Some registered account users are experiencing password recognition issues. The issue appears to have been triggered by a PHP update last night. If this is occurring, please try logging in and using the "forgot password?" utility. Bear in mind auto-generated password reset emails may appear in your spam folder. If this does not work, please click the "Contact Us" option near the lower right hand corner of the index page to contact me via email.

Thank you for your patience!
- M.W.

Bo Schembechler's son to go public on Dr. Anderson abuse, father's failure to protect him

No $8 beers here... just a place to discuss your favorite Sports Teams, classic & current events in the world of sports, and share your Sports knowledge!
km1125
Posts: 3789
Joined: Thu Mar 14, 2019 3:09 pm

Re: Bo Schembechler's son to go public on Dr. Anderson abuse, father's failure to protect him

Unread post by km1125 »

Honeyman wrote: Tue Jun 15, 2021 10:34 am
km1125 wrote: Tue Jun 15, 2021 10:11 am
Honeyman wrote: Tue Jun 15, 2021 9:52 am Your emphasis on SOME implies that many of the 850 people who came out and admitted this on the Wilmer Hale report were not telling the truth.

As far as the adopted son reference, I have a problem why it is even brought up at all. Why not simply say "son"? Is Matt Schembechler less of a person because he was adopted? Are his words less true? But constantly in every media report, and your and Matt's post, you make a point to mention it. Why not say, "Bo's fair-skinned son" or "Bo's grey haired son"? The implication is that his words are not as valid as "Shemmy's" since he was not Bo's biological kid.
There are two sons that have spoken out so far (as far as I know), and one is adopted and one is not. No idea if one might have more or less validity to their statements.

I'm not sure exactly what all 850 folks were alleging in their statements, so I don't know how many were actually telling the truth or not, but I suspect if they are all alleging they were raped then I'd bet most are lying. We're not talking little kids here (with the exception of Matt S's statement)... they are adult men or almost adult men. If they were REALLY physically assaulted, then why didn't they figure out SOME way to get Anderson out of there DECADES ago when there was the real possibility of them preventing such attacks on future folks? One they were out of the school they would/should have had no fear of what Schembechler's 'machine' or UofM would do to them, and they would not actually have had to admit any of their own abuse, only push that he was a "bad" doctor. Enough of a cacophony would have led more to come forward eventually until he was ousted. But it was silence until there was money on the table and the defendants were long pushing up daisys.

It's not about "saving the kids", or "preventing abuse".
Windsor answers your question much better than I could: https://www.freep.com/story/sports/colu ... 662012002/
Yea, I read that one. I don't buy it.
Matt
Posts: 11505
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 12:18 pm
Location: Home of the National Champions

Re: Bo Schembechler's son to go public on Dr. Anderson abuse, father's failure to protect him

Unread post by Matt »

Honeyman wrote: Tue Jun 15, 2021 10:34 am
km1125 wrote: Tue Jun 15, 2021 10:11 am
Honeyman wrote: Tue Jun 15, 2021 9:52 am Your emphasis on SOME implies that many of the 850 people who came out and admitted this on the Wilmer Hale report were not telling the truth.

As far as the adopted son reference, I have a problem why it is even brought up at all. Why not simply say "son"? Is Matt Schembechler less of a person because he was adopted? Are his words less true? But constantly in every media report, and your and Matt's post, you make a point to mention it. Why not say, "Bo's fair-skinned son" or "Bo's grey haired son"? The implication is that his words are not as valid as "Shemmy's" since he was not Bo's biological kid.
There are two sons that have spoken out so far (as far as I know), and one is adopted and one is not. No idea if one might have more or less validity to their statements.

I'm not sure exactly what all 850 folks were alleging in their statements, so I don't know how many were actually telling the truth or not, but I suspect if they are all alleging they were raped then I'd bet most are lying. We're not talking little kids here (with the exception of Matt S's statement)... they are adult men or almost adult men. If they were REALLY physically assaulted, then why didn't they figure out SOME way to get Anderson out of there DECADES ago when there was the real possibility of them preventing such attacks on future folks? One they were out of the school they would/should have had no fear of what Schembechler's 'machine' or UofM would do to them, and they would not actually have had to admit any of their own abuse, only push that he was a "bad" doctor. Enough of a cacophony would have led more to come forward eventually until he was ousted. But it was silence until there was money on the table and the defendants were long pushing up daisys.

It's not about "saving the kids", or "preventing abuse".
Windsor answers your question much better than I could: https://www.freep.com/story/sports/colu ... 662012002/
Did you promote this Shawn Windsor column as heavily: https://www.freep.com/story/sports/coll ... 504558002/
This is a pro-Harris/Walz account

"I have to admit - Matt is right." ~bmw
User avatar
Honeyman
Posts: 6906
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 4:44 pm

Re: Bo Schembechler's son to go public on Dr. Anderson abuse, father's failure to protect him

Unread post by Honeyman »

Matt wrote: Tue Jun 15, 2021 11:34 am
Honeyman wrote: Tue Jun 15, 2021 10:34 am
km1125 wrote: Tue Jun 15, 2021 10:11 am
Honeyman wrote: Tue Jun 15, 2021 9:52 am Your emphasis on SOME implies that many of the 850 people who came out and admitted this on the Wilmer Hale report were not telling the truth.

As far as the adopted son reference, I have a problem why it is even brought up at all. Why not simply say "son"? Is Matt Schembechler less of a person because he was adopted? Are his words less true? But constantly in every media report, and your and Matt's post, you make a point to mention it. Why not say, "Bo's fair-skinned son" or "Bo's grey haired son"? The implication is that his words are not as valid as "Shemmy's" since he was not Bo's biological kid.
There are two sons that have spoken out so far (as far as I know), and one is adopted and one is not. No idea if one might have more or less validity to their statements.

I'm not sure exactly what all 850 folks were alleging in their statements, so I don't know how many were actually telling the truth or not, but I suspect if they are all alleging they were raped then I'd bet most are lying. We're not talking little kids here (with the exception of Matt S's statement)... they are adult men or almost adult men. If they were REALLY physically assaulted, then why didn't they figure out SOME way to get Anderson out of there DECADES ago when there was the real possibility of them preventing such attacks on future folks? One they were out of the school they would/should have had no fear of what Schembechler's 'machine' or UofM would do to them, and they would not actually have had to admit any of their own abuse, only push that he was a "bad" doctor. Enough of a cacophony would have led more to come forward eventually until he was ousted. But it was silence until there was money on the table and the defendants were long pushing up daisys.

It's not about "saving the kids", or "preventing abuse".
Windsor answers your question much better than I could: https://www.freep.com/story/sports/colu ... 662012002/
Did you promote this Shawn Windsor column as heavily: https://www.freep.com/story/sports/coll ... 504558002/
Yet AGAIN you're deflecting from the subject of this thread, but in answer to it, the police looked into the woman's allegations and saw no reason to bring charges.

Keep hiding your head in the sand, Mutt. Your day is coming.
The censorship king from out of state.
User avatar
Honeyman
Posts: 6906
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 4:44 pm

Re: Bo Schembechler's son to go public on Dr. Anderson abuse, father's failure to protect him

Unread post by Honeyman »

km1125 wrote: Tue Jun 15, 2021 11:20 am
Honeyman wrote: Tue Jun 15, 2021 10:34 am
km1125 wrote: Tue Jun 15, 2021 10:11 am
Honeyman wrote: Tue Jun 15, 2021 9:52 am Your emphasis on SOME implies that many of the 850 people who came out and admitted this on the Wilmer Hale report were not telling the truth.

As far as the adopted son reference, I have a problem why it is even brought up at all. Why not simply say "son"? Is Matt Schembechler less of a person because he was adopted? Are his words less true? But constantly in every media report, and your and Matt's post, you make a point to mention it. Why not say, "Bo's fair-skinned son" or "Bo's grey haired son"? The implication is that his words are not as valid as "Shemmy's" since he was not Bo's biological kid.
There are two sons that have spoken out so far (as far as I know), and one is adopted and one is not. No idea if one might have more or less validity to their statements.

I'm not sure exactly what all 850 folks were alleging in their statements, so I don't know how many were actually telling the truth or not, but I suspect if they are all alleging they were raped then I'd bet most are lying. We're not talking little kids here (with the exception of Matt S's statement)... they are adult men or almost adult men. If they were REALLY physically assaulted, then why didn't they figure out SOME way to get Anderson out of there DECADES ago when there was the real possibility of them preventing such attacks on future folks? One they were out of the school they would/should have had no fear of what Schembechler's 'machine' or UofM would do to them, and they would not actually have had to admit any of their own abuse, only push that he was a "bad" doctor. Enough of a cacophony would have led more to come forward eventually until he was ousted. But it was silence until there was money on the table and the defendants were long pushing up daisys.

It's not about "saving the kids", or "preventing abuse".
Windsor answers your question much better than I could: https://www.freep.com/story/sports/colu ... 662012002/
Yea, I read that one. I don't buy it.
Of course you don't. Anderson had complaints against him in every decade he worked for UM. Was fired for sexual misconduct in the 60s and was secretly hired by the football team. School ignored numerous complaints in the 70s and 80s. School was sued because of Dr. Anderson in the mid 1990s for his sexual misconduct. Yet he still kept working for Michigan, retired in 2003. The school had dozens of chances to stop him. But he was Bo's chosen one and it became next to impossible to discipline him, Bo was never to be questioned. Of course, the school just wants the public to know he died 13 years ago and that's that.
The censorship king from out of state.
User avatar
Honeyman
Posts: 6906
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 4:44 pm

Re: Bo Schembechler's son to go public on Dr. Anderson abuse, father's failure to protect him

Unread post by Honeyman »

DETROIT NEWS; Another man is expected to say publicly that he alerted former University of Michigan football coach Bo Schembechler to alleged sexual assaults by former Dr. Robert Anderson.

The man, formerly associated with UM athletics, is set to join with more than three dozen Anderson accusers during a 10 a.m. press conference Wednesday near Michigan Stadium to detail claims that he was a victim of Anderson and informed Schembechler and former UM Athletic Director Don Canham at the time, according to John Sellek, a spokesperson for the group expected to attend.
The censorship king from out of state.
Matt
Posts: 11505
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 12:18 pm
Location: Home of the National Champions

Re: Bo Schembechler's son to go public on Dr. Anderson abuse, father's failure to protect him

Unread post by Matt »

Interesting that Honeyman hasn't posted Bo's family's statement: https://www.freep.com/story/news/educat ... 707126002/
This is a pro-Harris/Walz account

"I have to admit - Matt is right." ~bmw
User avatar
Honeyman
Posts: 6906
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 4:44 pm

Re: Bo Schembechler's son to go public on Dr. Anderson abuse, father's failure to protect him

Unread post by Honeyman »

Matt wrote: Tue Jun 15, 2021 6:26 pm Interesting that Honeyman hasn't posted Bo's family's statement: https://www.freep.com/story/news/educat ... 707126002/
Thanks for posting, Matt. Disgusting, isn't it?

"Bo was not aware of such conduct and assumed that any procedures were medically appropriate."

This is the angle. He was told, but thought it was an "appropriate procedure". Just like Kathy Klages, and the gymnast moms all thought Nasser's procedure was appropriate. This is a carbon copy of what happened with Nasser.
Last edited by Honeyman on Tue Jun 15, 2021 7:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The censorship king from out of state.
User avatar
Honeyman
Posts: 6906
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 4:44 pm

Re: Bo Schembechler's son to go public on Dr. Anderson abuse, father's failure to protect him

Unread post by Honeyman »

MWmetalhead wrote: Tue Jun 15, 2021 7:11 pm Cathy and Glenn are drawing a conclusion based on the fact Bo never spilled any beans to them regarding Dr. Anderson.

Not sure why they feel their deceased husband / father would divulge such gruesome info.

They are making a conjecture based on the man they knew and nothing more. Again, Dr. Anderson's kids once made similar laudatory remarks about HIM.

People like Brandstatter are correct to suggest that there is room for reasonable doubt; I will say that much.
I agree with everything but your last statement, MW. It's really not "reasonable" to believe Bo didn't know. Plus, Brandstatter's comments crossed the line to victim shaming, which should negate any impact they have, and should cost him his job as a horrible play-by-play man.
The censorship king from out of state.
Matt
Posts: 11505
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 12:18 pm
Location: Home of the National Champions

Re: Bo Schembechler's son to go public on Dr. Anderson abuse, father's failure to protect him

Unread post by Matt »

Honeyman wrote: Tue Jun 15, 2021 7:19 pm
MWmetalhead wrote: Tue Jun 15, 2021 7:11 pm Cathy and Glenn are drawing a conclusion based on the fact Bo never spilled any beans to them regarding Dr. Anderson.

Not sure why they feel their deceased husband / father would divulge such gruesome info.

They are making a conjecture based on the man they knew and nothing more. Again, Dr. Anderson's kids once made similar laudatory remarks about HIM.

People like Brandstatter are correct to suggest that there is room for reasonable doubt; I will say that much.
I agree with everything but your last statement, MW. It's really not "reasonable" to believe Bo didn't know. Plus, Brandstatter's comments crossed the line to victim shaming, which should negate any impact they have, and should cost him his job as a horrible play-by-play man.
The man being accused has been dead for 15 years. There are plenty of people who will speak to his character, and they shouldn't be fired for seeing this act for what it is: trying to strong-arm U-M into a big pay out, reputations be damned!
This is a pro-Harris/Walz account

"I have to admit - Matt is right." ~bmw
User avatar
Honeyman
Posts: 6906
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 4:44 pm

Re: Bo Schembechler's son to go public on Dr. Anderson abuse, father's failure to protect him

Unread post by Honeyman »

MWmetalhead wrote: Tue Jun 15, 2021 7:58 pm
I will agree that Brandstatter sucks as a play-by-play man; he should've never been given that job.

I disagree that he is victim shaming. He is suggesting a possibility exists that certain accusers could have ulterior motives. He then provided what I thought was a cogent rebuttal scenario to Matt S.'s chronology of events.

Where I thought Brandstatter made a big mistake was when he bizarrely linked the scrutiny of Bo to sports program donor support. I was completely unable to follow his logic with regard to that angle.
I don't think anybody disagrees what shitty p-b-p guy he is. :lol:

He said, "My defense of Bo’s integrity and character should carry as much weight – I think anyway, there are others out there who don’t think so – but carry as much weight his accusers." I find that repulsive and clearly victim shaming.

Even a fool like Matt Millen came out against Joe PA right away. Said it hurts to have denounce your role model, but the victims is what matters. Brandy can't even reach Matt Millen Standards


We disagree on that point, but I do appreciate your objectivity and cogent thoughts on this matter.
Last edited by Honeyman on Tue Jun 15, 2021 8:36 pm, edited 4 times in total.
The censorship king from out of state.
User avatar
Honeyman
Posts: 6906
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 4:44 pm

Re: Bo Schembechler's son to go public on Dr. Anderson abuse, father's failure to protect him

Unread post by Honeyman »

Matt wrote: Tue Jun 15, 2021 8:07 pm
Honeyman wrote: Tue Jun 15, 2021 7:19 pm
MWmetalhead wrote: Tue Jun 15, 2021 7:11 pm Cathy and Glenn are drawing a conclusion based on the fact Bo never spilled any beans to them regarding Dr. Anderson.

Not sure why they feel their deceased husband / father would divulge such gruesome info.

They are making a conjecture based on the man they knew and nothing more. Again, Dr. Anderson's kids once made similar laudatory remarks about HIM.

People like Brandstatter are correct to suggest that there is room for reasonable doubt; I will say that much.
I agree with everything but your last statement, MW. It's really not "reasonable" to believe Bo didn't know. Plus, Brandstatter's comments crossed the line to victim shaming, which should negate any impact they have, and should cost him his job as a horrible play-by-play man.
The man being accused has been dead for 15 years. There are plenty of people who will speak to his character, and they shouldn't be fired for seeing this act for what it is: trying to strong-arm U-M into a big pay out, reputations be damned!
Defending Bo's character is one thing, victim shaming is another. I believe Brandstatters comments were that.

The fact that Bo has been dead for 15 years should in no way invalidate the claims of the 850+ people who would not have been scarred for life with this horrible nightmare if he just had given a shit about them. But he didn't. As we have heard ad nauseum, all he cared about was "the team". He allowed horrible things to happen to scores of young men. A His statue should be removed, and his name taken off the building. In my opinion, he should be reviled, but at the very least, he should not be celebrated.
Last edited by Honeyman on Tue Jun 15, 2021 8:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The censorship king from out of state.
Matt
Posts: 11505
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 12:18 pm
Location: Home of the National Champions

Re: Bo Schembechler's son to go public on Dr. Anderson abuse, father's failure to protect him

Unread post by Matt »

Honeyman wrote: Tue Jun 15, 2021 8:22 pm
Matt wrote: Tue Jun 15, 2021 8:07 pm
Honeyman wrote: Tue Jun 15, 2021 7:19 pm
MWmetalhead wrote: Tue Jun 15, 2021 7:11 pm Cathy and Glenn are drawing a conclusion based on the fact Bo never spilled any beans to them regarding Dr. Anderson.

Not sure why they feel their deceased husband / father would divulge such gruesome info.

They are making a conjecture based on the man they knew and nothing more. Again, Dr. Anderson's kids once made similar laudatory remarks about HIM.

People like Brandstatter are correct to suggest that there is room for reasonable doubt; I will say that much.
I agree with everything but your last statement, MW. It's really not "reasonable" to believe Bo didn't know. Plus, Brandstatter's comments crossed the line to victim shaming, which should negate any impact they have, and should cost him his job as a horrible play-by-play man.
The man being accused has been dead for 15 years. There are plenty of people who will speak to his character, and they shouldn't be fired for seeing this act for what it is: trying to strong-arm U-M into a big pay out, reputations be damned!
Defending Bo's character is one thing, victim shaming is another. I believe Brandstatters comments were that.

The fact that Bo has been dead for 15 years should in no way invalidate the claims of the 850+ people who might not have been scarred for life with this horrible nightmare if he just had given a shit about them. He didn't. He was a man who allowed horrible things to happen to scores of young men. As we have heard ad nauseum, all he cared about was "the team". His statue should be removed, and his name taken off the building. In my opinion, he should be reviled, but at the very least, he should not be celebrated.
So you're not interested in hearing both sides? Don't you want to hear from Mo and Lloyd?
This is a pro-Harris/Walz account

"I have to admit - Matt is right." ~bmw
Post Reply