Just a thought... why would a reporter not report something that he knows, as in the case of Scott with the Freeman situation? It seems very very strange, especially because if there is some dark secret it could really put Scott on the map in terms of the national reporting scene.I can think of only one situation that would require the secrecy Scott claims he must keep. I am involved in AA. I have been sober 20 years. I am not a reporter, but if I was, I could never report on anything anyone said in an AA meeting. Never... under any circumstances. To do so would break all trust in the AA community.This has to be the situation with Freeman. I'll bet that last summer he sought out help with some sort of addiction. Scott, or someone he knows very closely, must have been in meetings where Freeman spoke about the addiction/s he is struggling with. This is the only conceivable reason why Scott would not report what he knows.Also... thinking about it more... this is why the PR team was so quick to attack Schiano when it seemed like maybe they had leeked information about Freeman. Scott knew more about Freeman than what was eventually reported (ADHD Meds). As someone in recovery (or at least close to someone in recovery) Scott was incensed that Schiano would dare to break Freeman's anonymity. PR overreacted because they wanted to protect Freeman, who they saw as someone earnestly trying to get help with his addictions.Anyway... I know I may be wrong... but this idea has been brewing in my mind steadily for a while now and I thought I'd throw it out. I do not live in FL and have no claim to insider information or knowledge. I have no idea whether Scott or anyone close to him is in recovery, so I do not believe I am saying anything about him. I like his writing and am in no way trying to "out" him or anyone close to him. I will say this... if he didn't want us speculating, he should have never said anything at all.
Very interesting take.
It has to do with substance abuse, yes. Don't tell anyone though.
Interesting is a kind word.
I'm shocked a reporter, especially a national reporter, hasn't pursued the Freeman situation... even based on Scott's "sworn secrecy" comment.
I'm shocked a reporter, especially a national reporter, hasn't pursued the Freeman situation... even based on Scott's "sworn secrecy" comment.
Wait..... When did that happen? Sworn secrecy?
Today in chat
I know my idea is speculation... but honestly, have you ever heard a reporter say, "I am sworn to secrecy" over a story that could put him on the map? That just doesn't happen. I can think of no other reason other than the one I am presenting.It would be unethical for a reporter to not report a story under any other circumstances.
Today in chat
Can't access that on phone. What did he say? Sorry......
Today at 11:13 in SR's chat:
Truthfully, Greg Schiano did not expose Josh Freeman at all. The story was already written in the Tampa Tribune that Freeman missed the team photo and meetings. Schiano just commented on it publicly when asked about it in a press conference. I was wrong about what I reported initially about the Freeman-Schiano relationship. If anything, Schiano protected Freeman from the media, which the Freeman camp just didn't understand. I know what really went down, but am sworn to secrecy. Schiano and the Bucs organization could have burned Freeman to the ground with what I know, but chose not to because he's a good, likable guy, whose life is a little out of control right now. Schiano actually spent a lot of time with Freeman in the 2013 offseason trying to get his life turned around, but he just didn't take football seriously. He was late or missed a ton of meetings - not just one or two.The Vikings found out about Freeman's personal struggles this year, which is why he didn't sniff the field after that Monday Night Football game and why his teammates in Minnesota blasted his bad work ethic in a NFL.com piece the other day. Unless Freeman makes some wholesale changes to his personal life he won't have success again in the NFL in my opinion.
What would "The Freeman Camp" not know about Freeman, if not addiction?
Wow. That's big stuff. I'm dying to know the full story.
What would "The Freeman Camp" not know about Freeman, if not addiction?
The "Freeman camp" IS Freeman, and his father, so they clearly would have know about an addiction. As would his other agents in all likelihood. Scott also says that Schiano did NOT expose him so you are basing your theory on something not said at all. Honestly you seem to be projecting your own experiences onto this canvas.And what would AA have to do with Scott anyway? Is Scott in AA? If not, then it doesn't apply to him. If yes, then maybe you shouldn't be talking about it?
... his camp would be his management.As far as the other stuff you are saying, I am actually shocked that more readers here are not uncomfortable with Scott not reporting his "insider" knowledge. Frankly, this could probably become a national story in and of itself."Bucs Reporter Refuses To Say Why QB Was Canned"or"Bucs Reporter Is Sworn To Secrecy Over Freeman Situation."pretty juicy stuff.
I doubt its that convoluted
