that makes one of us
This reminds me, did we ever find out what the brewing Yahoo stories were about? As far as I can remember, all of the OSU stuff so far has been by people other than Yahoo, which makes me wonder what they are still sitting on.
Though they're not late or anything. Hopefully they're juicy. I have my hopes on Auburn getting slammed into bolivian.
When I was growing up, as a Jewish child, I envied all of my non-Jewish friends who got to celebrate Christmas while I was stuck with Hannukah. A few of my friends expressed the opposite opinion - they were jealous that I got presents for 8 nights, while they only had one day. So, which was better? One day of awesome presents or 8 nights of less awesome presents?
The OSU story, to me, represents a (non-religious) marriage of Christmas and Hannukah - it is day after day of presents, but each one is awesome in its own right!
I am naming this new holiday Vestivus.
....VESTIVUS Miracle, now let's watch the OSU fan base RUMBLE.
for the airing of the greivances.
Vestivus for the rest of us!
Feats of strength to come later.
They were good friends then, because they tried to be nice and point out the positives.
Has Dohrmann yet answered the question about Storm Klein? Storm Kein was alleged by Dohrmann to have frequented Fine Line, but... Storm doesn't have any tattoos. Not one. And he gets drug-tested like other OSU athletes, and he's never been positive, and he has all of his significant memorabilia -- gold pants, rings, etc.
And, with a number of the Tat 5-plus players named by Dorhmann, they are cataloguing all of the memorabilia items, like championship rings and gold pants charms, and other items. And if each junior/senior is supposed to have about 50 such items, they have accounted for just about all of them.
So, since I like a good blood-feud, I'd like to see this battle get played out, in court. I'm not holding my breath, but I'd like to see some of the players sue Dorhmann and SI. I'd like to see a defamation trial.
Does Klein have all his equipment? You say he has no tattoos... how do you know?
I do presume that his dad does know, however:
And the helmets, game-worn equipment, etc. that was traded for cash and other goods?
Neither one of us knows, I take it. As I say, not only do I not presume the outcome, I don't even know if a defamation suit will get filed. History -- and routine legal practice -- would make me think that a lawsuit won't get filed. I just like the idea of possibly suing people like Dohrmann. And, uh, his colleagues...
As for specific equipment, I haven't investigated and I don't know who has. Yet. Just maybe, Storm Klein has all his gold pants, all his rings, and all his other stuff (bowl swag, watches, crystal, whatever) and yet maybe someday there will be evidence that he sold autographs or jerseys or whatever. Maybe. Right now, there seem to be two sides to the story. I'm not presuming that Storm Klein and his dad are right, and that he's been defamed.
But I am also not presuming that George Dorhmann is right. Not even close.
You are missing an important point.
Dorhmann didn't make the claims. His sources did. He sourced them by name, and didn't hide their affiliations or backgrounds (however sketchy).
You don't need to presume anything about Dorhmann.
In any event, there will NEVER be a lawsuit from this. OSU players under oath at a deposition conducted by SI lawyers is the worst case scenario for everyone at OSU. Won't happen.
And as Dohrmann's attorney in a defamation case, you've done a bangup job.
And as Dohrmann's backup for having told a truly convincing story well-sourced support, you've left a lot to be desired.
What we have is a Dorhmann story based on some sketchy and anonymous statements. (I do disagree with you that Dohrmann has given up all his sources. He hasn't.)
"And as Dohrmann's attorney in a defamation case, you've done a bangup job."
Awww... thanks, dude!
And as Dohrmann's backup for having told a truly convincing story well-sourced support, you've left a lot to be desired.
Hey! Wait a minute....
All he needed was to swap his autograph for cash. And as the article says
"Jason Klein said he could not say if his son had ever visited the tattoo shop involved in the investigation. Earlier Thursday, Sports Illustrated said it stands by its story."
OSU is not going to want them to sue. Drag players into court to testify on this topic? Great idea.
... would be that all of the parties can be forced to testify under oath and all of their documents can be seized via disclosure. Who cares about George Dohrmann or, for that matter, Storm Klein. I would just love to see Tressel, Smith, Gee, OSU Compliance, OSU's current and former players, Eddie Rife, Ellis, that stupid photographer, etc. deposed under oath. And I bet OSU's files are filled with evidence of other NCAA violations across any number of sports. Add to that the fact that any trial would go on for months, maybe years, and this situation just couldn't get any better.
I think you are reaching on this defammation law suit idea. Yes, the Dad claims Dorhman's wrong, but until something is more concrete than the Dad claiming he is wrong, I tend to think Dorhman is more likely right.
First off, another players dad came out saying similar things about his son with Klein (forgot who) and an mgoposter very quickly posted several pictures depicting the growth of the kids tatoo at TSIO, contradicting part of the other dads story.
Second, if Dorhman can lie, a random parent can easily (more easily) lie to a reporter about his son's involvement.
Third, athletes have been beating drug tests for years. I have gotten the impression that it isn't that difiicult if you have someone who knows how to beat it explaining the process to you.
Fourth, the father cannot make a comment if his son has ever been to the tatoo parlor or not. Here is the huge red flag. I assume he has talked to his son about the accusations. I know every person I know with a father would immediately call their father upon the publishing of such a story or their father would be calling them. I assume his father was smart enough to ask if he ever was at the place. Choosing not to comment means he probably knows his son was there but doesn't want to say it. Doesn't mean his son actually is guilty of the allegations, but raises a lot of questions if he was at the parlor.
Slow your roll on attacking the media outlets so quickly.
and his father then claimed that all the work was done at a popular tattoo shop near Youngstown, "Squirrley's".
Not only do you have a RAGING CLUE over the Freep, but one over all journalists? Believe it or not but OSU did break the rules in all of this mess and sadly so did Michigan under Rich Rod. It may have been a stupid violation but the rules were still broken.
This is all you need to know.
What are you talking about?
Klein was included in a group of players who allegedly traded memorabilia or autographs for tattoos or money. The fact that Klein has his gold pants and doesn't have any tattoos doesn't negate the possibility that he fits that description. Of course, this doesn't prove that he did anything wrong either, but SI wouldn't have to prove that to successfully defend a libel suit.
First of all, SI only reported that a source told them he was one of a group of players who traded memorabilia or equipment for tats and/or cash. Even if it turns out that his name was a mistake, SI did not lie. That is almost certainly exactly what the source told them and they probably have the interview on tape. SI also meticulously described the questionable backgrounds of each of its sources so that the reader could make an informed judgement as to whether to believe them. Finally, SI contacted the OSU athletic department and asked to speak to the players so they could confirm the story. OSU refused to allow them any contact.
It is very difficult to successfully sue a major publication for libel because they know how to dot the i's and cross the t's. Storm Klein would have to show (a) that the report is false and (b) SI either knew it was false or was so reckless in including his name along with the other (presumably guilty) players that SI violated the applicable standards of journalism. It is a tall order, and I expect that SI's attorneys looked carefully at all of this before the story was released.
...how much I love debates like this, when it gets boiled down to; well, Sports Illustrated didn't lie...
I think the appropriate approach is to the situation is to consider Storm Klein and the other similarly situated players to be innocent until more is shown. Additionally, it seems that SI did what it needed to do publish a non-libelous article. The two aren't mutually exclusive.
At the risk of sounding like a civics teacher, speech in this country would be severely restricted if you couldn't say anything without proving that it was true beyond a shadow of a doubt. A lot of important stories have started with single, anonymous sources.
If I thought that Sports Illustrated was concerned, in the slightest, about the public good, or ethics in sports, or truthjusticeandtheAmericanWay, I might agree with you. I'd be humming the Star Spangled Banner with the choir in the background and such.
Sports Illustrated is in business, to sell magazines, ad space and page-hits on SI.com. SI, and Dorhmann, flogged this story to the absolute max. I thought that the interwebs would crash, the way that Dorhmann was pumping his story. And I do think that there is some massive, hysterical suckiness to all the stuff that the Buckeyes are being accused of. But that's just me. I'm not so foolish as to try to sell that idea at a website called MGoBlog.
Anyway, you can spare me the "public interest" argument for SI.com. I heard enough of that for three lifetimes from the Free Press, when they were concocting allegations against Michigan. Protecting student-athletes... right.
The motivations of SI and the Free Press are irrelevant to what our society's standard for libel should be.
There is no way to let only "good" speech occur. You either have to risk letting a bunch of garbage speech be expressed or risk letting good speech be suppressed.
Not talking about "allowing" any particular form of speech. Not talking about preventing any speech. Not talking about any state action or any form of prior-restraint on any speech.
Only talking about private causes of action, as a consequence of freely-delivered speech.
I don't much believe in prior restraints. Or state limitations on speech. But I also don't much believe in speech that is free of any consequence. I don't like responsibility-free speech.
So here's to the Freep, and SI, and "garbage speech."
Dohrmann's accusation about Klein wasn't necessarily about tatoos. He accused Klein of being among a number of players that traded memorabilia or autographs for tatoos or money. The exact sentences read:
"Ellis, who spent time in and around the tattoo parlor for nearly 20 months, says that in addition to those six, he witnessed nine other active players swap memorabilia or give autographs for tattoos or money. Those players were defensive back C.J. Barnett, linebacker Dorian Bell, running back Jaamal Berry, running back Bo DeLande, defensive back Zach Domicone, linebacker Storm Klein, linebacker Etienne Sabino, defensive tackle John Simon and defensive end Nathan Williams."
Never happen. Imagine the discovery. If any plaintiff had a speck of dirt, the defense would find it. The defense also would try to conduct a broad ranging inquiry into every aspect of this scandal to demonstrate the elements of a public figure defamation case. It would be better than Christmas. It would be heaven. I am certain the school would do all it could to discourage anyone from filing a claim.
And if only perfectly clean plaintiffs could withstand civil discovery proceedings, Geoff Fieger would be out of business. A defamation case could be filed, within the Ohio statute of limitations, any time in the next year. That would be after the NCAA verdict on OSU, after graduation (or the completion of eligibility) for a lot of the guys.
The NY Times v Sullivan and Gertz v Welch aspect of public figure/limited public figure protection for the media is an interesting one. Some professional athletes have been held to be public figures. Some high school athletes have been held to be private figures.
Anyway, I think I made it pretty clear. I am not predicting a defamation case. (The opposite, I think I said.) I am just hoping for a lawsuit.
When Dan Patrick interviewed George Dohrmann last Tuesday, Dohrmann uttered these words: "there's more." The tone of "knowingness" in his voice when he said it gave me chills. I would guess it didn't give me the same kind of chills it gave TSIO fans, though.
Dohrmann said that? With knowingness? That's really interesting: in previous interviews, immediately following publication, Dohrmann hedged, saying essentially "There may be, but we don't know for sure."
So either SI has found more since then or Dohrmann is just being a weasel. And he is sort of a weasel. His article had some useful information, sure. But it was hardly the bombshell he and SI suggested it was. So I just wonder whether he's just reacting to the general sense that he was as much bark as bite.
Regardless, only a weasel drops a bomb like that without offering any substantiation. No legit publication would let him get away with nothing beyond "There's more." But he says it on radio shows. I've lost some respect for him this week. Put up or shut up, George.
Guys like him should either put up or shut up.
Or words to that effect. I heard the interview on Dan Patrick's show, as well. I think Dohrmann may have been more careful earlier in the day (at the instructions of SI's lawyers, I'm sure) when the story was fresh. But, as the day wore on and he was answering the same questions repeatedly, he took a more strident tone.
Frankly, I was a bit surprised at what he said on the Dan Patrick Show and WFAN. He not only said there was much more dirt, (without specifying what that dirt might be) but basically said the only reason it didn't go to print was because the lawyers weren't happy.
I don't think they would have needed to sell the all the other stuff. More likley they sold the stuff to pay for the "lifestyle" choices
can't wait for the read.
I really need to invest in some popcorn. Because this right here is a show I wanna watch until the credits roll.
Marvel Super Hero style Easter Eggs at the end of the credits for the fans who stuck it out till the end.
If TP sold mem. and there are cancelled checks etc. during the 2008-2010 seasons is he ruled ineligible for said years and will this be cause for tOSU to have wins vacated?
The report I saw indicated it happened during the 2009-2010 season. If true, I assume the NCAA will vacate all games TP played in that season. Add to that the likelihood that the 2010-2011 season will be vacated because of "Tat-gate", and OSU easily could lose all of their victories from the past two seasons.
really can't believe steroids hasn't popped into the mix yet? Come on, it is so damn obvious.