All Things Gopher Players Appeals Process

Donate To GopherHole
bottlebass said:
They knew their "demands" wouldn't be met. It was a negotiation. They couldn't set their sites low or they would have no negotiating power. They succeeded in their goals. National attention was brought to their side of the debate.
Click to expand...

LOL! Got to remember if I ever need a negotiator to get a member of the Gopher football team.
 

PMWinSTP said:
Per my recent post on the Upset Family thread, not sure Doogie's a great source to be using as proof...
Click to expand...

There's an article in MinnPost today about this. It mentions at the end that Lynch went through the process.

The article is titled, "There’s still a lot of bad information floating around about the Gopher football investigation. Here are the facts," and the primary lawyer they talk to believes the players are only suspended/expelled from football, not school. Which makes me wonder what other facts they got wrong.

https://www.minnpost.com/sports/201...ng-around-about-gopher-football-investigation
 

Hates Monikers said:
There's an article in MinnPost today about this. It mentions at the end that Lynch went through the process.

The article is titled, "There’s still a lot of bad information floating around about the Gopher football investigation. Here are the facts," and the primary lawyer they talk to believes the players are only suspended/expelled from football, not school. Which makes me wonder what other facts they got wrong.

https://www.minnpost.com/sports/201...ng-around-about-gopher-football-investigation
Click to expand...

Yeah, don't think the article helps at all, it also stated...

"Well, the same group investigated a sexual assault allegation against basketball player Reggie Lynch and issued no discipline."

That would mean no appeal would have been needed, although the EOAA does the investigation but has no power to "issue discipline", it gives recommendations to those who would. So, yeah, clear as mud.
 

Hates Monikers said:
There's an article in MinnPost today about this. It mentions at the end that Lynch went through the process.

The article is titled, "There’s still a lot of bad information floating around about the Gopher football investigation. Here are the facts," and the primary lawyer they talk to believes the players are only suspended/expelled from football, not school. Which makes me wonder what other facts they got wrong.

https://www.minnpost.com/sports/201...ng-around-about-gopher-football-investigation
Click to expand...

The lawyer is correct -- as of right now the players are only suspended from football, and not from school. They are students in good standing, and currently attending classes.
 

From the MinnPost article in response to fact that 7 of the 8 EOAA employees are female:

"Hogshead-Makar continued: “The idea that only whites can be objective in a race discrimination case, or only men can adjudicate sexual assault issues, or only straight people can be 'fair' or 'impartial' determining LGBT outcomes is offensive. Instead, look at the evidence and the panel's reasoning behind their conclusions.”"

Another perfect example of how the Title IX monster launched by the Feds is absurd and turned the world upside down. Two thoughts:

1) Has anyone actually suggested any of those things (that only men can adjudicate sexual assault issues)? I highly doubt it.

2) It sounds an awful lot like she is arguing balance (race, gender, sexual orientation) isn't important. I'd be interested to learn whether she believes that in general (say, 100% male hiring commitees, or 100% white juries, etc.), or if it's just this time it isn't important.

So as has been pointed out before left is now right. We have 'progressive' people making points that could have come straight from the mouth of a Southern politician in 1965. It is truly shocking.
 


GopherRock said:
I think the U was content to have everything buried and gag-ordered until tomorrow's hearings, and didn't take the walkout threat seriously. It wasn't until the walkout started that the external pressure went through the roof to find out why the additional players have been dragged in, as well as why now.

Recall that the walkout started Thursday afternoon/evening the 15th. The report hit the KSTP website shortly after lunch on Friday the 16th, while it was reported that the players were in a meeting with one or more members of the Regents.
Click to expand...

You are forgetting the meeting between the team and Admin while simultaneously the U put out a press release saying the team was refusing to meet with the admin.
 

Boy. the Minn-post article reads like it could have been written by the accuser or her attorney. It certainly seems more favorable to the woman's perspective.

It does point out that the U administration either made no attempt to communicate with the players - or if they did try, they did a bleep-poor job of it.

