All Things Gopher Players Appeals Process

Donate To GopherHole
MNVCGUY said:
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.
Click to expand...

Probably true, why even set a time limit?
 

PMWinSTP said:
Probably true, why even set a time limit?
Click to expand...

For the sake of the people involved in the process. You lay out a window of time for the hearings so that they can plan accordingly. If they get to the end of the day tomorrow and there is a need for additional time I have no doubt they will extend into next week.
 

The more I hear about this appeal hearing, the more I'm convinced its nothing more than procedural event that has to occur to confirm their punishment.

With all the rules set forth dictating what evidence can and can't be used, these kids are getting thrown to the wolves.
 

MNVCGUY said:
For the sake of the people involved in the process. You lay out a window of time for the hearings so that they can plan accordingly. If they get to the end of the day tomorrow and there is a need for additional time I have no doubt they will extend into next week.
Click to expand...

If they were separate hearings/sessions, then I'd agree. They are all there.
 

citywok said:
The Strib article that is up right now has an update saying that the hearings are beginning for the 10 players, and a picture of Blaise Andries is a part of the article, for no good reason. If I were him I would be livid.

http://www.startribune.com/hearing-begins-for-suspended-gopher-football-players/411901346/
Click to expand...

And this Rochelle Olson person who wrote the story has a tweet that says "Former Gophers face media gauntlet as they enter hearings on suspensions." Can anyone please be informed when reporting on this??? What an idiot [sorry].
 


MirandaB said:
And this Rochelle Olson person who wrote the story has a tweet that says "Former Gophers face media gauntlet as they enter hearings on suspensions." Can anyone please be informed when reporting on this??? What an idiot [sorry].
Click to expand...

I see what you're saying, but it is tough to come up with something to call them. I think it's best to avoid the word "suspended" in a headline (I'm sure some publication has, but I don't like it) because a lot of people might take that to mean they are already suspended from school which isn't true. "Former Gophers" isn't any better, but is technically true because they used to be on the team and now they aren't. Honestly can't think of a great way to put it. Maybe "Accused students"...I don't know. I could poke a hole in just about every name they have been called.
 

Ever since they have laid off several hundred people over the last few years, the Strib journalisitc standards has matched the tabloids.
 

hungan1 said:
Ever since they have laid off several hundred people over the last few years, the Strib journalisitc standards has matched the tabloids.
Click to expand...

Who does the editing and proofing, the night watchman?
 

bizzle22 said:
I see what you're saying, but it is tough to come up with something to call them. I think it's best to avoid the word "suspended" in a headline (I'm sure some publication has, but I don't like it) because a lot of people might take that to mean they are already suspended from school which isn't true. "Former Gophers" isn't any better, but is technically true because they used to be on the team and now they aren't. Honestly can't think of a great way to put it. Maybe "Accused students"...I don't know. I could poke a hole in just about every name they have been called.
Click to expand...

They are still very much on the team. They are suspended from the team.

What's happened that would make them former Gophers?

Nothing. Until they are formally expelled from school, they are Gophers. That doesn't even address the kids that haven't been recommended for expulsion.

Former Gopher is the worst way to describe these kids.
 



cjcarter8 said:
The more I hear about this appeal hearing, the more I'm convinced its nothing more than procedural event that has to occur to confirm their punishment.

With all the rules set forth dictating what evidence can and can't be used, these kids are getting thrown to the wolves.
Click to expand...

I think you are partly right. I think they will uphold punishment on the first five. At least a few of the next five will have their appeal upheld. That way the process "looks" fair. If I had to guess 2 will have the penalties dropped and 3 will have them reduced.
 

What be wrong with " 10 University of Minnesota students accused of sexual misconduct"? After all they are all still enrolled the second semester. - or am I incorrect?
 

bizzle22 said:
I see what you're saying, but it is tough to come up with something to call them. I think it's best to avoid the word "suspended" in a headline (I'm sure some publication has, but I don't like it) because a lot of people might take that to mean they are already suspended from school which isn't true. "Former Gophers" isn't any better, but is technically true because they used to be on the team and now they aren't. Honestly can't think of a great way to put it. Maybe "Accused students"...I don't know. I could poke a hole in just about every name they have been called.
Click to expand...

