Hammer is dropped on the Gophers
- Thread starter newAD
- Start date
So, it looks like there were at least ten guys doing something like the above without consent. Not sure how you downplay that. Whether they were using their fingers, tongues, lips, penises or broomsticks doesn't really matter. Someone was getting assaulted.
And the team has now voted to boycott all football activities until they get a meeting and the suspensions lifted.
Duke lacrosse tought us not to judge to quickly.
I know it was tongue in cheek, which is why I replied the way I did. Save the rape jokes.
Last edited:
This was an absolute Kangaroo Court. . The real system investigated and the Minneapolis Police Dept and County Attorney cleared the original 4 back in September.
This was the result of a leftist driven internal "investigation" that the cowardly AD and President rubber stamped. They actually added 6 more players to the list of the accused, and several of the players were not even in the bedroom where this happened. There was video shared with the police, and they ruled out charges almost right away.
This U of M Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action, Title IX compliance office conducts witch hunts from a lofty, unaccountable position. There is a lack of due process, ability to confront and question accusers, as well as a low standard for any "evidence".
The players are rightfully POed, regardless of questionable nature of the consesentual sex that did occur.
http://kstp.com/news/gopher-footbal...d-10-players-tracy-claeys-team/4346358/?cat=1
Last edited:
IMO all NCAA football players should get together and boycott all Bowl games next season if Title IX isn't fixed. It's a crap shoot which institution will brand players without due process.
I know nothing about this case, but JMHO it is asinine to be suspending players who were just at the apartment when an alleged crime took place, but no one was charged criminally. 4 investigated by the police but 10 now suspended??????
IF the university has enough evidence to suspend 10 players then the prosecutors dropped the ball. If they dont have that evidence, they are being way to heavy handed. t
IF the university has enough evidence to suspend 10 players then the prosecutors dropped the ball. If they dont have that evidence, they are being way to heavy handed. t
This screams of knee jerk reaction to show good faith before a Title 9 civil lawsuit comes along.
Well, just because there are no criminal charges doesn't mean that the University has to flow with whatever occurred. The university may want to have higher standards than "is not under arrest" for people in its programs. So there may be reasonable grounds for suspension even if people are cleared by the law.
Most campuses have the Title IX nazis kicking in doors with jackboots. Just another group of "regulators" super-overeaching their authority. But then, that is the state of "education" in America today. I really hated doing it, but when I got my annual letter from the NU Foundation wanting me to donate so the donation would go on my 2016 taxes, I had to tell them after 33 years I was not making a donation. I explained if Chancellor Green bans speech he doesn't like because it is politically incorrect, I cannot support my university's intolerance with a donation.
Even if they do play the Holiday Bowl, with 10 players gone and no practices, Leach is going to carve them up like Thanksgiving turkey.
Sounds like Minny is gonna pull out of the bowl game. This is going to blow up in the universities's face IMHO - if the kids are correct about lack of due process.
Baylor Title IX dept was kept quiet by the admin. And shit hit the fan the opposite way.
Pretty sure some acts at Baylor had already been litigated as well without convictions.
Always 2 sides to the story. I don't have all of the facts, and don't care enough to research it. But whenever lines are drawn in the sand like this, it never ends well.
Pretty sure some acts at Baylor had already been litigated as well without convictions.
Always 2 sides to the story. I don't have all of the facts, and don't care enough to research it. But whenever lines are drawn in the sand like this, it never ends well.
Probably not. They have the 66th ranked class with all 2 and 3*s. They currently have no DEs, a 2* and low 3* RB. They do appear to have a decent DT, Croslen from Cibolo, TX.Well, all I can think is... Any Minnesota recruits we want?
This! When I was still a University professor I served as chair for nine years of what we called our "disciplinary affairs committee". And every year pressure was brought down on our committee by various administrators to actively prosecute even the most marginal cases if those cases involved accusations of sexual assault. No matter the facts, no matter the circumstances, no matter that the accusers were motivated by a host of self interested reasons, we were to "go get 'em". And man that was especially true if the cases involved athletes. If there is one thing administrators fear more than anything it is bad press ... especially bad press involving sexual assault. If they are viewed as "soft" on that issue all the various PC groups scream bloody murder to the press. It is a sad, but all too real, fact on modern University campuses. Young men on our campuses are guilty until proven innocent.
Furthermore, since the committee was a non official "court" the accused actually have very few rights. They were not even allowed to bring legal counsel in the room with them. It is a farce
Furthermore, there is a whole movement on University campuses today, spearheaded by feminists and gender studies professors to define down the meaning of sexual assault. They do this in order to parade around their trumped up statistics about 50% of young women being sexually assaulted on campus. It is BS
Let me give you an example. On our campus there were some feminist profs who said that if a young woman went to a party and guys offered her drinks, and she took them, and then got drunk, and then had sex, and then sobered up by the next morning and "regretted" having sex, then she was the victim of a sexual assault. The men were guilty of coercing her into drinking in order to "rape" her. It is nonsense.
Let me give you an example. On our campus there were some feminist profs who said that if a young woman went to a party and guys offered her drinks, and she took them, and then got drunk, and then had sex, and then sobered up by the next morning and "regretted" having sex, then she was the victim of a sexual assault. The men were guilty of coercing her into drinking in order to "rape" her. It is nonsense.
Just a weird situation all the way around. I agree with jimbosc, I think it's about to get really ugly as more information comes out.
Your assumption is that the only reason to suspend them is for a crime they committed, may not have been a crime but may have been major ethics violations or team rules, etc. NU has sent several guys packing for "Team Rules" violations and that is where the University is coming and down while indicating again last night after the players action and statement that their decision to suspend the players was consistent with University policy. Thos policies have been updated and hardened greatly in the last year, I live in the Twin Cities and UofM has an absolutely horrible track record for preventing or prosecuting alleged sexual assaults and even worse actual rapes on campus. Until a few months ago when they finally got a conviction they had 1,000 cases of alleged sexual assault over the last 5 years and ZERO convictions. When they finally got the conviction the local media finally uncovered the problem in it's full and ugly "glory" and the pressure is now on UM admin and athletic staff as several allegations pointed at athletes, to make drastic changes and no tolerance policies are now in place. You also need to remember that the previous AD was fired for sexeual harrassment so the new AD has no wiggle room when it comes to this type of activity. And they are strongly hinting that everyone would be appalled if they new what he U's investigation found but that due to privacy laws and policies they can't tell us what they found.
And common guys lets be real here lining up to have sex with a drunk coed is just plain wrong whether she is resisting or not.
And this may be a PC witch-hunt completely lacking justification.
The burden of proof just to make an arrest and file charges is "probable cause." The burden of proof for most agencies on internal investigatios is "preponderance of the of the evidence". So that is a higher burden of proof than just what is needing to arrest, but less than what is needed to convict.
So no one has been charged which requires less evidence, but 10 have been found to violate some student codes or whatever warranting a suspension??????
Two possibilities here. 1 it's legit punishment or 2. Complete knee jerk overreaction by liberal title XIIII Nazis.
The University can come out an explain without giving names. "We found student athlete 1 did.......based on....... We found student athlete 2 did........based on ....." etc.
peruse Robby Soave columns on reason.com if you want to know more about how this "works" at universities.
from antoine winfield sr. :
“If the president and athletic director keep their jobs, my son Antoine Winfield Jr. will not attend the University of Minnesota,” Winfield said.
Winfield, a Texas resident, traveled north to Minnesota to receive answers. He said he went to Coyle’s office but wasn’t given a meeting. Winfield also was upset with Claeys and defensive coordinator Jay Sawvel.
“They didn’t pick up the phone,” Winfield said about when the suspensions were levied. “Those guys came to my house and looked me in my eye, and I told them, ‘Take care of my son.’ And this is what you show me? I don’t respect it. I’m hot.”
“If the president and athletic director keep their jobs, my son Antoine Winfield Jr. will not attend the University of Minnesota,” Winfield said.
Winfield, a Texas resident, traveled north to Minnesota to receive answers. He said he went to Coyle’s office but wasn’t given a meeting. Winfield also was upset with Claeys and defensive coordinator Jay Sawvel.
“They didn’t pick up the phone,” Winfield said about when the suspensions were levied. “Those guys came to my house and looked me in my eye, and I told them, ‘Take care of my son.’ And this is what you show me? I don’t respect it. I’m hot.”
Yes it is "plain wrong". It is deeply, morally wrong. But it is not a crime if she consented, no matter how many guys she allowed to have sex with her. Yes she may have been drunk which diminished her ability to make smart decisions, but she is a responsible adult and she made the decision to go to a party and get drunk. Furthermore, absent a blood test it is impossible to know just how drunk she was. And more than likely the guys were drunk too, which diminishes their ability to make smart decisions too. So unless she was passed out and they had sex with her anyway, or she actively said no and they raped her (and there were witnesses), what you have is a college party with a lot of drunk and horny young adults making it almost impossible to determine if a crime was committed in a "he said, she said" type of case. That is most likely why the police refused to bring charges. I ran into these kinds of cases all the time during my time on the committee and it was a real nightmare trying to figure out culpability. So what you usually did was send everyone away with a stern warning about putting yourself in that kind of drunken situation in the first place.
As for other ethical violations, you might have a case where there were underage minors who were drinking, or present at a party where alcohol was served. But that is not grounds for suspension.
But as others on here have said... none of us have all the facts. So we will just have to wait and see how it all plays out. What a mess.
Ah the she was asking for it defense.
I think I will let it play out before making controversial and uninformed opinions on what might have happened and who might have said no and might have been drunk.
Please do not put words into my mouth. It is most definitely NOT the "she was asking for it" defense. It was a comment about how damn difficult it is to adjudicate culpable liability, criminal or otherwise, in these situations. I was simply shedding light, based on my years of experience in dealing with these cases, on why it is not as black and white as some people think, just because she was drunk and a bunch of guys had sex with her. Like it or not, the "I was drunk and even though I said yes to sex I did not mean it" argument is equally flawed as a basis for getting people arrested or kicked out of school. It is a very messy situation when you mix booze and young people at a college party and shit goes down. That is my point.
And as for waiting until all the facts are known... I agree. As I explicitly stated at the end of my post if you cared to really read it. I posted what I posted in order to point out that in a PC fueled and politically charged campus ideological environment these days, there is often a rush to judgment when it comes to dealing with young men. I am NOT saying these guys are innocent nor am I saying she deserved it. I am merely saying that just because she made accusations it doesn't necessarily mean they have merit.
Similar threads
