Posted by walto_clown on April 11, 2008 at 2:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

IF the two are suspended from campus through next season they face an important decision with life long implications. Suck it up, stick it out with the Buffs and come back next Spring ready to play OR fall into the "life isn't fair" trap and look for another school. I hope they remain committed to CU. I truly believe college athletics provide an enormous opportunity for enanced personal growth (spare me the anecdotes of bad seeds, RS--not everyone capitalizes on opportunity).

As unfortunate as it would be to lose our premier tight end, and developing blue chip linebacker for next season, I would still rather take the high road than win games with an "at any cost" mentality (Mo Purify).

Posted by rodrigo on April 11, 2008 at 7:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Ditto that.

Posted by extrapoint on April 11, 2008 at 7:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)

speaking of Mo-reece and his school, William's infraction is complicated by what appears to be premeditated robbery.
Be interesting to see if he is on the team in the coming year. does nebraska have anything like the judicial affairs committee?

Posted by jahbrahakala on April 11, 2008 at 7:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

RE: Sipili beat another CU student in an off-campus fight and eventually plead guilty to reduced charges.

---------------------------------------

This quote fails to accurately describe Sipili's incident. It was a fight in which both parties beat each other. The other student came out of it with some serious injuries as a result. It wasn't just a beatdown as the quote might lead some to believe.

These players do need to serve their sentences just like any other student at CU. With 20,000 students, there are alot of altercations that take place in the student body during the course of the year. There definately were when I attended CU. Not one of them that I witnessed or heard of involved football players, but there were some serious injuries as well.

Posted by WhosYourDaddy on April 11, 2008 at 7:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The thing about OJA Hearings that seems unfair to me is that the accused student cannot be represented by counsel. These "student-athletes" can't possibly present a mitigation defense without a lawyer. They will both almost certainly be suspended for one semester just as a matter of consistancy.

Also, both of these assaults occurred on the Hill, as did the incident with Sipilini, Hawk needs to wake up and ban his players from going to the Hill after dark, or he's going to lose even more players.

Posted by archalon on April 11, 2008 at 7:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Question: does nebraska have anything like the judicial affairs committee?

Answer: Yes; its call the Lancaster County Pre-trial Diversion Program, but is commonly known as the system were allegations get swept under the rug by NU alumni in the court system

Posted by CincyBuffFan on April 11, 2008 at 8:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Lifelong implications?????

If suspended, they either stay in Boulder and get a job (or whatever the football program does to help its players) or they go to another school.

There's no guarantee that if they stayed on the team that their lives would be enriched somehow. It's a lot of football, a little bit of school, and no time for "real" enrichment.

And yes...it is win at all costs. Too much money is involved in the process for it to be any other way.

Posted by BigBuff on April 11, 2008 at 8:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)

It's kinda BS. I can't imagine how many CU students are arrested that never go before the Office of Judicial Affairs. If they didn't play football, the school would likely never know. Shouldn't the State of Colorado's punishment be enough?

Posted by gerry.gunning on April 11, 2008 at 9:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)

In the Kotoa case surely a case of self defense can be made as he and his friend were assualted by someone using a taser; hopefully this will have an impact on the OJA decision?

Posted by Ralphie2 on April 11, 2008 at 9:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

This is unreal. Judicial affiars is out of control.

Posted by rodrigo on April 11, 2008 at 9:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Wow. The world must be coming to an end cuz daddy actually makes not one but two solid points.

Apparently, Pelini has imposed a Spring-long ban on Huskers hangin' in Lincoln bars... http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/noteboo....

Posted by BuffTime on April 11, 2008 at 11:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The difference BigBuff is that football players (or any student athlete but more so football players) are high profile reps of the school. They also are on scholarship which makes them even more accountable to CU.

Having said that, I really think there are at least some mitigating circumstances (especially in Katoa's case) that I would hope would be taken into consideration.

