December 30th, 2009 at 3:41 PM ^

It must be noted that mgoObes linked this in an earlier thread, but I like seeing this as a seperate thread. I would like to know why ESPN's "investigative reporters" aren't smart enough to find this video. You would think that if they want to give as much info as possible, videos of the "shed" and the "electrical closet" would be quite helpful.

They can't be avoiding the video because it would cause embarassment to one of their employees, could they? I'm sure a paragon of objectivity like tWWL would never intentionally overlook an opportunity to present a crucial part of the story just to make one of their own look better.


December 30th, 2009 at 3:47 PM ^

We're really going to get into garage vs. shed here? OK, then you win. Fortunately, that's not the issue at all.

Whatever you think of him having to go to the garage to get out of the sun, please give me an answer for why he was isolated in an unlit "media room" the next day that doesn't involve the words "punishment for his concussion."

The crucial part of the story: was this punishment for a "mild" concussion (you'll note the lawyer emphasizes that) meant to send James and the rest of the team a message? Even in the best possible light, there is no other reasonable explanation. I don't care about the size of the room he was forced into.

**Edit: which is not to say this punishment seems extremely severe, and I'm not sure a firing was appropriate, but the message Leach was sending was clear, and it's one we should be concerned about at all levels of football.


December 30th, 2009 at 3:49 PM ^

As it was noted on the other topic, people in Texas are saying that he was told to stay home by doctors and he showed up at practice anyway but with sunglasses on claiming that the sunlight hurt his eyes. It sounds less like he was being punished for a mild concussion and more like he was punished for being a douchenozzle.


December 30th, 2009 at 4:01 PM ^

So the doctors told him to stay home and he went to outside practice anyway, knowing that the sunlight hurt his eyes, because he was concussed? Also, do you think there is a magical concussion healing device in the training room? What is the difference between a big garage and a training room as it relates to concussions?


December 30th, 2009 at 4:04 PM ^

If that's true (and it would be relevant), why didn't they just send him home?

"What is the difference between a big garage and a training room as it relates to concussions?"

Do other injured players get sent to the garage if they can't practice? If so, nothing, but we both know that's not what happens.


December 30th, 2009 at 4:24 PM ^

I am going to guess that other players don't complain of light hurting their eyes. If they put him in the training room, that means everyone else using the training room or in the training room has to go about their business with the lights off. You can't compare this to all of the other injured players because it isn't anywhere near the same situation. And if he wanted to be at practice so badly that he would go against a doctor's wish, why would they send him home?


December 30th, 2009 at 4:49 PM ^

This is a minor point, but it sounds like he was complaining about the sun hurting his eyes, which is rather a stronger light than that emitted by indoor bulbs. He couldn't wear the glasses indoors, in the training room?

The idea that you can't compare this situation to "all of the other injured players" is the problem here. This IS a real injury, more serious than injuries that look far worse (like a dislocated shoulder, which I can tell you from experience is really, really painful).

So either Leach just didn't take it seriously, which is problematic, or he was making an example of a kid (quite possibly an obnoxious one otherwise) who had a "mild" concussion, which is EXTREMELY problematic.


December 30th, 2009 at 5:02 PM ^

In our scenario, he knew that the sun hurt his eyes and was told to not go to practice and yet he went anyway. If he was that injured, why even come?

For all we know, Leach put the kid into the darkest place he could think of because the kid was so horribly and "mildly concussed" that the sun hurt his eyes. And again, in our scenario, he wasn't making an example of a kid for having a mild concussion, he was making an example of the kid because he was being a douche and thinking he could come to practice, sit on the sideline with his feet up drinking iced tea, wearing sunglasses because the sun hurt his eyes when he wasn't even supposed to be there (obviously exaggerated). The emails that are coming out about the kid don't paint a very positive image of him.


December 30th, 2009 at 5:57 PM ^

I laughed out loud at Leach putting him in the "darkest place he could think of." And maybe the kid was coming out to support his teammates, to help get prepared for the bowl game, etc.

The truth obviously lies somewhere in the middle, and by all indications we're dealing with douchebags on both sides. As noted above, I think TT's firing Leach had little to do with this incident. It's just important that we treat people with injuries that we can't see the same as people with legs bending the wrong way.

PS - I haven't been down-voting you, and will up-vote you to even things out.


December 30th, 2009 at 3:58 PM ^

I'm not all that certain he was fired for the James incident. I think the fact that he didn't accept his bowl game suspension and instead put the university in a bad light by taking them to court had something to do with it as well. As Bob Knight once said "If rape is inevitable, just relax and enjoy it". If Leach hadn't tried fighting the one game suspension he would probably still be coaching at Texas Tech


December 30th, 2009 at 5:05 PM ^

I think you bring up a valid point in most situations, but this one had extenuating circumstances.

Gerald Myers and Guy Bailey hate Mike Leach. They wanted him gone after the contract negotiations in the off-season. He would have been fired today no matter what. The administration didn't want to pay him an $800,000 bonus due tomorrow.


December 30th, 2009 at 3:50 PM ^

The guy already has been fired, and we don't even know the truth of what happened.

It is sad how powerful the media is in forcing people out of roles. I mean, this is all pure speculation, right? Do we have any proof that Leach did what Craig James claims?

There is no message hear, because we have not heard both sides. This is basic garbage.


December 30th, 2009 at 3:52 PM ^

When an accused person's lawyer gives a statement, do you always assume that that version of events is the truth of the matter? Do you think a lawyer is likely to say "You know what? My client deserved to be fired"?

Simi Maquoketa

December 30th, 2009 at 4:29 PM ^

In this climate of Michigan Fan blaming players for everything and exonerating coaches of anything even resembling blame, the consistency of people calling Adam James the (Michigan fan requisite) "douche-anything" is admirable.

But why is a kid "punished" for anything surrounding his concussion?

I know this is a board full of old-school Al Bundy's who once scored four touchdowns in one game while playing with a broken neck and a severed carotid artery AND after being forcibly blinded at halftime with hot coals by the coach because of a first-quarter fumble, AND who scored three touchdowns in the next game after being killed during a housefire in which he saved a family dog, BUT REALLY is it ALWAYS the fault of the players with you guys?

Do you guys give carte blanche to all coaches just because our great coach has led UM to 8-16 and now you're so defensive you've lost all sense of, er... um... common sense?