ADVERTISEMENT

The Ohio State Scandal - Urban Liars Tweet

What are the odds of exaggerated claims and/or flat out lies during contentious divorces when custody of young children and financial stakes are involved? I'm guessing it's pretty much 100% from both men and women (even if both believe their own truth).
C'mon man, I specifically addressed that in the part of my post that you edited out. There were claims of abuse long before divorce proceedings started.
 
When it comes to Buckeyes, Damn straight! There's no presumption of innocence in the court of public opinion. When you look at the number of spousal abusers vs. the number of wives who make false claims, particularly wives who are not involved yet in contentious divorces, then yeah, I'm willing to go with the odds. I know it doesn't take much to say it on a message board, but Zach Smith is a terrible, wretched human being. Urban Meyer knew it (even if he didn't know the full extent), and chose to keep him on as a teacher and leader of young men. That choice served the student-athletes poorly, and was a slap in the face to Courtney Smith, the wives of the entire coaching staff and every mother and father who is trying to raise a young man to respect women.

You have a point.

I don't know what had come over me, to staunch my Buck hating ways. It must be the summer heat.

Please carry on.
 
C'mon man, I specifically addressed that in the part of my post that you edited out. There were claims of abuse long before divorce proceedings started.

In 2009 there was a marital fight that was not abuse by Courtney Smith’s own words. Watch her interview.
 
You don't really believe that, do you?

She accused him of picking her up by her shirt after she woke him up and chased/pushed him out of the bedroom at 4:00. Her story is essentially identical to his story. He did not physically assault her based on the story of both of them. Watch the interviews of both and listen to what they (both) claimed actually happened.

This is terrible marriage stuff, but it does not sound like a man physically assaulting anyone.
 
She accused him of picking her up by her shirt after she woke him up and chased/pushed him out of the bedroom at 4:00. Her story is essentially identical to his story. He did not physically assault her based on the story of both of them. Watch the interviews of both and listen to what they (both) claimed actually happened.

This is terrible marriage stuff, but it does not sound like a man physically assaulting anyone.
She said that he threw her against the wall after picking her up by her shirt.
 
She said that he threw her against the wall after picking her up by her shirt.

An enraged pregnant woman (angry from giving husband’s coworker a ride home at 3:00 AM) wakes the man from sleep screaming at him and physically trying to remove him from his bed. While being physically attacked by his wife, the man lifts raging (pregnant) woman up by her shirt to extricate himself from an aggressive confrontation he did not initiate. Perhaps the woman slams into the wall as an inevitable side effect of bodies in motion...

The woman, being pregnant, tired, angry (about late night visitor), and generally upset because the next day was their 1 year wedding anniversary calls the cops.

There’s absolutely zero allegation by the woman that the man struck her although he did use his superior physical strength to mitigate (or hold at bay) a physical altercation started by the woman.

Husband and wife’s story of the event is remarkably similar. Wife woke the husband and started a physical confrontation because the husband was an insensitive Dick (coming home late with a coworker on the sofa). Husband picked up the wife to get the raging wife off him. Husband does not strike wife. Husband leaves room to let wife simmer down. Wife calls cops. The big question is how did the wife hit the wall? Slammed into it intentionally or merely a consequence of momentum caused by scrum infuriated by wife?

Both these people strike me as spazzes that should not be married to each other.
 
An enraged pregnant woman (angry from giving husband’s coworker a ride home at 3:00 AM) wakes the man from sleep screaming at him and physically trying to remove him from his bed. While being physically attacked by his wife, the man lifts raging (pregnant) woman up by her shirt to extricate himself from an aggressive confrontation he did not initiate. Perhaps the woman slams into the wall as an inevitable side effect of bodies in motion...

The woman, being pregnant, tired, angry (about late night visitor), and generally upset because the next day was their 1 year wedding anniversary calls the cops.

There’s absolutely zero allegation by the woman that the man struck her although he did use his superior physical strength to mitigate (or hold at bay) a physical altercation started by the woman.

Husband and wife’s story of the event is remarkably similar. Wife woke the husband and started a physical confrontation because the husband was an insensitive Dick (coming home late with a coworker on the sofa). Husband picked up the wife to get the raging wife off him. Husband does not strike wife. Husband leaves room to let wife simmer down. Wife calls cops. The big question is how did the wife hit the wall? Slammed into it intentionally or merely a consequence of momentum caused by scrum infuriated by wife?

Both these people strike me as spazzes that should not be married to each other.
K.
 
An enraged pregnant woman (angry from giving husband’s coworker a ride home at 3:00 AM) wakes the man from sleep screaming at him and physically trying to remove him from his bed. While being physically attacked by his wife, the man lifts raging (pregnant) woman up by her shirt to extricate himself from an aggressive confrontation he did not initiate. Perhaps the woman slams into the wall as an inevitable side effect of bodies in motion...

The woman, being pregnant, tired, angry (about late night visitor), and generally upset because the next day was their 1 year wedding anniversary calls the cops.

There’s absolutely zero allegation by the woman that the man struck her although he did use his superior physical strength to mitigate (or hold at bay) a physical altercation started by the woman.

Husband and wife’s story of the event is remarkably similar. Wife woke the husband and started a physical confrontation because the husband was an insensitive Dick (coming home late with a coworker on the sofa). Husband picked up the wife to get the raging wife off him. Husband does not strike wife. Husband leaves room to let wife simmer down. Wife calls cops. The big question is how did the wife hit the wall? Slammed into it intentionally or merely a consequence of momentum caused by scrum infuriated by wife?

Both these people strike me as spazzes that should not be married to each other.

You don’t put your hands on a woman. If she is the instigator, you get up and you walk out the door.
 
Yup, you reminded me that I need to stay on point. I hope Urban Meyer gets fired.

Yes, I fell in the same trap and found myself defending the indefensible. In this case, the end justifies the means, so let's ignore justice in this particular case and bring out the rope. If he wasn't guilty of something here, he surely was guilty of much else.

Plus firing Meyer will make the Buckeyes that much weaker. I approve.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MRCat95
You don’t put your hands on a woman. If she is the instigator, you get up and you walk out the door.

Come on Corbi, I think you're being a bit unfair. Do you ask the rooster not to crow? Do you ask a pig not to roll in the mud?

This is a Buckeye we are talking about here.
 
Yes, I fell in the same trap and found myself defending the indefensible. In this case, the end justifies the means, so let's ignore justice in this particular case and bring out the rope. If he wasn't guilty of something here, he surely was guilty of much else.

Plus firing Meyer will make the Buckeyes that much weaker. I approve.

What I typically see in any team fan board, are posters who feign bias based on issues of ethics and morality. I appreciate you being honest and admitting bias is the primary motivator.
 
You don’t put your hands on a woman. If she is the instigator, you get up and you walk out the door.

I have no problem arguing actual football issues, and even to what extent a coach has on the actions of his staff on their own time, as well as what actions should require intervention. I don't think it's appropriate to debate what technically constitutes domestic violence and what doesn't.
 
I have no problem arguing actual football issues, and even to what extent a coach has on the actions of his staff on their own time, as well as what actions should require intervention. I don't think it's appropriate to debate what technically constitutes domestic violence and what doesn't.

I don’t know all the facts so cannot and am not arguing he is guilty of domestic violence. All I am saying is the guy is a scumbag in my book because he physically manhandled his pregnant wife. That’s never acceptable. Tells me all I need to know about Mr. Smith.
 
I have no problem arguing actual football issues, and even to what extent a coach has on the actions of his staff on their own time, as well as what actions should require intervention. I don't think it's appropriate to debate what technically constitutes domestic violence and what doesn't.
How about manhandling a PREGNANT woman?
 
It will be good when all the facts come out and a less emotional perspective/decision can be arrived at. In today's environment, any perceived "insensitivity" to sexual harassment/abuse instantly calls for heads to roll, fair or not. What does this mean for the everyday manager that becomes aware that one of his employees is potentially a harasser/abuser - not at the place of employment but in their personal life? Is the manager and the employer now judge and jury outside the legal system? Seems to me to be a very slippery slope.
Really slippery. There are personnel policies that have to be followed and generally they do not extend outside of work. Especially when no actual charges filed. I think that the employee would have a solid case for wrongful termination. That said, if he did, he would likely be blackballed from future employment as he already might be. I have hear a rumor that she was the actual abuser so it gets really complicated
 
Last edited:
What if OSU stated “the cause” for termination? Could they be sued if that reason was false?

I’m not suggesting they did not have the right to fire him. Did they have the right to defame him?
If it could be proven, there could be a wrongful termination case. Rather than set themselves up for that they would likely offer a way out allowing the employee to leave on their own. In this case there might be a buyout.
 
Far be it from me to defend a Buckeye.

However, from what I understand:

1) Smith was called in by the AD presumably with Urban's knowledge to discuss the allegations
2) Meyer personally called him out and asked him wtf was going on, and told him he would be fired immediately if the allegations were true
3) Smith told Meyer he never hit his wife
4) The cops let Smith go - we can only presume there was no evidence (as alluded by Smith's comments that records would show what happened), but this begins to corroborate Smith's comments
5) Meyer lied later about no one having told him about the 2015 incident, but later recanted and apologized

I'm usually all for skipping the trial and hanging a Buckeye, but let's not jump to conclusions that Meyer willingly looked the other way here. It seems no charges were filed at the time of the incident and Meyer very well could have believed Smith that nothing criminal had happened.

To this day, Smith is denying hitting his wife and says the police records will support that.

I'm not saying Meyer is innocent (or Smith), but I do know people who have been shamelessly falsely accused by women with no sense of decency who hold a grudge. I was called into a bullshit sexual assault trial myself during college to testify as a witness as to what happened (or more precisely what I did not at all witness - though I was never called to the stand as the judge threw out the case before it got to me), so I know first hand this happens. And another friend of mine was falsely accused of rape at school, and his ex-girlfriend's sorority sister shared how the so called victim knowingly lied to get back at him and admitted it to her sisters, but well after the guy was kicked out of school. I don't know enough about what happened here to hang this Buckeye, and will allow the investigations including any criminal ones play their course before rushing to judgment.

If Smith did hit his wife, and Meyer knew it, then of course he should be fired. I'm not sure that's what happened here yet.
You can add in that there are rumors out there (supposedly from inside the program) that she was the actual abuser. How much would that complicate things? As you I am not an OSU supporter but people are awfully quick at grabbing their pitchforks.
 
4) The cops let Smith go - we can only presume there was no evidence (as alluded by Smith's comments that records would show what happened), but this begins to corroborate Smith's comments

That's one thing you could presume, but it's far from the "only" thing. You could just as easily presume that Smith said to the arresting officer, "C'mon man, you know how women are. I barely touched her. I was drunk and things got a little out of hand. Do me a solid here, and I'll get you a couple of 50-yard-line seats and maybe a autographed picture of JT Barrett."
He would not have been released without charging him if she had pressed charges. So the fact that they released him without charging him means she did not press charges or there was not the evidence to back it up or a combination of both
 
Just to get this straight, OSU could fire an employee and publicly state they did so because the employee was a pedophile even if he/she was not and avoid all exposure? That’s what “at will” employee means?
At will basically means that the relationship can be ended by either party for any reason. That said, the employer still has to follow their own HR policies. In addition, as a state employee, civil service rules may also be part of the equation.
 
The termination would be legal and then the university could be sued for defamation, the defense to which is truth.
Good luck with that. He would have a much better case with the Dept of Labor about wrongful discharge or payment of amounts remaining on his contract. OSU could avoid all this by just buying out his contract or coming to a mutually agreed upon settlement. Then OSU could just have said he was replaced because so and so became available. Happens all the time. Actual firing is much more messy. As it is Smith's career has pretty much been trashed and will have a hard time finding future employment. And I have heard rumors that she might be the actual abuser. At this point, I do not know what the full story is.
 
Not sure why you’re struggling to much with this....

Did he or did he not bring himself and/or his employer into public disrepute? Did he or did he not take part in an event or occurrence that had a material adverse effect on his employer?

We’re here posting about it, sooooo

And to be clear, I have no idea what his contract actually says...these are just generic terms. For all we know, his cause definition says that he can’t have any legal action filed against him at all.
Not in 2015.
 
I wonder if Smith would be considered a public figure, such that the Sullivan actual malice standard would apply. Actually, he's a public official - a managerial-level employee of a state institution - so he may qualify that way as well.

@MRCat95, my three-second check of Ohio state defamation law says that employers have qualified immunity against defamation claims, but 1) I don't know the contours of their state law, 2) the extent to which Sullivan would apply to a defamation claim in Ohio based on any state legislation they may have, or 3) if the information Google fetched me is accurate.

But the fact remains that OSU was completely within their rights to terminate him. The fact also remains that this is why most employers will not provide a reason for terminating (or not hiring) an employee, unless there is a specific cause. The burden is always on the plaintiff to prove a wrongful termination claim anyway, but there's no incentive for the employer to give grist for the mill. Just another baked-in advantage for employers in these situations.
Even if there is a specific cause, employers would not divulge it.
 
Even if there is a specific cause, employers would not divulge it.

Usually true. I was gonna get into all that but figured it was beyond the scope of the conversation.

Employers are definitely not incentivized to be transparent in hiring, promoting and firing decisions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FightNorthwestern
You can add in that there are rumors out there (supposedly from inside the program) that she was the actual abuser. How much would that complicate things? As you I am not an OSU supporter but people are awfully quick at grabbing their pitchforks.
Do you even think that this pregnant lady was an habitual abuser and not a former football player? Really?
 
He would not have been released without charging him if she had pressed charges. So the fact that they released him without charging him means she did not press charges or there was not the evidence to back it up or a combination of both
You do know that many abused woman are afraid to press charges because of fear of harm to themselves and/or their children, right?
 
You can add in that there are rumors out there (supposedly from inside the program) that she was the actual abuser. How much would that complicate things? As you I am not an OSU supporter but people are awfully quick at grabbing their pitchforks.

I did find it an interesting fact pattern that both the 2009 and 2015 events started with Courtney waking Zack up in the middle of the night and physical confronting him (2009 push him out of bed and 2015 to pour a chewing tobacco spitter can on him).
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT