Author Archives: nicholasrhector

McNabb’s Inability To Defend The Jab

Bernard Hopkins, winner by knockout!

Donovan McNabb, down for the count!

Bernard Hopkins is ignorant, plain and simple.  He also is more than willing to express his ignorance whenever the media provides him an opportunity to do so.   Based on my observation, Hopkins does not behave ignorantly solely to promote his boxing career.  His win-loss record sufficiently speaks for and promotes itself.  Rather, Hopkins’ ignorance is the direct result of what most people would not hypothesize: a sheltered upbringing.  Bernard Hopkins (aka “the black rocky”) experienced the first nine years of his life as one of eight children in a household residing in Northern Philadelphia’s Raymond Rosen Project Complex.  By age 22, Hopkins had been stabbed three times, committed several muggings, and served five years in prison following his commission of nine felonies.  During his time in the penitentiary, Hopkins witnessed an inordinate amount of violence and thus acknowledges that his tumultuous childhood and young adulthood made him who he is today––a ruthless fighter, who has consistently performed at an extreme level of intensity, even at the ripe age of forty-six.

Considering that Hopkins experienced such an atypical childhood and early adulthood surrounded by violence, poverty, and fellow prisoners, I admire him for becoming who he is today—a successful lightweight and middle weight fighter with 52 wins (34 by knockout).   Most recently on May 21, 2011 (at age 46), Hopkins defeated 28 year old Jean Pascal to capture the WBC, IBO and The Ring Light Heavyweight belts, dethroning George Foreman as the oldest man to win a major title.  Hopkins is a husband.  He is a father.  Simply put, Hopkins has come a long way in his forty-six years on earth.

Nonetheless, on May 11, 2011, possibly as a way of promoting his upcoming fight with Pascal, Hopkins—a loyal Eagles fan—verbally lambasted former Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb through a scathing rant to the Philadelphia Inquirer.  While acknowledging that McNabb had a privileged childhood, particularly in comparison to his own, Hopkins accused McNabb of not being “black enough or tough enough, at least compared with, say, himself, Michael Vick and Terrell Owens.”  Hopkins clarified to the Inquirer that “Vick and Owens remained true to their roots, McNabb did not.”   Hopkins further compared McNabb’s role with the Eagles as that of a house-slave who was spared from having to work in the field: “McNabb is the guy in the house, while everybody else is on the field.  He’s the one who got the extra coat.  The extra servings…  He thought he was one of them.”  With respect to McNabb’s prior comments on HBO’s “Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel,” where he stated it is tough being a black quarterback, Hopkins opined, “He goes on HBO and talks about [being] black.  He was right, but was the wrong messenger…  [he doesn’t] represent that.”  Finally, Hopkins criticized McNabb’s interaction with the Eagles’ front office, stating, “T.O. got [into] the boardroom and saw the way they talked to McNabb.  Come from where he [comes from] – that’s strange to some white people, when a black man speaks…  [W]hen T.O. walks in the boardroom with the Eagles suits, he’s like, what the heck? I aint used to this language.  I’m used to speaking up.”  See Marcus Hayes, Hopkins Still Thinking about McNabb, Philly.com, May 11, 2011.

Now, If based on the aforementioned statements you continue to question whether Bernard Hopkins is ignorant, I can share with you the number to a great therapist and sensitivity coach who would welcome you with open arms.  As a fellow African American, it is quite simple for me to wrap my hands around Hopkins’ rant, which was both ignorant and inaccurate.  In fact, Hopkins created a crystal clear characterization of what he considers an African American male in America to represent (the “Hopkins’ Traits”):

1)   Someone who is tough, primarily as a result of his experiences in the “streets”;

2)   Someone who doesn’t relish his interaction with corporate white America;

3)   Someone who is incapable of fully understanding or speaking the language of corporate white America; and

4)   Someone who is confrontational.

But, you know what?  I can’t blame Bernard Hopkins for his ignorance or for the statements that he made about Donovan McNabb.  It is not his fault that he’s made these inaccurate assumptions about the average African American male.  In the world that Hopkins grew up, an African American male represented, among other things, the four abovementioned traits.  Moreover, during the small amount of time that Hopkins has been a wealthy boxer, he likely has not encountered the necessary experiences to contradict these erroneous assumptions.  He has not been exposed to or met enough successful, professional African American males who make a living outside the realm of sports, entertainment, and crime.  He also likely has not been mentored by individuals who know that African American males are as professionally, fiscally, and socially diverse as any other race.  Hopkins’ perception clearly embodies what he has been exposed to.  As a result, I SLAM my enormous hammer of criticism on Donovan McNabb—the one person who you likely didn’t foresee me criticizing in this article.

