Why bring this up now? Because it is October 23, and in 1984, that is the date this story appeared in the Shreveport Journal sports section. So, (un)happy anniversary.
It was about 60 inches of "fake news," long, long before that term became (un)popular.
What it was, actually, was three young men with grudges accusing -- falsely accusing -- the football program at Southern Arkansas University (yes, the Muleriders) of being out of control.
Their "sensational" story appeared in the SAU school newspaper, The Bray (great name, huh?), and it -- unfortunately -- was picked up in a much shorter version by The Associated Press bureau in Little Rock.
Which is how it came to our attention at the Journal. We did not regularly cover Southern Arkansas athletics, other than perhaps short items concerning Shreveport-Bossier or North Louisiana kids. The Shreveport Times did more SAU coverage -- especially when it was still Southern State College (the name changed in 1976) and when The Times still had an Arkansas edition.
The Times' bureau writer in South Arkansas did a follow-up story to the AP version (more from that below).
At the Journal, we thought The Bray story was so odd, so intriguing that our editor suggested we check it out.
The Times' bureau writer in South Arkansas did a follow-up story to the AP version (more from that below).
At the Journal, we thought The Bray story was so odd, so intriguing that our editor suggested we check it out.
So it was off to Magnolia, where I had not been in maybe 15 years and only then because I went there with my good friend Casey to visit his grandparents who lived there.
But I had known several good athletes who had played for the Muleriders, and this 1984 SAU football team had several players from Shreveport-Bossier, so there was a story hook.
---
---
OK, for the "unethical practices" cited high up in the story:
• SAU coaches provided players with a liquid drink mixture during games that included alcohol; included stimulants in sealed packages of pills given to players before games; and discriminated against black players in awarding scholarships and in treatment of injuries.
• The team physician, orthopedic surgeon Dr. Thomas A. Edwards of Shreveport, misdiagnosed injuries and scheduled surgery when it was not needed.
• The SAU coaches provided players with steroids to encourage strength development and permitted the use of DMSO as a pain-killer before games. DMSO (was) considered an experimental drug by the Food and Drug Administration.
Let's save a little time here, and quickly sum this up:
The Bray story was total bullspit.
None of it was true. It was not worth the paper it was written on.
Here is the lead of my "special report" story:
MAGNOLIA, Ark. -- One of two former Southern Arkansas University football players quoted recently in a story in the school newspaper as saying head coach Steve Arnett and his staff are guilty of "unethical practices" says the story "is totally false."
He went on to say that his quotes in the Oct. 5 story "were twisted. Anyone who knows Coach Arnett knows that."
---
---
As you can imagine, Arnett, Dr. Edwards and the SAU athletic director, W.T. Watson labeled the charges "ridiculous." They all said they were not quoted in the story nor were they interviewed.
And it would be quite a stretch to think any coach would approve of alcohol or steroids for athletes, much less do it in an open setting, which is how the story described this situation.
The player -- African-American -- who in the story accused the coaches of discrimination and made the steroids/amphetamines charges -- had been a starting tackle the season before but had flunked out of school.
The player -- African-American -- who in the story accused the coaches of discrimination and made the steroids/amphetamines charges -- had been a starting tackle the season before but had flunked out of school.
In talking with a couple of the African-American players from Shreveport, they completely rebutted the charges, dismissing any discrimation by Arnett and his staff.
One said was the story was "a low shot" and that SAU players considered it "a joke."
Arnett told The Times that the story was "a cheap shot" and noted that the SAU staff was "particularly angry about the personal attack on Dr. Edwards, who has volunteered his services for so many years to our program."
The university president, Dr. Harold T. Brinson, noted his concern "about the ethics of an investigative reporter who would deliberately misrepresent the truth in order to try to entrap a medical doctor. It makes me wonder if he has taken liberties with the truth in other areas of the investigation and writing."
I can answer that: Yes!
---
Arnett told The Times that the story was "a cheap shot" and noted that the SAU staff was "particularly angry about the personal attack on Dr. Edwards, who has volunteered his services for so many years to our program."
The university president, Dr. Harold T. Brinson, noted his concern "about the ethics of an investigative reporter who would deliberately misrepresent the truth in order to try to entrap a medical doctor. It makes me wonder if he has taken liberties with the truth in other areas of the investigation and writing."
I can answer that: Yes!
---
So, how did this come about? Because the young men were out to embarrass the coach and the program and because the school newspaper basically was unsupervised.
The player who made the charges refused to talk to me, and just to show how weak the story was, four active SAU players were quoted. They were labeled "Jones," "Smith," "Moore," and "Doe." (Can you believe how juvenile that was?)
The story was written, and concocted, by a 34-year-old sophomore who had been on the SAU campus for only a couple of months. The school newspaper editor was a former SAU football player who dropped off the squad after he did not receive a scholarship.
The story was written, and concocted, by a 34-year-old sophomore who had been on the SAU campus for only a couple of months. The school newspaper editor was a former SAU football player who dropped off the squad after he did not receive a scholarship.
My recollection of conversations with the writer:
Before the trip to Magnolia, I twice talked with him by phone, and twice he cut the talk short by hanging up. I did track him down on campus and we sat -- in the school cafeteria, as I remember it -- and discussed the story.
He was a wimpy, little guy -- like me? -- and he walked with a limp because, as he told me (it is in my story), his right leg had been amputated below the knee five months earlier.
He had admitted that he made a visit to Dr. Edwards' office to have his left knee examined. And it was clear from our conversation that he was not happy with that visit.
He admitted that he told Dr. Edwards it was hurting from an old college football injury from years before (we came to find he never played; to see him in person, that was no surprise). But Dr. Edwards, in his examination, did find loose cartilege and suggested surgery as an option.
The writer also consulted his personal physician, who rebutted Dr. Edwards' opinion and said surgery was not needed. (Read on.)
In an interview with the hometown Magnolia Banner-News, the writer claimed "we documented ourselves very carefully and the story speaks for itself."
He had admitted that he made a visit to Dr. Edwards' office to have his left knee examined. And it was clear from our conversation that he was not happy with that visit.
He admitted that he told Dr. Edwards it was hurting from an old college football injury from years before (we came to find he never played; to see him in person, that was no surprise). But Dr. Edwards, in his examination, did find loose cartilege and suggested surgery as an option.
The writer also consulted his personal physician, who rebutted Dr. Edwards' opinion and said surgery was not needed. (Read on.)
In an interview with the hometown Magnolia Banner-News, the writer claimed "we documented ourselves very carefully and the story speaks for itself."
Of course, that too was bullspit.
As the great, late Jerry Byrd would have said, the kid was "clueless, clueless, clueless" about real journalism.
And with me, he turned beligerent.
From my story ...
When asked why he did not confront Arnett and Dr. Edwards with the charges and if he considered accusations from anonymous players as "documented" evidence, [writer] angrily said, "If you are going to take this tact, I don't have anything else to say to you. You're being very antagonistic with your questions. You take your job and go elsewhere with it."
With that, he got up and stalked off. End of that talk.
A day or two later when I called to speak to the school newspaper editor, the writer answered the call and said, "he has been given your message and he doesn't want to talk to you.
With that, he got up and stalked off. End of that talk.
A day or two later when I called to speak to the school newspaper editor, the writer answered the call and said, "he has been given your message and he doesn't want to talk to you.
"No member of The Bray wishes to speak to you," he added. "We do not want to be part of a biased, slanted, sensationalized story. You print it and we'll have our attorneys look at it."
Pressed for the name of his personal physician, he dodged the question repeatedly. Finally he answered, "Non-dairy coffee creamer. Print that."
I did.
---
Of course, the story caused consternation for the school, the head coach and staff, athletic director, Dr. Edwards and the community. It was the talk of that small town for a little while, but -- naturally -- an investigation by the university's athletic committee turned up ... nothing.
Those people also realized it was all a crock.
Don't believe there was any follow-up to the story, and SAU's football program continued on without reprecussions.
What I remember most was the writer's haughty, ugly attitude and talking with the woman who nominally was in charge of the school newspaper. She maintained she had no role in this, though, and as I recall (but could not find), I wrote a separate story on the lack of supervision of the school paper.
Nor did I keep a copy of my 60-inch story. Could not even recall the date. But I remembered doing it because it was such a strange, bizarre -- and dumb -- tale.
But with help from Donna McCloy in charge of archives at the SAU Library, we found the date of The Bray article and then the good folks at the Shreve Memorial Library -- which has microfilm of Shreveport Journal papers -- found my story, copied and sent it to me.
It was fun reading it again. It was worth the trip to Magnolia and, of course, at the Journal, we had the freedom to write as long a story as we needed.
This certainly was more than a fake news story deserved.
Do not know -- and don't care -- what happened to the writer and school paper editor, but I hope they did not choose journalism for a career.
Do not know -- and don't care -- what happened to the writer and school paper editor, but I hope they did not choose journalism for a career.
Coach Arnett, who had been defensive coordinator at SAU for three years before becoming head coach in 1982, had modest success in four seasons (20-18-2 record), and resigned after the 1985 season, little more than a year after this story.
In a small-world development, when I went to Jacksonville (Florida Times-Union) a few years later, the head coach at Gainesville High School, starting in 1989, was ... Steve Arnett. Same guy.
Had no occasion to visit with him or phone him. But we could have had a good mutual remembrance. And we would have agreed that we knew one BS story when we saw one.
