(1) Did you not read my post? I said by my reading of the contract, I am not sure I would have reported it to compliance, Which is what the report said about Smith and Meyer. They believed that the didn't have to report it because there was no arrest, but they monitored it to see where it went. The board made it clear that even if no arrest it has to be reported.
I think that was a cop-out by the board. You have a coach and an AD, both making
boatloads of money, and you don't train them on what their actual requirements are? Heck, at my job, mid-level managers have to take classes every two years on this. We were taught, in no uncertain terms,
"if you see anything, report it--even if you don't think it's serious, even if you don't want to get anyone in trouble... report it."I think Urban and Gene didn't want to get Zach in trouble, so they tried as hard as they could to avoid reporting it. When this blew up, the resorted to an excuse of "well we didn't think it was required because no charges were filed". You think they'd get away with that if it was about a player?
I find it really hard to believe that at no time were they trained on what their reporting requirements were.
Especially after Penn State, where Paterno reported it up to his AD and then wiped his hands of it.
You may believe this was a failure of training by OSU on what Gene and Urban's requirements were. I think it was the school claiming they didn't adequately train as a way to excuse their lack of reporting, but I don't buy that Gene and Urban were honestly able to say they didn't think the report was required.
(2) So you, like bwarbiany, whose comment I was responding to, believe that the compliance department that is designed to determine if University and NCAA policy, is better able to determine whether DV happened than the police and/or the DA. The police and the DA do not use the strictest standard of guilt to bring charges, that is for the final arbiter, the courts. The police and the DA only determine if there is enough evidence to bring charges.
I think there's a difference between the police's response to allegations and the university's response. The university might evaluate the evidence, note that there might not be enough evidence to clear the legal bar, but believe that university policies have not been followed and recommend action. Or they could have simply evaluated the situation, and in the absence of formal charges realized that Zach's behavior was a risk to the university and recommended action.
And I'd say they're in better position to do that than the coach and AD, regardless of whether the evidence supports a formal legal charge of DV.
