Bayless might be last ESPN analyst sticking with Heat; Stephen A does great Jay Pharoah

Posted on by

I can’t account for every ESPN analyst, but each talking head I’ve heard out of Bristol is burying the Miami Heat.

Jon Barry blew them up on NBA Countdown last night. While riding in my car, I just listened to Michael Wilbon destroy LeBron James and company on WMVP-AM 1000, the ESPN-owned station in Chicago.

Yet through the chorus of jeers, there’s one person sticking with the underachievers: Skip Bayless.

On First Take this morning, Skip proclaimed: “Miami was the heavy favorite to win it all and I’m not backing off.

Later, he said: “I’m not writing them off. I’m sticking with them in seven games, because they’re still the Miami Heat.”

I’m not even sure Pat Riley agrees with Bayless.

Skip obviously is hoping for the last laugh. If you’re soon-to-be-fired Heat coach Eric Spoelstra, you’re hoping Bayless is right and you’re using the avalanche of negative Heat comments to fire up your dead team.

Of course, you have to go to the 5:40 mark to hear Skip’s comments. The open is a classic rant against the Heat by Stephen A. Smith that goes on for nearly four minutes. I’m not sure I’ll be able to watch Stephen A again without going to Jay Pharoah’s take on him on Saturday Night Live.

Four minutes of my life gone again, but it was worth it.

Ratings report: Stanley Cup down; Golf Channel has huge May

Posted on by

The Stanley Cup Final isn’t exactly how the NHL hoped to finish its season. It has been a ratings buzzkill.

Monday’s Game 3 was watched by 1.743 million viewers, down 37% from 2.757 last year for Bruins-Canucks. The game did a 1.03, down from a 1.58.

It doesn’t figure to get much better tonight with Los Angeles holding a 3-0 lead in the series. The clincher will be on NBC Sports Network if the Kings can complete the sweep. Again, not what the NHL wanted.

Channeling up: It’s big times for another Comcast-owned network. Ratings are soaring for the Golf Channel, which enjoyed its biggest May ever.

From Golf Channel:

Coming off its best year ever in 2011, Golf Channel continues to build on its momentum with a strong start to 2012. Based upon five-plus quarters of growth since becoming part of the NBC Sports Group, Golf Channel is the fastest-growing network on cable (among networks serving 80 million or more U.S. homes). Through May, average viewers are up 20 percent over 2011 and 52 percent over the same time period two years ago. Four out of five months in the books so far this year – and the last consecutive four months – have set a “most-watched” record for that month.

And more good news:

MAY MOST-WATCHED: Golf Channel averaged 112,000 viewers per day during May, spurred by compelling PGA TOUR coverage and strong performances from the network’s original entertainment series:
· The second episode of Big Break Atlantis (May 21) was the highest-rated and most-watched (0.3/349,000) original entertainment program in primetime this year and of any Big Break Episode Two in four years.
· The Feherty episode featuring guest Donald Trump (0.2/215,000) was the highest-rated Feherty premiere this season. The series has bolstered the network’s primetime Monday lineup of original shows, which is up 64 percent over 2011.
DIGITAL KEEPS PACE: GolfChannel.com continues to attract new users in 2012, with page views up 41 percent and unique users up 58 percent so far this year over last year. Page views for the site’s mobile application are up 368 percent over 2011.

 

ESPN’s OTL focuses on horrific side of horse racing; deaths mount at Aqueduct

Posted on by

During this historic week for horse racing, there’s another vastly more important story that needs to be told.

Jeannine Edwards (pictured interviewing a former equine vet) will file a report on Outside the Lines (ESPN, Wednesday, 3 p.m. ET, replay Sunday at 9 a.m. ET) on 23 horses dying in an 18-week span at Aqueduct Racetrack, just 10 miles from where I’ll Have Another will be running Saturday at Belmont.

That’s an average of more than one horse per week dying during that span at Aqueduct. Horrifying.

Edwards, who attended her first race at the age of 12 at Belmont, loves the sport. Yet as her report shows, horse racing clearly has major problems that have dire consequences.

Here’s my Q/A with Edwards.

What will your story say?

It is going to say the sport has a problem. It has been working hard to correct these problems. In the last four years, many (organizations) have put forth new institutional safety reforms to make racing safer. Statistics, though, show things aren’t getting any better. Our piece asks, this is what happened; where does the buck stop? Who is looking out for the horses? It’s clear more needs to be done to find an answer.

What is happening at Aqueduct?

When there’s a cluster (of deaths), that’s an indication that something is wrong. We introduce the story with a couple who had a horse die at Aqueduct.

Clearly, there needs to be a better enforcement of the rules and better testing. We interview a veterinarian who feels like there is no enforcement, no surveillance of the horses (throughout the country)

Anytime, there’s money on the line, and your living relies on a horse winning a race, people are going to push the envelope. The horseman, though, need to be more ethical. The fingers are going to be pointed at the vets and the trainers.

Did you time the story to come out during Belmont when so much attention is on the sport?

No. Initially we were talking about doing it in the spring. Then when we heard (New York Governor Andrew Cuomo) had assembled a task force to investigate horse racing, we said, let’s wait until we see what the task force says. Now we hear the report won’t come out until late June, maybe July. We didn’t want our interviews to become dated. We felt if we want our story to have maximum relevance, it should air around the Belmont, considering the fact that horses are dying at a New York track.

Given the controversy around trainer Doug O’Neill, how do you feel about I’ll Have Another this week?

Personally, I like Doug. He’s a great guy. Yes, he is carrying these allegations. And they are haunting him. But he’s not the only one. Let’s not make him the poster child for this.

 

 

 

 

 

Lineup changes on SportsCenter: Crawford at noon; Buccigross moves to 11

Posted on by

ESPN has announced the following lineup changes to SportsCenter. From the release:

ESPN2 First Take host Jay Crawford (debuts at noon ET) and John Buccigross (moves to 11 p.m.) will have new assignments in the anchor lineup of ESPN’s flagship news and information program SportsCenter effective Monday, July 9.

Crawford will co-host the 12-3 p.m. SportsCenter with Chris McKendry. He replaces Buccigross, who becomes part of the 11 p.m. rotation which includes Scott Van Pelt, Steve Levy, Stuart Scott, Linda Cohn and Robert Flores. Buccigross will also become the voice of ESPN’s NCAA Frozen Four coverage.

“We’re always looking to improve our shows in both content and delivery, and this is yet another example of SportsCenter’s constant evolution to accomplish those goals,” said Mark Gross, Senior Vice President & Executive Producer, Production. “John’s personality in describing highlights will add to our late-night depth, while Jay provides a familiar face in a new role for mid-day viewers of our networks.”

And your lineup effective July 9, for those keeping score at home:

  • 9 a.m.:            Kevin Neghandi & Hannah Storm
  • Noon:             Chris McKendry & Jay Crawford
  • 6 p.m.:            Jay Harris & John Anderson
  • 11 p.m.:          Scott Van Pelt, John Buccigross, Steve Levy, Stuart Scott, Linda Cohn, Robert Flores (two nightly)
  • 2 a.m.:            Neil Everett & Stan Verrett

Title IX impact not felt in press boxes; still few women sportswriters

Posted on by

Forty years later, and still not many women in the press box.

With all the hoopla on the 40th anniversary of Title IX, Rhiannon Falzone of ChicagoSide weighs in with a timely story about women in sports media, or lack thereof.

She writes:

In Chicago, as in most big cities, men dominate the business of sports reporting. It’s been 40 years since Title IX became the law, banning sex discrimination in American education, and giving girls equal rights in classrooms and gymnasiums. But while the law changed the face of sports, it hasn’t done much to change sports media, especially in Chicago. By my count, and based on interviews with local editors and reporters, it breaks down like this:

The Chicago Tribune sports department employs 15 full-time reporters, two of them women.

The Sun-Times sports desk has eight full-time reporters, two of them women. All of its columnists are men.

The Daily Herald employs one woman on a staff of twelve.

WSCR 670 The Score lists 24 reporters and hosts on its website; all of them are men.

WMVP ESPN 1000 has thirteen “personalities” listed on its website, all but one of them men.

ChicagoSide has been in business more than two months, and this is its first story written by a woman.

I may be a girl, but I know this math is wrong.

Falzone concludes:

In response, some women are creating their own opportunities. Julie DiCaro, a freelance Redeye columnist, recently started Aerys Sports, an online network of women sports bloggers.

“I decided to do my own thing and not try to break into the boys club,” said DiCaro, who grew up reading Isaacson in the Tribune. “I got tired of it. With Title IX a lot of women grew up with sports a big part of theirs,” DiCaro said. “This isn’t a group of women saying, ‘we’re girl writers.’ No, we’re sportswriters.”

 

 

 

Go Chargers! San Diego U-T CEO wants sports section to ‘support’ local teams

Posted on by

I would be fairly nervous if I worked at the San Diego Union-Tribune these days. What if I write something that runs counter to the sentiments of CEO John Lynch?

Will I find myself out on the street like Tim Sullivan?

It certainly appears as if Sullivan’s distinguished 10-year run as a columnist ended because he had serious questions about building a new stadium in San Diego. Lynch, the father of former Tampa Bay and Denver star safety John Lynch, wants that stadium to keep the Chargers in town.

In a telling interview with the Voice of San Diego shortly after taking over as CEO, there’s this passage:

He wants that sports page to be an advocate for a new football stadium “and call out those who don’t as obstructionists.”

“To my way of thinking,” Lynch said, “that’s a shovel-ready job for thousands.”

Later:

And the former sports radio executive said the paper should have “an incredibly strong sports page that supports the Chargers, the Padres, USD, SDSU.”

Wow, support a new stadium and go Bolts! Is that the U-T’s new mantra?

Sullivan certainly wasn’t up for playing that game. In yesterday’s post about his dismissal, he said:

Mr. Lynch appears to be of a mind to make the stadium happen and bulldoze the opposition or even those who raise questions.

Later, Sullivan said:

I told (editor Jeff Light) then that I was not in a position to quit on principle but that I was worried that Lynch’s interview had inflicted serious damage to the paper’s credibility and that his leadership would result in compromised standards. (It has, and on several fronts.)

Interestingly, Light didn’t dispute Sullivan’s account of the story. In an email to JimRomenensko.com, he said:

Tim has a fine record as journalist, and I think his account is pretty accurate as far as it goes. Without getting into the details, I would say that if he can find the right fit, I think he would make a good columnist for someone.

There are people in San Diego questioning why Light didn’t do more to protect Sullivan’s job. Perhaps he did, but in the end, Lynch ordered him gone.

From what I hear, the U-T staffers are very nervous in the wake of what happened to Sullivan. Who’s next?

And for those who stay, do you risk being branded as a cheerleader? After all, the CEO said he wants “an incredibly strong sports page that supports the Chargers, the Padres, USD, SDSU.”

Possible lede next season:

The Chargers are off to another 1-4 start, but we know good ol’ Norv Turner can turn it around.

Now Lynch ran a sports talk radio station, and I suspect the hosts weren’t genteel in their approach to Turner. Homers don’t make for good sports talk radio.

The same holds true for newspapers. Regarding the U-T, Lynch should have said he wants a section that “aggressively covers” the local teams.

Lynch, though, said what he said. Sullivan is right. Lynch’s comments have compromised the paper’s standards. And his decision to ax Sullivan lowered them even more.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Costas Tonight addresses allegations with O’Neill interview

Posted on by

NBC faces an unusual dynamic in covering the Belmont Stakes this week: A run for the Triple Crown with a trainer who some think is tainted.

The hoopla over I’ll Have Another’s bid for history comes with the large shadow of trainer Doug O’Neill facing a 45-day suspension in California for giving horses illegal performance enhancers.

Everyone will be watching to see how NBC handles these conflicting stories. We got a preview Monday when Bob Costas had an exclusive interview with O’Neill on Costas Tonight.

The first part of the interview focused on I’ll Have Another and O’Neill’s view of the race Saturday. Then after a break, Costas dealt with O’Neill about the controversy.

As expected, Costas asked some tough questions, which O’Neill handled. As the week goes along, the saga should evolve further with O’Neill facing tough scrutiny from the national media at Belmont. There could be a different story Saturday.

Here are some of the excerpts of the Costas interview:

Costas: We mentioned he was to have been with us in studio but today is the day that they’re inspecting the so-called “detention barn” and by the middle of the week, all the horses – not just I’ll Have Another – but all the horses competing in the Belmont will all be stabled together and the feed and all the medications will be closely monitored, the trainers, the vets who tend to the horses will all be closely watched. Now some say this is just about you, I think a fair appraisal though is that the racing industry, knowing what a Triple Crown can mean, wants to assure the public that all of this is on the up and up. True?


O’Neill: I agree, Bob. As much as it’s uncomfortable for a lot of horses to switch settings and have split staff and all that stuff, I think it’s a good move. It’s truly all about the horse and I think by doing what we’re doing, it’ll just show how brilliant these horses are cared for and there won’t be any rumors or speculations after the race.

Costas: Before we talk about specific allegations and violations from the past, let’s get this on the record. Speaking now only of I’ll Have Another, is he 100 percent clean, never been tampered with, never had elevated TCO2 levels artificially raised, never been given any improper medications or performance enhancers at any time?

O’Neill: Yes, Bob, I’ll Have Another is a pure horse. He’s clean. Every race he’s run in, he’s gone through physical examinations and blood work and he’s never been tampered with, never had any medications given to him by me or no one that I’ve ever requested to give him anything. So he’s clean and he’s been through every drug test and physical exam known to man and he’s just a natural champ.

Costas: Ok, you say that you run a clean operation, you’re an affable guy with an interesting life story and people want to like you and want to latch onto the story but these are at least part of the facts: You’ve had three warnings and four violations that you’ve been cited for – at least that many over the years and they have been, generally speaking, for elevated TCO2 levels. What’s the reason for that? If you haven’t done something that you shouldn’t have done, how did that occur?

O’Neill: Well through our vigorous contesting of these allegations, we’ve learned that there are numerous issues that can raise a horse’s TCO2 levels be it the weather that day, be it the gender of the horse, be it the sweat, if the horse sweats too much. It’s not a drug and that’s something that gets tossed around a lot in the media that high TCO2 is that a horse has a drug in it but it’s all a natural reading that every horse has. California put in a rule four or five years ago that if a horse had a high TCO2 he’s was deemed to have been milkshaked and then some of the other parts of the country followed suit and just through running a lot of horses, we’ve kind of fallen into a couple pickles but we run a clean barn and through all this extra examination we’ve been able to show how much we love the horses, what a great staff we have, what a great owner we have of I’ll Have Another; and though it’s been uncomfortable and difficult at times, it’s been kind of nice to show people backstage and be transparent and show people how well all of our horses are cared for.

Costas: The process of milkshaking as I understand it is a combination of bicarbonate of soda, sugar, and electrolytes that reduces the buildup of lactic acid in a horse which can lead to fatigue. Now some people who are very close to the horse racing industry and understand it much better than I do, have told me that there is a suspicion that you and the people you work with have developed a process by which you can raise the TCO2 levels of a horse without resorting to milkshaking. And that a lot of your horses have been taken right up to the legal limit and only a few have tripped the test but many of them are right on the border line. In fact, on one occasion in Del Mar when you were cited for having a horse over the level, the next two highest readings that day of all the horses that ran in all the races that day in Del Mar were also Doug O’Neill horses. So the top three all belonged to you and according to one member of the California Racing Board, the odds against that were astronomical unless something nefarious was going on.

O’Neill: Yeah, Bob, you’re right. It definitely needs to be addressed and one of the things we found out and we weren’t told is that Lasix can affect a horse’s TCO2 levels and prior to finding that out, we had all the horses at the highest level of permitted Lasix and we found out that this is a serious issue. We’re playing with fire by doing that. We have scaled back on the use of Lasix pre-race. 

Costas: Last thing, we can’t possibly get into all the ills of horse racing but there are medications that are legal here in the United States that are banned in much of the rest of the world. The fatality rates are much lower in Europe – a lot of this has to do with how they regulate medications and some of it has to do with racing on more forgiving surfaces. There are a lot of things that could be done to reform the racing industry. In fact, the Belmont is run in a state where the governor, Andrew Cuomo, has basically disbanded the governing body and appointed his own panel to oversee it because there’s been too much going on that’s troubling including a disproportionate number of deaths of race horses at Aqueduct and other tracks. If in fact, you win the Belmont on Saturday and you’re the reigning Triple Crown trainer, you’ll be in a unique position to advocate for reform of the sport, would you do it?

O’Neill: I would love to. I would love to be part of that. It’s such a great sport and I think we’re such in dire need of having a commissioner to kind of nationalize and to get all the medications uniform so everyone knows what the therapeutic medications you can use and when to stop. I’d love to have pre-race testing. I mean every time these horses walk in a paddock, every vet or every owner, every jockey knows that all these horses have passed a strict pre-race test so any way I can help a sport that I absolutely love, I’m in. You know one thing too, Bob, I forgot to mention that people talk about all my drug violations and I never had an illegal medication violation. My violations have been therapeutic medications that have been in excess; and that doesn’t make them right but I’ve never had an illegal drug found in any of my horses and that’s something that I’d like to make clear.

Costas: Fair enough and in summation here, you would like to see a national commission and, in effect, a commissioner like other sports have, with uniform rules and regulations instead of a hodge podge from state to state.

O’Neill: Correct. And pre-race testing.

 

Update: Joe Cowley not returning to Twitter

Posted on by

Even though Joe Cowley’s account, CST_Cowley, has reappeared on Twitter, the Sun-Times reporter won’t be tweeting.

The Sun-Times had to reactivate it to prevent other people from tweeting under that account. In an email this evening, sports editor Chris De Luca said there are no plans for Cowley to resume tweeting.

I made a bad assumption earlier today that the reappearance of the account, which was taken down quickly after Cowley made some offensive tweets about women in late April, meant he soon would be tweeting again.

My apologies to Cowley and the Sun-Times.

 

 

Sun-Times Cowley (sort of) back on Twitter; controversial tweets deleted, no new tweets

Posted on by

Joe Cowley is back on Twitter. Or at least his old account, CST_cowley, has reappeared.

It vanished abruptly in late April following a series of offensive tweets about women. Cowley was subsequently reprimanded by new Sun-Times editor Jim Kirk.

Cowley’s account popped up again last week, minus the offensive tweets. Cowley also has yet to weigh in with new tweets.

However, it likely won’t be long before Cowley jumps on the Twitter train again. His edgy tweets helped him amass nearly 10,000 followers.

However, when Cowley does starting tweet, expect he will limit his comments to sports.

 

Sullivan tells his side: San Diego U-T CEO viewed him as ‘obstructionist’

Posted on by

For more, please read my Tuesday post on the U-T CEO’s desire for sports section to “support” local teams. Go Chargers!

****

Ever want to experience being at your own funeral? Just get fired as a columnist at a major paper.

It’s been a weird few days for Tim Sullivan ever since the San Diego Union-Tribune canned him Friday. Accolades have poured in throughout the country from the sportswriter fraternity. There’s also been a hefty dose of outrage from readers in San Diego.

“It feels like Tom Sawyer watching his own funeral,” Sullivan said.

Sullivan and his career, though, are far from dead. Since he has received several calls (including one from me) asking to tell his side of the story, he decided to do what a columnist does: Type it up.

Here’s Sullivan (with highlights in bold):

Short story long:

The links tell a little of the back story of my conflict with Union-Tribune CEO John Lynch (who I have yet to meet in person). The first is a column I wrote when he ran a local sports talk station. The second is a piece that appeared on the Voice of San Diego web site shortly after he became the new CEO of the Union-Tribune.

Clearly, the two of us were looking at stadium issues from different vantage points. My position has been that the paper’s primary responsibility is to protect the public from another bad deal, such as the one that resulted in San Diego agreeing to guarantee sellouts for the Chargers. That document was so badly drafted that even a sportswriter could see its flaws: no limit to liability, no cap on ticket prices. I have felt that the paper dropped the ball in failing to scrutinize that deal (years before my arrival) and should be exceedingly careful in endorsing another stadium deal. Mr. Lynch appears to be of a mind to make the stadium happen and bulldoze the opposition or even those who raise questions.

(Sherman: Note this passage from the Voice interview):

But Lynch said he wants the paper to be pro-business. The sports page to be pro-Chargers stadium. And reporters to become stars.

“It’s news information, but it’s also show biz,” Lynch said. “You get people to tune in and read your site or the paper when there’s an ‘Oh wow’ in the paper.”

He wants that sports page to be an advocate for a new football stadium “and call out those who don’t as obstructionists.”

“To my way of thinking,” Lynch said, “that’s a shovel-ready job for thousands.”

(Back to Tim) Shortly after the Voice of San Diego piece appeared, I initiated a meeting with U-T editor Jeff Light to provide him the background on what I had written about Lynch and to express my ethical concerns going forward. I told him then that I was not in a position to quit on principle but that I was worried that Lynch’s interview had inflicted serious damage to the paper’s credibility and that his leadership would result in compromised standards. (It has, and on several fronts.)

Later, as new management built a television station in the newsroom with the intent of launching 24/7 programming and using existing reporting staff to create content, I raised questions at staff meetings about how this could be done without compromising the printed product and about the hiring of a controversial radio host, who worked for Lynch’s former station and was fired for outrageous and potentially slanderous on-air comments about a woman prior to being hired at the U-T.

Based on some correspondence that has been forwarded to me, Lynch is telling readers I was not on board with the new initiatives.

“I have high regard for Tim as a reporter. However, we are no longer just a newspaper. We are are (sic) Multi-media platform business. Our content providers have to be willing to provide to, paper, to video, to tv, and blog as well as write.”

In a follow-up message to the same reader (MALLenSanDiego@aol.com), Lynch again implied that I was not willing to go along with the new mandate.

“We need all on our team rowing in the same direction.”

The implication is that I was unwilling to go along with the program. Quite the opposite is true. I maintain a Twitter account with more than 5,000 followers. I have made it a point to respond to virtually every reader e-mail I receive. When the paper had a weekly deal with a local TV station, I would drive the 25 miles from my home — often on a day off — for an appearance for which I was not paid. I have never refused or even resisted an assignment or a request from the paper; whether that entails speaking at pre-dawn breakfast meetings, appearing on local, regional and national radio, appearing at schools or representing the paper at the Del Mar Fair and the U-T’s aging expo. The suggestion that I was reluctant to embrace the new technology is preposterous. If I am not allowed to ask pointed questions regarding practicality without severe consequences — this while the paper employs a broadcaster as repeatedly offensive as is Scott Kaplan — I don’t even know how to respond.

I have stated on my Facebook page and in an April 26 e-mail to Light that I believe in the need for multiple platforms but have questions about the logistics of such an operation.

Here follows an excerpt from my April 26 e-mail to Jeff Light, which was written the same day I questioned him at the staff meeting:

“Be assured that I am in agreement with the basic principles of a multi-platform news operation, and recognize the need for the Union-Tribune to expand its reach through other media. If the printed paper is a dinosaur, as I fear it is, it must learn to adapt if it is to survive.

“My primary concerns relate to the inherent difficulty of serving multiple masters at the same time and serving all of them well in a finite number of hours. I wish I were more optimistic about how this new business model can work, and about our ability to bear the additional burdens being placed on a news operation that many staff members believe is already overtaxed, but I hope to be proven wrong.”

Light did not respond to this message. Nor was I given any formal (or even informal) notice that I was in danger. Last Wednesday, I received an e-mail message that I was to meet with Light at 3 p.m. Friday afternoon. By 3:02, I had been fired.

I have asked a friend who is also Lynch’s brother-in-law to inquire if Lynch is amenable to a face-to-face meeting. I’d like to get a specific rationale for my dismissal and, if possible, to disabuse him of any notion that I was not a team player prepared to do whatever was asked to help the paper.

Case in point: Last Monday was a holiday and my day off. I received a tip that Phil Mickelson had joined forces with one of the groups trying to buy the San Diego Padres. I cancelled a family trip, broke an exclusive story that was the most viewed story on our web site and received significant national play. This was not an isolated example of my approach to my job.

Though I can’t read Lynch’s mind, I am inclined to believe that my firing was the result of multiple factors: 1) My failure to endorse a new stadium without wondering whether that’s good public policy, a justifiable expense or a good deal; 2) My comparatively healthy salary; 3) My age and/or demographic. Our two other sports columnists are also white males: Nick Canepa, who is older but a local institution, and the youthful Kevin Acee, who was just promoted to that position. Acee has been identified as one of the paper’s “stars.”; 4) The erroneous issue of whether I was “on board.”

Since I continue to hold out a slight hope that this situation can be salvaged — there has been strong support for me within the newsroom and on message boards — I don’t want to appear too combative. I’d like to point out that the public rationale being used to fire me is a canard and that the other factors are more plausible. If my salary was an issue, however, the idea of taking a cut was never broached. Nor was I offered a reassignment.

I do not believe I am a martyr for truth — as Don Bauder has suggested on the San Diego Reader website — but I do think I have been mistreated. Where do I go from here? I am working on several tracks: 1) Seeking a meeting with Lynch; 2) Applying for several positions known to be open around the country; 3) Learning of other positions on an unsolicited basis. I have talked to one sports editor at length and anticipate speaking to another one tomorrow. I am hopeful that I can find a satisfactory situation very soon. I am mobile and motivated.