OSU Investigation report....

FirePlugDawg · August 2018

For you lip readers or those with memory/exposure, the tOSU report summarized:

Bankwalker · August 2018

@tiger_62082 said:

@Bankwalker said:

@JayDog said:
I have not read the report so I don't know the details. But I have a question to ask unrelated to the character of the coach. If a coach reports ALLEGATIONS of abuse to his administration, if the accused denies the allegations, if the police are called and no charges are filed--should the mere accusation of abuse get a person fired? Was this generally the situation here?

I don't know the law in Ohio, but in some states the police must press charges in a domestic violence call if evidence of abuse is found.

Careful. I discussed these issues 2 weeks ago and was called a while bunch of stuff, including a woman abuser myself, by a bunch of younger posters.

The answer SHOULD be NO, that a person does not get fired over allegations, especially when the police have investigated and declined charges.

What the report states is what I've suspected all along - they don't have the evidence the fire with cause and $38 million is too much money to eat when the truth is that you would prefer to keep your coach. Now time will tell if this matters on the recruiting trail. I'm skeptical it will matter very much at all.

They definitely could have fired him with cause

You are 100% correct. Saying you are firing for cause and having it stand up in court are separate issues. There absolutely would have been a lawsuit if OSU tried to walk away from the contract.

allyw · August 2018

@SoFL_Dawg I would really like to see a 30 for 30 on this...

tiger_62082 · August 2018

I noticed some who’ve tried to whitewash this whole thing so I’ll drop this for them - and everyone else. Meyer got off easy.

http://amp.si.com/college-football/2018/08/23/ohio-state-urban-meyer-failures-zach-smith-investigation?utm_medium=social&xid=socialflow_twitter_si&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=sinow&__twitter_impression=true
https://www.yahoo.com/amphtml/sports/urban-meyer-keeping-ohio-state-job-shows-winning-everything-020454978.html?__twitter_impression=true
https://amp.usatoday.com/amp/1065039002?__twitter_impression=true

Kasey · August 2018

https://twitter.com/OldTakesExposed/status/1032476840244518912?s=20

how2fish · August 2018

Well we starting calling OSU ...Tattoo U after the Jim Tressel debacle ....looks like we can continue to use that name. Just has a different meaning now. This plays like a Greek tragedy.

JayDog · August 2018

@SoFL_Dawg said:

@JayDog said:
I have not read the report so I don't know the details. But I have a question to ask unrelated to the character of the coach. If a coach reports ALLEGATIONS of abuse to his administration, if the accused denies the allegations, if the police are called and no charges are filed--should the mere accusation of abuse get a person fired? Was this generally the situation here?

I don't know the law in Ohio, but in some states the police must press charges in a domestic violence call if evidence of abuse is found.

I think the key here is your use of allegation(s), as in plural. You’re guilty till proven innocent these days, in the court of public opinion that is. The plural allegations indicate a pattern of conduct unbecoming of a public leader...my company would terminate with cause for these allegations. Accusations are front page news, in the “A” block on the tube. Clearances and retractions are located down below on the ticker. We never let facts get in the way of a juicy story. If a company’s brand/culture is at risk, you’ll get the pink slip.

That said, where there’s smoke...the pictures of abuse were enough for me. I don’t care if she is equally violent/drunk, cops were called and he was originally arrested per McMurphy’s report and copy of the 2015 incident. They can let a 30 for 30 detail how the report got changed 10 years from now. Smith should not be an appointed leader of young men, especially when indicators are he’s less than a man.

That is the part of this thing I'm not understanding--the reported arrest. If the police were called when abuse occurred--could they not press charges with our without the victim's doing so? According to a blogger on a website (not the best way to get legal info) the state can and does prosecute with or without the victim. If this is true--are the police culpable in this situation as well?

JayDog · August 2018

@Bankwalker said:

@JayDog said:
I have not read the report so I don't know the details. But I have a question to ask unrelated to the character of the coach. If a coach reports ALLEGATIONS of abuse to his administration, if the accused denies the allegations, if the police are called and no charges are filed--should the mere accusation of abuse get a person fired? Was this generally the situation here?

I don't know the law in Ohio, but in some states the police must press charges in a domestic violence call if evidence of abuse is found.

Careful. I discussed these issues 2 weeks ago and was called a while bunch of stuff, including a woman abuser myself, by a bunch of younger posters.

The answer SHOULD be NO, that a person does not get fired over allegations, especially when the police have investigated and declined charges.

What the report states is what I've suspected all along - they don't have the evidence the fire with cause and $38 million is too much money to eat when the truth is that you would prefer to keep your coach. Now time will tell if this matters on the recruiting trail. I'm skeptical it will matter very much at all.

I think you are right about the reason Urban Liar wasn't fired. What I've been trying to wrap my head around is why, if there was an arrest, why wasn't there enough evidence to fire? To me an arrest after police went to the home and observed the fresh bruises makes the Urban Liar's sins that much worse. If there was an arrest, why didn't the state prosecute without the victim's pressing charges?

PTDawg · August 2018

I know I'm treading dangerously here but hearing the investigation report and then the conclusion reminded so much of the Comey report about Clinton's emails/server scandal. Phrases like "poor judgement" and "a reasonable person would have known better" thrown around. Then when you get to the end of the report - recommendation for consequences? Nah, not really...

Reeldawg · August 2018

@PTDawg said:
I know I'm treading dangerously here but hearing the investigation report and then the conclusion reminded so much of the Comey report about Clinton's emails/server scandal. Phrases like "poor judgement" and "a reasonable person would have known better" thrown around. Then when you get to the end of the report - recommendation for consequences? Nah, not really...

It’s probably best to keep politics out of the forum.

PTDawg · August 2018

You're right. Is why I prefaced my comment. Just felt like some striking similarities. Totally agree with you @Reeldawg .

Bankwalker · August 2018

@JayDog said:

@SoFL_Dawg said:

@JayDog said:

>

According to a blogger on a website (not the best way to get legal info) the state can and does prosecute with or without the victim. If this is true--are the police culpable in this situation as well?

I dont think so Hopefully this doesn't go back down the rabbit hole and is a little bit off topic for this thread, but one issue with this entire thing is that people are pretending to possess all of the facts. Pictures of one person does not come close to telling the story. When the police get to a DV situation they look at all parties involved, and if it appears both parties are responsible or it is not clear what has unfolded they do one of two things. They either arrest both, or do nothing. Squeeze marks on someone's arm could easily be interpreted and claimed as defensive. We already know Zach Smith made that claim. The police have to deal with this type of situation every day and are pretty well acquainted with what type of situation is serious vs what is not, so I would tend to defer to their judgement over that of the mob, whose opinion has been largely formed entirely by one picture. There was apparently an extramarital affair involved with this situation, which obviously causes emotions to run extremely high

MinnesotaDawg · August 2018

@JayDog said:

@Bankwalker said:

@JayDog said:
I have not read the report so I don't know the details. But I have a question to ask unrelated to the character of the coach. If a coach reports ALLEGATIONS of abuse to his administration, if the accused denies the allegations, if the police are called and no charges are filed--should the mere accusation of abuse get a person fired? Was this generally the situation here?

I don't know the law in Ohio, but in some states the police must press charges in a domestic violence call if evidence of abuse is found.

Careful. I discussed these issues 2 weeks ago and was called a while bunch of stuff, including a woman abuser myself, by a bunch of younger posters.

The answer SHOULD be NO, that a person does not get fired over allegations, especially when the police have investigated and declined charges.

What the report states is what I've suspected all along - they don't have the evidence the fire with cause and $38 million is too much money to eat when the truth is that you would prefer to keep your coach. Now time will tell if this matters on the recruiting trail. I'm skeptical it will matter very much at all.

I think you are right about the reason Urban Liar wasn't fired. What I've been trying to wrap my head around is why, if there was an arrest, why wasn't there enough evidence to fire? To me an arrest after police went to the home and observed the fresh bruises makes the Urban Liar's sins that much worse. If there was an arrest, why didn't the state prosecute without the victim's pressing charges?

Ok, well you guys should read the report. Even with the whitewash and even if you believe everything that Meyer claims (they expressly do not), they concluded that he violated his contract. Instead of suspending him without pay, they could have fired him. No question.The rationale (for Gene Smith, too) is failure to follow protocol in response to the allegation.

In addition, the report itself suggests that if they pursued any of the following, that Meyer could be fired for: (1) Lying to the media at Big Ten media day (2) Failing to tell Gene Smith about Zach Smith's past at his hire and throughout the Zach Smith drama-filled OSU career (3) destroying evidence in immediate advance of investigation and (4) Lying to the investigators (they explicit note that they didn't believe key parts of his self-serving story).

You'll note that ALL of this separate and apart from whether the police decided to pursue charges against Zach Smith with respect to the allegations of spousal abuse. Personally, I find that most of the hypothetical, "what if"/"does this mean..." scenarios that people bring up as complicating factors (as you describe) above simply do not apply in this situation. Bottom line is that Meyer DID have a contractual obligation to report findings to compliance staff who could have made an independent determination what the appropriate next course would have been (investigation, further questioning, history of allegations, actually talking to victim). Instead, a biased and self-serving Meyer (along with Smith) erroneously decided to keep the info (and his knowledge of Smith's history) to himself.

pgjackson · August 2018

@Reeldawg said:

@PTDawg said:
I know I'm treading dangerously here but hearing the investigation report and then the conclusion reminded so much of the Comey report about Clinton's emails/server scandal. Phrases like "poor judgement" and "a reasonable person would have known better" thrown around. Then when you get to the end of the report - recommendation for consequences? Nah, not really...

It’s probably best to keep politics out of the forum.

It wasn't a political statement, just a comparison of two legal cases. And he is correct in his analysis. The "fact finders" found lots of errors, mistakes, and poor judgement...yet in the end chose to do nothing about it.

FirePlugDawg · August 2018

@MinnesotaDawg said:

@JayDog said:

@Bankwalker said:

@JayDog said:
I have not read the report so I don't know the details. But I have a question to ask unrelated to the character of the coach. If a coach reports ALLEGATIONS of abuse to his administration, if the accused denies the allegations, if the police are called and no charges are filed--should the mere accusation of abuse get a person fired? Was this generally the situation here?

I don't know the law in Ohio, but in some states the police must press charges in a domestic violence call if evidence of abuse is found.

Careful. I discussed these issues 2 weeks ago and was called a while bunch of stuff, including a woman abuser myself, by a bunch of younger posters.

The answer SHOULD be NO, that a person does not get fired over allegations, especially when the police have investigated and declined charges.

What the report states is what I've suspected all along - they don't have the evidence the fire with cause and $38 million is too much money to eat when the truth is that you would prefer to keep your coach. Now time will tell if this matters on the recruiting trail. I'm skeptical it will matter very much at all.

I think you are right about the reason Urban Liar wasn't fired. What I've been trying to wrap my head around is why, if there was an arrest, why wasn't there enough evidence to fire? To me an arrest after police went to the home and observed the fresh bruises makes the Urban Liar's sins that much worse. If there was an arrest, why didn't the state prosecute without the victim's pressing charges?

Ok, well you guys should read the report. Even with the whitewash and even if you believe everything that Meyer claims (they expressly do not), they concluded that he violated his contract. Instead of suspending him without pay, they could have fired him. No question.The rationale (for Gene Smith, too) is failure to follow protocol in response to the allegation.

In addition, the report itself suggests that if they pursued any of the following, that Meyer could be fired for: (1) Lying to the media at Big Ten media day (2) Failing to tell Gene Smith about Zach Smith's past at his hire and throughout the Zach Smith drama-filled OSU career (3) destroying evidence in immediate advance of investigation and (4) Lying to the investigators (they explicit note that they didn't believe key parts of his self-serving story).

You'll note that ALL of this separate and apart from whether the police decided to pursue charges against Zach Smith with respect to the allegations of spousal abuse. Personally, I find that most of the hypothetical, "what if"/"does this mean..." scenarios that people bring up as complicating factors (as you describe) above simply do not apply in this situation. Bottom line is that Meyer DID have a contractual obligation to report findings to compliance staff who could have made an independent determination what the appropriate next course would have been (investigation, further questioning, history of allegations, actually talking to victim). Instead, a biased and self-serving Meyer (along with Smith) erroneously decided to keep the info (and his knowledge of Smith's history) to himself.

I wonder if the board will mandate that Liar have his contract amended to include this: "We really mean it next time. Ya hear?"

OSU Investigation report....

Comments