The SI article about Tressel

• karen lotz

  

  vball10set;786433 wrote:Karen, I just got on here and went through quite a number of threads, pages and posts, and I have to ask--do you have a job?

  
  
  lol indeed I do.
• WebFire

  LJ;786435 wrote:Did you miss the part of
  
  So yep, show me where I said that, because I was obviously laughing at that part (you know, the funny part)

  
  Maybe he has a fun center tat.
• LJ

  

  WebFire;786434 wrote:Nope it doesn't. Just like him not having a tat doesn't mean 100% he is innocent.

  
  huh? If he has no tattoos, how can it not be 100% that he didn't trade his stuff for tattoos? I think you didn't understand what I said, and don't say "yes I did" because you obviously are saying no then saying what I saiid again means you didn't get it.
• LJ

  

  dokken;786436 wrote:Oh yea, who told you that?

  
  players on the team and another person who is very close with him
• vball10set

  karen lotz;786438 wrote:lol indeed I do.

  
  lol--sorry, but had to ask...are you hiring?
• dokken

  LJ;786442 wrote:players on the team and another person who is very close with him

  
  Well I'm glad he doesn't use dope. But why would anyone want a tattoo in their arsehole?
• LJ

  

  dokken;786444 wrote:Well I'm glad he doesn't use dope. But why would anyone want a tattoo in their arsehole?

  
  #winning
• Writerbuckeye

  

  FatHobbit;786437 wrote:IF this is true, that's part that I would be extremely disappointed in. Of course the 'colleague' wants to remain nameless, but I would think the reporter could have tracked that down a little better to see if the big time recruits were winning all the raffles.

  
  That was the most petty, ridiculous part of the whole story, imo. Laughable. If it's true, then NAME the coach who said it or at least substantiate and find some raffle winners so we can judge it.
  
  Just shoddy reporting (indicative of most of the article) and pettiness.
• karen lotz

  

  vball10set;786443 wrote:lol--sorry, but had to ask...are you hiring?

  
  
  no problem. I know I spend waaaaaay too much time on here, but someone has to post in order to keep the advertisers happy. And no, I'm not hiring per se.
• Iliketurtles

  

  karen lotz;786450 wrote:no problem. I know I spend waaaaaay too much time on here, but someone has to post in order to keep the advertisers happy. And no, I'm not hiring per se.

  
  Damn if you were I was going to try and get a job there too .
• karen lotz

  

  Iliketurtles;786452 wrote:Damn if you were I was going to try and get a job there too .

  
  Now you, I may have a spot for. #bandwagon
• WebFire

  LJ;786440 wrote:huh? If he has no tattoos, how can it not be 100% that he didn't trade his stuff for tattoos? I think you didn't understand what I said, and don't say "yes I did" because you obviously are saying no then saying what I saiid again means you didn't get it.

  
  Yeah I misread. Carry on.
• WebFire

  Writerbuckeye;786448 wrote:That was the most petty, ridiculous part of the whole story, imo. Laughable. If it's true, then NAME the coach who said it or at least substantiate and find some raffle winners so we can judge it.
  
  Just shoddy reporting (indicative of most of the article) and pettiness.

  It wouldn't have really added any value to the article though. That was 20+ years ago, if I remember from the article.
• FatHobbit

  

  WebFire;786458 wrote:It wouldn't have really added any value to the article though. That was 20+ years ago, if I remember from the article.

  
  It was the only time they actually accused JT of doing something besides not knowing what was going on. If you're going to accuse him of something that is semi provable, then at least look into it. And if it wasn't relevant because of the age, then don't include it at all.
• LJ

  

  WebFire;786454 wrote:Yeah I misread. Carry on.

  
  I think the problem is the way it was reported was "these guys got money or tattoos.... oh they don't have any new tats? Oh well they got money. Where's their memoribilia they sold? Oh Rife must have sold that or kept it hidden".
  
  It's like saying that you stole from the cookie jar without knowing how many cookies were in there to begin with, then when you don't have any cookies in your possesion I say "well I am pretty sure I saw you next to it".
  
  It's not at the point of laughable but more or less like why not just name the guys who got tats and there is for sure evidence of.
• WebFire

  LJ;786461 wrote:I think the problem is the way it was reported was "these guys got money or tattoos.... oh they don't have any new tats? Oh well they got money. Where's their memoribilia they sold? Oh Rife must have sold that or kept it hidden".
  
  It's like saying that you stole from the cookie jar without knowing how many cookies were in there to begin with, then when you don't have any cookies in your possesion I say "well I am pretty sure I saw you next to it".
  
  It's not at the point of laughable but more or less like why not just name the guys who got tats and there is for sure evidence of.

  
  No doubt they will need evidence for anything to happen to them.
• thedynasty1998

  

  If any of the guys mentioned were innocent I'm sure there are plenty of Columbus attorneys to file a lawsuit for libel.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  thedynasty1998;786483 wrote:If any of the guys mentioned were innocent I'm sure there are plenty of Columbus attorneys to file a lawsuit for libel.

  
  Now here is why the press can get away with character assassination and not be held accountable. It COSTS A LOT OF MONEY to hire an attorney and sue for something like libel. It's hard to prove, so an attorney isn't going to take the case on speculation; he's going to want some cash up front. These kids don't have that kind of money -- THEY'RE SELLING THEIR STUFF AS IT IS
  
  Seriously, the other problem is you can make an argument the kids are public figures and aren't protected by your regular libel laws.
  
  That's why this kind of shoddy reporting totally pisses me off both as a former reporter and a consumer. It's not fair, and it can be quite damaging. But there is zero accountability for the reporters and editors involved. Zero.
• LJ

  

  Writerbuckeye;786485 wrote:Now here is why the press can get away with character assassination and not be held accountable. It COSTS A LOT OF MONEY to hire an attorney and sue for something like libel. It's hard to prove, so an attorney isn't going to take the case on speculation; he's going to want some cash up front. These kids don't have that kind of money -- THEY'RE SELLING THEIR STUFF AS IT IS
  
  Seriously, the other problem is you can make an argument the kids are public figures and aren't protected by your regular libel laws.
  
  That's why this kind of shoddy reporting totally pisses me off both as a former reporter and a consumer. It's not fair, and it can be quite damaging. But there is zero accountability for the reporters and editors involved. Zero.

  
  Yep, don't they have to prove that what was said was wrong, not that the reporter has to prove what they said was right?
• lhslep134

  

  Excellent article from Jason Whitlock that for once doesn't play the race card.
  
  http://msn.foxsports.com/collegefootball/story/Former-Ohio-State-coach-Jim-Tressel-is-product-of-flawed-system-053111
  
  

  If coaches took the time to hunt down what their players were really doing away from the field or court, the coaches would never have time to coach, feed the media hype machines and make sure players occasionally attend classes.

  Finally someone gets it.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  LJ;786487 wrote:Yep, don't they have to prove that what was said was wrong, not that the reporter has to prove what they said was right?

  
  Yes. It's a tough standard, obviously meant to protect more freedom of speech. But people can get totally screwed because of it.
• FatHobbit

  

  lhslep134;786489 wrote:Excellent article from Jason Whitlock that for once doesn't play the race card.
  
  http://msn.foxsports.com/collegefootball/story/Former-Ohio-State-coach-Jim-Tressel-is-product-of-flawed-system-053111
  
  Finally someone gets it.

  The fact that I agree with Jason Whitlock almost makes me think I'm wrong.
• SportsAndLady

  

  dokken;786444 wrote:But why would anyone want a tattoo in their arsehole?

  
  I'm bringing nothing to this conversation (re: SI article about Tressel)..just wanted to say my friend just got a tat....he got "m" on both the left and right side of his asshole...so it says "mom"
  
  K, carry on.
• slide22

  sherm03;785872 wrote:The worst part of that article was seeing John Simon's name mentioned. If it's true he was trading memorabilia for tats or money, I'm going to be really disappointed in the kid.

  
  Have a friend who roomed with Simon last year, said on fb that Simon had 2 tattoo's that he got BEFORE he went to OSU, has pictures of the artist doing the tats.
• FatHobbit

  

  slide22;786499 wrote:Have a friend who roomed with Simon last year, said on fb that Simon had 2 tattoo's that he got BEFORE he went to OSU, has pictures of the artist doing the tats.

  
  He must be one of the ones who got money.