Tom Powers: Repugnant Gophers football situation does not bode well for Claeys

[BleedGopher]

per Powers:

My question is: Consensual or not, how does he feel about the image of 10 to 20 of his players lined up down the hallway to take their turn with a woman who claims to have been inebriated? What are his thoughts on the video that has emerged from the incident? What about the texts his players exchanged afterward in an effort to hush-up what happened?

The incident just doesn’t square with the grandiose holistic approach to be a student-athlete. Furthermore, there isn’t an athlete on any campus in America that hasn’t been warned about the perils of such behavior. Technically legal or not, certain behavior can lead to suspension or expulsion. They all know that.

I don’t see Claeys surviving or most of the suspensions ever being lifted. It will take years to repair Minnesota’s reputation, such as it was in the wake of the Norwood Teague fiasco and after its callous treatment of former coach Jerry Kill. In fact, the school is becoming something of a national punchline, which I’m sure the various professors really appreciate.

As for what’s next, I don’t even want to know. Nothing good or decent can come from any of this. There is no positive resolution. Consensual, non-consensual … Is this really how we are going to separate the good guys from the bad guys in this repugnant situation? The only thing worth wondering about is what the new coach will be like.

http://www.twincities.com/2016/12/1...ball-situation-does-not-bode-well-for-claeys/

Go Gophers!!

 

[MNGoldenGophers1]

per Powers:

My question is: Consensual or not, how does he feel about the image of 10 to 20 of his players lined up down the hallway to take their turn with a woman who claims to have been inebriated? What are his thoughts on the video that has emerged from the incident? What about the texts his players exchanged afterward in an effort to hush-up what happened?

The incident just doesn’t square with the grandiose holistic approach to be a student-athlete. Furthermore, there isn’t an athlete on any campus in America that hasn’t been warned about the perils of such behavior. Technically legal or not, certain behavior can lead to suspension or expulsion. They all know that.

I don’t see Claeys surviving or most of the suspensions ever being lifted. It will take years to repair Minnesota’s reputation, such as it was in the wake of the Norwood Teague fiasco and after its callous treatment of former coach Jerry Kill. In fact, the school is becoming something of a national punchline, which I’m sure the various professors really appreciate.

As for what’s next, I don’t even want to know. Nothing good or decent can come from any of this. There is no positive resolution. Consensual, non-consensual … Is this really how we are going to separate the good guys from the bad guys in this repugnant situation? The only thing worth wondering about is what the new coach will be like.

http://www.twincities.com/2016/12/1...ball-situation-does-not-bode-well-for-claeys/

Go Gophers!!

The rest of the world sees gopher men's revenue athletics for what it is, why is it so hard for so many GH's?

 

[nukedwedges]

per Powers:

My question is: Consensual or not, how does he feel about the image of 10 to 20 of his players lined up down the hallway to take their turn with a woman who claims to have been inebriated? What are his thoughts on the video that has emerged from the incident? What about the texts his players exchanged afterward in an effort to hush-up what happened?

The incident just doesn’t square with the grandiose holistic approach to be a student-athlete. Furthermore, there isn’t an athlete on any campus in America that hasn’t been warned about the perils of such behavior. Technically legal or not, certain behavior can lead to suspension or expulsion. They all know that.

I don’t see Claeys surviving or most of the suspensions ever being lifted. It will take years to repair Minnesota’s reputation, such as it was in the wake of the Norwood Teague fiasco and after its callous treatment of former coach Jerry Kill. In fact, the school is becoming something of a national punchline, which I’m sure the various professors really appreciate.

As for what’s next, I don’t even want to know. Nothing good or decent can come from any of this. There is no positive resolution. Consensual, non-consensual … Is this really how we are going to separate the good guys from the bad guys in this repugnant situation? The only thing worth wondering about is what the new coach will be like.

http://www.twincities.com/2016/12/1...ball-situation-does-not-bode-well-for-claeys/

Go Gophers!!

Stupidity is something that cannot be fixed...just dealt with. There is plenty of it in place at U of MN. Just not sure that the "progressives" in the University administration have the moxie or the desire to deal with it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Great Plains Gopher]

This is the sixth year of a rebuilding program that is going well on the field. Starting over would be more than difficult. Firing coaches has been an unwise Minnesota specialty: Bierman, Warmath, Stoll, Mason. Firing Kaler would make more sense.

 

[GopherinPhilly]

The worst part of this whole thing is that for the players to fully defend themselves this will get uglier. And Coyle/Kaler have put themselves in a terrible position by reinstating the 4 primary accused during the season...they read the police report and interviewed the young men and knew it included a 17 year old recruit, included 4 players having sex with the accuser in the span of 90 minutes, they knew this was going to be viewed as disgusting by even the more open minded people and as completely heinous by the more conservative folks.

In the end, this is what Coyle and Kaler will have to answer for IMO and it is the thing that will bring them both down. The players were understandably confused and the Admin sent mixed messages and then no messages and lied about Claeys to the media/team and while right now they may look righteous for standing tall on the issue of sexual assault when the Regents get done with them and shock of the acts are replaced with calm objective analysis, I don't see them surviving.

 

[Bob_Loblaw]

His first line, "consensual or not", tells you everything you need to know about Tom Powers.

He wants to be able to pick and choose what kind of sex acts consenting adults can partake in.

If it was consensual, this is an absolute travesty.
It's Unconstitutional.
It's repugnant to refer to anyone who partakes in a consensual activity as a victim of sexual assault. It's repugnant to actual victims of sexual assault.
It's creepy. . . why should Tom Powers get to decide what acts people like to partake in.
It's belittling to women. Shouldn't they be allowed to consent to what they want to do with their bodies.

If it's non-consensual - - All bets are off. The animals should be locked up.

To start an article with "consensual or not" is not only stupid, it's immoral.

 

[UpnorthGo4]

His first line, "consensual or not", tells you everything you need to know about Tom Powers. He wants to be able to pick and choose what kind of sex acts consenting adults can partake in.

If it was consensual, this is an absolute travesty.
There is evidence in the EOAA reprt that it stopped being consensual after it got started. Tell us what it is (if you have read the report).

It's Unconstitutional.
I doubt you practice constitutional law or distinguished yourself when you took it in law school. In any event, I think most of us will look elsewhere for a legal opinion on this issue.

It's repugnant to refer to anyone who partakes in a consensual activity as a victim of sexual assault. It's repugnant to actual victims of sexual assault.
It is far more repugnant for a member of the bar to publicly assume the girl consented to the activity despite the existence of evidence to the contrary and before the final appeals in the case have been completed.

It's creepy. . . why should Tom Powers get to decide what acts people like to partake in.
You must not understand the difference between having an opinion and actually deciding what people can do. Powers gets paid to give his opinions. Who in GH wouldn't love that job?

It's belittling to women. Shouldn't they be allowed to consent to what they want to do with their bodies.
Shouldn't women get to decide what is belittling to them?

If it's non-consensual - - All bets are off. The animals should be locked up.
Your posts during the last two days, including in this post, indicate you have already made up your mind on this issue. We are not going to allow you to weasel out it with this statement.

To start an article with "consensual or not" is not only stupid, it's immoral
It may be be stupid, it may be wrong, but it isn't close to being immoral. You need to take a breather from GopherHole for awhile. Maybe I should, too.
.

/

 

[Bob_Loblaw]

/

As to your points :

(1) If it was not consensual - at any time - it is a travesty.

(2) Nobody is distinguished in Con Law in law school, it is a class that we all have to take when we are 1Ls. That said, it is implicit in almost every part of the law. It is absolutely Unconstitutional to determine who can come into a a public university based on their sexual preferences. It's really an easy concept. Exceptionally easy. Any 1L could tell you this. In fact, most people with a brain could tell you this.

(3) I never publicly assumed it was consensual - - read the post idiot. This is under the heading of "IF it was consensual". Read it over again. Now read it again. Now stop and think what that means. It means that I did NOT assume it was consensual.

(4) I wouldn't want Tom Powers job. I have an opinion on him. He is free to have an opinion on other people's sex lives. I am free to have an opinion on creeps like that.

(5) Are you suggesting that women shouldn't be allowed to consent? That is what you're arguing here. I said, if a woman consents to something, it is demeaning for an outside party to decide whether than consent is valid. That is what we do with children. You're arguing against that? Wow.

(6) Again. . . I said - If it's non-consensual. I have to keep making it obvious to people that I am not assuming it was non-consensual. Anyone who can read should be able to pick up on this. I am writing in plain English here. I didn't think I would have to do this on here, but look up the word "if". It's pretty simple. I am not weaseling out of anything. You're simply not intelligent enough to follow a conversation.

(7) It is absolutely immoral. It shows what a gutless immoral character you are. I thought at first that you were just pathetically stupid. However, your last bit here shows what kind of awful human being you really are.
If it's consensual and this is happening - men are accused of rape who are not rapists (please note the "IF"). That is an insult to those men and a major insult to actual victim's of sexual assault.

If it was not consensual - the woman was raped.

For you to not understand the enormous differences in this situation between a scenario where it was consensual and a scenario where it was non-consensual shows what an inhumane piece of garbage you really are. It is absolutely immoral.

 

[TruthSeeker]

/

An extremely disingenuous post.

 

[Deleted_User]

As to your points :

(1) If it was not consensual - at any time - it is a travesty.

(2) Nobody is distinguished in Con Law in law school, it is a class that we all have to take when we are 1Ls. That said, it is implicit in almost every part of the law. It is absolutely Unconstitutional to determine who can come into a a public university based on their sexual preferences. It's really an easy concept. Exceptionally easy. Any 1L could tell you this. In fact, most people with a brain could tell you this.

(3) I never publicly assumed it was consensual - - read the post idiot. This is under the heading of "IF it was consensual". Read it over again. Now read it again. Now stop and think what that means. It means that I did NOT assume it was consensual.

(4) I wouldn't want Tom Powers job. I have an opinion on him. He is free to have an opinion on other people's sex lives. I am free to have an opinion on creeps like that.

(5) Are you suggesting that women shouldn't be allowed to consent? That is what you're arguing here. I said, if a woman consents to something, it is demeaning for an outside party to decide whether than consent is valid. That is what we do with children. You're arguing against that? Wow.

(6) Again. . . I said - If it's non-consensual. I have to keep making it obvious to people that I am not assuming it was non-consensual. Anyone who can read should be able to pick up on this. I am writing in plain English here. I didn't think I would have to do this on here, but look up the word "if". It's pretty simple. I am not weaseling out of anything. You're simply not intelligent enough to follow a conversation.

(7) It is absolutely immoral. It shows what a gutless immoral character you are. I thought at first that you were just pathetically stupid. However, your last bit here shows what kind of awful human being you really are.
If it's consensual and this is happening - men are accused of rape who are not rapists (please note the "IF"). That is an insult to those men and a major insult to actual victim's of sexual assault.

If it was not consensual - the woman was raped.

For you to not understand the enormous differences in this situation between a scenario where it was consensual and a scenario where it was non-consensual shows what an inhumane piece of garbage you really are. It is absolutely immoral.

Do you remember this: You do swear that you will support the Constitution of the United States and that of the state of Minnesota, and will conduct yourself as an attorney and counselor at law in an upright and courteous manner, to the best of your learning and ability, with all good fidelity as well to the court as to the client, and that you will use no falsehood or deceit, nor delay any person's cause for lucre or malice. So help you God.

Not certain you fully understand the context of your oath.

 

[Bob_Loblaw]

Do you remember this: You do swear that you will support the Constitution of the United States and that of the state of Minnesota, and will conduct yourself as an attorney and counselor at law in an upright and courteous manner, to the best of your learning and ability, with all good fidelity as well to the court as to the client, and that you will use no falsehood or deceit, nor delay any person's cause for lucre or malice. So help you God.

Not certain you fully understand the context of your oath.

No, I don't really remember giving the oath.

But, which one is he, the court or my client?

You people are incapable of having a substantive discussion.