That's what I thought, too. If they don't know that this is just sick behavior, I don't know what to say. To me it is practically sub human. The video part is as sick as the gang bang of an incapacitated woman.
Something is Rotten in the state of Minnesota: 10 players suspended for the Holiday Bowl
- Thread starter CatManTrue
- Start date
That's what I thought, too. If they don't know that this is just sick behavior, I don't know what to say. To me it is practically sub human. The video part is as sick as the gang bang of an incapacitated woman.
Well, the video is probably the reason the MPD investigators and County Attorney concluded that that no charges were warranted in the first place. What drove the EOAA internal decision, and what their "investigation" entailed is a different story.
The police report regarding the incident specifically stated that the woman did not appear to be incapacitated in any way, and seemed to be a voluntary participant. Again, the Criminal Justice side did not file any charges at all, after a very short investigation.
A gang bang is a gang bang. It is not hard to do crazy and destructive things under the influence, both for men and women, although men tend to have the dominant role. Time to end the idea that women are toys, which is less a legal issue than a moral one..
Last edited:
Title IX and criminal investigations are not one in the same.
Obviously an ugly situation with no happy ending here...the general public will never truly have enough reliable information to know what happened, but sadly, that won't stop millions of idiots from forming an opinion.
As one such idiot, I'll say that I appreciate the university taking a conservative approach to sanctions rather than going with the "no criminal charges have been filed so case closed," which would be a very Ohio State-kind of approach. Can't blame the university or Claeys for failing to think of implementing a "no gangbang" rule if it was indeed consensual. But regardless of the outcome of this case, it will hopefully influence how programs approach such awkward issues in how they train athletes and set expectations for them...perhaps with a blanket statement on "behavior unbecoming of a student athlete and prominent representative of the university."
As someone who works at a university, it doesn't surprise me at all that this decision is coming at such a strange time, months after the incident took place. Judicial affairs at a university operate on their own timeline without particular regard for how long it takes or how it impacts stuff like a bowl game. Unless the President's Office gives a directive, they just don't care.
Finally, I'll say this about the apparent solidarity of the players - for the entire team to agree to this, that tells me that at least players of truly good character are going along with it, which *implies* to me that several of them could have been present that night and believe in their teammates based on firsthand knowledge and eyewitness accounts.
As one such idiot, I'll say that I appreciate the university taking a conservative approach to sanctions rather than going with the "no criminal charges have been filed so case closed," which would be a very Ohio State-kind of approach. Can't blame the university or Claeys for failing to think of implementing a "no gangbang" rule if it was indeed consensual. But regardless of the outcome of this case, it will hopefully influence how programs approach such awkward issues in how they train athletes and set expectations for them...perhaps with a blanket statement on "behavior unbecoming of a student athlete and prominent representative of the university."
As someone who works at a university, it doesn't surprise me at all that this decision is coming at such a strange time, months after the incident took place. Judicial affairs at a university operate on their own timeline without particular regard for how long it takes or how it impacts stuff like a bowl game. Unless the President's Office gives a directive, they just don't care.
Finally, I'll say this about the apparent solidarity of the players - for the entire team to agree to this, that tells me that at least players of truly good character are going along with it, which *implies* to me that several of them could have been present that night and believe in their teammates based on firsthand knowledge and eyewitness accounts.
"Finally, I'll say this about the apparent solidarity of the players - for the entire team to agree to this, that tells me that at least players of truly good character are going along with it, which *implies* to me that several of them could have been present that night and believe in their teammates based on firsthand knowledge and eyewitness accounts."
Or, they are covering their own asses.
It happened.Just like last winter when 3 Gopher basketball players for suspended for a sex tape featuring now ex-Gopher Kevin Dorsey. Like it or not college kids have quick access to video and will do this regardless of how distasteful.
I'm reading that several players among those suspended were "present" in the apartment and are not directly implicated in the rape accusations...this could be where the team is choosing to rally, but who knows...
The Holiday Bowl people must be freaking out here in San Diego. Having the Holiday Bowl reconnected with the BigTen again was a big deal and now it blows up only after a couple of years after having BigTen teams back at Qualcomm. I think the contingency plan is to have Northern Illinois fill in for Minn if the school drops out.
Just a bad situation all around.
Just a bad situation all around.
