Players should be kicked off team for being at a gang bang with 17 yr old recruit

Donate To GopherHole
U

UpnorthGo4

Science Denial Denier
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
5,193
Reaction score
1
Points
36
If it was not against team rules to allow the recruit to be anywhere near that apartment, it should have been. You don't need "due process" to kick a player off the team if they keep their scholarship and remain in school. Clayes should have done it the second he found out about it. No doubt the NCAA is going to get involved in this matter. GopherHolers love to have people held accountable for their behavior. This is one of those times.
 

The question of consent for the girl involved is a legit one.

Not sure I want to get into proximity to sex rules for a 17 year old.
 

Big elephant in the room, I highly doubt the coaches said take the boy out for a good time after the game. Did he have alcohol that night? I wonder if he actually talked about not going to UMN because of how F***ed up it is.
 

I considered starting a similar thread but figured there were already too many. But with all the he said/she said going on, no one is really talking about the recruit. The EOAA report states the recruit was drunk and encouraged to participate in the event. Whatever happens with the woman, this recruit business is serious. Why are players seemingly providing a recruit with alcohol and encouraging group sex? If I'm Claeys/Coyle/Kaler, I would be furious with even just that revelation.
 

A_Slab_of_Bacon said:
The question of consent for the girl involved is a legit one.

Not sure I want to get into proximity to sex rules for a 17 year old.
Click to expand...

Consent is irrelevant as it pertains to getting a 17 year old drunk and in the middle of what he got into. Surely that's a violation of team rules, no?
 


Genious said:
Consent is irrelevant as it pertains to getting a 17 year old drunk and in the middle of what he got into. Surely that's a violation of team rules, no?
Click to expand...

I mentioned concent ... for the girl involved.
 

Well, we look kind of stingy. The other schools get the recruit his own girl. Here, we make him share the one and film it. It is the difference between getting a steak dinner, and just putting out a loaf of bread, a jar of peanut butter and a knife.
 

This is a problem. Here's what we don't know - who was in charge of supervising the student during his visit? What guidelines was he given? How did the kid wind up at the party?

If we're going to assess blame, let's do so after we know the facts. I'm pretty sure the coaches did NOT tell the players - "hey, take the kid to a party, get him drunk and get him laid."

Again, there are people on this board who like to pronounce judgement from their moral high ground. I would prefer to get the facts before I start blaming people.
 

If anyone filmed the recruit who was a minor in this incident on any phone that involved a sexual act, they likely violated the law. In my opinion the police should subpoena any witnesses phone's for evidence of that happening and request a forensic analysis of said witnesses phones.
 



UpnorthGo4 said:
If it was not against team rules to allow the recruit to be anywhere near that apartment, it should have been. You don't need "due process" to kick a player off the team if they keep their scholarship and remain in school. Clayes should have done it the second he found out about it. No doubt the NCAA is going to get involved in this matter. GopherHolers love to have people held accountable for their behavior. This is one of those times.
Click to expand...

I would imagine that the reason he doesn't care is because it is standard operating procedure many places to get recruits drunk and into situations where it is at least possible they'll get laid. I would imagine there are policies against it but I've heard enough to surmise it's a relatively common thing in CFB. The orgy thing surely not but that's not really the issue from a team rules standpoint. Doesn't make it right but kicking guys off the team for getting caught doing something he knows they're doing anyway is pretty hypocritical.
 

gopherdudepart2 said:
If anyone filmed the recruit who was a minor in this incident on any phone that involved a sexual act, they likely violated the law. In my opinion the police should subpoena any witnesses phone's for evidence of that happening and request a forensic analysis of said witnesses phones.
Click to expand...

The police saw the video and deemed the acts consensual. The girl denied showing it to the EOAA.
 


The police saw the video. It's not the EOAA that would be arresting her.
 



highwayman said:
This is because she would be arrested for sex with a minor.
Click to expand...

No she wouldn't. The age of consent is 16 in MN.

Oddly enough, any video of the incident (even though the sex was legal (if she gave consent) would be illegal.
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
No she wouldn't. The age of consent is 16 in MN.

Oddly enough, any video of the incident (even though the sex was legal (if she gave consent) would be illegal.
Click to expand...

