• “Drug Ring has Husky Connection”
  
• “Huskies Pressure Accuser”
  
• “Huskies Investigated by the Secret Service”
  
• “Husky Players Sold Prescription Drugs”
  
• “Players Claim They Need Guns.”
  

If these words had been headlines on the theater marquees around town, they would have been nothing less than film noir.

These stories were published in The Los Angeles Times during a fifty-three day period after the Husky ship sprung a leak on November 5, 1992. A shot fired from a Seattle Times’ trebuchet caught the Husky ship broadside, a salvo stating that Billy Joe Hobert, Washington’s starting quarterback in the 1992 Rose Bowl game, had received unsecured loans from a nuclear engineer (who had no connection to the university or its athletic interests) totaling $50,000. Searching the archives, I found thirty stories printed during this period mentioning Billy Joe Hobert by name. Mike Downey, in an article hyping USC’s Freedom Bowl game with Fresno state, sniped, “Washington's band will play selections from its new 'Guns and Rose Bowls' CD, available at popular prices from Billy Joe Hobert records and tapes.”

Ironically, Billy Joe’s loans affected his eligibility at Washington and were not institutional violations. The Huskies were not penalized for Hobert’s loans, other then losing him as a player. (See the Afterward for more on this). Hobert used his potential earnings as a professional athlete to secure one or more of the loans. That’s a no-no as far as the NCAA is concerned, since we average slobs don’t have any potential earnings that anyone would be willing to roll the dice on—unless we’re nuclear engineers.

I believe the media’s coverage was overblown and decidedly unfair; it created a hysterical hue and cry almost impossible to quell. It reminded me of the hatchet job done on Gene Bartow, a former UCLA basketball coach. Using Hobert’s name in each article seemingly lent credence to the media’s outrage; the Washington program was out of control, they said. In reality, Billy Joe was a nice guy who made a stupid mistake, who never thought his name would be used as a symbol for Husky cheating. He was a kid who wanted a shiny new car, a kid who capitalized on his potential earnings to get it, a kid who capitalized on his God-given talents prematurely. “It was all a prestige thing to me…I’m just dumb, let’s put it that way,” he was quoted as saying.

Let’s take a closer look at the media’s coverage as it affected the Huskies. After the Hobert revelation, the next fifty-three days might have been the most significant in Husky history.

As stated earlier in this story, the main salvo was fired on December 9, 1992 when the LA Times published the following story, “Washington: A Program Gone Awry?” The first sentence of the article took me aback, “Some University of Washington boosters have engaged in a longstanding practice of providing Husky football players with thousands of dollars in cash and other improper benefits, including summer jobs requiring little or not work, a Times investigation shows.”

This featured story, written by Danny Robbins and Elliott Almond, was the first of a series of investigative articles that appeared in The Los Angeles Times alleging booster violations at Washington. These violations involved: cash payments made to players; work arranged by boosters requiring little or no work; the use of a truck registered to a booster; free lodging during the summer; a summer’s job arranged by a booster while the prospective recruit was still in high school; the sale of prescription drugs.

Although they interviewed more than two-dozen players, Robbins and Almond apparently collected most of their information from five players who had had a falling out with the University. These are players who lent their names to the articles. One of them had sued Husky coaches and a physician for what he perceived to be negligence in the treatment of a shoulder separation; two others had been dismissed from the team after they were arrested during an altercation with Santa Ana police prior to a Freedom Bowl game. Later they sued the school, but lost. One player had been disciplined by Husky coaches prior to a Freedom Bowl game and had to pay his own way back to Seattle after a practice preceding the game. Later, he quit the team. Another had never been more than a backup player who had to find work on his own during the summer of 1988.

Having read the LA Times for years, I have my own opinion regarding its motives for publishing these stories; however, I’ll go along with the standard line and say that the Times had papers to sell and that its two investigative reporters, Danny Robbins and Elliott Almond, had mouths to feed. Hey, I’m easy to enlist. Give me the petition and I’ll sign it. Undoubtedly the Hobert incident triggered these stories, although the associate sports editor of the Times said they were motivated by the verdict in the Rodney King beating trial.

Aside from using statements from unhappy campers for the grist of its stories, the objectivity of the Times is questioned by another incident. According to Sam Farmer’s book, "Bitter Roses," the LA Times erroneously reported that the publisher of Sports Washington had offered one of the Washington players $500 if he “would recant published remarks alleging improprieties in James’ program.” The article titled, Huskies Pressure Accuser, opened with this sentence: “The son-in-law of Washington football Coach Don James offered to pay a former Husky player $500 if the former player would recant published remarks alleging impropriety by James’ program.”