Bottom line - the U has an obligation to investigate. But, I can and will argue that does not mean the U has to take sides in its investigation - ie. the woman must be believed, and the men are presumed to have done something wrong, because they're men and have a penis, therefore they must be guilty.
 

bizzle22 said:
The lawyer is correct -- as of right now the players are only suspended from football, and not from school. They are students in good standing, and currently attending classes.
Click to expand...

That's extremely disingenuous at best, but it's not at all how the lawyer was quoted. From the article:

“As I understand it, based on the report, the school kicked the players off the football team without kicking them out of school or putting a discipline notation on the players’ transcript,” Hogshead-Makar said. “Students do not have a constitutional right to play sports. Schools don’t owe their athletes any constitutional due process rights before removing them from a team. Now, if Minnesota wanted to expel these students, the school would have to provide the players with notice and a hearing.

“Every athlete knows this: You can be suspended from a team for missing curfew, for not having a good attitude. So certainly, athletes can be suspended from a team from a detailed 80-page report that determined there was a violation of the student code involved.”
Click to expand...

Maybe you can give her the benefit of the doubt on the first sentence in bold, that she was talking in technical terms like you. But the second sentence in bold is something that was already scheduled. She clearly talks about this as a hypothetical -- as in "IF the school wanted to do this."

She spends a lot of time here not talking about being suspended from football when there's a ton more at stake.
 

tato2001 said:
From the MinnPost article in response to fact that 7 of the 8 EOAA employees are female:

"Hogshead-Makar continued: “The idea that only whites can be objective in a race discrimination case, or only men can adjudicate sexual assault issues, or only straight people can be 'fair' or 'impartial' determining LGBT outcomes is offensive. Instead, look at the evidence and the panel's reasoning behind their conclusions.”"

Another perfect example of how the Title IX monster launched by the Feds is absurd and turned the world upside down. Two thoughts:

1) Has anyone actually suggested any of those things (that only men can adjudicate sexual assault issues)? I highly doubt it.

2) It sounds an awful lot like she is arguing balance (race, gender, sexual orientation) isn't important. I'd be interested to learn whether she believes that in general (say, 100% male hiring commitees, or 100% white juries, etc.), or if it's just this time it isn't important.

So as has been pointed out before left is now right. We have 'progressive' people making points that could have come straight from the mouth of a Southern politician in 1965. It is truly shocking.
Click to expand...

No one views the group they serve on as needing more diversity
 



Iceland12 said:
Just saw the link myself.

Attorney Ryan Pacyga, whose client, Antoine Winfield Jr., is one of the players facing a one-year suspension, says the university declined a request to conduct individual, six-hour hearings for each player.

“My concern is I don't want Antoine Winfield Jr. being judged for any of the alleged conduct of any of the other nine accused students, nor should any of them be judged for anything somebody else is accused of,” Pacyga said, adding that all 10 players must now make their arguments in a third of the time.
Click to expand...
Looks like Pacyga is setting this up for a federal lawsuit that will go far beyond the kangaroo court EoAA board.
 

<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Go Gophers!!
 

<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Go Gophers!!
 

Hates Monikers said:
That's extremely disingenuous at best, but it's not at all how the lawyer was quoted. From the article:



Maybe you can give her the benefit of the doubt on the first sentence in bold, that she was talking in technical terms like you. But the second sentence in bold is something that was already scheduled. She clearly talks about this as a hypothetical -- as in "IF the school wanted to do this."

She spends a lot of time here not talking about being suspended from football when there's a ton more at stake.
Click to expand...

I don't know how else you want me or anyone else to refer to them. They are currently students in good standing and are attending classes. Sure, they have pending issues, but if you start to talk about that then you are going down the path of painting someone with the guilty brush before they get due process. Isn't that exactly what a lot of people complain about in this...you know, portraying them as guilty before they get due process?

