Title IX complaint against UI

[hawkedoff]

Lc

Do you understand that their case has just substantiated the abuse by the Former coach? Any lawsuit by the former coach now also has this title 9 case against her. These players by filing this have demonstrated that the abuse was happening. They claim though is that male athletes receive this type of abuse and as such the women have every right to be abused as well. They have essentially sink their former coach if she had any inclination to move forward with a lawsuit. In addition they will need to demonstrate that men at Iowa are in fact being abused. The problem of course is that there aren't any complaints filed by the male athletes to be investigated as a comparative tool.

Finally, these women have zero standing to see the personnel filed of their former coach and the university is not in a position to reveal that information. Same goes for coach Doyle. These players have no standing legally or otherwise to see the information surrounding any sort of discipline of a university employee or the termination of a contract. None. The only people that know why this coach was terminated are the coach and the ad office. The coach I would guess has recourse and standing to address the issue but the players do not. And these players just hurt their coaches chance at recourse if she had been planning on taking action.

 

[100yearscounting]

Hey Looneyclown,

Since you are so caught up in how Iowa treats Women can you post your outrage towards isu for their handling of sexual assault? While you are at it maybe you can link an article from Paula Clark doing the same. I mean his outrage over the Everson and Satterfiled case was over the top. Does he feel the same now it is isu). Link?

I am betting Looneyclown and all clown tans for that matter will ignore that. They always ignore how isu or fellow clown fans act.

This post was edited on 2/6 7:51 AM by 100yearscounting

 

[FG86]

Originally posted by Lone Clone:

Originally posted by hawkedoff:
Their entire case rests on the idea that they have standing to see the cause if termination of their coach. They don't

As for whether they can prove men and women can be pushed just as hard in practice? How does one measure that exactly?

They also don't have standing by the way to see the details of the rhabo incident.

Let's get the rivalry thing out of the way and assume this is some other school, not Iowa.

Having done that, if you are familiar with the history of Title IX, you will know why this is considered a potentially very important case. You also will know that there's no way to predict what the feds/courts are going to do, and especially no way to predict what the people who actually administer the law are going to do.

What they're saying is that they're not being treated the same as the men. That is ALL the law is about.....at least that is all it's allegedly been about in most of the cases thus far. They definitely have standing based on the way the courts have looked at Title IX issues.

Once again, I recommend "Tilting the Playing Field" by Jessica Gavora.

It's really sad since Christine Grant was the leader in Title IX and Iowa used to have the premiere women's athletic departments.

 

[FG86]

Originally posted by hawkedoff:
Lc

Do you understand that their case has just substantiated the abuse by the Former coach? Any lawsuit by the former coach now also has this title 9 case against her. These players by filing this have demonstrated that the abuse was happening. They claim though is that male athletes receive this type of abuse and as such the women have every right to be abused as well. They have essentially sink their former coach if she had any inclination to move forward with a lawsuit. In addition they will need to demonstrate that men at Iowa are in fact being abused. The problem of course is that there aren't any complaints filed by the male athletes to be investigated as a comparative tool.

Finally, these women have zero standing to see the personnel filed of their former coach and the university is not in a position to reveal that information. Same goes for coach Doyle. These players have no standing legally or otherwise to see the information surrounding any sort of discipline of a university employee or the termination of a contract. None. The only people that know why this coach was terminated are the coach and the ad office. The coach I would guess has recourse and standing to address the issue but the players do not. And these players just hurt their coaches chance at recourse if she had been planning on taking action.

Their complaint absolutely does not substantiate abuse by TG. And her pending lawsuit will not be affected by it. Do you realize ther person filing the claim also represents Tracey? For some strange reason, I trust Tom Newkirk over you. Gut feeling.

How do you know there no complaints filed by male athletes? Are you privileged to be able to see the personnel files of each Hawkeye coach?

As for the personnel files, TG is in every position to be able to provide any information she wants.

If the Title IX case has merits, it would actually strengthen Tracey's case that there is gender discrimination.

 

[100yearscounting]

It is truly amazing how worked up and offended clown fans are and the alledged treament of Women by Iowa and then they turnaround and completely ignore isu being investigated by the feds for how they handle sexual assault.

Will any clown fan be able to tell the world why that is? I am betting we will get what we always get from clown fans when isu's behavior is pointed out.....nothing.

 

[GarryO37]

Originally posted by 100yearscounting:
It is truly amazing how worked up and offended clown fans are and the alledged treament of Women by Iowa and then they turnaround and completely ignore isu being investigated by the feds for how they handle sexual assault.

Will any clown fan be able to tell the world why that is? I am betting we will get what we always get from clown fans when isu's behavior is pointed out.....nothing.

You have a hard time staying on topic, don't you?

What you are doing is classic deflection. You are getting upset because the ISU fans aren't falling for it.

They didn't come here trying to argue. They came here for a discussion. You however got all butt hurt because it's something negative about the University of Iowa.

 

[100yearscounting]

Originally posted by GarryO37:

You have a hard time staying on topic, don't you?

What you are doing is classic deflection. You are getting upset because the ISU fans aren't falling for it.

They didn't come here trying to argue. They came here for a discussion. You however got all butt hurt because it's something negative about the University of Iowa.

If clown fans are really so worried about how women are treated then they should focus on why the feds are investigating the way isu "handles" sexaul assault.

The reason they don't, is this has nothing to do with their outrage over the treatment of women it is just a shot at Iowa. How do we know this is true? Simple the next clown fan to show the outrage towards isu for how they "handle" sexual assault will be the first.

Feel free to prove that wrong. Any bets no one can?

 

[Titanhawk2]

Originally posted by FG86:

Originally posted by iowalaw:
I still don't get this field hockey nonsense. Their coach was fired after abusing players. She was still payed the full amount of her contract. Boo hoo. Seriously, there are worse things out there than getting paid hundreds of thousands of dollars and being told to find another job.

If you want to believe she was truly fired for abusing players.....

Well that's what the complaint is about, that the "abuse" was normal

 

[theIowaHawk]

Originally posted by FG86:

Originally posted by hawkedoff:
Lc

Do you understand that their case has just substantiated the abuse by the Former coach? Any lawsuit by the former coach now also has this title 9 case against her. These players by filing this have demonstrated that the abuse was happening. They claim though is that male athletes receive this type of abuse and as such the women have every right to be abused as well. They have essentially sink their former coach if she had any inclination to move forward with a lawsuit. In addition they will need to demonstrate that men at Iowa are in fact being abused. The problem of course is that there aren't any complaints filed by the male athletes to be investigated as a comparative tool.

Finally, these women have zero standing to see the personnel filed of their former coach and the university is not in a position to reveal that information. Same goes for coach Doyle. These players have no standing legally or otherwise to see the information surrounding any sort of discipline of a university employee or the termination of a contract. None. The only people that know why this coach was terminated are the coach and the ad office. The coach I would guess has recourse and standing to address the issue but the players do not. And these players just hurt their coaches chance at recourse if she had been planning on taking action.

Their complaint absolutely does not substantiate abuse by TG. And her pending lawsuit will not be affected by it. Do you realize ther person filing the claim also represents Tracey? For some strange reason, I trust Tom Newkirk over you. Gut feeling.

How do you know there no complaints filed by male athletes? Are you privileged to be able to see the personnel files of each Hawkeye coach?

As for the personnel files, TG is in every position to be able to provide any information she wants.

If the Title IX case has merits, it would actually strengthen Tracey's case that there is gender discrimination.

I'm not sure where hawkdoff is going with his posts either. He really confuses me with the "no standing" to "see" information. Their Title IX complaint is fairly clear: It alleges that their (not Griesbaum's) protections under T9 have been violated, largely due to her firing. It isn't a request to "see" information. It is a complaint of violation.

I also don't agree that they have "substantiated" bullying. In fact, Griesbaum was not fired "for bullying" or being abusive, she wasn't fired for cause. Her contract was bought out and terminated. The UI really doesn't need a reason (other than a LNDR) to do this.

But, to FG: Griesbaum has not filed a lawsuit. Call it "pending litigation" all you want, but there is no lawsuit. Sure, Newkirk is looking in to it and likely will file at some point, but they haven't.

Questioning whether male athletes have filed complaints would seem appropriate, but simply implying that there is an issue without knowing that doesn't help anything.

It is funny that you "trust" Tom Newkirk over anyone, not saying he isn't trustworthy, but you are saying that you trust the Attorney representing someone's interests on one particular side of a case........to what end? If every petition is just to be believed, what is the point of Court? Also, Newkirk recently lost his other high profile case, where he alleged that minorities are discriminated against by the State of Iowa, based solely on statistics. He was "wrong" there, according to the court.

Again, maybe hawkdoff can clarify what he is talking about in regards to standing.

 

[FG86]

Originally posted by Titanhawk2:

Originally posted by FG86:

Originally posted by iowalaw:
I still don't get this field hockey nonsense. Their coach was fired after abusing players. She was still payed the full amount of her contract. Boo hoo. Seriously, there are worse things out there than getting paid hundreds of thousands of dollars and being told to find another job.

If you want to believe she was truly fired for abusing players.....

Well that's what the complaint is about, that the "abuse" was normal

No, it's not.

 

[100yearscounting]

Because FG says so.

 

[Eyeowahawks]

I was an assistant principal at a school a couple of years ago that underwent two OCR complaints over two years. The OCR doesn't follow the "burden of proof" standard that is required in our courts. Once you're under their microscope, you essentially have to prove that you are not discriminating.

In my specific experience, two families alleged inconsistent discipline based on race. The OCR reviewed all referrals and consequences over a 5-year period. They interviewed every principal in the building. They found that while a statistically higher percentage of African American students received discipline and that in certain cases two students received different consequences for the same action. They also said that there was no wrongdoing or discrimination in either case. With the first, the consequences for each referral were consistent over a 5-year period. They said the fact that African American students received more referrals looked bad, but that the reasons for the referrals (excessive tardies, unexcused absences and fights, mostly) did not point to discrimination. With the second case we were justificed in that it was a 3rd offense for the African American student and a 1st offense for the Caucasian student.

These are things we cannot tell a parent when we call them about discipline, so a parent bases their judgment on misinformation. While they found no wrongdoing, the ordeal was an enormous burden on our system. We spent countless hours doing that when we could have been in classrooms, planning PD, etc. The other outcome is that it forced us to adopt an even more stringent zero-tolerance policy on many things lest we go easy on one case and heavier on another.

In my second year at that school one of the same families filed a complaint that their daughter didn't make the cheer squad because she was black. Again we had to review our varsity cuts for a 5-year period and had to justify every cut of an African American player. They found nothing untoward, but the headache caused us to adopt a no-cut policy, which cost more money and diminished the quality of our teams.

You can file an OCR complaint for anything. The complaint alone tarnishes the institution and places a tremendous burden on those who work there. If there is wrongdoing then the OCR needs to be there as a protection, but man alive does it become a distraction.

Expect Barta to have his eye off the ball for a while. I certainly wasn't as good at my job when we went through those two complaints.

This post was edited on 2/6 10:38 AM by Eyeowahawks

This post was edited on 2/6 8:39 AM by Eyeowahawks

 

[theIowaHawk]

Originally posted by Eyeowahawks:
While they found no wrongdoing, the ordeal was an enormous burden on our system.

IMO, an appropriate burden. What other procedure would you like to see? No recourse for the laws we pass, no recourse for the parents?

We spent countless hours doing that when we could have been in classrooms, planning PD, etc.

I don't quite buy this, I'm not calling you a liar, I'm simply implying that you embellish. Much of the "investigation" is not done by the principal nor the teacher. Also, it is a part of their job. It would be a problem if a teacher was neglecting other duties during this.

The other outcome is that it forced us to adopt an even more stringent zero-tolerance policy on many things lest we go easy on one case and heavier on another.

I doubt it "forced" anything. The obvious decision for an administration to make things "fair" (in their minds) is to overreact and punish everyone....equally harshly. Then blame the parents for it.

 

[Lone Clone]

Originally posted by theIowaHawk:

Originally posted by FG86:

Originally posted by hawkedoff:
Lc

Do you understand that their case has just substantiated the abuse by the Former coach? Any lawsuit by the former coach now also has this title 9 case against her. These players by filing this have demonstrated that the abuse was happening. They claim though is that male athletes receive this type of abuse and as such the women have every right to be abused as well. They have essentially sink their former coach if she had any inclination to move forward with a lawsuit. In addition they will need to demonstrate that men at Iowa are in fact being abused. The problem of course is that there aren't any complaints filed by the male athletes to be investigated as a comparative tool.

Finally, these women have zero standing to see the personnel filed of their former coach and the university is not in a position to reveal that information. Same goes for coach Doyle. These players have no standing legally or otherwise to see the information surrounding any sort of discipline of a university employee or the termination of a contract. None. The only people that know why this coach was terminated are the coach and the ad office. The coach I would guess has recourse and standing to address the issue but the players do not. And these players just hurt their coaches chance at recourse if she had been planning on taking action.

Their complaint absolutely does not substantiate abuse by TG. And her pending lawsuit will not be affected by it. Do you realize ther person filing the claim also represents Tracey? For some strange reason, I trust Tom Newkirk over you. Gut feeling.

How do you know there no complaints filed by male athletes? Are you privileged to be able to see the personnel files of each Hawkeye coach?

As for the personnel files, TG is in every position to be able to provide any information she wants.

If the Title IX case has merits, it would actually strengthen Tracey's case that there is gender discrimination.

I'm not sure where hawkdoff is going with his posts either. He really confuses me with the "no standing" to "see" information. Their Title IX complaint is fairly clear: It alleges that their (not Griesbaum's) protections under T9 have been violated, largely due to her firing. It isn't a request to "see" information. It is a complaint of violation.

I also don't agree that they have "substantiated" bullying. In fact, Griesbaum was not fired "for bullying" or being abusive, she wasn't fired for cause. Her contract was bought out and terminated. The UI really doesn't need a reason (other than a LNDR) to do this.

But, to FG: Griesbaum has not filed a lawsuit. Call it "pending litigation" all you want, but there is no lawsuit. Sure, Newkirk is looking in to it and likely will file at some point, but they haven't.

Questioning whether male athletes have filed complaints would seem appropriate, but simply implying that there is an issue without knowing that doesn't help anything.

It is funny that you "trust" Tom Newkirk over anyone, not saying he isn't trustworthy, but you are saying that you trust the Attorney representing someone's interests on one particular side of a case........to what end? If every petition is just to be believed, what is the point of Court? Also, Newkirk recently lost his other high profile case, where he alleged that minorities are discriminated against by the State of Iowa, based solely on statistics. He was "wrong" there, according to the court.

Again, maybe hawkdoff can clarify what he is talking about in regards to standing.

I don't understand hawkedoff's posts, either, unless he doesn't understand the issue(s) involved.

The Title IX complaint doesn't confirm that Griesbaum committed improper acts that warranted her dismissal. To the contrary, the complain alleges she did NOT do so.....that is, the conduct wouldn't have been cause for dismissal if she had been a man.

The world of Title IX is not the same world the rest of us, including lawyers, live in, boys and girls. The administrative decisions that have been made -- and upheld -- in some cases are specifically, precisely contrary to the expressed intent of the legislators who enacted the law. It makes no difference.

I gave a hypothetical example. For a real one, google the Brown University case that occurred early in the era of Title IX and is a precursor of what was to come. You actually may not believe it.

 

[hawkedoff]

want to explain how these players have any right to see personnel files as to why this coach was terminated? They are not her and as such they do not have standing to file a complaint about her termination. They can not be discriminated against by the termination of their coach. They have zero standing or even a right to the internal information surrounding the termination of the coach. None. The office they complained to has zero right to the information surrounding the termination of the coach because that individual is not the one that filed the complaint. These players are not the harmed party. In order to prove they were harmed they were discriminated against they would have to demonstrate that the coach was fired for conduct under which she was fired. They have zero standing to determine such a thing. Without the ability to demonstrate that the coach was discriminated against they truly have zero case.

As for what they allege? That they would be treated differently if they were men because their coach would have been treated differently? Good luck proving that. And yes they and the office will need to prove it. That office will not be able to simply come in and demand to see personnel files. There is zero chance the University would comply with that without cause. If the coach filed the complaint it would be different but the coach has not filed such a complaint.

And these players absolutely have demonstrated with this filing that the behavior occurred. They are simply claiming it is either not abuse or that men get investigated differently. Except there wasn't an investigation of men because there has not been a complaint filed by men about their coach. A complaint was filed about this particular coach though and it doesn't matter whether there was one player or many players that filed the complaint. In addition we do not know if additional things came to light that were not made public as a result of the buyout of her contract. Things that could be damaging to the coach that she didn't want made public. That part of course is speculation on my part but it demonstrates why as an example that these players are not privy to the personnel file. The bottom line is these women do not have standing to file a complaint on someone else's behalf and as such everything they are alleging is based upon information they are not entitled to have and the assumption that the information in their complaint is correct.

 

[FG86]

Originally posted by theIowaHawk:

Originally posted by FG86:

Originally posted by hawkedoff:
Lc

Do you understand that their case has just substantiated the abuse by the Former coach? Any lawsuit by the former coach now also has this title 9 case against her. These players by filing this have demonstrated that the abuse was happening. They claim though is that male athletes receive this type of abuse and as such the women have every right to be abused as well. They have essentially sink their former coach if she had any inclination to move forward with a lawsuit. In addition they will need to demonstrate that men at Iowa are in fact being abused. The problem of course is that there aren't any complaints filed by the male athletes to be investigated as a comparative tool.

Finally, these women have zero standing to see the personnel filed of their former coach and the university is not in a position to reveal that information. Same goes for coach Doyle. These players have no standing legally or otherwise to see the information surrounding any sort of discipline of a university employee or the termination of a contract. None. The only people that know why this coach was terminated are the coach and the ad office. The coach I would guess has recourse and standing to address the issue but the players do not. And these players just hurt their coaches chance at recourse if she had been planning on taking action.

Their complaint absolutely does not substantiate abuse by TG. And her pending lawsuit will not be affected by it. Do you realize ther person filing the claim also represents Tracey? For some strange reason, I trust Tom Newkirk over you. Gut feeling.

How do you know there no complaints filed by male athletes? Are you privileged to be able to see the personnel files of each Hawkeye coach?

As for the personnel files, TG is in every position to be able to provide any information she wants.

If the Title IX case has merits, it would actually strengthen Tracey's case that there is gender discrimination.

I'm not sure where hawkdoff is going with his posts either. He really confuses me with the "no standing" to "see" information. Their Title IX complaint is fairly clear: It alleges that their (not Griesbaum's) protections under T9 have been violated, largely due to her firing. It isn't a request to "see" information. It is a complaint of violation.

I also don't agree that they have "substantiated" bullying. In fact, Griesbaum was not fired "for bullying" or being abusive, she wasn't fired for cause. Her contract was bought out and terminated. The UI really doesn't need a reason (other than a LNDR) to do this.

But, to FG: Griesbaum has not filed a lawsuit. Call it "pending litigation" all you want, but there is no lawsuit. Sure, Newkirk is looking in to it and likely will file at some point, but they haven't.

Questioning whether male athletes have filed complaints would seem appropriate, but simply implying that there is an issue without knowing that doesn't help anything.

It is funny that you "trust" Tom Newkirk over anyone, not saying he isn't trustworthy, but you are saying that you trust the Attorney representing someone's interests on one particular side of a case........to what end? If every petition is just to be believed, what is the point of Court? Also, Newkirk recently lost his other high profile case, where he alleged that minorities are discriminated against by the State of Iowa, based solely on statistics. He was "wrong" there, according to the court.

Again, maybe hawkdoff can clarify what he is talking about in regards to standing.

Originally posted by theIowaHawk:

Originally posted by FG86:

Originally posted by hawkedoff:
Lc

Do you understand that their case has just substantiated the abuse by the Former coach? Any lawsuit by the former coach now also has this title 9 case against her. These players by filing this have demonstrated that the abuse was happening. They claim though is that male athletes receive this type of abuse and as such the women have every right to be abused as well. They have essentially sink their former coach if she had any inclination to move forward with a lawsuit. In addition they will need to demonstrate that men at Iowa are in fact being abused. The problem of course is that there aren't any complaints filed by the male athletes to be investigated as a comparative tool.

Finally, these women have zero standing to see the personnel filed of their former coach and the university is not in a position to reveal that information. Same goes for coach Doyle. These players have no standing legally or otherwise to see the information surrounding any sort of discipline of a university employee or the termination of a contract. None. The only people that know why this coach was terminated are the coach and the ad office. The coach I would guess has recourse and standing to address the issue but the players do not. And these players just hurt their coaches chance at recourse if she had been planning on taking action.

Their complaint absolutely does not substantiate abuse by TG. And her pending lawsuit will not be affected by it. Do you realize ther person filing the claim also represents Tracey? For some strange reason, I trust Tom Newkirk over you. Gut feeling.

How do you know there no complaints filed by male athletes? Are you privileged to be able to see the personnel files of each Hawkeye coach?

As for the personnel files, TG is in every position to be able to provide any information she wants.

If the Title IX case has merits, it would actually strengthen Tracey's case that there is gender discrimination.

I'm not sure where hawkdoff is going with his posts either. He really confuses me with the "no standing" to "see" information. Their Title IX complaint is fairly clear: It alleges that their (not Griesbaum's) protections under T9 have been violated, largely due to her firing. It isn't a request to "see" information. It is a complaint of violation.

I also don't agree that they have "substantiated" bullying. In fact, Griesbaum was not fired "for bullying" or being abusive, she wasn't fired for cause. Her contract was bought out and terminated. The UI really doesn't need a reason (other than a LNDR) to do this.

But, to FG: Griesbaum has not filed a lawsuit. Call it "pending litigation" all you want, but there is no lawsuit. Sure, Newkirk is looking in to it and likely will file at some point, but they haven't.

Questioning whether male athletes have filed complaints would seem appropriate, but simply implying that there is an issue without knowing that doesn't help anything.

It is funny that you "trust" Tom Newkirk over anyone, not saying he isn't trustworthy, but you are saying that you trust the Attorney representing someone's interests on one particular side of a case........to what end? If every petition is just to be believed, what is the point of Court? Also, Newkirk recently lost his other high profile case, where he alleged that minorities are discriminated against by the State of Iowa, based solely on statistics. He was "wrong" there, according to the court.

Again, maybe hawkdoff can clarify what he is talking about in regards to standing.

Jane Meyer was reassigned because on pending litigation so I am calling it what UI is calling it. Re-read the sentence re: Newkirk. Hawkedoff is claiming the players are hurting the coach's case with their complaint. I am fairly certain I trust ther lawyer to know he is not hurting Tracey's case by filing a complaint by the players since he knows the entire situation. It has nothing to do with if the cases will be won or not.

Re: male complaints. For example, we know that DJK was forced to wear a garbage can on his head by Ferentz. Did he complain to anyone? I don't know and neither does hawkedoff.

 

[100yearscounting]

FG is all knowing. Just don't ask him about the feds investigating isu for how they "handle" sexual assaults. He tends to ignore anything and everything that shows how they behave.

 

[GarryO37]

Originally posted by 100yearscounting:

Originally posted by GarryO37:

You have a hard time staying on topic, don't you?

What you are doing is classic deflection. You are getting upset because the ISU fans aren't falling for it.

They didn't come here trying to argue. They came here for a discussion. You however got all butt hurt because it's something negative about the University of Iowa.

If clown fans are really so worried about how women are treated then they should focus on why the feds are investigating the way isu "handles" sexaul assault.

The reason they don't, is this has nothing to do with their outrage over the treatment of women it is just a shot at Iowa. How do we know this is true? Simple the next clown fan to show the outrage towards isu for how they "handle" sexual assault will be the first.

Feel free to prove that wrong. Any bets no one can?

You would be correct except for the fact that nothing any ISU fan has posted in this thread is anything I would consider taking a shot at Iowa. There I proved you wrong.

I believe the intent was to have a simple discussion; which is what message boards are for. If you can't handle having a simple discussion without flying off the handle, then maybe you should get over yourself and take a break from the message boards.

Are you the first case of an Iowa fan feeling like ISU is now big brother and they are picking on Iowa? If not, then it sure seems that way.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Hawkdoff:

You are misunderstanding something that is fundamental:

The players are NOT filing a complaint against Griesbaum.

The players are alleging that THEIR rights under T9 were violated. For instance, the right to have a demanding coach.

FG:

Your clarifications make sense. I point out the lack of lawsuit to demonstrate that Griesbaum has not, officially, alleged any wrongdoing via lawsuit. For whatever the reason. The players have filed a complaint.

Also you don't know for a "fact" about the DJK incident, nor can even, really, compare it to this matter. As you point out there may not even be a complaint. Further, treating male coaches differently than female is not a per se violation. Discrimination must still be proved. For an off-beat example, flipping genders, Kirkette Ferentz could not prove discrimination on the basis that he is paid more and given more leniency. Differing treatment =\= discrimination.

 

[hawkedoff]

Originally posted by FG86:

Originally posted by theIowaHawk:

Originally posted by FG86:

Originally posted by hawkedoff:
Lc

Do you understand that their case has just substantiated the abuse by the Former coach? Any lawsuit by the former coach now also has this title 9 case against her. These players by filing this have demonstrated that the abuse was happening. They claim though is that male athletes receive this type of abuse and as such the women have every right to be abused as well. They have essentially sink their former coach if she had any inclination to move forward with a lawsuit. In addition they will need to demonstrate that men at Iowa are in fact being abused. The problem of course is that there aren't any complaints filed by the male athletes to be investigated as a comparative tool.

Finally, these women have zero standing to see the personnel filed of their former coach and the university is not in a position to reveal that information. Same goes for coach Doyle. These players have no standing legally or otherwise to see the information surrounding any sort of discipline of a university employee or the termination of a contract. None. The only people that know why this coach was terminated are the coach and the ad office. The coach I would guess has recourse and standing to address the issue but the players do not. And these players just hurt their coaches chance at recourse if she had been planning on taking action.

Their complaint absolutely does not substantiate abuse by TG. And her pending lawsuit will not be affected by it. Do you realize ther person filing the claim also represents Tracey? For some strange reason, I trust Tom Newkirk over you. Gut feeling.

How do you know there no complaints filed by male athletes? Are you privileged to be able to see the personnel files of each Hawkeye coach?

As for the personnel files, TG is in every position to be able to provide any information she wants.

If the Title IX case has merits, it would actually strengthen Tracey's case that there is gender discrimination.

I'm not sure where hawkdoff is going with his posts either. He really confuses me with the "no standing" to "see" information. Their Title IX complaint is fairly clear: It alleges that their (not Griesbaum's) protections under T9 have been violated, largely due to her firing. It isn't a request to "see" information. It is a complaint of violation.

I also don't agree that they have "substantiated" bullying. In fact, Griesbaum was not fired "for bullying" or being abusive, she wasn't fired for cause. Her contract was bought out and terminated. The UI really doesn't need a reason (other than a LNDR) to do this.

But, to FG: Griesbaum has not filed a lawsuit. Call it "pending litigation" all you want, but there is no lawsuit. Sure, Newkirk is looking in to it and likely will file at some point, but they haven't.

Questioning whether male athletes have filed complaints would seem appropriate, but simply implying that there is an issue without knowing that doesn't help anything.

It is funny that you "trust" Tom Newkirk over anyone, not saying he isn't trustworthy, but you are saying that you trust the Attorney representing someone's interests on one particular side of a case........to what end? If every petition is just to be believed, what is the point of Court? Also, Newkirk recently lost his other high profile case, where he alleged that minorities are discriminated against by the State of Iowa, based solely on statistics. He was "wrong" there, according to the court.

Again, maybe hawkdoff can clarify what he is talking about in regards to standing.

Originally posted by theIowaHawk:

Originally posted by FG86:

Originally posted by hawkedoff:
Lc

Do you understand that their case has just substantiated the abuse by the Former coach? Any lawsuit by the former coach now also has this title 9 case against her. These players by filing this have demonstrated that the abuse was happening. They claim though is that male athletes receive this type of abuse and as such the women have every right to be abused as well. They have essentially sink their former coach if she had any inclination to move forward with a lawsuit. In addition they will need to demonstrate that men at Iowa are in fact being abused. The problem of course is that there aren't any complaints filed by the male athletes to be investigated as a comparative tool.

Finally, these women have zero standing to see the personnel filed of their former coach and the university is not in a position to reveal that information. Same goes for coach Doyle. These players have no standing legally or otherwise to see the information surrounding any sort of discipline of a university employee or the termination of a contract. None. The only people that know why this coach was terminated are the coach and the ad office. The coach I would guess has recourse and standing to address the issue but the players do not. And these players just hurt their coaches chance at recourse if she had been planning on taking action.

Their complaint absolutely does not substantiate abuse by TG. And her pending lawsuit will not be affected by it. Do you realize ther person filing the claim also represents Tracey? For some strange reason, I trust Tom Newkirk over you. Gut feeling.

How do you know there no complaints filed by male athletes? Are you privileged to be able to see the personnel files of each Hawkeye coach?

As for the personnel files, TG is in every position to be able to provide any information she wants.

If the Title IX case has merits, it would actually strengthen Tracey's case that there is gender discrimination.

I'm not sure where hawkdoff is going with his posts either. He really confuses me with the "no standing" to "see" information. Their Title IX complaint is fairly clear: It alleges that their (not Griesbaum's) protections under T9 have been violated, largely due to her firing. It isn't a request to "see" information. It is a complaint of violation.

I also don't agree that they have "substantiated" bullying. In fact, Griesbaum was not fired "for bullying" or being abusive, she wasn't fired for cause. Her contract was bought out and terminated. The UI really doesn't need a reason (other than a LNDR) to do this.

But, to FG: Griesbaum has not filed a lawsuit. Call it "pending litigation" all you want, but there is no lawsuit. Sure, Newkirk is looking in to it and likely will file at some point, but they haven't.

Questioning whether male athletes have filed complaints would seem appropriate, but simply implying that there is an issue without knowing that doesn't help anything.

It is funny that you "trust" Tom Newkirk over anyone, not saying he isn't trustworthy, but you are saying that you trust the Attorney representing someone's interests on one particular side of a case........to what end? If every petition is just to be believed, what is the point of Court? Also, Newkirk recently lost his other high profile case, where he alleged that minorities are discriminated against by the State of Iowa, based solely on statistics. He was "wrong" there, according to the court.

Again, maybe hawkdoff can clarify what he is talking about in regards to standing.

Jane Meyer was reassigned because on pending litigation so I am calling it what UI is calling it. Re-read the sentence re: Newkirk. Hawkedoff is claiming the players are hurting the coach's case with their complaint. I am fairly certain I trust ther lawyer to know he is not hurting Tracey's case by filing a complaint by the players since he knows the entire situation. It has nothing to do with if the cases will be won or not.

Re: male complaints. For example, we know that DJK was forced to wear a garbage can on his head by Ferentz. Did he complain to anyone? I don't know and neither does hawkedoff.

Are her lawyers representing these players? They substantiate the behavior reported on in the investigation of the complaint against her. I would say that hurts her case tremendously. The very people defending her substantiate the claims made against her. I would say that is pretty damaging. What do you expect her attorneys to say assuming they have said anything at all?

As for your interesting claim about DJK I do know as does anyone else that cares that an official complaint was not filed. If a complaint was filed there would have been an investigation. There wasn't an investigation. Sort of like the mishandling of sexual assault at ISU. The feds are investigating because ISU tried to cover things up. Has DJK filed a complaint about this incident or any other with the office of civil rights or any other entity?

Tell ya what FG....go solve the sexual assaults at ISU and then worry about Iowa. Evidently saying sexual assault cant be stopped gets a university president in trouble with the regents. How about being investigated by the feds for literally preventing women from getting help for being sexually assaulted.

Lets put that in perspective for a minute. Some field hockey players feel discriminated against because a coach isn't allowed to be abusive towards them....or.....women don't feel safe due to sexual assault on campus and a deliberate suppression of claims of abuse.

 

[100yearscounting]

Again, if the well being of women is what clown fans are so worried and worked up about, they should start with how isu "handles" sexual assault cases. Since none of them seem to be concerned with that, it is safe to conclude the safety and well being of women isn't what they are truly after.

You haven't yet and won't be able to prove otherwise. But keep at it, it never slows FG down.

 

[ThatsFootball]

Originally posted by theIowaHawk:
Hawkdoff:

You are misunderstanding something that is fundamental:

The players are NOT filing a complaint against Griesbaum.

The players are alleging that THEIR rights under T9 were violated. For instance, the right to have a demanding coach.

FG:

Your clarifications make sense. I point out the lack of lawsuit to demonstrate that Griesbaum has not, officially, alleged any wrongdoing via lawsuit. For whatever the reason. The players have filed a complaint.

Also you don't know for a "fact" about the DJK incident, nor can even, really, compare it to this matter. As you point out there may not even be a complaint. Further, treating male coaches differently than female is not a per se violation. Discrimination must still be proved. For an off-beat example, flipping genders, Kirkette Ferentz could not prove discrimination on the basis that he is paid more and given more leniency. Differing treatment =\= discrimination.

No dog in this fight but I remember hearing from people present at practice that this happened. I also heard that after being told he could remove it, he continued to wear it, trying to be funny.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Hawkdoff:

Yes, same attorney.

You can simplify the allegations and complaint however you wish, but it is clear you only do so to manipulate it to your "point."

It is, imo, clear that the players are not claiming a right to be "abused", nor are they admitting or confirming the allegations against the coach. I'm not sure where you were going with the standing issue and glad you seem to have dropped that rationale, but you are still wildly mischaracterizing the complaint that was filed.

Also, why is ISU being brought up? Is FG a cyclone?

 

[GarryO37]

Originally posted by 100yearscounting:
Again, if the well being of women is what clown fans are so worried and worked up about, they should start with how isu "handles" sexual assault cases. Since none of them seem to be concerned with that, it is safe to conclude the safety and well being of women isn't what they are truly after.

You haven't yet and won't be able to prove otherwise. But keep at it, it never slows FG down.

Wow... You are dense. Again.... No one said that this is what they are after.

Since you want to play this game... Why don't you prove that this is not what they are after? How do you know they aren't concerned with what goes on at ISU with sexual assault cases? Because they aren't playing your childish game, this means they aren't concerned with the well being and safety of women?

The only thing you have proven is that YOU aren't too concerned with the safety and well being of women. You're the only one not acknowledging what is going on at the U of I. Are you a member of the He-Man woman haters club or something? Do you like to beat women?

I think it's safe to say that these things are true about you.

 

[100yearscounting]

I am not the one arguing that when it comes to the well being of women that it is more important to talk about title 9 than it is sexual assault. Until clown fans call out how isu "handles" sexual assault they have no business throwing rocks at anyone for title 9.

Get it yet, or do you need a woman to explain the obvious difference here?

This post was edited on 2/6 1:45 PM by 100yearscounting

 

[100yearscounting]

Originally posted by GarryO37:

Wow... You are dense. Again.... No one said that this is what they are after.

Since you want to play this game... Why don't you prove that this is not what they are after? How do you know they aren't concerned with what goes on at ISU with sexual assault cases? Because they aren't playing your childish game, this means they aren't concerned with the well being and safety of women?

The only thing you have proven is that YOU aren't too concerned with the safety and well being of women. You're the only one not acknowledging what is going on at the U of I. Are you a member of the He-Man woman haters club or something? Do you like to beat women?

I think it's safe to say that these things are true about you.

If clown fans were "concerned" about what goes on with sexual assault cases at isu wouldn't there be some tangible evidence of it? One thread or one post on a clown web site showing their outrage. I sure can't find one. But knock yourself and out prove me wrong.

But by all means do tell hs all how it really us.

 

[Lone Clone]

Originally posted by theIowaHawk:
Hawkdoff:

Yes, same attorney.

You can simplify the allegations and complaint however you wish, but it is clear you only do so to manipulate it to your "point."

It is, imo, clear that the players are not claiming a right to be "abused", nor are they admitting or confirming the allegations against the coach. I'm not sure where you were going with the standing issue and glad you seem to have dropped that rationale, but you are still wildly mischaracterizing the complaint that was filed.

Also, why is ISU being brought up? Is FG a cyclone?

Hawkedoff doesn't understand the situation, and rather than inform himself, he's going off on a 100--type tangent rant about an ISU issue that is entirely unrelated.

Welcome to the world of message boards.

 

[100yearscounting]

Do tell us Loneyclown how much more important title 9 is in the well being of women as compared to sexual assault. This should be a lay up for any self respecting journalist.

Or what is more likely is that Looneyclown will have NO RESPONSE.

 

[ThatsFootball]

Originally posted by 100yearscounting:
Do tell us Loneyclown how much more important title 9 is in the well being of women as compared to sexual assault. This should be a lay up for any self respecting journalist.

Or what is more likely is that Looneyclown will have NO RESPONSE.

How old are you?

 

[100yearscounting]

Old enough to know that those that throw rocks over title 9 vs. sexual assault are focussing on the wrong problem when it comes to women and their well being.

Now if the real issue is that clown fans just can't help it, they have to throw rocks at Iowa for any possible thing my response is isu fans are more worried about what happens with Iowa than the douchebag behavior coming out of lames.

 

[FG86]

Originally posted by GarryO37:

Originally posted by 100yearscounting:

Originally posted by GarryO37:

You have a hard time staying on topic, don't you?

What you are doing is classic deflection. You are getting upset because the ISU fans aren't falling for it.

They didn't come here trying to argue. They came here for a discussion. You however got all butt hurt because it's something negative about the University of Iowa.

If clown fans are really so worried about how women are treated then they should focus on why the feds are investigating the way isu "handles" sexaul assault.

The reason they don't, is this has nothing to do with their outrage over the treatment of women it is just a shot at Iowa. How do we know this is true? Simple the next clown fan to show the outrage towards isu for how they "handle" sexual assault will be the first.

Feel free to prove that wrong. Any bets no one can?

You would be correct except for the fact that nothing any ISU fan has posted in this thread is anything I would consider taking a shot at Iowa. There I proved you wrong.

I believe the intent was to have a simple discussion; which is what message boards are for. If you can't handle having a simple discussion without flying off the handle, then maybe you should get over yourself and take a break from the message boards.

Are you the first case of an Iowa fan feeling like ISU is now big brother and they are picking on Iowa? If not, then it sure seems that way.

Haha, this is hilarious, Gary! Too bad I hadn't seen the bet and taken it!

 

[FG86]

Originally posted by theIowaHawk:
Hawkdoff:

You are misunderstanding something that is fundamental:

The players are NOT filing a complaint against Griesbaum.

The players are alleging that THEIR rights under T9 were violated. For instance, the right to have a demanding coach.

FG:

Your clarifications make sense. I point out the lack of lawsuit to demonstrate that Griesbaum has not, officially, alleged any wrongdoing via lawsuit. For whatever the reason. The players have filed a complaint.

Also you don't know for a "fact" about the DJK incident, nor can even, really, compare it to this matter. As you point out there may not even be a complaint. Further, treating male coaches differently than female is not a per se violation. Discrimination must still be proved. For an off-beat example, flipping genders, Kirkette Ferentz could not prove discrimination on the basis that he is paid more and given more leniency. Differing treatment =\= discrimination.

It is not unusual for a lawsuit not to be filled at this point.

It is a fact DJK had to wear a garbage can over his head in practice, in front of recruits. And it can be compared to this matter. Whether there is a complaint or not, if the AD is aware or sees things like that, he should address it and look into it further.

I have offered no opinion as to whether or not a lawsuit or complaint will be won or lost.

 

[FG86]

Originally posted by theIowaHawk:
Hawkdoff:

Yes, same attorney.

You can simplify the allegations and complaint however you wish, but it is clear you only do so to manipulate it to your "point."

It is, imo, clear that the players are not claiming a right to be "abused", nor are they admitting or confirming the allegations against the coach. I'm not sure where you were going with the standing issue and glad you seem to have dropped that rationale, but you are still wildly mischaracterizing the complaint that was filed.

Also, why is ISU being brought up? Is FG a cyclone?

At least you understand the issues.

ISU is brought up because the poster formerly known as JWR among other names, 100years, has some bizarre obsession with ISU. No, I am not a cyclone. I am an UI grad.

 

[FG86]

Originally posted by GarryO37:

Originally posted by 100yearscounting:
Again, if the well being of women is what clown fans are so worried and worked up about, they should start with how isu "handles" sexual assault cases. Since none of them seem to be concerned with that, it is safe to conclude the safety and well being of women isn't what they are truly after.

You haven't yet and won't be able to prove otherwise. But keep at it, it never slows FG down.

Wow... You are dense. Again.... No one said that this is what they are after.

Since you want to play this game... Why don't you prove that this is not what they are after? How do you know they aren't concerned with what goes on at ISU with sexual assault cases? Because they aren't playing your childish game, this means they aren't concerned with the well being and safety of women?

The only thing you have proven is that YOU aren't too concerned with the safety and well being of women. You're the only one not acknowledging what is going on at the U of I. Are you a member of the He-Man woman haters club or something? Do you like to beat women?

I think it's safe to say that these things are true about you.

Oh Snap.

Gary, you are gold.

 

[FG86]

Originally posted by 100yearscounting:
Old enough to know that those that throw rocks over title 9 vs. sexual assault are focussing on the wrong problem when it comes to women and their well being.

Now if the real issue is that clown fans just can't help it, they have to throw rocks at Iowa for any possible thing my response is isu fans are more worried about what happens with Iowa than the douchebag behavior coming out of lames.

Who is throwing rocks, except the ones Gary is throwing at you? LOL

What ISU fans are more worried about what happens with Iowa? Lone Clone who has been on this board for years is the only Clone commenting on here.

Besides, this is a thread about the complaint filed by the field hockey players and not about ISU so why would we talk ISU in this thiread?

 

[Lone Clone]

Originally posted by FG86:

Originally posted by 100yearscounting:
Old enough to know that those that throw rocks over title 9 vs. sexual assault are focussing on the wrong problem when it comes to women and their well being.

Now if the real issue is that clown fans just can't help it, they have to throw rocks at Iowa for any possible thing my response is isu fans are more worried about what happens with Iowa than the douchebag behavior coming out of lames.

Who is throwing rocks, except the ones Gary is throwing at you? LOL

What ISU fans are more worried about what happens with Iowa? Lone Clone who has been on this board for years is the only Clone commenting on here.

Besides, this is a thread about the complaint filed by the field hockey players and not about ISU so why would we talk ISU in this thiread?

No kidding. This thread isn't even about the U of I, actually. It's about Title IX.

 

[100yearscounting]

Called it again.

Neither FG or Gary or our resident Journalist Looneyclown can tell us how title 9 is more important to the well being of women than how sexual assault cases are treated. Yet they want to focus on the wrong problem. Or maybe it is just what I said it was, they MUST TAKE SHOTS AT IOWA.

In fact Looneyclown can't even read the titlte of this thread without getting it wrong.

 

[100yearscounting]

Originally posted by FG86:

Originally posted by 100yearscounting:
Old enough to know that those that throw rocks over title 9 vs. sexual assault are focussing on the wrong problem when it comes to women and their well being.

Now if the real issue is that clown fans just can't help it, they have to throw rocks at Iowa for any possible thing my response is isu fans are more worried about what happens with Iowa than the douchebag behavior coming out of lames.

Who is throwing rocks, except the ones Gary is throwing at you? LOL

What ISU fans are more worried about what happens with Iowa? Lone Clone who has been on this board for years is the only Clone commenting on here.

Besides, this is a thread about the complaint filed by the field hockey players and not about ISU so why would we talk ISU in this thiread?

So tell us FG why are you so up in arms over the complaint? If you are so worried about the well being of women you are worked up over the wrong problem. So either prove title 9 is a more important problem to solve for women or this is just another one of your shots at Iowa. Taking shots at Iowa is the singular obsession of clown fans. Your response will be pure gold.

 

[Titanhawk2]

Originally posted by FG86:

Originally posted by Titanhawk2:

Originally posted by FG86:

Originally posted by iowalaw:
I still don't get this field hockey nonsense. Their coach was fired after abusing players. She was still payed the full amount of her contract. Boo hoo. Seriously, there are worse things out there than getting paid hundreds of thousands of dollars and being told to find another job.

If you want to believe she was truly fired for abusing players.....

Well that's what the complaint is about, that the "abuse" was normal

No, it's not.

Sorry, I shouldn't listen to news reports, just what's said here

 

[100yearscounting]

TitanHawk is learning.

All that matters is what FG says. Everything else must be ignored.

Pure Gold.