John Shipley: Tracy Claeys has to go; this isn’t about X’s and O’s

Donate To GopherHole
alchemy2u said:
Ok, I really don't know what Claeys has done wrong to deserve to get fired? Yes, he sent out a text that has been misinterpreted by many as support for the suspected player, but that is not what was intended.

From day one, teams are taught to support and fight for each other with every fiber in their body. It is similar to military training in that you do not leave a brother behind. That is how you get all of the guys to commit to systems and have each other's back, etc....

So earlier in the year you have a restraining order that prevents 5 players from playing in home games (they were not suspended). The other players don't know any of the details. A few weeks later the restraining orders are lifted and the player can play home games again. At that point most of the other players think the situation has passed. Then, just before the bowl game, the U suspends 10 players based upon recommendations from a committee investigation. The majority of the players do not know the details/facts of the incident and are being told by the some of players involved that they did nothing wrong. These players have been taught to stand up for their teammates. Claeys meets with the players for several hours and they discussed the possible ramifications of any decision that they make. Claeys even told them he could get fired. The players decide it is worth the risk to use their leverage to ensure that all of the accused get due process and that the U doesn't just blindly follow the committee recommendations. Claeys supports his players just as he promised everyone of their parents that he would. Those two actions show a tremendous amount of team unity.

As has been noted, the boycott did draw attention to the second 5 players from the BOR. There is a greater chance that there will be some push back on some of the committee recommendations.

The players lifted the boycott after getting some reassurance that more due process will be followed and after learning more details of the incident.

I think Claeys did exactly what I would have expected him to do if my kid was on the team. Also, I think Claeys is in the strongest position of any possible coach to prevent any of these incidents from happening in the future.

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

Exactly true
 

everybody knows my name said:
The U had its investigators interview the players, compare the interviews, and make a recommendation.
Click to expand...

Partially true. It leaves out some important parts. Better written....

The U had its investigators interview the players without their council (and per one parent actually tell the kids they don't need one), include excerpts that support their conclusion in the report (but of course not the entire transcripts where the context and nature of the questions are disclosed), compare the interviews with the stated assumption that they believe her and not them and interpret everything in that context, inject other assumptions to support their case, and then make a recommendation.

How is this a fair process worth any more than the paper it is written on? People and media are so worried about being labeled "pro-rape" by pitchfork nation that they ignore things like this. I have been labeled that. I have said repeatedly that I have no idea what happened, but I'm not about to accept the EOAA report as fact. I've also said I have no issue with the suspension of the first 5 pending the resolution of this report. How on earth tho do others get suspended for "likely knowing something" about an event that wasn't proven to have happened?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Thank goodness Claeys has character and ability.

Coyle and Kaler could use these attributes.
 

Spoofin said:
Partially true. It leaves out some important parts. Better written....

The U had its investigators interview the players without their council (and per one parent actually tell the kids they don't need one), include excerpts that support their conclusion in the report (but of course not the entire transcripts where the context and nature of the questions are disclosed), compare the interviews with the stated assumption that they believe her and not them and interpret everything in that context, inject other assumptions to support their case, and then make a recommendation.

How is this a fair process worth any more than the paper it is written on? People and media are so worried about being labeled "pro-rape" by pitchfork nation that they ignore things like this. I have been labeled that. I have said repeatedly that I have no idea what happened, but I'm not about to accept the EOAA report as fact. I've also said I have no issue with the suspension of the first 5 pending the resolution of this report. How on earth tho do others get suspended for "likely knowing something" about an event that wasn't proven to have happened?


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

I take issue with some of your assertions, but not all of them. But due process requires an opportunity to appeal, to address faults or inadequacies in an investigation, and the students have that opportunity.
 

everybody knows my name said:
I take issue with some of your assertions, but not all of them. But due process requires an opportunity to appeal, to address faults or inadequacies in an investigation, and the students have that opportunity.
Click to expand...

They do have that opportunity but how can they get a fair hearing now after the way this has been portrayed in the media?
 


John Shipley, equals turd journalism

Pompous Elitist said:
He's a University of Iowa grad. Why would anyone listen to this ignorant jackel? Ill-informed, indeed. Disgraceful column.
Click to expand...

Another regurgitated article of self righteous indignation. John Shipley can go eat Herky the Hawkeyes D, he is a slimy little sh!t worm.
 

everybody knows my name said:
I take issue with some of your assertions, but not all of them. But due process requires an opportunity to appeal, to address faults or inadequacies in an investigation, and the students have that opportunity.
Click to expand...

That report is worth less than the TP the coach wipes with and should be treated as such.
 


gophmeister said:
They do have that opportunity but how can they get a fair hearing now after the way this has been portrayed in the media?
Click to expand...

Ah, but it's the students and their lawyer, and the football team who have publicized it, isn't it? I think trying the case in the court of public opinion was their brainstorm.
 



everybody knows my name said:
Thanks so much for the constructive remark. I'm sure it'll persuade everyone who doesn't agree with you.
Click to expand...

Any "investigation" that allows one of the parties involved to decide that evidence that may very likely be crucial to the case is not admitted is not impartial and should be treated as such.
 

everybody knows my name said:
Ah, but it's the students and their lawyer, and the football team who have publicized it, isn't it? I think trying the case in the court of public opinion was their brainstorm.
Click to expand...

I would say whoever leaked the report chose to publicize it. There is no one on here who knows who that was. I'm not counting Bizzle who declares it fact cuz she feels Doogie hinted at that (even tho Doogie has on the record said he has no idea who leaked it).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

bigticket1 said:
Any "investigation" that allows one of the parties involved to decide that evidence that may very likely be crucial to the case is not admitted is not impartial and should be treated as such.
Click to expand...

There are two parties here - the young woman who complained of a sexual assault and the young men who were accused. Which of these two parties are you referring to?
 

everybody knows my name said:
There are two parties here - the young woman who complained of a sexual assault and the young men who were accused. Which of these two parties are you referring to?
Click to expand...

When there is fair and impartial investigations and due process you are correct there are only 2 parties. We do not have that here. Clearly the EOAA has injected themselves in this as a third party when they wrote a biased report. That is the issue here. If you don't like the word biased you can use opinionated as no one has denied the report is that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 



gophmeister said:
They do have that opportunity but how can they get a fair hearing now after the way this has been portrayed in the media?
Click to expand...

The hearings aren't going to be decided by a poll. They are going to be decided by the people selected by the U to hear the evidence and determine if it is more likely than not the players are telling the truth and the alleged victims is lying. It all depends on the fairness of the hearing officers. How this has been portrayed in the media is going to have very little to do with the final decision. However, since many of the accusations against the players have absolutely nothing to do with actually having sex with the alleged victim, most of the players are going to have a tough time overcoming the evidence in the EOAA report, much of which was provided by the accused players and other witnesses.

Of course, the accused players will have the opportunity to appeal the final decisions of the hearing officers and sue in federal court if need be. All and all, they will be getting their due process. It just won't be tilted toward them in the way they want. About the only thing the players will be able to object to is that they were suspended prior to the hearings. However, most colleges have a procedure for interim suspensions prior to the hearings. So we don't know how far the players will get with that claim. As long as the U was following its written student disciplinary process it is unlikely a court will rule that the entire proceedings were flawed.
 

bigticket1 said:
Any "investigation" that allows one of the parties involved to decide that evidence that may very likely be crucial to the case is not admitted is not impartial and should be treated as such.
Click to expand...

That will be every university investigation into everything as they have no subpoena power and no ability to put witnesses under oath under penalty of perjury. There is no guarantee that every piece of evidence available can be obtained by the university. The university has to make do with what it has. Incidentally it also allows for the possibility of collusion between the university and the side it would like to see prevail, as may very well have been the case here. "Better if you don't give that to us" sort of advice. However this limitation of university proceedings cuts both ways, the players can do the same with their evidence and testimony as well. Due process in a university setting is a fairly murky thing.

Here is an extremely interesting, very long, but informative primer on due process in educational disciplinary cases for anyone wishing to become more informed. https://www.thefire.org/fire-guides...mpus-full-text/#__RefHeading__2480_2127946742
 

UpnorthGo4 said:
The hearings aren't going to be decided by a poll. They are going to be decided by the people selected by the U to hear the evidence and determine if it is more likely than not the players are telling the truth and the alleged victims is lying. It all depends on the fairness of the hearing officers. How this has been portrayed in the media is going to have very little to do with the final decision. However, since many of the accusations against the players have absolutely nothing to do with actually having sex with the alleged victim, most of the players are going to have a tough time overcoming the evidence in the EOAA report, much of which was provided by the accused players and other witnesses.

Of course, the accused players will have the opportunity to appeal the final decisions of the hearing officers and sue in federal court if need be. All and all, they will be getting their due process. It just won't be tilted toward them in the way they want. About the only thing the players will be able to object to is that they were suspended prior to the hearings. However, most colleges have a procedure for interim suspensions prior to the hearings. So we don't know how far the players will get with that claim. As long as the U was following its written student disciplinary process it is unlikely a court will rule that the entire proceedings were flawed.
Click to expand...
You just described a kangaroo court.
Do you carry your noose in your trunk?
 

everybody knows my name said:
I take issue with some of your assertions, but not all of them. But due process requires an opportunity to appeal, to address faults or inadequacies in an investigation, and the students have that opportunity.
Click to expand...

The report made conclusions and recommended punishment. They've already received the punishment without the opportunity to rebut any of it.
 

UpnorthGo4 said:
The hearings aren't going to be decided by a poll. They are going to be decided by the people selected by the U to hear the evidence and determine if it is more likely than not the players are telling the truth and the alleged victims is lying. It all depends on the fairness of the hearing officers. <b>How this has been portrayed in the media is going to have very little to do with the final decision.</b>
Click to expand...

This may be the most naive thing I have read in years. You do realize juries are usually picked in large part with the goal of having folks who don't have previous exposure to a case and sometimes trials are moved to other jurisdictions to increase the odds of that. Why do they do those things to assure fair trials if how the media presents something has "very little" to do with the final decision people have. Because of the publicity in this case you can be pretty sure every one of those hearing officers will be familiar with the case. They will be leaning one way or the other. If they listened to just the media, what way will they be leaning?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Spoofin said:
When there is fair and impartial investigations and due process you are correct there are only 2 parties. We do not have that here. Clearly the EOAA has injected themselves in this as a third party when they wrote a biased report. That is the issue here. If you don't like the word biased you can use opinionated as no one has denied the report is that.


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

I'm seeing a circular argument here. We know the investigation is unfair because it's biased, and we know it's biased because it reached an unfair conclusion.

It's still perfectly obvious that due process wasn't denied, because whatever complaints the students may have about the investigation (legitimate or not), they can be addressed in the appeals process, which was never denied to them.

So, getting back to the original topic, the football team was wrong to claim that due process had been denied, and Claeys was wrong to praise the team (at the expense of the administration) for protesting something that hadn't happened.
 

everybody knows my name said:
I'm seeing a circular argument here. We know the investigation is unfair because it's biased, and we know it's biased because it reached an unfair conclusion.

It's still perfectly obvious that due process wasn't denied, because whatever complaints the students may have about the investigation (legitimate or not), they can be addressed in the appeals process, which was never denied to them.

So, getting back to the original topic, the football team was wrong to claim that due process had been denied, and Claeys was wrong to praise the team (at the expense of the administration) for protesting something that hadn't happened.
Click to expand...

It's unfair because punishment was meted out before players could even know they were under threat of punishment (think Antoine Winfield Jr.). There was never a chance for the accused to argue their case. They merely answered questions and those hearing the questioning made up their own opinion and then enforced their opinion.

Due process was clearly denied.

So getting back to the topic, you are entirely wrong and Claeys was right to stand up and praise his team for calling out the unfair practice of the EoAA.
 

MennoSota said:
It's unfair because punishment was meted out before players could even know they were under threat of punishment (think Antoine Winfield Jr.). There was never a chance for the accused to argue their case. They merely answered questions and those hearing the questioning made up their own opinion and then enforced their opinion.

Due process was clearly denied.

So getting back to the topic, you are entirely wrong and Claeys was right to stand up and praise his team for calling out the unfair practice of the EoAA.
Click to expand...

Yes. x2.
 

everybody knows my name said:
There are two parties here - the young woman who complained of a sexual assault and the young men who were accused. Which of these two parties are you referring to?
Click to expand...

The accuser, who allowed two videos taken by the players to be seen but did not allow the third longer one in, and did not allow the EOAA to see the results of the rape kit and medical exam that was conducted after the incident.
 

The 82 comments and 4100+ views on this thread show more interest than Shipley gets in a month.

Glad it's not being done on the Pioneer Press website!
 

I'm still slightly amazed at how many continue to defend the players or Claeys in this situation. Compare it to last year's basketball situation.

Dorsey, McBrayer, and Mason had consensual sex with a woman. It was posted to Dorsey's twitter account where you could only tell for sure Dorsey was in the video and possibly part of McBrayer. The woman never pressed charges and there was never a rape investigation. Mason and McBrayer had no idea Dorsey was going to post it online. Legally those two did nothing wrong. No one had any idea Mason was even involved until he was suspended. Yet it was a violation of team rules where all 3 were suspended for the last 4 games, and Dorsey was eventually booted. There were no cries for due-process, they owned their moral mistakes and moved on.

Yet so many wanted Pitino fired. When Kaler introduced Coyle, he pretty much threw Pitino under the bus and said that type of sexual behavior will not be tolerated.

Then after only the first game of the football season, 10 football players were involved in a situation that was far worse than what the basketball players did. Yet there are far more defenders of the football players and coaches then there were for the basketball team. Outside of wins and losses, it doesn't make a lot of sense.
 


GopherWeatherGuy said:
Yet so many wanted Pitino fired.
Click to expand...

Because they only won 8 games. That's the difference between Pitino and Claeys. Many wanted Pitino gone before the incident with the three players last year. That just was the icing on the cake for many.

Yet there are far more defenders of the football players and coaches then there were for the basketball team.
Click to expand...

For like the 100th time, very few if anyone is defending what they did. If it is true, get rid of them. People are criticizing the process. People are defending the teammates of the 10 players because they did what they felt was right at the time. And then Claeys said he was proud of the team for standing up for what they felt was right.
 


GopherWeatherGuy said:
Rape allegations are worse than no rape allegations.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Allegations are speculative. Crime is worse than no crime. It hasn't been determined whether crimes were committed.

GopherWeatherGuy said:
5 on 1 plus harassment is worse than 3 on 1 with no harassment.
Click to expand...

Again, what do you know that the rest of us don't? Where's the harassment? Why are you assuming guilt?
 


With so much misinformation being passed on and so many of the facts surrounding this situation still unknown, the responsible thing would be to reserve judgement, while allowing the process to unfold. That's all that most people want. If any of these men are guilty of any wrong doing, I'll be the first to demand they be booted. But to boot or suspend these young men without allowing an opportunity to defend themselves, is wrong. Suspending them during an ongoing investigation of any sort, is presuming them to be guilty - which is wrong.

This PC, anti-man culture has thrived long past its expiration date.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom