Russini & Vrabel Nothing to see here?

[Steve102]

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.

Wasnt what we were discussing but let your freak flag fly my friend.

 

[Bill Lee]

Wasnt what we were discussing but let your freak flag fly my friend.

You too, bro.

 

[jmt57]

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.

Please re-read what I wrote.

How exactly are they going to prove she did nothing wrong?
How are they going to change public opinion that has already been solidly formed?
How does anybody go about proving a negative?

At best an investigation will come up with no proof they did something.
In the age of the internet and social media, that is not nearly enough in the court of public opinion.
People will say, 'well, that doesn't prove it didn't happen'.
All it would result in is accusations of a coverup - and as a result make the business look worse, not better.


If a person is accused of something, anything, it is one thing to come up with no evidence to back those claims.
It is something completely different, nearly impossible to prove that nothing happened.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

Lumbergh ****ed her

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

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

This is very plausible.

 

[sb1]

She also owns the BB-called-the-Jete story from a while back



how did she know this? Bill showed her his O face too?

 

[XLIX]

Wow, just crazy talk, she does what you say and she gets sued.

WTF are you talking about? Freelancers - including those on contract - are allowed to look for their next jobs when the end of their contracts is coming near. As long as it doesn't impact their work.

They aren't NFL players. It isn't tampering for Russini's agent to go around to publications to gauge interest a couple months in advance of her contract ending.

 

[XLIX]

Please re-read what I wrote.

How exactly are they going to prove she did nothing wrong?

You commission a good faith investigation and you accept the results of same. I never said they could "prove" a negative but a good faith investigation would go a long way towards figuring out precisely what happened in Ambiente.

How are they going to change public opinion that has already been solidly formed?

You're always going to have haters but if they conducted a good faith investigation and found that nothing inappropriate happened, and they released the results of the investigation, including the evidence upon which they based their conclusions, then it would go a long way towards shaping public opinion.

How does anybody go about proving a negative?

I never said you could prove a negative but if she were completely innocent then I guarantee there would be evidence. Things like footage of the bungalows showing Russini stayed separate from Vrabel at night... pictures of the mysterious 4 friends... maybe one of the parties in question left the resort without even spending a night... testimony regard her whereabouts during the evening and overnight hours...

At best an investigation will come up with no proof they did something.
In the age of the internet and social media, that is not nearly enough in the court of public opinion.

A good faith investigation showing evidence that nothing happened would go a long way towards shaping public opinion.

 

[jmt57]

You commission a good faith investigation and you accept the results of same. I never said they could "prove" a negative but a good faith investigation would go a long way towards figuring out precisely what happened in Ambiente.

You're always going to have haters but if they conducted a good faith investigation and found that nothing inappropriate happened, and they released the results of the investigation, including the evidence upon which they based their conclusions, then it would go a long way towards shaping public opinion.

I never said you could prove a negative but if she were completely innocent then I guarantee there would be evidence. Things like footage of the bungalows showing Russini stayed separate from Vrabel at night... pictures of the mysterious 4 friends... maybe one of the parties in question left the resort without even spending a night... testimony regard her whereabouts during the evening and overnight hours...

A good faith investigation showing evidence that nothing happened would go a long way towards shaping public opinion.

You have way more faith in the public accepting factual evidence and accepting the premise of innocent until proven guilty (as much of this thread shows), rather than accepting the latest internet/social media narrative than I do.

(Deflategate, anyone?)

I'll respectfully disagree and move on. . .

 

[Crazy Patriot Guy]

You have way more faith in the public accepting factual evidence and accepting the premise of innocent until proven guilty (as much of this thread shows), rather than accepting the latest internet/social media narrative than I do.

(Deflategate, anyone?)

I'll respectfully disagree and move on. . .

Yeah I was just about to bring up Deflategate. Short of releasing footage of the illegal security camera inside the bathroom showing the equipment guy pissing the entire time, there is literally NOTHING the NFL could have released in their investigation that would have swayed the majority of people into believing it was all a misunderstanding and never happened.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

Russini said that there were like five or six other people in their group. So…when will these people corroborate this claim?

Because that would be a very easy way to prove a negative.

What likely happened is that there were five or six people with them when they are doing actual colleague based professional stuff; there were two of them at the resort

 

[BennyBledsoe]

Would you want to get involved in the social media firestorm? I wouldn't.

 

[n1997y]

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 an unwanted publicity that puts them under an unwelcome magnifying glass. It's nearly impossible to prove a negative.

Exactly.

No business is going to seek argument with their customers. Once enough of their customers have made up their minds that’s truth regardless of what conflicting facts might say.