Last edited:
Yes they do and all of us, especially influential institutions, have an obligation to our society to educate and take a stand when young people begin to embrace as standard activities that are questionable if not immoral. The fact that this is the second incident with in the sports community at UM further amplified the Universities current obligation.
"We're NOT... PED State"
No, sounds like they want all 10 suspensions lifted, not just the 6 who weren't suspended earlier.
“Effective immediately, we will boycott all football activities,” Wolitarsky said. “The boycott will remain in effect until due process is followed, and the suspensions for all 10 players … are lifted.”
Is this new shtick where you suspend someone but can't tell them why due to federal privacy laws?
If your standard of player conduct is grounded in the criminal justice system then fine they belong on the field.
I am sure a lot of this has to do with recent embarrassing events within the Minny Athletic department. Previous AD faces sexual harassment charges, wrestlers dealing drugs, recent transfer to BBall team faces sexual assault charges. many schools have issues, but Minny has them in spades.
Being the father of college aged Women, I find players lining up to dunk their danker with this lady to be disgusting behavior. Illegal, nope. Video, why? Does anyone know why she felt the need to get a restraining order against six players? No one mentions this in their consensual argument. None of know what really happened, but even the players side of the story doesn't paint them in a favorable light.
As far as the players that didn't participate in the actual gang bang, I can see them being in the wrong place at the wrong time. In the realistic dynamics of a team it is unlikely they are going to challenge the upperclassmans rogue behavior. We don't know their actual involvement. Where they the camera crew? encouraging? Who knows. I could see the team backing these players if they didn't actively participate.
Any way you look at this, it turns out bad for Minny. If I am a recruit and side with the players, do I want to go to a program where the AD is hostile and perceived as a liar? If I understand what the Administration is doing to I want to join a program that could potentially be in rebuild after booting a bunch of players?
I am a NU fan because it is easy to root for the players. They use character as a component of recruiting. This isn't always ideal when it comes to winning, but I'll take it 10 times out of ten as opposed to this. We are not immune to these type of things, but I have to think it is far less likely. When you interact with these guys either while they are playing or after, they are genuinely good guys.
I am not an alumni and have no real reason to be attached to NU for life. If our players act in a fashion I don't like, I might as well be a Louisville fan. If your alumni are almost all supporting the players that participated and see no issue with their behavior something is wrong.
Go cats!
Let's not get on too high a horse. As recently as this year, our players boycotted a game. It was against Illinois State.
I am confused by the stance that because no criminal charges were filed, a suspension isn't warranted. Is the expectation there that a player code of conduct isn't violated if formal charges aren't filed?
As for the backup plan of NIU. That will be unlikely to work I would think. NIU shut down their football program and practices for the year three weeks ago. I seriously doubt they can just fire it up again to attend a bowl game 1600 miles away in 11 days.
As for the backup plan of NIU. That will be unlikely to work I would think. NIU shut down their football program and practices for the year three weeks ago. I seriously doubt they can just fire it up again to attend a bowl game 1600 miles away in 11 days.
“We got no answers to our questions about why these kids were suspended when they were just found [innocent] by the law,” Wolitarsky said. “He basically told us that he didn’t have answers, and that led us to believe that this is kind of unjust."
Well who the f*&k are you to be entitled to any answers at all?!!?! Who the hell do these kids think they are? While I have no idea what is says, there is no question there is a player code of conduct these kids sign that does not just read "Don't get charged with a crime."
And they weren't "found (innocent)" you self righteous idiot. The DA decided there wasn't consistent evidence to prosecute. That is not one in the same at all.
By his own words, he's making the claim that this must be 'unjust' because answers weren't shared with him. They don't have to be shared with him, or anyone else who was not involved with the incident. There is confidentiality at stake here for the kids who are suspended. To publicly share that information with people who don't have a need to know not only isn't warranted, it may be unjust in and of itself.
I sincerely hope these kids lose their scholarships and look back and see how badly they f'ed up. I also hope that if they don't play in the Holiday Bowl, and NIU or another non BT team plays, that Minnesota is made to cover the financial loss every other team in the Big Ten will face by not having a BT team in that bowl.
Unless of course this is another Duke lacrosse situation. If that is the case, never mind.
