I'm in the camp that it's better to reflect over time on a moral position than to proffer a knee-jerk opinion.
In that sense, I don't have a problem with Caro being late to the party.
I think it's a well thought-out piece but, ultimately, I reckon she's got it wrong on a few levels.
For starters, it's disappointing for her to declare her feminist credentials yet almost completely relegate Ms Crow to a powerless onlooker. The implication is that Hardwick used his senior position to his advantage. We can't know this is true and I hate the implied disempowerment of the lady in question. Referring to Ms Crow as 'a younger and more junior colleague' is a one-dimensional characterisation that, on the face of it, denigrates Ms Crow as much as it was designed to diminish Hardwick. Caro does this while decrying the idea that “Mrs Hardwick” never had 'a true voice or even her own name'. Ms Crow is a successful, accomplished woman in her 30s. She's been written about as though she's simply a pawn. I think that's sad and, really, quite awful.
Secondly, there is this declaration: 'Affairs of the heart like so many private issues are difficult to write about in the context of a large sporting organisation but no one can deny this situation has not rocked the Tigers and therefore is fair game.'
That is simply disingenuous. You can't, on the one hand, acknowledge a 'private issue' then, on the other hand, say that, for some ill-defined reason, it's suddenly OK to treat the matter like it's gossip-column fodder. Either it's private or it isn't. There is no half-way house on that. It reeks of Caro choosing to wade in when there was enough information in the public arena to justify an intrusion on the private nature of the relationship.
That's a pretty yucky place to find oneself and I suspect, on reflection, Caro may not feel this is her finest work.
