Yeah, but you can do that and still coach college hockey.
"Jim's a tough guy and you can see his personality is all over this football team," Fitzgerald said.
Yeah, but you can do that and still coach college hockey.
I was kind of thinking the same thing. I know of at least one guy in college with me who had that charge brought against him, though I think they reached some agreement. But yeah, if you are convicted you have to register as a sex offender because of it.
You don't necessarily have to register, at least in Ohio. As long as you're trying to avoid being seen, e.g. in an alley behind a dumpster, you probably wouldn't have to register, and it's likely you wouldn't even be convicted. If you were peeing next to an elementary school during recess, on the other hand...
Do these university investigations normally take 4 years?
Not sure how I feel about Hoke saying it was a "family issue" if Gibbons was already expelled before Christmas. If he was wasn't allowed to say he was expelled, don't say anything, and certainly don't cover for him.
"Not sure how I feel about Hoke saying it was a "family issue" if Gibbons was already expelled before Christmas."
Honestly, who cares? As if saying "No comment" or "It's a personal issue" changes the reality of what happened.
Here's what you should feel about Hoke saying it's a family issue:
It doesn't change the reality of what happened but it continues to fuel the coverup fire.
There is no fire besides the one you're creating in your mind.
I believe the Daily had an article on there being a potential coverup or at least insinuated that the mishandling of the accusation was fishy. 11W also had an article making similar insinuations. As long as this case has been made public there have been accusations, rumors and insinuations of a coverup or intentional mishandling due to Gibbons' status as a football player. I am not the one who created it.
You would get along great with my father in law in PA who still think JoePa was framed.
Hoke actually could not talk about it due to FERPA. Gibbons has rights to privacy over his academic records. Since there is no legal charges to date, Hoke cannot talk about it without Gibbons' consent.
I'm pretty sure he's allowed to say if an individual is no longer associated with the team.
This is probably true, but perhaps Gibbons is given some FERPA protection. Because FERPA stands for Family Education...Hoke is not lying when he calls it a "family issue".
I'd venture to say that Hoke was told specifically what words to use by someone (Brandon, Ablauf, Madej, whoever). I think such a touchy issue would certainly have been enough to call a meeting to discuss the language that is to be used.
Of course it doesn't "change the reality of what happened," I assumed we were all decent people here and are horrified by what, at least in the eyes of the university if not the police, happened in 2009. But I care in that I don't want the coach of the team I root for to be covering for a rapist.
Is it Hoke's job to announce to the world that Gibbons was expelled for alleged sexual assault? Michigan has AD's, SID's, etc. for that.
No, but lying about it isn't really acceptable either.
Saying an expulsion is a "family issue" is not exactly lying in my book. And honestly, who really gives a s*** what he says? NOTHING CHANGES if he says anything different.
The school expelled the kid prior to the bowl game. Actions were taken behind closed doors. If you get fired from your job, your boss isn't required to announce to the world that you stole $100 out of the cash register. You just get escorted out of the building and told not to come back, and your boss hires somebody to replace you.
We don't need answers for everything that goes on in the world.
No one is saying that Hoke should have announced that Gibbons was kicked off the team for sexual misconduct but there is an argument to be made that there's a difference between taking the "no comment" route and lying about the reason Gibbons was removed from the team.
How is it a lie? He said it's a family issue, and when a 22- or 23-year-old kid is probably being sent home to deal with being kicked out of school and perhaps some criminal charges, I would expect that he and his family would be dealing with it together. What goes on after that isn't anyone's business, really, except the Gibbons family, the victim's family, and the court system.
We don't matter. We are inconsequential to the equation. We are flies on the wall.
Exactly, there is a huge difference between desire to know and right to know what happened. Hoke's answer draws much less notice than throwing out a no comment on the situation. He is much more likely to field many more questions with the no comment answer than a family matter. And like Magnus said, it is a family matter. If you were Gibbons parents and had to take some time off work to handle the situation, I am sure you wouldn't say my son got expelled for allegedly sexually assaulting a woman at a frat party. I imagine you would be much more likely to say something along the lines of I need to take some time off to handle some family issues.
This seems like a very thin line. I mean if we covered up rape that is exactly what PSU did and I seem to remember our community getting up in arms about that. Is there a double standard? Very complicated situation also very sad situation.
Hope justice is done either way.
...and I repeat IF there was any attempt to cover up an assault, the coverup did not consist of Hoke's "family matter" comment to the press. How the incident was handled at the time is the issue, not the reporting of the eventual expulsion.
Hoke's comment isn't "exactly what PSU did" in any way whatsoever. What PSU officials did was fail to report allegations of sexual assault to the police. Nobody would have accused them of a coverup if they'd reported Sandusky's actions to the cops, suspended him during the investigation, and responded to questions from the press by saying Sandusky was "dealing with a personal matter."
How is it a lie?
It's a lie in that is specifically crafted to mislead. There is no one who would draw the correct conclusion from his statement, since virtually no one considers expulsion to be in the class "family issues".
Finding some technical way in which his statement could be considered true (which is quite a stretch by the way) does not mean he was being honest.
More to the point, given that Hoke had the choice to decline comment or to provide no characerization of the reason, the impression left is that he was covering for Gibbons.
Coach Hoke could easily have said that Brendan Gibbons is no longer with the team, and that it is a "student matter."
I don't like it, and I will never like it, when Brady Hoke makes dumb and ham-handed efforts to foil inquiries into things like this. Hoke is building up a modest record of repeated statements that are more "misleading" than "non-committal." Maybe you don 't care about that; maybe casual sports fans don't care about that. I definitely do.
And I am disgusted by the number of commenters willing to condemn Gibbons for a supposed sexual assault. I'll address that separately, below.
"I don't like it, and I will never like it, when Brady Hoke makes dumb and ham-handed efforts to foil inquiries into things like this."
The only inquires he "foiled" were those of a press reporter, who is insignificant. For all any of us know, Hoke was completely forthright and honest when dealing with Gibbons, the university, investigators, etc.
I don't understand the public's desire to know anything and everything that happens in everyone's lives. There are appropriate people who need to know about these things, and Section 1, Magnus, Heiko, Drew Sharp, Michael Rosenberg, Chantel Jennings, etc. are not those people.
Put the straw man down here, just because you don't understand does not mean Hoke did not deliberately give a misleading answer: he did
It's not his job to give enlightening answers to every question he's asked.
There is a difference between enlightening and lying or intentionally misleading.
I never once suggested that Hoke was not forthcoming or honest in any investigation. Far from it.
This is simply a matter of whether Hoke was actively misleading the public about Gibbons' departure from the team.
Hoke didn't have to disclose any private matters. But nothing gives Hoke license to actively mislead anybody. I have no idea what level of arrogance gives anybody the license to do that.
There are no legal charges right now. Hoke cannot comment on Gibbons' academic record or standing due to the FERPA act. Gibbons has a right to privacy over his academic record and university cannot disclose that information.
From the Daily article (and this is after we already know Gibbons has been expelled):
“We can’t comment on anything that involves private student matters in terms of student academic standings or University standing,” Ablauf said.
University spokesman Rick Fitzgerald said he could not comment on Gibbons' academic record because of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act.
We ALLLLL give a s*** what Hoke says!!! he is (supposed to be) the face of the Michigan Football (even though Brandon is) and it is very important what he says. This is Michigan fergodsakes. We need answers as to why Gibbons continued to play football.
"We need answers as to why Gibbons continued to play football."
Because, if this happened in 2009, why did it take this long. We need answers. There is national reporting now that there is a coverup. How do you refute that? With ANSWERS. Did they do this right or was there a coverup? Is Brandon invovled? Will there be firings? Answers will stop this talk because the negative press affects Michigan.
That members of the university community have an interest in how allegations of campus sexual assault are handled...that's clear. That they might expect the university to investigate allegations that there might have been a coverup...that's also understood.
But that they expect to get their report on that invetigation from the head football coach? That's bizarre. (Never mind that Brady Hoke was in San Diego in 2009 and anything he might think he knows about how the matter was handled is mere hearsay. The idea is ridiculous on its face, regardless.)
Because we hold ourselves up as being morally superior?
I think you're missing my point.
No, saying it is family issues is lying. It implies that someone is sick or that he was otherwise needed by his family.
The comment, as I recall, was that Gibbons was "dealing with a famly matter."
I heard that as saying that whatever the matter was, it couldn't or wouldn't be discussed outside his family. To me it didn't even suggest, what you claim it implied. It could have been absolutely anything...it just wasn't something Hoke could discuss.
yea because Hoke is gonna step to the podium at the presser and say.. Gibbons is no longer with the team because of sexual misconduct with a michigan co-ed.. What a disgrace and a headache that would be.. Gibbons brought this on himself, not hoke's job to tell the world about it either
There is another option, and it's one every Michigan fan is quite familiar with from years of "The Fort". "No comment" or "he didn't make the trip, that's all I'll say" or "he's not playing. next question" with a Lloyd Carr-esque glare at the reporter, etc. As someone noted "family issues" sounds like a death in the family or something.
shouldn't be a disgrace and a headache. I don't get these norms for football coaches and why lying is so celebrated.....
But he doesn't....have....to....LIE.
Saying "No comment" isn't being deceptive, it's telling the questioner that you aren't going to speak to the question.
Just because you copy and paste the definition of a four-syllable word does not mean your post is accurate.
The key part of the definition is "intent." The intent very well could have been to protect the privacy of those involved.
If you asked me what I got you for Christmas, and I said "A lump of coal," it wouldn't mean that I was purposely trying to deceive you. It would just mean that you didn't need to know the truth.
There are ways of rejecting questions--saying "no comment", or giving such an obviously implausible answer that it's clear you aren't answering the question--that are not intended to mislead, and which do not primarily serve to mislead. Saying what Hoke said is not one of those ways.
...Hoke is developing for himself a minor history in statements that are not simply noncommittal, but are affirmatively misleading.
For most of the general public, these are usually inconsequential things like saying at the half of the Nebraska game in Lincoln that Denard Robinson would be back in the second half.
And there's a view among some sports fans that all things -- including statements to the press -- are all part of the general effort to win games. Such that misleading the press about personnel is sort of like a fake handoff during the game.
I'm not so sure I am on any kind of campaign to end such things, or to correct such views in the public. But I will always point them out if it things were said that appear to be untrue. I like words, and their meanings. I respect words, and their power. And I like truth in all discourses.