Former CFL Commissioner: frank or remarkably self-absorbed?

Over the past forty years, especially, it is probably fair to say that politicians have, in the estimation of everyday people, dropped considerably in terms of esteem.

There was a time, long ago, when being an elected official meant something, maybe even something special. It was an honorable thing to represent the people.

There are many reasons for the decline in respect granted elected officials.  Many are perceived to say one thing and do another, or promise something and do something else.  Many vote like sheep according to “party” lines instead of personal principle.  Quite a few display vanity of a sort on a regular basis while mugging for ever-present television cameras.

So it’s perhaps little wonder that former Canadian Football league commissioner Larry Smith is only days into his political life, and he has already discovered what you say does actually matter.

Smith, a former president of the Montreal Alouettes, a former professional player and a successful business person, was recently named to the Canadian Senate by Prime Minister Harper. Within a day or so, he announced he was seeking to become the Member of Parliament in his riding.

When interviewed by a CBC reporter, Smith was quoted as saying he was not being cynical in using his Senatorial position to jump start his campaign.

A Canadian press article put it this way:

When Smith was asked by Solomon if he believed it was cynical political strategy to use his new profile to help launch his bid to become an MP, the political novice responded with a quick "no."

"You have to understand that I've worked very hard over my career and, to do what I'm doing now, I'm making a major, major concession in my lifestyle to even be a senator," Smith said.

"I'm not trying to be arrogant, because I'm not, but I made a commitment to get myself into a higher form of public service than the philanthropic stuff I've done for the last 30 years."

Smith, a former CFL commissioner and newspaper publisher, was then pressed further on the lifestyle impact. "In simple terms, the money I was earning in my last profession to where I would be in this profession is what I would call a dramatic, catastrophic pay cut," Smith said.

"And I have a family — I have obligations ... I am making a major commitment to do what I'm going to do so I don't look at it as being cynical at all."

His comments seems to have struck a nerve, in much the same way the former CEO of BP created controversy months ago by saying he just “wanted to get his life back” after his company had created environmental chaos almost beyond compare. People were shocked that the CEO’s focus was seemingly on feeling sorry for himself, as opposed simply apologizing for the disaster triggered by his profit-driven company.

In that same vein, people (many of whom Smith expects, presumably, to vote for him) will find it difficult to relate to a person who seems to be patting himself on the back by saying, essentially, “Hey, I’m being a good guy here. Look, I’m taking this big pay cut just to serve you. I’m only going to make $130,000 or so a year…” , not to mention huge allowances and benefits.

To say to everyday people (who work hard to earn far less than that) that you are making “major concessions to my lifestyle” will come across as outlandish at best to many.

So it was not a good start in politics for a supposedly savvy and experienced individual. It will be interesting to see if he will be similarly “candid” (some would say thoughtless) in the months to come—and how the voters in his constituency will respond.

Notre Dame stands up and takes responsibility for tragic loss of life

A few weeks ago a young student at the University of Notre Dame died while on his part-time job— filming the school’s football practice.

The young man was filming from a hydraulic lift, which collapsed under extremely high winds.

It was a sad, tragic event for all concerned. The family has been very forgiving of school officials. They have a younger daughter who also attends the school, and a younger son who also dreams of attending Notre Dame.

The school can certainly be criticized for not taking the proper precautions to ensure that this kind of terrible incident never could have happened. They clearly failed in their responsibility.

Often times, a company or organization will stand behind legalities and say nothing, or very little, when such a terrible incident occurs. And certainly they say nothing in terms of responsibility, for fear of legal reprisals.

However, on this occasion, the President of the school, Fr. John Jenkins, said

"Declan Sullivan was entrusted to our care, and we failed to keep him safe. We at Notre Dame and ultimately I, as President are responsible. Words cannot express our sorrow to the Sullivan family and to all involved."

Companies and institutions are often told by lawyers never to take “responsibility”, because it opens legal doors that can be very costly. So it was revealing to see how school officials, perhaps instinctively as opposed to listening to legal “advisors”, responded.

No comment can not bring back a life, or make things right. Yet it was somehow important that the University officials, at the very least, took public responsibility for a grave error.

Umpire Joyce shows class after mistake

For a few days earlier in June, the baseball world was abuzz about the near-perfect game thrown by young Detroit Tiger pitcher Armando Galarraga.

Galarraga was indeed perfect for 8 and 2/3 innings. He had given up no hits, no walks. The Tigers had not made an error. 26 batters up. 26 consecutive outs.

Then, on what should have been the final play of the game, veteran umpire Jim Joyce missed a very close call at first base, costing the young hurler a rare achievement—and a touch of baseball immortality.

This type of “mistake”—an umpire missing a close play at one of the bases, happens relatively often. It usually leads to arguments and on occasion players and/or managers being tossed from the game. While umpires generally get it right, they can’t possibly be right all the time. But in most circumstances, the game doesn’t hinge on the one call, and the game goes on. There is no video replay in baseball for this type of play.

In this instance, baseball fans felt cheated because almost everyone loves these special moments in sports- records being broken or rare performances. But Joyce was so genuine in acknowledging his very human mistake immediately after the game—he called Galarraga to apologize, if I’m not mistaken—and spoke so candidly to reporters afterwards that he was “forgiven” by all concerned.

There were no excuses, no posturing. He saw the replay after the game, realized he got the call wrong, and felt badly that his judgment cost the young pitcher his moment of glory.

Ironically, but tellingly, Joyce was named the best umpire in baseball by a players poll that was released about two weeks after the “incident”. He clearly is a respected professional. And it may just be that he is considered the “best” not only because of his usually unerring judgment but because of the attitude he brings to work every day.

A lesson for everyone in sports, at all ages.

McGwire still misses the mark

Former baseball slugger Mark McGwire “came clean” recently, finally admitting he took steroids over many years in his juiced-up major-league career.

That he, and many others who have yet to “declare”, did so should be no surprise.

His hope, and that of his friend and booster, St. Louis manager Tony LaRussa, is apparently that people will accept his “apology” and “move on” and not dwell in and on the past. This is all part of a public relations campaign to be warmly embraced by baseball again.

One wonders if Barry Bonds, with a different personality and relationship to the game, would be given the same embrace if he acknowledged steroid use in the future?

While belated honesty is perhaps preferable to no honesty at all, before McGwire is given absolute ‘forgiveness” by the sporting community, there are some points that really should be raised:

• 
  
   For many years I have preached the importance of acknowledgement, in its various forms. But there has to be a timing element to a willingness to acknowledge. Doing so, as McGwire has, when the obvious attraction is changing the minds of Hall-of-Fame voters (who had days before snubbed him for the third year in a row) is quite obvious.
• 
  
  McGwire’s apology is written with a deft touch, which to give the impression the steroids didn’t really help his performance. His broad-brush claim, saying essentially, “I had good years when I didn’t use them, bad years when I did” is hard to believe. There is simply too much evidence to the contrary, not only in his case but in those of dozens of other “caught” athletes who achieved results they otherwise would not have, or they would not have been using these substances. Interestingly, these individuals are almost always caught well after the fact, and after records have been set.
• 
  
  To say he took them “on and off” over the years again aims to throw people off the scent. What does “on and off” really mean? A car doesn’t need gas every day, but when it runs down, you put in the gas. Was this any different?
• 
  
  He claims he used steroids only to help heal injuries more quickly. Of course, this is one we’ve all heard before (see Andy Petite and others). No doubt it’s true that steroids quicken the healing process. But are we to ignore the other staggering performance side-benefits? And what of those athletes who were also injured but chose to work their way back into the line-up the old-fashioned way—though sheer hard work and dedication.
• 
  
  He says he “wasn’t in a position” to tell Congress the truth five years ago. Why? It’s all because of his lawyers?
• 
  
  McGwire says he is being as “honest as he can be”. How honest is “honest as he can be?”

Surely this is all designed for the aforementioned Hall-of-Fame balloting for next year, and to ensure a comfy landing spot back in baseball.

It’s interesting that former slugging teammate Jose Canseco was laughed out of the baseball fraternity in light of his allegedly silly allegations about steroid use in his book published some years back. Yet much of what Canseco wrote has turned out to be pretty accurate, it seems.

McGwire says he won’t get into a debate with Canseco about the issue, saying he wants to “stay on the high road”. Easy to say when you’ve done the opposite for twenty years.

I really wonder what lesson this circus sends to young student-athletes, and young people in general. Cheat for more than 10 years, wait another five to tell the “truth”—(and was it the full truth?), then become the guy who tells kids “do as a say, not as I did, while I got unbelievably wealthy while cheating…”

The hypocrisy of the entire baseball community is stunning as well. Not to defend the indefensible (a manager betting on baseball games) but Pete Rose remains out of the game, essentially, never to be in the Hall-of-Fame, though his transgressions occurred after his playing career and arguably came as a result of an illness- an addiction to gambling. A worthy player such as Jack Morris isn’t in the Hall-of-Fame because a number of writers didn’t/don’t like him. More “likeable” players with no better or lesser credentials are in. Go figure.

None of this is to suggest McGwire wasn’t an elite power hitter, a hard worker or dedicated to his sport. He clearly was and if you set the steroid issue aide, was inarguably a Hall-of-Fame talent because of his prodigious home run skills.

It’s important—but sometimes a bit too easy—to preach and believe in forgiveness. There are worse things than taking steroids, for sure. But this particular recent apology was just a bit too easy.

Another coach sets an example – a bad one

It’s difficult to criticize anyone for accepting the job of their dreams, in any walk of life.

But this kind of very personal decision becomes a little more tangled when it affects the lives of others—specifically dozens of young people you vigorously recruited and asked to follow you and make a 100% commitment to see a project through.

Now, given the reality of college football, there is no ideal time to plan your departure as a coach. At some point you will leave when players you recruited are still on campus.

But a recent coaching appointment in the United States doesn’t sit well.

My reference point is University of Cincinnati football coach Brian Kelly. He is leaving his post at the University, where he did, by all accounts, a tremendous job, to take on the head coaching job at Notre Dame.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with going to where you want to be.

But like a number of coaches before him in recent years, Coach Kelly, at least on the surface, seems to have let some people down. According to media reports, he had informed his players after the last game of the regular season that he was staying at Cincinnati. He apparently denied a serious interest in the Notre Dame position, though, in fairness, he did concede he would listen to what Notre Dame Officials had to say.

Here is a revealing excerpt from an ESPN.com story by Brian Bennett on December 5, written before Coach Kelly met with Notre Dame Officials and eventually accepted the post on December 10, all of five days later:

But two Bearcats players said Kelly told the team on Thursday that he wouldn't leave Cincinnati.

"He said, 'It's not an issue; I'm not going there,' “safety Aaron Webster said. "He said, 'I love Cincinnati, and I'm staying here.' "

When asked by an ESPN.com reporter after the game whether he had indeed told his players that, Kelly declined to discuss the issue. That also was his stance in the post-game news conference.

"I'm not going to talk about any job situations," said Kelly, whose team clinched its second straight Big East title. "I'm going to enjoy this victory.

"Let's talk about back-to-back-championship teams and these kids."

Kelly also chided the media for spreading what he called "misinformation" and added, "You folks need to get a handle on this, because it's ridiculous."

Kelly has been rumored to be one of Notre Dame's top candidates and told the ESPN this week that he would "entertain" a request from the Irish to speak to him after the Pitt game.

Wide receiver Mardy Gilyard said his coach was emphatic about not leaving in his talk to the team Thursday.

"He said, 'All this foolishness about me trying to go somewhere, that's just foolish,' " Gilyard said.”Coach Kelly, he made us strongly feel [he wasn't leaving]. It's almost like when your mom tells you the sky is blue, and you just know it's blue. You don't even have to look outside.

"With Coach Kelly telling us he's not leaving, we know he's not going anywhere."

Gilyard and Webster, both seniors, have heard that before. Former coach Mark Dantonio told them he wasn't leaving three years ago—and then took the Michigan State job days later.

"There were different incentives then with Coach Dantonio," Gilyard said. "Coach Kelly always shoots it straight to us. In my opinion, I think he'll end up being the Bobby Bowden of Cincinnati, or our new Bob Huggins."

Now, those of us not on the “inside” truly have no idea what the circumstances are that led to all this. And we certainly aren’t privy to everything Coach Kelly actually said to his players before, during and after his discussions with Notre Dame. (I won’t even go into the aspect of blaming the media for supposed misinformation, when it is proven again that the media was in fact correct in their speculation. That’s a comment for another day.)

But it is disappointing to see Coach Kelly leave the team before the upcoming Bowl game in January. He has obviously decided that recruiting on behalf of his new school immediately is more important than seeing through his commitment to his current players—and the school administration that has paid him very well. (Imagine if college players were allowed to leave school and go play for another school because they had a “better” opportunity at the new school to play in a Bowl game.)

Coach Kelly is free to make that choice; just as the West Virginia (now University of Michigan) Coach Rich Rodriguez did a couple of years ago, leaving his team before a big Bowl game. Much like Bobby Petrino left the NFL Atlanta Falcons suddenly, during the NFL season, to take a college job, and Nick Saban, after denying his obvious interest, left the Miami Dolphins to become Coach at the University of Alabama within days of his public pronouncements to the contrary.

I just always find it amazing. These coaches preach non-stop about loyalty, commitment, going to battle together—all the things associated with being a “team guy”.

But when they get the opportunity for a “better” job, they can’t run fast enough for the more prestigious, or lucrative, position.

Again, it’s understandable to go for the job you’ve always dreamed of. For Coach Kelly, Notre Dame is his dream job.

But even for those jobs, there is a right way and a wrong way to go about it.

To me it’s clear that, while “recruiting” is tremendously important in U.S. college sports, completing your obligation to your current school should be assumed and accepted by all. Why wouldn’t Notre Dame step forward and agree that Kelly stay at Cincinnati until the Bowl game is completed.

There is no doubt there would be criticism about having distracted attentions, not to mention conflicted loyalties in that scenario.

But where is a person’s credibility when they deny, deny, either to their own players or to the media, then days later end up doing the very thing that they claimed they weren’t going to do?

And what message does this send to young people?

Gillick sets an unusual example in sharing credit

Often, the first thing new Coaches or General Manager’s do when they take over from a “fired” or displaced predecessor is directly - or subtly - comment on all the work that needs to be done to rebuild the organization.

By making this claim publicly in the first days of their administration (much like an incoming political party who claims that things are much worse than they feared when they took office and “saw the books”, therefore they can’t afford to do what they promised they would do during the election campaign), it sets the expectation bar so low that any progress is seen as major improvement under their watch.

So it was refreshing to hear Philadelphia Phillies General Manager Pat Gillick give credit to Ed Wade, his predecessor as GM of the National League pennant-winning Phillies. So often when a team succeeds, you don’t hear about the earlier Coaches or Managers who actually also helped build the squad’s success.

Gillick’s comments reinforce the notion I’ve long held about him.

More than 30 years ago, when I was a young nobody working in radio on the smallest station in the Toronto radio market, the Toronto Blue Jays were the new expansion team. The team, under ‘PR’ oriented President and General Manager Peter Bavasi, was very aware of building the team’s profile, even with small-time radio folks with no “influence” such as myself. I was able to interview, at length, all the names in the Toronto front office, including Bavasi, manager Roy Hartsfield and of course Gillick, who had moved over from the Yankees organization, if I remember correctly. Gillick, now 71, was then an up and coming baseball guy. He was approachable, smart and worth interviewing because he had something to say. He became GM in Toronto and built the Jays into a World Series Champion.

My work took me to other situations and I never stayed in touch with Gillick. But I also recall that, somewhere along the way, my eldest son, then in Grade 7, sent Gillick a letter asking some questions for a school project. Gillick actually wrote back with some comments. While he didn’t disclose any state secrets, it was no form letter and I was impressed with the fact the he actually took the time to respond to specific questions posed by a 12-year-old kid. Gillick would not have been doing this because he “knew” me. He didn’t. He was simply the kind of person who would take the time to write back to a kid.

Gillick has been one of those universally respected guys in major league baseball for 30 years. Ed Wade would be among those who could tell you why.

Bill Belichick: stand in line

That an NFL team has been "caught" cheating (illegal videotaping of opposition signals) should come as little surprise. Cheating has been a temptation in—and a part of—sports for all long as we all can remember.

It is part of the human condition, it would seem—at least the temptation to do so. Everyone wants to get “the edge”, whether achieved “legally” or otherwise.

The examples of cheating in sports are many. Hall-of-Fame pitcher Gaylord Perry was a well-known “cheat”, scuffing and greasing baseballs on his way to 300+ career victories. No one speaks of his plaque being taken down at Cooperstown. Fellow Hall-of-Famer Whitey Ford has admitted publicly that he cheated toward the end of his career in an effort to hang on; he is still a hero to many. Well-known White Sox broadcaster and former player Ken “Hawk” Harrelson has admitted that he corked his bat; many others have done the same through the years. (Albert Belle and Sammy Sosa were caught; most aren’t.)

But the slippery ethical slope has manifested itself in myriad ways in the current era, and it does not reflect well on professional sports, or its ongoing and pervasively negative influence on youth sports.

Professional sports is entertainment, to be sure. Perhaps we assume an element of trickery, of ego, of smugness— among other less than admirable traits.

But far too many pro athletes act as though a good play must be followed by a Hulk Hogan pose or a dance. The limits of what is acceptable bend further and further every year.

We all understand that greed is at the forefront of the pro game. I recall my father and I, in the late 1970’s, discussing that Bruce Sutter held out for the then un-heard of (for a relief pitcher) sum of $700,000, I think it was. His comment was that he had to look out for his family’s future. My dad, who raised 5 children and never made more than $6,000 a year in his life, couldn’t believe the comment. He must have wondered how athletes could be such poor financial planners.

Thirty years later, we actually hear athletes saying the same thing when they are “insulted” by the latest multi-million dollar offer from their clubs. They need even more, because, we are told, they must “look out for their family’s future”.

Remarkable. Is it the arrogance, the selfishness, or the simple lack of perspective that people find disheartening?

(It is these same athletes, in the NFL, for example, who can’t share their immense wealth to help retired athletes who are now destitute and in need of basic medial care, but that is a situation we have already discussed…)

We already have young athletes talking back to umpires and to hockey and soccer referees; diving on the ice and the soccer pitch looking to draw un-deserved fouls, utilizing attitudes and “skills” they have learned from the pros. (This does not even take into account example of athletes who run afoul of the law, seemingly because they, with their wealth and their sense of superiority, believe they are above the law…and other people.)

But now, we are going beyond mere greed, or bad behaviour that sets a poor example for young people.

Now, the integrity of the game itself is coming into question.

Just in the last couple of years, professional soccer has seen massive scandals in Italy and elsewhere, specifically with Clubs and Referees on the take. Juventus gets pushed down one division and is right back in the top League. Not much of a lesson there.

Baseball saw records smashed in the 1990’s. Does anyone believe those records were set without the use of steroids? Not a chance. People – the media, fans, the commissioner—knew what was happening then, and they know it now. But it was OK when the game needed a boost. Now a kind of deathbed, superficial show of repentance is on display. Players like Rafael Palmeiro become a scapegoat because they are “caught”.

Basketball has it own issues. A referee is going to jail because he was involved in fixing games. This is the NBA, the league that didn’t want people in the province of Ontario to be able to bet on Raptor games through ProLine, if I recall correctly.

And now it is confirmed that the 3-time Super Bowl Champion Patriots and their future Hall-of-Fame Coach have cheated. Not by accident, by design.

To add insult to injury, Bill Belichick won’t comment on the deception. No regrets, no real apologies—saying only that he is “moving on”.

I’m sure he is.

The League’s response: a modest fine, and a lost draft choice.

(Pete Rose won’t be allowed into the Hall-of Fame because he bet on baseball games, though he did this as a manager, not a player…He was banned for life and we don’t even know if his betting influenced his judgment as a manager. We know what the Patriots did gave them a competitive advantage but they receive not even a suspension of any kind…)

Many used to think boxing was the sport that was seen as tainted because of its apparent connection with organized crime.

Now, is it fair to say that most major professional sports are no better than boxing ever was in ethical terms?

What do we tell our kids?

Or do we bother to even have the conversation because it’s too late to change how we view sports, and the role of sports in society?

Serena, athletes, and class

Venus and Serena Williams are unquestionably two of the finest tennis players ever. Athletic and strong, when focused and healthy they are almost unbeatable.

By all accounts they can be charismatic and charming. Not that these are essential qualities for what many define as “success” in sports (victories and material wealth) as the sisters are very wealthy, indeed.

But for many of us, we prefer sporting stars who are grounded, perhaps even a bit humble.

This is where one of the talented sisters hit a stumbling block recently. After losing a quarter-final match at the U.S. Open to Justine Henin, Serene was quoted as saying:

"I just think she made a lot of lucky shots and I made a lot of errors. I really don't feel like talking about it. It's like I don't want to get fined. That's the only reason I came. I can't afford to pay the fines because I keep losing."

This was not the usual comment made by players after a loss. Customarily players will at least grudgingly offer congratulations at the media conference, and at least concede that the winner played well.

So stunned was the U.S. media by Serena’s comportment at the press gathering, that many wrote stories which referred to Serena as “classless”.
Here is the rub. One the one hand, the media criticizes athletes who give pat, rehearsed, superficial answers. But at the same time, when a player steps off that line in a manner which does not please reporters, the response is often swift – and negative.

In my work with many athletes over the years it has become clear that there is a real pressure to be interesting when interviewed by the media, not to simply mouth clichés and the standard jock stuff.

Yet they all realize they are one strong opinion from being categorized in some negative manner by the media. And once an athlete has a “reputation” with the media, sometimes based on even one small incident, the issue can take on a life of its own.

One of the follies (though necessary, it seems) of the way we cover sports has always been the need to make athletes answer questions at moments of absolute frustration, immediately after a personal or team defeat. We expect them to say something of interest, but criticize them if they fall short of our imposed ideal.

Was Serena off base? Just being honest? Or both?

Would she have handled the questions a little differently if allowed to conduct the interviews a day later?

We’ll never know.

For now, it’s easy to criticize an athlete’s choice of words when they are tired and downhearted.

That said, graceful acknowledgement—even if somewhat forced and superficial—of the victor costs an athlete nothing, can enhance one’s reputation and can save a fair bit of aggravation.

"Do as I say..."

The National Football League, according to its own people, is looking to “clean up its act”.

League officials acknowledge the NFL — as popular as it is with fans and bettors every Sunday in the fall — has a lot of work to do to get rid of its image as a league with too many athletes who are greedy, selfish and too often in trouble with the law.

As this public relations initiative evolves to help the League smooth its rough edges, here comes a double dose of irony.

A large number of highly-respected former players, including Hall-of-Famers Mike Ditka, Bart Starr and Sam Huff have called on the League and the NFL Players Association to do more to help former players, many of whom are, by all accounts, in desperate need of financial assistance. The players from the 50’s and 60’s did not make “the big bucks”, and many have found the transition to life after pro sports very difficult. Quite a number have medical costs that they simply cannot cover.

Various reports persist in suggesting that the vast majority of today’s players have no interest in giving up any of the millions of dollars they earn annually to share with those who helped build the League before them.

Critics suggest the League and the Players Association should do more. Much more.

A lot of the criticism has been directed at long-time Players Association President Gene Upshaw, himself a Hall-of-Famer who earns more than a million dollars a year in salary.

In a recent ESPN.com story, Upshaw is quoted as telling the Philadelphia Daily news (in response to critical comments attributed to former Buffalo Bills guard Joe DeLamielleure) that, “A guy like DeLamielleure says the things he said about me, you think I'm going to invite him to dinner? No. I'm going to break his ... damn neck".

Many of DeLamielleure’s friends and fellow former players were quoted in the ESPN story as saying that the man they called Joe D should be concerned about the alleged “threat” from Upshaw. One former player is quoted as saying, “I don’t trust him (Upshaw) not to be violent.”

Here is a League, an institution, really, in the United States, working supposedly hard to clean up its image.

The guys who built the foundation upon which the League now stands are simply asking that some of the millions of dollars that today’s League and players are earning be shared equitably among former players in need.

When one of the leaders of the NFL “establishment” (Upshaw), doesn’t like the criticism they are receiving, they respond with the kind of public comment that makes even tough-guy ex-NFL types shudder.

In terms of the messages the League is communicating, it may be that the League itself, and its leaders, need to set the bar much higher in terms of its own attitude and behaviour, if it wants to set an example for its modern-day players to follow.

When is a lie the truth?

A lot of my professional work over the past 20 years has been around helping athletes and coaches at all levels—amateur and professional—understand their professional responsibilities, be aware of the needs and realities of the media, and communicate/navigate through media and public scrutiny with as much integrity and credibility as they possibly can.

Whether these individual clients meet with fans one-on-one, interact with the media daily or occasionally, or encounter more formal public speaking opportunities, the ability to communicate clearly and credibly is vital to their off-field and off-ice endeavors—and success—for a whole host of reasons.

This brings us to a recent situation involving Major League Baseball’s Toronto Blue Jays.

Revealing and/or formally reporting sports injuries is handled a little different from sport to sport.

As gambling is vital to the popularity of pro football in the United States, the NFL has long had a firm policy that teams must disclose all—even minor—injuries the week of the next scheduled game, and to declare the statistical likelihood of a particular athlete being available to play in that game.

Hockey, on the other hand, has a long history of coaches deliberately being vague about the severity of injuries; in recent years it has become a running joke about whether a player has an “upper-body” or “lower-body” injury. NHL players take great pride in playing through pain, but coaches don’t like the opposition to know what injured area they should be going after during a game.

Baseball is a little different. Some guys play with injuries, of course, but teams don’t generally make a point of hiding injury information. A hang-nail puts some guys on the 15-day DL in baseball, and Sammy Sosa missed 15 days a few years ago after he sneezed and pulled a muscle, so what’s to hide?

All this said, an ethicist or perhaps a linguist would no doubt have fun with the following story:

Toronto Blue Jays closer B.J. Ryan was placed on the disabled list earlier this season. Evidently the team had claimed the pitcher had back problems dating back to spring training. Last week, General Manager J.P. Ricciardi declared that it was actually the lefty’s elbow, not his back, that was the problem that ultimately landed the player on the 60-day DL.

As mentioned, this sort of thing (not being straightforward about injuries) happens in hockey all the time, though not in football.

Most fans could care less whether it was a player’s back or his elbow. They simply want to know if the guy is too hurt to play effectively.

In a recent Globe & Mail and Canadian Press story, Ricciardi is quoted as denying he ever “lied” about the nature of Ryan’s injury.

In the interview, Ricciardi is quoted as saying, “It was his elbow that was bothering him. So we said it was his back, so we could have a bit more time.”

More time for what, I’m not sure. But whatever his reason, the fact remains that Ricciardi and the Jays organization reported false information regarding the nature of Ryan’s injury.

Remembering again that masking the details of injury is not entirely uncommon, perhaps more troubling than the initial misinformation was Ricciardi’s explanation of his own behaviour. Ricciardi maintains that he did not lie about Ryan’s reason for being on the DL.

In a questionable twisting of words, Ricciardi reportedly made a point of telling the media, “It’s not lies if we know the truth.”

A lot of people have probably tried to understand that sentence, wondering if that is really what Ricciardi intended to say.

Assuming Ricciardi said what he meant to say, a question for him might be: If you do know the truth and don’t report the truth, and in fact report something else, is that not a lie? In fact, is that not the definition of a lie?

Regardless, it is fair to suggest that whatever equity this General Manager has tried to establish – and milk—with the media and fans over the past several years may be harmed more by the use of intentionally disingenuous language, than by a long losing streak.

Those two things together are an even worse cocktail when it comes to his believability and credibility with the media—and fans.

As I often remind my clients, it generally takes years to build your credibility, but only a few seconds to throw it away.

Staying "On Message" Can Send a Bad Message

There is a field of work in the public relations industry that is referred to as “media training”.

It is generally done in a workshop format, whereby executives are prepared to interact with the media by putting them through their paces in terms of trying to get a sense of how the media operates. They are pushed to anticipate the kinds of questions spokespersons from a given company may face when they make a particular announcement or respond to an issue that has arisen.

No doubt someone has documented when this kind of ‘media preparation’ first took place in a formal sense (perhaps the Kennedy-Nixon TV debates leading up to the 1960 U.S. Presidential election, when both candidates when through a number of rehearsals), but this has been going on informally for generations.

Spokespeople going through this training process are routinely told to focus on delivering “three key messages”.

The notion of focusing on delivering a select few messages makes sense, as the struggle to effectively deliver a laundry list of important ideas can end up diffusing the impact a spokesperson or organization is aiming for.

Unfortunately, part of the process usually involves telling the “trainee” they should stick to their messages no matter what.

That is, even if they are asked a fair and reasonable question, if it is one they don’t want to answer, they should either ignore the question and simply “deliver their message” anyway, or say something such as, “I’m not here to talk about that, I’d like to talk about our new plans for….”

This brings to mind the recent Hall-of-Fame weekends in both Major League Baseball and the National Football League that brought forward the imminent prospect of Mark McGuire being up for consideration for Cooperstown. (The results of the Hall-of-Fame voting will be released in January, 2007.)

It’s brought to mind because it was McGuire who appeared before a Congressional committee last year and kept “sticking to his message” (as he was no doubt told to do by either lawyers or his PR advisors) and repeating, when pressed about whether he had used performance-enhancing drugs: ”I’m not here to talk about the past…” before launching into his rehearsed message track about how he would like to positively influence young people in the future, etc.

A very nice message, to be sure.

Unfortunately, it was almost completely obscured by – and quite properly so—his ill-advised attempt to not answer questions directly, to avoid revealing anything about his own actions that could have indeed set baseball on a more honest and straightforward path.

By choosing the old, worn tactic of “sticking to his message”, ignoring the questions he was being asked, and so obviously not answering questions directly, he wavered badly off the high road. He left a horrible impression in the minds of the public and the media, and lost all credibility.

Based on his statistical accomplishments (assuming he was “clean”, which his testimony did nothing to affirm), McGuire indeed deserves induction into the prestigious baseball Hall.

But taking the advice given to too many politicians over the years, to “stay on message” no matter what, has put him in the same class in most people’s minds as the vast majority of political-types: they are seen as being untrustworthy, evasive and as lacking integrity and credibility.

A missed opportunity to communicate truly effectively may have not only cost McGuire an opportunity to make a real difference to our youth through taking an opportunity to acknowledge his errors and seek forgiveness. It may well keep him out of the Hall in 2007, and well beyond.

Looking in the Mirror

Many people — media commentators, fans, baseball executives — have been all over Rafael Palmeiro, a fine player for many years dating back to the 1980’s. Palmeiro is a Hall-of-Famer, or at least was, until his suspension for apparent steroid use.

The outrage seems to stem from the fact that he was ‘caught’ for using steroids and had said he didn’t take steroids, including during a rather earnest appearance before Congress.

Every athlete — in every sport— who has ever been ‘caught’ denies using steroids. It’s what they do. From weightlifters to cyclists to football players, they deny.

One might say, “Nobody likes a cheater”. Well, we actually seem to LOVE cheaters. How many guys on the line with Ben Johnson at the 1988 Olympics were really ‘clean’?

Yet they all got lots of attention, fame and money— at least the medal “winners”. We preferred to pretend they were all clean, and only Johnson was guilty— because he was indeed ‘caught’.

Do any of us now believe that all those runners were clean? How many of them were later in their careers “caught”, but with little fanfare? If media reports over the years are accurate, everyone from that ’88 race has since been connected in some way with performance-enhancing drug usage.

Does anyone believe those baseball players who hit mammoth home runs throughout the last 10 or more years were just eating their Wheaties?

The more pertinent question may be why no one cared then, even though everyone knew something was up?

Nobody wanted to acknowledge the truth, despite very public admissions of steroid use from former stars like Ken Caminiti and before him football great Lyle Alzado.

Sports administrators, the media, fans, all knew there was a serious issue.

We chose to want to believe that all was fine.

Or was it simply “OK” because baseball, in its infinite wisdom, chose to make steroid usage “illegal” only recently, though virtually all other sports and amateur/Olympic athletes were at least theoretically at risk of punishment if they got caught?

We now choose to berate Palmeiro, when there are likely dozens and dozens of athletes in all the major sports who have simply not been “caught”.

Baseball czar Bud Selig now triumphantly talks of dealing with this issue, when he was part of a clique that ignored the issue for years— when it served the purposes of promoting baseball after the devastating strike of 1994.

There are no football players on steroids in the NFL? In the NCAA?

C’mon.

The Palmeiro situation again gives us an excuse to dance around the real issues, and focus almost exclusively on him. Like Ben Johnson before him, the only difference between Palmeiro and the countless other athletes — professional and “amateur” — who used or still use performance-enhancing drugs is that they got caught. The real hypocrisy rests perhaps not with Rafael Palmeiro, but with the rest of us.

Class Lasts

Long before I became an advisor, I, like many reading this, was a sports “fan”.

My “era” was the 60’s. There very certain athletes I admired, usually because of their attitude and work ethic. Jim Taylor, the Hall-of Fame Packers’ fullback known for his fierce determination and Dave Keon of the Maple Leafs, who lacked size but played with speed, brains and diligence night after night are two who stood out for me.

Taylor endured unbelievable physical abuse during the 1962 Championship game against Sam Huff and the New York Giants on a frozen field in bitter cold. Keon played a lead role in 4 Stanley Cup triumphs for the Leafs.

But perhaps oddly, I also latched on to a golfer as someone I looked up to.

Arnold Palmer.

Palmer had the fearless kind of attitude you simply did not associate with golf in those days. But he oozed charisma, long before I knew what that word meant.

He had peaked in the late 50’s and early 60’s. By the time I was a long-distance member of “Arnie’s Army”, he was still a force, but was not winning as frequently as he once had.

(The 1966 U.S. Open was particularly painful for me. Palmer misplayed a 7-stroke lead with 9 holes to play, and lost to Billy Casper the next day in a playoff. He lost the lead largely because he refused to “play it safe”. He never won a major again.)

As I write this, Palmer is now 75, long past his physical prime.

But he still stands out as an ambassador for golf, and for sports.

What brought this to mind was an article I read recently by Marino Parascenzo for PGA.com

Parenzsco wrote of being one of a number of reporters who had to approach Palmer late in his career, after shooting in the 80’s during a round at the Masters, where Palmer once was king— having won the tournament four times.

As the story goes, one of the writers said to Palmer, “Arnie, we hate to have to talk to you at a time like this…”

Palmer’s reply?

“Fellas, we talked when times were good. We’ll talk when times are bad.”

The “lesson” for many of today’s athletes is clear and obvious. And there is, in this instance, no need to “name name’s” of those modern-day athletes who should follow Palmer’s example.

Too often athletes are only too happy to revel in their accolades, but are surly at best when times are difficult.

Palmer has been, throughout his career, a picture of consistency and class.

If you are a young athlete, looking for a role-medal or someone to emulate, consider Palmer.

I’ve written in the past about individuals such as Jean Beliveau. Palmer falls into this category.

As I often remind my clients in the sports field: How do you want to be remembered in 20 years?

If anything, individuals such as Beliveau and Palmer are remembered even more fondly know, 30 years and more past their prime, than then they were in their hey-day.

Something to remember for young athletes forging a career— and for older athletes, before it’s too late.

He Said, She Said... Or Did They?

It’s so common now, and there’s no turning back the clock.

The issue? Unidentified sources.

This is certainly not a new phenomenon. The notion of a journalist, a reporter of some description, writing a story with compelling information from “sources” is as old as journalism. (Woodward and Bernstein will likely go to their graves without revealing the name of “deep throat”, the individual largely responsible for providing the then soon-to-be-famous investigative reporters the anonymous information that led to the disintegration of the Nixon administration in the mid 1970’s. Theirs may be one of the more prominent historical cases of the media utilizing so-called “unidentified sources” to chase down a story)

That these media “sources” are often undeclared remains through the years a question of some ethical debate. Reporters have, through the years, been willing to risk jail time in order to protect – that is, not publicly identify – their sources.

One view puts the information shared privately between the “source” and the investigating reporter in the realm of a sacred trust, not to be disclosed at any cost.

Others view this approach as a dangerous game.

If a person can report as fact something that may have occurred based on information obtained from anonymous sources, what guarantee is there that such events absolutely took place?

If a reporter quotes an individual speaking about someone else, without naming the first person, how does the public know that the quote was not simply “made up” in the interests of weaving a more ‘sale’-able story?

Might the reporter have an agenda, a personal bias?

These are but a few of the simplest questions that can be asked when discussing the reality of how such sources are utilized.

I recall a time (in the late 1970’s-early 80’s, if I’m not mistaken) when Scott Young, the highly-respected columnist for the Globe& Mail resigned his position at the prestigious Canadian national newspaper. Why? Because a younger fellow writer had written a rather poisonous piece about the then General Manager of the Toronto Maple Leafs, Punch Imlach.

Perspective and fairness requires that it be said that Young and Imlach had been close through the years, and had collaborated on a couple of popular books together. But Young’s resignation stemmed from his concern that the story which vilified Imlach was filled with quotes from unidentified sources – apparently not a longstanding or fully accepted practice at the time, at least not in Young’s mind, it would seem.

Young saw this as journalistically unsound, and lacking the high ethical standards required of a reporter.

So, he resigned in protest.

Much more recently, that same newspaper ran a major story on the alleged dysfunction within the basketball operation side of the Maple Leaf Sports & Entertainment empire.

The story was sprinkled liberally with anonymous quotes about then General Manager Glen Grunwald (since fired) and his supposed internal battles with the apparently soon-to-be-fired Kevin O’Neill.

Not surprisingly, the story – quoting current and former Raptor players without attribution, as well as people supposedly ‘close’ to Raptors forward Vince Carter and others within the management group of MLSE – caused a firestorm. It also undoubtedly hastened the timetable that will see the continued dismantling of the struggling organization.

For appearances’ sake, on the record, at least, the players stood behind their coach. But the public is left to wonder: Who were these anonymous players who spoke out against O’Neill? Who were the management types who allegedly said the things they said? Did anyone have an agenda here?

Were all of these quotes accurate? Was the story really credible when everyone quoted was unnamed? Could any of this have been made up?

Was the newspaper outlet and its reporters simply reflecting what was really going on inside the organization?

In recent years, one of the best – and most outspoken – players in baseball has been pitcher Curt Schilling. Schilling of course was a mainstay with the Phillies and then the Diamondbacks, when Arizona beat the Yankees in the World Series a few seasons back.

Schilling went on a nationally syndicated radio program recently, and spoke about the media attention the Red Sox receive in Boston.

His contention was that the Boston press simply make up quotes to create stories, and sell newspapers.

So we can count Schilling as one athlete who does not support the use of anonymous quotes.

If you are a young athlete, you need to be aware that the media is always looking for a story – good, bad or anywhere in between. Most ‘beat’ reporters covering the local major-league NFL, NHL or NBA team need a story a day.

When they sense trouble in paradise (i.e. within the clubhouse or dressing room, or within the front office) it is in their blood to seek out – some will say create – the story.

They will utilize whatever approach and sources they can to develop a story that is entertaining and potentially of great interest.

It may even be accurate.

My sense has long been: if you don’t want to see it in the newspaper, don’t say it. Don’t say it in the elevator, the hotel lobby or the dressing room. On the record or “off the record”.

Just don’t say it.

If you go “off the record”, if you speak on the condition of anonymity, you may feel ‘protected’. And that particular reporter may like you as a “source”, especially if your comments gave that reporter a supposed ‘scoop’. But at the end of the day, he or she will wonder about your personal integrity, all the while using your quotes to make his or her story.

Since integrity is still important to most people, that’s something worth thinking about before playing the ‘unidentified source’ game.

Is It Really Worth Saying?

The examples are too many to cite, but here are a few:

Days before a crucial late season NCAA college football game in November 2003 between arch-rivals Michigan State and the Michigan Wolverines – a game that could determine who went to the Rose Bowl – a Michigan State defensive lineman publicly called out the Wolverines quarterback and offensive line.

It was later disclosed, not surprisingly, that the comments from Greg Taplin had become bulletin board material for the Michigan offensive line. The game was a fairly lopsided Michigan victory, and their offensive line dominated Taplin and the State defensive line all afternoon.

The Indianapolis Colts were outstanding in the first two games of the 2003 NFL playoffs. Their success shed the club – and its All-Pro quarterback Peyton Manning, who played brilliantly in both games – of its label as playoff failures, a club that could not play its best when it really mattered.

Not content to let their play speak for itself, Indy tight end Marcus Pollard was quoted as saying (only days before the Colts were to face New England in the AFC Championship game in Foxborough, Massachusetts): “If we keep playing like this, they might as well give us our Super Bowl rings right now.”

Of course, football fans – and Colt fans – know only too well that the Patriots defense overwhelmed, outperformed and almost completely shut down Manning, Pollard and the Colts as the Pats won handily.

Ex-Chicago Bull Jalen Rose, now with the Toronto Raptors, went back to Chicago in late January, 2004 to play the Bulls in the Windy City for the first time since he was traded. He was quoted as saying, before the game, that he was looking forward to playing his ex-team, and evidently noted, “The Bulls are the worst team in basketball.”

Of course, the Bulls hammered the Raptors convincingly, which makes it difficult to assess, in light of Rose’s pre-game analysis, what the Raptors now are.

Of course, these stories are hardly uncommon in the world of sports. It is a world full unbelievably talented athletes, many remarkably dedicated.

It is also a world full of bravado, testosterone, WWE-style posing after dunks and end-zone celebrations.

It is not surprising that athletes will, on occasion, predict their own success. In fact, when their words turn prophetic, as was the case in 1969 when Jets quarterback Joe Namath called his shot before the Super Bowl and (correctly) guaranteed a win against the heavily-favored Colts, he was the swashbuckling sports hero of the highest order. The game ultimately earned him Hall-of-Fame honors for a career that was otherwise very solid, but not extraordinary, other than for its flamboyance.

That said, when bold athletes speak out and promote themselves or trash their opponents before “the big game”, there are way, way more stories that end up exactly the way things did for Taplin, Pollard and Rose than for Namath.

There is no doubt that the media, particularly beat reporters who cover any given professional team in sports markets across North America, love it when an athlete steps beyond the often tightly-controlled club house environment and says something beyond, “….we played as a team, gave 100%, left it on the field, etc…”

Great – especially controversial – quotes make for stories that write themselves and properly highlighted, increase readership or viewership and ultimately circulation. From a business perspective, anything out of the boring, plaid, milquetoast norm creates headlines, sells well, and potentially increases revenues for the media outlets serving up the stories.

Athletes may say bold, unexpected or colorful things for a whole host of reasons: they let their guard down; they wanted to send a message to their coach, their teammates or the opposition; they’re tired of saying the same old, same old.

But sometimes athletes say things simply because they don’t take a second to consider the consequences. Not that providing fuel for the opposition is a particular tragedy, even in the world of sports, but since winning does matter at the pro level, giving your opponent extra motivation seems like an ineffective strategy in the vast majority of cases. History backs that up.

There are also times that athletes likely feel pushed to break out of their self or team-imposed “box”, usually by the media who often complain that too many athletes have nothing to say.

That is why reporters tend to love, in the hockey world, a Brett Hull or Jeremy Roenick, because they rarely miss a chance to air a view on any number of subjects, whether it is particularly well-thought out or not.

(After hockey superstar Joe Sakic of the Avalanche appeared on the Jim Rome show some time back, a Toronto-based hockey columnist wrote in a major publication: “…the interview demonstrated once again one of the problems selling of hockey in the U.S. Hockey players, unlike many other athletes, almost always are dry and boring interviews, even if they are probably the most sincere guys in sport. Unfortunately, the way sport sells nowadays is by trash talking and being controversial. But other than Brett Hull, hockey guys just aren’t up to it.”

Yet most athletes have not built up the ‘media equity’ that superstars like Hull and Roenick have built up, (whereby when those players make comments that some may feel are out of line, the media will not condemn them, but will usually put their comments in a, “oh, that’s just Brett talking again..” context).

Most athletes, as in the Sakic example, face the pressure of being called bland, boring, of having nothing of consequence to say.

Yet, if they do take that risk and say something out of the ordinary, the media will generally be the first to slap them into place.

What to do?

Every athlete, like any individual, must of course follow their own comfort levels, their sense of what they want to project, how they want to come across and how they wish to be perceived -- if it that matters to them.

Somewhere between bravado and blandness there is often the opportunity to provide the ever-eager media, who need a story a day and quotes to build their story line, whatever it is, with thoughtful comments. Either thoughtful reflections upon a particular game, analysis at a level beyond “we gave 100%”, or when the opportunity arises, a peek inside, comments that reveal something about the values that that individual athlete may genuinely hold dear.

Once an athlete is known for being accessible, patient, responsive, and having something beyond the bland to contribute – in good times and in difficult times – he or she becomes golden to most reporters – who might prefer something sensational, but will at least respect a thoughtful approach instead.

"In Good Times and In Bad..."

A media report recently noted that a high-profile NFL linebacker, well-known for his ‘leadership' and also for his willingness to engage with the media, pulled a no-show after a loss.

That is, he refused to speak with the press after the game.

How many times have we seen it: the athlete who has a great day and quite understandably laps up the subsequent, often deserved media attention that follows.

The player often provides the standard comments about how tough the opposition is, how he owes it all to his teammates or line mates, that he just tries to give 110% every game, etc.

It may not be controversial, but the athlete has at least lived up to the public expectation that he will not only perform to the best of his ability on the ice/field/court, but will take the time afterwards to accommodate the public -- through the media.

Fair enough.

The problem is, some athletes are more than willing to engage in conversations with the media when things are going well – and then see their name in print, often in glowing terms, the following day.

What happens when the same player has a ‘bad' day on the field/ice/court?

Many players fight the urge to disappear, to leave their cubicle empty at the end of the game, or to send the club's public relations people out to explain the player's unwillingness to talk.

Those players know they have a responsibility, whenever possible, to face the media, and through the media the public that helps pays the way for them to earn their significant incomes.

But some players want to take advantage of the media exposure on those good days, and then ignore their responsibility when things are difficult.

Making themselves “unavailable” after a loss, or a bad game, is a little like saying “No comment”.

And what impression are we left with by a “No comment”?

In many corporate situations, it tends to give the impression that the company spokesperson is holding back information, or is fearful of divulging information, which harms the credibility of the spokesperson and the organization they represent.

By saying “nothing”, the spokesperson is often actually implying quite a bit.

Similarly, in the sports world, an actual “No comment” is in fact a very strong comment. If a player is asked about their relationship with their coach and replies “No comment”, what is the media person, or the fan reading those comments, apt to think?

And when a player “ducks” the media, what message does that send? That the athlete can handle the good times and the accolades, but is not willing or able to stand there and explain their performance – and that of their team -- on a tough day?

Clearly, there will be times during a player's career, or a coach's, when they are simply, for a variety of legitimate reasons, not “up” to facing intensive media scrutiny. It may well be best -- and wisest -- in such circumstances to say nothing, rather than speak and say things the person may later regret.

But if this happens at all regularly, that player may well end up with the reputation as someone who is not a “stand up” guy, at least from a media and public perspective.

Being accountable -- and accepting and taking responsibility -- in tough times is perhaps even more important than it is in good times.

Is It So Hard to Make a Phone Call?

It is often difficult to determine the accuracy of certain media reports.

That having been said, it was interesting recently to hear a report involving long-time Montreal Canadiens defenseman and Hall-of-Famer, Larry Robinson.

Robinson of course has also been a reasonably successful NHL coach. He was an assistant under Jacques Lemaire when the Devils won the Stanley Cup in 1995, and led the same club to a championship a few years ago after taking over the team with a few games to go during the regular season. (In between, he had a less successful stint as Head Coach of the LA Kings.)

Robinson was apparently under serious consideration for the recently available top-coaching job with the Rangers. Reports circulated that after a couple of interviews, he pulled himself out of the running. (General Manager Glen Sather himself has since decided to keep the job himself.)

Most interesting in my world – the world of how people communicate and interact with one another -- was the report that Sather did not return Robinson’s phone calls after their interviews together. Presumably, if these reports were true, Robinson wanted to discuss various possibilities further with Sather (himself a Hall-of-Fame member).

Yet, according to various reports, Sather never returned the phone calls. This evidently occurred prior to Robinson’s ‘decision’ to withdraw his name from consideration for the then vacant Head Coaching position with the Rangers.

It is on the one hand hard to believe that a person of Robinson’s stature in the game would be treated in this way. On the surface, the lack of a return phone call shows, at minimum, a lack of respect.

The reality, however, is this: whether in the world of professional sports, the corporate business world or within personal relationships, this type of response – or lack thereof – is sadly common.

Worse perhaps than communicating poorly or ineffectively in most instances is not communicating at all with someone we owe a response, an answer or an explanation to.

I’ve worked with and counseled literally hundreds of individuals over the past fifteen years in terms of helping them in some manner enhance and develop their ability to communicate with various audiences and in various situations-- with the media, potential employers, with their bosses, with colleagues, etc.

In the sports area, I’ve worked with many coaches. Their communications challenge is multi-faceted: interacting with their players, with senior management, with an often-probing media, and with fans.

Broadly speaking, some coaches handle this assignment fairly well. Others do not. But that’s a thought for another day.

But failing to take the time, a few minutes of one’s time, to return a phone call…..

This kind of non-response…the lack of a return phone call or personal communication of any kind to a request for a job interview, for example, is widespread.

The excuse, presumably, is that people are too busy to take the time.

Unbelievable. And unacceptable.

It is, in almost every instance, a sign of immensely overvalued self-importance, a lack of respect, a lack of interpersonal skills, a lack of common courtesy, and a lack of basic decency.

There is, in short, no excuse for not communicating straightforwardly and honestly as possible with someone who has legitimately and properly approached you in a professional manner.

Especially someone you know.

One can’t help but wonder how those “busy” people who don’t have the time to respond to someone’s request for a job interview, or to provide feedback or an honest response after an interview – will feel when they themselves are in the position of looking for a job.

Larry Robinson likely made a very wise decision in not spending another second contemplating the possibility of working for the Rangers.

A simple lack of courtesy – the apparent refusal to return a phone call, was enough of a sign.

If someone -- a colleague, a potential employer -- treats you shabbily today, they will likely treat you that way in the future.