STrib: 80-page report's details broke Gophers football team's walkout

Donate To GopherHole
Spoofin said:
I haven't said she is lying. Not once. Report might be right. Might not. That is not my point. My point is it is biased. Some things are debatable. That is not. Agree with the findings if you want, but it is biased.
The players inconsistent - lying.
The accuser inconsistent - Trama.
The players have odd actions - coverup.
The girl has odd actions - Has better recollection now.
I could go on forever.


It is expressing an opinion on the report. I can think the report is bias without it meaning I think the players did nothing wrong. I have not ever said the girl is lying. I have an issue with the report, how some ignorant people accept it as fact, with how the U has handled this situation, the lack of due process before they have been painted as rapist, and most of all how 5 kids who some group with an agenda (also a fact) label as "likely" knowing about something that hasn't even been proven to happen can be treated this way and lumped into the same group as others. I also have issues with folks who inject their moral compass into their belief that something terrible happened, etc.
Again, I could go on forever.


Not really what it said, but people will always see what they want to.


True, but hard to miss the point of your snarky comment.


Not really true, but folks will see what they want to.


Covered. Again, accept the report if you want, ignore the police report if you want (they must just love football players), but please don't pretend the EOAA process where they don't let one side have attorneys, arbitrarily deem who is lying & who is not, arbitrarily decide what facts need to be evaluated and which don't, arbitrarily inject inference in the report (by their own admission), arbitrarily decide what part of interviews should or should not be included, arbitrarily decide when inconsistencies show lying and which show a desire to set the record straight, etc. is fair and just.
Again, I could go on forever.


I said your non-response was admitting you were wrong. I'm still waiting for you to tell me where my views are different than the players view.


Understatement. A meeting between the players and Coyle caused the boycott.


Absolutely agree. Show me proof they did when they have had a chance to defend themselves and I'll be asking for that too. The EOAA report is far far far from proof. The fact that some feel it is proof is EXACTLY the issue with it.


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

The article said:
Sources said the release of the report and the players getting a chance to read the results of the investigation were the biggest factors in the decision to end the boycott.

and then it said:

"Clarity had come for many in the form of the EOAA report, and player support to end the boycott put in motion a change in plans."

as i stated above the players (or at least some of them- according to the article) give the report more credence then you do. I am at a loss how some say the article does not say the players were affected by the report. Yes, one of the 5 stood up and urged them to play. But, it also says the report was a a big part of the change. So that is how your view differs from at least some of the students.

But as you said, folks will see what they want to see.

And, again...just cause someone doesn't reply, don't mean you're right.

It is the quality of analysis and arguments and facts that make someone right

Happy Holidays :cool:
 

Gogogopher said:
The article said:
Sources said the release of the report and the players getting a chance to read the results of the investigation were the biggest factors in the decision to end the boycott.

and then it said:

"Clarity had come for many in the form of the EOAA report, and player support to end the boycott put in motion a change in plans."

as i stated above the players (or at least some of them- according to the article) give the report more credence then you do. I am at a loss how some say the article does not say the players were affected by the report. Yes, one of the 5 stood up and urged them to play. But, it also says the report was a a big part of the change. So that is how your view differs from at least some of the students.

But as you said, folks will see what they want to see.

And, again...just cause someone doesn't reply, don't mean you're right.

It is the quality of analysis and arguments and facts that make someone right

Happy Holidays :cool:
Click to expand...

Yeah, the EOAA report did influence the players more than me. I didn't recall those quotes from the article, but they are there. The EOAA report was a tough read - very disturbing actions - but that doesn't change the bias of it. Take out the opinions and assumptions of the author, add in the evidence they left out, and you can see why no charges were ever filed after the police investigation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Gogogopher said:
First bolded part: So because you think its biased it's not legit? Because other gopherholers think its biased I have to agree? I have news for you, most people are not as doubtful of the report as you are.
Click to expand...

I can't speak for him or others but my whole point about the possible bias is that there are many examples of exactly that in similar situations at other universities. That doesn't mean they made a bunch of this up or that I don't believe something bad happened that night. I'm just not going to automatically believe everything that is in a report like this just because it was done by the university like upnorth and others say we should.
 

When you guys say bias are you saying it because the EEOA panel is mostly women or the findings they made in favor of the victim? Wolitarky's emphasis on the word "diverse" today made me think they were concerned about an anti-male angle in the EEOA panel. Seems surprising though that after hundreds of years where any public panel like this would have been all male it is now so easy to find bias when it's majority female.
 

Genious said:
When you guys say bias are you saying it because the EEOA panel is mostly women or the findings they made in favor of the victim? Wolitarky's emphasis on the word "diverse" today made me think they were concerned about an anti-male angle in the EEOA panel. Seems surprising though that after hundreds of years where any public panel like this would have been all male it is now so easy to find bias when it's majority female.
Click to expand...

In my opinion, the EOAA report is presenting opinion as if it was fact. The people writing the report made it clear they believe the accuser, and they don't believe the players. Now, it may turn out that they are correct, but unless they have information that is not included in the report - as I read the report - they are drawing conclusions based on their interpretation of events. The report continually uses phrases including "we find it likely" - in other words, we think this is what happened.

The EOAA staff are well-meaning people, but don't kid yourself - they have an agenda. The head of the EOAA is on record as stating she believes there is a pattern of sexual harassment in the FB program.

Again - I'm not condoning the actions of the players. Some of them deserve to be punished for what they did. But I don't believe all of them deserve to be punished. Some of the players may not have even been at the apartment - there is conflicting testimony about where certain people were during the evening.
 


The accused may have forfeited rights due to their wrong doing, including making false statements, destroying evidence, conspiracy to create a cover story and the like. One might ask the lawyers why Crawford v Washington might affect future testimony of hearsay allowances, since the accuser refuses to testify on her own behalf. Why wouldn't Crawford apply to the accuser in a rape or sexual assault trial for the same basic reasons as Crawford? The lawyers babbling on this board have failed to provide even the most fundamental reason why Due Process were denied 10 men who the EOAA clearly showed had lied, destroyed evidence, and conspired to suppress witness testimony. And, the lawyers on the board failed to address how this harms their due process argument. I mean, really, shouldn't the lawyers disclose the weaknesses in their argument for the sake of educating the board? Don't they have a civic duty to represent all parties fairly? Yet, when they babble on about Due Process, they only represent one side of the issue. In fairness to those special citizens that have duties to the court, and thus clearly to you and me, wouldn't you think they would uphold their duty even on lowly Gopherhole? But, I digress from the main issue to make an ad hominem attack on the JD holders who participate on GH just to illuminate how they fail to fully represent the law on a message board. Why do they do it? I would assume to win the argument without fulfilling full disclosure.

I love lawyers, when they are useful. In this discussion, they have shown a propensity to have blinders on to the singular subject of the EOAA failings or the failure to uphold due process. I question how fair minded that really is to the University. Where is it required that the U should be held to a higher standard than the County Attorney's office, which failed to address how the law failed to be specific or sensitive enough to prosecute the case. In other words, that office failed to inform the public that the law is failing women at the University, when it comes to cases like the woman in this instance. It failed to disclose to the legislature the defects in the law and how that might be remedied. They get so limited in their thinking about their responsibilities to the public, that they put blinders on their brains and focus exclusively on the present and the past. Why are we not outraged as to the language of the law as is obviously deficient for gang assaults. The law is apparently deficient in the definition of consent in multiparty situations. Where is the understanding that this type of thing happens more often than not and that the existing definitions are neither specific enough nor sensitive enough to allow the prosecution to go forward, at least in the case of Hennepin county is concerned. This situation reveals how rotten the system is to prosecute, not just defend.

I will concede that due process is not adequate in its entirety at the U. But, and this is the rub, Due Process may not need be held to the same standard and rules in this instance, because of the actions to destroy and damage evidence and testimony. Rights are only as good as how rights are upheld by all and the players may have forfeited their fullest rights by their actions to deny a full accounting of the events of that sad morning. Boo hoo. Due process is diminished!!!
 

Genious said:
When you guys say bias are you saying it because the EEOA panel is mostly women or the findings they made in favor of the victim? Wolitarky's emphasis on the word "diverse" today made me think they were concerned about an anti-male angle in the EEOA panel. Seems surprising though that after hundreds of years where any public panel like this would have been all male it is now so easy to find bias when it's majority female.
Click to expand...

SON does a much better job of expressing this and I agree with everything he said. My view is that the EOAA had a conclusion beforehand and made the data fit. Their entire report is written with the assumption that the woman is telling the truth and the players aren't. It is one side of the story and as impartial as CNN. Everything is in that context as it fits their agenda. That doesn't mean they are wrong, but I think there is a nearly 100% chance this was going to be their conclusion before the investigation even started. The process is a joke and there is no way to conclude guilt or non-guilt from that report. Not honestly.

In the EOAA process they didn't let one side have attorneys, they arbitrarily deem who is lying & who is not, they arbitrarily decide what facts need to be evaluated and which don't, they arbitrarily decide what evidence from the police report can be ignored, they arbitrarily inject inference in the report (by their own admission), they arbitrarily decide what part of interviews should or should not be included, they arbitrarily decide when inconsistencies show lying and when they show a desire to set the record straight, and there is more. It isn't bias because it is all women - it is bias as they slant everything to fit their agenda. This has been proven at other Universities and with the help of our Administration will likely be done so here too thru the lawsuits that are sure to come.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Spoofin said:
SON does a much better job of expressing this and I agree with everything he said. My view is that the EOAA had a conclusion beforehand and made the facts fit. Their entire report is written with the assumption that the woman is telling the truth and the players aren't. It is one side of the story and as impartial as CNN. Everything is in that context as it fits their agenda. That doesn't mean they are wrong, but I think there is a nearly 100% chance this was going to be their conclusion before the investigation even started. The process is a joke and there is no way to conclude guilt or non-guilt from that report. Not honestly.

In the EOAA process they didn't let one side have attorneys, they arbitrarily deem who is lying & who is not, they arbitrarily decide what facts need to be evaluated and which don't, they arbitrarily decide what evidence from the police report can be ignored, they arbitrarily inject inference in the report (by their own admission), they arbitrarily decide what part of interviews should or should not be included, they arbitrarily decide when inconsistencies show lying and when they show a desire to set the record straight, and there is more. It isn't bias because it is all women - it is bias as they slant everything to fit their agenda. This has been proven at other Universities and with the help of our Administration will likely be done so here too thru the lawsuits that are sure to come.


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

The EEOA report was very one sided. Apparently there is no video or precise transcript. Players had no legal representation to protect from leading or otherwise unfairly presented questions. And the alleged victims inconsistencies in testimony were attributed to reasons that the board was/is not medically or otherwise certified to attest.
This nonsense will be absolutely shredded when handled in the proper venue where cross examination is afforded.
 

My limited research on the topic seems to suggest that this issue isn't exactly settled in the courts. I mean the due process rights for athletes. Additionally, we do not have the full story of what the athletes were told and what they weren't.

Here is an interesting read about due process on college campuses. The author believes students rights are not adequately protected on University campuses, but is quite levelheaded about the precedents and regulations that they operate under.

https://www.thefire.org/fire-guides...mpus-full-text/#__RefHeading__2594_2127946742
 




Spoofin said:
Dear God man. Just stop. Ignorance. Many on here have pointed out the bias of the EOAA report and system. Millions of dollars have been won in lawsuits around the Country on that very point. Having issues with the report is not condoning any actions. It also isn't expressing an opinion on the subject.

As I have said over and over....
- I have no issues with 5 of the kids being suspended.
- I have a ton of issues with 5 being suspended for "likely" knowing about something that hasn't been proven to have happened.
- The whole premise of the EOAA report is based on their assumption she is telling the truth and the players aren't. There is no proof of that. No evidence. Contradictions to that narrative glossed over, others not included. Kids had no representation when interviewed. These are all issues.
- The U admin had led this about as badly as they could of.

Now, tell me where my (one of those dumb GHers who can't see your logic) view differs from the players?


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

+10
 

Gogogopher said:
The article said:
Sources said the release of the report and the players getting a chance to read the results of the investigation were the biggest factors in the decision to end the boycott.

and then it said:

"Clarity had come for many in the form of the EOAA report, and player support to end the boycott put in motion a change in plans."

as i stated above the players (or at least some of them- according to the article) give the report more credence then you do. I am at a loss how some say the article does not say the players were affected by the report. Yes, one of the 5 stood up and urged them to play. But, it also says the report was a a big part of the change. So that is how your view differs from at least some of the students.

But as you said, folks will see what they want to see.

And, again...just cause someone doesn't reply, don't mean you're right.

It is the quality of analysis and arguments and facts that make someone right

Happy Holidays :cool:
Click to expand...

If you take a look at what I stated yesterday, that you loudly disagreed with, which I probably went overboard with, and take a look at what the players have said on twitter about how they reached their decision to end the boycott, the report did not come into play. That statement came from Kaler to make the players look bad again. When they were close to an agreement on the 5 non-involved players, and the team voted that down, IMO, you knew that the report played no part in the outcome.
 

Sounds to me like the 5 that admitted to sex told the guys not to take the fall for them. They were given assurances of an appeal, and there will be legal proceedings coming in addition to the EOAA appeal.

The Strib writer inferred they changed their minds because of the report, but that isn't the case. Injecting their own opinions into supposed journalism, EOAA reports seems to be a thing.
 



Pompous Elitist said:
Sounds to me like the 5 that admitted to sex told the guys not to take the fall for them. They were given assurances of an appeal, and there will be legal proceedings coming in addition to the EOAA appeal.

The Strib writer inferred they changed their minds because of the report, but that isn't the case. Injecting their own opinions into supposed journalism, EOAA reports seems to be a thing.
Click to expand...

You are saying Strib reporters are injecting opinion in pieces that are supposed to be just the facts? How dare you? :rolleyes:
 

minny01 said:
If you take a look at what I stated yesterday, that you loudly disagreed with, which I probably went overboard with, and take a look at what the players have said on twitter about how they reached their decision to end the boycott, the report did not come into play. That statement came from Kaler to make the players look bad again. When they were close to an agreement on the 5 non-involved players, and the team voted that down, IMO, you knew that the report played no part in the outcome.
Click to expand...

I don't have any insider info, I was going off of what was in the article. As far as twitter, in a group of a hundred individuals there will be different opinions. I am sure some of the students were not affected by the report, I bet some were, too.

You say I loudly disagreed, but you started your post in response to mine with "Dear God, man. Just stop. Ignorance."
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom