Syracuse football defensive tackle Steven Clark's career put in jeopardy by blood clots

[RandomGuy]

Eamils can be found here: Home - contact

 

[bcubs9497]

Honestly, ppl are painting dr tucker wrong. The guy might not be the right fit for the job and he might be wrong on this assessment, but give me a break, the guys doing what he feels is right. Ill never overly criticize someone who is doing something deep down which they feel is right. That being said, su admin needs to correct this if there is an issue. It is in best position to know.

He flat out told me and Venita, during our phone conversation with him on 6 June, that he wouldn't reconsider even if Steven were to be cleared by a hematologist in the NE. We tested that on Monday, and Tucker gave us his response Wednesday. He wasn't BSing. Tucker flat out refused to even read Dr Kouides' findings. Right? My ass.

 

[JLine]

Unbelievable. They need to get rid of Tucker, immediately. He doesn't deserve to cash another check from SU. I'm not giving a dime until he's gone.

I guess I shouldn't say just him. Many things need to change. Like not putting a knee brace on an athlete that puts his health at risk. Great example to set.

 

[Moontan]

For those who have sent e-mails to anyone in the admin, would be curious to know if you received any replies...

I wrote the AD back when this first hit (early June) and did receive a response.

Update: as this was a new issue at the time, I received a personal response (not a canned one).

 

[Consigliere]

my response to the copy/pasta reply from Wildhack:

Thank you for the response, even if was sent en masse as a reply.

Understandably the well being of student athletes is, and should be, of the utmost importance and the policy of allowing the medical staff the final say is by far the correct one. That said, doesn't it make sense that any medical decision should be based on the opinion(s) of ultra qualified and impartial specialists?

I know the issue at hand is with Steven Clark but from the perception of someone who watches the program closely this appears to be a recurring issue. As someone who has a family member as a current student athlete it is of serious concern to his immediate family.

In a perfect world medical DQ's would be governed by the NCAA, not school by school. Perhaps this is an initiative that you could spearhead. Frankly, it is a good one and would probably save the health of many student athletes as I'm sure there are some less than scrupulous medical staffs at other schools who would clear a player just for the sake of recruiting talent. Just the nature of the universe.

My suggestion would be that before any team doctor could make a disqualification, they would need to consult with at least two qualified experts in the field of concern. If both agree that DQ is the correct protocol, then that is the ruling. If they disagree, then a 3rd should be consulted. If the the DQ stands the player should have the right to appeal. In that case the file would be sent anonymously to a panel of 5 or 7 other qualified experts from around the country/world from a preselected pool. Once the appeals review board opines, majority decision is final.

This methodology would allow several qualified specialists to help get to the correct medical prognosis. Ultimately this protects the players, provides them with proper due process and takes away the ability of any individual school to make decisions based on personal agendas, be they ignoring the best interest of the athlete just to get a good player or going the other way by being too conservative and acting in a CYA manner.

I thank you for your time and hope this is an effort you will strongly consider. Not only for young Mr. Clark but for all the young men and women who sweat and bleed for SU and others...even Georgetown.

-Shark58
Go Orange

Excellent response. The focus on process rather than an individual case is where this needs to go. And the role of the NCAA ensuring the wellbeing of the student athlete is foremost but also in ensuring some degree of consistency across institutions is implemented and competitive balance is supported. What is left unsaid is that an NCAA role also mitigates the risk of adverse litigation to the individual member school.

 

[CuseLegacy]

Good idea but Tirico is England covering the British Open this weekend.

We need to hit all the big SU media people.

You do realize that Tirico is a voting member of the BOT. Even if he is in England there is still internet and phone.

 

[CuseLegacy]

Home - Trustees

Here is the entire BOT list.

 

[Alsacs]

You do realize that Tirico is a voting member of the BOT. Even if he is in England there is still internet and phone.

I understand that. I just meant he can't say anything just this weekend.

He is by far the most pro-SU person in the media right now. Followed by Adam Schein, Sean McDonough.

 

[whobut03]

To reiterate what Chakka said. The admin has a "spotlight" on Tucker right now in large part to the public response... And as Chakka said, the emails continue to help. I suggest that we keep the emails going to the AD, Chancellor and EVERY Board of Trustee member... We actually have the power to nudge change along here... Keep the emails coming...

 

[UnknownOrange]

The kiss cam got ruined by a letter to the editor. Chakka is correct - Syracuse HATES being in the spotlight for the wrong reasons. I'd email the BoT and syracuse dot com - hell - email any newspaper that can go national - It's a slow time of year

 

[Toga]

To reiterate what Chakka said. The admin has a "spotlight" on Tucker right now in large part to the public response... And as Chakka said, the emails continue to help. I suggest that we keep the emails going to the AD, Chancellor and EVERY Board of Trustee member... We actually have the power to nudge change along here... Keep the emails coming...

Too bad there isn't a college football Jay Bilas with deadly tweets.

 

[Moontan]

Too bad there isn't a college football Jay Bilas with deadly tweets.

Jay doesn't limit himself to hoops...

 

[TheCusian]

He flat out told me and Venita, during our phone conversation with him on 6 June, that he wouldn't reconsider even if Steven were to be cleared by a hematologist in the NE. We tested that on Monday, and Tucker gave us his response Wednesday. He wasn't BSing. Tucker flat out refused to even read Dr Kouides' findings. Right? My ass.

This is what pisses me off. It's one thing to have your opinion and to reject the opinion of one specialist. But when you start to add them up and you are a general practitioner!? Just admit you screwed up. Review the info. Make some calls.

Putting his head further up his bum hole is stupid and harmful for the university and the program.

 

[Newhouser]

SU hates bad publicity I agree,and I admire everyone's confidence that this issue and our passionately expressed concerns are going to change anything. However until proven otherwise I am operating on the assumption that my alma mater does not care. The Athletic Department has been nothing but bad publicity for a while - the honoring or Rosie and Louie with the jersey snafu, The start, stop,start, stop of the Dome replacement. The NCAA sanctions (right or wrong) against the hoop program, The product on the football field for how many years now?
Enough with the lipstick and make up solutions aimed at convincing us there is an environment of change and that players and fans matter. I've had enough. IMHO this school is about money. Not the fans, the alums, the players...it's the money.

 

[UnknownOrange]

 

[HtownOrange]

The response defended the procedures in place. Just ignore that and say thank you for your message we are always evaluating our procedures.

Respectfully, I disagree. Wildhack has a duty to uphold the position of teh University until it is changed by the BoT/Chancellor. Just as HCDB and staff cannot openly criticize and must openly support the decision because that is the process as it is, does not translate that any one of them agrees with the process. As Chakka has indicated, there are rumblings of change and the powers that be are taking a serious look at the facts. If the AD, Coaches and Staff do not toe the line, then they would bring unwanted scrutiny to the University. Let the powers that be* have the first shot at fixing the problem, if that fails, step 2. If the AD, Coaches and Staff openly criticized the system (independent MD), they could also cause further investigation as well as destroy the integrity of the concept of an independent medical opinion: i.e. if AD Wildhack removed Dr. Tucker before now, it would appear that the AD could do so whenever he disagreed with a decision. The NCAA would deem this a violation worthy of another investigation (and we know how thorough and competent NCAA investigations are!). However, by letting the BoT/Chancellor review the entire set facts (history of DQs, 5 experts v. 1 gp, easy concussion DQs, etc.), they can remove Dr. Tucker without drawing the ire of any agency.

Remember, these questions are much bigger than Dr. Tucker and AD Wildhack. They way things are handled here will affect how others handle similar situations, which will arise. It sucks that this is happening to a great kid (Steven Clark), his family and our favorite university, but it will likely bring about some change. Ideally, a good person will run scenarios and gather information. I personally like the suggestion for a panel of experts being called prior to a DQ (I am not worried about sidelining a kid right after an injury or holding him out until the treatment is completed enough to return to play) or questioned treatment plan, using one expert chosen by the University, one expert agreed upon by the University and the player and, one expert of the player's choosing. Three experts, whatever the decision, the University and the player abide by it. Similar to mediation, also, this limits the decision to three experts; as applied in Steven case, Dr. Tucker would then finalize the decision of the experts and the NCAA would be mollified.

*Anytime high profile issues are addressed, it is best to have the organization on the same page and move in one direction. This may take a little longer but has far reaching benefits. Simply firing Dr. Tucker would raise too many questions, create issues that don't really exist (who's in charge, independent process to protect the player, etc.) and lets people come to a consensus rather than forcing a decision without hearing all sides.

That said, I still believe Dr. Tucker to be wrong, wish only the best for SC and family, hope the Orange work this out properly. If SC is not given a chance to play here, I understand he has a life to live and will follow him as a fan. I still think he has the heart to play on Sundays.

 

[OrangeinBoston]

SU hates bad publicity I agree,and I admire everyone's confidence that this issue and our passionately expressed concerns are going to change anything. However until proven otherwise I am operating on the assumption that my alma mater does not care. The Athletic Department has been nothing but bad publicity for a while - the honoring or Rosie and Louie with the jersey snafu, The start, stop,start, stop of the Dome replacement. The NCAA sanctions (right or wrong) against the hoop program, The product on the football field for how many years now?
Enough with the lipstick and make up solutions aimed at convincing us there is an environment of change and that players and fans matter. I've had enough. IMHO this school is about money. Not the fans, the alums, the players...it's the money.

SU is a university. It's firsts priority is academics. Medical disqualifications for Fball are so far down the priority list you can't even see them.

 

[whobut03]

SU hates bad publicity I agree,and I admire everyone's confidence that this issue and our passionately expressed concerns are going to change anything. However until proven otherwise I am operating on the assumption that my alma mater does not care. The Athletic Department has been nothing but bad publicity for a while - the honoring or Rosie and Louie with the jersey snafu, The start, stop,start, stop of the Dome replacement. The NCAA sanctions (right or wrong) against the hoop program, The product on the football field for how many years now?
Enough with the lipstick and make up solutions aimed at convincing us there is an environment of change and that players and fans matter. I've had enough. IMHO this school is about money. Not the fans, the alums, the players...it's the money.

That's a defeatist attitude. I'm sorry to come at you that way but it is...

The *hitstorm John came into is mind blowing. I'm not going to get into the details but it set the athletic department back a ways... a long ways... We're digging out of it...

They are working on ideas to improve the fan experience, I know for a fact John is talking to other AD's in addition to engaging with the ongoing student focus groups.

Is the school about money? Sure, but not at the expense of the fans (anymore). Without money, how else will it operate and make the correct investments. Investments we are making specifically to football. There are A LOT of investments into the football program you aren't reading in the newspaper.

 

[Newhouser]

SU is a university. It's firsts priority is academics. Medical disqualifications for Fball are so far down the priority list you can't even see them.

SU is a business, and I agree that Fball dq's aren't a top priority, but we aren't Harvard academically, and the Athletic Department is important to the culture and recognition of the University. UNC preached academics as their first priority too, and we know how that turned out. If you are going to fish in the P5 athletic pond, you have to commit to buying the best equipment.

 

[Newhouser]

That's a defeatist attitude. I'm sorry to come at you that way but it is...

The *hitstorm John came into is mind blowing. I'm not going to get into the details but it set the athletic department back a ways... a long ways... We're digging out of it...

They are working on ideas to improve the fan experience, I know for a fact John is talking to other AD's in addition to engaging with the ongoing student focus groups.

Is the school about money? Sure, but not at the expense of the fans (anymore). Without money, how else will it operate and make the correct investments. Investments we are making specifically to football. There are A LOT of investments into the football program you aren't reading in the newspaper.

It is a defeatist attitude. I've been beat down. I'm eager to see the progress and eventual light at the end of the tunnel.

 

[whobut03]

It is a defeatist attitude. I've been beat down. I'm eager to see the progress and eventual light at the end of the tunnel.

I get it believe me... It wasn't long ago that we (the fans) were told to "get a life"

However, the new leadership is inflicting change. I did have dinner with John not to long ago and not only is it inflicting financial change, making the investments etc... but it's changing the athletic department culture and this takes time... He has used the turning of a battleship multiple times and he has said it to me... It takes time... He and everyone in the AD are eager to see progress and I can tell you they are all much more optimistic with the new AD than they were with Gross...

 

[007]

SU hates bad publicity I agree,and I admire everyone's confidence that this issue and our passionately expressed concerns are going to change anything. However until proven otherwise I am operating on the assumption that my alma mater does not care. The Athletic Department has been nothing but bad publicity for a while - the honoring or Rosie and Louie with the jersey snafu, The start, stop,start, stop of the Dome replacement. The NCAA sanctions (right or wrong) against the hoop program, The product on the football field for how many years now?
Enough with the lipstick and make up solutions aimed at convincing us there is an environment of change and that players and fans matter. I've had enough. IMHO this school is about money. Not the fans, the alums, the players...it's the money.

It's always about money, this is not unique to SU. There are providing a service and entertainment value under, mostly, the guise of amateur athletics.

Because it is about money, the need us. The need us to be fans, they need us to come to games, they need us to spend our discretionary cash on their product. They have to, kind of, care what we think and want as a group.

You are right that a few impassioned emails are not going to impact change. I doubt they get more than a cursory read, at best. But, 100s of emails about the same topic might "force" them to look more closely behind the scenes.

If you take the time to read and post on this fan board, take the time to send an email or 3.

Don't give up, don't ever give up.

 

[OrangeinBoston]

SU is a business, and I agree that Fball dq's aren't a top priority, but we aren't Harvard academically, and the Athletic Department is important to the culture and recognition of the University. UNC preached academics as their first priority too, and we know how that turned out. If you are going to fish in the P5 athletic pond, you have to commit to buying the best equipment.

No, SU is not a business. It's a university.

As HTown's post correctly pointed out, the issue will be attended to in the proper way, along a reasonable timeline. No one in the Chancellor's office is going to jump because a few fans had a cow over a medical disqualification.

 

[RandomGuy]

He flat out told me and Venita, during our phone conversation with him on 6 June, that he wouldn't reconsider even if Steven were to be cleared by a hematologist in the NE. We tested that on Monday, and Tucker gave us his response Wednesday. He wasn't BSing. Tucker flat out refused to even read Dr Kouides' findings. Right? My ass.

By his own words, the medical facts, and the truth of Steven's situation, were not to be considered.

 

[Toga]

Respectfully, I disagree. Wildhack has a duty to uphold the position of teh University until it is changed by the BoT/Chancellor. Just as HCDB and staff cannot openly criticize and must openly support the decision because that is the process as it is, does not translate that any one of them agrees with the process. As Chakka has indicated, there are rumblings of change and the powers that be are taking a serious look at the facts. If the AD, Coaches and Staff do not toe the line, then they would bring unwanted scrutiny to the University. Let the powers that be* have the first shot at fixing the problem, if that fails, step 2. If the AD, Coaches and Staff openly criticized the system (independent MD), they could also cause further investigation as well as destroy the integrity of the concept of an independent medical opinion: i.e. if AD Wildhack removed Dr. Tucker before now, it would appear that the AD could do so whenever he disagreed with a decision. The NCAA would deem this a violation worthy of another investigation (and we know how thorough and competent NCAA investigations are!). However, by letting the BoT/Chancellor review the entire set facts (history of DQs, 5 experts v. 1 gp, easy concussion DQs, etc.), they can remove Dr. Tucker without drawing the ire of any agency.

Remember, these questions are much bigger than Dr. Tucker and AD Wildhack. They way things are handled here will affect how others handle similar situations, which will arise. It sucks that this is happening to a great kid (Steven Clark), his family and our favorite university, but it will likely bring about some change. Ideally, a good person will run scenarios and gather information. I personally like the suggestion for a panel of experts being called prior to a DQ (I am not worried about sidelining a kid right after an injury or holding him out until the treatment is completed enough to return to play) or questioned treatment plan, using one expert chosen by the University, one expert agreed upon by the University and the player and, one expert of the player's choosing. Three experts, whatever the decision, the University and the player abide by it. Similar to mediation, also, this limits the decision to three experts; as applied in Steven case, Dr. Tucker would then finalize the decision of the experts and the NCAA would be mollified.

*Anytime high profile issues are addressed, it is best to have the organization on the same page and move in one direction. This may take a little longer but has far reaching benefits. Simply firing Dr. Tucker would raise too many questions, create issues that don't really exist (who's in charge, independent process to protect the player, etc.) and lets people come to a consensus rather than forcing a decision without hearing all sides.

That said, I still believe Dr. Tucker to be wrong, wish only the best for SC and family, hope the Orange work this out properly. If SC is not given a chance to play here, I understand he has a life to live and will follow him as a fan. I still think he has the heart to play on Sundays.

And if in the very very near future it has been determined Tucker will be gone, perhaps that could quietly be communicated to the Clark family so that a RS year could be taken with the good chance of reinstatement next season.