ShareThis Page
Inside the Classroom

Ex-Ohio State officials say they didn't know of doctor abuse

| Wednesday, July 11, 2018, 10:21 a.m.
Richard Strauss was a well-regarded Ohio State University physician who examined young athletes for decades as a team doctor and sports-medicine researcher. Some former athletes recall him differently: Locker-room voyeur. Serial groper. “Dr. Jelly Paws.”
AP/YouTube
Richard Strauss was a well-regarded Ohio State University physician who examined young athletes for decades as a team doctor and sports-medicine researcher. Some former athletes recall him differently: Locker-room voyeur. Serial groper. “Dr. Jelly Paws.”

COLUMBUS, Ohio — Two former top administrators say they weren’t aware of allegations of sexual abuse by an Ohio State University doctor when they worked there in the 1990s.

Former Ohio State president E. Gordon Gee and former vice president of human resources Linda Tom tell The Columbus Dispatch they don’t remember receiving any complaints about the now-dead doctor, Richard Strauss.

He worked there for two decades as a member of the faculty and medical staff and a team doctor before retiring in 1998. Ohio State says allegations of sexual misconduct by Strauss have been raised by former athletes from 14 sports and other people since such allegations were first brought forward months ago.

An independent investigation is underway about those claims and about whether the university knew of concerns about Strauss.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me