Former Football players to hold press conference tomorrow about sexual assault allegations.
Tweet via David Jesse.
https://twitter.com/reporterdavidj/status/1404778587132211205?s=21
Yes. The players with credibility.
Like Jim Brandstatter.
There is going to be a ton of pressure on the university to settle before the start of football season. I'm sure they have absolutely zero desire to have this lingering over the program this fall...with questions to coaches, players, commentary during games, etc. I also have to imagine the settlement will be north of a billion.
i would be absolutely stunned if the university "settled" before the season.
i'm no lawyer, but i don't think they should, which is NOT to say that i'm questioning the allegations on any level whatsoever. that said, i would think there's still a great deal of investigation that needs to take place to try to fully understand how big this was (and is).
I am a lawyer. They should settle this ASAP and end it.
The football season should not matter one bit as to how this proceeds. The only consideration should be doing right by the victims. Full stop.
Frankly, this shouldn't even be a football story. Harbaugh is the only one associated with the program who has ties to that time, and not in any way that would give him responsibility. The players never met Bo, were never treated by Andersen, etc. This involves a football program that hasn't existed in years. Some decorations around the football facilities will change. That hardly makes it a Michigan Football 2021 story.
Everyone facing accusations has been dead well over a decade. Why would today's players be questioned by reporters?
But the thing that bothers me is that supposedly many of the assistant coaches knew about this issue too and maybe joked about it, and it makes me wonder what did Lloyd and Moeller know about what was going on and why haven't they been directly asked this question or have they?
I don’t listen to local sports talk, but my father still does and he says they (97.1) have been on top of this story covering way more in depth and thoroughly than local news or newspaper. He said they have spent a bulk of all their time on this story and the importance of speaking about it and making sure it isn’t swept under the rug.
The coverage of the Bo news on this blog has been complete garbage. Brian can write article after article about MSU being a shit institution and bring it up at every opportunity, but when the shoe is on the other foot, he just clams up. What a giant hypocrite.
Hey Jackass,
How about this?
https://mgoblog.com/content/bo-schembechler-implicated-robert-anderson-…
Or this?
https://mgoblog.com/content/countless
Or this?
The first article you linked is from 2020. The second one is great, but was written and investigated, and continually pushed by Ace, who doesn't work here anymore. The third was only written after Ace called out the roundtable for how they talked about the allegations. Outside of the WTKA post last Thursday, there has been no mention on the front page about the new allegations against Bo by his son, or the accompanying news conference the following day. I find that completely unacceptable.
"I find that completely unacceptable"
Perhaps you'd like to speak to the manager? I'm sure he'll be happy to offer a full and complete refund of your subscription fee given your obvious dissatisfaction with services rendered.
We are talking about covering sexual abuse allegations in a consistent manner across all institutions. So yes, I absolutely believe there is an acceptable way to cover the events that have transpired. And no, you shouldn't have to pay a subscription fee to voice your displeasure when those standards aren't met, especially given the magnitude of these allegations.
Nah. He's right. It's been garbage.
The "Fightin' Larry Nassars" line by Brian was really, really, really, really bad form.
Honestly, not sure how much I want him chiming in regarding everything going on right now at Michigan.
What's really sad is that there was universal support of the former students until Bo's name became a central theme. It seems like once that happened, doubt started to be cast on them. Maybe I'm wrong, but I just don't remember the pushback against them last year when this started to gain attention.
What's really sad is that there was universal support of the former students until Bo's name became a central theme.
It must be hard for someone like JH who thinks of Bo as his idol to see him in this light if he never experienced any of the issues. I get that. It makes sense. It would still be nice to see JH publicly question his loyalty to Bo in light of the reports even given his experiences. But, he's the only one I'm really seeing say anything of support for Bo. The majority of the doubt seems to be surrounding Matt, not necessarily Bo, although technically I guess it's both since Matt's reports are about Bo. On the one hand, if Matt's recounts are true, his rocky relationship with the family is understandable. On the other hand, his own brother doubts his story. Most are in the camp that Bo's legacy is pretty much tarnished for good now.
His brother doesn't get to override his story. Brothers not telling each other they were sexually assaulted is hardly out of the ordinary. I hate people who hear about how someone was wronged and just HAVE to interject about how THEY were never wronged by them.
FWIW that's basically where I am in that I 100% believe the players but have an extremely difficult time believing Matt given that he had multiple litigations against both the university and Bo since 1989 (all of which he lost), the specificity of his recollections as a 10 year old, had a very rocky relationship with his step-father both personally and professionally and the statements of Shemy over the past week regarding what he witnessed personally.
Also FWIW I was at Michigan from 78-81 and have maintained relationships with several athletes (football and other sports) from when I was in school. While none of them have told me they themselves had an encounter with Anderson all find their fellow players accounts hard to accept but credible. None believe Matt.
When you say that you believe the players, does that mean that you believe they were assaulted, or does it also include believing that in some cases players told Bo and he did little or nothing?
In case you haven’t read it, here are several of the specific claims by players regarding Bo in the report:
“A member of the football team told us that Dr. Anderson gave him a rectal examination and fondled his testicles during a PPE in 1976. The student athlete told us he informed Coach Bo Schembechler that he did not want to receive any future physicals from Dr. Anderson and that “things were going down there that
weren’t right.” According to the student athlete, Mr. Schembechler explained that annual PPEs were required to play football at the University. The patient continued to see Dr. Anderson and made no further reports about Dr. Anderson’s misconduct. Mr. Schembechler is deceased.101 The same student athlete told us that his position coach used the threat of an examination with Dr. Anderson as a motivational tool. We interviewed the coach, who denied the allegation.”
”A member of the football team in the late 1970s told DPSS that he received a genital examination from Dr. Anderson, who fondled his testicles, and a rectal examination, during which the student athlete pushed Dr. Anderson’s hand away. The student athlete told DPSS that he asked Mr. Schembechler “soon” after the exam, “What’s up with the finger in the butt treatment by Dr. Anderson?” According to the student athlete, Mr. Schembechler told him to “toughen up.” The student athlete told DPSS that “you do not mess with Bo, and the matter was dropped.” The student athlete, who is represented by counsel, declined our interview request.”
“Another student athlete told us Dr. Anderson conducted genital and rectal examinations during a PPE in the fall of 1982. The student athlete told us that during the examination Dr. Anderson “play[ed]” with the patient’s penis and made comments about its size. Following the examination, the student athlete told us he informed Mr. Schembechler that Dr. Anderson had “mess[ed]” with his penis and that he did not “agree” with the type of physical examination that Dr. Anderson performed. Mr. Schembechler reportedly told the student athlete that he would look into it, but the student athlete never heard anything further about it. The student athlete continued to see Dr. Anderson but did not raise the matter again, fearing that doing so could jeopardize his scholarship.”
"When you say that you believe the players, does that mean that you believe they were assaulted, or does it also include believing that in some cases players told Bo and he did little or nothing?"
Both. I have no explanation as to why Bo did little to next to nothing though. The only thing I can come up is one of three things:
1. He didnt want to challenge a Doctor on what was acceptable or unacceptable medical protocol during an exam.
2. He didnt think it was that big of a deal
3. Anderson was supplying the team steroids
What I also struggle with is Bo's role in getting him rehired after he was terminated and Bo not taking more direct action when he was the Athletic Director himself. That makes no sense to me.
There is not enough information to form a solid/concrete opinion on the matter (as it regards Matt), and we aren't obliged to do so. We don't have to choose a side of "team Matt" or "team Bo", we can just let the pieces fall as they may and maybe come to a clearer understanding, or maybe continue to be ignorant. Choosing a side now may lead to blinding us to new information if it opposes the narrative we have created.
"The truth will out"
That's very fair. And, FWIW, whether I or anyone else on MgoBlog believe Matt or anyone else is completely meaningless to the final outcome. I'm simply stating that on a personal level I lean towards believing the players recollection of the past (and I might be proven 100% wrong) but lean against believing Matt's (and again, I might be proven 100% wrong).
And you are correct that once opinions are formed on matters such as this they are extremely difficult to change, even those opinions supported by absolutely no evidence or facts.
Remember that Jack Harbaugh was on the staff during this time. Jim H. may have been more interested in keeping his father out of it than his fascination with Bo. Just speculating.
Good for them - its hard to come to terms with your abuse and it takes a lot of courage to come forward. Men need to be just as vocal as women, this shit is toxic and ruins lives.
Another group of former players have started an online petition in defense of Bo.
https://www.freep.com/story/sports/college/university-michigan/wolverin…
Ah, our very own cultists. Can't be big time football without it.
Heres the things. People will defend the person they know. Thats why I dont take offense to what Harbaugh said about Bo. He was talking about the man he knew. In addition, nobody really knows what happened and sadly non of us know the real story.
That doesnt diminish the fact that there may be some people taking advantage of this situation, while others lives have been drastically altered. Its a shitty situation and really nobody here will win.
Nobody is asking the former players to forget Bo or any of the positive things he did for them. But when those that had positive experiences with Bo don't acknowledge the survivors' experience, that's a problem. You can say "I had good experiences with Bo, so it is hard for me to understand what happened to the survivors. I can't speak for them and won't speak for them, I can only speak for myself. But I acknowledge their perspective. Bo may have been a mentor or father figure for me. But he was not to them and that is unfortunate." Might not be good enough for some, but at least it doesn't center their experience as the only possible reality.
This is an important point. I take it at face value that Bo was a great influence for a lot of guys. But he obviously wasn't for others. And there's no contradiction there. The Catholic clergy who abused kids didn't abuse every kid they encountered. And some of them had a positive impact on the lives of some kids while having a devastating impact on the lives of others.
Yep, this is a huge issue today. People are way too arrogant/stupid/both and just can't get out of the "this is how I see it or feel about it, so it is the correct" way. Any other opinion is wrong and I must fight the opposing opinion to death without even considering that my point of view may be wrong or misguided. Critical thinking is a real problem.
Exactly. I mean, sure, Timothy McVeigh killed some people, but it's not like he killed every person he encountered. Timothy McVeigh probably had a positive impact on some lives while having a devastating impact on others.
Uh...okay?
It would be nice if they could all get together in a room and listen to each talk about their experiences. It might not convince all of Bo's supporters. But it just seems that talking face-to-face about things, and hearing how the experiences the victims had with Bo was different from their own, would create a lot more empathy and understanding.
In an ideal world, that could happen in a comfortable environment. But I don't wish for survivors to sit down in a room with potentially skeptical people for an extended period of time. It is hard for some to even approach their entirely supportive families with such things.
Agreed, both sides would have to be committed to developing understanding for it to be helpful. That is one of the tenets of restorative practices. It can be very powerful for healing when committed to and performed properly. I doubt every person involved could genuinely commit to it, but I'm sure there are some who could and it would be transformative for them.
sit down in a room with potentially skeptical people
I think that's one thing that is so hard for me to understand about this situation. It's not like they are complete strangers. These were teammates. They practiced together, played together and formed bonds as part of the team. They should be the last people to be skeptical of the victims. It just seems like they could have a strong affinity for Bo but, at the same time, be willing to listen to their brothers. I don't know.
Your perspective is your reality. If a guy is your idol because he helped mold you into who you are by supporting and nurturing you that's who he is to you. And, to the contrary if a guy let someone else hurt you, that guy is a source of pain and resentment. I don't see anyone saying to the others they should change their minds. They are giving each other the right to their own perspectives. Can't we all do the same and realize we are all flawed humans with good and bad qualities alike and those that love us are the ones we were able to do more good than bad for and ones that don't are where we made mistakes? Maybe the problem is that we give inherently flawed people too much power without oversight and we pretended Bo was hero and built a statue of him and acted like he did no wrong in the first place. IDK I'm just thinking out loud here.
The problem is that the those coming out and saying "Bo was a father figure" or whatever are doing so in the defense of Bo, not in acknowledgement that people are imperfect and can be different things to different people. You have to acknowledge the other side. The survivors don't have to acknowledge the other side because the "good Bo" is the accepted version of Bo in mainstream discourse.
And I think most of us accept that one another are flawed with good and bad and everything in between. But most of us aren't put on a pedestal and revered as major figures in our community. Harder to acknowledge the flawed nature of mankind when we'd - and not always intentionally so - made people into idols.
The problem is that the those coming out and saying "Bo was a father figure" or whatever are doing so in the defense of Bo, not in acknowledgement that people are imperfect and can be different things to different people. You have to acknowledge the other side.
I'm sure I haven't seen all the coverage, but I'm seeing the "Bo defenders" talking about his right to innocence until proven guilty. Since he's dead and can't defend himself they seem to be suggesting it's not fair to assume his guilt based on reports rather than facts.
But most of us aren't put on a pedestal and revered as major figures in our community. Harder to acknowledge the flawed nature of mankind when we'd - and not always intentionally so - made people into idols.
Agreed that herein lies the problem. We love our sports and we love our heros and want to believe some people are not flawed like you and I. It gives us something to aspire to. But, the reality is we are all flawed.
"Innocent until proven guilty" only matters in the legal system. No one one is asking for Bo to go to jail because he can't. The extent to which "innocent til proven guilty" with regards to people within the institution matters more for the civil suit. Not for our discussions here. The players defending Bo are doing so for his legacy, which is what is up for debate amongst the public. The lawyers and civil court will determine the financial settlement.
Also, though they might not mean it, their defense of Bo is also viewed as an accusation that the survivors are lying for some reason.
None of these former players have to say anything. They could keep their opinions to themselves. But if they do speak out or sign a petition or side with someone else that is talking, their words are up to scrutiny from the public, which is what we're doing here. What they say or do not say matters. I don't have a problem with what Harbaugh said. I have a problem with what he did not say. Because words, just like actions, matter and thus does the absence of words and actions matter.
Also, though they might not mean it, their defense of Bo is also viewed as an accusation that the survivors are lying for some reason.
I think it's hard for some folks to accept someone they viewed in such a positive light doing such harm to others. I think you might find that change over time as they reflect and sit with their experiences and consider those of others. But, I think it's hard to change on the spot and it's a natural instinct to defend someone who has been a positive influence on you.
None of these former players have to say anything. They could keep their opinions to themselves. But if they do speak out or sign a petition or side with someone else that is talking, their words are up to scrutiny from the public, which is what we're doing here. What they say or do not say matters. I don't have a problem with what Harbaugh said. I have a problem with what he did not say.
I don't disagree, but I think we form our opinions in part from how other people respond to what we say and do. That means our opinions evolve over time. You may say something here I didn't consider that makes me change my opinion or vice versa. Someone's gut instinct may be to support Bo. They may later learn that was misguided. I'm not a fan of the the Bo supporters saying anything or signing petitions either. I'd rather they listen than share. I think later on they will realize choosing to publicly support Bo was not the best idea. But, I think it's OK to give people who felt supported by Bo time to process all this.
The problem is that there is no moral “presumption of innocence.” Moral judgment ought to proceed based on the evaluation of evidence, and testimony is a kind of evidence (perhaps not the best kind). You don’t become morally unassailable simply by dying. Further, there is no hard distinction between “reports” and “facts”. Reports summarize the available evidence. That’s all that there is. There is no “raw fact” that could be presented to settle things.
Further, there is no hard distinction between “reports” and “facts”. Reports summarize the available evidence. That’s all that there is. There is no “raw fact” that could be presented to settle things.
Without making any comment on this particular case, I'd like to discuss the idea of memories as evidence.
There is lots of evidence as to why memories are not reliable. They should not be taken in the same light for example a video recording of what happened. We "remember" things that never happened sometimes. We "remember" things differently than how they really happened sometimes. False memories are a real thing.
People have been convicted of crimes and gone to jail based largely on false memories from eye witnesses and DNA testing later overturned those convictions. Our memories are constructed and reconstructed like a Wikipedia page, influenced by others, by our past, by our values, etc. A skilled psychologist or attorney can change your recollection of an event based on how they ask you questions of what happened. Talking to other witness that went through a similar experience or watching media coverage can change your memory of what happened.
People make believing memories of allegedly awful things about emotions like trusting and being compassionate to victims because the event sounds tragic. That doesn't mean that nothing they say is true or that you shouldn't feel bad for those victims. But, the reality is you can have a good, honest people, give false information and false memories by no fault of their own because of how the brain works. It's not about calling people liars or placing value on who is telling the truth versus who is lying. They all may be telling their version of what they remember as true. But, that doesn't make it so. It's about how the human brain works and how reliable or unreliable memories really are as a form of evidence.
At what point is it reasonable to ask people to change their perspectives to incorporate other people’s realities?
We do this all the time in all sorts of areas of life.
The Iverson "practice" press conference happened when I was a kid. I remember thinking that the media kinda overreacted to it but Iverson needed to be more professional and show up to work and not take it lightly. I only just recently learned that one of his closest friends had died that season and he was struggling with that throughout the whole year (which probably contributed to the disappointing 76ers season that year). The trial for his friend's murderer had just started a few days before the incident. Changed my perspective a bit. New information should always be taken into account of our opinions.
It's harder when to do when the thing we get new information about is something near and dear to us. But it doesn't excuse us not processing the new information.
At what point is it reasonable to ask people to change their perspectives to incorporate other people’s realities?
It's probably different for every situation. Think of the most influential person in your life. Someone with whom you've only had positive experiences and felt supported and encouraged. Now assume they are dead and you can't ask them about what happened. How long would it take you to change your opinion of them if someone else said shared a different experience? How many different people being hurt by them would it take you to change your opinion?
They're looking for the school to take more responsibility. I think the statement from the school last week about how this was all so long ago missed the mark. The survivors think the culture that allowed this to happen still exists and they want to see U of M acknowledge that and make changes.
I also think we might start seeing still living assistant coach's names start to drop. Ones who knew about Anderson and threatened players with trips to him if they didn't perform better.
Unfortunately, this is how I understand our legal system to work. The lawyers for the survivors are going to organize these press conferences to put pressure on the University to hopefully get a faster, larger settlement. The University is bending over backwards to not make any public statements taking responsibility for the lack of oversight until the lawsuits get settled so as to not compromise their legal defense. I wish that there was a transformational leader who was willing to step out of that paradigm and do what's right for the long term health and reputation of the Michigan community, damn the consequences financially and otherwise. Those sorts seem thin on the ground, and probably always have been, which is how Michigan got into this mess in the first place.