Kanavis comes out swinging

Kanavis McGhee has begun responding to the SI article that accused him of taking money from former NFL agent Josh Luchs. In the most uncertain of terms he has denied(post, bdc) the allegations, saying that they are comical in nature, and denies anything other than meeting Luchs after he had finished his CU playing career for approximately 10 minutes before shooing him away; without taking any money.

Specifically, McGhee said:

"There are people who have known me for 20 years, and I`ve never talked to them about my mother. I`m a private individual. To think that I would have asked this guy into my place, then brought up my mother after only a few minutes of knowing him -- that`s ridiculous. ... He has said I used my mother to extort money. I would not use my mother`s name in vain. ... What I want people to know is that it`s not about me. I want to make sure the public knows that CU guys don`t do this." -link

McGhee says that Luchs came off as inexperienced, and that he had no interest in communicating with him; that their meeting was appropriate, brief, no money was ever exchanged, and that they never communicated again after that initial meeting.

Additionally, yesterday on 104.3, it was revealed that the "teammate" accused in the article of following up and asking for further money out of Luchs was Alfred Williams, and he was P.I.S.S.E.D. Williams and McGhee flatly denied the allegation and Al specifically called the author George Dohrmann a liar. ("You called me last week with this crap, and I told you it wasn't true ... you are a liar, sir." - Big Al on the Fan; he screamed that, btw. Big Al is someone I definitely don't want screaming at me, whether on the phone or in person) Big Al had, before the article ran, flatly denied to SI that the events occurred as depicted, and yet the story ran as depicted by Luchs without acknowledgment of that denial.

I've heard both sides of this over the past few days. George Dohrmann points to the 9 players mentioned in the article that have confessed to accepting money from Luchs as being proof of the guilt of everyone mentioned in the article. McGhee, and other members of the CU family, have pointed to Kanavis' character and, in Williams case, personal observance as proof that he is innocent. Originally, I thought that the story must have some piece of truth. To lead an SI story with a tale as detailed as this on, and not just a passing reference, takes what I would assume to be some deep background source checking and follow-up with the subjects. As I've heard more and more about the situation, I'm realizing the opposite is true; they interviewed Luchs, got a few confirmations on other portions, and just assumed everyone else did it.

Essentially it comes down to who you believe. Kanavis says he was called, that at the time of the call he didn't remember Luchs, and asked for Dohrmann to call back later (he was at work at the time). Dohrmann claims to have tried a few more times and given up pursuit of a reaction from McGhee. I think that's weak tea. If you're going to lead a damning piece with a line like "you never forget..." you'd better get a clear reaction one way or another from the subject. That's the lead of the article, the juicy tidbit that gets you to read further; it better be fucking true. I understand Dohrmann's position; he's got this big story, and there have a bunch of big confirmations on important segments, and the opening paragraphs are necessary to grab the reader. I just wish he would have either stuck with Kanavis until he got a confirmation or denial, held the article for a week, or cut the opening paragraphs. With a denial as strong as Big Al's was, you had to at least dig a little harder to get Kanavis' side. Just because a dude doesn't answer a phone call and email doesn't mean you get to throw him under the public opinion bus. Work harder, damnit!

As it is, I'm going to believe my fellow Buffaloes when they tell me, in such uncertain terms, that this story isn't all true. I believe that McGhee did meet Luchs, but that the meeting did not go as described in the article. I believe Dohrmann was put in a tough position both by Luchs' story, his own ambition, and the slow response of McGhee (although Big Al's reaction, in my opinion, should've warranted further follow-up). I'm interested to see where this goes; whether there will be any further pursuit of this issues by either Kanavis or S.I. My gut tells me that S.I. will write a quick follow-up for next week noting the denials, and attempt to forget about it; miking the national opinion of the piece. I'm not sure what Al or Kanavis will do...