John Canzano interview with Kelly

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
Round 3
Kelly: "Do you think that the players in my program are getting in trouble because I didn't suspend LaMichael James?"
Canzano: "I think your players are confused about discipline."
Canzano: "I covered Tark, and your program has the same problems his did."

Scores: Gavin 10-10, Chad 10-9 CK, Dwight 10-9 CK

Round 4
Kelly: "You think my program has no discipline, but three players have been suspended from my team. (Canzano: "Actually, it's four.") You skip over those, because it's convenient to your argument."
Canzano: "You've sent a pretty clear message that 'if you can help our football team, we're going to do whatever we can to get you back on the field.' "

Gavin 10-9 JC, Chad 10-9 JC, Dwight 10-9 JC

Round 5
Kelly: "When any of our players get in trouble, I wonder what message I'm sending."
Kelly: "If you think that our players get in trouble because Lagarette Blount was reinstated, then you're making excuses for them. They know the difference between right and wrong."

Gavin 10-9 JC, Chad 10-9 JC, Dwight 10-9 JC (which is interesting, because Canzano said virtually nothing during this "round". Their reasoning here was that Kelly was still "reeling" from Canzano's previous questions, and he was grasping at straws rather than making cogent arguments. First real indicator of potential judging fix...)

Cumulative "scores": Gavin 50-47 JC, Chad 49-47 JC, Dwight 49-47 JC

4 "rounds" to go...
 
Last edited:
PtldPlatypus said:
Round 3
Kelly: "Do you think that the players in my program are getting in trouble because I didn't suspend LaMichael James?"
Canzano: "I think your players are confused about discipline."
Canzano: "I covered Tark, and your program has the same problems his did."

Scores: Gavin 10-10, Chad 10-9 CK, Dwight 10-9 CK

Round 4
Kelly: "You think my program has no discipline, but three players have been suspended from my team. (Canzano: "Actually, it's four.") You skip over those, because it's convenient to your argument."
Canzano: "You've sent a pretty clear message that 'if you can help our football team, we're going to do whatever we can to get you back on the field.' "

Gavin 10-9 JC, Chad 10-9 JC, Dwight 10-9 JC

Round 5
Kelly: "When any of our players get in trouble, I wonder what message I'm sending."
Kelly: "If you think that our players get in trouble because Lagarette Blount was reinstated, then you're making excuses for them. They know the difference between right and wrong."

Gavin 10-9 JC, Chad 10-9 JC, Dwight 10-9 JC (which is interesting, because Canzano said virtually nothing during this "round". Their reasoning here was that Kelly was still "reeling" from Canzano's previous questions, and he was grasping at straws rather than making cogent arguments. First real indicator of potential judging fix...)

Cumulative "scores": Gavin 50-47 JC, Chad 49-47 JC, Dwight 49-47 JC

4 "rounds" to go...
Click to expand...


Three radio hacks- one a punch drunken idiot, one a Tattler wannabe and one who has a bit of potential. And we're all supposed to take their view? BS.

Kelly is doing a pretty good job and Crapzano is as usual, crap.

Seriously, is there a bigger ass in the world that Crapzano?
 
Damn--I missed rounds 6 & 7. Oh well.
 
Round 8
Canzano: "We don't have all the facts? Forget the police, forget the DA, Chip Kelly doesn't have enough information so he's OK?
Kelly: "I don't have all the facts, and once we do, you will see what punishment is given; and as always, the punishment will fit the crime."

Gavin 10-9 JC, Chad 10-9 JC, Dwight 10-9 JC

Round 9 (as quoted in quote 12)

Kelly: If I got arrested as a kid my parents would not have punished me until they knew all the facts.
Canzano: My parents would have grounded me.
Kelly: Maybe your parents didn't believe in you.
Canzano: Goodbye, Chip.

Scores: Gavin 10-8 CK, Chad 10-9 CK, Dwight 10-10 ("showy final shot, but meant nothing")

Overall--their cumulative opinion was that Canzano controlled the fight throughout and won relatively easily.

Whatever.
 
basically here is how I see it... I dont get why people are bitching about one player not getting suspended and not the other. They werent there with CK when he met with James, or even Alonzo.

One was accused of Assualt, and the other cited with a DUI. One plead NOT GUILTY, and honestly none of us were there when Alonzo was pulled over. How does ANYONE know that Alonzo didnt just say to coach "Yeah I did coach, I screwed up, but its true and it happened", if that happened, that is fact enough for CK to suspend him. But if he or someone else said "no coach these accusations are completely untrue!" then I can see waiting things out. I'm not saying this happened mind you.

But Canzano does make a valid point... "what is the problem with suspending someone pending investigation?" Even CK said that was a valid point. Maybe Coach would have had there actually been football activities going on right now, I'm not sure. But saying there is a double standard doesnt actually make sense, unless you were there when CK and the player had their talk.
 
Exactly Wheels... and I bet that is what happened.

With James you can also bet that what Chip was told and what he was charged with do not match.

As the point about suspending pending an investigation... Chips comment on that was, what would he be suspended from? They are not doing anything related for football right now... if he did that Canzano would just come back with 'oh come on coach... what are you suspending him from? You are not doing anything right now! That isn't a punishment!' =(
I was Journalism major at one time in college... and I do understand the constraints college coaches (and teacher’s administrators etc...) are under in regards to discipline. It is not like they are professional athletes. One slip and they are in big trouble. They basically can say what happened or what the discipline was... though obviously you do see info about getting suspended or kicked off teams.

John knows that... but he keeps asking like the rules will change. Once I did an article on school discipline... hard when you know you can't get direct answers... so for the article I asked what the punishments would be in a serious of hypothetical situations. They had no idea what I was looking for so they answered all my questions. When I switched to questions about a specific incident I already had enough information to put together a decent article… even though it was about a subject the school couldn’t and wouldn’t comment on directly. I won an ONPA award for the article.

Anyway… I didn’t pursue journalism because I hated where I saw it was heading… in my opinion it was starting to lose its respectability, and more and more reporters where only trying to write articles to validate their person opinions instead of trying to paint an acurate picture so the reader can decide. I am glad I went another direction with my career because this is very widespread now... in print and TV news.

What I believe you will see happen now is that you will see the Oregonian try to focus on everything negative about the Ducks. (Sound familiar… remembers when that was happening with the Blazers?) Time to cancel my Oregonian subscription again.
 
Wheels said:
But Canzano does make a valid point... "what is the problem with suspending someone pending investigation?" Even CK said that was a valid point.
Click to expand...

This is saying, "player, you're proven guilty until innocent. We have no trust in you. Now, you can't practice with the team or be involved with the team until you clear your case". I prefer the innocent until proven guilty stance. Seems more fair to the player.

But then, some of us feel the need to bend over for the media.
 
BLAZER PROPHET said:
This is saying, "player, you're proven guilty until innocent. We have no trust in you. Now, you can't practice with the team or be involved with the team until you clear your case". I prefer the innocent until proven guilty stance. Seems more fair to the player.

But then, some of us feel the need to bend over for the media.
Click to expand...

I hear ya.. I understand both sides of that argument. Even CK said "thats a valid point"
 
BLAZER PROPHET said:
This is saying, "player, you're proven guilty until innocent. We have no trust in you. Now, you can't practice with the team or be involved with the team until you clear your case". I prefer the innocent until proven guilty stance. Seems more fair to the player.
Click to expand...

It's ironic that you use a justice-system term to explain your argument against the action, when police departments use the exact same policy that you're arguing against. Police officers are often "suspended pending investigation"; if it's good enough for them, why is it unacceptable for a college student.

Separately, I wonder about the need to suspend him, even if team activities were ongoing. His restraining order precludes him from going within 2 miles of the alleged victim--a U of O student. Given that, does he even have legal access to any team facilities?
 
From what I hear the victim has told the DA and the U of O administration that she will not testify. Not for James, not against James, not for any reason. DA is saying that he has enough to still take the case to court but would be willing to negotiate a plea deal. James' lawyers have turned this down. Without a victim who is willing to testify cases like this almost never go to court and are considered losers. James has not spoken to Kelly. Both Kelly and Canzano know the victim has said she will not testify.

Eventually the DA will drop the case due to insufficient evidence. Again both Canzano and Kelly are aware that this is the most likely outcome.
 
SlyPokerDog said:
From what I hear the victim has told the DA and the U of O administration that she will not testify. Not for James, not against James, not for any reason. DA is saying that he has enough to still take the case to court but would be willing to negotiate a plea deal. James' lawyers have turned this down. Without a victim who is willing to testify cases like this almost never go to court and are considered losers. James has not spoken to Kelly. Both Kelly and Canzano know the victim has said she will not testify.

