks contrarian. Re-read the boycott statement from the players. The problem is they claimed injustice and their brothers' innocence when they should have framed it as they simply want more information. That's it. Because of the expansive way they framed their statement they look like major fools.
Click to expand...

Yeah, they said, "The boycott will remain in effect until due process is followed and the suspensions for all 10 players involved are lifted." That's going beyond just wanting information.
 

Disgusting acts by disgusting individuals. Hopefully they never wear Maroon and Gold again.
 

Breakin' The Plane said:
Everybody looks bad.
Yeah!

I get the feeling that the suspensions were planned all along, but they tabled them until after the conclusion of the regular season, not wanting to hurt already dwindling attendance and fan interest. Get those scumbags out there and try to win as many games as possible.
Click to expand...

The date on the EOAA report is December 7th. It strains credulity that the EOAA would hold off submission of the report in order to assist football attendance.
 

Word said:
The report paints a bad picture assuming her accounts presented there are true. If they are true then the players should be kicked off the team. The problem is no one knows the exact truth. Bad decisions being made all around at the very least.
Click to expand...

They explained their reasoning and how they applied credibility. The accused stories contradicted each other's accounts and the witness's accounts more than the victim. They also found discrepancies between the accused statements to the police and them. The victim also willingly admitted when she realized she mis-remembered a name, or what was said.

RolGnav said:
There is a lot of he said she said stuff but one thing is for sure, these players if proven to be involved, should get what was recommended. There is a lot of grey area here between consensual and non-consensual, but fact is, they put themselves into this situation. As did she. Now they all have to live/deal with it. And before you people get mad at me for saying that about her, come on, don't get so drunk. Don't go with guys/gals who you do not trust with your life. Lots of bad people in this world. Lots of stupid people in this world. Protect yourself at all times.
Click to expand...

The report actually found that given the reports from the victim and the witnesses that the victim was not impaired due to alcohol at the time of the incident given the Universities standards for that.
 

Taji34 said:
The report actually found that given the reports from the victim and the witnesses that the victim was not impaired due to alcohol at the time of the incident given the Universities standards for that.
Click to expand...

Not quite. They said she was impaired, but not incapacitated.
 

Read pretty much the entire thing. Not an easy read. Couple of thoughts from an unbiased perspective :

1) a lot of he said she said. Makes for an overly long report. Definitely graphic in nature.
2) the EOAA immediately dismisses any credibility of the accused, thus allowing the EOAA the logic to conclude their side is less believable. They use this as a basis to conclude the victims claim as more believable.
3) The new players not previously mentioned until Tuesday could have more sympathy to the ruling than those initially implicated based on my interpretation of how the EOAA found they broke the code of conduct.

All in all, I am glad this is released as it offers answers to many people's questions. However, in the end it still remains a he said/she said debate. Thus, we will never get any real answers unfortunately.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

GhostofBronko said:
Not quite. They said she was impaired, but not incapacitated.
Click to expand...

My bad, thanks for the correction. Still, usually when people think of drunk they think of someone who fits the university's description of incapacitated.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom