I can see why the Red Sox, and MLB generally, would want to distance themselves from it. It's hard to believe that this -- insert your own vicious slur or aphorism, although none matches its intent where such abuse is concerned to describe such a monster -- individual could continue to abuse young black children who came to the Red Sox organization. How is it that through the years anyone with a brain and eyes and two strong arms and rock-like fists didn't tune this guy up to the extent that he would never show his face in the clubhouse again and die in ignominy and shame. We talked about the Ron Washington clubhouse speech before game 7 of the WS this year and how what is said and or done in the clubhouse stays or should stay in the clubhouse. All you conclude is that can none of the players actually saw anything happen so rather than risk team censure they simply stayed on task of trying to win ballgames. But it just shows you that sometimes you have to step out of your designated role and take responsibility for what's going on around you, or just to look out for those who can't look out for themselves. This is a story that in Red Sox lore never should have occurred, never should have been a story to be told. I wonder how many other such stories there are in baseball, in the NFL or the NBA or other areas of sports. Sadly, probably a lot more than we think.
It's true this story has nothing to do with the current incarnation of the Red Sox, nor any of its ball clubs in the 21st century and late 90s. But in light of the current Penn State scandal, Yawkey and his confidants during his time period are as guilty as the Penn State president, AD, head coach, all of them. My perception of Yawkey is now drastically changed. He may be in some Hall of Fame, but he's not a Hall of Famer.
"I can see why the Red Sox, and MLB generally, would want to distance themselves from it."
Yaz, not coming down on you personally, but isn't that what Penn State did all those years? Now its out there, and continuing to ignore it, even though it happened under previous ownership, doesn't exonerate anyone by any means.
People that were employed by the Boston Red Sox (and Penn State) are responsible for sexually molesting children. Others, working under the same roof, let it happen and never contacted authorities.
How is this different? All I can see is that in the Red Sox case, it may be hard to identify who knew & failed to come forward...otherwise, a molested child is a molested child.
>>>> How is this different?
That's not a serious question, is it? The difference is that people who were involved in covering it up were still AT Penn State. It didn't happen 40 years ago at Penn State. Who is left with the RS that had any hand in what happened in the 1970s? If you don't think it's different, who would you like to see the RS fire or punish for this the way Penn State is doing, given that there isn't a single employee left who took part in what happened? Maybe they should fire the manager they haven't hired yet, or the new GM? Obviously this is totally different. Would you want them to fire someone if it happened in the 1920s too?