Black Heart Gold Pants

Oh yeah...

clay-born to party - January 30, 2012 reply

Why didn't you post the quote about HIM choosing to withdraw from the University.

Or the part where it says he received a great deal of support from the university community, now I don’t know whether that means coaches or what but yeah. We also don’t know what all lead to him withdrawing, KF already said he expected him back.

Because he specifically stated he left because he wouldn't admit to something he didn't do

I don’t put this on the coaches; if the coaches wanted him suspended for this, he would have been suspended in late October. This is on Sally Mason. Hit KF with the truth serum and I am 96% sure he says this entire thing is bullshit.

I should say, Mason and Barta

Because if you ever wanted any insight into the character and backbone of Gary Barta, you saw it when he hung his head basketball coach out to dry for nudging a chair during a timeout just because Jim Delany told him to.

Meh.

I don’t think he did Fran too wrong. And Fran had been acting this way just a little too much (several techs, an ejection, kicking the scorer’s table, the chair, etc).

Criticism of Barta about the Coker situation, I can tolerate. But Barta and the U don’t help themselves by scoffing at Delany.

Also, Barta had plenty of letters from fans who were upset about the chair thing. If he makes one short comment of disapproval about it, instead of actually being angry about it toward Fran, that’s not so bad.

The difference in his reaction to Fran yelling or slamming an inanimate object and his reaction to the rhabdo situation, where actual student athletes were put in an extremely dangerous situation without anyone on the coaching staff being publicly reprimanded, was pretty appalling.

NorseHawk - January 30, 2012 reply

Yes. Rhabdo. The end of civilization.

And absolutely caused by coaches.

13 kids in the hospital with fairly serious kidney issues is pretty bad, yeah

And given that it was caused by a completely asinine workout designed by the Doyle and the rest of the S&C staff, yeah I don’t think it’s unreasonable to think that they should have been held at least partially responsible.

NorseHawk - January 30, 2012 reply

And certainly

none of it was due to de-hydration or any other issue.

It never happened before when they've used the same workout.

you mean that one other time they did it after a spring of workouts?

you do know that there are many, many factors that go into how peoples’ bodies react to things, right? Something not happening once before is hardly conclusive of its effects on the body. Sounds like something Lipitor might say: “Hey, that one time we tested people before, it didn’t kill anyone!”

Are we sure they only did that workout one other time?

I don’t know. But there is enough doubt that I’m not going to call anyone who disagrees with me a “douche.”

Christ, you two

I thought we had this same rhabdo discussion six months ago.

It wasn't because you disagreed, it was how you did it.

And saying “right back at you” seems to be calling me a douche, no?

Okay, I'll turn the other cheek.

A little late to get all righteous now.

But do what you will to feel good.

Like call other people "dense douches"?

yeah

you’re amazing at passive aggressiveness. I just prefer aggressiveness. Forthright and honesty. Maybe that’s why we clash so much.

I just prefer aggressiveness. Forthright and honesty.

By calling someone a douche, on the Internet, from China.

You’re all man.

The best part about this

Is that it has absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand.

mikjones24 - January 31, 2012 reply

I agree.

I should have spelled out why I called Chazz a dense douche in my original comment. It’s the inherent “someone’s attacking the coaches, I must defend them” that comes up in anything football related. But I’ve fallen into Chazz’s trap of going off-subject and debating arguing styles.

Ha ha ha ha.

Gotcha.

It’s a trap.

SUBJECT LINE

DrHenryKillinger - January 31, 2012 reply

I'm not really following this particular

pissing match, I just want to see how this thread will indent.

The thread seems to get tinier and tinier the more indents it has.

I’m not certain how many indents it allows for. I could probably figure it out. But that’s probably a Hamsterdam thing.

/takes it to Hamsterdam

EnergizerHawk - January 31, 2012 reply

And see, I never said anything about being a man.

I just said I prefer forthright and honesty. The aggressiveness thing is clearly just a play on words against “passive aggressive”.

Of course, you’ll now continue to claim that you never call anyone names, except, of course, for the part where you sarcastically call me “all man”, implying of course that I’m not a man and this is supposed to make me feel bad. But since you didn’t actually say I wasn’t a man, you can still sit on your throne of righteousness.

Like I said, passive aggressive annoys me. That is all. I’ll leave you alone from now on Chazz. I am sorry I called you a douche and that it bothered you so much. (I expect you to now tell me how it didn’t bother you at all.)

It wouldn't bother me

if I was actually being a douche.

I might have been a bit sarcastic, but not full-on douche, I don’t think.

I’d hope we can still discuss things around here. Without getting hurt feelings about name-calling or passive-aggression or whatever else you and I want to complain about.

Well, I know you disagree that you were being a douche

But you were creating a strawman argument and being sarcastic and passive aggressive while doing it. I would guess that’s pretty douchey to most. I do understand why you would not think so, however, since you: a) don’t think you created a strawman and b) probably don’t think you’re passive-aggressive

I guess I'd characterize it

as sarcasm. I wouldn’t characterize any portion as any type of aggressive, even passively so.

I’m not even sure I created a Strawman.

isn't that what i just said?

you don’t believe/agree with anything i said. I completely understand what you’re saying.

And sarcasm isn't passive-aggressiveness?

If you want to grapple with the actual issues this post raises...

There’s some good debates at the bottom of the page.

If you just want to call each other douches or discuss the pros and cons of of passive-aggressive behavior, please take it to email. I’d be happy to help that process.

RossWB - January 31, 2012 reply

There are many things that go into being a douche

DM_Purp - January 31, 2012 reply

You can be a real dense, douche sometimes.

If rhabdo wasn’t the coaches’ fault, then nothing can possibly be.

Right back at you, guy.

I pointed to a specific instance where you were being completely dense...

…and a sarcastic jerk to someone on here for no apparent reason other than to get a rise out of him/her.

Thank you for knowing my intent.

Do you know the upcoming lottery numbers, too?

Then what was your intent?

Here's my intent.

The Rhabdo situation was not good. Yet, I’m not sure that whole situation was the sign of pure evil in the coaching staff that many people want it to be (Norse called the reaction to it “appalling.”)

You decided to call me a douche. And dense. And I might be, but I don’t think this scenario is the proof in that pudding.

You didn't once describe your intent in that comment.

How is calling Gary Barta’s reaction to rhabdo appalling in relation to Fran throwing a chair using rhabdo a sign of pure evil in the coaching staff.

This is why I get so upset at the "apologists"*. This was pretty specific application to Gary Barta, not the coaching staff. It was pretty specific in comparing it to the reaction of Fran’s incident. Yet you read into it (apparently, by this comment) that Norse was calling it a sign of pure evil by the coaching staff (I’m assuming the football coaching staff).

If you would have just read what seems pretty plain to me (that it appalls Norsehawk that Barta called out Fran publicly for throwing a chair but not the football staff for having a workout that put 13 guys in the hospital), you probably wouldn’t have even responded. But you seem to have this need to apologize for Ferentz and the football staff at every instance that you create this stark dichotomy with anything that even relates to the football program.

*Ross can call me out for my broad strokes.

Chicken or the egg?

“haters” or “apologists”?

BentNotBroken - January 31, 2012 reply

Norse mentioned a lack of

reprimanding of the coaches for Rhabdo.

I think there is a little room for debate about whether the Rhabdo thing was completely the fault of the coaches. Particularly because it could have just been Doyle and an assistant. Also, we have no idea if those players were properly hydrated, or using illicit substances, or other questions. I’m not saying they were, but I’m also not sure they weren’t.

The Rhabdo situation is quickly becoming the go-to argument whenever someone disagrees with the administration or the coaches. It is as tiring to me (and probably to a few other people) as my steadfast support for the coaches is annoying to you, and Hoya, and Stoops, and others. The difference is, I didn’t jump in and call Norse a “dense douche.”

Pretty sure Doyle is part of the coaching staff sooo

NorseHawk - January 31, 2012 reply

And you're STILL staying away from Norse's actual comment.

that he is appalled that Barta got publicly reprimanded for throwing a chair while Barta did virtually nothing when 13 kids in the football program were hospitalized.

& the final report ruled out other substances

didn’t it? Or did I imagine that?

HawkeyeGirleye - January 31, 2012 via iPhone app reply

It's possible. I don't remember.

No, you didn't

the final report basically absolved the players of any fault/contribution to the issue while magically finding it was the result of the workout while no one on staff was to blame or bore responsibility. There is actually a good argument to make that Doyle, et al, were not to “blame”, that they were unlikely to be able to foresee the outcome. But I still don’t know how you don’t hold them responsible, even if being responsible doesn’t warrant termination/suspension (as in my opinion here).

They are responsible,

but, I don’t get spitting angry about it. I just find it curious that the workout had been used before, without any reported problems.

Although, Tyger said the workout was used at the end of the spring, instead of in January (or whenever the Rhabdo one happened).

A sample size of one does not evidence make

part of the problem with the specific workout, was the fact that it was done so irregularly by the staff. The only time we know it was done, was following the 2007 season. But here’s the catch, it that instance it was done before winter break, i.e. before the players had gone home and lounged around for three weeks. And I think that had an incredibly significant impact (in 2007 they did it at or near the peak of the in-season shape, last year after a month of being slothful). And there are a couple of articles about rhabdo occurring in similar situations that Doyle should, and may have been (that part is unclear), aware of. The problem I had with the report about the rhabdo incident was that it was a whitewashing, no one is held to be “responsible” (whether being responsible deserves sanctions is a whole other discussion) for the incident, it just “happened” in a cloud of ether.

And it might be the fault of the coaches,

or it might not be. I’m unsure if that has ever been conclusively proven.

you know, i don't think smoking has technically been conclusively proven to cause cancer

so there’s that.

Watch yourselves, everyone.

Only I get to call Chazz a douche.

Seriously, let’s keep it civil.

It’s funny how one of the quickest ways to break BHGP’s “no douchiness” rule is to call somebody else a douche. Irony.

You are.

SomeJerkPoster - January 31, 2012 reply

Takes one to know one.

I know I am, but what are you?

Wait, what?

Chazz

do you have the ability to recognize that just because you wouldn’t act a certain way or don’t think it is the best way to behave, that doesn’t not immediately make it morally “wrong” in some way? I’m serious here. It’s one thing to say “I wouldn’t act that way, and I wish the coach wouldn’t” and something else entirely to say the former while adding the equivalent of “and I’m glad he got punished/admonished because he was clearly ‘wrong’ to do so.”

I'm not glad Fran was "admonished."

I think the admonishment came more from the Big Ten than from Barta. Barta maintained he fully supports Fran.

I love to watch and laugh when these incidents happen (including the chair). I don’t necessarily think it makes Fran a bad guy. I think, if you’re the “CEO” of an important organization, and you have to make a ton of important decisions, and you’re being paid a very nice salary, you should probably be able to restrain yourself from throwing tantrums.

As long as Fran keeps it to a chair slam on a floor, or kicking a table, I won’t be angry. If he accidentally clips another person with a chair, or somehow affects someone else (as Bob Knight did many times), then we’ll know it has gone too far. I’m not wild about a ton of technicals or an ejection in a somewhat close game, but I’m not going to say that makes him wrong or bad, even if I hope I’d avoid techs and ejections if I ever coached.

Sometimes technicals are good

coaches know that sometimes they need to be the one that fires up/inspires their listless team, or at least shows the players that they (coaches and players) are all in this together. And sometimes, getting mad just helps. It’s a fine line, of course, because sometimes you go too far and/or take yourself out of it (as an example, my dad is a huge professional tennis fan, he would always recount how in the late 70s and early 80s there were two players, McEnroe and Ilie Nastase, basically as famous for their on-court outbursts as for their actual play. the difference, my father always maintained, was that McEnroe’s outbursts were designed for him to flush the disappointment/anger about a wrong call or the like, while Nastase would just get mad — after an outburst, McEnroe would play better and be more focused, he had gotten it “out of his system” and moved on, while Nastase would let it eat at him for the rest of a match).

I haven’t seen enough of Iowa/Fran to know which side of the ledge he falls on, but I do know that there are “good” technicals and even ejections (see Bobby Cox in baseball). Hell, the coach of my team, John Thompson III, gets more than a few technicals during the season, but his are often well-timed and seem to be intended to show his team that yes, he agrees that the refs are doing a bullshit job and he’ll stick up for them, even if it doesn’t lead to an immediate change on how the game is being called (but does far more often than we would like to admit).

I will never understand this

Hoya, not yelling at you (for once), but at the argument that technicals in basketball are okay, which is made by many basketball fans.

I agree with everything posted above about getting mad, inspiring team play, protecting your players etc., but isn’t there some way to do that without costing your team points? Even in your tennis example, rampages rarely cost a player direct points. In almost every other sport that is a sacred rule- emotional outbursts should not cost your team points. Yet, in basketball, no one cares.

TangerinePony - January 31, 2012 reply

I think that actually drives home the point

The coach is saying, in effect, “this is so important that I’m willing to concede a few points to the other team to make my issue heard!” Now, obviously, you would hope that your coach picks those battles wisely – and there are plenty of examples of coaches who do not – because if done at the right time, I think conceding a few points actually increases the efficacy of the argument (you’re standing on principle, the immediate consequences be damned).

points are far less precious in basketball than any other major sport

This too

good point

Sure he did. In the span of two sentences,

Barta said he was – and I’m paraphrasing here – behind Fran 100%, but at the same time there is a line that shouldn’t be crossed.

The best thing Barta could have done there was not say anything, but instead he decided to sit on both sides of the fence and made himself look like a fool.

CarolinaHawk - January 31, 2012 reply

This

Blackheartnopants - January 30, 2012 via Android app reply

Don't get me started on Barta...

I think I will

just because I’m writing about the quarterback recruit and I’m kind bored.

Do any of us have normal lives?

Or are all of us sports obsessed insomniacs?

Blackheartnopants - January 30, 2012 via Android app reply

I ate a bad chicken leg...waiting for the seltzer to kick in

I have to write all my posts the night before

Perhaps you’ve noticed how they all show up at the top of some hour during the day.

This thing has Sally's fingerprints all over it

she looked at Happy Valley and turned into a paranoid and probably had a dream that inaction on Coker led to her ouster. So fishy was his suspension that we all thought, well I thought, it had to be academic dishonesty. Well, if it were, the comments above by his new coach would make no sense at all.

One of the allegations

was that he took somebody elses test for them. If that was true, would it affect his academic standing? His grades and such are still his. I don’t think they would have effectively kicked him out for that anyway. Suspend him for a game or two, get him to “volunteer” to do some communtiy service.

We’ll ignore the incredible stupidity of the rock star running back, and I can all but guarantee just about everybody in the physics and astronomy dept. knew him on site whether they like football or not, getting involved in a situation with an extremely high probablity of getting busted. (i.e. I never believed this happened)

Flakbait - January 31, 2012 reply

I can't decide on this.

It sounded like the female asked for the investigation to end.

While I’d like to think Coker is pretty innocent, I just don’t know he is.

I do wish him well in the future.

She didn't even press charges, so there never was much of an investigation for her to end.

The Mexican't - January 30, 2012 reply

Chazz, you can be sure the university gave her every sense that they would support he all the way through

given their history of mismanaging allegations by females. And if there were physical evidence they would not need her for the charges. If something happened and the only evidence is her saying something happened and she chose not to say something happened then what more is there to it. He should have been reinstated.

You have a lot more faith in the administration than I do in that regard

NorseHawk - January 30, 2012 reply

And, apparently more information about how there was "no physical evidence."

It must be a lot of fun to be completely knowledgeable and correct about everything.

if they had evidence of a rape they have to press charges

period. if the only evidence is a verbal claim, and that claim is withdrawn then the charges are dropped. Or were you kidding?

If she doesn't submit to a rape examination,

and if she withdraws a verbal claim, then they have no way to know if a rape happened.

Do any of us know if she submitted to that? I remember “UIHC” being on the report, but I’m not sure any of us know more than that.

Like I said, I don’t know how to feel about this. If he did something to her that he should not have, then he can’t play for us again. If not, then he’s getting treated unfairly.

So that innocent until proven guilty stuff

isn’t you thing? Okay.

unless it's the coaches, of course

It’s an amazing double standard, to be sure.

who's blaming the coaches on this?

Not Vint.

chazz

all students seem to be guilty until proven innocent
all coaches seem to be innocent until forever

As much as you'd like it to be this way,

I think Chazz’s opinions are a little more nuanced than that.

SomeJerkPoster - January 31, 2012 reply

I fully admit to using hyperbole to make a point on an Internet comment thread

I don’t think Chazz really thinks that completely.

I would recommend dialing back on the hyperbole.

I don’t think it’s making your points as clearly as you’d like to think. Try focusing on the things Chazz is saying that you don’t like, rather than calling Chazz names, or passive-aggressive, or an apologist. I think he’d be more willing to concede your point of view on things.

SomeJerkPoster - January 31, 2012 reply

Good advice

Chazz would also be well-advised to not try and use the “I’m joking”/“It was sarcasm” cop-out when called to account for his statements, though.

Ah, I see....I didn't understand your comment earlier. Now I do.

I may not agree with Chazz on this topic

but you paint too broad a stroke there.

If he's innocent until proven guilty,

then why was he suspended at all?

I very much doubt the school would suspend student-athletes merely because of the possible PR damage, and do so about 3 months later than the incident.

I think there could be (not necessarily is, but could be) more to this story than Coker’s side. There are unanswered questions, and he wasn’t going to play until we got closer to some answers.

Again, I am conflicted, not taking one side or the other on this issue.

http://www.hawkeyesports.com/ot/code-of-conduct.html

if you read the athlete code it allows the University

to suspend a kid for literally anything. A kid can be suspended for I posted it in a prior thread and maybe even a post.

A student-athlete is determined to have committed Category II misconduct when:
“A University official or hearing body has determined, in accordance with its official procedures, that the student-athlete has violated a University or college policy, rule, and/ or regulation.”

Read it…

So, what policy did Coker violate?

If he hasn’t violated any policy, then this is bad.

If he has, and they won’t tell us, then it kind of makes sense that he’d withdraw and go to another school. I’d think it might be telling that it was Stony Brook instead of a more prestigious football program, but it could just be that they have good academics and he can play right away.

What's telling about it being a less prestigious football program but a very good academic program?

It could be

that he doesn’t have to sit a year at Stony Brook and he will be able to spend more time on academics than on football. He sounds like a smart kid and he may have already made a decision to earn a living beyone age 21 using his brain instead of his brawn.

Flakbait - January 31, 2012 reply

Chazz, for your own sake

I hope that you are never, ever accused of wrong doing. Because if you were to be, you’d be hoisted on your own petard with an impossible standard to meet (i.e. you have to prove that you are innocent by, apparently, showing there is no possible way you could be guilty). There is a reason that’s not the evidentiary standard this country has adopted and I pray that you are never on the bad side of such an accusation.

I hope I never am, either.

But, I do take some precautions to not put myself in situations where it would be easy for those accusations to arise. In my line of work, you pretty much have to take those precautions.

So, I don’t make a habit of being outside my home much late at night. I avoid situations where I am one-on-one or in isolated places with young people. I avoid being around illegal drugs.

I don’t expect Coker to have to “prove himself innocent.” But I’m not going to protest in the street if the University thinks they need him to sit for a couple games until their questions are answered.

If the U of I was going to hang him out to dry for a much longer duration (several games, a season, a career), then I’d have to start agreeing with more people here who are so outraged.

The Bacon Explosion - January 31, 2012 reply

Rec'd for "hoisted by my own petard" reference.

I love the milieu of an obscure Shakespearean phrase sprinkled in an cogent argument over logical reasoning.

Stay gold, pony boy.

Lukateake - January 31, 2012 reply

If she didnt submit to a rape examination

then no rape happened. If she withdrew a verbal claim, then no rape happened. She got her way and now he is gone. Please answer this question: MM still competes even though he was busted for operating while barred, but Coker gets kicked off the team for an accusation that was withdrawn (which in my mind is false accusation, if you didn’t mean it why say it?). Even if MM hasn’t been found guilty yet, by Sally Mason’s accord shouldn’t he be suspended?

Nature Boy - January 31, 2012 reply

One possibility

I keep thinking, and this is my opinion only, that there were several things at work with Coker. Kid has a bitch of a major that requires a bunch of time, he is on the football team which requires a bunch of time, he gets all the carries, every game so he wakes up feeling like he got hit by a truck every Sunday morning knowing he has to study all day to make up for lost time.

And then this thing happens – I don’t know what really happened – but it does seem the school didn’t have his back. He expressed as much on Facebook or Twitter of whatever. He gets suspended for the bowl game he was the MVP the previous year.

He may have just had enough. Decided that it wasn’t worth the punishment on his body, being that far away from home for a school he didn’t feel had any loyalty to him at all. Basically he said screw it, I can get as good or better education closer to home, with a football team that wins and a whole lot less pressure/punishment on himself.

I agree with this statment

100%

Nature Boy - January 31, 2012 reply

She doesn't have a say in "ending" the investigation.

She has a say in cooperating and furthering it or choosing not to. The county attorney isn’t going to compel her to testify when (I’m assuming) majority of their evidence would come from her personally. That’s just something they aren’t going to do. If they had enough “real” evidence they would’ve gone in on their own and would’ve used her as a secondary source. But they didn’t. So here we are.

mikjones24 - January 31, 2012 reply

I think the Duke Lacrosse case knocked some sense into overzealous DA's

In turn, I don’t think it’s as cut and dry as many here, including you, are supposing. There could be a ton of gray area here. In any case, it’s a very tough situation, but shit happens to a lot of people. Marcus is doing what a man should do, move on and get better. He’s too smart to dwell on it.

There are about two tons of gray area.

“Sexual assault” is a broad term when reasonably interpeted. If the victim is not the sort to interpet it reasonably you get all sorts of mayhem. There was the coed at Notre Dame, who later committed suicide, that cried rape against a football player. From what became public, it sounds like the two were making out, he fondled her breast, she said stop and leave and he did. Then later she said he raped her.

Flakbait - January 31, 2012 reply

I'm with Catnuts

And there were never all that many overzealous DAs in the first place (though SMA is correct to point out that there are many more willing to prosecute black men for assaulting white women than any other combination). Accusing someone of sexual assault is likely to change a victim’s life forever because of the way we treat women in these cases. It’s not something people generally do lightly, and the problem is much more likely to be that women just don’t bother, because they aren’t confident of being heard. I don’t know what happened here, but the Flakbait situation is far less common than the woman who says no, is raped, and convinces herself that it wasn’t rape.

Good to hear he is staying on track and this hasn't derailed his studies.

Unfortunate that Iowa couldn’t have him enrolled still. Crazy how THIS kid gets ushered out of IC.

Marcus best of luck! Go Coker!!!

BentNotBroken - January 30, 2012 reply

I think it's a bit weak to say he was ushered out, if you mean that the school did it

He was suspended and, by all indications, his coach expected him back for the next season. He wasn’t asked to leave school. Maybe he thought it was best to get a fresh start after whatever was going on, but I don’t consider that being forced out. Frankly, what I think might have “forced” him out was the way the media and the fans blew this thing up and the crazy talk/rumors that came out of it.

rupertj - January 31, 2012 reply

Or

the administrative side of the ledger wasn’t going to allow his suspension to be lifted, thus “forcing” him out. I think KF was being completely honest when he said that he fully expected Coker back, that he suspension would be over soon after the conclusion of the procedures for reinstatement. But it appears, from the outside looking in, that something went amiss during the appeals process and Coker decided to leave when it became apparent that his suspension wouldn’t be lifted. Even if he had decided he needed a fresh start, it would have been far better for Coker to leave while in “good standing” with the school. That he, by all accounts a smart, bright kid, did not wait to do that indicates to me that some part of the university (here: Sally Mason/the administrative side) were throwing up roadblocks.

That is possible.

I’m just not comfortable in calling it “probable” at the moment.

I think it is possible (not necessarily probable) that Coker was just angry at how he got treated by the administration (not the coaches), even if it was just a game or two of suspension, and decided to find another school.

I also really wonder about the timing relative to the P-C article

Because once that’s out there, I can’t imagine Coker wanting to stick around.

I got my PhD from Stony Brook

A very good school and he won’t be under a microscope there. Now if he can just stay away from Vinnie’s house of Camaros and the Commack Motor Lodge, he should do well.

Enoch - January 30, 2012 reply

Based solely on the names of those two places, I feel like I'd love Stony Brook.

Make with the linky and be amazed.

In many ways, Long Island is like the Land that Time Forgot.

Enoch - January 31, 2012 reply

I suddenly feel the urge to own a gold chain

Ed Podolak of Good Judgement - January 31, 2012 reply

I so badly

wanted Vinnie’s house of Camaros to be real.

Jericho Turnpike?

Eyeheartfreedumb - January 31, 2012 reply

With body hair like his, I can almost assure you he loves Camaros.

SomeJerkPoster - January 30, 2012 reply

holy shit there is a printable coupon for $10 off a ’two-hour short stay"

Gustav - January 31, 2012 reply

Brown chicken, brown cow

Captain n Diet Coker - January 31, 2012 reply

I think a nice Wheatus lyric is appropriate here...

“I’m a wannabe gangster, better go back to Commack”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJ7oyx3C6Do

RodgersHasAHose - January 31, 2012 reply

Too much grandstanding on a shaky, unknown pedestal for my liking

But I do like that you’re backing the kid. He seemed like a very good person from most reports. Hopefully he continues to further himself at the very good school that is Stony Brook. Godspeed, Marcus.

Fair enough.

Sorry

But I’m not sold on the whole “Coker is the victim” thing, Mr. Vint.

Charges were not filed only because the alleged victim in the sexual assault investigation chose not to press charges. If she had, it would have been another matter entirely and Coker would have been charged with sexual assault. There are many reasons that she may have chosen not to press charges, but I doubt she made the whole thing up.

We’ll never know what happened, but the University chose to do its own investigation and in the course of that investigation, found that Coker did not act in accordance with the student athlete code of conduct and he was suspended. It was not a witch hunt of an innocent man, like you are making it seem.

Mr. Coker is not the victim here.

cruzhawk - January 31, 2012 reply

So your whole conclusion is based on your statement that the ONLY POSSIBLE WAY...

…a sexual assault charge can go forward is if the victim presses charges? There’s no way the county/city attorney can press charges without the victim? Are you 100% certain about this?

Depends on the circumstances

But in many cases, yes. The only way a sexual assault that does not produce conclusive physical evidence and is not witnessed by a third party can go forward is if the victim presses charges.
And, I cannot imagine, based on the reactions here, why on earth a victim would feel uncomfortable going through a public process of trying to prosecute a 2-time gentleman of the year, scholar, athlete, shining hope for a high-profile disaster of a football position for a he said/she said sexual assault. Can’t imagine at all.

Cruzhawk is right here. The problem on college campuses with sexual assault is not that charges are alleged too frequently. It’s that it happens all the time and isn’t reported, because of the stigma associated with making the accusation and the difficulty proving harm in those cases.

I don’t know what happened. No one does except those two, and probably, the nurse at UIHC who saw the alleged victim that night. But just because there were no criminal charges filed and the University isn’t releasing the details of the process doesn’t mean that nothing happened.

The University may be more aware of it’s shite treatment of sexual assault from the everson case, but that just moves it more toward being a responsible institution. Sexual assault is far too acceptable on college campuses. Posts like this only encourage that attitude.

I don't think when it come to sexual assault it is "far too acceptable" for black males on mostly white campuses

at all. Even when that black male is a high profile athlete. In fact, I would be willing to bet that statistics would show that black males are far more likely to be accused and/or charged with sexual assault on mostly white campuses than would white males — and especially if the female is white. I also think we would all be surprised by the number of “proven” false claims of sexual assault on college campuses (proven by victims recanting, losing in court or their claims being proven false after police investigation ala Duke Lacrosse incident). I do think there are unreported assaults on campus and those a tragic cases, but that is NOT what happened here. This was a reported assault.

To suggest that Iowa has a duty to assume his guilt merely based on an accusation and the fact that he’s a man and she’s a woman and there is a clear and obvious power differential is pretty irresponsible. He was suspended by Iowa it seems after the police concluded their investigation and after the woman chose not to aid the prosecution on charges. A person charged with sexual assault wears a scarlet letter in life. A person assaulted is traumatized for life. Cooler heads must prevail and the truth of this must be meticulously investigated so that both parties have the full measure of their rights. So Iowa electing to suspend Coker and look at all the facts is understandable. However, the press learned that the police are through with this case, and why, while the University for reasons unknown were not.

I think we need to accept the facts here though. She went to a hospital. She or someone on her behalf called the police. The police came right away and met with her and the nurses/doctors. She met with a University of Iowa office on this thing. The prosecutor’s office met with her. I believe Kirk Ferentz met with her. All of this is to say she didn’t exactly get allegedly assaulted and then cower in a corner about all this. Which eliminates the first tragic potential in these situation, that the victim says nothing to anyone while a predator walks around unfettered.

So, she stood up for herself on several levels. This thing was totally under the radar as it was investigated, the press had no idea or agreed to a black out on it. Meaning both Coker and the female were both afforded a measure of privacy and shielded from public scrutiny while the facts were examined by the local police and campus officials/security. Although she was likely over 18, I would bet her parents were invited to become involved or consulted, and in the end they and she chose not to pursue this further. They may have chosen this path not because they lacked a strong case against Coker but because they did not want to go through with having to perhaps be a part of a trial, etc. This leaves, at this time, the court of public opinion as the investigation was eventually reported.

But here is where I think people get confused. College campuses are certainly filled with sexual encounters that are not seen the same way by both parties. The first step in ensuring protection is having an initial investigation and if there are no witnesses, and there often are not, one person has to stand up to the other. That happened, this was a reported case. After that, in these situations where one party sees what happened one way and another party sees it another way, there needs to be a safe and fair legal environment for the person who perceives him or herself to be the victim to press charges and protect themselves. I sense that this woman had every chance to prosecute her story but chose not to. That the University suspended Coker on the flimsiest aspect of the Student Athlete Code of Conduct, conveys (to me) that they took her charges seriously and wanted to show no bias so she could weigh her options. She chose to not go forward. I realize some felt he should have been suspended earlier but this is not Minority Report, we don’t accuse people of crimes before the fact but after the facts have been sifted through.

But now, the worst thing Iowa and we can possibly do is prosecute him anyway merely based on his gender and celebrity. Or her based on her gender and anonymity.

I think Coker felt he could not trust Iowa to allow him to return to his life and reclaim his good name, which despite comments in this thread, he had. He was the face of Iowa football media guides for a reason. People are entitled to assume suspicion with him from here on. But from a legal and ethical standpoint, he deserved to either be kicked off the team because the University sided with the girls story and had ample evidence of her veracity, or taken off suspension. Leaving him suspended only continued to deny him his “rights” while tacitly protecting the University from being scrutinized. In other words, it increasingly looked as it Iowa was less and less interested in Coker OR the woman and only interested in themselves.

Oof, thank you. Your last line figuratively kicked me in the stomach.

txhawkeye - January 31, 2012 reply

As far as the "underreported sexual assault"

I’m talking about the assumption here that because there were no criminal charges (against a very public figure), there was no evidence of sexual assault. I don’t know what happened. I don’t know if the university refused to reinstate him, or if he left because the P-C got the story. I don’t know what happened in the room. But I do know that we need to get to a point where women are confident that they will be fairly heard. This woman did everything right, and we’re all jumping to the conclusion that, because she didn’t press charges, nothing serious happened. We don’t know that.

We can’t conclude anything based on the non-information from the university. Which is frustrating. I just don’t know how people are making conclusions about how the process was applied here without knowing anything at all about what happened.

I don't think people are concluding nothing happened.

I think people are concluding that Coker cannot sit in suspended animation while the process, the legal process, confirmed that their investigation was over. The victim chose not to support an indictment. I don’t think we can have a legal process whereby people accuse people of things, and then withdraw from legal process yet the accused must nevertheless receive consequences of an accusation that are akin to being found guilty.

Now, the university might have and probably does have an entirely separate set of procedures to investigate this accusation, and they have a clause in the student athlete code that allows them to suspend him but the best that I can tell it is pretty time sensitive. They need to tell him of the “charges” right away, he gets to defend himself, and then a decision needs to be made one way or the other.

People are having a hard time understanding a process whereby everyone is saying there are no longer charges or a victim yet he’s still suspended. The quote from him new coach suggests the “issue” was this accusation and they vetted it and cleared him.

I’m curious though, what more would you expect of Coker or the admin at this point, assuming he never transferred? Should he feel he’s innocent but let this hang over him? Because he has no charges to fight to clear his name. No charges were filed. It’s kind of a worst case scenario from his point of view. He can’t even fight these charges yet he’s suspended as if guilty of something.

I'm still really confused by the concentration on legal charges

Maybe it’s just that I’m assuming the victim actually pursued the university sexual assault process, and that that process came to some conclusion that resulted in the suspension. Is that where my perception differs from others? I just can’t imagine any other reason for the delay; 7 weeks seems about right for this sort of process.

As far as my expectations of Coker, I would need to know more about what state he was actually in. I don’t know. If it is the case that he felt he was ill-treated by the process, then I expect him to transfer out and find a better match. If it is the case that the university concluded that a sexual assault happened, I find it reasonable to suspend him from representing the team, or possibly dismiss him from the team, depending on what they concluded happened.

The main issue I have here with the conclusions based on lack of criminal charges is that the black box we have before us looks to me like what I’d hope a university sexual assault process would look like. Report, period of time for review/investigation, action.

Again, I have no idea what happened with Marcus Coker. I just don’t like the implication that a woman should have to be out in public when she reports a sexual assault. While as a man I am sensitive to the issue of grey areas and misunderstandings, as a man I also realize that the heavy presumption in our society is that the woman should have done more when there is any grey area at all. We have a long way to go before men are held as responsible for their actions in grey areas as women.

I don't know about that (your point in the first paragraph)

I get the feeling that it was the university that pursued the sexual assault process independently, after being informed by the police that an investigation is open. Now, part of that would presumably discussing the incident with the alleged victim, and she may be more or less willing to cooperate depending on the specifics; but I really hope it’s not a situation where the victim basically gets to go forum-shopping for her (or his in other instances) allegations. In other words, I hope the system isn’t set up in such way that an alleged victim (of any crime) can basically use the university process to pursue charges that cannot stand up to the (rather limited) scrutiny required by the law.

This is the attitude I'm concerned with

The idea that the reason she would go to the university process is that she had accusations that wouldn’t stand up in the court of law is deeply suspect, given the treatment of sexual assault claimants in this country. There are many, many reasons she might wish to pursue the extant processes governing student-student behavior rather than pursue things legally. Her own privacy is one big reason, but there may have been other things that went into it (btw, the reason I’m assuming she did this is that the cops said that she preferred to pursue things with the university, and that the university apparently then pursued them. We don’t actually know, of course). Upsides and downsides to pursuing only institutional sanctions, and we don’t know what the balance was in her head.

It seems to me that many people in this thread are questioning the existence of student disciplinary policies and processes outside of the ICPD. Given how frequently the reaction to sexual assault claims (in public, not talking about this thread) are, “I wonder how she was dressed,” or “if you stay out of the bedroom, this won’t happen,” we still have a culture of silence around sexual assault. Delegitimizing the processes set up to change that culture for being too victim-friendly just encourages women to not bother.

And, again, all of this is hypothetical vis-a-vis Coker, since we actually have no idea.

These are good points but it's also important to point out that there are cultural (mis)understandings

of acceptable and unacceptable sexual behavior. Which is why the student athlete code of conduct actually draws out in pretty incredible detail what is considered unacceptable sexual contact. In reading it over I felt like all you would need is 20 or so questions to see whether contact qualified or not as unacceptable.

nhrader, I think your broad points are critically important. Date rape as it is often called is a major issue on college campuses because what is and is not acceptable is so misunderstood by both men and women. But, in this specific case I think a lot of the typical concerns are kind of ironed out. She reported (first and foremost, making her unlike the majority); there was a police investigation and the local DA was brought in and supported hearing her out and looking even deep; the university heard her case and acted upon it proactively (they suspended him); the athletic department of course heard her case; and everyone I am sure went to Coker for his side. So I don’t see anywhere the kind of laissez faire attitude that often renders makes women feel as if they are fighting an uphill battle to protect themselves and is likely the biggest hurdle in these sorts of cases.

On the contrary, I see a very active University and a school president involved no less (who just so happens to be a woman).

Iowa City Police Lt. Doug Hart said Wednesday that UI officials were notified about the investigation either Friday, Oct. 28 — the day the unnamed victim reported the assault — or the following Monday. However, UI officials refused to disclose Wednesday when they learned about the investigation or who was first notified.

The University had access to the ICPD notes on this case within days. So, it’s not like they were pulled in after the ICPD had a long drawn out investigation and it’s not like they had to start from scratch either. Again, it seems there was a great deal of effort to get to the bottom of this and right after she called the police and from both the ICPD and the university. As for the University’s silence on when and how, that is SOP for schools because of FERPA.

I'm just extremely wary

of the idea that schools should provide extra-judicial processes for someone to purse the equivalent of a felony charge in a forum where the standards are much less stringent than a court of law. And I mean in almost every case, not just this one. The fact is, rape shield laws exist to protect the anonymity of potential accusers, as well they should – dragging the alleged victim’s name through the mud serves no purpose (nor does the old defense of "well, she was slutty, therefore she can’t say ‘no’ here).

It’s one thing if the school, as seems to be the case here, receives a report and follows its own internal procedures of investigation, a process that includes interviewing the alleged victim to get their side of the story. It is a horse of an entirely different color, however, to give students a carte blance extra-judicial venue to pursue charges against a fellow student for conduct that occurred off of university grounds (not that is determinative, if the alleged rape took place on campus, it would still be preferable to call in the Iowa City police/Johnson County DA’s Office). I am in no way trying to blame the victim, or even question her motives, but the accused do have rights, and the university shouldn’t allow itself to be imposed between two sides in a potential criminal matter by one of the parties involved.

Note, I do not think that is what occurred here. As I read the whole situation, police were dispatched to the UIHC upon a call from the hospital of a possible rape from the statements of the alleged victim, a “rape kit” was done, the police investigated the matter and a decision was made not to bring charges (indicating that there wasn’t even enough evidence to support an indictment, a much lower bar to clear). After this, the university, after being notified of the investigation day after it was launched by the police, followed it’s own procedures and decided to suspend Coker. I don’t think the girl went to the university after law enforcement declined to pursue it. But I’m wary of that option existing (for any alleged crime).

Eyeheartfreedumb - January 31, 2012 reply

+1

SpanishJohnny - January 31, 2012 reply

to nhradar, in case that wasn't clear

SpanishJohnny - January 31, 2012 reply

You ask about the timing?

Just a scenario for thought, but:

The police had wrapped their investigation up, but the school hadn’t. Perhaps the press had agreed to a black out for a period of time (maybe the UI said they wanted to get it right this time) say, until the investigations were wrapped up, and they were getting antsy while the the school was stalling (or seemed like it). Maybe, with the doldrums of pre-Bowl season approaching, the once-cooperative press said “We’re running with it.”
Perhaps the media of eastern Iowa felt they’d done both students the proper courtesy, but they were gonna go catch some headlines.

I’m wondering if any other departures have been a result of this process.

this post cant be rec'd enough

Loretta8 - January 31, 2012 reply

So wait

You’re saying that, if you were accused of a crime by someone who then decided not to press charges, the prosecutor did not have enough evidence to pursue the charges without the assistance of the victim (which they’re fully entitled to do, of course), and you weren’t even indicted as a result of the accusation, you should be suspended indefinitely from your job? Because that’s exactly what happened here.

This isn’t about “innocent until proven guilty.” I get it when a kid is suspended for an indictment or charge. I get it when a kid is suspended for a drinking ticket. Even if the player is eventually found not guilty, there’s enough for charges, and therefore there’s enough for disciplinary action. This is about “disciplined without evidence of anything.” Coker has denied he did anything wrong or untoward, and there is no evidence (at least for the purposes of a court of law) that proves otherwise. If an administrative proceeding found otherwise, it found that on the basis of evidence insufficient for the legal system, and in and of itself is suspect at best.

Marcus Coker was suspended not for a crime, not for an allegation of a crime, but for being charged without independent basis. If you want to defend that, God help you.

Your analogy is wrong

If you want to make this about a job, it would be, “fired for being found in violation of internal company policies”. Plenty of sexual harassment policies involve things that aren’t prosecuted. So your analogy turns out not to be helpful.

Also, in THIS case, however, you seem to be completely ignoring the heavy stigma attached with public accusations of sexual harassment. The reason a victim might want to go through a university process (indeed, the reason such processes exist) is that it provides her better protection and resolution than a criminal process. This is possible even if she is completely in the right, given the public persona of the accused.

The "only because" part isn't true

And I think we’ve covered that.

mikjones24 - January 31, 2012 reply

I agree with this, but that last paragraph is the best.

Go out and change the world, Marcus, and be happy. Enjoy football, but you have so much more to offer than that, and have limitless potential in places more important than a sports field. Stony Brook is very fortunate to have you. Good luck.

Bucketochicken - January 31, 2012 reply

Out-fucking-standing article!

I hope only the best for Marcus going forward and think the way he was treated by the administration was abominable.

As for Barta? Not saying anything about he rhabdo thing vs. publicly criticizing the Franimal for being fiery shows everything you need to know about the hierarchy in the Athletic Department. Maybe Fran should stick to gum-chewing and note-taking. And losing.

Bluzmn - January 31, 2012 reply

I think PV needs to drop the mic at the end of this

masterfully said sir.

Unfortunately, this isn’t even the first time in recent memory something like this has occurred. Jevon Pugh was basically run out of town in a haze of whispered allegations and innuendo for apparently being guilty of the crime of talking to the girl that had the misfortune of meeting Cederic Everson later that evening.

Twin Cities Hawk - January 31, 2012 reply

None of us know what happened. Marcus Coker was suspended, an allegation was investigated and closed, he called bullshit on whatever was going on, and left to go to a school that sounds like a very good academic fit, where he can also play football for a decent team. I can absolutely understand his calling bullshit. Sucks for Iowa football. Good for him. I am not enamored of the UI’s administration. It seems to lurch from crisis to crisis, and is reacting in the present to the last crisis. Were I Marcus Coker (hint: I’m not), I would have absolutely transfered, too. Given much less reason when I was a student athlete, I did.

txhawkeye - January 31, 2012 reply

So

We don’t know exactly what happened, but Coker leaving falls on the administrators? I am certainly open to the possibility but I would like a better understanding before I grab the torch and pitch fork.

It is probable that the Administration bungled this in such a way that it made Coker feel a transfer was nescessary, but all we know for certain is that Coker was accused, though not charged, with sexual assault, that he was suspended, and then he chose to transfer. None of that points directly to Barta or Mason.

I think the post is right that we should support Marcus, but let’s hold off on blaming someone until we know more.

KC_HAWKEYE - January 31, 2012 reply

I agree with this

Thing is. we’ll never know more than what’s already been disclosed and we all know that. My father is a retired police officer-turned private investigator and he’s had to deal with the administration and certain coaches at the university on a couple of fairly public cases in the recent past on behalf of attorneys and he’s said on more than one occasion that it’s like trying to get information from the Secret Service on the movements of the President. They’re not talking more than they have and speculation is all we have to go on. Choose to believe what you want; but know you’re not entirely 100% accurate either.

well said, KC_Hawkeye

H I McDonnough - January 31, 2012 reply

Well put

I cannot fucking stand Mason, but I have no idea what happened. From the sounds of it, very few do.

TiltingAtDrewTateWindmills - January 31, 2012 reply

As Hawk fans, we spend entirely too much time arguing details of the law

Not hating on the conversation, but sheesh.

Blackheartnopants - January 31, 2012 via Android app reply

Be the leader Iowa was too leaderless to let you be, sir. Good luck and best wishes.

The actual story here is getting lost. It’s not blame the student vs blame the man (the AD or the President’s office). The reaction and comments here have really surprised me. Even the mildly familiar reader shouldn’t be surprised that this particular author is using this story (I believe rather well) to peg this incident as yet another in a frustratingly long string of mismanaged incidents by leadership. These incidents are unfortunate (and almost always embarrassing) for the student athlete who leaves in disgrace while only saying kind things about the place and its leaders.

These events are further problematic for the follower who is unwilling to think that our leaders have flaws, they are uncomfortable because certain angles on these stories point out the cognitive dissonance in the perception of our conference (and our program in particular) as holy and unassailable with the grim reality that we’re not holy and we’re not trending well in performance or perception. Don’t you people get it? This is ancient Greece, it’s the trial of Socrates, even if you actually agree with them, even if you’ve done nothing wrong, questioning the gods doesn’t end well for the questioner. Also important to remember, punishment never comes from the hands of the gods, punishment comes at the hands of the “true” believers. This is the University of Iowa. Football and the Presidents office are absolutely the highest among our gods. It doesn’t end well for those who even appear to clash or question, even if there is in fact no wrongdoing or maligned intent.

That we had to waste about 99 comments on this story on one particular commenter who also has a much more limited and usually poorly reasoned agenda, it’s a shame. He can be ignored, and for that matter I can too. But the theme to this story shouldn’t be, because these flaws are hideously under-reported and under-examined. Thanks for your hard work and time here Marcus, all the best.

I find it interesting that you bring up Socrates

and then disparage Chazz doing his best Socratic impression, wherein he assumes an argument point he may not actually believe just to get you to debate and suss out your own true feelings on the subject.

there's a difference between questioning the answers in general

and being obstinately on the same side of everything every time. hardly a real comparison.

as for my feelings on the subject, they’re pretty clear. my feelings are that the first half of this comment thread was a fucking disgrace to the awesomeness that is BHGP.

I think you oversimplify the nuance of Chazz's opinions

but I wholeheartedly agree on your last paragraph/sentence

I don't think Chazz does nuance

by his own admission

oh that makes it all better

I said I was conflicted on this issue.

That’s somewhat nuanced.

Then, somebody brought up rhabdo, I made a sarcastic comment, Tyger called me a douche, and things just went on from there.

And then SailorJerry started talking about Greece and making more pot-shots at me. None of it particularly sophisticated, but whatever.

SaturdayMorningKegStanzis - January 31, 2012 reply

Well, to be overly pedantic

the references to ancient Greece as an allegory to take pot-shots at you is rather sophisticated. But your larger point holds.

And Chazz, you are who you are. It has been my impression that you tend to see the world in rather stark white/black, good/bad terms. There’s no shame in that. It’s not a worldview that I share, but I can understand where you’re coming from.

HoyaGoon - February 1, 2012 reply

good vs. evil as a prism of the world

shoves much that is neither into one moral judgment or the other. There is, to a lot of people here, a big difference between saying “KF blew that” and “KF is an evil, fucked up bastard who should rot in hell.”

StoopsMyAss - February 1, 2012 reply

Maybe.

But if you say it frequently enough, it sounds similar to “rot in hell.”

WaterlooChazz - February 1, 2012 reply

well, "chants"

and “chance” sound the same but have very different meanings. Nuance is important.

StoopsMyAss - February 1, 2012 reply

Any NY-area Iowa fans want to go to a Stony Brook game?

Also: SEA-WOLVES!!!!

Notclevr - January 31, 2012 reply

No, seriously

Notclevr - January 31, 2012 reply

They sound like the sworn enemies of HOCKEYBEAR

RossWB - January 31, 2012 reply

And they're about to get Coked-up

Notclevr - January 31, 2012 reply

The coked up Seawolf

Long Island is overrun by actual sea wolves. I read some kid was walking

home from school and was attacked by a swarm of them before being rescued by a Scarlet Knight.