Jump to content
Powerline

Alleged Ohio State Disabato video

Recommended Posts

Got it - Mike D = scumbag in your opinion. So let's look at the other 99 accusers...

 

 

Let's also vigorously look into each and every asst. coach at tOSU during the entire time frame in question, and do so with equal vigor as what has transpired with Jim Jordan. Not just wrestling. All sports. Hundreds of coaches and asst. coaches. Doing anything less paints looking into Jordan alone for what it is, selective outrage and a selective political hit job. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's also vigorously look into each and every asst. coach at tOSU during the entire time frame in question, and do so with equal vigor as what has transpired with Jim Jordan. Not just wrestling. All sports. Hundreds of coaches and asst. coaches. Doing anything less paints looking into Jordan alone for what it is, selective outrage and a selective political hit job. 

 

Are they all prominent wrestling figures who went on national TV and lied about what they heard? If so, by all means let's line them up and put them under the same microscope.

 

This is a wrestling forum, isn't it (as opposed to a sexual abuse forum)? Why exactly would we be interested in the hundreds of coaches from other sports? You see, this isn't a case of outrage for whatever abuse the good Dr. Strauss might have dished out but rather, a case of a prominent figure in the wrestling community evidently lying (or not, TBD). Do you see the difference? I hope so. Try to remember, wrestling forum; that's why this is even an issue here. Jordan is a prominent wrestling figure - get it?

Edited by npope

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's also vigorously look into each and every asst. coach at tOSU during the entire time frame in question, and do so with equal vigor as what has transpired with Jim Jordan. Not just wrestling. All sports. Hundreds of coaches and asst. coaches. Doing anything less paints looking into Jordan alone for what it is, selective outrage and a selective political hit job.

Doesn’t change the fact that he lied. Period. But...but....but....that’s so unfair🙄

No, that’s politics. And Jordan is a politician. He’s smeared his share of people, and now he is getting smeared. You know what they say about karma.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are they all prominent wrestling figures who went on national TV and lied about what they heard? If so, by all means let's line them up and put them under the same microscope.

 

This is a wrestling forum, isn't it (as opposed to a sexual abuse forum)? Why exactly would we be interested in the hundreds of coaches from other sports? You see, this isn't a case of outrage for whatever abuse the good Dr. Strauss might have dished out but rather, a case of a prominent figure in the wrestling community evidently lying (or not, TBD). Do you see the difference? I hope so. Try to remember, wrestling forum; that's why this is even an issue here. Jordan is a prominent wrestling figure - get it?

 

You want to know about those other coaches to get a better understanding of what asst. athletics coaches at tOSU knew about Strauss' sexual abuse circa 1985-2005. If none of them knew anything, then it seems entirely plausible that Jordan may have SIMILARLY not known anything. 

 

This may be a wrestling forum, but this is NOT a wrestling issue. It's an issue of sexual abuse first and foremost. What Jordan may or may not have known is secondary, and by a large amount. If those other coaches can help shed a light on the environment then we need to hear from them. 

Edited by TBar1977

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You want to know about those other coaches to get a better understanding of what asst. athletics coaches at tOSU knew about Strauss' sexual abuse circa 1985-2005. If none of them knew anything, then it seems entirely plausible that Jordan may have SIMILARLY not known anything. 

 

This may be a wrestling forum, but this is NOT a wrestling issue. It's an issue of sexual abuse first and foremost. What Jordan may or may not have known is secondary, and by a large amount. If those other coaches can help shed a light on the environment then we need to hear from them. 

 

Jordan's status within the wrestling community makes this a wrestling issue. You seem to muddy the issues as you talk about the alleged abuse and Jordan's statements that don't align with Hellickson's. Make it simple - just focus on Jordan's statements and leave the issues of abuse out of it. You seem to think it is feasible that a head coach knew something fishy was up and reported it up the chain of command but never thought to share those concerns with his top lieutenant. If that's your position then so be it, allow the readership to judge that thought process on its merits; don't try to bottle up the conversation by suggesting we should all be focused on the horrors of sexual abuse because it is so much bigger. If that were the standard for discussion topics we could never have a 12 page debate about who is better, Hall or Valencia...on a wrestling forum. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Make it simple - just focus on Jordan's statements and leave the issues of abuse out of it.

 

"Just focus on Jordan"

 

And we circle back to the same place. You think this Strauss sex abuse story is all about Jim Jordan. I do not. He is of no more import in this than any other low level asst. coach, except for those who want the story to be about him.

Edited by TBar1977

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Got it - Mike D = scumbag in your opinion. So let's look at the other 99 accusers...

I offered my personal experience at tOSU, wrestling with Andy DiSabato, and all that I’ve heard and read about Mike D defrauding student athlete who were offered $ for endorsements of Cage Fighter, and Mike D didn’t pay them. Other than that, D1 wrestlers I know would strap the doc on a coat rack with their jock straps if they experienced what Mike D said happened.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Just focus on Jordan"

 

And we circle back to the same place. You think this Strauss sex abuse story is all about Jim Jordan. I do not. He is of no more import in this than any other low level asst. coach, except for those who want the story to be about him.

 

Again, you think it is a sex abuse story with Strauss at the center - others disagree. Some think that this is a story about a prominent politician and "one of our own" lying. Why can't you give them their space to talk about what they want? You've made your point - so why don't you just start a thread titled "Sex Abuse" and go on your way - don't even mention Jordan in it. Certainly there are some people somewhere who might savor the chance to focus on that topic.

 

But I can tell you why you won't do that - because you don't believe it is about sex abuse at all - you believe it is about protecting Jordan's reputation (which isn't sex abuse, either). You will do almost anything to muddy the waters sufficiently so that discussions focusing on Jordan become "dog chasing his tail" topics. TBar, you are transparent on this and people see it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I offered my personal experience at tOSU, wrestling with Andy DiSabato, and all that I’ve heard and read about Mike D defrauding student athlete who were offered $ for endorsements of Cage Fighter, and Mike D didn’t pay them. Other than that, D1 wrestlers I know would strap the doc on a coat rack with their jock straps if they experienced what Mike D said happened.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I would tend to agree with you that I would think college athletes would not take this lying down (pun intended); wrestlers especially tend to be aggressive creatures. That makes this whole thing puzzling to me - who (anyone) who tolerate such personal abuse? Evidently a lot went on at MSU, 100 people are making claims at tOSU. I have never encountered a similar experience and thus, I share your skepticism (especially regarding Mike Disabato) - but we have 100 other people lining up to tell their story's of long ago abuse. Some experts have suggested that it is a complex emotional experience for the victims. Might be, but it is hard for many to understand and relate to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, you think it is a sex abuse story with Strauss at the center - others disagree. Some think that this is a story about a prominent politician and "one of our own" lying. Why can't you give them their space to talk about what they want? You've made your point - so why don't you just start a thread titled "Sex Abuse" and go on your way - don't even mention Jordan in it. Certainly there are some people somewhere who might savor the chance to focus on that topic.

 

But I can tell you why you won't do that - because you don't believe it is about sex abuse at all - you believe it is about protecting Jordan's reputation (which isn't sex abuse, either). You will do almost anything to muddy the waters sufficiently so that discussions focusing on Jordan become "dog chasing his tail" topics. TBar, you are transparent on this and people see it.

So this really has been all about gigging Jim Jordan all along for you (and the others). At least you finally admit to it. Now the next question becomes why you feel this way. The obvious answer is that it suits your personal POLITICS.

 

This is a story of sex abuse by Dr. Strauss, and the repercussions of his deviant behavior. Some people will focus on who the real criminal here is, Dr. Strauss. Some will focus on ways to prevent the next Dr. Strauss. Then there are some like you, npope, who will use this story to go after Jim Jordan - not because he had any power back then, but because of who he is today. That is just pure politics. Your desire to make this all about Jordan sounds a lot like then political advisor and now Chicago Mayor Rahm Emmanuel when he stated to Barack Obama "Never let a good tragedy go to waste". 

Edited by TBar1977

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So this really has been all about gigging Jim Jordan all along for you (and the others). At least you finally admit to it. Now the next question becomes why you feel this way. The obvious answer is that it suits your personal POLITICS.

 

This is a story of sex abuse by Dr. Strauss, and the repercussions of his deviant behavior. Some people will focus on who the real criminal here is, Dr. Strauss. Some will focus on ways to prevent the next Dr. Strauss. Then there are some like you, npope, who will use this story to go after Jim Jordan - not because he had any power back then, but because of who he is today. That is just pure politics. Your desire to make this all about Jordan sounds a lot like then political advisor and now Chicago Mayor Rahm Emmanuel when he stated to Barack Obama "Never let a good tragedy go to waste". 

 

I have already said that Bill Clinton similarly lied (like Jordan) and got what he deserved. Exactly which political leanings do you think I have - I'd like to know? Can't a person simply have a disdain for high-profile people lying? Maybe I hate former successful wrestlers - ever think of that? If you can find any hint - at all, where I have even remotely suggested his behavior has anything to do with his politics I'd like to see it. You are the one defining it in terms of politics - not me. I will agree that there are some corners that are out to get Jordan because of his politics, but that does not define everybody who comments negatively on his behavior. You can't seem to get off that point and I am not sure why. Different people have different issues with what is going down here - your efforts to paint it as a political witch hunt are simply flawed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have already said that Bill Clinton similarly lied (like Jordan) and got what he deserved. Exactly which political leanings do you think I have - I'd like to know? Can't a person simply have a disdain for high-profile people lying? Maybe I hate former successful wrestlers - ever think of that? If you can find any hint - at all, where I have even remotely suggested his behavior has anything to do with his politics I'd like to see it. You are the one defining it in terms of politics - not me. I will agree that there are some corners that are out to get Jordan because of his politics, but that does not define everybody who comments negatively on his behavior. You can't seem to get off that point and I am not sure why. Different people have different issues with what is going down here - your efforts to paint it as a political witch hunt are simply flawed.

 

 

Did I misunderstand when you previously described Jordan as an important political figure? Here you describe him as a high profile person. That is a subtle change, but a change none the less. 

 

You have also called him a liar, but you can't prove that. That is a matter of judgment, and so long as you are going to throw him under the bus you should not be surprised others may step up to defend him. Your desire to completely suppress opposing ideas should also be questioned. If your ideas are able to stand up to scrutiny, why try to just shut down the scrutiny of those ideas. Let them stand or fall on merit. I won't try to suppress your nor anyone else's expression of opinion, and you should not try to suppress others. That isn't the USA (although some are trying to make it like that) that is an authoritarian state. 

 

I will stand by my pov that: 

 

a) Jordan was a relative nobody back then and presuming he possessed the same knowledge as others who themselves did nothing to stop Strauss, any action by Jordan back then would only have been to stand by Hellickson  and would not have altered the outcome one bit, Hellickson himself acted and Strauss was still not stopped because, in Hellickson's own words he did not know of abuse just that Strauss made certain wrestlers feel uncomfortable. What was Jordan going to accomplish? He was a nobody. 

b) without interviewing all coaches at Ohio St it would be an incomplete investigation. Interviewing other coaches seems likely to lend credence to Jordan's statement of non knowledge of sex abuse, because there is a very high probability they are also going to deny knowledge of sex abuse. 

c) this tangent to the real story, Strauss abusing athletes, is a witch hunt directed at Jordan because of his political position. It is designed to get attention from the media and anyone else who would like to take Jordan down. It will accomplish nothing in the way of helping any true victims OR of stopping the next Strauss.

Edited by TBar1977

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, you think it is a sex abuse story with Strauss at the center - others disagree. Some think that this is a story about a prominent politician and "one of our own" lying. Why can't you give them their space to talk about what they want? You've made your point - so why don't you just start a thread titled "Sex Abuse" and go on your way - don't even mention Jordan in it. Certainly there are some people somewhere who might savor the chance to focus on that topic.

 

But I can tell you why you won't do that - because you don't believe it is about sex abuse at all - you believe it is about protecting Jordan's reputation (which isn't sex abuse, either). You will do almost anything to muddy the waters sufficiently so that discussions focusing on Jordan become "dog chasing his tail" topics. TBar, you are transparent on this and people see it.

my question...where is the head coach in all of this?

 

you dont see any of the assistant football coaches names (who probably knew...as their wives did) just urban meyers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have already said that Bill Clinton similarly lied (like Jordan) and got what he deserved. Exactly which political leanings do you think I have - I'd like to know? Can't a person simply have a disdain for high-profile people lying? Maybe I hate former successful wrestlers - ever think of that? If you can find any hint - at all, where I have even remotely suggested his behavior has anything to do with his politics I'd like to see it. You are the one defining it in terms of politics - not me. I will agree that there are some corners that are out to get Jordan because of his politics, but that does not define everybody who comments negatively on his behavior. You can't seem to get off that point and I am not sure why. Different people have different issues with what is going down here - your efforts to paint it as a political witch hunt are simply flawed.

what exactly did bill clinton get?

 

i too have disdain for high profile people lying. thing is, we weren't there. it's he said she said.

 

but again, my question is why go after Jordan if politics is not the point... why not go after the head coach?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what exactly did bill clinton get?

 

i too have disdain for high profile people lying. thing is, we weren't there. it's he said she said.

 

but again, my question is why go after Jordan if politics is not the point... why not go after the head coach?

 

  1. Bill Clinton got impeached for his lie relating to Lewinski; pretty embarrassing, even though he held onto his position.
  2. True, we weren't there for any of this - only operating on circumstantial evidence...just like everybody has no problem accepting that Dr. Strauss did this bad stuff. He was never convicted of anything, just accused (by a lot of people), but nobody seems to have a problem "convicting him in the court of public opinion." Why is anyone getting their undies in a bundle about people applying the same standard of opinion to Jordan? The answer - things just seem to add up.
  3. The reason Hellickson isn't being trashed is 1) he openly acknowledged an issue and 2) said he dealt with it through proper channels (in hind sight, maybe he should have done something more, but he didn't lie about his involvement and knowledge of the situation). That is not what we got out of Jordan. 

Consider also the attention Urban Meyer is currently receiving for, among other things, his lies at the Big Ten Media Event. Can we agree those dynamics are not politically driven? People have their reasons for their interest, but it is not politics (in this case). Is it possible that people on a wrestling forum are interested in the Jordan situation because he was a great wrestler and has now gotten himself caught in a potential lie on national TV? My point is, IT IS NOT ALWAYS POLITICS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. i disagree, nothing really happened to bill clinton. it just made democrats laud him even more.(impeached means he was charged...he still got away with it)

2. good point about dr strauss being convicted in public opinion... that does seem to be lost in all this. but again, why is no one going after the person in charge...

3. if the hellickson dealt with it thru proper channels...why does it come back on jordan... why not the higher ups? the AD etc... jordan has no more power than to report it to hellickson.

4. do you really have proof that jordan is lying? right now it's a he said she said.. but i come back to ...jordan wasn't the one in charge... it may not be about politics. you may be right, but if it isn't, why aren't they going after the people who had some say about it... if it's about closure or healing... you go after the people who left you hanging... the people who left the victimizer in a position of power...

i dont think thats jordan.

and again, it might not be the same politics...maybe disabato has another beef with jordan... 

Edited by GockeS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. i disagree, nothing really happened to bill clinton. it just made democrats laud him even more.(impeached means he was charged...he still got away with it)

2. good point about dr strauss being convicted in public opinion... that does seem to be lost in all this. but again, why is no one going after the person in charge...

3. if the hellickson dealt with it thru proper channels...why does it come back on jordan... why not the higher ups? the AD etc... jordan has no more power than to report it to hellickson.

4. do you really have proof that jordan is lying? right now it's a he said she said.. but i come back to ...jordan wasn't the one in charge... it may not be about politics. you may be right, but if it isn't, why aren't they going after the people who had some say about it... if it's about closure or healing... you go after the people who left you hanging... the people who left the victimizer in a position of power...

i dont think thats jordan.

and again, it might not be the same politics...maybe disabato has another beef with jordan... 

 

While Clinton's impeachment was little more than a slap on the wrist, no one on this thread has asked for Jordan to do anything more than acknowledge his lie. Nobody has cried impeachment or even any other penalties - absolutely nothing. At worst, the most he is being accused of is lying. Nobody (that I have read on this thread) has suggested that Jordan was the one at fault for inaction 30 years ago. And that's just it, had he not lied to begin with this would be a non-story (contrary to what some would believe). Its the lie, not the lack of action 30 years ago.

 

And absolutely yes, there is no evidence that Jordan lied, just a trail of crumbs suggesting that how could he not know. That said, as you acknowledged, a lack of evidence (as in the case of Strauss) does not preclude people from forming hard and fast opinions. Why are people indignant when people form such opinions of Jordan but not when they consider Strauss? The answer is that people believe what they want to believe; and the myopic ones can't see the that they exhibit the same bias as those they attack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While Clinton's impeachment was little more than a slap on the wrist, no one on this thread has asked for Jordan to do anything more than acknowledge his lie. Nobody has cried impeachment or even any other penalties - absolutely nothing. At worst, the most he is being accused of is lying. Nobody (that I have read on this thread) has suggested that Jordan was the one at fault for inaction 30 years ago. And that's just it, had he not lied to begin with this would be a non-story (contrary to what some would believe). Its the lie, not the lack of action 30 years ago.

 

Baloney. If Jordan said he heard the innuendo they would say he knew and did nothing. As things stand, one democrat in Congress has called for a Congressional investigation. That is political and only happens because people stand behind it. You may not look at it this way, but your comments, npope, prop up the antics of that type of congressional talk. So Jordan can't win in some circles. Whether he heard locker room talk or not, this scandal isn't going to waste when they can try to bring down Jordan. Bringing down Jordan seems more important to many journalists than what Strauss did. Your comments support that type of reporting. Mine stand against it, and I am happy to stand against that kind of yellow journalism. Edited by TBar1977

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Baloney. If Jordan said he heard the innuendo they would say he knew and did nothing. As things stand, one democrat in Congress has called for a Congressional investigation. That is political and only happens because people stand behind it. You may not look at it this way, but your comments, npope, prop up the antics of that type of congressional talk. So Jordan can't win in some circles. Whether he heard locker room talk or not, this scandal isn't going to waste when they can try to bring down Jordan. Bringing down Jordan seems more important to many journalists than what Strauss did. Your comments support that type of reporting. Mine stand against it, and I am happy to stand against that kind of yellow journalism.

 

TBar for PRESIDENT!

 

I am getting the bumper stickers printed as we speak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cute, but does nothing to support your positions.

 

I have supported all of my positions, you simply refuse to accept them - nothing else left to say. Hope you are successful in wiping out yellow journalism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While Clinton's impeachment was little more than a slap on the wrist, no one on this thread has asked for Jordan to do anything more than acknowledge his lie. Nobody has cried impeachment or even any other penalties - absolutely nothing. At worst, the most he is being accused of is lying. Nobody (that I have read on this thread) has suggested that Jordan was the one at fault for inaction 30 years ago. And that's just it, had he not lied to begin with this would be a non-story (contrary to what some would believe). Its the lie, not the lack of action 30 years ago.

 

And absolutely yes, there is no evidence that Jordan lied, just a trail of crumbs suggesting that how could he not know. That said, as you acknowledged, a lack of evidence (as in the case of Strauss) does not preclude people from forming hard and fast opinions. Why are people indignant when people form such opinions of Jordan but not when they consider Strauss? The answer is that people believe what they want to believe; and the myopic ones can't see the that they exhibit the same bias as those they attack.

you contradict yourself here.

you say it would be a non story if he hadn't lied, then say there is no evidence that he lied...

 

also, I am not worried about theposters on here etc etc...im saying the guys doing the actual accusing are the ones with the political/business/personal beef with jordan.

 

i am myopic, but based on what I have seen, it appears to be a witch hunt toward jordan.

 

and again, i do agree, it is weird that everyone has already crucified strauss out of hand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have supported all of my positions, you simply refuse to accept them - nothing else left to say. Hope you are successful in wiping out yellow journalism.

 

 

I don't agree with them. Why would I then accept them? Worse, why would you think I should accept them when I don't agree with them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you contradict yourself here.

you say it would be a non story if he hadn't lied, then say there is no evidence that he lied...

 

also, I am not worried about theposters on here etc etc...im saying the guys doing the actual accusing are the ones with the political/business/personal beef with jordan.

 

i am myopic, but based on what I have seen, it appears to be a witch hunt toward jordan.

 

and again, i do agree, it is weird that everyone has already crucified strauss out of hand.

 

On the part of many, there is a supposition in place that he lied - indeed there is no evidence but, other than the supposition that all of tOSU's wrestling coaching staff would have been aware of a situation such as this, he lied. If one can accept that many believe that he lied, which I think is a fair assumption, then there is no contradiction.

 

You are right to see that there is a difference from the perspective of posters and other politicians. I don't disagree that there are any number of politicians that will endeavor to leverage this situation against Jordan - and that is sad on multiple levels. First, it is a ridiculous thing for an assistant coach to get called on the carpet for after 30 years (and I still haven't seen that happen in any new reports I've seen). Second, it was an unnecessary lie to tell (and yes, there is no evidence of a lie - just common sense piecing together a puzzle); Hellickson handled his statement well - Jordan did not. Third, if political enemies chew on this bone it is simply weak. As someone early in the thread said, "He's a politician - he's obligated to lie" (or something to that effect). As lies go, this was a pretty timid and innocuous one - why waste a good lie on something as trivial as this? 

 

So yes, Jordan has to defend himself from his political enemies, but he has previously done the same to his own enemies - he has been downright nasty on occasion. That doesn't mean posters have to swallow the bile politicians spew - some common sense goes a long way.

 

Geeezzz, I hope that perspective doesn't make me a commie rat, an alt rightist, or a liberal turd. It has nothing to do with my political beliefs but rather, it just makes common sense.

Edited by npope

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...