One thing that is a little unclear from the article is if it is still possible for Katoa to serve his punishment in the spring/summer (I know the article links summer suspension to the fall, but it also states that each case is treated independently with no fixed punishments)?

Posted by buffballaz on April 11, 2008 at 11:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)

the thing about judicial affairs is, and Im a student now and have dealt with them before, is that they don't care what punishment the court gives you. A friend of mine got a brawling ticket from Boulder County and it got dropped at court but JA still took action with a fairly harsh punishment. With judicial affairs though the thing is you go in there and either plead guilty and accept responsibility or don't. If you don't then you will usually get a harsher punishment but your allowed an appeal to a board of five members. Its really not the setting to have legal counsel with either. It definitely doesn't look good for these two.

Posted by CaliBuff on April 11, 2008 at 11:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Matthew Phillips Lopez spared me when I was a student there. I had two strikes then I got my 3rd, 4th and 5th all within a two week period, but thankfully I wasn't on the football team, otherwise I probably would have been suspended.

Posted by william.nicholas on April 11, 2008 at 12:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Nebraska's judicial affairs is called Bo Pellini..

Posted by buffalo_flyer on April 11, 2008 at 12:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

OJA treats every case the same regardless of the circumstances, suspension for one semester and if you're a football player the suspension is effective for the fall semester

Posted by extrapoint on April 11, 2008 at 3:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

reading Buffballaz post it appears that using the word "judicial" for the affairs committee is in error.

Posted by Saheeb on April 11, 2008 at 5:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I want to know if EVERY CU student is suspended for such behavior, or just athletes? The Chancellor's office told me last year when I inquired that athletes represent the University. They didn't directly answer the question. I would argue that all CU students represent the University and should be treated equally. I doubt non-athlete students are held to the same standard for one-time fighting offenses. I can see suspending an athlete from the privelege of playing football for a semester, but I don't get this "you're banned from campus" garbage. That's excessive, unless they've proven themself a real threat to the study body.

On another note, at least we don't have a robbery suspect and a player up on sexual assault charges, like the red menace to the east of Boulder...

Posted by buffalo_flyer on April 11, 2008 at 7:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Every student is treated the same with the exception that footballers are always suspended during the fall

Posted by 98buff on April 11, 2008 at 9:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Enough drama guys. These guys made a mistake and a reasonably fair judgment will be made. Whatever the result, they'll be better off as people, and we'll be better off as a program in the long run, if the university keeps consistent standards on this type of situation. I'd LOVE to have both of these guys on the field next year, but, if they end up getting suspended, it's just a year and I hope they both stick it out and return with a chip on their shoulder to blow the doors off the competition. Go Buffs!

Posted by cuav8er on April 12, 2008 at 7:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I have heard that a racial slur was used in Katoa's case. If that is true and they got tased shortly after, wouldn't that constitute a hate crime against them. I am not saying that it would justify what Katoa did, but I could see why he did what he did

Posted by mgmtgrad on April 12, 2008 at 10:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

There have been talk that between the hate crime nature and the tasering that the charges may be dropped. Also the other parties may not press charges.

SO: (I posted this last week)

If the DA drops the charges on any case, AND innocent until proven guilty is THE measure of ALL cases, then why should the JD affairs office be allowed to do more then give probation? Yes, he does represent the school, but fair is fair.

If any of us were involved in a physical altercation to protect our selves, a friend or a loved one and the states legal system finds that we protected ourselves, then why should there be any punishment or consequence with our work, church, social organization or school? That is double jeopardy plain and simple.

If the victims did press charges and lost (beyond a reasonable doubt) they could still file civil damages. But if they refuse to press charges because both parties contributed to the altercation AND don’t file the easier to prove civil suit charges (only need 50.01%) then why should he be suspended from school?

Otherwise what good is our state’s justice system if private parties can still convict after the DA/State dropped the charges and they don’t have a victim to represent?

Because he had to turn himself in for the arrest and may have over react to the situation (probably, none of us were there), I think that this should be a partial season suspension by Hawkins. But, he knows best how long, what the terms should be and etc.

Yes he does represent the school and Hawkins should deal with him, but as a believer of personal rights…. DOUBLE JEOPARDY IS DOUBLE JEOPARDY.

And that is WRONG. Nobody reading this would want to have to fight two battles to prove their case, just to be reamed by some overzealous students with heads bigger then their common sense.

And don’t think any of this will go unnoticed by the staff or anyone else on the team, Hawkins will deal with it accordingly but fairly.

Marcus J

Posted by BuffDonor on April 12, 2008 at 12:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Marcus J just made a very valid argument and is what I found wrong with the Sipili matter and will with these two infractions if the JA committee (nee Chancellor) comes in after a civil decision has been made and all of the publicity has been endured and piles on. There is little question this constitutes double jeopardy. If the JA delays its decision until after the civil authorities have acted, then they should butt out or be sued for damages--pure and simple its double jeopardy. CU is lucky that young Samoan Mike Sipili did not have a tough minded donor to support him at a time when he needed to be advised by mature people at a time of his deep remorse that had been conveyed to the court. Perhaps the same applies if the two current cases with the current suspensions are automatically applied to the fall after already being denied spring football participation and a huge amount of bad publicity should the civil authorities also mete out further punishment. I am sorry but the academicans are once again all wet on their reading of what must apply for such an offense while allowing their fellow tenured prof to steal others' work with out batting an eye. Nuff said for now but maybe more later.

Posted by walto_clown on April 13, 2008 at 11:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Cincy,

My remark about "life long implications" referred more about the willingness to take responsibility for one's actions while additionally recognizing that life is never fair, than it did about the immediate options available to these two players. It was more a statement regarding the macro rather than micro perspective.

I've seen it numerous times with young folks that work for me...those that concentrate on the unfairness of a decision, rather than face up to the consequences frequently find themselves on a slippery slope. Some, in moments of regret, fixate on one decision that they wish they could have changed. "If only I had..." The decision facing Geer and Katoa has those kind of implications, in my opinion.

Of course there's no guarantee that their lives would be enriched by staying on the team. That's the point of "opportunities"...you must take advantage of them. And I agree that it is a lot of football, and a little school. I would argue, however, that there's plenty of time for "enrichment". In retrospect, I did a lot of drinking and screwing around, a little school and only emerged marginally better from the experience. If I'd been committed to a venture that required a lot of commitment and some team interaction, I believe the "enrichment" would have been systemic.

I realize football is big business, but different schools handle these situations differently. Holding student athletes responsible for their actions is one of the options available to CU, and it happens to be the one I personally support.

Posted by rswright on April 14, 2008 at 11:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)

As of today now we have five. Sprung to the top of the internet ladder of arrests per school. Come on you posters and tell us again how all five are "innocent until proven guilty" or their lives maybe enriched by playing football. Judicial affairs is the least of their problems. They are likely to be felons so sticking it out and coming back next year might not be an option. You posters live in a dream world where if arrested, those poor football players were picked on by hippies and every young man is entitled to a fight. Come on you posters and tell us, how many arrests does it take before you face the truth?

Posted by Realist on April 14, 2008 at 1:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It seems to me that the football program may be slipping back to where it was in the final Barnett days!!

Posted by Realist on April 14, 2008 at 1:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ralphie2...Judicial Affairs is not out of control, a couple of football players were though and thats where the problem is.

Posted by walto_clown on April 14, 2008 at 2:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

RS,

Your line is tired and predictable, which is why I asked you to spare me in my opening post.

What is "the truth" that you think I'll realize after a mounting number of arrests? Is the truth that all football players are bad people--bullies who are above the law?

Here's what I believe the truth to be...

There's some good guys on the football team and some bad guys and whole lot that are in between. The good guys typically stay out of trouble, and most of the bad guys don't. A lot of the guys who fall in between MIGHT learn from the mistakes they make along the way, and as long as a certain line isn't crossed, perhaps redemptions is possible.

I also believe that Coach Hawkins wants to make these guys better people, and better citizens, and you bet he wants to wins some games along the way. And I think team sports is just one opportunity for learning some of life's values. Guys don't always take advantage of those opportunities. And maybe football players, percentage-wise, get themselves in a little more trouble than other student athletes (I don't know if that's true or not--but let's assume that it is), at the end of the day it's the sport I love to watch and CU is the team I love to root for. I'll continue to support the good kids, and hope that the kids who are in between take advantage of their education and become exceptional citizens. I'm certain that some will and others won't. That's how it goes...

Also, please get over your obsession with legal terms. While I concede that OJ wasn't guilty, only liable because of the diminished burden of proof, I still believe that the posters who used the phrase "innocent until proven guilty" did so (perhaps out of context) to suggest that the charges may have had some situational considerations, and that it would probably be prudent to wait to see a little evidence. Your desire to turn this into a matter of appropriate terminology does little, if anything, to heighten the dialogue.

To my eyes most posters still want accountibility for the offending parties.

One sticking point that probably won't be resolved between you and I, and perhaps many of the posters...

Fights happen in my opinion. They're a bad way to resolve conflict and a ridiculous way to validate manhood--and they disgust me. Two points, however:

1. Most fights don't involve ANY innocent parties, and therefore there are seldom victims.

2. Many young men learn that fighting is innappropriate while engaging in the act. It's life and it rolls on.

I do agree with the posters who believe that a fight shouldn't end a football career if none of the parties chose to walk away. Sometimes getting your butt kicked is a consequence of a bad decision.

So again, tell me, what is this "truth" you want me to face. It seems to be a pretty elusive concept from where I sit.

Posted by rodrigo on April 14, 2008 at 3:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ah, the "truth." I'm in line with Walto, rs. What "truth" is it we need to face?

Posted by cuav8er on April 15, 2008 at 7:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The "truth" is that tennis is the best sport and rs can't figure out why everyone else seems to think it is football.

Posted by extrapoint on April 15, 2008 at 8:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)

At Western Kentucky a tennis player was arrested for possesion of marijuana. This lowlife ws only suspended for 2 matches.

A presbyterian college Tennis player was initially charged with 2 rapes. One of the charges has been dropped even though it is obvious he is as guilty as the sun is of coming up every morning.

Another North Carolina tennis player was charged with "crimes against nature" after a victim woke up to find him performing oral sex on him. Somehow I think his parents would have been relieved if it turned out only to be a fistfight with another student.

I think it is obvious tennis playes are out of control. These pampered and coddled participants of this elitist sport have come to expect they can participate in any kind of deviant behavior and get away with it.

Posted by walto_clown on April 15, 2008 at 8:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

When, in my above post, I made the assumption that football players get themselves into more trouble than other student athletes, I obviously wasn't including tennis players. Those guys are out of control.

Also, even a presbyterian tennis player is innocent until proven guilty.

Posted by rswright on April 15, 2008 at 9:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The truth: 5 football players have been arrested for acts involving violence and at least 2 have been charged with felonies. Whether they are guilty or not these arrests do great damage to
CU's (and Mike's) chances of filling Folsom. Football is entertaiment and these players are the stars. When the stars are arrested for violent felonies it affects the box office. We need new and more fans and tell me, how many fathers will buy tickets so their son can see and admire guys that are accused of violent felonies? I know it doesn't matter to you guys and that is fine except that there are not enough of you to fill the stadium on a regular basis. The truth is that five arrests of our football players doesn't help CU and the first thing about CU football is CU.

Not as openly as when there were only 2 arrests but the central theme is you want them to accept the responsibility so long as it doesn't affect the football team's performance.Give them a slap on the wrist because every young man gets in a fight and life rolls on. Stop making excuses or claiming they are "innocent until proven guilty". (It goes without saying that if you are going to use legal phrases to make a point you should know what you are talking about). Sorry, but when the DA charges a felony it has gone past mutual combat. (nor do the facts reported indicate that especially the last one).

Also the truth is that CU has just ended (we thought) years of scandals and now we are the laughing stock of the internet leading all other schools in arrests of football players. Do you think 5 arrests won't be mentioned nationwide during a game? The truth is all five players had a responsbility to CU and (whether guilty or not) they blew it.

P.S. Also,having five football players arrested has nothing to do with tennis. Having 5 arrests isn't funny.

Posted by extrapoint on April 15, 2008 at 9:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)

rswright
you....yourself are the best example of why someone should be innocent until proven guilty in the eyes of the law. You have been bitching about football (mostly financial matters)long before any of these arrests.
Your bias, and any bias, for that matter, is exactly why people are considered innocent until proven guilty.

Posted by walto_clown on April 15, 2008 at 11:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)

RS,

Arrests are bad for the program--both ticket sales and image, I agree.

I challenge you to find a post in which I implied that players should only get a slap on the wrist. I've consistently stated that players, visibility and priviledge should be held to a high standard--even to the detriment of on-field play.

The value of "innocent until proven guilty" is ever-apparent as you've already convicted these individuals, even as you accuse other fans of acquitting them.

Case in point...your quote, "Sorry, but when the DA charges a felony it has gone past mutual combat". Really? It sounds as though you believe a charge is the same as a conviction. As I've said all along, let the legal system work. There's a process in place, but you, with your knowledge of legal terms, appear to be less willing than anyne to give that system a chance.

You've continually mischaracterized my statements and have, in my opinion, been faster to pass judgment on these players than any other poster. Just because your conclusion is "guilty" and others lean toward "innocent", does not mean you've taken any sort of high road. It simply means that you've got your own bias.

Posted by rswright on April 16, 2008 at 10:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"I do agree with the posters who believe that a fight shouldn't end a football career if none of the parties chose to walk away. Sometimes getting your butt kicked is a consequence of a bad decision."

Where did you get these facts?
No where in any report of the last three arrests, (katoa, Geer,or the last one)was there a report that the defendants and the victims were engaged in a fight in the sense of mutual combat or made a bad decision for which they were getting their butts kicked. Clearly the DA didn't see these facts.
And if these weren't the facts what is the point of saying a fight shouldn't end a career?

Whether guilty or not, these players have brought CU which has given them everything into disrepute. A free education,room and board and a chance of nationwide exposure. All they had to do was obey rules the other 95% of the team follows. The consequence to CU is to make it a laughing stock.
When it was 1 or 2 it could be argued an isolated incident. But when it is five since January, Hawk had better come up with some answers before it is six and the program starts to come apart.

Posted by extrapoint on April 16, 2008 at 11:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)

we all know if rswright was in charge there wouldnt be a football program.

I will always be morbidly curious as to the incident(s) that put this chip on his shoulder.

Posted by choderlos1741 on April 16, 2008 at 1:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Does anybody seriously think rswright will be persuaded by rational arguments? All football players are thugs to him, football is evil, the players shouldn't be here, and folsom field should be converted to a tennis stadium (the concession stands would serve white wine spritzers).I implore everyone to stop encouraging him.

Posted by walto_clown on April 16, 2008 at 1:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

RS,

For someone who gets caught up in the meaning of words, you don't seem to understand the meaning of "if". Please read my sentence that you quoted again. I stand by it.

"Where did you get these facts?"

Please listen to me RS...from the beginning I've said I don't have facts. I just don't. I've been an advocate for waiting for the facts before we cast our judgments. That's been my point from the beginning! I'm not sure how it's not getting through.

Some of the mitigating RUMORS that we've all heard involve racially motivated tasers in the case of Katoa. Geer claims that he was assaulted by ten guys. These aren't facts, but they do suggest that things may not be cut and dried. I'm waiting for the dust to settle to form my opinions.

I do agree that there appears to be a discipline problem on the team. I hope Coach Hawk gets it under control. I believe he will.