All Things Gopher Players Appeals Process

Donate To GopherHole
#2Gopher said:
Way too many threads for me to figure this out. Ok, the hearings are today and Friday. When are the decisions made? Guess I'm thinking that National Signing Day is next week. Would we know before that?
Click to expand...

I think the panel has one week to render their decision.
 


I sure hope that the supposed victim is open for a law suit. If she can testify that the accused caused her mental anguish, then she is a candidate to get sued. Maybe even the panel that is acting as jury and judge.
 

Jack jones said:
I sure hope that the supposed victim is open for a law suit. If she can testify that the accused caused her mental anguish, then she is a candidate to get sued. Maybe even the panel that is acting as jury and judge.
Click to expand...

Not the clearest post ever written but I guess I get your gist. It's wrong.
 

Looking through the SSMS procedures the panel composition can be composed of any combination of faculty or students.

If it true that the 3 voting members of the panel consists of 2 students and a recent graduate that presents a clear conflict of interest. How are these students selected? Are there any stipulations that the students cannot be current or future pupils of any of the faculty chairs? Is the recent grad a tenured faculty member or may they be in the future and thus have a conflict of interest via opposing the school?

Chair Renner is a victims advocate in the social work program. She has no vote but importantly can choose which evidence can be presented and she can exert enormous influence over lowly and impressionable students.
 


Turns out that Kim Hewitt (who was instrumental in recommending the penalties which are now being contested) trained 2 of the 3 panel members who will decide the fate of the 10.... TRAINED THEM in best practices in deciding these matters!

Conflict of interest? THIS IS INSANE.

As a Minnesota taxpayer, if this goes south, I am on board with this costing the University many, MANY millions of dollars in lost lawsuits.
 

Pompous Elitist said:
Looking through the SSMS procedures the panel composition can be composed of any combination of faculty or students.

If it true that the 3 voting members of the panel consists of 2 students and a recent graduate that presents a clear conflict of interest. How are these students selected? Are there any stipulations that the students cannot be current or future pupils of any of the faculty chairs? Is the recent grad a tenured faculty member or may they be in the future and thus have a conflict of interest via opposing the school?

Chair Renner is a victims advocate in the social work program. She has no vote but importantly can choose which evidence can be presented and she can exert enormous influence over lowly and impressionable students.
Click to expand...

According to a report from WCCO they were taken from a "pool of 25 students and staff who volunteered to join a "Student Sexual Misconduct Committee". They got trained for this process and then of that pool, 3 were chosen for this case."

Wonder if that's been the same procedure all along or if in changed in 2015?
 

Iceland12 said:
According to a report from WCCO they were taken from a "pool of 25 students and staff who volunteered to join a "Student Sexual Misconduct Committee". They got trained for this process and then of that pool, 3 were chosen for this case."

Wonder if that's been the same procedure all along or if in changed in 2015?
Click to expand...

I'd feel better about it if these were randomly chosen students asked to serve rather than "volunteers". There are scads of activists on any college campus that would love to be a part of this sort of process to ensure "justice" is served. Who selects the final three? Is there a panel selection process that the students lawyers can participate in?

The entire thing seems enormously rushed for deciding whether or not sexual assault occurred. How many hours would a typical rape trial involve with jury selection, testimonies, etc?
 

bottlebass said:
The boycott was a complete success.
Click to expand...

Demands of the boycott:

* Immediate reinstatement of all ten athletes who were suspended.
* Apologies from Kaler & Coyle.

Results of the boycott:

* No suspensions lifted.
* No apologies made.
* Claeys fired.

I'd assess that as failure.
 



Greenbayguy said:
Demands of the boycott:

* Immediate reinstatement of all ten athletes who were suspended.
* Apologies from Kaler & Coyle.

Results of the boycott:

* No suspensions lifted.
* No apologies made.
* Claeys fired.

I'd assess that as failure.
Click to expand...

Whatever...clearly can't see the bigger picture...sad. Go make love to yourself.
 

Greenbayguy said:
Demands of the boycott:

* Immediate reinstatement of all ten athletes who were suspended.
* Apologies from Kaler & Coyle.

Results of the boycott:

* No suspensions lifted.
* No apologies made.
* Claeys fired.

I'd assess that as failure.
Click to expand...

LOL you have zero comprehension of what the players actually wanted. You actually think they thought the suspensions would get lifted? C'mon back down to reality. They got the report released, they got national attention lots and lots of it. Everybody now knows the kangaroo court these football players are in. They also likely are getting Kaler fired. Coyle saved his a$s for now by hiring Fleck. I have full faith Coyle will once again completely F up the next controversy and he'll be gone too. The players did all this with their boycott and still got to play in the Holiday bowl. Super bigly win and super bigly successful boycott.
 

bottlebass said:
LOL you have zero comprehension of what the players actually wanted. You actually think they thought the suspensions would get lifted? C'mon back down to reality. They got the report released, they got national attention lots and lots of it. Everybody now knows the kangaroo court these football players are in. They also likely are getting Kaler fired. Coyle saved his a$s for now by hiring Fleck. I have full faith Coyle will once again completely F up the next controversy and he'll be gone too. The players did all this with their boycott and still got to play in the Holiday bowl. Super bigly win and super bigly successful boycott.
Click to expand...

Considering the cover letter of the leaked EOAA report is addressed to one of the expelled players, either he or his parents released the report. The majority of the national attention was negative towards the players and the coaches and positive towards the administration for taking a stand against the alleged sexual conduct.
 

GopherWeatherGuy said:
Considering the cover letter of the leaked EOAA report is addressed to one of the expelled players, either he or his parents released the report. The majority of the national attention was negative towards the players and the coaches and positive towards the administration for taking a stand against the alleged sexual conduct.
Click to expand...

Wow, great post, Columbo.
 



GopherWeatherGuy said:
Considering the cover letter of the leaked EOAA report is addressed to one of the expelled players, either he or his parents released the report. The majority of the national attention was negative towards the players and the coaches and positive towards the administration for taking a stand against the alleged sexual conduct.
Click to expand...

Is it hard to type with Coyle's balls in your mouth? Once people found out the additional 5 players likely had nothing to do with the event the national attention changed. Wouldn't have happend without the boycott. Who cares who released the report? It got released.
 

bottlebass said:
Is it hard to type with Coyle's balls in your mouth? Once people found out the additional 5 players likely had nothing to do with the event the national attention changed. Wouldn't have happend without the boycott. Who cares who released the report? It got released.
Click to expand...

Why are you so obsessed with Coyle? I'm not even talking about him. There was a lot of media support for the players boycott at first. As soon as the report was released, it made the players and coaches look stupid for standing with the players who did those alleged actions. Right or wrong the majority of the national media took the girls side. Try stepping out of your GopherHole bubble and into the real world sometime.
 

GopherWeatherGuy said:
Why are you so obsessed with Coyle? I'm not even talking about him. There was a lot of media support for the players boycott at first. As soon as the report was released, it made the players and coaches look stupid for standing with the players who did those alleged actions. Right or wrong the majority of the national media took the girls side. Try stepping out of your GopherHole bubble and into the real world sometime.
Click to expand...

What proof do you have of this? It's not what I saw and the players refuted the report had any influence on their decision to end the boycott. I'm obsessed with Coyle because so many people are willing to give him a pass for hiring the new shiny but completely unproven object and ignore the role he played in this whole process. His leadership as AD was down right horrible. He should be held accountable also.
 

bottlebass said:
What proof do you have of this? It's not what I saw and the players refuted the report had any influence on their decision to end the boycott. I'm obsessed with Coyle because so many people are willing to give him a pass for hiring the new shiny but completely unproven object and ignore the role he played in this whole process. His leadership as AD was down right horrible. He should be held accountable also.
Click to expand...

All you had to do was watch ESPN, Fox Sports, or a bowl game, or listen to talk radio during that time period and the far majority of the talk could be summed up as 'good for the players to end the boycott and good for the administration to take a stand against that type of behavior'.
 

GopherWeatherGuy said:
All you had to do was watch ESPN, Fox Sports, or a bowl game, or listen to talk radio during that time period and the far majority of the talk could be summed up as 'good for the players to end the boycott and good for the administration to take a stand against that type of behavior'.
Click to expand...

I watch ESPN every day and listen to talk radio every day. Watched the bowl game (twice actually those guys were tools, it was hilarious listening to them try to fit their narrative into the shortened time due to the preceding game). Why don't you provide some proof booby man? Not sure what talk radio you listen to but it was very much against the kangaroo court. The fact the gophers even made ESPN is a win for the boycott as we haven't been relevant since before ESPN existed.
 

bottlebass said:
I watch ESPN every day and listen to talk radio every day. Watched the bowl game (twice actually those guys were tools, it was hilarious listening to them try to fit their narrative into the shortened time due to the preceding game). Why don't you provide some proof booby man? Not sure what talk radio you listen to but it was very much against the kangaroo court. The fact the gophers even made ESPN is a win for the boycott as we haven't been relevant since before ESPN existed.
Click to expand...

LOL what a hot take that is. You should go sit down for awhile and take a time out.

"Golly. Our program hasn't been relevant for decades! Eh I sure wish that would change!"
*massive sexual assault allegations, that are nearly unprecedented in the realm of college sports, players are ill-informed and poorly make a stand*
"Hell-oooooooooo Relevancy!" *fist pump*


As an aside, if people think that in a boycottless world the report never would have been leaked, they are being incredibly naive.
That boycott wasn't a complete failure because it forced the administration to better deal with them directly. But beyond that yes, it was filled with failure by student-athletes that were in way over their heads. Kind of like that 2011 game at Michigan.
 

GopherWeatherGuy said:
Considering the cover letter of the leaked EOAA report is addressed to one of the expelled players, either he or his parents released the report.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Again. Admins at the U and the girl were CC'd on all letters so they also could have leaked it. Add in many in the EOAA office that likely could have accessed it and we have no idea who leaked it. Didn't have to be the player or parents.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

GopherWeatherGuy said:
Considering the cover letter of the leaked EOAA report is addressed to one of the expelled players, either he or his parents released the report. The majority of the national attention was negative towards the players and the coaches and positive towards the administration for taking a stand against the alleged sexual conduct.
Click to expand...

Pretty good way for someone in the EOAA or Admin. to cover their a** by including a cover letter with player names .
 

Spoofin said:
Wrong. Again. Admins at the U and the girl were CC'd on all letters so they also could have leaked it. Add in many in the EOAA office that likely could have accessed it and we have no idea who leaked it. Didn't have to be the player or parents.


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

Spot on. Obviously it came from somewhere, both in regards to sending it out and leaking. There is zero way anyone can know who did it unless someone confesses to doing it
 

Spoofin said:
Wrong. Again. Admins at the U and the girl were CC'd on all letters so they also could have leaked it. Add in many in the EOAA office that likely could have accessed it and we have no idea who leaked it. Didn't have to be the player or parents.
Click to expand...

Maybe, but if it was found out that someone from the EOAA or the administration leaked the report, not only would they lose their job, they would open themselves to massive lawsuits. Why would anyone to take that risk when they didn't have to?
 

GopherWeatherGuy said:
Maybe, but if it was found out that someone from the EOAA or the administration leaked the report, not only would they lose their job, they would open themselves to massive lawsuits. Why would anyone to take that risk when they didn't have to?
Click to expand...

Why would the player leak something he feels misrepresents his involvement? Why in the world would he do something like that if he didn't have to?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

GopherWeatherGuy said:
Maybe, but if it was found out that someone from the EOAA or the administration leaked the report, not only would they lose their job, they would open themselves to massive lawsuits. Why would anyone to take that risk when they didn't have to?
Click to expand...

Arrogance, self-righteousness, and bad PR for the other side all seem like good explanations.
 

GopherWeatherGuy said:
Maybe, but if it was found out that someone from the EOAA or the administration leaked the report, not only would they lose their job, they would open themselves to massive lawsuits. Why would anyone to take that risk when they didn't have to?
Click to expand...

I have said for a while that I don't understand why a player or someone in the EOAA would leak it. I could make a case for the Admin leaking it to "justify" their actions, but even that seems far fetched. I have no clue who leaked it. However, the narrative that a player must have because of the cover letter (you aren't the first) is false. Other very involved parties had access (and in some cases were given) to that same cover letter.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

GopherWeatherGuy said:
Maybe, but if it was found out that someone from the EOAA or the administration leaked the report, not only would they lose their job, they would open themselves to massive lawsuits. Why would anyone to take that risk when they didn't have to?
Click to expand...

Not very likely to find out the source, regardless of who it was. KSTP isn't going to reveal a source.
 


Gopherguy0723 said:
Arrogance, self-righteousness, and bad PR for the other side all seem like good explanations.
Click to expand...

I have no idea who leaked it....but my last candidates among a fairly long list would be a player. Why? Your explanation is because they are stupid. If you have been on team, that is a family as demonstrated by a 110 guys boycotting. As a teammate you don't want to betray your foxhole partners. It hurts everybody. Plus, you need some connections you trust to deliver the report to...a player isn't likely to have that relationship. The only thing coming across to me is your disgust and hatred for the players with your explanation.
 


You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom