Cleveland Buck;704173 wrote:First of all, if the email was from a U.S. attorney requesting confidentiality, then while Tressel should have talked to the legal team at OSU, it is much more understandable that he would think it best to keep it to himself for the time being. If it was the defense or some other attorney, then he really shouldn't have had second thoughts about talking to someone.

Second, while I can't find the emails anywhere, I read the report sent to the NCAA. This was their summary of the emails:

The e=mails discovered by the University indicated that the attorney initially e-mailed Coach Tressel on April 2, 2010, with information pertaining to football student-athletes' alleged visits to a local tattoo parlor. The email also indicated that the owner of the parlor possessed Ohio State football memorabilia, that one specific student-athlete may have been given free or reduced tattoo services, and that the owner of the parlor had a criminal background and was the subject of a criminal investigation. Coach Tressel replied, "I will get on it ASAP" in an email response om the same day.

The attorney e-mailed Coach Tressel again on April 16, 2010 with additional information, including that two student-athletes were selling their Championship rings. Coach Tressel e-mailed a reply of "keep me posted as to what I need to do, if anything."

Finally, on June 1, Coach Tressel initiated an e-mail to the attorney asking if the attorney had any additional names of football student-athletes involved in these activities. The attorney replied the same day that he did not have additional names. On June 6, Coach Tressel thanked the attorney for his response. No other e-mail correspondence between the attorney and Coach Tressel (or the attorney and any other football coaching staff member and other football administrative staff members) was discovered by the institution.

Whatever attorney it was, they sound like an idiot. Why they are giving Tressel this information I have no clue. He is not the players legal representation. Why would this attorney do that? It doesn't make sense.

queencitybuckeye;704169 wrote:Yes, but as a fan of another program, your opinion likely did not and would not have changed regardless of what was stated in the presser.

See, we all have opinions. That's yours. You're entitled to it.

dwccrew;704174 wrote:Regardless, the attorney was doling out priveleged information to a party that was not involved in the case. Ethics violation. And if it was already out there, why would he feel the need to inform just Tressel? Why not the AD or anyone else at the school? Why not family members of the players?

I agree with you that it was most likely already out there, the point I am making is that no matter if it was or not, this attonrey is not allowed to give Tressel fair warning.

It's not giving Tressel fair warning in their eyes, it's protecting their case against tattoo guy. Fair warning to Tress is ancillary.

ICEMAN59;704179 wrote:Two Huge Questions/Flaws with Tressel's Statements Today:

1) Why did he lie to OSU officials in December when school officials were first alerted to the Tat 5 situation? Gene Smith admitted that they interviewed Tress at that time (in December), yet Smith also stated they were not aware of Tressel's knowledge of the situation until being tipped off this January after the Bowl win . . . a full month later.

2) Why did Tress apparently forward the email to someone else . . . . despite his apparent overwhelming concern with confidentiality? Heck, if you're so concerned about confidentiality, but you're still going to share it with someone, that someone is obviously going to be an OSU official (head legal counsel for the school, AD or President) . . . not someone.

He's been a coach a long time, he knew better and knew who to report it to. His primary concern is upholding the integrity of the program, not taking a self-imposed oath of confidentiality.

And the line from Gee about being worried about Tress firing him . . . . obviously it was a joke, but it's pretty telling nonetheless.

As an OSU fan, this stinks . . . bad.

I must have missed that. Who did he forward an email to?

I really hope Fickell is made the HC for the first two games(or however long Tress is out).

elbuckeye28;704178 wrote:Think of the negative reaction people had to Kelly during the video incident this season. Although he probably could have prevented it, many were forming wild conclusions and blaming him, probably because he is the coach of ND. We usually perceive a situation the fits into our own worldview. I hear all the time from Michigan fans that Musberger is a closet Ohio State fan, then I hear the exact opposite from my fellow Ohio State fans.

I remember the negative reaction regarding the video incident and Kelly quite well. And my stance remains consistent.....take a wait and see approach. No hypocrisy here.

ICEMAN59;704179 wrote:Two Huge Questions/Flaws with Tressel's Statements Today:

1) Why did he lie to OSU officials in December when school officials were first alerted to the Tat 5 situation? Gene Smith admitted that they interviewed Tress at that time (in December), yet Smith also stated they were not aware of Tressel's knowledge of the situation until being tipped off this January after the Bowl win . . . a full month later.

2) Why did Tress apparently forward the email to someone else . . . . despite his apparent overwhelming concern with confidentiality? Heck, if you're so concerned about confidentiality, but you're still going to share it with someone, that someone is obviously going to be an OSU official (head legal counsel for the school, AD or President) . . . not someone.

He's been a coach a long time, he knew better and knew who to report it to. His primary concern is upholding the integrity of the program, not taking a self-imposed oath of confidentiality.

And the line from Gee about being worried about Tress firing him . . . . obviously it was a joke, but it's pretty telling nonetheless.

As an OSU fan, this stinks . . . bad.

Your 2 points are exactly what I am wondering. This is why I question this entire situation. Why did he withhold the information even after everything came to light? Leads me to believe his story is not 100% accurate. I couldn't imagine an attorney being that stupid and just informing Tressel with this info. just because his players were mentioned or involved somehow. Legally, it has nothing to do with Tressel.

killer_ewok;704141 wrote:As of right now, Tressel's character just took a hit outside of the OSU fan base. .

Every fan base has their opinons of opposing coaches. I am not sure that changes that much to be honest. I am sure outside of OSU, many fans dislike Tressel for one reason or another. Probably more so because of the success OSU has had under him more than anything.
Lets be honest, this whole tatoo thing, is what it is. Yes, its a violation. Players pocked a "few bucks" from their own personal items. People have their own opinions on that. I believe in following rules, no question. But I have also glanced at an NCAA booklet, and its quite ridiculous. Again, I was MUCH more upset with the Troy Smith crap, more upset when players get in trouble with the law, or if there were serious recruiting violations or money being exchanged from boosters. In my eyes, thats cheating to gain and advantage. I think the penalty of 5 games is excessive for what they did, selling something they own. Just my two cents. It is what it is and obviously, Tressel, the players and OSU are taking their hits, and rightfully so. But again, there are much worse things that fall under "cheating" . And the shame of it, many of those penalties are not as serious as what these are.

dwccrew;704187 wrote:Your 2 points are exactly what I am wondering. This is why I question this entire situation. Why did he withhold the information even after everything came to light? Leads me to believe his story is not 100% accurate. I couldn't imagine an attorney being that stupid and just informing Tressel with this info. just because his players were mentioned or involved somehow. Legally, it has nothing to do with Tressel.

Maybe the guy is a concerned fan and because the players weren't being investigated for drugs (and therefore not part of their investigation), he wanted to warn Tressel about the shady characters his idiot players were dealing with and what they were doing. I can't think of any other reason.

killer_ewok;704186 wrote:I remember the negative reaction regarding the video incident and Kelly quite well. And my stance remains consistent.....take a wait and see approach. No hypocrisy here.

I don't want you to think I'm attacking your opinion per se. I am just saying that those who disliked Tressel, Ohio State, Big Ten, etc. will only use this to confirm their preconceived notions, while likely discounting or forgetting anything positive. Just like everytime a player got arrested at Florida, everybody said they ran a dirty program, even though players get arrested everywhere.

ytownfootball;704183 wrote:It's not giving Tressel fair warning in their eyes, it's protecting their case against tattoo guy. Fair warning to Tress is ancillary.

Again, how is it protecting the case? Prior to the attorney informing Tressel, Tressel had no knowledge of the case. So why would he send an e-mail informing him and saying to keep it confidential? It makes no sense. The attorney just assumed that Tressel knew what was going on and thought to himself, "I better tell him what is going on and to keep all this information confidential."

Please explain to me how Tressel would have known anything if the attorney didn't inform him. And if the attorney assumed Tressel knew and decided to make him privvy to CONFIDENTIAL information within an ongoing case, explain to me how this isn't an ethics violation? Are you implying that the attorney assumed Tressel had information pertaining to this case? If that was the situation, then Tressel is still in violation of withholding information from the NCAA.

It sounds like the attorney was just giving him a tip about his players and asked not to say who told him and tressel figured if he kept it quite then his players would not be suspended by the NCAA and he could TRY for a national championship.He didn't report it until he was busted and then claims he was just looking out for the players.This is only the beginning of the downfall of buckeye football and there will be more violations announced and then he can say that he didn't know he was wrong not to report them.Pryor is just a thug, just like he was in high school.

se-alum;704185 wrote:I really hope Fickell is made the HC for the first two games(or however long Tress is out).

Early audition on whats to come when Tress is gone is my feeling.

centralbucksfan;704191 wrote:Every fan base has their opinons of opposing coaches. I am not sure that changes that much to be honest. I am sure outside of OSU, many fans dislike Tressel for one reason or another. Probably more so because of the success OSU has had under him more than anything.
Lets be honest, this whole tatoo thing, is what it is. Yes, its a violation. Players pocked a "few bucks" from their own personal items. People have their own opinions on that. I believe in following rules, no question. But I have also glanced at an NCAA booklet, and its quite ridiculous. Again, I was MUCH more upset with the Troy Smith crap, more upset when players get in trouble with the law, or if there were serious recruiting violations or money being exchanged from boosters. In my eyes, thats cheating to gain and advantage. I think the penalty of 5 games is excessive for what they did, selling something they own. Just my two cents. It is what it is and obviously, Tressel, the players and OSU are taking their hits, and rightfully so. But again, there are much worse things that fall under "cheating" . And the shame of it, many of those penalties are not as serious as what these are.

All I'm saying is I *think* that Tressel's rep took a bit of a hit outside of the OSU fan base. I think that's a pretty safe assumption. Nothing more, nothing less.

Cleveland Buck;704192 wrote:Maybe the guy is a concerned fan and because the players weren't being investigated for drugs (and therefore not part of their investigation), he wanted to warn Tressel about the shady characters his idiot players were dealing with and what they were doing. I can't think of any other reason.

I still see that as toting the ethical line for an attorney. Maybe it isn't an ethical violation, but I have to believe it would be brought up in front of a panel and investigated. Evidently Tressel was made privvy to confidential information regarding the case, this is a no-no.

elbuckeye28;704193 wrote:I don't want you to think I'm attacking your opinion per se. I am just saying that those who disliked Tressel, Ohio State, Big Ten, etc. will only use this to confirm their preconceived notions, while likely discounting or forgetting anything positive. Just like everytime a player got arrested at Florida, everybody said they ran a dirty program, even though players get arrested everywhere.

I won't argue with that.

dwccrew;704197 wrote:Again, how is it protecting the case? Prior to the attorney informing Tressel, Tressel had no knowledge of the case. So why would he send an e-mail informing him and saying to keep it confidential? It makes no sense. The attorney just assumed that Tressel knew what was going on and thought to himself, "I better tell him what is going on and to keep all this information confidential."

Please explain to me how Tressel would have known anything if the attorney didn't inform him. And if the attorney assumed Tressel knew and decided to make him privvy to CONFIDENTIAL information within an ongoing case, explain to me how this isn't an ethics violation? Are you implying that the attorney assumed Tressel had information pertaining to this case? If that was the situation, then Tressel is still in violation of withholding information from the NCAA.

I know what you're saying crew, I really do LOl...

The players were involved to the point where they could possibly become a hindrance to the investigation and thereby be collateral damage. So this attorney sends him a "cease and desist" letter to get them out of the way and protect their case. That really is the best way I can explain it.

I think the key to all of JT's actions is that he said he was scared.

I believe him.

You get information from an attorney telling you that some of your players are on the periphery of an on-going federal drug investigation (not involved, but dealing with someone who is the subject of that investigation).

Then the attorney asks for you to maintain confidentiality (assuming here) until the investigation is complete.

My first thought would be: shit, I've possibly got some players hanging out with a guy who is the subject of a federal drug probe. If I say anything to anyone, it gets out and my guys might end up in the middle of something far worse. Someone might think they were giving the feds information, and they might be in danger. Drug dealers have been known to kill people who give information to the police, after all.

So JT sits on this and says nothing. Not even when it's brought up in December. He's probably relieved his guys aren't involved in criminal activity, but mad they were so stupid. He thinks the whole thing is over and is relieved nobody got hurt.

Then in January, during meetings about this case, JT mentions the e-mail he got and OSU realizes they have an infraction on their hands. They contact the NCAA right away and are working on putting together a self report, penalties, etc. when Yahoo's story forces the whole thing public before they have finished what they were doing.

Everything gets pushed forward very fast.

I watched the presser and JT was obviously really down about this. You can tell he feels awful, and I don't think it's because he is losing $250,000 or being benched for at least two games. I think he feels bad for having brought anything bad down on the university, his program and the team.

Having said that, I think the penalties fit the "crime" here and don't see why the NCAA would want more blood from this, all things considered.

Unless there is something we're not aware of (yet), I'm hopeful that this will be the final disposition and -- honestly -- I can live with it.

Writerbuckeye;704211 wrote:I think the key to all of JT's actions is that he said he was scared.

I believe him.

You get information from an attorney telling you that some of your players are on the periphery of an on-going federal drug investigation (not involved, but dealing with someone who is the subject of that investigation).

Then the attorney asks for you to maintain confidentiality (assuming here) until the investigation is complete.

My first thought would be: shit, I've possibly got some players hanging out with a guy who is the subject of a federal drug probe. If I say anything to anyone, it gets out and my guys might end up in the middle of something far worse. Someone might think they were giving the feds information, and they might be in danger. Drug dealers have been known to kill people who give information to the police, after all.

So JT sits on this and says nothing. Not even when it's brought up in December. He's probably relieved his guys aren't involved in criminal activity, but mad they were so stupid. He thinks the whole thing is over and is relieved nobody got hurt.

Then in January, during meetings about this case, JT mentions the e-mail he got and OSU realizes they have an infraction on their hands. They contact the NCAA right away and are working on putting together a self report, penalties, etc. when Yahoo's story forces the whole thing public before they have finished what they were doing.

Everything gets pushed forward very fast.

I watched the presser and JT was obviously really down about this. You can tell he feels awful, and I don't think it's because he is losing $250,000 or being benched for at least two games. I think he feels bad for having brought anything bad down on the university, his program and the team.

Having said that, I think the penalties fit the "crime" here and don't see why the NCAA would want more blood from this, all things considered.

Unless there is something we're not aware of (yet), I'm hopeful that this will be the final disposition and -- honestly -- I can live with it.

As of right now, these are my exact thoughts as well.

ytownfootball;704116 wrote:Web...Jesus...ongoing investigations of any kind, federal or not usually require sealed lips.

Look, Mr. Know-it-all. It's not as straight forward as you think. If it required sealed lips, and the players were not part of the wrong doing, then they wouldn't have said anything to Tress until the investigation was done.

But I don't know why anyone here is discussing this when we have ytown to tell us all how it went down.

ytownfootball;704209 wrote:I know what you're saying crew, I really do LOl...

The players were involved to the point where they could possibly become a hindrance to the investigation and thereby be collateral damage. So this attorney sends him a "cease and desist" letter to get them out of the way and protect their case. That really is the best way I can explain it.

LOL and I get what you are saying. I guess what I am getting at is why would an attorney be so stupid to do this. I understand what his motives may have been, but what a moron for just assuming that Tressel knew. If that was his thought process, he should have sent e-mails to everyone associated with the players (family members, teammates, teachers, etc.) and the tattoo shop.

Writerbuckeye;704211 wrote:I think the key to all of JT's actions is that he said he was scared.

I believe him.

You get information from an attorney telling you that some of your players are on the periphery of an on-going federal drug investigation (not involved, but dealing with someone who is the subject of that investigation).

Then the attorney asks for you to maintain confidentiality (assuming here) until the investigation is complete.

My first thought would be: shit, I've possibly got some players hanging out with a guy who is the subject of a federal drug probe. If I say anything to anyone, it gets out and my guys might end up in the middle of something far worse. Someone might think they were giving the feds information, and they might be in danger. Drug dealers have been known to kill people who give information to the police, after all.

So JT sits on this and says nothing. Not even when it's brought up in December. He's probably relieved his guys aren't involved in criminal activity, but mad they were so stupid. He thinks the whole thing is over and is relieved nobody got hurt.

Then in January, during meetings about this case, JT mentions the e-mail he got and OSU realizes they have an infraction on their hands. They contact the NCAA right away and are working on putting together a self report, penalties, etc. when Yahoo's story forces the whole thing public before they have finished what they were doing.

Everything gets pushed forward very fast.

I watched the presser and JT was obviously really down about this. You can tell he feels awful, and I don't think it's because he is losing $250,000 or being benched for at least two games. I think he feels bad for having brought anything bad down on the university, his program and the team.

Having said that, I think the penalties fit the "crime" here and don't see why the NCAA would want more blood from this, all things considered.

Unless there is something we're not aware of (yet), I'm hopeful that this will be the final disposition and -- honestly -- I can live with it.

Sorry, but you're delusional . . . you get that info and you immediately consult your boss or university counsel . . . you can share with them your concerns for confidentiality if you like. And you most certainly don't share it with someone else . . . other than them. Your university will make a decision on what to do with that info . . . that is their job, not yours. But then again, when the OSU President jokes about Tressel firing him, it's really hard to tell who's running what.

Then, when asked about it in December, when you know it is the subject of an NCAA investigation and your season and program's integrity are at stake, you answer honestly the questions posed to you by your university and your superiors.

I'm an OSU fan, but not a blind one.

WebFire;704221 wrote:Look, Mr. Know-it-all. It's not as straight forward as you think. If it required sealed lips, and the players were not part of the wrong doing, then they wouldn't have said anything to Tress until the investigation was done.

But I don't know why anyone here is discussing this when we have ytown to tell us all how it went down.

Don't be mad web, I actually like you...for a Michigan guy.

dwccrew;704224 wrote:LOL and I get what you are saying. I guess what I am getting at is why would an attorney be so stupid to do this. I understand what his motives may have been, but what a moron for just assuming that Tressel knew. If that was his thought process, he should have sent e-mails to everyone associated with the players (family members, teammates, teachers, etc.) and the tattoo shop.

I don't think so, I think the attorney's thought was that he (Tressel) could get them (players) out of the way with very little risk to their investigation.

If you're right, it bodes much better for Tressel anyway...federal attorney fuck up, what the hell is he supposed to do?

ICEMAN59;704227 wrote:Sorry, but you're delusional . . . you get that info and you immediately consult your boss or university counsel . . . you can share with them your concerns for confidentiality if you like. And you most certainly don't share it with someone else . . . other than them. Your university will make a decision on what to do with that info . . . that it their job, not yours. But then again, when the OSU President jokes about Tressel firing him, it's really hard to tell who's running what.

Then, when asked about it in December, when you know it is the subject of an NCAA investigation and your season and program's integrity are at stake, you answer honestly the questions posed to you by your university and your superiors.

I'm an OSU fan, but not a blind one.

He screwed the pooch by not seeking council, my only concern really.