Except he isn't really fighting sexual assault. He is trying to make money off of it.

Brilliant.

 

Every media outlet that exists does so with the end goal being to make money.

In my book it's not so much that he hates Alford. But he feels the need to bring up something that is almost 10 years old just because he got a new job. I dont remember him going out of his way to turn the NM media against Alford. but now that he's in LA, this is Bernstein's time to get him.

 

He almost seemed to think that clearly UCLA didnt do its research in hiring Alford. because, clearly no college team would want to hire such a horrible human being.

No one gives a s*** about New Mexico, UCLA, again, is one of, if not the, most prominent programs in the country.

Bernstein gets on his high-horse whenever this side of sports (abuse, sexual or otherwise, that gets covered up) rears its head.

It's not hard to be on your "high horse" against sexual abuse. Anyone who has not done abusing of a sexual nature has the right. What the f*** am I reading, here?

LMAO. Yes, let's try to make that ridiculous connection, he's trying to make money off sexual assault. He's actually trying to fight it if you listen to him, which you claim you don't, but probably do.

 

Doubt he makes any money off of talking about Alford directly. He's been at the Score what, 15 years? He's a salaried employee, probably pretty consistent with that as well. I highly doubt the ratings spike due to talking about Alford for a few days, and enough to have someone walk into the office with a giant bag of money.

 

It's not about money.

I agree entirely here. He's writing a column for the 670 website, he's not getting paid more for that. That being said, even if he were to make more money, he's on the right side of the argument.

I'll add more - this is all just a cover up

 

http://www.onestepcamp.org/about/board-of-directors/

It's not hard to be on your "high horse" against sexual abuse. Anyone who has not done abusing of a sexual nature has the right. What the f*** am I reading, here?

 

I mean that he goes into his righteous indignation mode. I don't care and I don't think his concerns are wrong or misplaced.

So outside of talking about Steve Alford, what is he doing to actually fight sexual assault? Is he donating to organizations? Is he volunteering at battered women's shelters? Talking about a news story isn't nearly equal to actually fighting something.

Actually, Dan Bernstein does raise a lot of money for various charities.

 

He lives on the northwest side of Chicago with his wife and two children, and is actively involved in fundraising for such charities as Children’s Oncology Services, The Michael Rolfe Foundation for Pancreatic Cancer Research, Blind Services Association and others.

That's fine...but maybe he could discuss the overarching issue a bit more...instead of just zeroing in on Alford, who he clearly has a personal issue with outside of this particular transgression.

link?

 

thef*ck? You're just making things up.

Alford's problem wasn't that "he believed his story," jesus christ.

Yes it was.

 

Alford: PP, did you rape this girl?

 

PP: No, coach! She's just lying!

 

Alford: Are you sure?

 

PP: Yeah, coach!

 

Alford: Whew! I thought we had a real problem here! I'll just get the christian athlete association to tell this liar to keep her mouth shut.

 

 

 

Steve Alford: Moral coward, or dumbest man on the planet? You decide!

 

 

I mean that he goes into his righteous indignation mode. I don't care and I don't think his concerns are wrong or misplaced.

Oh. Then you are a good person and I do not have an argument with you.

Yes it was.

 

 

Alford: PP, did you rape this girl?

 

PP: No, coach! She's just lying!

 

Alford: Are you sure?

 

PP: Yeah, coach!

 

Alford: Whew! I thought we had a real problem here! I'll just get the christian athlete association to tell this liar to keep her mouth shut.

 

 

 

Steve Alford: Moral coward, or dumbest man on the planet? You decide!

 

Honestly, he really did trust people too much. I would bet money he really did believe Pierre. He was an awful judge of character.

Honestly, he really did trust people too much. I would bet money he really did believe Pierre. He was an awful judge of character.

 

So we'll go with "dumbest man alive." That still doesn't excuse his immoral actions to get the girl to shut up.

f***, you're right, I bet Bernstein has covered up a bunch of sexual assaults!

 

edit: you're finding a way to brush aside criticism of Alford and direct it to Bernstein no matter what's brought up. either he cares too much, or not enough, or he's not doing anything, or he's not doing enough with other issues, or he's making money or he's alienating his fanbase, or, scrapping all that, he's probably the real moral monster here! Heads you win, tails Bernstein has a bigger scandal than PSU and the RCC combined.

 

So Berstein is can't be questioned because of the issue here. BS.

So we'll go with "dumbest man alive." That still doesn't excuse his immoral actions to get the girl to shut up.

 

IMO, yes. He wasn't the sharpest tack in the box.

Bernstein can't be questioned with the weaksauce arguments you and Dick and bringing or by the excuses for Alford.

So Berstein is can't be questioned because of the issue here. BS.

If I understand your broken English properly, why would we question Bernstein here?

IMO, yes. He wasn't the sharpest tack in the box.

Dumb and immoral. Great hire, UCLA!

link?

 

thef*ck? You're just making things up.

 

Oh no, Bernstein has admitted as such. He has gone on record saying that he loves to see Alford fail because of how much of a horrible human being he is.

Bernstein can't be questioned with the weaksauce arguments you and Dick and bringing or by the excuses for Alford.

 

Reflexive dismissal of this just based on subject matter isn't exactly a great argument.

Dumb and immoral. Great hire, UCLA!

 

Welcome to sports.

If I understand your broken English properly, why would we question Bernstein here?

 

Exactly what I would expect honestly.

Reflexive dismissal of this just based on subject matter isn't exactly a great argument.

 

I know, so why do you keep doing it!

 

People have shown that Bernstein often talks about issues like this and has a personal dislike for Alford. I'd bet he'd do the same thing if Curly (former PSU AD) gets hired by some big-name program somewhere. Your argument appears to be that because Bernstein potentially profits from bringing this story to light via increased ratings, we should view him in a negative light. But that argument proves far too much, condemning anyone who works for pay at any media organization anywhere.

 

Bob Woodward made an entire career off of Watergate. Does that mean we shouldn't trust his Watergate reporting? Or that he's somehow morally suspect there?

Welcome to sports.

Dan Bernstein appears to strongly dislike this side of sports and would like to see it exposed and, presumably, eradicated. I share that sentiment.

 

That doesn't excuse Alford's actions or the decisions of schools to ignore past transgressions.

I sparked a much more heated debate than I had originally intended. SORRY!!!

Oh no, Bernstein has admitted as such. He has gone on record saying that he loves to see Alford fail because of how much of a horrible human being he is.

Oh, well, that's not really a personally vendetta as much as it is a good stance against assholes.