Whitlock Dislikes The U; Still Defends Canes

During a time where it’s nouveau to hate ‘The U’, the tide is finally turning regarding some logic-minded media members. Of course none of them happen to work for the Miami Herald, but some folks are finally calling b.s. and the backlash against Charles Robinson and his Yahoo! expose are welcomed, not only by Miami fans, but any true sports enthusiast tired of hypocrisy and injustice.

The Sun-Sentinel’s Dave Hyde kicked things off on Monday when he penned a piece stating that the onus of this latest scandal should fall on the adults, not the kids. Hyde called Ponzi-schemer Nevin Shapiro a “predator” and took a shot at the “righteous media” and “emotional college fans” who bought his story at face value, not waiting for facts to surface.

Today’s voice of reason was Jason Whitlock of FOX Sports. Whitlock has been controversial in the past, but he’s known for being brutally honest, even when his opinion isn’t the popular one.

For any that might want to label Whitlock a bleeding heart or one with an agenda, he made it crystal clear in his latest piece that he’s no fan of the Canes.

“Check my record. I have never liked The U. The “swagger” has always offended me,” wrote Whitlock. “I recognized 25 years ago the “swagger” would make The U vulnerable to the kind of unfair attack it is experiencing today.”

Whitlock compares Shapiro to Crystal Magnum, the hooker / stripper who had a vendetta against a few Duke lacrosse players and made up a rape tale in effort to exact revenge.

“I never trusted Crystal Mangum. Her story smelled. Given a choice between believing a revenge-minded prostitute or drunken college students, I needed strong evidence to lean toward the hooker,” said Whitlock

“I feel the same way today about Nevin Shapiro. He’s a natural-born liar. Deceit is his currency. An objective, mature, nuanced examination of Shapiro’s allegations and the framing of Yahoo! Sports reporter Charles Robinson’s story expose Shapiro’s fraudulence and why the Yahoo! story should not be trusted as delivered.”

Whitlock goes on to paint a tale of a reporter trying to make a name for himself; one who chased journalism fame and a big story to a point where he lost his focus. A story born in truth, but told in a sensational, exaggerated way to justify the almost-year of work that went into the expose.

Whitlock even calls the piece a “journalism Ponzi scheme”. He explains that Robinson’s focus on stats proves his desperation and that after all the time an energy put into the piece, there was no way he was walking away with a “simple story”, hence peppering the piece with allegations of prostitutes, strip clubs and an abortion.

Most telling, what Robinson chose to leave out – any mention of drugs. Whitlock explains that any mention of Shapiro and drug use would question the nature of his relationships with his anonymous sources.

Drugs would make the shady Shapiro look even less credible. Yet there’s zero talk of drug use in what Whitlock reminds us all is America’s Cocaine Capital. Strip clubs, South Beach and a high roller’s nightlife, with nary a mention of an eight ball.

The article has a great back and forth with Tom Anderson, who Whitlock describes as “a Miami native who works for a conservative-leaning watchdog organization that polices government corruption”. Anderson shoots many holes in Shapiro, the case and the story, implying that if he brought that type of “evidence” to the New York Times or New York Post, he’d get laughed out the the room.

Shapiro is a world-class con man who swindled a slew of folks. The folks at the University of Miami were just more in a long line of unsuspecting victims. That doesn’t excuse the actions of kids who crossed the line, but at least somebody out there sees that they were enticed by a professional parasite.

Comments

comments