FYI, the interview is here (interview was with the author of the SI story)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?
We are talking about a difference in, maybe 1 or 2 months in a time line that the guy is recounting from 20 years ago. Can you remember, exactly, say, a job interview from 1990? Did it happen in October? January?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?
Alfred was pissed. And he says he was there when all this went down. And that author is a doosh. He's enjoying every minute of this attention. Sounds like a Jiszla clone.
I agree. I actually believed the article more before I heard this interview.
Let me preface this with a couple things:
1. When this story first broke, I thought it was probably true
2. Even if Alfred and Kanavis are telling the truth 100% here, I am sure some CU players have taken money at some point while they were at CU. That's just the reality of college football.
The more I think about this (and listen to clips), I believe Alfred and Kanavis are telling the truth. The whole thing just feels wrong. Alfred was so pissed when he found about this story last week that he had his lawyer send a letter threatening a lawsuit if they didn't remove all references to him in the story. They complied and removed Alfred's name and the author would not discuss Alfred's version of what went down even though Alfred says he was there. Why would they do that if they thought the story was legit?
Also, Alfred sounded pissed. Like "I'm gonna beat somebody's ass" pissed off. If he was faking that, he's a great actor. And the author is an asshat. He didn't care one iota when Al said he was there when Luchs met Kanavis. It didn't phase him. He would not discuss the timeline inconsistencies.
I might be wrong, I dunno. It doesn't really matter in the grand scheme. Just my $.02.
So, you are saying CU players cheated/took money?
What pissed me off about the author was near the beginning when he says 'what would you do in a he said, she said situation? What would you write?' or something to that effect. Uhhhhh - I would either confirm the facts or write NOTHING. ****in asshat
The funny thing about this story is that Luchs admits that rules don't apply to him and his mentor. He has zero credibility based on his own admissions, but the rag is willing to go to print and that alone lends credibility to this ass.
Didn't SI used to be a credible mag? I seem to recall that it was, but that is a fading memory.
Didn't SI used to be a credible mag? I seem to recall that it was, but that is a fading memory.
Still is, one issue each year. You know which one I'm talking about.
Didn't SI used to be a credible mag? I seem to recall that it was, but that is a fading memory.
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.
Hi whole story starts with the trip to Boulder. If that story is easily debunked none of the rest is believable.He outed guys who were much more successful and well-known than McGhee.
I quit reading SI after the former CU alum wrote the article about the tramp without checking any facts. This holds the same credibility.
What? The same SI that let Rick Reilly run roughshod over CU during the "scandal"? These days it's tough to find any integrity in journalism.