What if this James kid is full of #%$@!@?

Submitted by Michiganguy19 on
Obviously I don't know the kid personally and as an outsider to the TT program there is something a bit odd about Coach Leach. But... Remember the trumped up story against RR by a loser sports journalist trying to make a name for himself in a dying business? I know that there is a lot to be said for protecting kids from abuse and the severity of concussions. But it is also possible that this is football, its tough, and people who play it and coach it are tough. Maybe this James kid has had a silver spoon in his mouth, got his feathers ruffled when he was given the "pussy" treatment by Leach and was unhappy about his playing time... I think we should all withold some judgment on Leach, maybe this kid is trumping up these charges or has his big time ESPN dad all worked up. Until Leach gets to defend himself, this is just a literally isolated charge. http://bleacherreport.com/articles/316254-mike-leach-to-courtespns-crai…

CWoodson

December 30th, 2009 at 12:38 PM ^

Few people argue this is criminal, only that it is an unacceptable way to treat a player, particularly as ANY kind of "punishment" for having a concussion. I watched the video of Leach's atty talking about how none of it was that bad. He's right: the closet and shed are both pretty big. He doesn't, however, explain why on earth the kid was treated in such a bizarre way - isolating him from the team, but not 1) sending him home, 2) putting him in the trainer's room, or 3) anything that looks less like punishment. Why stick him in a "media room" instead of in a trainer's room? Leach was sending a message to the rest of the team, and I understand why Texas Tech has an issue with it.

Steve in PA

December 30th, 2009 at 10:30 AM ^

I'm reserving any judgement until we hear more of the facts. Right now we're hearing the PR machine for both sides. The James' PR machine drew first blood because of his father's connections. The school is playing CYA and Leach's attorney is playing catchup. I suffer from migranes and the best place to be is a dark room when I have one. If this kid really did have issues with practicing I cannot blame Leach for wanting him to be accounted for, but in a place more fitting his condition. I think that the portrayal of electrical closets and whatnot is meant to put an image in reader's minds of small unfitting areas. Several players were in the news saying that the place he was sent was actually a place players took refuge from the heat in the past. Another thing to remember is that the doctor cleared him. If Jr shows up for practice after being cleared, but doesn't want to practice given his alleged lack of work-ethic what should a coach have done? Because of my migranes, I'm leaning to the dark places not being punishment. But, I'm also willing to accept that the coach was also just being a dick. As was said earlier, one of the actors in this drama will be gone by January.

Ernis

December 30th, 2009 at 11:07 AM ^

"Until Leach gets to defend himself, this is just a literally isolated charge." Exactly. It is absolutely ludicrous for someone to be suspended because one kid's parents complain. Parents complain all the time. With the added monetary incentive for TT to not have Leach around come tomorrow... this all looks sketchy. Will be interesting to see it unfold.

WolvinLA2

December 30th, 2009 at 11:10 AM ^

As an ex-football player, it seems that people who never played football don't have a firm grasp of what football coaches are like on the practice field. I got humiliated in front of the other players almost every day. If I missed a block, I'd have to run and get the coach a leaf from the "block tree" or from the "fumble tree" if I dropped the ball. Maybe I had to run the hill or stay late or come early to put the dummies away. We got cussed at, we got called names, we got singled out in front of our team and whoever else was watching. It made us better. You can't (or shouldn't) hold a football coach to the same standard as a high school math teacher your kids childhood coaches. That's just the way they are. I promise you that every coach who looks polished and polite at his press conferences is cussing up a storm when his TE whiffs a block. It's football, if you don't like it, I don't know, play soccer.

Fuzzy Dunlop

December 30th, 2009 at 11:21 AM ^

Being humiliated because you miss a block is fine -- in order to avoid humiliation, you will try harder to make the block next time. Being humiliated because you're sitting out with a concussion is not fine -- in order to avoid humiliation, you will hide concussion-like symptoms and/or play through them. I am NOT SAYING this is necessarily what happened here. But I am pointing out that the comparison is not apt. Leach isn't under fire because he allegedly punished a player in an unacceptable manner. He's under fire because he allegedly punished a player because he thought the player was milking a concussion.

Wendyk5

December 30th, 2009 at 12:10 PM ^

I've been humiliated on the job (pastry chef) but it was more verbal humiliation - not abuse, that would be a different story - and it was my chef's way of making sure I was on top of things and not letting anything slide. But if he had made me go stand by myself in some room - any room, could be a closet, could be the supply room - that goes beyond humiliation. That's definite abuse. The intent always has to be to make the guy better, to motivate. If Leach just wanted to humiliate James, and had no intention of playing him more or hoping that this would better him in some way, then it's wrong. Only Leach truly knows what his intentions were.

jtmc33

December 30th, 2009 at 11:30 AM ^

Maybe Leach is a Mangino-esque monster (or Cheney-esque). Maybe James Jr. is a spoiled Daddy's Boy who runs to James Sr. to do his bidding. Maybe it is somewhere in the middle. Either way... Leach is in trouble. At the least, this is a huge hit to recruiting and PR for TTech. As an aside: Where are statements from other players? Gag order? Afraid to come out and say "yes, it happened" or "no, coach is great". I find it odd that the players are silent. Usually, as in UM's drama this year, players speak out to defend the coach/program (no, we don't break work-out rules / yes, we have family values, etc.)

Section 1

December 30th, 2009 at 11:41 AM ^

By the way, there was a fantastic profile done on Leach in the New York Times Sunday magazine about three years ago. It is still worth reading, and might be the best reporting I ever saw on Mike Leach.

Section 1

December 30th, 2009 at 11:39 AM ^

Simply, "What if the James kid is full of $#!&...?" And that's a really good question. I don't know the facts. Few if any on MGoBlog would be in a position to be inside Texas Tech practices. It is a question. Just a question. Another side to what is clearly a disputed story. The legal position of Mike Leach and his lawyers is, "If you suspend me now, and if you prepare to fire me for cause without giving me a chance to respond in full, then you are doing irreparable harm to me and my career. You are free to 'investigate,' and I will cooperate, but if you suspend me now under these circumstances, you are prejudging the situation and denying me my rights under my contract. There isn't another bowl game for Texas Tech next week, or next month. you are damaging me and my career for the rest of my life." WHAT IF -- the James kid was a prima donna, who had not worked hard, had practiced badly, and was disciplined for it? And, following that, had lost playing time? And both he and his dad were angry about it, and made it known to the TT coaches and team? And thereby became a bigger distraction within the team. And then later, James sufferd a mild concussion? And that the James kid had then said to Leach something like, "My dad said you don't know anything about concussions, and he's talked to better doctors than our team doctors..."? And let's presume, that what Leach did next with James was some form of 'discipline,' but not harmful to the kid. (There is no dispute about the fact that Leach and the coaches did, in fact, no harm to the kid; nobody forced him to play post-concussion. Granted, there is the position that any 'discipline' under the circumstances of an injury was and would be wrong, and that this discipline as alleged by James was wrong.) But there's just so much that we don't know, and there is so much in disputed fact(s). The OP compared the Leach allegations and the Freep allegations versus Rich Rodriguez. And that's a reasonable thing to do. There is a current hysteria about concussions. Just as there has been a long-time presumtption that big-time football programs all cheat. There is a kind of an attractive "Complianant." With Leach, it is Craig James and his son. With the Free Press it was the gravitas of its front page, a popular writer (Rosenberg) and unnamed "former and current players." The Texas Tech situation has clearly moved from "inquiry" to "national news" based on a leak, and without a complete investigation. And that's exactly what the fucking Free Press did. It may be, in the end, that both coaches, or just one, or none, are guilty of anything. With Rich Rodriguez, we now know that the Free Press story was full of holes, inexplicable presumptions and bad journalism methods. It appears to be mostly bullshit. But we remember the chaos of the first week of the story, just as we prepared to open the season. Imagine if it had been the week of a bowl game.

Fuzzy Dunlop

December 30th, 2009 at 11:57 AM ^

"These are the facts of the case. And they are undisputed." Craig James was a whiny douchebag. [This one is probably disputed, but I'll include it as a bone to all those who have been negging me] Craig James suffered a concussion on December 16. Craig James was diagnosed with a concussion on December 17. Craig James was not cleared to practice, but he was cleared to attend practice (i.e., stand on the sidelines, per Leach's attorney). Craig James wore sunglasses to said practice. When confronted by Coach Leach, James stated that it was because he was sensitive to light. Coach Leach then placed James into secluded places on two occasions. The conditions of such conclusion are the only subject of dispute. [Though, I would note, that Leach has yet to dispute James' claim that all furniture was removed and James was not allowed to sit]. I submit, based on these undisputed facts, that Leach did not handle the matter appropriately. Even if the conditions of the seclusion were entirely comfortable, the act of seclusion is punishment, in and of itself. Players should not be punished in any form for having concussions for having concussions or claiming to suffer from concussion-related symptoms. That basically sums up my feelings on the matter. I'm not saying Leach should have been suspended, should be fired, etc. I'm just saying that, given what we know about concussions, he didn't handle the situation properly. Such an attitude could motivate players to hide concussion-like symptoms for fear of similar treatment. You may disagree, but this is an entirely rational position, based on actual facts and not gross speculation. Feel free to neg-bomb away if for some reason you think that's appropriate.

Captain

December 30th, 2009 at 2:06 PM ^

Accepting all of your undisputed facts, there is not enough to conclude that "the act of seclusion is punishment." It is plausible that confining a player with a mild concussion to a cooler, darker equipment room was a sound medical decision and not punitive (what Leach and his doctor are claiming). This is not to say additional undisputed facts wouldn't support your conclusion. For example, the fact that at least two of the three individuals "supervising" James were non-medical personnel is suggestive that something other than medical treatment may have been taking place. Given only your list of facts, however, there is simply not enough to conclude that confining a concussed, light-sensitive player to a cool, dark room was to punish, and not to treat.

HAIL 2 VICTORS

December 30th, 2009 at 12:02 PM ^

-TTU will have to pay $800K to Leach if he is the coach on Friday. -TTU has had issues with Leach as he is not exaclty a Mack Brown politicing. -Mark Mangino has just made even the allegation of abuse an immediate hot topic in the B12 and nationwide. -Craig James works for the MOTHERSHIP that immediately went on the rampage against Leach. -Leach's wide reciever coach is backing Leach and this is VERY different then Mangino at KU. However Leach is about as likable a persona as Bob Knight...so this could go either way but there is many a reason to take heed in favor of Leach.

hailtothevictors08

December 30th, 2009 at 12:36 PM ^

for beteer or worse, and pry worse this is how football works ... i too played and the truth is the culture of the game is to suck it up and go back out there (i realize this is not medically safe) ... i have been unfortuanate enough to suffer a conncussion playing sports (bad enogh that i woke up in the hospital but idk the severity levels) and the truth was the natural competitor in me wanted to get back out there the next day and help your teamates, and you expect the same from your teamates ... while i thankfully had a smarter side and did sit out, it can be the hardest part of having a concussion ... wait for the fact to come out is all the post is saying ... also im not sure how sitting in a cool dark room with ice and water (?) and a trainer right there is determental .. sounds better than standing out there in the sun on the sidlines

Clarence Beeks

December 30th, 2009 at 12:41 PM ^

My big concern with this whole situation is this: We all know that ESPN drives the sports news world. Craig James is a highly regarded ESPN employee. I have real concerns as to whether ESPN will be fair in diligent in their reporting of this situation, especially if it ultimately shows that Adam James is either lying or exaggerating the situation.

bryemye

December 30th, 2009 at 1:35 PM ^

In what universe is putting someone suffering from mild post-concussion symptoms in a dark area and keeping them conscious problematic in any way shape or form? I don't see how this is "punishment" for being injured to anyone older than 18. To fire a coach over this is frankly incredible. If I were a TTU player, I would feel utterly betrayed by my athletic department and demand to transfer. I'm not even sure I'd play in this bowl game. That program just became irrelevant over lunch, it didn't even take a full night. Wow.

jmblue

December 30th, 2009 at 4:53 PM ^

In what universe is putting someone suffering from mild post-concussion symptoms in a dark area and keeping them conscious problematic in any way shape or form? It's problematic in a universe in which the football coach has access to an actual room designed for treating injured players (not to mention a university hospital) and shuns both of them in favor of isolating a concussed player in a storage room. I'm amazing that so many people are assuming Craig James's motives are askew. If my son had a concussion and his coach refused to send him to the training room for treatment, I'd be pissed off to no end.

Section 1

December 30th, 2009 at 5:13 PM ^

Is there any evidence that Adam James was "suffering from mild post-concussion symptoms" at any of the relevant times? Or that Adam James needed any "treatment" of any kind? I think that gets answered in the negative. I've heard no allegations of that. (Allegations that Adam James was denied needed medical and/or neurological care. There are none that I know of.) True, I'll accept that James was post-concussion. But at this moment, Tim Tebow and Ben Roethlisberger are both "post-concussion," and they are happily, eagerly, playing football in some very big games. They are both post-concussion, but both have no symptoms now. Was Adam James having any symptoms? Do we know, for a fact, that the matter of punishment, or any dispute between James and Leach, was particularly related to the matter of concussions or post-concussion activity? If so, do we know what the nature of the dispute was? My presumption is the exact opposite of yours, and is, I think, much more credible: I presume that there had been previous disputed matters between Adam James, and Craig James and Mike Leach. I accept that Adam James may have suffered a minor concussion at some point. But I also presume that he had no "symptoms" of any importance or any consequence when he was sent to the shed, or garage, or meeting room or whatever it was. I also suspect that in any event, there was a trainer or a graduate assistant of some kind nearby. Maybe even as a "guard." I presume, in other words, that Adam James was being disciplined, but that his physical condition and general welfare were in no way being threatened. Does having had a concussion in the past mean that you can no longer be discplined? In what way was Adam James' health and welfare harmed, or even placed at risk?