Reader71

August 3rd, 2018 at 8:38 PM ^

I agree that the guy laid it on pretty thick.

But would you take a job for $340k if it required you be physically beaten, mentally abused, stalked, cheated on and your wife bringing the guy cuckolding you into your marital bed with you in it?

You're determined to fight virtue signaling, which I'm willing to go with. But the reflexive dismissal of it is causing you to take unreasonable positions.

No politics, but if you are really arguing what you seem to be arguing, you're a cuck. Literally.

Section 1.8

August 3rd, 2018 at 11:28 PM ^

If that happened to me, I’d call the cops.  I’d get a lawyer:  I’d file for divorce.  I’d get a protective order.

Oh, wait!  THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT SHE DID!

Any lawyer ought to know what we’d find in the correspondence clip of her divorce attorney’s file; a clear understanding that both parties and both of their counsel desperately wanted Zach to not be put in a position where he’d lose his OSU job. 

 

Mongo

August 3rd, 2018 at 9:47 PM ^

Ask Aaron Hernandez how Urban Meyer enabled him to be a good citizen.  Oh shit, you can’t because Aaron murdered someone and then committed the ultimate sin and took his own life. 

Urban Meyer has a serious personality disorder and is boarder-line psychotic.  He has major demons that chased him out of Florida and have now surfaced again at OSU.  Sad for him, such a good football coach but just such a lousy human being.  He needs counseling.  

OSU president Drake needs to swiftly end this odyssey. 

Section 1.8

August 4th, 2018 at 1:08 PM ^

I’m curious; what is your very best evidence of Ohio State doing something like that?

It didn’t happen with Tressel, or with about three different OSU basketball coaches.  It didn’t happen with the Tatgate players, or Maurice Clarett.  It sure as hell didn’t happen with their ex-marching band leader, Jon Waters.  It does not appear to be happening with the 25-year old team doctor allegations, or the recent diving coach allegations.

I’m stumped; but I am willing to listen to whatever you’ve got, that merits an allegation of ongoing forgery of documents, this weekend, at the highest levels of the OSU Administration.

 

zh2oson

August 3rd, 2018 at 4:37 PM ^

actually DID know what type of dirtbag Smith was and continued to employ him.

My mistake was lying about knowing to some reporters. 

Got it. 

UMxWolverines

August 3rd, 2018 at 5:38 PM ^

I still don't think this is over. If you didn't think he did anything wrong, why did you fire him now? 

Smith has been with him for years, he knows everything going on about Urban's program. What reason now does he have to not spill the beans? What's he gonna do now for work in football? His grandpa is gone. 

Newton Gimmick

August 3rd, 2018 at 6:29 PM ^

It's still a mafia-like dynamic, so I'm skeptical anything makes it out.  Buckeyes are prepping us to (a) not believe anything Zach Smith says, and (b) rationalizing Urban keeping him out of 'loyalty'.

I never thought a failed coach from the '80s would be the reason Urban Meyer would bend over backward to protect a mediocre coach and recruiter who was also an abusive dirtbag.

In fact, I still don't think that's the reason, and hope no one who isn't a Buckeye is buying that sentimental Earle Bruce garbage.

Section 1.8

August 3rd, 2018 at 6:31 PM ^

Isn't there a simple answer to that?

The 2015 incident did not result in a criminal conviction.  It resulted in a divorce filing (obviously; but beyond that, it might well have been thought that the divorce might settle things) which is not a crime here in the 21st century, and it resulted in a civil personal protection order.  PPO's are granted on much more liberal bases than "proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt."

I can see why the 2015 incident should be reported if an institution has rules in that regard, but might not result in an employee's termination for cause.

Again I add at this point; every shred of evidence in this case points to the fact that both Courtney Smith and Zach Smith knew and agreed that it would be terrible for all of them, their kids included, if Zach lost his OSU job and a $340k income.

Now, there is a new incident, in 2018.  And that might not have been known to Meyer.  Does anybody claim that Meyer knew about the 2018 incident(s) before they broke in the news?  They broke in the news because something happened; somebody tipped off somebody as to a court appearance by Zach, and not long after that Zach is fired and once Zach is fired (or perhaps more precisely, when both Courtney and Zach knew that Zach would be fired), Courtney starts shopping her story.

By Matt McMurphy's own account today, she called him.

Reader71

August 3rd, 2018 at 8:44 PM ^

Firings are also "granted" on much more liberal grounds than "proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt."

Whether the Smith's agreed that Zach losing his job would be detrimental to them should not, and obviously did not, have any effect on the determination not to fire him. The Smith's certainly would have agreed that Zach losing his job in 2018 was detrimental to them, but he was still fired.

Erik_in_Dayton

August 3rd, 2018 at 9:07 PM ^

I disagree that Ms. Smith’s wishes should  have played no role. A survivor saying “I think he’d spiral out of control and kill me if he lost this job” or “We’d be on the street if he lost this job” ought to carry weight with an employer. 

To be clear, I’m not saying Ms. Smith made statements anything like those to Meyer. I’m making a general point.

Reader71

August 3rd, 2018 at 11:10 PM ^

"We'd be on the street" holds true for a huge percentage of people who have ever been fired. And it's more true for people making less than $340k per year. This one doesn't move the needle at all (although you argued it ought to, which is true in the world I wish we lived).

"He'll kill me" seems persuasive on its face. But in that case, if you believe her, you must fire the potential murderer, right?

Erik_in_Dayton

August 4th, 2018 at 4:49 AM ^

Re: being on the street, the income potential of a person like him would plummet if he were known to have been fired because of domestic violence. It might become non-existent if coaching is his only marketable skill.

”We’d be on the street” might hold true for a huge percentage of people, but we’re not talking about an average firing. We’re talking about a firing because of wrongdoing against one person. Society has a generalized interest in curbing DV, but this one person has a much more immediate interest in the outcome of the situation and much more ownership of it than does anyone else. And you don’t help her by rendering her a passive actor - the self-perception of powerlessness having been one of her fundamental problems - or by depriving her of her income.

As for a death threat, no, you would not have to fire a potential murderer if you thought it would heighten the chances of him killing his spouse. A batterer is a threat to his partner, not an indiscriminate killer. You’d be firing him to stand on principle while very really risking the life of a woman. You could pat yourself on the back and say “I got rid of that dirtbag!” and then see him go murder his wife. 

Let me be clear that I’m not saying any of this to defend Meyer in particular. I’m interested in the general point. The Meyer story will come and go, and the conundrum of what to do with batterers will remain.

Reader71

August 4th, 2018 at 2:50 PM ^

I understand your position, we’re moving into hypotheticals, not this particular situation. 

You really don’t think you have a duty to your school/team/employee to fire the person you reasonably believe to be a potential murderer? 

I think that type of information gives you more reason to fire him. 

The only thing that would change is the method. I’d work with the wife to get her and the kids to safety. I’d help her with finding and even paying for an attorney to counsel her on how to handle the upcoming firing and his reaction. I’d go to the police with the information and even ask that they are present when I fire him. 

Because what’s the alternative? Essentially bribing someone not to kill his wife? Keeping him on staff knowing that he’s liable to kill his wife if he has a bad enough day? 

Erik_in_Dayton

August 4th, 2018 at 6:09 PM ^

I think the duty you describe in your second paragraph is less important than making sure you don’t greatly increase the odds that the batterer kills his partner.

Some of what you describe in the fourth paragraph would be enormously helpful, needless to say. Since we are talking generally, though, some employers won’t be able to afford to hire an attorney or relocate someone. And counseling the survivor on how to prepare for the upcoming fallout from the firing isn’t the issue. Insulating her in a physical sense from the fallout of the firing should be one’s focus. But that’s easier said than done.

As to your last paragraph, yes, I can imagine running (say) a gas station and deciding that I needed to keep one of my employees for the time being so I don’t increase the odds of him killing his wife. I would also do my best to help her get away from him, but that might not happen for a variety of situations. I might have to be prepared to keep him on the job indefinitely - ugly and terrible as that might be - to protect the life of his wife.

At the risk of wading into another controversial topic, what I’m describing is a little like offering a carrot to a bad actor country if it drops its weapons program. Is that in a sense to give in to extortion? Yes, and that is a genuine problem. But it sometimes beats having more WMDs in the world.

 

 

ppToilet

August 3rd, 2018 at 8:46 PM ^

 Seriously, you need to sit back and take a deep breath. I cannot think you are as horrible a person as you are coming across with these posts. Who are you trying to convince? Only yourself on here. Don't you see that pretending to be a Michigan fan is pathetic? Real Michigan fans aren't very sympathetic to wife beaters and their enablers...

Section 1.8

August 4th, 2018 at 12:10 AM ^

I have expressed exactly zero tolerance and sympathy for domestic assault perpetrators.  According to Zach Smith, what Urban Meyer said to him was, “So help me God, Zach, if I find out you hit her, you’re going to be fired...”

What all the fanboys are all bent out of shape about seems to be, why didn’t they get to find out about all of this on their favorite blog a long time ago, and why didn’t it lead to a summary firing of Zach Smith?

And what I am saying is that one of the biggest reasons that the story, for whatever it is worth, was kept quiet (and so Zach Smith could keep his job) was... Courtney Smith.

 

TrueBlue2003

August 4th, 2018 at 12:57 AM ^

How in your deranged mind does it matter what Zach and Courtney wanted?  Think about that in any other case of employee misconduct:

A person commits multiple fireable offenses (and face it, no one but Earle Bruce's grandson or Urbans own family would have survived even the 2009 incident) but the employer is stupid enough to NOT fire said employee because he and his wife would prefer he not be fired? 

Of course they didn't want him fired.  That's completely irrelevant.

That's a very, very bad reason to not do the right thing and do what you'd do to anyone else under those circumstances.

You can rationalize this all you want, but Urban kept this dude on staff in 2009 because he was Bruce's grandson.  And I can even sort of understand, especially because it was his MO, that he'd give him a second chance since Courtney did herself.  But dude, after you convince the wife to drop the charges because you argue it won't happen again, and then it happens again, you gotta get rid of the guy.  That's it.  But he gives him a third chance? At minimum.  And then he lied about it? 

Urban is an enabler and a liar.  Not sure how you can justify keeping a guy around given those facts.

BlueWon

August 4th, 2018 at 8:13 AM ^

Meyer's contract with OSU required that he self-report the 2009 incidences at UF that Meyer definitely knew about.

That, all by itself, is termination-worthy.

The 2015 and 2018 incidences are just more icing on the cake.

BTW, I surely hope you don't have any women in your life who depend on you.

Section 1.8

August 4th, 2018 at 1:21 PM ^

I am looking at the number of your upvotes, and so...

How perfectly would your comment have applied, to Brady Hoke’s November-of-2014 comment about Brendan Gibbons?

Mind you, I am sympathetic to the notion that Gibbons was railroaded in that student disciplinary proceeding.  But Hoke plainly misled the media, and some detractors (NOT ME!) thought that Michigan football had shielded a rapist for years. (Bullshit, in my view.)

If you are someone who thinks that Hoke lied to the media after knowingly protecting a rapist, where was your MGoOutrage in 2014?

Reader71

August 4th, 2018 at 3:10 PM ^

Hoke did mislead, as he called it a family issue. He was also, likely, not able to speak about the matter, per FERPA. Meyer falsely claimed no knowledge. There is a difference in the statements.

There is also a difference in what they knew. Hoke may have been aware of a rape allegation that happened before he even knew Gibbons. If I recall correctly, Gibbons was suspended when the investigation was opened (admittedly unsure on this point). Meyer knew of several allegations that occurred after Smith was initially hired. Smith was rehired in 2012 and given a number of contract extensions, with more allegations in the intervening years.

Your larger point about fan hypocrisy stands. No doubt, a lot of people would be defending our guy if this same thing happened. But you can’t use that as a defense when people point out specific errors in your argument.

TheLastStraw

August 3rd, 2018 at 5:35 PM ^

No, this was his own personal lawyers. OSU's lawyers wouldn't want to throw folks higher up the chain under the bus. Meyer states that he reported the issue. That means that someone else knew and didn't do anything. It also means that Meyer has admitted to knowingly employing a serial abuser. 

This statement reads as helping make sure he can't get fired for cause, so he collects a big check on the way out the door.

ijohnb

August 3rd, 2018 at 6:34 PM ^

Not quite.  He said he reported the 2015 incident, he did not say when.  There is nothing in a textual reading of that statement that throws anybody under the bus.  He was also really vague about what exactly he was dishonest or incompassionate about at BIG media day.  The statement has the impact of taking responsibility without saying exactly what for, and keeps all options open in terms of a defense.  I have to say, he has a good lawyer.