Ten Gophers football players indefinately suspended

Donate To GopherHole
howeda7 said:
So until you are the one writing big checks, I'd be wary about supporting this kind of behavior even if it was consensual (which in this case it is allegedly not). We may have 4 rapes on our hand...where 4 players raped a drunk woman and a bunch of guys who harassed her and lied. If a recruit was present as one poster said, that is even more concerning. It is not creepy to think it is inappropriate to line up to screw a drunk woman. In my world is it "creepy" to think that is okay behavior and that we should give scholarships to athletes who do this kind of thing. People are allowed to have standards and morals and judge others based on their standards and morals. The tone of this board alone shows why it is necessary to have the EOCC in the first place.
Click to expand...

Well, you asked me what I would say about the donors, now you're saying that I can't have an opinion. Makes sense. I'll reiterate, if some donor donates money to the U based on the consensual sexual practices of the players on the team, I hope he becomes a fan of another team. Good riddance.

Yeah, we may have 4 rapes on our hands. I have always said, if this was not consensual, I absolutely hope these players are locked up for as long as possible. Almost every piece of evidence points to consent, but if it really wasn't consensual. . .I hope they get locked up for good and they throw away the key.

I don't really judge the sexual practices of other adults. I don't care what you and your wife do or don't do. As long as no one is getting hurt and it is consensual, I would have to be an absolute creepy azzhole to have a strong opinion on your sex life.

Would I get in the line? God no. Would I give a friend a hard time who did this? Absolutely. So no, I'm not like supporting these sexual activities, but I'm adult enough to realize that other adults can determine what they want or don't want to do. To act like I get an opinion into their sex life is absolutely creepy.

I don't think scholarships should be givens based upon by sharing the same sexual preferences as me. That's lunacy. It's actually illegal for a public institution to give scholarships based on sexual preferences.

I think this discussion is over your head. The reaction to this board is BECAUSE THE EOCC EXISTS. As adamant that I have been against the EOCC, I supported the idea of suspending the players when there were allegations. I would be livid if the U ignored these allegations and played the players while the investigation was going on.

The rest of the country (outside of college campuses), we are able to police crimes without the aid of an extrajudicial entity like the EOCC.
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
Well, you asked me what I would say about the donors, now you're saying that I can't have an opinion. Makes sense. I'll reiterate, if some donor donates money to the U based on the consensual sexual practices of the players on the team, I hope he becomes a fan of another team. Good riddance.

Yeah, we may have 4 rapes on our hands. I have always said, if this was not consensual, I absolutely hope these players are locked up for as long as possible. Almost every piece of evidence points to consent, but if it really wasn't consensual. . .I hope they get locked up for good and they throw away the key.

I don't really judge the sexual practices of other adults. I don't care what you and your wife do or don't do. As long as no one is getting hurt and it is consensual, I would have to be an absolute creepy azzhole to have a strong opinion on your sex life.

Would I get in the line? God no. Would I give a friend a hard time who did this? Absolutely. So no, I'm not like supporting these sexual activities, but I'm adult enough to realize that other adults can determine what they want or don't want to do. To act like I get an opinion into their sex life is absolutely creepy.

I don't think scholarships should be givens based upon by sharing the same sexual preferences as me. That's lunacy. It's actually illegal for a public institution to give scholarships based on sexual preferences.

I think this discussion is over your head. The reaction to this board is BECAUSE THE EOCC EXISTS. As adamant that I have been against the EOCC, I supported the idea of suspending the players when there were allegations. I would be livid if the U ignored these allegations and played the players while the investigation was going on.

The rest of the country (outside of college campuses), we are able to police crimes without the aid of an extrajudicial entity like the EOCC.
Click to expand...

I don't know how the technical error happened, but howeda7 didn't write the post you quoted.
 


At this point, I think it's best for all of us to stop reading this thread until more information comes out. Right now we are just arguing in circles about what we speculate the evidence for these recommendations are. Pepe are getting hot headed, and that's not good for anyone.
 

I understand that no means no, but it appears that yes only means maybe. Maybe it is ok as long as I am not embarrassed later... or maybe not if I have "buyers remorse" or maybe not if I get sober and regret the rep I will soon have. I do NOT understand the EEOA decision. She had "5 or 6" shots at home before going to the party and going to the player's room voluntarily. The video was viewed by the cops and they said she looked like she was aware and voluntarily having sex. Mike Freeman, a county attorney not known for being soft on sex crimes, refused to prosecute for obvious reasons. I think the U should provide all male students with copies of "consent" forms and instructions to have then notarized by someone at the hospital after they make sure the woman isn't drunk or drugged. The age old ( I am class of 70) dislike of Gophers sports by many faculty and students have likely cost us the game on 12/27 as well as a number of good recruits. Anyone wonder why we can never regain past glory???
 


Section2 said:
There wasn't broad interest in athletics from women in the past. About the same time women started getting interested in sports, there was no time to adjust, just create a bunch of overzealous laws and enforce the new policy. Men's sports weren't a top down creation by universities, they evolved. And frankly, Universities should have been free to support women's sports, or not support them. men and women are not perfectly equal, despite what people like you might think, and often have separate interests. Should women be free to play sports? yes. of course.
Click to expand...

This whole thing has absolutely nothing to do with women's athletics so why are you bringing this crap up other than to reveal your biases? You'd think a historical scholar like you would know the real intent of Title IX which was a lot more far-reaching than forcing the U to have a rowing team. There were all sorts of issues that were addressed: pregnancy in school, gender biased questions on standardized tests, separate classes for males and females, access to scholarships, etc. Another issue was sexual harassment if it interfered with someone getting an education. That's the one driving this whole thing. And, ya, the government should have a say if federal funds are going to an institution despite your desire to be unfettered and free. Whether or not this office at the U is unfair and over-zealous is an entirely different argument, but it gets tiresome to see the knee-jerk reactions by people who have no frick'n idea of what Title IX really is.
 

Mulligan said:
This whole thing has absolutely nothing to do with women's athletics so why are you bringing this crap up other than to reveal your biases? You'd think a historical scholar like you would know the real intent of Title IX which was a lot more far-reaching than forcing the U to have a rowing team. There were all sorts of issues that were addressed: pregnancy in school, gender biased questions on standardized tests, separate classes for males and females, access to scholarships, etc. Another issue was sexual harassment if it interfered with someone getting an education. That's the one driving this whole thing. And, ya, the government should have a say if federal funds are going to an institution despite your desire to be unfettered and free. Whether or not this office at the U is unfair and over-zealous is an entirely different argument, but it gets tiresome to see the knee-jerk reactions by people who have no frick'n idea of what Title IX really is.
Click to expand...

I was responding to a post. If you don't like the topic, maybe complain to the person who brought it up or ignore?

Yes, once the feds collect taxpayer money and dole it out, they control you. I object to that too. I don't think the federal government needs to have a say in any of the things on your list. I'm sure the University of Minnesota is plenty capable of creating common sense policies to deal with each.
 

SO WHAT IS THE NEXT STEP? 43 PAGES OF SPECULATION. HAS ANYONE REPORTED WHAT THE APPEAL PROCESS IS AND WHO WILL HAVE FINAL SAY ON THESE RECOMMENDATIONS?
 

MaxyJR1 said:
SO WHAT IS THE NEXT STEP? 43 PAGES OF SPECULATION. HAS ANYONE REPORTED WHAT THE APPEAL PROCESS IS AND WHO WILL HAVE FINAL SAY ON THESE RECOMMENDATIONS?
Click to expand...

I haven't seen any nor heard anything about this out of the leadership from the University. Which is a huge part of the current problem.
 




MaxyJR1 said:
SO WHAT IS THE NEXT STEP? 43 PAGES OF SPECULATION. HAS ANYONE REPORTED WHAT THE APPEAL PROCESS IS AND WHO WILL HAVE FINAL SAY ON THESE RECOMMENDATIONS?
Click to expand...

Nobody in here has any clue. Yet shockingly many in here seem to think they have a great handle on what is happening. Bottom line is all we really have at this point is speculation and guessing as to what is truly going on.
 

GopherBulldog said:
I haven't seen any nor heard anything about this out of the leadership from the University. Which is a huge part of the current problem.
Click to expand...

It's past time that both Choler Kloyle make themselves available to the media and the Gopher fan base. :mad:
 

I think it is important to remember that sexual assault is the most under-reported crime in the U.S. Add to that the fact that a lot of sexual assaults happen on campus and are not reported. This does not equate to suggesting these men are guilty, however on this male dominated message board there has not been much mention of these facts. Further, many posters know someone who has been raped on a college campus, even though the victim may have not told anyone about it, often it's kept as a secret.

Additionally the fact that charges were not made does not mean an assault did not happen. Just because a prosecutor didn't believe he could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that their was an assault, does not mean there was not an assault.

Here is the U of Mn policy on consent:

A determination about the existence of consent is a critical element in the investigation of a sexual assault. University policy requires affirmative consent between individuals engaging in sexual activity. Affirmative consent is defined as “informed, freely and affirmatively communicated willingness to participate in sexual activity that is expressed by clear and unambiguous words or actions.” Clear and unambiguous words or actions are those that are freely and actively given by informed individuals that a reasonable person in the circumstances would believe communicate a willingness to participate in a mutually agreed upon sexual activity. The following factors will be considered when determining consent:

It is the responsibility of each person who wishes to engage in the sexual activity to obtain consent.
A lack of protest, the absence of resistance and silence do not indicate consent.
The existence of a present or past dating or romantic relationship does not imply consent to future sexual activity.
Consent must be present throughout the sexual activity and may be initially given, but withdrawn at any time.
When consent is withdrawn all sexual activity must stop. Likewise, where there is confusion about the state of consent, sexual activity must stop until both parties consent again.
Consent to one form of sexual activity does not imply consent to other forms of sexual activity.
Consent is not obtained where:
There is physical force, threats, intimidation or coercion.
There is incapacitation due to the influence of drugs or alcohol.
There is the inability to communicate because of a physical or mental condition
An individual is asleep, unconscious or involuntarily physically restrained.
An individual is unable to understand the nature or extent of the sexual situation because of mental or physical incapacitation or impairment.
One party is not of legal age to give consent pursuant to Minnesota state law.

It seems many of you have a problem with the policy on consent at the "U", however it is what it is. Personally, I understand the difficulties of being an 18 year old male wanting sex, however the policy lays out in black and white that sex carries with it certain responsibilities at the U.
 




Gopher Bulldog: I agree with you. If the EOCC can't back up its recommendations it needs to be held accountable. That being said, we don't know the information the EOCC had and until we do, which we may never, we are going to have to rely on folks in power to make the right decision.

Section2: The fact that girls participate in sports at an equal level as boys is evidence that they wanted to when given the opportunity. Unless you were born long before Title 9 and are female you have no idea what it was like to try to play sports. Girls that went out for boys teams were abused to no end. Girls interested in sports were belittled not only by boys and men but also by parents. That you think girls weren't interested is like saying gays weren't interested in getting married in the 1990s because none of them did. I hate to make fun of people, but your ignorance must be bliss.

Bob Loblaw: Again that you don't care if donors leave makes your comments a special kind of stupid. Without donors there would be no football team. Now if you hang with the big donors...seven figure ones...and they are writing bigger checks today because they think the football team is being picked on, then I stand to be corrected. The donors I know think this kind of behavior is reprehensible even if it is consensual...which is still up for debate.
 

CoMn said:
Without donors there would be no football team.
Click to expand...

What? Yes, there absolutely would. And this is coming from someone who works with donors every day and depends on their generosity for my livelihood.
 

I was certainly never on the 'Fire Claeys' bandwagon, but does anyone think this whole cluster might be part of whey he DID get extended?

I mean, imagine a coaching search under these conditions.
 

I think a lot of us agree with Reusse's tweet that the University has over-reached with all 10 players being suspended.
This whole situation is a massive PR nightmare for the University itself and it's athletic department.
This scandal cannot help with recruiting students even for the University itself.

The Volleyball team is about to take part in the NCAA Final Four, and there is no doubt ESPN and the media will be reporting on the football player suspensions.
I would not think the Donor's for Gopher football matter all that much in this situation, because they do not have much influence in the suspension situation, the University Administration made this decision not donors.
 

dpodoll68 said:
What? Yes, there absolutely would. And this is coming from someone who works with donors every day and depends on their generosity for my livelihood.
Click to expand...

Manning a corner in this cold has got to be brutal! Dress warm. God bless.
 

CoMn said:
Bob Loblaw: Again that you don't care if donors leave makes your comments a special kind of stupid. Without donors there would be no football team. Now if you hang with the big donors...seven figure ones...and they are writing bigger checks today because they think the football team is being picked on, then I stand to be corrected. The donors I know think this kind of behavior is reprehensible even if it is consensual...which is still up for debate.
Click to expand...

I never said that I don't care about donors. I said that I don't care about donors who would pick and choose to give money based on their approval of the athletics sexual preferences. I would imagine that is an extremely small percentage of donors, I don't think a lot of successful people sit around and which consensual sexual activities of other adults they find acceptable. Those people are absolute creeps.

Without donors there would still be a football team.

Well then I hope the donors that you know start supporting another school. They are creeps. It is beyond creepy for someone to have a list of consensual sexual activities that it's ok for adults to partake in and a list of ones that it isn't ok. So I take it that group sex is out? Is it just the scenario where it is multiple men and 1 woman? What about a group of men? What about a group of women? What about multiple women and 1 man? What about an even distribution? Have they decided which of these scenarios would stop them from supporting the school/team and which would not? Please help us!!! We need to know where they stand on the specific sexual practices of consenting adults, we don't want to lose a football team!!!!!!!!!
 


gopherdudepart2 said:
I think a lot of us agree with Reusse's tweet that the University has over-reached with all 10 players being suspended.
This whole situation is a massive PR nightmare for the University itself and it's athletic department.
This scandal cannot help with recruiting students even for the University itself.

The Volleyball team is about to take part in the NCAA Final Four, and there is no doubt ESPN and the media will be reporting on the football player suspensions.
I would not think the Donor's for Gopher football matter all that much in this situation, because they do not have much influence in the suspension situation, the University Administration made this decision not donors.
Click to expand...

Before I decide whether to support that volleyball team, I need to know about their specific sexual preferences.
 


Bob_Loblaw said:
Before I decide whether to support that volleyball team, I need to know about their specific sexual preferences.
Click to expand...

Seems silly but some donors would take that kind of stance, even though I'm getting sarcasm in your post.
 

gopherdudepart2 said:
Seems silly but some donors would take that kind of stance, even though I'm getting sarcasm in your post.
Click to expand...

Have you seen the women's volleyball team? I wasn't being sarcastic. Totally JK.

No, I know that some donors would have that stance. Like I said earlier in the thread, if our teams lose a donor because they care about that stuff, good riddance.
 


UpnorthGo4 said:
Even if a drunk girl doesn't say no to the first five players through the door - she still has the right to say no to the last five. I certainly hope it is a violation of the student code of conduct to have group sex with a drunk coed in a U of M dormitory regardless of consent. The mere fact that the players took advantage of a girl who had too much to drink is enough for me to want the players who were involved kicked off the team. They have no legal right to play football and I don't want them representing the U in any way.
Click to expand...

Ok, and I get that... but what proof of her saying no to the last five is there other than her word? And her word already proved to be iffy by stating that she didn't give consent to the first person, and yet she's filmed being playful, joking, etc with that person? That already proved that she is being dishonest. Now, I'm not saying who is right and who is wrong, because obviously I wasn't there, but you can not believe her story over theirs, unless there is some eye witness or a video of her saying no, or being in distress. It could just be a lady that felt embarrassed after it all happened and wanting a way to cope. It could be that it really did happen after the first guy, or fifth guy. Is there proof of it other than her word? At least the first guy has his word and his videos.

Had she claimed that the first encounter was consensual but the ones after weren't, then I wouldn't even question it. But she claimed that she felt over powered even with the first one, essentially saying she didn't consent. The video showed something else entirely. That's the point I'm on.
 

I think many donors would not support players who couldn't manage to have sex with women they can trust at least well enough to not file rape charges. i think many donors don't want to read the front page of the paper and find out that the players on the team they support have been accused of rape. I think most donors don't care what people do in their private lives but also don't want to know. If these players can't keep their sexual exploits out of the newspaper they have a problem. I for one am conservative. I do have a problem supporting a program where it is okay for a dozen guys to line up and screw a drunk woman.
 



You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom