CenturyBuff
Member
Obviously, flatly denies Luchs's allegations.
So the unnamed Colorado player listed as asking for cash for his "dad" was Alfred.
Seems like a pretty safe choice to me if he was creating a story. An All American who had an abbreviated pro career due to injuries that very few people outside of Boulder would remember or question.As much as I want to believe our players, I find it hard to believe that of all the potential college athletes the agent could have made up some lie about, he'd choose Kanavis with this story.
Seems like a pretty safe choice to me if he was creating a story. An All American who had an abbreviated pro career due to injuries that very few people outside of Boulder would remember or question.
As much as I want to believe our players, I find it hard to believe that of all the potential college athletes the agent could have made up some lie about, he'd choose Kanavis with this story.
Seems like a pretty safe choice to me if he was creating a story. An All American who had an abbreviated pro career due to injuries that very few people outside of Boulder would remember or question.
Seems like a pretty safe choice to me if he was creating a story. An All American who had an abbreviated pro career due to injuries that very few people outside of Boulder would remember or question.
I agree. Hell maybe Kanavis did take the money but there are a lot of holes in this guys story. Plus SI wouldn't let him come onto the fan with Al but he did come on with Sandy. That's a little weird isn't it?
But what does he have to gain about creating a complete lie? And why lie about Kanavis but tell the truth about several of the other guys named in the story who confirmed his story?
It reminds me of the Jose Conseco/MLB/steroid controversy.
I don't care if Kanavis conned this idot agent. Is that so bad?
What does he have to gain? The guy lost his job as an agent when he was suspended for misconduct.
He has $$$ to gain, if he can parlay his article into a book deal.
But then why tell the truth about so many of the players, but make up a complete lie in regards to Kanavis? He has money to lose if he's making blatantly false, potentially damaging statements about others.
But then why tell the truth about so many of the players, but make up a complete lie in regards to Kanavis? He has money to lose if he's making blatantly false, potentially damaging statements about others.
Kanavis isn't the only player saying he's lying or embellishing the story. Justin Keller did on the same show and Santonio Holmes said the same. Seems like 50/50 guys confirming vs denying.
Your support should be with a Buff when you have no evidence against him. It's as simple as that, imho.
In situations like these, the truth often lies somewhere in the middle. The problem I have is an agent calling out college kids and the article inferring the players are the bad guys, when the friggin' agents are all over them, manipulating them, all in an effort to make some big bucks down the road.
As much as I want to believe our players, I find it hard to believe that of all the potential college athletes the agent could have made up some lie about, he'd choose Kanavis with this story.
A couple things that I found strange. Kanavis said everything that was in the article was false, then said he hadnt read the article. Then Dmac said "Luch says he met you at your house" and KM says "That is absolutely false" then when prodded further he says he met Luch at his apartment, so he was saying it was false just based on a tiny detail like him saying house instead of apartment. Kinda strange.
But then why tell the truth about so many of the players, but make up a complete lie in regards to Kanavis? He has money to lose if he's making blatantly false, potentially damaging statements about others.
No disrespect. But your reaction is exactly why these kinds of stories, ala "Lance Armstrong took PED's", just suck. They create doubt with no evidence. How can anyone defend a "he said, she said" allegation?But what does he have to gain about creating a complete lie? And why lie about Kanavis but tell the truth about several of the other guys named in the story who confirmed his story?
It reminds me of the Jose Conseco/MLB/steroid controversy.
I try to look at things logically and without bias. I can see why Kanavis would want to deny it. But I cannot see a logical reason for the agent to tell the truth about so many players, but for some reason make up some blatant lie about Kanavis.
If it is a lie, I fully expect Kanavis to sue the scumbag out of the agent. We shall see.
In situations like these, the truth often lies somewhere in the middle. The problem I have is an agent calling out college kids and the article inferring the players are the bad guys, when the friggin' agents are all over them, manipulating them, all in an effort to make some big bucks down the road.
No disrespect. But your reaction is exactly why these kinds of stories, ala "Lance Armstrong took PED's", just suck. They create doubt with no evidence. How can anyone defend a "he said, she said" allegation?
See Wispy's post on the subject then. Al claims that he remembers that the douche did talk to Kanavis. AFTER his footballl career was over. Isn't that every bit, or even more, as logical?Good point, but unfortunately, Canseco was right. PEDs is very prevalent in cycling. College players take money. I hate to say it, but I believe that the agents' story (just the bare facts, not the story of how those facts came to be...for instance how he met Kanavis and how money got exchanged) is true.
...who cares though in my opinion? I still love Kanavis. I still think he's a great player. I think many players take money, not just Bush and McGee. I also don't blame many of those players for taking money. I blame the slimy agents for offering money and takind advantage of kids' not knowing what to do with their soon-to-be fortune. Even though Canseco was right, he was still a sleezebag looking for the spotlight...same with this douchebag.