College Sports Forum

College Sports Forum

College sports discussion.

Show All Comments

Oyster's picture
The question is, if anything is found that is wrong, should the NCAA get involved?  The precedent is already set.

 

 

"Scrolling hurts my finger"

(and FitzBuck was clearly the winner)

IH8UOFM's picture

With the way they are backtracking on PSU, I'm gonna guess nothing comes of it.

+1 HS
Oyster's picture

The Feds will investigate it though.  A police report about Lewan will come into play also.  Pefect timing for him as he attempts to dismiss the allegations of his image before the draft.  This kind of stuff stays in the news and it will more than likely have an impact on his draft stock.

"Scrolling hurts my finger"

(and FitzBuck was clearly the winner)

+2 HS
buckeyedude's picture

I think the NCAA has about as much power as the United Nations or more accurately, the League of Nations. Most likely they'll give a verbal reprimand. That's it.

 

 

+1 HS
Oyster's picture

That was kinda my point.  The NCAA had no business getting involved in a criminal matter at PSU, but they did so anyway.  Now the precedent is set.  From this point forward, when a school breaks a law, shouldn't the NCAA punish at a level commensurate to the offense?  If they do not, I think PSU has a case against them.

"Scrolling hurts my finger"

(and FitzBuck was clearly the winner)

+3 HS
M Man's picture

There is apparently a very strong case that a number of highly placed people at Penn State failed to report matters to the police.

In the Gibbons matter, the police were investigating immediately.  With the willing cooperation of Gibbons and without interference of any kind from Michigan football.

I can hardly imagine a more clearly stark difference.  What "law" does anybody think that Michigan violated?

Oyster's picture

What does that have to do with what I wrote in my post?

"Scrolling hurts my finger"

(and FitzBuck was clearly the winner)

M Man's picture

Well apart from Hoke's statements to the press (which I disagree with); what should Michigan have done differently?

Buckabroad's picture

So why do you think the feds are investigating?

"The minute we stop expecting greatness, we become Wisconsin."

M Man's picture

To make political points.  I presume.  The investigation(s) are the logical extension of Assistant Secretary Russlynn Ali's "Dear Colleague" letter from 2011.  I think it is a directive, throughout the nation, to make a statement on the part of the current administration, about protecting women on campus, women in the military, etc., etc.

-1 HS
PittBuckeye's picture

As to which law they violated, I'm pretty sure that wearing that sun color with that blue color at the same time particularly with that big ugly M on it is illegal. I'm no lawyer or anything, but I'm pretty sure on this one.

HomeBrewed's picture

UM is hoping they send their crack SEC investigation team...

Clever Statement

+6 HS
Seattle Linga's picture

Nice HB just like the ones that got sent to investigate bama and the paying of players

+1 HS
OSU_1992_UFM's picture

Damn, those people really get into it with the comments lol

Makes me appreciate 11W even more

Spring football is like non-alcoholic beer.  It looks like what you want, but only intensifies your desire for the real thing--Earle

M Man's picture

Oh I think I welcome this.

This will take this story straight into the realm of politics, which is where it belongs.

To the extent that there was ever any crime in this matter, it was investigated by the Ann Arbor Police, with the clear knowledge and understanding of all the local media.  The student newspaper, the Michigan Daily, reported on the investigation the same week.  AA.com did also.  The Detroit papers steered clear of the story, no doubt waiting for actual charges that were never brought at the conclusion of the investigation.

What we now apparently know (I think that the local papers have been FOIA'ing records relating to the "Washtenaw Watchdog") is that a local blogger insisted on making the matter a Title IX complaint, and that Title IX concerns are what have driven the matter since.

This story is heading in the direction that has been generally described by Wall Street Journal columnist James Taranto, HERE and also HERE.

I am looking forward -- NOT dreading -- more information about the motives and the mechanics behind this case, wherein there appears to have been absolutely no cover-up, and where it now appears to be heading toward a political/philospohical fight over the Obama Administration's changes to the Department of Education Office of Civil Rights campus sexual harassment enforcement under Title IX.  Personally, I think I'd like it if Gibbons sued the University of Michigan to shine a bit more light on the case through civil litigation discovery.

+3 HS
RoyMunson's picture

Gibbons kicked out of school for this incident, cannot play in bowl game, Hoke says due to "family issues", that to me dictates a cover-up.

