Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
I find these calls to substantiate claims interesting, because they precede even less substantiated claims.
What do we know? We know that everyone in the locker room knew by the time homophobic slurs were being thrown around publicly during scrimmages and in the locker room. We know who did come forward, which didn’t include Seabrook.
Nobody in the course of the investigation mentioned Seabrook coming forward, so why would we believe that? And why would we treat it or the idea that he didn’t know as any more likely or equally as likely than the fact that he didn’t know and did nothing, which has been mentioned?
Like I’m not sure what people think “everybody” means. But if more than one person says “everybody” knew, that implicates “everybody” including Seabrook. Just because he wasn’t named specifically doesn’t exonerate him.
At this point, the only evidence available points to the fact that he knew about the situation, knew about the locker room abuse that followed, and did nothing. Unless you or anyone else has evidence that points to the contrary. Any at all?
|
The term "everyone" smacks of overgeneralization, particularly in the context of an independent investigation that specifically stated in its report that such a claim could not be substantiated. Furthermore, the claim that "everyone" knew was in direct contradiction to the testimony of the vast majority of the players interviewed.
And no, I'm not claiming that Seabrook knew about and reported the abuse. But if we want to vilify him for knowing about the abuse and for not reporting it, then we need to substantiate both of these claims. Otherwise, it's just assumed guilt without any evidence to corroborate it.