I've gotten enough questions about yesterdays post to warrant what will be a futile attempt at summarizing the drama between Coach O'leary and the Orlando Sentinel. My guess is that over the season this might become a national story (I don't think O'leary is close to backing down). I'll do my best but I'm sure I won't get it 100% (It would require me taking way to much time to write what will already be a longer than normal post). If anyone has any corrections or responses, which I'm sure someone will, comment below :)Quick and dirty background
Basically, a UCF player died tragically during a team workout. The Sentinel, doing it's job as a media outlet, started looking into it. Keith Tribble, the AD, made some remarks downplaying the workout based on the information that he had. That information wasn't really accurate, and then the school had to back off of those statements. UCF made a mistake with this and admitted as much.
Sentinel starts writing articles saying that the player died from over intensive workouts (O'leary worked him to death, etc). Out of however many on the record depositions there were about the incident (I think I heard there are about 80), the Sentinel chose to use 4 anonymous sources that didn't match up with anything else. The comments didn't really match up to what else was known about the situation, but hey.. that's how anonymous comments work. They're either completely accurate, or you know, completely made up. You have to decide whether or not you trust the media. When it comes to the sentinel, lots of folks don't. I've been at enough events and then read about them in the paper to know that they like to completely fabricate things for fill sometimes.
Anyhow, relatively soon after that the Sentinel writes an article interviewing UCF's old QB, who was a product of the Mike K era and never got along with O'leary. It's at this point most UCF fans feel the Sentinel turned sensationalist on the issue (keep in mind, a young man died. Not something to write sensational articles over). Basically, the tone of the article was that the old QB got yelled at a lot, proving that O'leary is a jerk (or, you know, a football coach, for anyone who's ever played a team sport), and that he is responsible for killing Ereck because of it. I think the line was something like "But Moffett has a life to continue living, Ereck Plancher doesn't." Something really offensive and over the line like that. For me, that's when my opinion turned against the Sentinel. If a football coach wasn't a hardass, he'd be an awful football coach. Trying to roll him under the bus in a sensationalist fluff piece, before the autopsy was even finished, crosses an ethical/moral line.
NOTE: I was going to link to this article, but can't find it on Google or orlandosentinel.com. The title was "Motivation different than Intimidation" and it was an interview with Steven Moffett written on April 12, 2008. The Sentinel, at the time, appeared to be deleting comments from the article. Now, the entire article is gone. Absolutely classless to launch an attack against UCF and remove any record of your own guilt. Most of the comments are still online here, read the reactions, (and sadly, ignore the childish trolls)UPDATE TO NOTE: Danny pointed out that it hasn't been removed, it's been moved to the paid only archive which happens after 30 days. That's my bad. I had forgotten people were still trying to make money that way. ;) So much for capitalizing the long tail. 'Joey' posted a copy of the article below, if anyone from the Sentinel sees this as a copyright violation, let me know and I'll remove it.
Anyway, fast forward with more articles and opinions written that are anti-UCF on the subject (one saying UCF stiffed EP's family on the funeral bill, which isn't true). Basically their general sentiment was that UCF's silence on the matter means guilt (it doesn't, it means a legal team is telling you not to talk.).
Next thing you know the autopsy is released confirming sickle cell, which for the most part clears the school of liability, and makes the Sentinel look pretty stupid for jumping the gun.
Fast forward a little and there's a press conference with O'leary. A Sentinel reporter asks a relatively mundane question, O'leary tells them he's not going to answer any questions for the Sentinel until they clarify some errors that they made in previous articles on the subject. Sentinel has said in the past that they would if UCF/O'leary pointed out what those errors are. UCF/O'leary say that there was a 90 minute interview with the Sentinel already concerning these details and that it went unreported. My guess is that a legal team is telling UCF/O'leary not to offer up anything more. Again, that's not a sign of guilt, that's the sign of a good legal team.
The day after O'leary denied the Sentinel, something like 4 out of 5 articles on the front page of the sports section are anti-UCF. This is more coverage than the Sentinel has ever given their local 50,000 student university. The paper is attacking UCF for not informing Ereck's family of his sickle cell trait (which, under privacy laws, would have been illegal for them to do. Ereck was over 18.) The paper insists that it was controversial "matt drills" that killed Ereck (something the school denies were taking place when he collapsed), and the paper insists that O'leary is guilty of not taking proper precautions because of Ereck's 'condition'.
Now, maybe teams should take more precautions with players that have sickle cell trait. Anything to improve safety is okay by me (including getting rid of matt drills for that matter, just to be careful. My understanding is that the pros don't use them?). But not many (if any) teams do much more than whats already done, and that's probably relating to the fact that an estimated 7-10% of African Americans have sickle cell and a very small portion of them die in a workout from it (more people die from falling coconuts type of thing). These players are also informed of the trait via pre-screening and continue to play football at their own risk.
My Thoughts / Going forward
My hope is that UCF medical staff (and other universities) have learned where they can improve things to protect the lives of college players. I'd hope that the Sentinel can take an honest look at their coverage and realize that they should have waited for the autopsy to be finished before taking a position. Both parties have things to learn from this, but only UCF seems to be admitting it. As far as Coach's stance on dealing with the paper, I think it's 100% within his right. The paper has, on multiple occasions now, suggested that he is responsible for killing one his players. Whatever happened was a tragic, unfortunate, somewhat freak occurrence that no one -- not the players, the coach, the families, the friends or even the fans -- should have to endure. "The Moffett article", as it's referred to amongst fans, proved to many of us the Sentinel's intent on sensationalizing a young man's death. They didn't lay on this criticism against FSU (Bobby Bowden *is* matt drills), UF or even USF -- all locally covered teams that have had similar occurrences. A freshman player died at UF from heat exhaustion -- something easily preventable -- back in 2001. I'm not even sure the Sentinel even mentioned it in between their "OMG UF is teh awesome!!1" articles. If they did, they certainly didn't mount a campaign against their coach.
So yeah. I gave a small amount more to the Golden Knight Club yesterday specifically in support of O'leary on this. It's not about the money, it's about the paper trail of support. At some point, O'leary is going to come under intense pressure to get this resolved. The Orlando Sentinel is the only game in town,
I also want to note that there are a lot more details to all this. Most of it can be read over in 'the dungeon', a $10 a month message board that's primarily composed of boosters and people associated with the UCF program. There's a strong sense of "what's said in the dungeon, stays in the dungeon" for obvious reasons. I've tried to keep some things vague out of respect to that, but hopefully this gives at least a little more background than what you'll read about in the Sentinel or listen to on Jim Philip's (who's uninformed opinions make for great radio but little else. Kind of like blog posts. I'm sure he'd tell you the same thing. ;).
Comments...
(Page 1)1. Unfortunately it is probably going to mean the slow prohibition of sickle cell players, as universities won't want the liability. The Sentinel misses the point that they harped on it like it was the same sort of preventable death like UF's but that this is one of many sickle cell related accidents over the past ten years. They missed the point that those deaths have increased not because of the level of exertion but that medical care for sickle cell has gotten so good that many make it to elite levels of sports now days, that a previously healthy player hides a potentially deadly condition. That it also means that it really is new territory for some involved in sports for forty - fifty years as many coaches have been.
Never mind the previous years of "negative" coverage. The dismissive stories as UCF was moving up. Or the Daunte Culpepper only coverage despite a successful program (granted only 1-AA) for the past few years. All over the Cell Phone Scandal of "Screen" Gene but too busy slurping Dante to miss that Krucezk was bankrupting a good program.
Being down the street has made the coverage lazy and they toss new blood at it when hell breaks loose but not many have been open fans like they have with FSU and UF for way too long. They just promoted out Hightower, who many pinned most of the bad coverage on, up to the magic. Instead of making him grow with and eventually know the school inside and out. To the Sentinel it is till low level coverage, stuff for newbies and not worth a real beat.
4:18PM on Jul 22nd 2008 by tim
2. That's an interesting point regarding coverage being done by newbies, as it may speak to some of the inaccuracies/weak reporting in certain areas. Love him or hate him, Bianchi is usually fairly consistent in his abilities. He's also considerably more seasoned than some of the others.
Whitley's article this past weekend though runs counter to that ("Time for UCF to admit their mistakes"). UCF has repeatedly stated that they are reviewing things to find areas of improvement. KT and GOL have both said the statement made soon after the death was inaccurate and they'd address the passing of wrongful information. I'm not sure what more the Sentinel is looking for, and what more they expect them to do/say given the nature of insurance/liability.
What hasn't happened is the Sentinel admitting that they attempted/accomplished creating a story before one even existed by not waiting until the autopsy had been completed. The Sentinel has repeatedly accused O'leary of basically murdering a player when it appears as if he was simply doing his job as a football coach, as backed up by the autopsy (which they were to impatient to wait for). That level of accusation is beyond a simple "there should be more precautions" or "no more xyz drills" type of statements. It's the type of accusation that needs hard supporting evidence, something the Sentinel hasn't yet been able to provide.
