Who assumed they would? Literally no one.
No more than you are tipping your hat you believe people are buying into 70, therefore it must be a much lower number. I am not convinced of anything one way or the other. I am assuming the 70 number isn't made up. I personally believe 70 is a combination of people on record and people contacted. I think it's pretty safe to assume with a number that large it's not 2 or 3 people on record. I am sure it's much more. 70? No. I don't think it needs to be either. I don't care if it's 10 people on record if they all corroborate similar stories of racism and/or misogyny.
This should be freaking investigated
Yeah, it takes a lot to make me feel sympathy for Sarver but that aspect of the story does it.
Mr. Rose and Co. are def going to be hit with a huge defamation suit for slandering Sarver on ESPN and letting it fester for a week before retracting. BIG mistake!
Right, but that doesn’t mean it’s a ploy to inflate the perception. It’s an inevitable consequence of anonymous sources, but an investigation like this can’t be done without offering a condition of anonymity.
Lol your deductive reasoning is flat out terrible. There’s not a single statement I’ve made that points in any direction other than we have zero idea what the number could be. I get it, you think a lot of people came out against sarver. I think that’s possible but we actually have zero idea how many people due to how the article was written.
Yeah that’s not going to happen in all likelihood. It’s been retracted. Litigation is expensive and involved.
If it wasn’t a ploy to inflate the perception why use the 70 number in the article at all?
Not only that, as i've mentioned a few times he said it in a way that it could be taken as a hypothetical. It was still slimy on his part but we've seen a politician or two do the same thing without consequence probably for that same reason.
To establish the scope, as I said. The number of interviewees connected to the organization is crucial for credibility, especially for investigations that rely on anonymous sources. If the scope weren’t included people—especially the subject—would be even more likely to claim that it’s just hearsay from a few bitter individuals. Seventy interviews is a LOT.
It works against them if only a few of the 70 actually have something to add to the claims the article makes though. That potentially means that a vast majority of the people interviewed haven't heard anything of the nature from Sarver.
It could, sure. This is just my guess, but based on the number of individuals supporting the claims in the article across different identifiers such as male, female, current employee, former employee, co-owner, executive, operations, and marketing, that it’s unlikely the vast majority of the 70 haven’t heard or witnessed anything.
Considering that probably thousands of people have worked there in the past it would be surprising if there weren't at least 70 ex-employees available and willing to state that they were unhappy there and considered it to be a toxic work environment. If the 70 people interviewed all said they witnessed specific, egregious acts, that's different.
There doesn't appear to be one single incident that will do him in but hopefully, taken together it should be enough to force a change in management (including Sarver's position).In regard to numbers, in the Baxter Holmes article at ESPN dated 11-4-2021, I noticed the words a "half-dozen" used twice and a "dozen" used twice.
Looking at the second paragraph below, this would seem to indicate more than 12 different different people mentioned at least one of the allegations.
Below are snippets from the article:
At least a half-dozen Suns staffers recounted to ESPN instances of Sarver hearing a story from a Black player and then using the same language when retelling it, down to the usage of the N-word.
-------------------------------------------------------
More than a dozen employees recalled Sarver making lewd comments in all-staff meetings, including discussing times when his wife would perform oral sex on him. Four former employees said that in several all-staff meetings Sarver claimed he needed to wear Magnum or extra-large condoms. Former employees said he asked players about their sex lives and the sexual prowess of their significant others.
----------------------------------------------------------
A current executive is among nearly a dozen who acknowledges seeking professional help to cope with anxiety, sleep loss and overall declining well-being working for the Suns.
----------------------------------------------------------
Although a few explored legal action, there were more who did not. Half a dozen former employees said they didn't pursue a lawsuit because they didn't have the financial resources for a legal battle to do so, or felt so worn down from their experience that they just wanted to move on.
Allegations of racism and misogyny within the Phoenix Suns: Inside Robert Sarver's 17-year tenure as owner
An ESPN investigation, featuring interviews with more than 70 current and former Suns employees, reveals accusations of racism and misogyny against owner Robert Sarver -- and a toxic workplace many employees believe his behavior emboldened.www.espn.com
arizonasports.com
You’re focused too much on the “named sources” angle which I’m not even debating.
