Yeah, defamation of characterDon't settle..
Would be interesting of Doyle sued now that the former players withdrew their case.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Yeah, defamation of characterDon't settle..
Would be interesting of Doyle sued now that the former players withdrew their case.
And what exactly would he get? Those players don't have anything and lawyers would just eat it up. Would it clear his name in the public?Yeah, defamation of character
VindicationAnd what exactly would he get? Those players don't have anything and lawyers would just eat it up. Would it clear his name in the public?
Chris could start his own sports performance business and I would guarantee he would see tremendous business from athletes.
Him being removed WITHOUT prejudice is far from him being exonerated of any wrongdoing. Even with prejudice. The 2 investigations that showed racial bias are 10000x more significant than him being named in any civil lawsuit. Read my post above. You can be dropped from a civil lawsuit and still be guilty. IF Doyle tried to sue for defamation he would have to prove that he was not racially bias or racist. Him being dropped from this means nothing. Even if someone settles a civil lawsuit it doesn't mean they are guilty. they may not want to pay to fight it.Don't settle..
Would be interesting of Doyle sued now that the former players withdrew their case.
I am sure that was worked into his sweetheart of a deal with Barta years ago.From what I have heard on a few podcast, the Ferentz family has their own legal team. Smart move there. Not sure if the U of I is covering the cost of that. In terms of a settlement, the Ferentz wont want any part of a settlement. They would rather fight it and lose because settling looks just as bad.
It "means nothing" is a bit of a broad statment. If it mean nothing, what's the point.Him being removed WITHOUT prejudice is far from him being exonerated of any wrongdoing. Even with prejudice. The 2 investigations that showed racial bias are 10000x more significant than him being named in any civil lawsuit. Read my post above. You can be dropped from a civil lawsuit and still be guilty. IF Doyle tried to sue for defamation he would have to prove that he was not racially bias or racist. Him being dropped from this means nothing.
BS. IF the U of I went to the plaintiff and said lets settle for 500k or whatever, and the coaches said hell no then the U of I can not settle with the coaches on the defendant line. So you remove the coaches and settle with the university. Has nothing to do with enough evidence. From everything Ive read this is seemingly the case. Why wouldn't they drop the coaches if this is the path of least resistance?No, it does mean something. It means they don't have enough of a case to ca$h in so they're giving up on that angle.
I was in a case once where a patient sued me because I did not treat her because she did not sign the informed consent and she was verbally abusive to my staff. Sued for $500. My malpractice wanted to just give her the money and not fight. I said hell no because that would go on my record. It was obviously thrown out but probably cost my carrier and the court system thousands of dollars. Like in my case, the U of I is like my malpractice carrier, they would rather pay it and move on. guilty or not guilty. Doesn't matter. Doesn't matter if they have mounting evidence against the coaches or not, if the U of I wants to settle then they will remove the coaches and settle with the university. Just like my patient would have if she could. Even if I did something wrong I would have fought it to keep it off my record. They can get guaranteed money the easy way (remove coaches) or try and get it the hard way (keep the coaches on it).It "means nothing" is a bit of a broad statment. If it mean nothing, what's the point.
I'd suggest it means they don't have enough of a case to ca$h in so they're giving up on that angle.
Maybe to make Wadley sweat some.And what exactly would he get? Those players don't have anything and lawyers would just eat it up. Would it clear his name in the public?
Chris could start his own sports performance business and I would guarantee he would see tremendous business from athletes.
That is the only context in which dropping the individual defendants makes sense. It is very damaging to the plaintiffs' cases in every other way.BS. IF the U of I went to the plaintiff and said lets settle for 500k or whatever, and the coaches said hell no then the U of I can not settle with the coaches on the defendant line. So you remove the coaches and settle with the university. Has nothing to do with enough evidence. From everything Ive read this is seemingly the case. Why wouldn't they drop the coaches if this is the path of least resistance?
I have a question for attorney's . . When you look at a culture, they are built on norms in a society. Iowa is a predominately white society. When a player accepts to get a free education and moves to the new area for a monetary value (free education), they should except the norms of the society ( they have free will to go where-ever). I think it is important to know your place, the norms in Jackson Mississippi may be much different then Iowa city, neither make any place better, just different. Iowa's culture doesn't recognize wearing pants below a persons bottom and picks in the hair as a norm, just different. Thus rules Iowa made in my opinion were just to make everyone the same, one team. I would like to know how that is racist.That is the only context in which dropping the individual defendants makes sense. It is very damaging to the plaintiffs' cases in every other way.
However, knowing a few of the people involved I do not think the University is going to settle. It increasingly appears the U (e.g. the State) is going to force the Plaintiffs to walk away.
Good points. I don't know anything about your case, but I'm guessing there are some differences.I was in a case once where a patient sued me because I did not treat her because she did not sign the informed consent and she was verbally abusive to my staff. Sued for $500. My malpractice wanted to just give her the money and not fight. I said hell no because that would go on my record. It was obviously thrown out but probably cost my carrier and the court system thousands of dollars. Like in my case, the U of I is like my malpractice carrier, they would rather pay it and move on. guilty or not guilty. Doesn't matter. Doesn't matter if they have mounting evidence against the coaches or not, if the U of I wants to settle then they will remove the coaches and settle with the university. Just like my patient would have if she could. Even if I did something wrong I would have fought it to keep it off my record. They can get guaranteed money the easy way (remove coaches) or try and get it the hard way (keep the coaches on it).
The legal system works at a snails pace and 2020 made it worse. My case lasted over 2 years over $500. The lady was crazy (for real) and had 7 other suits going at the same time. She represented herself and took it through 3 dismissals. So yes, this long isn't abnormal.Good points. I don't know anything about your case, but I'm guessing there are some differences.
I do know this...it's been over 2 years since this fiasco began and the plaintiffs haven't been able to get anything. That tells you something about the strength of their case.
In other words, black folks should know their place?I have a question for attorney's . . When you look at a culture, they are built on norms in a society. Iowa is a predominately white society. When a player accepts to get a free education and moves to the new area for a monetary value (free education), they should except the norms of the society ( they have free will to go where-ever). I think it is important to know your place, the norms in Jackson Mississippi may be much different then Iowa city, neither make any place better, just different. Iowa's culture doesn't recognize wearing pants below a persons bottom and picks in the hair as a norm, just different. Thus rules Iowa made in my opinion were just to make everyone the same, one team. I would like to know how that is racist.
yeah, that's what he said. FFS...In other words, black folks should know their place?
Even if Iowa is a "predominantly white society," it has laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race:I have a question for attorney's . . When you look at a culture, they are built on norms in a society. Iowa is a predominately white society. When a player accepts to get a free education and moves to the new area for a monetary value (free education), they should except the norms of the society ( they have free will to go where-ever). I think it is important to know your place, the norms in Jackson Mississippi may be much different then Iowa city, neither make any place better, just different. Iowa's culture doesn't recognize wearing pants below a persons bottom and picks in the hair as a norm, just different. Thus rules Iowa made in my opinion were just to make everyone the same, one team. I would like to know how that is racist.
no way... I never said that... I said cultures are build on the norms of their society.. America is large, and when people move, you adapt to their way of living. My point is,, If I move to El Paso (on the border) for a job, I would probably eat more mexican food then pizza. Is the the town of El Paso Racisit that I could not find a better Pizza parlor. I have the choice to leave my job and find another one. If I moved to San Fran and decided to live in China town, can I call San Fran racist because most of the food is chinese?? My point was to look at the many cultures in America. America is great. It's great because we have so many cultures. The problem is cultural norms of a society in which one race/religon dominates. People have to adapt. More just a topic of discussion, please let me know how I am wrong.In other words, black folks should know their place?
To the extent that your question is whether a coaching staff could adopt uniform, race-neutral rules for dress and appearance of Iowa players, they could do so. If a coaching staff had one set of rules for white athletes, and a different set of rules for black athletes, that would be illegally discriminatory..Even if Iowa is a "predominantly white society," it has laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race:
Iowa Code section 216.9
Unfair or discriminatory practices — education.
1. It is an unfair or discriminatory practice for any educational institution to discriminate on the basis of race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, religion, or disability in any program or activity. Such discriminatory practices shall include but not be limited to the following practices:
a. Exclusion of a person or persons from participation in, denial of the benefits of, or subjection to discrimination in any academic, extracurricular, research, occupational training, or other program or activity except athletic programs;
b. Denial of comparable opportunity in intramural and interscholastic athletic programs;
c. Discrimination among persons in employment and the conditions of employment;
d. On the basis of sex, the application of any rule concerning the actual or potential parental, family or marital status of a person, or the exclusion of any person from any program or activity or employment because of pregnancy or related conditions dependent upon the physician’s diagnosis and certification.
To the extent that your question is whether a coaching staff could adopt uniform, race-neutral rules for dress and appearance of Iowa players, they could do so. If a coaching staff had one set of rules for white athletes, and a different set of rules for black athletes, that would be illegally discriminatory.
I have a question for attorney's . . When you look at a culture, they are built on norms in a society. Iowa is a predominately white society. When a player accepts to get a free education and moves to the new area for a monetary value (free education), they should except the norms of the society ( they have free will to go where-ever). I think it is important to know your place, the norms in Jackson Mississippi may be much different then Iowa city, neither make any place better, just different. Iowa's culture doesn't recognize wearing pants below a persons bottom and picks in the hair as a norm, just different. Thus rules Iowa made in my opinion were just to make everyone the same, one team. I would like to know how that is racist.
In other words, black folks should know their place?
This is why the coaches were removed....they knew U of I would settle.It "means nothing" is a bit of a broad statment. If it mean nothing, what's the point.
I'd suggest it means they don't have enough of a case to ca$h in so they're giving up on that angle.
No way!!! wtf I don't mind Barta being gone but the stigma will never wash away. Barta should be fired - he knew all along this was sitting on a powder keg.This is why the coaches were removed....they knew U of I would settle.
$4M to be paid in Iowa football discrimination suit; Kirk Ferentz 'disappointed' in result
A lawsuit that was filed in November 2020 claiming Kirk Ferentz oversaw a racially discriminatory culture has reached a settlement agreement.www.desmoinesregister.com
Our recruiting classes have not dropped off. The thing is the stigma was put in place 3 years ago and was never gonna be gone because the accusation is broadcast widely and years later any resolution is not given the same coverage.No way!!! wtf I don't mind Barta being gone but the stigma will never wash away. Barta should be fired - he knew all along this was sitting on a powder keg.
Players wanted their $185,000 each.This is why the coaches were removed....they knew U of I would settle.
$4M to be paid in Iowa football discrimination suit; Kirk Ferentz 'disappointed' in result
A lawsuit that was filed in November 2020 claiming Kirk Ferentz oversaw a racially discriminatory culture has reached a settlement agreement.www.desmoinesregister.com
I read the proverbial room wrong . . . it is now clear that dismissing the indivdiduals was done to clear the path for the $4M+ settlement. Clearly in the works when the parties were meeting with the Court on 2/21 and 2/23. There can be little doubt that the parties told Judge Adams on 2/23 that a settlement had been reached.I think people understand that well. As Aurora already stated, it's likely a last ditch effort to get anything at all out of settlement due to their case getting ever weaker.
Does this mean the coaches named in the lawsuit are cleared?I read the proverbial room wrong . . . it is now clear that dismissing the indivdiduals was done to clear the path for the $4M+ settlement. Clearly in the works when the parties were meeting with the Court on 2/21 and 2/23. There can be little doubt that the parties told Judge Adams on 2/23 that a settlement had been reached.
Cleared of the lawsuit? Yes, given that was part of the settlement. Cleared of wrongdoing? No. Did they do wrong? Who knows.Does this mean the coaches named in the lawsuit are cleared?
Technically yes, but this will be a stain forever on them. Can't believe after all this time, they decided to settle.Does this mean the coaches named in the lawsuit are cleared?
Does this mean the coaches named in the lawsuit are cleared?
Technically yes, but this will be a stain forever on them.
What do you mean by "cleared?"
I guess I mean does this mean they can't go after the coaches again?
Probably a non disclosure and future silence covenants as well.Ok. Now I understand your question.
My answer is "I don't know but I'd be stunned if the settlement involved the players retaining a cause of action against any individual coach or administrator."
The answer certainly lies within the written terms of the settlement agreement. It likely releases from liability not only the State of Iowa and Board of Regents but all employees (including past and present coaches and past and present members of the athletic department).
Sorry,...missed this part:Not sure if this was posted yet: Statement from KF.
I am greatly disappointed in how this legal matter was resolved. However, I am grateful for the
many players, parents, donors, fans, and others who remained supportive of our coaches and
program during this time.
The settlement negotiations took place between plaintiff's counsel and the lowa Attorney
General's Office which represents the University of lowa and the Board of Regents. These
discussions took place entirely without the knowledge or consent of the coaches who were
named in the lawsuit. In fact, the parties originally named disagree with the decision to settle,
fully believing that the case would have been dismissed with prejudice before trial.
A motion for summary judgement was filed which outlined why the case should have been
dismissed. Unfortunately, this settlement was reached between the plaintiff's attorneys and
the lowa Attorney General's Office before the judge had an opportunity to rule on the motion.
We have been told the reason for the settlement is financial. As a part of the settlement, the
coaches named were dismissed from the lawsuit and there is no admission of any wrongdoing.
Aside from the negative recruiting that will persist to trick young, gullible and easily impressionable teenagers not to go to Iowa because the staff are a bunch of racists and bullies.......................Not at all,... From the coaches perspective this will quickly pass, and if remembered at all, the whole episode will be recalled primarily as a dropped suit.
Think again.Very happy that the University did not settle this case.
The Ferentz family is no longer part of the suit as has been discussed already. They don't have a dog in the fight anymore.......From what I have heard on a few podcast, the Ferentz family has their own legal team. Smart move there. Not sure if the U of I is covering the cost of that. In terms of a settlement, the Ferentz wont want any part of a settlement. They would rather fight it and lose because settling looks just as bad.
Doyle can't sue, I don't believe. He signed away that right when he took the cash when he left....Don't settle..
Would be interesting of Doyle sued now that the former players withdrew their case.