• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

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

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sort by date Sort by votes
For those bemoaning the lack of a prompt response, the last thing Gee's office is going to do is allow a rushed response before he's heard directly from everyone involved. I'm sure Piney's trap scenario has been well considered.
 
Upvote 0
timing

I wonder if the behind-the-scenes politicking has started by OSU to get the five-game suspension reduced to two, or three... and that has ticked somebody off with a bone to pick... so they are bringing out this allegation.

No reason for anyone to sit on it, and if it was legit, it surely would have come out BEFORE THE SUGAR BOWL, not now...

If I had to bet money right now without waiting for more info to come out, yes, I'd have to go with Tressel. Even if someone called him, I know what he would say: don't call me, call the Admin people, or the NCAA compliance people, etc. and how in the heck did you get this number anyway???

It will be interesting to see this unfold.:oh:
 
Upvote 0
kn1f3party;1885084; said:
That doesn't necessarily mean they'll behave responsibly on the phone. I actually work somewhere that telephone calls are recorded frequently. You eventually get complacent and don't even think about it. It isn't far fetched that someone says something incriminating even with the prospect of the call being recorded.
Click to expand...

O RLY?

c9461-18.jpg
 
Upvote 0
Is OSU compelled to share emails with yahoo ? If so, does that work in reverse ?

Can OSU request Dan wetzel's emails, or does the lantern have to be the party doing an investigation into the story behind yahoo sports ?
 
Upvote 0
jwinslow;1885092; said:
Is OSU compelled to share emails with yahoo ? If so, does that work in reverse ?

Can OSU request Dan wetzel's emails, or does the lantern have to be the party doing an investigation into the story behind yahoo sports ?
Click to expand...

Hmmm... I think as a state entity and institution, the University has a different level of responsibility than an private, web-based, organization.

But I've been wrong before.
 
Upvote 0
jwinslow;1885092; said:
Is OSU compelled to share emails with yahoo ? If so, does that work in reverse ?
Click to expand...

Generally speaking, yes. They are a matter of public record in most cases I believe. Yahoo just has to go through the FOIA process.

jwinslow;1885092; said:
Can OSU request Dan wetzel's emails, or does the lantern have to be the party doing an investigation into the story behind yahoo sports ?
Click to expand...

Not without a subpoena, I imagine.



*not a lawyer
 
Upvote 0
SayNoToMichigan;1885093; said:
I think Yahoo went poking at a bear with a stick on this one. Going to print with a story accusing a major CFB program, of major volations, with an unnamed source is just bad buisness.

I feel like OSU/JT are about to bring the rain against Yahoo.....
Click to expand...

can we start wearing these?

AC_130_Rain.jpg
 
Upvote 0
kn1f3party;1885084; said:
That is modern journalism. They throw shit at the wall and see if it sticks. They heard something from someone, they ran with it. There may be truth to it or there may not be.
Click to expand...

Yahoo's track record of nailing USC's hide to the wall makes it hard to just summarily dismiss them as being sensationalist hacks. Lets hope in the end that is exactly whats going on, it's possible but it doesn't seem all that probable right now.

What I found even more peculiar was that I read somewhere when all of this was going down that they had known about it that entire time but had not been able to verify it. Which, I think, is the most likely story here. It would seem like quite a leap to say we were trying to sweep it under the rug.
Click to expand...

If they knew about it and were trying to verify it then why state your first knowledge of it was Dec 8th? That's the part that kills a shades of gray/define "knew" defense imo. The only thing that can come from that is a long dusty trail of finding out who knew what, when at OSU and why they all of a sudden forgot they knew when the story originally came up in December.

It still comes back to the source. If they have the goods someone, or multiple someones, at OSU are in a lot of trouble. If the source doesn't have shit then Yahoo needs to be equally taken to task.
 
Upvote 0
Jaxbuck;1885099; said:
If they knew about it and were trying to verify it then why state your first knowledge of it was Dec 8th? That's the part that kills a shades of gray/define "knew" defense imo. The only thing that can come from that is a long dusty trail of finding out who knew what, when at OSU and why they all of a sudden forgot they knew when the story originally came up in December.
Click to expand...

Legitimate question- was it "we first heard about it in December" or "This came to our attention in December..."

Haven't read the transcripts in a while.
 
Upvote 0
kn1f3party;1885084; said:
That doesn't necessarily mean they'll behave responsibly on the phone. I actually work somewhere that telephone calls are recorded frequently. You eventually get complacent and don't even think about it. It isn't far fetched that someone says something incriminating even with the prospect of the call being recorded.



That is modern journalism. They throw [Mark May] at the wall and see if it sticks. They heard something from someone, they ran with it. There may be truth to it or there may not be.

What I found even more peculiar was that I read somewhere when all of this was going down that they had known about it that entire time but had not been able to verify it. Which, I think, is the most likely story here. It would seem like quite a leap to say we were trying to sweep it under the rug.
Click to expand...

If the story is true, this is possibly what they'll state. That someone might have come forward with some concerns...and that they get about 100 of those a month...so this stuff is a little vague....but anyway they did a little checking...asked a few questions and nobody came forward so they didn't really think anymore about it. If that's how this comes out, it's hard to feel good about that response.

I'll keep hoping that the story is false.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top