They are still on the team. They are on the roster and everything. It's not true at all, technically or otherwise.
 

dpodoll68 said:
They are still on the team. They are on the roster and everything. It's not true at all, technically or otherwise.
Click to expand...

Truth in Journalism...don't be so naïve. Truth does not sell advertising!
 




Jack jones said:
What be wrong with " 10 University of Minnesota students accused of sexual misconduct"? After all they are all still enrolled the second semester. - or am I incorrect?
Click to expand...

would get rid of the accused of sexual misconduct since not all 10 are accused of that. Just say 10 U of M students or 10 U of M student athletes.
 

Calm down. I never said "Former Gophers" was good.
 



dpodoll68 said:
They are still on the team. They are on the roster and everything. It's not true at all, technically or otherwise.
Click to expand...

Geez, I try to basically agree with someone and I get jumped on by 2 different people. Nice to know that my fellow Gopher fans are keeping cool heads. Just trying to keep the conversation going during a slow day at work.
 

dpodoll68 said:
No one said you did. You said "technically true," which it isn't.
Click to expand...

By technically true I just meant that they aren't participating in any team activities. Someone get this guy a beer.
 

Jack jones said:
What be wrong with " 10 University of Minnesota students accused of sexual misconduct"? After all they are all still enrolled the second semester. - or am I incorrect?
Click to expand...

You are correct jack. And yes that would be a much more appropriate headline.
 

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

Go Gophers!!
 

bizzle22 said:
By technically true I just meant that they aren't participating in any team activities. Someone get this guy a beer.
Click to expand...

Technically, season is over so none of the football players are participating, correct?
 

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

Go Gophers!!
Click to expand...

So the accuser gets an advocate to help prove her side but the players can't introduce anything that the accuser doesn't agree to include? This is such a mockery of an actual fair proceeding.
 

cjcarter8 said:
So the accuser gets an advocate to help prove her side but the players can't introduce anything that the accuser doesn't agree to include? This is such a mockery of an actual fair proceeding.
Click to expand...

I think you need to clarify what you mean by this...
 

Why is an expert on the mental side of sexual assault testifying in this case? Not trying to downplay the incident or be crass towards the woman, but this appeal is about the players being expelled or suspended. What does that testimony have to do with it? Why would one of the players want that to be introduced today?
 

GFBfan said:
Why is an expert on the mental side of sexual assault testifying in this case? Not trying to downplay the incident or be crass towards the woman, but this appeal is about the players being expelled or suspended. What does that testimony have to do with it? Why would one of the players want that to be introduced today?
Click to expand...

I assume the U presents their material first...
 

PMWinSTP said:
I think you need to clarify what you mean by this...
Click to expand...

Sorry. It's my understanding that the accused players can't introduce any evidence that the accuser doesn't agree to include in the hearing. For example, the videotape.

Someone please correct me if I'm mistaken.

Also, thinking further about the introduction of the expert on the mental side of the assault. That expert literally destroys any behavioral evidence the players' attorneys may try to introduce. The panel will potentially have in the back of their mind "She just experienced a traumatic event, she wasn't thinking right."

Finally, after saying all this I feel it necessary to say, I'm all for the guilty being punished but they need a fair shot to defend their innocence first.
 

cjcarter8 said:
Sorry. It's my understanding that the accused players can't introduce any evidence that the accuser doesn't agree to include in the hearing. For example, the videotape.

Someone please correct me if I'm mistaken.

Also, thinking further about the introduction of the expert on the mental side of the assault. That expert literally destroys any behavioral evidence the players' attorneys may try to introduce. The panel will potentially have in the back of their mind "She just experienced a traumatic event, she wasn't thinking right."

Finally, after saying all this I feel it necessary to say, I'm all for the guilty being punished but they need a fair shot to prove their innocence first.
Click to expand...

You have that backwards.
 

PMWinSTP said:
Technically, season is over so none of the football players are participating, correct?
Click to expand...

I am not privy to their off-season schedule so I could not tell you. I don't know if the suspension includes no access to football facilities or not. I just know they did not suit up in the last game or even make the trip with the team despite being healthy.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom