Minnesota football players suspended due to sex crime

[bjf1991]

Yea, I see what you're saying - I think they'd be walking a fine line if they started legislating sexual morality, but if any part of the players' original stories as told to the Athletic Department and Claeys in early September have proven to be deceitful (especially given that a "recruit" making an official recruiting visit was apparently involved - assume that makes it Official University business and an obligation under their scholarships's code of conduct provisions), I think they would be hard pressed to defend their actions.

Good grief, Charlie Brown

 

[sluggo72]

Again, a "recruit" being present and the recruit being taken there by these players is almost certainly "fatal" relative to these players defending their actions, no?

I'd still like to know the age of the recruit

 

[Marylovesthelions]

Academia has a terrible record in regards to sexual accusations, hold your opinion for the facts. In most cases schools trample the rights of the accused. Some people learned nothing from Duke and other fiascos.

 

[crazytoadie]

Yes, but they generally apply a civil standard of proof. Sounds like some of the players are caught up in claims that they lied to the University investigators, and the videos or other proof caught them up. It ain he said she said if a video makes a liar out of you.

I'd suggest you read the police report released before you make a fool of yourself.

If anything the video saved the players as it was her story about intoxication and non-consent that the detectives didn't believe. The police describe the video as the alleged victim "sounds as if she is somewhat intoxicated, but is not slurring her words and is certainly conscious and aware of what is going on. She does not appear to be upset by the sexual activity and does not indicate that she wants it to stop. (Victim redacted) coordination appears to be normal, and the sexual contact appears entirely consensual." Elsewhere in the report it mentions that the video provided show her "engaged in what could only be considered consensual sexual interaction".

That video saved that player and the recruit from charges. Pretty hard to bring charges with statements like that in the detectives report and video evidence that doesn't corroborate her story. With a description like that by the detectives investigating criminal charges why would the university come to a different conclusion. The university might be pissed that they filmed the sex or shared the video or referred more guys to her, but if it wasn't for that evidence the situation would be much different given that several of the guys DNA was found on and inside her.

It doesn't take much reading of the University report to see where they are headed and the exemplary logic they use. This is a direct quote..."Given (victim) report that she cannot identify all of the men who engaged in this sexual misconduct, we included in the group of "accused students" all students about whom there is evidence that they were present in apartment # during the relevant time period." In other words, prove you didn't do it because we cannot prove you did do it. They have no problems suspending these guys to damage their reputation or future and what recourse do those players have to clear themselves? None, because the University just said it doesn't give a crap because they are going to assume you did what she claims you did as long as you were at that room. And if that's the case then more guys are going to take a video to keep for proof that they weren't raping a girl because otherwise they got no chance if it is just verbal recollections of a drunk person.

 

[Peetz Pool Boy]

I'd still like to know the age of the recruit

Which begs the question for any of this board's attorneys.

Can a female, who might or might not have been under the influence of alcohol, be reasonably expected to know that they were having sexual relations with a minor?

Me thinks that the "recruit" has bigger problems, especially if Minny grants him a scholarship.

 

[demlion]

And that very concept is really at the heart of this. Players and now coaches and even admin calling for due process.... just what JVP advocated for and Triponi was against. and that meant JVP ran the whole state to the simple-minded.

Someone should interview her about her take on this, or Emmert's, and reference what they said about this wrt PSU. Would open the eyes of anyone paying attention. This issue at Minn. drives home the need for something more compliant legally than what the campus processes are where they seemingly often assume guilt first.

Given the difference in standards, civil in the school based ones vs. criminal with the cops, applied to the very same set of facts, somebody ought to explain this to players.

I keep hearing about constitutional rights and lifetime reputations as a sexual predator. Whether your reputation or your liberty is at stake, you are entitled to notice and a hearing before having either one restricted by state action.

Liberty is much more important, though. Generally it can't be taken away for a long time without a trial under the reasonable doubt standard.

Your reputation can always be permanently damaged by the civil standard of a preponderance. " More likely than not."

Of course your rep can be wrecked pretty bad by stuff that is not even a crime--cheating on your wife with hookers in Reno,gambling your family's livelihood away in AC,etc.

Ordinary folks routinely make judgments about this stuff regarding others based on nothing more than an accusation by someone they trust, or someone in a position of authority. None of us requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt to take our business elsewhere if we hear our bank may be insolvent, or our accountant a thief.

If a guy is accused of drugging women and date raping them, I ain't waiting for a trial to decide how I feel about him dating my daughter.

