Possible Defense for Mason

okeefe4prez

okeefe4prez

Well-Known Member
My buddy just sent me an email with the UI Student Conduct Code and some of his thoughts I wanted to share with the board. The following is based on the assumption (not fact, just assumption) that the "investigation" is what got Coker suspended and there wasn't another reason underlying the suspension.

Here is the code: http://www.cstv.com/printable/schools/iowa/ot/code-of-conduct.html?frame=bottom

Here is the relevant section of the code with my bolds and italics added:

A. Category I Misconduct
Any of the following acts by a student-athlete is Category I misconduct:

Violation of a criminal law that is classified as a felony by the State of Iowa;
Violation of a term of probation or other condition imposed by a court in a criminal proceeding; or
Serious violation of a term of probation or other condition imposed by a University official or the Department of Athletics Administrator.
A student-athlete is determined to have committed Category I misconduct when:

The student-athlete is convicted of, does not contest (e.g., a guilty or nolo contendere plea), or receives a deferred judgment for a crime that is classified as a felony by the State of Iowa; or
The student-athlete is found by a court to have violated a court-imposed term of probation or other condition; or
The student-athlete is found by the Director of Athletics, in consultation with the Faculty Athletics Representative (FAR), to have violated a term of probation or other condition imposed by the Department of Athletics or a University official, and the conduct underlying the violation of probation or condition represents a substantial lack of compliance with the Student-Athlete Code of Conduct.
Preliminary Action: The Director of Athletics, at his or her discretion, may take preliminary action to temporarily suspend a student-athlete from participation in practice or competition and/or access to athletic department services when the Director of Athletics has verified that felony criminal charges have been filed against a student-athlete or when there is specific and credible information (e.g., arrest records, statements of law enforcement officers, University records, third-party or witness statements, or acknowledgement by the student-athlete) for reasonably believing that a student-athlete may have committed Category I misconduct.
Sanctions for Category I Misconduct: The Director of Athletics, in consultation with the FAR and appropriate University officials, will determine from specific and credible information whether there is a reasonable basis for concluding that the student-athlete has committed Category I misconduct. Thereafter, the Director of Athletics shall suspend the student-athlete from participation in practice, competition, and/or from receiving services provided by the Department of Athletics.
Termination of scholarship benefits: The Director of Athletics may pursue revocation or modification of athletically-related financial aid, such as a scholarship, as a consequence of any and all Category I misconduct. Any action to revoke or modify athletically-related financial aid will be in accordance with NCAA procedures and University procedures as outlined in the Student-Athlete Handbook.
Click to expand...

Is it possible the Athletic Department didn't rush to the defense of Mr. Coker? Granted, GarBar's boss could have put the heat on GarBar, but based on this I think maybe GarBar and Herman (the FAR) might deserve some heat, too. I would love to see the factual basis on which someone "reasonably believed" (which is far lower than the criminal standard) that Coker committed a felony.
 
Of course, the "appropriate University officials" could also be at play. I wonder who would have comprised such group if they were convened in this case.
 
BSpringsteen said:
You have to wonder how irritated Kirk Ferentz is with his administration right now, no?
Click to expand...

Maybe GarBar has a grand plan to get rid of him without triggering the buyout clause in his contract. I understand and support the policy behind the privacy laws, but by God, I would really love to know the thought process behind the administration here. When you're bilking 2 to 6 hundred bucks in "donations" for each ticket sold between the goal lines, the last thing you want is any kind of transparency, though, because these folks could find an all out fan rebellion on their hands if they ran a star player out on a hunch or gut feeling.
 
The handling of this case is the result of the Pierre Pierce debacle.

The administration most likely is playing by a different set of rules than that of 10 years ago.
 
A police report gives them the cover they need for "reasonably believing" a violation occurred. IF this was the reason for the suspension, it smells of the UI suspending him in context of the Pierre Pierce, Cedric Everson incidents. No individual assessment, instead, being caught up in the school not wanting to look bad a third time. Hence, he's left as a victim of circumstance and ***-covering. 100% supposition, but educated supposition.
 
okeefe4prez said:
.... GarBar's boss could have put the heat on GarBar, but based on this I think maybe GarBar and Herman (the FAR) might deserve some heat, too. I would love to see the factual basis on which someone "reasonably believed" (which is far lower than the criminal standard) that Coker committed a felony.
Click to expand...

A felony? How about this little gem which you highlighted:

"....to have violated a term of probation or other condition imposed by the Department of Athletics or a University official..."

How do we know that the whole football program has not had a "probation or other condition" imposed on them that any hint of criminal sexual impropriety (formally charged or not) will get a player suspened from the team?
 
I seem to remember that Sally Mason really mis-handled the alledged assualt by the two FB players a couple years ago. She was even "punished" by the Board of Regents over the issue. So to protect her own job, she is going to take a more strict stance on any alledged sexual assault by athletes.

Not that it's fair to Coker, if in fact he is completely innocent, but Sally is not going to risk her 1/2 million salary over the word of a football player.
 
the initial report was in october

the investigation concluded in nov or dec

he was suspended at the end of the year.

the OP doesnt really apply here.
 
JRD90 said:
I seem to remember that Sally Mason really mis-handled the alledged assualt by the two FB players a couple years ago. She was even "punished" by the Board of Regents over the issue. So to protect her own job, she is going to take a more strict stance on any alledged sexual assault by athletes.

Not that it's fair to Coker, if in fact he is completely innocent, but Sally is not going to risk her 1/2 million salary over the word of a football player.
Click to expand...

Stomping on Civil Rights isn't going to make her popular with her Regent Masters, either.
 
PJHawk said:
A felony? How about this little gem which you highlighted:

"....to have violated a term of probation or other condition imposed by the Department of Athletics or a University official..."

How do we know that the whole football program has not had a "probation or other condition" imposed on them that any hint of criminal sexual impropriety (formally charged or not) will get a player suspened from the team?
Click to expand...

Fair point. You don't win best poster from Apple Valley for no reason!
 
JRD90 said:
I seem to remember that Sally Mason really mis-handled the alledged assualt by the two FB players a couple years ago. She was even "punished" by the Board of Regents over the issue. So to protect her own job, she is going to take a more strict stance on any alledged sexual assault by athletes.

Not that it's fair to Coker, if in fact he is completely innocent, but Sally is not going to risk her 1/2 million salary over the word of a football player.
Click to expand...

This is just one of many reasons that Sally Mason should be shitcanned.
 




B. Category II Misconduct
Any of the following acts by a student-athlete is Category II misconduct:
· Violation of a criminal law that is not classified as a felony by the State of Iowa, including laws pertaining to alcohol (e.g., Operating While Intoxicated -OWI; Possessing Alcohol Under the Legal Age - PAULA);
· Violation of a term of probation imposed by a University official or Department of Athletics Administrator that does not constitute Category I misconduct;
· Violation of a Department of Athletics policy; or
· Violation of University policies, rules, and/or regulations, including:
o The University of Iowa's Code of Student Life;
o Academic dishonesty in violation of University, college, school, or department standards;
o Violation of any University student conduct regulation; or
o Willfully giving false and malicious information to a University official.
A student-athlete is determined to have committed Category II misconduct when:
· The student-athlete is convicted of, does not contest (e.g., a guilty or nolo contendere plea) or receives deferred judgment for a crime that is not a felony;
· The student-athlete is found by a court to have violated a term of court-imposed probation or other condition, and the conduct underlying the violation of probation or other condition does not constitute Category I misconduct;
· The student-athlete is determined by the Director of Athletics to have violated a term of probation or other condition imposed by the Department of Athletics and the conduct underlying the violation of probation or other condition does not constitute Category I misconduct; or
· 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.
1. Sanctions for Category II Misconduct: determine from The Director of Athletics will specific and credible information that there is a reasonable basis for concluding that the student-athlete has committed Category II misconduct. The Director of Athletics shall determine the appropriate sanction after consulting with the student-athlete's Head Coach and assigned Sport Administrator. The Director of Athletics may also consult with the FAR and appropriate University officials for recommendations regarding the appropriate sanction(s).
Sanctions for Category II misconduct may include, but are not limited to: warning, reprimand, probation with or without conditions, requirements for restitution, conditions to encourage personal rehabilitation (e.g., counseling and community service), conditions related to satisfactory academic performance, suspension from practice, suspension from competition, and/or suspension from access to athletic departmental services


From….
http://dos.uiowa.edu/policy-list/current-policies-and-regulations-affecting-students-2011-2012-academic-year/
we get this…
2.2 GENERAL STATEMENT OF POLICY.
The University of Iowa prohibits sexual misconduct in any form, including sexual assault or sexual abuse, sexual harassment, and any form of nonconsensual sexual conduct. Students should be able to live, study, and work in an environment free from all forms of sexual misconduct.
Any act that falls within the definition of sexual misconduct constitutes a violation of University policy. The University is committed to fostering a campus environment that both promotes and expedites prompt reporting of sexual misconduct and timely and fair adjudication of sexual misconduct cases. The University's procedures are designed to protect the rights, needs, and privacy of the student making a University complaint, as well as the rights of students accused of sexual misconduct. The University also adheres to all federal, state, and local requirements for intervention, crime reporting, and privacy provisions related to sexual misconduct.
Sexual misconduct can be committed by men or women, and it can occur between people of the same or different sex. The University will make this policy and educational opportunities readily available to all students and other members of the University community. Creating a respectful, safe, and non-threatening environment is the responsibility of all members of the University community.
The University of Iowa will make every effort to safeguard the identities of students who seek help and/or report sexual misconduct. While steps are taken to protect the privacy of victims, the University may need to investigate an incident and take action once an allegation is known, whether or not the student chooses to pursue a complaint.
Formal complaints about sexual misconduct by University students, faculty, or staff should be made to the UI Sexual Misconduct Response Coordinator (335-6200). An academic or administrative officer, as defined in the University's Sexual Harassment policy (see II-4.1b(3)) must report any known sexual misconduct report to the Sexual Misconduct Response Coordinator. No employee is authorized to investigate or resolve student complaints without the involvement of the Sexual Misconduct Response Coordinator.
In addition to violating University policy, sexual misconduct might also constitute criminal activity. Students are strongly encouraged to inform law enforcement authorities about instances of sexual misconduct. The chances of a successful criminal investigation are greatly enhanced if evidence is collected and maintained immediately by law enforcement officers. Students may inform law enforcement authorities about sexual misconduct and discuss the matter with a law enforcement officer without making a formal criminal complaint or a formal University complaint.
Assistance in reporting any form of sexual misconduct to the proper law enforcement authorities is available to any student upon request from a certified victim advocate at RVAP or from the Sexual Misconduct Response Coordinator.
[top]
2.3 DEFINITION OF SEXUAL MISCONDUCT, INCLUDING SEXUAL ASSAULT AND SEXUAL HARASSMENT.
a. General definition. Sexual misconduct is a broad term encompassing any unwelcome behavior of a sexual nature that is committed without consent or by force, intimidation, coercion, or manipulation. The term includes sexual assault, sexual harassment, sexual exploitation, and sexual intimidation as those behaviors are described later in this section. Sexual misconduct can be committed by men or women, and it can occur between people of the same or different sex.
b. Consent. For purposes of this policy, consent is a freely and affirmatively communicated willingness to participate in particular sexual activity or behavior, expressed either by words or clear, unambiguous actions. It is the responsibility of the person who wants to engage in the sexual activity to insure that he or she has the consent of the other to engage in the activity. Lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent, nor does silence mean consent. For that reason, relying solely on non-verbal communication can lead to misunderstanding. Moreover, the existence of a dating relationship between the persons involved or the fact of a past sexual relationship should never provide the basis for an assumption of consent.
Consent must be present throughout the sexual activity -- at any time, a participant can communicate that he or she no longer consents to continuing the activity. If there is confusion as to whether anyone has consented or continues to consent to sexual activity, it is essential that the participants stop the activity until the confusion can be clearly resolved

I can imagine a few scenarios in which someone could easily violate the U’s code regarding sexual relationships/contact that would have little to zero chance of resulting in prosecution for a sexual criminal act.
 
TritonHawkeye said:
The handling of this case is the result of the Pierre Pierce debacle.The administration most likely is playing by a different set of rules than that of 10 years ago.
Click to expand...

IIRC, didn't "they" say at the time of suspension going into the bowl game, that in other years, and at other institutions, the suspension would not have occurred? At the time I took it to reference OSU and Penn St situations as well.
 
No way is it a category I, that category is serious enough a suspension would clearly be longer than one game and, IMO, as a category I, it would be for a LONG time such as season.
 
Last edited:
okeefe4prez said:
My buddy just sent me an email with the UI Student Conduct Code and some of his thoughts I wanted to share with the board. The following is based on the assumption (not fact, just assumption) that the "investigation" is what got Coker suspended and there wasn't another reason underlying the suspension. Here is the code: http://www.cstv.com/printable/schools/iowa/ot/code-of-conduct.html?frame=bottomHere is the relevant section of the code with my bolds and italics added:
A.Category I MisconductAny of the following acts by a student-athlete is Category I misconduct:Violation of a criminal law that is classified as a felony by the State of Iowa;Violation of a term of probation or other condition imposed by a court in a criminal proceeding; orSerious violation of a term of probation or other condition imposed by a University official or the Department of Athletics Administrator.A student-athlete is determined to have committed Category I misconduct when:The student-athlete is convicted of, does not contest (e.g., a guilty or nolo contendere plea), or receives a deferred judgment for a crime that is classified as a felony by the State of Iowa; orThe student-athlete is found by a court to have violated a court-imposed term of probation or other condition; orThe student-athlete is found by the Director of Athletics, in consultation with the Faculty Athletics Representative (FAR), to have violated a term of probation or other condition imposed by the Department of Athletics or a University official, and the conduct underlying the violation of probation or condition represents a substantial lack of compliance with the Student-Athlete Code of Conduct.Preliminary Action: The Director of Athletics, at his or her discretion, may take preliminary action to temporarily suspend a student-athlete from participation in practice or competition and/or access to athletic department services when the Director of Athletics has verified that felony criminal charges have been filed against a student-athlete or when there is specific and credible information (e.g., arrest records, statements of law enforcement officers, University records, third-party or witness statements, or acknowledgement by the student-athlete) for reasonably believing that a student-athlete may have committed Category I misconduct.Sanctions for Category I Misconduct: The Director of Athletics, in consultation with the FAR and appropriate University officials, will determine from specific and credible information whether there is a reasonable basis for concluding that the student-athlete has committed Category I misconduct. Thereafter, the Director of Athletics shall suspend the student-athlete from participation in practice, competition, and/or from receiving services provided by the Department of Athletics.Termination of scholarship benefits: The Director of Athletics may pursue revocation or modification of athletically-related financial aid, such as a scholarship, as a consequence of any and all Category I misconduct. Any action to revoke or modify athletically-related financial aid will be in accordance with NCAA procedures and University procedures as outlined in the Student-Athlete Handbook.
Click to expand...
Is it possible the Athletic Department didn't rush to the defense of Mr. Coker? Granted, GarBar's boss could have put the heat on GarBar, but based on this I think maybe GarBar and Herman (the FAR) might deserve some heat, too. I would love to see the factual basis on which someone "reasonably believed" (which is far lower than the criminal standard) that Coker committed a felony.
Click to expand...

I am inclined to believe that our super OC KOK is the root of it all. He didn't have Coker last year in the desert when he went head to head with Mike Stoops and knowing he would be on the OU side line his pride kept him from taking the added advantage he would have had with Coker in the Line up.
 
BSpringsteen said:
Sally Mason and
Gary Barta have ruined
a once fine college.
Click to expand...
Not sure if you're serious, but after just spending about 150K, and sending two daughters through the University; and both daughters doing very well for having attended the University... I would have to respectfully disagree.:rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top