SI Article on Gibbons (author's only source is Washtenaw Watchdog)
I don't know if there is anything new here. My sense is it's an SI writer rehashing what's known along with a description of the allegations. We'll never know what happened, but I sure hope the program didn't actively or inactively cover anything up.
[Ed-S: The article is entirely from the P.O.V. of Doug Smith, aka Washtenaw Watchdog]
February 14th, 2014 at 3:01 PM ^
John Bacon has a write up about this incident on his website today:
http://johnubacon.com/2014/02/the-brendan-gibbons-case-and-the-athletic-departments-response/
From everything I’ve seen, the University played it straight, and the athletic department never attempted to interfere with the process. That’s the good news. The bad news is, having gotten the hard part right, the athletic department seemed determined to get the easy part wrong. The various responses have given the appearance of skullduggery where none existed.
February 14th, 2014 at 3:08 PM ^
"I know they can't and are unwilling to talk about it, but damn it, why won't they talk to me?"
February 14th, 2014 at 3:21 PM ^
Excpet for the fact that they held a "not a press conference" ahead of signing day to talk about the situation during which a prepared statement was issued. There's so much talk about building "The Brand" and how strong it is only for the AD/University to turn around and smudge the fresh polish with its big fat bare ass.
February 14th, 2014 at 3:22 PM ^
He also writes, in reference to the presser which the Daily was not told about:
But even if we take them at their word, they were naïve not to predict the public wouldn’t believe them, especially given this administration’s habit of creating public relations gaffes, then backpedaling with explanations that are disingenuous at best.
To me, this is one of the main issues that drags down the image of the department. I tend to think that what he said above is a pretty reasonable conclusion, that they "got the hard part right" and did what they should have done and on cue for the most part. They do have a rather disturbing habit of giving canned, sterile replies to things even when they probably don't need to do so, and while I get that they probably do want General Counsel involved in some situations, the result often seems contrived and, as Bacon said, disingenuous.
February 14th, 2014 at 3:43 PM ^
is that this was in front of the administration and I would assume they, and not the athletic department, were the ones who would be doing any investigating. Obviously the public perception will still be that it's the athletic department.
February 14th, 2014 at 3:23 PM ^
FTA:
The list includes the initial decisions not to take the marching band to the Cowboy Classic in Dallas; banning the seat cushions they sold to fans for $20 at the spring game; displaying a giant Kraft macaroni noodle under the scoreboard the day before a home game; and paying thousand of dollars for the skywriting stunt over Spartan Stadium. Each time, the department’s attempts to backtrack didn’t douse the fans’ anger, but fueled it.That was cathartic. It's like a nice collection of Mgoblog's Greatest Hits there.
February 14th, 2014 at 3:05 PM ^
about the way Smith victimized the victim? I think it a fair characterization that both Smith and the media at large have used this issue, not out of concern for any victims, but as a cudgel with which they can bash the University. A cudgel to be used against Dave Brandon and Brady Hoke as well.
Read More: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20140214/michigan-rape-case-fallout/#ixzz2tKNguU00
I find it quite astonishing that a case not pursued by the victim and dropped by the local police four years ago is still garnering national news attention while all anybody cared about with regards to Winston case was whether or not the prosecutor would drop the case. The victim, to hell with what she had to say, all the media wanted to know is that voters could now with "clear conscience" cast their HT vote for Jameis Winston, and he would now be available for the MNC game.
February 14th, 2014 at 3:28 PM ^
You're not alone. I thought that as well.
What's even more interesting is that Doug Smith is posting over on RCMB about a separate case involving Jordan Dumars. He's trying to drum up support for more attention on that article. This, to me, puts the lie to his true intentions. He's not concerned about safety and victims at all. He just has a problem with UM. I don't see him firing of FOIA requests on the 2010 incident involving a nearly identical situation to Gibbons with two MSU basketball players.
He couldn't care less about victim and that's apparent from the fact the victim refuses to interact with him. He cares about getting UM.
February 14th, 2014 at 3:37 PM ^
I don't know whether Gibbons, Lewan, and/or Dumars are owed apologies or should be serving time. I do know for damn sure that someone who has involved himself to the level of Doug Smith sure as hell shouldn't be litigating this thing on interwebs sports message boards.
February 14th, 2014 at 4:22 PM ^
is no longer allowed to post in the comment section of annarbornews.com, he had to go afield.
February 14th, 2014 at 3:46 PM ^
doing this. Total bullshit that he was concerned about her. If he was, he would be working for answers on the alleged incident at MSU also.
February 14th, 2014 at 3:23 PM ^
I guess we can chalk Dohrman up as yet another guy who can't read. I even sent him a message to try to help him understand the language of FERPA.
He asserts that the university could have released more info on the Gibbons case than he did. He even asserts on his twitter feed that UM could have released details such as dates. Here's the language from FERPA about what a school is allowed to release.
From 1232g(b)(6)(c):
(i)shall include only the name of the student, the violation committed, and any sanction imposed by the institution on that student; and
(ii)may include the name of any other student, such as a victim or witness, only with the written consent of that other student.
Note the use of the apparently hard to understand word "only". As in, the school can release ONLY this information. Name of student (Gibbons), violation committed (sexual misconduct) and sanction imposed (expulsion). There's nothing the university is allowed to provide that they have not.
This is getting tiresome.
February 14th, 2014 at 3:36 PM ^
...can only be released if you believe the "crime" language of FERPA covers the "sexual misconduct" language of the U of M code, which is a shaky assertion at best. I can see why people get confused about this, but George Dohrmann should also be careful when making an assertion about what the law is and isn't.
Does anyone know how to email Dohrmann? He's on Twitter, but I am not.
February 14th, 2014 at 3:40 PM ^
Just click the link to his article and there's a link at the top to send him an e-mail. Frankly, you're probably wasting your time. He says on Twitter that he talked to lawyers who tell him he's right. Which . . . wow. If any lawyer reads sections 1232g(b)(6)(b) and 1232g(b)(6)(c) and still thinks there's more information UM can release, then that lawyer needs to be disbarred.
February 14th, 2014 at 4:36 PM ^
...but it felt good to email him.
February 14th, 2014 at 4:51 PM ^
You can read our exchange: https://twitter.com/georgedohrmann/status/434389018650755072
Bottom line, SI has either terrible lawyers or terrible taste in columnists. Or both.
February 14th, 2014 at 5:19 PM ^
Please enjoy this virtual scotch as my thanks. It seems ever so slightly possible that he'll really check into what the law is.
February 14th, 2014 at 9:50 PM ^
How much do you want to bet there will be no response to Seth's tweet either. Can you say "Oops, we did not do our homework?"
February 14th, 2014 at 4:05 PM ^
was what "crime". I'm not saying that nothing happened. I wasn't there. What I mean is that he was never charged or convicted of a crime so the exception would not apply.
February 14th, 2014 at 4:31 PM ^
It attemps to marry criminal law with the sorts of student code violations that schools investigate. It's a recipe for confusion.
February 14th, 2014 at 3:38 PM ^
As Yogi used to say, "It's not over 'til it's over" and this tale has some legs.
It's really a shame that Dr. Coleman's legacy will have this footnote toward the end. Add that to the RR hire and she probably is not much of a football fan anymor.
February 14th, 2014 at 3:46 PM ^
I suppose we should get used to this ongoing uncomfortable PR, it probably won't go away any time soon. Wonder what media outlet is going to weigh in next. My hope is that the university as a whole has looked in the mirror and learned from this experience.
February 14th, 2014 at 3:58 PM ^
It appears that this Douglas Smith, has crossed the boundaries of decency in this situation, to try and get press attention shifted on to himself.
Thats pretty fkin twisted if you ask me.
February 14th, 2014 at 4:40 PM ^
February 14th, 2014 at 4:27 PM ^
Well I really wanted to believe in this guy's journalistic integrity, given that he was the one who broke the Tressel scandal...but he is a common hack, nothing more and nothing less.
February 14th, 2014 at 4:39 PM ^
"Why did the school not do something back in 2009 or, at the least, in 2011 when Smith brought the alleged crime to the attention of Coleman and others?
This is a classic example of begging the question. It assumes that the school did not, in fact, do anything at all in 2009 or 2011. If the school did they would not, of course, be allowed to say anything about it. All we know is that the full process didn't result in publicly-released documents/excerpts until 2013. If MSC asked some aide in 2011 what this was about, and the aide investigated and came back with "OSCR (or OIE) couldn't investigate unless the woman filed a complaint" then the university did do something in 2011.
Further, what prompted the school to finally examine an incident?
I think the law is pretty clear that the university can't legally answer this question. Even if it is withholding information on the Gibbons case that it could release (like, his name, the infraction he was found guilty of, and the penalty), the information on why it acted when it did isn't on the list.
The university might be wise to conduct an internal investigation into what happened and why, but the public won't hear the answers.
February 14th, 2014 at 6:19 PM ^
February 14th, 2014 at 8:09 PM ^
I would'nt want to be in Gibbons shoes right now, guilty or innocent...he is in a bad situation either way, particulary coming out of college and looking for a job.
February 14th, 2014 at 7:22 PM ^
Why isn't this article written by Rosenberg? He is their man on the ground in the state of Michigan and writes just about everything that comes across SI's desk with interest in this area.
I think we all know the reason why. Rosenberg is part of a protection team for an establishment at UM that includes Lloyd Carr, David Brandon, Brady Hoke, etc. while he tried to railroad Rich Rodriguez by any means necessary.
February 14th, 2014 at 8:24 PM ^
Ah, the ol' "protection team." Can you see their aura when you wear your tinfoil beanie?
February 14th, 2014 at 8:07 PM ^
As we all know, Michigan's football program is in the midst of its worst on-the-field stretch of play in 50 years. Michigan is down, still... and many people in the press are taking shots at Michigan, while they can.
Everyone knows that Michigan will eventually be back. This will happen as soon as the program becomes a bit less bloated, and a lot less "look-at-us aint we grand". The program needs to be a lot more meanacing, lean, hungry and tough. Win some games and these shots will be less and less in the press.
February 15th, 2014 at 2:31 AM ^
February 15th, 2014 at 3:19 PM ^
I'm sick up to my eyeballs with the "University handled it right but the PR has been wrong".
The media just keeps repeating the "unanswered questions" meme without really getting into what exactly those questions are, if indeed they have been answered, and if they even can be, given student privacy laws.
How exactly should the University have "gotten in front of it"? They have always been constrained in what they can say and still are.
February 15th, 2014 at 4:26 PM ^
This story is not going away and that stinks. The fact of the matter is the administration is going to have to tell the public more about this or it's just going to foster more suspicion. We really don't know what happened as far as the program goes. Maybe they screwed up, maybe they didn't, I don't know because they don't think they caan talk about it.
February 17th, 2014 at 9:03 AM ^
I'm not including the link so they don't generate clicks. The Detroit News from the quick glance I took basically regurgitated the SI article today. One interesting fact was that the first response from a reader was from none other than Doug Smith, showing that it's all about him and he could care less who gets hurt on the way to acheiving his agenda.