In a similar way. I will look askance at any person who concedes that he and several of his buddies had sex with a drunk girl, one after another, at a friend's apartment, even without proof it was rape. I can lower my opinion of his reputation without his being afforded due process first. I likely will.

Just saying that your due process rights to remain free are strong while your due process right to a sterling rep is MUCH weaker, and it is a mistake to conflate the two.

 

[demlion]

I'd suggest you read the police report released.

The police describe the video as the alleged victim "sounds as if she is somewhat intoxicated, but is not slurring her words and is certainly conscious and aware of what is going on. She does not appear to be upset by the sexual activity and does not indicate that she wants it to stop. (Victim redacted) coordination appears to be normal, and the sexual contact appears entirely consensual." Elsewhere in the report it mentions that the video provided show her "engaged in what could only be considered consensual

I am specifically saying that we do not know all we need to know about this . Could be it was consensual. Okay, don't put them in jail. That is different from saying, "let's make these guys the representatives of our University on National TV."

 

[demlion]

Again, a "recruit" being present and the recruit being taken there by these players is almost certainly "fatal" relative to these players defending their actions, no?

I don't know if it's fatal, but it is a pretty difficult fact under a civil standard.

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

I am specifically saying that we do not know all we need to know about this . Could be it was consensual. Okay, don't put them in jail. That is different from saying, "let's make these guys the representatives of our University on National TV."

The fact that a recruit was involved, and the players were responsible for his involvement, cannot be good for scholarship players either....

 

[demlion]

The fact that a recruit was involved, and the players were responsible for his involvement, cannot be good for scholarship players either....

Put another way, "but it was consensual!" Is a good criminal defense, but not something you'd put on your resume`.

 

[UncleLar]

Is there conduct, not criminal on its face, not criminal at all, for which players can be suspended? Sure is. Try skipping class at PSU.

So, the fact that no charges were brought is not determinative. OTOH, they sure have managed to destroy the rep of a lot of publicly-named players who did nothing criminal so far as we can tell, and the idea that they lumped other players in with them who allegedly were not even there is ludicrous.

Pretty funny that they punish the players by missed games, but the U loses the bowl money. Kind of throws a harsh light on the financial aspects.

There's probably zero financial consequence. There's no indication that anybody would lose any money. The way that the bowl system and Big Ten revenue sharing works, schools pretty much break even, and may even lose money, by going to a bowl game.

 

[demlion]

There's probably zero financial consequence. There's no indication that anybody would lose any money. The way that the bowl system and Big Ten revenue sharing works, schools pretty much break even, and may even lose money, by going to a bowl game.

Payout is 2.825 mil. And I hear the replacement team will not be a B1G team.No $ effect? Really?

 

[Bob78]

Given the difference in standards, civil in the school based ones vs. criminal with the cops, applied to the very same set of facts, somebody ought to explain this to players.

I keep hearing about constitutional rights and lifetime reputations as a sexual predator. Whether your reputation or your liberty is at stake, you are entitled to notice and a hearing before having either one restricted by state action.

Liberty is much more important, though. Generally it can't be taken away for a long time without a trial under the reasonable doubt standard.

Your reputation can always be permanently damaged by the civil standard of a preponderance. " More likely than not."

Of course your rep can be wrecked pretty bad by stuff that is not even a crime--cheating on your wife with hookers in Reno,gambling your family's livelihood away in AC,etc.

Ordinary folks routinely make judgments about this stuff regarding others based on nothing more than an accusation by someone they trust, or someone in a position of authority. None of us requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt to take our business elsewhere if we hear our bank may be insolvent, or our accountant a thief.

If a guy is accused of drugging women and date raping them, I ain't waiting for a trial to decide how I feel about him dating my daughter.

In a similar way. I will look askance at any person who concedes that he and several of his buddies had sex with a drunk girl, one after another, at a friend's apartment, even without proof it was rape. I can lower my opinion of his reputation without his being afforded due process first. I likely will.

Just saying that your due process rights to remain free are strong while your due process right to a sterling rep is MUCH weaker, and it is a mistake to conflate the two.

I concede that I do not fully understand all of this from a legal standpoint. I get the civil vs. criminal deal and how the evidence can convict in a civil case and not be enough in a criminal case.

I am following what you are saying and your thoughts as they would apply to what you might do on a personal basis given some information or even hearsay that you're aware of regarding potential safety or financial concerns with yourself or your family. That is reasonable and certainly most people would be thinking the same way, and if someone admits to unethical or generally accepted immoral behavior even without it being criminal, that adds an important piece to be considered and firmly support those personal decisions.

However, short of there being a proven criminal aspect (to at least a >50% degree) involved, I'm not seeing how it is fair to suspend or dismiss a student after a criminal investigation has taken place and no charges were brought. If charges were pending or brought about, then a suspension is certainly reasonable until the issues have been resolved. And if the school does not support a reasonable chance to defend yourself, that's just patently unfair, imo, even with a lower standard of proof.

I'm not saying these players aren't culpable for at least having horrendous judgment, and maybe they aren't the types of people you want being around your team or school. But then you might be called out for any prior or future inconsistencies in punishing questionable behavior. And then the whole definition of questionable behavior is likely to be very murky at best. These players were already suspended and punished to some degree (the severity of which can be debated). But for the suspensions to continue under the current circumstances seems to be withholding reasonable due process in my opinion, and assuming civil guilt.

I'm not trying to argue with you, Dem, because I ain't armed with the background or legal acumen to do so, and I respect your opinions on these matters. And I'm thinking these guys should be gone, too, because they are at least knuckleheads who are likely to be involved in another transgression if they don't learn something important from this one.
I realize that may not be fair to them, because from what I've heard, all sides are admitting that all the facts have not been revealed. And despite me thinking that if everyone would just do things my way, we would all be far better off, I'm realistic enough to know that I could possibly be in the minority in that opinion for reasons never to be understood by me!

Anyway, at the least it is an interesting discussion and I'm trying to learn some things from it. I just want to believe that somehow due process will prevail before any further action is taken against these players.

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

Payout is 2.825 mil. And I hear the replacement team will not be a B1G team.No $ effect? Really?

Each team is also given an "expense allotment" prior to revenue sharing - not sure what that $ amount is (i.e., where the "zero net sum") but I do know that minor bowls typically don't contribute to the "net pot" which is split. Most of the $$$ that the B1G will split will come from the NY6 bowls and NCG if applicable over and above the per team "expense allotment".

 

[marshall23]

I just read the police report and the one from the university. At the minimum, everyone including the young lady, should have, would have, acted differently if they had been thinking of their "good names." The teammates may have thought that the matter was closed after the initial suspensions and the "settlement" statements of November. The announcement of further action by the university seems to have blindsided them when they thought the issue was put to rest. This is why I think that there should have been more communication from the university leadership with the football team leaders.

 

[UncleLar]

Payout is 2.825 mil. And I hear the replacement team will not be a B1G team.No $ effect? Really?

Yes, really, Minnesota would have gotten a $2M+ expense allowance, which they would have likely spent. So the conference would have pulled in maybe $700,000. But a good portion of that goes toward ticket guarantees (in the past, the conference has been on the hook for as much as $5M in ticket guarantees). Net result is that we're talking at most a couple of hundred thousand dollars split up 14 ways which is chump change.

 

[bjf1991]

Each team is also given an "expense allotment" prior to revenue sharing - not sure what that $ amount is (i.e., where the "zero net sum") but I do know that minor bowls typically don't contribute to the "net pot" which is split. Most of the $$$ that the B1G will split will come from the NY6 bowls and NCG if applicable over and above the per team "expense allotment".

Yep....


Won't "cost" anyone anything..........only thing along those lines is that the UMinn ICA Folks and University Administration wont get an "expenses paid" junket for a week in Sand Diego (and that may "disappoint" some of the empty suits)

From a bottom line standpoint (which certainly is never the concern of the Administration), UMinn may actually be better off not going (assuming they send the squad home ASAP, and save some of the costs of feeding and maintaining the team up until bowl time)

 

[demlion]

I concede that I do not fully understand all of this from a legal standpoint. I get the civil vs. criminal deal and how the evidence can convict in a civil case and not be enough in a criminal case.

I am following what you are saying and your thoughts as they would apply to what you might do on a personal basis given some information or even hearsay that you're aware of regarding potential safety or financial concerns with yourself or your family. That is reasonable and certainly most people would be thinking the same way, and if someone admits to unethical or generally accepted immoral behavior even without it being criminal, that adds an important piece to be considered and firmly support those personal decisions.

However, short of there being a proven criminal aspect (to at least a >50% degree) involved, I'm not seeing how it is fair to suspend or dismiss a student after a criminal investigation has taken place and no charges were brought. If charges were pending or brought about, then a suspension is certainly reasonable until the issues have been resolved. And if the school does not support a reasonable chance to defend yourself, that's just patently unfair, imo, even with a lower standard of proof.

I'm not saying these players aren't culpable for at least having horrendous judgment, and maybe they aren't the types of people you want being around your team or school. But then you might be called out for any prior or future inconsistencies in punishing questionable behavior. And then the whole definition of questionable behavior is likely to be very murky at best. These players were already suspended and punished to some degree (the severity of which can be debated). But for the suspensions to continue under the current circumstances seems to be withholding reasonable due process in my opinion, and assuming civil guilt.

I'm not trying to argue with you, Dem, because I ain't armed with the background or legal acumen to do so, and I respect your opinions on these matters. And I'm thinking these guys should be gone, too, because they are at least knuckleheads who are likely to be involved in another transgression if they don't learn something important from this one.
I realize that may not be fair to them, because from what I've heard, all sides are admitting that all the facts have not been revealed. And despite me thinking that if everyone would just do things my way, we would all be far better off, I'm realistic enough to know that I could possibly be in the minority in that opinion for reasons never to be understood by me!

Anyway, at the least it is an interesting discussion and I'm trying to learn some things from it. I just want to believe that somehow due process will prevail before any further action is taken against these players.

Fair points. Even my duliscussion of this is way too short to fully explain it. We DO, every day, restrict liberty for US citizens who have not been convicted. Arrested and arraigned and put in jail, sometimes with a bond you can't make, happens every day. The standard? Not even more likely than not: probable cause.

On the other side od what we are discussing is the idea that students facing school discipline do not exactly get what we think of as a trial. I think in some places it is getting better, but not sure that these players will have a right to lawyers or to confront their accusers.

 

[crazytoadie]

I am specifically saying that we do not know all we need to know about this . Could be it was consensual. Okay, don't put them in jail. That is different from saying, "let's make these guys the representatives of our University on National TV."

I'm not saying these players are great guys or that I'd respect them either, but at least be objective that there is the possibility the her version is just as wrong as theirs.

And its fine if they want to suspend them, but then be prepared when you get sued for because you suspended/expelled someone who might have been in the area of a potential crime that might not actually be one. And if that's the case, why even wait to expel them...just assume they are sleaze the moment they are accused and cut them on the spot. Then there wouldn't be this awkwardness of reinstating them and the resuspending them plus some more guys.

 

[demlion]

I'm not saying these players are great guys or that I'd respect them either, but at least be objective that there is the possibility the her version is just as wrong as theirs.

And its fine if they want to suspend them, but then be prepared when you get sued for because you suspended/expelled someone who might have been in the area of a potential crime that might not actually be one. And if that's the case, why even wait to expel them...just assume they are sleaze the moment they are accused and cut them on the spot. Then there wouldn't be this awkwardness of reinstating them and the resuspending them plus some more guys.

You wont get me to defend how the U has handled it.

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

Fair points. Even my duliscussion of this is way too short to fully explain it. We DO, every day, restrict liberty for US citizens who have not been convicted. Arrested and arraigned and put in jail, sometimes with a bond you can't make, happens every day. The standard? Not even more likely than not: probable cause.

On the other side od what we are discussing is the idea that students facing school discipline do not exactly get what we think of as a trial. I think in some places it is getting better, but not sure that these players will have a right to lawyers or to confront their accusers.

Also, the school is not accusing them of criminal behavior - the school is accusing them of violating the terms & conditions of their scholarship including "Standards of Conduct" especially while representing the school....given the presence of a recruit, probably difficult to claim they aren't subject to these standards at the time, no?

 

[MoonOverMyHammy]

Academia has a terrible record in regards to sexual accusations, hold your opinion for the facts. In most cases schools trample the rights of the accused. Some people learned nothing from Duke and other fiascos.

If anything, it's the opposite. Look at Baylor. Plenty of guys get free passes, especially if they are athletes.

Can a female, who might or might not have been under the influence of alcohol, be reasonably expected to know that they were having sexual relations with a minor?

Don't know what the laws are in Minnesota, but it's not a crime in most states to have sex with a minor if you are only a few years over the age of consent yourself - i.e. it would be a crime to have sex with a minor if you're 40, but it wouldn't be a crime for a 17-year-old to have sex with a 19-year-old.

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

Fair points. Even my duliscussion of this is way too short to fully explain it. We DO, every day, restrict liberty for US citizens who have not been convicted. Arrested and arraigned and put in jail, sometimes with a bond you can't make, happens every day. The standard? Not even more likely than not: probable cause.

