• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

Tay"LLLL"or "LLLL"ewan (douchebag)

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
Oh8ch said:
The one clear kill here - and even the UM posters are recognizing it - is that Hoke lied about/concealed the reason for Gibbons missing at least the bowl game.

All he had to do was say "violation of team rules", but he wasn't that smart.

And upon one simple lie gigantic conspiracy theories can thrive.
Click to expand...


The fact that he played in the iowa game after the finding had been concluded is a bigger issue if you ask me. I find it improbable at best that Gibbons was the subject of such an investigation, and Hoke was unaware, or that the investigation proceeded so quickly that it started after the northwestern game on 11/16 but concluded before 11/23, but not in enough time for Hoke, who was unaware of any of this, to sit him against Iowa.
 
Upvote 0
tsteele316 said:
The fact that he played in the iowa game after the finding had been concluded is a bigger issue if you ask me. I find it improbable at best that Gibbons was the subject of such an investigation, and Hoke was unaware, or that the investigation proceeded so quickly that it started after the northwestern game on 11/16 but concluded before 11/23, but not in enough time for Hoke, who was unaware of any of this, to sit him against Iowa.
Click to expand...

Bingo.
 
Upvote 0
tsteele316 said:
The fact that he played in the iowa game after the finding had been concluded is a bigger issue if you ask me. I find it improbable at best that Gibbons was the subject of such an investigation, and Hoke was unaware, or that the investigation proceeded so quickly that it started after the northwestern game on 11/16 but concluded before 11/23, but not in enough time for Hoke, who was unaware of any of this, to sit him against Iowa.
Click to expand...

Valid concerns, and mine as well.

However, it could be possible that UM's disciplinary policy provides for any and all sanctions to be on hold while an appeal is underway. So, if Gibbons is notified and sanctioned, then chooses to appeal, there'd be no reason to keep him out of action until the appeal is completed (other than "it's the right thing to do", as we believe).

In fact, if he had been kept out of action and had his sanctions overturned upon appeal, he may have had recourse for legal action for benching him, if doing so was not in accordance with University policy and precedent.

That being said... there are a TON of questions here. Federal Title IX guidelines require a 60 calendar day resolution from report through appeals... that doesn't match the 2009 report - 2013 resolution timeline, nor does it match the 2011 "we changed the policies" - 2013 resolution timeline. And that's an Office of Civil rights/Department of Education concern.
 
Upvote 0
MaliBuckeye said:
Valid concerns, and mine as well.

However, it could be possible that UM's disciplinary policy provides for any and all sanctions to be on hold while an appeal is underway. So, if Gibbons is notified and sanctioned, then chooses to appeal, there'd be no reason to keep him out of action until the appeal is completed (other than "it's the right thing to do", as we believe).

In fact, if he had been kept out of action and had his sanctions overturned upon appeal, he may have had recourse for legal action for benching him, if doing so was not in accordance with University policy and precedent.

That being said... there are a TON of questions here. Federal Title IX guidelines require a 60 calendar day resolution from report through appeals... that doesn't match the 2009 report - 2013 resolution timeline, nor does it match the 2011 "we changed the policies" - 2013 resolution timeline. And that's an Office of Civil rights/Department of Education concern.
Click to expand...


We'll see where this goes, but the story sat on the shelf for a long time. The fact that this is picking up attention now tells me that someone with an agenda may be getting behind this. Someone with an agenda and a platform.

It will be interesting to see if this dies on a vine like the TL punching a tOSU fan after The Game or if wind hits the sails.
 
Upvote 0
This is probably very much like the Winston case and I'm sure privacy laws prevented Hoke from discussing any of it, hence the "family issues" statement. And there is no way the university tried to cover this up, they aren't going to try to protect a freshmen kicker who couldn't make a 30 yarded to save his life.
Click to expand...

tumblr_ma9phigvTK1rxw3fco1_500.gif
 
Upvote 0
From the Daily: A shameful response

New information regarding the intricacies of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act has revealed that the University’s recent behavior in response to Brendan Gibbons’ expulsion is deeply suspicious. In the last two days, the University has neglected any opportunity to speak out and address the public criticisms directed toward it. Instead, administrators have invoked a number of furtive internal policies and vaguely interpreted laws to explain its silence.

At best, this case indicates an unbelievable lack of communication between University units. On Nov. 20, 2013, the University’s Office of Student Conflict Resolution signed a document stating that the Office of Institutional Equity determined there was a preponderance of evidence finding former Michigan kicker Brendan Gibbons responsible for an incident of alleged sexual assault in November of 2009. This meant that the University had already decided that Gibbons was — in the eyes of the school — responsible for a sexual misconduct that was deemed “so severe as to create a hostile, offensive or abusive environment,” which led to his eventual expulsion. Yet three days later, on Nov. 23, Gibbons was allowed to play in Michigan’s football game against Iowa. He kicked three extra points for the team.

Unless it is school procedure to allow a student-athlete in violation of the Student Sexual Misconduct Policy to participate in University-sanctioned athletic events, there was a complete and utter breakdown in communication. University officials — in OIE, OSCR, the Athletic Department or all three — knowingly allowed a perpetrator of sexual misconduct to represent the school in a football game that undoubtedly generated profit for the University. This is unacceptable on any level.

More specifically, Michigan coach Brady Hoke’s behavior has raised eyebrows in the public conversation. After OIE found Gibbons to be responsible for an act of sexual misconduct, OSCR sent a letter to Gibbons informing him of his permanent separation from the University. The letter was received and signed by Gibbons on Dec. 19. By signing the document, Gibbons waived his right to appeal the sanction. Athletic Department spokesman Dave Ablauf confirmed that Gibbons had met with the department around that time, adding, “That could have been the time that Brendan Gibbons talked to coach Hoke.” It is possible that the Athletic Department met with Gibbons without Hoke, but it seems illogical for the head coach of the student involved to be uninformed of the situation. Four days later, on Dec. 23, Hoke announced that Gibbons would not play in the Buffalo Wild Wings Bowl due to a “family matter.” The University may have instructed Hoke to act the way he did in order to adhere to its ill-reasoned policy and weak interpretation of FERPA, but someone is still to blame for obfuscating the truth.

Continued...
Click to expand...
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top