There's a level of arrogance and righteousness coming out of the Sentinel sports staff. Newbies or not, the article that the Sentinel now has taken offline (the moffett interview) went entirely too far in their attempt to monetize a young mans death. It was overreaching, out of bounds, etc. etc.
Anyway.. Someone pointed out over on rivals that it's not like the Sentinel's coverage on UCF can get any less or any worse. It's a short sighted decision on their part considering the schools massive growth and footprint on Orlando. It won't be long until there are far more UCF alumni in the area than any other school. Hopefully Florida Today can fill in the blank, if not, Rivals has been the leading source of news for UCF fans anyhow. God bless the internet.
4:34PM on Jul 22nd 2008 by Alex Rudloff
3. As a journalist myself, I think you have failed in properly backing up your opinion. In this field, we strive to present both sides of every story... Not only is it part of our ethics, but it's usually part of the guidelines we are supposed to follow by the rules of our individual publications.
Did you happen to ask the Sentinel about their investigation?
I did.
This is what they had to say. I'll keep the sources anonomys (even though you may claim this is fabrication) because I'd like not quote someone who didn't know they were on the record. Let's just say they are pretty high up..
"some facts of the story that he is overlooking:
4 football players came to us and told us what happened. we didn't go to them.
I was the person with o'leary for the 90-minute interview. his quotes were used in the original story.
See, here's his big problem: he thinks that because he says it, that he must be right. we had both sides of the argument and he is on one side.
Not all the football players were interviewed by the team. o'leary was hunting them down to find out who talked.
Even this blogger is kind of silly by saying that the school didn't need to tell the parents about the kid's illness. That's way off the mark. so they know this kid is in bad shape and they push him until he dies? they don't feel they should have told parents about illness of their kids? that's just wrong.
We've been trying to interview o'leary for 3 months since that initial conversation and he's refused each time."
Of course this information was given to me privately off the record... You need to realize there are two sides to every story and before you attack the intentions of a field dedicated to serving YOU (the people)you might want to do a little investigating yourself.
Oh, and just so you are aware, the Sentinel has one of the strictest ethical codes in the country especially when it comes to fabrication... I highly doubt they sensationalized this issue to sell papers... Selling papers make the Sentinel next to nothing.. it's selling ads that generates a profit. Oh, and coincidentally, the ad department is usually a separate entity from the editorial end and the two rarely interact when it comes to reporting.. Just some things you might want to take note of before you bash this "dying business."
Sincerely,
A local journalist defending a paper she doesn't care for in the name of her (evidently) pointless career.
1:43AM on Jul 23rd 2008 by Jessica
4. Alex, I just want to make a point clear (without getting into a back-and-forth regarding the paper's UCF coverage, since I'm not particularly involved in it): The story is no longer findable in Google because articles on OrlandoSentinel.com generally expire after 30 days, not because anyone on the staff is attempting to hide past coverage. The story is still in OrlandoSentinel.com's paid archive.
7:45AM on Jul 23rd 2008 by Danny Sanchez
5. @Danny -- thanks for the clarification, I'll make a note above!
@Jessica,
Thanks so much for taking the time to respond. I have no problem with being wrong or misguided in certain areas, I think I said as much at the start of this post and even joked about it in my final sentences ('Kind of like blog posts.') There are in fact two sides to every story, and I'm simply telling the side of most UCF fans who are looking at this with complete awe. "But Steven Moffett has a life to live..." (Danny remembers seeing me the day that article ran, I'm just as pissed about it now). Someone looking for information on this issue online will only find the Sentinel when doing so -- you don't think thats a little one sided, given the nature of the dispute?
O'leary's way of handling this is bold and potentially hazardous to his career -- if UCF is found guilty about something, he'll likely be pushed out over it. At the same time, he feels he and his staff have been misrepresented. Based on the conversations that I've heard (just like you have your off the record comments), I see no need to rush to judgement against the UCF staff. I'm sure things weren't done perfectly (hindsight is good like that), and the school has said repeatedly that they're going to improve things where they can when/as/if they find things. They've also said that the initial report they gave afterwards was inaccurate and they've explained why. Still, the Sentinel insists on UCF apologizing even more for the tradegy.
Regarding your insistence on UCF informing the parents of EP -- am I wrong about it being against the law? My understanding is that it falls under HIPAA (or if there is an academic variation of it, perhaps). You can say it's crap and you don't agree, etc.. But.. if it's against the law, it's against the law. Not much a public institution, or even a private one, can do about it.
And yeah, I get that editorial/opinions are separate from news. Isn't that always the case now? The blurring of that distinction is exactly what's wrong with our media as a whole. Newspapers are caught in a situation where they're trying to compete with other mediums and they've gotten away from what they do best -- reporting the news. When Whitley or Bianchi or anyone else writes an opinion peice for the paper, they're representing the paper de facto. Classify it however you'd like, its still seen the same way. The moffett article, opinion or not, was completely over reaching and represented the rush to crucify the UCF staff before the autopsy was even finished. Obviously, you disagree ;)
As far as my dying medium comment, as a journalist you shouldn't feel terribly offended by that. The owners/conglomerates running the papers are the ones who betted everything on classifieds and largely ignorned online distribution early on. They also chose to compete using editorials and opinions so they could get away with flame baiting and sensationalism. With the internet, of course, there are far better options for that sort of thing ;)
Like blogs. (ahem)
9:38AM on Jul 23rd 2008 by Alex Rudloff
6. Here's the article:
Former UCF QB: Motivation far different than intimidation
Shannon J. Owens | Sentinel columnist
10:14 PM EDT, April 12, 2008
For a coach, there is a fine line between motivation and intimidation. One pushes you into excellence. The other crushes you into despair.
Former UCF quarterback Steven Moffett says Coach George O'Leary crossed the line with him.
O'Leary has been under scrutiny in recent weeks since one of his players, Ereck Plancher, died after a workout.
There have been conflicting details about that day between players and the administration.
Moffett led the Knights to their first bowl game in 2005 under the direction of O'Leary and was rewarded the next season with some bonding time with the bench. O'Leary wanted to make room for his future in Kyle Israel -- but that's another story.
Moffett is grateful for every moment he had on the field.
"[O'Leary] said I wasn't worth [expletive] and I'd never play here," said Moffett, who was recruited by former coach Mike Kruczek.
Some call that incentive. I call that abuse. And that is the kind of environment Moffett said he and his teammates practiced in daily.
Moffett, 23, turned down offers from Florida, Georgia, South Carolina and Southern Mississippi for the opportunity to blossom under a Kruczek spread offense that would allow the athletic 6-foot-2 quarterback to throw the ball.
He considered transferring to Southern Miss when O'Leary arrived at UCF, but decided to stay so he could prove his worth to the new football coach.
But he would not get that affirmation. Instead, he says he was barraged with curses -- the nicest one, he says, was "you stupid [expletive] idiot." When the team lost, he said O'Leary would single him out as the reason for the loss.
Isn't football supposed to be a team sport? "It doesn't make you feel good at all," he said. "I think he wanted me to snap on him, but I never did."
I must have missed that in the coaching manual. Maybe berating a quarterback's intelligence works in the professional ranks but it has no place in amateur and collegiate sports.
Sadly, Moffett said it's the norm for UCF football.
"He's a good coach, but he's a disrespectful person," Moffett said.
So much so that Moffett said he has even discouraged athletes from going to his alma mater. One local high school football coach called Moffett to share his experiences with a player who was considering UCF. After that conversation the player went to Cincinnati.
"I have mixed feelings about [my time at UCF]," he said. "I had problems with some of the coaches and the way they treated people. It was organized, but I didn't agree with the way they treated people out there sometimes."
I wonder how comments like that make Ereck Plancher's family and friends feel. Their precious son's life was left to the care of a man who some say verbally abuse his players.
If you agree with Moffett's view of things, how can you doubt four players who risked scholarships to talk?
How can you believe O'Leary did not curse a player some say was in distress?
And let's be clear here: there is a major difference between cursing in general out of anger versus cursing a person to cut him or her down.
Plancher did not die from cursing. But if Moffett's experience is wide spread it does give insight into the culture O'Leary has created at UCF. He drives players with fear instead of faith. Attempts to reach O'Leary to respond to Moffett's comments were unsuccessful Saturday. Moffett is a little bitter. I guess it's the same way any of us would feel if we were called a "stupid [expletive] idiot" almost every day for three years. He battles regret in his mind daily. He wonders if his life would be different if went to Georgia, where he originally committed, instead of staying home.
But he is finally enjoying football. He plays for the AFL 2 Daytona Thunderbirds and is an assistant coach at Winter Park.
The NFL seems out of the picture.
"That would be nice, but I'm not putting all my eggs in that basket," he said. "I'm just playing ball because it's fun. I'm going to live my life."
Thankfully, he still has one to live. But Ereck left us too soon.
9:45AM on Jul 23rd 2008 by joey
7. Not to get all sports nutty, but didn't Moffett's numbers stink in comparison to Israel that year?
Moffett also started the majority of the games and threw for more passes, so it's not like he rode the bench some crazy amount of time.
I guess that's besides the point, but.. Just pointing that out after re-reading the article.
12:15PM on Jul 23rd 2008 by Alex Rudloff