menu
Logo
99+
Bobcat Attack Menu
Logo
99+
Ohio Football Topic
Topic: Concerning story from The Post
Page: 3 of 6
mail
OhioCatFan
7/16/2017 4:31 PM
BobcatSports wrote:expand_more
I'll say it again and again and again why the ragging on the GWC is about continues to baffle me. I had nothing but respect and admiration for such a group of loyal, hardworking,supportive volunteers that provided exceptional value and service to OHIO athletics.
Not sure what you mean about ragging. I'm simply stating what the stance of the AD Office was as communicated to the GWC board. I thought the GWC did a great job and it seemed to be appreciated by its many members and the general OHIO fan base.
mail
person
BillyTheCat
7/16/2017 10:37 PM
OhioCatFan wrote:expand_more
The NCAA doesn't care about the Ozone. . . .


You'd be surprised about what the NCAA cares about. According to Schaus and company they cared about the now defunct GWC. They are concerned about any group that they consider an "outside booster organization." Since, as I understand it, the Ozone is not run by the university but is technically an independent student booster organization, I believe the NCAA would want to monitor it. I've been told that the NCAA's paperwork for D-1 programs rivals the IRS in complexity and incomprehensibility.

I've been in contact recently with several people very close to this situation, and I believe Drake acted very honorably in every thing he did. I think he's leaving with his good name intact, and I would not rule out that he could get another job at OHIO at some time in the future when this whole episode is put in proper perspective. I'm confident that an objective analysis of this situation a few years down the road will look a lot different than it does today. Things are often seen more clearly in retrospect than in the heat of the moment. Again, Drake acted honorably and in the best interests of OHIO. He is still and will always be an OHIO man!
If the NCAA had any concern about the Green and White Club, that's news to me. Our books were annually audited with no findings - ever.
You were apparently not at the board meeting when we were told that the NCAA had issues with "outside booster groups," which we were considered to be. The OBC, controlled by the university, is the much desired type of booster organization from the perspective of the NCAA.
And if you believe what you were told in that meeting you are more gullible than I thought. The department was just like any business and sold a line that benefits their agenda. In OHIO Athletics case it was taking the money from the GWC and steering it and its membership to the OBC.
mail
person
BillyTheCat
7/17/2017 9:50 AM
The ANews story today, with excerpts from the prosecutors report to which Mr Bolen pleaded guilty paints a different story than some on here want to believe.
mail
person
catfan28
7/17/2017 10:14 AM
The story is ridiculous. Absolutely no money taken. But then again, it's the Athens News. They publish whatever they want.
mail
UpSan Bobcat
7/17/2017 10:33 AM
catfan28 wrote:expand_more
The story is ridiculous. Absolutely no money taken. But then again, it's the Athens News. They publish whatever they want.
It's attributed to the prosecutor, so don't be mad at The Athens News for relaying what he said unless they were mistaken about what he actually said.
Last Edited: 7/17/2017 10:34:22 AM by UpSan Bobcat
mail
person
BillyTheCat
7/17/2017 1:56 PM
UpSan Bobcat wrote:expand_more
The story is ridiculous. Absolutely no money taken. But then again, it's the Athens News. They publish whatever they want.
It's attributed to the prosecutor, so don't be mad at The Athens News for relaying what he said unless they were mistaken about what he actually said.
Agreed UpSan

It's actually from the document that the person plead guilty to. So by his own admission there is guilt, and the $6k is clearly stated as reimbursement for missing money.
mail
person
Bobcat Love
7/17/2017 5:32 PM
So if Mr. Blackburn was so steadfast that Drake stole the $6,000 - why did he let him plea down to the documents charge? His comment makes it seem like an open and shut case of theft. If I was the Prosecutor and had the confidence to make these comments - I'd certainly push for a trial, although maybe he thinks he got his man with the felony plea instead of any kind of misdemeanor. Onward...

Frankly, (IMO) I think Drake did alter records and mess with the O-zone logs and names....in a completely administrative, non-malicious, and non-felonious manner. Based on everything I've heard and read, I think he was the victim of poor historical record keeping and not wanting to disappoint his Superiors with incomplete or late NCAA forms. Unfortunately the bad decision to do this has long standing, harsh consequences.

In no way do I think he knowingly stole money, skimmed, embezzled, or did anything remotely mischievous as it relates to the funds in question. Until I see more proof that he stole from the University - that's my position.

Maybe it is criminal if you put "Harry Bush" or "Phil McCracken" as O-zone freshman members, but certainly not felonious.

Again, all of this bears the question how this was allowed to go on for 2 years while the investigation was in process. Where are Jim Schaus and Ryan White's comments on this matter? Do they not bear some responsibility for oversight as the forms in question that started this process were compliance related for the NCAA?

Right now I'm left with more questions than answers.

LOVE

PS - If any of your wives sell Rodan and Fields, feel free to never speak to me again.
mail
The Optimist
7/17/2017 10:53 PM
I agree with Love. I've been trying very hard to avoid comment until more facts come to light, but every detail that has been released so far has only led to more questions in my head, not less.

Something doesn't add up.

http://abc6onyourside.com/investigators/state-audit-launc...

Who is the real felon here?
mail
person
rpbobcat
7/18/2017 6:50 AM
I understand the philosophy of pleading guilty to a crime to "make it go away".

But,the language used by the prosecutor,quoted in the Athens News article,is specific,at least as it pertains to the issue of the $6000.00.

The prosecutor used the word "steal".

I would think that,if as some on the board have said,the restitution was to cover costs,that the language would have been something along the lines of "reimburse the University for the costs associated with their investigation".
mail
shabamon
7/18/2017 10:24 AM
If he truly didn't steal any money, wouldn't Drake now have grounds for a libel suit? Or did that go out the door once he pled guilty?
Last Edited: 7/18/2017 10:24:15 AM by shabamon
mail
person
catfan28
7/18/2017 11:02 AM
shabamon wrote:expand_more
If he truly didn't steal any money, wouldn't Drake now have grounds for a libel suit? Or did that go out the door once he pled guilty?
I can tell you his attorneys are working on a retraction from the paper. If one isn't issued, that could be a possibility it sounds like.
mail
person
L.C.
7/18/2017 4:36 PM
The story in the Athens News is not the same as it was when originally posted http://www.thepostathens.com/article/2017/07/drake-bolon-...
mail
person
BillyTheCat
7/18/2017 5:02 PM
The Optimist wrote:expand_more
I agree with Love. I've been trying very hard to avoid comment until more facts come to light, but every detail that has been released so far has only led to more questions in my head, not less.

Something doesn't add up.

http://abc6onyourside.com/investigators/state-audit-launc...

Who is the real felon here?
This was reviewed and found to be 100% within the law by the State Auditor and Attorney General.
mail
person
BillyTheCat
7/18/2017 5:07 PM
catfan28 wrote:expand_more
If he truly didn't steal any money, wouldn't Drake now have grounds for a libel suit? Or did that go out the door once he pled guilty?
I can tell you his attorneys are working on a retraction from the paper. If one isn't issued, that could be a possibility it sounds like.
Retract what? If the quote is valid from the prosecutor then the issue is with him and not a news paper.
mail
person
L.C.
7/18/2017 6:14 PM
BillyTheCat wrote:expand_more
Retract what? If the quote is valid from the prosecutor then the issue is with him and not a news paper.

The quote has been removed from the online version of the article.
mail
person
BillyTheCat
7/18/2017 6:48 PM
L.C. wrote:expand_more
Retract what? If the quote is valid from the prosecutor then the issue is with him and not a news paper.

The quote has been removed from the online version of the article.
Well then that changes things.
mail
person
L.C.
7/18/2017 7:48 PM
There is also a retraction on one point. The correction is that he was not arrested. It is now silent on the theft issue. It changes things, but to what?
Last Edited: 7/18/2017 7:54:20 PM by L.C.
mail
OhioCatFan
7/18/2017 9:32 PM
BillyTheCat wrote:expand_more
If he truly didn't steal any money, wouldn't Drake now have grounds for a libel suit? Or did that go out the door once he pled guilty?
I can tell you his attorneys are working on a retraction from the paper. If one isn't issued, that could be a possibility it sounds like.
Retract what? If the quote is valid from the prosecutor then the issue is with him and not a news paper.
You know your football rules, but you don't know libel law. A paper is still liable for libel even if they correctly quote an official who is making a false statement. Now, if the person being talked about (the potential plaintiff) is a public official that's another story altogether, but Drake is unlikely as the facts have developed so far in this case to be ruled a public official within the scope of Times v. Sullivan or its progeny. Ironically, it is probably the prosecutor who is shielded in this situation from a legal remedy by a potential plaintiff if he was speaking in his official capacity. In that case, he has at least a qualified if not an absolute privilege and can't be successfully sued even though his statement is false. I'm not prejudging this situation, just pointing out the relevant defamation law, which is widely misunderstood.
Last Edited: 7/18/2017 11:04:02 PM by OhioCatFan
mail
person
BillyTheCat
7/19/2017 6:50 AM
OhioCatFan wrote:expand_more
If he truly didn't steal any money, wouldn't Drake now have grounds for a libel suit? Or did that go out the door once he pled guilty?
I can tell you his attorneys are working on a retraction from the paper. If one isn't issued, that could be a possibility it sounds like.
Retract what? If the quote is valid from the prosecutor then the issue is with him and not a news paper.
You know your football rules, but you don't know libel law. A paper is still liable for libel even if they correctly quote an official who is making a false statement. Now, if the person being talked about (the potential plaintiff) is a public official that's another story altogether, but Drake is unlikely as the facts have developed so far in this case to be ruled a public official within the scope of Times v. Sullivan or its progeny. Ironically, it is probably the prosecutor who is shielded in this situation from a legal remedy by a potential plaintiff if he was speaking in his official capacity. In that case, he has at least a qualified if not an absolute privilege and can't be successfully sued even though his statement is false. I'm not prejudging this situation, just pointing out the relevant defamation law, which is widely misunderstood.
What I do know is that the paper would have had to publish "knowingly" false information to meet that standards. Seeing how this was an attributed quote, it would be unlikely that such a burden could be reached.
mail
OhioCatFan
7/19/2017 10:44 AM
BillyTheCat wrote:expand_more
If he truly didn't steal any money, wouldn't Drake now have grounds for a libel suit? Or did that go out the door once he pled guilty?
I can tell you his attorneys are working on a retraction from the paper. If one isn't issued, that could be a possibility it sounds like.
Retract what? If the quote is valid from the prosecutor then the issue is with him and not a news paper.
You know your football rules, but you don't know libel law. A paper is still liable for libel even if they correctly quote an official who is making a false statement. Now, if the person being talked about (the potential plaintiff) is a public official that's another story altogether, but Drake is unlikely as the facts have developed so far in this case to be ruled a public official within the scope of Times v. Sullivan or its progeny. Ironically, it is probably the prosecutor who is shielded in this situation from a legal remedy by a potential plaintiff if he was speaking in his official capacity. In that case, he has at least a qualified if not an absolute privilege and can't be successfully sued even though his statement is false. I'm not prejudging this situation, just pointing out the relevant defamation law, which is widely misunderstood.
What I do know is that the paper would have had to publish "knowingly" false information to meet that standards. Seeing how this was an attributed quote, it would be unlikely that such a burden could be reached.
No, that's the Times criteria, which I said would probably not apply in this case. Stick to football rules! ;-)
mail
person
BillyTheCat
7/19/2017 2:52 PM
OhioCatFan wrote:expand_more
If he truly didn't steal any money, wouldn't Drake now have grounds for a libel suit? Or did that go out the door once he pled guilty?
I can tell you his attorneys are working on a retraction from the paper. If one isn't issued, that could be a possibility it sounds like.
Retract what? If the quote is valid from the prosecutor then the issue is with him and not a news paper.
You know your football rules, but you don't know libel law. A paper is still liable for libel even if they correctly quote an official who is making a false statement. Now, if the person being talked about (the potential plaintiff) is a public official that's another story altogether, but Drake is unlikely as the facts have developed so far in this case to be ruled a public official within the scope of Times v. Sullivan or its progeny. Ironically, it is probably the prosecutor who is shielded in this situation from a legal remedy by a potential plaintiff if he was speaking in his official capacity. In that case, he has at least a qualified if not an absolute privilege and can't be successfully sued even though his statement is false. I'm not prejudging this situation, just pointing out the relevant defamation law, which is widely misunderstood.
What I do know is that the paper would have had to publish "knowingly" false information to meet that standards. Seeing how this was an attributed quote, it would be unlikely that such a burden could be reached.
No, that's the Times criteria, which I said would probably not apply in this case. Stick to football rules! ;-)
Sorry, but to sue the ANews here you would have to prove that there was actual malice in the reporting. You may want to go take a refresher course on NYT v Sullivan. Remember NYT v Sullivan was all about protecting the rights of the press, not the subject of the press.
mail
OhioCatFan
7/19/2017 4:43 PM
BillyTheCat wrote:expand_more
If he truly didn't steal any money, wouldn't Drake now have grounds for a libel suit? Or did that go out the door once he pled guilty?
I can tell you his attorneys are working on a retraction from the paper. If one isn't issued, that could be a possibility it sounds like.
Retract what? If the quote is valid from the prosecutor then the issue is with him and not a news paper.
You know your football rules, but you don't know libel law. A paper is still liable for libel even if they correctly quote an official who is making a false statement. Now, if the person being talked about (the potential plaintiff) is a public official that's another story altogether, but Drake is unlikely as the facts have developed so far in this case to be ruled a public official within the scope of Times v. Sullivan or its progeny. Ironically, it is probably the prosecutor who is shielded in this situation from a legal remedy by a potential plaintiff if he was speaking in his official capacity. In that case, he has at least a qualified if not an absolute privilege and can't be successfully sued even though his statement is false. I'm not prejudging this situation, just pointing out the relevant defamation law, which is widely misunderstood.
What I do know is that the paper would have had to publish "knowingly" false information to meet that standards. Seeing how this was an attributed quote, it would be unlikely that such a burden could be reached.
No, that's the Times criteria, which I said would probably not apply in this case. Stick to football rules! ;-)
Sorry, but to sue the ANews here you would have to prove that there was actual malice in the reporting. You may want to go take a refresher course on NYT v Sullivan. Remember NYT v Sullivan was all about protecting the rights of the press, not the subject of the press.
Sorry, but you've outrun your coverage here. The actual malice standard only applies to public figures. Otherwise, state libel laws apply. Public employee does not automatically mean public figure.
mail
UpSan Bobcat
7/19/2017 4:53 PM
OhioCatFan wrote:expand_more
If he truly didn't steal any money, wouldn't Drake now have grounds for a libel suit? Or did that go out the door once he pled guilty?
I can tell you his attorneys are working on a retraction from the paper. If one isn't issued, that could be a possibility it sounds like.
Retract what? If the quote is valid from the prosecutor then the issue is with him and not a news paper.
You know your football rules, but you don't know libel law. A paper is still liable for libel even if they correctly quote an official who is making a false statement. Now, if the person being talked about (the potential plaintiff) is a public official that's another story altogether, but Drake is unlikely as the facts have developed so far in this case to be ruled a public official within the scope of Times v. Sullivan or its progeny. Ironically, it is probably the prosecutor who is shielded in this situation from a legal remedy by a potential plaintiff if he was speaking in his official capacity. In that case, he has at least a qualified if not an absolute privilege and can't be successfully sued even though his statement is false. I'm not prejudging this situation, just pointing out the relevant defamation law, which is widely misunderstood.
What I do know is that the paper would have had to publish "knowingly" false information to meet that standards. Seeing how this was an attributed quote, it would be unlikely that such a burden could be reached.
No, that's the Times criteria, which I said would probably not apply in this case. Stick to football rules! ;-)
It's been almost 15 years since I took my journalism law class, but I definitely agree with Billy and so does every journalism person I've talked to. I don't see how a newspaper can be held accountable if it accurately printed what the prosecutor said and had no reason to believe it wasn't true. I can't find anything to suggest otherwise either.
mail
OhioCatFan
7/19/2017 4:59 PM
UpSan Bobcat wrote:expand_more
If he truly didn't steal any money, wouldn't Drake now have grounds for a libel suit? Or did that go out the door once he pled guilty?
I can tell you his attorneys are working on a retraction from the paper. If one isn't issued, that could be a possibility it sounds like.
Retract what? If the quote is valid from the prosecutor then the issue is with him and not a news paper.
You know your football rules, but you don't know libel law. A paper is still liable for libel even if they correctly quote an official who is making a false statement. Now, if the person being talked about (the potential plaintiff) is a public official that's another story altogether, but Drake is unlikely as the facts have developed so far in this case to be ruled a public official within the scope of Times v. Sullivan or its progeny. Ironically, it is probably the prosecutor who is shielded in this situation from a legal remedy by a potential plaintiff if he was speaking in his official capacity. In that case, he has at least a qualified if not an absolute privilege and can't be successfully sued even though his statement is false. I'm not prejudging this situation, just pointing out the relevant defamation law, which is widely misunderstood.
What I do know is that the paper would have had to publish "knowingly" false information to meet that standards. Seeing how this was an attributed quote, it would be unlikely that such a burden could be reached.
No, that's the Times criteria, which I said would probably not apply in this case. Stick to football rules! ;-)
It's been almost 15 years since I took my journalism law class, but I definitely agree with Billy and so does every journalism person I've talked to. I don't see how a newspaper can be held accountable if it accurately printed what the prosecutor said and had no reason to believe it wasn't true. I can't find anything to suggest otherwise either.
Please review the case law on the application of actual malice. The purpose of the concept was to preempt state libel laws when public officials, later broadened to public figures, were involved. Drake would have to be determined by a court to be a public figure for the Times criteria to apply and state libel laws to be abrogated. It could happen, because courts can be unpredictable. But, I see that as a real long shot. Under the libel laws of most states the burden of proof is on the defendant. Under Times it's on the plaintiff.
Last Edited: 7/19/2017 5:44:22 PM by OhioCatFan
mail
UpSan Bobcat
7/19/2017 5:30 PM
OhioCatFan wrote:expand_more
If he truly didn't steal any money, wouldn't Drake now have grounds for a libel suit? Or did that go out the door once he pled guilty?
I can tell you his attorneys are working on a retraction from the paper. If one isn't issued, that could be a possibility it sounds like.
Retract what? If the quote is valid from the prosecutor then the issue is with him and not a news paper.
You know your football rules, but you don't know libel law. A paper is still liable for libel even if they correctly quote an official who is making a false statement. Now, if the person being talked about (the potential plaintiff) is a public official that's another story altogether, but Drake is unlikely as the facts have developed so far in this case to be ruled a public official within the scope of Times v. Sullivan or its progeny. Ironically, it is probably the prosecutor who is shielded in this situation from a legal remedy by a potential plaintiff if he was speaking in his official capacity. In that case, he has at least a qualified if not an absolute privilege and can't be successfully sued even though his statement is false. I'm not prejudging this situation, just pointing out the relevant defamation law, which is widely misunderstood.
What I do know is that the paper would have had to publish "knowingly" false information to meet that standards. Seeing how this was an attributed quote, it would be unlikely that such a burden could be reached.
No, that's the Times criteria, which I said would probably not apply in this case. Stick to football rules! ;-)
It's been almost 15 years since I took my journalism law class, but I definitely agree with Billy and so does every journalism person I've talked to. I don't see how a newspaper can be held accountable if it accurately printed what the prosecutor said and had no reason to believe it wasn't true. I can't find anything to suggest otherwise either.
Please review the case law on when actual malice applies. The purpose of the concept was to preempt state libel laws when public officials, later broadened to public from figures, were involved. Drake would have to be determined by a court to be a public figure for the Times criteria to apply and state libel laws to be abrogated. It could happen, because courts can be unpredictable. But, I see that as a real long shot. Under the libel laws of most states the burden of proof is on the defendant. Under Times it's on the plaintiff.
I understand that public figures must prove malice and regular people do not. The issue here is that what the newspaper wrote presumably was not false. That IS what the prosecutor said. The prosecutor is the one who could have concern for libel if what he said is not true. That's why journalists are always taught to attribute everything.
Last Edited: 7/19/2017 5:31:49 PM by UpSan Bobcat
Showing Messages: 51 - 75 of 129
reply
vertical_align_top
vertical_align_center
vertical_align_bottom
add_comment
chevron_backward
chevron_forward
MAC News Links



extra small (< 576px)
small (>= 576px)
medium (>= 768px)
large (>= 992px)
x-large (>= 1200px)
xx-large (>= 1400px)