Gibbons apparently not facing charges
...
In the legal realm, though, Gibbons likely will not face further proceedings.
“We have not received a request for prosecution for anyone with this name,” Steve Hiller, Washtenaw County chief assistant prosecutor, said Wednesday.
The Washtenaw County prosecutors office does not conduct investigations. At the end of a police investigation, a request for prosecution can then be submitted to the office...
January 30th, 2014 at 10:59 AM ^
January 30th, 2014 at 11:04 AM ^
Hoke wasn't "concocting a story," he was trying to speak to Gibbons's status without revealing anthing about the disciplinary findings/process -- as he was told to do.
January 30th, 2014 at 11:36 AM ^
yes they could.
January 30th, 2014 at 12:05 PM ^
Fair enough.
January 30th, 2014 at 10:09 AM ^
Ever since this broke, I've felt that someone at a high enough level of authority within the U of M administration and/or the U of M Athletic Department knew more than they were/are willing to admit. In other words, how far up does the trail go in looking for someone who both should have and/or could have handled the mess correctly, both from a legal standpoint and a PR standpoint. What and when did MSC know about Gibbons and the case? Same questions apply to Brandon...
I just find it hard to believe they didn't have the knowledge and the time to formulate a cohesive plan to handle this better on all aspects, thereby leaving it up to Brady Hoke to be put on the spot having to "explain away" the absense of Gibbons as a "family matter" back home. And yes, I understand Hoke's inability to fully explain it due to privacy laws and such, but (IMO) I think there's also a strong likelihood that Hoke was kept somewhat in the dark by the administration.
New U of M President Schissel is going to be tested early here.
January 30th, 2014 at 10:26 AM ^
you people so bent on the idea that Hoke covered something up? Maybe he quite honestly didn't know. It is quite possible that the academic/administration side of University did not communicate to the Athletic Department the ongoing proceedings with Gibbons because of privacy reasons. Maybe as far as Hoke knew Gibbons was in Florida for family issues. Why is that so much harder to believe than Hoke and Brandon being part of a conspiracy? Here's a thought, perhaps Michigan is not like PSU and the power center is not within the athletic department.
Likely we'll never know who knew what and when so there is no use getting worked up about it, especially when there are very plausible and reasonable alternate explanations available.
January 30th, 2014 at 11:38 AM ^
don't think there is any indication that Hoke had any reason to know until August, 2013.
January 30th, 2014 at 11:53 AM ^
We should try to put ourselves in Hoke's place for a moment. How would you feel when you find out one of your players may be in trouble? It's a serious charge, to be sure. Then you find out it's for something he was accused of doing four years ago as a true freshman. You find out it was investigated back then and nothing came of it. There's no police investigation in progress. How quick are you going to be to throw that player under the bus?
January 30th, 2014 at 12:02 PM ^
"How quick are you going to be to throw that player under the bus?"
Real quick once I read the police report documents, unless he convincingly tells me he didn't do anything wrong.
Instantaneously once I find out the committee's found him guilty. I still can't see how he spent a second on the team after that. The only explanation that makes any sense to me is that Hoke/Brandon thought the privacy of the committee would hold, his (and Lewan's) eligibility would be over anyway and no one would ever ask about it or mention it again. Nobody would ever find out Gibbons had even been investigated by the University, much less expelled.
That's exactly what would have happened if not for the leak to the Daily.
January 30th, 2014 at 10:12 AM ^
12/19 (date of the letter cited in the Daily). Why is it hard to believe that Hoke and Brandon didn't know the outcome of the OSCR until 12/19 (maybe 12/18)?
Ideally, they should not know the outcome so they cannot influence it. Hell, maybe the OSCR didn't even make a decision until 12/18.
"Gibbons was at the year end banquet and participated in it on December 9, only 11 days before he was expelled from the University."
I think you answered your own question here. It wasn't 11 days after and from everything we know Gibbons did not even practice with the team after he was expelled on 12/19.
Yes, Hoke "lied" about the family issues (we don't know about the ankle injury), but he has to respect Gibbons privacy and that statement was likely approved/ suggested by UM's legal team.
January 30th, 2014 at 10:17 AM ^
Not exactly.
The letter alerting Gibbons of the finding of "guilt" by the university committee was dated November 20. (And after that date, he played against Iowa, had a "muscle pull" but was on the sideline against Ohio, and was proudly introduced, given a ring, and celebrated at the banquet.)
The letter alerting him of his "sentence" of expulsion was dated December 19.
January 30th, 2014 at 10:59 AM ^
January 30th, 2014 at 11:01 AM ^
The expulsion wasn't final until December. But he'd been found guilty in November, and told by letter dated November 20.
Even convicted criminals have the right to appeal, so I'm not sure what that brings to the table. He obviously didn't appeal, or the appeal was really short, since less than a month elapsed between the "conviction" and the "sentence." That also happens in criminal cases -- you aren't sentenced the day the jury finds you guilty.
January 30th, 2014 at 12:19 PM ^
January 30th, 2014 at 12:22 PM ^
The November 20 letter as quoted by the Daily uses the word "finding."
January 30th, 2014 at 2:14 PM ^
We do know OSCR policy. It's on their web site. You are correct that the 19 Nov letter said, in essence "we have investigated this matter, and the evidence we have suggests that there is more evidence that you violated the code of conduct than that you didn't. let's schedule your hearing on this." The hearing was held on Dec 4, from what we know. it would have been in front of a three-student tribunal. That tribunal would then have considered the evidence from the investigation and Gibbons's testimony, decided that he had, indeed, violated the code of conduct, and recommended expulsion. That decision would have been forwarded to a thre-person review panel (unless Gibbons accepted it and declined appeal), who would have confirmed it and forwarded it to the head of OSCR (there may have been a review by a higher-level UM official here, but that's not clear to me), and the Head of OSCR then sent to 20 Dec letter to Gibbons in Florida.
There is nothing in the policy about notifying the respondent's coaches, professors, etc, and plenty about the respondent's right to privacy. I don't see any reason to believe that anyone at OSCR would feel obliged to inform anyone that they didn't absolutely have to notify. If that is true, then it would be up to Gibbons to notify Hoke, which obviously would have become necessary if Gibbons didn't show up for classes at the start of the winter term (though he may have just told Hoke he wasn't coming back for that winter term, since he had already graduated and completed his eligability).
January 30th, 2014 at 10:24 AM ^
"He did miss the fact that Gibbons was at the year end banquet and participated in it on December 9, only 11 days before he was expelled from the University. I find it hard to believe that no one knew this was coming, especially on December 9th when he clearly was still part of the team."
Why does it matter if he was at a University event 11 days BEFORE he was expelled? That's like saying I shouldn't have $150 in my bank account 11 days before my speeding ticket fine is due. If he was still a student at the school, he should still be allowed to participate in school activities. The letter says that he was expelled as of December 20th, not before.
January 30th, 2014 at 10:31 AM ^
It matters that he was at a University event because he'd already been found guilty of very serious charges that ultimately brought a sentence of expulsion.
In school terms, at the time of the banquet he was a "convict" awaiting sentencing.
January 30th, 2014 at 11:13 AM ^
Well, the official ruling came down on the 20th, and the banquet was before. Who knows if the coaches or staff knew what was going to be announced, and frankly who knows if Gibbons knew. It's a murky situation, but again all of these conspiracy tones seem unnecessary given the known suckiness of the situation.
January 30th, 2014 at 11:20 AM ^
Sorry to keep harping on this, but it has to be clear.
There were two "official rulings." The first, that he'd been found guilty, came down in November.(*) He was alerted of it by letter dated November 20. After that date, he played in a game then seems to have passed into a status of "still a full member of the team, but we aren't going to play him in a game."
The second was the decision to impose a sanction of expulsion. He was alerted of that decision by letter dated December 19. That was after the banquet, where he was accorded full honors as a member of the team in good standing, but before the bowl game and before Hoke's "family matters" explanation.
The first of these is by far the most important. Think of it this way. If Gibbons had been convicted of a serious crime in court, would you be comfortable with him on the team and playing pending his sentencing? I wouldn't.
(*) Technically, it might have been earlier. We don't know for a fact how much time elapsed between the decision and the committee cobbling together and preparing the letter.
January 30th, 2014 at 12:27 PM ^
This is just my semi-educated take on the situation, but I read the above timeline as follows: On Nov. 20, the OSCR produces a letter to Gibbons saying, in effect, "We have enough evidence to find that you've violated the student code and will make such a finding unless you can show us why we shouldn't." Or it could have been "We will at least meet with you until we make such a finding." Then, on Dec. 4th, they meet with Gibbons. Finally, sometime after the meeting with Gibbons and before producing the "separation" letter of Dec. 19th, they make a final decision to expel him. So I don't think - and this is just my guess - that the expulsion was a completely done deal on Nov. 20th.
January 30th, 2014 at 12:46 PM ^
"So I don't think - and this is just my guess - that the expulsion was a completely done deal on Nov. 20th."
No real need to guess -- it wasn't. I think it was in Brian's main thread where someone posted that if the decision on the punishment to impose is expulsion, a relatively senior member of the university administration has to sign off. So between Nov. 20 and Dec. 19, they had to decide to expel rather than impose a different sanction, probably deliberate over it, and go outside to get the sign off.
That said, the finding of his guilt and the determination by the committee that he was guilty, was a done deal by November 20 at the latest. (November 20 was the date of the letter; there may have been a delay between the finding and the letter. It could very well be the case, and probably is the case, that Gibbons played more games than just Iowa after having been found guilty by the committee.)
January 30th, 2014 at 9:52 AM ^
Between reading the comments to articles like this and seeing my own Facebook feed last night, I am constantly amazed how simplistic people can be. I had to talk myself down from engaging each piece of willfully ignorant vitriol and every share of a chatsports article.
The irony in all of the ranting and raving about coverups is that it's likely that his status as a football player is what ultimately led to his removal from the University. I think like everyone, we want to know when Hoke and the AD knew everything regarding the OSCR process but to assume they took some nefarious role in this is ridiculous.
January 30th, 2014 at 10:09 AM ^
when or if the AD and or Hoke knew. But then I know I have absolutely no control over such things and frankly, I haven't an agenda.
January 30th, 2014 at 10:19 AM ^
"In a news release sent early Thursday, Spartans coach Mark Dantonio said Bullough had been suspended for the rest of the season. He did not say what rules the two-time team captain violated. ''It is extremely disappointing for all parties involved,'' Dantonio said."
Somebody needs to explain to me exactly why Hoke could not have said the exact same thing about Gibbons. Word for word exactly the same. Or is it this board's opinion that Dantonio was violating Bullough's "rights" when he made that statement?
It wouldn't have been hard not to lie or obfuscate regading Gibbon's absence from the team. Dantonio managed to do it quite nicely.
January 30th, 2014 at 10:19 AM ^
Agreed it seems like a perfect case for your generic "Undisclosed Violation of Team Rules" or something similar since it would be pretty easy to classify being "expelled" as a violation of team rules.
January 30th, 2014 at 10:28 AM ^
you have that Hoke lied? I'll wait, but I won't hold my breath.
January 30th, 2014 at 10:50 AM ^
Sigh....ok. We'll play semantics cause I have no "proof" he lied. When he said Gibbons was dealing with family issues maybe he was legitmately thinking that Gibbons left the team to deal with family issues cause he got kicked out of school.
What I find ironic about his line of reasoning is I refuse to believe even one poster on this board had a friend, co-worker or family member say the same thing said to them personally that Hoke did at his presser, would not think they were lied to. Even though technically you are right - I have no "proof" he lied. Maybe he actually did think that.
Right.
My point is there was no reason to even go there. It could've and should've been handled EXACTLY LIKE MICHIGAN STATE DID WITH BULLOUGH. And nobody seems to be able to answer why that didnt happen.
January 30th, 2014 at 11:18 AM ^
"What I find ironic about his line of reasoning is I refuse to believe even one poster on this board had a friend, co-worker or family member say the same thing said to them personally that Hoke did at his presser, would not think they were lied to."
The thing is, we don't NEED to know the 100% truth immediately. I don't understand everyone's requirement that Hoke be totally honest about anything the public asks him. If a family member "lied" or "stretched the truth" and then later said, "Well, I couldn't tell you because ____________" then I wouldn't have a problem with it. For example, if a co-worker said "I'm not pregnant" but it was later revealed that she WAS pregnant at the time but hadn't had a chance to tell her grandma yet and didn't want it on Facebook, would I feel like I was lied to? No, because why should I give a s*** that she wanted to tell her grandma before she told me?
If your co-worker is pregnant or not, if Hoke knew but couldn't tell the truth, etc., it doesn't affect YOU and it doesn't affect ME.
January 30th, 2014 at 11:30 AM ^
"If your co-worker is pregnant or not, if Hoke knew but couldn't tell the truth, etc., it doesn't affect YOU and it doesn't affect ME."
Agree with everything you wrote if it turns out that he "couldnt tell the truth"
Agree with nothing you wrote if it turns out that he "wouldnt tel the truth"
Big, big difference in my mind between the two. If Hoke was told to obfuscate (and make no mistake - his comments in January when Gibbons had been gone for almost two weeks were exacty that) then I have zero issue with him but question again why it was handled in the way it was and why he was told to do so.
If he chose to protect Gibbons on his own and made something up to cover for him then I have a huge problem with it. Maybe you don't but I do.
January 30th, 2014 at 12:02 PM ^
not have been Gibbons he was protecting, and there is still no answer to the question, why could he not tell the truth? "Brendan Gibbon is no longer on the team. Next question." End of story. It is not whether the statement was or was not, technically, a "complete" lie or a partial one, nor is the question whether it affects ME, as a fan or not, the question is, why not the lamest most uninformative version of the truth possible? At that point right there with that statement before the BWW bowl, it is very evident there was at least some motivation, however small and unexplainable, for Hoke to want to characterize it as something notably different from what it actually was. Either that, or he had not adequately considered how it would be phrased and he used a stock soundbite that happenned to be enough off base to be classified as a lie. Whatever the reason, the University would likely have been much better off to just pull the bandaid off right then and there before that game.
January 30th, 2014 at 12:06 PM ^
Where is your proof that Hoke didn't tell the truth as he knew it? Nevermind, he's guilty of lying, let's make sure the trial is fair, comrade.
January 30th, 2014 at 12:14 PM ^
possibility. I find that unlikely, but I should not have ruled that out (Ole buddy ole pal).
January 30th, 2014 at 12:06 PM ^
January 30th, 2014 at 1:54 PM ^
Maybe I'm off base but I would think that one of the rules of the football program would be they must follow and adhere to the policies and regulations of the univeristy.
January 30th, 2014 at 3:56 PM ^
January 30th, 2014 at 3:02 PM ^
"From what I understand, FERPA doesn't allow Hoke to say that Gibbons was expelled."
That seems to be what the university WANTS people to believe, but it doesn't appear to be true. In fact, the University itself - on the registrrs page - says differently.
From the registrars office -
"Directory information may appear in public documents and may otherwise be released to individuals outside the University without the student's specific consent. The University of Michigan has designated the following items as directory information: name, address and telephone number, UM school or college, class level, major field, dates of attendance at the University of Michigan, current enrollment status, degree(s) received and date(s) awarded, honors and awards received, participation in recognized activities, previous school(s) attended, height and weight of members of intercollegiate athletic teams."
January 30th, 2014 at 4:01 PM ^
January 30th, 2014 at 4:18 PM ^
I'm quite sure they aren't allowed to say why he was expelled.
They probably aren't allowed to even say he was expelled.
They absolutely ARE allowed to say "he is no longer a student at Michigan"
January 30th, 2014 at 4:25 PM ^
Thank you Pesadero. What you've proven is my original point stands. That the easiest, most direct and truthfull thing Hoke could've said was "Gibbons is not with the team because Gibbons is not longer enrolled at University of Michigan." And when the inevitable follow-up questions started he could answer as Marky-Mark basicall did:and say "I'm not at liberty to discuss that".
Why Hoke said something disengenious still troubles me. Looks like about half the board is ok with it though but it bothers me because it was unneccessary. And it makes me question Gibbons allegeded OSU injury too.
January 30th, 2014 at 1:28 PM ^
Gibbons hasn't been convicted in court of anything. Clearly the person who leaked Gibbons' status to the Daily legally should not have. Given that he has not been charged or convicted, nor from what we can tell does the OSCR follow a due process and threshold of guilt policy similar to our court system, well he basically has a right to privacy. Now that this is out his reputation has been damaged -- maybe rightfully so, maybe not, we don't know -- right when he is being considered for professional football or needs to find a job in the real world. I would not be surprised if a law suit comes from this.
We should not know that he was kicked out of school or why.
January 30th, 2014 at 1:36 PM ^
I think you're making a highly flawed comparison. There's a big difference when it's the head of the football team -- the face of the program, a role model to his team -- soft-pedaling an incident involving sexual assualt and expulsion. He actually elicited sympathy for Gibbons. It was gross, unnecessary, and frankly the kind of thing we've all come to expect from dissembling coaches.
January 30th, 2014 at 12:03 PM ^
You, and you aren't alone in this, are making shit up and giving it an air of legitimacy and truth for your meme.
January 30th, 2014 at 10:39 AM ^
Maybe if it was our stud ILB and captain Hoke would have been forced to do something like Dantonio, but since it was just a "idiot kicker" he didn't feel the need too? That is if he knew everything that was going on. I know nothing, all speculation as to what Hoke knew and didn't know but that was just a possible answer to Mgrowolds question.
January 30th, 2014 at 11:03 AM ^
An expulsion is a academic issue. They are very possibly two different things legally.
Also saying he was suspended would be a lie.
January 30th, 2014 at 11:05 AM ^
Yeah, but saying he was suspended would be a lie only because they didn't suspend him.
They obviously should have.
January 30th, 2014 at 11:12 AM ^
Good point on the suspended language. He would have to change to "no longer on the team". And I have heard countless coaches tell the media that player X is no longer on the team and never heard they were violating anybody's privacy rights. Telling people WHY they are no longer on the team is where you could potentially get in trouble IMO.
January 30th, 2014 at 11:23 AM ^
I think the differentiation in this case is that the player is no longer on the team because he is expelled from the school, not just kicked off the team. I'm sure there are more legal consequences for Hoke in this situation than in Dantonio's situation with Bullough. Did he handle it perfectly to the outside observer? Not really. Is this because he purposely lied to reporters to cover up the fact that his senior kicker was being expelled from school? I find that hard to believe. Did he say something because he knew that it would be the fastest, cleanest way to get reporters to drop the issue as he is trying to focus on a bowl game? Probably. Is that the end of the world?
January 30th, 2014 at 11:25 AM ^
It's a tough situation. We still don't know why Bullough was suspended. I do think the distinction to be made, as noted below, was that Bullough wasn't kicked off the team/out of the school; Gibbons is no longer enrolled. He didn't violate a "team rule"; he violated some school rule that led to his removal from the institution.
It's probably all semantics, but there is a distinction. Of course, why people keep trying to parse Hoke's language seems silly to me. He said Gibbons couldn't play for a reason; he doesn't owe it to the media and fans to dish dirt on everything going on with his team, especially when it, at best, will cast a dark cloud over the rest of the squad and feed a vicious cycle of media and online dribble with no real upside.
January 30th, 2014 at 11:36 AM ^
That's where I disagree. The findings of the committee, as set out in the November 20 letter, are obviously "violations of team rules."
Unless we think it's within the rules of the team to do those things; in other words, that you're in compliance with team rules if you engage in "unwanted or unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature, committed without valid consent" with that conduct "so severe as to create a hostile, offensive, or abusive environment.”
So Gibbons violated both school rules and team rules (properly defined). The school did something about it; the team didn't. That's the problem.