Conference 7.286::sports_90

LOYOLA MARYMOUNT STAR GATHERS DIES AFTER COLLAPSING DURING GAME
--------------------------------------------------------------- 

Loyola Marymount star Hank Gathers died Sunday night after
collapsing at midcourt in the first half of a West Coast
Athletic Conference semifinal game against Portland.  He was
23.  Cardiologist Mason Weiss said cause of the death was 
unknown and an autopsy would be performed today.

Gathers was pronounced dead at Daniel Freeman Marina Hospital
at 9:55 P.M.  EST, about an hour and 40 minutes after he
collapsed.  Gathers had given Loyola Marymount a 25-13 lead
with a thunderous slam dunk moments before collapsing near
midcourt with 13:34 left in the first half.  

Gathers was taken off the court on a stretcher outside the gym
and was treated by paramedics.  After paramedics administered
cardio-pulmonary resuscitation, Gathers was transported by
ambulance to Freeman Marina Hospital.  

"Hank Gathers sustained a syncopal event tonight while playing
basketball at Loyola," Weiss said.  "Mr.  Gathers had a
previous syncopal episode in December of 1989 which had been
determined to be caused by a heart arrythmia, which was treated
medically, and released to participate in all athletic events.
We have no further information concerning his death at this
time." A syncopal event is an irregular heartbeat.  

Loyola Sports Information Director Brian Quinn said three
physicians were working on Gathers while he was placed into the
ambulance which took him to the hospital, which is located less
than five miles from Gersten Pavilion.  

Both teams left the court after the incident, which occurred at
approximately 5:15 pm pst.  In the wake of the tragedy,
conference officials cancelled the rest of its tournament and
named Loyola champion based on its first-place finish during
the regular season and gave the school the bid to the N-C-A-A
Tournament.  

The semifinal game between San Diego and Pepperdine was
canceled and the Loyola team is expected to meet today to make
its decision whether to participate in the tournament.  

Gathers, the W-C-A-C's all-time leading scorer, collapsed in a
game against Santa Barbara back in December.  Doctors put him
through a battery of tests and he returned after missing two
games.  

Gathers was given medication to regulate his heartbeat.  As his
body strength improved, Gathers convinced doctors to cut back
the medication.  Quinn said Gathers was given "complete medical
clearance" to resume his basketball career.  

Gathers was the country's sixth leading scorer, averaging 29
points a game and 10.8 rebounds.  He was only the second player
in N-C-A-A history to lead the nation in scoring and
rebounding, averaging 32.7 points and 13.7 rebounds in 1989.
Xavier McDaniel of Wichita State in 1984-85 is the only other
N-C-A-A player to lead the nation in both categories.  

Gathers, a Philadelphia native, was expected to be a first
round pick in this year's N-B-A draft.  He was a finalist for
the John Wooden Award as the nation's top player and a finalist
for the Kodak Player of the Year Award.  

    What a terrible loss......After watching the tape on ESPN it really
    put the "game" in perspective.  
    
    Mitch

>    A_important question, for there's a growing body of medical knowledge
>    about stress-induced heart attacks among tall people.  Several high
>    school hoopsters have croaked from similar symptoms; and that 6-9
>    all-time volleyball superstar woman met the same fate.  

Flo Hymen was the volleyball star, and the ailment was Marsan's (?) Syndrome,
where some of the parts of the heart have been elongated like much the rest
of the body and unfortunately weakened.  Flo's death brought a lot of
noteriety to this malady, and hopefully a lot more wariness on the part of
physicians.  I'm pretty sure that it's something that can be detected
*before* the autopsy - in fact I recall another basketball player finding
out he was a sufferer and being forced to quit the sport.  I would
suspect that with Gather's heart giving him trouble a few month's ago
that it was a possibility that was already looked into.

I doubt that Westhead's game would have any additional effect that
any college-paced game would not have.  Any doctor who wouldn't
allow Gathers to play that particular style wouldn't allow him to play
any style.

Dan

    
    That's Marfan's Syndrome.
    
    C'mon T, basketball is a running game.  Running an offense the way
    Westhead's is designed might lead to dehydration or other problems if
    not monitored, but a heart attack?  For someone with a congenital heart
    problem, what's the difference between sustaining a high heart rate
    for many brief periods over 40 minutes in a normal offense or for 
    longer periods with more breaks in a run-and-gun?  Either way, if the
    doctors had confirmed a serious problem, he wouldn't have been allowed
    to play.
    
    Tragically, these things happen.  I remember in the mid-70's when I was
    living in Maryland two Terrapin hoops players died in one season.  I 
    believe one had Marfan's and the other had a congenital heart problem.  
    Neither had anything to do with Maryland's style of play.
    
    I agree, though, that I'm afraid basketball players are much more
    susceptible to this kind of thing, not because of the game but because
    of their size.
    
    glenn
    

    I don't know if Loyola's style may have hurt Gathers, but T does
    have an interesting point regarding style.  I don't know the number
    of minutes Gathers played per game.  But, there are maximum performance
    heart rates that one reaches during athletic endeavors, and in
    training, one tries to emulate.  It may be that Gathers hit that
    max, and due to the style, didn't come down, and was forced to play
    at that max heart rate for a longer period than normal.  Over the
    years, this may have attributed to the problem.  I'm just speculating,
    but it is a possibility.   You can stress the heart beyond the limits
    it can endure.
    
    JD

    
    	I heard on the news that after Hank's December spell
    he was put on medication for his problem.  I then heard
    that he (according to the news) CONVINCED his doctors
    that he was fine and the drugs were slowing him down.  I wonder if
    the drugs would of helped hime and controlled his heart.
    
    	I'm not sure of the technical term, but doesn't Terry
    Cummings have a irregular heartbeat?  I believe he is on
    medication.
    
    
    Steve

    I'd be curious to know who the doctor was that let him off his
    medication.  Like, for instance, was he a Loyola hoops fan or
    anything?  
    
    Listened to H.Cosell's show last night.  He called up his
    cardiologist (I, for one, am not surprised Howie has one! ;^) )
    who said he couldn't possible conceive of taking someone
    off medication when they'd had a prior history like Gathers.
    
    It's fine to say "These things will happen", which they certainly
    will.  Sometimes things just rear up and strike with no prior
    warning.  But in this case the doctors *KNEW* the kid had passed
    out, as recently as a couple of months ago!  How could they
    possibly allow themselves to be talked out of taking him off
    his medication?
    
    No T, you're not being bold to ask the question.  It BEGS asking.
    At best I'd say malpractice is at issue.  At worst ....
    who knows?
    
    
    - ACC Chris
    

    
    Let's wait for at least the autopsy results before making
    unsubstantiated allegations, alright, guys?  Or will the autopsy be
    rigged, too?
    
    glenn
    

    How can you even consider malpractice when it is a known FACT that
    Gathers had asked his doctor to REDUCE the strength of the medication? 
    Sure, the doc could've said no if he had any doubts about Gathers'
    (improved) condition.  Maybe he felt that Gathers would refuse to take
    any medication if he didn't weaken the prescription, so some is better
    than none, right?
    
    I suppose, this is America, so the right thing to do is to sue the crap
    out of this doctor........
    
    Hawk

    > How can you even consider malpractice when it is a known FACT that
    > Gathers had asked his doctor to REDUCE the strength of the
    > medication?
    
    Easy Hawkster.  The kid collapses because of a irregular heartbeat, a
    serious problem to say the least.  You put him on medication to correct
    the problem and clear him to go ahead and play hoops.  (An ultra
    stressful hoops, mind you.)  Apparently one of the side effects of the
    medication is it weakens you somewhat.  (If this is the same drug Terry
    Cummings takes I find this strange.  Cummings looks like a bull out
    there.  But then again he doesn't run helter-skelter for 40 minutes a
    game.)  So the kid asks for a lower dose, or perhaps to come off
    altogether.
    
    As a competent heart doctor you MUST be aware of the possible
    consequences of this, right?  No, you can't make him not take his
    medication.  But you can *DAMN* well scream and shout and put the fear
    of God into him that if he goes off the medicine he could die.  Maybe
    the doctor did this, maybe he didn't.  But *IF* he stood idly by and
    let him go off his medicine, and *IF* the autopsy shows this to be a
    contributing cause of his death, then yes, I'd say malpractice was
    involved.
    
    (BTW - I'm no malpractice attorney, this is just my opinion.  I 
           specialize in criminal defense work.  ;^) )
    
    
    - ACC Chris
    
    

    T, and to an extent, ACC Chris,
    
    You know guys, everytime something *bad* happens at a school that
    isn't the school you adore, it *automatically* doesn't mean that
    something sleazy, or underhanded happened.  For one thing, the reports
    I heard said it wasn't *simply* that Gathers said *Hey Doc, I feel
    better, lower my medication*, but more that they did tests and decided
    it was okay to lower the medication.  This is fairly *normal* when
    folks take medication - anyone have a parent on high blood pressure
    medication like I do?  The dose decreases as you use it (and as
    the blood pressure gets regular.
    
    I also heard it wasn't *one* doctore, but either 3 or 4 who did
    the tests.  And T, despite that the ending is different *for now,
    we hope* - you can draw parallels with this and Jay Edwards.
    
    Though both of you tend to think that both of your schools are the
    only pristine establishments in the academic world, you should realize
    that they aren't.  
    
    As said earlier, lets wait for the autopsy.  So far, there have
    been *NO* allegations of anything remotely smacking as being less
    than ethical.  
    
    JD

    Perhaps JD.  Perhaps.  But if I were just a simple country doctor
    ("Damnit, Jim, I'm a ...") I'd notice the following:
    
    1. Player collapses from irregular heartbeat.
    
    2. Player, despite playing on a team that puts *maximum* stress on
       the heart, is cleared to continue playing, after being put on
       medication.
    
    3. Medication is reduced.
    
    4. Player dies, presumably from the same thing that happened in #1.
       (I know, the autopsy's not in, but whadaya expect to find, that 
       he had a brain tumor?)
    
    Hindsight is 20/20 I realize.  But these heart doctors go to lots of
    school and make lots of money.  And this time there is a strong
    possibility that they blew it.  Of course we should wait and see what
    the autopsy says before jumping to conclusions.  If I was writing
    for the New York Times I wouldn't make the allegations I'm making.  But
    sometimes we here in SPORTS hit the truth a bit more squarely than
    your average media publication.
    
    
    - ACC Chris

    Marfan's Syndrome usually only affects those above 6'4".
    
    Gathers was the leading scorer and rebounder in the nation last year.
    
    Mike

    When I heard about Gather's death, I was rocked. Moe than anything
    else, because he's 23 (I'm 25), and that's too damn close for comfort.
    
    When you're my age, my elders often crack about how we think we'll
    live forever - and I scoffed at that.
    
    No more. It's true, and when you get your own mortality shoved in
    your face like that, it hits HARD. Like a guy I went to school with
    who drowned in an accident last year. I can't remember how long
    it took me to go to sleep Sunday night.
    
    As an aside (please, no rathole !), the biggest killers of black
    males in my (and Gather's) age group is homicide. Then there's drugs,
    a living death.
    
    And here's a guy who has his life together, apparantly his head
    together, and boom ! It's gone like that.
    
    It's a little like Wile E. Coytee managing to avoid falling off
    a cliff, but gets hit by a bus.        
    
    And it's yet another reason to brood.... :-(
    
    =======================
    
    re MrT
    
    I don't know if LMU's style is that much more intense than UNLV
    or OU's. And how about team's that extend full-court pressure, or
    play in the Rockies ? I hear what you are saying, but I get the
    feeling that if that was the case, he would have been killed by
    anything faster than a 4-corners.
    
    re ACCaught,
    
    The doctors are well aware that they could be nailed to the wall
    for malpractice. It's the American Way :-(  So they would be awfully
    stupid if they were not careful in their remarks of late. 
    
    As for the medication reduction, Gathers said that he wanted to
    reduce the dosage (or cut it out completely). I know that he was
    sluggish, and perhaps the docs felt they could reduce the dosage
    safely ? 
      
    Irregular heartbeats are a funny phemonenon. People had the same
    fears about T. Cummings, but he hasn't had any problems. Dave
    Stallworth played, what, 5 years after a heart attack ?
    
    I get the feeling that perhaps there was another hidden defect that
    may have contributed to Gather's death.
    
    As for the money aspect (to keep Hank playing for the glory of LMU),
    I can't see it. Even if they were completely soulless monsters,
    they would lose a lot more by risking their meal ticket ...
    
    Doc

    
    
    	A lot of us are pointing figures at the Doctors in this case,
    but I wonder how much can be put on Gathers himself.  At 23, he
    was no kid, he was a grown adult.  Did he know the risks involved
    with reducing the medication and did he know the extent of his physical
    problem?  He didn't feel right taking the medication.  As we all
    know with many medications, some have side effects that effect people
    differently and maybe this was one such case.  The doctor(s) did
    not completely take away the medication but reduced the dosage.
    Maybe in the long run the doctor(s) would of changed the medication
    to one that didn't effect him in the same manner.
    	Calling for the doctor(s) head(s) at this point is a little
    premature.  Gathers was an adult and (hopefully) knew the risks
    with decreasing the medication along with continuing to play.  The
    pressure to play and those big paydays ahead certainly swayed those
    decisions, but it is still his choice to make.  That is if he was
    given enough information to make the choice.  
    	Before I start pointing, I'll wait til the autopsy results are
    made public.
    
    							bill..g. 

    
    
    I think Mr.T's and ACCaught's comments/allegations are WAY off base!!
    
    'Nuff said!!
    
    
    Nelly

    Nelly, could you please (tm) ACCaught ?
    
    Thanks,
    
    Doc

    Sorry Doc!!!!
    
    Nelly

    > ACClean (tm) would be more descriptive
    
    I wouldn't say that, you were found NOT GUILTY, not INNOCENT and
    that was due to demonic possession.  Since no exorcism was performed
    the greatest of evils still lingers within you.  8^)
    
    The Wizard  ex-Jury Member

    re .23
    
    ACClueless, you're bout as clean as a Bo Jackson jock strap after
    a Raiders/Royals doubleheader.
    
    Hope that helps,
    
    Doc

    
    	HAHAHHAHAHHAHA  FLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAARRRDDDD!!!!!!!
    
    8^)  sean

    Hah hah hah.  :^|  
    
    Ho ho ho.  :^|
    
    Hey DoctorZero (tm), the sense of humor shared by you and sean reminds
    me of that nerdy Sergeant from Good Morning Vietman who replaced the
    hilarious Robin Williams with sad, sophomoric, silliness.  
    
    Anyways, I'll stick with ACCAquited (tm).  It's got a better ring to
    it.
    
    
    - ACC_you_know_who
    

    	Chris, you have to admit that that was a funny reply.  I'm sure
    you would be rollward if it had said something to the tune of
    "The Big Ten is about as clean as...".  All I'm saying is the
    image used is quite intelligent and chuckle provoking.  8^)
    
    sean

    > intelligent and chuckle provoking
    
    More like vomit-provoking sean!
    
    ;^)
    
    
    - ACC Chris
    

>                  -< DocZero (tm) Wins a Fan!  Story at 11. >-
 
    	Sure, why not?  Doc likes Akeem!!!  8^)   and now:
    
    	Miraculously moving back to the topic at hand...
    
    	Looks like it is going to be a week or more before the results
    of Gather's autopsy is made public.  I, in no way, feel that drugs
    are related to this incident at all.  Hank was a leader, a figure
    that other people looked up to and tried to emulate.  I would like
    to know more about the condition he was diagnosed having after the
    December collapse.
    
    sean

    
    > There's a strong possibility that because the school was flush
    > for the first time with fame and fortune (money) that their judgement
    > was clouded and they were willing to chance Gathers' life cuz he
    > was the star player.
    
    Sounded like an allegation, pointing fingers, or impugning to me.
    However, I'm only an amateur at said skills.  I'll defer.
    
    glenn
    

    
    Cmon T you're reaching there a bit lot's of teams play uptempo
    style now. Why didn't someone from the Big 8 or UNLV lead the
    nation? Sure LMU is a faster than most but the kid still had to
    work his butt off to get those stats. In fact I find it more
    amazing that he could do it with the strain that style must put on
    a player.....
    
    mike

    MrT,
    
    Yes, you cain compare it to Edwards.  Edwards had a 'substance problem'
    school makes him get help.  Edwards says he's a "recreational user",
    but goes through rehab and is fine.  Edwards is allowed to play
    again.  Edwards goes back to rehab this year.  Drugs have killed
    folks (Len Bias, Don Rodgers).  Perhaps Edwards should not have
    been allowed to play anymore.  Who knows.
    
    And Mrt, you lines about ULM being Jesuit and needing the money
    sure sounds like some allegations to me.  You cain look at this
    a million ways if you want.  It was a tragedy.  Gathers may have
    lived and performed for years, as Terry Cummings has.  Edwards may
    have died from an OD, like Len Bias.
    
    JD

>>    wired and that his old buddy Needle was gonna shut 110 down at the
>>    first opportunity, a censorship facilitated by Bob Hunt's bellyaching.

Before you go slandering everyone, make damn sure of your facts.  I had nothing
to do with write-locking 110 although I can't say that I'm sorry to see that
drivel end.  If you have any further alleged problems with my moderating,
discuss it with me by mail.  Now get back to the subject.

>    re: Gathers' dastisticks (tm)
>    WHAT?!  When a player sees two or three times more possessions he
>    has so many more shooting and rebounding opportunities as to render
>    Gathers' raw numbers highly suspect.  
>    You seem to be saying that if Gathers had had only half the
>    opportunities to shoot and rebound his totals would have been
>    unaffected.  This logic escapes me.
    
    T, at least he was good enough to capitalize on those extra
    possessions!
    
    Mike

    T,
    
    All addiction, whether 'recreational' or not, is diagnosed as
    life-threatening.
   
    IU welcomed Edwards back on the team after his 'incident', and even
    reinstated his scholarship.  
    
    Unless it is absolutely, without a doubt, proven that Gathers was
    given the go-ahead to play, at the urging of ULM officials, so that
    the school could rake in the bucks, then your arguement doesn't
    wash.  Right now, it's an opinion of yours what happened and why,
    and once again, you are ready to pass it off as fact.  
    
    JD

    
    
    	I will agree with T in that a full investigation is needed.
    As for the Times report, Doctors are no different than anyone else
    and I suspect that where there's smoke, there is fire and that Dr.
    x just might want to cover his butt, hence the fingerpointing.
    I still want to see the findings of the autopsy which will point
    to the guilty parties.
    
    	T, I believe it's called a de-fibulator and they did use one on 
    him several times at the gym to no avail.  I don't know if this was 
    the one that was "supposed" to be at courtside, but the article I read 
    said that they did try and restart the heart through electrical shock.
      
    	Along with T, I too am concerned that College/Highschool sports
    has become to reliant on $$$/winning and integrity has been thrown out the
    door.  But again, if Gathers knew the risks involved and still wanted
    to play, what could the school of done short of cutting him from the
    team?
    
    	Is this at all like smoking??  i.e. knowing the risks etc. but
    continuing to smoke, then suing the tobacco companies.
    
    
    								bill..g.

    If Gathers wasn't allowed to play hoops by the school, who's to say he
    wouldn't have gone down during a pickup game some night after
    work/school.

    T, T , T,
    
    First off, nice try with the sentence fragments.  What I said, 
    was it has to be proved that the only reason Gathers was given
    permission to play was because ULM officials urged him to be allowed
    to play so they could rake in the bucks.  Which is what you implied
    when you started this latest witch hunt.
    
    As for Edwards - he is being treated RIGHT NOW for substance abuse.
    He's SUSPENDED RIGHT NOW from the NBA for substance abuse.  And
    yet you say "well, okay, he wasn't diagnosed as being addicted -
    he only had traces in his blood..."  And you call if a "non 
    life-threatening drug" - hey T, go tell the parents of all the kids
    who have died from using non life-threatening drugs like cocaine
    that it's okay.  The analogy stands, T - drugs kill - and they are
    illegal also.  Yet with a wink, an 'I'm okay, I'll just say no'
    from Jay, he was reinstated.  And yet, less then a year later, this
    cured man, the one withthe traces of the non life-threatening drug
    in his system, sits suspended from his livlihood, facing rehab.
    Then again T, for all we know, ol Jay may simply have been found
    by the NBA to have some more of them 'traces of non life-threatening
    drugs' in his bloodstream.  He simply may be dying in a living hell.
    
    Later,
    
    JD

    
    	At the halftime Celtics game last night they said that an unnamed
    physicial in LA told Gathers that if he wanted to live a long life
    he should stop playing basketball/exercising...  He said Hank was
    not going to do that, ever.
    
    sean

       Mail it to me Mac, I'll post it for ya!!
                                        Denny  ;^)

    > How long will we have to 'title-note'?
    
    nyah nyah 8^p
    
    Loyala-Maromount (sp) has decided to take the bid to the NCAA despite
    many peoples feelings that without their star it isn't worth it.
    
    The Wizard

    I wouldn't rule out any team playing on emotion.
    
    LMU could go down in the first round. They could ride the "Win This
    for Hank" crest all the way.
    
    far fetched ? Maybe. But LMU isn't a two man team, and just look
    at teams like CU in football, or the '79 Indiana State team in hoops,
    or Joe Laptick's (sp) last Providence team ....                   
    
    Apparantly, the players want to play. If so, I wouldn't want to
    face LMU unprepared mentally.
    
    DrM

    Forget about it Doc.  LMU doesn't have the horses to run with the Big
    Boys.  They found this out a couple years ago when they went against
    Carolina.  UNC didn't flinch from their running game and proceded to
    blow their drawers off.  Granted, they may have a bit more talent now,
    but go all the way?  Hardly.
    
    
    - ACC Chris
    

    Real shame... I'll have to change my Nazz pool pick because of this...
    Loved basketball enough to risk his life...

        I heard a rumor that some of the Loyola Marymount players think
    they should sit out the tournement because of what happened.  That
    would be a mistake Hank would of wanted to play in it so they should
    go out and win it for Hank.
     
     Hoyta

I don't buy it, MrT... 

I would guess that if a request came from LMU to reduce Gathers'
medication, that perhaps it was simply a message being forwarded
based on a request made by Gathers himself?   Wouldn't that be 
how it would work - player makes request to team medical staff
who then relay it to specialist?   I doubt that LMU would screw
with that type of medication without Gathers' consent.     

Did you know that Gathers had a $1 Million policy with Lloyd's
of London covering him in case he could not play basketball?  
As I understand it, Lloyd's would have paid off if Gathers had
quit after his first fainting spell... but since Gathers died
rather than was disabled, they did not have to pay.  {Note:
As a gesture to the family, Lloyds DID refund the original premium,
about $8K}.

I don't believe anyone at LMU pressured Gathers to play or modify
his medication....

    A lawsuit was a forgone conclusion.  Is there anyone who doubted
    as soon as they heard/saw it that it would be less than a week before
    we saw a lawyer spouting on about it on TV?  The great american
    pastime is not baseball, but lawsuits.
    
    I agree with you Doug, but we know MrT.
    
    JD

> I don't believe anyone at LMU pressured Gathers to play or modify
> his medication....
    
    That's right Doug, you DON'T know.  Neither does MrT and neither do I. 
    But the fact remains that it's possible.  It's also FACT that the
    school did NOT force him *NOT* to play, which is something they
    could've (and, in hindsight) should've done.
    
    This is not as easy an issue as you guys (and the media) are making it
    out to be.  IMHO it's a tragedy that could have been prevented if the
    doctors and school had Hank's best interest in mind, instead of the
    almighty buck.
    
    
    - ACC Chris
    

    Chris,
    
    One question.  Do you think Hank Gathers should have had any say
    in this?
    
    JD

On the Sports Reporters on ESPN yesterday morning, Jackie MacMullen
of the Boston Globe related a story of a player from East Conn. State {?}
who was diagnosed with a problem similar to Gathers'.  His team refused
to play him, so the player went to court and was granted permission 
after going thru all appeals, etc.  As I heard it, the player then
died on the court or in practice.

Want to bet that had LMU pressured Gathers to NOT play, that they 
would have found themselves in court for "depriving him of his
right to display his talents to ensure his income in the NBA" or
some such nonsense.   

Hank Gathers was a 23 year old MAN.   Not an 18 year old kid.
Nobody, I mean, NOBODY, forced him to step on the court or reduce
his medication.   The person who knew what was best for Hank Gathers
both physically and professionally was Hank Gathers.

As I point of reference, I was on the same medication Gathers was
on about six years ago - beta blockers called Inderal or Tenormin.
I was also playing hoop every day at the same time, or at least 
trying to.   It was impossible to try and play while on the medication,
because the more you play, the more the medicine tried to slow you
down.    Gathers would be the only one who knew exactly what the
effects were on him.

    
    Roy Johnson, editor for Sports Illustrated, was on the same Sports
    Reporters show, and made similar comments about it being Gathers'
    responsibility, as a 23-year-old adult, to decide on his future as a
    basketball player.  Johnson opined that while he had the insurance 
    policy to fall back on, Gathers simply *loved* the sport too much to 
    ever considering quitting.  Johnson was also brutally honest about 
    the family now entering into a lawsuit (almost to the point of
    insensitivity), claiming that the family had been very open about the 
    fact that they considered Hank Gathers to be their meal ticket.  
    He was also very skeptical of the so-called initial "evidence" dug up 
    by the media implicating Loyola-Marymount.  And in response to T's 
    racial insinuations, Johnson is also black and has been outspoken (as 
    is SI's philosophy) on sporting issues of racial injustice in the past.
    
    Yes, there should be an investigation to make sure that LMU did not
    conceal vital information from Hank Gathers.  We've yet to see any hard
    evidence that that has happened.  If everyone was up front with Gathers
    about his condition, regardless of how serious it was considered at the
    time, then I believe it becomes an issue of personal rights and 
    responsibility.  Wasn't that the core issue in the Jay Edwards case, 
    that at some point the individual must be held accountable for his
    own actions?  Should college sports join the ranks of those who would
    legislate the way we live?
    
    Of course, regardless of the outcome of the investigation, some of us
    no doubt will remain convinced that a cover-up took place to protect
    the big-money interests of the NCAA.  That's much easier than accepting
    the truth, whichever direction the matter plays out. 
    
    glenn

re: Mr T

>    - Loyola takes this seriously enough to keep courtside fibrillator handy
    - 
It's a De-fibrillator.... Only those trained in it's use can operate the
machine... Most Doctors have no idea on even how to turn one on....

    
>    and prognoses after a player in their charge suffers a mild heart
>    attack?
 
There is no such thing as a mild heart attack!!!!  Heart attacks occur
in different parts of the heart and all effects are not taken lightly...
   
I watched the uncut tape from when he fell to the floor till they took him
out of the arena... To tell you the truth, the people that were working
on him FU*K-UP big time!!! No one went for an open airway and no CPR was
started...  The paper said that doctors worked him to the hospital, most
doctors not know SQUAT about emergency procedures.....
The treatment was from what I saw very POOR!!!!


Monty  Firefighter/EMT

I don't think Westhead suffered a heart attack... the affliction 
that caused him to leave the Lakers was "Magic-itis"... 

    The person who hired Westhead to be his assistant with the Lakers
    was in a bicycle accident.  Westhead was interim assistant, coached
    them to the 1980 title and was later canned, in part, because he
    didn't get along with Magic.
    
    John

       According to The Sports Reporters on TV show last night, a
    de-fibralator must also be kept in any arena Terry Cummings plays in.
    He has a similiar condition to the one Gathers had.
                                            Denny

    Doug - Tenormin slows you down?????
    
    I've been taking that medication for over a year to combat high blood
    pressure.  Must be the reason why I've slowed down so much on the
    basketball court.  ;-)
    
    NAZZ

    T,
    
    As usualy, you are dead wrong.  I've passed nothing off as fact.
    As for the lawsuits - tell me you didn't think there would be one.
    Be honest.  Tell me that AMericans aren't into the great Lawsuit.
    
    And T, it seems that you think that drugs aren't life-threatening.
    Perhaps a local visit to your local big city morgue might change
    your view.  I realize that you, as Mr. Objectivity, caint handle
    anything less than pristine when talking about your beloved Big10.
    But that's where your BIGOT moniker comes from.  I mean we all know
    that outside of those 10 schools, the world is full of money grubbers,
    cheats, vandals, perverts, and crack haids, racists, killers, rapists,
    muggers.  Thank GOD the Big 10, and especially IU, lives in a utopia
    - at least in your mind.  
    
    And as sure as I was about the lawsuit, I was sure you'd be in here,
    with the condemnation of the money-grubbers, the 'he was taken
    advantage of because he was a poor black kid', and the rest of your
    usual arguements.  
    
    It is my opinion that some parallels can be drawn between Edwards
    and Gathers.  Sorry it doesn't mesh with your views.  
    
    JD
    
    ANd remember, 2 of last year's biggest big10 stars now languish
    in a substance abuse program.  But, hey, at least it isn't life
    threatening.  

o *IF* LMU can prove they did everything possible to prevent Hank from 
  playing, and

o *IF* the doctors told Hank in very frank language he'd risk death by
  continuing to play, and 

o *IF* the doctors completely condemned Hank for cutting back his dosage
  and told him under no-uncertain-circumstances there was a good chance
  he could die if he did this, and

o *IF* LMU again told Hank that cutting his dosage might kill him and
  they'd strongly suggest he either not play or continue his medication, ...

*IF* all these things turn out to be true, I'd be willing to let LMU and
the doctors off the hook.  I doubt that will happen.  The thing that gets
me is there were so many opportunities for people to do something to save
this kids life.  Not only that but financially he'd have made out okay to
walk away from the game, a million bucks richer.  (That's $40,000 a year
on interest alone, folks.  And don't buy that crap that he'd probably have
died in a pick-up game anyway.  Competition is incredibly more strenuous
than any pickup game, what with adrenelin from the crowd and all.  And this 
isn't even considering the tremendous increased stress caused by LMU's ultra
up-tempo game.  Doesn't it seem a little coincidental that the school with
this style of play also produces a heart attack victim?)

Perhaps some things were done, but not enough.  Hank's dead and
he needn't be.  At the very least I'd have thought LMU should've reduced
his playing time to let him continue taking his medication.  Seems 
possible (probable?) that he couldn't keep taking it cause the demands
possed by LMU's style were more than he could handle.  Well why couldn't
they have reduced his minutes, or (horrors) changed their style a bit to
suit Hank's slowed down game?  

None of this will bring him back (sadly), but there's a lesson to be learned 
here.  Unfortunately the media isn't allowing the public to learn it, what
with their focus not being too keen on the fault-finding aspect of the 
tragedy.

Which is exactly why a lawsuit is what's called for.  Sure the country
is suit-happy, but there are times when it's called for and this is one
of those times.  One of the positive things that can come out of a lawsuit 
is that people (read Universities and Doctors in this case) may be forced 
to change their behavior and actually put the kid first.  Of course this 
won't come as a result of any altruism or anything (thought there ARE coaches 
and programs that actually operate in this fashion, believe it or not) but 
as a result of the possible downside financial risk of letting a kid with 
a bad ticker play.  

The Adam Smith "Invisible Hand" theory of Capitalism was never so 
morbidly correct.


- ACC Chris
    

    A 17 year-old high school basketball player died of a heart attack on
    Sunday while playing in a pick up game.
    
    T, you want to tell us again how it was the faced paced style of Loyola
    that killed Gathers?

    T,
    
    Over in  11.* - what you talking about?  No personality contest,
    Senior Tee.  None at all.  I caint help it if you caint take any
    opinions that aren't the same as yours.  
    
    But, hey, this is another place that you can go on and on and on
    and on to your heart's content.  Congrats!!
    
    I'm just glad that Roy and Jay learned their lessons so well in
    the pristine pastures of the Big10.   And you are right, drugs aren't
    addicting, nor are they life-threatening.  It's all just a conspiracy.
    Thanks for clearing that up.  Sheet, I feel like running down to
    the schoolyard and giving some 8 years some crack.  It ain't addicting,
    kids, it ain't life-threatening - no sir-re-bob, it's all a conspiracy
    to invade our privacy.....
    
    Have fun in this rathole T - I said my last in this note.  It ain't
    worth it - not with a self-proclaimed bigot.
    
    JD

	I believe T said that not all addictions are life threatening.
This is true. He said nothing about selling crack to kids.

Concomitantly, and as unbelievable as it may seem, not all `drugs' are
addictive. And some drugs are extremely beneficial (I mean, let's not get TOO
carried away here.)

	Lastly, there are a great many people, from all walks of life, and from
all political parties, who are less than easy about some of the `liberties'
being taken with Constitutional Rights in the pursuit of this `Drug War'. Such
an attitude is not necesarily an indication of personal drug use, nor even an
approval of drug usage in general. It is merely disapproval of the abrogation
of rights, and a resentment of the transparent illogic used to justify such
abrogation.
    
Mike JN

    Who's being callous?  Who was the first person to jump into this note
    not to mourn Hank Gathers but to immediately cast aspersions towards
    the Loyola-Marymount program?  Who decided to turn this tragedy into 
    a forum for his self-righteous condemnations of sports, money and 
    the media, and without any shred of proof (yet) to substantiate it?  
    Was it the same guy who was overjoyed to discover that his beloved 
    Hoosiers were to be on national TV last Sunday, instead of the more 
    meaningful Big Ten championship-deciding game?
    
    > Glenn, that the sports commentator was black doesn't prove a damned
    > thing, as you imply.  Moreover, thus far ALL the anti-Gathers opinion
    > laid down in here has come from men who earn their bread in the
    > sports industry: sports reporters, sports magazine editors, sports
    > television personalitites, sports trainers, sports coaches, sports
    > university administrators...
    
    Of course it doesn't mean a damn thing, pertaining to what may be 
    uncovered by the investigation (i.e. the facts).  Then again, neither 
    does anything you've written in this note.  It was, however, a 
    legitimate opinion coming from a credible source.  Sports Illustrated 
    has nothing to gain from covering this episode up.  Right down the 
    line, they've been the forerunner in investigative sports journalism.  
    Your cynicism towards the entire industry belies the facts in this 
    particular case.
    
    > As for *your* Jay Edwards analogy, it falls on the question connected
    > to it that axes about those who would legislate how we live.  The
    > sports industry has cynically worked in tandem with the sports industry
    > to help the American public get used to the idea of forfeiture of
    > consitutional rights for corporate welfare (i.e., Edwards was fired
    > for being bad for the NBA's image, not for supposedly putting his
    > life at risk).
    
    That's for someone else to argue.  I never claimed that Edwards
    deserved suspension in the NBA.  I claimed that, given the
    circumstances of the Edwards case at Indiana, the NCAA or Indiana had
    no right to decide whether he could or could not play.  Pending some 
    revelation that information was held from him or his family, Hank 
    Gathers had the same right to make choices on whether or not to play
    and/or take his medicine.  We've yet to see evidence that he was 
    misled or coerced in this regard.  Let's wait and see before slinging
    mud at any and all persons or organizations even remotely involved. 
    
    > In any case you're wrong: Any number of precedents
    > already exist establishing that drawing reasonable boundaries of
    > medical risk for a player is the responsibilty of the team's organization.
    > One of many examples is former pro lineman Ed Riley, a fit and trim
    > 43 year old (?) who cain barely walk with a cain cuz he was allowed
    > to continue playing despite long-term risks to his knees.  He recently
    > won a_in-court settlement against the Vikings and the NFL.  
    
    Was proper diagnosis withheld from Riley?  Was there malpractice?  If
    so, this case is completely irrelevant to the Gathers' case until
    proven that LMU is guilty of same.
    
    > Loyola is showing a complete lack of class by going on with the 
    > tournament.  Bad hear + super fastbreak basketball + money, a 
    > deadly mix.  I wonder how much dough they're counting on from the 
    > tournament.
    
    More sanctimonious crap.  (Of course you can't be quoted later as
    saying that LMU only did it for the money-- 'cause you were only
    "wondering".  Nice games, T.)  The players voted to go.  Lemme guess:
    they have no right to make that decision.  My experience tells me that
    those affected by a death the most (like Bo Kimball) usually are those 
    that want to continue, especially for someone who loved basketball as
    much as Hank Gathers apparently did.  That's human nature and I'd say 
    it's healthy.  But, of course, T, you know better, and not only are the
    LMU players *wrong* for deciding to continue what all of them have 
    worked together all year for, they're classless to boot.
    
    glenn
     

> We've yet to see evidence that he was misled or coerced in this regard.

This is where I fundamentally disagree Glenn.  In my opinion LMU and the
doctors are not off the hook if they simply didn't mislead or coerce
Hank.  Rather, they're off the hook if they did everything they could
possibly do to prevent him from playing.  

I can remember in high school getting injured on a play at 2nd base.  Basically
some goon conveniently forgot to slide toward my feet while I was pivoting
to turn a double play and instead slammed into my knee.  The result was
(fortunately for me) stretched ligaments in my knee, rendering the lower
half of my leg kinda "loose".  

Now for the important part.  When I went to the doctor he gave me a choice.
Either I could be put in a leg cast for a month and miss the entire season
(I groaned when he said this) or I wasn't going to leave the doctors office!
Basically he said he wasn't going to let me leave the office until he put
me in a cast, and he went on further to put the fear of God into me about
how playing on my leg as it was would probably result in torn ligaments and
mess me up for life.  I'm grateful he did this because I have had absolutely
no knee problems since.  (Knock on wood.)

This is the kind of advise I would've hoped Hank got.  Both from the
doctors and LMU.  I've yet to see evidence that he got it.

FWIW,


- ACC Chris
    

    
    Chris, I'd agree with you if I was convinced that the doctors knew what
    they were dealing with.  So far we've got the opinion of one doctor
    peripherally involved with the case that Gathers shouldn't have been
    playing.  I don't doubt that everyone involved knew that there was some
    risk.  What I've yet to hear is *how much* risk was involved.  There's
    also the possibility of malpractice, where everyone assumed minimal risk
    where there actually was major risk.  But if you're going to tell me 
    that *any* risk was too much and under no circumstances should Gathers 
    have been allowed to play, I'm not going to agree.  Thousands of
    athletes have continued to participate in sports with irregular
    heartbeats, and not just for cynical reasons like TV dollars being at 
    risk.  "Evidence" like a de-fibrillator available at courtside is just 
    more sensationalistic, circumstantial nonsense.  Every one of us has
    yet to even see the coroner's report. 
    
    I do resent being called "callous" because I've taken a wait-and-see
    approach, though, even where a man's life is at issue.
    
    glenn  

    I didn't call you "callous" so I hope you're not offended by my stance. 
    For better or worse you-know-who happens to be on my side of this issue
    (there's a first for everything I suppose ;^) ) so I feel like I'm
    being painted a radical!
    
    Certainly waiting for more information is prudent.  I guess the fact
    that Gathers had a previous incident in December where he actually
    passed out has led me to the opinion that he was high-risk.
    fact that he later died makes it substantiates this.  If it had been
    something totally out of the blue (like that 17-year old high school
    kid who died of a heart attack) it would be a whole different ball game
    for me.
    
    We'll see what further information comes from this I suppose, although
    if I had to guess I'd say we'll hear inconclusive stuff with the media
    offering no blame, followed by a lengthy court trial, the results of
    which will be buried on page 8 of the sports section.  Maybe.
    
    
    - ACC Chris

    re .92
    
    Mike, PLEASE don't spread that bulls-it about "all drugs are not
    addictive". For practical purposes, ALL are.
    
    They used to spout that crap about weed (pot, grass, whatever),
    and look at all of the coke addicts around now.
    
    Ask them what they started on .....
    
    That type of propaganda makes it harder than hell to win the drug
    war (not that I think that Bush and Co. is really doing all that
    much .... :-(
    
    
    As for the topic at hand, I see nothing wrong with investigating
    the Gathers case. At the very least, it will set a preceedent for
    the future.
    
    As wrong-headed as T is often, in fact teams often mislead players
    into playing with health-threatening injuries. I'll never forget
    Jack Kemp saying that he was so battered, that when the Army activated
    him for the Berlin crisis, he was certified as medically UNFIT for
    duty (due to football injuries) by the doc without a second's
    hesitation.
    
    Then the Chargers (or Bills) shot him up, and he played ....
    
    Yes, investigate the Gathers case thouroghly. If it takes a lawsuit,
    then so be it.
    
    DrM
    

    re .78: From what I saw (also the entire uncut tape) your analysis of his
    on-floor treatment is pretty correct. I too thought that immediate
    MASSIVE INTERVENTION was called for, but was not provided.
    
    However, I have also heard statements from the ER doctor where Hank was
    taken that in his opinion, the "cardiovascular event" was so sudden and
    profound that he could not have been saved had the incident happened in
    the ER.
    
    ...Mike Duggan, EMT-IV Instructor

    
    RE: ask them what they started on...
    
    I would guess either mothers' milk or formula.

    >PLEASE don't spread that bulls-it about "all drugs are not 
    >addictive". For practical purposes, ALL are.
    
    Yeah I know what you mean, I'm addicted to both NPH and REGULAR
    INSULIN.  8^)
    
    The Wizard

    
    Dock,  I think your off-base a bit here. While I will conceed that some
    pot smokers have turned into coke or other recreational drug addicts I
    can't say that all drugs are addicting. Why I'll bet better than 75% of
    the folks in here have atleast tried or smoked pot for a considerable
    amount of time and now don't even touch the stuff. Some still do
    unfortunely. It's in the person's personality/makeup wether he becomes
    an addict or not, it's not the drug that addicts the person until that
    person has polluted his/her system to a physical depencies....
    
     I agree with T and Chris but out of respect to Gathers haven't said
     too much. I do think though that if they really respected Hank they
     wouldn't compete. But of course is this really fair to the other
     players? I'd like to see a roll-call vote from the players on their
     feelings of wether to play or not. 
    
     mike 

    Yeah, I agree with you too Mike.  Being involved in this conference for
    a few years now, I gotta believe that there are lots of pot-heads out
    there!!!!!111(tm)  :-)  :-)
    
    Hawk

    > ask them what they started on...
    
    >> I would guess either mothers' milk or formula
    
    	
    Hah!  Got me on that one Hoot!
    
    
    - ACC Chris
    

    Re Mike J (I think)
    
    I'd hope folks were insightful enough, given the subject matter
    discussed, that I didn't mean drugs like insulin, aspirin, etc.
    I thought it was pretty obvious.  However, if you've ever had a
    grandparent become addicted on medication, which though beneficial,
    still proved life-threatening, you might understand better.
    
    re Alcholism as a behavior, and not a disease.
    
    So, does it make it any better?  Is it any less life-threatening
    to the individual?  Does it not cost thousands of lives and millions
    of dollars each year?  Why rail on those who diagnosed it as a disease
    (it certainly is a disease of the mind - and its effects certainly
    are more brutal than many 'official' disease), and not on the industry
    that sells it?  Or actually, just classify alchohol, and crack,
    and pot, and the rest as drugs, or medicine.  They can cure lonliness,
    depression, low self-esteem, shyness, and host of other ills.
    
    JD

>I don't mourn Gathers.  It's sanctimonious crap for anybody to claim
>they're "deeply saddened by" or "mourn" his death.  Gathers as a person
>means no more to me than the shopping bag lady who died from pneumonia
>in Union Square last week.  The fack that he was a small-time celebrity
>makes his life no more meaningful to me.  To place a phony overvaluation
>on Gathers' life is to devalue the lives of non-celebrities. 


So, if Gathers death means no more than the death of the shopping bag
lady, have you started raising valid questions about why that lady died?
Was she chewed up and spit out by the system?  Why did she die?  Why
place more value on Hank's death by questioning his care?  Have you
questioned the shopping bag lady's care?  Aren't you helping to place
phony overevaluation on Hank's life by your vendetta?

>And raising valid questions, questions also being raised by a_examining
>cardiologist, Gathers' family, and the nation's best newspaper is NOT
>"casting aspersions!"            
 

Except that your questions don't read like questions, but more like
indictments.
   

>And it's self-righteous to raise valid questions about a player's life 
>very possibly being used?

No.  But is it self-righteous to claim others who don't share your view as being 
callous, or phony?

    
>I haven't claimed anything's been proved other than what's already obvious:
>Gathers shouldn't have been allowed to go on playing under the conditions he
>did; and LMU had a cavalier attitude towards the risk.

Where was all this after his December collapse.  I don't remember anyone 
in here claiming Hank should not be allowed to play.  Why wait til after
the tragedy???   I haven't seen the cavalier attitude that you have.

    
>Your willful credulity is more problematic, cuz it ain't "cynical" to axe
>why a kid with a serious heart defect proven to be susceptible to stress was
>allowed to reduce his medication, twice, and go back to playing the most 
>stressful style of hoops ever seen.  

In your opinion, LMU is the most stressful style of hoops.  That hasn't 
been proved by anyone.

>Yes.  Yes.  No.   It's not irrelevant cuz it's already been conceded that 
>everybody was apprised of the risk and that the medication was cut twice and
>that the trainer was NOT monitoring his use of the mediciation.


Personally, I don't think the trainer would be qualified to monitor his
medicinal doses.  That would be the job of Hank's doctors, and Hank
himself.

>Wonder no more.  And you cain QUOTE me:

		
>	We're trying!  We're trying!  We're loyal to ol' Loyola U.!
>
>	We're vying!  We're Vying!  We're married to Marymount blue !
>
>	We're dying!  We're dying!  We call it Payola MoneyCount too!

Callous?  Self-righteous?  Who are the "We" - or do you mean "MrT".

JD

    I'm confused, are SPORTS noters callous or sanctimonious?
    
    �Now that these shocking facks have been published, 
    
    I wasn't aware that these accusations have been proven.  Or is that why
    you refer to them as facks instead of facts?

    While the death of Hank Gathers hasn't overwhelmed me, the picture in
    last night's paper of his 6 year old boy being hugged by Hank's brother
    at the funeral was very sad.........
    
    I cannot imagine my 6 year old boy growing up without the dad that he's
    known all his life.......
    
    Hawk

Beautiful work, T.  Until the poem I really thought you were coming 
around.  The virtuous T, shunning the monoliths and asking all the "right" 
questions.  *That* I have no problem with.  No, it has more to do with 
stomach-turners like these:


    "Westhead might meet somewhat more difficulty recruiting people,
     especially big people, to come play his brand of hoops after this.

    "There's a strong possibility that because the school was flush
     for the first time with fame and fortune (money) that their judgement
     was clouded and they were willing to chance Gathers' life cuz he
     was the star player.
    
    "Funny, but the talk I heard from his doctors sounded a LOT like
     Ed Messe at his press conference, you know, where he knew full well
     every word would end up in a court record.
    
    "Remember, Gathers was being counted on for major tournament revenues - 
     something always welcome at marginally funded Jesuit schools.
    
    "This whole thing will be swept under the rug by the money-grubbing
     troika of television/NCAA/Loyola.
    
    "I wonder if the troika would be so blase about Loyola's behavior
     in this matter if it had been a white kid.

    "Loyola is showing a complete lack of class by going on with the 
     tournament.  Bad hear + super fastbreak basketball + money, a deadly 
     mix.  I wonder how much dough they're counting on from the 
     tournament."
    
All of this without an official release of any kind.  I have no problem 
with an investigation, and I have no problem with a lawsuit if that's what 
it takes to get to the truth.  I know you have devoted readers that you 
can't disappoint T, but your slanted rhetoric in the wake of a man's death
(no matter how you value his life) is what I find incredulous and callous.

glenn

Actually, we as SPORTS noters are an interesting breed.  We're not
so different as we are the same...

Why?  Probably because we pick something apart, argue over the nits,
iotas, and molecular structure of every issue.

Leave it to us, and we can find something to argue and debate in
*every* SPORTS issue that hits this conference.

Leave it to us, and we can make wonderful oratory, using such things
as facks(tm), dastisticks(tm), obfuscation, raw emotionalism, and could
use that oratory to convince anyone that the sky is green, and the
grass blue.

Leave it to us, and we can dissect an issue or non-issue until the
bones are picked clean like carnage in the jungle after the scavengers
have fed.

Leave it to us, and we enjoy it.  Leave it to us, and we revel in
it.

We are simply amazing....


Respectfully submitted for your cogitational purposes,
Chainsaw

    MrT,
    	You're using accusations and insinuations(?) as if they
    were court proven facts. The Loyola trainer is NOT a cardiologist.
    He can only rely on the word of the doctor or Gathers. If Gathers
    asked the dr. to reduce the medication, then the dr. should have
    notified the trainer and conferred with Gathers, the trainer,
    and Westhead. The dr. was responsible only to Hank Gathers. Not Loyola.
    Not the trainer. Not the NCAA. IF the dr. did in fact reduce the
    medication to a_unsafe level, then cut off his n*ts. If he reduced it
    to a_acceptable level, and Gathers further reduced his own dosage,
    then chalk it up to tradgedy. 
    
    				JMO, Rich
    
    

    
    > Quit complaining about my use of facks that are already there and
    > start supplying some of your own!
    
    You've hit the nail on the head here, T.  There are very few facks,
    much less facts, available at this time.  I'm not even sure that your
    claim that Gathers was diagnosed with a "life-threatening" condition
    has been substantiated.  Obviously his condition did take his life,
    but I haven't heard a doctor other than this guy that went to the LA
    Times say that he was diagnosed as high-risk.  I'll accept the fact 
    that one doctor initially involved says so merits investigation, but
    I'll decline to run around besmirching ad nauseum Gathers' personal 
    physician, Loyola-Marymount, Paul Westhead, Westhead's offensive 
    philosophy, the NCAA, television, etc., at this time.
                                            
    And get off this character assassination kick.  I was debating the
    issue on its merits, after putting up with all the rhetoric, until you 
    pointed out the "callousness" of the noters who didn't take your side.
    Besides, you're a big boy, you can take it...
    
    glenn
    

I've largely kept silent about the Gathers situation up until now, but I would
like to give you some perspective from a former Certified Athletic Trainer (me).
I was a student trainer for 5 years in college, passed the National Athletic
Trainer's Association certification exam as a graduate assistant and worked one
summer with the Patriots as a student assistant, and worked through two high
school football seasons part-time.  I gave up the profession because I couldn't
find a full-time job at it, found part-time work while working a full-time job
too much to handle and also couldn't keep up with the continuing education re-
quirements.

I'm very saddened by Gathers' death, not only because he died too young, but be-
cause it could have been prevented.  We unfortunately can't throw stones at the
Loyola Marymount medical staff until all the questions are answered.  

The approach taken with you, Chris, when you were in high school, is perfectly 
OK for high school students and with college students for that type of injury.
At that point, medical people can tell someone what to do and it will be heeded
in most cases.  Very simple - you've got this type of injury, you can't play -
period.  The determining factor being, will the athlete do further harm to him
or herself by continuing to play with the condition?  Chris, in your case, the
answer probably was yes.  High schools and colleges can be and are more conser-
vative with injuries than pro teams are.  Even when a college athlete is legally
an adult, colleges still have the responsibility to the athlete to prevent him 
or her from going out onto the field, ice or court when s/he is going to do harm
by further playing.

I know of no college trainer or team doctor (who are employees of the school
first and assigned to work with the athletes second) who will not use this stan-
dard in deciding whether an athlete is able to play.  A trainer and doctor will
use every legal and legitimate method there is to try to get an athlete able to
play, but in all situations I know of, no athlete is playing who shouldn't be
playing.  Keep in mind also that working with athletes is different from working
with the general public because athletes are motiviated to do what they do, gen-
erally have a higher pain threshhold and don't ever want to hear the word "rest"
in any case.  Coaches are constantly pushing athletes to play and pushing doc-
tors and trainers to clear athletes to play and it takes an especially strong
person to stand up to that kind of pressure - either by pushing back on the
coach or by resisting the attempts by an athlete to play.  The ones with the
highest pain threshholds are the tougher ones to deal with here.  Any doctor or
trainer who puts the interests of the team and the school over the interests of
the athlete in a school setting shouldn't be in the profession - period.

Some athletes are easier to work with than others - some are more motivated to
get well, some have higher pain threshholds, some are more willing to follow in-
structions - and nothing ever angered me more than an athlete who wasn't motiva-
ted to get well or one who wouldn't follow directions.  Low pain threshholds 
never did because each person is different and only the person knows how much
pain s/he can deal with.  

Another tough part of what goes on is in determining the difference between
pain and injury.  It's part and parcel of athletes to have to play with pain.
We've all been in situations where we've hurt ourselves playing a sport and 
pushed on, the trick is to recognize when it's getting worse.  A strained muscle
for example, is an injury that an athlete will usually attempt to play through.
Very often the only complete cure is rest but if the athlete can play with it, 
if it's not getting worse, if there's not a calcium or other condition going on
with it and above all, if s/he is being honest with the team's medical staff 
about just how the condition is, then the athlete will probably keep playing on
it.  Some injuries are also not immediately obvious, I found it a lot easier to
work with football players than with runners and gymnasts, for example.  It was
not because of the type of people these athletes were but rather, because a 
football injury is usually far more obvious than a running injury (blown out 
knee vs shin splints).  In many cases too, athletes have pain or injuries that
they'll never tell their medical staffs about, choosing to live with them and
play through them.  In those cases, there isn't much a doctor or trainer can do.

In the specific Gathers case, we don't know if he stopped or cut down his dosage
on his own.  If he did, then there's not much any doctor or trainer can do about
it.  After all, he was an adult.  Nor could it have been reasonably expected
that the LMU medical staff spoon feed him his medicine.  

A doctor may have decided based on Gathers' progress, playing ability, heart 
monitoring and so on that the medication could have been adjusted.  Whether this
was malpractice or not would have to be decided by the courts.  I would like to
believe that if this decision was made by a doctor that it was made in Gathers'
best interest, not in the best interests of the team.  In the case of most of
the doctors I know, a decision of this type would have been made in Gathers'
best interest.  A situation like this is tough, kind of a damned if you do and
damned if you don't thing, as reflected by that player from Central Connecticut
who sued because he was prevented from playing.

No trainer I know would have interfered with the doctor's prescription to 
Gathers, but a good trainer would have noticed Hank's performance, asked Hank
how he was doing and raised the question with the doctor about the level of
dosage.  There's nothing wrong with that, that's part of the job.  I've done it
myself, because part of job is knowing the athletes, watching the performance,
noticing what's working and what's not working and trying to do something about
it because a good trainer is with the team every day and really gets to know the
athletes where a doctor isn't necessarily around all the time.  Our doctors were
there for all football and hockey games, all preseason football practices and
at least part of every other football practice, in all other cases, the trainers
were the front line of medical defense.

I'm not about to fault anybody at LMU yet.  Fire away at me if you want, and I
apologize if I mis-spoke or contradicted myself or whatever.

John

PS - all bets are off when it comes to professional athletes and their care, tho
the situation is changing because many players are more willing to seek second
opinions.  These guys are employees, it's their livelihood, they're all adults
and they are more willing and able to assume more risk.  The Patriots used to
have training camp up at UMass and our doctors used to do the preseason physi-
cals, and the difference to them between the players was night and day in terms
of what they had and what they played with.  The doctors did have to get used to
dealing with adults and in one case, in dealing with a player who was a doctor
(well, a dentist) in Bill Lenkaitis.
    

The K & G method

	called the H'awk Convention, in honor of it's originator

			would be:

There sure are flies on [such`n such]!

Mike JN

    
    > If that's so, Glenn, explain to me what my being happy about IU
    > pre-empting the Big10 championship game on national TV has to do
    > with the accusations made by one of Gathers' examining cardioilogists.
    
    Absolutely nothing.  Just went to show that in spite of your tirades
    against the system and the big money interests of the networks, you 
    also enjoy a good basketball game on TV even if its placement there 
    was solely a function of the ratings it would produce.  Yes, it was
    personal, and irrelevant to the issue, but it also followed the 
    "callousness" accusation.  Can't you give me the courtesy of using the
    rhetorical techniques you've obviously mastered?
    
    glenn
     

    MrT, why do you immediately assume that the noter who's full of *flies*
    is YOU?!
    
    :-)
    
    H'awk

No, T.  But the ACL people for constant moderator-bashing.  If you have a
problem with "censorship", bring it to me off-line instead of constantly
insinuating it in a public forum.

j.

    T,
    
    Way back - it is not up to me to prove that LMU's style was more
    stressful than any other hoop style.  You made the allegation, the
    burden of proof (not personal bias/opinion) is on you.
    
    Also, you never answered any of my questions.
    
    JD

    I guess I'm guilty of "sanctimonious crap", because I was deeply
    saddened by Gather's death.  Why, as opposed to T's shopping bag
    lady who died from pneumonia?  Well, maybe, just maybe, I'd be as
    saddened by her death if I had known about it and she was known
    to have a good chance at a career with big bucks in her future.  
    Gather's death made national headlines, which often happens to those 
    who have some degree of celebrity.  This may be unfair to the
    bag-lady, but that's no reason for me to not be saddened that a young 
    man has passed away and will not have an opportunity to achieve 
    his potential.  He WAS projected as a first round draft choice.
    
    Lee
    
    

    
    Re. -.1
    
    More than his projected draft slot in the pros, by all accounts I've
    seen Gathers was a damn good person.  That in itself is enough to 
    lament his loss...
    
    glenn
    

    Heard on the news last night the autopsy showed pretty much what we
    already knew.  Namely, no drugs were involved in Hank's death, and he
    had a defective ticker.
    
    Interesting comments from "O"Hendry, but I'd like to press further.
    Read on, if this thing interest you at all.
    
    > Even when a college athlete is legally an adult, colleges still have the 
    > responsibility to the athlete to prevent him or her from going out onto 
    > the field, ice or court when s/he is going to do harm by further playing.

    I found this particularly interesting because alot of people have been
    throwing out stuff about Gathers being an adult and able to make his
    own decision regarding taking his medication.  First off, I don't
    think being 23 years old is any big shakes as far as maturity goes. 
    You're still an awfully young man at 23.  Secondly I completely agree
    with you that if the doctors/coaches/trainers felt he could harm
    himself by playing (in this situation, the *ultimate* harm: DEATH)
    they should not have allowed him to play.
    
    There seem to be a couple of possibilities here.  One, the doctor(s)
    may have determined that reducing his medication would not place him in
    danger.  This was an incorrect diagnosis and a malpractice issue.
    
    Second is the possibility Hank reduced his medication without telling
    anyone.  John, given your comments about how closely the trainer works
    with the players, don't you think they would've (perhaps *should've*)
    noticed that he was suddenly not experiencing the negative side effects
    from his heart medication??  The question here is did the trainer
    notice and perhaps not say anything because of the intense pressure to
    get Hank to play.  
    
    A scenario for you, Mr. Hendry:
    
    You're the LMU trainer.  You've witnessed Hank collapse from a
    heart problem.  Undoubtedly you know he's on medication, and know the
    side effects make him weak.  You notice at some point he's regained his
    strength.  You know LMU isn't gonna be the same without Hank.  You
    know the last thing the coach wants to hear is that, in your opinion,
    his star player shouldn't be playing the way he is.  WHAT DO YOU DO??
    
    A truly difficult call I'll grant you, but I'm utterly convinced that, 
    somewhere along the line, Hank's life could've been saved, and that the
    high-pressure NCAA "amatuer" (hah!) college hoops game was a
    contributing cause.
    
    
    - ACC Chris

    I'll let other NOTEd philosophers decide how to include the following
    in their 'analyis' of the Gathers' incident.  What follows is a partial
    transcript of an article that appeared in the International Herald
    Tribune on March 14th (London Edition).  (If anyone cares, I will
    transcribe the entire article upon request.  Until then you'll have to
    accept my edited version.)
    
    Headline:
    
    	TONY PENNY: AN EERIE PARALLEL TO HANK GATHERS
    
    			by Elliott Almond (Los Angeles Times Service)
    
    The circumstances were uncanny.  Both were 6'7" basketball players. 
    They were 23 years old.  They wore No.44.  They collapsed during games
    and died five days apart,  victims of heart problems.
    
    Tony Penny, formerly a Central Connecticut State University player,
    died Feb. 27 in a Manchester, England hospital after collapsing during
    a game.
    
    But the similarities to the death of Loyola's Gathers don't end there. 
    Penny's death, too, illustrates the pressures that physicians face when
    caring for atheletes who want nothing more than to return to the games
    they love.
    
    Dr. Sands, a cardiologist at New Britain General Hospital in
    Connecticut understands this dilemma.  He was sued for $1million last
    May for disallowing Penny from playing n 1986.  Although Penny dropped
    the suit in December, Sands remains affected by the incident.  "I never
    dreamed I would have been sued trying to protect a life," he said.
    
    
    
    ----continued only upon request -----
    
    
    My 2 cents....
    
    Doctors should not be allowed to dictate whether atheletes play or not,
    but if in their judgement the atheletes are potentially risking their
    lives by playing, that judgement should be made to the college or
    university, or franchise concerned.  This will have an affect on
    whether a player is drafted, traded, etc.  Ultimately, however, it is
    the athelete themselves that must make their own life/death decisions.
    
    David
    	(aka Puddle Jumper)
    

    Unbelievable story and coincidence David.  But I don't think it's a
    fair analogy.  Obviously the doctor is completely off the hook in the
    case of the Connecticut kid.  He did what, IMO, he was supposed to do.
    I don't think that's been proven in the Gathers case, although I will
    admit that certainly not all the facts are in.
    
    
    - ACC Chris
    

    Tough call, Chris.  I'd like to think in this situation I'd handle
    it like this:
    
    Assuming I noticed that Hank was playing better (which may or may
    not be obvious, by the way - I don't know if his sluggishness was
    noticeable or not), I would either talk to Hank one-on-one and find
    out if he was cutting back his medication; or go to the doctor and
    tell him of my suspicions and then talk to Hank in a team effort.
    Depending on the relationship among the player, coach, doctor and
    trainer, the coach may or may not be involved at the time.  I would
    have said something, again, assuming the difference in Hank's play
    after the medication was (supposedly) reduced was that obvious.
    
    Hank's credibility with the medical staff becomes very important
    here as well.  A good trainer also knows which athletes to believe
    and which not to believe.  Knowing the kids is an important part
    of what's going on.  If Hank said he wasn't cutting back the medication
    and the medical staff believed him, well, there's not much anyone
    could do there.  If the medical staff didn't believe him, then it
    would become time to spoon-feed him.
    
    I do tend to defend the medical staff and believe that they did
    the right thing as much as possible because I've been there and
    I know how tough the job is.
    
    John

    ACChris. I'll take exception to your statement about 23 yr. olds
    and maturity. At 23 yrs. (6 months ago) I knew full well the
    mortality of myself and people my age. Since high school, I've lost 4
    friends my age from various causes. A 23 year old does know the
    consequenses of not taking or cutting back on heart medication. 
    If Hank Gathers was an ignorant bonehead, which from all accounts he
    wasnt, then maybe its believable. Maybe, as JD says, the medical people
    did their jobs. JMHO, Rich
    

    IN the end, it is the doctors who should bear full responsibility
    for the Hank Gathers case.  The physiscians are the only ones who
    medically could have made the call about whether he could play again
    or not.  So far, it seems they decided he could - under medication.
    
    
    As for being told, as an athlete, what to do.  I was injured a few
    times in college.  Many times, I made the decision that I could
    continue to compete - I'd see the trainer, the doctor, get their
     recommendations, and then decide.  I'd talk with my coach.  If
    the doctor told me I could continue, I would.  ON the times he said
    I had to stop, I would.  The coaches listened to the medical staff.
    And to tell you the truth, unless I was told their was no way I
    could continue to train and compete, I didn't stop - and even if
    my coach told me I couldn't, I would have worked out on my own.
    In my mind, even then, as a 20+ year old, I knew that if I further
    hurt myself it was my responsibility - not anyone elses because
    I made the decision.  I knew the consequences, and luckily, I never
    did any serious damage.
    
    My point is, if the Doctors decided after Hank's collapse that he
    could not play hoop anymore - then they should have made that public
    right then.   Not sit back and see what happens.  Obviously, they
    didn't do that, so the message was "Yes, by taking his medication,
    Hank Gathers can continue to compete."   If the medication was lowered
    due to pressure, and not medical findings, then it was the doctors
    who did not do their job, IMHO.
    
    JD

    MrT,
    
    However, the more one trains/compets at a certain level, the bodies
    life-sustaining systems generally slow down, due to the person being
    in great shape.  For instance, both Frank Shorter and Bill Rodgers
    had pulses of about 30 when they were in peak form.  When they strained
    during a 'thon or other race, they rate went up, but not to the
    levels that 'normal' people exhibit during strenuous exercise. 
    I'm pretty sure Gathers heart rate, etc, would be lower than the
    normal person, both at rest at during strenuous exercise. (this
    is my opinion, so don't jump, as you usually do..)
    
    And yes, the burden of proff is still on you - you claimed that
    their style of play was the MOST strenuous.  Back that up - or was
    it simply YOUR opinion???
    
    JD

    
    > Btw, how does the controversy hinge on Gathers' status as an adult?
    
    I would say that issue is only relevant *if* Gathers was given proper
    advice and care both with respect to his condition and his medication, 
    and fully cognizant of the evaluated risks laid out by his doctors 
    chose to play anyway.
    
    I do not feel this choice should be made available to a high school 
    athlete.  
    
    glenn
    

�    >constant moderator-bashing
�    
�    If complaining generally about profanity such as the childish stuff
�    pumped in by AHEARN is "moderator bashing" then maybe there *is*
�    a problem, but not one I've ever compained about.
    
    I believe the moderator-bashing remark was directed at the style of the
    complaint (and probably had something to do with your earlier tirade
    over Jeff's KP7 trick).
                    
�    Btw, their style of play isn't at issue here; their handling of
�    Gathers response to his newfound serious illness is.
 
    So why do you continue to bring it up?
                                                                        
�    Btw, how does the controversy hinge on Gathers' status as an adult?
    
    There is a question over whether or not Gathers should assume some
    responsiblity in this.

    Geez, a simple "Rest In Peace" note dedicated to Hank Gathers, a
    college athlete who met with an unfortunate and untimely death and
    what do we get ???
    
    We get 140 or more semi-worthless notes filled with ...
    
    "Yes, I did...", "No, I didn't ..." 
    "Prove this ...", "Prove that ..."
    "It's the doctors' fault ...", "It's the school's fault ..."
    "It was the style of play ...", "It was the medicine ..."
    
    Time to move on, guys.  The man died.  If there's any legal or
    medical fallout yet to come from this incident, we'll hear about
    it.
    
    Bob Hunt

    Hey Bob_Hunt:
    
    >>Time to move on, guys.  The man died.  If there's any legal or
    >>medical fallout yet to come from this incident, we'll hear about
    >>it.
    
    Do you have any facks to prove this statement. If not, I suggest you
    withdraw it....haw haw haw haw
    
    JoJ

    Re: -1
    
    Thanks for making my day T!  I'm rollllward :-)

Holy Cow. First it was Dean is Clean (tm) and now it's 
I agree with Mr T (tm).

T, your last couple of notes - the part about LMU's responsibility in the
matter of Gather's Death is "where the issue will be played out."

TTom

    With all due respect Bob, I don't agree with ya in regards to closing
    down this discussion.  It's interesting, controversial, and relevant, 3
    ingredients that usually make for some fun banter.
    
>    What does separate the Gathers case from the 17 year old playing
>    street ball is that he was a student, playing under the direction
>    of the school's athletic department.  Certain responsibilities are
>    assumed in that situation, regardless of age.  That's where the
>    issue will be played out.
    
    That, combined with the fact that Gathers had a prior heart
    incident, where the 17 year old died during his (apparently) first.
    
    
    - ACC Chris    
    MrT
    
    
    

    
    No, I didn't see the piece, but Sports Illustrated had a follow-up this
    week in their Scoreboard section.  They ask legitimate questions on
    all sides of the issue: doctor's responsibility, LMU's, family's, Hank
    Gathers'.  It was re-iterated that throughout the testing period after
    his first collapse, Gathers made it quite clear that he was going to do
    whatever was possible to continue playing, as the NBA was his dream.
    Whether or not LMU should have gotten off his boat at that time remains 
    an open question.  SI claimed that Gathers became depressed after Don 
    Chaney informed him that he was projected as a 10-15th pick, as Gathers 
    was looking for the big money that comes with being a lottery
    selection.  They speculate that this may have been the motivation for
    Gathers cutting back on his medicine, to push himself on that one last 
    stretch run before the NBA draft.
    
    One thing I didn't realize was that the doctor who went to the LA Times
    remains anonymous (at least at the time the magazine went to press). 
    This is another reason that I'm a little wary of the allegations that
    have surfaced to date.  Apparently the autopsy didn't reveal anything 
    unexpected, either.  LMU and the medical personnel have pledged not to 
    talk until the trial starts.  Anyone know when that's been scheduled
    for?
    
    glenn
    
   

    
    I hate to go down this rathole, but, here goes..
               
    Do you really think that if Loyolla refused to let Gathers play he
    wouldn't have found some other school/orginazation/pro team that would
    have?  I mean the guy obviously was seeing the green of the money he
    was gonna be raking in as a pro.  To come that close to death once, 
    and be instructed by your doctors not to play, then to play anyway 
    with reduced medication..  how can anyone blame the school.  
    
    If Gathers wanted to play, he was going to play, the lure of the money 
    in pro sports is just too great.  Take his insurance policy for
    instance, he could have walked away from basketball with 1 million
    dollars, why didn't he?  Gawd, thats more money than most people 
    see in a lifetime!  Whatever his reason for continuing to play 
    be it greed, love of basketball, etc. he knew the risks, and he was
    willing to risk his life to continue playing.  
    
    I really don't think Gathers family has any case, but we'll just have
    to wait and see.    
    
    In closing, I think it's a shame what happened, but I don't see the 
    point of trying to place blame on the school.  
    
    /Jeff

    
    Oh, and one other piece I forgot: the article stated that the case
    against medical staff/LMU would be in large part based on the response
    of the emergency personnel *after* Gathers' fatal collapse, given the
    prior knowledge of his condition and risk.  From what the reactions
    I've heard in the news and from our resident EMT's, I would agree that 
    this should be a major issue in a liability suit.
    
    glenn

    
    re: .154
    
    Now that makes sense.. Now, this could be a good case for negligence.  

It really wasn't the EMT's that wern't on the ball it was the 2 doctors that
started the work on Hank....  When A Doctor is present and consents to
continue working someone all the way to the ER it's his ball game and
there's not really anything the EMT's can do about it, unless the care being
given is real low standard... which in my Opinion it was...
Doctors don't no Diddly about Emergency care in the field!!!!!!!

Monty

Amen Monty!

In my career as an EMT, I must've faced that situation eight or
nine times.  Especially at car accidents.

Now, I'm not putting down Docs, but man, they must get some visceral
pleasure out of sauntering up to the scene, saying, I'm a doctor,
and trying to take over.  

It was never bad if it was one of those deals where I had to be crawling
in some mangled car, trying to board a guy or something, getting glass
in my fingers or whatnot.  

Anyway, this one time, I had a guy who was pretty cut up, and who
had a neck injury.  This doc saunters up and says, I'm a doctor, 
i'll take over.  I said, "okay, you want to take full and complete
responsibility?".  He says "yeah."  Well, I said "Okay, what's your
name, for my report, and what kind of doctor are you...."

Turns out the guy was a *&&*&^*&ing DERMATOLOGIST!  

I told him to board the guy, and handed him the stuff.  He looked
at me like I was from Mars.  After about two minutes of fumbling
about, I told him to get the ____ outta there if he didn't know
what he was doing.  The guy got lost in a hurry.

For my money, I'd rather have a good paramedic work on me at a scene
than any doctor...once I'm in the trauma center, that's a different
story....

JMHO,
'Saw

    re .157: What he said!
    
    I've had three bad experiences with M.D.'s at the scene, and one
    Godsend. The bad scenes are like what you said. The Godsend was once at
    the scene of a ballooning accident (ran into power lines, severed the
    gondola from the envelope; pilot and passenger fell about forty feet) 
    and as first responder I was faced with a bleeder and a dude with
    internal injuries and a broken hip. I was turning in circles three ways
    from Sunday when a Mercedes drives up, and out leaps the ER doc at
    Bernalillo County Medical Center (in Albuquerque). Boy, was I ever glad
    to see him! Natcherally I wasn't stupid; I immediately hit the bleeder
    and let the Doc handle the tricky one... (both survived)
    
    ...mike
    

    According to this morning's paper, test results showed that Gathers had
    heart medication in his system when he died, but at levels 2 to 11
    times below that considered effective for treatment.

    T, I'm sure that goes without saying. 
    
    One thing they can do is test Gather's hair. In that way, they can
    test not just the level of the medication, but *when* he took it,a
    and how much ...     
    
    It's expensive, but very accurate. I'd love to see this used in
    drug testing.
    
    And I get the felling that the whole story may never be known ....
    especially if evidence shows that Gathers made have palmed his medicine
    like a lot of us do ("Why should I take it ? I feel better without
    it ?") ....

    FWIW:
    
    	The local rag yesterday mentioned rumors that the Gathers family
    	is seeking a substantial amount of money and LMU is willing to
    	pay it to keep the case from going to court.........
    
    Claybone

>    Here are the FACKS as we know them:
 
    Are these Facts, or FACKS (TM)?  Have these been proven??
       
    >	- LMU was extremely lax in their arrangements for assuring Gathers'
    >      well-being in comparison to similalry afflicted college athletes,
    >	  including athletes under the care of Dr. Brodsky himself.
     
    What is the definition of lax?  They had the de-fibrilator courtside.
    Was that enough?  No, since it didn't help.   What exactly was LMU
    supposed to do?
                           
    >	- The two reductions in medication were highly unusual and have
    >	  sharply criticized as dangerous by many cardiologists, including
    >	  one of Gathers' examining physicians.
     
    It still has to be proven who exactly gave the okay for the reductions.
    The physician who authorized them, IMO, is the one at fault.
    
    >	- LMU was entirely unprepared as far as equipment and training
    >      goes to handle a_on-court heart attack.
          
    Again, they had the de-filibrator courtside - as for training, I
    find it hard to imagine that there wasn't some trained CPR folks
    in attendence, as well as a school doctor/medical person.
    
    >	- Gathers was allowed to convulse and die without even the basic
    >      emergency treatments any one of us would receive from the
    >	  thousands of first responders (myself included) the Red Cross
    >	  has trained in DEC workplaces.                           
     
    I don't think he was 'allowed' to die.  He did die.  The immediate
    emergency care, from accounts, should have been much better.  Who
    were the first persons on the scene - a doctor I believe, he screwed
    up.   Again, IMO, where were the CPR trained folks (I'm one myself)
    rushing to the rescue?  I find it hard to imagine that folks just
    sat there, but I'm sure some did.
    
    >Now, we live in a_era where for now at least the defendant in a
    >civil tort cain purchase silence with cash.  That'll be what LMU
    >will do in this case.
     
    And, if Gathers family and attorney's are looking for more than
    cool cash, they should pursue the troof and not be bought out. 
    If they are bought out, the  are to BLAM for any injustice that
    is covered up.  That may sound cold, but that's the facks (tm).
    
    JD

    What a second T,
    
    I wasn't trying to argue.  I wasn't LA Lawing either.  Why is that
    whenever anyone axes you questions, or brings up points, that you
    have to belittle?
    
    You simply said "Here are the FACKS"
    
    If they are really facts, I'd simply like to know where you got
    them from, cause I'd like to see 'em and read 'em myself.  I basically
    agreed wif you on the on-court treatment.  I do however, think the
    
    physicians are the folks responisble if they lowered his dosage
    - since they are the folks who supposedly would KNOW and UNDERSTAND
    exactly what they were doing.  
    
    And IMO, people who sue, then settle for cash instead of seeing
    the suit through to the end (and therefore, hopefully, finding out
    just exactly what happened, who was negligent, etc.), are just as
    guilty of wrongdoing as those they sue.  (And again, MrT, I'll point
    you to the IMO, which I also had as the title to my last note, in
    case you don't know, that stands for In My Opinion - it is simply
    my views.)
    
    JD

    Mr T, if those statements are in fact true then LMU deserves to
    be nailed to the wall.  CPR is an important part of the standard
    certification exam for trainers, in fact, I had to scramble to get
    into a CPR course to get renewed in order to even take the exam.
    There is no excuse, zero, nada, none for anyone who's a certified
    trainer not knowing CPR.  Further, while EMT coverage is not always
    a standard at basketball games (it certainly is for football) LMU
    should have had it available at all its home games *AND* made
    arrangements with the host schools for road trips to have special
    coverage available.  There isn't a school I know of that wouldn't
    have done that, given the situation.
    
    Sheesh.
    
    John

    MrT,
    
    I'll extract that note, and maybe frame it.  You answered questions.
    
    Thanks - see Tom, no malice in my asking, no ratholing, no personal
    attack - simply trying to wade through the different facts that
    have come up in this case.    You did manage one slight personal
    attack, but it wasn't too bad.  
    
    As for the de-fibrillator, I've heard it was at courtside but wasn't
    used, and I've heard it wasn't there.  Both in the papers.  Sorting
    out the facts in this case has been a trip.  Every 'source' I've
    seen has something different.
    
    BTW, the attorney for the Gathers is waiting to file any lawsuit
    til after the NCAA tourney is over.   His quote:  "If someone is
    liable for Hank's death, we can wait, even if Loyola is out of the
    tournament, which I hope not.  I do not want to do anything to hurt
    Hank's teammates.  Hank would not have wanted his teammates harmed."
    
    IMO, the entity/person with the biggest pockets will end up paying
    out some cash.
    
    JD

    T,
    
    In the paper today, some of the points are still listed as 'yet
    to be answered', so IMV, I don't take 'em as established.
    
    And all along I've agreed that if it is proven that LMU willingly
    and knowingly forced the reductions, then LMU should pay severely.
    I just didn't condemn and hang them before all the facts were in.
    
    JD

    T, why banish Westhead ? Frankly, I doubt if he would be responsible
    for any negligence. I'd take a look at the AD, the supervisor of
    the trainers, ect. Somehow, I can't see him being responsible for
    medical neglience, unless he intentionally overworked Gathers in
    defiance of a medical order to the contrary ....

    Opinion from a doctor friend(not a cardiologist) is that no emergency
    treatment in the world could have saved Gathers IF he suffered massive
    fibrillation, which it appears he did. Death is almost instantaneous as
    the heart beats itself to death. I have seen films of a large animal's
    heart in fibrillation, and it is incredible how fast it beats and how
    quickly it stops. Anyone know a cardiologist?
    
    If that is true, then there is even more responsibility on the
    person/institution that lowered the medication. I, for one, hope that
    Gathers did it himself. Not only would it be a terrible blow to the
    reputation of college basketball, it would be an awful burden for
    someone to carry for the rest of his life.
    
    Chris

    re: Doctors not usually good at medical emergencies
    
    My wife's uncle is a pediatrician on Martha's Vineyard (treats James
    Taylor/Carly Simon's kids) who was in the hospital when Bart Giamatti
    had his heart attack.  Seems Bart's personal cardiologist was on the
    island when he had his heart attack.  When they got him to the hospital
    this dude took over the show.  After all, he was a hot-shot, big $$$
    doctor from Bahstan.  
    
    Anyway the word my uncle got from the ER guys was that he totally
    screwed up.  Used all outdated procedures to try and revive him.
    It's likely that Bart was all done before he got to the hospital (had a
    pretty massive coronary I guess) but you'd like to think he got the
    best possible chance to live.  He didn't.
    
    
    - ACC Chris
    

�  Unfortunately, in this country the last ten years
    �    or so the definition of responsibility has been pretty much narrowed
�    down to court decisions 
    
    And more and more the individual is being assumed to have less and less
    responsibility for their own actions.

                 Don't hold back Mr T. Whattaya really think?

Mike JN

Ps.  	How can we get these sleeeeeeeaze bucket media types to act
responsibly?  

    
    LMU will be presenting a BA in Communications to Hank's relatives
    during graduation this year. He was on course tbe graduated in that
    major.
    
    Dennis
    

    From .177 (T) ...
    
   � There's a boom industry just starting right now around what is being
   � called "opinion programming."  Used to be called propaganda, but
   � that's too crude a_idea to properly describe the breakthroughs in
   � sophisticated control over public opinion through electronic images.
    
    An "industry" that a certain noter is only too too familiar with. 
    No other noter in this conference goes to such great and
    exhausting lengths to "help" other people less enlightened than he
    formulate their "opinions" as our own Mr T.
    
   � George Orwell would've died watching this classic example of somnuprop
   � damage control.  There they are, the victims own ilk, flatly telling
   � us what is possible for us to think, what we must think, what we
   � must feel.
    
    George Orwell did die.  And we've lost count of the many times
    that Mr T has flatly told us what is possible for us to think,
    what we must think, and what we must feel.
                                
   � I turned off the TV, and not only cuz I couldn't bear to watch the
   � Running Rabble go up against this lates Jesuit college hoops factory;
   � I turned it off cuz I was so deeply offended and insulted by such
   � a frank and open piece of lying manipulative lying one-sided propaganda.
                                                                
    Hmmm, shutting off the source of the propaganda, eh ???  What a
    novel idea.  Now, why didn't anyone think of that before ??? 
    Actually not paying any attention to what the offending
    manipulator is trying to say.    Actually blocking out the
    invisible mind-control waves emanating from the thought
    conditioner.  
    
    I'll have to try that.
    
    Bob Hunt

    $32M is an awful lot of payola.  So, if the Gathers family wins the
    suit, would this sum of money be detrimental to the existance of
    Loyola?  Will thousands of kids getting a Loyola education get screwed
    just so Mrs. Gathers and family will have their Mercedes' and
    no-mortgage homes in the burbs, like they would've enjoyed had Hank
    lived to earn countless NBA mega-paychecks?
    
    I really wonder about the Gathers family's priorities.........
    
    H�wk

       They'll settle for a lot less. I agree with T on this one. IF it's
    all proven in court the way the suit alleges. Personally, I don't doubt
    it at all.
                                     Denny

    
    Hawk, I'm shocked!!! If what T says is true and not a "cloaca of
    heresies" then 100 million wouldn't be enough. Sure Hank was a big boy
    and could have and should have made his own decision but if the coach
    did go to the doctor and bend his arm a bit to lower the medication,
    they shouldn't just be sued they should be brought up on involuntary
    manslaughter charges.....
    
    mike

    Mikey, I also agree with T if these allegations are true. What sets me
    off is the loss of a high society lifestyle motivating the family.  The
    loss of their loved one should be the ONLY motivating factor in this
    whole ordeal, not the loss of a new car and house........
    
    I hope the family gets what is fair, and use it wisely, in Hank's
    memory.......
    
    H�wk

Look for an out of court settlement to this, wherein noone from LMU
admits to guilt and a gag order is invoked on the settlement. 

TTom

The allegations in the Gathers' family lawsuit are pretty nasty.

I, too, agree with MrT.  *IF* these allegations are proven, then the
university, Westhead, and the doctors involved ought to pay and pay
heavily.

Nasty.

Bob Hunt

    ESPN reported the same information as T put in here (not quite so
    eloquently though..;^) ).  The doctor also said that prior to the
    phone call from Westhead, he and Gathers had an appointment wherein
    Hank said he felt fine with the dosage amount he was taking (ie not
    sluggish).
    
    Claybone

    
    Since T's summary is naturally a_accurate one, I'm surprised that
    that there is no mention where the doctor is specifically named
    in the lawsuit.  Is he?  Sounds to me like he should be fried royally
    for adjusting a dosage, which he himself prescribed, on the
    orders/coercion of a third party.
    
    I never wanted to believe that the worst-case scenario would be
    revealed in this case.  Sadly, that is now what appears to be
    happening.
    
    -Dick
    

Who comes up with the $32M figure?   Do they take the number of family
members and then go:
	
	"Let's see... Dad wants a Lincoln and a fishing boat...
	 Mom wants a BMW and a new condo in Florida... Sis is still
	 looking thru the Neiman-Marcus catalog... Uncle Fred wants
	 a Rolex and a Jag."

If a settlement is reached {I still am a non-believer in the
conspiracy theory as I think Hank was a big boy and made his own
decisions}, I think 90% of the money should go to Hank's son in
trust and 10% to the parents.... no other money-grubbers need apply.

    ESPN did mention the Dr.'s name, but I didn't write it down.  I
    also killed the brain cells that were storing this information.
    
    Claybone

    No, you're not alone on this T.  Matter of fact I've been with you from
    the start on this one.  
    
    Several things really bother me about this, not the least of which are:
        
    1. Television.  CBS literally told us we had to pull for LMU.  "You
       can't help but be pulling for them", I heard James Brown say.
       This long before the very suspicious circustances of Hank's death had
       been cleared up.  I felt from the very beginning that LMU owned a
       healthy amount of the blame for this avoidable tragedy, and yet
       I'm told (blatently) that I've gotta root for 'em.  Why should I?
       If they made the Final 4 or won a champeenship was that gonna bring
       Hank back from the dead?  No, yet every journalist on the other side
       of OURGNG was brainwashing us that LMU, possible contributing
       murderer, is the team we should all tune in to watch (and drive
       CBS' ratings up, of course).  BAH.
    
    2. Newspapers.  Then there's the print media.  I found out about the 
       lawsuit thanks to a small blurb on page 6 of the Atlanta Constitution 
       on Friday night.  Meanwhile Pete Rose, who's only done what the majority
       of  Americans do but on a bigger scale (i.e. gamble and cheat on his
       income taxes) has long been splashed on the front page of the paper
       and been the headline story for Dan Rather and company.  Now we've
       got a guy (Westhead) who's being accused of contributing to the
       DEATH of 23-year old and it's buried in the sports section on page 
       6.  IMHO, this oughta be front page news, the trial oughta be followed 
       as close as Ollie North's, and if LMU and Westhead are found guilty
       T's suggested penalties should be invoked, *PLUS* some jail time
       for Westhead.
    
    
    - ACC Chris

    If the facts are as presented, then I hold the LMU medical staff
    responsible and not Westhead.  Westhead was merely doing what a
    coach would normally do in that situation which is why there are
    doctors and trainers in the first place - to protect the interests
    and health of the student-athlete.  Any doctor or trainer worthy
    of the name should have stood up to Westhead's demands and just
    said no, though as I said earlier, a case can be made for adjusting
    the dosage if the medical staff thought the risk was acceptable.
    But, it shouldn't have been done through bullying or coercion.
    
    John

    RE: .197
    
    Couldn't have said it any better, John.
    
    	--dan'l

From: [email protected] (LINDA RAPATTONI)
Newsgroups: clari.news.law.civil,clari.sports.basketball,clari.news.top
Subject: Hank Gathers' family sues for $22.5 million
Date: 21 Apr 90 00:21:15 GMT
 
 
	LOS ANGELES (UPI) -- The family of Loyola Marymount basketball star
Hank Gathers, who collapsed during a game and died last month, filed a
$22.5 million suit Friday against the school, a coach and seven doctors.
	Gathers, 23, was ``sacrificed on the altar of (college)
basketball'' the Superior Court suit charged.
	The suit, naming 14 defendants in all including basketball coach
Paul Westhead, was filed on behalf of Gathers' mother, Lucille, his
brothers Derrick and Charles, and aunt Carole Livingston.
	It charged the defendants were responsible for Gathers' death by
clearing him to play after he fainted during a game Dec. 9 and by not
telling him of the life-threatening risk he was taking by continuing to
play.
	The suit also claims Gathers was not treated quickly enough after
collapsing  March 4 during the West Coast Conference Tournament.
Gathers, the nation's leading scorer and rebounder in 1988-89, was
pronounced dead at a hospital less than two hours after collapsing.
	Attorney Bruce Fagel alleged that Westhead twice urged Dr. Vernon
Hattori, Gathers' cardiologist, to reduce the dosage of medication the
player was taking for an irregular heartbeat.
	``It's wrong for a coach to call and put any pressure on the
doctors and it's wrong for the doctors to listen,'' Fagel said.
	Westhead issued a statement denying any role in Gathers' medical
care.
	``As his coach, I did my best for Hank Gathers,'' Westhead said.
``I was never part of the medical decisions concerning Hank. I did not
decide what medication to prescribe or what dosage to take.''
	Loyola also issued a statement saying it ``expects the university
and its staff members will be fully vindicated.''
	In detailing his charges, Fagel presented a five-page letter dated
Jan. 29 from Hattori to Dr. Michael Mellman, an internist, in which
Hattori said Gathers felt he was performing fine with the 120 milligrams
of Inderal he was taking. The letter said that Westhead, however,
complained Gathers' effort was ``substantially sub-par'' and ``felt
strongly the medication should be changed.''
	The suit was announced at a news conference. Gathers' relatives
were not present because ``the family is still in shock,'' Fagel said.
Attending the news conference were Adrian Moody, a lawyer representing
Gathers' 5-year-old son, Aaron Crum, and Martin Krimsky, administrator
of Gathers' estate.
	Krimsky said he would file another suit on behalf of the estate and
Gathers' heirs ``in the next two or three weeks'' seeking damages,
including a $1 million disability insurance policy that Gathers could
have collected on if he had stopped playing after learning of his heart
condition.
	Fagel's lawsuit said the defendants knew Gathers was dying as he
lay on the court and failed to treat him for 2 minutes and 45 seconds,
the time it took to remove Gathers off the court.
	Although the university had purchased a defibrilator, it was not
used in an attempt to restart Gathers' heart after doctors failed to
locate a pulse, the lawsuit said.
	``Hank Gathers was therefore sacrificed on the altar of basketball
for the sole benefit of said named defendants ... who sought to gain
economically and professionally from the continued success of the
basketball team,'' the suit alleged.

�    Biggest revelation thus far is a letter from the Gathers' attending
�    cardiologist describing the pressure he felt from Payoloa MoneyCount's
�    highly profitable Jesuit basketball factory.  Seems that the jug-eared
�    coach Paul Westhaid called the doc and demanded that his medication
�    be lowered cuz it was affecting Hank's play.  The doctor acquiesced and
�    lowered the dosage.                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

   	Seems to me that this is the crux of the matter.

   It was Gathers' attending physician. Whether or not the coach called up
   the Doctor and demanded (? I doubt this ?) that the dosage be lowered
   is beside the point. I don't care if the coach walked up and down in
   the Doctor's parking lot, naked, carrying a sign, and threatening to
   kill HIMSELF if the dosage wasn't lowered. It might have been poor
   judgement on the Coach's part, but I fail to see how it could ever be
   considered actionable. The responsibility belonged to the Doctor, and
   to Hank Gathers. It's unfortunate that Hank died... a tragedy. But such
   things aren't always someone's FAULT (though given the litigious nature
   of this country, one might think so). If a huge judgement is handed
   down against the school, think of the consequences to other athletes
   who might have had a medical problem: ie. a heart murmur as a child,
   etc. It just wouldn't be worth the risk of letting them play, even
   though the young man WANTS to (at what point is ANY institution
   justified in letting an individual take responsibility for their own
   decisions?) Hind sight is really wonderful, isn't it?  We can all think
   of lots of things which MIGHT have been done differently... but in all
   honesty, there doesn't seem like there are many things that really
   SHOULD have been done differently. And the few things that SHOULD or
   COULD have been done differently SHOULD have been recommended by the
   attending physician. I don't think anyone is crazy enough to insinuate
   that there was a plot to kill Hank. Therefore, the worst that might be
   implied would be negligence and/or incompetence on the part of the
   physician. And if he conducted himself within reasonable parameters,
   given historical data on similar cases, then even this is not a valid
   charge.

    First, the mere fact that Westhead would actually call up the doctor
    and ask/demand/plead/suggest (call it whatever you want) that Hank's
    medication be reduced is dispicable and noteworthy.  True, he can't be
    held accountable and will avoid any legal responsibility, but I'm
    shocked by this, and believe it 100%.  (Note in Westhead's statement he
    never said he didn't call the doc and ask for medication to be reduced. 
    In other words, he did.  Unreal.)
    
    Second, you talk of hindsight and how wouldn't it be nice if it were
    20/20, etc.  Nice cliche, but in this case IT JUST DOESN'T WASH. 
    (Sorry.)  The kid *collapsed*, for gosh-darned sake, in December. 
    Collapsed.  Dead away.  The doctors diagnosed that he had a heart
    problem, and a serious one at that.  (According to SI when they put him
    on the treadmill to monitor his heart in the doctors office his heart
    started to beat wildly out of control.  And you're gonna let this kid
    play full-out hoops??  Apparently.  :^( )
    
    You can't use that hindsight argument in this case.  There's just too
    much to point to outrageous negligence, not to mention sleazoid
    activities on the part of Westhead.
    
    
    - ACC Chris
    

First of all, all of this alleged. 

Secondly, it fits into a nice package if you dislike/distrust Loyola and
Westhead to assume that the school did Hank in. 

From the way other players and schools deal with this ailment (equipment,
training, etc.) it looks like there's negligence. Westhead will pay for
calling the doctor, even though here are a lot of non-evil, non-malicious
reasons why he might do that. There was a poor medical decision to take
Hank off the court before treatment. The doctor will pay for this. It
would be the worst offense of all if Loyola TOLD the doctors to do this.

TTom

    People seem to be forgetting another side to this whole mess.  Where
    were Hank's family, from the time of his first collapse, to his death?
    I'm talking these loving family members, Mom, Auntie, and the 2
    brothers who are now taking action, you know, after the ft.  Why did
    Mom even consider allowing Hank to play even another minute of college
    basketball knowing the seriousness of his condition?  I can't believe
    that she had no power or influence to yank him off the team
    immediately, even if Hank himself would've refused.  Why Mom?  Why
    didn't you do something about it?  Maybe "$NBA$" had something to do
    with it?  I dunno..........
    
    Yes, Loyola, the coaches, the trainers, the doctors, and whoever else,
    are very easy targets.  But, where does the ULTIMATE blame lie?  I
    think that only GOD can answer this truthfully...........
    
    H�wk

    If Westhead was throwing his weight around and trying to intimidate
    that doctor into changing Gathers' medication, and the doctor backed
    down in the face of that, then that doctor isn't worthy of being
    in the profession.  I'd like to think I would have resigned had
    I been in that position.
    
    I find it hard to blame the trainer for this, because it's not his
    job to cut down on medication.  Like I said, the trainer could say
    to the doctor, I see this, could we try something different, and
    there's nothing wrong with that.  I still don't see anything wrong
    with the doctor trying different levels of medication based *ON
    HIS MEDICAL JUDGMENT* to find a level that would have protected
    Hank and allowed him to play.  If the decision was made through
    intimidation by Westhead, then that was wrong.
    
    The CYA flying around here is going to be amazing.
    
    John

    	IMHO, the responsibility ultimately lied in the hands of Hank.
    From what I heard early on, Hank WAS informed as to the seriousness
    of his condition and that if he continued playing he could die.
    Hank assumed the risk from that point on and no one should be to
    blame.
    
    	I find the scenario where Hank was aware of what was going on
    much easier to believe the scenario where things were going on behind
    his back and out of his control and that he was a mere puppet.
    
    sean

     re .202
    
>    (Note in Westhead's statement he
>    never said he didn't call the doc and ask for medication to be reduced. 
>    In other words, he did.  Unreal.)
            
    Chris, calm down. Westhead would be a fool to commit to anything
    with a court case coming up. Wait for the trial will ya ! It seems
    to me that Westhead isn't about to hang his a-- (in a legal sense)
    out in the wind. In the smae situation, you'd do the smae thing,
    assuming that you have the sense that God gave a brick.
    
>    You can't use that hindsight argument in this case.  There's just too
>    much to point to outrageous negligence, not to mention sleazoid
>    activities on the part of Westhead.
 
    Between you and MrT, there is too much yellow journalism and loaded
    word noting going on for my taste.
    
    I'm willing to wait and see for the trial, hopefully all will come
    out in the wash. And if LMU and Westhead is gulity, then nail 'em
    to the wall for all to see. Ditto for the doctors. I'll lead the
    lynch mob.
    
    But this gulity-until-proven-innocent rabble-rousing we can all
    do without.
    
    Time-out ! Please !
    
    DrM 
    
    - ACC Chris
    

    Well, the high and might moral mojority-crowd has already convicted
    Westhead and Loyola-Marymount prior to a fair trial, as guarenteed
    in the Constitution.  Funny how the most morally high-browed among
    us are always the first to point fingers and forget about the laws
    upon which this country was built.
    
    A long time ago I stated that the doctor was the one who should
    be accountable.  A professional medical person does not put the
    safety of his patient behind those of others.  Period.  Finish.
    I said back after it happened that the Doctor would try to squirm
    and pin the blame on someone else - knowing that his malpractice
    led to this.   
    
    And I agree with Hawk to some extent - where were Hank's family
    and friends before all this happened?  ANd better yet - where was
    the moral mojority after the first collapse.  Didn't hear a peep
    from the lynch crowd then.
    
    JD

    re: JD & DocZero
    
    Fine to start shoving the Constitution and fair trial stuff in my face. 
    Obviously I'm in favor of both.
    
    Unfortunately with the (unConstitutional) gag rules that are put on
    cases like this, we'll probably NEVER KNOW THE TRUTH.  
    
    And *THAT* may be the biggest tragedy in this whole thing, cause it
    means that the very same thing could (and probably will) happen again.
    
    :^(
    
    
    - ACC Chris
    

    Chris,
    
    Do you think the Doctor (s) treating Hank had more responsibility
    in this case than Loyola and the staff?  I certainly do.
    
    I put a hypothetical situation forward.
    
    Suppose a DEC employee, due to job-related stress, collapses at
    the workplace.  He's revived, found to have a heart condition, and
    put on medication, per doctor's orders.  After a few months, he
    seems to be getting better, but his boss notices he doesn't perform
    at the same level, he seems sluggish.  The boss call up the Doctor
    and tells him to reduce the dosage of medication because the guy
    isn't performing all to well.  The Doctor does it, due to this request.
    The employee has another collapse, this one fatal.   Who's to blame?
    
    Isn't the Doctor the ONLY one qualified to make a medical decision
    that will affect the person's life.  Shouldn't the Doctor ONLY go
    with sound, medical advice, and not by the pleading of a non-medically
    qualified person?  I certainly think so!
    
    And wouldn't the Doctor try to play himself off as doing the okay
    thing, and blaming the boss and the company for pressure, so he
    can save his butt.
    
    And when the inevitible lawsuit came down from the loved one's family,
    doesn't it make sense to go after everyone - especially the boss
    and more importantly, the company, because it has the most readily
    available cash, and will  be the most willing to settle out of court,
    to try to stave off the bad publicity.
    
    I don't paint a wild picture, unfortunately.
    
    JD

>    Unfortunately with the (unConstitutional) gag rules that are put on
 >   cases like this, we'll probably NEVER KNOW THE TRUTH.  
  
    Chris, according to you, "THE TRUTH" (or is De Troof (tm)) is that
    Westhead is gulity. Period, end of story. You're contradicting
    yourself.
    
    Suppose, just suppose, this was all just a tragic accident, with
    nobody being at fault ? Hmmmm ???
    
    What would it take to convince you ?
    
>    And *THAT* may be the biggest tragedy in this whole thing, cause it
>    means that the very same thing could (and probably will) happen again.
 
    Somehow, I doubt it. Players will remember for a long time to come.
    Parents will, and doctors will. And you can bet that everyone will
    step lightly from now on, no matter what the school tries (if in
    fact LMU was gulity of coersion) .....
    
    Doc
    

    re: Doc
    
    I can only hope you're correct and others will "tread lightly".  They
    certainly didn't in the case of Hank, where there's a very good
    possibility that a needless death took place.
    
    re: JD
    
    Your analogy is bogus JD, but I do see your point.  (It's bogus because
    Digital doesn't put *maximum* stress on the heart, like LMU.)  But
    besides that I do agree that, ultimately, it's the doctors who will
    accept the brunt of the responsibility, legally anyways.  And they'll
    probably fry for what they did (or didn't do).  Negligence on the part
    of the doctors (reducing dosage, which obviously turned out to be a
    horribly incorrect decision) and failure on the part of LMU to
    proactively plan for Hank's collapse (like they do with Cummings),
    IMHO, are where Hank's family will justifiably collect their dough.
    
    BUT, ... 
    
    *Does* this excuse Westhead for making the phone calls?  Was Westhead
    acting on Hank's best interests?  (No, he's dead.  :^( )  Picture
    another coach in Westhead's position, a man with Integrity (capital
    "I").  (Dean comes to mind here, but you can use whoever ya want.)
    How would he have handled it?  How should it have been handled?  And
    *please* spare me the cop-out hindsight is 20/20 crapola.  The guy
    collapsed for heaven's sake a couple months before with a heart
    problem.
    
    What about reducing Hank's minutes?  What about changing your style of
    play a bit?  What about just telling him he can't play?  What about at
    least making absolutely sure that all possible equipment is on hand in
    case Hank collapses again.  (I know this is probably the trainers job,
    but certainly a coach could step in here, no?)  
    
    It really surprises me you guys cut this guy so much flack.  If I had a
    player collapse on me and almost die and then find out he had a serious
    heart problem, I'd hope I'd do a little more than Westhead did.  (Which
    was essentially to ask the doctors to stop giving the kid his heart
    medicine.  Geez!  :^(  :^(  :^(  )
    
    
    - ACC Chris

    Chris,  
    
    Why are you so quick to not condemn the medical staff???  When you
    get sick or injured, do you go to a doctor, or to your boss?  Do
    you follow the recommendations of trained medical personnel, or
    do you listen to anyone who has a thought on what might be wrong?
    
    Why is it that all the responsibility and blame is being thrown
    at Westhead, and not at Hank's doctors, family, close friends, and
    other confidants, and on Hank hisself?  
    
    JD

    Oh, and Chris,
    
    re 212
    
    When I worked at the Mill, more than one employee was wheeled out
    on a stretcher with a heart problem, and one passed away.  Stress
    is caused by many things, not simply physical endeavors.    My father
    changed jobs and companies after getting high bloodpressure attributed
    to on-the-job stress. 
    
    And you are assuming guilt before the fact.  
    
    JD

    Re-read my note JD.  I said the doctors should FRY if there's
    malpractice involved.  And properly so.
    
    Of course I go to a doctor when I'm sick.  And when I do I certainly
    don't expect anyone else to call him up and make suggestions on what
    medicines I should or shouldn't take!
    
    Again, answer my question.  How would *you* have handled having a guy
    collapse from heart problems?  If you were Hank's parents, what would
    you expect him to do?
    
    
    - ACC Chris
    

This has to be a record for the deepest mink hole since the "Trial"

The Guy is dead folks why not let him and Liz Taylor rest in peace.

       Did Liz die? I heard she was in ICU last night.
                                            denny

Word is that Liz is doing well. But she is on a respirator and according to 
some Media Geek she would be doing better if the press would let her rest 
in peace.

Jeff

    Chris,
    
    What I would have done is immaterial - in fact, speculating on what
    others would have done is immaterial - since we'll never know how
    others would have handled it.
    
    My point has been that from the beginning the folks with the most
    responsibility to Hank's well-being were the medical professionals
    that treated him.  You position has been to say it was Westhead's
    and LMU's. 
    
    Right now everything is speculation, innuendo, and unproven allegation.
    You, and others, have chosen to take them as facks,  since they
    fit your stance.  My stance has been to wait and see - and to have
    little faith in believing anything the doctor's say, as they try
    to save their butts from malpractice.  
    
    I don't know the exact conversation that alledgedly took place between
    Westhaed and the doctors.  I do know that if I was someone concerned
    about Hank's condition, I would talk to the doctor's to understand
    what was going on, including asking about the medication.
    
    The medical profession will  close ranks to protect hte malpractice,
    and a sacrificial lamb will be offered tothe lynch mob.  Westhead
    is that lamb.  Meanwhile, the medical folks will be free to fool
    around with other folks lives. 
    
    JD

    T,
    
    First, I'm not a fan of lawyers.  However, I can't see how you so
    easily let the doctor get off.  The attending doctor was the only
    one qualified to make decisions on Hank's wellbeing.  If he let
    himself get talked out of that - then he is to blame - more so than
    anyone else, because it his work and his conviction to work towards
    saving people.  Of course, that doesn't fit into your wanting to
    fry Westhead and LMU - probably because you caint make up funny
    little names for them.  
    
    
    Corrective action is needed - however, I doubt if Congress or the
    NCAA, no matter how many studies or committees they have, will come
    up with a workable plan.  
    
    The medical community has to take some responsibility.   They haven't
    - instead they offloaded the blame onto un-qualified folks - and
    it is being eaten, hook, line and sinker by some folks.  
    
    The medical commmunity has to share at LEAST equal burden with teh
    other parties - though I feel the doctors should be held most
    responsible.
    
    Taken corrective action is the right thing - leading a blind lynch
    mob is quite another thing.   Your rope has had the hangman's knot
    ready since Day 1. 
    
    JD

Loyola is certainly responsible as the employer of the staff - coaching,
medical, training, etc. - and will pay IMO.

The legal culpability of the employer is one of the newer areas of
litigation. It follows the principal of suing the one with the most money
so you can get the most money.

TTom

    And you can call me naive if you want but I can't believe that anyone
    would have been so sleazy that they would have prevented CPR or
    other life saving measures to be started right away.  Nor can I
    believe that the school would not have allowed the proper life saving
    equipment to be there and ready for use.
    
    And at any school I know of, they have doctors either on staff or
    affiliated with the school and they have worked with the school's
    medical staff to set up the parameters under which someone could
    play.  No school would ever overrule a doctor.
    
    John