+4 HS
M Man's picture

You need to have a look at the other 10,000 words I have written on this subject elsewhere on this forum.  When the police investigate, the press knows about it all, and there are no charges, with zero evidence of any outside interference, there isn't any "cover-up."

I can think of a lot of other words to describe this fiasco.  Cover-up isn't even close to being a good term.   

+5 HS
M Man's picture

Double post; sorry.  

Josh P's picture

I can't figure out why you have an account here.  Not saying you're not welcome (although I'm sure Marcus Hall would debate that), but I don't even know what the corresponding UM website is, let alone visit it.  You're everyones least favorite neighbor, aren't you?  

-4 HS
Run_Fido_Run's picture

Josh P: speak for yourself. MMan is one of my favorite neighbors in 11W because he regularly makes good, logical, well-supported, interesting, thoughtful comments. I'm guessing that he has an account here because he's a big fan of Big Ten football and this is one of the best cfb blogs anywhere.

+4 HS
M Man's picture

Yes...

...this is one of the best cfb blogs anywhere.

You heard it here, second.  MGoBlog is a good blog.  There are lots of good blogs.  There are only a few good cfb forums, and this is one of the very best.  I am treated better here, by the 11W crowd, than most of you would likely be treated on the MGoBoard.  Shame on the MGoBoard for that.  If I freaked out about some anti-Michigan trashtalk, on an OSU blog, after coming here voluntarily, then I really would have a big problem.

+2 HS
clogan1032's picture

I second what Fido has said. I enjoy and value the perspective and discussion that MMan brings and contributes here. Hope he keeps it up. 

southernstatesbuckeye's picture

Absolutely agree, Fido.  While I'm on the opposite end of opinions usually than MMan, I do appreciate the fact that he contributes intelligently to the conversation.  I am admittedly confounded and mystified as to why he roots for the team north of the border, but at the same time appreciative of his input.

 

I like cookies.

+2 HS
Josh P's picture

I'm sure I, and you, and the person above, would contribute the same solid input (that of which I never discredited), I just wouldn't be able to put up with the constant bashing of my school/team.  I should have made it more clear that that's what I was questioning.  I have respect for that ability though, and also much respect for you guys to be able to put aside the hate and accept MMan.  

spqr2008's picture

I'd like it if he sued UM too, just to get more information out there about it (sunlight as the best disinfectant and all that).  However, you have to look at it from his perspective.  Unless he thinks he can come back and get his degree, or if he's threatened with a civil suit from either the victim or UM (for his scholly money from the past few years, in order to look compliant with Cleary Act), why would he sue?  It's pretty much a lose lose unless either of those things happens.

Run_Fido_Run's picture

M Man, I don't know the facts of the case, but I really appreciate you providing an intellectual counterweight on this discussion.

My fellow 11dubbers: Our hate for Michigan football aside, we might remember that Michigan/Ann Arbor likes to pride itself as being one of the more "progressive" schools/places in the country. The idea that the university administration (not just the AD) would "cover up" an alleged sexual assault seems unlikely on its face.

Also keep in mind, as M Man suggests, that a possible "football factory" cover up is not the only potential abuse-of-power regime at play in this case. Yeah, I know that U of M is evil and all that, but its capacity to engage in mischief is dwarfed by the agencies that will be "investigating" them. Let's not pretend that the corrupting tendencies of power only operate in TSUN.

+1 HS
bucndc's picture

Wait, did I hear say "one of the more progressive, schools places in the country" so cover up is unlikely?

Have you heard of Benghazi, NSA, IRS, Fast and Furious.......................I don't think I am aloud to go on.

Please Fido, tell me that's not where you were going.

 

-2 HS
Run_Fido_Run's picture

BucNCD: sorry, I was trying to make the point while being as non-"political" or politically neutral as possible, but it came across as confusing. I meant that because Michigan/Ann Arbor goes out of its way to present/position itself as supposedly progressive on "womyn's issues," that this particular type of cover up would seem to run against the grain there.

Now, if you told me that they were trying to cover up for the department head of the Womyn's Studies program having arbitrarily fired every male in the department, that'd seem like a more likely scenario to me.

bucndc's picture

I figured you would clarify. I was trying to stay out of that arena as well. Sometimes it is difficult.

I enjoy your comments.

 

-2 HS
The Rill Dill's picture

This whole scenario is a total farce.   We all know, they do things the right way up there.

+1 HS
BME_Buckeye's picture

The leaders and best. Duh.

Look closely, because the closer you think you are, the less you will actually see.

 

+1 HS
bucndc's picture

M Man

I know you have been a strong supporter of Lewan, Brendan, and Hoke in this matter. You seem to have been following this very closely for some time. So, I ask you the following:

1) Brendan received a letter from the University that he would be dismissed from the University prior to the OSU game. I believe it was around the 20th of November. I would have to assume that Hoke knew about this. Why did Hoke say Brendan was injured for the OSU game?

2) Brendan was dismissed from the University on December19th. Why did Hoke tell everyone he wouldn't play in the bowl game due to "Family Issues"? Sounds like the second lie

3) If not to cover something up, why would Hoke lie?

4) Brendan's career was over, his eligibility was done. Why would the University dismiss him 4 years later if they weren't trying to undo a previous wrong?

M Man's picture

1) Brendan received a letter from the University that he would be dismissed from the University prior to the OSU game. I believe it was around the 20th of November. I would have to assume that Hoke knew about this. Why did Hoke say Brendan was injured for the OSU game?

I can't explain Hoke's statements to the press, other than that it was an extreme form of misdirection that I don't like.  There is of course no evidence that Hoke or anyone in the Athletic Department had even the slightest involvement in the police investigation in 2009, or the University investigation in 2012-13.

2) Brendan was dismissed from the University on December19th. Why did Hoke tell everyone he wouldn't play in the bowl game due to "Family Issues"? Sounds like the second lie

See 1).  We have all speculated that Hoke was thinking "Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act," when he said "family issues."  Under FERPA, the person or persons who divulged the information about Gibbons expulsion has probably committed an actionable offense.

3) If not to cover something up, why would Hoke lie?

To protect his player from the press, after his player's dismissal/expulsion became a fait accompli.  I'm not excusing Hoke; I am trying to explain Hoke.

4) Brendan's career was over, his eligibility was done. Why would the University dismiss him 4 years later if they weren't trying to undo a previous wrong?

This was the one I was waiting on.  

It is my impression that the University felt forced into the belated action, under extreme pressure from the Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights, and that the buttons at the Education Department were being pushed by the gadfly blogger and self-appointed investigative reporter, Douglas Smith.  Again, you need to review my writing and the links posted to the history of the "Dear Colleague" letter initiated by the Obama Administration through the DoEd. Office of Civil Rights.  

The battle lines in this fight are going to be very hard to figure.  The University of Michigan is going to be pulled in different directions.  The institutional instincts run naturally toward extreme political correctness and solicitude toward the current administration.  But the University will also want to defend itself from any wrongdoing.  I don't think that the University committed any wrong in the case, and the more we know about it the better.  I'd like for there to be some scorched-earth litigation, in a real court, to get to the bottom of it.  I expect that The Process (the student conflict resolution proceeding against Gibbons) will not look good.

There are other parties; one of them is Gibbons.  Having never been charged, he gets hauled before a student conflict resolution committee, with none of his procedural due process rights protected, four years after the fact, there having been no criminal charges, and he gets expelled under some sexual harassment rubric.  Gibbons might well have been a sacrifice to Title IX imperatives.

Criminal courts are the place to address criminal charges.  Not student/faculty conference rooms, with rape counselors acting as ersatz judicial officers.  And I will add here, as I have in other similar threads; the day that this happens in Columbus (and it assuredly will under the current Title IX rules) I will be every bit as insistent on protecting the procedural and substantive due process rights of any OSU student-athlete who finds himself in the same position.

Please do not ignore my above-posted links to the Taranto columns.  They are an essential starting point.

 

+3 HS
Oyster's picture

I'll just ask the real simple question.  If he didn't do anything wrong, and the police found nothing, why would he be removed?  That does not add up.  And don't say the updated student conduct policy either.  That would not be a retroactive document and even a first year law student could debunk that if they tried to go back in time.

