Four reasons we might be to blame for the Steubenville rape

WASHINGTON, DC, March 19, 2013 - On St. Patrick’s Day, a holiday known best for its green beer and corned beef sandwiches, two teenage football players from Steubenville, Ohio were convicted of raping a teenage girl from West Virginia last summer while she was drunk.

The repercussions of these two guilty verdicts shed four unwelcomed lights on how our society is getting it wrong when it comes to preventing violence of this type. 

1. We promote aggression and objectification. Kids are exposed to...  READ MORE...

Abuse in youth sports: Words CAN hurt you

The coach’s spit flew into his seven-year-old victims face: “You’re not tough enough to play football! You’re a pussy! You’ll never amount to anything! Get out of here and don’t bother coming back!” 

The young boy had been quietly standing outside a fence watching his former team practice. He quit the team a few days before because the coach constantly yelled at him (and other kids), but wandered back over to the field just to watch, since that’s where all his friends were.

---

SEE RELATED: Denny Hamlin: Crosses NASCAR’s line and earns $25,000 fine

---

When the coach spied him, he stopped practice and unleashed the words that would change the boy’s life forever.

It was 1973 and the boy, James T., lived on a military base in Germany because his dad was a military contractor. The team he wanted to be part of, but very soon didn’t, was run by young recruits determined to whip those kids (ages 6-8) into shape.

After all, it was how they, as recruits, been whipped into shape at boot camp.

Abuse isn’t new to sports but the recent high-profile sexual abuse stories have dominated our thinking about it. Unfortunately, in some regions and in certain sports, verbal abuse is seen as commonplace and even a desired way of coaching. In others, it’s seen as the lesser evil type of abuse.

---

SEE RELATED: Flacco’s $120.6M deal perpetuates unrealistic fable

---

The Women’s Sports Foundation has determined its position on abuse in sports.

An excerpt:

“Any type of abuse has debilitating consequences both for its victims and for the society as a whole. In the context of athletic programs it lowers the self-esteem and limits the ability of participants to develop their full potential in sports and physical activities. It impairs the future capacity of its victims to experience full athletic participation and to pursue employment and leadership roles in athletics.

This, in turn, deprives the society as a whole of the contributions of these individuals and damages a genuine appreciation of participant’s athletic achievements and contributions.”

Further, the Foundation defines verbal abuse like this:

“Verbal Abuse – The most commonly occurring type of abuse in sports includes 1) name calling, 2) hurtful comments regarding performance, 3) swearing at players or game officials and 4) comments meant to demean a person’s integrity.”

Source

It should come as no surprise that verbal abuse perpetrated against young athletes can have long-term, devastating effects. According to Patricia Evans, author of The Verbally Abusive Relationship and Victory Over Verbal Abuse, “No one is more influenced by verbal abuse than a child. The negative impact of verbal abuse on children cannot be measured. Certainly some children succeed who were verbally abused in childhood but are they better people?” 

And that “typical” coach screaming? Not necessary, according to one source in the rugby world. 

In his article, “Verbal Abuse in Sports,” Tim Goodenough, Mental Toughness Specialist for RugbyIQ.com, writes:

“Why screaming sessions mostly don’t work is that the verbal attacks are commenting on the value of the individual, and not their behavior, they are personal and not about the group. The experience of hearing abuse from a trusted source – the coach – in front of the team, is negative enough to not support the player learning anything, other than to not want to have that experience again.”

“Screaming as a style breaks down relationships, a key component in high performance. Fear – often the result of a scream - is a very short-term motivator. Fear can be effective for brief moments of time however over the longer term fear is very seldom effective for high performance. (If ever – I haven’t met an athlete yet who performs at their best by experiencing strong fear).”

James is a case study for how early trauma related to sports can shape a person’s entire life. Now in his mid-forties and a successful professional in the Midwest, James is built like a swimmer and will admit that swimming and running are the only sports in which he truly likes participating. “I was never on a team, though. I never wanted to be. I didn’t want to be the last kid chosen, the fat kid, or the kid who was called out for not being good enough.”

In a society where men are often judged for their ability to be athletes and to talk sports, James shies away from as much of it as possible. “I can hold my own if I have to with clients,” he says of having to converse on sports. “But I don’t buy-in to the importance of sports for kids. Physical activity, yes. But not team sports.”

Four decades later, the abuse James suffered is still painful and evident. And his decision to stay out of sports seems more like a defense mechanism than a true choice. Given his height and build, one wonders if he would have made a good outfielder or forward. Maybe he would have enjoyed coaching.

Maybe his own son would be involved in sports.

James has never been on a team that worked hard to make a play happen, bummed out over a loss, or learned from a compassionate coach who grew men and not just athletes. He never heard his parents cheer him on from the sidelines or felt his friends pat him on the back for making a save.

And he won’t.

All because one coach, forty years ago, abused him so intensely and publicly that he eschewed sports forever. 

Organized youth sports are touted as great places for kids to learn teamwork, responsibility, accountability, and the importance of physical activity. But for some kids, sports are places where they suffer abuse, verbal or otherwise, at the hand of trusted adults, sometimes with the complicity of parents who are as invested in winning as the coaches are.

Experts in the fields of child and sports psychology encourage parents and coaches to make sure kids aren’t treated in a way that, off the team or in general, would be considered abusive. Otherwise, sports will be more detrimental to a child’s self-esteem and future participation in physical activity than not playing organized sports at all.

For more information on how parents can stop verbal abuse in sports, go to www.chillmanager.org.

Read more: http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/chill-manager-sportsmanship-real-world/2013/mar/12/abuse-youth-sports-words-can-hurt-you/#ixzz2NQrCtk6A
Follow us: @CHILL_Manager on Twitter

Denny Hamlin: Crosses NASCAR’s line and earns $25,000 fine

Denny Hamlin
Source: Justin Edmonds/Getty Images North America

In racing news, Denny Hamlin, the 32-year old American NASCAR racer considered a superstar by many racing fans, made a mistake last weekend. No, he didn’t tap the brakes, bump a competitor or pass on a yellow flag. Instead, he answered honestly when asked about the new Generation 6 car, the sport’s next greatest thing.

“I don’t want to be the pessimist,” Hamlin said about his #11 Toyota said after the Phoenix race, “but it did not race as good as our Generation-5 cars. This is more like what the Generation-5 was at the beginning. The teams hadn’t figured out how to get the aero balance right. Right now, you just run single file, and you cannot get around the guy in front of you.”

Later, he also said, “I hate to be ‘Denny-downer,’ but I just didn’t pass that many cars today. That’s the realistic fact of it.”

NASCAR officials used the nebulous Section 12-1 prohibiting “actions detrimental to stock car racing” to justify Hamlin’s fine. Although they didn’t reveal exactly which of Hamlin’s words violated the rule, it’s clear they feel he did something wrong. $25,000 worth of something, to be exact.

On the surface, Hamlin’s remarks could be compared to a football player saying, “I don’t think these new helmets fit right yet.” Or, a golfer saying, “These new graphite shafts don’t allow for as much distance off the tee.”

The NASCAR car is integral to the sport, a piece of equipment that not only defines the endeavor, but also has a great deal to do with determining an outcome. But just like an athlete still needs to be a good football player or golfer to succeed, a driver still has to be a good driver regardless of what car he’s driving. Hamlin’s stats indicate that he is a top-notch driver.

But what’s under the surface of all this drama over what seems like a minor criticism of new equipment? Chris Riley, a Michigan native and NASCAR fan for over 30 years, thinks he knows: “Anybody that’s been watching NASCAR for any length of time can tell you that the new car isn’t racing very well yet.

“I’m sure it will eventually, but for now it needs work. NASCAR as a sanctioning body is very protective of its ‘brand.’ They’ve suffered some losses in spectator gate and television revenues over the last few years and they basically have a ‘zero tolerance’ policy about anybody that criticizes the on-track product or the sanctioning body itself.”

Another NASCAR fan, Craig Hassis, who lives in California and follows the sport closely, said, “I understand protecting the business. I just don’t agree on their [NASCAR’s] selective nature on who gets fined and why. Other drivers have said the racing and the cars need work, too”

Maybe not so publicly, though.

Imbalanced relationships, whether they are between partners, friends, employers/employees, or coaches/mentees, are far more detrimental than the perceived loss of power a more equalized relationship would create.

The CHILL Manager program, a sportsmanship education and training system, identifies bullying as a direct cause of poor sportsmanship (entities attempting to maintain control) and also one of the most damaging effects of it (trickle-down abuse, unhealthy cultural norms, declining sport/activity participation).

In this case, by citing Hamlin for poor sportsmanship, NASCAR’s system of damage- and reputation-control appears to have had the opposite effect. Rather than keeping Hamlin on-script, the fine has galvanized at least one driver (Hamlin) to publicly buck the system. 

From Hamlin’s Twitter feed: “…I believe the simple fact of us not even having a conversation about this issue before I was hit with a fine has something to say about our relationship….I am a person that worked very hard from the BOTTOM to get where I am today and someone telling me that I can[‘t] [sic] give my 100 percent honest opinion really bothers me….

“I feel as if today NASCAR lost one of its biggest supporters vocally of where our sport is headed. So in the end there are no winners. I said today I would not pay the fine. I stand by that and will go through the process of appealing. Trust me, this is not about the money…It’s much deeper.”

So what came first? Did “bullying” by the organization (to keep mum about the Gen 6’s current limitations) cause Hamlin’s poor sportsmanship or did Hamlin’s attempt to control his freedom of expression cause NASCAR’s?

Sportsmanship in the real world includes honor among teammates, respect for coaches and mentors and respect for opponents. Sportsmanship is about creating and maintaining a positive relationship between all participants in a sport. But no organization is immune from poor sportsmanship, and ultimately bullying, from the top down, especially if no one challenges the negativity.

At least one thing Hamlin said holds a universal truth. This goes much deeper than a mildly critical statement about a brand new product (Windows 8, anyone?). This situation speaks to an imbalance in a sport that relies on balance to succeed.

What are your thoughts about the Hamlin fine? Leave your comments below.

Read more: http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/chill-manager-sportsmanship-real-world/2013/mar/8/denny-hamlin-crosses-nascars-line-and-earns-25000-/#ixzz2NMJKcETr
Follow us: @wtcommunities on Twitter

Flacco’s $120.6M deal perpetuates unrealistic fable

The U.S. is in a time of budget cuts, reduced social services, and high unemployment. Some professional athletes aren’t feeling that hurt, however, as evidenced by quarterback Joe Flacco’s $120.6/six year deal with the Baltimore Ravens.

By Keith Allison (originally posted to Flickr as Joe Flacco)
[CC-BY-SA-2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0)],
via Wikimedia Commons

Or are they?

According to Billy Corben’s 2012 documentary, 30 for 30: Broke, professional athletes are burning through their money faster than they can earn it. The film cites a Sports Illustrated report that revealed that 78% of former NFL players have gone bankrupt or are financially stressed after two years of retirement. Given that the average NFLcareer lasts just under three and a half years, that’s a wide swing from nothing, to everything, to nothing again in a short period of time.

The NBA isn’t much better. According to the same SI report, 60% of former NBA players are broke within five years of retirement.

One thing that lures kids and their parents into chasing the holy grail of sports is the hope of fortune. Who wouldn’t want a chance to score several or a hundred million dollars for a few years of work? It sounds like a dream come true, almost like winning the lottery. In fact, professional athletes who receive enormous contracts are often compared to lottery winners because of their quick and excessive spending.

True, the chances of winning a big-money lottery are lower than cashing in on a spectacular sports career, but not by a number that means very much. Each year, though, kids set their sights on being pro ball players and their parents do, too. According to the NCAA, in 2012 there were approximately 308,000 high school seniors playing football. From that pool, there were just over 17,000 NCAA freshman positions. Of that group, each year only 250-260 college athletes are drafted into the NFL. That gives a high school football player a .0008% chance of going pro.

Let’s say the high schooler is still completely convinced of his ability to play pro football. The average NFL salary is about $1.9 million a year. That’s the average, though. When you add in salaries like Joe Flacco’s new deal, that means a lot of guys are making a lot less than the average.

Despite the reality that most professional athletes make far less than we’re led to believe through commercials and lifestyles, families are still willing to sacrifice everything to get that ultimate paycheck. 

Often, families hire trainers, send their kids to exclusive camps, buy them the best equipment, and otherwise pay for the chance to make it in the big show.

However, as Billy Corben’s film shows, that ultimate paycheck is a fable for all but a handful of players. Not only does the income potential not last long, because of injuries and sports politics, but many professional athletes are unprepared for instant millionaire status and tend to spend unwisely, ultimately leading to the high number of bankruptcies cited by Sports Illustrated. By offering contracts like Flacco’s, sports franchises are sending out a siren song to kids who would be better served by studying and choosing a career with more longevity.

Now would be a great time for parents to save money on personal trainers. Instead, they can focus their kids on long-term academic achievement over long-shot Hail Marys. In the end, kids’ expectations of themselves will be more realistic and they will have a great chance of success in their (second) favorite career.

CHILL Manager is now being posted at The Washington Times Communities.

Gun Violence and Sports Violence: Power Plays with Devastating Outcomes

On December 14, 2012, shortly after the violence at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Connecticut, a mother named Sharon Watts started a group called "One Million Moms 4 Gun Control." By the end of February, 2013, the group had over 80 chapters across the country and at least one in each state. They also renamed themselves "Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America." Their mission is to get legislators to enact sensible gun laws to protect families.

As I watched that organization grow and get traction in the national conversation about violence in the U.S., I couldn't help but wonder if sports violence is a problem just as an insidious, but not as visible.

In a great piece authored by Ismat Abdal-Haqq for the ERICDigests.org (Educational Research Information Clearinghouse), he explores sports violence in our society. Two of his findings are that there are two types of violence in sports: instrumental and reactive. Instrumental violence serves a "purpose" within a sport -- to deliberately change the momentum of a game or take out an opponent. Reactive violence is when a player or coach loses control of his/her frustration and anger and lashes out at someone else.

Sounds a little bit like the difference between the fact that we train our military in gun violence (instrumental) and the ever-increasing occurrences of gun violence by frustrated, angry, sometimes mentally ill, people (reactive). At least with gun violence, one version serves a purpose. I'm not sure how either serve a meaningful purpose within sports.

When an athlete displays reactive violence by causing a fight, taking a cheap shot with the intent to injure, or verbally abusing an opponent, he or she is acting on the basic feeling of powerlessness.

Yes, powerlessness.

The build-up of frustration because the player can't control the official's calls, the opponents strong defense, a teammate's bungled play, or a coach's decision about playing time can erupt with lightning speed and with sometimes terrible consequences, ranging from penalties to life-changing injuries. All because a kid feels like he didn't get a fair shot.

Don't we also hear time and time again that gun violence is perpetrated by people who feel powerless? By kids or adults who were bullied in school, marginalized socially, and who suffered from feeling unloved? By newer, weaker gang members who have to participate in violence or risk bringing it on themselves or their families?

Then there's the whole question of our society glamorizing violence. There are many hundreds of "hardest hit" or "best fight" clips shown on sports channels. Many of those athletes best known for their in-game violence (Derek Boogard, Junior Seau, etc.) were revered and paid handsomely for their aggression. Unfortunately, those particular athletes paid for that aggression with their lives, later. In terms of gun violence, how many movies, video games, and television shows are shoot-em-ups? A lot, I know, because there are stacks of them at my house, too.

Part of the mission of CHILL Manager is to promote sportsmanship. Part of promoting sportsmanship is taking on the challenge of reducing violence. But here's a sad truth from Mr. Abdal-Haqq:

"...these negative outcomes of sports involvement are caused by adults, particularly parents and coaches. Lip-service is paid to sportsmanship and having fun, but rewards are reserved for winning. Often, encouragement to pursue victory is accompanied by direct and indirect signals that aggressive behavior is acceptable to achieve it. Hellstedt also suggests that anxiety about winning impedes performance and makes players more susceptible to injury. Physicians have noticed an increase in sports-related injuries in children (Hellstedt, p. 59).
http://www.ericdigests.org/pre-9214/sports.htm

I'm a season ticket holder for my local National Lacrosse League team, the Minnesota Swarm. Last year I nearly gave up my tickets for good because the violence on the turf was disgusting and I was embarrassed that I encourage kids and families to attend games. I tried to cover my daughter's eyes during one game because the punching and blood-spattering was sickening and at least at the level of an R-rated movie. The team finished strong, though, and my resolve to take a stand weakened. I paid lip-service, but didn't follow through because it was fun to watch the team win.

This year, I attended a game and there was a first-time spectator sitting behind me. The entire game he yelled at the players when they backed off from the fight. "I want my money back," he said one time, only half-joking. But later, "There you go, hit him--kill him!" he said when a fight finally broke out for good. And he wasn't the only one. Little kids in the crowd chanted "Fight! Fight! Fight!" as the punches were thrown and cheered wildly for the players who trotted off to the penalty boxes. I wondered, again, how it is that even little kids think it's great to encourage people to fight.

People who know me know that I hate the fighting in sports. I joke with them that I'm just not wired with that code. Sometimes I joke that it's a "man gene," even though that's not fair to many men I know. Sometimes I blame it on being a mom because I don't want my sons to think that violence is the answer when they're frustrated (so far, so good) and I don't want my daughter to become so immune to violence that she doesn't know when to escape from it. But mostly, the violence just scares me.

I don't think I'm a lone voice, though. And I no longer think I need to make excuses for my reticence to accept violence in the sports experiences that are supposed to shape our youth into responsible, contributing adults.

So what are the "devastating outcomes" of not addressing violence? In sports, it's physical injury, psychological injury, and disconnection from community. In the world of gun violence...sadly, we know all too well what those outcomes look like. Is the result of not dealing with sports violence partly to blame for gun violence? That's probably not out of the realm of possibility.

There may not be a million moms (or dads) out there who agree with me, but surely there are one or two. Are you one? If so, join me in the conversation.

Frustrated hockey player takes it out on his community

In Farmington, Minnesota, a Twin Cities suburb that still straddles the line between bedroom community and farmland, residents love their town and their sports teams.

A late-game surprise during the February 12th high school hockey game, though, showed something different -- something that points out the fragile relationship between a community and its high school sports "heroes." One of Farmington's goalies decided he was fed up with his coaches and didn't care who knew it.

Here's what happened:
The Farmington goalie deliberately scored a goal against his own team, tying the game. Then, he removed his glove, flipped off his coaching staff, and saluted the parents and fans. Finally, he took himself out of the game and went to the locker room. Watch the video --

At first (and probably last) glance, the goalie was just plain wrong to express his pent-up frustration the way he did. Flipping off your coach in public, causing your team to lose, and quitting the team on senior night are about as unsportsmanlike as it gets. The only thing that could have made it worse was if someone had gotten physically hurt, too.

But I can't help but wonder about the story before that story. What caused him to snap? According to a post the goalie made on Facebook, here's what he believed:

"They played this sophomore goalie for the starter, he was terrible, I would try and talk to the coaches about this and tell them I want playing time but they never really listen to me or gave me a chance to show them that I'm a better goalie but still wouldn't trust me so I had it it with I asked a few of my players if they care if I did it and they didn't care they thought it would be funny so at the third period they dumped it in I stopped it put in my net started to skate off then flicked the coaches not the team the coaches then I saluted them then got off. 

My hockey season is over. I did it for myself. [Like my status] if you think the coaches should quit:)"

So was this a situation where the parents and coaches were WAAC-ed out (wanting to win at all costs) and a player got lost in the quest? Or was this a situation in which the player wasn't a "team" player and was only looking out for himself? Is it possible it was a little bit of both?

Part of the problem with emphasizing competitive sports too much is that kids' expectations, like ours, become unrealistic. Clearly the Farmington goalie thought he was better than the sophomore goalie who got more playing time. His coaches didn't. Was he too confident or were they blind? At this point, no one knows. The coaches may have thought it was more important to try to win games earlier in the season than to give a senior the opportunity to finish out his high school career with more game time. (He was in the game when this all happened, though, so they must have decided that playing a senior on senior night was the appropriate thing to do.)

Somewhere along the line there was a breakdown in both communication and intention. And I'm betting it didn't start February 12th, 2013 or even February 12th, 2012. I'm betting it happened much earlier, probably when the goalie was playing in his first Squirt games.

In Minnesota, high school hockey coaches are usually very involved in their towns' youth hockey programs. From 3rd grade on, coaches know who the good skaters are, who are middling, and who aren't that good at all. Tryouts are really only for the handful of kids who might have improved over the summer. As a former hockey parent myself, I have no doubt that the teams are formed, not on the ice, but around a beer or soda. Every hockey parent out there has a story of how a player bombed tryouts because of an injury and he made the A team anyway. Or the kid who busted his butt all summer long, spent countless hours at a rink during the best months in Minnesota, still only making the C team because another kid's dad could coach the B team if his kid was on it.

For the Farmington goalie to still be playing hockey as a senior, he must have been told that he was good at some point -- either by his coaches or his parents. Otherwise, he would have been cut before now. So it's no wonder he was pissed that he wasn't getting playing time and a kid who hadn't put in the time he had was starting in front of him. He felt entitled to that playing time; he felt he deserved that playing time.

However, the coaching staff, who had probably known him for seven or eight years, had some reason to allot playing time the way they did. They're paid to coach; winning games is a good way to keep that job.

I tried to contact the goalie but didn't get a response. So we don't know how far back the problems went. But a frustrating situation, created by expectation and hubris, set into motion the events that eventually caused the unsportsmanlike conduct on February 12th.

What do you think?

I'd love to hear from the coaches or anyone else involved with this. If you know someone who knows someone who might want to email me, please pass this along.

I can be reached via the website at www.chillmanager.org. Thanks!

Pistorius: Sprinting into his own Shakespearean Tragedy

Perhaps you've heard of Oscar Pistorius, the South African runner? Currently, he's infamous for shooting his girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp.

Steenkamp and Pistorius

Last summer, he was famous for being the first double-amputee to compete in the Olympics.

Prior to that, he was known for creating a worldwide discussion about the advantages and disadvantages held by athletes who are forced, usually by tragic circumstances, to use prosthetics in order to compete.

Pistorius

And it is an interesting question, in these times of ever-evolving polymers and metal alloys. Technology has finally given us the ability to enhance athletic performance in the physically challenged and has also blurred the line between able-bodied and para-competitions. So should all athletes, regardless of race, religion, country, gender, or number of limbs be allowed to compete in the same contests?

Ok, I'm not actually going to answer that because I'm not sure either.

Anyway, back to Pistorius.

In an article written for ABCnew.com by Bazi Kanani, I found this quote from his father quite telling:

Pistorius' father was quoted overnight in the South African paper The Sunday Times saying his countrymen are destroying a national icon.

"There is something fundamentally wrong with our society," Henke Pistorius said. "We build people up into heroes, who overcome immense challenges, only to take great glee in breaking them down."

Isn't that the truth? As consumers of sports, we build up these national icons, adore them, idolize them, aspire to be them, support them with our hard-earned dollars...then, when they turn out to be human after all, we delight in the next act in the show: the downfall.

Much like a Shakespearean Tragedy, our protagonists (athletes) are faced with a paradox -- how far will they go to maintain their status, and will hubris eventually ruin them? Is it possible to stay "on top" without sacrificing integrity?

Shakespeare: the man who understood  men

Unfortunately, Pistorius is the next installment of Shakespeare meets 21st Century Celebrithetes. Whether or not he's guilty of murder isn't the point today. The point is that Pistorius has, indeed, been crowned and then dethroned.

It's a story that has played out for centuries and will play out for centuries more, or for at least as long as we make heroes out of mortals and, even more quickly, make mortals out of heroes.