Quote:
Originally Posted by transplant99
I simply cant wrap my head around this thought process.
How, 10 years after the fact, was Brad Treliving supposed to know what Bill Peters said to a hockey player in Illinois one morning after practice? How is this in ANY way attached to BT other than hiring a guy who he knew only as a hockey coach?
I really don't know what people expect...like should BT have contacted every single player that Bill Peters ever coached or every single person he ever worked with and ask them "did you ever hear BP utter racist words or see him kicking a player in the back"?
I mean I just dont get it.
|
I think in my mind if Tre did his due diligence and talked to players and executives etc and this didn't come up because those players and coaches either didn't see it, or they did an old boys club or whatever, then unless Tre releases all of his hiring notes and research we'll never know, and he's not going to do that because it will absolutely bury people that gave a positive review of Peters and Tre isn't going to do that.
I'd like to know what people think is the limit of due diligence.
For example I do due diligence for the people that I hire for, that means references and asking about prior indiscretions or disciplinary actions. I will usually go back a couple of employers or references, but I'm not digging back to their college days etc.
Even under employment laws there's only so much that you can do or so much information that you can expect to get via due diligence.