11/21/24
January 01, 2010
Trainer says James was monitored: "Adam showed up to practice in street clothes, no team gear, and dark sunglasses," Pincock said, according to the statement. "Adam walked about 40 to 50 yards, very slowly and with a non-caring attitude."
Pincock said Leach then asked that James be moved to a location "where sunlight could not bother him as he was wearing sunglasses."
"I instructed Adam to stay in the garage and out of the sun, so the light would not worsen his condition," Pincock said in the statement. "While in the garage, Adam was walking around, eating ice, sitting on the ground, and, at one point, sleeping; at no point was there any enforcement to make Adam stand up."
That means James is a lying, sniveling crybaby.
What a surprise.
posted by mjkredliner at 11:02 AM on January 01, 2010
This is getting uglier. The James', father and son, are going to probably have a rough ride on this one now.
posted by dfleming at 11:08 AM on January 01, 2010
Well, I apologize for my rush to judgement about Leach. I'll move this one into the "wait and see" column and try to do better not to get caught up in the outrage du jour next time.
That said, the basis for my outrage - the whole "not punishing a player for getting injured" thing - that still holds true, even if that turns out not to be the case here.
posted by Joey Michaels at 11:11 AM on January 01, 2010
I don't know who to believe, but could Texas Tech have handled this any worse? If they wanted to fire Leach, they should've bit the bullet and let him go -- or even better, not signed a new deal with him last February. Contriving this incident as the reason to fire him seems like it has assured the school of litigation that will drag on for months and hurt the next coach.
posted by rcade at 11:32 AM on January 01, 2010
Contriving this incident as the reason to fire him seems like it has assured the school of litigation that will drag on for months and hurt the next coach.
Agreed. I'm not sure what top-tier coach would touch this school with a ten foot pole right now.
posted by dfleming at 12:06 PM on January 01, 2010
From everything that is coming out on this it seems that James is trying to be vendictive against his coach. Former players and current players have come out and said james is lazy and not a team player.
posted by twgibsr at 12:20 PM on January 01, 2010
Mixed emotions regarding this for sure. On one hand you have some players saying that the school was justified in letting the coach go. Those players may just be looking out for their own self interests. Now, we've got a trainer giving a first hand report that would seem to back Leach's actions.
One would think that even if the AD wanted Leach out, he wouldn't try to fabricate a story like this into more than it was.
Makes it harder to land a top-tier coach, or a top-tier recruit, I don't see TT bouncing back from this very quickly.
posted by dviking at 12:23 PM on January 01, 2010
From everything that is coming out on this it seems that James is trying to be vendictive against his coach. Former players and current players have come out and said james is lazy and not a team player.
Then kick him off the damn team! Tell him to leave the practice facilities and not come back. If he's that huge a problem, a pain in the ass, a guy who doesn't work, thinks he's all that, and is looking to show the team up, boot him out! This changes not one thing in the way I feel about Leach or Texas Tech. Leach made the whole thing about showing up the kid in front of everyone else. Was it the worst thing that has ever taken place in college sports? Not at all. But this time he was called on it and the university fired him. People get fired from jobs all the time when their conduct doesn't mesh with employers expectations. I love how some of the reports now almost portray it as Leach almost trying to help the kid out, wanting him to be in the darkest spot they could find in order to help him recover and be comfortable due to his medical condition.
posted by dyams at 01:02 PM on January 01, 2010
What a surprise.
That's quite a coach-crush you have there, though I think you'll need to join a long groupie line.
In honesty, I can't wait for the litigation to begin, as it's going to provide an insight into the ridiculously distorted dynamics of college sport.
posted by etagloh at 01:50 PM on January 01, 2010
etagloh, this has nothing to do with a coach crush, it is about Leach being railroaded. Texas Tech had every intention of firing Leach this year, and as they showed in the released emails, they just needed an excuse. Well, they found one. Kent Hance was and is the lap dog of former Gov. Clements who just happened to be the Chairman of the Board of Trustees @ SMU from 1982 thru 1986, when Craig James was lining his pockets with booster money before SMU was given the death penalty by the NCAA.
Former Tech players support Leach.
In honesty, I can't wait for the litigation to begin
Me either.
the ridiculously distorted dynamics of college sport.
And I suppose soccer's dynamics are normal?
posted by mjkredliner at 02:11 PM on January 01, 2010
I don't see how this changes the overall issue: Did Leach know the kid had a concussion, did he put him in a shed as punishment? "Since he was wearing sunglasses, I put him somewhere dark" sounds like the dumbest excuse I've heard. Colour me skeptical.
I don't care if the kid is an asshole. Not the issue. You have a deeper responsibility as a person of authority.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 02:16 PM on January 01, 2010
If this part of the story holds up "While in the garage, Adam was walking around, eating ice, sitting on the ground, and, at one point, sleeping; at no point was there any enforcement to make Adam stand up." I don't think having the kid stand in the shade constitutes cruel or unusual punishment.
The original story has James being forced to stand, without even being able to lean on something. Quite a difference.
Should be an interesting story to follow.
posted by dviking at 02:25 PM on January 01, 2010
What's the point of bringing Bill Clements into this? He's 92 years old and has played next to no role in Texas politics for more than a decade. He also has nothing to do with Texas Tech.
posted by rcade at 02:26 PM on January 01, 2010
You have a deeper responsibility as a person of authority.
Coach had a kid wearing sunglasses in street clothes at practice suffering from a concussion and not doing anything productive (likely because he can't). Assuming he's feeling some sensitivity to light, he sent him to a darker sports medecine garage with a trainer and an exercise bike.
He wasn't locked in. He wasn't forced to do anything. Hell, the trainer says he slept. The kid doesn't like it and concocts a story which grossly overestimates how he was treated. You're still inclined to believe that the coach was the sinister one in all of this?
posted by dfleming at 03:52 PM on January 01, 2010
I suppose soccer's dynamics are normal?
When a 17-year-old signs professional forms, he becomes a paid employee of a discrete commercial entity. A friend of mine played on schoolboy forms, then professionally, then captained his university team, and finished his career playing semi-professionally, and the basic assumptions and player-coach dynamics were very different in each setting.
No player is bigger than the team, but no college coach is bigger than the educational institution that pays his or her wages. Oh, and no college sporting team ought to be bigger than the institution, either, Holy Sainted Coaches and boosters and tailgating alums and six-figure-seater stadiums be damned.
Whether you're inclined to be pro- or anti-Leach -- and inclination clearly matters here -- any account of this grubby little incident is an indictment of the last bastion of shamateurism, and the fact that people are talking the language of vendetta ought to give a little pause.
posted by etagloh at 04:19 PM on January 01, 2010
For the record, the issue here isn't the severity of the punishment.
The issue is punishing somebody for having a concussion (if, in fact, that's what went down).
It doesn't matter what form the punishment takes. You don't punish a player for being injured.
That said, it sounds like its unclear now whether thats what happened or not.
posted by Joey Michaels at 10:15 PM on January 01, 2010
For the record, the issue here isn't the severity of the punishment.
The issue is punishing somebody for having a concussion
Don't even bother wasting your breath, Joey Michaels. Several, including myself, have attempted to point this fact out in the threads regarding this issue and it just isn't sinking in.
For the record, I really don't give a damn. Whether Leach did anything or not, or whether James did anything or lied, whatever. My take is Leach is the typical hard-ass coach who thinks he can do whatever he wants and it's fine, as long as nobody calls him on it. And to this point, nobody has ever called him on it. He is used to punishing kids who don't do what he believes should be done, and has gotten away with things (probably much worse, I'd tend to believe) for years. And now others associated with the football team, from players to trainers, whatever, come to his (and the programs) defense. It's not that hard to predict. And the point remains, the kid really wasn't harmed, physically, by what was done. But I also won't feel one bit sorry for Leach. He was called on his actions, his employer didn't feel like supporting him, and he got canned. All those expecting some big court case, litigation, and huge settlement, will probably be disappointed because after the dust settles Leach will still walk away from Texas Tech with a hefty amount of cash and another school will scoop him up quickly, with practically no questions asked. Bringing legal action against Texas Tech is probably the only thing he could do which would guarantee he wouldn't be hired again quickly.
And if James is such a freakin' dick, I hope any football team he tries to latch on to is smart enough to steer clear from him.
posted by dyams at 11:40 PM on January 01, 2010
My take is Leach is the typical hard-ass coach who thinks he can do whatever he wants and it's fine, as long as nobody calls him on it. And to this point, nobody has ever called him on it. He is used to punishing kids who don't do what he believes should be done, and has gotten away with things (probably much worse, I'd tend to believe) for years.
Based on what evidence?
posted by dfleming at 12:24 AM on January 02, 2010
it just isn't sinking in
We have to agree with you? I respect your opinions and conclusions but since when are we not allowed to have contrary opinions as well? In my opinion the administration of TT wanted him out, no question. But on what basis? He took the program to unknown levels and wanted more money. How many coaches get "fired" because of that because I believe that is the root of this whole incident? The AD and those on up the line got shown up and held onto the grudge. Now a prominent person, Craig James, steps in and throws the gas onto the burning embers, instant ignition. All because of what appears to be a BS story by his prima donna son. I tend to believe the story from the trainer, his description makes the James boy sounds as if he (James) believes he is entitled and while not seeing the outcome of his statements to "dad," they did exactly what the TT administration was hoping for, give them an excuse. Leach is a bit of a strange personality granted, but he also let players wear face paint on game days (http://larrybrownsports.com/college-football/texas-techs-brandon-carter-crazy-face-paint-lattimerstyle/3367) , far from a strict, do it by the book or else kind of guy. He sounds more like a loose, have fun kind of coach to me. But to each our own opinions.
posted by gfinsf at 07:15 AM on January 02, 2010
Based on what evidence?
Based on how he apparently chose to proceed with a college kid doctors had diagnosed with a concussion.
We have to agree with you?
Nope
posted by dyams at 10:38 AM on January 02, 2010
gfinsf: We have to agree with you?
I would like to hear the pro-punishing a player for being injured argument. Ignoring the whole Leach/James thing, what are the pros of punishing a player for sitting out for being injured?
posted by Joey Michaels at 11:45 AM on January 02, 2010
Based on how he apparently chose to proceed with a college kid doctors had diagnosed with a concussion.
Your statement, which I quoted, alleges more than just one incident. I am asking for any evidence you have to expand this from an isolated incident (if it is even that). The pertinent quote of yours is "has gotten away with things (probably much worse, I'd tend to believe) for years."
posted by dfleming at 12:01 PM on January 02, 2010
I would like to hear the pro-punishing a player for being injured argument.
Nowhere in the articles linked to above, nor anywhere else that I've seen, does it say Leach punished any players for being injured. What they all say is he expects them to participate in some way. You injure your arm, you ride the stationary bike. You injure your leg, you do some weights. Seems pretty clear that was the rule, but it's not a punishment. Seems pretty reasonable to insist that a player keep the rest of his body fit while recuperating from an injury. But James showed up in street cloths and sun glasses, expecting a free pass. Was he ordered into uniform? No. Was he ordered to hit the weight room? No. He was ordered to do some walking, which apparently was still too much for him, so he was ordered to go to a shed where we heard from an offensive lineman that players go regularly to beat the sun and heat.
posted by MW12 at 12:51 PM on January 02, 2010
According to the sources I've looked at, concussion = rest. Asking a person to do something other than rest while recoviering from a concussion (including walking) is not medically advisable.
Furthermore, I'm not asking for an argument about the Leach case here. gfinsf specifically asked "we have to agree with you" in response to "punishing a player for having an injury" posts. Perhaps he intended something different, but he came across as stating that he didn't agree with the "don't make a player practice with concussions" stance of most medical professionals.
posted by Joey Michaels at 01:07 PM on January 02, 2010
And, as I said numerous times, tell the kid to get the hell out of practice and away from the rest of the team, possibly for good, if he's such a pathetic cancer and distraction to the team. Is that so hard to do? Leach seems to think the kid showing up in street clothes and sunglasses, along with his body language, etc. were so terrible, why would he want him around the other players? All this stuff coming out about what a pain the kid was to the entire program, why didn't Leach cut ties with him? Wasn't that an option? As Joey Michaels mentions above, Leach obviously has no knowledge of concussions and treatment of concussions, and if he actually did, then he was just looking to punish the kid because he (James) is a thorn in his side and he chose this way to demonstrate his authority. Still, I have yet to hear one positive thing about the younger James, so why he remained a member of Texas Tech's football team is beyond me.
And, yes, I am making the assumption Leach would be a hard-ass coach, mainly based on this. If this is an isolated incident, and he has never looked for ways to punish kids in the past, then he's a probably a rarity among coaches, whether in high school, college or beyond.
posted by dyams at 01:23 PM on January 02, 2010
...so why he remained a member of Texas Tech's football team is beyond me
dyams, do you really find it improbable that there were no factors other than James Jr's ability to be a team player here? From what I've read of college football programs I'd be astounded if there was no pressure on Leach to keep James on the team due to his family media connections and/or a chunk of booster money. Even the story of how James was offered a scholarship stinks - apparently his position coaches couldn't see any benefit to recruiting him when Leach suddenly tells them he's on the team (after some discussions/lobbying from dad). This is a kid with no serious prospects out of high school getting parachuted into one of the most WR-friendly programs in Div 1.
My impression is that Adam James was guaranteed a place on the team as long as he put in some minimal effort and didn't do anything that needed a police response.
posted by deflated at 02:30 PM on January 02, 2010
I think deflated states it best as to why James just wasn't booted from the team.
"Adam showed up to practice in street clothes, no team gear, and dark sunglasses," Pincock said, according to the statement. "Adam walked about 40 to 50 yards, very slowly and with a non-caring attitude."
I'd say that fairly describes an arrogant little prick with no respect for his coach or teammates and who knows he has an influential father. I have no problem with the coach taking him down a notch and embarrassing him a little in front of the team to show who is in charge.
The real cowards here are the Texas Tech administrators who used this as an excuse to get even for the earlier contract negotiations.
posted by irunfromclones at 02:54 PM on January 02, 2010
I have no problem with the coach taking him down a notch and embarrassing him a little in front of the team to show who is in charge.
And he evidently found out who was in charge. James and Texas Tech University.
posted by dyams at 03:28 PM on January 02, 2010
so the posted article is trying to spin it as if Leech did nothing wrong and the thing is overblown. Yet this article quotes the trainer as saying the treatment was inappropriate and the trainer actually apologized to him about it. Quite a bit different then the original article tries to spin it.
posted by bdaddy at 04:39 PM on January 02, 2010
There does seem to be a bit of counter spin in the trainer's latest comments. Perhaps his new bosses helped him remember things a bit more clearly.
Certainly seems as if a some bravado got the best of several people. James (the son) thinks he's too cool to follow normal protocol for an injured player...show up in street clothes and through his demeanor shows up the coach...the coach reacts by putting the kid in a shed...James (the dad) gets all worked up and gets the AD involved...the AD, who clearly wanted to get rid of Leach, suspends Leach...Leach won't apologize, which shows up the AD...so the AD fires Leach. I would hazard a guess that if you looked at just about every sports program, from middle school on up, you'd find a case in which a coach did something that was meant to ridicule/embarrass a player.
If Leach's actions are found to be truly harmful to a player with a concussion, then fine out he goes. If his actions are found to be only embarrassing in nature then I'd say he was wronged. If Leach is only guilty of ensuring that he sent a message to any injured player, that you're still expected to put your jersey on and show up, I don't see that as grounds for dismissal. On my high school team, if you broke your leg you still put the jersey on and came out and sat by the sidelines. If James' condition was so bad, he should have been hospitalized. It doesn't appear that the doctors told him he couldn't show up and observe practice...that's what set Leach off.
So, it's not about punishing an injured player, it's about punishing an injured player that won't follow through with normal expectations, and instead tries to show up the coach.
posted by dviking at 05:08 PM on January 02, 2010
Tech head athletic trainer Steve Pincok has now released statements in defense of Leach and against Leach.
Wake me up when somebody figures out what happened so I can figure out where to direct my outrage.
posted by rcade at 05:25 PM on January 02, 2010
Wake me up when somebody figures out what happened so I can figure out where to direct my outrage.
To me it's pretty clear. The coach
- punished a player who was injured, that he didn't believe was injured, to send a message to him and other players
- did so in an inexplicably way by demanding he be put in a cold/dark place, with a guard, and instructed not to sit or lean
Regardless of whether everybody and their mother confirms James was a prick, the punishment was risky or dangerous for his medical condition or caused any additional affects, the trainer actually followed through with leech's orders strictly or whether he allowed him to sit down, the firing was about $ versus this issue, etc....none of that really matters, does it?
I mean the guy ordered punishment techniques that aren't incredibly different than the ones we use on captured terrorists: "Long Time Standing" and "The Cold Cell". Now I'm not saying he was treated to this extreme... but regardless, the parallels are certainly there and you can bet Leech intended it as such when he gave the order (followed or not)
posted by bdaddy at 06:22 PM on January 02, 2010
Just read this new link bdaddy posted - thank you for the twist. Seems pretty clear to me Pincock can't be taken for his word, given his own contradictory statements. In fact, I'll go out on a limb here and say the people that are at fault, in my opinion, are Pincock and the team physician, Dr. Michael Phy. They are the medical professionals on staff. Had they truly believed what Leach was instructing (both to walk and to go to the shed) was medically unsafe they should have quietly pulled Leach aside and pleaded for the welfare of the child (yes, child - because clearly that is how James the junior behaved), and come up with an alternative that made Leach's point without compromising the safety of James.
As for Leach, let's be clear here that he was punishing insubordination, and not the injury itself. Previous statements made clear Leach was of the impression that James was fully capable of walking on the field. Had the medical professionals believed him to be in distress, they had a responsibility to make their position known. But they didn't. So when Leach observed his player loafing and showing him up, he reacted - most likely, under the circumstances, by saying something like, "If the sun and the heat are bothering you so much then you should be somewhere cold and dark." Personally, I can't fault him for that.
posted by MW12 at 06:56 PM on January 02, 2010
To me it's pretty clear.
Whose word are you basing your opinion on?
posted by rcade at 07:22 PM on January 02, 2010
Whose word are you basing your opinion on?
...and which version of whose word?
posted by lil_brown_bat at 07:27 PM on January 02, 2010
(yes, child - because clearly that is how James the junior behaved)
Well, yes and no, and for different reasons. If you're going to buy into the myth of Coach-as-surrogate-dad (or its corollary, Coach as Drill Sergeant Dad) turning his recruits into adults -- or just the basic principle that institutions of higher education have a duty of care towards their student population -- then you also have to accept that student athletes are not actually treated as fully-fledged adults until they graduate and/or make themselves eligible for the draft, and are certainly not in the same position as contracted professionals.
This is why my love of the spectacle of college sports in the US is always qualified by my sense that it's a fundamentally conflicted enterprise.
posted by etagloh at 08:19 PM on January 02, 2010
This is why my love of the spectacle of college sports in the US is always qualified by my sense that it's a fundamentally conflicted enterprise.
I agree with this statement for a multitude of reasons, but none having to do with my supposition that James behaved like a child. Unless your contention is that James looked to Leach as a father figure because his own babies him, which seems plausible to me...
posted by MW12 at 08:39 PM on January 02, 2010
My contention is that college athletes exist in an odd limbo where they're portrayed as the surrogate children of Coach (who is cast as Disciplinarian or Nurturer or a combination of both) who are brought out of childhood through competition, and only become adults when they head off to make money. Coach doesn't just produce a winning team or a first-round draft pick: Coach is a maker of men-- or women, but it's usually invoked for male teams. If, instead, those students were regarded as the legal adults they are from the moment they first step onto the playing field, then it cuts into the Coach mythos.
So when you call James a child, you're judging his behaviour; I'm saying that, yeah, he's a child, because college sports in the US are built on the narrative that "children" go in one end and "adults" come out the other, not least because that's how college is regarded. And while in loco parentis may be gone from campuses for the majority of students, it still remains vestigially in sports programs whenever players break curfew or something similar off the field to earn a "son, you're grounded" suspension.
At the top of the thread, mjkredliner talked about soccer's dynamics. Well, there have been plenty of players' children who've played their way into club academies and then been released. But more to the point-- while Cristiano Ronaldo could describe Sir Alex as "my father in sport" on leaving Man Utd, that "in sport" counts for a lot: he was signed for a large amount of money as an 18-year-old, and like every teenager on a professional club's books, was assumed to be a grown-up from day one.
posted by etagloh at 11:33 PM on January 02, 2010
Wake me up when somebody figures out what happened so I can figure out where to direct my outrage.
Affadavits from Pincock, and Phy.
Let the outrage begin.
posted by mjkredliner at 12:33 PM on January 03, 2010
Pincock is not credible because of his earlier statement in support of Leach and his ridiculous claim that he put James in the shed "so the light would not worsen his condition." Phy's affadavit doesn't discuss Leach at all -- he only spoke to Pincock.
People should consider the possibility that this whole thing started with Adam James either lying or exaggerating to make Leach look bad and snowballed from there. The original story from ESPN has an unnamed source -- who could be Craig James -- claiming that Adam James was put in an "electrical closet," an allegation that now appears to be total bullshit, putting everything that source said into question. Pincock could now be lying as well to save his own job.
I'm not saying this to object to Leach's firing -- he sued his school instead of serving a suspension, for crying out loud. But the certainty being expressed here is not backed up by solid facts.
posted by rcade at 12:58 PM on January 03, 2010
What Pincock's statement tells me, aside from the fact that he's a liar who speaks out of both sides of his mouth, is that he failed to properly communicate Phy's instructions for care (ie "rest") to Leach, making himself personally responsible (IMO) for James' well being at that time. Whether Leach should know that inherently is not our place to speculate - that's why there are layers of medical support on staff.
Furthermore, by repeating Leach's instructions verbatim to James, and apologizing after the fact, saying he didn't approve of the coaches actions, Pincock put the player before the coach, and fueled the fire. I think this is grounds for Pincock's dismissal.
The statement also verifies the contention that James had violated team rules - validating Leach's decision to discipline him.
posted by MW12 at 01:37 PM on January 03, 2010
My question is-why is no one upset with Joe Schad? An unnamed source, seriously?
I get that he can't reveal his sources, but the complexities inherent in the multiple (conflicting) accounts of what happened surely tell us that Schad didn't do his homework, or at least not well enough. Maybe everyone (Leach, Tech, James) should sue him.
posted by brainofdtrain at 02:51 PM on January 03, 2010
Wake me up when somebody figures out what happened so I can figure out where to direct my outrage.
I second that emotion.
posted by irunfromclones at 10:13 PM on January 03, 2010
My speculations are entirely in line with rcade's. Kid James told daddy James a highly exaggerated story because he is the "entitled one" in both of their eyes. Daddy (unnamed source) went ballistic to defend his golden boy. The AD who carried a grudge against Leach pounces on it as it is his perfect storm with daddy James as his back-up if the source becomes public. Who wouldn't believe a Texas legend with the clout of ESPN behind him? I'm not saying C. James knew what his kid was doing but he took it and ran without proof of the details and despite contradictions by the trainer, it's ( the circumstances) not what kid James said. I truly believe C. James got punked by his candy ass son. If he were a real father, now is the time to go to the real woodshed and teach some lessons about the truth and that should be a whole lot worse than whatever Leach did. IMHO, in the end Leach will get paid and while not made a saint, regain his reputation and be coaching again at a high level soon.
posted by gfinsf at 07:32 AM on January 04, 2010
Who wouldn't believe a Texas legend with the clout of ESPN behind him?
I can't believe that ESPN is overjoyed about having their name attached in any way to these shenanigans. If they're wise, they'll keep their response out of the public eye if possible, but if they're wise there will be a response.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 08:47 AM on January 04, 2010
Craig James' involvement is a black eye for ESPN, particularly since the network relied on an unnamed source in its initial reporting. As far as I know James has never done an on-camera interview about this controversy. That's probably the network's doing.
posted by rcade at 10:13 AM on January 04, 2010
I've seen two on-camera statements by James the elder on ESPN. No full fledged interview but they definitely jumped at the chance to put the guy on the air. Course they'd probably do the same with any former pro-baller in a similar circumstance, whether the guy works for the network or not - so the only difference here is the fact that they did it so quickly on account of their access.
What I haven't seen is what James the elder may have to say now that we've seen conflicting reports about how things went down. That is something ESPN may seek to avoid.
posted by MW12 at 12:18 PM on January 04, 2010
As far as I know James has never done an on-camera interview about this controversy.
Here's the only one I've seen.
posted by tselson at 04:12 PM on January 04, 2010
From a story about the issue and how things looked at and after the Alamo Bowl:
Tech players, though, who were already steering clear of Leach's corner throughout the week, continued to show much less nostalgia for their former coach. Offensive lineman Brandon Carter told reporters after the game that Adam James is "part of our family," and that his charges against Leach were "just the last straw. Sooner or later, something was going to come out." Quarterback Steven Sheffield was even more blunt: "I looked up in the stands and I saw signs about Team Leach. Bring Leach back. Leach ain't coming back. That's how it is."
posted by dyams at 04:55 PM on January 04, 2010
Carter has been a malcontent ever since Leach suspended him earlier this year.
Carter did not give a reason why he was being suspended on his Twitter account.
"This is not how I saw our season," he wrote only a few minutes after the Red Raiders' loss. "I just cried like am [sic] idiot. I want us to be so good my last year and I feel like I'm letting everyone down."
And Sheffield is probably playing up to McNeill and Riley to gain the starting QB position. But, he's right. Leach ain't coming back.
posted by mjkredliner at 04:27 PM on January 05, 2010
I know this has been beaten to death but this is the first person who uses the word "I" as in "I" saw what happened. He has everything to lose as well backing Leach. Interesting.