All Things EOAA, Investigation, Suspension, Overturned Etc. Thread: UPDATED 1 Thread

Donate To GopherHole


scools12 said:
"The boycott will remain effective until due process is followed and suspensions for all 10 players involved are lifted."

I guess when Wolitarsky made this statement he really only meant 5 players.


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

Yes and after that statement, Wolitarsky and other players talked about how they were mainly worried about the players not directly involved with the woman.

5 not 10.

Your turn I guess..
 

GoGophersUMN said:
Absolutely no way unless all of the players are cleared. As of now, the U is saying some of the players are guilty and it would look bad to punish someone who you are saying is a victim of sexual assault, even if they clearly broke the rules. If they punished her without clearing the players first, this story would be in the national news again and the U would be branded as victim blaming and trying to cover up rape.

Even if the rest of the players are cleared, I don't think it is too likely. The EOAA has already said that she went through a traumatic experience and that people in that situation often have trouble remembering what happened.

That being said, punishing her for lying would be consistent with what they did to 5 of the players, although 2 wrongs don't make a right.
Click to expand...

The only people who are saying the victim lied are the players, their attorney, and GopherHolers who think that getting one side of the story is all they need for the truth. The fanboys are not interested in what the girl and her attorney had to say and what the hearing officers who listened to all of the testimony believed.
 

Anyone speculating on what exactly "cleared of acedemic suspension" actually means with regards to their status with the team?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

#coacheslivesmatter
 


Bob_Loblaw said:
Yep. According to the EoAA, she is a victim of sexual assault. There is no way she will be punished for anything.
Click to expand...

The only possibility would be for giving false testimony, if she was under oath testifying in the investigation that she was drunk, and then recanted on appeal.

But that is unlikely, given the "optics" . . . . there's simply no stomach for acting against those who make false charges.
 

Iceland12 said:
Yes and after that statement, Wolitarsky and other players talked about how they were mainly worried about the players not directly involved with the woman.

5 not 10.

Your turn I guess..
Click to expand...

So your saying the players after the EOAA report came out regardless if they thought it was bias distanced themselves from the first 5?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

UpnorthGo4 said:
The only people who are saying the victim lied are the players, their attorney, and GopherHolers who think that getting one side of the story is all they need for the truth. The fanboys are are not interested in what the girl and her attorney had to say said and what the hearing officers who listened to all of the testimony believe.
Click to expand...

For the 100th time, if you are so concerned with getting both sides, can you please explain to me why you said, "I'm sure not going to believe a bunch of football players over this girl" before the EOAA report was even released? For some reason your quest for fairness doesn't allow you to address that question.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

CentralGopher said:
Anyone speculating on what exactly "cleared of acedemic suspension" actually means with regards to their status with the team?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

#coacheslivesmatter
Click to expand...

Fleck followed those guys on Twitter tonight, so I assume they're good to go.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 



scools12 said:
So your saying the players after the EOAA report came out regardless if they thought it was bias distanced themselves from the first 5?

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

Your turn..
 

BradDad said:
The only possibility would be for giving false testimony, if she was under oath testifying in the investigation that she was drunk, and then recanted on appeal.

But that is unlikely, given the "optics" . . . . there's simply no stomach for acting against those who make false charges.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I think she probably could be punished for lying or giving false testimony. I don't think she ever would or even should.
 


Spoofin said:
For the 100th time, if you are so concerned with getting both sides, can you please explain to me why you said, "I'm sure not going to believe a bunch of football players over this girl" before the EOAA report was even released? For some reason your quest for fairness doesn't allow you to address that question.


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


What is kind of funny is that the same folks mentioning possible statutory rape because of the 17 year old recruit who was of age in MN conveniently forget that one of the absolutely clear crimes commited here was the child porn that DJAM recorded on his phone if he actually had video that the juvenile recruit had consensual sex with the woman.

Agenda anyone?
 



Help me with this...on tape Djam has a threesome with a recruit and is NOT recommended for expulsion? How is that not grounds for expulsion? Just explain that to me because of all the players, there was no doubt in my mind he was the one who should have been kicked off the team for involving a recruit...who had to go to a lousy school btw, after having about a couple dozen offers, many power 5 ones....
 

rugger14 said:
What is kind of funny is that the same folks mentioning possible statutory rape because of the 17 year old recruit who was of age in MN conveniently forget that one of the absolutely clear crimes commited here was the child porn that DJAM recorded on his phone if he actually had video that the juvenile recruit had consensual sex with the woman.

Agenda anyone?
Click to expand...


Why did you quote Spoofin's post, it had nothing to do with Statutory Rape? Why did you feel the need to deflect?

I've always said that Statutory Rape doesn't apply because the recruit was 17, but I'll discuss the allegations of child porn with you.

Do you know what is on the tape? Do you know if it actually shows sex with the recruit? Do you know if it shows any of his genitals or private areas? I really don't know. If it doesn't show the recruit having sex or the recruit being naked, then it doesn't apply. If it does, yeah, then it's an interesting question.
 


alchemy2u said:
Nonsense. Those players from now on only want their names associated with how they play on the field. Why would they want to keep this issue in the public eyes and on the news? We all know they were wronged, but there comes a point where it is not worth being vindictive and to move on.


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

If you're innocent of a despicable crime it is never vindictive to fight to clear your name.
 


UpnorthGo4 said:
The only people who are saying the victim lied are the players, their attorney, and GopherHolers who think that getting one side of the story is all they need for the truth...
Click to expand...

Like yourself, but hell at least you finally admitted it!

There's your click. You another one getting paid for them or just like trolling. :drink:
 

CoMn said:
Help me with this...on tape Djam has a threesome with a recruit and is NOT recommended for expulsion? How is that not grounds for expulsion? Just explain that to me because of all the players, there was no doubt in my mind he was the one who should have been kicked off the team for involving a recruit...who had to go to a lousy school btw, after having about a couple dozen offers, many power 5 ones....
Click to expand...

Just a guess here...Because there was a video of the woman that made the sex with him appear consensual? I don't think threesomes are against school code.
 

CoMn said:
Help me with this...on tape Djam has a threesome with a recruit and is NOT recommended for expulsion? How is that not grounds for expulsion? Just explain that to me because of all the players, there was no doubt in my mind he was the one who should have been kicked off the team for involving a recruit...who had to go to a lousy school btw, after having about a couple dozen offers, many power 5 ones....
Click to expand...

Legal consensual group sex should get him expelled?
 

Trisuper said:
o It is very doubtful that very many of those who post here will read it because of its balance and the wealth of factual information it contains. Hutton appealing to the Federal Courts is going to be far from a cakewalk.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...process-in-the-courts/?utm_term=.6bf1e56dec94
Click to expand...

I don't know if you realize what you're reading.

That article (which is great) is a list of cases that should have your blood boiling. This article is a fantastic example of how these Title IX offices have gone completely crazy around the entire country. This article is not saying that they give a fair hearing, the article is pointing out the absurdity in the system.

The point that I think you're trying to make is that it is a steep uphill battle to have a university's disciplinary hearings overturned at the federal level and you're 100% right. I hope you realize that does not mean that the players have been given a fair hearing.
 

raw
 

Wally said:
Umm it's called disguising your identity, it is possible. But who really cares who wrote it.
Click to expand...

Who is Keyser Soze? He is supposed to be Turkish. Some say his father was German. Nobody believed he was real. Nobody ever saw him or knew anybody that ever worked directly for him, but to hear Kobayashi tell it, anybody could have worked for Soze. You never knew. That was his power. The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist. And like that, poof. He's gone. :)
 

zman said:
Ah, yes. People get owned during a discussion and then resort to name calling.
Click to expand...

Isn't "King" a compliment?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

30 seconds on Google uncovered this excellent WaPo article on Federal Court rulings.

Bob_Loblaw said:
I don't know if you realize what you're reading.

That article (which is great) is a list of cases that should have your blood boiling. This article is a fantastic example of how these Title IX offices have gone completely crazy around the entire country. This article is not saying that they give a fair hearing, the article is pointing out the absurdity in the system.

The point that I think you're trying to make is that it is a steep uphill battle to have a university's disciplinary hearings overturned at the federal level and you're 100% right. I hope you realize that does not mean that the players have been given a fair hearing.
Click to expand...

Legally, it doesn't really matter what you feel is fair. The whole point is that you and others have repeatedly said that the U can't do this or expel these students because it is unconstitutional. The article clearly shows the courts do not agree with you and that the U can punish students that they feel violate school rules.

I found several other references that clearly state that schools can discipline students that violate conduct rules.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
Why did you quote Spoofin's post, it had nothing to do with Statutory Rape? Why did you feel the need to deflect?

I've always said that Statutory Rape doesn't apply because the recruit was 17, but I'll discuss the allegations of child porn with you.

Do you know what is on the tape? Do you know if it actually shows sex with the recruit? Do you know if it shows any of his genitals or private areas? I really don't know. If it doesn't show the recruit having sex or the recruit being naked, then it doesn't apply. If it does, yeah, then it's an interesting question.
Click to expand...

I didn't mean to quote. My phone is a little bit funky on this site. Point is that this is an attack the victim thread over imagined crimes or possible lies. I would prefer to steer clear from speculation and address possible crimes that may have been committed such as child porn.

I am also interested in the apparent disregard for obvious violations of team and athletic department rules. Recruits all sign a no alcohol agreement on their visit. The sponsors and players are all clearly told that recruits don't drink. Apparently nobody enforces this with the football team. The brilliant idea to do a tag team with a recruit is seriously high on the stupid list followed by every player whose phone pinged with a message that their buddy just tag-teamed a girl and they should come join and take their turn who actually heeded that advice and went to the room to take their turn. Wow.
 

hungan1 said:
That was a very expensive recruiting visit interlude for one 17-year old CB who now has landed in the lap of Lane Kiffin at FAU.
Click to expand...
Let's hope the recruit learned a lesson about the importance of regular personal hygiene, since it is now part of the public record.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
 

CoMn said:
Help me with this...on tape Djam has a threesome with a recruit and is NOT recommended for expulsion? How is that not grounds for expulsion? Just explain that to me because of all the players, there was no doubt in my mind he was the one who should have been kicked off the team for involving a recruit...who had to go to a lousy school btw, after having about a couple dozen offers, many power 5 ones....
Click to expand...

Recruits are not allowed to be a part of a threesome?
 


You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom