And that’s my point. IF they fired him due to the allegations, and took a moralistic view, I simply don’t agree unless they have a consistent stance on morals. But IF it was due to real drama that really impacted the program, and other factors, I can see why. I would’ve fired him for other reasons, so I’m not a RR fan. I don’t have a beef with RR either. I’m looking at his performance objectively. If the affairs impacted that performance and hurt the program, then I get it. But it seems like Arizona indirectly fired him due to these allegations. I guess we may never know the true reasoning, and if they couldn’t confirm these allegations, then you’re right... it’d be rough for them to openly say that was the reason for the firing because then they open themselves up to a lawsuit.
But In these situations I get a strong sense of “morality” being the casuse, and the morality is almost always taken from a female filter of how the world should work. And my primary point is that it will have implications for college athletics. Some people may agree with those implications, but most athletics are high testosterone, highly sexual. There are obviously lines, but we have to sort out where we draw those lines. I’m against any form of assault/rape. I don’t agree with the actions of RR but I can live with them. What he did simply isn’t where a lot of people draw the line, although if that behavior begins to impact your winning, I’d fire you. You can see how it
I don’t necessarily have an issue with the media in this case. And as I said, in America an enitity should in theory be allowed to fire anyone. I think that anyone can read this story and think for themselves. The media was fairly unbiased in this case. They simply stated the accusations and that he got fired, and that he denies them. People are free to interpret all of that information for themselves. I also agree with your method of checking multiple sources nonetheless, and thinking for yourself. I’d err on that side myself.
