I don't give a shit about either Sarkisian's claim or USCw. That being said, his attorney is absolutely correct that alcoholism is encompassed and protected by the ADA. Now, that doesn't mean that he can't be fired, in any circumstance, it does mean that he has some measure of protection - but one of the lawyers will have to speak to what that may be. As to the point of his having two episodes, it doesn't help USCw that their AD was widely reported to have simply chalked the first one up to Sark mistakenly taking an inappropriate dose of his anti-depressants, or the right "dose" or brand hadn't been achieved. So, what's USCw going to now count that one against him? And i'm not claiming that he wasn't drunk as a skunk during the (first) episode at the booster rally. So, now, you have one episode (IIRC) where he showed up drunk, and was sent home. Is he the only employee who has ever shown up drunk? If not, were they all fired, in similar fashion? Is he the only coach who's ever had an alcohol-related incident? Were they fired? And, speaking of the incident when he showed up "too drunk to work" - says who? Who's on staff that is trained to make that assessment, and are they the ones who actually made it? And to what standard was he measured against? Blood shot eyes? Smelled of alcohol? Stammered? Had the shakes? Could some of those be symptoms of his anti-depressants or withdrawals? What if he showed up that day looking for help? If USCw was so cognizant of his alcohol addiction as to require him to seek counseling, were they not expressing a willingness to support his treatment efforts? And those treatment efforts were being supported, were they the rescinded because of a single misstep? If we stop treatment for every alcoholic who relapses within a year of seeking treatment, we'll never cure about 95% of all who seek treatment. Did USC know that he had a problem with alcohol, when they hired him? Should they have known? What if he told them that he did, and was working on his sobriety, USCw accepted that risk and hired him, anyway? He may not get a dime. He may not deserve a dime. Hell, who knows - it's California, anything goes. But his case may have more merit than most believe. Pat Haden is a joke, never should have hired him, and damned sure should have ahit-canned him after the first episode at the pep rally. But he didn't have the fortitude to do so, and instead covered for him, and now he might cost USCw millions for his mistake.
USC now coming out and saying they offered help and he said he didn't have a problem. They also say he signed a document attesting to this.
He's got 12 Saturdays a year when he has to show up and be semi-conscious, but he couldn't manage that.
None of the alleged incidents occurred on game day, or anything associated with actually leading the team, IIRC. Again, guys, I couldn't care less about Steve Sarkisian's claim or USCw's defense against it. It's one gigantic billionaire group arguing with a guy who is already a millionaire, about tens of millions of additional dollars. My only sticking point in this is Haden's / USC's stupidity and hubris in seemingly believing that they are this all-powerful group who can do whatever they want - first, in protecting and shielding Sark, and later in terminating him - as it is convenient for them to do, ostensibly on the whims of their momentary pleasure. Rules and laws certainly do apply to USCw, just as they do to Sarkisian, alike. Frankly, it pisses me off that USCw knew, or damned well should have known, that Sark had a problem with alcohol, before hiring him. The people at UW didn't seem hesitant to speak about it, even before Sark's departure. And so, you don't want to actually do the work and take the "risk" of finding any one of dozens of better coaches, instead, and you hire Sark, anyway. Fine. But you then take all that comes with him. And, lo and behold, turns out Sark is exactly what you knew him to be when you hired him, and his struggles are real. Do you then do the right thing, really for all parties - probably including Sark - and let him go after the first incident? Well, of course not. Instead, you are actually so reticent to do what you should have done in the first place, and hire someone else, that you both explain and excuse the episode away. You, Pat Haden, and the louts who hired and continue to employ his stupid ass, essentially gave him a mulligan. And now, later, after an unsurprising second episode, you're attempting to take it back, and count the pep rally episode against him. Short of Hayden admitting he lied there - and which would be a death knell for the entire USC defense - I can't imagine how you can now go back and count that incident. So, basically, what you have is one incident where a guy shows up and is ALLEGED to be a little sauced, and you fire him for it. And yes, you've effectively ended his career at that point, for all intents and purposes. The truth is that it wasn't fair to hire Sark to begin with, did him and his quest for sobriety a great harm in doing so, only selfishly compounded the error by covering for him after the first episode, and then you want to blame and shit-can him when it's convenient, and public outcry of the failure of your dumb-assed plan grows too loud and embarrassing. That's not fair, IMO.
Yes they were. ASU game he was allegedly plastered. As well as showing up allegedly drunk to a few practices, including his final one.
I'm not completely up on the facts of the case, but wouldn't him acknowledging he has a problem and made public apologies for his behavior at USC sanctioned events be some kind of evidence eliminating the "allegedly drunk " part?
There's baggage and then there's baggage. Sark is radioactive atp any AD in a Top 25, dare Top 50 FBS program that likes and wants to keep his job won't touch him, imo
Yeah sark is denying that happened outside of the final practice that got him fired. There were also reports of him getting so drunk on the plane back from games that he passed out frat style.
Tis what happens when you have an incestous coaching tree and refuse to look outside of it. Frankly, I enjoy it immensely. But it's terrible.
Or working with an alcoholic who is actively drinking. There is no win and they believe themselves Teflon. Everything is someone else's doing.
