Discussion of Deadspin's Article: The Sexual Harassment Claims That Brought Down Toledo’s XC Coach

Ugh..and here I thought Engineers were smart and at least had common sense? Oh wait, I forgot they are too smart for their britches or in this case too smart to think outside of their pocket protecters.

Wow, thanks for giving the advice that it takes years and years to figure out a simple function that I couldn't figure out in a day and yet willing to admit my weakness..oh my!

Btw, don't let your "slide rule" hit you on your arse on your way out!

calling a spade a spade wrote:

KMB wrote:What I do question is the whole "sexual harassment" thing (which Robert helpfully put in the subject line of this thread and is not why Kevin resigned at all; even the U. T. administration found no reason to pursue that angle) and of course all of the stuff that goes along with that in a slippery-slope kind of way -- "pedophile," "predator," "pervert," "sociopath" and so on.

I entirely disagree. The guy is a predator, a pervert, a sociopath and a misogynist. Maybe not technically a pedophile, but verging on it.

I highly doubt you have any of the qualifications necessary for diagnosing someone as a sociopath. After that is a diagnosis of a psychological disorder dependent on a range of factors and signs.

Futhermore, from what background I do have in diagnostic psychology (very little, admittedly), I don't think Hadsell appears -- in any way -- to be a sociopath.

A truly messed up guy, but not a sociopath. Do you understand what a sociopath actually is, or are you using it as a psych buzzword?

26mi235 wrote:

Someone with much more credibility than almost anyone posting here (including me) said that he would be addressing this in his blog. I am referring to Mighty Favog aka tracksuperfan (see

http://tracksuperfan.com/

).

For those of you who are not familiar with this super fan, he specializes in the collegiate scene (all divisions) AND he is a Toledo-area guy. This should be both informative and impartial.

Pretty much anyone with a keyboard has your level of cred. And J Squire is the balls, but to pretend he'll have any light to shed on this is a joke. Was he at the Toledo practices? Did he record phone calls with Hadsell or maybe bug his office? You might as well just as a random person from Ohio...and since you think Hadsell has already admitted everything what more is there to know?...oh that's right you were lying.

Wait until we see what he has to say.

Your 'handle' is essentially a one-off; that implies zero record, zero value of reputation. If you post under a consistent handle over a very large number of posts, then you can gain the value of the reputation that you develop (there is enough literature out there on the value (and implications) of reputation; maybe you should acquaint yourself with it). Specifically, this statement is not correct "Pretty much anyone with a keyboard has your level of cred." and if you do not know why, then you are not really worth debating.

26mi235 wrote:

Wait until we see what he has to say.

Your 'handle' is essentially a one-off; that implies zero record, zero value of reputation. If you post under a consistent handle over a very large number of posts, then you can gain the value of the reputation that you develop (there is enough literature out there on the value (and implications) of reputation; maybe you should acquaint yourself with it). Specifically, this statement is not correct "Pretty much anyone with a keyboard has your level of cred." and if you do not know why, then you are not really worth debating.

No, in fact, I'm not all that familiar with the concept that a longtime anonymous handle carries more weight than a short-term one. I kind of like the notion that posts stand or fail on their own merit, and if YOU don't understand why relying on a site like Deadspin and its flurry of one-sided quotes from parties who are themselves either unnamed or selected on the basis of clearly biased perspectives, well...you connect those dots.

And if J Squire does in fact have useful things to say then I am certainly willing to listen to them.

I don't think she was dumb to turn him in, but I think she was just dumb. He was even dumber.

Is this how people talk to each other, when they are grown-up and college-educated?

F uckkkk

S hit, p ussies, f ucking this and f ucking that,

"Hahaha. That she may be a good lay?"

"Hey I'm going to bounce soon man"

"Fucmkkk. :("

"Dude."

"F uck man."

That seemed to be the entire vocabulary right there. If you are some over-sexed trashy, dumb 42 yr old, it is bad enough to talk like this. But if you are a 20-yr-old woman of at least average intelligence it is just sad.

I am shocked that he talked this way to his athletes and even more shocked that they talked back to him the same way. They should be ashamed of their speech and behavior. I can't believe he lasted almost 15 yrs.

Are their so few coaches out there that American universities have to accept this type of language and behavior? If he spoke this freely to one girl, how many do you think were treated the same way?

I am about the same age as him and live in a city with a large BIG-10 uni and I KNOW that those girls don't want anything to do with me.

I hope he enjoys working at 7-Eleven.

The Single Voice of Reason wrote:I highly doubt you have any of the qualifications necessary for diagnosing someone as a sociopath. After that is a diagnosis of a psychological disorder dependent on a range of factors and signs.

Futhermore, from what background I do have in diagnostic psychology (very little, admittedly), I don't think Hadsell appears -- in any way -- to be a sociopath.

A truly messed up guy, but not a sociopath. Do you understand what a sociopath actually is, or are you using it as a psych buzzword?

How to identify a sociopath:

#1) Sociopaths are charming. Sociopaths have high charisma and tend to attract a following just because people want to be around them. They have a "glow" about them that attracts people who typically seek guidance or direction. They often appear to be sexy or have a strong sexual attraction. Not all sexy people are sociopaths, obviously, but watch out for over-the-top sexual appetites and weird fetishes.

#2) Sociopaths are more spontaneous and intense than other people. They tend to do bizarre, sometimes erratic things that most regular people wouldn't do. They are unbound by normal social contracts.

#3) Sociopaths are incapable of feeling shame, guilt or remorse. Their brains simply lack the circuitry to process such emotions. This allows them to betray people, threaten people or harm people without giving it a second thought. They pursue any action that serves their own self interest even if it seriously harms others. This is why you will find many very "successful" sociopaths in high levels of government, in any nation.

#4) Sociopaths seek to dominate others and "win" at all costs. They hate to lose any argument or fight and will viciously defend their web of lies, even to the point of logical absurdity.

#5) Sociopaths tend to be highly intelligent, but they use their brainpower to deceive others rather than empower them.

#6) Sociopaths are incapable of love and are entirely self-serving. They may feign love or compassion in order to get what they want, but they don't actually FEEL love in the way that you or I do.

#7) Sociopaths never apologize. They are never wrong. They never feel guilt. They can never apologize. Even if shown proof that they were wrong, they will refuse to apologize and instead go on the attack.

Nope. No similarity to him at all. None at all.

A lot of had made complaints against him, but nothing was done so we would ride with the other coaches instead.

Saying he has some similarities to this list and treating that like an actual diagnosis is a joke. You could impose qualities on this list onto any human being, couldn't you?

It seems to me he could feel shame and remorse, if of an entirely narcissistic variety, or he wouldn't have scrambled to hide things and cover his tracks quite the way he did. Sure, he didn't seem to care about the other people the way you'd hope, but that's not enough to be called a clinical sociopath. He's probably just extremely narcissistic. I'd say some of his drunken and incoherent texting implies he feels a little shame when the girls rebuke him or lead him on.

Again, he's messed up, but there is NO way you can identify him as a sociopath from any of this information. Or without expertise.

It's extremely disingenuous to pretend like you can.

I don't know about calling a spade a spade, but I certainly can't relate to any of the sociopathic qualities listed in his post.

You assume Hasdell felt remorse just because he covered his tracks? That's very naive of you.

He wanted to continue using and abusing his student athletes and thus did whatever he could to secure that privilege for himself going forward.

The remaining 150 yards wrote:[/b

[A]

No, in fact, I'm not all that familiar with the concept that a longtime anonymous handle carries more weight than a short-term one. I kind of like the notion that posts stand or fail on their own merit...

, and if YOU don't understand why relying on a site like Deadspin and its flurry of one-sided quotes from parties who are themselves either unnamed or selected on the basis of clearly biased perspectives, well...you connect those dots.

And if J Squire does in fact have useful things to say then I am certainly willing to listen to them.

[A]

Well, then you really ought to think about it. If I want people to pay attention to me I want to: 1) provide useful information or insight; 2) not be a flaming posters; and 3) not telling lies, etc. The value of reputation is that others will not pay much attention to you if you do either 2 or 3. [I suspect that you not very good at economics]

I am not particularly relying on Deadspin. Don't you understand me when I (repeatedly) say that all that extra junk in Deadspin and on here is mainly irrelevant to the big issue that got him fired. I am not trying to say that other stuff matter. Rather I said I question (say) 95% of that other stuff. Why do you think I am taking Deaspin at face value -- I am not repeating it or lauding it or criticizing it. That is not completely true as I was critical of the asserted behavior on weight, which I think is a really bad thing for a coach to push. Thus, if those comments are flames then I retract my push on that point.

Note that the Blade has this today:

It hues to the major element, not all of the back and forth etc. and focuses on the incomplete (at least misleading) statement [".. and that it did not involve or reflect on the running program, which is untrue."]

J Squire has an even strong 'value of reputation to defend, as he has his own blog that is generally well thought of; for example, he is linked to on the Track and Field site under "Days Best Reading" not solely on the "Today's Headlines" section.

So, if I am not relying on Deadspin or even the secondary elements of the Blade story, I think that you and I are actually not that far apart on this story [possibly aside from the eating issue, which I have indicated I will not push unless there is real confirmation there, although if I were a parent, I would look closely at this issue before allowing a daughter to go to his program, wherever it might be].

Perhaps one of the most poorly, incoherent articles I have ever read. That reporter ought to be embarrassed.

Dictionary wrote:

Perhaps one of the most poorly, incoherent articles I have ever read. That reporter ought to be embarrassed.

Do you even know the difference between an article and a column?

Geez, this list reminded me of some of the bosses I've had over the years, especially characteristics #2, #3, #4, #5, #7. Those would be people who started and ran successful businesses and were generally regarded as pillars of the community - not necessarily people you'd want to be pals with (although plenty of people do because it suited their own best interests and goals for career development), but people who were respected for their toughness is business and ruthlessness in their aim to better their companies.

This goes into to the power equals corruption model with priests and politicians. People need to understand that in many cases the reason for taking these types of positions is to take advantage of the situation provided by the position not unlike a guy trying to be rock star to get groupies. The other idea people need to understand is that people who get in these position then become more likely to have themselves both conditioned and tested by the position. Some may start off with the best of intentions and find themselves weak when put to the test. Or the real predators like the Penn State guy who used the position for power. Some sort of psych evaluation needs to be done before handing these guys a bunch of hot runner girls.

power corrupts all pop psych wrote:

Or the real predators like the Penn State guy who used the position for power. Some sort of psych evaluation needs to be done before handing these guys a bunch of hot runner girls.

Those are completely different scenarios. No comparison.

jamin wrote:

power corrupts all pop psych wrote:

Or the real predators like the Penn State guy who used the position for power. Some sort of psych evaluation needs to be done before handing these guys a bunch of hot runner girls.

Those are completely different scenarios. No comparison.

Yeah they are and that is the point. Both are bad scenarios

There is a difference between seeking to achieve a position of authority or power as an end unto itself and someone being nominally in a position of power and then exploiting or mismanaging the resulting dynamic.

Someone who runs for public office, or strives fast-track Army promotions from captain to major to LTC to fill bird to general, or is more concerned with using his medical degree and seven years of residency to run an HMO than develop more refined cardiac surgery procedures might appropriately be described as power-hungry, in addition to whatever financial and idealistic motives drive them.

But I am pretty sure that most straight men who coach college women's sports teams and at some point wind up messing around with their athletes don't start out with this goal and mind. In fact, I would guess that almost to a one, they are well aware not only that the possibility not only but a great likelihood does, too, and tell themselves "I know other guys would fall into that trap, but not me." And then at some stage the rationalizations begin and justifications are made and the coach becomes blind to the fact that maybe this 20-year-old doesn't just crave his essential dudeness, she digs being close to the guy fully in charge of this micro-society they inhabit, and maybe *she* doesn't know that either, and then one slip doesn't cause trouble and so it becomes a pattern, and oops, maybe this isn't so bad after all, and then shit hits the fan and reality decides to collect its loan that turned out to carry an APR of about 85%, and a career is gone.

Short version -- I know Kevin better than most people here, and knew him very well when he first got into coaching, I am no-mind reader, so maybe he really is a (insert pejorative suggesting seedy man losing teeth and wearing trench coat). But for what it's worth, I don't think Kevin became a coach with any of this in mind, and I don't mean the eventual consequences, I mean all of it. The guy had some solid ideas about building a business that would put prep athletes and college athletic departments in touch in a way that would streamline the process for both, which sounds trivial now, but this was before the Internet existed. He majored in phys ed and always loved being in a mentoring type of environment in his last couple of years, when he was usually at poolside or on a field somewhere instead of in a classroom. But he also likes cute women, and what I believe is that he made a series of beyond-profound mistakes that transcend simple lapses in judgment. He screwed up royally. No more than that. He was a good-looking guy in his late 20s, then his 30s, and then in his early 40s who was around attractive women all the time and shat on the rule book. I don't think this requires a psychiatric diagnosis to interpret any more than it would take one to figure out why a diabetic with poor self-control who takes a job in a pastry shop because he really does like baking nice desserts continually winds up in the ER with ketoacidosis and a blood sugar of 700.

This is not to defend Kevin, but in the end, really, does it matter if he was systematically lured into his dalliance or dalliances by a bunch of malicious sirens despite fighting a heroic inner battle or whether he is indeed a sociopath? (He's not even close, by the way. I have met a couple of choice people who qualify and there is not even a comparison.) In the end he did what he did and parsing his pathology is just an extreme example of Internet mental masturbation. Which I am more than guilty of myself at this point.

KMB, I have been around this sport far too long and have seen this type of thing over and over. It is far more prevalent than you might think in our society. For every Coach Hadsell that gets exposed hundreds exist. The questions begged to be asked are why and are what are the warning signs. Really schools need to do more thorough back ground checks and psych evaluations for coaches. You may call it mental masturbation, many parents call it something to talk about.