LAURACK D. BRAY, ESQ.
Federal Attorney
P.O. Box 611432
Los Angeles, CA. 90061
(805) 901-2693
September 22, 2009
Head Coach Chip Kelly
University of Oregon Athletic Department
2727 Leo Harris Parkway
Eugene, OR 97401
Dear Coach Kelly:
My name is Laurack D. Bray. I am a Black federal and civil rights lawyer and a former high school and college football player. I indicate my race only to avoid an assumption that I am white (because my name invites the assumption) and because I probably will discuss race at some point in this letter, and the admission, hopefully, will avoid misleading you in any way.
I am writing you to try and persuade you to reconsider the full season suspension lodged against running back LeGarrette Blount. Let me first inform you that I do not know Mr. Blount, having never met him, and that I am not writing this letter at his request, for he probably do not know that it is being written on his behalf. And, even though I informed you that I am an attorney, I am writing this letter strictly as a concerned citizen, who happens to be a lawyer. Last, I admit that all of the facts that I base this writing on have been obtained from news sources, e.g., the L.A. Times, television, and the internet. So, to the extent that your decision was based on information outside the news services, and such information would support or reinforce your current decision, you may disregard this letter.
My main argument for a reconsideration of your full season suspension is that, under the circumstances, the suspension is simply “unfair”. While I have read and heard various comments regarding the incidents giving rise to the suspension, in none of those comments or discussions have I heard the concept of “fairness” discussed. And I believe, particularly in the circumstances of this, the LeGarrette Blount-Byron Hout (the Boise State player involved) case, that the concept of fairness must be integrated into a final suspension decision. And, here, I do not believe it was. Finally, I believe that if fairness is injected into the equation, you will feel compelled to reconsider your suspension decision and issue a lesser suspension than a full season.
The following are some of the reasons why “fairness” must be integrated or factored into the suspension equation in this case:
(1). Regardless of Mr. Blount’s pre-game comments, i.e., “trash-talking”, Mr. Blount did not start or initiate the confrontation resulting in the physical exchange that ultimately caused his season-long suspension, Mr. Hout did. It was Hout that initiated the confrontation by approaching Blount, muttering words, and, finally, physically hitting Blount on the shoulder pads. Blount merely retaliated, albeit in a different way and kind. But, this harkens back to secondary school days when one person starts a fight with another person, and the person starting the fight ends up getting the worst end of the fight or confrontation. If school officials found out about the fight, and there were witnesses, the person starting the fight was the only one suspended or disciplined. Or, at most, both persons were equally suspended. But, rarely, would the second person, who happened to inflict the greater harm, unless the harm was serious bodily injury or death, be issued a much greater punishment than the initiator, as was done in this case . And, the result was usually based on “fairness”. I believe that institution of the concept of fairness into this case would dictate the same result here. However, since Oregon has no control or jurisdiction over Hout, it can only deal with Blount. Again, fairness would dictate that Blount not be suspended at all, because he did not start the “fight”; but, if Oregon chooses to discipline him for his actions only, then, certainly, that discipline should be “fair”.
(2). It is likely that your initial season-long suspension was a knee-jerk reaction to press coverage of the incident, reaction from school officials, and the fact that you are a new coach and you wanted to impress upon school officials that you would issue swift and serious discipline for the well-publicized act.
The press coverage was clearly slanted to Blount’s incident, as opposed to Hout’s. In fact, I didn’t even know about Hout’s behavior until I heard a television newscaster comment on it in passing. I never did see a taping of Hout’s incident, although I did read that it was shown, but not nearly as often as Blount’s.
Clearly, because of the press coverage of Blount’s incident in particular, there was enormous public reaction from school officials and the public in general. And, that reaction was generally and naturally against Blount.
Third, you are a new coach and you are human, and naturally and likely (because I don’t know for sure), you wanted to demonstrate to Oregon officials that you would do the appropriate thing, even if it was your own player involved; so you decided to agree to a punishment of a full season suspension (even though, likely, from your own experience, it was an unprecedented punishment for throwing a punch in a game—and this punch was thrown after the game). And, that suspension was impressive. According to the L.A. Times, Larry Scott, the first-year Pac 10 Conference commissioner, stated, “It made me proud that we’ve got coaches and programs with zero tolerance for this kind of behavior.” But, and I could be wrong, I do not believe that you considered the concept of “fairness’ in the equation or your decision at the time.
(3). There are racial implications in both the controversy itself and your suspension. Initially, let me say, I do not believe, nor have any reason to believe, that your suspension of Blount was racially-motivated. But, with that aside, there are nonetheless racial implications in the controversy and the suspension. One implication evolving from the controversy itself is clear, a black player “sucker-punched” a white player on national TV, and according to press coverage, the black player did the act unprovoked and with malice aforethought. And, the black player may have been racially-motivated to do the act, therefore, the black player should be punished, not only for doing the act, but for doing the act to a white player (would Blount have been punished the same for punching a black player rather than a white one?)
One implication evolving from the suspension is: a white coach is issuing punishment to a black player for the black player’s sucker punch of a white player, and the punishment was so steep or heavy because of the black player’s race (not simply because of the act). The other implication is that had the black player been white (making it a white-on-white incident), he would not have received the same (season-long) punishment. These are a few of the racial implications that evolve from the controversy. If you announce a decision based on fairness(which necessarily would mean a reduction in the suspension), it would tend to rebut such implications.
(4). The punishment is probably precedent-setting. Admittedly, I have not researched this matter, but it appears to me, based on my knowledge of penalties for throwing a punch in a football game, either high school, college, or professional, that this may be only one of a few, if any, cases where a football player has been suspended an entire season for throwing a punch, even a sucker punch, in a football game (and this punch occurred after the game). And, if there are such cases, I doubt that such a penalty has been issued where the person punched had actually started the fight or threw the “first punch”. If such a penalty has been issued before, I would surmise that it would be a situation where the sucker punch was an unprovoked one, and the person punched was innocent and disconnected from the person throwing the punch (which was not the case here). Last, further evidence that the season-long suspension for throwing a punch in a football game is unprecedented, and that at least one college conference (and probably most) will not follow that lead is a recent suspension for throwing a punch in a game by the Big Ten Conference. In an incident, according to the L.A. Times, where “Video of the incident during Saturday’s 38-34 Wolverines victory in Ann Arbor, Mich., spread on the internet”, the Big Ten only suspended the player (Jonas Mouton) for one game, “for punching a Notre Dame player during last week’s game.” See article attached to this letter.
(5). Hout has not been punished. Based upon my understanding and information, Hout has not been punished for his part and he started the controversy. Is that fair? Even though you and Oregon University have no control or jurisdiction over a Boise State player, you do have control over your player and the sanction imposed; and the sanction imposed, particularly because of Hout’s non-punishment, should be based on “fairness”. Rightfully, you could have announced “I will only punish my player if Hout is also punished” (in fairness to Blount), or, alternatively, “I will only punish my player with the usual punishment for this type of offense unless the other player is also punished for his role or conduct in this controversy”.
(6). Blount’s punch did not occur during the game. Whatever you charge Mr. Blount with doing, you cannot charge him with unsportsmanlike conduct during the football game , because the incident occurred after the game was over. From all indications, Blount handled himself well during the game (despite his pre-game “trash-talking”), i.e., no penalties for unsportsmanlike conduct. And, he probably would not have engaged in the post-game activities were it not for Hout verbally and physically taunting him.
(7). Blount showed remorse for his conduct, although his conduct was not the catalyst for the confrontation. From all indications, Blount “manned-up” and apologized for his conduct, whether his punch had been wrong or not. According to the aforementioned L.A. Times article, September 5, 2009, “Blount had apologized profusely. . . .” This must count for something .
(8). Your suspension effectively ends Blount’s college football career, and probably any chances of a professional career as well. This is probably the most important reason for reconsidering your suspension. I do not know Blount’s family background, but, I doubt that he has come from a wealthy family, who is going to support him the rest of his life. And, I do not know his potential for professional football, but if he did have some potential and would have had a chance of making it to the pros, that chance is wiped out by your suspension. Under the circumstances here, including his interaction with teammates and the crowd, is that fair? for throwing a punch after a football game and becoming belligerent? Is the punishment commensurate with the act(s)? Young black males in our society have it difficult enough as it is to try and find a place in society, and to earn a living, legally. So, is it fair for a young man such as Blount to have his career ruined over a punch thrown after a football game, where the entire incident was started by a guy who will not receive any penalty at all? And, incidentally, this player likely (for I do not know for sure) will have a more secure future than Blount, with or without football.
In sum, I believe Oregon’s season-long suspension of Mr. Blount was a knee-jerk reaction to the videotaped display by television, cable, and the internet to the public, which caused public reaction and a response thereto, without a consideration of “fairness” to Blount. But, now, after you have had time to reflect and consider all of the circumstances in a more reasoned and rational manner, I believe that if you view the entire matter based on fairness, that you will conclude that the season-long suspension was not fair to Mr. Blount. Conversely, I believe that the only way that you can maintain the current suspension, in good conscience, is to not include fairness into your decisionmaking process. But, if you so integrate fairness, you must find that your present decision under the circumstances is unfair to Blount.
And, if you announce that you have reconsidered your suspension based on fairness (which you did not consider before), are your critics going to demand that you be “unfair”? Or, that you should not consider fairness? I think not. But, even if they do, you can feel satisfied that you did the right thing, as opposed to the politically correct thing, and that Blount and your other players will know that henceforth, whatever happens on the field, their coach “have their backs” and will be fair in their defense (like Byron Hout’s coach is doing for him, that is, Hout’s coach’s idea of fairness, apparently (based on my knowledge), is that Hout should not be punished in any way for his conduct)). In one word, your players will “respect” you (your players know what the usual punishment is for a fight or punch thrown during a game—and this was after the game; and they know that the other player has not been punished; and, while they naturally will not say anything to you or other school officials because of their concern for their scholarships and their educational and football futures, what they say among themselves when they go home is another matter).
I urge you, sir, to reconsider your season-long suspension of LeGarrette Blount and punish him with a lesser and fairer suspension. On behalf of LeGarrette, I thank you.
I would appreciate a prompt reply.
Very truly yours,
Laurack D. Bray, Esq.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment