What evidence has been presented that Jim Jordan knew about Dr. Strauss abuse by victims?

1. Survivor testimony on camera: direct allegations raised in the HBO documentary

Multiple former wrestlers interviewed in HBO’s Surviving Ohio State say Jordan knew about Strauss’s abuse and either shrugged it off or failed to act, with named figures like Dan Ritchie and Mike Schyck directly asserting Jordan’s awareness; the documentary also recounts instances where Jordan allegedly joked about “snapping” Strauss’s neck while denying knowledge ^{[1] [2] [3]}.

2. Former teammates’ accounts and calls to witnesses: allegations of pressure and recantation efforts

Adam DiSabato told filmmakers and legislators that Jordan contacted him—at times emotionally—and asked him to publicly deny that Jordan knew, and lawsuits and contemporaneous reporting reference alleged calls to Mark Coleman and others to influence their statements, claims DiSabato and others have made public ^{[2] [6] [5]}.

3. Referee and other third-party reports: someone says he warned coaches

Court filings and news reports cite a wrestling referee (identified as “John Doe 42” in filings) who alleges he told Jordan and head coach Russ Hellickson about an incident in which Strauss masturbated in a gym shower, and that Jordan and others responded dismissively—“Yeah, that’s Strauss”—according to the suit ^{[7] [4]}.

4. Pattern evidence survivors point to: “common knowledge” in locker rooms

Several survivors have described Strauss’s behavior as an “open secret” in team spaces—shower practices, inappropriate exams and locker-room talk—and have said that conversations about Strauss occurred “all the time,” which they argue made Jordan’s ignorance implausible given his proximity (locker assignments) and role (assistant coach) ^{[8] [9] [3]}.

5. Documentary and media corroboration versus formal investigative limits

Reporting, HBO’s film, and plaintiffs’ lawsuits present overlapping firsthand assertions and a small set of corroborating details (phone calls, referee report, recollected locker proximity), but the university-commissioned Perkins Coie investigation did not attribute individual knowledge conclusively to Jordan—its public summary documented numerous athlete reports but did not adjudicate every coach’s knowledge ^{[5] [1]}.

6. Jordan’s denials and the legal process: depositions and rebuttals

Jordan has repeatedly and publicly denied knowing of Strauss’s misconduct and declined to be interviewed for the film; his office and spokespeople have said he would have acted if aware, and legal developments have moved the question into sworn testimony, with a scheduled deposition and references to Jordan in several lawsuits—meaning allegations are now being tested under oath and in court filings ^{[2] [4] [9] [10]}.

7. Weighing the evidence: memory, motive and the evidentiary standard

The evidence presented by victims is predominantly witness testimony—on camera, in interviews, and in lawsuits—along with allegations of contemporaneous outreach to potential witnesses; those forms of evidence can be powerful but are also subject to limits of memory, variation in accounts, and the need for corroboration, and official investigative summaries to date stopped short of individually finding Jordan guilty of knowing and covering up ^{[1] [5] [7]}.

8. Bottom line: what has been shown so far and what remains to be proven

Victims and a referee have offered specific accusations that Jim Jordan was told of or otherwise aware of Strauss’s conduct—foundational material that has sustained media reporting, lawsuits, and renewed public scrutiny—but courts and the university’s report have not produced a definitive public adjudication assigning legal culpability to Jordan, and his forthcoming sworn testimony is the next formal step in testing those allegations ^{[1] [7] [9] [5]}.