But, I'll just point out that it wasn't exactly a retraction.
HP basically says, even if not in so many words, that though the details of Wetzel's story have been discredited, the substance of the story remains true. Specifically, HP says:
Is this "no doubt" true? Does HP have the facts to back this up? I admit, I'm no expert on the subject. And I wouldn't be surprised if some of the rumors of Gilbert providing favors to UCLA players were true. But, at the least, HP stating that Gilbert was a "sugar daddy" as an incontrovertible fact, without specifying what he means by that (I believe purposefully) ambiguous phrase, is troubling.
HP goes on to argue that the "gist" of Wetzel's story is accurate, relying solely upon the website of first year student at UCLA named Mitchell Austin:
HP might as well say: I still think UCLA cheated. And then HP wraps up by repeating the same conclusion from his original post that UCLA's basketball program was "absolutely" "corrupt":Is John Wooden the greatest coach ever? I think so. Was his program corrupt because of the influence of Sam Gilbert? Absolutely. Was UCLA doing things differently than all the other top programs? Probably not.
Change his conclusion? No. Just repeat it. And then suggestively sign off by invoking the sinister "shadows of the banners that hang in Pauley Pavilion."
Listen, HP can say what he wants. And I'm no sports historian. But if he's going to say something like this, he should say it with support. Not just some well-crafted innuendo, a discredited article from a hack Yahoo reporter and a first year college student.
As HP himself says: