🏈 Glass houses, *uburn, and spuat

So basically, Danny is saying if he names the name of the person(s) who paid for Cam, it will ruin their careers? Maybe my thinking is a bit off but don't they DESERVE to have their careers ruined?


I think he is saying that if he names names, he will ruin the careers of his inside/informants at the NCAA - not the careers of those who did the crime.
 
I think he is saying that if he names names, he will ruin the careers of his inside/informants at the NCAA - not the careers of those who did the crime.

That's how I interpreted the comment.

He's not talking about ruining his career. To be honest, I don't know exactly what he's claiming to be his career at this point. He certainly can't use "contributor for USA Today" any longer. He was replaced by BoDog on the odds publishing last year. Now, I don't know who is going to handle that feature this year. BoDog was involved/accused with some fraud case last year and I believe they lost their contract with the news organization.

He's used a "get out of jail card" in that response that I can't stamp "denied." I do question it, but understand where he's coming from in a manner of speaking.
 
Terry, I'm not ducking your question. I had literally went through and responded point by point to the OP and your questions and my damn browser crashed and I don't feel like typing it up again right now. I do want to offer an opinion from the "other side", so to speak, so I won't cheapen it with a drive by answer. When my frustration subsides I'll come back.

I actually didn't defend AU on everything! Though I do have a different perspective on the McClover and Cam incidents due to some personal relationships involved so I will refrain from responding to those two. Fortunately, there is a lot more on the plate to chew on than that for once.
 
Back
Top Bottom