On the other side od what we are discussing is the idea that students facing school discipline do not exactly get what we think of as a trial. I think in some places it is getting better, but not sure that these players will have a right to lawyers or to confront their accusers.

Also, the school is not accusing them of criminal behavior - the school is accusing them of violating the terms & conditions of their scholarship including "Standards of Conduct" especially while representing the school....given the presence of a recruit, probably difficult to claim they aren't subject to these standards at the time, no?

IOW, the players would probably be in a better position if the recruit were not there and they could claim that all of the parties involved were engaging in complete private behavior that is none of the school's business (especially if it occurred off-campus in non-campus housing - which I'm not sure it did). But in any event, it sure seems like their position would be stronger if a recruit were not present that they were responsible for being present.....a recruit likely engaging in multiple activities including partying that violate team rules and could potentially expose the University to liability from the recruits family.

 

[bjf1991]

Also, the school is not accusing them of criminal behavior - the school is accusing them of violating the terms & conditions of their scholarship including "Standards of Conduct" especially while representing the school....given the presence of a recruit, probably difficult to claim they aren't subject to these standards at the time, no?

Good Grief.


You have THIS, attached to YOUR name - - - FOREVER - - - - and tell me you'd be viewing it as just a "Standards of Conduct" violation :

http://kstp.com/kstpImages/repository/cs/files/U of M EOAA redacted4.pdf

".....The EOAA report states you engaged in sexual misconduct by sexually assaulting and harassing another University of Minnesota student...."

"...Subd. 6. Harm to Person. Harm to person means engaging in conduct that endangers or threatens to endanger the physical and/or mental health, safety, or welfare of another person, including, but not limited to, threatening, stalking, harassing, intimidating, or assaulting behavior..."

"...Subd. 8. Sexual Misconduct. Sexual misconduct means any non-consensual behavior of a sexual nature that is committed by force or intimidation, or that is otherwise unwelcome. Sexual misconduct includes the following behaviors: sexual assault, relationship violence, stalking, and sexual or gender-based harassment....."

Good Freaking Grief, Man

 

[Victor E. Bell]

Glen Mason on BTN defending Minn to the ends of the earth. We had a lot of advocates....right? Not to say anything of the culpability of any of these guys but wow...Why aren't they all taking the same stance our vaunted BOT did? The standard for handling a scandal?

 

[sluggo72]

The fact that a recruit was involved, and the players were responsible for his involvement, cannot be good for scholarship players either....

What about the girls behavior relative to a most likely under age recruit

 

[marshall23]

Glen Mason on BTN defending Minn to the ends of the earth. We had a lot of advocates....right? Not to say anything of the culpability of any of these guys but wow...Why aren't they all taking the same stance our vaunted BOT did? The standard for handling a scandal?

Our Surmas had ulterior motives and economic/business interests as well as close ties to TSM.........The last thing they considered was doing the right thing.

 

[Peetz Pool Boy]

Good Grief.


You have THIS, attached to YOUR name - - - FOREVER - - - - and tell me you'd be viewing it as just a "Standards of Conduct" violation :

http://kstp.com/kstpImages/repository/cs/files/U of M EOAA redacted4.pdf

".....The EOAA report states you engaged in sexual misconduct by sexually assaulting and harassing another University of Minnesota student...."

"...Subd. 6. Harm to Person. Harm to person means engaging in conduct that endangers or threatens to endanger the physical and/or mental health, safety, or welfare of another person, including, but not limited to, threatening, stalking, harassing, intimidating, or assaulting behavior..."

"...Subd. 8. Sexual Misconduct. Sexual misconduct means any non-consensual behavior of a sexual nature that is committed by force or intimidation, or that is otherwise unwelcome. Sexual misconduct includes the following behaviors: sexual assault, relationship violence, stalking, and sexual or gender-based harassment....."

Good Freaking Grief, Man

Barry, Barry, Barry...

I understand your misguided outrage, but you clearly missed the repeated , more damaging, character-killing accusations in the EOAA's report....applicable to more than one individual.....

"we believe it is possible that XX had sexual contact with RS. However, we have insufficient evidence to make a finding on this question."

If there is the equivalent of an Andrew Shubin licensed to practice law in MN, certain individuals have the full entitled right to receive ginormous payouts from the Univ. of Minnesota.

 

[demlion]

Good Grief.


You have THIS, attached to YOUR name - - - FOREVER - - - - and tell me you'd be viewing it as just a "Standards of Conduct" violation :

http://kstp.com/kstpImages/repository/cs/files/U of M EOAA redacted4.pdf

".....The EOAA report states you engaged in sexual misconduct by sexually assaulting and harassing another University of Minnesota student...."

"...Subd. 6. Harm to Person. Harm to person means engaging in conduct that endangers or threatens to endanger the physical and/or mental health, safety, or welfare of another person, including, but not limited to, threatening, stalking, harassing, intimidating, or assaulting behavior..."

"...Subd. 8. Sexual Misconduct. Sexual misconduct means any non-consensual behavior of a sexual nature that is committed by force or intimidation, or that is otherwise unwelcome. Sexual misconduct includes the following behaviors: sexual assault, relationship violence, stalking, and sexual or gender-based harassment....."

Good Freaking Grief, Man

Those ARE the standards of conduct.

 

[Victor E. Bell]

Our Surmas had ulterior motives and economic/business interests as well as close ties to TSM.........The last thing they considered was doing the right thing.

Yeah, my question was rhetorical, as you know. We had people here for five years telling us that PSU was the standard for handling things the way they did. Now Glen Mason is sticking his neck out, but we went beyond that...we had people jumping up and down demanding a culture change as if the paying customer was responsible...we were sold down shizz crick.

 

[21Guns]

Tracy Knew.

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

What about the girls behavior relative to a most likely under age recruit

First of all, we don't know who she did or didn't have sex with, let alone consensual sex, but even if the recruit was potentially one of the parties who engaged in sexual activities, you would have to demonstrate that she had some way of knowing that the recruit was underage.....I would think.

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

If anything, it's the opposite. Look at Baylor. Plenty of guys get free passes, especially if they are athletes.

Don't know what the laws are in Minnesota, but it's not a crime in most states to have sex with a minor if you are only a few years over the age of consent yourself - i.e. it would be a crime to have sex with a minor if you're 40, but it wouldn't be a crime for a 17-year-old to have sex with a 19-year-old.

Actually, I think it depends on "knowledge" as well in most states - for instance, it is absolutely "statutory rape" for a 19 year old to have sex with a 17 year old if the 17 year old tells the 19 year old that they are only 17....or the older party has explicit reason to know the other party is under-age, etc...

 

[crazytoadie]

You wont get me to defend how the U has handled it.

I appreciate you clarifying that because that's not the stance I thought you were taking.

I sense the players frustration is not just because some guys were suspended, but that new guys that hadn't been investigated were now implicated in guilt by association and because the AD tried to pass it off as Claeys' decision when in reality it was just a cover because the AD wants to give the impression that he was in the drivers seat.

 

[demlion]

I appreciate you clarifying that because that's not the stance I thought you were taking.

I sense the players frustration is not just because some guys were suspended, but that new guys that hadn't been investigated were now implicated in guilt by association and because the AD tried to pass it off as Claeys' decision when in reality it was just a cover because the AD wants to give the impression that he was in the drivers seat.

The comparison between the AD and our BOT is not lost on me. And there is definitely a problem with suspending, then reinstating, then suspending again.

 

[Victor E. Bell]

Claeys is in a completely untenable position. I don't envy that guy one bit.

 

[sluggo72]

Claeys is in a completely untenable position. I don't envy that guy one bit.

I think I'd ask for a contract extension fight now. Right or wrong he will have. Hard time coming out of this with his job

 

[sluggo72]

Actually, I think it depends on "knowledge" as well in most states - for instance, it is absolutely "statutory rape" for a 19 year old to have sex with a 17 year old if the 17 year old tells the 19 year old that they are only 17....or the older party has explicit reason to know the other party is under-age, etc...

First of all, we don't know who she did or didn't have sex with, let alone consensual sex, but even if the recruit was potentially one of the parties who engaged in sexual activities, you would have to demonstrate that she had some way of knowing that the recruit was underage.....I would think.

its pretty clear from the university report that she has sex w the recruit. It's also clear she knew he was a hs kid and did it anyway. The university report also states she was not drunk I think she is the one who should be investigated

 

[Ten Thousan Marbles]

Looks like Minny might cancel bowl trip today.

 

[BobPSU92]

This is currently the lead story on the cnn.com home page. There is a large picture of Minnesota players with the headline, "Not just skipping practice".

Here is a link to the article:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/16/us/minnesota-gophers-football-boycott/index.html