There were a lot of 'facts' that were 'known', but not official in the Hadsell case. Now that things are formally out there they may be acceptable in a discussion sense. However, in a discussion sense, what is there really to discuss.
The one item that I saw that has not gotten much play is his rather substantial push on weight to the degree that many think unhealthy, especially the way his commentary/approach was characterized. If my daughter was running for them and I heard those stories I would have gone straight to the administration and demanded that they read the Kathy Orsmby episode and the literature on women. I would also indicate that I would go as hard as I could into any venue that would talk about the issue -- high school forums, national press, LetsRun, etc., etc.
For the record, he pointedly would make comments like 'look at that lollypop' about women on other teams that he thought were too heavy, on described as 105 pounds. This is not a coach interested in the well-being of his athletes.
guru wrote:Crickets... Maybe there's a good reason why management around here allows a thread discussing Kearney's indiscretion that cost her her job at Texas, but quietly deletes the thread regarding the same with Hadsell. I'd love to hear it, lest I start drawing my own conclusions...
I suspect it got yanked because there was a lot of hearsay and innuendo with few facts. In the Kearney case posters were not dragging her through through the mud.
26mi235 wrote:There were a lot of 'facts' that were 'known', but not official in the Hadsell case. Now that things are formally out there they may be acceptable in a discussion sense. However, in a discussion sense, what is there really to discuss.
Not much different than Kearney, and nothing in that Hadsell thread was out of line. The fact is Hadsell - one of the most visible and successful coaches in the midwest - resigned his coaching job in the middle of the season. That's news, and worthy of discussion.
Marlow wrote:I suspect it got yanked because there was a lot of hearsay and innuendo with few facts.
Nothing in that thread was untrue, right down to my Coastal Carolina comment(read the Deadspin article).
Were those comments made before or after the Deadspin article. If before, then they are rumor and hearsay. Since I did not see the comments in the excised thread, I do not know and you have not been clear.
As you can see from dearth of fingerprints on the forum for the last day-plus, I've had to waste my few minutes I can spare here taking care of @#$@#$ spammers. So I hadn't read this thread until now, and all I have to say is this.
The original thread was in our opinion going down a road it shouldn't have, so it got yanked. This is not open to debate. Nor do do we feel obliged to provide lengthy explanations on such decisions. A democracy this ain't.
And reposting is a surefire way to earn a vacation.
I am not sure that there is a lot of stuff to 'debate' in this case; it seems clear to everyone that Hadsell committed numerous infractions etc. and there is no contrasting Toledo case, which contrasts with Texas.
I think that posting the links and such is really enough in this case. Debate, serious and otherwise can be found in that other forum, so there is no missing element here either.
Finally - Guru please do not disappear, you have too much to offer on many topics, but especially on several that you know more than most.
Given that this Hadsell thread is alive and available for comment, I don't see a problem in the demise of the previous Hadsell thread. The moderators have that responsibility and made that judgment regarding the other thread, as gh noted above. Doesn't seem like Hadsell is being protected from critical discussion. And now there is some real content to discuss...but perhaps nothing much to debate...
I read through the Deadspin materials, and would take issue with just one of their interpretive comments: "...by all accounts Hadsell was an excellent coach..." (or something very close to that phrase). So the guy produced some winning teams at UT, and so some athletes did well. But by the accounts we now have in front of us, he was an awful coach. I wasn't born yesterday, and I am a flawed person myself, and I know what kinds of persons and personalities can flourish as sports coaches, but ... for a college coach, this guy and his manipulative cult of personality or whatever you might call it, was far from "excellent." No evidence of regard for the athletes' well-being at all, unless it happened to coincide with his skewed, selfish desires and ambitions.
I find it interesting that one of the ways such coaches bully the team is to give preferential treatment based on favoritism. In this case, the ones that are willing to TEXT him regularly, and put up with sexist texts. This seems like it would be a recipe for disaster with respect to having the best team on the course any given race. And certainly puts into doubt the phrase of "...by all accounts Hadsell was an excellent coach..." with respect to getting the most out his team.
guru wrote:Due to the blatant sexism exhibited I'm finished with this forum, and my only regret is I still have time left on my paid subscription.
You lost me. Are you saying that gh went easy on the man (deleted a thread with unflattering comments), but was letting the woman twist in the wind? That's sorta been the opposite of his MO. He lets stuff slide about men that he won't for women. I'm with the poster above - don't go!
The thing I like about T&F is that, unlike team sports, there is little subjective about evaluating ability or allocating playing time. Presumably, track coaches put their demonstrably best runners, jumpers and throwers on the track/field. I had never heard of Hadsell until he resigned. Although he had some success at Toledo, even playing favorites, grooming an in-team harem should be a capital offense.
Well, they did make NCAAs but finished 28th and had four of the last 24 places. They were ranked between 15th and 27th during the season, tailing off at the end, which could be a sign of a team in turmoil or at least not bonded together. They were a bit lucky to get in because they were third-rated in the Region but finished 5th, and 5th place teams are lucky to get one of the 13 open slots (11, since two of them go to teams ahead of them, and the West Region was clearly going to get several of those 11).
In terms of success, it was unusually high for a Mid-Anerican Conference women's team. If memory serves me correctly, a MAC women's team has qualified to the NCAAs six times, with three of them being Toledo in 2010-12. Through the 80s and 90s, Toledo's women were some if the worst mid-major teams in the country, so it was a major turnaround. I think the high-water mark for MAC women's team at an NCAA championship is about 17th or 18th.
I don't see why MAC women's teams should be so much less successful than their male counterparts. The conference has dropped off the map on the men's side recently but it wasn't that long ago that Eastern Michigan took 3rd at the NCAAs.
I've been talking to a few people right here in Toledo and I'll have my own piece to say on this ugly period within a day or two. I have some things to say that neither Deadspin nor The Blade mentioned.
LetsRun just posted a summary article and has the videos of the interview that have been released. See the link on the Home Page.
The short story is that he maintains that some of the 'nasty' stuff in Deadspin did not happen but more than enough stuff did happen to bring down his coaching career there (and possibly/probably elsewhere.
There are a few places where he disagrees without it really being a disagreement. The primary one is where he says he never drove the team drunk, although he did drive after having a couple of drinks. If a couple is two, then his blood-alcohol was about 0.05 --- not drunk but enough for some impairment (especially if one of them was driving in NYC). If 'a couple' is short for 'several' then he was likely near the 0.08 "official drunk" line in the US. Many at that level do not consider themselves drunk but they are inebriated enough to have a significant affect on their driving capabilities and to have a lot of (captive) students riding in the vehicle is more then a silly thing to do, it is whole unacceptable in a manner that indicates why there was a problem in the first place.
I spoke with several people in the van that day, and they disagree on that count. They think it was well over "a couple" of drinks.
The Deadspin story suggests overall alcoholic behavior, as do the team members I've spoken to. Anyone who has dealt with an alcoholic knows that lying comes easy. I, personally, do not believe a word he says.
I suspect that having had a drink and then driving violates UT rules but is not necessarily illegal, but that driving with more than that does, so that legal culpability is a problem for him. If he did this 'repeatedly' it is very likely that on at least one of those occasions he was legally drunk when he drove the team, especially since he drank often and people that do think that they are not over that line when, indeed they are.
Of course, compared to Oscar P, his actions are not so bad....
26mi235 wrote:I suspect that having had a drink and then driving violates UT rules but is not necessarily illegal, but that driving with more than that does, so that legal culpability is a problem for him. If he did this 'repeatedly' it is very likely that on at least one of those occasions he was legally drunk when he drove the team, especially since he drank often and people that do think that they are not over that line when, indeed they are.
Of course, compared to Oscar P, his actions are not so bad....
Well, no, he isn't an accused murderer, but I think there is much more to say about any athletics coach -- or other adult in a responsible situation as a driver of a vehicle carrying those students -- or really, anyone -- who is knowingly and willingly compromised in terms of his ability to pilot that vehicle, and who does so anyway, because -- you know -- he's got things under control. The fact that he was -- maybe -- under the legal limit doesn't mean that such actions weren't wrong, plain and simple. Driving in that condition compromised the safety of the passengers. And the fact that Hadsell is trying to defend himself by stating that he didn't have that much to drink, that he was OK to drive, etc. is clear evidence of his problems. The fact is, there is compelling evidence that he did lots of things that compromised the well-being of his athletes. And all he can say is basically this: "Well, we won a lot, too." and "Sure, maybe I was a megalomaniacal creep, but it wasn't that bad." One doesn't have to be perfect, or a saint, or anything like that to say this: Hadsell should be ashamed of himself.
That even a comparison is alluded to that includes killing someone should indicate that I think this is a big issue and he wants us to think it is not too much of one --- he has been wrong before, too.
26mi235 wrote:That even a comparison is alluded to that includes killing someone should indicate that I think this is a big issue and he wants us to think it is not too much of one --- he has been wrong before, too.
Just following up on this as I read a bit more on Hadsell. I agree w you, and was simply trying to state it as strongly as I possibly could. (And, as I read more, this seems even more true, as if we needed any more of Hadsell to convince us further.)