Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 52 of 52

Thread: McCallie

  1. #41
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    New York, NY
    DBR and JD King have had 30 hours to remove the article, which—to my mind—indicates he firmly stands behind his words.

    Here are some thoughts:

    “Turns out that as a young woman, McCallie was diagnosed with bipolar disorder which leads to several questions.

    The first is simple: given her role, if she kept this to herself, was it appropriate? The answer is, basically, yes. We are entitled to privacy. It’s not as if she worked in a vacuum. Aside from astronauts, no one works in a vacuum. We haven't read the book (it’s actually not out yet), that could have been a good place to start/stop, since you don’t actually know what she saysbut it’s possible that she may have deceived her employers, her players and fans of her teams, at least to some extent.this is about to get repetitive, but it’s not deception to not mention every detail of one’s past.

    We don't expect, for instance, that she disclosed her condition when she interviewed for coaching jobs, and who can blame her?Well, one person can, but he’s a sportswriter and not a sports administrator The chances of someone hiring here would have gone way down and if anyone had, fair or not, it would have been with reservations and conditions. Every job I’ve ever had comes with a variety of conditions. Some are explicit. some assumed. For example, if I had bipolar disorder, I’d be expected to remain steady, take my meds, work on therapeutic issues, keep a healthy schedule, etc. I wouldn’t be expected to put it in my application.

    We also expect that when she visited recruits, she didn’t open the conversations with parents by saying “by the way, I have been diagnosed with a mental illness.” Same principle applies: it would have been career suicide.this is, frankly, weird. Would you expect other coaches to come in and say, “I should mention I drink a little extra Scotch on Saturday night, which is why our Sunday practices start at 11:00.” Or, “I’m a bit of a narcissistic wanker, but your son/daughter won’t notice until after they join the team.” Or, “I’m a huge fan of this mid major school, and I’ve sworn I’ll stay for 5 solid years, but I’m sociopathic/pragmatic and am almost ready to sign with Power 5 State U.”

    Once she decided to pursue coaching perhaps despite her diagnosis, she likely had no choice but to conceal it. Again, “conceal” implies she has something to be ashamed of. Should she also mention marital difficulties, financial woes, parenting conflicts, a bum hip, the apo e gene, or a heart murmur? Anyone, we think, would understand that that, if she did that, he had little choice if she wanted to coach.I like the subtle inclusion of gender fluidity (“she”—> “he”—> “she.”) Very woke. It would be an awful decision. next to carrots, ”awe” is one of my favorite roots. Life is complicated, wondrous, awe inspiring. But I don’t think that’s what he had in mind.

    On the other hand though there’s this: if she did, she built her career on a falsehood. Hmmm. I’d say she built her career on a top notch basketball skill set, charisma, strong interpersonal and leadership skills, etc. That’s indisputable. Shoot, I should have read ahead; I hadn’t realized that not only was the bedrock of her career “falsehood,” but it’s indisputable You can agree with her decision or not, again, we haven’t read the book, so it’s hard to know her actual diagnosis, or what she told who, but almost everyone I know would be tactful about personal revelationsbut there’s no way around that.uh huh If she concealed her condition, she was dishonest about something very important and something that may have affected other people negatively. I wish he could just make his perspective clear.

    That said, there’s also this.

    Somewhat like autism, there’s a bit of a spectrum. Oh my God, I just can’t believe people are willing to opine on stuff they don’t seem to have ever considered or studied. Yes, there is an autism spectrum, and there is a bipolar spectrum, and there is a color spectrum, and they all include the word spectrum..At its most severe, Bipolar I, it would be impossible for her to coach and administer a team. Bipolar I is disabling. Ah, now we’re getting into the meat of the misguided mess that is better known as the DBR front page. Bipolar I requires 1 week of manic symptoms. That’s it. 1 week. If somebody meets criteria for 1 week of manic symptoms at age 20, they get to keep the bipolar I diagnosis forever, even if they never have another psychiatric symptom. Sure, that initial week of mania is often followed by recurrences, particularly of depression, but it’s also generally followed by periods of complete normalcy—periods that can last years or decades. Bipolar I can be disabling, but plenty of people function just fine.

    Bipolar II is less severe. The National Institute of Mental Health defines it this way: “[Bipolar II is] defined by a pattern of depressive episodes and hypomanic episodes, but not the full-blown manic episodes that are typical of Bipolar I Disorder.”If we’re talking about the ability to coach, the differences between bipolar I and II aren’t defined by severity of overall functioning. Frequent recurrences of hypomania can certainly be more disabling than a single manic episode at age 20. Oh, by the way, the only people who look at NIMH definitions are folks trying to shoehorn their grants into those definitions. Everybody else uses DSM-5, which is published by the American Psychiatric Association. Around the world, people use DSM or WHO definitions. Oh, and I’m in the process of reading the upcoming DSM-5 revisited edition. It won’t get published for another 6 months, but—spoiler alert—it does not say that people with Bipolar I or II disorders should only coach Duke basketball with adult supervision.

    Then there is a third category called Cyclothymic Disorder. Again, the NIMH definition: “[it’s]defined by periods of hypomanic symptoms as well as periods of depressive symptoms lasting for at least 2 years (1 year in children and adolescents). However, the symptoms do not meet the diagnostic requirements for a hypomanic episode and a depressive episode.” I guess this was added to be educational?

    We would also assume there are other factors, including diet, environment, genetics and for all we know radio waves and corn oil. Who can possibly know all the factors, much less all the variables of one’s genetics, chemistry and environment? There’s just no way to begin to know, at least not according to what science tells us today.If you do go to the DSM-5, the book will discuss genetics and the environment—particularly “social rhythm” and the importance of sleep. I guess radio waves and corn oil are intended to be funny. Ha. Ha.

    All we can do is to ask whether she made good choices and that will largely come down to opinion.Well, no, I think it comes down to more than opinion, but since I haven’t read the book, I don’t have a clue about what choices she made. Given that we can’t really know her choices, I’m curious to hear how the article develops its point. I do hope it maintains generosity, humanity, and a tone of kind civility. We’ll see!

    One can argue for honor. Hmmm. I don’t see how “honor” is relevant, but I’ll keep an open mind. Another might argue for pragmatism. hmmm. The most important argument though would from her players. We don’t know if they were aware of her condition but basketball may be the most intimate team sport. There are only a small number of players on a team and there are no helmets or heavy equipment to hide behind. I imagine Perry Mason. “Objection, your honor! Relevance!” In baseball, you spread far apart. In basketball, you are confined in a small area and emotions are mostly understood as quickly as they're expressed. Uh huh.

    We’re sure they were keenly aware of her emotions, just as she was keenly aware of theirs.I think I’m getting it. The article seems to be asserting that people with a bipolar disorder are “bipolar” all the time, that bipolar emotions are so bizarrely toxic that players can only tolerate those emotions if shielded by shoulder pads or the distance between 1st base and the dugout.

    But it’s not exactly the same thing, particularly if she kept her diagnosis from them. So, it’s a combination of the apparently infectious emotional toxicity of mental illness PLUS the sinister reality that adults don’t always reveal every detail to their 18 year old recruits. Was that fair? Was it right? I have my opinion. I wonder what the author thinks? I wish he wouldn’t be so darn even handed and subtle.

    We aren’t in a position to say Whew, for a minute, I thought the author did have an opinion about whether it was fair and right. and even to ask the question is uncomfortable. Actually, the question didn’t make me uncomfortable. It’s the answer that upset me. We certainly don't wish her ill or have any anger towards her whatsoever. reeaaaalllly. . She has always seemed like a very decent and earnest woman. I’m a big fan of the word “patronizing,” which—like “awe”—has a sort of double meaning. It’s good to patronize a store. When you patronize a former Duke coach (“decent and earnest”), the aroma is less appetizing.

    Whatever you think of how she handled this, we don’t actually know how she handled it. The book isn’t published. McCallie is clearly passionate about the game and gave Duke her best efforts ah, the whiff of patronizing wafts gently into the next paragraph. We’re sure it feels much better not to have to hide her condition because it’s gonna be read, or—in this case—not read by a mature and thoughtful audience before a harsh judgment is concretized and displayed for the general public? and we wish her nothing but the best going forward. that’s my take from the article: that the author wishes her the best.

    Her book comes out on February 16th for those who would like to read it.”

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Durham
    Quote Originally Posted by johnb View Post
    DBR and JD King have had 30 hours to remove the article, which—to my mind—indicates he firmly stands behind his words.

    Here are some thoughts:

    “Turns out that as a young woman, McCallie was diagnosed with bipolar disorder which leads to several questions.

    The first is simple: given her role, if she kept this to herself, was it appropriate? The answer is, basically, yes. We are entitled to privacy. It’s not as if she worked in a vacuum. Aside from astronauts, no one works in a vacuum. We haven't read the book (it’s actually not out yet), that could have been a good place to start/stop, since you don’t actually know what she saysbut it’s possible that she may have deceived her employers, her players and fans of her teams, at least to some extent.this is about to get repetitive, but it’s not deception to not mention every detail of one’s past.

