After Reading the Report Thoughts

Donate To GopherHole
bizzle22 said:
I sort of agree on the punishment not fitting the crime. I think probation and no bowl game is appropriate for players who had no sexual contact with the woman. And we could still end up there. Remember, the EOAA isn't the end all be all as some seem to think. They aren't even the ones who actually give out the punishment, they only make a recommendation for the punishment. The school takes that into account when determining what the final punishment should be. I'd like to see a middle ground reached here through the appeals process, and I think if that happens many will have a different view of this situation. Still a sad situation.
Click to expand...
Well what is the punishment we are talking about here? They are basically telling these kids they can no longer be students here.
 

TruDat said:
Well what is the punishment we are talking about here? They are basically telling these kids they can no longer be students here.
Click to expand...

And is that a fair punishment for the kids (even if you believe the report as fact) that didn't participate but "likely knew information they didn't share in the investigation"?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

CoMn said:
I too wonder what the heck it takes for the police to file charges. No wonder women don't report and no wonder women say campus rapes are not prosecuted and there is a rape crisis on campuses. That anyone on this board would defend any of the players after reading this report disgusts me.
Click to expand...

Thank you for posting. The response on this board prior to the report being released was one of contempt for the victim of the assault. Watch as many are trying to make new facts by twisting passages of the report for the aim of preserving football players reputations. You may find that important. I find it disgusting.
 

GhostofBronko said:
Please refer me to the place in the report where it is stated that RS "didn't allow" this.

All I see is, "In addition, EOAA is aware of, but was unable to obtain, a third approximately ninety-second video showing A2 RS and the recruit engaged in sexual contact in apartment B ."

ETA: never mind. page 24
Click to expand...

The KSTP reporter on w/ Barreiro said this- Hutton requested she agree for it to be viewed and she declined because she was worried about reliving the moment (paraphrasing as I was in the car talking to the wife during the segment)
 

Dean S said:
Thank you for posting. The response on this board prior to the report being released was one of contempt for the victim of the assault. Watch as many are trying to make new facts by twisting passages of the report for the aim of preserving football players reputations. You may find that important. I find it disgusting.
Click to expand...

Agreed, thanks for posting!
 



The men's conduct was unsavory/disgusting. However - I think the girl is lying to minimize her involvement. I laid out my list yesterday regarding what would make me think the guys believed that they had consent:

1.) Oral sex - she did this multiple times
2.) Had given the impression sex with multiple partners was okay - the very first encounter w/ Djam (which she admits was consensual) involved 2 guys.

Did she get in over her head and started to feel regrets during/after the events? Absolutely. Do I believe she ever yelled no? Absolutely not. Without the video evidence these guys probably would have all gone down for rape. I think she is regretful and embarrassed about what happened because it is disgusting.

Lastly, given the timestamps and the amount of alcohol - I do not believe that she was 'drunk' so the first encounter cannot be construed as anything but consensual from a legal or even EOAA perspective.
 

UpnorthGo4 said:
My thoughts:

1. At least one of the players admitted hearing the girl tell at least one of the other players that she wanted the sex to stop. That should change everything in everyones eyes.

2. All three videos together didn't amount to more than two or three minutes of at least 90 minutes of sexual activity. I don't believe the video would have mattered to most reasonable people based on the totality of the other evidence.

3. The fact that criminal charges weren't filed is immaterial to a Student Code of Conduct hearing.

4. Anyone who is hanging out at a gang bang is taking a risk that things might go very badly for them even though they don't actually participate.

5. The boycott makes the players look foolish given the conduct of the involved players.
Click to expand...
After taking a look at the report, I agree with your points. Players demanding that the suspensions be dropped for all is just plain stupid if they did not have all the information. Demanding the suspensions be dropped for all if they somehow had the report is inexcusable.
 

Dean...after getting lambasted for my posts yesterday I am soooo glad the report leaked. Thanks for looking standing up for women. If just one of these players did that, this would have been a different discussion where we wouldn't be discussing things like shutting down a football program, firing a head coach and/or president.
 



UpnorthGo4 said:
My thoughts:

1. At least one of the players admitted hearing the girl tell at least one of the other players that she wanted the sex to stop. That should change everything in everyones eyes.

2. All three videos together didn't amount to more than two or three minutes of at least 90 minutes of sexual activity. I don't believe the video would have mattered to most reasonable people based on the totality of the other evidence.

3. The fact that criminal charges weren't filed is immaterial to a Student Code of Conduct hearing.

4. Anyone who is hanging out at a gang bang is taking a risk that things might go very badly for them even though they don't actually participate.

5. The boycott makes the players look foolish given the conduct of the involved players.
Click to expand...

For point 1. If the videos only show consent for that small of time and not the whole incident, but not the whole event as you have said, how does the 1 overheard comment show lack of consent for the entire incident?

On an overall note after reading the entire 2 reports, 3 things.

1)It is is a tough read in the EOAA. At least the first 4 or 5 are probably guilty of plain and simple being awful people. They showed a callousness for the girl and obviously do not value sexuality in any manner.

2)It is pretty obvious why the police didn't charge anyone. The only video available shows consent, though that does not mean the rest of the interactions were. Also the victim's story changed a lot. 5 names were never mentioned to the police, but later were recalled for EOAA. It is possible that it is because her recollection improved, but in the end it doesn't matter as any defense attorney would rip part that level of inconsistency.

3)As to the language and insulting nature of the texts, I completely agree that this is sad and very disappointing. But it is also a sign of our culture or certain portions of it. This complete level of disrespect for females is in no way isolated to this Empire group. I could find you 20 songs in the next few hours that refer to women in the exact tone and terms that were in the texts. Bitches and ho's are a pretty common way to refer to women in certain subsets of our population. It is no excuse and shocking when taken in the context of a specific person, but unfortunately probably pretty common.
 


Dean S said:
Thank you for posting. The response on this board prior to the report being released was one of contempt for the victim of the assault. Watch as many are trying to make new facts by twisting passages of the report for the aim of preserving football players reputations. You may find that important. I find it disgusting.
Click to expand...

Yes. As a woman, I could not believe some of the things posted prior to the reports being released (and even some after). While there may not have been enough evidence for a criminal prosecution, there is certainly enough to say this is not the conduct we want from individuals receiving a free education from the University of Minnesota.

As an aside, I think Claeys is a dead man walking.
 

CoMn said:
I too wonder what the heck it takes for the police to file charges. No wonder women don't report and no wonder women say campus rapes are not prosecuted and there is a rape crisis on campuses. That anyone on this board would defend any of the players after reading this report disgusts me.
Click to expand...

While I have not been following this very closely, pretty sure the police did file charges. The DA decided not to prosecute.
 



In defending the players boycott action I never thought all were innocent

sirloin1078 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I agree that there is a whole lot of shared blame and those that put players in charge of recruits should have their positions reviewed. I agree that the initial four suspended players especially those involved in this situation, to the point where force-able and coercion action was used should be gone. The gray area is on the men that were not involved in the physical contact but did not prevent the situation from continuing to occur. There should be punishment for violations of the code of conduct but those individuals should get a fair discipline review from a student conduct board of peers. To the four that encouraged this behavior and thought it was ok to involve the underage recruit, all of those individuals should be dismissed from the team and the school. They should not have been reinstated and really should have not been allowed to play any football for the Gophers this season, or thereafter. Other professionals used poor judgement as employees of the University, after this incident occurred and what appears to be culpable assault when the victim started to resist and things went beyond explicit consent. There might have never been explicit consent, hard to know for sure even for the investigators.
There was beyond a point this wasn't normal behavior as a human being, in by any standards on what happened. Normal people do not involve themselves in this what could be considered criminal behavior. The team needs to void the boycott, and if the University so chooses rescind the bowl invitation and send the players and staff home.
 

TAW said:
Yes. As a woman, I could not believe some of the things posted prior to the reports being released (and even some after). While there may not have been enough evidence for a criminal prosecution, there is certainly enough to say this is not the conduct we want from individuals receiving a free education from the University of Minnesota.

As an aside, I think Claeys is a dead man walking.
Click to expand...

This + 1000
 

Honest Question... Why do some think this report is such a smoking gun? Isn't it still a he-said she-said situation? We knew what she was accusing them of so why does seeing it in print make it more believable or is it that you agree with the EOAA's determination that she is more credible? I guess I could see that, but the report is slanted in how it is written as that is clearly what the EOAA thought. Even the KSTP reporter heading this called the report "very opinionated".

I get those that morally object to the actions, but that isn't really the point here. I am sincerely interested why some are no longer interested in due process and letting the players having the chance to have their side told. This report didn't do that.

Also, don't draw conclusions on where I stand. I mainly feel bad for this girl and a few players that are being grouped with others that (potentially) did things in a whole different level. And, I'm thinking TC likely should be fired for putting a 17-year old in that environment on his watch.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

TAW said:
Yes. As a woman, I could not believe some of the things posted prior to the reports being released (and even some after). While there may not have been enough evidence for a criminal prosecution, there is certainly enough to say this is not the conduct we want from individuals receiving a free education from the University of Minnesota.

As an aside, I think Claeys is a dead man walking.
Click to expand...
Excellent post. There are things so much more important than football and some people lose sight of that.
 

Disgusting behavior. I'm absolutely embarrassed to have supported these players this season. I'd prefer for all of those involved to leave the University forever. If the rest of the team wants to join them - let them leave.

The administration should forfeit the bowl game at this point. The embarrassment the players have done to the program, University and State are unbelievable.

Even if these actions could be interpreted as being legal, they are not okay. No moral character.
 

Spoofin said:
Honest Question... Why do some think this report is such a smoking gun? Isn't it still a he-said she-said situation? We knew what she was accusing them of so why does seeing it in print make it more believable or is it that you agree with the EOAA's determination that she is more credible? I guess I could see that, but the report is slanted in how it is written as that is clearly what the EOAA thought. Even the KSTP reporter heading this called the report "very opinionated".

I get those that morally object to the actions, but that isn't really the point here. I am sincerely interested why some are no longer interested in due process and letting the players having the chance to have their side told. This report didn't do that.

Also, don't draw conclusions on where I stand. I mainly feel bad for this girl and a few players that are being grouped with others that (potentially) did things in a whole different level. And, I'm thinking TC likely should be fired for putting a 17-year old in that environment on his watch.


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

The funny thing is how they add in opinions into this report and make it seem like fact, there was a sentence I bolded in a different thread that stated there was an audible slap, and none of the participants remembered what it was, and so this person who did the investigation basically opined that it was RS slapping the recruit's hand to stop him from unzipping her dress. Why would the investigator even throw that in there?
 

Spoofin said:
Honest Question... Why do some think this report is such a smoking gun? Isn't it still a he-said she-said situation? We knew what she was accusing them of so why does seeing it in print make it more believable or is it that you agree with the EOAA's determination that she is more credible? I guess I could see that, but the report is slanted in how it is written as that is clearly what the EOAA thought. Even the KSTP reporter heading this called the report "very opinionated".

I get those that morally object to the actions, but that isn't really the point here. I am sincerely interested why some are no longer interested in due process and letting the players having the chance to have their side told. This report didn't do that.

Also, don't draw conclusions on where I stand. I mainly feel bad for this girl and a few players that are being grouped with others that (potentially) did things in a whole different level. And, I'm thinking TC likely should be fired for putting a 17-year old in that environment on his watch.


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

I have copy and pasted some of what the players said.

from page 55 of the report:
entered A2 bedroom while AS was having vaginal sex with RS from on
top of her. The lights were turned off. RS saw A12 and then said, "I don't want to"
and "this is too many people" and "don't send people in here." RS repeatedly said that
she was in pain. A5 did not respond by stopping or changing his activities. A12
reported that it did not look like A5 was doing anything out of the ordinary with RS
A12 did not think tl1at RS . was trying to physically push AS away. A12 ultimately
concluded that "it didn't feel right , .. Sometimes it didn't seem like she was into it."
A12 left the bedroom after about twenty seconds

At another point, these men were listening to A5 and RS engage in sexual contact from
outside of the bedroom. A12 recalled, "from the stuff she said, it didn't seem like she
was into it. She said something and [the men present] decided it was messed up . . . She said
something that made it. seem like it wasn't the right thing to be d
 

Spoofin said:
Honest Question... Why do some think this report is such a smoking gun? Isn't it still a he-said she-said situation? We knew what she was accusing them of so why does seeing it in print make it more believable or is it that you agree with the EOAA's determination that she is more credible? I guess I could see that, but the report is slanted in how it is written as that is clearly what the EOAA thought. Even the KSTP reporter heading this called the report "very opinionated".

I get those that morally object to the actions, but that isn't really the point here. I am sincerely interested why some are no longer interested in due process and letting the players having the chance to have their side told. This report didn't do that.

Also, don't draw conclusions on where I stand. I mainly feel bad for this girl and a few players that are being grouped with others that (potentially) did things in a whole different level. And, I'm thinking TC likely should be fired for putting a 17-year old in that environment on his watch.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
No matter who you believe in this whole mess, the presence of the recruit and the texts alone are enough to be violations of the SOC and warrant serious consequences.
 

Gogogopher said:
I have copy and pasted some of what the players said.

from page 55 of the report:
entered A2 bedroom while AS was having vaginal sex with RS from on
top of her. The lights were turned off. RS saw A12 and then said, "I don't want to"
and "this is too many people" and "don't send people in here." RS repeatedly said that
she was in pain. A5 did not respond by stopping or changing his activities. A12
reported that it did not look like A5 was doing anything out of the ordinary with RS
A12 did not think tl1at RS . was trying to physically push AS away. A12 ultimately
concluded that "it didn't feel right , .. Sometimes it didn't seem like she was into it."
A12 left the bedroom after about twenty seconds

At another point, these men were listening to A5 and RS engage in sexual contact from
outside of the bedroom. A12 recalled, "from the stuff she said, it didn't seem like she
was into it. She said something and [the men present] decided it was messed up . . . She said
something that made it. seem like it wasn't the right thing to be d
Click to expand...

Not to pick at this, but the parts of the interview that the EOAA chose to include in the report is not having your side heard. Giving these kids due process and an equal chance to tell their side of the story is. Those parts of the report are what makes me think the result would be the same for some - but the manner in which the report is written also makes me think it wouldn't be for all 10.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

The report is a complete endorsement of the "she said" side of the argument with no regard for the "he said" side of the argument. Not surprising in the least when you see who is on this board of appointed career administrators who are answerable to no one and have their own private agendas. It also does not include any of the video which convinced the police there were no charges to be filed.
 

Gogogopher said:
I have copy and pasted some of what the players said.

At another point, these men were listening to A5 and RS engage in sexual contact from
outside of the bedroom. A12 recalled, "from the stuff she said, it didn't seem like she
was into it. She said something and [the men present] decided it was messed up . . . She said
something that made it. seem like it wasn't the right thing to be d
Click to expand...

Based on this statement one could argue the players not involved in any sexual contact with the woman were unsure of her consent but seem to believe the contact at some point may have been nonconsensual.

I would be surprised if the Administration took this stance but a reasonable outcome could include the original 5 are expelled as recommended and the newly named 5 are reinstated and suspensions lifted.
 

Spoofin said:
Honest Question... Why do some think this report is such a smoking gun? Isn't it still a he-said she-said situation? We knew what she was accusing them of so why does seeing it in print make it more believable or is it that you agree with the EOAA's determination that she is more credible? I guess I could see that, but the report is slanted in how it is written as that is clearly what the EOAA thought. Even the KSTP reporter heading this called the report "very opinionated".

I get those that morally object to the actions, but that isn't really the point here. I am sincerely interested why some are no longer interested in due process and letting the players having the chance to have their side told. This report didn't do that.

Also, don't draw conclusions on where I stand. I mainly feel bad for this girl and a few players that are being grouped with others that (potentially) did things in a whole different level. And, I'm thinking TC likely should be fired for putting a 17-year old in that environment on his watch.


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

I have not changed my position that the players deserve due process and a chance for a hearing before the student conduct board before final punishment is recommended by the University. They are afforded that opportunity under the code of conduct all sign.
Those that were in positions of authority who picked the recruit hosts and who allows unsupervised time, or what is allowed need some form of reprimand. Even if the head coach was asleep at home and did not have direct knowledge of what was going on, he does bear some responsibility for the adults that created the environment that happened that were on his team and under his supervision. When you tell a recruits parents you will look out for them and take good care of them, almost like a parent, you better mean that is happening, and questionable situations like this do not occur.
 

Spoofin said:
Not to pick at this, but the parts of the interview that the EOAA chose to include in the report is not having your side heard.
Click to expand...

At a minimum, the EOAA should be forced to get copies of all police interviews and provide a side by side snapshot of what they told police vs. what the told the EOAA. This should be the main arbiter of credibility - what you say when there is an actual penalty for lying. I want to hear her story before/after she found out about the existence of the video as I would bet the story changed substantially. I think that is why this is not proceeding as a criminal matter.
 

gopherdudepart2 said:
I have not changed my position that the players deserve due process and a chance for a hearing before the student conduct board before final punishment is recommended by the University. They are afforded that opportunity under the code of conduct all sign.
Those that were in positions of authority who picked the recruit hosts and who allows unsupervised time, or what is allowed need some form of reprimand. Even if the head coach was asleep at home and did not have direct knowledge of what was going on, he does bear some responsibility for the adults that created the environment that happened that were on his team and under his supervision. When you tell a recruits parents you will look out for them and take of them, you better mean that is happening and questionable situations like this do not occur.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I said in my post TC should likely be fired for this. The 17-year old recruit part.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Spoofin said:
Honest Question... Why do some think this report is such a smoking gun? Isn't it still a he-said she-said situation? We knew what she was accusing them of so why does seeing it in print make it more believable or is it that you agree with the EOAA's determination that she is more credible? I guess I could see that, but the report is slanted in how it is written as that is clearly what the EOAA thought. Even the KSTP reporter heading this called the report "very opinionated".

I get those that morally object to the actions, but that isn't really the point here. I am sincerely interested why some are no longer interested in due process and letting the players having the chance to have their side told. This report didn't do that.

Also, don't draw conclusions on where I stand. I mainly feel bad for this girl and a few players that are being grouped with others that (potentially) did things in a whole different level. And, I'm thinking TC likely should be fired for putting a 17-year old in that environment on his watch.


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

No I think you are right. I may be more entrenched of a feeling that I don't personally support the players because even when considered in the most positive light they do not come off very well, but I agree that the report does not settle this one way or another.
 

scools12 said:
I would be surprised if the Administration took this stance but a reasonable outcome could include the original 5 are expelled as recommended and the newly named 5 are reinstated and suspensions lifted.
Click to expand...

I think we need to disentangle the punishment as it relates to the U and to the football program. I think kicking them off the team and revoking their scholarships is an extremely low bar. They are brand representatives and they have tarnished that brand in the eyes of the public. As to their attendance at the U - I don't think they should be expelled as that is branding them a rapist - which will follow them for the rest of their lives - without due process or an unbiased hearing. What the guys did is not worse than others currently attending the U.
 

Spoofin said:
Honest Question... Why do some think this report is such a smoking gun? Isn't it still a he-said she-said situation? We knew what she was accusing them of so why does seeing it in print make it more believable or is it that you agree with the EOAA's determination that she is more credible? I guess I could see that, but the report is slanted in how it is written as that is clearly what the EOAA thought. Even the KSTP reporter heading this called the report "very opinionated".

I get those that morally object to the actions, but that isn't really the point here. I am sincerely interested why some are no longer interested in due process and letting the players having the chance to have their side told. This report didn't do that.

Also, don't draw conclusions on where I stand. I mainly feel bad for this girl and a few players that are being grouped with others that (potentially) did things in a whole different level. And, I'm thinking TC likely should be fired for putting a 17-year old in that environment on his watch.


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

The smoking gun in the report is when one of the players admits that she told them to stop. He probably didn't realize it, but that means he basically admitted that they raped her.

And they will have their chance at due process. They are not kicked out of school yet. That was the recommendation from the EOAA, but they don't have final authority. It makes sense to not allow them to play with this type of thing hanging over their head though.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom