A Must Read
- Thread starter corbi2961
- Start date
Interesting letter. One thing missing was “and I never witnessed or heard about any of the allegations that were described in the Dauly article”.
All these “Fitz is great” comments are fine but I haven’t seen anyone go in record and say “I never wxeperienced, witnessed, or heard about these allegations”.
It should but it won’t. I wonder if the Daily will retweet it and speak with Mr. Romero? What do you think?
Well, he’s outed the whistleblower.
Even in his defense of Fitz, he does not dispute that hazing occurred. He simply says that it could have been addressed.
Again,
It is possible for an individual to both positively affect hundreds of people in 25 years in the program, and also for that individual to turn a blind eye to a culture that allowed hazing.
A shame that NU hasn’t been able to recruit a quarterback in a decade, I guess.
Even in his defense of Fitz, he does not dispute that hazing occurred. He simply says that it could have been addressed.
Again,
It is possible for an individual to both positively affect hundreds of people in 25 years in the program, and also for that individual to turn a blind eye to a culture that allowed hazing.
A shame that NU hasn’t been able to recruit a quarterback in a decade, I guess.
Last edited:
In interviews over 6 months with 50+ individuals, a law firm hired by NU determined that the whistleblower was not lying. Lou, who has done excellent work, has validated this report.
Let’s not do election denialism. Sandy Hook happened, and 9/11 was not an inside job.
(Also, the US Government is hiding research on extraterrestrial life. That one’s real. We’re not alone.)
He is not necessarily lying; it’s clear these things happened.
But he may be exaggerating or embellishing certain things to get back at Fitz and his staff.
Why have no other players emerged saying that they felt violated by what happened? I expected there to be a half dozen of individuals saying they were abused by now, and that they think coaches need to be fired.
We’re several days in and only one player has said he wants Fitz replaced: the original whistleblower. Meanwhile dozens of others have said the opposite. Whom we do believe?
That's a strong statement to make.
1. Are the whisteblower's statements to the firm the same as the statements to the Daily?
2. If the whistleblower claims that Fitz had knowledge of this, isn't that one of the things that the firm outright stated they couldn't corroborate?
Inability to corroborate doesn't mean it isn't true, it just means they weren't able to prove it.
But it's also not enough to make the affirmative statement that the whistleblower is not lying.
Another is did the law firm know anything of the whistle lower was ready and willing to exaggerate and embellish (lie) to get Fitz fired?
Again, the term "hazing" is very broad. It can mean anything from having to sing your fight song to shower time with Sandusky and a whole lot in between. And they seem to be using the term in a way that paints it with the worst brush whether that is accurate or not
You are splitting hairs. By now we all know exactly what the conduct in question is. If you think it could be as benign as having to sing your fight song, you aren't paying attention.
But, again, no “I never witnessed any hazing during my time at Northwestern, and I am confident that a locker room of that caliber would never have hazing.”
Fitz could have had great impact in developing a player, and could also have permitted hazing of others. In some cases, maybe even the same person.
It feels wrong to me that Fitz is gone. But also I understand why.
Yup. Every one of these statements praising Fitz but not denying the hazing only increases my belief that it was pervasive.
I don't know if we can say for sure it was pervasive. But it was clearly real. How does it compare to other programs? I have no idea. I have a hard time believing that anything we've heard was necessary or even in any way helpful to a successful football program.