    We don't expect, for instance, that she disclosed her condition when she interviewed for coaching jobs, and who can blame her?Well, one person can, but he’s a sportswriter and not a sports administrator The chances of someone hiring here would have gone way down and if anyone had, fair or not, it would have been with reservations and conditions. Every job I’ve ever had comes with a variety of conditions. Some are explicit. some assumed. For example, if I had bipolar disorder, I’d be expected to remain steady, take my meds, work on therapeutic issues, keep a healthy schedule, etc. I wouldn’t be expected to put it in my application.

    We also expect that when she visited recruits, she didn’t open the conversations with parents by saying “by the way, I have been diagnosed with a mental illness.” Same principle applies: it would have been career suicide.this is, frankly, weird. Would you expect other coaches to come in and say, “I should mention I drink a little extra Scotch on Saturday night, which is why our Sunday practices start at 11:00.” Or, “I’m a bit of a narcissistic wanker, but your son/daughter won’t notice until after they join the team.” Or, “I’m a huge fan of this mid major school, and I’ve sworn I’ll stay for 5 solid years, but I’m sociopathic/pragmatic and am almost ready to sign with Power 5 State U.”

    Once she decided to pursue coaching perhaps despite her diagnosis, she likely had no choice but to conceal it. Again, “conceal” implies she has something to be ashamed of. Should she also mention marital difficulties, financial woes, parenting conflicts, a bum hip, the apo e gene, or a heart murmur? Anyone, we think, would understand that that, if she did that, he had little choice if she wanted to coach.I like the subtle inclusion of gender fluidity (“she”—> “he”—> “she.”) Very woke. It would be an awful decision. next to carrots, ”awe” is one of my favorite roots. Life is complicated, wondrous, awe inspiring. But I don’t think that’s what he had in mind.

    On the other hand though there’s this: if she did, she built her career on a falsehood. Hmmm. I’d say she built her career on a top notch basketball skill set, charisma, strong interpersonal and leadership skills, etc. That’s indisputable. Shoot, I should have read ahead; I hadn’t realized that not only was the bedrock of her career “falsehood,” but it’s indisputable You can agree with her decision or not, again, we haven’t read the book, so it’s hard to know her actual diagnosis, or what she told who, but almost everyone I know would be tactful about personal revelationsbut there’s no way around that.uh huh If she concealed her condition, she was dishonest about something very important and something that may have affected other people negatively. I wish he could just make his perspective clear.

    That said, there’s also this.

    Somewhat like autism, there’s a bit of a spectrum. Oh my God, I just can’t believe people are willing to opine on stuff they don’t seem to have ever considered or studied. Yes, there is an autism spectrum, and there is a bipolar spectrum, and there is a color spectrum, and they all include the word spectrum..At its most severe, Bipolar I, it would be impossible for her to coach and administer a team. Bipolar I is disabling. Ah, now we’re getting into the meat of the misguided mess that is better known as the DBR front page. Bipolar I requires 1 week of manic symptoms. That’s it. 1 week. If somebody meets criteria for 1 week of manic symptoms at age 20, they get to keep the bipolar I diagnosis forever, even if they never have another psychiatric symptom. Sure, that initial week of mania is often followed by recurrences, particularly of depression, but it’s also generally followed by periods of complete normalcy—periods that can last years or decades. Bipolar I can be disabling, but plenty of people function just fine.

    Bipolar II is less severe. The National Institute of Mental Health defines it this way: “[Bipolar II is] defined by a pattern of depressive episodes and hypomanic episodes, but not the full-blown manic episodes that are typical of Bipolar I Disorder.”If we’re talking about the ability to coach, the differences between bipolar I and II aren’t defined by severity of overall functioning. Frequent recurrences of hypomania can certainly be more disabling than a single manic episode at age 20. Oh, by the way, the only people who look at NIMH definitions are folks trying to shoehorn their grants into those definitions. Everybody else uses DSM-5, which is published by the American Psychiatric Association. Around the world, people use DSM or WHO definitions. Oh, and I’m in the process of reading the upcoming DSM-5 revisited edition. It won’t get published for another 6 months, but—spoiler alert—it does not say that people with Bipolar I or II disorders should only coach Duke basketball with adult supervision.

    Then there is a third category called Cyclothymic Disorder. Again, the NIMH definition: “[it’s]defined by periods of hypomanic symptoms as well as periods of depressive symptoms lasting for at least 2 years (1 year in children and adolescents). However, the symptoms do not meet the diagnostic requirements for a hypomanic episode and a depressive episode.” I guess this was added to be educational?

    We would also assume there are other factors, including diet, environment, genetics and for all we know radio waves and corn oil. Who can possibly know all the factors, much less all the variables of one’s genetics, chemistry and environment? There’s just no way to begin to know, at least not according to what science tells us today.If you do go to the DSM-5, the book will discuss genetics and the environment—particularly “social rhythm” and the importance of sleep. I guess radio waves and corn oil are intended to be funny. Ha. Ha.

    All we can do is to ask whether she made good choices and that will largely come down to opinion.Well, no, I think it comes down to more than opinion, but since I haven’t read the book, I don’t have a clue about what choices she made. Given that we can’t really know her choices, I’m curious to hear how the article develops its point. I do hope it maintains generosity, humanity, and a tone of kind civility. We’ll see!

    One can argue for honor. Hmmm. I don’t see how “honor” is relevant, but I’ll keep an open mind. Another might argue for pragmatism. hmmm. The most important argument though would from her players. We don’t know if they were aware of her condition but basketball may be the most intimate team sport. There are only a small number of players on a team and there are no helmets or heavy equipment to hide behind. I imagine Perry Mason. “Objection, your honor! Relevance!” In baseball, you spread far apart. In basketball, you are confined in a small area and emotions are mostly understood as quickly as they're expressed. Uh huh.

    We’re sure they were keenly aware of her emotions, just as she was keenly aware of theirs.I think I’m getting it. The article seems to be asserting that people with a bipolar disorder are “bipolar” all the time, that bipolar emotions are so bizarrely toxic that players can only tolerate those emotions if shielded by shoulder pads or the distance between 1st base and the dugout.

    But it’s not exactly the same thing, particularly if she kept her diagnosis from them. So, it’s a combination of the apparently infectious emotional toxicity of mental illness PLUS the sinister reality that adults don’t always reveal every detail to their 18 year old recruits. Was that fair? Was it right? I have my opinion. I wonder what the author thinks? I wish he wouldn’t be so darn even handed and subtle.

    We aren’t in a position to say Whew, for a minute, I thought the author did have an opinion about whether it was fair and right. and even to ask the question is uncomfortable. Actually, the question didn’t make me uncomfortable. It’s the answer that upset me. We certainly don't wish her ill or have any anger towards her whatsoever. reeaaaalllly. . She has always seemed like a very decent and earnest woman. I’m a big fan of the word “patronizing,” which—like “awe”—has a sort of double meaning. It’s good to patronize a store. When you patronize a former Duke coach (“decent and earnest”), the aroma is less appetizing.

    Whatever you think of how she handled this, we don’t actually know how she handled it. The book isn’t published. McCallie is clearly passionate about the game and gave Duke her best efforts ah, the whiff of patronizing wafts gently into the next paragraph. We’re sure it feels much better not to have to hide her condition because it’s gonna be read, or—in this case—not read by a mature and thoughtful audience before a harsh judgment is concretized and displayed for the general public? and we wish her nothing but the best going forward. that’s my take from the article: that the author wishes her the best.

    Her book comes out on February 16th for those who would like to read it.”
    Wow, John, you absolutely shredded that “article”. Incredible work. 👍🏻

  3. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by johnb View Post
    DBR and JD King have had 30 hours to remove the article, which—to my mind—indicates he firmly stands behind his words.

    Here are some thoughts:

    “Turns out that as a young woman, McCallie was diagnosed with bipolar disorder which leads to several questions.

    The first is simple: given her role, if she kept this to herself, was it appropriate? The answer is, basically, yes. We are entitled to privacy. It’s not as if she worked in a vacuum. Aside from astronauts, no one works in a vacuum. We haven't read the book (it’s actually not out yet), that could have been a good place to start/stop, since you don’t actually know what she saysbut it’s possible that she may have deceived her employers, her players and fans of her teams, at least to some extent.this is about to get repetitive, but it’s not deception to not mention every detail of one’s past.

    We don't expect, for instance, that she disclosed her condition when she interviewed for coaching jobs, and who can blame her?Well, one person can, but he’s a sportswriter and not a sports administrator The chances of someone hiring here would have gone way down and if anyone had, fair or not, it would have been with reservations and conditions. Every job I’ve ever had comes with a variety of conditions. Some are explicit. some assumed. For example, if I had bipolar disorder, I’d be expected to remain steady, take my meds, work on therapeutic issues, keep a healthy schedule, etc. I wouldn’t be expected to put it in my application.

    We also expect that when she visited recruits, she didn’t open the conversations with parents by saying “by the way, I have been diagnosed with a mental illness.” Same principle applies: it would have been career suicide.this is, frankly, weird. Would you expect other coaches to come in and say, “I should mention I drink a little extra Scotch on Saturday night, which is why our Sunday practices start at 11:00.” Or, “I’m a bit of a narcissistic wanker, but your son/daughter won’t notice until after they join the team.” Or, “I’m a huge fan of this mid major school, and I’ve sworn I’ll stay for 5 solid years, but I’m sociopathic/pragmatic and am almost ready to sign with Power 5 State U.”

    Once she decided to pursue coaching perhaps despite her diagnosis, she likely had no choice but to conceal it. Again, “conceal” implies she has something to be ashamed of. Should she also mention marital difficulties, financial woes, parenting conflicts, a bum hip, the apo e gene, or a heart murmur? Anyone, we think, would understand that that, if she did that, he had little choice if she wanted to coach.I like the subtle inclusion of gender fluidity (“she”—> “he”—> “she.”) Very woke. It would be an awful decision. next to carrots, ”awe” is one of my favorite roots. Life is complicated, wondrous, awe inspiring. But I don’t think that’s what he had in mind.

    On the other hand though there’s this: if she did, she built her career on a falsehood. Hmmm. I’d say she built her career on a top notch basketball skill set, charisma, strong interpersonal and leadership skills, etc. That’s indisputable. Shoot, I should have read ahead; I hadn’t realized that not only was the bedrock of her career “falsehood,” but it’s indisputable You can agree with her decision or not, again, we haven’t read the book, so it’s hard to know her actual diagnosis, or what she told who, but almost everyone I know would be tactful about personal revelationsbut there’s no way around that.uh huh If she concealed her condition, she was dishonest about something very important and something that may have affected other people negatively. I wish he could just make his perspective clear.

    That said, there’s also this.

    Somewhat like autism, there’s a bit of a spectrum. Oh my God, I just can’t believe people are willing to opine on stuff they don’t seem to have ever considered or studied. Yes, there is an autism spectrum, and there is a bipolar spectrum, and there is a color spectrum, and they all include the word spectrum..At its most severe, Bipolar I, it would be impossible for her to coach and administer a team. Bipolar I is disabling. Ah, now we’re getting into the meat of the misguided mess that is better known as the DBR front page. Bipolar I requires 1 week of manic symptoms. That’s it. 1 week. If somebody meets criteria for 1 week of manic symptoms at age 20, they get to keep the bipolar I diagnosis forever, even if they never have another psychiatric symptom. Sure, that initial week of mania is often followed by recurrences, particularly of depression, but it’s also generally followed by periods of complete normalcy—periods that can last years or decades. Bipolar I can be disabling, but plenty of people function just fine.

    Bipolar II is less severe. The National Institute of Mental Health defines it this way: “[Bipolar II is] defined by a pattern of depressive episodes and hypomanic episodes, but not the full-blown manic episodes that are typical of Bipolar I Disorder.”If we’re talking about the ability to coach, the differences between bipolar I and II aren’t defined by severity of overall functioning. Frequent recurrences of hypomania can certainly be more disabling than a single manic episode at age 20. Oh, by the way, the only people who look at NIMH definitions are folks trying to shoehorn their grants into those definitions. Everybody else uses DSM-5, which is published by the American Psychiatric Association. Around the world, people use DSM or WHO definitions. Oh, and I’m in the process of reading the upcoming DSM-5 revisited edition. It won’t get published for another 6 months, but—spoiler alert—it does not say that people with Bipolar I or II disorders should only coach Duke basketball with adult supervision.

    Then there is a third category called Cyclothymic Disorder. Again, the NIMH definition: “[it’s]defined by periods of hypomanic symptoms as well as periods of depressive symptoms lasting for at least 2 years (1 year in children and adolescents). However, the symptoms do not meet the diagnostic requirements for a hypomanic episode and a depressive episode.” I guess this was added to be educational?

    We would also assume there are other factors, including diet, environment, genetics and for all we know radio waves and corn oil. Who can possibly know all the factors, much less all the variables of one’s genetics, chemistry and environment? There’s just no way to begin to know, at least not according to what science tells us today.If you do go to the DSM-5, the book will discuss genetics and the environment—particularly “social rhythm” and the importance of sleep. I guess radio waves and corn oil are intended to be funny. Ha. Ha.

    All we can do is to ask whether she made good choices and that will largely come down to opinion.Well, no, I think it comes down to more than opinion, but since I haven’t read the book, I don’t have a clue about what choices she made. Given that we can’t really know her choices, I’m curious to hear how the article develops its point. I do hope it maintains generosity, humanity, and a tone of kind civility. We’ll see!

    One can argue for honor. Hmmm. I don’t see how “honor” is relevant, but I’ll keep an open mind. Another might argue for pragmatism. hmmm. The most important argument though would from her players. We don’t know if they were aware of her condition but basketball may be the most intimate team sport. There are only a small number of players on a team and there are no helmets or heavy equipment to hide behind. I imagine Perry Mason. “Objection, your honor! Relevance!” In baseball, you spread far apart. In basketball, you are confined in a small area and emotions are mostly understood as quickly as they're expressed. Uh huh.

