Pushing the team to its limit...or abuse?

Originally posted by Eladar
Here in Oklahoma the state legislature passed statement reminding parents that it is alright to spank your children.

Good for Oklahoma! The nanny state has no business telling parents they cannot spank their kids. It is absurd to pass a law abridging parental rights based on the misguided notion that spanking is harmful. Not all spanking is abuse. Ultraliberal countries like Canada really enjoy curtailing rights be it parental rights, gun rights, free speech, etc. In Canada you can be prosecuted for quoting certain sections of the Bible! The thought police is in full swing in Canada. Maybe they need spanking the whole sorry lot. In Maine there are signs in French asking people to not piss on the floor. Surely these signs are not directed at rednecks who could not identify French if it bit them!

Originally posted by shortcircuit
Of course, you believe it is alright for the other side to negotiate in bad faith by showing no loyalty and lying about jobs they were requested to interview for (when in fact they were not requested) in order to jack up a salary boost?

I have already said James was a lazy kid and his daddy was attempting to manipulate the system. I also said sticki ...[text shortened]... h of them are getting what they deserve, but don't try to paint anyone as the villain here.

You simply cannot punish someone for having a concussion. Putting someone in a dark room. Not allowing them to sit or lean against anything for three hours is punishment. The fact that it might not have caused him further physical damage really is irrelevant. The issue is simple: a boss cannot lock an employee in a dark room, a cop cannot lock a suspect in dark room for three hours, a teacher cannot lock a student in a room for three hours, a baby sitter/ daycare center cannot lock a child in a dark room. Leach's after the fact claim smear campaign stating that James was a trouble maker and that his family meddled really is irrelevant. He simply does not have the right to do what he did and he was fired for cause.

Originally posted by quackquack
You simply cannot punish someone for having a concussion. Putting someone in a dark room. Not allowing them to sit or lean against anything for three hours is punishment. The fact that it might not have caused him further physical damage really is irrelevant. The issue is simple: a boss cannot lock an employee in a dark room, a cop cannot lock a suspect ...[text shortened]... irrelevant. He simply does not have the right to do what he did and he was fired for cause.

Stole my thunder, quackdude! The deprivation of liberty aspect of the whole mess is absent from the discussion by the media and a most troubling angle to the whole sorry mess! Leach's arrogance caused his downfall. He refuses to accept responsibility and now accuses Tech of theft! He served at Tech's will, not the other way around. Let him bring a lawsuit for wrongful termination. James' family should bring one for wrongful imprisonment. These arrogant coaches need to learn more appropriate discipline strategies instead of this childish "I'll show you" crap!

Originally posted by quackquack
You simply cannot punish someone for having a concussion. Putting someone in a dark room. Not allowing them to sit or lean against anything for three hours is punishment. The fact that it might not have caused him further physical damage really is irrelevant. The issue is simple: a boss cannot lock an employee in a dark room, a cop cannot lock a suspect ...[text shortened]... irrelevant. He simply does not have the right to do what he did and he was fired for cause.

This is what I'm interested in discussing. Why did the coach's decision cross a line?

Tech's head trainer made an official statement that Adam was never "locked" in
either of the rooms. He was told to go to the rooms for the rest of practice and was
monitored by training staff. He also said that although there was no physical harm in
sending Adam to either of these rooms, as a doctor he thought it was
"inappropriate." Tech's standard procedures for dealing with players with mild
concussions was to send them to the locker room or weight room (or similar) for the
remainder of practice and dim or turn off the lights to make it dark. The trainer
couldn't recall another incident that a player was sent to either of the rooms that
Adam was sent to.

So, for argument's sake (and I'm hoping for a real discussion on this and not a
passionate dismissal):

Why isn't it considered punishment or deprivation of liberty if a player is told he must
sit out the rest of practice in a dark weight room instead of a dark equipment shed?
Is it the size of the room? Is it the fact that he was singled out to be sent there? Is it
because Leach had a history of unusual "punishments" (like when he had a player
take a desk to the 50 yard line to do his homework in a class he was struggling in?)

If doctor's orders are to get a player into a cool, dark place, then why is one dark
place okay but another not?

Originally posted by Traveling Again
This is what I'm interested in discussing. Why did the coach's decision cross a line?

Tech's head trainer made an official statement that Adam was never "locked" in
either of the rooms. He was told to go to the rooms for the rest of practice and was
monitored by training staff. He also said that although there was no physical harm in
se ...[text shortened]... layer into a cool, dark place, then why is one dark
place okay but another not?

The shed aspect of it is humiliating to begin with, is singling out a player as evidenced by no other player being treated the same way, the being under "guard" for a player who because of the concussion may not be "all there" so to speak and the absence of anything gained learning-wise for the player. I am a firm believer in discipline. When discipline crosses the into humiliation or singling out it is no longer OK.

Perhaps leach thought that because of the "James" name Adam needed an extra shove in the behind never stopping to think that a prima donna player may find this extra-humiliating. Leach is a smart man, but judgment-wise dumb as they come. If you are at odds with your bosses the last thing you do is paint a target on your back and say "shoot". James the elder was a local sportscaster forever before making the national shows and is generally a good guy. He is a good father who defends his kids. I am sure he is aware Adam James is likely a handful, yet disciplining him thusly simply not right and therefore stepped in. I know I would have as well!

He was being punished for being a whiner. It has nothing to do with the concusion. There's nothing wrong with singling a player out.

There was nothing abusive here. Sure he used foul language, and has no respect for the kid, but there's nothing illegal about that. If there was, you'd have to fire 90% of college coaches.

Originally posted by Eladar
He was being punished for being a whiner. It has nothing to do with the concusion. There's nothing wrong with singling a player out.

There was nothing abusive here. Sure he used foul language, and has no respect for the kid, but there's nothing illegal about that. If there was, you'd have to fire 90% of college coaches.

Even if what you say, is true and I think it is very debatable, on what planet is ok to lock someone in a room for whinning? Can my boss do that? Can the cops do that? Can a baby sitter do that? Of course not. False imprisonment is a crime.
Where the line is might me debatable, the fact that Leach crossed it is not.
If a boss continually directed profanity laced tirades at his/ her workers there likely would eventually be a lawsuit for work place harassment when a worker felt that the conditions were not conducive for them performing. In the NCAA where a player has more restrictions than workers (they need to be released from a scholorhship, they are limits in the number of scholorships available elsewhere, they need to transfit credits and majors, the NCAA makes them sit out a year) means that players should in some one have even more protections than regular workers. Tradition may change (just like slavery is no longer legal0>

Even if what you say, is true and I think it is very debatable, on what planet is ok to lock someone in a room for whinning?

He wasn't locked in the room. He could have left any time he pleased. He could have said, screw it, I'm out of here. The he could transfer. Or he could just go to school and quit playing football.

He was instructed to stay in the room. Woop dee doo! I'd rather be locked in a room (even though he was not locked in the room) for 3 hours than have to to 500 yards of crab walks or 500 yards of bear crawls. How does 100 up downs sound? Even done those?

The complaints of mistreatment mean nothing. Craig James knows this. The real problem here was playing time.

Btw, the language was not in front of the player. It was to the trainer. There were no complaints from the trainer.

Originally posted by Eladar
[b]Even if what you say, is true and I think it is very debatable, on what planet is ok to lock someone in a room for whinning?

He wasn't locked in the room. He could have left any time he pleased. He could have said, screw it, I'm out of here. The he could transfer. Or he could just go to school and quit playing football.

He was instructed to ...[text shortened]... t in front of the player. It was to the trainer. There were no complaints from the trainer.[/b]

I guess there is a difference of opinion. You and Leach think there is nothing wrong with putting someone in a dark room for three hours as punishment. I agree with the James family and the University. The fact that he could quit does not even change the fact that it is false imprisnment. Can my boss throw me in a dark closet and say if you don't like it quit? Yes, but he'd get sued in a heart beat. Can I lock a seventenn year old student in closet and say if you don't like it you can move and go to another public school or drop out of school? Obviously not. Can a baby sitter do that to a child and say don't re-hire me? If you think any of these things including Leach's behavior is appropriate you really are not prepared to be integrated into our modern society.

Originally posted by quackquack
I guess there is a difference of opinion. You and Leach think there is nothing wrong with putting someone in a dark room for three hours as punishment. I agree with the James family and the University. The fact that he could quit does not even change the fact that it is false imprisnment. Can my boss throw me in a dark closet and say if you don't l ...[text shortened]... havior is appropriate you really are not prepared to be integrated into our modern society.

What's the difference in being sent to a dark media room or a dark equipment shed
for the remainder of practice because of a mild concussion OR being sent to a dark
weight room or a dark locker room for the remainder of practice?

Are you suggesting that sending a player to the locker room for the rest of practice
and telling him/her that they can't leave until practice ends is false imprisonment?

You keep mentioning dark "closet" -- James wasn't put in a closet. And he wasn't
"locked" in either of the rooms he was sent to. If the facts showed that James was
actually locked in a closet then I think the issue would not be as debatable as it is
now. I think it would be hard to argue that that wouldn't be false imprisonment. But
the facts (so far) clearly indicate that he was neither locked nor put in a closet.

Can you put a student in a closet (without ramifications)? No, but you can send a
student to detention. And the detention room at my high school was smaller than the
media room that James was sent to. Is sending a student to detention unlawful
imprisonment?

Can you put a child in a closet? No, but you can send a child to their room. And my
room as a kid was much smaller than even the equipment shed that James was sent
to. Is sending a child to their room unlawful imprisonment?

So why the big deal? scacchipazzo mentioned the humiliation factor. But is that
really it? Isn't any punishment meant to humiliate on some level - even for the
simple fact that a punishment reinforces that "you're wrong and I'm right and my
rules are more important than you."

If this case is simply a Tech vs. Leach situation because of past grudges and clashing
egos and a history of insubordination and "inappropriate" methods, then fine. But
I'm still not convinced of any glaring difference between sending this man (Adam James
is over 18) into a dark media room the size of a two car garage versus sending him
to a dark weight room for the remainder of practice IF the standard procedure is to
put a player with a mild concussion into a dark room for the remainder of practice.

Originally posted by Traveling Again
What's the difference in being sent to a dark media room or a dark equipment shed
for the remainder of practice because of a mild concussion OR being sent to a dark
weight room or a dark locker room for the remainder of practice?

Are you suggesting that sending a player to the locker room for the rest of practice
and telling him/her that the ...[text shortened]... a player with a mild concussion into a dark room for the remainder of practice.

A guy has a concussion and they are punishing him by making sure he stands for three hours (they removed all furnature and kept a guard outside the foor). This is simply not appropriate medical treatment. The fact that no one else was ever punished this way shows that he was not treated like others.
James is a complainer? Was Martin Luther King Jr a complainer who just whinned about discrimination and should have accepted that blacks got to sit on the bus (even if it were in the back) or drink out of water fountain (so what if it was a different one) or go to school (so what if it was a junky one)?
James (like any citizen has a right) to complain if he believes he is not being treated correctly. I certainly would not consider him Martin Luther King but he seems like a guy who educated American society on abusive behavior in Texas Tech and perhaps elsewhere.
I find it amazing that people on this site think kids should be hit by their parents and that schools should smack around its students in the name of discpline. But even those people should agree that no institution has a right to use retalitaory punishment for a person exercing his rights. Since James needs to forfeit his scholorship, sit a year, try to transfer, probably lose many credits, perhaps not to be able to have his major at a new school, Leach put an impermissible burden on him to chose to walk out of a room. Furthermore, since James had a dehibilitating head injury forcing him to make life changing decisions is even more impermissible.

Originally posted by Eladar
[b]Of course, you believe it is alright for the other side to negotiate in bad faith by showing no loyalty and lying about jobs they were requested to interview for (when in fact they were not requested) in order to jack up a salary boost?

Let him go! No need to play games. If you don't like the fact that he's not loyal, let him leave. Don't offer contracts you have no intention of honoring.[/b]

Works both ways. He signed a four year deal that he was perpetually trying to change.

Originally posted by quackquack
You simply cannot punish someone for having a concussion. Putting someone in a dark room. Not allowing them to sit or lean against anything for three hours is punishment. The fact that it might not have caused him further physical damage really is irrelevant. The issue is simple: a boss cannot lock an employee in a dark room, a cop cannot lock a suspect ...[text shortened]... irrelevant. He simply does not have the right to do what he did and he was fired for cause.

So you figure this treatment was far less humane than say having him run sprints for 2 hours until he pukes? Or maybe pulling weeds out of the practice field??

Originally posted by scacchipazzo
The shed aspect of it is humiliating to begin with, is singling out a player as evidenced by no other player being treated the same way, the being under "guard" for a player who because of the concussion may not be "all there" so to speak and the absence of anything gained learning-wise for the player. I am a firm believer in discipline. When discipline ...[text shortened]... ining him thusly simply not right and therefore stepped in. I know I would have as well!

If a kid's Dad is a pain in your ass perpetually demanding more playing time for his kid, and then takes his politically connected whines above the coach to the ADS and school president, and to top it off, the kid is a prima donna and lazy....maybe he is worthy of being made an example. Sorry, I don't think the kid's rights were abused. While I think Leach is a weasel for other reasons, I would be inclined to support him here. No hard came to the kid....period!!! Embarrassment?? Please!! He would be more embarrassed dropping a wide open touchdown on national tv than he was for this.
Sorry, that dog won't hunt!!

Originally posted by quackquack
Even if what you say, is true and I think it is very debatable, on what planet is ok to lock someone in a room for whinning? Can my boss do that? Can the cops do that? Can a baby sitter do that? Of course not. False imprisonment is a crime.
Where the line is might me debatable, the fact that Leach crossed it is not.
If a boss continually directed ...[text shortened]... protections than regular workers. Tradition may change (just like slavery is no longer legal0>

Do you have children?

Did you ever send them to their room as punishment?

Did you ever withhold liberties they normally enjoyed (such as playing with their friends, or watching tv or playing video games) as retribution for something they did wrong?

Did you ever make your kids do something they didn't want to do to prove a point??

If you answered yes to any of these questions, then you should be able to comprehend Leach's actions. You may have elected to handle it differently than he did, but you should certainly be able to see the logic and realize that the punishment he enacted was no different than those I listed above.