ADVERTISEMENT

J Rob Terminated

  • Like
Reactions: JimNazium and SRATH
Here is his termination letter:


It's kinda hard to read in this format. Most is not really news. The biggest newsworthy piece of it: he was fired for cause, meaning that the university will not compensate him at all for any remaining portion of his contract.

The Strib article indicates buyout negotiations broke down.
http://www.startribune.com/j-robins...-after-30-years-as-wrestling-coach/392637101/

If that's true, and then the university fired him for cause ... I suspect we'll hear a lot more of his attorney.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NYWRESTLER94
Coyle apparently didn't think to have a courier deliver a phone number to Robinson's house ...


What, couldn't reach him thru his attorney?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sullivan
I should also amend to my post above: OF COURSE Robinson's voicemail was full. The University suspended him and then expected him to keep his voicemail cleaned out? Weak.
 
El-Jefe said:
Here is his termination letter:
View embedded media


It's kinda hard to read in this format. Most is not really news. The biggest newsworthy piece of it: he was fired for cause, meaning that the university will not compensate him at all for any remaining portion of his contract.

The Strib article indicates buyout negotiations broke down.
http://www.startribune.com/j-robins...-after-30-years-as-wrestling-coach/392637101/

If that's true, and then the university fired him for cause ... I suspect we'll hear a lot more of his attorney.
Click to expand...
We'll definitely hear more from his attorney (he was pretty willing to try this in the press a few months back), but in case you're implying here (I think you may be but I'm not sure) that the university's willingness to negotiate a buyout is evidence of its belief that it didn't/doesn't have cause to terminate "for cause," that's not the case. Negotiations occur "without prejudice," meaning that any admission or concession made in the course of negotiations can't later be leveraged at trial. Otherwise negotiations wouldn't happen, and the courts love settlements.
 
agreed J stands a fighting chance at suing. However, doesnt that run the risk that the kids he is covering for then become outed?

If your on that team today, what is your next move?

Sh!tty day, but this could be just the midway point. I know we already know who they are based on the socials from the police report, but its not the same as taking the stand or being deposed.
 
tikk10 said:
We'll definitely hear more from his attorney (he was pretty willing to try this in the press a few months back), but in case you're implying here (I think you may be but I'm not sure) that the university's willingness to negotiate a buyout is evidence of its belief that it didn't/doesn't have cause to terminate "for cause," that's not the case. Negotiations occur "without prejudice," meaning that any admission or concession made in the course of negotiations can't later be leveraged at trial. Otherwise negotiations wouldn't happen, and the courts love settlements.
Click to expand...
Actually, what I was implying was that the university probably did at most a token negotiation before bringing down the hammer. The kind of thing you do if your goal isn't a settlement, but rather a PR victory later -- hey, look, we tried to talk but that old stubborn SOB ...

Which is a fraud (not legal term), because everybody knows J Rob is an old stubborn SOB, so anybody thought he would fold up like a cheap accordion? Cut me a break.

You're right, the university was under no obligation to negotiate with him. But, once you open that door, legally you can close it at any time, but doing so in bad faith ... maybe not the best of moves, something his attorney will likely try to exploit.

Whole bunch of supposition in there, but they did fire him by text/email because he didn't clean out his voicemail, and that indicates the AD either didn't try at all or deliberately stiff-armed him.
 
dunkej01 said:
agreed J stands a fighting chance at suing. However, doesnt that run the risk that the kids he is covering for then become outed?

If your on that team today, what is your next move?

Sh!tty day, but this could be just the midway point. I know we already know who they are based on the socials from the police report, but its not the same as taking the stand or being deposed.
Click to expand...
One of many things I found bizarre was that they today also named Eggum "interim head coach." A promotion from "acting head coach"!

But seriously .... that's just a weird way to do it. If they intend to hire him and just have to negotiate the contract, they could've just said nothing at all. As is, it sounds like they're going to let him dangle for a year and then hire whomever.

I don't know what decision I would make if I were a Goofer wrestler. But, if I wanted out or were even just on the fence, I'd start putting out feelers NOW -- if I haven't already. Decent scholarship offers elsewhere might be had now, that might evaporate after NLI Day in November.
 
Who is going to commit not knowing who the coach is? Oklahoma had to bite the bullet and do it late...Minne should too just for 2018 alone.
 
Azchief32 said:
Who is going to commit not knowing who the coach is? Oklahoma had to bite the bullet and do it late...Minne should too just for 2018 alone.
Click to expand...
Coincidentally or otherwise, exactly zero 2017 wrestlers have committed to Minnesota so far.
 
El-Jefe said:
Actually, what I was implying was that the university probably did at most a token negotiation before bringing down the hammer. The kind of thing you do if your goal isn't a settlement, but rather a PR victory later -- hey, look, we tried to talk but that old stubborn SOB ...

Which is a fraud (not legal term), because everybody knows J Rob is an old stubborn SOB, so anybody thought he would fold up like a cheap accordion? Cut me a break.

You're right, the university was under no obligation to negotiate with him. But, once you open that door, legally you can close it at any time, but doing so in bad faith ... maybe not the best of moves, something his attorney will likely try to exploit.

Whole bunch of supposition in there, but they did fire him by text/email because he didn't clean out his voicemail, and that indicates the AD either didn't try at all or deliberately stiff-armed him.
Click to expand...
It's tough to know what the university's intent was without knowing their bargaining position, which would necessitate knowing (a) a lot more facts, as the handful we have paint an incomplete picture; and (b) the terms/numbers that were put forward by both sides.

Without digging through old posts, I recall nothing to alter my sense at the time this all went down that J Rob's lawyer offered up a number of statements that answered only half the open questions and ignored J Rob's and the school's liability on the drug selling issue, which would have been of far greater legal import than the student's drug possession or drug intake issue. Indeed, drug selling is bullet point one on the university's termination letter. None of the back and forth on the drug testing, which comprises the bulk of the public dispute, disposes of the drug selling elephant in the room. And to preempt someone's having to raise this in response, the fact that prosecutors declined to pursue isn't relevant to the underlying question of whether he did the right thing.

I'm personally on the fence as to whether he did the right thing. I can see the university's side that J Rob exposed it to liability and was selective about which facts he offered it. And I can see his side in wanting to protect his wrestlers; our drug laws are overly punitive. But in doing so he took a risk that was doomed to fail once anyone went public. The wrestlers involved should probably thank him one day because it's likely he did succeed in protecting his wrestlers from further damage, given the unknowns of immediately exposing all the known facts to the school and/or investigators.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jtothemfp
tikk10 said:
It's tough to know what the university's intent was without knowing their bargaining position, which would necessitate knowing (a) a lot more facts, as the handful we have paint an incomplete picture; and (b) the terms/numbers that were put forward by both sides.

Without digging through old posts, I recall nothing to alter my sense at the time this all went down that J Rob's lawyer offered up a number of statements that answered only half the open questions and ignored J Rob's and the school's liability on the drug selling issue, which would have been of far greater legal import than the student's drug possession or drug intake issue. Indeed, drug selling is bullet point one on the university's termination letter. None of the back and forth on the drug testing, which comprises the bulk of the public dispute, disposes of the drug selling elephant in the room. And to preempt someone's having to raise this in response, the fact that prosecutors declined to pursue isn't relevant to the underlying question of whether he did the right thing.

I'm personally on the fence as to whether he did the right thing. I can see the university's side that J Rob exposed it to liability and was selective about which facts he offered it. And I can see his side in wanting to protect his wrestlers; our drug laws are overly punitive. But in doing so he took a risk that was doomed to fail once anyone went public. The wrestlers involved should probably thank him one day because it's likely he did succeed in protecting his wrestlers from further damage, given the unknowns of immediately exposing all the known facts to the school and/or investigators.
Click to expand...
I agree with all of this except for relevancy of the highlighted portion.

IIRC -- and bear with me going off memory, because I'll have to bleach my eyes if I look up that timeline again: the "amnesty" was a university rehab-type program whose administrator Robinson consulted with the full knowledge of the then-AD. The wrestlers who enrolled would be known by the university -- but subject to confidentiality rules. If the current AD tried to end-run around those confidentiality rules by squeezing Robinson, then it seems Robinson was right to stand his ground.

Agreed that drug trafficking is the bigger issue. Also lacking info about what Robinson told whom at the time, and what those people did and told him to do. The kind of stuff we're unlikely to find out without a trial.

If he tried to handle a criminal case on his own, yeah, we don't want coaches doing that. If he consulted the university experts, did what they said (or what he reasonable understood they told him to do), and got hung out to dry for it ... well, he wouldn't be the first and won't be the last.
 
Pat McKee class of 2018 recently committed. Others from 2017 and 2018 waiting for clarity on the situation, but still seriously considering MN. Obvious challenges for MN recruiting.
 
El-Jefe said:
I agree with all of this except for relevancy of the highlighted portion.

IIRC -- and bear with me going off memory, because I'll have to bleach my eyes if I look up that timeline again: the "amnesty" was a university rehab-type program whose administrator Robinson consulted with the full knowledge of the then-AD. The wrestlers who enrolled would be known by the university -- but subject to confidentiality rules. If the current AD tried to end-run around those confidentiality rules by squeezing Robinson, then it seems Robinson was right to stand his ground.

Agreed that drug trafficking is the bigger issue. Also lacking info about what Robinson told whom at the time, and what those people did and told him to do. The kind of stuff we're unlikely to find out without a trial.

If he tried to handle a criminal case on his own, yeah, we don't want coaches doing that. If he consulted the university experts, did what they said (or what he reasonable understood they told him to do), and got hung out to dry for it ... well, he wouldn't be the first and won't be the last.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I can't really muster an argument in defense, as it's certainly not anything I'd ever advise a client to do. Another counter to that argument is that by coddling and cloistering the wrestlers you're not really helping them so much as kicking the can down the road. There was a serious problem here and his actions minimized it. I still have sympathy for what I'm choosing to infer were his intentions, but it's pretty clear he made a number of miscalculations and mistakes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jtothemfp and Azchief32
dunkej01 said:
J response
http://www.flowrestling.org/article/45988-j-robinson-s-letter-to-university-of-minnesota

Am I missing something....I read this like the issue is a couple of kids with drug problems. But the issue for the university is different from that of the team/J, in that there was drug dealing. Am I wrong?
Click to expand...
Both, for different reasons. No doubt drug dealing is the bigger liability issue.

University was probably also focused on usage due to scope and image. Report said 8-14 wrestlers were users. Maybe could ignore 2-3 wrestlers as users, but not 25-40% of the roster.

Especially not with all the embarrassing Goofer Athletics scandals in the past 2 years: football players charged with sexual assault; 3 basketball players suspended on Senior Night for filming a sex tape; the previous AD quitting one step ahead of the posse for being a serial groper.

So Robinson had to know that the new AD, hired externally, was brought in to clean up and would look to make an example out of someone. The initial stuff happened under the acting AD -- but the ethics complaint and university investigation were under the new guy.

Robinson's letter being all usage, no selling was curious. He had to know selling > using. Makes me wonder if omitting drug dealing was deliberate, to avoid potential future criminal charges.

Who knows. I'm about ready to stick a fork in my eye.
 
They are saying he did not follow university policy and that he tried to handle the situation on his own. I know one university where if you did the complete opposite (follow university policy and not get involved) it gets you fired. In fact you are told that you violated your moral responsibility.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jtothemfp, chrisrn1965 and NittanyLion84
Diego Badman said:
They are saying he did not follow university policy and that he tried to handle the situation on his own. I know one university where if you did the complete opposite (follow university policy and not get involved) it gets you fired. In fact you are told that you violated your moral responsibility.
Click to expand...

First thing I thought of when I read this. So what is a coach to do? Joe is castigated for not doing enough on his own, and J is terminated for trying to take action himself to clean this up. The common link is that very few know exactly what took place, but many talk as if they know it all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NittanyLion84 and NYWRESTLER94
fortheglory94 said:
First thing I thought of when I read this. So what is a coach to do? Joe is castigated for not doing enough on his own, and J is terminated for trying to take action himself to clean this up. The common link is that very few know exactly what took place, but many talk as if they know it all.
Click to expand...

One could take from these situations that if "they" want you gone, that "they" will find a way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NittanyLion84, royboy and hlstone
nyc10007 said:
Seems like he fell on his own sword to protect his athletes. If so, a principled man.
Click to expand...

I take away a slightly different point of view - I really don't believe J actually knew anything about what was going on based on first hand observation (i.e., whatever suspicions he had was all based on second hand info reported to him by the "source") until he offered amnesty to those who admitted their involvement - and from that point on all of the info he had came at the price of his own promise. I don't believe he is withholding the info he obtained to "protect" anyone, I believe he is protecting his own honor by living up to his promise. Subtle distinction - but significant, IMO. (I think anyone reading this who is Catholic - and has gone to Confession - understands the significance of this)

Interesting, too, that in his own letter of response, J seems to indicate he understood that his promise of "amnesty" was not, in his view, binding on the administration (i.e., did not guarantee the culprits legal immunity); rather, it was on the information that he obtained confidentially that he alone was responsible for honoring his pledge.

Ironic, I think, that if J had simply reported the allegations to his superiors (in which case they would have known nothing further than what they now know), and then did nothing, he may have been better off.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: jtothemfp, CholleyVandine, dunkej01 and 2 others
nyc10007 said:
Seems like he fell on his own sword to protect his athletes. If so, a principled man. By the same token -- and ironically -- a liability to the University. I can see both sides.
Click to expand...

The problem lies probably in whether he handled or disposed of any of the drugs. If he didn't then asking them to notify their parents of the problem and write an essay was probably the bare minimum to ask so perhaps it creates an optics problem of leniency. However, if he had any involvement with receiving/destroying the drugs then he sealed his own fate even if he did every thing else by the book. That is liability that would be difficult to overcome with the best of relationships with an AD, and it doesn't sound like the new AD was too invested in him.
 
redblades said:
I take away a slightly different point of view - I really don't believe J actually knew anything about what was going on based on first hand observation (i.e., whatever suspicions he had was all based on second hand info reported to him by the "source") until he offered amnesty to those who admitted their involvement - and from that point on all of the info he had came at the price of his own promise. I don't believe he is withholding the info he obtained to "protect" anyone, I believe he is protecting his own honor by living up to his promise. Subtle distinction - but significant, IMO. (I think anyone reading this who is Catholic - and has gone to Confession - understands the significance of this)

Interesting, too, that in his own letter of response, J seems to indicate he understood that his promise of "amnesty" was not, in his view, binding on the administration (i.e., did not guarantee the culprits legal immunity); rather, it was on the information that he obtained confidentially that he alone was responsible for honoring his pledge.

Ironic, I think, that if J had simply reported the allegations to his superiors (in which case they would have known nothing further than what they now know), and then did nothing, he may have been better off.
Click to expand...

Once he has info that he doesn't share with the university then he impedes their ability to impose any discipline as they don't get the full story from their employee. If that is his position then he served himself up on a platter for dismissal with cause. I'm not certain that is his position as he seems to suggest that he told the university but they either slow played the testing or tested for the wrong drug panel and then when it became public, wanted to scapegoat him to cover their error.
 
J. handled this wrong in my opinion. He when he learned about it should have turned in the seller or sellers and had the usuers take the program available. To me the selling of these pills is the biggest deal and now they will go free. I know personally a friend who was asked to buy them and told them no way her family runs a drug store so she knew what could happen.
 
There are people on the MN forum that would legitimately spin anything negative about JRob into someone else's fault.

Hypothetical Headline: U of M Wrestling Coach Shoots Innocent Bystander

Comments from The G posters: "Well, shouldn't the gun really be at fault, here? It didn't stop J from shooting it. The safety wasn't automatic."
"J was in the Army Rangers and has always been a man of his word. He promotes wrestling. He doesn't deserve this headline because of what he did for our fringe sport that only wrestling fans give a #*$& about."
"They can't fire him over this! Why was the bystander there? Who says he was innocent? I blame the media. They have it out for J."
"The University has been waiting for this chance to can J because he speaks his mind."


I love the G, but J broke rules. When you break rules, there are consequences. I don't have any ill will about him getting canned, although I'm no sure that is what I would have done, in Coyle's place. But the blatant spinning and blaming in every direction is just nauseating. I had to vent, and I know that there are G posters on here, but at least I'm being considerate enough to not purposely post this stuff on there to rile everyone up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LHavenlion and Pennstate1985
CropDuster507 said:
There are people on the MN forum that would legitimately spin anything negative about JRob into someone else's fault.

Hypothetical Headline: U of M Wrestling Coach Shoots Innocent Bystander

Comments from The G posters: "Well, shouldn't the gun really be at fault, here? It didn't stop J from shooting it. The safety wasn't automatic."
"J was in the Army Rangers and has always been a man of his word. He promotes wrestling. He doesn't deserve this headline because of what he did for our fringe sport that only wrestling fans give a #*$& about."
"They can't fire him over this! Why was the bystander there? Who says he was innocent? I blame the media. They have it out for J."
"The University has been waiting for this chance to can J because he speaks his mind."


I love the G, but J broke rules. When you break rules, there are consequences. I don't have any ill will about him getting canned, although I'm no sure that is what I would have done, in Coyle's place. But the blatant spinning and blaming in every direction is just nauseating. I had to vent, and I know that there are G posters on here, but at least I'm being considerate enough to not purposely post this stuff on there to rile everyone up.
Click to expand...

Your a good dude from an Internet perspective since we never met. The internet is full of those who arent.

Of the dipsh!ts on line that I have an offline or personal relationship with, their isn't exactly a squaring of things. If u know what I mean.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M

FBI Is Still Hiding Details of Russiagate, Newly Released Document Shows

Replies
10
Views
499
Current Events Board
DJ Spanky
DJ Spanky
S

Elite 8 Duals in Atlanta, Georgia.

Replies
66
Views
9K
The Wrestling Room
wrestlingfan22
W
M

Trump might win this election. What does that say about the Democratic Party?

Replies
0
Views
578
Current Events Board
m.knox
M
M

Why Wasn’t He in Jail?

Replies
5
Views
336
Current Events Board
LionDeNittany
LionDeNittany
M

Harris Has Stalled, They Feel They Have To Change Something

Replies
12
Views
351
Current Events Board
interrobang
I
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back