ADVERTISEMENT

Something is Rotten in the state of Minnesota: 10 players suspended for the Holiday Bowl

This all arises out of a September 2nd incident that went nowhere in the legal system due to insufficient evidence.

From the linked article:
"Buford said the new suspensions are the result an investigation by the University’s Office of Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action (EOAA)"

Whether the original accusations have merit or not there is the potential for injustice when an affirmative action office or some other group can bypass the rules of evidence and do what the law cannot in terms of ruining individuals lives based on evidence that would not stand up in a court of law.

If this office in their investigation came up with new evidence it should have referred it back to the legal system. My guess though is that they simply accepted hearsay evidence in lieu of admissible evidence. It is unfortunate if an "Office of Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action" has become a substitute for a Court of Law. The potential for political influence is inherent.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: FeralFelidae
This all arises out of a September 2nd incident that went nowhere in the legal system due to insufficient evidence.

From the linked article:
"Buford said the new suspensions are the result an investigation by the University’s Office of Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action (EOAA)"

Whether the original accusations have merit or not there is the potential for injustice when an affirmative action office or some other group can bypass the rules of evidence and do what the law cannot in terms of ruining individuals lives based on evidence that would not stand up in a court of law.

If this office in their investigation came up with new evidence it should have referred it back to the legal system. My guess though is that they simply accepted hearsay evidence in lieu of admissible evidence. It is unfortunate if an "Office of Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action" has become a substitute for a Court of Law. The potential for political influence is inherent.

Is the University bound to accept that evidence?
 
Is the University bound to accept that evidence?

One could argue that since the University does not have the power to put someone in jail or impose fines that justifies their being able to accept hearsay evidence. That argument, however, ignores the consequences that can still follow for one unjustly accused, consequences that may be equally, or even many times more punitive than those that a court could order. Consider the millions that Gary Barnett lost out on or the consequences that the Duke lacrosse players endured.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FeralFelidae
One could argue that since the University does not have the power to put someone in jail or impose fines that justifies their being able to accept hearsay evidence. That argument, however, ignores the consequences that can still follow for one unjustly accused, consequences that may be equally, or even many times more punitive than those that a court could order. Consider the millions that Gary Barnett lost out on or the consequences that the Duke lacrosse players endured.
I have no problem with the burden of proof being a little lower for playing in a bowl game than for a criminal prosecution when it comes to these particular matters that are often so hard to prosecute.
 
This all arises out of a September 2nd incident that went nowhere in the legal system due to insufficient evidence.

From the linked article:
"Buford said the new suspensions are the result an investigation by the University’s Office of Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action (EOAA)"

Whether the original accusations have merit or not there is the potential for injustice when an affirmative action office or some other group can bypass the rules of evidence and do what the law cannot in terms of ruining individuals lives based on evidence that would not stand up in a court of law.

If this office in their investigation came up with new evidence it should have referred it back to the legal system. My guess though is that they simply accepted hearsay evidence in lieu of admissible evidence. It is unfortunate if an "Office of Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action" has become a substitute for a Court of Law. The potential for political influence is inherent.

Doesn't the university have the right to insist that the players that represent it protect themselves and the University from accusations that bring damage to the University's reputation?
Couple of things I always trained my staff:
1) The most valuable asset we have is our reputation.
2) Never, under any circumstance be alone in a private place, with a child. (we worked with kids)
If one of my staff was alone with a child and the child made up stuff (people do sexualize non sexual situations), that staff person would be gone very quickly.

The players need to be trained to stay out of a variety of situations, if only to protect themselves from accusations. They all should be wearing body cams. /s/
 
This all arises out of a September 2nd incident that went nowhere in the legal system due to insufficient evidence.

From the linked article:
"Buford said the new suspensions are the result an investigation by the University’s Office of Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action (EOAA)"

Whether the original accusations have merit or not there is the potential for injustice when an affirmative action office or some other group can bypass the rules of evidence and do what the law cannot in terms of ruining individuals lives based on evidence that would not stand up in a court of law.

If this office in their investigation came up with new evidence it should have referred it back to the legal system. My guess though is that they simply accepted hearsay evidence in lieu of admissible evidence. It is unfortunate if an "Office of Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action" has become a substitute for a Court of Law. The potential for political influence is inherent.
Good for the university for standing up for its students' rights and not just its football players' rights to "boys will be boys."

As someone else wrote, the burden of proof should be lower for playing in a bowl game than for going to prison.

I think it's notable that these are 'indefinite' suspensions, and not just bowl game suspensions. Also notable is that four of the players were basically suspended for being complicit, though not active, in the assault.

The University of Minnesota football program does not hold itself to high moral standards - note the cheap shots we saw on the field. Rest assured there's more than a little smoke here.
 
Last edited:
Good for the university for standing up for its students' rights and not just its football players' rights to "boys will be boys."

As someone else wrote, the burden of proof should be lower for playing in a bowl game than for going to prison.

I think it's notable that these are 'indefinite' suspensions, and not just bowl game suspensions. Also notable is that four of the players were basically suspended for being complicit, though not active, in the assault.

The University of Minnesota football program does not hold itself to high moral standards - note the cheap shots we saw on the field. Rest assured there's more than a little smoke here.

My question is why now? This happened in September. Evidence was deemed insufficient to bring charges and players were reinstated. We didn't hear a peep about this prior to our game with Minny.

It seems they just were exposed to the fire from your smoke. I would bet there is something more discovered, but also recall Duke Lacrosse. Why were they reinstated in the first place? This can't possibly work out well for Minny as they either didn't act appropriately initially or they don't support their players when they didn't do anything. I am thinking it is far more likely it they didn't act appropriately initially.

I know the woman that was abused at Nebraska by Christian Peter has been brought in to share her story with current players at some universities. Maybe something similar should be mandatory attendance for all athletes.
 
My question is why now? This happened in September. Evidence was deemed insufficient to bring charges and players were reinstated. We didn't hear a peep about this prior to our game with Minny.

It seems they just were exposed to the fire from your smoke. I would bet there is something more discovered, but also recall Duke Lacrosse. Why were they reinstated in the first place? This can't possibly work out well for Minny as they either didn't act appropriately initially or they don't support their players when they didn't do anything. I am thinking it is far more likely it they didn't act appropriately initially.

I know the woman that was abused at Nebraska by Christian Peter has been brought in to share her story with current players at some universities. Maybe something similar should be mandatory attendance for all athletes.

It sounds like further investigation yielded further ground for punishment.

http://deadspin.com/minnesota-suspends-10-football-players-for-alleged-invo-1790081126
 
Damn, why couldn't they have come to a conclusion before we played them? I say this more because this behavior (if it is proven) can't be tolerated, more so than we might have won, although it would have served them right.

This is exactly why they're referred to as the goofers. Just when you are least expecting it, something goofy occurs.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Alaskawildkat
I have no problem with the burden of proof being a little lower for playing in a bowl game than for a criminal prosecution when it comes to these particular matters that are often so hard to prosecute.

I have no knowledge of this situation whatsoever, but over my years of working in private industry I saw plenty of people suspended or fired for things that wouldn't have been illegal in a court of law.
 
From the above cited "Deadspin" article:

"The players’ attorney confirmed that the suspensions stemmed from that incident, and he said that he planned to file a counter-suit.

“I’m ticked and I plan on exposing the office of EOAA for these unfounded conclusions,” [attorney Lee] Hutton said. “I was going to wait until after the new year to bring lawsuits on behalf of my clients against [the alleged victim]; we just decided to accelerate the process.”"

This doesn't sound like any "new evidence" was found.
 
This all arises out of a September 2nd incident that went nowhere in the legal system due to insufficient evidence.

From the linked article:
"Buford said the new suspensions are the result an investigation by the University’s Office of Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action (EOAA)"

Whether the original accusations have merit or not there is the potential for injustice when an affirmative action office or some other group can bypass the rules of evidence and do what the law cannot in terms of ruining individuals lives based on evidence that would not stand up in a court of law.

If this office in their investigation came up with new evidence it should have referred it back to the legal system. My guess though is that they simply accepted hearsay evidence in lieu of admissible evidence. It is unfortunate if an "Office of Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action" has become a substitute for a Court of Law. The potential for political influence is inherent.
Apparently, the woman had too much to drink and went to the apartment of one of the players. While there, multiple players had sex with her. In her original statement, she said that the initial sexual contact was consensual. She did not say that the additional contacts were consensual. However, the police realized as soon as she said that she went to the apartment for consensual sex, they would have trouble proving rape at all.

The organization within the university (whether or not you like its name for political reasons) apparently decided that it did not want its players having serial sex with a very drunk woman who did not explicitly agree with it.

Obviously lots of conjecture here on my part based on snippets from articles but this seems pretty close.

My opinion is that the university is making the right call.
 
Apparently, the woman had too much to drink and went to the apartment of one of the players. While there, multiple players had sex with her. In her original statement, she said that the initial sexual contact was consensual. She did not say that the additional contacts were consensual. However, the police realized as soon as she said that she went to the apartment for consensual sex, they would have trouble proving rape at all.

The organization within the university (whether or not you like its name for political reasons) apparently decided that it did not want its players having serial sex with a very drunk woman who did not explicitly agree with it.

Obviously lots of conjecture here on my part based on snippets from articles but this seems pretty close.

My opinion is that the university is making the right call.
I concur.
 
Apparently, the woman had too much to drink and went to the apartment of one of the players. While there, multiple players had sex with her. In her original statement, she said that the initial sexual contact was consensual. She did not say that the additional contacts were consensual. However, the police realized as soon as she said that she went to the apartment for consensual sex, they would have trouble proving rape at all.

The organization within the university (whether or not you like its name for political reasons) apparently decided that it did not want its players having serial sex with a very drunk woman who did not explicitly agree with it.

Obviously lots of conjecture here on my part based on snippets from articles but this seems pretty close.

My opinion is that the university is making the right call.

As noted initially:

"Whether the original accusations have merit or not there is the potential for injustice...."

If in fact this goes beyond conjecture and there is admissible evidence to support the allegations I too have no problem with even more severe punishment than simply suspensions. There is a real danger though of innocent persons being wrongly accused when we allow politically motivated or influenced organizations to make determinations of guilt based on "conjecture" instead of their going back to the legal system with whatever "new evidence" they have.

That said it does appear to be a no win situation for the University since as a political entity it ignores political pressures at its own peril.
 
Last edited:
As noted initially:

"Whether the original accusations have merit or not there is the potential for injustice...."

If in fact this goes beyond conjecture and there is admissible evidence to support the allegations I too have no problem with even more severe punishment than simply suspensions. There is a real danger though of innocent persons being wrongly accused when we allow politically motivated or influenced organizations to make determinations of guilt based on "conjecture" instead of their going back to the legal system with whatever "new evidence" they have.

That said it does appear to be a no win situation for the University since as a political entity it ignores political pressures at its own peril.

+1. What puzzles me is the timing. Did it really take Minny 3 months to get this "new evidence". Aren't they somewhat dialed into the facts of the investigation with the police? Didn't the Athletic Dept ask simple questions to all of the players that were there, like what happened? Did the "organization" investigation do nothing more than force the Athletic Department to take a stronger stand rather than uncover something they already knew.
 
+1. What puzzles me is the timing. Did it really take Minny 3 months to get this "new evidence". Aren't they somewhat dialed into the facts of the investigation with the police? Didn't the Athletic Dept ask simple questions to all of the players that were there, like what happened? Did the "organization" investigation do nothing more than force the Athletic Department to take a stronger stand rather than uncover something they already knew.
Maybe somebody spoke up feeling the pressure of being held responsible. Can't people cut a deal for a certain level of immunity if they testify?
 
As noted initially:

"Whether the original accusations have merit or not there is the potential for injustice...."

If in fact this goes beyond conjecture and there is admissible evidence to support the allegations I too have no problem with even more severe punishment than simply suspensions. There is a real danger though of innocent persons being wrongly accused when we allow politically motivated or influenced organizations to make determinations of guilt based on "conjecture" instead of their going back to the legal system with whatever "new evidence" they have.

That said it does appear to be a no win situation for the University since as a political entity it ignores political pressures at its own peril.
Take the politics out the of it. Ignore the name of the university organization. Also, there is no new evidence.

The police decided there was insufficient evidence to prosecute in the criminal system. It appears that they are correct and it would be a tough case to prosecute.

The university decided that multiple players having sex in series with a drunk woman wherein there is question regarding consent was sufficient grounds for the internal punishment regarding playing in the bowl game. It took three months for the university to go through their internal process to reach this conclusion.

Baylor does this and Art Briles still has them on top of the Big 12.

For years players have missed games and been kicked off teams for "failure to follow team rules." The only difference here is that one side of the political spectrum does not like the name of the campus organization that made the call.
 
"Doesn't the university have the right to insist that the players that represent it protect themselves and the University from ACCUSATIONS (caps added)" No, accusations are no proof of guilt, or misbehavior, or anything. That is completely aside from the facts of this case, however.
 
"Doesn't the university have the right to insist that the players that represent it protect themselves and the University from ACCUSATIONS (caps added)" No, accusations are no proof of guilt, or misbehavior, or anything. That is completely aside from the facts of this case, however.

I'm not saying that the players should be immune from all accusations but there are a variety of risky and dangerous situations that players ought to avoid rather than tolerate or ignore. If there is a gang bang in the next room, it is probably time to go home.
 
Wow, Minn is not on a good streak lately.
A significant portion of their wrestling team was suspended earlier this year for possessing and distributing drugs.
The long time, very successful and highly respected head wrestling coach was forced out as a result.
The offenders received a slap on the wrist from the university.
 
Wow, Minn is not on a good streak lately.
A significant portion of their wrestling team was suspended earlier this year for possessing and distributing drugs.
The long time, very successful and highly respected head wrestling coach was forced out as a result.
The offenders received a slap on the wrist from the university.

But, in fairness, their coach did have them write an essay about their miscreant ways.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fitz51
But, in fairness, their coach did have them write an essay about their miscreant ways.
Yep, he screwed up royally, allegedly, by not immediately turning them all in and by trying to protect his athletes.
Then again, he said he went to higher up's trying to follow school protocol and they didn't do anything, but later threw him to the wolves.
Who to believe????
 
From the above cited "Deadspin" article:

"The players’ attorney confirmed that the suspensions stemmed from that incident, and he said that he planned to file a counter-suit.

“I’m ticked and I plan on exposing the office of EOAA for these unfounded conclusions,” [attorney Lee] Hutton said. “I was going to wait until after the new year to bring lawsuits on behalf of my clients against [the alleged victim]; we just decided to accelerate the process.”"

This doesn't sound like any "new evidence" was found.

sexual_consent_cartoons.jpg
 
Last edited:
Police investigators viewed the video of the sexual activity and determined the woman was a willing participant and thus no charges were pursued. 4 players missed 3 games in the process(costing the Gophers the PennSt game in all probability). The EOAA decided the players involved including some who were just in the apt should be either expelled or suspended for a year. The committee has no legal standing and is like other kangaroo college courts consisting of many non-legal members acting as judge and jury . They will not disclose their decision making process due to "privacy" concerns but were quick to name all the players involved. The university president and the AD decided to go along with the committee recommendation. HC Claeys did not altho the AD said Claeys was consulted. The players will now boycott all further football related activity until the named players are re-instated. The players have full support of most alumni on message boards. This is part of an over reach/witch hunt occurring on many campuses regarding sexual assault.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lunker35
Police investigators viewed the video of the sexual activity and determined the woman was a willing participant and thus no charges were pursued. 4 players missed 3 games in the process(costing the Gophers the PennSt game in all probability). The EOAA decided the players involved including some who were just in the apt should be either expelled or suspended for a year. The committee has no legal standing and is like other kangaroo college courts consisting of many non-legal members acting as judge and jury . They will not disclose their decision making process due to "privacy" concerns but were quick to name all the players involved. The university president and the AD decided to go along with the committee recommendation. HC Claeys did not altho the AD said Claeys was consulted. The players will now boycott all further football related activity until the named players are re-instated. The players have full support of most alumni on message boards. This is part of an over reach/witch hunt occurring on many campuses regarding sexual assault.

Seems like a mature reaction.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fitz51
Police investigators viewed the video of the sexual activity and determined the woman was a willing participant and thus no charges were pursued. 4 players missed 3 games in the process(costing the Gophers the PennSt game in all probability). The EOAA decided the players involved including some who were just in the apt should be either expelled or suspended for a year. The committee has no legal standing and is like other kangaroo college courts consisting of many non-legal members acting as judge and jury . They will not disclose their decision making process due to "privacy" concerns but were quick to name all the players involved. The university president and the AD decided to go along with the committee recommendation. HC Claeys did not altho the AD said Claeys was consulted. The players will now boycott all further football related activity until the named players are re-instated. The players have full support of most alumni on message boards. This is part of an over reach/witch hunt occurring on many campuses regarding sexual assault.

Overreaching witch hunt, probably not. Super strong reaction, much more likely, which would not be needed were it not for the multitude of situations where true sexual assult occured with no response from the school.
 
Whew, this could be a program destroyer. However, even though I'm from the Twin Cities, I hope so, since I've felt that ever since the 1960's their program has been a sham. The need to just hire a coach like Fitz. If there is another one.

Do you think the University administration will back down?
 
Police investigators viewed the video of the sexual activity and determined the woman was a willing participant and thus no charges were pursued. 4 players missed 3 games in the process(costing the Gophers the PennSt game in all probability). The EOAA decided the players involved including some who were just in the apt should be either expelled or suspended for a year. The committee has no legal standing and is like other kangaroo college courts consisting of many non-legal members acting as judge and jury . They will not disclose their decision making process due to "privacy" concerns but were quick to name all the players involved. The university president and the AD decided to go along with the committee recommendation. HC Claeys did not altho the AD said Claeys was consulted. The players will now boycott all further football related activity until the named players are re-instated. The players have full support of most alumni on message boards. This is part of an over reach/witch hunt occurring on many campuses regarding sexual assault.

How the Sam Hill was there a video? So woman gets wasted and takes on 4-5 guys in succession and somebody thought it would be a good idea to film it? Wtf
 
  • Like
Reactions: ricko654321
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT