PLaw
1/10/2010, 09:52 AM
Hance: Here’s why Leach was fired
By A-J Staff on January 10th, 2010 1 Comment Printer-Friendly
BY MATTHEW MCGOWAN l AVALANCHE-JOURNAL
Ever since Mike Leach was suspended, and then fired by Texas Tech, there’s been intense interest in the story. Part of that interest is driven by unanswered questions and conflicting opinions of what happened.
This past week, The Avalanche-Journal attempted to get answers by sending a list of questions to Leach’s team and another list to the university.
We asked both sides to sit down with A-J staff to go over the questions.
Ted Liggett, Leach’s attorney, told The A-J on Thursday, “The Leach camp has made public statements through ESPN and in pleadings filed in court. This is not the time or place to answer (The A-J’s) questions.”
Chancellor Kent Hance agreed to meet with The A-J on Friday in his office.
Two stories in today’s edition come from that interview.
In one, we asked Hance to walk us through the university’s story from the time Hance first heard of the issue to the day Leach was fired.
The other is about what happened after Leach was fired.
We asked Leach’s team some of the same questions … the coach’s side of what happened from the day Adam James had a concussion to the day Leach was fired.
We also asked why he didn’t just kick James off the team; more about his frustrations with James and his father, ESPN broadcaster Craig James; how he’s handled other concussions; about his relationship with Hance, Athletic Director Gerald Myers and President Guy Bailey; what he hopes for from pending legal action; who he wants to see become head coach; what it was like watching his team in the Alamo Bowl; and what his future plans may be.
We hope Leach will agree to answer some of those questions in the future.
We put together a short synopsis of what the coach told other media over the past two weeks. That can be found on redraiders.com.
The situation fell apart quickly.
It began with a phone call to one of Texas Tech’s regents and ended with the university’s fan base in revolt after the firing of Tech head football coach Mike Leach.
The following is Tech Chancellor Kent Hance’s account of what happened in the days leading up to Leach’s termination.
Saturday, Dec. 19
Hance received a call from Board of Regents Chairman Larry Anders informing him of a complaint by the father of one of the team’s inside receivers.
Craig James, father of player Adam, told Anders that Leach forced his son to stand for several hours in a shed after suffering a concussion during a Dec. 16 practice.
Hance called Leach, who complained about the Jameses’ constant questioning of his decisions about Adam.
“I think he was very mad at the James family, that Craig James second-guessed him on occasions — I guess on the air or something — or that, according to Mike, that he second-guessed his playing time. He was pretty upset. He was pretty vocal. He was not mad at me. He was mad at them.”
Leach finally agreed to change his treatment of James.
Hance also spoke on the phone with Athletic Director Gerald Myers and with the James family.
Sunday, Dec. 20
The coach reportedly put Adam James on a stationary exercise bike in a dimly lit room during the day’s practice, thus fulfilling his promise to Hance.
“I think that’s not unusual,” he said. “I don’t think anybody’s contesting that.”
Hance also discussed the situation with Tech President Guy Bailey and Myers again.
An in-house attorney for Tech began collecting statements from Craig and Adam James.
Monday, Dec. 21
The attorney met with team physician Dr. Michael Phy and athletic trainer Steve *******. She also collected information from other training staff members and Leach.
Hance met with Leach again.
Tuesday, Dec. 22
Tech’s investigating attorney submitted a report.
“The investigator told us there’s not a lot of dispute,” Hance said. “Mike told them — when they mentioned some of the words that were said — Mike said, ‘That sounds like something I’d say, and if I didn’t, I wish I had.’ There wasn’t a big dispute on that.”
During a conference call, Hance, Bailey, Myers, Anders and Board Vice Chairman Jerry Turner all agreed some sort of disciplinary action should be taken.
“I told (Leach) that we discussed everything from doing nothing to termination, and that no one was for doing nothing, including myself,” Hance said. “I said, ‘We have a couple of people believe in termination. We’ve got to work this out and I’d like to work it out in a way that everybody wins and it’s quiet and we move forward.’ But when I told him there were some people that were for termination, he went off.”
Leach then used “profanely defiant” language in protest of the possible reprimand, Hance said.
“I’ve never talked to an employer the way he was talking to me, and I’ve never had another employee do that,” Hance said. “I kept telling him, ‘Mike, settle down. Take a deep breath. Don’t call anyone. Wait until tomorrow. Talk to your lawyer. Let’s see what we can work out. Work with us.’ He was having no part of it. He was mad, very mad.”
Hance said the conversation took place in a roughly 15-minute phone call.
Then, Hance said, after the barrage of insults, he told Leach he was to work through Bailey and Myers from then on.
“I thought I’d pass that pleasure around, maybe let them get cussed out,” Hance said.
After attending Tech’s basketball game against Stanford that evening, Hance received his first call from Ted Liggett, Leach’s attorney.
Wednesday, Dec. 23
Hance spoke briefly with Myers, Bailey and several regents about the issue.
A meeting was set up between Myers, Bailey and Leach for Dec. 24.
Thursday, Dec. 24
Leach canceled the meeting, citing a snowstorm that had him stuck at home.
“Accommodate him,” Hance remembers telling Myers and Bailey. “Meet with him some other time.”
Saturday, Dec. 26
Hance said he was hopeful Leach would reconsider in the time that had passed since their telephone conversation.
“I thought at the time, it might be good because he would’ve had Wednesday, Thursday, Friday and part of Saturday. … He would have had 3½ days to reflect on it and maybe he’d work with them,” Hance said.
Leach met with Myers and Bailey, who asked him to sign a letter apologizing for his treatment of James.
The letter also asked Leach to begin conforming to certain safety standards.
Hance said he wanted a firm guarantee mistreatment of a concussed player wouldn’t happen again.
“When you’re talking about a brain concussion, that’s a serious matter,” he said. “We needed a commitment from him that that would not happen again.”
They gave him about 48 hours to sign the letter.
Hance said he reminded Bailey and Myers to “emphasize to Mike: ‘Work with us. Try to solve this problem.’ ”
“He did not move in that direction,” Hance said. “But he had calmed down and did not give them a good cussin’ or anything.”
Myers and Bailey also met with Liggett.
Sunday, Dec. 27
Hance met more with Tech’s legal counsel.
Leach backers began calling Hance, who recalls saying to them, “Hey, he just needs to work with us and help us get through this.”
“I was hoping we could work something out that probably none of the parties would love, but it was something that would be better for everyone and we could move forward,” Hance said.
Hance said Leach had ample opportunity to sign the statement.
Monday, Dec. 28
Leach got on a flight to San Antonio for the Jan. 2 bowl game against Michigan State.
“We didn’t hear from him,” Hance said. “He was just refusing. There was some thought that suspension would bring him to his senses, that he might come back and say, ‘OK. What do I do?’ But it did not.”
The deadline came and went.
Bailey and Myers decided to suspend Leach.
Tuesday, Dec. 29
Liggett filed a temporary restraining order so Leach could coach the bowl game.
“Usually, trying to work a problem out with your boss, it doesn’t improve the situation to sue them,” Hance said. “There was a lot of consideration, hoping that suspension would bring him to his senses and he’d sit down and try to help solve the problem. But his response was a lawsuit. His response was to sue Texas Tech.”
Bailey and Myers made the ultimate decision to fire Leach, Hance said, after a long conversation with him and with input from several regents.
Wednesday, Dec. 30
Minutes before a hearing in a Lubbock courtroom on the temporary restraining order, a Tech attorney delivered notice to Liggett informing him of Leach’s termination.
Hance said the decision had the unanimous support of the board.
“I think we are in good shape,” Hance said. “We did the right thing. We stand behind our actions.”
To comment on this story:
[email protected] l 766-8724
[email protected] l 766-8706
By A-J Staff on January 10th, 2010 1 Comment Printer-Friendly
BY MATTHEW MCGOWAN l AVALANCHE-JOURNAL
Ever since Mike Leach was suspended, and then fired by Texas Tech, there’s been intense interest in the story. Part of that interest is driven by unanswered questions and conflicting opinions of what happened.
This past week, The Avalanche-Journal attempted to get answers by sending a list of questions to Leach’s team and another list to the university.
We asked both sides to sit down with A-J staff to go over the questions.
Ted Liggett, Leach’s attorney, told The A-J on Thursday, “The Leach camp has made public statements through ESPN and in pleadings filed in court. This is not the time or place to answer (The A-J’s) questions.”
Chancellor Kent Hance agreed to meet with The A-J on Friday in his office.
Two stories in today’s edition come from that interview.
In one, we asked Hance to walk us through the university’s story from the time Hance first heard of the issue to the day Leach was fired.
The other is about what happened after Leach was fired.
We asked Leach’s team some of the same questions … the coach’s side of what happened from the day Adam James had a concussion to the day Leach was fired.
We also asked why he didn’t just kick James off the team; more about his frustrations with James and his father, ESPN broadcaster Craig James; how he’s handled other concussions; about his relationship with Hance, Athletic Director Gerald Myers and President Guy Bailey; what he hopes for from pending legal action; who he wants to see become head coach; what it was like watching his team in the Alamo Bowl; and what his future plans may be.
We hope Leach will agree to answer some of those questions in the future.
We put together a short synopsis of what the coach told other media over the past two weeks. That can be found on redraiders.com.
The situation fell apart quickly.
It began with a phone call to one of Texas Tech’s regents and ended with the university’s fan base in revolt after the firing of Tech head football coach Mike Leach.
The following is Tech Chancellor Kent Hance’s account of what happened in the days leading up to Leach’s termination.
Saturday, Dec. 19
Hance received a call from Board of Regents Chairman Larry Anders informing him of a complaint by the father of one of the team’s inside receivers.
Craig James, father of player Adam, told Anders that Leach forced his son to stand for several hours in a shed after suffering a concussion during a Dec. 16 practice.
Hance called Leach, who complained about the Jameses’ constant questioning of his decisions about Adam.
“I think he was very mad at the James family, that Craig James second-guessed him on occasions — I guess on the air or something — or that, according to Mike, that he second-guessed his playing time. He was pretty upset. He was pretty vocal. He was not mad at me. He was mad at them.”
Leach finally agreed to change his treatment of James.
Hance also spoke on the phone with Athletic Director Gerald Myers and with the James family.
Sunday, Dec. 20
The coach reportedly put Adam James on a stationary exercise bike in a dimly lit room during the day’s practice, thus fulfilling his promise to Hance.
“I think that’s not unusual,” he said. “I don’t think anybody’s contesting that.”
Hance also discussed the situation with Tech President Guy Bailey and Myers again.
An in-house attorney for Tech began collecting statements from Craig and Adam James.
Monday, Dec. 21
The attorney met with team physician Dr. Michael Phy and athletic trainer Steve *******. She also collected information from other training staff members and Leach.
Hance met with Leach again.
Tuesday, Dec. 22
Tech’s investigating attorney submitted a report.
“The investigator told us there’s not a lot of dispute,” Hance said. “Mike told them — when they mentioned some of the words that were said — Mike said, ‘That sounds like something I’d say, and if I didn’t, I wish I had.’ There wasn’t a big dispute on that.”
During a conference call, Hance, Bailey, Myers, Anders and Board Vice Chairman Jerry Turner all agreed some sort of disciplinary action should be taken.
“I told (Leach) that we discussed everything from doing nothing to termination, and that no one was for doing nothing, including myself,” Hance said. “I said, ‘We have a couple of people believe in termination. We’ve got to work this out and I’d like to work it out in a way that everybody wins and it’s quiet and we move forward.’ But when I told him there were some people that were for termination, he went off.”
Leach then used “profanely defiant” language in protest of the possible reprimand, Hance said.
“I’ve never talked to an employer the way he was talking to me, and I’ve never had another employee do that,” Hance said. “I kept telling him, ‘Mike, settle down. Take a deep breath. Don’t call anyone. Wait until tomorrow. Talk to your lawyer. Let’s see what we can work out. Work with us.’ He was having no part of it. He was mad, very mad.”
Hance said the conversation took place in a roughly 15-minute phone call.
Then, Hance said, after the barrage of insults, he told Leach he was to work through Bailey and Myers from then on.
“I thought I’d pass that pleasure around, maybe let them get cussed out,” Hance said.
After attending Tech’s basketball game against Stanford that evening, Hance received his first call from Ted Liggett, Leach’s attorney.
Wednesday, Dec. 23
Hance spoke briefly with Myers, Bailey and several regents about the issue.
A meeting was set up between Myers, Bailey and Leach for Dec. 24.
Thursday, Dec. 24
Leach canceled the meeting, citing a snowstorm that had him stuck at home.
“Accommodate him,” Hance remembers telling Myers and Bailey. “Meet with him some other time.”
Saturday, Dec. 26
Hance said he was hopeful Leach would reconsider in the time that had passed since their telephone conversation.
“I thought at the time, it might be good because he would’ve had Wednesday, Thursday, Friday and part of Saturday. … He would have had 3½ days to reflect on it and maybe he’d work with them,” Hance said.
Leach met with Myers and Bailey, who asked him to sign a letter apologizing for his treatment of James.
The letter also asked Leach to begin conforming to certain safety standards.
Hance said he wanted a firm guarantee mistreatment of a concussed player wouldn’t happen again.
“When you’re talking about a brain concussion, that’s a serious matter,” he said. “We needed a commitment from him that that would not happen again.”
They gave him about 48 hours to sign the letter.
Hance said he reminded Bailey and Myers to “emphasize to Mike: ‘Work with us. Try to solve this problem.’ ”
“He did not move in that direction,” Hance said. “But he had calmed down and did not give them a good cussin’ or anything.”
Myers and Bailey also met with Liggett.
Sunday, Dec. 27
Hance met more with Tech’s legal counsel.
Leach backers began calling Hance, who recalls saying to them, “Hey, he just needs to work with us and help us get through this.”
“I was hoping we could work something out that probably none of the parties would love, but it was something that would be better for everyone and we could move forward,” Hance said.
Hance said Leach had ample opportunity to sign the statement.
Monday, Dec. 28
Leach got on a flight to San Antonio for the Jan. 2 bowl game against Michigan State.
“We didn’t hear from him,” Hance said. “He was just refusing. There was some thought that suspension would bring him to his senses, that he might come back and say, ‘OK. What do I do?’ But it did not.”
The deadline came and went.
Bailey and Myers decided to suspend Leach.
Tuesday, Dec. 29
Liggett filed a temporary restraining order so Leach could coach the bowl game.
“Usually, trying to work a problem out with your boss, it doesn’t improve the situation to sue them,” Hance said. “There was a lot of consideration, hoping that suspension would bring him to his senses and he’d sit down and try to help solve the problem. But his response was a lawsuit. His response was to sue Texas Tech.”
Bailey and Myers made the ultimate decision to fire Leach, Hance said, after a long conversation with him and with input from several regents.
Wednesday, Dec. 30
Minutes before a hearing in a Lubbock courtroom on the temporary restraining order, a Tech attorney delivered notice to Liggett informing him of Leach’s termination.
Hance said the decision had the unanimous support of the board.
“I think we are in good shape,” Hance said. “We did the right thing. We stand behind our actions.”
To comment on this story:
[email protected] l 766-8724
[email protected] l 766-8706