    We’re sure they were keenly aware of her emotions, just as she was keenly aware of theirs.I think I’m getting it. The article seems to be asserting that people with a bipolar disorder are “bipolar” all the time, that bipolar emotions are so bizarrely toxic that players can only tolerate those emotions if shielded by shoulder pads or the distance between 1st base and the dugout.

    But it’s not exactly the same thing, particularly if she kept her diagnosis from them. So, it’s a combination of the apparently infectious emotional toxicity of mental illness PLUS the sinister reality that adults don’t always reveal every detail to their 18 year old recruits. Was that fair? Was it right? I have my opinion. I wonder what the author thinks? I wish he wouldn’t be so darn even handed and subtle.

    We aren’t in a position to say Whew, for a minute, I thought the author did have an opinion about whether it was fair and right. and even to ask the question is uncomfortable. Actually, the question didn’t make me uncomfortable. It’s the answer that upset me. We certainly don't wish her ill or have any anger towards her whatsoever. reeaaaalllly. . She has always seemed like a very decent and earnest woman. I’m a big fan of the word “patronizing,” which—like “awe”—has a sort of double meaning. It’s good to patronize a store. When you patronize a former Duke coach (“decent and earnest”), the aroma is less appetizing.

    Whatever you think of how she handled this, we don’t actually know how she handled it. The book isn’t published. McCallie is clearly passionate about the game and gave Duke her best efforts ah, the whiff of patronizing wafts gently into the next paragraph. We’re sure it feels much better not to have to hide her condition because it’s gonna be read, or—in this case—not read by a mature and thoughtful audience before a harsh judgment is concretized and displayed for the general public? and we wish her nothing but the best going forward. that’s my take from the article: that the author wishes her the best.

    Her book comes out on February 16th for those who would like to read it.”
    Early candidate for post of the year.

  4. #44
    I agree. The article reflected a lack of understanding, experience, and empathy. A good example of the need to stay in one's lane, even if that lane is critiquing 18 year olds playing a game.

  5. #45
    I believe I’ll have a drink....

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Chesapeake, VA.
    IMO, she should be applauded for telling her story. As a society we really, really need to destigmatize mental health issues. Anything that helps makes a stride toward that end is a good thing, in my opinion.
    "We are not provided with wisdom, we must discover it for ourselves, after a journey through the wilderness which no one else can take for us, an effort which no one can spare us, for our wisdom is the point of view from which we come at last to regard the world." --M. Proust

  7. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by johnb View Post
    DBR and JD King have had 30 hours to remove the article, which—to my mind—indicates he firmly stands behind his words.

    Here are some thoughts:
    YMSSCA...

    Nicely shredded.

  8. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by johnb View Post
    Psychiatrist here.

    Most mean spirited and misguided article I’ve ever read on DBR. The author—who has written a lot of good stuff for DBR—needs to apologize to our former coach as well as to the members of the DBR community who have psychiatric disorders, quickly get back in his lane, and stay there.
    FYI, JD King *is* DBR, as one of the co-owners along with Boswell. This forum that everyone is posting on is named after his mother.

    This is neither here nor there -- and I agree that the article is bad -- but it's just surprising to me that a lot of people don't seem to know this.


    Quote Originally Posted by uh_no View Post
    while some may know differently, i doubt DBR is more than a blip on their radar, and that there may be a less than positive article about a previous employee posted on it, even less so.

    If Duke wanted this site to stop using its trademark, it would almost surely be for legal reasons and have nothing to do with a random article.
    DBR is more than a blip, and I do think there are things that DBR could post that would endanger its use of the university trademark. I tend to agree with you that this article, as bad as it is, probably isn't among those things.

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Outside Philly
    Curious if anyone got a response beyond the mods posting?

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    North of Durham
    Quote Originally Posted by bundabergdevil View Post
    Curious if anyone got a response beyond the mods posting?
    I sent an e-mail. Didn't tie my e-mail address to my user name but at the same time, I don't think mine is the only e-mail they've received. Meanwhile, plenty of new posts have gone up on the home page. I don't expect a response to my e-mail. I suggested that replying to this thread would be preferred, but a most on the main page would also be fine. The silence is deafening.

  11. #51
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    New York, NY
    Quote Originally Posted by CrazyNotCrazie View Post
    I sent an e-mail. Didn't tie my e-mail address to my user name but at the same time, I don't think mine is the only e-mail they've received. Meanwhile, plenty of new posts have gone up on the home page. I don't expect a response to my e-mail. I suggested that replying to this thread would be preferred, but a most on the main page would also be fine. The silence is deafening.
    I sent an email and waited 24 hours before writing my long post.

