"Michigan kicker/rapist expelled after eligibility is used up (SWIPE)"
Hell, if you're gonna be a "win at all costs" program shouldn't you actually be winning some games?
Gibbons allegedly raped a female student athlete in 2009 and is expelled in 2014 after athletic career is over. Tough luck. Not being able to complete that sociology masters will absolutely kill this kid's future earning potential.
Oh, and you also get the lovely bonus throw-in: team captain Lewan allegedly threatens to rape the victim again if she doesn't keep her yap shut. Hail!
Former Michigan Kicker Expelled For Sexual Misconduct
Brendan Gibbons, the former starting kicker for the University of Michigan football team, has been "permanently separated" from the university, according to a letter sent to Gibbons by the school's office of student conflict resolution. The contents of the letter were reviewed and reported by the Michigan Daily.
Gibbons is currently a graduate student at Michigan, and his expulsion is related to an alleged 2009 incident that saw Gibbons accused of raping a woman at a frat party. At the time, the accuser spoke to police and described the alleged rape, but eventually decided not to press charges. In August of 2013, Washtenaw Watchdogs obtained and made public a copy of the police report (which can be read here: http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/19e1nmp71s5sbpng/ku-xlarge.png). The report describes the alleged incident:
The accuser also told police that Gibbons's then-roommate, All-American tackle Taylor Lewan, threatened to rape her if she didn't drop the charges against Gibbons.
According to other documents obtained by the Michigan Daily, Gibbons was expelled because of a "preponderance of evidence" that he committed some sort of sexual assault while at the university:
An additional OSCR document signed by Vander Velde and dated Nov. 20, 2013, stated that it was determined by the University that a preponderance of evidence supports "a finding that the Respondent engaged in unwanted or unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature, committed without valid consent, and that conduct was so severe as to create a hostile, offensive, or abusive environment." The Daily has been told that the respondent referred to in this letter is Gibbons. Complainants in this case are not identified in the documents reviewed by the Daily.
The university's decision to expel Gibbons does not mean that he has been found guilty of rape or that he will even be charged. The OSCR's investigation was not a criminal one, and the university does not need prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Gibbons sexually assaulted someone in order to expel him. A student can be expelled for alleged misconduct as long as there is a "preponderance of evidence" against the student.
The seemingly strange thing about the university's decision is the timing of it. One can't help but wonder why now, five years after the alleged rape took place, Michigan has decided to take action against Gibbons. The word "cover-up" is getting thrown around a lot, and the fact that Gibbons is being suspended just after his football eligibility expired certainly raises an eyebrow, but as the Daily explains, the timing of the university's decision may have more to do with newly instituted policies:
Revised University policies regarding sexual misconduct may have forced officials to internally review or re-review the allegations. The updated policies, which have been in effect since 2011, state that any allegation of sexual misconduct received by the University must be investigated.
It's unclear why there was a three-year lag time between the new policies being instituted and action being taken, but the case has by now attracted enough attention around Ann Arbor that if something sketchy was going on here, it will almost certainly come out.
2. "I want answers, and I want them now. But don't go overboard." In response to Reply # 0
One thing: you present a very reductive and trollish approach to a serious issue. It's disturbing to see fanbase gleefully seize upon something as disgusting as rape allegations to "rub it in" on their rival.
This is a very nuanced situation, and as such, it demands a nuanced approach/analysis. There are a lot of factors at play, namely the revised University sexual misconduct standards that may or may not have re-triggered an investigation. As it stands right now, the basic takeaway is that Brendan Gibbons is "guilty" of rape by "a preponderance of the evidence" as opposed to "beyond a reasonable doubt" (the former is the University burden of proof and the latter is the BOP used in criminal proceedings). To me, that's enough to be immediately suspended from the team and expelled. Which is what happened, but four years too late. That brings up the first of many questions, which I list below. You mention Taylor Lewan, but that's a dangerous and reckless accusation. According to my understanding, the police report published on the web had the account of the alleged rape and subsequent intimidation by a player of the victim, but it was the blogger himself (a known local nut) that connected the dots to Lewan.
Anyways, here's what we need to and deserve to know:
(1) Why did it take so long for the University investigation to take its course? If it was because the University revised its guidelines and reexamined the case in light of said revisions, then that would be understandable.
(2) Why did Hoke say Gibbons was out of the bowl game for "family reasons"? If he was forced to say this for legal liability reasons, then that's understandable. But he has to account for this.
(3) Who (Hoke/Brandon) knew what (the allegations) and when?
It's an ugly situation all around. But to me, this isn't a sports issue or a "win-at-all-costs" thing that you crudely beat your chest about. When this alleged rape occured (RR was coach), Gibbons was a freshman kicker who just finished one of the worst special teams seasons I have ever witnessed. This just isn't a football thing. It's a University thing. Which in my mind makes it all the worse and uncomfortable. I hope they address it not only too resolve the doubt clouding this incident but also to make the campus safer for the future.
3. "your lecturing has become tedious and silly" In response to Reply # 2 Sat Feb-01-14 12:56 PM by 3xKrazy
and hypocritical to the point that I'd consider the possibility that multiple people are using your login. or that you drink heavily and tend to remember nothing.
i dont feel like taking the time to summarize it all but you should check the posting history under the alias 'brown sugar'. you might be surprised to see what you come up with.
anyhow, ripping on sex offenders is fair game on this board. always has been. always will be. funny how these were the same defensive and deflective responses that PSU fans gave after the Sandusky shit dropped.
and yes this is most definitely a 'win at all costs' issue. it's also not just about gibbons - it's about Lewan too. and about protecting the reputation of a program and a university that prides itself on being above it all. sounds pretty familiar to me.
>One thing: you present a very reductive and >trollish approach to a serious issue. It's disturbing to see > >fanbase gleefully seize upon something as disgusting as >rape allegations to "rub it in" on their rival. >
Also nice job distorting my words. Nothing in my post stated that it's "not fair game to rip on sex offenders" so I don't know why you had to assert that. Well, maybe it's because you don't have a logical reply so you just fabricate shit. Nice!
FWIW, I also voiced my discomfort on these boards at people (i.e., guru) for using terms like "Ped U" when referring to PSU. And it had nothing to do with me condoning sex offenders or institutions that facilitate sex offenses -- it had everything to do with me being uncomfortable with turning sex offenses into a point of glee in a sports rivalry context.
If you're sick of my "lecturing" just ignore my posts from now on. Hope you have a grand weekend.
5. "if it was deflective because you made it about me " In response to Reply # 4 Sat Feb-01-14 01:54 PM by 3xKrazy
and the 'tone' of my response to the issues. like who really gives a fuck? we're in here talking about a university cover up of rape yet it's my words which you only label as "disturbing"? yikes. that's some good deflection.
especially since there was nothing even remotely crude or inappropriate about my 3 sentence lead-in to what is a very newsworthy item, ie. not trolling.
>Also nice job distorting my words. Nothing in my post stated >that it's "not fair game to rip on sex offenders" so I don't >know why you >had to assert that.
"One thing: you present a very reductive and trollish approach to a serious issue. It's disturbing to see fanbase gleefully seize upon something as disgusting as rape allegations to "rub it in" on their rival."
What am I distorting here? So it's *ok* to rip on sex offenders but it just has to be done in a very specific manner in which - brown sugar - the ultimate judge of internet morality approves of? And who are we protecting exactly by tip-toeing around the situation? Gibbons and Lewan? Sorry, I don't give a fuck about those 2 low-lifes.
You clearly had a problem with something I said. Care to be specific?
To maybe put it into perspective for you. During the Winston issue I went over to a FSU board just to see what people were saying...and there was all sorts of personal information published about the accuser...posters calling her a lying whore, that she deserved it, pictures of sad faced half naked girls with meme's stating 'Just because you regret it doesn't mean it's rape", etc., etc. That's what I would go ahead and label as disturbing. Not just in it's tone but in it's real-world implications.
>FWIW, I also voiced my discomfort on these boards at people >(i.e., guru) >for using terms like "Ped U" when referring to PSU.
Congrats - you're officially a terrific human being!
>turning sex offenses into a point of glee in a sports rivalry >context.
again, this is where you're deflecting. In all my years of posting here I can't recall seeing anyone 'gloating' over a rape case. I trust that the overwhelming majority of posters here (regardless of fan affiliation) do not like reading about athletes and rape and cover-ups.
>If you're sick of my "lecturing" just ignore my posts from now >on.
Nobody here bothers me enough that I'd feel the need to ignore or no longer converse with them. I'm happy to point out how boring your lectures are and how deluded and pompous you come across. You wear the "michigan man" stereotype well.
6. "Intention was not to deflect; the body of my post should make that clear" In response to Reply # 5 Sat Feb-01-14 02:31 PM by brown sugar
I think we both know that rivalry schadenfreude at least in part motivated you to post this (you couldn't help but include the "hail!" throw-in). I probably went a little overboard with my own response, too. As for the "reductive" point, you glossed over way too many nuances of the story -- as far as we know *today*, Lewan was not involved in this. That could change, but it's a little reckless to throw that in there.
7. "RE: Intention was not to deflect; the body of my post should make that c..." In response to Reply # 6 Sat Feb-01-14 03:11 PM by 3xKrazy
>I think we both know that rivalry schadenfreude at least in >part motivated you >to post this (you couldn't help but include the "hail!" >throw-in).
I posted it because it's a very newsworthy story which has been receiving, IMO, a very 'disturbing' lack of national coverage. And as evidenced by the lack of response to this thread, nobody here gives a shit either which I'm not at all surprised about. People simply do not care about michigan football and casual fans probably couldn't even pick brady hoke out of a lineup.
So on a personal level, yes, it bothers me that cover ups over free tats and rigged raffles were the cause of a nuclear media meltdown whereas real issues like rape scandals are glossed over. On the surface this looks even worse than the Winston case which obviously received a lot of press as well.
>I probably went a little >overboard with my own response, too. As for the "reductive" >point, you glossed >over way too many nuances of the story
All I did was copy/paste a swipe. The article was succinct - my analysis wasn't needed.
-- as far as we know >*today*, Lewan >was not involved in this. That could change, but it's a little >reckless to throw >that in there.
I wrote 'allegedly' which is exactly how it's stated in the article. There was nothing reckless about my description.
You could also argue that Gibbons is 'allegedly' a rapist since he wasn't convicted in a court of law. But there is certainly a lot of evidence that the claims are true...from his "family issues" to the university expulsion to his lack of an appeal. The Gibbons rumors have been circulating for roughly a year now...the entire time it was brushed off as "bullshit". Well, now it doesn't look to be BS and the claims thus far appear to be credible and if nothing else I'd be inclined to take the Lewan accusations seriously. We do know that somebody intimidated the victim in a very aggressive manner, correct?
And as far as Lewan goes, why is this guy continually accused of doing some awful shit? He must be the unluckiest dude on earth to continually have such horrendous lies fabricated about him. If I were him I'd want to explain myself and prove my innocence.