Has the U.S. Olympic Committee Done Enough in the Aftermath of Larry Nassar?
Welcome back to the Junction. In this week’s edition, we‘re talking the aftermath of the Larry Nassar sentencing, Jemele Hill’s move to The Undefeated, the NFL rejecting a veteran group’s ad for the Super Bowl and the NBA attempting to legalize sports gambling. Let’s get right down to it…
Former USA Gymnastics national team doctor Larry Nassar was sentenced to up to 175 years in prison after sexually abusing female gymnasts (among other athletes) for decades. Many Olympic women gymnasts, both former and current, have stepped forward and even addressed their abuser in court, which has inevitably spurred change within USA Gymnastics. In response to a request by the U.S. Olympic Committee, the entire board of USA Gymnastics has resigned. The U.S. Olympic Committee will also launch an investigation by an independent third-party, and the results of the investigation will be made public. Is this a sign that the female Olympians’ voices are being heard and taken seriously, or do more institutional changes need to be made?
Dan Szczepanek: From an early age, athletes are told that winning is everything. It’s repeated ad nauseam until it’s an inseparable part of their identity. It’s ingrained in our sports systems, institutions and cultural responses to athletics. “Nobody remembers second place,” “no time for losers,” “history is written by the victors.” This insatiable need to win at all costs clouds the minds of the people who should know better, who should ask the important questions, who should weed out the monsters as soon as there’s any sign of them. The response is a good start, but Nassar was a detestable creature for decades, and success protected him. Success protected Sandusky. The same happened in thousands of campuses and cases we haven’t heard about yet. The fear of getting caught shouldn’t be the biggest deterrent. The fear of living with the knowledge that you should have caught somebody under your watch should be.
Gord Randall: To be honest, male coaches coaching female gymnasts has always been weird to me, and this whole appalling situation just helped reinforce that. I’m glad the USOC has come down on the organization. Whether this is really the fault of anybody there is irrelevant. When the mess is this big, heads need to roll. I’m not sure what brilliant solution the USOC could come up with to prevent something like this from happening again, but something should definitely be done. Maybe a rule where no coach is ever allowed to be one-on-one with an athlete? I’d say where the change now needs to be made is at Michigan State University, another one of the many institutions that completely failed in this case.
Sandy Mui: I’m glad to see USA Gymnastics doing something, even if it had to come at the request of the USOC in order for it to happen. I’m with Aly Raisman though — they’re still light-years behind putting the right structures in place to ensure nothing like this will ever happen again, to ensure all athletes will be safe from such monsters. The whole reason there’s an investigation into USA Gymnastics is because this wrongdoing occurred in the first place. So, for USOC’s chief executive Scott Blackman to suggest that he’s not basing the USOC’s demands of USA Gymnastics in the aftermath, is an issue. Nassar was able to succeed for so long because things have been covered up and hidden in the shadows, and both the USOC and USA Gymnastics are at fault for that.
After much controversy surrounding her critical remarks on Donald Trump, Jemele Hill is leaving SportsCenter’s “SC6” for a different ESPN vertical, The Undefeated. Hill issued a statement on Twitter saying she was not kicked off SC6 and that it was her own choice to return to reporting. How does she fit in at The Undefeated, and was this the right move for her?
Szczepanek: Conspiracy theorists will no doubt see this as a demotion and a convenient way to placate the least palatable of ESPN viewers, and move on from the ‘controversy’. The move is a great one for Jemele Hill, as it gives her a better (if smaller) platform where she can have a much more consequential impact. Her talents were wasted on SportsCenter, and I think that speaks to ESPN’s greatest challenge right now — it doesn’t know what to do with intelligent, worldly, outspoken staff.
Randall: Despite the fact that I think Undefeated Editor-in-Chief Jason Whitlock is a gutless shock-jock and a moron, The Undefeated is an extremely interesting concept and is 100% up Hill’s alley. We’ve seen a different side to Ms. Hill since the election of President Trump; she’s been outspoken about politics, particularly those involving race, and has been unapologetic in her convictions. Frankly, it’s been a sight to behold. Transferring to The Undefeated is a far better solution to this issue than anti-political ESPN sterilizing her and making her undertake a contrived PR reclamation campaign, so I’m all for it. On the other side, Hill immediately becomes the site’s most high-profile contributor. The next thing they need to do is add Bomani Jones to the roster.
Mui: When I heard the news, my gut reaction was I couldn’t think of a better fit for Hill. The Undefeated is notorious for its coverage of the intersection of race, sports and culture, which is what Hill is/has been all about ever since Trump was elected. I totally get her on wanting to return to reporting as well — even in my early journalism experience, I’ve found reporting (in my case, I’m contrasting this to sports analysis in general) to be much more enriching and impactful. She fits right in.
Hey, it’s almost Super Bowl Sunday, and you know what that means: we’ll soon be seeing the infamous Super Bowl commercials! Well, one commercial you won’t be seeing is an ad that asks for donations to American Veterans, since the NFL rejected the veterans group’s “Please Stand” ad. The NFL backed up its rejection of the ad by claiming that the Super Bowl has “never been a place for advertising that could be considered by some as a political statement.” Was this a legitimate reason, and why or why not?
Szczepanek: The NFL was kind of screwed either way here, but as is always the case, the league brought it on itself. It could have either allowed the ad to run (pissing off players, fans, and giving the “Please Stand” people the biggest stage to date) or it could reject it and create a media firestorm as people rush to talk about (and watch) the ad that was “banned From the Super Bowl.” If a team had signed Colin Kaepernick at any point this season (as it could have easily justified because, Scott Tolzien), this issue might have actually been resolved. There would still be anger in Trump country, but there’s no question that over time, the “Please Stand” message would have been drowned out by sensible people who recognize the #TakeAKnee for the somber, respectful moment that it is. Instead, the NFL turned Kaep into a martyr, ensuring that these kind of moments will continue to pop up. This is on Goodell and the owners.
Randall: I do think this is a legitimate reason, and it’s nice that the NFL didn’t allow itself to be pushed around on this. I’ll admit I’m biased against this particular ad, but I think it’s entirely fair that the NFL wants to keep the Super Bowl as controversy-free as possible, and a celebration of the game. It’s also sad that people want to use this occasion to further their political agenda and divide people (while it’s worth noting, paying a mind-boggling multi-million dollar price tag to do so). One would think there’s far better uses of over $5 million, but I will admittedly never fully understand the jingoism of some Americans.
Mui: I’ll say there’s probably not a sports league with a worse image than the NFL, but it was pretty reasonable when reaching out to the veterans group for alternatives. (Read the entire article linked in the question.) It’s all about the diction in these ads, and the other messages the NFL would’ve accepted were not too different from “Please Stand.” Given everything that’s gone on in the NFL with Colin Kaepernick and other players kneeling during the anthem, “Please Stand” does sound too convictive to be played during an event — the most major one, at that — in the NFL.
The NBA is undertaking its biggest challenge yet: legalizing sports gambling. In an action that could bring in massive revenue for the NBA and other sports leagues in the future, the NBA is requesting 1 percent of every bet made on its games, on top of other regulations. Is it finally time to bridge the gap between sports leagues and sports betting?
Szczepanek: Is there anything that the NBA isn’t doing well under Adam Silver’s stewardship? Whether it’s creating a more inclusive game, marketing its biggest stars or granting fans more access through better digital integration (NBA.com notwithstanding), the league keeps making all the right moves. This is another case of the Association realizing that it could either fight this for years (costing significant capital, both in fan support and legal fees), or it could go with the wave and take full advantage of something that will keep happening, regardless if the league likes it or not. Other leagues should follow, but history tells us that it’ll take 15–20 years for them to catch up.
Randall: Well, given that the NFL practically runs off of gambling and has had half of its owners invest in Daily Fantasy in the past, I’d say it’s long past time to stop the charade and embrace the fact that gambling enhances a lot of people’s interest in sports. Obviously it has to be structured in a way that keeps players from Pete Rose-ing themselves, but it needs to be acknowledged. Given the additional fact that the NHL is already in Las Vegas, and the NFL will soon be, this is clearly the way the winds of change are blowing. Leagues are already profiting off of this; it’s about time they lifted the veil.
Mui: This isn’t my area of expertise or interest, but I see no problem with this as long as any NBA personnel remain out of the picture of partaking. (We all remember the infamous Tim Donaghy case.) It seems like we’re way past those days though, and as a writer, I’ve noticed that it’s common to see articles about the odds at a particular game, a team’s chance at winning the championship, and the like.
