Blog Entry

More information is good in the Iowa case

Posted on: February 3, 2011 8:25 pm
Edited on: February 4, 2011 12:26 pm
  •  
 
If five staffers at the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics leaked information about those 13 Iowa football players, then a part of me is glad.

A big part. The part that craves information. The part that admires the bravery of sources who value information over their personal security and welfare. The part that thinks that the public good sometimes trumps secrecy.

I'm selfish that way. So was America during Watergate.

Hands off the keyboard, Iowa Fan. No one is saying this is Watergate. No one is saying those staffers leaked any information. All we know for certain is that the five are being disciplined for accessing private information. Three are being fired. Were they wrong? Absolutely. Morally and ethically. According to the wire story, some may face jail time.

But that's not my problem. I want to know what happened in Iowa City 10 days ago. I want to know it as soon as possible. That makes me a lot like the players' parents. I don't think we should have to wait 90 days while the school conducts an investigation. Yep, I'm selfish that way. 

If -- and only if -- any of those five leaked information that holds people accountable in this case, then the story has been advanced. I'm curious. We all are. There's a lot of mystery here that hasn't been addressed. Thirteen students from a state institution were somehow put in peril. Remember this: No federal laws would have been broken if first those 13 players weren't hospitalized. Think how you would feel if that was your child in the hospital with a partially functioning kidney. First, you would be concerned, afraid, stricken with dread. Then you would want to know what happened. When that information wasn't immediately available, then you would be mad.

We know at least some of the Iowa parents are mad . A story broke shortly after the hospitalizations that the 13 had been drug tested. All tested negative, according to the story. Other information has emerged too. It could be from those five. It could be from parents. It could be from a combination of the two.

I'm a consumer. I want that information. There is disconnect in this situation.  I want to know why the drills used last month had been used in the past and nothing happened, according to Kirk Ferentz. I want to hear from strength coach Chris Doyle, by all accounts one of the most admired persons in the profession. I want to know why 21 football players have died since 200 0 , all of them due to some form of overexertion. I want to know why there seems to be a culture of pushing players too hard

"The question begs to be asked, is 'What happened here and why this time?' "

That was Ferentz basically speaking for all of us on Wednesday. In this world of Twitter and blogs and breaking news, we are conditioned to having instant information. Sometimes that information makes us uncomfortable. Look what it has done already. Ferentz said Wednesday "we'll not repeat this exercise," referring to the drills that were done on Jan. 24. Thank God. 

A lot of you have lit me up on Twitter already for my stance. Understandable.  I wouldn't want my medical records released to anyone. Does that make me a hypocrite? Perhaps. Am I selfish for wanting to know more this case? Absolutely not. And all of us know more than we did 10 days ago. 

Let's not forget the root cause here: We're not having this discussion if those players hadn't gone to the hospital. 

  •  
Category: NCAAF
Tags: Iowa
 
Comments

Since: Aug 21, 2006
Posted on: February 23, 2011 12:31 am
 

More information is good in the Iowa case

Here's the worst part, the information has now come out that Dodd didn't even contact the University of Iowa for any of his stories, he just wrote them up with no facts at all from the University.

Wow.



Since: Feb 7, 2007
Posted on: February 5, 2011 7:48 pm
 

More information is good in the Iowa case

Several keep posting about how the Iowa homers are jumping all over Mr. Dodd.
Several Iowa fans keep posting about how Dodd is biased against Iowa.

I have no personal liking of Iowa.  I once lived there-wasn't my favorite place to live-but I did like the people.  I am most definitely NOT an Iowa supporter (see my handle).  Likewise, I really have no problem with Mr. Dodd in general.  He's had some decent articles, and he's had some really terrible articles.

That being said, this is not about him singling out one group.  This is about him suggesting it is a good thing that someone's PERSONAL medical information was leaked.  I'm all for transparency in our institutions, but we're not talking about an institution, we're talking about 13 student-athlete's personal medical files.  I, like most of you, want information on this story, because, like Mr. Dodd said:

p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 10.0px Verdana}

"I'm a consumer. I want that information. There is disconnect in this situation.  I want to know why the drills used last month had been used in the past and nothing happened, according to Kirk Ferentz. I want to hear from strength coach Chris Doyle, by all accounts one of the most admired persons in the profession. I want to know why 21 football players have died since 2000 , all of them due to some form of overexertion. I want to know why there seems to be a culture of pushing players too hard ."


However, I do not put my wants ahead of those student-athlete's right to privacy.  It is his blatant support of breaking this right to privacy that truly makes this blog article by Mr. Dodd so reprehensible and worthy of the backlash and "bandwagon."

When a child errs, they are punished.  In general, this is one of the best ways to teach them what is proper and improper behavior.  Mr. Dodd has erred and deserves punishment.  I am not calling for him to be fired, but a suspension and public apology would be a good place to start in my humble opinion.

Off my soap box now, sorry for the rant! Smile



Since: Oct 5, 2009
Posted on: February 5, 2011 3:23 pm
 

More information is good in the Iowa case

"Let's not forget the root cause here: We're not having this discussion if those players hadn't gone to the hospital."

By your logic, a "part of you would be glad" if a rape victim's name and address were leaked. After all, we're not having the discussion if she hadn't been raped. And by your logic it's also "not your problem" people's lives were put at risk by WikiLeaks, either.

But the key fact that eviscerates your point is this: nothing was leaked from the UI Hospitals that the parents and athletes didn't_already_know.  So it's not about them. It's about Dennis Dodd, as always.


[and why is a "journalist" openly advocating people breaking federal law still employed by CBS?]



Since: Jan 29, 2011
Posted on: February 5, 2011 11:44 am
 

More information is good in the Iowa case

Durax - I will give you the benefit of the doubt and suggest that you might simply be naive in your attempt to defend Dodd.  Perhaps your concern about 21 kids dying since 2000 is sincere - but it is naive to simply place the blame on overzealous training and imply an uncaring athletic program or system.  How many athletes do you suppose participate at the highest level of collegiate athletics and what fraction of that total might be 21?  The point is that there is far greater liklihood that 21 kids had unique medical or personal characteristics that may have made them unsuited for a high level of competetion than it is that there is simply a systemic problem with overzealous collegiate athletic training.  No this is not "blaming" the athlete for the problem - it is recognizing the fact that not everyone is fit for a high level of athletic training.  It is also acknowledging that there may significant areas for improvement in the screening of athletes for medical suitability for a high level of training.

As for Dodd - I will freely acknowledge that I am very skeptical of the sincerity of his concerns.  He and a small cast of sports journalists (like Forde in ESPN) are employed primarily for one reason - to stimulate traffic in media, usually by way of provocation, and not because of some profound insight, intellect, or proficiency in logic.  They certainly are also not expert in the field of ethics.  You cannot convince me that Dodd is simply motivated by concern about the stricken athletes and a desire to prevent this from happening in the future - he and Forde are simply driven by the idea of retribution, spite, and competition in sports journalism over who can provide the most provocative piece to stimulate web traffic.  Why else would he imply in a previous post or in this one that someone at Iowa is trying to hide something?  He seems to view HIPAA as a convenient shroud for  mischieveious and self-serving behavior in this post.  In a previous post he suggested that Iowa must be hiding something with a 90 day internal investigation.  He and his ilk are inconvenienced by legitimate pursuits of truth which actually take time and don't mesh with digital media deadlines.  He is far more inclined to snap judgments to provoke emotion which in turn drives traffic towards him.  In reality the more difficult it might be to precisely pinpoint causation simply facillitates his ability to engage in that activity.  The simpleton with a simple mind needs simple and quick answers - if they are not forthcoming immediately in there eyes there must be some fraud.



Since: Jan 29, 2011
Posted on: February 5, 2011 10:39 am
 

More information is good in the Iowa case

Hypocrite?  Perhaps?  Well it's a baby step towards truth and self-acknowledgement.  Still Dodd's qualifications of his hypocrisy admission indicate he is still in denial that he's a complete tool of the league of extremely poor journalists.


HawksRBest
Since: Feb 5, 2011
Posted on: February 5, 2011 9:24 am
This comment has been removed.

Post Deleted by Administrator




Since: Feb 5, 2011
Posted on: February 5, 2011 8:31 am
 

More information is good in the Iowa case

"Think how you would feel if that was your child in the hospital with a partially functioning kidney. First, you would be concerned, afraid, stricken with dread. Then you would want to know what happened. When that information wasn't immediately available, then you would be mad."

Am I missing something here?  Is the parent in Dodd's example estranged from the child or something?  Assuming the parent and child are on speaking terms, the parent would learn everything from the child (i.e. the 'patient' in 'patient confidentiality') right away.  Heck, the parent might even be in the room with the patient during convetrsations with medical staff!

Besides being muddled and poorly written, Dodd's piece is pretty low.  Constructing a false scenario that plays on primal emotion to justify his own selfishness and hypocrisy?  Way to go Dodd!!



Since: Mar 22, 2008
Posted on: February 5, 2011 6:01 am
 

More information is good in the Iowa case



dodd, where was that desire to know the truth when it was $cam newton???



Since: Oct 25, 2010
Posted on: February 4, 2011 10:39 pm
 

Hypocrites of the world unite!

Can't believe an ND boy is talking crap about suspensions and firings.  I forget who got fired or suspended when the videographer died just so coach Kelley could get his outside practice on tape?  That's what I thought.  



Since: Sep 9, 2006
Posted on: February 4, 2011 9:07 pm
 

More information is good in the Iowa case

For what it's worth you have my support.  There are almost zero voices for the treatment received by student athletes.  Programs like Iowa HAVE TO BE HELD TO ACCOUNT.  Why is that so difficult for the fan base to see.  Where are the sanctions?  Why is Ferentz still employed?  As I have said before, why does a program get to put 13 KIDS in the hospital and it's not on immediate suspension pending and investigation????

Stop being blind homers to your program, it's hurting kids.



The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or CBSSports.com