Quote:
Originally Posted by rockyroad
Look, I have pointed this out before. One of the officials in question has ties to the tv station that ran the story. They cut and edited what they wanted. Are there provisions for disciplinary action? Yes. Did Stordahl say that disciplinary action MIGHT be taken? Yes. Did he explain what that disciplinary action MIGHT be? Yes. So because of that he is a loser, a jerk, a a$$-hole...whatever else you want to think. But again, from wherever you are, you do NOT know what is going on. You have watched an edited clip of a 20-25 minute interview - edited by friends of one of the guys involved.
As far as the process and the directives...do your own research. That might be a nice change up.
|
There's an old saying "Never start an argument with a man who buys ink by the barrel." You're never going to win the public perception battle when the other side has better access to the media than you do. So you have to make a choice: is being right in your mind worth appearing devastatingly wrong to everyone else? WOA made its choice (and now is trying desperately to save face given the statement from their board on the web site).
Complaining that the interview was edited by the friend of one of the involved guys is a cheap cop out. The bottom line is still always going to be that they were threatened with a suspension over a charitable act and that WOA arbitrarily assigns sports with acceptable charities. Maybe this works in Washington, but here in fly-over country it falls pretty flat.
I'd do my own research but WOA either doesn't make this information publicly available or has pulled it down to help hide what they did.