Gibbons expelled for alleged sexual assault

this is terrible.

Disgusting!

I had heard the rumors before, but to think the University took 3 years to do anything about this is disgusting to me.  I don't want to hear about a rule change, this was wrong.

And I also don't appreciate this being kept hush hush when he was missing the Bowl game.

That's fucked up B!

I will admit I liked Gibbons as a player and posted a lot about it in the past.  But that has changed a lot since I read all of this.  I recalled the accusations but it seemed to me to be something that had faded away since it was several years back with no action taken.  Saddened for the victim.  No idea why the University (rule changes or not) would take so long to make a decision in the case just because it opens the door to questions about professionalism.

The thought occurred to me that maybe the coaching staff at that point wasn't really in complete control of their program and hadn't set hard lines (etc) for their young players. 

I'm sure Hoke was informed.  I think he made the correct choice that Gibbons was innocent until deemed guilty (which is the standard) by the OSCR.  Gibbons' issue was not a pure football issue nor a law enforcement/justice system issue.  Since its not appropriate for the University to comment on nor broadcast that information....Hoke being a spokesman of the University by many regards, made the correct choice.  Also can you imagine for a moment, if the information came out at that time...the media firestorm that would have dominated the bowl season and been a connotation associated with Michigan for months to follow.

I'm sure the team knew the actual story from their fellow player.  And probably that affected the Team as thats not something we normally deal with.

Its one thing to feel "let down" by a player's play.  That takes a few minutes or a day to get over.  But to be let down by their actions is very disheartening indeed.

 

At the very least, the university has a lot of explaining to do.

They don't have to say anything with regard to Gibbons or the case specifically if that is somehow in violation of law, but they do need to address why this took so long to be resolved.

U of M looks pretty goddamn horrible as of right now. Saying "it's a change in policy" isn't good enough. It's a non-answer.

It looks as if they allowed a person who may have raped a girl to play out his entire career, and then conveniently gave him the boot after his eligibility was up.

That may or may not be the case, but until they clarify how they handled this case, and why they chose to handle it in the manner that they did, Michigan looks fucking abhorrent.

In such civil proceedings, an assault need be proven only to be more likely than not--perhaps similar to UM's recently adopted policy.  At the same time, if there were no criminal charges, the DA probably concluded that an assault could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt--a strong criterion, perhaps like UM's prior policy.

In any case, I hope the school provides more information about the incident.  The longstanding, widely circulated, well known police records provided two very different accounts of the incident.  Based on these alone, one could reasonably ask: what should Hoke have done? Would it have been legal to publicly announce that Gibson was being suspended for yet unproven assault charges?  Should he have suspended Gibson as soon as he first heard of the incident--knowing that Gibson denied the assault and no criminal charges were pursued?  And what criteria should have guided him in handling this problem? 

It would be unfair to compare this to other incidents, and it would make me sick to use as a standard another school, like Ohio, which suspended Carlos Hyde for a videotaped physical assault not for the UM, championship, or bowl games but only for easy nonconference games. It would make me sick to use as a standard, Urban Meyer, who did not at all suspend Hernandez for a proven assault against a bartender, and who apparently did not even question him or compel police testimony about a far more serious incident, which might jeopardize a national title run. 

Whether the penalties Hoke applied were sufficient, sufficiently candid, or sufficiently early, they were at least meaningful.  Hoke held Gibson out of the bowl and Ohio game.  IMO, the latter had a lot to do with UM's loss (due to a failure to kick makeable field goals and an unwillingness to risk a field-goal-dependent overtime).  That made Gibson's act hurt not only the far more seriously injured victim.  It added his teammates and his coach to the victim list.

 

 

Yikes. That certainly puts the whole "brunette girls" thing in an especially skeezy light. Kinda goes to show, we can get all excited about the Michigan difference when it comes to guys like Wyatt Shallman, but just realize that there's shit like this going down too, just like there is at any other school.

This case is disturbing to say the least.  And Taylor Lewan might have threatened then victim?  What the hell is going on here?

go home 2014, you're drunk.

And the many from that guy whom I can't remember. Gibbons was never even charged. At the time of the offense he was a nobody on the team. Additionally, the Lewan stuff is not backed up by anything credible.

This may be true, but smells if duke lacrosse.

A person is innocent until proven guilty. I have dealt with many so called victims that were vague, incoherent about the facts, or just unwilling to pursue complaints for a variety of reasons. If a victim refuses to cooperate there are certain cases where they can be forced to testify. Those instances are rare to say the least. Hostile witnesses and/or complainant/victims are the worst to deal with when on the stand because they jeopardize the case and can even embarrass the prosecution. Needless to say this case leads me to believe the complainant was not willing to cooperate with police or possibly prosecutors who interview victims involving sexual assault.

Lack of cooperation then could lead to lack of evidence. No evidence - no charges. It's possible the University of Michigan was told to stay out of this and let police and prosecutors do their job. There are times when uncooperative victims are given time to think about their decision and attempts to interview are continued until it's fruitless to go further.

Four years is a very long time but not unusual. Many sex crimes go longer than that before prosecution. The bottom line is the university should not make judgements without evidence. It's very possible some new information came forward and we could only speculate how and what information that is.

The bad part is it took four years to get it taken care of. The good part is something was done. Gibbons is gone. Improper dismissal is not the way things should be done either. An explanation with facts needs to be given regardless. Until that's done we know nothing. The rumor mill is not justice for either party.

Anyone think the whole reason she didn't press chargers was because of the threats?  She sure seemed like someone who did the right things after the incident.

Still though. Wow...

I was always uneasy about the "Brunette Girls" thing given the rumors but this makes me fucking sick.

1. If he was the only person actually expelled by this committee in the past year, it's fair to assume this was both serious and proven. 2. What did Hoke and Brandon know and when? If they lied, consequences should be speedy, and serious. Tough issue for the new Prez. 3. Why did this take four years? The process as described seems to be a semester, at most.