The SI article about Tressel

• thedynasty1998

  

  Are people really that stupid? It's tattoos and/or money.
• LJ

  

  thedynasty1998;786507 wrote:Are people really that stupid? It's tattoos and/or money.

  
  But the liklihood of there being enough evidence that those players who did not get tattoos got money is very low. The reporter should have left those people out that did not receive tattoos. Shoddy reporting on that part IMO. Why report on something that you cannot prove in any way?
• thedynasty1998

  

  LJ;786512 wrote:But the liklihood of there being enough evidence that those players who did not get tattoos got money is very low. The reporter should have left those people out that did not receive tattoos. Shoddy reporting on that part IMO. Why report on something that you cannot prove in any way?

  
  Disagree. If he had enough reason to believe his source then you go with it.
• queencitybuckeye

  thedynasty1998;786550 wrote:Disagree. If he had enough reason to believe his source then you go with it.

  
  As I'm guessing he doesn't actually know any of those involved except in passing, it had better be sources, plural.
• thedynasty1998

  

  queencitybuckeye;786551 wrote:As I'm guessing he doesn't actually know any of those involved except in passing, it had better be sources, plural.

  
  I agree. If I remember correctly he had the tattoo artist, a couple anonymous and the tenant above the tattoo parlor.
• jhay78

  

  LJ;786512 wrote:But the liklihood of there being enough evidence that those players who did not get tattoos got money is very low. The reporter should have left those people out that did not receive tattoos. Shoddy reporting on that part IMO. Why report on something that you cannot prove in any way?

  
  To your point, I was listening to the SI author on Jim Rome's radio show today, and I had to stop and LOL a few times at the two of them going back and forth. At one point, and this is no joke, Jim Rome actually asked him, "Did you find out everything? Is there anything shady that was done that you didn't find?"
  
  I think his point was- "Do you think there was more stuff than what you found out?"- a question that would make it clear that we're entering the realm of speculation and opinion and away from facts and evidence. But the way he worded the question made it like the author was supposed to be omniscient and know every single shady thing that happened at OSU since 2001- and that whatever he might have said would hold equal weight with the NCAA.
  
  That conversation was an appropriate snapshot of how some are covering this.
• LJ

  

  thedynasty1998;786557 wrote:I agree. If I remember correctly he had the tattoo artist, a couple anonymous and the tenant above the tattoo parlor.

  
  When it comes to the current players, he had "Ellis" the guy who didn't want to be identified and the guy who was in jail currently who only had pictures of the tat 5. What has this world come to that people find it acceptable to say "the only proof I have is 2 very shady characters with testimonies with no hard evidence" is enough to put the names of current student athletes names in an article basically calling them immoral and rule breakers? I call it shoddy reporting.
• stlouiedipalma

  I read the SI article last night and I was shocked at some of the allegations. The bottom line is that right now they are just that, allegations. What the NCAA does regarding them is anyone's guess.
  
  The bottom line is that we as fans can do two things:
  
  1. Continue to debate this issue, defend or crucify Tressel and talk until the cows come home.
  
  2. Get over it, because it doesn't matter one whit what happens. We can't change a thing and I, for one, plan to continue supporting the Buckeyes. Let's see what the punishment is and move on.
• thedynasty1998

  

  LJ;786596 wrote:When it comes to the current players, he had "Ellis" the guy who didn't want to be identified and the guy who was in jail currently who only had pictures of the tat 5. What has this world come to that people find it acceptable to say "the only proof I have is 2 very shady characters with testimonies with no hard evidence" is enough to put the names of current student athletes names in an article basically calling them immoral and rule breakers? I call it shoddy reporting.

  So you don't think anyone other than the original 5 were involved?
• LJ

  

  thedynasty1998;786611 wrote:So you don't think anyone other than the original 5 were involved?

  
  Where did I ever ever say, imply, infer ANYTHING like that? I said that he should have left it to people who traded for something that can provide evidence.... aka tattoos not "got tattoos and/or money"
• thedynasty1998

  

  LJ;786620 wrote:Where did I ever ever say, imply, infer ANYTHING like that? I said that he should have left it to people who traded for something that can provide evidence.... aka tattoos not "got tattoos and/or money"

  
  Then I'm not sure what your stance is. You think the guys he implicated in getting tattoos are true but not the one's that received cash? I'm honestly just trying to see where you stand.
• LJ

  

  thedynasty1998;786629 wrote:Then I'm not sure what your stance is. You think the guys he implicated in getting tattoos are true but not the one's that received cash? I'm honestly just trying to see where you stand.

  
  I never said it's true or not. It's pretty damn easy to understand my stance. Stick to something that can be proven with hard evidence. Being vague and throwing student athletes under the bus without having hard evidence besides 2 shady characters mentioning their name is ridiculous.
• rydawg5

  This article made me laugh.
  
  "28 players are now involved" --- Cool, so out of 10 years, 85 scholarships per year (850) -- so 3%
  
  "Pryor handed in shoulder pads... howd you get those.. "I get anything I want" -- LOL
  
  "Several Buckeyes would hang out at the Parlor for hours in the upstairs playing playstation" --- Very sketchy place
  
  It's just a complete attempt to manipulate the reader into thinking a bunch of felonious thugs are given the green light by the head mob boss -- crazy how much we are throwing stones onto these guys for this ridiculousness.
• thedynasty1998

  

  LJ;786634 wrote:I never said it's true or not. It's pretty damn easy to understand my stance. Stick to something that can be proven with hard evidence. Being vague and throwing student athletes under the bus without having hard evidence besides 2 shady characters mentioning their name is ridiculous.

  
  So hard evidence is the actual tattoos? I don't see a difference in saying they traded merchandise for tattoos or money. Both of which are accusations without proof. They didn't name specific tattoos.
  
  I just think you completely discredit the reporter or believe him. I don't see how you can say, yea I believe the tattoos but not the cash. Why?
• thedynasty1998

  

  rydawg5;786640 wrote:This article made me laugh.
  
  "28 players are now involved" --- Cool, so out of 10 years, 85 scholarships per year (850) -- so 3%
  
  "Pryor handed in shoulder pads... howd you get those.. "I get anything I want" -- LOL
  
  "Several Buckeyes would hang out at the Parlor for hours in the upstairs playing playstation" --- Very sketchy place
  
  It's just a complete attempt to manipulate the reader into thinking a bunch of felonious thugs are given the green light by the head mob boss -- crazy how much we are throwing stones onto these guys for this ridiculousness.

  
  Your percentage is wrong. Go back a couple pages.
  
  So you don't believe they were hanging out there?
• rydawg5

  thedynasty1998;786643 wrote:Your percentage is wrong. Go back a couple pages.
  
  So you don't believe they were hanging out there?

  
  Oh I do believe they were hanging out there. That's the manipulation. They "were hanging out playing playstation" -- is that what thugs are doin these days? Damn... it's a hard knock life. (Felonious stuff going on when you hang out and play ps3)
  
  They should all be kicked out of school for shit like that.
• LJ

  

  thedynasty1998;786641 wrote:So hard evidence is the actual tattoos? I don't see a difference in saying they traded merchandise for tattoos or money. Both of which are accusations without proof. They didn't name specific tattoos.
  
  I just think you completely discredit the reporter or believe him. I don't see how you can say, yea I believe the tattoos but not the cash. Why?

  
  you don't understand a damn thing I am saying at all or you are twisting it for some argument that isn't here. I never said I didn't believe it or that I did believe it, the problem is a tat is permanent, money can be spent, hidden, etc. He is making these accusations without being able to prove a damn thing. I am going to assume the FBI's raid on his house and shop was pretty thorough. To print something that defames the character of college students with no hard evidence is low. NEVER once did I say if I believe it or not. If he wants to print that kind of speculation, at least go after the guys who got tats that can provide at least the smallest slither of visual evidence. The ONLY evidence he has that Storm Klein sold stuff is what 2 shady guys told him. Would you print that about a 21 year old college student in a national publication if that was all the evidence you had? HELL NO I wouldn't
• enigmaax

  rydawg5;786646 wrote:Oh I do believe they were hanging out there. That's the manipulation. They "were hanging out playing playstation" -- is that what thugs are doin these days? Damn... it's a hard knock life. (Felonious stuff going on when you hang out and play ps3)
  
  They should all be kicked out of school for shit like that.

  
  Um, I won't jump to conclusions either, but is it unreasonable to suspect that playstation isn't the only thing you'd be doing when you're hanging out on a Friday night with a guy facing federal drug trafficking charges? I mean, I know that a person isn't always guilty by association, but what is the likelihood that a guy like that had a bunch of milk and cookie video game parties for football players?
• thedynasty1998

  

  rydawg5;786646 wrote:Oh I do believe they were hanging out there. That's the manipulation. They "were hanging out playing playstation" -- is that what thugs are doin these days? Damn... it's a hard knock life. (Felonious stuff going on when you hang out and play ps3)
  
  They should all be kicked out of school for shit like that.

  
  I didn't think of it as manipulation. I thought it just provided a picture of the atmosphere. It was a hang out for players. Rife wanted to be buddies with them and provided a spot for them to hang out, had cash, gave out tattoos and had marijuana. I think it sounds realistic when he paints that picture.
• LJ

  

  enigmaax;786651 wrote:Um, I won't jump to conclusions either, but is it unreasonable to suspect that playstation isn't the only thing you'd be doing when you're hanging out on a Friday night with a guy facing federal drug trafficking charges? I mean, I know that a person isn't always guilty by association, but what is the likelihood that a guy like that had a bunch of milk and cookie video game parties for football players?

  
  My friend used to hang out with the owners of Captain Woody's all the time and she never got into any shit.
• thedynasty1998

  

  LJ;786649 wrote:you don't understand a damn thing I am saying at all or you are twisting it for some argument that isn't here. I never said I didn't believe it or that I did believe it, the problem is a tat is permanent, money can be spent, hidden, etc. He is making these accusations without being able to prove a damn thing. I am going to assume the FBI's raid on his house and shop was pretty thorough. To print something that defames the character of college students with no hard evidence is low. NEVER once did I say if I believe it or not. If he wants to print that kind of speculation, at least go after the guys who got tats that can provide at least the smallest slither of visual evidence. The ONLY evidence he has that Storm Klein sold stuff is what 2 shady guys told him. Would you print that about a 21 year old college student in a national publication if that was all the evidence you had? HELL NO I wouldn't

  
  So your issue is with the reporter. Understood.
  
  I just don't think a Pulitzer Prize winning reporter employed by SI is going to just throw names out there if he didn't believe it himself. He isn't some schmuck writing a blog. He is the feature story for SI and isn't going to put his reputation on the line by making blatantly false accusations.
  
  And I haven't heard of anyone come out and completely deny these allegations yet. You would think they would be lining up if the allegations are lies.
• LJ

  

  thedynasty1998;786658 wrote:So your issue is with the reporter. Understood.
  
  I just don't think a Pulitzer Prize winning reporter employed by SI is going to just throw names out there if he didn't believe it himself. He isn't some schmuck writing a blog. He is the feature story for SI and isn't going to put his reputation on the line by making blatantly false accusations.

  He won the Pulitzer in 1999, desperate times will call for desperate measures. He has NO hard evidence. He is basing his defamation on a felon and an anonymous source. The anonymity and lack of character shoot the credibility all to hell. There probably were other players, but I would bet that some of those players are nothing more than guilty by association and some are probably more guilty than what the article says.
  

  And I haven't heard of anyone come out and completely deny these allegations yet. You would think they would be lining up if the allegations are lies.

  
  And lawyers have probably told them to stay hushed. You have the right to not self incriminate yourself, which you can do even if you never committed the "crime".
• thedynasty1998

  

  LJ;786663 wrote:He won the Pulitzer in 1999, desperate times will call for desperate measures. He has NO hard evidence. He is basing his defamation on a felon and an anonymous source. The anonymity and lack of character shoot the credibility all to hell. There probably were other players, but I would bet that some of those players are nothing more than guilty by association and some are probably more guilty than what the article says.
  
  
  
  And lawyers have probably told them to stay hushed. You have the right to not self incriminate yourself, which you can do even if you never committed the "crime".

  
  Lawyers? If they can't afford lawyers in a libel lawsuit who is offering them counsel now? How would a denial be self incriminating? What are they being charged with? This is the court of public opinion. Even if guilty they should deny it. They are not under oath or giving statements to the NCAA.
• enigmaax

  LJ;786654 wrote:My friend used to hang out with the owners of Captain Woody's all the time and she never got into any shit.

  
  Great. I've hung out with drug dealers and not done any myself, as well. I was still outnumbered. We're talking about a big group of people hanging out on weekends. Sorry, I don't buy the odds that the only guy doing anything illegal is the dealer in the room. Or maybe the weekend is just when he took a good guy break to hang out with innocent college kids.
• LJ

  

  thedynasty1998;786669 wrote:Lawyers? If they can't afford lawyers in a libel lawsuit who is offering them counsel now?

  Sigh, counsel is usually provided for free by the law school to OSU students in matters. They will not, however, go to trial for free. 2 COMPLETELY different things

  How would a denial be self incriminating?

  By commenting at all. It's best to go through a lawyer

  What are they being charged with?

  Nothing, but you do realize that this is a contractual issue with a governing body that will gather evidence and testimony

  This is the court of public opinion. Even if guilty they should deny it.

  If I was in their position I would say "fuck the public, my future is at stake". It's best to take that road and have your day in front of the infractions committee

  They are not under oath or giving statements to the NCAA.

  The NCAA will use ANYTHING they say in their investigation.
  
  I'm not sure why any of this is so hard for you to understand? Oh, I know, you just want to argue. Carry on