AP: Gophers players almost reinstated boycott over suspensions

Donate To GopherHole
bottlebass said:
Can anyone explain to me why the accuser would get the final say of whether any player plays or not?
Click to expand...

Great Question. I am guessing the EOAA "recommends" it and our Admin is way too spineless to stand up to them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 


bottlebass said:
Can anyone explain to me why the accuser would get the final say of whether any player plays or not?
Click to expand...

The accuser doesn't get the final say about whether any player plays or not. The reporter got it wrong. Unless the source was Kaler or Coyle he probably got the information from a source who didn't have all the information. My guess is that the U's General Counsel advised Kaler that not to suspend the players might open the U up to a large lawsuit for damages by the woman because the U did not following their usual student disciplinary process in sexual assault and harassment cases. University presidents seldom make a decision with legal ramifications without the advice of their General Counsel.
 

Can we now put to bed the theory the players changed their mind because they read the EOAA report. The players always denied that, but the Strib ran with it off of what Kaler said.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Spoofin said:
Great Question. I am guessing the EOAA "recommends" it and our Admin is way too spineless to stand up to them.
Click to expand...

Bob Wischusen: KiAnte Hardin with the breakup of the throw from Falk. It will bring up 3rd and long for the Cougars.

Brock Huard: Great play by Harden, Bob. Really showed off his speed to get himself into position to make a play.

Bob Wischusen: Let's go down to the sideline to get more on Harden, Allison?

Allison Williams: Bob, Brock, KiAnte Harden has really emerged for the Gophers this year in the secondary and on special teams. He's expected to be expelled from school in a couple of weeks. Back to you, Bob.

Bob Wischusen: Thanks Allison.
 


Maximus said:
Bob Wischusen: KiAnte Hardin with the breakup of the throw from Falk. It will bring up 3rd and long for the Cougars.

Brock Huard: Great play by Harden, Bob. Really showed off his speed to get himself into position to make a play.

Bob Wischusen: Let's go down to the sideline to get more on Harden, Allison?

Allison Williams: Bob, Brock, KiAnte Harden has really emerged for the Gophers this year in the secondary and on special teams. He's expected to be expelled from school in a couple of weeks. Back to you, Bob.

Bob Wischusen: Thanks Allison.
Click to expand...

Well, Hardin isn't one of the 5 we are discussing that would have been reinstated, but your post was funny.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

saintpaulguy said:
I want to hear the story about the BEGINNING of the boycott, and whose great idea that was.

"Man, 10 of us have been suspended for participating in a gang bang, and there are whispers that it might not be consensual, what should we do?"

"Let's refuse to play until everybody is reinstated! The public will get right behind, us, and boy will the President and AD bow to our will then! Due process is sexy! "

Really poorly handled.
Click to expand...

This is part of the problem. You and many others are just assuming all 10 are in trouble because they participated in the act itself. That doesn't have to be true and appears it isn't true.

Serious question. If a great friend or family member is accused of something like this, and they deny it, would you initially believe them? I'm guessing you and many would.
 

As others have stated, this makes the university look ridiculous. It seems to continue to be a common thing.
 

GophersInIowa said:
As others have stated, this makes the university look ridiculous. It seems to continue to be a common thing.
Click to expand...

Correct.


I think TC stays because I think the BOR will clean house in admin before the end of the summer. They'll let the next administration handle coaching situation. Can't fire them right now because it will give student groups too much long term power. Need to wait a bit. Between the bad publicity and the incoming litigation...this doesn't bode well for Kaler IMO
 



The aspect about the players being upset about the timing is interesting. The EOAA is mandated to complete their investigation and hand down a decision within 60 days of the complaint, which was Sept 23rd. IIRC the suspensions weren't made until Dec 13.

Furthermore an appeal hearing must be granted within 30 days for routine decisions, and "expedited" for those involving sexual assault allegations.

In summary, either the EOAA held the results until it was too close to the bowl game to allow for an appeal, or Coyle took his time deciding. Either way this cluster duck was made far worse for all parties than it needed to be. If one wanted to grenade the athletic department they could not have planned better. I'm surprised they didn't release the report Dec 7th.
 

Pompous Elitist said:
When players are being painted as rapists by the media, or allowing that perception to proceed unchecked, that is your concern?

Read the comments section of any of these articles. The perception now is 10-20 football players raped the girl including all ten that were suspended. None of this is being clarified by our media members
Click to expand...

This is where Coyle and Kaler can really be criticized. They need to clarify this at some point.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

bottlebass said:
Can anyone explain to me why the accuser would get the final say of whether any player plays or not?
Click to expand...

I would like to understand this too. I have followed the story closely, and read all the documents thoroughly. It seems pretty clear from the policies that its the Office for Student Conduct and Academic Integrity (OSCAI) that sets the terms for resolution of the situation following the EOAA's investigative report.

Straight from the U's website:

"Either party may disagree with EOAA’s investigative outcome and/or OSCAI’s proposed resolution and opt to initiate the University’s formal resolution process. In this formal process, the parties are afforded a hearing before a panel drawn from the Campus Committee on Student Behavior"

Straight from the OSCAI's website

"The president or provost may impose an immediate interim suspension on a student or student organization pending a hearing before the appropriate disciplinary committee (1) to ensure the safety and well-being of members of the University community or to preserve University property, (2) to ensure the student's own physical or emotional safety and well-being, or (3) if the student or student organization poses an ongoing threat of disrupting or interfering with the operations of the University. During the interim suspension, the student or student organization may be denied access to all University activities or privileges for which the student or student organization might otherwise be eligible, including access to University housing or property. The student or student organization has a right to a prompt hearing before the president or provost on the questions of identification and whether the interim suspension should remain in effect until the full hearing is completed."

It has been my contention through all of this, that Kaler had the sole power to suspend or NOT suspend the students. Further, Kaler could have accepted player's appeal of the OSCAI recommended action and lifted the suspension pending the outcome of the appeal process. There is absolutely nothing in the policy that states that any parties need to be in agreement - it's the President or Provost's call.

Based on this, I really want to understand the reported comment of the women needing to approve any decision Kaler made on the suspensions. Because I can't find it anywhere in the policies.
 




Iceland12 said:
Or they, or the story you read, got the facts wrong or were talking about different things.
Click to expand...

Nope, you got it wrong. I got it from a player who was in the meetings and voting not the PP or Strib or Kaler who weren't in the meetings and who have had it wrong from the beginning...
 

GophersInIowa said:
This is part of the problem. You and many others are just assuming all 10 are in trouble because they participated in the act itself. That doesn't have to be true and appears it isn't true.

Serious question. If a great friend or family member is accused of something like this, and they deny it, would you initially believe them? I'm guessing you and many would.
Click to expand...

This is part of why I would love to have been there. What information did the team have at that time? Why insist on all be reinstated? I'm not assigning fault here, I really am curious.

If you take away the narrative that the players changed their mind after reading the report, you wonder why they bothered to start the boycott in the first place. No one got reinstated, and the boycott likely egged someone on to leak the report to Ch5. The new narrative made the boycott appear at best, insensitive and tone deaf.
 

GophersInIowa said:
This is part of the problem. You and many others are just assuming all 10 are in trouble because they participated in the act itself. That doesn't have to be true and appears it isn't true.

Serious question. If a great friend or family member is accused of something like this, and they deny it, would you initially believe them? I'm guessing you and many would.
Click to expand...

Anyone who has read the report from beginning to end knows exactly why the players are in trouble. Four were accused of sexual assault,
eight were accused of sexual harassment, three were accused of lying to investigators, and nine were accused of violating Sections 6, 8, and 19 of the Student Code of Conduct. The punishment for those violations range from suspension to expulsion. The hearings, appeals, and subsequent lawsuits will decide which of the reports is biased, and who among the parties and witnesses are lying. My guess is there will be plenty of evidence to kick most, if not all, the players off the team for violating the code of conduct and team rules even though they didn't have sex with the alleged victim.

It is a national sport to take sides on a high profile cases and disputes that become big news stories. It may offend you and others that some posters (particularly me) have lined up in favor of the alleged victim and against the players. Let me assure you that we are equally offended that so many posters are convinced the alleged victim is lying even though there is very little in the police report that supports that view. And a few of us are outraged that the EOAA report has been totally dismissed as biased by dozens of posters while they accept the police report as trustworthy and conclusive on the issue of consent. Police reports have no more credibility than an EOAA report. Cops are regularly caught lying, fabricating, ignoring evidence, or just doing an extremely inadequate job. The only way to determine the credibility of investigative reports is at hearings and trials with attorneys, witnesses, and the right to cross-examine adverse witnesses. And, of course, the right to appeal. Every player will have those rights in the upcoming hearings.
 

UpnorthGo4 said:
Anyone who has read the report from beginning to end knows exactly why the players are in trouble. Four were accused of sexual assault,
eight were accused of sexual harassment, three were accused of lying to investigators, and nine were accused of violating Sections 6, 8, and 19 of the Student Code of Conduct. The punishment for those violations range from suspension to expulsion. The hearings, appeals, and subsequent lawsuits will decide which of the reports is biased, and who among the parties and witnesses are lying. My guess is there will be plenty of evidence to kick most of the players off the team for violating the code of conduct and team rules.

It is a national sport to take sides on a high profile cases and dispute that become big news stories. It may offend you and others that some posters (particularly me) have lined up in favor of the alleged victim and against the players. Let me assure you that we are equally offended that so many posters are convinced the alleged victim is lying even though there is very little in the police report that supports that view. And a few of us our outraged that the EOAA report has been totally dismissed as biased by dozens of posters while they accept the police report as trustworthy and conclusive on the issue of consent. Police reports have no more credibility than an EOAA report. Cops are caught lying, fabricating, or ignoring evidence all the time in all 50 states. The only to determine the veracity of investigative reports is at hearings and trials with attornes, witnesses, and the right to cross-examine adverse witnesses. Every player will have the right in the upcoming hearings.
Click to expand...

Aren't you late for your weekly "cop hater's anonymous" meeting? You've implied numerous times in these various threads that you essentially feel most cops are scum or some variant of it. Man, you're a dolt.
 

Pompous Elitist said:
The aspect about the players being upset about the timing is interesting. The EOAA is mandated to complete their investigation and hand down a decision within 60 days of the complaint, which was Sept 23rd. IIRC the suspensions weren't made until Dec 13.

Furthermore an appeal hearing must be granted within 30 days for routine decisions, and "expedited" for those involving sexual assault allegations.

In summary, either the EOAA held the results until it was too close to the bowl game to allow for an appeal, or Coyle took his time deciding. Either way this cluster duck was made far worse for all parties than it needed to be. If one wanted to grenade the athletic department they could not have planned better. I'm surprised they didn't release the report Dec 7th.
Click to expand...

Or maybe a delay in the results would benefit the school's chance of landing a better bowl game? Had this been released prior to the bowl game Sunday, maybe the team have slid to a lower bowl game or had pressure to decline an invite.
 

GopherinPhilly said:
Nope, you got it wrong. I got it from a player who was in the meetings and voting not the PP or Strib or Kaler who weren't in the meetings and who have had it wrong from the beginning...
Click to expand...

And on the other board there is a father of one of the players who said Lee Hutton told him that Hutton turned down the offer to rescind the suspensions for the 5 players not directly involved. Not that Kaler pulled it. Very bad decision if true.

So no, I'm pretty skeptical about everything involved in this no matter "who" people claim to have heard what from.

No disrespect intended.
 

Iceland12 said:
And on the other board there is a father of one of the players who said Lee Hutton told him that Hutton turned down the offer to rescind the suspensions for the 5 players not directly involved. Not that Kaler pulled it. Very bad decision if true.

So no, I'm pretty skeptical about everything involved in this no matter "who" people claim to have heard what from.

No disrespect intended.
Click to expand...
This is exactly why each player should have lawyers up individually. Better for the worst of offenders if they are grouped together...better for the least of offenders if their sole interests are being advocated for.
 

Some guy said:
This is exactly why each player should have lawyers up individually. Better for the worst of offenders if they are grouped together...better for the least of offenders if their sole interests are being advocated for.
Click to expand...

Yep, that's how things have worked for decades and decades. Except for the Mob/KKK/Street Gang/Motorcycle Gang plan of "give them a couple of the low ranked guys"strategy.

Oh, not going to assume that Hutton or Kaler were telling the truth either.
 

UpnorthGo4 said:
Anyone who has read the report from beginning to end knows exactly why the players are in trouble. Four were accused of sexual assault,
eight were accused of sexual harassment, three were accused of lying to investigators, and nine were accused of violating Sections 6, 8, and 19 of the Student Code of Conduct. The punishment for those violations range from suspension to expulsion. The hearings, appeals, and subsequent lawsuits will decide which of the reports is biased, and who among the parties and witnesses are lying. My guess is there will be plenty of evidence to kick most, if not all, the players off the team for violating the code of conduct and team rules even though they didn't have sex with the alleged victim.

It is a national sport to take sides on a high profile cases and disputes that become big news stories. It may offend you and others that some posters (particularly me) have lined up in favor of the alleged victim and against the players. Let me assure you that we are equally offended that so many posters are convinced the alleged victim is lying even though there is very little in the police report that supports that view. And a few of us are outraged that the EOAA report has been totally dismissed as biased by dozens of posters while they accept the police report as trustworthy and conclusive on the issue of consent. Police reports have no more credibility than an EOAA report. Cops are regularly caught lying, fabricating, ignoring evidence, or just doing an extremely inadequate job. The only way to determine the credibility of investigative reports is at hearings and trials with attorneys, witnesses, and the right to cross-examine adverse witnesses. And, of course, the right to appeal. Every player will have those rights in the upcoming hearings.
Click to expand...

So not all 10 were actually part of the sexual act. That was my point. Yet they've all been labeled as rapists by many.

You keep bringing up bias. You're the most bias person here. Before the report came out you essentially said young men can't help themselves in these type of situations so they have to be guilty.

And so if you are saying the police reports are no more reliable than the EOAA report, then why from the beginning have you said we should just take the EOAA's word for it? You're criticizing people for doing the exact same thing you are.
 

UpnorthGo4 said:
Police reports have no more credibility than an EOAA report. Cops are regularly caught lying, fabricating, ignoring evidence, or just doing an extremely inadequate job.
Click to expand...

I am sorry, but I trust the police to conduct an investigation more so than the EOAA.
 


Lakers612 said:
I am sorry, but I trust the police to conduct an investigation more so than the EOAA.
Click to expand...

I generally think the police get a bad rap, although I don't doubt there are a few bad apples in a PD as large as Minneapolis. That being said, I would like to hear an explanation from them as to why there were no charges against the person who recorded the sex act -- whether consensual or not -- between the girl and the minor recruit. It doesn't seem to be disputed that the act was recorded and as far as I know it is a crime to record a sex act involving someone under 18 years of age. Not saying that because I want someone to get in trouble, but I'm just curious as to why there was no charge there.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom