Ten Gophers football players indefinately suspended

Donate To GopherHole
citywok said:
Special shout out number two to supadupafly for their contributions to the ultra hot chili, brain-dead takes in the last few pages of this thread.

There was otherwise a lot of good discussion in there. Schools aren't equipped to handle this stuff well right now. I wonder how it will be 5-10 years from now. I have a few more points I want to make.

-Some people need a reality check, that EOAA and U officials fully realize how serious it is to suspend a group of 10 football players right now. There is no way in hell that they would go through with this, and leave themselves open to a ton of really serious financial and institutional repercussions, if there wasn't some sort of absolutely ironclad violation of the code of conduct, or at least that they are following a transparent and documented precedent for how to proceed with something like this.
-Until we hear that Coyle Charlie Brown Footballed this entire thing. But, you have to assume that isn't the case until it becomes obvious that it is.

-THIS isn't some sort of "PC charade" that is being carried out, you Eisenhower Warriors. A different argument is that the code of conduct as a whole contains "PC charades" and you are entitled to argue that... but this is on file and most importantly everybody affected by this is aware of it and has agreed to abide by it, for years and years at this point. There are no surprises, deal with it.

-To whoever said something like "this will hurt recruiting, why would you want your child to go to school in such a PC fantasy world like this?" I would say, worse is an institution where Baylor-like incidents are handled in that manner by those in charge. Right now there are 2 ways. This, or that. Until a third way becomes clear, figure out which side of the fence you will decide to stand on and deal with it, destroyed Nickel Package and all. I bet most side with this way of handling things rather than the Baylor method.

-People are creating group-think false realities about what this incident was. Nobody really knows, and we do not know the details of what actually was in violation of the code of conduct. Comment and think appropriately until then.
Click to expand...

piss off buddy. cheers!
 

To some degree I'm starting to understand the opening up of the case against the guys who were previously charged but I'm really struggling with adding the additional 5 players.

I'm really struggling with understanding how these guys weren't involved but now are. Who did this U group talk to who now is saying these guys were present? Many on here are saying the victim is probably not involved in this in any way. So did they interview others at this party? If so, how are they not being punished? As others have said, if it is against the "moral code" of the U to attend a party where something illegal may or may not have happened then we wouldn't have any college students.

I know in highschool you can be suspended from a team for being present at a party but this isn't a violation of team rules. This is lumping these guys in with "sexual assault or harassment" charges.
 

tato2001 said:
See, this is where your assumption is wrong. The issue is with the way these proceedings have developed (all over the country) just as was explained by another poster last night. They way the pressure from the federal government has come down is that in a he-said, she-said circumstance, if the school basically does anything other than believe the accuser, they are potentially in violation of Title IX. So what do they do? They construct a 'policy' definition of non-consensual sex that covers about 95% of all human sexual activity AND they don't follow any semblance of due process. Pretty easy to find the accused did something wrong in that case. "Hmm, by this definition, yep, you violated the policy." And once you are there, it's pretty hard to not institute harsh punishment ("Accused rapist assigned to write a paper on sexual assault" is not a headline the University wants). And so, "Expelled. Look how seriously we take sexual assault!"

By the definitions in place today I have been 'assaulted' by many women over the years, none of whom I believe would deserve expulsion or any punishment whatsoever (and I ain't no Cassanova).

Point is, you can't dis-aggregate a bad policy from it's bad enforcement. They go hand in hand. This isn't a made up anti-PC argument and we should all just shut up and trust the administration. There are literally DOZENS of lawsuits over this across the country currently. The Strib had an article on one down at Drake just a couple days ago, and there was one at St. Thomas recently, and potentially another in the works at St. Olaf.

If you want a reference check out the site a mom made: www.helpsaveoursons.com
Click to expand...

Just because lawsuits were filed doesn't mean that they will be followed through on or won. Otherwise it's the same thing as assuming someone will be charged and convicted if they are arrested. This whole thread is pretty ridiculous.

- We've got a few people who have already tried and convicted the players despite having no idea what actually happened.
- A few more who take it a step beyond that and want Claeys gone which is just as ridiculous for the same reason.
- Others who want to fire everyone at the EOAA despite having no clue how they did their investigation or whether they were able to find any additional information.
- Some who take it a step further and wonder about conspiracy theories against football players which is pure conjecture.
- Then of course there is what I can only assume is the resident nutjob spouting mostly nonsense about Stalin and other things that I don't even bother to read through.

None of us know what happened so drawing any conclusions at this point is insane. Wait for the facts to come out before declaring the players scum, claiming there is no control in the athletic department, or whining about a huge overstep by the EOAA. It sounds to me like the players have a pretty good lawyer, so I'm sure he will see that they are treated fairly. I'm sure the EOAA will ensure the alleged victim receives the proper care and fair treatment as well. Let it all play out. Until then just start a new thread called "Theories with no basis whatsoever" and have at it
 

I have not read through the 21 pages in this thread. Nor do I know any of the details about the incident in question.
Having said that, I would rather see the University err on the side of overreacting to a case of sexual misconduct. Being a member of an extracurricular activity at the University (and perhaps a student) is a privilege, not a right. So the standards for losing that privilege will be different than the standards of being charged in a criminal preceding.
 



supadupafly said:
oh please. the idea of rogue, politically and highly ideologically motivated, university boards/committees like this feminist-activist EOAA board having any type of extra-judicial and/or disciplinary power above and beyond the actual U.S. court and prosecutor system is absurd and highly dangerous. through ideological lobbying and forced cooperation, via the threat of withholding federal funds to universities, ridiculous PC activists (with the help of often lawless Obama administration allies) have created dangerous fiefdoms of extra-judicial "law" on campuses where anything goes in terms of doling out their own versions of "punishment" and supposed "due process". it's wrong, it's unfair, and it's dangerous.

i hope the attorney for these players sues the ass off of the EOAA board at the U of M, the accuser, and anyone else here responsible for now unlawfully dragging these players names through the mud yet again.
Click to expand...

Don't you want to wait to here what happens before you rush to judgement? You make it sounds like there is an named evil (the feminist-activist EOAA board) that hates men and sports. Couldn't it be that they are a board that is trying to do it's job of keeping the U conduct code and standards at a high level? I would rather that our University has high standards and fair procedures to enforce those than look the other way to win some big games. Let's just wait to see how this unfolds.
 

citywok said:
Special shout out number two to supadupafly for their contributions to the ultra hot chili, brain-dead takes in the last few pages of this thread.

There was otherwise a lot of good discussion in there. Schools aren't equipped to handle this stuff well right now. I wonder how it will be 5-10 years from now. I have a few more points I want to make.

-Some people need a reality check, that EOAA and U officials fully realize how serious it is to suspend a group of 10 football players right now. There is no way in hell that they would go through with this, and leave themselves open to a ton of really serious financial and institutional repercussions, if there wasn't some sort of absolutely ironclad violation of the code of conduct, or at least that they are following a transparent and documented precedent for how to proceed with something like this.
-Until we hear that Coyle Charlie Brown Footballed this entire thing. But, you have to assume that isn't the case until it becomes obvious that it is.

-THIS isn't some sort of "PC charade" that is being carried out, you Eisenhower Warriors. A different argument is that the code of conduct as a whole contains "PC charades" and you are entitled to argue that... but this is on file and most importantly everybody affected by this is aware of it and has agreed to abide by it, for years and years at this point. There are no surprises, deal with it.

-To whoever said something like "this will hurt recruiting, why would you want your child to go to school in such a PC fantasy world like this?" I would say, worse is an institution where Baylor-like incidents are handled in that manner by those in charge. Right now there are 2 ways. This, or that. Until a third way becomes clear, figure out which side of the fence you will decide to stand on and deal with it, destroyed Nickel Package and all. I bet most side with this way of handling things rather than the Baylor method.

-People are creating group-think false realities about what this incident was. Nobody really knows, and we do not know the details of what actually was in violation of the code of conduct. Comment and think appropriately until then.
Click to expand...

I agree 100%.
 


tmvander said:
To some degree I'm starting to understand the opening up of the case against the guys who were previously charged but I'm really struggling with adding the additional 5 players.

I'm really struggling with understanding how these guys weren't involved but now are. Who did this U group talk to who now is saying these guys were present? Many on here are saying the victim is probably not involved in this in any way. So did they interview others at this party? If so, how are they not being punished? As others have said, if it is against the "moral code" of the U to attend a party where something illegal may or may not have happened then we wouldn't have any college students.

I know in highschool you can be suspended from a team for being present at a party but this isn't a violation of team rules. This is lumping these guys in with "sexual assault or harassment" charges.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, despite Mr. Buford's comments, the other 6 players (and maybe the original four) haven't been suspended for what took place at the party but for their actions afterwards. Maybe all of them in some way tried to shame, intimidate or otherwise harass the accuser. That is the type of conduct that makes a student afraid and extremely uncomfortable to be on campus, which is what the University is trying to prevent. Otherwise, it wouldn't make sense for the new six suspensions simply because they were at the party. Unless, of course, those 6 guys were cheering on the other four and standing outside the room where the gang bang took place.
 



The more I read about this, the more I return to the question of "What ACTUALLY happened?" It's hard to know how to even think/feel/react to this news because I don't have the answer to the previous question. As a fan, I'm upset/annoyed by the suspension, but I'd feel like garbage if they actually violated code of conduct worthy of suspension/expulsion...but I don't have enough information about what ACTUALLY happened.
 



There will still be a hearing and appeals process, regardless of the recommendation in that letter.
 



DoubleAlum said:
Perhaps, despite Mr. Buford's comments, the other 6 players (and maybe the original four) haven't been suspended for what took place at the party but for their actions afterwards. Maybe all of them in some way tried to shame, intimidate or otherwise harass the accuser. That is the type of conduct that makes a student afraid and extremely uncomfortable to be on campus, which is what the University is trying to prevent. Otherwise, it wouldn't make sense for the new six suspensions simply because they were at the party. Unless, of course, those 6 guys were cheering on the other four and standing outside the room where the gang bang took place.
Click to expand...

you have any proof at all of this extreme assertion/allegation? otherwise a highly unfair and highly defaming term and baseless allegation to just throw out there against all of them.
 

so for those facing expulsion - they're done? they can't get on campus, finish courses and take finals so they've effectively lost the whole semester?
 

GopherOhana said:
so for those facing expulsion - they're done? they can't get on campus, finish courses and take finals so they've effectively lost the whole semester?
Click to expand...

according to kstp article i read (assuming i didn't misread it) appears only one of the players received a recommendation of "expulsion" via this rogue EOAA ultra-feminist, anti-athlete group that is parading as extra-judicial arbiters of fairness and equality at the U.
 

supadupafly said:
you have any proof at all of this extreme assertion/allegation? otherwise a highly unfair and defaming accusation and term to just throw out there against all of them.
Click to expand...
Not meant in that way at all. Just thinking of a scenario why the other 6 were added. My bad. Im on your side with this.

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk
 

DoubleAlum said:
Not meant in that way at all. Just thinking of a scenario why the other 6 were added. My bad. Im on your side with this.

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

i get that. but now that you've thrown out such a highly accusatory "term"...one which carries with it extreme negative connotations...on a message board which receives thousands of unique daily views these players names have now all been associated with it too....permanently and digitally....and rather unfairly imo.

that was the point i was trying to make.
 

Don't you think that evidence of the suggested behavior would have surfaced by now.

DoubleAlum said:
Perhaps, despite Mr. Buford's comments, the other 6 players (and maybe the original four) haven't been suspended for what took place at the party but for their actions afterwards. Maybe all of them in some way tried to shame, intimidate or otherwise harass the accuser. That is the type of conduct that makes a student afraid and extremely uncomfortable to be on campus, which is what the University is trying to prevent. Otherwise, it wouldn't make sense for the new six suspensions simply because they were at the party. Unless, of course, those 6 guys were cheering on the other four and standing outside the room where the gang bang took place.
Click to expand...

Not saying for sure as I don't know the facts of the people that were at the room, but don't you think the six named players suspended after this incident just now, that some of the facts surrounding their identities and information as witnesses would have surfaced by now. Just because they were present doesn't mean they were guilty of anything, and I seriously doubt they were involved in the shame, intimidation or harassment of the accuser because to do so even if these guy's were their buddies would result in suspension and a chance to get kicked out of school. None of the six had a restraining order filed against them. Those six guys should have emergency hearings on appeals because it doesn't sound like they deserve to be suspended not the six that are named right now anyways. Not sure about you but I never took the fall for anyone else that was out of control or was doing something possibly illegal or stupid. This situation could be described as don't involve yourself in these situations, and CYOA.
 

supadupafly said:
i get that. but now that you've thrown out such a highly accusatory "term"...one which carries with it extreme negative connotations...on a message board which receives thousands of unique daily views these players names have now all been associated with it too....permanently and digitally....and rather unfairly imo.

that was the point i was trying to make.
Click to expand...

Aren't you being a little hypocritical here by bashing the process that the University has to follow in this incident without knowing the entire story? It seems you are projecting your dislike for certain people or policies onto this because it might jeopardize the football team's success in the short term. Let's let the process play out like it's supposed before slamming the process. I think we all knew a title IX investigation could be in play here.
I consider myself a big fan of this school, state, and the athletic programs, but I am glad that there are processes in place that protect the rights of all students.
 

tikited said:
I was at a party at the U of M many years ago and was notified by a group much like the EOAA that I was needed to testify in a possible rape case involving people that were at the same party. I went and was blown away by how incredibly shoddy the whole "trial" was. It appeared to be more of a mock trial scenario than anything else. Practice for future lawyers while a student's future was being decided.

I sat with about ten other people in a hallway (in the basement of a older building) waiting to be called upon. The girl was hidden behind a curtain that you would see in a hospital. The guy sat in a chair. He had a student lawyer and the girl had a team of females from the group mentioned above. I quickly came to the conclusion that he was going to get railroaded and the decision was already made.

The questioning was beyond weird. I didn't know either person at all and didn't really have anything to offer to either side. I didn't see them do anything together, leave together, or anything else together. That didn't stop her side from trying to lead me to the answers they wanted. I was visibly pissed off at the whole thing and was told I could go back to the hallway. I distinctly remember one kid coming out later and declaring that, "No one expects the Spanish Inquisition." Made me laugh.

Over an hour later, I was called back in and asked the exact same questions. I answered the same way as the first time...that I didn't see anything or know anything about the two people involved. I left with some choice words for the kangaroo court system the U has going on.

I found out later that the whole thing was dropped and the guy continued to attend school while the girl left for another school. I was wrong about the outcome but I kind of get the feeling things haven't really changed over there over the years. Sounds like a certain kind of group will not let this drop and will continue to try and get what they want.

That's my story at least. Hopefully it turns out well for the guys if they truly are getting railroaded.
Click to expand...
PC witch hunts are inevitable as long as institutions play at being police, as you describe. All such cases should go to police authorities. Only after disposition of such charges by civil authorities following due process, should the colleges make any additional moves. I have no faith whatsoever in the female-packed EEOA panel.
 

GopherOhana said:
so for those facing expulsion - they're done? they can't get on campus, finish courses and take finals so they've effectively lost the whole semester?
Click to expand...

This is why there needs to be an emergency appeal process for those players. This is finals week, they all shouldn't be tossed out on their butt's withou due process from the University, at least not without an expedited appeal, and some form of relief.
 

supadupafly said:
according to kstp article i read (assuming i didn't misread it) appears only one of the players received a recommendation of "expulsion" via this rogue EOAA ultra-feminist, anti-athlete group that is parading as extra-judicial arbiters of fairness and equality at the U.
Click to expand...

I think Buford is only one recommended for expulsion.

Mr. Buford quote

“How this entity has found something different from what the Minneapolis P.D., the Hennepin County prosecutor’s office. How they can find something different than these law enforcement entities is beyond me," said Ray Buford Sr., father of Ray Buford. “I'm coming from a point of expertise. I've never seen anything like this. Never. In all my 17 years of law enforcement have I never seen anything like this."

He's looking at it through legal lens. EOAA looks at it differently.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

MaxyJR1 said:
I think Buford is only one recommended for expulsion.

Mr. Buford quote

“How this entity has found something different from what the Minneapolis P.D., the Hennepin County prosecutor’s office. How they can find something different than these law enforcement entities is beyond me," said Ray Buford Sr., father of Ray Buford. “I'm coming from a point of expertise. I've never seen anything like this. Never. In all my 17 years of law enforcement have I never seen anything like this."

He's looking at it through legal lens. EOAA looks at it differently.


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

Either way, I think Buford is going to say to hell with this, and transfer to another school.
 

citywok said:
-To whoever said something like "this will hurt recruiting, why would you want your child to go to school in such a PC fantasy world like this?" I would say, worse is an institution where Baylor-like incidents are handled in that manner by those in charge. Right now there are 2 ways. This, or that. Until a third way becomes clear, figure out which side of the fence you will decide to stand on and deal with it, destroyed Nickel Package and all. I bet most side with this way of handling things rather than the Baylor method.
Click to expand...

I think there are more than 2 ways, it can be somewhere in the middle. There are cases like the Baylor example and there are cases where the accused has not even been interviewed to give their side of the story before they were expelled from a school. Doesn't need to be one extreme or the other IMO.
 

GopherinPhilly said:
Is there an app for that? Take the persons pic and then have them sign on the phone screen?

That is what it is coming to and I am so glad I am not in school anymore.
Click to expand...

You have a million dollar idea there if it doesn't already exist.
 


bga1 said:
No kidding. My guess is that if the "code of conduct" were this strictly enforced across the board, the U of M would have half the enrollment it currently has. It's good that there is one, it just appears to be unevenly enforced with a special focus on athletes. Quite the opposite from other noteworthy institutions who appear to protect their athletes from scrutiny in order to maintain athletic prominence. North Carolina comes to mind....

That said, the EOAA could be exactly right in this case, at this point few know the details.
Click to expand...

Yeah, adding the 4 additional players for essentially 'guilt by association' is particularly bad. Like the Royce White laptop situation x 4.
 

You have no idea whatsoever if it is "guilt by association" or not. No clue!
 

supadupafly said:
according to kstp article i read (assuming i didn't misread it) appears only one of the players received a recommendation of "expulsion" via this rogue EOAA ultra-feminist, anti-athlete group that is parading as extra-judicial arbiters of fairness and equality at the U.
Click to expand...

Is that a technical term? I get that this doesn't smell right, but some of the adjectives being thrown around are a bit over the top.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom