After Reading the Report Thoughts

[Block M]

So you want all 10 gone? What about those that didn't participate or wasn't there? Why must all 10 be lumped together here?

I suspect you will get your wish. I would guess those that don't get booted will leave on their own.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My wish was like everyone else's that this would prove to be nothing and would fade into the background. We needed some of those guys on the field this year and beyond, or so I thought.

I'm glad it came to light. We can't recruit guys like this to the U. We don't need to recruit guys like this to the U. I understand that mistakes happen but these guys...unbelievable. I also understand that some were participants and others not so much and that there should be distinction.

Bummed fan like everyone else.

 

[GhostofBronko]

I won't get the details right, but the KSTP reporter on KFAN today said the players claim they were misled on what the interviews were about and how it was conducted. I'm not sure what that means but nothing about this process screams impartial in the least.

If you read the police report, you'd see that when they spoke to players after their initial contact with Djam, they were represented by Hutton at that point (early/mid September). The idea that these guys weren't aware of what was going on in the EOAA interviews strains credulity.

 

[westcoastgopher11]

We do not find that these behaviors indicate that RS did not experience the sexual misconduct that she describes. Rather, we find that RS' conduct during the sexual encounters likely resulted from her shock, confusion, and inability to focus because of the events she was experiencing.


Still waiting for someone to take a crack at explaining this to me - haven't read the whole thing and don't plan to on a Friday night.

 

[csom_1991]

Still waiting for someone to take a crack at explaining this to me - haven't read the whole thing and don't plan to on a Friday night.

Caught in lies AND met with the alleged ringleader of the attackers shortly after the attack - but this was due to shock and awe. I think the biggest thing the girl and EOAA need to try to explain away is the video - pretty clear she did not mention that to the police (for obvious reasons) and with the EOAA finding that she was not intoxicated - this cannot be explained as anything but an attempt to lie.

 

[MNGoldenGophers1]

Wow, just wow! Let's victimize the victim. Some on here are beyond sad and pathetic.

 

[Word]

What is more important? The reputation of the University of Minnesota or winning a bowl game?

The most important things are the truth, everyone's rights, and that justice is served. Reputation and bowl game come after those 3.

 

[Gogogopher]

Wow, just wow! Let's victimize the victim. Some on here are beyond sad and pathetic.

yup

 

[short ornery norwegian]

Wow, just wow! Let's victimize the victim. Some on here are beyond sad and pathetic.

There is a middle ground here. It is possible to believe the players acted shamefully - but ALSO believe the University has handled the situation poorly. That is where I'm at. I believe that some of the 10 players probably deserve to be suspended. (I feel expulsion is too harsh of a penalty) But, I also believe that some of the 10 players are being judged guilty through association, and don't deserve to be suspended. The EOAA's conclusions are based on believing the accuser, and not believing the players.

IF - and I say IF - the accuser does not remember the events clearly, there is at least a possibility that some players are being unfairly accused. There is a lot of grey area here. It is not as cut-and-dried as some people (on both side of the argument) are acting.

 

[GhostofBronko]

Caught in lies AND met with the alleged ringleader of the attackers shortly after the attack - but this was due to shock and awe. I think the biggest thing the girl and EOAA need to try to explain away is the video - pretty clear she did not mention that to the police (for obvious reasons) and with the EOAA finding that she was not intoxicated - this cannot be explained as anything but an attempt to lie.

She says she was unaware of the video, which, given the description of its contents, is pretty easy to believe. The EOAA did find that she was inebriated, but probably not incapacitated.

 

[Spoofin]

If you read the police report, you'd see that when they spoke to players after their initial contact with Djam, they were represented by Hutton at that point (early/mid September). The idea that these guys weren't aware of what was going on in the EOAA interviews strains credulity.

I agree them not knowing exactly what was happening is far fetched. I simply added what they told the KSTP reporter (or someone he spoke to). TBH, when I heard that I chalked it up to something Hutton likely told them to say as he wasn't present and they could use that fact then if needed. It rubbed me the wrong way.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MaxyJR1]

After the events of today, I'm really surprised the seniors are willing to let their football careers die for this cause.

Based on Claeys's tweet and Sawvel's post practice comments the other day, it seems this team is all in with the, us against the world mentality. It won't end well for any of them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[SelectionSunday]

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.

No, they look like complete fools, as do Claeys, Sawvel, and Sherels, in particular.

 

[csom_1991]

Wow, just wow! Let's victimize the victim. Some on here are beyond sad and pathetic.

If the guy tells a different story than the girl - it is him lying to cover up a crime. If the girl is caught in a lie redhanded - it is because she had shock. Did I sum up your argument correctly?

 

[RolGnav]

She says she was unaware of the video, which, given the description of its contents, is pretty easy to believe. The EOAA did find that she was inebriated, but probably not incapacitated.

And it was also stated that she looked right into the camera, so again, he said she said.

 

[Spoofin]

There is a middle ground here. It is possible to believe the players acted shamefully - but ALSO believe the University has handled the situation poorly. That is where I'm at. I believe that some of the 10 players probably deserve to be suspended. (I feel expulsion is too harsh of a penalty) But, I also believe that some of the 10 players are being judged guilty through association, and don't deserve to be suspended. The EOAA's conclusions are based on believing the accuser, and not believing the players.

IF - and I say IF - the accuser does not remember the events clearly, there is at least a possibility that some players are being unfairly accused. There is a lot of grey area here. It is not as cut-and-dried as some people (on both side of the argument) are acting.

Great post SON. This is exactly where I stand (other than a few which I would be OK being expelled).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[csom_1991]

I believe that some of the 10 players probably deserve to be suspended. (I feel expulsion is too harsh of a penalty) But, I also believe that some of the 10 players are being judged guilty through association, and don't deserve to be suspended. The EOAA's conclusions are based on believing the accuser, and not believing the players.

100% right!

 

[westcoastgopher11]

There is a middle ground here. It is possible to believe the players acted shamefully - but ALSO believe the University has handled the situation poorly. That is where I'm at. I believe that some of the 10 players probably deserve to be suspended. (I feel expulsion is too harsh of a penalty) But, I also believe that some of the 10 players are being judged guilty through association, and don't deserve to be suspended. The EOAA's conclusions are based on believing the accuser, and not believing the players.

IF - and I say IF - the accuser does not remember the events clearly, there is at least a possibility that some players are being unfairly accused. There is a lot of grey area here. It is not as cut-and-dried as some people (on both side of the argument) are acting.

I'm here.

Fully will admit to being to unreasonably defiant in the face of the initial decision - in many ways this program was attacked by the EOAA and it kills me that kids who weren't involved might pay the price.

In regards to the 'these kids put themselves in a bad spot they deserve what they get' or the shock and outrage over the nature of gangbang crowds I'd say welcome to college, where every day kids are ****ing, sucking, banging, blowing, snorting, cheating, fighting, and/or smoking. This is reality and its not safe for Sunday school and no amount of pearl clutching or PC policing is going to change it. When we as a society decided that everyone is entitled to their own reality value judgements about individuals actions lost all meaning and force. There should be only legal or illegal, because laws are the one thing in society we can actually enforce without a 'national conversation' and public outrage first.

 

[Wollman]

My problem with the story, which is told from her side, is if she is on her period and has a tampon in why remove it if she thinks something might happen that she doesn't want to have happen? It seems the beginning was very much consensual and the lack of yelling no (didn't read entire report) shows me she was embarrassed.

Are the players in the wrong? Absolutely. Should they be kicked out of school and branded as a sex offender? No.

Really interested in the appeal process at this point. Who is that in front of and how quickly does it take place.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[stocker08]

Was it mentioned that a blood sample was taken? Considering her low intake of alcohol, the amount of time passed between ingesting the alcohol and the act, and the fact that she appeared coherent on the video........could there have been any sort of drugging that may have occured? I'd assume that something like this occured when she visited the hospital.

I'm just trying to figure out how her patchy memory seems to have changed from the police report to the EOAA report.

 

[stocker08]

I'm here.

Fully will admit to being to unreasonably defiant in the face of the initial decision - in many ways this program was attacked by the EOAA and it kills me that kids who weren't involved might pay the price.

In regards to the 'these kids put themselves in a bad spot they deserve what they get' or the shock and outrage over the nature of gangbang crowds I'd say welcome to college, where every day kids are ****ing, sucking, banging, blowing, snorting, cheating, fighting, and/or smoking. This is reality and its not safe for Sunday school and no amount of pearl clutching or PC policing is going to change it. When we as a society decided that everyone is entitled to their own reality value judgements about individuals actions lost all meaning and force. There should be only legal or illegal, because laws are the one thing in society we can actually enforce without a 'national conversation' and public outrage first.

Yup. It's unfortunate.....but some of the posters here are completely oblivious to the actions of college students. I was finishing up my MBA at SCSU three years ago at this time. I wasn't really in the heavy party crowd at this point. I was focusing on finishing my degrees and landing a good job. However.....that wasn't true in 2008 when I first stepped onto campus. The freedom that is granted to an 18 year old when they head off to college is a lot to take in. All sorts of bad decisions are made.

 

[MNVCGUY]

There is a middle ground here. It is possible to believe the players acted shamefully - but ALSO believe the University has handled the situation poorly. That is where I'm at. I believe that some of the 10 players probably deserve to be suspended. (I feel expulsion is too harsh of a penalty) But, I also believe that some of the 10 players are being judged guilty through association, and don't deserve to be suspended. The EOAA's conclusions are based on believing the accuser, and not believing the players.

IF - and I say IF - the accuser does not remember the events clearly, there is at least a possibility that some players are being unfairly accused. There is a lot of grey area here. It is not as cut-and-dried as some people (on both side of the argument) are acting.

Very well said. This report sheds a lot of light but it can't be viewed as gospel truth either. I don't see how anyone can put all the blame on one side or the other. Kind of like with the Phillip Nelson situation, in the end there won't be any winners or losers, everyone ends up as a loser in this one.

 

[60's Guy]

All confusing

Great post SON. This is exactly where I stand (other than a few which I would be OK being expelled).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I am of this mindset as well. Just sooo poorly handled by Coyle all along. I just think for 120 players and their coaches to be all in on this there has to be a side we don't see...such as they have maybe seen more than 90 seconds of consensual sex that turned into regret? Or lights out in a dark room and we have guys involved who weren't part of this etc Idk... the team's response doesn't add up for me if it was not consensual in their eyes....or if it didn't change from what she said about being happy with the process months ago...never wanted to punish anyone. To illustrate that, then both sides agreed not to pursue civil actions. etc lots of things

Plus, we have a pretty large segment of very religious people within the players and staff. I don't see them supporting something they know is wrong. Again idk

Just a poorly handled mess that didn't need to turn into this... just no foresight whatsoever by Kaler and Coyle.

 

[Gopher028]

Agree with the first poster.
The players have been in the dark and summarily mistreated by the administration staff, add they have mistreated all of us and their actions should not go unnoticed. Tracy supported his players for coming together as a TEAM to get answers. The answers they got were one person's account. It comes off as extremely bad, but it still doesn't mean it was entirely out at all accurate. None of us know. The players were suppose to get due process and they simply didn't. If they did this, they gone. They will be dismissed and we'll be just fine. No more of this "SHUT IT DOWN" rhetoric....that will not fix this. Moving on and moving forward.
My prediction: the boycott well end soon with a compromise. The players named because they were in the building will be reinstated (including Winfield, who won't transfer) and the team will play in the Holiday bowl. Hardin and Buford (at least ) will be expelled, otherso suspended one year. Claeys, Coyle and Kaler won't be fired.

 

[stocker08]

Agree with the first poster.
The players have been in the dark and summarily mistreated by the administration staff, add they have mistreated all of us and their actions should not go unnoticed. Tracy supported his players for coming together as a TEAM to get answers. The answers they got were one person's account. It comes off as extremely bad, but it still doesn't mean it was entirely out at all accurate. None of us know. The players were suppose to get due process and they simply didn't. If they did this, they gone. They will be dismissed and we'll be just fine. No more of this "SHUT IT DOWN" rhetoric....that will not fix this. Moving on and moving forward.
My prediction: the boycott well end soon with a compromise. The players named because they were in the building will be reinstated (including Winfield, who won't transfer) and the team will play in the Holiday bowl. Hardin and Buford (at least ) will be expelled, otherso suspended one year. Claeys, Coyle and Kaler won't be fired.

We can only hope that this is the case. It seems like the most likely solution at this point (although the alleged spectators probably will not be reinstated in time for the bowl game).

 

[Deleted_User]

Too many commenting here have obviously failed to read the report.

 

[Jack jones]

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

B.S. Get rid of the femninazis in the EOAA and the problem is solved. They named the players, now name the female or isn't that allowed in Kaler's world.

 

[60's Guy]

Agree with the first poster.
The players have been in the dark and summarily mistreated by the administration staff, add they have mistreated all of us and their actions should not go unnoticed. Tracy supported his players for coming together as a TEAM to get answers. The answers they got were one person's account. It comes off as extremely bad, but it still doesn't mean it was entirely out at all accurate. None of us know. The players were suppose to get due process and they simply didn't. If they did this, they gone. They will be dismissed and we'll be just fine. No more of this "SHUT IT DOWN" rhetoric....that will not fix this. Moving on and moving forward.
My prediction: the boycott well end soon with a compromise. The players named because they were in the building will be reinstated (including Winfield, who won't transfer) and the team will play in the Holiday bowl. Hardin and Buford (at least ) will be expelled, otherso suspended one year. Claeys, Coyle and Kaler won't be fired.

The players know what happened better than anyone. It's naive to think any differently. They just don't agree or they don't understand the conclusions reached based on what really happened.

Your prediction is probably mostly pretty close to what should happen. The question for the next 24 hours is: will it? The longer it lingers the worse it is going forward.

 

[Jack jones]

Consider the author of the report. Enough said

 

[Lakers612]

Agree with the first poster.
The players have been in the dark and summarily mistreated by the administration staff, add they have mistreated all of us and their actions should not go unnoticed. Tracy supported his players for coming together as a TEAM to get answers. The answers they got were one person's account. It comes off as extremely bad, but it still doesn't mean it was entirely out at all accurate. None of us know. The players were suppose to get due process and they simply didn't. If they did this, they gone. They will be dismissed and we'll be just fine. No more of this "SHUT IT DOWN" rhetoric....that will not fix this. Moving on and moving forward.
My prediction: the boycott well end soon with a compromise. The players named because they were in the building will be reinstated (including Winfield, who won't transfer) and the team will play in the Holiday bowl. Hardin and Buford (at least ) will be expelled, otherso suspended one year. Claeys, Coyle and Kaler won't be fired.

this is really optimistic.. not saying it' unlikely... just optimistic

 

[csom_1991]

They just don't agree or they don't understand the conclusions reached based on what really happened.

I would bet you $1M that the players' definition of a consensual sexual act will differ from that of the EOAA - especially when it comes to gangbangs (where I would bet the players have much more experience than the EOAA). I would further wager that the players' definition will be closer aligned to that of the general public.

That said - the EOAA and U write the rules and attending the U and playing football is a privilege and not a right.