Why are people framing it as though people want to believe Babcock or give him the benefit of the doubt?
I am not on twitter so maybe that is happening there but from what I have seen most of the stuff being labeled as "defending Babcock" has to do with the reports from Gaudreau, Werenski and Jenner saying that what happened wasn't what is being reported in the media.
That doesn't mean that some younger (or older as well) players might not have felt differently but so far all the actual evidence backs one version of events and the Bissonette/Spittlin Chiclets side is nothing but empty accusations and paired with some dumb and offensive remarks.
I have no problem believing that Babcock could have done something wrong but I also don't think it is wrong to say that we should have more than Biz Nasty saying he has contact from "players" that are true, especially when the supposed player backer says to shove it up your ass when Jenner, a player, comes out with a different version. I guess Biz Nasty is only a player defender when that player tows his line.
|