Yahoo, Tattoos, and tOSU (1-year bowl ban, 82 scholly limit for 3 years)

[matcar]

At this point, I think our worst penalty will be the ire of fans everywhere who really want to believe that JT and the entire OSU program are dirty.

There's going to be a lot of [censored]ed off, dissappointed people when Ohio State doesn't get the death penalty.

Meh, I don't consider the ire of other fans a penalty at all. Living here in Arky, when someone wishes to discuss our "disgraceful" cheating, I just embrace it. They say tOSU cheats and I just laugh and repeat the old matra - if you ain't cheatin', you ain't tryin'. After that, there's not much to be said and the conversation moves along.

Embrace the dark side my friend and enjoy the ride!

 

[Gatorubet]

so what is this new story from 2006 SI is working on now?

2006????

Lies!!!1 Lies and balderdash from known haters and kitten kickers!!

I blame Georgia's former AD for starting these asinine aspersions... :tinfoil:

...and I did NOT have any contact with that stripper previous to the red panties incident.*





* depending on what the definition of "panties" and "incident" are

 

[bassbuckeye07]

Probably Troy Smith related, I would assume. But who knows?

Dohrmann is probably dug in even deeper to find something at Ohio State, especially since his last story has been panned by collegues in the media and refuted by almost everyone involved. He probably feels the need to prove himself, so they're not letting go until they find something that will drag this institution down.

This is basically an audit we've been going through. By the time its over (who knows when that will be?), at least we'll know that everything that could be found was found - and let that be the end of it.

Are you being serious? Do you think Dohrman is going to drop another article???


Headline: "OK I know that last article sucked but now read this one"

 

[CONGERSBUCKEYE]

Here is my question for everyone after it appears the cars come back clean. What is the NCAA case?

JT emails is the only known thing that has come up since the end of last year. Tattoo's and selling stuff was exposed before the Sugar Bowl and NCAA ruled they will miss 5 games. Pryor has left so they can not interview him about anything new. JT lost his job and can not be interviewed. So can compliance or OSU be brought down over a rogue Coach and Player that they can not interview? OSU can argue that they immediately notified NCAA when any information was brought to their attention but how can they prevent (before hand) a coach that lied and signed his name to the NCAA that showed he lied to them as well. I do not see the harsh penalties unless Gene or the Assistants or compliance knew. Those saying that this is like USC are off base and the cases in my view are completely different.

 

[Colvinnl]

To which I'll add the very close relationship to and diametrically opposed vision for Ohio State that the one man in town rich enough 30 years ago to tell the Wolfe cousins to go [censored] themselves has been pushing for three decades.

The Wolfes have long been something of a city version of Boss Hogg. They had no desire in seeing Columbus become more cosmopolitan and grow beyond their ability to control it. Wexner's vision (and the increasing realization of that vision) for the city (and the university) has always been a direct threat to this.

Except for this: http://columbusmonthly.com/articles/2010/11/16/power/doc4cc6f8dd600f0318227087.txt

 

[korchiki]

Are you being serious? Do you think Dohrman is going to drop another article???


Headline: "OK I know that last article sucked but now read this one"

Didn't he, or someone else, mention something about excessive weed at tOSU?

 

[MaliBuckeye]

Here is my question for everyone after it appears the cars come back clean. What is the NCAA case?

JT emails is the only known thing that has come up since the end of last year. Tattoo's and selling stuff was exposed before the Sugar Bowl and NCAA ruled they will miss 5 games. Pryor has left so they can not interview him about anything new. JT lost his job and can not be interviewed. So can compliance or OSU be brought down over a rogue Coach and Player that they can not interview? OSU can argue that they immediately notified NCAA when any information was brought to their attention but how can they prevent (before hand) a coach that lied and signed his name to the NCAA that showed he lied to them as well. I do not see the harsh penalties unless Gene or the Assistants or compliance knew. Those saying that this is like USC are off base and the cases in my view are completely different.

It's important to remember that the NCAA is not bound by the doctrine of "burden of proof", but by "more likely than not". In my IMHO, it's better for Ohio State to be thoroughly examined to rule out any impropriety, rather than rely on "well... you can't talk to them, so you can't prove they were in the wrong".

I know that's not exactly what you were saying, but just a reminder that "proof" requirements may look different based on the venue. I'm sure Gator will help illuminate this for us.

I'll hang up an listen...

 

[OH10]

Are you being serious? Do you think Dohrman is going to drop another article???


Headline: "OK I know that last article sucked but now read this one"

GD is an arrogant, self-involved prick. He's embarrassed (as he should be) about that cover story - and still he's taking the credit for bringing down Tressel. He's getting stuffed in every hole by OSU fans that should probably just leave well enough alone at this point.

Yeah, I think he wants to come out with another article.

 

[jlb1705]

OK, but in the counterfactual scenario where the BMV investigation concluded that local car dealerships had violated state law in reporting their transactions with OSU football players, do you think the Dispatch would have made a point of indicating in their headline that this was not evidence of a violation by OSU of NCAA rules? Are you even confident that they would have mentioned this in paragraph twelve? So sure, I think this sub-headline made a legitimate point, but it's also part of the pattern which suggests to me that the local paper is mostly interested in one particular side of the narrative.

I don't care about the counterfactual. We're criticizing journalists (or entertainers) for their failure to deal in facts rather than innuendo, and now your asking me to consider a criticism of them based on a counterfactual hypothetical? If the journos won't stick to the facts, I'd like to at least.

To me it's not indicative of a pattern by the Dispatch. It's actually indicative of a level of specificity based in fact that has been missing from much of the coverage of this scandal from many outlets. To me it's refreshing to see it included in a story, even if some people felt it was understood.

 

[BayBuck]

so what is this new story from 2006 SI is working on now?

Special deals on In-and-Out Burgers?

 

[AKAK]

Didn't he, or someone else, mention something about excessive weed at tOSU?

Special deals on In-and-Out Burgers?

Hmmm...

 

[OH10]

I think the instinct here is to lash out at the media (SI, Dispatch, ESPN) and say, "told ya so." That's understandable given what we, as OSU fans/supporters, have gone through over the last several months.

But we would be best served to remember that this isn't over. They may still have the last laugh yet.

 

[Gatorubet]

It's important to remember that the NCAA is not bound by the doctrine of "burden of proof", but by "more likely than not".

You're mixing apples and Chinese carp there Mali. Every process has a "burden of proof", so the question is which one? Here, they use a civil standard - the more likely than not (*) - instead of a criminal "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard - or even a civil gross negligence "clear and convincing" standard.

If you really want to see how this stuff goes down I highly recommend that you use the NCAA's own case example, which lays out the process and the procedure and the various roles of the different NCAA arms in the interaction of eligibility and enforcement issues.

This is about as straight forward and simplified as it comes, and it really a great guide to what you are going through. It dispels a bunch of myths and clears up a lot of questions. About a hundred pages of power point.


Welcome to the NCAA's Enforcement Experience


* In the NCAA's own words, "The COI shall base its findings on information that it determines to be credible, persuasive and of a kind on which reasonably prudent persons rely in the conduct of serious affairs."

 

[jwinslow]

About a hundred pages of power point.

Yup, that will make this offseason more bearable

 

[MaliBuckeye]

Every process has a "burden of proof", so the question is which one? Here, they use a civil standard - the more likely than not - instead of a criminal "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard - or even a civil gross negligence "clear and convincing" standard.

Yup... that's what I meant. Hooray for people with legal smarts!