Re: Greg Minor's issues

[Cecil Wright <nocw1@nsh.library.ns.ca>]

I saw the Lobel interview and was very struck by the hesitancy with which 
Minor spoke.  It made me feel a real sense of empathy for the lives led 
by some of these young men.  I'm not using that as a way of saying "poor 
Greg", just that it is not uncommon for many young men to get involved in 
those "toxic relationships".  It's a tragedy that it usually leads to an 
emotional scar for many children born from them.

He obviously has issues which must be dealt with, but I hope that he was 
being genuine when he said he wants custody of his children.  Speaking as 
a divorced man who went to court for custody of my 2 children and won, I 
have tremendous respect for what mothers do.  But by allowing her child 
to be featured on the cover of SI in such a terrible story, does not show 
compassion for that beautiful little boy.

RP said that the Celts send money each month to an attorney, hinting that 
she was fabricating part of her story, which by the way, I haven't read.  
Wonder why she refused to participate in Lobel's piece?  We all know how 
much of an a**hole Peter May can be when he wants to, and I suspect he 
leaped to a premature conclusion.  I was also falsely accused of 
financial neglect even though I was earning an income and living under 
the same roof with my children.  Sometimes it happens, but not in every 
case.  I say Minor is innocent unless proven guilty.

Cecil  

On Thu, 14 May 1998, Theresa Lee wrote:

> I have been surprised that the Greg Minor/SI cover didn't get any attention
> on this list. It got a lot of attention locally with the Globe's Peter May
> battling local tv sportsguy Bob Lobell. Lobell interviewed Minor to get his
> side of the story. May interviewed the mother of the children for her side
> of the story. They obviously, as a result, see the story from completely
> different angles. The debate ran along the lines of: is he a scumbag or is
> he not?
> 
> The Lobell interview (and a Herald interview) tried to temper what we
> already knew from the original Globe article. Minor claims that the reason
> he hasn't seen his kids is that he doesn't have custody. He is not allowed.
> He does call and provided phone records to boost his claim. He was also
> photographed with his new fiance at his condo for the Herald story.
> 
> My take on it is this: he was young and stupid and got involved in what I
> like to call a "toxic" relationship....bad from the start, not meant to be
> together. They had three kids together though. He broke it off, she's
> bitter. He is NOT the best father in the world, and when his contract was
> renewed for big bucks, she went after his money...she can't force him to
> see his kids, but she can force him to pay. Bitter, bitter and money,
> money. She let loose with the media stories (he did admit to beating her
> and pouring Cognac on her) and his reputation was toast. He's trying his
> hardest to NOW be the father that HE never had, ironically. I think he has
> a bigger aversion to the mother than the kids, of course. He also got an
> injunction barring the mother from using the kids picture on a magazine
> cover again. And, of course, it's always the kids who get hurt when two
> adults who should not be together or procreate, do.
> 
> It's a sad, but common story.
> 
> Theresa
> 
> 
>