BREAKING: McGill head football coach resigns [STATEMENT]

CLICK HERE for the email that McGill provost Ollivier Dyens sent to all McGill students and staff on Friday

Below is a statement that McGill head coach Clint Uttley made upon his resignation from the program today

———————————————–

 

I have resigned as the Head Coach of the McGill Redmen Football team.

The University released a statement on Friday, September 26, 2014 regarding allegations

against an individual from our team.

“A member of the McGill Redmen football team was in Court on Thursday to face

criminal charges. This individual had previously pleaded guilty to an assault charge

arising from a 2010 incident in Quebec City. This individual should not have been

invited to join our team. That was not in accordance with the values of our

community.”

The above statement does not represent my personal morals or values with regards to

sport, recruiting, and life in general. I believe in rehabilitation. The student athlete

accepted his conviction and did his punishment, a fact that was not hidden from the

University. At the time of his arrival, the University tolerated and accepted his presence

and then proceeded to celebrate his accomplishments thereafter.

For McGill University to say now that this individual should not have been allowed on

our team in the first place because of his past, deeply troubles me and in good conscience

I cannot work for an organization that does not embrace equity and inclusiveness. Post-
secondary education should be accessible for all, not just the ones’ who have no known

incidences. How can someone aspire to rehabilitation when the leading institutions of

Quebec and Canada shun those who have made an error in judgment?

I believe that University is exactly the place to shape and mold young adults to reach

their full potential. If this were not the case, I would not be here before you today. If the

football coaches in my life had not provided me with an equal opportunity, I would not

have completed a Bachelor of Arts, Bachelor of Education, and a Masters of Education in

Inclusive Education. I wanted to give back to those who mentored and influenced me in a

positive way through the use of sport as those who offered their support to me.

If providing young men with a second opportunity has effectively cost me my position as

head football coach at McGill, then I accept that consequence in order to maintain a

higher moral standard then what’s been dictated.

-Clinton J. Uttley

 

—————————————————

About Canadafootballchat.com

Canadafootballchat.com (CFC) is the number one (source: comScore.com) and most respected national recruiting and high school news site. CFCs mission is to promote Canadian football players in the high school recruiting cycle.

About the ‘CFC Insider’

The CFC Insider exclusive membership section gives you access to:

  • exclusive recruiting articles
  • exclusive player profiles
  • member-only FORUM section
  • exclusive team recruiting class rankings
  • exclusive player class rankings

27 Comments

  1. GenerationWTF says:

    Coach Uttley… McGill didn’t send that email after his 1st offence for which he did serve his time and for which McGill was willing to endure his criminal record in return for his football services. They sent that email after his 2nd offence. A 2nd offence which you strangely fail to mention in your resignation.

    Everyone in the football community believes in inclusion and 2nd chances. Even at McGill.

    But 3rd chances? Guimont-Mota was arrested and charged last Thursday.

    The believing in “2nd chances” goes both ways Coach Uttley. We (the community) give the criminal a 2nd chance. The convicted criminal MAKEs GOOD on the 2nd chance we’ve given you. That’s how it is supposed to work.

    The email noting that Guimont-Mota shouldn’t have been allowed onto the team was unfortunately worded for sure. Where is Coach Uttley’s famous “2nd chance” for the administration to get a do-over on that one? Oh wait… that VP doesn’t run a 4.5 forty.

  2. Fatima Ezzahraa Boulmalf says:

    Rape is NOT an “error in judgement”. It’s a criminal offense punishable by law in this country and elsewhere. It is a severe violation of bodily integrity and the victim’s most basic rights.

  3. Fatima Ezzahraa Boulmalf says:

    How about we start taking rape seriously and stop making excuses for perpetrators of sexual assault?

  4. To which “rape” are you referring? I didn’t see one mentioned in the article.

  5. He hasn’t been convicted of a second offence. Whatever happened to due process?

  6. To which “rape” are you referring?

  7. GenerationWTF says:

    Due process is what he is owed by the Police and Crown Prosecutor’s Office.

    I will guarantee that McGill Varsity athletes have to sign some kind of player conduct code which lays out exactly what has befallen him as a result of HIS behaviour. I love how the university and the victim instantly become the “bad guys” for enforcing the rules that every varsity athlete across the CIS know are in place. Given that 3 other players were recently convicted in a rape case involving a Concordia co-ed and this being the player’s 2nd offence, McGill has many other factors to weigh in addition to abiding by the province’s due-process concern. Not the least of which is treating this player in accordance with any of their stated policies and treating him as they would any other Varsity athlete.

  8. But there is no crime until he’s convicted. If it were a Ray Rice situation, with irrefutable video evidence. Then throw the book at him. Otherwise, he deserves the benefit of the doubt. Like anyone accused of a crime.

    Code of Conduct or not, universities should not be deciding what constitutes a crime.

    On top of that, it was utter cowardice for the administration to pretend they knew nothing of his past offence, throwing the coach under the bus.

  9. GenerationWTF says:

    Just to clear up your poor grasp of Canadian law:

    It is a crime when someone is charged, not arrested or investigated but charged. The fact that you were charged shows up on your criminal record whether it proceeds to trial or not. Therefore there was a crime. Whether you are convicted of guilt in the commission of that crime is another matter left up the courts.

    The university isn’t deciding what is and isn’t a crime.

    It is enforcing – one can only surmise – its code of conduct for varsity athletes. Violence against women is of particular interest to universities who go out of their way to ensure they are as safe an environment as possible for their female students. “Only Yes means yes” campaigns, campus safety teams, etc,etc they are all in response to a higher than average number of incidents of reported acts of violence against women in collegiate environments. For them to do any less would leave them open to charges of negligence on many many levels, particularly with a repeat offender as this player reportedly is.

    And I am not against students having criminal records attending university.

    Neither is McGill I am sure.

    But when high profile students are given the many privileges Varsity athletes are afforded AND are also given a 2nd chance to “fly right” after a run in with the law, then clearly fail to comprehend the opportunity they have been given and treat the university’s largess with contempt through further legal transgression… who can blame McGill for suspending him?

  10. In Canada, section 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states: “Any person charged with an offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal”.But hey, thanks for being a condescending ass.

    My point is that the school is making assumptions, as are you, about the student’s guilt or innocence, without being qualified or equipped to do so.

    What if information were to come to light at trial that exonerated him completely? Would McGill apologize? Would they give him back a lost year of CIS eligibility? Would they fix his reputation? Or would they say, “it’s not our fault. He was charged after all?”

    I am all for protecting women in the collegiate setting, but universities should not have the right to ignore the Charter of Rights.

  11. GenerationWTF says:

    They aren’t ignoring the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as you allege. The courts are the ones bound to hold a person innocent until proven guilty. The mandate of the University is to enforce it’s code of conduct and provide a safe academic environment for the accomplishment of it’s mission. And from the sounds of it Mr. McGill football has a history of jeopardizing the safety of the women around him.

    But now that you brought it up… what about the thousands and thousands of female students at McGill who are guaranteed under the same Charter the right to “life, liberty, security of person” but are having that right KNOWINGLY threatened by a twice arrested and charged star athlete?

    The University has to weigh the rights and safety of the community against those of the individual and in the case of violence against women, there can be very little room for error. Particularly as it relates to star male athletes that help set the tone for the behaviour of other males on campus.

    Given that Mr. McGill Football was already afforded a 2nd chance which he trampled on by putting himself in this most current situation, your argument that he should be continued to allow to play whilst the investigation runs its course is foolhardy at best and dangerous at worst.

  12. Even if we accept, without him being given due process, that the player choked his wife. How does his presence on campus pose any threat to McGill’s female population.

    He is not accused of rape, sexual abuse, or any crime against the general female population of McGill University. He is accused of domestic abuse. While no better, it is certainly different these other crimes.

    The accused also alleges that the only assault in this case was in fact committed against him by his Wife

    His previous charge was for an assault against another male, outside a Quebec City bar. How that makes him a threat to McGill’s female population, seems a little unclear.

    But of course it doesn’t really matter, because you don’t want to protect women, you want to use a high profile athlete to set an example and advance a political agenda by punishing him for a crime for which he has not been convicted.

  13. GenerationWTF says:

    It’s all about the percentages.

    The reason we all drive home at night is the percentages are in our favour… yes there are lots of accidents, but the likelihood that at the particular time, in the particular place that you happen to be driving any particular car it is VERY unlikely that you will be in an accident.

    However the percentages tell us that if you have been drinking for example… the percentage chance of you getting in accident skyrockets. Hence… the authorities ban drinking and driving… its about the math.

    Having been involved in incidents involving violence against other people – 1 of them his wife – he is simply putting himself in a VERY small group of people that are a proven threat to others.

    With so many students to secure and so much in terms of $$ and reputation at stake, Mr. McGill Football has put himself on the wrong side of the math — the vast majority of violent incidents are committed by those with a history of committing violent incidents. So if you put yourself into that group, you’re going to be treated accordingly.

    But to be clear, banning any one violent student isn’t about protecting the campus, its about appearing to protect the campus, which is what the administration has to be able to tell the media, parents, students, lawyers and donors.

  14. Jud Graham says:

    You’re still working from the assumption that the student athlete committed a crime. My point is that it is unfair

  15. GenerationWTF says:

    The student serve a 90 sentence on 90 Sundays BEFORE this incident.

  16. Jud Graham says:

    Right….but so what? The McGill COC says nothing about prior acts, so his criminal record is inconsequential.

    This is Canada. We don’t prevent people from getting an education based on criminal record. McGill has no rule precluding someone with a criminal record from attending the school or from playing on a varsity team, nor should it.

  17. GenerationWTF says:

    They didn’t kick him out of school, but off the team.

    You’re acting as if this is an isolated incident. 3 other players off this team were convicted of gang raping a ConU girl.

    That happened at uOttawa with their hockey team and at least uOttawa had the BALLS to cancel the season, disband the team and fire the coach.

    How many felons need to sully the Redmen’s reputation before the team is sat down for a game or a year or something.

  18. Actually, they have not been convicted. Their preliminary hearing is scheduled for next month. And that case is totally different from Guimont-Mota’s case, but it would seem that some would like to lump them together to advance a political agenda.

    Whether he has been dismissed from school or the team is inconsequential. Either way, the administration is overstepping its bounds in order to kowtow to political pressure.

    That’s ok. I understand his lawyer has filed an injunction against the school and he’ll probably be re-instated next week.

    I’m not sure what the general rate of criminal deviance among University students is, but I doubt it’s much higher than it is on McGill’s football team.

    There is absolutely no reason to suspend one of the oldest programs in intercollegiate football.

  19. GenerationWTF says:

    uOttawa shut down their hockey team prior to conviction as well.

    Allan Rock had the balls to recognize that the team needed to “pause and regroup” because of “disreputable and unbecoming of representatives of uOttawa”.

    I guess in your case, McGill – and Coach Uttley for sure – should have no problem having nearly a half dozen players arrested or convicted as violent and/or sexual predators of one form or another representing the university.

    Gotcha. And we wonder why the wider public fails to embrace our teams and schools like we’d like.

  20. Rock himself said that the program suspension was based not only on the charges laid against two players, but on the widespread disreputable behaviour of the entire team and an unhealthy climate which surrounded it, after the entire team had what was essentially a drunken orgy, culminating in the sexual assault of a 21 year old, on a road trip to Thunder Bay. Again, very very different from what’s going on at McGill.

    You want to punish 80-100 young men and eviscerate a 140 year old tradition, based on a knee jerk reaction. It really doesn’t take “BALLS” to do what’s politically expedient.

    The only display of courage I’ve seen in this case was Uttley’s resignation to protest the weak, ineffectual and dishonest response to this situation from the Vice Provost of the University, who blatantly lied about knowing of the player’s criminal record and then said that he didn’t belong at McGill.

  21. GenerationWTF says:

    So 4 players in the span of 12 months facing what is it… 5 or 6 or 7 different criminal offences involving violence mostly against women is not “widespread disreputable behaviour”?

    I mean I knew McGill was world class and all, but what would it take for REAL disciplinary action to happen? 6 players doing on a co-ed on top of ol’ John McGill’s tomb in broad day light? Or because it’s McGill it would need to be at 2 lady martlett’s and a dozen players in the welcome centre while a hs tour was being oriented?

  22. 3 sexual assault charges and 1 domestic abuse charge equals 4. You must have gone to Brock.

    Anyways….no! No, it does not constitute “widespread disreputable behaviour.” Statistics show that most campus sexual assaults are committed by around 3-4% of the male student body, who are repeat or serial offenders. A terrible thing to be sure, but the McGill football team is in fact right around the norm, if the three cases presently before the courts lead to conviction.

    What you’re asking for isn’t disciplinary action. It’s arbitrary punishment against innocent teenagers and young men, to “send a message.”

    And what is that message? Work your whole life to reach a level that very few have the perseverance to attain, only to have it taken away by politicians making an example of you for something you have no control over?

    Hey, why stop at football. Why not ban men from the universities altogether. That will stop the old “rape culture” dead, won’t it?

    Let’s weigh and celebrate the achievements of the 80-100 other Redmen before we throw them under the bus for something they did not do.

  23. GenerationWTF says:

    I’m not the one throwing them under the bus.

    Their coach did by quitting on them.

    So the football team which experiences many different special privileges that “average” students never get, are allowed to simply be “average” when it comes to sexual violence?

    What would it take… 6% of the football team raping people? 8% of the football team getting arrested?

    I would think given their public profile, special treatment and university investiture in terms of 100s of years of reputation, that varsity athletes of all types would be given exactly 0% margin for error in this environment of heightened concern about the treatment of women by male-athletes. (uOttawa hockey team, Ray Rice, Adrian Peterson, etc,etc)

    Exactly “No 2nd chances” are allowed varsity athletes for performance enhancing drugs while the average student population of course is given free reign in this area. Are you going to start arguing that we should treat varsity athletes like the “average” students they are in this area as well?

    Does the CIS, McGill and Coach Uttley value their “clean” reputation more than they do the safety of the women in the orbit of their players? Appears so.

  24. Jud Graham says:

    Read the resignation. Their coach quit because he didn’t want to work for an administration that would blatantly lie to cover their own asses from the likes of you and the Birkenstocked brigades of people who still resent the jocks from high school and wish to “make an example” of kids who’ve achieved something they never could.

    Again, you’re missing the point. Nobody is advocating giving players who commit rape a pass, but what you want is to punish players who have done nothing.You have no real interest in protecting women, just a desire to create another class of victim.

    As for your labored drug analogy, I absolutely do not think players should be tested for recreational drugs. PED’s are a different matter, because they amount to cheating, but a kid playing a sport shouldn’t have to pee to prove he doesn’t smoke pot.

  25. GenerationWTF says:

    Read the resignation. Coach Uttley prattles on about the university not believing in 2nd chances whereas it is precisely the 2nd chance given Mr. McGill Football that he has pissed away by allegedly assaulting his wife.

    The person beyond belief is Coach Uttley for resigning over an email instead of taking ownership of his player’s performance both on and off the field and resigning because with 4 players under serious criminal charges he’s not the moulder of young men his sanctimonious resignation letters contends.

    Furthermore which is worse, resigning over a poorly worded email or sanctioning violent criminal behaviour by your players under the guise of “providing young men with a second chance”?

    Seems Coach Uttley is guilty of both.

  26. Clearly you’re all about wanting to punish (maybe you should be looking for a different kind of website.)

    Uttley clearly states his reasons for resigning, if you’re too obtuse to understand them, I can’t help you man.

    If you want to punish 80 – 100 young men who have done nothing wrong, because a few who belong to the same team may have broken the law, you clearly have no idea what goes into getting to that level or the sacrifices that these kids have made.

    You cite several other cases that are clearly different. If you can’t navigate those nuances. again I can’t do anything to make you smarter than you already aren’t.

    Signing Off. You should go back to trolling municipal politics in Niagara.

    Cheers.

  27. Pingback: BREAKING: Former McGill player acquitted of all charges | CanadaFootballChat.com

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*