Ironically, the Times had to recant the opening sentence of its story. It ran a retraction for the error (Jan 24, 1993), and admitted that the son-in-law did not physically say the words quoted above. Although he was named in other allegations made against the Washington program, this does not mitigate the impact of this article’s opening sentence on the integrity of the Washington program. Simply stated, it wasn’t true. Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will break my spirit.

The other blemish on the Times stories centers around the statement that players received cash payments involving thousands of dollars from boosters, as stated in the first sentence of the program-gone-awry story. Three of the disgruntled players who lent their names to the stories said that two boosters had given them this money. This allegation, which was denied by the boosters, was not made part of the final findings for which the University was sanctioned. Also, the allegation involving the sale of prescription drugs, the subject of another Times’ story, was not mentioned in the final findings that elicited the sanctions, see the appendix.

The latter story began with the following sentence: “University of Washington players have sold prescription drugs given to them for injuries or other illness by members of the university’s medical and training staff, the Huskies’ team physician said in a sworn statement.” In an interview with the Times, the physician quoted in the sworn statement said that team trainers and physicians had heard only rumors of such activity. According to Sam Farmer in his book cited below, the physician said he was not “given time to clarify his deposition because the attorney moved to another line of questioning.”

The opening sentences of these three critical stories appearing in the LA Times made several serious allegations; they involved boosters making cash payments to athletes totaling thousands of dollars, a booster paying an athlete to recant a statement he made, and players selling prescriptions drugs. These allegations (one of them retracted by the Times) were the main themes of these three articles and were far more serious than the allegations for which Washington was actually sanctioned, one of them involving the distribution of fruit baskets to prospective Washington recruits by Seattle hotels. Many people who read these stories most likely read the first few paragraphs, then dashed off to work, left with an unfavorable impression of Don James’ football program. Worse yet they may have read just the headlines. Egad! Was this a football program gone awry or a newspaper gone awry?

Three days after the first article was published, the LA Times published another story that added to the hysteria. It stated that five Husky players had “been questioned (by the secret service) regarding their use of cellular phones that had been illegally altered to avoid billing.” This story had no apparent relationship to an NCAA rules violation involving boosters, and in the Times’ own words “is the latest off-the-field problem for the Washington football program, which has seen its image tarnished by the arrest of a player on cocaine-selling charges and published reports alleging violations of NCAA rules.” Seemingly the article was published to buttress the Times’ case against Washington, adding to the aura of suspicion surrounding the program, even though the story had no logical relationship to the others published in the Times. Although reporters in the Seattle area had known about the investigation for some time, the timing of the story’s release couldn’t have been better.

In a short period of time, the LA Times had unleashed a spate of stories about Husky players receiving thousands of dollars in cash from boosters, along with money garnered from the selling of prescription drugs and cocaine. In addition it was alleged that players had used illegally altered cellular phones, that one booster had tried to bribe an accuser and that Husky players said they needed guns. None of these allegations were part of the Notice of Charges filed against the Huskies that led to the final sanctions (reference "Bitter Roses," Notice of Charges, page 313, and Table 1 below).

Table 1. Allegations made by the media and their final disposition

However, Washington was sanctioned for some of the allegations made in the LA Times, notably for its lack of institutional control over the LA summer jobs program. The Pac-10 notified the university it was conducting an investigation on December 14, 1992, five days after the first story appeared in the LA Times. Later, the university engaged a law firm to conduct an investigation, and “to leave no stone unturned…” More than 200 interviews of 125 people were conducted during the course of the investigation, which lasted eight months. Sam Farmer in his book "Bitter Roses" categorizes these allegations on page 314. Also, reference the University of Washington Public Infractions Report, cited in the references, and the appendix to this article for a summary of the infractions.

Six representatives of the university’s athletic interests were involved in the allegations. No member of the UW coaching staff or administrations department were involved in them. The most serious of the allegations for which Washington was sanctioned involved paying athletes for work not performed. The Los Angeles real estate developer, who employed these athletes, said that they knew that they were expected to work for their pay. The players completed their own time cards, and were not supervised by the developer, who was frequently away from his office on business trips. Other players in the summer jobs program told the Times that they had to work for their pay.

Although the athletic department maintained control over the jobs program in the Seattle area, it was found that the department failed to exercise institutional control over the summer jobs program in the Los Angeles area. These alleged violations occurred over an eight-year period, from the summer of 1980 to the spring of 1989.

The university was prohibited from collecting $930,000 for its participation in six televised football games during the 1993 season. Postseason competition in football was banned for the 1993 and 1994 seasons. There was a reduction in the number of permissible official visits in football during the 1993-94 and 1994-95 academic years, and a reduction in the number of permissible football scholarships during the 1994-95 and 1995-96 academic years.

On August 22, 1993, Don James resigned his position as Husky head football coach, stating: “I have decided I can no longer coach in a conference that treats its players and coaches so unfairly. We have suffered for nearly 10 months from media character assassination. By looking at the penalties, it appears we are all guilty, based in large part upon statements of questionable witnesses.” University President William P. Gerberding was quoted as saying: “Whether one considers the penalties imposed by the conference to be appropriate or fair is a matter of individual judgment. I do not.”

The way the press covered these stories—much of it in tabloid fashion—could have affected the harshness of the sanctions levied against Washington. Most poll-driven politicians will tell you that it is easier to meet the demands of an outraged public than to change public opinion. The motives of the conference schools levying these penalties are another issue and certainly questionable. I suspect that many of the foundations supporting college football’s elite programs of today would crumble under the same scrutiny Washington endured.

Afterward (bits and pieces):

• The NCAA rules violation concerning the Hobert loans was made part of the Notice of Charges, along with alleged violations of NCAA rules concerning his employment by a booster. The loans affected his eligibility at Washington. Washington was punished for his employment irregularities.
  
• An associate Pac-10 commissioner investigated the Huskies. Because of the press coverage many former Washington players were reluctant to talk to him. Since the NCAA had a four-year statute of limitations, it was the commissioner’s job to find irregularities that had occurred within a four-year period. Then a pattern of violations could be established. If there is another weak link in the Pac-10’s investigation, this is it. As an example, the investigator uncovered booster violations that occurred within this period that involved potential recruits; however, two of the recruits enrolled in other schools, not Washington. It was alleged that one of these boosters had attempted to encourage a recruit to go to Washington. Also, it was charged that the university failed to demonstrate institutional control over cash distributed to student hosts for meal expenses when hosting recruits. Within the four-year time period it was alleged that two players had been flown to Seattle for a Spring football game. 
  
• Since 1987, recruiting contact by boosters has been a violation.
  
  Almost all of the charges alleged by The Los Angeles Times in its program-gone-awry article occurred prior to December 1988, and were outside the four-year statute of limitations.
  
  Originally, the Pac-10 compliance committee recommended that Washington be placed on a one-year probation, with the loss of revenues from telecasts for a period of two years. However, the Pac-10 Council, made up of the conference’s presidents and chancellors, decided upon a two-year probation with a one-year loss of TV revenue because they felt the compliance committee’s recommendations were too lenient. Apparently, Council members were angered by the way Washington defended itself.
  
• Ironically, Mike Downey of The Los Angeles Times thought the penalties were too harsh in an article in which he opined that Washington needed “its wrist slapped,” rather then being “knocked down and kicked.”
  
• Discussing the severity of Washington’s sanctions, other people have argued about the sanctions levied on Auburn at the time. Auburn’s transgressions involved its coaching staff, whereas Washington’s did not.
  
• When it came to handling the employment of his players and otherwise, Coach Don James was a no-nonsense guy. He once said, “I’ve told any person that ever hired one of my football players that if they didn’t work, fire them.” His statement is buttressed by the fact that the summer jobs program in the Seattle area was “fairly well-controlled” by the athletics staff. According to the NCAA, the Los Angeles summer jobs program was not.
  
• In July of 1994, the NCAA reviewed the penalties levied against Washington by the Pac-10 conference. In adding additional penalties, it stated: “The penalties imposed, which are in excess of those imposed by the institution and the conference, reflect the committee's finding of a significant lack of institutional control over the summer jobs program in the Los Angeles area. Had the athletics department and, in particular, the members of the football coaching staff made even the most cursory examination of that jobs program during the 10 years of its operation, they would have discovered the violations.”
  
• The NCAA added these penalties:
  
  • Washington’s athletics program was placed on probation for two years.
    
  • The university was required to continue the development of it athletics compliance education program.
    
  • The university was required to upgrade the way it distributed materials to boosters relating to NCAA rules.
    
  • The NCAA restricted the number of football telecasts for either the 1994 or the 1995 season. Up to four telecasts were permitted, at the university's discretion.
    
  • Required the university to re-certify its current athletics policies and practices.