11/05/24
March 12, 2004
A few weeks before he ripped Gary Barnett for not knowing -- or not caring -- about alleged rapes and other problems at the University of Colorado football program, Sports Illustrated writer Rick Reilly found out that a similar attack may have taken place at his own home.
Reilly should lose his writing license for allowing under age drinking to occur at his home and on his property, as liability for any damage or injury is squarely on the property owner's shoulders. Yes I'm pre-empting the teetotalers. And no, I'm not condoning anything.
posted by garfield at 05:06 PM on March 12, 2004
garfield, that's a violation of Reilly's Constitutional rights and you know it.
posted by billsaysthis at 06:10 PM on March 12, 2004
If you could lose your writing license for underage drinking, how many journalists do you think would have jobs? Oh, wait: condoning underage drinking. Never mind.
posted by jeffmshaw at 06:13 PM on March 12, 2004
Of course there are differences. But Reilly's one of the most prominent writers on the best-known and best-loved sports magazine on the planet. The allegation about his kids' party adds an unusual subtext to his hard-line stance about Barnett. Is he harder on the guy because he immediately reported possible sex abuse at his house, or is he too hard on the guy in light of the things that might have gone on under his own roof? In any case, when did Colorado become the sports-related rape investigation capitol of the world?
posted by rcade at 07:10 PM on March 12, 2004
I'm not saying the story isn't interesting and worth reporting. I am saying that I definitely don't come down on the "he's too hard on Barnett" side of things. He may be harder on Barnett than others might have been, but I don't think we have enough info to say that.
posted by jeffmshaw at 11:00 PM on March 12, 2004
You know, I enjoy reading some of Reilly's articles. But he's a bit of an ass (Re: Bonds, Sosa, baseball in general). So I get a small touch of glee to see him twist in the wind.
posted by grum@work at 07:13 AM on March 13, 2004
There are huge differences between the two cases. Barnett's the highest paid public employee in the state, and in charge of recruiting to a highly prestigious football program; even if the worst is true in Reilly's case (and it doesn't look like it is), he's a parent who was out to dinner for three hours. If hope nothing happened to the girl in Reilly's home, but if something did, it's tough to find him culpable for it.