Brandt

[star2city]

Schmidtdoggydog:

Your forthrightness and information, however troubling, is appreciated. Do you believe the off-ice issues affected the on-ice performance the last two seasons? Has the lack of publicity been a disservice to the team, UND, and the fans?

As a general question: which player can step up and provide on- and off-ice leadership, like Lee Goren did?

[MinnesotaNorthStar]

It's not like it is a huge secret that the team goes out and parties at The Edge after saturday games. Their ID's aren't looked at very closely if checked at all. This is something that the police need to discuss with The Edge and other clubs and bars in the area. I wouldn't be too worried because, guess what folks, they're college students. College students drink underage. I'll be honest, I didn't wait until I turned 21 before I started drinking and neither do a lot of people in college. I'm not saying it is right to do, but it does happen.

[NewGuy]

I agree about the underage alcohol violations. The minors in possession/consumption don't bother me as much especially if they are over 18. I guess I am a believer in the old enough to fight (military draft age being 18) old enough to drink theory, whether right or wrong.

Theft is an entirely different ball game.

[PCM]

This is why it's not a good idea to repeat negative secondhand information about someone, no matter how good the source. If you don't want to risk being sued for libel, don't post any information that you don't know for a fact to be true.

[schmidtdoggydog]

This is why it's not a good idea to repeat negative secondhand information about someone, no matter how good the source. If you don't want to risk being sued for libel, don't post any information that you don't know for a fact to be true.

Gee, PCM, thanks for the lesson. I feel like Sister Theresa just slapped me with a ruler for shooting a rubberband in Sunday school.

BTW, it wasn't secondhand information. It came from the probation agent; an individual I trusted and worked with in my profession. Based on our relationship there was no reason not to trust the individual.

That is why it is always good not to point fingers unless YOU know the facts!

As for being sued for libel, from a legal perspective I couldn't care less. That is a waste of time unless you are going after a huge media conglomerate with very deep pockets.

[NewGuy]

Are there any legal experts on the board? In order for it to be libel, don't you have to spread a KNOWINGLY false statement. Just curious.

[mksioux]

He told me the GF police department had their hands full the last year and a-half to two years dealing with matters involving the UND hockey team, but that most of those matters remain unpublicized.  They do continue to be very concerned about the incidents of underage drinking by the team at The Edge, of which they are well aware.

Everyone knows that players (over and under 21) go to the Edge after Saturday games. That's a non-issue to me. That's hardly enough to keep the PD's "hands full." It's also nothing to be "very concerned" about. If they're truly concerned, they could end it by talking to the Edge manager and having random walk-throughs. Saying stuff like the GFPD have their "hands full" with the UND hockey team is just adding more fuel to rumor fire.

It's fine if people want to comment on the pending charge against Brandt or the past indiscretion of Bo. That is public information that is ripe for comment in a free society. But if people want to start rumors about criminal activity amongst a player that has not been publicized or is not of public record, I think (at a minimum) that person should reveal their true identity rather than hide behind a username. Also it would be nice to get the name of the person they wish to smear (rather than just "a player" or "some players"), the exact facts as they know them, and exactly how they obtained that information. Otherwise I think it's all bunch of bunk.

[PCM]

BTW, it wasn't secondhand information. It came from the probation agent; an individual I trusted and worked with in my profession. Based on our relationship there was no reason not to trust the individual.

That is why it is always good not to point fingers unless YOU know the facts!

I saw that in your previous post. It's still secondhand information, regardless of how much you trusted the source.

While I realize that legally and financially it might not make sense for Jake to sue anybody, why risk it? And what's the point of needlessly and falsely smearing somebody's reputation?

People need to think twice before posting such information. You, more than anyone, should understand this.

[kr]

Everyone knows that players (over and under 21) go to the Edge

Yet another reason to "continue" to recruit those "25 year old" Canadians!

[schmidtdoggydog]

I saw that in your previous post. It's still secondhand information, regardless of how much you trusted the source.

While I realize that legally and financially it might not make sense for Jake to sue anybody, why risk it? And what's the point of needlessly and falsely smearing somebody's reputation?

People need to think twice before posting such information. You, more than anyone, should understand this.

I didn't smear anyone's reputation. In fact, when I realized that I had been mislead some two years after the fact, I printed a retraction simple as that.

As for libel, that is ridiculous. More than half of what is discussed and "reported" on these boards is speculation, of a secondhand nature or is he said, she said.

Since you seem to be in the mood to pontificate, I welcome you to step off your soapbox and take this conversation to PM or email. I don't think it is fair to the other posters to have continued exposure to this mundane, mindnumbing conversation.

[PCM]

I didn't smear anyone's reputation. 

Really? This is the false information you posted on USCHO on 7/16/03:

The news is especially disconcerting considering Brandt was on probation last year for slapping around his girlfriend and was in DB's doghouse his freshmen year for having a horrible attitude!

Although I am a firm believer in innocent until proven guilty, I cannot imagine Blais will continue to tolerate Brandt's repugnant behavior much longer!

And when some questioned whether it was true, you followed it up with this gem on USCHO the next day:

The "rumor" is not unsubstantiated, nor is it a rumor. How is this for a source: I work in the legal field in Minnesota, which gives me access to a great deal of information in the criminal arena; I also have a good friend in law forcement and he has ties to Brandt's arrest for the assault. I also have ties to the probation dept. that supervised him.

So much for speculation.

[jeffj]

Thanks to PCM for stepping in.

We don't need any shameless glory seekers defaming others to gain some points on a message board.

[schmidtdoggydog]

[tboneund]

I know others are not happy with the false information that was provided by schmidtdoggydog, but I would like to thank schmidtdoggydog for brining forth the truth when he realized he was wrong.

Thanks too, schmidtdoggydog, for asking for the personal stuff to move to email, I don't like reading conversations between two people on the message boards.

[skateshattrick]

I know others are not happy with the false information that was provided by schmidtdoggydog, but I would like to thank schmidtdoggydog for brining forth the truth when he realized he was wrong.

Thanks too, schmidtdoggydog, for asking for the personal stuff to move to email, I don't like reading conversations between two people on the message boards.

Well put. I know Schmidtdoggydog personally and he is a great guy and a responsible poster.

[Siouxperstars]

As you can see, I haven't posted often here, but read this board religiously. I have always found schmidtdoggydog's posts to be reasonable, logical and insightful. Granted, he made a mistake by posting something that ended up being untrue, but obviously he feels horrible about that.

He clearly took steps to remedy the situation by issuing a public retraction. If he hadn't done so, we may not have ever discovered the truth. In fairness to all of us who read this board and to Brandt, we should appreciate that schmidtdoggydog did the right thing by coming forward. It seems silly to continue beating him up over this.

[mksioux]

I never doubted schmidtdoggydog when he said he truly believed the information he was given was truthful. I also think it takes some guts to come on and publicly admit he was wrong. I guess my "gripe" if you will, is the larger issue about posting information about criminal activity of a player if that information has not been publicly disclosed. It's a serious issue because I think many of us know some unflattering things about the players...especially students who interact with them at bars and parties. In terms of proper message board etiquette, what is the standard for disclosure rules?

Obviously, if the poster is unsure about the veracity of the information, I think it's wrong to post it. But I'm more interested in cases where you know the information is truthful (i.e. you personally witnessed it or have a copy of the court file in front of you). If you're certain your information is true, is it proper etiquette to post it? Does it depend on the nature and severity of the crime? Does it depend on the player? Or is their no objective standard?

This is a touchy issue, but I think it's an issue worth getting a consensus on. There's no need to make it personal because schmidtdoggydog is not the only person to have done it on this board and he's already apologized profusely for posting inaccurate information. I'm mostly interested in a "don't air dirty laundry in public...don't post it even if you know it's true" argument vs. a "it's fair game as long as it's truthful" argument. Remember, I'm speaking in terms of etiquette...not constitutional law.

[NewGuy]

I think that anything that is public record is fair game. Enough stuff gets swept under the rug the way it is without a gag order being issued for this board.

[mksioux]

I think that anything that is public record is fair game.  Enough stuff gets swept under the rug the way it is without a gag order being issued for this board.

NewGuy,

Fair enough...although I don't think I mentioned anything about a gag order.

And I believe you're the one who started the rumor that this is Brandt's second theft charge, correct? I believe you said that the first charge happened in the fall of '02, right? Can you tell us what state/county the first theft charge happened in so somebody can verify it? Can you tell us the disposition of the case? I have no idea whether it's true, but I think that if you're going to start a rumor, you should be able to back it up with specifics.

[PCM]

mksioux, to address your point, I believe that people should be able to post firsthand information that they know to be true and factual (i.e. court records or an eye-witness account). Even at that, there's still some danger. Did you really see what you thought you saw? Were the court records you saw supposed to be sealed? Are you providing a legally correct interpretation of those records?

Also, it was not my intention to accuse schmidtdoggydog of deliberately posting information he knew be false. I understand completely that he believed the information to be true and from a reliable source. Under the circumstances, I probably would have believed it myself. Would I have posted it here or on USCHO? No.

Unfortunately, the information wasn't true, and if Jake Brandt doesn't have enough to worry about, he now must also deal with a false accusation floating around in public.

Some have commended schmidtdoggydog for being truthful and forthright in admitting on this board that he made a mistake. I also commend him for that. However, the same information was originally posted on USCHO weeks ago, which is far more widely read than this board. Wouldn't it be a good idea to set the record straight there, too?

And while it's all well and good to admit that you're wrong and that you made a mistake, the victim of your mistake must still cope with the damage you caused. Attempting to clear your name of a wrongful public accusation is like attempting to un-ring a bell. Once the information is out there, it takes on a life of its own. I am speaking from firsthand experience on this issue.

So, once again, be careful about what you post. That's not a "gag order" because I have no power or authority to issue such an order and wouldn't even if I could. It's just some friendly advice.

[jimdahl]

One price of fame is that people want to hear and spread sordid details about you. The increasing popularity of the UND hockey program has increased the fame of the players. Perhaps more importantly, there are new mediums (such as web sites) that can widely disseminate information. It used to be that if the Herald and local t.v. news chose not to cover something going on in G.F., the general public didn't know about it.

That said, I'm often surprised at some of the negative things people say about players / coaches / media members in posts. Comments posted about someone influence a lot of people's opinions of that person AND certainly make it back to that person (trust me). Bearing in mind that posting something on this forum is the equivalent of saying it in front of hundreds of Sioux fans, media members, players, families, and staff would probably make a lot of us more cautious.

As a supplement to the media coverage of UND, this board is a place to share information and analysis about the Sioux, not a gossip board or flame-fest. As many know, on USCHO you can't even discuss the Sioux because detractors will quickly fill the thread with anti-Sioux garbage. While aggressive moderation here will continue to prevent that, 2nd hand information is a reality of message boards. If posters keep in mind how widely disseminated their posts become and consider any potential harm given that, most people will make good decisions, though they are individual decisions.

[sioux fan in phoenix]

I'm mostly interested in a "don't air dirty laundry in public...don't post it even if you know it's true" argument vs. a "it's fair game as long as it's truthful" argument.

I'm not a big fan of airing dirty laundry on this

board d/2 the fact these off-ice stories almost

always snowball into something bigger &

different than the original topic. Brandt's

case is a good example: Take a short article by

the Herald, start it in this forum & a month

later one'll find unsubstantiated heresay &

rumors galore.

Talking about a person's legal troubles here

solves nothing & often ends up in one big Jerry

Springer show. How is talking about Brandt's

case here going to help matters for him?

I believe the original intent of this board should

should remain as is: to discuss, analyze &

prophesize Sioux HOCKEY--not legal sidebars

& other fluff lest we want a lot of character

assassinations.

[SiouxperFan]

You all say you are "FANS" of the Fighting Sioux, yet you are the very first ones to offer negative information, true, false or just a little misleading. Most of you have NO idea what these players go thru on a daily basis. School, practice, weights, homework, and personal lives.....then the people who they think are their friends and fans turn on them and post negative rumors about them.

Please stop and think before you post.....don't post just because you heard something and you want to be the "first one" to get the rumors out there. These kids are representing the University, the State of North Dakota, and the sport of Hockey, and just trying to make a career for themselves.

Give them a break _/-\_

[RobB]

Said well SiouxperFan!!

[Herf]

I think people lose sight of the fact that these are amatuer athletes. Sure, they play on a high profile team, but do we have the moral right to air dirty laundry, even if we believe it to be true? I'm not ripping on schmidt, but should we be posting stuff that is not publicized, even if it is from a good source? Case in point - on USCHO in the politica squabblings that occur, hank "outed" nate and was routinely booed and criticized for it. What makes posting non-publicized information about an amateur player any less of an offense. These are not paid professionals. These are 18-24 year old college students. Let them have a little bit of privacy, just as you would hopefully afford other posters on this board.

That being said, public information is fair game. About anyone. (however, the glass houses rule of thumb is alwys good to live by). I applaud schmidt for posting a retraction.