And as far as her last sentence goes, have you ever listened to a lawyer talk? Always in hypotheticals. Either side could back down at any time so anything in the future is a hypothetical. Lawyers don't like to make assumptions.
 



bizzle22 said:
I don't know how else you want me or anyone else to refer to them. They are currently students in good standing and are attending classes. Sure, they have pending issues, but if you start to talk about that then you are going down the path of painting someone with the guilty brush before they get due process. Isn't that exactly what a lot of people complain about in this...you know, portraying them as guilty before they get due process?

And as far as her last sentence goes, have you ever listened to a lawyer talk? Always in hypotheticals. Either side could back down at any time so anything in the future is a hypothetical. Lawyers don't like to make assumptions.
Click to expand...

Lawyers talk in hypotheticals to avoid talking about a specific case. In the sentence you refer to, she's talking about this specific case and gets the facts wrong.
 

<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Go Gophers!!
 

Hates Monikers said:
Lawyers talk in hypotheticals to avoid talking about a specific case. In the sentence you refer to, she's talking about this specific case and gets the facts wrong.
Click to expand...

What fact did she get wrong? She said if the university wants to suspend or expel the players from school then they have to notify them and offer a hearing.

I certainly think she may have some bias in that she is a sexual assault survivor as the article points out. But that doesn't mean she is lying about those facts. She basically summarized the written procedures for sexual assault cases at the U...there isn't really even anything that could be disputed there.
 

bizzle22 said:
What fact did she get wrong? She said if the university wants to suspend or expel the players from school then they have to notify them and offer a hearing.

I certainly think she may have some bias in that she is a sexual assault survivor as the article points out. But that doesn't mean she is lying about those facts. She basically summarized the written procedures for sexual assault cases at the U...there isn't really even anything that could be disputed there.
Click to expand...

I give up. You're reading something completely different.
 

MennoSota said:
Looks like Pacyga is setting this up for a federal lawsuit that will go far beyond the kangaroo court EoAA board.
Click to expand...

I hope the truth comes out in this hearing for the sake of all involved, but regardless, a light needs to be shined on to the EOAA rat hole and it often takes something high profile like this.
 

<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Go Gophers!!
 


BleedGopher said:
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Go Gophers!!
Click to expand...

Will be interesting to see what if any info comes out before the hearings are complete.
 



Bad Gopher said:
The lawyers thought they should, too, but that's not the way it's set up.
Click to expand...

they are all accused at different levels. How is it fair for the person with the least serious offense to be in the hearing with someone with the most serious offense? This is such a joke.
 

bottlebass said:
they are all accused at different levels. How is it fair for the person with the least serious offense to be in the hearing with someone with the most serious offense? This is such a joke.
Click to expand...

As I understood it earlier. One hearing over two days but each player has up to 3 hours to present their own case. So would assume they are all being judged independently even if the hearings are all lumped together. But could definitely be wrong on that.
 

How many players walked in for today's hearing? All of them?
 

MNVCGUY said:
As I understood it earlier. One hearing over two days but each player has up to 3 hours to present their own case. So would assume they are all being judged independently even if the hearings are all lumped together. But could definitely be wrong on that.
Click to expand...

Yep, and if the initially report 18 hours total didn't allow for that, it's now reported to be 16 hours total.

This just seems to be the gift that keeps on giving. Many of the Title IX appeals that have been set aside by courts are because the schools failed to follow their own written processes.
 

hungan1 said:
How many players walked in for today's hearing? All of them?
Click to expand...

The KSTP guy covering it says they are all there. The one who tweeted out the pictures of the players arriving.
 


PMWinSTP said:
Yep, and if the initially report 18 hours total didn't allow for that, it's now reported to be 16 hours total.

This just seems to be the gift that keeps on giving. Many of the Title IX appeals that have been set aside by courts are because the schools failed to follow their own written processes.
Click to expand...

I have to believe that if players truly decided to use the full 3 hours the U would extend the process to allow for additional time but the reality is that each player is highly unlikely to have enough material to fill an entire 3 hours so I am sure they feel like they can get though all 10 in the allotted time.

In the end there is really a limited amount of evidence the players can present or testimony they can give in regards to the night in question and 3 hours is a long time.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom