March 28, 2010

The Corey Lowe Situation: Update to the Update

Nothing I've heard is finite or without some holes. And like I've said before there's no way we're going to find out exactly what happened. Another anonymous emailer tells HDJ (sic'd):

There was agent contact but "contact" is not a violation. Lowe and his "friends" were together when the agent came to them (uninvited) and watcheded NCAA games on television again NO violation (agent didn't buy him anything, give him money, ask him to sign anything or ask for a promise to sign in the future). That was Saturday after Lowe asked Chambers to sit out the rest of the tournament because of the injury. Someone who is close to Coach and the guys told him that the agent was talking to Lowe don't know if he mentioned the rest of the "friends" that were there but Chambers knew who the agent was there for. Since he was already pissed Lowe didn't want to play he probably felt like Lowe's injury wasn't too serious especially since he'd been playing with it all this time (speculation) and was planning the future with this agent. All untrue Lowe's intention was to support the team from the bench like Brittain has done ALL season.

Chambers took the word of this Traitor (the real traitor who has access to both the team and the head Coach)without talking to Lowe. A fact because when lowe went to meet with Chambers Monday before the game he went to his locker first and it was cleared out...again BEFORE talking with Chambers.

Who knows really. I'm as curious as any BU basketball fan is and I feel like it's my responsibility to this BU fan community to pass on what I know. Anything else I find out I'll continue to pass along.

And who could this traitor be??


1 comment:

Jesus said...

this is obviously just my opinion, but i feel like when speculation then brings in an unnamed individual and accuses him of something, it may have gone too far. this mystery man filters out a very small subset of people (it automatically accuses wrongdoing within a group of what, 15 people?) and aims at them with essentially no evidence