OT: Tucker's response to "Intent to Terminate" - ESPN article - link provided
An article on ESPN's web site describes Mel Tucker's response to the "Intent to Terminate" notice he received.
Among other things - he describes how MSU reacted differently to requests from him and Ms. Tracy. "Tucker's claim of a double-standard comes from how the school handled leaks in the case. He says that on Aug. 25, well before the story went public, he "demanded an investigation into leaks.""
Here's the link to the entire article: https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/38439040/mel-tucker-says-other-motives-play-michigan-state-decision
September 19th, 2023 at 11:45 AM ^
I assume he has proof of his claims.
Claiming that Tracy leaked her name without proof is libelous.
September 19th, 2023 at 11:49 AM ^
Didn’t she admit to leaking it, and providing 1,200 pages to the author, in the original USA Today article? She said she wanted to get ahead of someone else leaking the story I thought.
September 19th, 2023 at 11:53 AM ^
No, somebody at Michigan State leaked her name as part of the investigation. Once her name was out there, she decided to get in front of it and talked to USA Today about it
September 19th, 2023 at 12:10 PM ^
It hasn't been proven that MSU leaked it, though - it hasn't been proven either way, actually, that it was leaked. All we really know is that she told her story to USA Today with the agreement that nothing prints without her consent. Once she learned her name was publicly associated with this, she consented to running the story. For all we know, USA Today could have leaked it as likely as MSU, Tracey, or anyone 'in the know' about the investigation.
Can't point blame until there's proof to point at...
September 19th, 2023 at 12:29 PM ^
But there's no other plausible explanation for who leaked, as it was an internal MSU investigation that only MSU's Title IX office (supposedly) knew of... Feels pretty safe to assume that someone with ties to MSU is the culprit.
September 19th, 2023 at 12:33 PM ^
Not really. Tracy told her story to USA Today so it would be available in case someone leaked it. When someone leaked it, she printed. USA Today was able to get the scoop on its competitors, for whatever good that does a news organization.
So, did MSU leak it, or did USA Today? They both had valid cause, but I'd say the news group had more valid cause. The only leaker that wouldn't have a good reason is Brenda Tracy herself - she wanted the whole thing to stay quiet because it's embarrassing and discrediting to her organization.
September 19th, 2023 at 12:46 PM ^
Tracy told her story to USA Today so it would be available in case someone leaked it. When someone leaked it, she printed.
If USA today leaked it, than Tracy leaked it by telling it to 1 or more writers, editors... at USA Today.
September 19th, 2023 at 12:47 PM ^
The only leaker that wouldn't have a good reason is Brenda Tracy herself - she wanted the whole thing to stay quiet because it's embarrassing and discrediting to her organization.
I don't think that could be said at all. Her business is literally based around speaking about sexual harassment and her experiences dealing with it.
It still makes sense USA Today did it. Can't run a story unless the name is out there? Well, now it is!
September 19th, 2023 at 1:32 PM ^
I expect she'll experience a moderate to significant decline in business as a result of this. She'll be viewed by some, such as those who might look at her cause with only as much interest as a corporate check-the-box or performative ethics, as a liability. It ain't right, but much of US culture is like that and in particular football culture.
September 19th, 2023 at 2:20 PM ^
Follow the money
September 19th, 2023 at 6:03 PM ^
This is all about the money. Nothing more.
September 19th, 2023 at 2:32 PM ^
Why would USA Today leak it. They had her permission to run the story once the process was played out and finished. Why leak it when they were going to be able to run the story in another month or so anyway? That makes zero sense.
September 19th, 2023 at 2:57 PM ^
I am not saying this is what happened, but it makes more than zero sense:
Why sit on a story this juicy when you don't have to? What if she changes her mind? Why risk someone else finding out and publishing first, which ESPN did?
I'm sure they would have wanted to publish ASAP.
September 19th, 2023 at 10:21 PM ^
If a source gives you their story on the proviso that you hold it until the investigation is completed, and YOU leak it early, you won't have anyone else willing to be a source for your next big scoop.
Journalism Ethics 101.
September 19th, 2023 at 1:03 PM ^
USA Today was technically scooped by ESPN, so if they leaked it they did a horrific job.
September 19th, 2023 at 1:46 PM ^
Here statement from a week ago included:
"I voluntarily shared documents with USA Today so that my story could be written and published after the conclusion of the school process..."
She is indicating that she had always planned to make this public at some point.
September 19th, 2023 at 7:04 PM ^
Well I imagine once the hearing happened in October this was coming out no matter what as Tucker would have been fired. This was never going to stay private.
September 19th, 2023 at 7:39 PM ^
If the process had played out privately and then MSU fired Tucker, MSU would still have been obligated to protect her identity.
In this hypothetical universe, when the media is finally able to win their court battle with MSU over their FOIA request for a copy of the complaint, MSU would still have redacted her name and other reasonably identifying information.
But people would still figure it out, you might say. Yes, obviously, because it already happened. But maybe not in hypothetical world. And even in hypothetical world, she is indicating that she planned to go public at some point.
But my only point in raising this was that someone said she would never want to go public because it's damaging to her. Yet here she is saying she was going to go public.
September 19th, 2023 at 1:50 PM ^
Former BOT Brian Mosallam leaked it. Trust.
September 19th, 2023 at 2:09 PM ^
I get where you're going with this, but Mosallam couldn't have known as he is a FORMER trustee. It would had to have been leaked to him by someone who is a current trustee or otherwise was familiar with the situation.
September 19th, 2023 at 6:45 PM ^
There was a FOIA request regarding the investigation in August so it was clearly leaked.
September 21st, 2023 at 9:08 AM ^
Once she learned her name was publicly associated...
I think it would be more accurate to say, once she learned her name was associated with the story. Until USA Today published their story, her name was not publicly associated with the story. According to Tracy, reporters were inquiring about her involvement but that is not public.
September 19th, 2023 at 1:38 PM ^
That is WHY she leaked it though. The motivation for the leak does not nullify the fact that it would be a leak (if in fact she is the one that did provide the documents).
September 19th, 2023 at 11:34 PM ^
People spend way too much time opining about who leaked what? That's a sideshow. The identity of the leaker doesn't matter if the leaked info is credible and not defamatory.
September 19th, 2023 at 11:57 AM ^
Someone leaked her name which pushed her to leak the story.
September 19th, 2023 at 12:07 PM ^
Iredditonline, ignore the negs you're taking and the misinformed replies you're getting. Your understanding is correct. Tracy tweeted this last week herself and USA TODAY reported exactly that in one of their stories last week that I posted on the board.
September 19th, 2023 at 12:09 PM ^
You are misinformed. Her name was leaked and in response she told USA Today to go with the story.
Why are you misrepresenting what happened?
September 19th, 2023 at 12:13 PM ^
Now you're saying it slightly differently. I agree with this version. She says she told USA Today to publish after her name was leaked. But by the time her name was leaked, she had already provided all the documents to USA Today. It was off the record at that point, but the only leak to USA Today was from Tracy. The other leak was to local media which is what prompted Tracy to tell USA Today she was no longer off the record.
September 19th, 2023 at 12:16 PM ^
No, I am stating it as I always have.
She didn’t leak her name. Tucker claims that she did. This what I stated in my initial posts on here.
September 19th, 2023 at 12:32 PM ^
I think you and I have basically the same understanding of the events that unfolded re: when Tracy went to USA Today and when and why she told them to go public. Where we're having our little tiff seems to stem from our responses to Iredditonline.
The way I read it, Iredditonline didn't say anything incorrect. Perhaps he could have been more clear.
Also, here is what I see Mel Tucker claim in his statement:
"Ms. Tracy's improper public disclosure of the entire 1,200-page investigation file regarding her baseless complaint against me...."
and
"Yet only after Ms. Tracy and potentially others leaked the confidential investigation report to the press..."
I disagree with Mel that it was improper, but I'm sorry, that's exactly where USA Today got the documents from and she told them they could make it public.
September 19th, 2023 at 12:39 PM ^
Agree that Mel was wrong - nothing improper about Tracy publicizing the story. I'll disagree, though, in the presumption that Tracy leaked it. USA Today had that 1200-word doozy ready to go less than 30 minutes after the first tweet about the investigation. So they were sitting on it until Tracy authorized it once things went public. She did not 'leak' the news - somebody else did, and she then authorized the release of her side to get in front of it.
Who leaked - MSU or USA Today? Don't know, but my money says it wasn't Tracy because she had no reason to do so.
September 19th, 2023 at 12:47 PM ^
This doesn't prove anything, but USA has a massive incentive not to be seen as an entity that will burn a source. It would be very bad for them if it ever became clear that they released the information without Tracy's consent.
September 19th, 2023 at 12:52 PM ^
My only point here to Sal is that Mel is not "accusing" her of leaking her name. Mel is talking about her providing the documents to USA Today and telling them they could print their story that quoted from those documents. This is not a false or unverified or disputed accusation from Mel. It is something that was, in fact, first publicly stated by Tracy herself.
The only thing Mel is wrong about on this specific issue, you and I both agree, is that it wasn't "improper" as Mel has labeled it.
The "leak" that prompted Tracy to tell USA Today to publish? Separate issue.
September 19th, 2023 at 1:37 PM ^
Except if all involved parties in an ongoing investigation are supposed to maintain confidentiality, disclosing identifying information to the press--even if they promise & pinky swear to not publish it without authorization--can absolutely be considered a leak in and of itself. There's no guarantee that the press would keep their promise, or that their use & storage of the information couldn't result in a breach or further leakage, etc. For example, a colleague of the person she disclosed the information to may have snooped through the person's files, or maybe their systems have been hacked and they aren't even aware of it which reveals the information to an attacker, and from there who knows where the information could end up. Not saying just saying.
September 19th, 2023 at 4:10 PM ^
Except if all involved parties in an ongoing investigation are supposed to maintain confidentiality
Despite Mel’s implications otherwise, Tracy is not bound by those rules of confidentiality.
September 19th, 2023 at 12:29 PM ^
Actually, you just stated it slightly differently than your previous posts agreeing with iredditonline.
Nonetheless, both you and Sal are pretty, so can you stop arguing now?
September 19th, 2023 at 12:39 PM ^
Maybe I did, I apologize. And I do think that Sal has been consistent in what Sal is saying, too, so I didn't mean to say Sal was changing their story, just restating it differently, which I think is what I might be guilty of myself.
It's difficult because I think we're not all looking at the word "leak" to mean the same thing at the same times.
Mostly what I feel people should understand (if they care) is that USA Today first learned of any of this because Brenda Tracy went to them with her story and the investigation. She did not talk to them because they called and said, hey I heard a rumor.
She only told them to make it public months later after she believed MSU leaked her name themselves.
September 19th, 2023 at 12:41 PM ^
Fair response!
September 19th, 2023 at 5:42 PM ^
I'm not sure if you meant 'pretty' or 'petty'...
But, I'm totally gonna start saying that to my daughter and wife whenever they argue.
'Ladies, both you and your mom are pretty, so can you two please stop arguing now?!?'
September 19th, 2023 at 2:13 PM ^
Being a confidential source for a news story that is not to be published is not the same thing as leaking the story which is generally done by someone who is beholden to keep a story private. You are conflating the two scenarios.
Brenda Tracy "leaking" the story would be if she anonymously contacted another reporter that there was an ongoing and confidential investigation into Mel Tucker's relationship with Brenda Tracy, with the expectation that the reporter should look into it.
Providing details of the story of a first person account under the cover of confidentiality and agreeing to hold off on publication until given the green light is not a leak.
September 19th, 2023 at 2:36 PM ^
I accept your definitions. If everyone had come to this discussion with that shared language, perhaps we could have avoided the hilarity of this Threes Company-esque level of misunderstanding.
However, nearly everyone ITT has been misusing the word “leak” based on your (correct) definition. For example, you are replying to my reply to Sal. Yet in Sal’s earlier reply to Iredditonline (the flashpoint of this particular string), Sal said that Brenda Tracy “leaked” the story in response to someone leaking her name.
September 19th, 2023 at 11:52 AM ^
Not sure he’s smart and/or ethical enough to have proof before making these kinda statements. Didnt he already float a bullshit story about how her rape all those years ago was fabricated?
This is going to drag out and either staee will end up paying a lot more of the remaining contract to make it go away or it’s going to get really ugly
September 19th, 2023 at 2:21 PM ^
Sunk cost - pay him off $10M and away he goes. The number won't be publicized. Ishbia cash. Until then just lots of yapping to the media both sides.
Their new savior is Duke's coach who has exactly 1.2 seasons of HC experience in him because they don't want to hire Prime knowing he will ditch them. But Prime is dying to come to MSU - only bested by Urban's thirst to go there.
Also apparently it was "common knowledge" among MSU insiders he was gambling in Vegas, drinking on the job, banging Suzy Merchant, and not at all involved with game planning. In fact all he did was clap and sweat since he signed on the dotted line. Per the gospel of the RCMB. "EVERYONE KNEW!!" He may have also shot Tupac. (this one is 50/50 possibility on that board)
All this from a fanbase who called him their lord and savior 13 days ago.
Anyhow it's gotten boring. After lots of name calling and lawyers getting rich, Mel Tugger gonna get rich off Kenneth Walker and his agent playing MSU like a fool in the media with LSU rumors....and laugh at his beach house the next 25 years.
September 19th, 2023 at 12:09 PM ^
Not libelous if there were no damages. Not libel to accuse someone of something they're allowed to do and doesn't cause any reputational harm.
September 19th, 2023 at 12:11 PM ^
Accusing someone of leaking their identity to a reporter is potentially damaging as it can be construed as an attempt to extort money which people have already done.
September 19th, 2023 at 2:22 PM ^
That Brenda Tracy revealed her identity to a reporter is not actually in dispute. She absolutely did, and is open about that - that’s why USA Today had the whole story ready to go.
She states that she had no intent to authorize that information to be made public until the process had concluded.
Tuck is alleging that she went public voluntarily and, he contends, improperly.
He might be full of crap but I don’t think his allegation is something that would be considered defamatory.
September 19th, 2023 at 3:05 PM ^
Tuck is alleging that she went public voluntarily
I don't think we need to say he is "alleging" it. As you noted, it's established fact. It is a reported fact. It is even, by Tracy, an acknowledged fact.
The very first story was from ESPN which had almost no information and did not use her name. They did not even seem to know her name because their updated story after USA Today's said their source would not confirm the identity of the accuser.
Minutes later, USA Today published their story with Brenda Tracy's name at her behest. Why did she do this? She alleges (yes, alleges) that MSU leaked her name to the media.
Edit: Sorry, she never said MSU leaked her name. She said "someone" did. Her lawyer said an "outside party" did. One of the USA Today articles asserted that Tracy "believed" it was someone from MSU.
September 19th, 2023 at 7:39 PM ^
"Someone from MSU" isn't quite the same as "MSU."
September 19th, 2023 at 7:48 PM ^
Sorry, at first I replied thinking you hadn't read my edit. Now I think you're responding to my last line in the edit about what USA Today wrote. I'm just not sure why.
September 19th, 2023 at 1:49 PM ^
This thread shows why we'll never get msu off our schedule no matter how many times they assault Michigan players.
The fascination with Mel, Brenda & USA Today presented here is literally head spinning!