Russini & Vrabel Nothing to see here?

[KCSVEN]

The point is laid out in the first full sentence of the post: There’s no reason to resign if she is not guilty.

Given what the reports were about her salary, she’s losing roughly a quarter million by resigning. Not the actions of an innocent person.

But then she's stuck. She can't pursue what she decides to do next.
She should be financially set for life at this point based on what she's made from ESPN to The Athletic.
She'd be legally barred from appearing on any other network or any platform, she'd be unable to work at all. Whatever she wants to do next is on complete hold for 2 months. Yeah, you can say she's not going to work anyway but that's not necessarily true and for her to start "rebuilding trust" with potential employers or people that will work with her on her own podcast (as an example) she'd be completely barred from any of that.

There are a ton of reasons why she would resign. If I was her, I'd resign if I was innocent or guilty. Not even a question.
It makes sense for her to try to get back to a professional career as soon as possible which someone like her would care about more than that money I would think.

 

[borg]

'We Know Who You Really Are': NFL Reporter Calls Out Counterpart After Resignation Following Alleged Risqué Photos

Not too much longer after Dianna Russini posted her resignation letter on social media, Crissy Froyd caught whiff of it, and boy oh boy, it's a doozy.

dailycaller.com

“We know who you really are and what you’ve been up to for years,”

“I want to first of all say that I am so thankful an outlet does have the audacity to do a story on Dianna Russini being called out. She deserves to have been, and all of us do know what she’s been up to. From fights with other reporters in Chili’s parking lots about hooking up with married NFL coaches to everything else, it is almost certainly all true. It was the worst kept secret in the NFL reporting world for a while.

Someone once propositioned me to have Dianna potentially be my mentor. I declined because I knew what she was about and her track record.
I can honestly say I have never slept with a player or coach for professional gain.
Dianna cannot say the same. That’s where the difference is.”

 

[Steve102]

I'm just trying to figure out what the rules are. Some people seem to be upset about the Vrabel/Russini thing because info is being shared that shouldn't be shared, yet your post says this is normal and accepted. Seems then the real thing they are upset about is that they quite possibly are having sex before/during/after sharing information. Or maybe they're upset because they're having sex regardless of any information sharing going on, yet most people admit sexual relationships with or without infidelity is also not unusual in the NFL.

Bro.

We were discussing the tampering period in free agency. Specifically, I was referring to what I recall was Peter King, but it might have been Bill now that I am thinking about it, how the back channeling free agency thing worked. It had nothing to do with the Russini/Vrabel thing.

 

[borg]

"Source close to Diane Russini believes Russini's husband hired PI"

 

[n1997y]

Bull. There’s no reason to resign if she is not guilty. You let the investigation play out and have her employer exonerate her publicly.

Even if her contract expires, it would be extremely beneficial for her former employer to publicly declare there’s just nothing there.

that assumes a fair investigation, and an employer willing to exonerate her publicly.

Her employer might not see it beneficial to declare there’s nothing there. I can see them letting the investigation run its course then issuing a simple one sentence statement:

“Although our thorough investigation found no evidence of any violations of journalistic impartiality, we have decided to not extend or renew Dianna’s contract.”

How do you see anything more as being beneficial to her former employer? They’re not going to renew her contract because even if she did nothing else she committed the cardinal sin of any employee: she created a headache for her boss. Anything positive they say while not renewing her contract just makes them look bad.

 

[n1997y]

It seems to me they want to promulgate a climate where social boundaries are rigorously enforced, rather than relying on trust to keep their partners faithful to commitments they've made to monogamous relationships.

exactly. It’s the culture wars.

It’s not about trust keeping partners faithful. It’s punishing any examples of non-conformity with their rigid world views. If non-conformity goes unpunished it threatens their rigid ideology. That’s why they must cancel anything that does not fit their beliefs.

 

[XLIX]

that assumes a fair investigation, and an employer willing to exonerate her publicly.

Yes, I am assuming that her employer - who would want her to be exonerated - is not going to risk the 9 figure lawsuit they would receive by railroading an innocent person.

Her employer might not see it beneficial to declare there’s nothing there.

That’s the dumbest thing you’ve said in these threads, which is insane considering the whoppers you’ve already made.

Her malfeasance reflects poorly on her employer. Not only are they going to investigate her fairly but, if anything, they are going to give her more benefit of the doubt than she deserves. It is 100% beneficial to her employer for them to conclude she behaved with absolute integrity in all her press filings and relationships with sources. If they did indeed come to that conclusion, they would advertise it to all the world.

(They’re not going to come to that conclusion because it isn’t true, but they would absolutely love it if it was)

 

[XLIX]

But then she's stuck. She can't pursue what she decides to do next.

You have got to be kidding. You don't think a reporter on contract starts looking for their next job before the contract officially expires??

She should be financially set for life at this point based on what she's made from ESPN to The Athletic.

That is easy for us po' folk to say, but you have no idea what type of expenses she has. People tend to spend up to what they make. You have no idea whatsoever whether or not she is "set financially".

There are a ton of reasons why she would resign. If I was her, I'd resign if I was innocent or guilty. Not even a question.

There is no logical reason whatsoever for her to resign (and throw away roughly a quarter million dollars) if she is innocent.

 

[jmt57]

Yes, I am assuming that her employer - who would want her to be exonerated - is not going to risk the 9 figure lawsuit they would receive by railroading an innocent person.

It is absolutely, 100% beneficial to her employer for them to conclude she behaved with absolute integrity in all her press filings and relationships. If they did indeed come to that conclusion, they would advertise it to all the world.

(They’re not going to come to that conclusion because it isn’t true, but they would absolutely love it if it was)

Regarding that final line: they would never publicly reach a conclusion of innocence, regardless of whether it was true or not.

Because she has already been found guilty in the Court of Public Opinion, there is little to no upside for the Athletic to attempt to go against the grain, and futilely attempt to convince the world otherwise. All that would succeed in doing is giving more oxygen and shelf life to a story that they would much prefer go away, while doing so would result in the masses screaming of a coverup and conspiracy theories.

From their perspective the sooner the story goes away the better; same for any other enterprise dealing with a unwanted publicity that puts them under an unwelcome magnifying glass. It's nearly impossible to prove a negative.

 

[sb1]

Fired just for giving her opinion. Wow.

 

[sb1]

 

[jmt57]

Fired just for giving her opinion. Wow.

A little too much dancing on the grave, and not enough staying in her lane.

In this type of situation it is almost always best to just keep your mouth shut, keep your opinions to yourself, keep your head down and do your job.

It's one thing for any of us to voice an opinion on the matter; another for a colleague to now make herself the story.

 

[yukon cornelius]

A little too much dancing on the grave, and not enough staying in her lane.

In this type of situation it is almost always best to just keep your mouth shut, keep your opinions to yourself, keep your head down and do your job.

It's one thing for any of us to voice an opinion on the matter; another for a colleague to now make herself the story.

certain types have a hard time doing that.......funny thing is, they are usually projecting

 

[maust]

A little too much dancing on the grave, and not enough staying in her lane.

Dancing on Russini's grave Froyd unintentionally dug her own. I have no sympathy, it was classless and thoroughly unprofessional

 

[yukon cornelius]

Dancing on Russini's grave Froyd unintentionally dug her own. I have no sympathy, it was classless and thoroughly unprofessional

Shes been heading towards M@g@ media for a bit now; its been the #1 choice for vapid, blonde media types with a stalled/failed career for years now......this was just her launching pad for a riley gaines-type career change

 

[XLIX]

Regarding that final line: they would never publicly reach a conclusion of innocence, regardless of whether it was true or not.

Of course they would. As I said in a different post, her malfeasance makes them look bad. If they investigated and discovered that she did absolutely nothing wrong, never had an inappropriate relationship, never compromised her ethics, they would damn well make sure everyone knew it.

 

[Bill Lee]

Bro.

We were discussing the tampering period in free agency. Specifically, I was referring to what I recall was Peter King, but it might have been Bill now that I am thinking about it, how the back channeling free agency thing worked. It had nothing to do with the Russini/Vrabel thing.

I disagree, bro. IMO the appearance of even potential back-channeling is what got the NYT investigation into high gear and led to the resignation. Not my fault if I see things through that lens because that is the topic of this thread.

 

[Bill Lee]

Nothing says "relaxed and so less guarded" than two "bros" having a sunset slow dance on the roof of a boutique couples hotel.

Holy conflation, Batman! Note my use of 'or'...

 

[KCSVEN]

You have got to be kidding. You don't think a reporter on contract starts looking for their next job before the contract officially expires??

That is easy for us po' folk to say, but you have no idea what type of expenses she has. People tend to spend up to what they make. You have no idea whatsoever whether or not she is "set financially".

There is no logical reason whatsoever for her to resign (and throw away roughly a quarter million dollars) if she is innocent.

Wow, just crazy talk, she does what you say and she gets sued. For way more than $250k. What an insane position to take.
Apparently, you don't understands her contract.

She would not throw away the money you say, but you advise her to break her contract, get sued and lose way more money. Can't argue with such logic.

 

[Bill Lee]

Fired just for giving her opinion. Wow.

Well played, Crissy!

FOX will pick you up in an instant, you're definitely their type!

Not to mention you've already got street cred on their side of the culture wars.

Quite a promotion from the sports beat at USA Today to FOX News!

Messages open, email open, all ready for the offer sheet!