Well who the f*&k are you to be entitled to any answers at all?!!?! Who the hell do these kids think they are? While I have no idea what is says, there is no question there is a player code of conduct these kids sign that does not just read "Don't get charged with a crime."
And they weren't "found (innocent)" you self righteous idiot. The DA decided there wasn't consistent evidence to prosecute. That is not one in the same at all.
By his own words, he's making the claim that this must be 'unjust' because answers weren't shared with him. They don't have to be shared with him, or anyone else who was not involved with the incident. There is confidentiality at stake here for the kids who are suspended. To publicly share that information with people who don't have a need to know not only isn't warranted, it may be unjust in and of itself.
I sincerely hope these kids lose their scholarships and look back and see how badly they f'ed up. I also hope that if they don't play in the Holiday Bowl, and NIU or another non BT team plays, that Minnesota is made to cover the financial loss every other team in the Big Ten will face by not having a BT team in that bowl.
Unless of course this is another Duke lacrosse situation. If that is the case, never mind.
Last edited:
From what I can gather, the initial encounter seemed voluntary (but not clear whether she agreed to be filmed). What happened after that is not clear, whether 1) she agreed to take on the other guys in the room, 2) or else she was so intoxicated and defenseless that the other guys just had their turn against her wish. Obviously the university is arguing for the latter, while the players are arguing for the former. A messy situation all around. Then she took out a restraining order against those players - but again it's not clear whether it was from fear of being attacked or whether she decided she wasn't up for a repeat performance. It's easy to jump to conclusions, but there just isn't enough facts made public that one can figure out what happened.
All that aside, those players really should look in the mirror and decide whether their actions were appropriate or not. It may come down to a university code of ethics issue more than a legal issue.
Again, I don't know their code of conduct. But I would guess that somewhere, somehow, it frowns upon participating in, and making and distributing videos of a player gang bang. Videos of which the single female participant was apparently unaware.
Last edited:
Already past that point. The legal issue (barring additional evidence) is resolved. The case was deemed to be not prosecutable by the police. That is done. It is totally a code of ethics issue.
The argument is whether university code of ethics can be breached without a prosecutable arrest. I am amazed at the number of people on this board who are saying that public charges are needed to confirm a breach of ethics.
Maybe it is because I make my home in a right-to-work state and am accustomed to the idea that my employer can fire me at any time without reason as long as it not due to race, creed, or national origin. I do not have to be charged with a crime to be terminated. Such a termination is not "unjust." "Unfair?" Possibly. But not unjust.
The players actions were not prosecutable. May not have been even illegal. But that does not make those actions in keeping with the Zoo of M's ethics code for athletes or students. I would like to think that a group of students lining up to have sex with a drunken woman would violate NU's ethics code for all students. I would like to think that standing idly by without effort to stop them while your teammates acted thusly would violate NU's athletics ethics code. I believe that the actions that I am stating above are not being disputed by either side.
If I understand the situation correctly, Minnesota is in the right and the football team has chosen the wrong side on this one.
Just because players are not technically rapists within the criminal justice system does not mean that they are exhibiting character traits that a university wants representing the school. The players were informed of that from their first day on campus.
Any chance we get bumped up to play in the Holiday Bowl? Maybe the timing would work that we could play in two bowls?
Just checking, Holiday is 3 PM ET on the 27th and Pinstripe starts at 10 AM on the 28th. Looks like the Holiday could offer a red eye charter for the players to get to New York.
Last edited:
1,000,000 times yes.
"Just because something is not illegal does not mean it doesn't carry consequences."
I wish the students could hear themselves:
"Yeah, well if what we did was so bad, how come none of us are going to prison for it?"
"If 'didn't result in jail time' is the standard by which you judge your actions, then you've got problems."
Irony: Antoine Winfield is a former Buckeye. He has issued a "the president goes or my son goes" ultimatum.
Subtext: "back in my day, Coop and Tress used to *arrange* gang bangs for us. Ahhhh, those were the days."
The University even has a convenient website for those who are interested in their disciplinary process:
https://oscai.umn.edu/conduct-code/disciplinary-process
As outlined on the site, the standard of proof is "preponderance of the evidence," which is different from the requirements in a criminal court. There is also an outline of the University's process for responding to complaints of sexual assault online, available here. Though I'm not 100% sure on the inner workings of the University system, it appears that the EOAA (which is the University department cited as conducting the investigation) works alongside and refers their investigative findings to the OSCAI, whose disciplinary processes are outlined at the website above.
In this instance, the delay between announcement of no criminal charges and suspension of the players could very well have been due to the University's processes by which either party to an investigation can request a hearing, which can then be further appealed.
https://oscai.umn.edu/conduct-code/disciplinary-process
As outlined on the site, the standard of proof is "preponderance of the evidence," which is different from the requirements in a criminal court. There is also an outline of the University's process for responding to complaints of sexual assault online, available here. Though I'm not 100% sure on the inner workings of the University system, it appears that the EOAA (which is the University department cited as conducting the investigation) works alongside and refers their investigative findings to the OSCAI, whose disciplinary processes are outlined at the website above.
In this instance, the delay between announcement of no criminal charges and suspension of the players could very well have been due to the University's processes by which either party to an investigation can request a hearing, which can then be further appealed.
Interesting to me here is the position that the players not involved ,at all, were put in and how it reflects negatively on the head coach. As a non-involved player you had to decide between supporting your fellow teammates or not or standing up for principled behavior you may believe in or not. Tough spot for young kids. Head coach needed to step in and direct them in the right direction.Maybe a team meeting explaining why the incident was unacceptable and if possible have players involved own up to their behavior etc, I think this will end badly for Cleary and rightfully so.
I think this is the kind of situation where you can say " Its good we got Fitz"
I think this is the kind of situation where you can say " Its good we got Fitz"
Asa far as I'm concerend they can cut the testicles off rapists who are tried and convicted, throw them jail and throw away the key because they are animals and not real men, however, that isn't the REAL issue on college campus today:
http://www.slate.com/articles/doubl...ult_is_a_serious_problem_but_the_efforts.html
http://www.newsweek.com/2015/12/18/other-side-sexual-assault-crisis-403285.html
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...herine-lhamons-rape-title-ix-column/73019678/
http://www.slate.com/articles/doubl...ult_is_a_serious_problem_but_the_efforts.html
http://www.newsweek.com/2015/12/18/other-side-sexual-assault-crisis-403285.html
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...herine-lhamons-rape-title-ix-column/73019678/
Last edited:
Gotta question if The Holiday had any inkling this could have been a possibility by being aware of the underlying event? Boycott issue aside, question whether they might, or even could, have decided to opt for Northwestern over Minny had they known of the subject conduct implicating multiple players? Assuming they were blind-sided this has got to be a blow for The Holiday Bowl. Even if the players demands are met and they get to come to San Diego, just how welcome is the team going to be under the present circumstances? I could see political action groups protesting and boycotting their appearance. Bad publicity all around.
On the other hand if Minny does not play, the Holiday, as a more prestigious bowl than the Pinstripe, is likely stuck with a 5 win non power conference team when they could have had Northwestern.
On the other hand if Minny does not play, the Holiday, as a more prestigious bowl than the Pinstripe, is likely stuck with a 5 win non power conference team when they could have had Northwestern.
I think the best move right now would be to cancel Minnesota's participation in the game and/or postpone the game.
The problem is that plans for the game have been made, tv rights and revenues at issue, etc. I wonder where the BigTen admin is about dealing with the game issue. It's the BigTen that has a contract with the Holiday Bowl and what are the consequences if the BigTen cannot meet its contractual obligations supplying a team for this event?
The problem is that plans for the game have been made, tv rights and revenues at issue, etc. I wonder where the BigTen admin is about dealing with the game issue. It's the BigTen that has a contract with the Holiday Bowl and what are the consequences if the BigTen cannot meet its contractual obligations supplying a team for this event?
Gotta feel for the Minny fans who have booked travel and hotels as well. If they went through their official bowl site probably refundable, but likely many have non refundable payments already out. Of course, San Diego is a fun city to go to in the winter from the Twin Cities anyway, so they could just substitute a visit to Sea World or the San Diego Zoo,
What would be accomplished by postponing the game other than to give NIU fans more time to make their own travel arrangements?
Does The Holiday even have the option of canceling Minny's participation at this point regardless of whether the boycott remains in place? The longer it drags out the worse for the Holiday to have fans from some other team come to their bowl.
