I don't believe that necessarily means what you think it means. Having both alleged dealers on the team and then not prosecuting them is not a mutually exclusive proposition. It could simply be that they can't prosecute without the pills in hand, and if they were indeed thrown away, what could they possibly bring a charge on?
Minnesota wrestlers under investigation for distributing Xanax
- Thread starter Pennstate1985
- Start date
It's one thing for the cops not to prosecute; it's a whole nother issue keeping a kid on scholarship if it got out he or they were dealing. A scholarship is a privelege, not an entitlement.
agree. Let's see what happens next. It would be perplexing to me if JRob was fired and no member of the team was kicked off. I am fine with how he handled the drug use. Firing him without any other action would smell of the university trying to find a way to get rid of JRob, and this whole story allowed them to do it. If however a couple guys go missing from the team, then to me it's more likely the drug selling story was probably true and J tried to brush it under the rug. We shall see.
Yes, Penn State, and every other public University, is required to investigate every anonymous allegation that comes in on the EthicsPoint line.
Why are you still posting on this topic?
This topic is about MInnesota, not Nebraska. You're a Nebraska fan.
I posted this elsewhere:
I have always respected J Rob as a coach, but have not liked some of his anti-PSU rhetoric. That said, I'm really sad about this. I don't understand everything about it, but it appears more complicated than what early media would have seemed to indicate. Having seen what happened here at PSU with JoPa, my heart goes out to J Rob and his family. May the true facts come out and may the university have the courage to do what's right according to the facts and not just according to public impressions!
I have always respected J Rob as a coach, but have not liked some of his anti-PSU rhetoric. That said, I'm really sad about this. I don't understand everything about it, but it appears more complicated than what early media would have seemed to indicate. Having seen what happened here at PSU with JoPa, my heart goes out to J Rob and his family. May the true facts come out and may the university have the courage to do what's right according to the facts and not just according to public impressions!
Here we are a month and a day later, and what more do we know? The original story had a couple holes, at least in my eyes.
Not sure the public will ever know all the facts, and some damage is already done, my opinion.
Perfect week for the university to slip in a firing under the national radar. They could do something later in the week, and by the time everybody gets back from the long holiday weekend, it'll be old history for most.
No, but I am a student of politics over the years. LolYou tricky guy!!! Did you spend some time in government as a politican?Lol!!
Am I reading the story and timeline correctly?
JRob's lawyer admits that his client knew about the drug problem for 4-6 weeks prior to the end of the season, but chose not to address it with the team until two days after the season ended. He then goes on two weeks vacation and FINALLY informs his boss about the scope of the problem upon his return, which was one day before the police started their own investigation based on a tip.
So JRob knew of the scope of the issue for two months before letting the university know, and only gave them one day notice before the poop hit the fan? And he wonders why the university is upset. The story also paints JRob as self serving he and his program more than helping his kids. If he was more interested in helping the kids, he would have addressed the issue immediately rather than wait until the season ended. That's the very definition of self serving.
JRob's lawyer admits that his client knew about the drug problem for 4-6 weeks prior to the end of the season, but chose not to address it with the team until two days after the season ended. He then goes on two weeks vacation and FINALLY informs his boss about the scope of the problem upon his return, which was one day before the police started their own investigation based on a tip.
So JRob knew of the scope of the issue for two months before letting the university know, and only gave them one day notice before the poop hit the fan? And he wonders why the university is upset. The story also paints JRob as self serving he and his program more than helping his kids. If he was more interested in helping the kids, he would have addressed the issue immediately rather than wait until the season ended. That's the very definition of self serving.
"Two months before letting the university know" is clearly incorrect, aside from the fact that "4-6 weeks" =/= 2 months. The written essay were the initial stage of the Safe Harbor program. We know from other articles that he consulted his boss (the acting AD), who pointed him to that program.
What we don't know:
1. How much of that 4-6 weeks was: J Rob gathering enough info to go to his boss; his boss lining up the Safe Harbor expert; determining the path fwd; any of the above sitting on it. In a bureaucracy, nothing would've been done on weekends, vacations, university holidays, lunch hour, etc. Plus team travel dates.
2. How the Safe Harbor program is administered, by whom, and what its rules are. (For example: complete anonymity?)
3. How much he consulted the Safe Harbor program leader instead of the ADs -- by university design.
4. What happened to those 1400 pills, and if he received guidance on them.
5. What J Rob told his various ADs, that they didn't report up, out, or to each other.
6. Other?
There are more than enough unanswered questions that could either clear or condemn him.
Good post, although the main unanswered questions surround how much info he shared with the U about dealing. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Safe Harbor programs are not for drug dealing.
The essays are clearly acknowledgement of an issue. Admittedly we don't definitively know what that issue is....publicly.
Refusal too cooperate is an issue.
The time line is an issue.
This isn't about a junkie...who needs help.
This isn't about a couple guys cutting loose on a single night.
It's about an orchestrated for profit operation that was minimized by a coach and possibly an entire staff as a self serving proposition.
I said last week there would be leaks to the press leading up to the ax man entering the room. Here is the press, the backlash will hit the powers that be and in will walk the ax man.
It's modern day lynch mob
Refusal too cooperate is an issue.
The time line is an issue.
This isn't about a junkie...who needs help.
This isn't about a couple guys cutting loose on a single night.
It's about an orchestrated for profit operation that was minimized by a coach and possibly an entire staff as a self serving proposition.
I said last week there would be leaks to the press leading up to the ax man entering the room. Here is the press, the backlash will hit the powers that be and in will walk the ax man.
It's modern day lynch mob
That sounds conceptually true, but then you get into applying program rules. If the program dictated anonymity of questionnaire results, then at most he can tell the program director (but not his boss) -- maybe not even tell that person.
I can't believe the university let him design the questionnaire on his own. Far more likely that the program director told him what questions to ask (or at least gave him a list to choose from), and told him how/when to administer and process the results. I'd be shocked if the program director wasn't all over this.
Doesn't rule out him possibly going rogue, or not being completely forthcoming at various stages for whatever reason.
The other part of this that sticks with me: how does the Safe Harbor director -- who is presumably a professional counselor -- not contemplate "those drugs didn't just magically appear, what if one of the wrestlers is dealing?"
If that person missed that concept, or got it and still poorly designed the program, that's on the director. Doesn't matter how much or little J Rob disclosed.
If that person did everything right and J Rob whiffed or went rogue, that's on the coach.
If that person missed that concept, or got it and still poorly designed the program, that's on the director. Doesn't matter how much or little J Rob disclosed.
If that person did everything right and J Rob whiffed or went rogue, that's on the coach.
Yup, and I meant to add this last week but didn't:
The "write your UM Board member" campaign is admirable but useless. The only people who can save his job at this point are:
1. Big-pocket donors.
2. Politicians -- maybe.
3. His attorney, with some better leaks and/or threat of a lawsuit with discovery UM doesn't want public and $$$$.
Whether or not he deserves to get fired, he will. Lynch mobs gonna mob and lynch.
JRob's lawyer served up a very defense-lawyerish definition of drug sales, implying that the definition wasn't met because the sellers were only "sharing costs" and characterizing the supposed sales as "ticky-tack violations." Which isn't true at all, of course--assuming the truth of all allegations, prison terms were a potential outcome. And to his "sharing costs" point, profit isn't an element of a drug sale; in fact, money isn't even an element, you can be convicted of selling drugs if you even give drugs away (in some states at least, including MN).
So I think it's likely the case that the University is taking the opposite side of that question, holding that JRob was aware of drug sales and cut them out of his process. The University likely views the Safe Harbor steps taken by JRob as inapplicable (and a red herring from his lawyer) because the Safe Harbor provisions explicitly concern drug use.
Not that JRob shouldn't have taken the Safe Harbor steps (regardless of whether he applied them to the University's satisfaction) because it's one of the few agreed upon facts that there was drug use going on. But the University likely views Safe Harbor as insufficient to address the thornier sales question.
JRob's response might be, well, so what? The criminal investigation led to no drug sale charges. And the University might respond, (a) there might have been but for your process initially cutting out the university and law enforcement; (b) the test, so far as we're concerned, is whether you had cause to believe there were drug sales, not whether there ultimately were drug sales--the DA's decision to not file drug sale charges isn't even determinative of whether drug sales were taking place because the decision to file charges relies on a number of practical factors distinct from the underlying crime question; and (c) of course there were drug sales: you could not have reasonably thought that 1400+ pills were for personal use (to this last point JRob might point to the timeline, because he'd taken many steps before allegedly receiving those pills).
I might add (d) prosecutors really don't want to drop drug sale charges on college kids who are likely to grow through it; much easier to convict people whose parents don't have money.
That all said, I do admire JRob for sticking up for his wrestlers. I think the initial take by some that he had good intentions but failed to recognize the scope of the problem is probably accurate.
So I think it's likely the case that the University is taking the opposite side of that question, holding that JRob was aware of drug sales and cut them out of his process. The University likely views the Safe Harbor steps taken by JRob as inapplicable (and a red herring from his lawyer) because the Safe Harbor provisions explicitly concern drug use.