She would have had to known the recruit was a minor and filmed the act for that perspective I think to be in play. There must not have been any evidence that the recruit was filmed then on someones phone, otherwise I think the Police would have followed up with that information with the district attorney.
 

I have no problem with the players on the team who were in charge of supervising the 17 yr old getting into trouble (whatever that may be).

It would obviously be a stretch to kick them out of school, it isn't that friends in HS visit college campuses and drink. If that offense could get someone expelled, a lot of students would be in trouble.

The sex part, the kid is old enough to give consent in MN. If the girl gave consent, having rules against legal, consensual conduct is extremely bizarre.

If it wasn't consensual, we already have a ton of rules for that.

But yeah, I wouldn't be shocked if someone got into trouble for the recruit. It would obviously feel like a cowardly way to punish someone for something that bothers you, but whatever. If you asked the board before last week, do you think the recruits drink and have sex on their trips, I think you'd have to be a naive fool to say no. So, I don't think it's conduct that really bothered people until this came about and it feels like it bothers the people that like to pick and choose what kind of sex other people can have. Which is weird and creepy.
 

Here is the thing. This is all old news. Claeys, Kaler and Coyle all knew this at the time of the first suspensions (remember Buford Sr. is publicly tweeting about the recruit at the time). Then the situation goes away and all is fine and dandy for a month until the EOAA report emerges.

Coyle and Kaler should have fired Claeys in September for allowing a recruit into this mess. They didn't and talked extension for Claeys. If this is not a glaring example of lack of institutional control, I don't know what is. All three probably should go.
 

Winnipegopher said:
Here is the thing. This is all old news. Claeys, Kaler and Coyle all knew this at the time of the first suspensions (remember Buford Sr. is publicly tweeting about the recruit at the time). Then the situation goes away and all is fine and dandy for a month until the EOAA report emerges.

Coyle and Kaler should have fired Claeys in September for allowing a recruit into this mess. They didn't and talked extension for Claeys. If this is not a glaring example of lack of institutional control, I don't know what is. All three probably should go.
Click to expand...

Yeah. That crowd has no leg to stand on for the Due Process part. They don't even really care about the consent. They think the group sex was icky and want people to be punished for having a kind of icky sex they don't like.
 

UpnorthGo4 said:
If it was not against team rules to allow the recruit to be anywhere near that apartment, it should have been. You don't need "due process" to kick a player off the team if they keep their scholarship and remain in school.
Click to expand...

This is a rare situation where I agree with you.
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
Yeah. That crowd has no leg to stand on for the Due Process part. They don't even really care about the consent. They think the group sex was icky and want people to be punished for having a kind of icky sex they don't like.
Click to expand...

You don't really think that's what this is all about, do you? I think you are just using that line as a red herring. Yes or no - do you believe that this woman gave consent to all 10-20 men who had sex with her? Yes or no?
 

Go Gophers Rah said:
You don't really think that's what this is all about, do you? I think you are just using that line as a red herring. Yes or no - do you believe that this woman gave consent to all 10-20 men who had sex with her? Yes or no?
Click to expand...

I have no idea if she gave consent. You realize that these things do happen consensually? It's really far from being unheard of. I realize these things happen without consent too. So really, I have no idea. If you're making me give my hunch, I was leaning towards yes after the police report (but I wasn't certain, but it's all we have a society to go on). Now, I really have no idea. The findings of the EOAA are troubling, but it kind of feels like watching "Making a Murderer" before googling the actual case. We know a version and it was horrific, I don't think anyone can say that version is credible. So I can't really answer that. I wish a just investigation would have taken place to shed some light on that question.

However, people should stop making arguments that "even if nothing illegal happened" or "consensual or not". The entire thing rests on consent. If you think they should be punished EVEN IF SHE GAVE CONSENT, that is not a red herring at all. It's an absolute attack on that ridiculous opinion. If you're not in that group, that says that kind of stuff, I wasn't directing it at you. But there are a lot of creepy weirdos on this board that think group sex (I suppose only multiple men and 1 woman) is enough for them to punished, consent or not.
 

Go Gophers Rah said:
You don't really think that's what this is all about, do you? I think you are just using that line as a red herring. Yes or no - do you believe that this woman gave consent to all 10-20 men who had sex with her? Yes or no?
Click to expand...

Other than the initial statements by the "confused and forgetful" accuser, there is no evidence that anywhere near 10 men had sex with her that night, much less 20. That is part of the wildly inaccurate and unfair trashing of the football team by the U admin, media and EOAA.
 

Go Gophers Rah said:
You don't really think that's what this is all about, do you? I think you are just using that line as a red herring. Yes or no - do you believe that this woman gave consent to all 10-20 men who had sex with her? Yes or no?
Click to expand...

You do realize there are things like 'blow and suck party's" and as embarrassing and naive as it sounds I had to have an explanation of what it was when we were walking to it as a 20 year old. Had to bail on it, the party even, because I was uncomfortable with all of the group stuff and sado masochism stuff that was going on. This is the part where I think some of the players get painted with a broad brush, and some may have been uncomfortable with what was going on or actually happening but we're not going to say anything to their teammates. All I can speak to is my own personal experience, If you're uncomfortable in a situation, feel fear or blowback, often times the instinct is to bail on it, and not say anything, even if it seems appropriate to say something.
All kinds of freaky sh!t happening in college that I was unaware of until that point. Not saying that to justify what has happened here, just in my own experience and that was over 20 years ago at the U, there was some strange party's and such I never thought I would be invited to let alone witness. The underage drinking thing, many of us had friends that got us into bars at 19, not saying it is right just that it seems to be a prevalent thing on college campuses.
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
I have no idea if she gave consent. You realize that these things do happen consensually? It's really far from being unheard of. I realize these things happen without consent too. So really, I have no idea. If you're making me give my hunch, I was leaning towards yes after the police report (but I wasn't certain, but it's all we have a society to go on). Now, I really have no idea. The findings of the EOAA are troubling, but it kind of feels like watching "Making a Murderer" before googling the actual case. We know a version and it was horrific, I don't think anyone can say that version is credible. So I can't really answer that. I wish a just investigation would have taken place to shed some light on that question.

However, people should stop making arguments that "even if nothing illegal happened" or "consensual or not". The entire thing rests on consent. If you think they should be punished EVEN IF SHE GAVE CONSENT, that is not a red herring at all. It's an absolute attack on that ridiculous opinion. If you're not in that group, that says that kind of stuff, I wasn't directing it at you. But there are a lot of creepy weirdos on this board that think group sex (I suppose only multiple men and 1 woman) is enough for them to punished, consent or not.
Click to expand...


I respect most of your answer. So thanks for giving it a little thought.
I am of the (admittedly under-informed) opinion that she did not give consent to all of the men involved and that lack of consent in any of those cases is a rape in that such case.
I also differ with the opinion that if they didn't do anything illegal (or for which charges were pressed), then they shouldn't get suspensions, expulsions, etc. Playing on a football team is a privilege, not a right. Didn't a player get kicked off the team earlier this season for getting into fights with teammates? There were no charges pressed. If someone on the team (or any student) were to cheat on a test or have someone write a paper for them, they could (should) face disciplinary action even though they wouldn't be in jeopardy of the police taking them away in handcuffs. There are a lot of similar examples that I could come up with. I'm sure many of these examples would fall under some specific violation of the "Code of Conduct," while others might fall under some less specific language.
I have a hard time believing that ANY woman wants to have sex with 10-20 guys in a 2 hour period, but I guess I must concede that there may be such women out there. If the women in question in this case had never gone to the hospital, police, EOAA and confided in her sister and friends, then I would say "different strokes for different folks," be slightly disgusted and move on with my life without worrying whether the men involved should get in trouble or not.
 

the only mention of alcohol in the eoaa report that i recall was with respect to the girl prior to going to the apartment. didn't see any mention of alcohol at the apartment
 


I have to say I for one am unfamiliar with the term blow and suck party.
 

UpnorthGo4 said:
If it was not against team rules to allow the recruit to be anywhere near that apartment, it should have been. You don't need "due process" to kick a player off the team if they keep their scholarship and remain in school. Clayes should have done it the second he found out about it. No doubt the NCAA is going to get involved in this matter. GopherHolers love to have people held accountable for their behavior. This is one of those times.
Click to expand...

You absolutely need due process. You are stating that "one can assume guilt of someone because you believe they did something."

However, if through said process you found that they engaged in the accused activity, then they should be kicked off the team, you would be correct.
 

Wisconsin blows and Iowa sucks. They have a party to celebrate that?
 


You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom