Wednesday, August 25, 2010
It wasn't the only change "Queen Yuna", as she's known in Korea, has made since her breathtaking performance at the Olympics. She also switched management teams in April, scrapping IB Sports, the Korean company that made her one of the five wealthiest female athletes in the past year with an estimated $9.7 million in earnings, to start her own agency, All That Sports, which is run by Kim's mother, Meehee Park. Those 25% management fees are now all in the family.
The announcement of the coaching change was made by Orser's management agency, IMG. Let the P.R. war begin.
This is all changing hourly, but here's a synopsis of what's come out so far.
1) Orser tells various media outlets he was blindsided by the news of the coaching change, which he and coaching partner Tracy Wilson received from Yuna's mother on Aug. 2. Orser adds that Yuna didn't know what was going on either. He suspected something was amiss, he says, because his emails weren't being answered. He also felt "disrespected" when he learned second-hand that Yuna's new short program was being choreographed by Canadaian ice dancer Shea-Lynn Bourne, with whom Orser had never worked. Orser claims money has nothing to do with the split, that he never had a contract with Yuna, that he never got a bonus from her for winning the Gold, and that he was the lowest paid coach at that level in skating, charging her only $110 an hour. But he loved Yuna and wished her well.
Facebook page she is "disappointed and saddened" that Orser would pretend to be blindsided, and that she couldn't sit idly by and let her mother take the blame for the coaching change when she, too, was involved. She says that she is an adult and she and her mother made the decision together. Yuna further contends the relationship between her and Orser was never as perfect as the media made it out to be, and that it had been increasingly "awkward and ambiguous" in the last few months. She also says the fact that Mao Asada of Japan, her arch-rival, approached Orser about coaching her was not the main reason she was leaving. She implies, though, it was a factor.
Okay, here's what I think.
Money has to be the main reason for the split. Orser's claim to the contrary doesn't pass the smell test. If he truly didn't get a bonus after Yuna Kim won a gold medal, he has every right to be angry. The girl made almost $10 million last year! Furthermore, he is represented by IMG, and all IMG cares about is money. You think his agent at IMG is going to let him charge only $110 an hour to the Olympic favorite with no incentives built in? Ha! IMG also owns Stars on Ice, which Yuna Kim does not skate for. My guess is that IMG was applying some sort of heavy-handed pressure on Kim, who has her own skating show in Korea, to join Stars, and it blew up in their face. They may even have been using Mao Asada as a weapon: If you don't want Brian to take on Mao, you should skate with "Stars..." this winter. I wouldn't put it past them. They only know heavy-handed.
The sad thing is that such a successful team should now be broken apart. Yes, as Yuna said in her Facebook message, skater's change coaches all the time. But not after they win an Olympic gold medal and skate two programs for the ages. At least not when the coach is as easy going and positive as Orser and his coaching partner Tracy Wilson are. The laid back, relaxed atmosphere at the Toronto Cricket Club, where they coach, was the perfect landing spot for the stressed-out Kim when she arrived there at age 15. I visited there last December, and, despite all the pressure she was feeling from home to win, Yuna was clearly happy training under Orser. I don't believe the problems that developed originated between the two of them. And one thing was and is certain: her mother, Meehee Park, calls the shots. Yuna is not going to buck her. Somehow IMG and/or Orser ran afoul of the mother, and it caused the rupture of a terrific skating partnership, one that created what I believe to be the finest gold medal performance in Olympic history. It'll be interesting to see what develops.
Posted by E.M. Swift at 11:22 AM
Monday, August 16, 2010
It was a fascinating final round at the PGA Championship at Whistling Straits in Kohler, Wisconsin. As most of you know by now, Dustin Johnson was assessed a two-stroke penalty for grounding his club in a bunker on the 18th hole, an infraction that cost him a spot in the playoff. It was a sad thing for Johnson and the tournament, but CBS announcers made it sadder than it should have been. Announcer David Feherty practically wept while revisiting the offending bunker, telling CBS viewers it never crossed his mind it was, in fact, a bunker, rather than a bare patch of ground. He could see no discernible lip, no rake, and footprints were all over the sand, left by spectators who'd been standing there. His take? Johnson had been jobbed.
I like Feherty, but I have trouble believing it never crossed his mind Johnson was in a bunker. While watching the telecast, when I saw Johnson ground his club while addressing the ball, my heart immediately jumped. It was clear to me he was in one of those shoddy bunkers: there are something like 1200 of them scattered around that course. None of CBS's announcers--Jim Nantz, Feherty, Nick Faldo--said anything when Johnson grounded his club, however, so I assumed the bunkers beyond the ropes had been designated waste areas. A waste area is not considered a hazard, and golfers are allowed to take practice swings and ground their clubs when in them. Why? Because waste areas aren't raked, and the surface of the sand is uneven and unpredictable within them, often marred by footprints and tire tracks. The bunker Dustin Johnson found himself in on the 18th hole, which the gallery had been standng in, was just such a place. It should have been declared a waste area, but it hadn't been. PGA officials had specifically posted signs in the media center and the locker rooms alerting players to the fact that those areas were considered hazards and to be treated as if they were bunkers. Johnson should have known that. Feherty, who had the benefit of going back and standing in the bunker, certainly should have recognized it for what it was. And Nantz and Faldo should have known the local rule and said something while Feherty was carrying on as if Johnson had been robbed. Eventually a PGA rules official interviewed by Peter Kostis cleared the matter up. But it was not the finest bit of sports television I've ever seen. Then again, none of those involved--Nantz, Faldo or Feherty--should be considered a journalist.
My take? Anyone who's ever covered sports for any length of time has been accused of misquoting an athlete. It's very possible Pavin told Gray exactly what Gray reported. It's also possible he told it to him off the record. It's possible there was a misunderstanding between the two about what was on and off the record. These things happen. Athletes say things all the time they later regret. Often the default response is to say they were misquoted. Or misinterpreted. It's happened to me a couple of times over the years. The way for a journalist to handle it is to privately discuss the athlete's concerns with him (or her), and, if you still believe you are right, to publicly stand by your story. That's it. "I stand by my story." No name calling. No jabbing in the chest. No calling someone a liar. And certainly no threatening that "You're going down!!"? Gray was unprofessional to the extreme. It was, and is, inexcusable. Any network that hires him going forward should know what they are getting: an unprofessional personality with axes to grind. Not a journalist.
Finally--while speaking of bad journalism--under the category of Low Moments in the New York Times, we have The Case of Who Plagiarized Whom?
In Lynn Zinser's news story on the final round of the PGA Championship (Monday, Aug. 16) she writes the following about Phil Mickelson: "But on Sunday he finally got hot. He eagled the par-5 No. 5 early and then had birdies on three consecutive holes. He hit nice putts on Nos. 12 and 13 and hit his approach within two feet for birdie on No. 14. That put him at seven under. He stayed there until a wild ride on 18, which led to a bogey and a round of 67."
Succinctly put. This was another article in this morning's NY Times, written by Thomas Kaplan, entitled On Par, under the subhead Mickelson Steadies Himself: "But on Sunday, he finally heated up. He eagled the par-5 No. 5 early, then had birdies on three consecutive holes. He hit nice putts on Nos. 12 and 13 and hit his approach within two feet for birdie on No. 14. That put him at seven under. He stayed there until a wild ride on 18, which led to a bogey and finished a round of 67."
If it were not for two minor discrepancies ("got hot" by Zinser vs. "heated up" by Kaplan; and the word "finished" in the last sentence by Kaplan), the paragraphs would have been identical and I would have assumed it was some sort of computer screw up. But since those two descriptions of Mickelson's round were almost, but not exactly, the same, the hand of man is apparent. So who wrote it, and who copied it? I smell a nameless editor's hand in this foul till.
Or maybe great minds think alike. Strange brewings in Kohler, for sure. All in all, an exciting PGA Championship that some of us would just as soon forget.
Posted by E.M. Swift at 1:03 PM