Maybe you CAN keep a good man down

Next time you're perusing (note to San Jose fans: that means "looking at") the National Soccer Hall of Fame website - which I'm sure you all do with great regularity - click on over to the the 2007 ballot results.

At the top of course are this years inductees, Mia Hamm and Julie Foudy, which is a nice piece of symmetry: America's Sweetheart and America's Blowhole.

(*Please note: send all outraged hate mail directly to Huss@bigsoccer.com. Be sure to double check your spelling of "misogynist" before you hit "send")

Cruise on down the list, past the "Better Luck Next Time" group (Joy Fawcett, Marco Etcheverry), through the "Just Never Gonna Make It" club (hello Roy Lassiter) and keep on going until you get to the "Never Stood a Chance" section, but stop before reaching the "Are You Kidding Me?" group (as in "Diego Sonora? Are you kidding me?").

Right there, just below the immortal Steve Trittschuh, but still beating out Mike Burns and Ted Eck, there's someone who 3.55% of the voters think deserves to be in the Hall of Fame:

Debbie Keller.

And while 3.55% isn't even close to getting a nifty bronze plaque in Oneonta, it nevertheless represents an astonishingly large total for someone whose post-college career was over by the time she turned 23 and which consisted of one World Cup appearance and one year with the W-League Rockford Dactyls. It seems likely that the votes she got were in recognition of the role she played in American soccer's saddest episode, and one which is just about to explode onto the national sports radar again, long after we all thought it was forever dead and buried.

Back in May of 1998 a little-known, largely forgettable walk-on goalkeeper at North Carolina named Melissa Jennings, reportedly out-of-shape and struggling academically, was cut from Anson Dorrance's reigning NCAA National Championship soccer team. Her entire college career had consisted of exactly 32 minutes on the field, playing behind two brilliant stars, Siri Mullinax and Gretchen Ostergaard, so when the axe fell not much of anybody noticed, and fewer cared.

Jennings was, by all accounts, distraught, even hysterical, over being dropped from the team. Again, nobody much really cared until the following week, when Jennings and her father walked in to North Carolina Chancellor's office and accused Anson Dorrance of sexual harassment.

She wasn't claiming that Dorrance had grabbed her, touched her, made sexual advances towards her or anything of the sort. Rather, they claimed that the coach engaged in a pattern of sexually-oriented conversation and remarks amongst the team which rose to the level of harassment. They did say that he had asked her once, in private, about her sex life. She claimed that Dorrance, a Mormon like herself, had told some players to take her out and get her drunk on her official visit, thus violating her "religious rights".

(They also said he had borrowed $400 from her once to buy Gatorade, something I still haven't figured out)

North Carolina, actiing under their own gender equity rules, conducted an investigation. They concluded that Dorrance had, indeed, engaged in some "inappropriate" banter of a sexual nature, and that while it was done "in a jesting or teasing manner" it violated NC guidelines. (They also said the Gatorade thing was out of line. Go figure) The school and Dorrance issued apology letters and Dorrance received an official reprimand.

Jennings father, Craig, was furious. He demanded that Dorrance be fired. North Carolina refused, saying their internal investigation, which included extensive interviews with dozens of current and former players, did not reveal sufficient grounds for termination under University rules.

So the Jennings did what all good Americans do in situations like this: they sued. For $12 million. They claimed that Dorrance, by virtue of discussing sex with members of his team, had denied Jennings the "benefits of collegiate athletics" thus violating the dreaded Title IX.

The suit garnered some attention, but nothing near what it got a couple weeks later when another plaintiff joined the suit: Debbie Keller.

Far from being a disguntled benchwarmer, Keller was a two-time National Player of the Year and a bona fide member of North Carolina soccer royalty who was making a strong bid for a spot on the 1999 World Cup team.

The reaction from Tarheels players, past and present, was immediate and angry: using words like "absurd", "nonsense" and "absolute lies", 100 or so signed letters defending Dorrance in the strongest possible terms.

This initiated one of the strangest episodes in US Soccer history:

US Women's coach Tony DiCicco called a training camp in January 1999 and Keller, the team's second leading scorer behind only Mia Hamm, was not invited in. DiCicco said it was because she wasn't likely to make the team. Keller said it was retaliation for the lawsuit. Meanwhile, the ten current and former Tarheels who were already in camp made no secret of the fact that they didn't want her there, ever.

Keller filed for arbitration under the Amateur Sports Act. USSF caved like a cardboard box in a rainstorm and issued her an invitation. She immediately reported to camp. The arbitrators then announced that they would not intervene. Keller, not being in particularly good shape anyway, was sent home. The US Women went on to Gold Medal glory and the WUSA. Keller became a hairdresser and never played soccer again.

Fast forward then to 2004, when Keller, now Debbie Keller-Hill, settled with North Carolina for $70,000 in legal fees and an apology letter from Dorrance wherein he admits to "jesting and teasing" but nothing more, while Keller-Hill signed a letter stipulating that at no time did Dorrance attempt to have sex with her.

And one other thing: Dorrance had to agree to spend the next EIGHT YEARS in Political Correctness Re-education Camp....er, I mean "Sensitivity Training" to include lessons on "women in sports"

Think about THAT for a minute: from now until 2012, Anson Dorrance, the man who has arguably done more for women's athletics than anyone else alive, will have to sit through regular lectures about females in sports from some man-hating cow with a "Women's Studies" degree.*

*That address again: Huss@bigsoccer.com

Dorrance went back to winning national championships, and even appeared in the famous Mia Hamm "Thank You" video sponsored by - do you dig irony? Gatorade:

[youtube]OoqCZV-_8Qc[/youtube]

So what's the problem now? Well, the problem is that Jennings - and her Dad, a "Financial Advisor" in Chicago - refused to settle. They pressed ahead with the lawsuit. In the Fall of 2004, a US District Court judge dismissed the case, saying that the accusations, even if proven, would not constitute a Title IX violation.

Jennings appealed the decision. In 2006 a three judge panel of the US Court of Appeals upheld the lower court decision. Jennings - whose lawyer must have a pretty nice vacation home and a Bentley by now - then asked for a rare "en banc" hearing (meaning the entire court instead of a three judge panel).

In April of this year, almost nine years after Jennings - now a 30 year old married elementary teacher - was cut from the team, the 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the previous rulings and remanded the case back to Chicago for trial. They ruled that, IF in fact Jennings could prove what she said, then the incident would rise to the level of a Title IX violation.

They did not - an important distinction - rule on the validity of that evidence.

(For the complete decision, here's a link to the ruling. You'll get to the majority decision first, which is, I will warn you, pretty ugly and full of obscenities. Read on until the dissenting opinon for the opposite viewpoint. For purposes of brevity, I've left out lots of details. Most all of them are in there, in all their grotesque glory.)

The problem Jennings now faces is that it's going to be tough to prove. She has just one other player who is wiling to agree with her point of view, and Dorrance has upwards of 100, including some of the biggest names in US Sports history, who will adamantly argue otherwise. Trial is scheduled to begin October 4.

So here's the thing: ESPN and their several talking head idiots, will be all over this, as will your local newspaper, who will refer to it as "the sexual harassment suit against Anson Dorrance, famous North Carolina soccer coach". They'll love this because it has everything they love in a story: sex, booze, Title IX and, of course, soccer bashing.

As for the case itself, the bottom line is not whether Jennings was offended by some of Dorrance's admittedly inappropriate comments. Clearly she was. But that's not theTitle IX standard. The only question at issue is whether Dorrance's comments "denied her the benefits of collegiate sports".

And based on her reaction to being cut, it's pretty clear that, at the time, she didn't think so.

One last note: as part of the lawsuit, Jennings is now seeking a permanent injuction barring Dorrance from any contact with any team or program where he would "come in contact with women or minors". Essentially, Jennings wants a Federal court to call Anson Dorrance a pervert.

Bottom line, as the dissenting opinion states, this suit appears to be mostly about revenge, and one can only hope that the jury will agree. Craig Jennings needs to give up being a soccer Dad and find another hobby, and his daughter needs to move on with her life. Enough is enough.

 

Well into every life some rain must fall.

And I said this where, exactly?

But since you asked so nicely, I'll share my opinion:

Dorrance should have known better. ANYBODY should know better. He let himself get carried away with a kind of "one of the team" mentality, and he engaged in the kind of personal, crude, explicit talk that is acceptable, even common, amongst teammates but completely beyond the pale from a coach.

And doubly so from a male coach of female athletes.

He was wrong, he admits he was wrong, I agree he was wrong, the court agrees he was wrong and North Carolina agrees he was wrong.
But let me make the reverse case:

I was not there for any of this. Presumably you weren't either.

But Tisha Venturini, Kristine Lilly, Cindy Parlow, Mia Hamm, Robin Confer, Jena Kluegel, Danielle Borgman, Siri Mullinax and a whole bunch of other strong, bright, independent women WERE there, and they all say that it's mostly rubbish.

So in truth, you don't have an argument with me. You have an argument with them.

My wife keeps telling me

That will be pretty odd of you, but she's your daughter.

"Vilified"? (only one "L" sir) I hardly think so.

I may be mistaken, but I believe the worst thing I said about her was that she wasn't as good a keeper as Gretchen Ostergaard. And there's no shame in that - neither am I.

Or you could try to teach her that there are people and things in life that will offend her, and help her learn how to deal with them with dignity and grace, and not blame others for her own shortcomings.

 

An interesting discussion that I left out since it was already biblical in length.

Keller was essentially a second ball hitter. A very, very good one, but unfortunately perhaps too one dimensional. The other forwards - Hamm, Lilly, Parlow, MacMillen, Milbrett (and that leaves out Danielle Fotopopolous, whose name I'm certain I just misspelled) could create their own shots as well as play as the target AND most of them, Lilly being the prime example, were versatile enough to play out of the midfield. Keller was not.

So it was obvious that she wasn't going to start and she might not even play. And interestingly enough, DiCicco was very conscious of themistake Steve Sampson had made the previous year at the men's WC by filling the end of his bench with veterans who didn't play, weren't happy about it and made serious noise about it.

Tony was determined to save the last couple of spots on the roster for young kids on the come, players who weren't going to see the pitch, weren't going to mind much, weren't going to complain about it and who - most importantly - needed the exposure to the WC experience so they could step up four years later.

So Keller didn't fit at the top and she didn't fit at the bottom and she wasn't versatile enough to take one of the bench spots that DiCicco used for substitutes.

That was one hell of a talented team and a LOT of good players got left home. That's not to say that team chemistry played no part in the decision - I have no way of knowing one way or the other - but DiCicco was planning on winning it all and he would have given a jersey to Eva Braun if it was going to get him the Cup.

Nothing much, really, but I know it riles people up to knock on her, so I indulged myself.

Although that Julie the Dunkin Donut with Sprinkles thing (I'm too lazy to dig up the picture) was an embarassment.