Not that JRob shouldn't have taken the Safe Harbor steps (regardless of whether he applied them to the University's satisfaction) because it's one of the few agreed upon facts that there was drug use going on. But the University likely views Safe Harbor as insufficient to address the thornier sales question.
JRob's response might be, well, so what? The criminal investigation led to no drug sale charges. And the University might respond, (a) there might have been but for your process initially cutting out the university and law enforcement; (b) the test, so far as we're concerned, is whether you had cause to believe there were drug sales, not whether there ultimately were drug sales--the DA's decision to not file drug sale charges isn't even determinative of whether drug sales were taking place because the decision to file charges relies on a number of practical factors distinct from the underlying crime question; and (c) of course there were drug sales: you could not have reasonably thought that 1400+ pills were for personal use (to this last point JRob might point to the timeline, because he'd taken many steps before allegedly receiving those pills).
I might add (d) prosecutors really don't want to drop drug sale charges on college kids who are likely to grow through it; much easier to convict people whose parents don't have money.
That all said, I do admire JRob for sticking up for his wrestlers. I think the initial take by some that he had good intentions but failed to recognize the scope of the problem is probably accurate.
Bravo!
Calling the reporting so far "slipshod" would be generous. A hungry reporter will find low-hanging fruit to pluck.
The ongoing saga:http://www.startribune.com/no-charg...ers-accused-of-using-selling-xanax/384927011/
All the details have now changed in this reporting:
Not 2500 xanax, but now 500-1000 per anonymous source.
Not four wrestlers but two who wrote essays
Xanax not turned into JRob, but was stolen from one wrestler.
Coaching staff wanted wrestlers drug screened in February, but Athletic trainer said scheduling issues delayed it.
Entire team tested, but not for xanax. two positive for meth, one for weed.
All the details have now changed in this reporting:
Not 2500 xanax, but now 500-1000 per anonymous source.
Not four wrestlers but two who wrote essays
Xanax not turned into JRob, but was stolen from one wrestler.
Coaching staff wanted wrestlers drug screened in February, but Athletic trainer said scheduling issues delayed it.
Entire team tested, but not for xanax. two positive for meth, one for weed.
Not Meth necesarily...amphetamines which includes drugs like adderall. WTF is going on up there?
http://www.startribune.com/no-charg...ers-accused-of-using-selling-xanax/384927011/
http://stmedia.startribune.com/documents/UMat1.pdf (affidavit)
http://stmedia.startribune.com/documents/UMat+wrestler's+essay.pdf
I have read each of these documents. JRob knew of selling from the beginning of his involvement from a wrestler on the team, and it was all confirmed to him in the essays. JRob chose to cover it up. Whether he did it to help his wrestlers or help his program makes no difference to me. JRob performed a cover up, and from the documents, it doesn't appear that admin knew about the selling. IMO, he needs to be fired asap. I can condone his action with regard to the users, but not the sellers. Removing your ethical compass to provide compassion isn't the right path to take. There is a line you can't cross, and he certainly did in my opinion.
http://stmedia.startribune.com/documents/UMat1.pdf (affidavit)
http://stmedia.startribune.com/documents/UMat+wrestler's+essay.pdf
I have read each of these documents. JRob knew of selling from the beginning of his involvement from a wrestler on the team, and it was all confirmed to him in the essays. JRob chose to cover it up. Whether he did it to help his wrestlers or help his program makes no difference to me. JRob performed a cover up, and from the documents, it doesn't appear that admin knew about the selling. IMO, he needs to be fired asap. I can condone his action with regard to the users, but not the sellers. Removing your ethical compass to provide compassion isn't the right path to take. There is a line you can't cross, and he certainly did in my opinion.
Last edited:
Was this directed by the NCAA or by the U? At this point, sounds like the NCAA had zero involvement.
This (affidavit PDF) is too long for me to read right now, but gotta point out that the first few pages have to be among the worst reactions I've ever seen. Who doesn't know or can't easily figure out who the wrestling coach is? And someone with, say, 10 spare minutes can probably identify the wrestlers from info available on the UM Wrestling website.
Why bother with a redaction that leaves the parties involved plainly identifiable?
Why bother with a redaction that leaves the parties involved plainly identifiable?
The NCAA doesn't screen for xanax was my point. The University directed Drug Free Sport to do a level 5 drug screening which doesn't test for Xanax. Campus police asked for a second Level 7 screening which does test for Xanax. Interim AD Goetz directed the request to the U's legal counsel who require a subpoena. Assume it is in the works.
