In the comments on my previous post on the league’s decision regarding the James Davis injury, Brad wrote:
“Pat, talk about a pg 15 retraction…… Maybe you should put a few more words to it to even out how you described it when it happened.”
He then went back and posted my First and 10 comment on the situation, which is here:
11) The James Davis situation is potentially very bad for Mangini and the Browns. Davis hurt his shoulder in the opener, then was suddenly and mysteriously put on injured reserve a couple weeks later. ESPN.com reported Sunday that Davis tore the labrum on his shoulder when he was hit in a post-practice drill when he was not wearing pads. The player who hit him was wearing pads. Adam Schefter, one of the better reporters in the business, wrote the story. He had several witnesses — all unnamed, who for obvious reasons can't have their names printed (ever hear of the word "reprisal"?) — describe the story. If true, this is very disturbing — even if Mangini was not present when it happened. Allowing guys to work in that kind of environment is inviting serious injury. It puts players in serious danger. The NFLPA spends hours and hours trying to make sure players are protected, and the image from this injury — emphasis on image — is that there is a team that is willing to skirt rules and put players at risk under the guise of improvement. Now … it's also hard for me to believe any of the team's assistant coahes would allow this to happen. The story will come out; it always does. When it does it will be interesting to see what if anything happened. In normal circumstances, it might cost a coach his job — or a hefty fine. These are not necessarily normal circumstances, though, what with an owner giving this coach the keys to the team. It might be tough to prove the story is true, but if it is it should be very troubling and disturbing to owner Randy Lerner.
Fair enough.
In response, I sent Brad a personal e-mail, which follows here. It sums up my feelings on his concerns — and I include it even though it breaks up the continuity of a Dave Matthews Band/Saturday entertainment day. One hates to do that, but Brad asked legitimate questions —
Brad,
Noticed your comment on the blog on the league’s ruling on James Davis’ injury. I can certainly see your point, and given my criticisms of Mangini your questions are valid and warranted.
I felt it deserved a personal response.
I honestly thought that when I wrote that item that I was very careful to not accuse, but to say “if” this happened. And I remember thinking it through as I wrote it. For example:
I called it “potentially bad.”
I attributed the report to ESPN, and said it was one of their better reporters. Adam Schefter is an excellent reporter, and he breaks news with regularity.
I said “If true … “ The next two sentences are based on the “if it’s true” statement.
I said: “the image from this injury – emphasis on image … “ Which clearly states we don’t know what happened yet.
I also pointed it was hard to believe any of the team’s assistant coaches would put a player in danger this way. Nobody else that I read even mentioned that fact.
Then I said: “The story will come out.” Which means just that, the story (what happened either way) will come out. Now … I see that at this point it could be read that “The story will come out” infers that the story of practicing with pads will come out. I promise you: That is not what I meant. I meant, and should have written, the “truth” will come out. Because that’s what I meant.
I think that given the circumstances that I was pretty fair in trying to say that this could be a bad situation if it was true, but that there were things that didn’t add up, i.e. assistant coaches allowing that to happen. I know I’ve read much harsher treatments of this incident.
I can’t exactly hide from what I write. Everything is on the record here, and anyone (like you) can go back and re-print what I write. But in this case, I know I honestly tried to write it knowing I was not there when the injury happened.
As for the “pg. 15 retraction,” I hear you. I can only tell you the truth (if you knew me you’d know one thing I do not do is lie). I was not home much of Friday night. Was out and then busy with my daughters. It wasn’t until about 11 or 11:30 that I went online and saw my e-mails. When I did, I posted this immediately, figuring it best to get it up right away. But … it was about 11:30 and I was quite frankly weary from running around. I intended to re-visit this thing, and write about it more. But it seemed right to post it at that point.
Could I have been more careful about what I wrote? Yes.
Did I try to be fair? Yes, I know in my mind I did.
Was what I wrote perfect? No.
Did my past criticisms of Mangini affect my thinking on this issue? Could have, sure. But … I’m paid to have an opinion and to express it in writing. I can’t be true to myself if I think someone or something should be criticized and I don’t do it. That being said, there’s also a balance to maintain – and I do my best at it. I don’t think I’m a hack-and-slash, rip-em-at-will columnist. I’m caustic, yes, but I do that whether I’m praising or criticizing. My approach is simple: If I agree I write that, if I disagree I write that. And whether I agree or disagree, I take a tongue-in-cheek approach – because it’s sports, not curing cancer. What I write pretty much reflects what is happening.
Is it possible my past criticisms of Mangini affected how this was read? I can’t answer that one for folks, but I do think it’s a possibility.
Was I wrong to question whether it could have happened? I don’t think so, not given the reporter involved and the way Davis suddenly went on IR. I wasn’t the only one to give the story credibility; it was pretty much universally accepted as plausible.
Did I try to be careful to say it might not have happened? I think I did. And … in my mind I know I tried, and I remember thinking that I needed to be fair. I thought I was. It might be that I wasn’t, and I accept responsibility for that. But I know I tried.
Not sure if this answers everything for you, but I hope it helps.
Pat
{ 11 comments… read them below or add one }
Pat,
I understood you the first time. You were careful to say that you did not know it was true. It is not your fault others read something into you words that were not there.
Juvenile fake alan t., just for future reference, I always use three periods, never four.
I thought McManamon's original comments on the story were fair. I appreciate Pat's willingness to be accountable for his writing, but I don't think he has anything to apologize for.
The incident (rather than McManamon's take) does make me wonder just how much of the criticism of Mangini to-date is valid. The man has gotten absolutely blistered by both the local and national media. Is the criticism warranted? Some of it certainly is. (The team is 1-5 after all.) But such criticism will continue to take on an unreasonable life of its own in the absence of any transparency by the Browns.
So this incident should be put to rest. All of the questions that we would want to have answered will not be. (Who told the reporters some players were wearing pads? And why? Did the league help the Browns with a cover-up? Or were players lying about the incident to get Mangini in hot water?) That's the really juicy stuff and I suspect that we won't get to the heart of those questions.
Winning cures many ills. Until the team starts winning, the sickness of the national ridicule will continue. And until then, local writers like McManamon will have to write about what they see. The negative tone goes away the instant the team produces some positive news.
I don't get that last paragraph. The writers HAVE been writing about what they see. But the homers and shills would prefer that the writers write about what they don't see.
So while the homers and shills are far too busy tossing plaudits and dozens of red and white roses upon Mangini, please answer me this: Why in the hell does Mangini have contact drills between two players when they are not wearing pads? Isn't that insane and stupid to begin with? So while the Davis season-ending injury purportedly was found to have happened within a "controlled environment" and fell within the constraints of "NFL policies," why aren't the same mental munchkins that live inside Mangini's pants questioning the intelligence of a guy who has an "opportunity drill?" An opportunity for what, an aborted NFL career?
It might be time to schedule an appointment with the psychologist.
I agree with everything Alan just wrote.
Pat, if I were you, I'd go to a psychiatrist instead. They can prescribe medication.
Uh oh … now folks are imitating me.
….yawn….that's old news.
Earth to Pat: Adam Schefter sucks.
All the bashing of Eric Mangini is grossly unfair. What it seems like is ALL you reporters are following the lead of the New York daily papers and taking shots at Mangini…mind you without any facts. The problem with written journalism is you now compete with bloggers who aren't really concerned with facts and speculate or just rant. Seems like you guys are following down that same path. Mangini didn't lose the team in NY..that was speculated and every one across the country took it as fact or he destroyed the Browns Hall of Fame, which my understanding is beautiful and prominent in the front lobby at Berea..No one reports on that.no, that doesn't get you noticed..The big knock is he doesn't disclosed specific injuries..If I'm a player, I'm thrilled. I don't want any opponents knowing this information.
If you want to be different then defend Mangini because its not the "in thing"..it will surely get you noticed. I bet 99% of what people speculate about Mangini is dead wrong.
"Mangini didn't lose the team in NY..that was speculated and every one across the country took it as fact"
nooooooo, that didn't happen at all! as a matter of fact, mangini is still head coach of the jets and the reason the browns are worse than ever is because romeo crennel is coach.