it was portrayed as if the family's dreams had been shattered. the journalism was irresponsible, and (deliberately?) cast culpepper in a bad light.
it's no different from the selective omissions that get our blood boiling over the media's treatment of GWB.
In otherwords---the incident actually happened--you just didn't like the interpretation. That the family didn't condemn Culpepper for what he did (no one w/a brain in their shoes would have-as they would have looked greedy and petty for doing so) suddenly changes everything?? How does that work??
good thing I'm not a Libertarian, I'm not sure what I would have done for FR monicker.
People tend to dump on anyone in the spotlight when they get their chance. In general, it usually is not deserved. Sports figures are frequent targets, I've joined in on my share of bashing. Thier offenses are usually minor, isolated, and the years of volunteer work most of them do or their donations made is rarely mentioned.
Cully definitely didn't deserve this. I'm a Viking fan so I figured the report wasn't entirely represented from an unbiased viewpoint. I probably would have been right there piling on if it had been a Packer player.
That portrayal was wrong, no question. But Culpepper should NEVER "give" something that he intends to take back unless right then he indicates it's a joke. I, for one, would never do that.