Eventually the DA will drop the case due to insufficient evidence. Again both Canzano and Kelly are aware that this is the most likely outcome.
Click to expand...

are you being serious or Sly?
 
Wheels said:
interesting. Although I gotta agree with Ehizzy... you would think James and Kelly have met.
Click to expand...

If Kelly and James met and James admitted to anything Kelly would be forced to take discipline actions against James and could be forced to testify against James. By not talking Kelly can only wait until the investigation is complete before passing judgment and taking action.
 
SlyPokerDog said:
If Kelly and James met and James admitted to anything Kelly would be forced to take discipline actions against James and could be forced to testify against James. By not talking Kelly can only wait until the investigation is complete before passing judgment and taking action.
Click to expand...

true that would make sense. But also James could say he didnt do anything and be given the benefit of the doubt. But I see what you are saying.
 
Wheels said:
true that would make sense. But also James could say he didnt do anything and be given the benefit of the doubt. But I see what you are saying.
Click to expand...

If James is (allegedly) dumb enough to hurt a woman do you think Kelly wants to take a chance that he wouldn't incriminate himself if he were to meet with him?

Even if James were to only say, "Coach I'm sorry for everything that has happened" could be considered an admission of guilt. It could also put Kelly on the stand testifying against James and could make it look like Kelly is covering this up.

DA to Kelly- So you met with James, what did he say to you?

Kelly - That he was sorry.

DA - Did you ask him sorry for what?

Kelly - No.

DA to Judge - Permission to treat Kelly as a hostile witness?

DA to Kelly - So you have a player who is accused of a serious crime and who admits that he was sorry but you don't ask him anything about it? Coach Kelly even the military realizes that "Don't ask, don't tell" is a stupid policy.

( and yes, I'm working on a screen play about this to sell to Lifetime on cable)
 
that looks so bad on kelly and the program though..does this apply just to kelly? or say the rb coach too?
 
SlyPokerDog said:
If James is (allegedly) dumb enough to hurt a woman do you think Kelly wants to take a chance that he wouldn't incriminate himself if he were to meet with him?

Even if James were to only say, "Coach I'm sorry for everything that has happened" could be considered an admission of guilt. It could also put Kelly on the stand testifying against James and could make it look like Kelly is covering this up.

DA to Kelly- So you met with James, what did he say to you?

Kelly - That he was sorry.

DA - Did you ask him sorry for what?

Kelly - No.

DA to Judge - Permission to treat Kelly as a hostile witness?

DA to Kelly - So you have a player who is accused of a serious crime and who admits that he was sorry but you don't ask him anything about it? Coach Kelly even the military realizes that "Don't ask, don't tell" is a stupid policy.

( and yes, I'm working on a screen play about this to sell to Lifetime on cable)
Click to expand...


interesting indeed.
 
SlyPokerDog said:
If James is (allegedly) dumb enough to hurt a woman do you think Kelly wants to take a chance that he wouldn't incriminate himself if he were to meet with him?

Even if James were to only say, "Coach I'm sorry for everything that has happened" could be considered an admission of guilt. It could also put Kelly on the stand testifying against James and could make it look like Kelly is covering this up.

DA to Kelly- So you met with James, what did he say to you?

Kelly - That he was sorry.

DA - Did you ask him sorry for what?

Kelly - No.

DA to Judge - Permission to treat Kelly as a hostile witness?

DA to Kelly - So you have a player who is accused of a serious crime and who admits that he was sorry but you don't ask him anything about it? Coach Kelly even the military realizes that "Don't ask, don't tell" is a stupid policy.

( and yes, I'm working on a screen play about this to sell to Lifetime on cable)
Click to expand...

Football movie on Lifetime? Better work on something else...
 
PtldPlatypus said:
It's ironic that you use a justice-system term to explain your argument against the action, when police departments use the exact same policy that you're arguing against. Police officers are often "suspended pending investigation"; if it's good enough for them, why is it unacceptable for a college student.

Separately, I wonder about the need to suspend him, even if team activities were ongoing. His restraining order precludes him from going within 2 miles of the alleged victim--a U of O student. Given that, does he even have legal access to any team facilities?
Click to expand...

The difference is that police offiers hold a different place in society in that they protect the public. They are also paid while suspended. It's long established rules.

Football isn't police work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top