clock menu more-arrow no yes

Filed under:

Leach Points the Finger at Hance

New, 175 comments


In the case of Mike Leach v. Texas Tech, Leach’s attorney filed an amended petition which adds further color to the events leading to Leach’s dismissal.  This is worth your read. 

For non lawyers, "Section IV. Facts" (the first 12 pages) will likely be the most interesting.  For the DTNLR*, the remaining sections will likely be more germane.

(Major hat tip to CRV, this is more of the condensed version).


Some of the more interesting items in this document include (I’m obviously focusing on some of the more illuminating claims):

Adam James

  • Specific examples of Adam James’ disruptiveness including an incident where he broke a coach’s door after learning of his demotion to the third team.  (I would copy and paste the text here, but the .pdf file protects against copying -  you will have to read it yourselves).
  • A more detailed account from Leach’s side of how Adam James, having been diagnosed with a mild concussion, was treated by the trainers.
  • Kent Hance forbidding Leach to cut James from the team. (Really?)

Craig James

Specific descriptions of Craig James telephoning the coaching staff, including one call to Lincoln Riley stating to the effect "If you’ve got the balls to call me back, and I don’t think you do, then call me back."

Ladies and the gentlemen, your next Congressman from the Great State of Texas.

Kent Hance  

Leach effectively paints Hance as the instigator of his termination, instead of as the well-intentioned arbiter that Hance is often portrayed to be in media accounts.

  • According to Leach, at the initial stage of collecting statements, Guy Bailey, Texas Tech’s President, warned Leach that Hance was out to "railroad him" because Hance and James were in business together (my emphasis).
  • Leach describes the timeline leading to his suspension in far different terms than Hance's account (really, you need to read the whole thing).
  • At the time Hance presented the initial findings (or shall we say, collected two-days’ worth of statements) and shared the Board of Regent’s intent to reprimand Leach, Leach claims that Hance wanted to fine Leach $100,000 and require him to issue a statement of apology to James, despite the fact that the allegations were not yet proven.  According to Leach, Hance threatened to fire Leach at that time.

The Letter

  • According to Leach, Myers, Bailey and Texas Tech’s attorney agree that Leach is not obligated to sign the Letter.  Leach argues that a)  the letter forces him to admit to wrongdoing, which he denies; and b) his contract supersedes all other agreements and as such signing such a document is unnecessary.  
  • Myers and Bailey do not define a deadline to sign any document.
  • According to Leach, Myers and Bailey claim that Hance is interfering (my emphasis).  They claim that but not for Hance’s interference, they would not have presented the letter.
  • Texas Tech’s attorney affirms to Leach that she advised Hance et al that Leach was not obligated to sign the letter.

Leach's Suspension

  • Upon suspending Leach, Myers cites Leach’s failure to sign the letter as one of the reasons for his suspension which the Administration now characterizes as an act of insubordination (the other reason for suspension is the allegation by James),
  • Myers advises Leach that the decision to suspend him was made by Hance and the Board of Regents (my emphasis).

Leach's Termination

Leach argues that the school terminates him for seeking his legal right to remedy the suspension.

----

I am sure there are other things that you’ll no doubt find interesting. In my haste to get this up, I’m sure I’ve missed some items.

 

* That would be the self-annoited Double T Nation Law Review, of course.