Trying to prepare for tomorrow's radio interview - I honestly don't know where to start

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:What’s his fucking job? I don’t think this is even a case of who’s right and who’s wrong because there are not 2 logical sides to this. Sports writers are fucking cowards and still wear undershirts under button ups with awkward pleated slacks.

Nordic wrote:I wear an undershirt under button ups

MattyFresh wrote:I cannot confirm this but I am guessing ghost is getting a Christmas card from my mom

gHost Spartan wrote:

DWags wrote:

Sorry

Matt Charbaneau from the Detroit news was asked why ghost could pick apart the otl story when paid journalists can’t do it even though that’s their job. Matt says it’s not his job to say who is right and wrong. Even though he had problems with the story.

.... yet he wouldn’t say it. Ghost did. Ghost kicked his ass.

I just don't understand that viewpoint - you cover MSU and what happens is directly related to your job. Such a bullshit response

gHost Spartan wrote:

Floyd Robertson wrote:

I agree it's BS. A reporter's job is to uncover truth. If the reporter knowingly, based on facts, does not discredit another report then that reporter has a weak spine.

He presumably attended the Jones Day / Corley et al presser in June 2017, knew of the existence of the report, but remained SILENT as ESPN attacked Coach D and Izzo - to me that's despicable. Fuck that noise.

None of those motherfuckers could write an article and say, "While, the ESPN OTL raises some questions about MSU's handling of sexual assault allegations, MSU did hire Jones Day to conduct an institutional investigation of Dantonio's handling of the Corley, King, Vance case, and later included Robertson. We can only speculate as to why ESPN failed to mention the Jones Day Report, which found that Dantonio handled responded in accordance with MSU policy."

Floyd Robertson wrote:

gHost Spartan wrote:

I just don't understand that viewpoint - you cover MSU and what happens is directly related to your job. Such a bullshit response

I agree it's BS. A reporter's job is to uncover truth. If the reporter knowingly, based on facts, does not discredit another report then that reporter has a weak spine.

I.B. Fine wrote:I just found this, I think it used to belong to Charbaneau


...though it could be any of the MSU 'beat' reporters.

gHost Spartan wrote:

WhiteBoyHatcher wrote:You know who I would have expected to come out with a point by point, well researched piece - similar to g's - because he is actually a very good, thorough reporter? Comp. He didn't though. He's been mostly silent, even on the boards.

I think it goes back to that "not sitting right" feeling I've been alluding to. gHost (and all of us really) are on the side of not hurting people's reputations without evidence. But at the end of the day - it's sexual assault, it's rape, it's violence against women - it's a very sensitive subject and these guys probably know deep down that it might be professional suicide to publicly challenge any accuser in that arena. Especially in today's day and age with the social media mob.

Hell I know Izzo is a much bigger fish than Chris Solari but look at the outrage and ire that was directed at him for a slip of the tongue, and that was before the OTL stuff came out. 20+ years of impeccable, unimpeachable character and it was forgotten in a heartbeat. One of these journo fools writes something in an article or tweets something that comes off wrong and seems like it's challenging or blaming an accuser? And the mob picks up on it? I could easily see that leading to them losing their job and for the most part being blackballed.

I think that you've actually had the most intellectual takes on this whole issue and you have been both sensitive toward the subject matter and cognizant of the sexual assault issues EVERYWHERE, you've also been like hey fuck this - present both sides, don't wreck people's lives. It's such bullshit.

My take on Lavigne is that she believes Appling and Payne are guilty and that's why she included that as part of her segment. That is wholly unfair. We all *know* OJ was guilty, but that's a lot different. Truth is, we don't know what happened, no one but the three of them know, but the findings weigh in favor of Appling and Payne.

And yes, ESPN's lawyers are probably all reading through these threads.... lol

WhiteBoyHatcher wrote:The Appling/Payne thing is quite infuriating. Let's be honest, more so because of Payne. We heard lots of stories about what kind of kid Payne was. It comes through in his willingness to speak with detectives and in watching that interview. And his story about what happened, he was kind of the "peacemaker" in that whole ordeal. I'm not in any way insinuating that Appling is guilty but it sounds like if anyone was pushing the boundaries, it was him.

BUT all of that said - if you are truly to believe that these guys are guilty and Izzo mishandled the situation you have to believe:

A. The Prosecutor's Office was motivated/influenced to not charge and make that "no crime has been committed" statement. (Not being the wildest scope of anyone's imagination considering SDIII and the DRR now working for MSU). But ALSO

B. MSU's Title IX Office bungled the case above and beyond waiting too long to start an investigation (again not entirely beyond doubt considering the Nassar investigation). But ALSO

C. The independent firm hired to investigate the situation bungled their investigation. And ALSO

D. The OCR who investigated and adopted the findings of C was bungled or corrupt.


These are not OR statements they're AND statements. All of them would have to be true. Am I missing something there gHost or did I get that mostly correct?

steveschneider wrote:Just listened to Todd Heywood’s interview with Ryan’s schulling. Starts at 46:30. Pretty good listen.
https://www.spreaker.com/user/5707063/tsr-feb-21-2018

WhiteBoyHatcher wrote:

steveschneider wrote:Just listened to Todd Heywood’s interview with Ryan’s schulling. Starts at 46:30. Pretty good listen.
https://www.spreaker.com/user/5707063/tsr-feb-21-2018

Agreed, good listen and I don't think I disagree with anything Heywood said.

I have a problem with him saying that he was the one broke the story on the "Appling-Payne rape". How about accusation, or situation, or alleged?

Second, I thought Harns tweeted that Gretchen Whitmer had already examined the sex cases that SDIII had been involved in and found no evidence of misconduct?

Floyd Robertson wrote:

WhiteBoyHatcher wrote:

Agreed, good listen and I don't think I disagree with anything Heywood said.

I have a problem with him saying that he was the one broke the story on the "Appling-Payne rape". How about accusation, or situation, or alleged?

Second, I thought Harns tweeted that Gretchen Whitmer had already examined the sex cases that SDIII had been involved in and found no evidence of misconduct?

I have a problem with Schuiling asking a reporter whether or not SDIII's case history should be reviewed. He's not qualified to answer that question.

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:

WhiteBoyHatcher wrote:The Appling/Payne thing is quite infuriating. Let's be honest, more so because of Payne. We heard lots of stories about what kind of kid Payne was. It comes through in his willingness to speak with detectives and in watching that interview. And his story about what happened, he was kind of the "peacemaker" in that whole ordeal. I'm not in any way insinuating that Appling is guilty but it sounds like if anyone was pushing the boundaries, it was him.

BUT all of that said - if you are truly to believe that these guys are guilty and Izzo mishandled the situation you have to believe:

A. The Prosecutor's Office was motivated/influenced to not charge and make that "no crime has been committed" statement. (Not being the wildest scope of anyone's imagination considering SDIII and the DRR now working for MSU). But ALSO

B. MSU's Title IX Office bungled the case above and beyond waiting too long to start an investigation (again not entirely beyond doubt considering the Nassar investigation). But ALSO

C. The independent firm hired to investigate the situation bungled their investigation. And ALSO

D. The OCR who investigated and adopted the findings of C was bungled or corrupt.


These are not OR statements they're AND statements. All of them would have to be true. Am I missing something there gHost or did I get that mostly correct?

So this is the counter argument if I’m understanding correctly? I guess there has to be another “side” to this but i haven’t been able to find it.. also curious if there is anything else missing.. for people who have put a lot more time into this.

LooseGoose wrote:

Floyd Robertson wrote:

I have a problem with Schuiling asking a reporter whether or not SDIII's case history should be reviewed. He's not qualified to answer that question.

And the problems with him and Redmond blaming Dunnings? Dunnings is a scUM Grad with a known dislike of MSU. He didn't decide on this case. I was corrected about this by Dersh on tob. The 2 women prosecutors in charge of sex crimes decided not to prosecute and Dunnings concurred. So *3* prosecutors agreed there was no case.

Floyd Robertson wrote:

WhiteBoyHatcher wrote:

Agreed, good listen and I don't think I disagree with anything Heywood said.

I have a problem with him saying that he was the one broke the story on the "Appling-Payne rape". How about accusation, or situation, or alleged?

Second, I thought Harns tweeted that Gretchen Whitmer had already examined the sex cases that SDIII had been involved in and found no evidence of misconduct?

I have a problem with Schuiling asking a reporter whether or not SDIII's case history should be reviewed. He's not qualified to answer that question.

steveschneider wrote:

Floyd Robertson wrote:

I have a problem with Schuiling asking a reporter whether or not SDIII's case history should be reviewed. He's not qualified to answer that question.

I thought it was a fair opinion. I guess my only call out to that response was didn't all his cases get reviewed by his successor and they found no wrong doings? I'm pretty sure that is the case.

WhiteBoyHatcher wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

And the problems with him and Redmond blaming Dunnings? Dunnings is a scUM Grad with a known dislike of MSU. He didn't decide on this case. I was corrected about this by Dersh on tob. The 2 women prosecutors in charge of sex crimes decided not to prosecute and Dunnings concurred. So *3* prosecutors agreed there was no case.

It's a fair question even though he's not qualified to answer, he's qualified to give his opinion.

WhiteBoyHatcher wrote:

steveschneider wrote:Just listened to Todd Heywood’s interview with Ryan’s schulling. Starts at 46:30. Pretty good listen.
https://www.spreaker.com/user/5707063/tsr-feb-21-2018

Agreed, good listen and I don't think I disagree with anything Heywood said.

I have a problem with him saying that he was the one broke the story on the "Appling-Payne rape". How about accusation, or situation, or alleged?

Second, I thought Harns tweeted that Gretchen Whitmer had already examined the sex cases that SDIII had been involved in and found no evidence of misconduct?

The two men, as freshmen, were accused of sexually assaulting Carolyn Schaner in August of 2010. Despite a video recorded interview with investigators in which Payne appears to substantially support Schaner’s detailed allegations, Dunnings declared at the time no crime had been committed and refused to prosecute.

steveschneider wrote:Ghost coming under fire on twitter from vannini and Ross Jones.

steveschneider wrote:Ghost coming under fire on twitter from vannini and Ross Jones.

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:Vannini is another dweeb of a sports writer who probably hasn’t touched a piece of sports equipment since middle school. Guy was a recruitbag from scout i believe, and then some coaching search trainwreck of a site.

Before i judge him more, can we get the stuff about ghost posted here swill? We defend our own.

gHost Spartan wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

Vannini is a screaming virtue signaler....give him anything against MSU that can show how sensitive he is and he'll retweet it.

Who the fuck even is this guy?

steveschneider wrote:I don’t understand why he wouldn’t just retweet it. Afraid to distribute the document was weird imo.

steveschneider wrote:I don’t understand why he wouldn’t just retweet it. Afraid to distribute the document was weird imo.

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:

WhiteBoyHatcher wrote:The Appling/Payne thing is quite infuriating. Let's be honest, more so because of Payne. We heard lots of stories about what kind of kid Payne was. It comes through in his willingness to speak with detectives and in watching that interview. And his story about what happened, he was kind of the "peacemaker" in that whole ordeal. I'm not in any way insinuating that Appling is guilty but it sounds like if anyone was pushing the boundaries, it was him.

BUT all of that said - if you are truly to believe that these guys are guilty and Izzo mishandled the situation you have to believe:

A. The Prosecutor's Office was motivated/influenced to not charge and make that "no crime has been committed" statement. (Not being the wildest scope of anyone's imagination considering SDIII and the DRR now working for MSU). But ALSO

B. MSU's Title IX Office bungled the case above and beyond waiting too long to start an investigation (again not entirely beyond doubt considering the Nassar investigation). But ALSO

C. The independent firm hired to investigate the situation bungled their investigation. And ALSO

D. The OCR who investigated and adopted the findings of C was bungled or corrupt.


These are not OR statements they're AND statements. All of them would have to be true. Am I missing something there gHost or did I get that mostly correct?

So this is the counter argument if I’m understanding correctly? I guess there has to be another “side” to this but i haven’t been able to find it.. also curious if there is anything else missing.. for people who have put a lot more time into this.