    One unintended effect of the front page article: McCallie’s DBR support is suddenly through the roof. Another: the article’s assertions about mental illness may reflect widespread though generally unspoken perspectives. By articulating them, and thereby inviting rebuttal, the author moves forward the mental health discussion. In its way, it becomes similar to how we are more likely to learn civics from a seditious DC mob than from many years of 24/7 access to cspan (apologies to our own cspan contributor, who might get more eyeballs on DBR than does the original tv network).

  12. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by johnb View Post
    DBR and JD King have had 30 hours to remove the article, which—to my mind—indicates he firmly stands behind his words.

    Here are some thoughts:

    “Turns out that as a young woman, McCallie was diagnosed with bipolar disorder which leads to several questions.

    The first is simple: given her role, if she kept this to herself, was it appropriate? The answer is, basically, yes. We are entitled to privacy. It’s not as if she worked in a vacuum. Aside from astronauts, no one works in a vacuum. We haven't read the book (it’s actually not out yet), that could have been a good place to start/stop, since you don’t actually know what she saysbut it’s possible that she may have deceived her employers, her players and fans of her teams, at least to some extent.this is about to get repetitive, but it’s not deception to not mention every detail of one’s past.

    We don't expect, for instance, that she disclosed her condition when she interviewed for coaching jobs, and who can blame her?Well, one person can, but he’s a sportswriter and not a sports administrator The chances of someone hiring here would have gone way down and if anyone had, fair or not, it would have been with reservations and conditions. Every job I’ve ever had comes with a variety of conditions. Some are explicit. some assumed. For example, if I had bipolar disorder, I’d be expected to remain steady, take my meds, work on therapeutic issues, keep a healthy schedule, etc. I wouldn’t be expected to put it in my application.

    We also expect that when she visited recruits, she didn’t open the conversations with parents by saying “by the way, I have been diagnosed with a mental illness.” Same principle applies: it would have been career suicide.this is, frankly, weird. Would you expect other coaches to come in and say, “I should mention I drink a little extra Scotch on Saturday night, which is why our Sunday practices start at 11:00.” Or, “I’m a bit of a narcissistic wanker, but your son/daughter won’t notice until after they join the team.” Or, “I’m a huge fan of this mid major school, and I’ve sworn I’ll stay for 5 solid years, but I’m sociopathic/pragmatic and am almost ready to sign with Power 5 State U.”

    Once she decided to pursue coaching perhaps despite her diagnosis, she likely had no choice but to conceal it. Again, “conceal” implies she has something to be ashamed of. Should she also mention marital difficulties, financial woes, parenting conflicts, a bum hip, the apo e gene, or a heart murmur? Anyone, we think, would understand that that, if she did that, he had little choice if she wanted to coach.I like the subtle inclusion of gender fluidity (“she”—> “he”—> “she.”) Very woke. It would be an awful decision. next to carrots, ”awe” is one of my favorite roots. Life is complicated, wondrous, awe inspiring. But I don’t think that’s what he had in mind.

    On the other hand though there’s this: if she did, she built her career on a falsehood. Hmmm. I’d say she built her career on a top notch basketball skill set, charisma, strong interpersonal and leadership skills, etc. That’s indisputable. Shoot, I should have read ahead; I hadn’t realized that not only was the bedrock of her career “falsehood,” but it’s indisputable You can agree with her decision or not, again, we haven’t read the book, so it’s hard to know her actual diagnosis, or what she told who, but almost everyone I know would be tactful about personal revelationsbut there’s no way around that.uh huh If she concealed her condition, she was dishonest about something very important and something that may have affected other people negatively. I wish he could just make his perspective clear.

    That said, there’s also this.

    Somewhat like autism, there’s a bit of a spectrum. Oh my God, I just can’t believe people are willing to opine on stuff they don’t seem to have ever considered or studied. Yes, there is an autism spectrum, and there is a bipolar spectrum, and there is a color spectrum, and they all include the word spectrum..At its most severe, Bipolar I, it would be impossible for her to coach and administer a team. Bipolar I is disabling. Ah, now we’re getting into the meat of the misguided mess that is better known as the DBR front page. Bipolar I requires 1 week of manic symptoms. That’s it. 1 week. If somebody meets criteria for 1 week of manic symptoms at age 20, they get to keep the bipolar I diagnosis forever, even if they never have another psychiatric symptom. Sure, that initial week of mania is often followed by recurrences, particularly of depression, but it’s also generally followed by periods of complete normalcy—periods that can last years or decades. Bipolar I can be disabling, but plenty of people function just fine.