"Scrolling hurts my finger"

(and FitzBuck was clearly the winner)

+1 HS
spqr2008's picture

He got removed to cover the UM administration's butts.  Because the new rules were implemented by Department of Education after the incident occurred, but covered all ongoing cases, and because lag time for Cleary Act reporting is usually 2 years, the investigation was revisited.  The real question is whether or not he was a scapegoat or really did commit some sort of crime (I would decline to put odds on either one).  Either way, he had to be expelled, because allowing him to graduate would have been problematic (the Cleary Act is a lot like Trademark, in that if you don't appear to be vigorously enforcing it, you have a lot to lose), in that the DoE could use it as part of a case pour encourager les autres by threatening UM with loss of the ability to grant Federal Financial Aid.  Therefore, if you are an administrator who would clearly lose their job if Federal Financial Aid was lost, you are going to have every incentive to err on the side of caution and expel him, even if a police investigation did not turn up anything or result in any kind of disciplinary action closer to the time that he was first accused.

+1 HS
Oyster's picture

Two years is 2011, the incident happend in 2009.  The case was closed by the police in 2009.  The numbers don't add up.

"Scrolling hurts my finger"

(and FitzBuck was clearly the winner)

spqr2008's picture

There was also a strong "suggestion" in the Dear Colleague letter that they revisit any possible cases from the year's reporting (plus, the Dear Colleague letter was issued in April, 2011, only one school year after the accusations occurred).

M Man's picture

Good post, SPQR2008.  I voted you a sticker.

One minor correction; Gibbons was a fifth-year player in 2013 (he was a redshirt freshman when this incident occurred), and had completed his undergraduate degree.  He was enrolled as a graduate student for Fall'13.

+1 HS
Hello_Heisman's picture

It's a valid question and I'm kind of curious about the ultimate answers to this myself.

One Michigan fan's guess who is not nearly as intellectually invested in this matter as MMan:  The one thing you need to understand culturally about the University of Michigan and its Administration is that they are always working to convey an image that they're the "good guys" who always comply with rules and laws.  This influences their behavior to a point where they come across at times as being complete idiots, most notably in the way that they handled the response to the Detroit Free Press's "Practice-Gate" accusations against RichRod and the subsequent NCAA investigation in 2009/2010.

My guess is that in this instance, even though Gibbons was cleared from a law enforcement perspective, because the issue kept lingering, because a new complaint was filed and because more media sources were picking up the story, the University said "F it, we're not taking any chances - we're going to show that we at least did something here, even if it was 4 years after the fact."  That's one of the reasons I don't think this is a coverup.  I honestly don't believe that anybody was hiding anything, I just think that the Administration officials got antsy about the issue and got rid of Gibbons as a CYA which has only served to make them look stupid.  The would have been better off not doing anything from a PR perspective, because doing something so many years after the original incident took place only raises questions and eyebrows.

60% of the time it works.....every time

bucndc's picture

5) Why has the University refused to honor FOIA with regard to It's (University police) investigation? What are they hiding? Who are they protecting?

The University may very well be clear of any cover up, but their handling of the entire situation has been a total screw up.

 

M Man's picture

?

I don't understand.  The Ann Arbor Police investigation reports were FOIA'ed and they actually produced too much.  (They left unredacted some info that might identify the original complainant.)  Those were all from 2009.  I saw those materials a year ago.

The records of the student conflict resolution proceedings are FERPA-covered and not subject to FOIA, to protect the parties.  By law.

Can you help me out by telling me what it is you think was covered up -- when, how, why?  In a nutshell, this is what happened:

  • The rape investigation by the police went nowhere.
  • There were no charges filed by the prosecutors against Gibbons.
  • No one says that the police or prosecutors were foiled by anyone at the University in the investigation.
  • It isn't at all clear what the alleged victim did after that; she seems to have done nothing.  No further complaint; no civil suit; no University-administrative complaint.
  • The Obama Administration changed the landscape for collegiate sexual harassment cases with the April, 2011 "Dear Colleague" letter.  Meanwhile, blogger Doug Smith kept hectoring everyone he could find, and it led to a 2012-13 administrative reopening of the Gibbons case as a sexual harassment case.  The threat was to cause federal trouble under Title IX, if universities were not being aggressive on their sexual harassment claims.
+3 HS
bucndc's picture

http://www.mlive.com/news/ann-arbor/index.ssf/2014/02/us_department_of_e...

Kyle at mlive claims they have FOIA the University several times, but they refuse to give up the information.

I am not talking about the AA police. Mlive's FOIA was to the University Investigation. The University refuses to give up the info.

I don't know, this thing could get really messy for someone at UM. DB?, Mary Sue?, Hoke?, Lewan?, Gibbons?

By the way, it was pretty convenient of Mary Sue to step down prior to the Gibbons dismissal.

 

-1 HS
M Man's picture

Coleman's departure was announced back in April of 2013.  Before any of the recent stuff was even happening.  And years after the incident occurred.  Clearly unrelated.  Completely, totally, thoroughly unrelated.

Hoke:  I've been a critic of his cavalier statements to the press.  He's a wonderfully nice guy by all accounts.  He doesn't jerk anybody around, for the most part.  But I have been amazed at the extent to which Hoke is willing to bullshit the press about injuries and personal issues with players.  I truly think that his imperative is protecting his players.  I don't think he's a particularly lax disciplinarian.

Lewan:  The rumors/accusations against him are pretty wild.  The actual facts purporting to support any real allegation(s) against him are pretty weak.  By all accounts he never communicated with the alleged victim.  

Gibbons:  He will now never, ever be prosecuted in this case.  Mark it down.   Not that he ever would be.  But we now know that a federal investigation of the University of Michigan has been promoted by a local blogger.  There was never much indication that there'd be a state charge against Gibbons.  Now, any prosecution would look like a political witch hunt.

Brandon:  This will get incredibly complicated for Brandon.  Brandon's name always comes up whenever people talk about potential Rpublicans for Senate seats, the governorship, etc.  I think that this case will show that Brandon has done absolutely nothing wrong.  The Ann Arbor Police did their investigation.  The University did its investigation.  No one thinks Brandon interfered or did anything wrong.  But the question I posed above is about politics.  Did the Obama Administration create a climate that pushed colleges into running sexual harassment kangaroo courts?  And what can Brandon say about that?

+2 HS
bucndc's picture

You are acting somewhat naïve when it comes to "small town" police and the power of the University. It has been documented that Joe Paterno stopped or redirected several police investigations into wrong doings by his players. I see a pretty good resemblance to PSU and Happy Valley and UM and Ann Arbor.

 

M Man's picture

Well then you don't know Ann Arbor.

Josh Furman's case turns that on its head.  Furman had to go to trial against an overzealous, overeager Washtenaw County Prosecutor.  He got a not guilty verdict.  In a bench trial!

Fitzgerald Toussaint; Frank Clark; Darryl Stonum.  Etc., etc.  None of them given any breaks by local police and prosecutors.

Plus there are the records in the Gibbons case!  The records!  The police investigated!  With the press watching it all!

The Penn State comparison is a complete fail.  

+4 HS
HolyBuckeyeOSU's picture

You seem to be following this rather closely "M Man" so thanks for sharing everything. The only thing I am going to call you out on is your quote above "Well then you don't know Ann Arbor" and my question to you is: Is this Ann Arbor the same Ann Arbor who's police pretty much laughed at the victim of Taylor Lewans sucker punch of the Buckeye fan and then thought the best way to resolve this assault was to make a mockery of it by having Lewan shake the victims hand and apologize all while he did it with his like smirk? Just curious, is all!

Go Buckeyes! 

+1 HS
M Man's picture

Lewan categorically denies it.  I've heard about eyewitnesses who say that Lewan attacked no one.

I don't much care.  But can we agree that if Lewan is to be declared "guilty," he needs to be charged and tried.  Right?

And if there is any other kind of case; a civil assault case, for instance (why hasn't there been one of those yet?) can we agree that it ought to be in a court, with lawyers and a judge and perhaps a jury?  And not settled by a panel of administrators in a conference room under pressure from the Department of Education?

+2 HS
HolyBuckeyeOSU's picture

Yes we agree, I just think the whole Ann Arbor argument should be tossed. Of course a dozen of UM fans are going to say Lewan didn't do it, but there have been others as well who said it was Lewan and when you are big time on a campus like that, I am sure cover-ups like that will occur, I am sure it has happened in Columbus a time or two, I just ask because Lewan is involved in this rape scandal for intimidation of the alleged victim, so I guess color me not shocked that Lewan may have beat the snot out of a fan, got away with it, seemingly like he is with this Rape thing.

Go Buckeyes! 

M Man's picture

People keep saying, "Lewan threatened the victim."

By all accounts -- ALL ACCOUNTS -- Lewan never contacted the alleged victim.  Didn't talk to her; didn't email her, didn't text or Tweet her.  He didn't know what she looked like.

HolyBuckeyeOSU's picture

So th eoriginal story that was written on this randomly decided to say that Taylor said "If you tell I will rape you" or something along those lines of being raped again?

Go Buckeyes! 

Pages