Hale and Gardenhire Gone...

[Hi-Line Bobcat]

You don't have to like or dislike that he hasn't kicked them off the team. You don't have to like or dislike that he hasn't spoken out in their defense, but you do have to like that they're being given due process. It's one of the pillars this country was built upon. The thing to do is let it play out -- go through it's due process -- and move on from there.

Agreed TC. Apparently some don't believe in innocent until proven guilty. The appropriate response is the one we are taking.

As a side note, I think anyone who has ever cheered for either of these two players has proven to be someone who can't be trusted. I mean the fact that anyone couldn't see into the future and know that bringing them here would automatically lead to their criminal behavior is astonishing to me and frankly it raises a lot of red flags about our fan base. Of course each of us would be guilty of this and hopefully each of us can find a way to realize how ridiculous it is to apply a standard to our coach that we don't follow ourselves.

These players were welcomed with open arms because, like Coach, we want to win. Had they finished their college days without incident we would talk about how wonderful our coach is for being willing to hand out second chances and being able to see that inner character. Instead it doesn't work out and our holier than thou group turns their noses up and starts barking about how Coach screwed up and how it better not become a pattern. Cmon people, get off your high horse. Choate personally selling drugs is a pattern that I'd be concerned with. All of us cheering for some kid when he makes a play on Saturday and then acting like we are any better than coach when we find out that same kid made a mistake 6 months later is about the most hypocritical behavior imaginable. If Coach is guilty of anything so is each and every one of us. Unless you support not allowing ANY admittance of students with any prior criminal history then you should not be critical.

My issue is not that these two players were given a second chance to play for the Bobcats. As I stated in an earlier post, I am not second guessing the decision to recruit them. And yes, I did cheer for them and I wanted them to succeed. Success is not just winning football games but also getting a degree and being a positive ambassador for Montana State. This is my expectation of all student/athletes.

Being a member of a Montana State University athletic team is not a right, rather it is a privilege. With privileges, come responsibilities. One of the responsibilities of a student athlete is not to put themselves in a position to embarrass their University or Program.

These two players failed that responsibility in a major way. We all know that.

The standards for receiving a scholarship and being given the privilege of representing Montana State on the playing field are higher than the legal standards. Athletes do get dismissed for infractions that do not rise to the legal definition of criminal. You do not have to look very hard to find recent precedents.

I would rather see us lose games than lower our standards. Not that I see this as an either/or choice. We can win without flinching on the our expectations.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks for your input. I do question two of your points, one being "I cheered for both of them", well that would be impossible since Hale was the only one playing last year, gardenhire didn't. I feel like you didn't watch Hale or Gardenhire last year you just fell in the trap of saying the status quo. C'mon man!! Number 2, would you honestly rather lose than win? Well maybe you would but I wouldn't. If we go your route we may never have a program that competes for championships, and then we can see how many games you and other fans go to. These kids ****** up and they messed their second chance up, but to be mad about this is hypocritical at the least.

[lutecat]

It's funny. I thought that innocent until proven guilty was a legal standard and constitutional right for being convicted of a crime. Today I found out that it also applies to Bobcat football and your right to be on the team.

Ironically there are people saying that they are innocent until proven guilty and we should wait to pass judgement and then saying they screwed up their second chance. So.........you're more or less saying that their guilty. Lol.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

[Montanabob]

Sure, in court.
Scholarships are a privilege, not gaurenteed.

[PHAT CAT]

Five year rule.

[allcat]

10 pages for this thread. It is obviously a huge pr issue for the school. You can pull the schools for anything, but if you give me a black eye, you are gone. guilt is not the issue, unless you never want to see facility improvements.

[60's Cat]

10 pages for this thread. It is obviously a huge pr issue for the school. You can pull the schools for anything, but if you give me a black eye, you are gone. guilt is not the issue, unless you never want to see facility improvements.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Hawks86]

10 pages for this thread. It is obviously a huge pr issue for the school. You can pull the schools for anything, but if you give me a black eye, you are gone. guilt is not the issue, unless you never want to see facility improvements.

It will have zero affect on anything that matters.

[BleedingBLue]

Utah State just had 3 guys arrested for burglary and South Carolina a guy for sexual assault. Stuff happens everywhere all year long and most of the time we don't even hear about it. As Hawks said this won't affect anything, other than maybe the way transfers are looked at in the future.

[DriscollCat]

That's funny Driscoll. You say everyone deserves due process and then state in your next sentence that it's a fact that Hale remotely cleared data from his phone. You're right though, it doesn't look promising for them.

Yes I meant, and should have written "allegedly" remotely wiped his phone. That being said, that part will be extremely easy to prove/disprove, and there is little reason for the police to falsly allege such a thing since they could easily be proven wrong.

The point I was making is that while they deserve due process, it is not looking promising.

[utucats]

It's funny. I thought that innocent until proven guilty was a legal standard and constitutional right for being convicted of a crime. Today I found out that it also applies to Bobcat football and your right to be on the team.

Ironically there are people saying that they are innocent until proven guilty and we should wait to pass judgement and then saying they screwed up their second chance. So.........you're more or less saying that their guilty. Lol.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

Well you thought wrong. Ending a relationship with a coach who is under contract or player who is under scholarship without first allowing criminal proceedings to play out is a dangerous proposition. Courts tend to look favorably upon folks who were effected adversely without some sort of proof of wrongdoing. If you don't believe me, perhaps you could talk to our own University about why they felt the need to cut Coach Kramer a check for 200,000+.

[lutecat]

It's funny. I thought that innocent until proven guilty was a legal standard and constitutional right for being convicted of a crime. Today I found out that it also applies to Bobcat football and your right to be on the team.

Ironically there are people saying that they are innocent until proven guilty and we should wait to pass judgement and then saying they screwed up their second chance. So.........you're more or less saying that their guilty. Lol.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

Well you thought wrong. Ending a relationship with a coach who is under contract or player who is under scholarship without first allowing criminal proceedings to play out is a dangerous proposition. Courts tend to look favorably upon folks who were effected adversely without some sort of proof of wrongdoing. If you don't believe me, perhaps you could talk to our own University about why they felt the need to cut Coach Kramer a check for 200,000+.

It's because of what was public said by Fields. Not what was done. Notice when UM fired Phlu they publicly kept their mouth shut. No lawsuit. They learned from our mistake. Kramer...low apr, players that were convicted. Phlu....stuck up for player that was acquitted later. It's how it was handled and said publicly that dictated who sued and who didn't. Nothing to do with convictions. JJ was never convicted so.....why doesn't Phlu sue?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

[utucats]

It's funny. I thought that innocent until proven guilty was a legal standard and constitutional right for being convicted of a crime. Today I found out that it also applies to Bobcat football and your right to be on the team.

Ironically there are people saying that they are innocent until proven guilty and we should wait to pass judgement and then saying they screwed up their second chance. So.........you're more or less saying that their guilty. Lol.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

Well you thought wrong. Ending a relationship with a coach who is under contract or player who is under scholarship without first allowing criminal proceedings to play out is a dangerous proposition. Courts tend to look favorably upon folks who were effected adversely without some sort of proof of wrongdoing. If you don't believe me, perhaps you could talk to our own University about why they felt the need to cut Coach Kramer a check for 200,000+.

It's because of what was public said by Fields. Not what was done. Notice when UM fired Phlu they publicly kept their mouth shut. No lawsuit. They learned from our mistake. Kramer...low apr, players that were convicted. Phlu....stuck up for player that was acquitted later. It's how it was handled and said publicly that dictated who sued and who didn't. Nothing to do with convictions. JJ was never convicted so.....why doesn't Phlu sue?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

I enjoy the irony of you using an example of a situation where the school allowed criminal proceedings to play out and once that happened the player returned to the team.

[lutecat]

It's funny. I thought that innocent until proven guilty was a legal standard and constitutional right for being convicted of a crime. Today I found out that it also applies to Bobcat football and your right to be on the team.

Ironically there are people saying that they are innocent until proven guilty and we should wait to pass judgement and then saying they screwed up their second chance. So.........you're more or less saying that their guilty. Lol.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

Well you thought wrong. Ending a relationship with a coach who is under contract or player who is under scholarship without first allowing criminal proceedings to play out is a dangerous proposition. Courts tend to look favorably upon folks who were effected adversely without some sort of proof of wrongdoing. If you don't believe me, perhaps you could talk to our own University about why they felt the need to cut Coach Kramer a check for 200,000+.

It's because of what was public said by Fields. Not what was done. Notice when UM fired Phlu they publicly kept their mouth shut. No lawsuit. They learned from our mistake. Kramer...low apr, players that were convicted. Phlu....stuck up for player that was acquitted later. It's how it was handled and said publicly that dictated who sued and who didn't. Nothing to do with convictions. JJ was never convicted so.....why doesn't Phlu sue?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

I enjoy the irony of you using an example of a situation where the school allowed criminal proceedings to play out and once that happened the player returned to the team.

I enjoy the fact that you just deflected and didn't answer the question.

So since you bring up that JJ was back on the team, better yet then. So again why format Phlu sue when the player he public stood up for came back?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

[blueandgoldblitz]

It's funny. I thought that innocent until proven guilty was a legal standard and constitutional right for being convicted of a crime. Today I found out that it also applies to Bobcat football and your right to be on the team.

Ironically there are people saying that they are innocent until proven guilty and we should wait to pass judgement and then saying they screwed up their second chance. So.........you're more or less saying that their guilty. Lol.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

Well you thought wrong. Ending a relationship with a coach who is under contract or player who is under scholarship without first allowing criminal proceedings to play out is a dangerous proposition. Courts tend to look favorably upon folks who were effected adversely without some sort of proof of wrongdoing. If you don't believe me, perhaps you could talk to our own University about why they felt the need to cut Coach Kramer a check for 200,000+.

It's because of what was public said by Fields. Not what was done. Notice when UM fired Phlu they publicly kept their mouth shut. No lawsuit. They learned from our mistake. Kramer...low apr, players that were convicted. Phlu....stuck up for player that was acquitted later. It's how it was handled and said publicly that dictated who sued and who didn't. Nothing to do with convictions. JJ was never convicted so.....why doesn't Phlu sue?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

I enjoy the irony of you using an example of a situation where the school allowed criminal proceedings to play out and once that happened the player returned to the team.

I enjoy the fact that you just deflected and didn't answer the question.

So since you bring up that JJ was back on the team, better yet then. So again why format Phlu sue when the player he public stood up for came back?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

I don't usually call out bad grammar or what I'm guessing is an autocorrect, but I have no idea what you're trying to say there...

[lutecat]

It's funny. I thought that innocent until proven guilty was a legal standard and constitutional right for being convicted of a crime. Today I found out that it also applies to Bobcat football and your right to be on the team.

Ironically there are people saying that they are innocent until proven guilty and we should wait to pass judgement and then saying they screwed up their second chance. So.........you're more or less saying that their guilty. Lol.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

Well you thought wrong. Ending a relationship with a coach who is under contract or player who is under scholarship without first allowing criminal proceedings to play out is a dangerous proposition. Courts tend to look favorably upon folks who were effected adversely without some sort of proof of wrongdoing. If you don't believe me, perhaps you could talk to our own University about why they felt the need to cut Coach Kramer a check for 200,000+.

It's because of what was public said by Fields. Not what was done. Notice when UM fired Phlu they publicly kept their mouth shut. No lawsuit. They learned from our mistake. Kramer...low apr, players that were convicted. Phlu....stuck up for player that was acquitted later. It's how it was handled and said publicly that dictated who sued and who didn't. Nothing to do with convictions. JJ was never convicted so.....why doesn't Phlu sue?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

I enjoy the irony of you using an example of a situation where the school allowed criminal proceedings to play out and once that happened the player returned to the team.

I enjoy the fact that you just deflected and didn't answer the question.

So since you bring up that JJ was back on the team, better yet then. So again why format Phlu sue when the player he public stood up for came back?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

I don't usually call out bad grammar or what I'm guessing is an autocorrect, but I have no idea what you're trying to say there... [emoji38]

Wow. Just wow. I got nothing. Lol

This new Android update has some funny auto correct things happening.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

[PapaG]

10 pages for this thread. It is obviously a huge pr issue for the school. You can pull the schools for anything, but if you give me a black eye, you are gone. guilt is not the issue, unless you never want to see facility improvements.

I literally haven't seen nor heard a single thing about this outside of this board, and I live in a city that supposedly has a Big Sky university. These things happen everywhere.

[utucats]

It's funny. I thought that innocent until proven guilty was a legal standard and constitutional right for being convicted of a crime. Today I found out that it also applies to Bobcat football and your right to be on the team.

Ironically there are people saying that they are innocent until proven guilty and we should wait to pass judgement and then saying they screwed up their second chance. So.........you're more or less saying that their guilty. Lol.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

Well you thought wrong. Ending a relationship with a coach who is under contract or player who is under scholarship without first allowing criminal proceedings to play out is a dangerous proposition. Courts tend to look favorably upon folks who were effected adversely without some sort of proof of wrongdoing. If you don't believe me, perhaps you could talk to our own University about why they felt the need to cut Coach Kramer a check for 200,000+.

It's because of what was public said by Fields. Not what was done. Notice when UM fired Phlu they publicly kept their mouth shut. No lawsuit. They learned from our mistake. Kramer...low apr, players that were convicted. Phlu....stuck up for player that was acquitted later. It's how it was handled and said publicly that dictated who sued and who didn't. Nothing to do with convictions. JJ was never convicted so.....why doesn't Phlu sue?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

I enjoy the irony of you using an example of a situation where the school allowed criminal proceedings to play out and once that happened the player returned to the team.

I enjoy the fact that you just deflected and didn't answer the question.

So since you bring up that JJ was back on the team, better yet then. So again why format Phlu sue when the player he public stood up for came back?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

Although auto correct really did a number on your reply I get the point. You are right that UM did not give Phlugrad the ammo that Kramer had and that Kramers lawsuit was not about his termination but the way he was slandered. Could Phlugrad have attempted to sue UM for wrongful termination, especially since JJ was innocent??? I don't know, I'm not a lawyer. Your question was why didn't Phlugrad sue. You'd have to ask him.

My opinion is that we shouldn't throw 2 people out with the trash until they get their day in court. Call that the American in me. If Choate was letting these guys practice or something I could understand the outrage but that's not the case. I'm sure if they are found to be guilty of a crime they will never wear blue and gold again.

[Hawks86]

https://twitter.com/wabermes/status/960674959075950593

[blueandgoldblitz]

I'm curious if anyone knows this. Does he have to do his 100 hours of community service in Bozeman? Or can he do those wherever he lives now? What about probation?

[AFCAT]

I'm curious if anyone knows this. Does he have to do his 100 hours of community service in Bozeman? Or can he do those wherever he lives now? What about probation?

"Hale’s supervision was transferred to California, where he said he is living, working part-time at his family’s restaurant and is enrolled in school at Cerritos College."