    Bipolar II is less severe. The National Institute of Mental Health defines it this way: “[Bipolar II is] defined by a pattern of depressive episodes and hypomanic episodes, but not the full-blown manic episodes that are typical of Bipolar I Disorder.”If we’re talking about the ability to coach, the differences between bipolar I and II aren’t defined by severity of overall functioning. Frequent recurrences of hypomania can certainly be more disabling than a single manic episode at age 20. Oh, by the way, the only people who look at NIMH definitions are folks trying to shoehorn their grants into those definitions. Everybody else uses DSM-5, which is published by the American Psychiatric Association. Around the world, people use DSM or WHO definitions. Oh, and I’m in the process of reading the upcoming DSM-5 revisited edition. It won’t get published for another 6 months, but—spoiler alert—it does not say that people with Bipolar I or II disorders should only coach Duke basketball with adult supervision.

    Then there is a third category called Cyclothymic Disorder. Again, the NIMH definition: “[it’s]defined by periods of hypomanic symptoms as well as periods of depressive symptoms lasting for at least 2 years (1 year in children and adolescents). However, the symptoms do not meet the diagnostic requirements for a hypomanic episode and a depressive episode.” I guess this was added to be educational?

    We would also assume there are other factors, including diet, environment, genetics and for all we know radio waves and corn oil. Who can possibly know all the factors, much less all the variables of one’s genetics, chemistry and environment? There’s just no way to begin to know, at least not according to what science tells us today.If you do go to the DSM-5, the book will discuss genetics and the environment—particularly “social rhythm” and the importance of sleep. I guess radio waves and corn oil are intended to be funny. Ha. Ha.

    All we can do is to ask whether she made good choices and that will largely come down to opinion.Well, no, I think it comes down to more than opinion, but since I haven’t read the book, I don’t have a clue about what choices she made. Given that we can’t really know her choices, I’m curious to hear how the article develops its point. I do hope it maintains generosity, humanity, and a tone of kind civility. We’ll see!

    One can argue for honor. Hmmm. I don’t see how “honor” is relevant, but I’ll keep an open mind. Another might argue for pragmatism. hmmm. The most important argument though would from her players. We don’t know if they were aware of her condition but basketball may be the most intimate team sport. There are only a small number of players on a team and there are no helmets or heavy equipment to hide behind. I imagine Perry Mason. “Objection, your honor! Relevance!” In baseball, you spread far apart. In basketball, you are confined in a small area and emotions are mostly understood as quickly as they're expressed. Uh huh.

    We’re sure they were keenly aware of her emotions, just as she was keenly aware of theirs.I think I’m getting it. The article seems to be asserting that people with a bipolar disorder are “bipolar” all the time, that bipolar emotions are so bizarrely toxic that players can only tolerate those emotions if shielded by shoulder pads or the distance between 1st base and the dugout.

    But it’s not exactly the same thing, particularly if she kept her diagnosis from them. So, it’s a combination of the apparently infectious emotional toxicity of mental illness PLUS the sinister reality that adults don’t always reveal every detail to their 18 year old recruits. Was that fair? Was it right? I have my opinion. I wonder what the author thinks? I wish he wouldn’t be so darn even handed and subtle.

    We aren’t in a position to say Whew, for a minute, I thought the author did have an opinion about whether it was fair and right. and even to ask the question is uncomfortable. Actually, the question didn’t make me uncomfortable. It’s the answer that upset me. We certainly don't wish her ill or have any anger towards her whatsoever. reeaaaalllly. . She has always seemed like a very decent and earnest woman. I’m a big fan of the word “patronizing,” which—like “awe”—has a sort of double meaning. It’s good to patronize a store. When you patronize a former Duke coach (“decent and earnest”), the aroma is less appetizing.

    Whatever you think of how she handled this, we don’t actually know how she handled it. The book isn’t published. McCallie is clearly passionate about the game and gave Duke her best efforts ah, the whiff of patronizing wafts gently into the next paragraph. We’re sure it feels much better not to have to hide her condition because it’s gonna be read, or—in this case—not read by a mature and thoughtful audience before a harsh judgment is concretized and displayed for the general public? and we wish her nothing but the best going forward. that’s my take from the article: that the author wishes her the best.

    Her book comes out on February 16th for those who would like to read it.”

    Wow, thoughtful response - I for one am glad that this debate can be had - without the original article we wouldn't be talking about it! So glad we live in America where there is no censorship!!

Similar Threads

  1. McCallie resigns; who'll coach next?
    By loran16 in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 317
    Last Post: 07-11-2020, 02:11 PM
  2. Mccallie?
    By fuse in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 08-30-2017, 02:26 AM
  3. WBB McCallie Named ACC COY
    By Gargoyle in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 03-05-2010, 03:29 PM
  4. McCallie gets recruit
    By jimsumner in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 06-27-2008, 12:26 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •