Buckeye Father Responds To SI

• LJ

  

  Prescott;789729 wrote:I would hope that Storm Klein is smart enough not to lie about this. His coach just lost his job for lying and the NCAA is in town investigating. Common sense tells me that Storm Klein didn't lie to his dad. I don't think most sons would set their fathers up to look foolish, which is exactly what Storm Klein would be doing if he lied about this to his father.

  and setting him up to waste tons of money
• Jawbreaker

  sherm03;789648 wrote:I do see it. But how do you not see that a father would do anything to protect his son...including releasing a statement like this.
  
  And good for you. I'm glad you never once told a lie to your parents.
  
  Maybe Storm was brought up that way too. Maybe he lived in a house where he didn't lie to his parents. But now that he's been around Tressel all this time, he has learned from him that lying and covering up to save your own ass is how things are supposed to be done.

  
  
  If the father and/or son is not truthful, isn't that more damaging than just letting it go? I mean if Storm did do something at the tattoo parlor, he isn't doing himself or OSU a favor by not being truthful or else he is in the same boat Tressel is in. His actions will be brought to the light by someone poking around.
• WebFire

  Guys, c'mon. Be real. You really don't think it's possible for a college kid to tell his dad what he wants to hear?
  
  None of us know if he is innocent or guilty. But to bash the SI author because he doesn't have credible sources, but accept the kids dad statement as truth, is somewhat contradicting to me. I think we all hope he is telling the truth (yes, even us Michigan fans), because well want to believe that college kids are making the right choices, and that are beloved sport isn't this corrupt. But at this point, I think you have to take EVERYTHING with a grain of salt, even statements from the accused parents.
• FatHobbit

  

  WebFire;789743 wrote:None of us know if he is innocent or guilty.

  I agree with that.
  

  WebFire;789743 wrote:But to bash the SI author because he doesn't have credible sources,

  I also agree the SI author doesn't have credible sources. He also doesn't have any proof. All he has is the word of a convicted criminal in prison and aN unnamed source or two. (I can understand why his sources wouldn't want to be named if all they say is true, but it does make me doubt the credibility of the story.)
  

  WebFire;789743 wrote: but accept the kids dad statement as truth, is somewhat contradicting to me.

  
  I'm not sure we're accepting that dad's statement so much as we're happy someone who was reported to have done something wrong is saying that he didn't. If he just sat there and said nothing it would make me think maybe he actually did do it, even though there isn't any proof.
  

  WebFire;789743 wrote:But at this point, I think you have to take EVERYTHING with a grain of salt

  Fair enough, but don't expect us to not be happy when someone who is accused of doing something wrong says they didn't.
• WebFire

  FatHobbit;789748 wrote:I agree with that.
  
  
  
  I also agree the SI author doesn't have credible sources. He also doesn't have any proof. All he has is the word of a convicted criminal in prison and aN unnamed source or two. (I can understand why his sources wouldn't want to be named if all they say is true, but it does make me doubt the credibility of the story.)
  
  
  
  I'm not sure we're accepting that dad's statement so much as we're happy someone who was reported to have done something wrong is saying that he didn't. If he just sat there and said nothing it would make me think maybe he actually did do it, even though there isn't any proof.
  
  
  
  Fair enough, but don't expect us to not be happy when someone who is accused of doing something wrong says they didn't.

  
  Good post. I don't disagree with any of your points.
• sherm03

  

  WebFire;789743 wrote:Guys, c'mon. Be real. You really don't think it's possible for a college kid to tell his dad what he wants to hear?
  
  None of us know if he is innocent or guilty. But to bash the SI author because he doesn't have credible sources, but accept the kids dad statement as truth, is somewhat contradicting to me. I think we all hope he is telling the truth (yes, even us Michigan fans), because well want to believe that college kids are making the right choices, and that are beloved sport isn't this corrupt. But at this point, I think you have to take EVERYTHING with a grain of salt, even statements from the accused parents.

  My point exactly.
• Y-Town Steelhound

  

  No reason to lie if SI can easily prove that Klein/Simon were involved. Storm can prove he doesn't have any tattoos as well as that he has all of his memorabilia if that really is the case. Much easier for the Kleins to prove their side of the story.
• sherm03

  

  Y-Town Steelhound;789798 wrote:No reason to lie if SI can easily prove that Klein/Simon were involved. Storm can prove he doesn't have any tattoos as well as that he has all of his memorabilia if that really is the case. Much easier for the Kleins to prove their side of the story.

  
  Except it's not.
  
  You mean to tell me that every single pair of shoes, every sweatshirt, every hat is accounted for at Storm's parent's house? How would they prove that? How would they even know that what is there is EVERYTHING that Storm had. It's been accused that Pryor was taking shoulder pads from the locker room and taking those in. Could be the same type of thing with Storm (and before everyone jumps my shit...I'm not saying that is definitely what he did...just a possibility). Maybe he was snatching up water bottles, or towels, or cleats and taking them in for a little extra money. That type of stuff would have never made it to the Klein's house.
  
  Bottom line is that neither side has it easy proving their side of the story...which is why it's impossible to believe either one of them 100%.
• bases_loaded

  

  A guy who plead guilty to federal drug charges and an anonymous source.
  
  Thats what this "journalist" went with. Why not say 9 anonymous players...why names? These guys are automatically guilty by 93% of the country and all the "major" sports medias because this pulitzer prize winning "journalist" named them while leaving his source anonymous.
  
  Anyone have a problem with this?
• LJ

  

  sherm03;789812 wrote:Except it's not.
  
  You mean to tell me that every single pair of shoes, every sweatshirt, every hat is accounted for at Storm's parent's house? How would they prove that? How would they even know that what is there is EVERYTHING that Storm had. It's been accused that Pryor was taking shoulder pads from the locker room and taking those in. Could be the same type of thing with Storm (and before everyone jumps my shit...I'm not saying that is definitely what he did...just a possibility). Maybe he was snatching up water bottles, or towels, or cleats and taking them in for a little extra money. That type of stuff would have never made it to the Klein's house.
  
  Bottom line is that neither side has it easy proving their side of the story...which is why it's impossible to believe either one of them 100%.

  
  There will be a way to account for every single item you mentioned except the water bottles and towels. Until it is proven that he stole any of those items or doesn't have the thigns he was give, I believe him. Innocent until proven guilty
• WebFire

  LJ;789820 wrote:Innocent until proven guilty

  I can go with that.
• WebFire

  bases_loaded;789815 wrote:A guy who plead guilty to federal drug charges and an anonymous source.
  
  Thats what this "journalist" went with. Why not say 9 anonymous players...why names? These guys are automatically guilty by 93% of the country and all the "major" sports medias because this pulitzer prize winning "journalist" named them while leaving his source anonymous.
  
  Anyone have a problem with this?

  He could have went the anonymous route, but then you all would have called him out for not even naming the players, and discredited the whole thing based on that too. I still think he doesn't print names without being pretty damn sure. Maybe he only went by anonymous sources. Who knows?
• WebFire

  bases_loaded;789815 wrote:A guy who plead guilty to federal drug charges and an anonymous source.

  Just because he plead guilty of a felony does not mean he cannot be a good source. If that were the case, a lot less criminals would be locked up in our justice system.
• LJ

  

  WebFire;789829 wrote:I can go with that.

  
  The problem is so many people are taking what the writer's sources said as evidence, it's not. There is no evidence that what he said occurred, so therefore, what the sources said is nothing more than an accusation.
• bases_loaded

  

  WebFire;789831 wrote:He could have went the anonymous route, but then you all would have called him out for not even naming the players, and discredited the whole thing based on that too. I still think he doesn't print names without being pretty damn sure. Maybe he only went by anonymous sources. Who knows?

  
  When he(the pulitzer prize winner) laughed and said "oh yeah Im sure there is more there" when asked if he was done at OSU...the LAUGH really irked me. It told me this guy has an agenda. I just don't like that these guys are already presumed guilty because of an anonymous source. Since when is it more important to protect the drug dealer than the one he is accusing?
• WebFire

  bases_loaded;789837 wrote:When he(the pulitzer prize winner) laughed and said "oh yeah Im sure there is more there" when asked if he was done at OSU...the LAUGH really irked me. It told me this guy has an agenda. I just don't like that these guys are already presumed guilty because of an anonymous source. Since when is it more important to protect the drug dealer than the one he is accusing?

  
  I agree I guess. It will be interesting how it all works out. If it is proven that some were innocent, then he will be a major asshole for putting their names in there.
• Prescott

  Guys, c'mon. Be real. You really don't think it's possible for a college kid to tell his dad what he wants to hear?

  Not with these circumstances. That would be dumber than dumb.
• WebFire

  Prescott;789856 wrote:Not with these circumstances. That would be dumber than dumb.

  
  Son, I read that article in SI.
  
  Dad, I didn't do it, I swear!
• bases_loaded

  

  WebFire;789868 wrote:Son, I read that article in SI.
  
  Dad, I didn't do it, I swear!

  
  -Dad spend $$$$$$$ on a lawyer and put yourself out there to look like an asshole...
• LJ

  

  WebFire;789868 wrote:Son, I read that article in SI.
  
  Dad, I didn't do it, I swear!

  
  You are looking at it like
  "son, Jim bob said he saw you smoking pot and drinking beer"
  "Dad I wouldn't do that!"
  "ok son, I believe you"
  
  When in reality it is
  "son, is this true? because if not I am going to make a public statement and spend a lot of $$$ on lawyers"
  "no dad, it's not"
  "ok, I'll make a public statement and pay our lawyer to start building a lawsuit"
  
  COMPLETELY different.
• WebFire

  LJ;789870 wrote:You are looking at it like
  "son, Jim bob said he saw you smoking pot and drinking beer"
  "Dad I wouldn't do that!"
  "ok son, I believe you"
  
  When in reality it is
  "son, is this true? because if not I am going to make a public statement and spend a lot of $$$ on lawyers"
  "no dad, it's not"
  "ok, I'll make a public statement and pay our lawyer to start building a lawsuit"
  
  COMPLETELY different.

  
  Because you were there?
• LJ

  

  WebFire;789871 wrote:Because you were there?

  
  what? His dad already made a public statement and has hired a lawyer...
  
  I think you are confused.
• bases_loaded

  

  WebFire;789871 wrote:Because you were there?

  
  I was there with you obviously.
• sherm03

  

  LJ;789870 wrote:You are looking at it like
  "son, Jim bob said he saw you smoking pot and drinking beer"
  "Dad I wouldn't do that!"
  "ok son, I believe you"
  
  When in reality it is
  "son, is this true? because if not I am going to make a public statement and spend a lot of $$$ on lawyers"
  "no dad, it's not"
  "ok, I'll make a public statement and pay our lawyer to start building a lawsuit"
  
  COMPLETELY different.

  Why is your version reality? Maybe the reality is...
  "Son, I read the article. Is this true?"
  "No dad, I swear!"
  "Good."
  Later...
  "Honey, he says he didn't do anything. Call the lawyer."
• Writerbuckeye

  

  WebFire;789831 wrote:He could have went the anonymous route, but then you all would have called him out for not even naming the players, and discredited the whole thing based on that too. I still think he doesn't print names without being pretty damn sure. Maybe he only went by anonymous sources. Who knows?

  
  That would be better than smearing the good name of even one innocent kid.
  
  He published those names because it had the effect he wanted: it made things look far worse than they actually are. Who gives a damn if the sources are shady and not credible, right?
  
  This was one of the worst pieces of "journalism" to come down the pike in a long time. It's full of biased views by the author and basically no proof or evidence of wrongdoing -- despite the allegations.
  
  In the end, I'll be very surprised if any of it ends up being true.