forums

Mel Tucker is a Corch [Suspended after investigation...now fired]

Advertisement
1694529808308.png
 
TooColdToHold said:
It sounds like Mel has evidence on his phone that she initiated a lot of their conversations.
Click to expand...

TooColdToHold said:
It sounds like Mel has evidence on his phone that she initiated a lot of their conversations.
Click to expand...
Doesn't matter what evidence Mel has. Unfortunately for him, he's toast. You can't ***** around with a woman invited on campus as an advocate against sexual abuse. Her credibility as a professional is shot as well.
 
bacane said:
Doesn't matter what evidence Mel has. Unfortunately for him, he's toast. You can't ***** around with a woman invited on campus as an advocate against sexual abuse. Her credibility as a professional is shot as well.
Click to expand...
Yup, there's no going back from here for him.

Me thinks that if he was winning games MSU would've had a very different approach and therefore he would've been able to keep his job.
 
Alex Del Piero said:
Yup, there's no going back from here for him.

Me thinks that if he was winning games MSU would've had a very different approach and therefore he would've been able to keep his job.
Click to expand...


Yeah, I think it's funny how some of our fans are all, like, "Well, Mel, you have adequately explained why you chose to hit on a sexual assault advisor while you were married, and insisted that everything was 'consensual' even though she refused to meet you without one of her co-workers present. You should be reinstated and possibly given a raise, regardless of the 'morals clause' of your contract."

Yeah, that's not gonna happen.

1694533058606.png
 
Advertisement
I'm a little confused by something. I don't know anything about Title IX or sexual harassment claims. Not work I've ever done.

I read Tucker's statement (https://www.si.com/college/michigan...sexual-harassment-completely-false-msu-091123). His lawyer asserts that this has nothing to do with Title IX because it happened well after her seminar or involvement with the university ended. He also criticizes the hearing and says there isn't jurisdiction. None of that may matter because if there is some broad morality clause, having some "affair" or "fling" or whatever you want to call it with Tracy can fall under that umbrella; and besides, whatever happened obviously reflects a lack of judgment or awareness (particularly with someone that you should be on high-alert with).

But, anyways, according to his statement, Tracy's lawyer said "Ms. Tracy's attorney told us from the very beginning that I should not lose my job over her allegations, but that it would take a lot of money to make it go away." Assuming that this was a veiled extortion/settlement demand, what basis does Tracy have to make a claim against the University or Tucker (a University employee) outside of the Title IX context? In other words, maybe there is some claim if there is some formal relationship between Tracy and the University, but if this happened long after her involvement, how can she make a claim against the university or Tucker? Put another way, if a coach fools around with a staffer, that's a lawsuit for the university. But if a coach fools around with someone he met at a bar, there's no claim against the university or against the coach in his capacity as a university employee.
 
Bender said:
Oh my god, a dude lies? WE'RE MEN, WE NEVER LIE, WHY SHOULD I BELIEVE A RAPE VICTIM ABOUT GETTING SEXUALLY HARRASSED, THAT HAS TOTALLY NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE.

Do I need to remind people that this university had a football player who openly *********ed in front of his teammates and is now sitting in jail for rape and we honestly question people's smarts on here? There are ****ed up people in this world with no boundaries, especially in college football. I don't have to remind people about the Briles family and the disgusting **** they pulled.
Click to expand...

cf3000 said:
The Big 10, Home of the *** Scandals.
Click to expand...
Home of the pervs and pedos.
 
Alex Del Piero said:
Yup, there's no going back from here for him.

Me thinks that if he was winning games MSU would've had a very different approach and therefore he would've been able to keep his job.
Click to expand...
There is also a FACT that his current comments are a 180 from the comments he made TO the Title IX investigator. A lot of inconsistencies and reportedly his contract "for cause" definition is pretty wide in scope "bringing ridicule to the university". Having phone *** with a sexual abuse counselor / rape victim is probably a very poor choice for a "casual relationship" for a married head coach in a high profile position.
 
AlexCane said:
I'm a little confused by something. I don't know anything about Title IX or sexual harassment claims. Not work I've ever done.

I read Tucker's statement (https://www.si.com/college/michigan...sexual-harassment-completely-false-msu-091123). His lawyer asserts that this has nothing to do with Title IX because it happened well after her seminar or involvement with the university ended. He also criticizes the hearing and says there isn't jurisdiction. None of that may matter because if there is some broad morality clause, having some "affair" or "fling" or whatever you want to call it with Tracy can fall under that umbrella; and besides, whatever happened obviously reflects a lack of judgment or awareness (particularly with someone that you should be on high-alert with).

But, anyways, according to his statement, Tracy's lawyer said "Ms. Tracy's attorney told us from the very beginning that I should not lose my job over her allegations, but that it would take a lot of money to make it go away." Assuming that this was a veiled extortion/settlement demand, what basis does Tracy have to make a claim against the University or Tucker (a University employee) outside of the Title IX context? In other words, maybe there is some claim if there is some formal relationship between Tracy and the University, but if this happened long after her involvement, how can she make a claim against the university or Tucker? Put another way, if a coach fools around with a staffer, that's a lawsuit for the university. But if a coach fools around with someone he met at a bar, there's no claim against the university or against the coach in his capacity as a university employee.
Click to expand...


While she was not a formal W-2 employee of the university, she served as a 1099-type subcontrator. She was paid to do work at MSU and I would imagine that is the connection she would cite.

I would think it would be similar to your employer hiring consultants to work in your place of employment. If someone sexually harassed one of them, I would imagine they would inform and/or make a claim with the company that paid for their services, though they were not W-2 employees.
 
Advertisement
TheOriginalCane said:
While she was not a formal W-2 employee of the university, she served as a 1099-type subcontrator. She was paid to do work at MSU and I would imagine that is the connection she would cite.

I would think it would be similar to your employer hiring consultants to work in your place of employment. If someone sexually harassed one of them, I would imagine they would inform and/or make a claim with the company that paid for their services, though they were not W-2 employees.
Click to expand...
Sure. But the letter went out of its way to say that whatever involvement she had with the university was in the summer of 2021 and that the alleged incident occurred in April, 2022. So she had a paid gig with the university. She was compensated. And that's that. How does she get to assert some claim for something that happened some 9-11 months later, after her gig with the university has ended?

I cannot escape the conclusion that she is opportunistic. And this was at the expense of her career because if I'm a college program, I'm not getting tangled up with her. She's not trustworthy.
 
AlexCane said:
Sure. But the letter went out of its way to say that whatever involvement she had with the university was in the summer of 2021 and that the alleged incident occurred in April, 2022. So she had a paid gig with the university. She was compensated. And that's that. How does she get to assert some claim for something that happened some 9-11 months later, after her gig with the university has ended?

I cannot escape the conclusion that she is opportunistic. And this was at the expense of her career because if I'm a college program, I'm not getting tangled up with her. She's not trustworthy.
Click to expand...


There was a different article that said that there was another upcoming project with MSU that involved her that was cancelled. So I'm not sure if the whole "gig with the university has ended" is completely accurate. That's not a criticism, it's just a reflection that MSU could have continued to utilize her services.
 
TheOriginalCane said:
There was a different article that said that there was another upcoming project with MSU that involved her that was cancelled. So I'm not sure if the whole "gig with the university has ended" is completely accurate. That's not a criticism, it's just a reflection that MSU could have continued to utilize her services.
Click to expand...
Gotcha. Thanks. Just curious. I'm trying to assess how she's apparently making a settlement demand against the university and/or Tucker (as a university employee).
 
AlexCane said:
I'm a little confused by something. I don't know anything about Title IX or sexual harassment claims. Not work I've ever done.

I read Tucker's statement (https://www.si.com/college/michigan...sexual-harassment-completely-false-msu-091123). His lawyer asserts that this has nothing to do with Title IX because it happened well after her seminar or involvement with the university ended. He also criticizes the hearing and says there isn't jurisdiction. None of that may matter because if there is some broad morality clause, having some "affair" or "fling" or whatever you want to call it with Tracy can fall under that umbrella; and besides, whatever happened obviously reflects a lack of judgment or awareness (particularly with someone that you should be on high-alert with).

But, anyways, according to his statement, Tracy's lawyer said "Ms. Tracy's attorney told us from the very beginning that I should not lose my job over her allegations, but that it would take a lot of money to make it go away." Assuming that this was a veiled extortion/settlement demand, what basis does Tracy have to make a claim against the University or Tucker (a University employee) outside of the Title IX context? In other words, maybe there is some claim if there is some formal relationship between Tracy and the University, but if this happened long after her involvement, how can she make a claim against the university or Tucker? Put another way, if a coach fools around with a staffer, that's a lawsuit for the university. But if a coach fools around with someone he met at a bar, there's no claim against the university or against the coach in his capacity as a university employee.
Click to expand...
I'm not an attorney, but I don't think she has a case against the University. She might try to extort some money from MSU and Mel Tugger, but I don't think she has much of a standing in case against the University.
That won't stop frivolous lawsuits from being filed though and MSU probably wants this to go away and they want Mel Tugger gone as well.
If Mel was 11-2 last year, I think MSU would be handling this differently. However, after losing seven games last year, they want him gone and fire him with cause.

I also suspect this was more consensual then the Ms. Tracy claims, but have no real facts to back that up. I think more of those facts will come out in the investigation, text, call records etc.
Even if it was consensual, Tugger is an idiot for putting himself at risk like that. Pulling his pud over the phone, that can be recorded and used to extort him.
But, I just can't believe anyone, even an idiot, could be so stupid to risk $70 Million, harassing a sexual abuse victim that was contracted by his employer to speak there. That is next level stupid.
 
Advertisement
AlexCane said:
From his statement:

"While I am saddened by Ms. Tracy’s disclosure of the sensitive nature of this call, let me be perfectly clear—it was an entirely mutual, private event between two adults living at opposite ends of the country. She initiated the discussion that night, sent me a provocative picture of the two of us together, suggested what she may look like without clothes, and never once during the 36 minutes did she object in any manner, much less hang up the phone.“

I’d stay far away from Tracy.
Click to expand...
So married dude just admitted to an inappropriate relationship with a university contractor, one who is a sexual violence consultant. At that point—in regards to his contract—it probably doesn't matter if it was consensual: morality clause and/or potential university rules could provide cover to not pay his contract as it damages the reputation of the university, especially considering the Larry Nassar history. The optics of it are terrible for the school. Just a foolish decision...really ongoing foolish decisions if it was over a long period of time.
 
Advertisement
Suhrthing said:
Two adults talking about current spouses and divorce? Oh what for pray tell? Lol. This was NOT just a professional relationship, no way they were not already intimate.
Click to expand...
Nothing I wrote disputes the underlined. Tucker is still a clown for pursuing that. She belongs in the circus too, but he is the headliner.

At this moment this is why I put more blame on Tucker

1. Her job description / life mission
2. He was in the position of authority and responsible for hiring her

3. Giving money and shoe gifts from his personal funds

4. At this moment, neither of them have said or admitted anything about a physical or romantic event outside of the tug of war call. No dinner dates, kiss on the cheek, nada.
So, my blame goes to him for being told by a flirtatious female friend she wants to keep it up cordial, yet him continuing to pursue her in the following months. Married or not, when a man is worth 50M’s and counting, it would not take that long for an interested woman to make it physical if she wanted. Before the tug of war call, he tried to get her to his hotel room and failed. That should have been another stop sign for him.
 
Dumb on Mel's part for sure. And I hate saying it because too many times the victim gets blamed in these types of scenarios. But based on the LITTLE info I've seen she's damaged/toxic. All men should stay away.
 
cookies said:
Nothing I wrote disputes the underlined. Tucker is still a clown for pursuing that. She belongs in the circus too, but he is the headliner.

At this moment this is why I put more blame on Tucker

1. Her job description / life mission
2. He was in the position of authority and responsible for hiring her

3. Giving money and shoe gifts from his personal funds

4. At this moment, neither of them have said or admitted anything about a physical or romantic event outside of the tug of war call. So, my blame goes to him for being told by a flirtatious female friend she wants to keep it up cordial, yet him continuing to pursue her in the following months. Married or not, when a man is worth 50M’s and counting, it would not take that long for an interested woman to make it physical if she wanted. Before the tug of war call, he tried to get her to his hotel room and failed. That should have been a stop sign for him.
Click to expand...


Exactly.

And I'd be willing to bet that the phone conversation went something like this:



WHAT SHE SAID: "I need to work out so that I can look better."

WHAT HE THINKS HE HEARD: "I need to work out so that I can look better when I'm naked."



This kind of crap happens all the time. Guys projecting things from "flirtatious conversation"...
 
CreativeCane said:
So married dude just admitted to an inappropriate relationship with a university contractor, one who is a sexual violence consultant. At that point—in regards to his contract—it probably doesn't matter if it was consensual: morality clause and/or potential university rules could provide cover to not pay his contract as it damages the reputation of the university, especially considering the Larry Nassar history. The optics of it are terrible for the school. Just a foolish decision...really ongoing foolish decisions if it was over a long period of time.
Click to expand...
I am not defending him. I've posted throughout on what I think about his actions. But, from what I've seen thus far, this looks like a case to me of "a pox on both your houses." Not sure anyone looks good here. The situation reflects very poorly on her awareness and judgment as well.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top