There were already a couple of posts along this line in this thread deleted. I think that the powers-that-be are not wanting further discussion of politics here. It is kind of weird having a post deleted. At first I thought I had forgotten to hit "Post Reply" but then I remembered that mine was actually a reply to some else's and it was gone, too. Kind of a Gaslight moment.
Something is Rotten in the state of Minnesota: 10 players suspended for the Holiday Bowl
- Thread starter CatManTrue
- Start date
We are now learning that the "unauthorized" release of the University's Investigative Report was the turning point:
"Many of the players who made the initial stand on Thursday had not read the university's 82-page report detailing a woman's specific allegations. The university kept the details private under federal law, but players saw it after KSTP-TV published it on Friday. The details fractured the group's resolve, a person with knowledge of the situation told The Associated Press. The person spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity, because he was not authorized to speak publicly for the group."
http://www.espn.com/college-footbal...otball-team-ends-boycott-prepare-holiday-bowl
The "elephant in the room" question that remains to be asked though is whether the players altered public position was motivated by the content of the report or the fact that the report was now in the public domain and now what they already knew everyone else now knew.
One time a number of years ago when I was just joining the board, I looked back over a thread that I had posted on and some information had been added to my post. It made it a much better post. I looked really smart so I didn't care.
I don't think that happens very often. Both the additions and the smart part. I often care about stuff.
Perhaps a couple of posts in this thread were deleted because of the language. This entire thread deals with some pretty touchy subject matter, no pun intended. We are trying to be fairly tolerant because of the relevance and importance of this issue.
Just for the record and my personal reputation...
There was no foul language or inappropriate content of any kind in my post. It veered off topic so I have no problem with its deletion but I do not believe that I am prone to such.
Have you considered the possibility that perhaps you quoted a post that needed to be deleted? Therefore, the offending post showed in your post. You might consider responding to an offensive post without quoting it.
I don't think so. It was a very calm couple of posts with no foul language. Maybe y'all hit a wrong button or there was just a good old fashioned computer glitch. Maybe they are still there and my computer won't show them anymore. That has happened to me once or twice.
They were pretty boring posts. Someone responded to my post 116 and I responded back. No animosity or harsh words. Again, the world is no worse off for these posts being deleted or lost. I was just kidding around about feeling gaslighted.
We are about to make a mountain out of a mole hill. You quoted a post that used offensive language, so your post got deleted. I can show it to you but it is not necessary. There was nothing wrong with your comment, but rather with the post that you quoted.
No sweat. Like I said, the posts were inconsequential and no loss. I was fine with it being for them being totally off topic - which they were. If I quoted something inappropriate, then oops.
I wondered if my post might get deleted. I don't think it has ever happened before. I feel sort of all grown up now.
To attempt to answer your question, though the public did not access to the report; the players involved most certainly did. So either Leidner et. al. are so lacking in critical thinking skills that they did not bother to request/read the report from one of the players involved, or they read the report and proceeded with their boycott anyway...
I think the most likely scenario is:
Rapists: "we didn't do nothing"
Rapist accessories: "they didn't do nothing"
Rest of team: "BOYCOTT"
(Report comes out)
Rest of team: "holy crap, i am not proud for standing with rapists and rapist accessories"
Claeyes, meanwhile, has revealed himself as quite a low form of human life. He most definitely had access to the report. Worthy of firing.
Claeys only had a $500,000 buyout, and an AD who has fired coaches for far less transgressions, so yeah, he is gone imo. The only logical reason that Claeys publicly supported the players' boycott against the AD is that he already knew he was being fired over this.
Yup. If he (and not some grad assistant) actually sent his tweet supporting the boycott, then he is a douche and should be axed.
Interview with Claeys:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/univers...ball-coach-speaks-out-player-boycott/?ref=yfp
Does not make him look any better in my eyes. You cannot separate this from how he handled the situation in September. I am looking for more confirmation that the three game suspension was tied directly to the restraining order getting lifted. If that is true, then Claeys loses all credibility about making any real effort to instill or maintain ethical values in his players.
The school administration mentions having to talks with the coaching staff.
???
Concerning due process...
My son serves on the student conduct board at his school. A three month investigation resulting in an 84 page report is due process+ at most schools. It should be fairly simple:
1. If you line up and participate in a gang bang (apologies for language - no other way to effectively say it), then you are violating student ethics and basic moral codes.
2. If you do not participate but tacitly support such activities through inaction or post-activity support, then you have a lack of understanding of student ethics and basic moral codes.
I hope and pray that this is what NU's coaches teach our players. I do not expect them to be saints, just comprehend basic ethics and morals and apply that comprehension.
Last edited:
Maybe it would be a good idea to design a legitimate ethics and community life class for incoming freshmen. The class could be designed to fulfill some part of the core curriculum, cover the larger issues of ethics in our society but use specific real life, real world situations to keep it relevant.
Some kids, through no fault of their own, come from very dysfunctional life and family situations and have few positive role models and many negative ones.
A psych class that focuses on self awareness and social systems might be good too.
I can't believe anyone could have read that disgusting report and came out in support of these thugs. Since, the report indicated the police did NOT turn over their reports to the university, it also seems likely the Administration had new information to mull over.
The report indicates all kinds of inconsistent responses from the players, some were proven false with pictures or video evidence. The investigation didn't even review all of the videos because the law enforcement authorities confiscated it through forensics after players deleted it. Fact is they lied and they knew what they were doing wasn't right.
I struggle with this concept of being held to a higher standard. Pleeeeeze! Are they saying 20 average Joes doing this would not result in disiplinary action? The University is OK with these predators roaming campus as long as they aren't football players.
I realize people aren't Saints, but anyone with any type of moral compass knows this is despicable behavior. To claim the woman isn't Mother Teresa might be accurate, but it doesn't excuse the actions.
Claeys and his program come out looking like a clown show. Preparing young men for the next 40 years may be a corny slogan, but there is no doubt how Fitz would have reacted if this happened at NU even if it meant we temporarily dropped to the cellar of the pecking order in B1G football.
I met Fitz once, I don't really know him, but I think he would go ballistic. The good thing for me is I think the University would support him in going ballistic. Starting the program over from scratch would take maybe three or four years but you would have a good foundation.
Venric Mark (a returning All-American and top notch individual) was subject to student board ethics discipline for something which was not disclosed but was clearly much, much, much less egregious than anything being discussed here. This discipline was not publicly opposed by the coaching staff or team.
To me, that sums up where our school, coaches, and team stand on student ethics.
Revisiting this a little. Although I have still found no direct statement about this from the President-Elect, I have found a reference in an article on the matter to a hope that P-E Trump would "roll back some of the worst abuses of the Education Department's Office of Civil Rights." This quote was in direct reference to colleges' handling of rape cases.
So, while I still hate the phrase "people have said..." at least I have found a couple of these people. Self-correction.
If you read the 80-page report, you'd be horrified by the player's actions. If the victim hadn't been driven into a state of shock and overwhelmed by the abuse and violence she endured, she probably could have identified over 20 football players who all raped her. And this doesn't include those who stood by and watched without doing anything.
The evidence in this case doesn't need to stand up in court. It just needs to prove violation of school rules for which the rapists can be expelled. From my reading of the report, it clearly meets those standards.
The whole thing is despicable and shouldn't ever be tolerated or diminished. These rapists - who happen to be football players - deserve a much harsher penalty beyond expulsion.
If you note, my original posting which you quoted was before the report was even released and we had no basis to know "whether the original accusations have merit." The initial point remains valid though that when the legal rules of evidence are bypassed by a political entity with an agenda of its own that there is the potential for injustice. Note, not all of those suspended were in fact participants in the conduct reported in the report. The now agreed to further review may well exonerate some individuals.
Now we are into the political part. You are concerned about the rules of evidence when the University of Minnesota enforces its code of conduct. However, when you make the statement that the university organization which made the ruling is "a political entity with an agenda of its own" that is completely acceptable.
While I understand that technically any organization under state government could be called a political entity and even an agenda of finding the facts and expensing appropriate justice would be an agenda of its own. However, both of those phrases carry heavy political connotations and indicate a level of judgement towards them on your part.
Unless, of course, you are an incredibly literal person like me in which case you may have carefully selected those words with completely neutral intent.
Hope this is not being too repetitive. My focus is simply on the potential for injustice. Quite frankly in this particular situation from what we all surmise it is difficult to say there was any injustice with regard to the suspensions that were handed out. It may well be that the legal system did not do its job in this particular situation as some are now implying.
I don't hear anyone on this board defending the actions of the players at the party but they are still entitled to their day in a proceeding that follows recognized rules of admissible evidence - something that has the potential to be brushed aside in a "politcal" as distinguished from a "legal" forum. Maybe only one of the ten is truly "innocent" but it is easy to see how that individual's life can be unjustly impacted adversely by an erroneous determination when standards that are required to be adhered to in a court of law are not adhered to in a "political" court.
(Note that one of the concessions that the University did make was to agree that in the further agreed to reviews there would be more "diverse" representation on the part of those reviewing. In a court of law there would have already been safeguards in place to allow for a "jury of one's peers" resulting in such diversity.)
Last edited:
Again, criminal investigations/proceedings are not the same as Title IX investigations/proceedings. The burden of proof is different (preponderance of evidence vs reasonable doubt) and that's just the start.
Your thoughts on this appear similar to the Deadspin article. Both appear to feel that the legal system operating properly and the university system operating properly are tied together. I disagree with that. The differences are significant:
1. Totally different burden of proof as discussed.
2. Different standards (code of conduct versus law).
So, it is completely possible that both the police and the university did their jobs properly. The police looked at the available evidence and determined there was insufficient evidence to go to trial and prove rape beyond a reasonable doubt. The university looked at the available evidence and determined that the preponderance of evidence indicated a violation of the university's code of student conduct.
I am with the lawyers to whom I linked on the other thread. If you really want to debate the due process issue, this is not the case you want to use. Your best argument is going to be that there were a couple of players that did not complete the sex act with her but knew what was going on and made no effort to intervene because they assumed she was good with it. If you read enough of the report, there is not a single player on the list that did not admit that he knew there was a women alone in a football player's bedroom having sex with multiple partners in series and in tandem. In the best case, these are your "innocents."
I wondered if my post might get deleted. I don't think it has ever happened before. I feel sort of all grown up now.
Not until you get your first timeout.
I was on the Husker Board and they posted that the recruit that was involved had offers from Minnesota, Illinois, Nebraska, Indiana, and ISU. All but Indiana withdrew their offers so he jumped on Indiana. I have no confirmation of this - just parroting an interesting thread from them.
Attached are two announcements concerning a Florida CB accepting an IU offer. Both announcements mention that he made a recruiting visit to Minnesota on September 2 and say nothing else. Since the recruit in question at Minnesota was never named, it is not verified that this is the same person.
http://www.hoosiersportsreport.com/2016/12/3-star-cb-hafiz-commits-to-iu/
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/3-star...4cmNpBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwM5BHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzcg--
Last edited:
Later in the comment some were suggesting that IU wasn't accepting his commitment. Don't know if those comments were based on anything solid but it got me thinking about the pressure this HS student may have felt to participate in something he had not anticipated. You would have to know him and hear his side but he may have felt cornered too.
Remember watching a young kid dump his beer when he thought no one was looking and pretend to nurse the empty can once at a picnic. This incident is bigger but so would the pressure have been. This recruit's future may be ruined by Minnesota's lacks of supervision. He should get a lawyer.
Remember watching a young kid dump his beer when he thought no one was looking and pretend to nurse the empty can once at a picnic. This incident is bigger but so would the pressure have been. This recruit's future may be ruined by Minnesota's lacks of supervision. He should get a lawyer.
I have seen that written all of over a couple of message boards (UNL and ISU) but seen nothing official on it.
If it is the same young man, he had 11 Power 5 offers before this came out. Possibly all that of them pulled.
On the flip side, what has been his reaction to his involvement to date? Remorse? Contrition? I have seen none. He has some group called "The Baker Agency" referring to him as their client. He is not helping himself at all.
All of this assumes that this is the same person. This has never been verified.
If the report is true, he was gleefully participating and left her like trash at the side of the road for someone else to pick up. Hope Skowronek catches 3 TD's on him.
There's a petition now from MoveOn to fire Claeys as the head coach, citing similar concerns. At least not all Gopher fans are choosing to ignore his idiotic support of the players, as Rittenberg reports: http://www.espn.com/college-footbal...aeys-fired-response-minnesota-players-boycott
Should I feel guilty for wanting Fitz to take advantage of this chaos and go poach Blaise Andries? (Not that he would. Andries would have to decommit first)
