Player behaviour: at what point would you rather a good player wasn't on your chosen team?

[LondonSox]

I thought this was an interesting topic that came up in the Cowboys thread following the Hardy signing.

Most Cowboys fans seem ok to pay this guy for his talent, on a good deal for them, despite his case only going away because the victim refused to testify (most seem to believe due to intimidation or straight cash money).

How do you feel about this topic? What's the line?
Sadly nearly every team has one or more players who have done illegal things.

For example, in the Cowboys thread Hardy was talked about in terms of Suh. Suh to me is the on field extreme. Plays close to and repeatedly over the edge, dirty for sure but excellent and he got PAID despite this. But his bad behaviour is on the field not off it.
Would you want your team to sign a Hardy, a Peterson, a Rice or even say a Vick. Remember their issues likely make them significantly cheaper for your team too.

I remember being conflicted about the Vick signing. I'm a dog person and I had issues with his actions. that said he had actually gone to jail and served his punishment and seemed genuinely remorseful and attempting to help stop others doing what he did.
In the end I come down on, it cost him a lot. Punishments were applied and actually enforced, I didn't love it but it wasn't enough for it to impact my support of the Eagles.

Where do you stand? Just win baby, or win but the right way?

 

[moondog80]

This point has been made before, but do the same standards apply to your iTunes collection?  I'm not trying to be snarky -- I would at the very least have reservations about Hardy in NE, but I don't give it a second thought when I'm listening to music, watching TV, reading, or whatever.  

 

[TheoShmeo]

Dave Meggett was a character guy when he was on the Patriots.  Or so we were told. Then we found that he raped women.
 
My point:  We know almost nothing about the players we root for unless we somehow have a connection.  Some of us know guys directly or through friends or relatives.  But for the most part, we don't know the players we identify with and shower affection upon.
 
Some of them reveal themselves -- like Hardy and of course the murdering TE -- but many of the bad guys remain invisible.
 
As a result, I've given up trying to make very much sense of this.  I root for players who I think will make my team win, and don't worry much about how good or bad they are as people.  It's nice when I THINK I know something about them and it's positive.  I have heard a lot of really good things about Tom Brady from people who have connections with him (real ones) and it makes me happy that my favorite player happens to have a stellar reputation.  But it's not necessary and I would not be shocked if he had duped those people and was actually a monster behind closed doors. Not that I expect that but what the hell do I really know about him?
 
There are exceptions.  I couldn't root for Hernandez if the Pats had not suspended him.  But the line is blurry and that there are exceptions makes my position on this a bit squishy.  In the end, the rule for me, if there is one, is that there are very few exceptions and I view these guys as court jesters who are more like cartoon characters than real people who I have any kind of accurate sense of.  Entertain me, court jesters.
 
This post was a bit of a ramble and apologies for not making it more coherent.  The truth is that this is kind of a tough topic and puts into focus why it is we spend so much time and invest so much in people we don't know much about and who could be rapists.  As a result, the answer above is kind of what I tell myself, and allows me to be a huge fan when some aspects of fandom are difficult to square with reality.  More rambling....   

 

[dcmissle]

"We know almost nothing about the players we root for unless we somehow have a connection."

This is very important, yet we continue to delude ourselves to the contrary.

That said, what we do know about off field Hardy is not good if you credit the allegations. If you sign the guy anyway, you are courting trouble.

I get the Dallas signing; Hardy is a difference maker who could well get them to a SB if everything else breaks well. JJ is old and hasn't tasted success for a long time.

To me, it's not worth it (easy to say with 4 trophies, I know). As interesting as the AH trial is to me from a legal perspective, it's also a nightmare. Worst incident involving an NFL player since Rae Carruth. Don't court trouble.

 

[canvass ali]

I should preface this by saying ignorance is bliss--it sucks to find out your sports/music/entertainment icons are reprehensible people.  But once you know, you know and you can't pretend not to.  I try to discern (to the extent that it's possible, being an outsider looking in) between errors of judgement, errors of human weakness and malice.
 
Errors of judgement:  These guys are young and have lived inside the sports-hero bubble of unreality; I believe many lack real-life decision-making skills (common sense, maturity, etc).  Stupid things happen, hopefully nobody gets hurt and they learn something from it.  No problem rooting for a guy like this; I've done a million stupid things myself.
 
Human weakness:  Self-serving, self-indulgent stuff like PED use, crass behavior, bad sportsmanship...stuff that drags negativity into the team environment but can be counter-balanced by equal or stronger team leadership.  Not a deal breaker but makes you have the conversation with yourself about being loyal to your team while maybe rooting against certain individuals on the team.
 
Malice:  Unapologetic thugs and borderline sociopaths...I want my team's standards to reflect my own and steer clear of these types.  No work place is improved by bringing on someone like this, no matter how good their performance. 

 

[epraz]

 
My point:  We know almost nothing about the players we root for unless we somehow have a connection.  Some of us know guys directly or through friends or relatives.  But for the most part, we don't know the players we identify with and shower affection upon.
 

 
The point of the OP was to ask what is the line when you DO know that the player is a dirtbag.

 

[TheoShmeo]

I don't exactly know. I don't know when they aren't. I also don't know what to do when I think they are.

 

[mauf]

The starting QB for my favorite team is almost certainly a rapist. I wondered whether I would be able to root for the Steelers when he returned from his suspension. It was easier than I thought.
 
I'm hardly alone. To my knowledge, Steelers' fandom is as strong as ever, and the next Steelers' fan I meet who would have preferred the purity of Byron Leftwich or Charlie Batch (or whoever we might have hypothetically drafted) to a Super Bowl championship will be the first.
 
So my answer to the question in the thread title is that if the player is good enough (or hard enough to replace), I'm happy to have him on the field. And I'm confident that the vast majority of folks here feel the same, even if they don't realize it.
 
The power of the laundry is strong.

 

[Bosoxen]

That's a fair point to make but rooting for a sports team is a little different than the other areas of the entertainment industry, in my opinion. Yes, you could argue that buying an R Kelly CD or whatever is a sign of support but I think rooting for an NFL player is much different since fans buy jerseys to show other fans which players/teams they like. It's basically a "look at me" purchase. Nobody on the subway knows what I'm listening to nor do I care to show them. I can see both sides of the argument but let's say Hernandez is acquitted and gets to play again, you wouldn't have an issue rooting for him to score touchdowns for your favorite team?

 
Surely you've heard the people that boom their music as loud as humanly possible for the express purpose of you knowing exactly what it is they're listening to. If that's not a "look at me" behavior, I don't know what is. Just because you don't do it, doesn't mean others don't.
 
to circle this back around to the topic at hand, imagine a guy pulls up next to you at a red light blasting R Kelly in his car, or some putz in the subway who's playing R Kelly so loud on his iPod that you can hear it from 10 feet away. Are these behaviors that dissimilar in the "look at me" aspect to wearing a t-shirt emblazoned with the logo of your favorite team?

 

[Klostrophobic]

Couldn't care less, since presumable if you're guilty of something you are not a free man capable of playing professional sports. It's a sport and I'd like to see the best athletes perform.

 

[bankshot1]

The starting QB for my favorite team is almost certainly a rapist. I wondered whether I would be able to root for the Steelers when he returned from his suspension. It was easier than I thought.
 
I'm hardly alone. To my knowledge, Steelers' fandom is as strong as ever, and the next Steelers' fan I meet who would have preferred the purity of Byron Leftwich or Charlie Batch (or whoever we might have hypothetically drafted) to a Super Bowl championship will be the first.
 
So my answer to the question in the thread title is that if the player is good enough (or hard enough to replace), I'm happy to have him on the field. And I'm confident that the vast majority of folks here feel the same, even if they don't realize it.
 
The power of the laundry is strong.

I generally agree with the above.
 
I think our ability to rationalize as well as our hypocrisy almost knows no bounds. In our perfect worlds we root for the good guys.
I recall when the Mitchell Report came out and it was dominated by drug ingesting MFY, the general glee and righteousness around here was pretty high. However as more information came out, it became increasingly harder to believe "we" (Sox) were as pure as we had hoped. So we adopted a more relaxed standard, "they all did PEDs" attitude. 
 
I'm still pretty sure I'd want my teams (Boston based) to not go out of their way to employ a killer, rapist, domestic abuser, as there is only so much rationalization I can rationalize

 

[Devizier]

This point has been made before, but do the same standards apply to your iTunes collection?  I'm not trying to be snarky -- I would at the very least have reservations about Hardy in NE, but I don't give it a second thought when I'm listening to music, watching TV, reading, or whatever.  

 
Interestingly, I think most people draw a distinction between sports and art. This could veer rapidly into philosophical bullshit territory, but the athlete is more central to the idea of sports than the artist is to the idea of art/music/drama. 
 
I mean, they teach Leni Reifenstahl and D.W. Griffith in film school, right?

 

[Bosoxen]

So, you'd have no problem rooting for an acquitted Hernandez? I simply stated where my line is. If yours is different, cool.

You have just constructed the Godzilla of straw men. Bravo.

 

[Stitch01]

The starting QB for my favorite team is almost certainly a rapist. I wondered whether I would be able to root for the Steelers when he returned from his suspension. It was easier than I thought.
 
I'm hardly alone. To my knowledge, Steelers' fandom is as strong as ever, and the next Steelers' fan I meet who would have preferred the purity of Byron Leftwich or Charlie Batch (or whoever we might have hypothetically drafted) to a Super Bowl championship will be the first.
 
So my answer to the question in the thread title is that if the player is good enough (or hard enough to replace), I'm happy to have him on the field. And I'm confident that the vast majority of folks here feel the same, even if they don't realize it.
 
The power of the laundry is strong.

 
More or less agree with that.  Id rather not have to deal with rooting for a really known bad apple with abuse offenses, particularly on the Patriots at this point, and Id rather not have the team I root for become a home for scumbags or build statues of someone who probably was involved with a murder, but sports aren't really a morality play.  There are easy ways to justify it to yourself (well, he was never actually convicted of anything...well he's grown up...well, he has been a model citizen since he's been on the team I root for, etc) and, as someone said above, you dont know these guys anyways (a 2011 SB win wouldnt have been less sweet to me today because the tight end turned out to be a serial killer).  
 
So Id root for Greg Hardy if he was on the Pats, but kind of happy not to despite his obvious talent if that makes sense.

 

[finnVT]

This point has been made before, but do the same standards apply to your iTunes collection?  I'm not trying to be snarky -- I would at the very least have reservations about Hardy in NE, but I don't give it a second thought when I'm listening to music, watching TV, reading, or whatever.  

To me, there's a bit of a false dichotomy here.  I think the correct comparison to the iTunes collection is being willing to watch the player on TV-- will you spend money (directly, via iTunes, or indirectly via cable sub/ads, or directly via a game ticket) on entertainment provided by said individual?  Given that question, I think in both questions I have to say yes-- I'm sure I listen to music by many terrible people, and I will continue to watch football games if Greg Hardy (e.g.) happens to be playing.
 
Fandom is a step beyond this.  There's a personal association with one's team that we don't often have with other entertainers.  While I might listen to music by the hypothetical scumbag, I probably wouldn't wear a shirt/hat with their image, hang their poster, or whatever else one might do to express fandom.  I think the same applies here-- I'm not going to boycott an NFL game because the player is involved, but I also feel very uncomfortable with expressions of fandom towards that person.

 

[Bosoxen]

It's not a straw man argument. You clearly disagree with my line in the sand so I am trying to find where yours is. This isn't that hard. There is no snark intended so you can drop yours.

 
Nowhere in my post did I say anything regarding where your line in the sand resides, nor mine. All my post did was point out the fallacy of your argument that wearing a sports jersey is an exercise in "look at me" and that listening to music is a private thing that's not advertised as loudly as one's rooting interest.
 
So, yes, your response was 100% a straw man because, no, I would not root for Hernandez. See how easy that is? When you don't put words in people's mouths, the likelihood of confusion regarding that person's stance on an issue drops significantly.

 

[SumnerH]

 
Interestingly, I think most people draw a distinction between sports and art. This could veer rapidly into philosophical bullshit territory, but the athlete is more central to the idea of sports than the artist is to the idea of art/music/drama. 
 
I mean, they teach Leni Reifenstahl and D.W. Griffith in film school, right?

 
Griffith and Reifenstahl classes are filled with discussion about their moral culpability, to what extent Griffith's Intolerance served as response to the Birth of a Nation criticism, the dichotomy between Fritz Lang's reaction to being asked to fulfill the role that Reifenstahl ultimately did (basically hop on a train out of the country that night) and Leni's half-baked excuses and apologies, etc.  Also unlike the athletes in question, their transgressions are so integral to their most important works that they can't be ignored: when you're watching Birth of a Nation or Triumph of the Will, the problems are there on the big screen, literally in black and white.
 
Polanski and Woody Allen might be closer to the athletic examples, in that they're often studied with little comment on their behavior and that their behavior didn't so obviously and overtly wind up in the on-screen product.

 

[Reverend]

I walked away from the Celtics for a few years when half the team was hauled into court for gang rape.

 

[canvass ali]

The power of the laundry is strong.

 
It really is and this cuts to the heart of the matter--you root for the team.  There will be individual members you'll be disappointed in.  So you shift your focus onto other team members or story arcs you are more able to relate to, and wait for the next team dynamic to emerge.   There's so much turnover, it's only a matter of time before you're looking at a whole new dynamic, hopefully one you can embrace. 

 

[JayMags71]

I walked away from the Celtics for a few years when half the team was hauled into court for gang rape.

I remember an incident with Marcus Webb. Beyond that, I don't know what you're talking about.

 

[SeanBerry]

I didn't watch a single Jets game last year. I'm not going to root for a dog killer like Vick. I spend Sundays watching football with my dogs. It just left a horrible feeling in my stomach. Now someone can respond to that asking how I was able to root for Sanchez when he had been rumored of sexual assault but with it just being a rumor, it's easier to deal with (if that makes any sense). 
 
It was tough at times not watching last year but easier then I thought it would. The Jets having a horrible season obviously made that easier but I didn't miss the routine as much as I thought and it was nice having Sundays free some weeks. 
 
It's a tough call but the older I get, the more the "human" side of all of this matter more to me. 

 

[dcmissle]

 
It really is and this cuts to the heart of the matter--you root for the team.  There will be individual members you'll be disappointed in.  So you shift your focus onto other team members or story arcs you are more able to relate to, and wait for the next team dynamic to emerge.   There's so much turnover, it's only a matter of time before you're looking at a whole new dynamic, hopefully one you can embrace. 

I'm surprised only that we didn't have posters bashing Suggs in one thread while urging the signing of Hardy in another. Goddamn, laundry is powerful.

 

[Reverend]

I remember an incident with Marcus Webb. Beyond that, I don't know what you're talking about.

 
Mercer and Billups at Walker's place.

 

[MainerInExile]

For me, it's the violence issue.

 
Me too.  Smoke pot? Fine.  Shoplift?  You're an idiot, but whatever.  PEDs?  Hey, at least you were trying to get better.
 
Beat up a woman (or even throw bleach on her)? Whip a kid?  Rape someone?  The Cowboys and Ravens can have you.

 

[ALiveH]

If they haven't been proven guilty do I have superior information that I can be sure they're guilty?  In most cases, definitely not.
 
If they have been proven guilty & have paid their debt to society, and they're helping my team, then I can root for them.
 
But yeah, of course I'll use whatever convenient ammunition I can get to make fun of guys who root for Big Ben, Kobe, the Ravens, or whoever; while turning a blind eye to the Red Sox historical sins because they're under new ownership now.  The laundry is strong.
 
In the world where Hernandez is acquitted does he still have his skills & can we get him on a discounted contract?

 

[E5 Yaz]

Spelling "behavior" with a u would be a deal-breaker

 

[canvass ali]

I'm surprised only that we didn't have posters bashing Suggs in one thread while urging the signing of Hardy in another. Goddamn, laundry is powerful.

 
I had a hot girlfriend years ago who was proportionately crazy (there's a scientific correlation).  I became an expert at rationalizing her craziness out of pure self-interest.  The laundry can do that too, totally derail critical judgement.

 

[BornToRun]

My take is the same one that's been expressed in this thread previously. I draw the line at a player being a truly awful human being. I'll root for an asshole, I'll root for a cheater, I'll root for an idiot, and I'll root for someone who's had run ins with the law but as soon as someone is involved with something truly heinous like rape or murder is where I reach my limit.

I feel like football, and baseball for that matter, isn't important enough for me to ignore when a guy is a complete piece of shit.

 

[Deathofthebambino]

I don't root for players.  I root for the laundry.  There are players I like watching more than others, but that's really about it.
 
I'm also completely uninterested in virtually anything that happens off the field.  For me, I draw the line at how it will affect the team.  I would rather have a guy that's been arrested for some horrible shit but is a clubhouse leader and hard worker, than a guy like Harvin who appears to be a cancer that makes his teams worse.  I don't want guys facing suspension that would result in dead money that hurts us vis a vis the luxury cap. 
 
Other than that, I don't really give much of a shit.  These guys aren't my role models, and they aren't my kids role models.  I pay so very little attention to any stories that aren't related to the play between the lines that I couldn't tell you if they are a bunch of Mother Theresa's or a bunch of Jeffrey Dahmer's.  For example, I know Greg Hardy did some horrible shit, but I don't know the details and don't really care.  For the most part, I just skim over that shit.  I'm much more interested in whether or not he's going to be suspended by the league and what his teammates and coaches have to say about him as a player.  These guys are out there to entertain me as football players, and nothing else.  I don't apologize for that at all. 
 
FTR, this has not always been my feeling on this stuff, but I've gotten more and more jaded and cynical about it as I've gotten older.  I used to want to like the guys and teams that I rooted for, but not anymore.  I just want them to win, particularly when I have money on them.

 

[Reverend]

I don't root for players.  I root for the laundry.  There are players I like watching more than others, but that's really about it.
 
I'm also completely uninterested in virtually anything that happens off the field.  For me, I draw the line at how it will affect the team.  I would rather have a guy that's been arrested for some horrible shit but is a clubhouse leader and hard worker, than a guy like Harvin who appears to be a cancer that makes his teams worse.  I don't want guys facing suspension that would result in dead money that hurts us vis a vis the luxury cap. 
 
Other than that, I don't really give much of a shit.  These guys aren't my role models, and they aren't my kids role models.  I pay so very little attention to any stories that aren't related to the play between the lines that I couldn't tell you if they are a bunch of Mother Theresa's or a bunch of Jeffrey Dahmer's.  For example, I know Greg Hardy did some horrible shit, but I don't know the details and don't really care.  For the most part, I just skim over that shit.  I'm much more interested in whether or not he's going to be suspended by the league and what his teammates and coaches have to say about him as a player.  These guys are out there to entertain me as football players, and nothing else.  I don't apologize for that at all. 
 
FTR, this has not always been my feeling on this stuff, but I've gotten more and more jaded and cynical about it as I've gotten older.  I used to want to like the guys and teams that I rooted for, but not anymore.  I just want them to win, particularly when I have money on them.

 
How would you feel about the ghost of Joe Paterno coaching the Patriots?

 

[GeorgeCostanza]

I root for the laundry too but get very attached to some players. I went to Gillette for Bledsoes first game back with Buffalo and cheered him on like a lunatic. I'll cheer for Vince.

I understand that we don't know wether someone on our team is an piece of garbage or not, but much like Billy Muphrey I consider myself a cockeyed optimist. Until you show yourself to be a piece of shit, I give the benefit of the doubt. Once you remove that doubt I can't cheer. I fall along the same lines as MainerInExile.

 

[Deathofthebambino]

If Paterno could produce what BB has produced over the last 15 years, so be it.  I'd draw a line at Sandusky though.  Fortunately, the law would take that option out of the equation. 

 

[Reverend]

Dammit, I meant Sandusky.

 

[taoofoj]

Robert Kraft is on record saying the Patriots would not sign Ray Rice.  They released Christian Peter because of his DV history and rep.
 
So if you're a Pats fan and the Pats go sign a guy like Greg Hardy, there's another layer to the onion.  It's not just reconciling your own feelings about the Pats signing a bad apple, it's also reconciling that such a signing would be highly hypocritical of the Patriots - and thus doubly irritating for a Pats fan to rationalize past.
 
AFAIK the Sox have not taken the same kind of strong public stance against DV guys as the Pats (tho I do remember Wil Cordero), so as a Sox fan I have the easier task of only reconciling my own personal feelings if they sign a dirtbag.

 

[Van Everyman]

So honestly, would anyone here want the Pats to sign Hernandez if he's acquitted of all the murders? Just how powerful is the laundry?

I feel like we're dancing around the answer here.

 

[GlenMorangie]

.

 

[EricFeczko]

Robert Kraft is on record saying the Patriots would not sign Ray Rice.  They released Christian Peter because of his DV history and rep.
 
So if you're a Pats fan and the Pats go sign a guy like Greg Hardy, there's another layer to the onion.  It's not just reconciling your own feelings about the Pats signing a bad apple, it's also reconciling that such a signing would be highly hypocritical of the Patriots - and thus doubly irritating for a Pats fan to rationalize past.
 
AFAIK the Sox have not taken the same kind of strong public stance against DV guys as the Pats (tho I do remember Wil Cordero), so as a Sox fan I have the easier task of only reconciling my own personal feelings if they sign a dirtbag.

I don't get this, didn't Corey Dillon have a rep for DV prior to signing with the pats?
I think its more like Bob Kraft is willing to give a guy a second chance if it seems like said person is repentant, but if he screws up he's out.

 

[Montana Fan]

 
Mercer and Billups at Walker's place.

 
Jeezus.
 
http://www.igtc.com/archives/celtics/1999/Oct/msg00106.html

 

[kolbitr]

 
Griffith and Reifenstahl classes are filled with discussion about their moral culpability, to what extent Griffith's Intolerance served as response to the Birth of a Nation criticism, the dichotomy between Fritz Lang's reaction to being asked to fulfill the role that Reifenstahl ultimately did (basically hop on a train out of the country that night) and Leni's half-baked excuses and apologies, etc.  Also unlike the athletes in question, their transgressions are so integral to their most important works that they can't be ignored: when you're watching Birth of a Nation or Triumph of the Will, the problems are there on the big screen, literally in black and white.
 
Polanski and Woody Allen might be closer to the athletic examples, in that they're often studied with little comment on their behavior and that their behavior didn't so obviously and overtly wind up in the on-screen product.

 
This is a good point (as expected)...I have talked at length about the filmic excellence of Knife in the Water and Repulsion without dealing with Polanski's issues, and although I've ever taught Woody, I have written about Bananas, at least, without ever feeling the need to apologize (admittedly, that film was made decades before his bizarre behaviour...)

 

[dcmissle]

So honestly, would anyone here want the Pats to sign Hernandez if he's acquitted of all the murders? Just how powerful is the laundry?

I feel like we're dancing around the answer here.

That would be a "massive overreaction" on the Pats' part. Juries get it wrong more often than people care to admit.

 

[Van Everyman]

Ok just to be clear, i completely agree. Just couldn't tell from what some folks here were saying.

 

[ALiveH]

I'd want Hernandez if he still has the skills and comes at a discounted price.
 
Kraft not wanting to sign a terrible player like Ray Rice who happened to have a DV charge - really taking the moral high ground there Bob.  Pretty sure if we were talking AP, the Pats would explore it.
 
I believe Dillon's DV was after he retired.
 
Speaking of Sandusky, did anybody here engage in any serious self-examination about their red sox fandom when this stuff came out?
http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/2012/10/01/toll-accusers-red-sox-abuse-case-grows/2dtNoyErINxyduUFslLXoN/story.html

 

[dcmissle]

Dallas Mayor: JJ Jack Ruby'ed me with the Hardy signing:

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/03/20/dallas-mayor-calls-signing-of-greg-hardy-a-shot-in-the-gut/

As high profile as the Cowboys are, and given the lightning rod that Jones can be, the reaction has been relatively muted.

If the Pats had signed Hardy, it would have been open season with great histrionics. And our local douchebags would have led the way.

 

[Devizier]

Speaking of Sandusky, did anybody here engage in any serious self-examination about their red sox fandom when this stuff came out?
http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/2012/10/01/toll-accusers-red-sox-abuse-case-grows/2dtNoyErINxyduUFslLXoN/story.html

I sure would if the current ownership were bringing that guy back into the fold. People are throwing around a lot of toothless accusations of hypocrisy in this thread.

 

[richgedman'sghost]

I'd want Hernandez if he still has the skills and comes at a discounted price.
 
Kraft not wanting to sign a terrible player like Ray Rice who happened to have a DV charge - really taking the moral high ground there Bob.  Pretty sure if we were talking AP, the Pats would explore it.
 
I believe Dillon's DV was after he retired.
 
Speaking of Sandusky, did anybody here engage in any serious self-examination about their red sox fandom when this stuff came out?
http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/2012/10/01/toll-accusers-red-sox-abuse-case-grows/2dtNoyErINxyduUFslLXoN/story.html

I don't care to revisit it, but there was a whole thread on the Main Page  on the molestation charges and the Red Sox response to it when that story first was written. The search tool can be your friend.  Quick Summary: Most fans were repulsed by the actions of the Yawkey regime but were heartened by the HWL response to the accusations.