Jump to content
dmm53

Flo's silence on the Ohio State accusations & Jim Jordan story

Recommended Posts

Unfortunately pre-Catholic Church Scandal this is how this type of stuff was handled. Relieve people of their duties, eliminate contact, etc. People seldom reported it to law enforcement. The view that it is embarrassing to the institution was never something that I understood. If OSU comes out and says this guy was inappropriate and we prosecuted him, to me makes them look like heroes. Shuffling it along is what makes you look bad. 

 

I hope big institutions learn that they can't protect their reputation by hiding incidents. Incidents don't define you it is how you handle them that it important.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

several lies in your assessment

 

Such as?  The "100 plus" is absolutely fact as is the fact that people are testifying in court about it.  Jordan's initial response when he heard about it was to deny any knowledge of the abuse and claim that it was a political hit job (even though wrestlers make up just a fraction of the abused).  That also is a fact.  So please tell me what the lies were in my post. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this is a fair analysis, but it is a developing story and journalists have an obligation to cover it.  I think the problem that Flo has is not that it will take a side (as an objective news source, unless it is publishing an op-ed piece, it should remain completely objective), but that it won't take a side.

 

Following the discussions over the last several weeks, our community seems to be divided into two major camps: the first, the Jordan supporters who find it incredible anyone could believe anything by DiSabito, Yetts, Coleman, etc.; and second, the Jordan detractors who cannot believe that so many people, not all of them even wrestlers, could all be lying.  Both these camps cannot believe anyone with any sense would believe the other, and if Flo were to present both sides of the situation both sides would be pissed that Flo did not take a side (namely theirs).  A third camp, which I would profess to be part of, is taking in all the evidence and trying to make logical sense of everything and awaiting a full collection of evidence to make any final judgments, and that could be months or more away.

 

 

This is exactly my point - save judgement when the truth is out. 

 

Flo can still analyze the story. There are lots of ways to talk about the situation without taking sides.

 

Flo is staffed with former wrestlers and experts with firsthand exposure to the way that many college wrestling programs around the country are administered. They also have their finger on the pulse of elite prep-level wrestling and could discuss how the case is impacting recruiting and perception among their prospects & commits, given all the unknowns atm. I think Flo could definitely offer up perspectives on the story that few others in the media can.

 

Not really....see Jason Bryant's post below

 

It really is a no-win situation from a journalistic standpoint. I've included numerous links in my daily newsletter from various outlets. No matter what story is clicked in, there's an assumption by either side there is bias. The way our news cycle works, no matter what the source, people are going to find a stance that aligns with their beliefs. 

 

I'm careful to put stuff that leans too far left or too far right in the way that news is distributed, but it's still even prompted a reader or two of the newsletter to make an assumption of where I align politically (truth: I hate politics, so I don't align anywhere) based on the links I'm including. 

 

It's tough for any outlet in wrestling to look at this situation without a bias, whether it be siding with a wrestler in congress or against a congressman who is opposite of our political views. I've stayed away from it, also from a personal standpoint because one of the accusers has publicly and personally attacked me in the past. 

 

 

 

Agreed - No win - bias can be found in one word in a 4 page article then you have taken a side. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not the job of journalists to "win". Their job is to inform and report the truth. Even if the story is still playing out, there are ways to clearly convey what is known and what the open questions are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Such as?  The "100 plus" is absolutely fact as is the fact that people are testifying in court about it.  Jordan's initial response when he heard about it was to deny any knowledge of the abuse and claim that it was a political hit job (even though wrestlers make up just a fraction of the abused).  That also is a fact.  So please tell me what the lies were in my post. 

" he claimed he had absolutely no idea that anything at all was going on" and "called the wrestlers liars."

"Nobody is naming him as a defendant in the case or anything like that." 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is exactly my point - save judgement when the truth is out. 

 

 

Not really....see Jason Bryant's post below

 

 

Agreed - No win - bias can be found in one word in a 4 page article then you have taken a side. 

....and possibly lost a good majority of readership/viewership, depending on political view

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

" he claimed he had absolutely no idea that anything at all was going on" and "called the wrestlers liars."

"Nobody is naming him as a defendant in the case or anything like that." 

 

To your first thing that you are claiming is a lie.  Here's two quotes from Jim Jordan from when this first broke.  I'll link to the full article in case you'd like to read it.

 

 

“I never saw, never heard of, never was told about any kind of abuse,” said Mr. Jordan

 

“What bugs me the most,” he said, “is that these athletes who you spent so much time with are saying things that just are not true.”

 

 

To your second point.  I'm unaware of him being named as a defendant in any court cases surrounding these accusations.  Since you are claiming that he is, can you point it out?  

Edited by ThatLogSchuteWasCarrying

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To your first thing that you are claiming is a lie.  Here's two quotes from Jim Jordan from when this first broke.  I'll link to the full article in case you'd like to read it.

 

 

 

 

To your second point.  I'm unaware of him being named as a defendant in any court cases surrounding these accusations.  Since you are claiming that he is, can you point it out?  

you may be in over your head on this one bud.  Saying something is untrue or not accurate and calling them liars are two different in my opinion, regardless at least two of them are liars.  Your quoted statement  only says he knew of no abuse.  Your statement in your post said he didnt know anything at all, which is a lie.  Jordan has said that there was locker room talk.

You can google the lawsuit, he has been named ,maybe even two of them.  Not sure about being named as a defendant, but that is not what you said.  you said....or anything like that.  

 

Curious to see which court these 100 accusers have testified in.  Can you give me any more info where I can find this testimony? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you may be in over your head on this one bud. Saying something is untrue or not accurate and calling them liars are two different in my opinion, regardless at least two of them are liars. Your quoted statement only says he knew of no abuse. Your statement in your post said he didnt know anything at all, which is a lie. Jordan has said that there was locker room talk.

You can google the lawsuit, he has been named ,maybe even two of them. Not sure about being named as a defendant, but that is not what you said. you said....or anything like that.

 

Curious to see which court these 100 accusers have testified in. Can you give me any more info where I can find this testimony?

He said “locker room talk is different than abuse,” but when asked if he heard the locker room talk he said no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He said “locker room talk is differnt than abuse,” but when asked if he heard the locker room talk he said no.

give me the time in the video where he said he heard no locker room talk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you may be in over your head on this one bud.  Saying something is untrue or not accurate and calling them liars are two different in my opinion, regardless at least two of them are liars.  Your quoted statement  only says he knew of no abuse.  Your statement in your post said he didnt know anything at all, which is a lie.  Jordan has said that there was locker room talk.

You can google the lawsuit, he has been named ,maybe even two of them.  Not sure about being named as a defendant, but that is not what you said.  you said....or anything like that.  

 

Curious to see which court these 100 accusers have testified in.  Can you give me any more info where I can find this testimony? 

 

I clearly made a mistake by assuming you were posting in good faith.  My mistake. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Who knows what Jordan should have/could have done at that time. Given the circumstances, who knows what they themselves would have done?  But Jordan has dug himself a bit of a hole.  Don't think it will hurt his career, but maybe he can learn something about truthiness.

 

Jordan ignoring truth becomes more frequent the longer he's in DC, just watch the Rosenstein interview.  

Edited by stp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not the job of journalists to "win". Their job is to inform and report the truth. Even if the story is still playing out, there are ways to clearly convey what is known and what the open questions are.

 

 

How can you report the truth when it is not known? 

Look at all the posts on this very thread where people seem to know the facts and have a position and fight about it. Do you think Flo, if they are legit journalism, will enter the same fray. It would be unwise of them to do so. 

Sure - clearly report the facts - as I said from the beginning you then just have a story that has all the same info as any other news outlet. If it makes people feel better that the facts as regurgitated are on wrestling site, then so be it. Flo doesn't need to take a position on something controversial that has no revealed truth to it yet. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because "the truth" isn't a binary, all-or-nothing set.

 

Here's what is alleged.

Here's what each side has said.

Here's what we know this far - about the program, about the school, about what has happened recently in other investigations of this sort.

Here are the open questions.

Here's what we see at other programs.

Here's what alumni and recruits have been reacting.

etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How can you report the truth when it is not known? 

Look at all the posts on this very thread where people seem to know the facts and have a position and fight about it. Do you think Flo, if they are legit journalism, will enter the same fray. It would be unwise of them to do so. 

Sure - clearly report the facts - as I said from the beginning you then just have a story that has all the same info as any other news outlet. If it makes people feel better that the facts as regurgitated are on wrestling site, then so be it. Flo doesn't need to take a position on something controversial that has no revealed truth to it yet. 

 

But isn't that the exact reason we hear about reporters always wanting the "scoop" and rushing back to the office get the story out before anyone else? Seriously, the money comes from "breaking" the news, which stands independently from editorializing on the news. It can be news without it having a bias. So report the news (which Flo has not) without bias. Instead Flo has just stood on the sideline on this significant issue that relates to wrestling. Not a good look at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good to see some compassion on a forum. This is close to being a political issue as well as a social issue because of Jordan's position in the House. But it probably shouldn't be. Jordan's camp has circled the wagons and is apparently applying pressure on people in a position to know what went on to keep their mouths shut. Jordan's knee jerk reaction was to deny, deny. But now that denial is coming back to bite him on the butt.

 

Some of the witnesses to this sordid mess make a very good case that Jordan MUST have known about what was going on since it was often discussed in the locker room. A couple of wrestlers who are his strong political supporters gave very convincing statements that Jordan's must have had knowledge of what was gong on.

 

Who knows what Jordan should have/could have done at that time. Given the circumstances, who knows what they themselves would have done? But Jordan has dug himself a bit of a hole. Don't think it will hurt his career, but maybe he can learn something about truthiness.

Exactly.

 

I am not a Jordan fan politically, but that does not factor in here. I don’t care what someone’s political affiliations are when we are talking about abuse, covering up abuse, etc.

 

This is something we should all come together on, no matter what our political opinions are. I absolutely feel the same way about people I agree with politically too. This is an issue where we all have to be consistent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

give me the time in the video where he said he heard no locker room talk

https://youtu.be/GLcAkgRE-kQ

 

7:05

 

Baier “Did you hear it in the locker room?”

 

Jordan: “No”

 

He tries to follow that up with “...no type of abuse” but that wasn’t the question that was asked. And then also says no to the question immediately following asking if he heard about anything that wouldn’t have been abuse then but would be now.

 

I’m not sure if you’re trolling or what, but obviously the many wrestlers that are speaking up about Strauss’s actions being well known in the locker room seem to think he’s denying knowing anything about anything.

 

Actually here was a new one from a couple days ago, Rocky Ratliff -https://abc6onyourside.com/news/local/exclusive-former-osu-wrestlers-speak-out-about-abuse-from-dr-richard-strauss

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Jordan: “No”

 

7:05

 

Baier “Did you hear it in the locker room?”

 

He tries to follow that up with “...no type of abuse” but that wasn’t the question that was asked. And then also says no to the question immediately following asking if he heard about anything that wouldn’t have been abuse then but would be now.

 

I’m not sure if you’re trolling or what, but obviously the many wrestlers that are speaking up about Strauss’s actions being well known in the locker room seem to think he’s denying knowing anything about anything.

 

Actually here was a new one from a couple days ago, Rocky Ratliff -https://abc6onyourside.com/news/local/exclusive-former-osu-wrestlers-speak-out-about-abuse-from-dr-richard-strauss

 

I do appreciate you looking this up, this is where I thought you were talking about.

 

 

prior answer:

Jordan: Conversations in the locker room are a lot different than some one coming up and saying there was some kind of abuse"

 

next question:

Baier “Did you hear it in the locker room?”

 

Jordan: “No, no abuse"           

he didnt "try" to follow up with it, he actually did say this one sentence.... since the prior answer was about abuse one can assume "it" meant abuse.  but you would have to ask Baier what he meant by "it".

 

 

Where does Jordan deny he heard "any" locker room talk.  Just did not happen.

Others on here said Jordan denies hearing anything about anything .....Where does he say that?  

 

 

I absolutely am not trolling on this.  I have only defended what Jordan has said.in his own words, not what others have said or such as you, only pulling out  certain words that fit in their narative.  Others have chose to misquote, misrepresent  outright lie on what Jordan has said .   I understand the pressure Liberals feel about hJordan getting speakership, but to act just like the person they so much despise is extreme hypocrisy.

Edited by tbert

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Call me old fashioned, I'd prefer that Flo, Intermat, etc. stick to commentating and creating content strictly related to wrestling.  I'm not paying for my Flo subscription to receive a lesson in opinion sharing or "story development".  I don't want sensationalism to overtake our sport.  Learning about "how" Snyder's background and his upbringing contributed to what he has become?  Awesome!  Reporting on the 125 Redshirt report and who the next up n' comer is?  AWESOME!  Reporting on the upcoming wrestle off with Maroulis/(sorry, name escapes me), AWESOME!  

 

Providing opinion pieces on stories that have yet to be factually supported/refuted... NO THANK YOU.  We have the horrible media choices that we have today to provde all the opinion (and strong ones at that) to do so.

 

Keep the "politics" out of the sport, or it will help kill the sport.  (see other sports that have become politicized)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

7:05

 

Baier “Did you hear it in the locker room?”

 

Jordan: “No”

 

He tries to follow that up with “...no type of abuse” but that wasn’t the question that was asked. And then also says no to the question immediately following asking if he heard about anything that wouldn’t have been abuse then but would be now.

 

I’m not sure if you’re trolling or what, but obviously the many wrestlers that are speaking up about Strauss’s actions being well known in the locker room seem to think he’s denying knowing anything about anything.

 

Actually here was a new one from a couple days ago, Rocky Ratliff -https://abc6onyourside.com/news/local/exclusive-former-osu-wrestlers-speak-out-about-abuse-from-dr-richard-strauss

You can destroy Yetts' rep pretty easily, but Ratliff is a very intelligent guy, a lawyer now practicing law in the Columbus area, financially secure and a pretty upstanding guy from all accounts.  Have known him a long time--does not fit the MO of the serial-lying panhandler looking for a payday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Where does Jordan deny he heard "any" locker room talk.  Just did not happen.

Others on here said Jordan denies hearing anything about anything .....Where does he say that?  

 

 

It was in another interview. So, that's your plan for engaging in this discussion - challenge specific individual posters to show you exactly where something was stated/written and then once they do, without any evident change in your thinking/position, you move on to the next point you want verified?  Why should people waste their time with such conversations with you? Really. Do you think they live to provide evidence of specific statements merely for you to then say "Okay, but what about that one over there?"

 

For the record, I am the one who stated that Jordan said he "didn't hear anything about anything." But it wasn't said in the video clip in question - it was a different clip and I am not inclined to wade through the many online snippets of Jordan speaking to this issue to locate the moment he says it; report it to you; and then have you turn around and say, "Well, what about..." It is a waste of other people's time to engage you on this issue.

Edited by npope

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...