* * *

In stark contrast to Bernard Hopkins, Donovan McNabb spent the first eight years of his life in a somewhat dicey part of the South Side of Chicago, before moving with his family at age eight to a smaller and more family oriented, blue-collar neighborhood in the southern Chicago suburb of Dolton.  The McNabbs were the first black family to join their neighborhood block, which came as  a shock to both the neighborhood and the McNabbs at the outset.  Nonetheless, both groups eventually adapted well to the newfound diversity.  Similarly, Donovan experienced a good family life.  His father, an electrical engineer, impressed upon his children the value of hard work, doing the right thing, and staying goal oriented.  Donovan’s mother, a nurse, was always there to listen and help her children work through life’s issues.

Donovan eventually attended and excelled in football and basketball at Chicago’s private, all male, Roman Catholic Mount Carmel High School.  With an annual tuition of $8,250, Mount Carmel prides itself for both its athletic and academic excellence and has been recognized as a Blue Ribbon and National Exemplary school.  Indeed, the school’s slogan boasts, “you came to Carmel as a boy.  If you care to struggle and work at it, you will leave as a man.”  As many of you know, prior to being drafted second by the Philadelphia Eagles in 1999, Donovan had an exceptional three-year football career as the quarterback for the Syracuse Orangemen.  What many of you probably do not know is that Donovan chose Syracuse over a number of other excellent football programs for its communications department (which is nationally ranked among the top 20).  He had future aspirations of being a sports broadcaster.

* * *

I take issue with Donovan McNabb in several respects.  First, Hopkins’ rant does not represent the first time that an individual has disparaged McNabb concerning his role as the quarterback of the Eagles and Donovan has not subsequently defended himself.  In September 2003—the year that the Eagles went 14-3 and lost to the Panthers in the NFC Championship game—Rush Limbaugh criticized the media and the National Football League for providing an overrated evaluation of McNabb as a quarterback:

“I don’t think he’s been that good from the get go.  I think what we’ve had here is a little social concern in the NFL.  I think the media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well…  He got a lot of credit for the performance of this team that he really didn’t deserve.”

Similar to Hopkins’ rant, Rush’s statements regarding McNabb were racially driven.  And what did McNabb say in response to this statement?  Essentially, nothing:

“I know I played badly the first two games…  He said what he said…  I’m sure he’s not the only one that feels that way but it’s somewhat shocking to actually hear that on national TV…  An apology would do no good because he obviously thought about it before he said it.”

Hello?  Donovan, by 2003, you had completed only four seasons as the star quarterback for the Philadelphia Eagles, yet, you had passed for a total of 9,835 yards, thrown for a total of 71 touchdowns, rushed for a total of 1,884 yards, and run for a total of 14 touchdowns.  I think it’s fair to say Donovan had a reason and the justification to defend himself against Rush’s remarks.  Nonetheless, he took the criticism and remained quiet.  His career continued to flourish but it certainly left a blemish on his professional image.  It sent the message to both his fans and his critics that I’m passive, I’m soft, and I may be incapable of being a leader.

Fast-forward to May 2011, where Donovan once again failed to respond to Hopkins’ disparaging remarks regarding his role as an African American quarterback in the NFL.  Indeed, via his publicist, he refused to even issue a comment.  Now, I get it, Donovan.  You theorize that there’s no need to respond to such ignorant remarks because everyone knows that the substance of the statements are inaccurate and not worthy of your attention.  Got it.  However, McNabb actually is the perfect person in the perfect position to issue a response to these remarks.  He is a famous, professional African American (some might say, even a role model) who understands that African American males can excel in this Country while not representing the Hopkins’ Traits.  Essentially, McNabb was given the perfect platform to speak from and convey this point to me, you, and every African American child in the hood searching for inspiration.  However, he did not speak!

In sum, Donovan is a GREAT person, but he has consistently tarnished his image, not by behaving inappropriately, but by being so darn passive.  Moreover, from my vantage point as a 29-year-old African American male, he has failed as a leader and as a role model.  He certainly entered Mount Carmel “as a boy,” but sometimes he compels me to wonder whether he actually left “as a man.”  Should you wish to be a leader and a role model, my advice to you, Donovan—take it or leave it—is the following:

1)   Always issue a statement in response to criticism from your peers, even if it consists of a short and concise acknowledgement that “everyone is entitled to their own opinion but you beg to differ with respect to [fill in the blank].”  A simple responsive statement illustrates, among other things, that you are aware of what has been said, are strong enough to respond to your critics, but understand when it’s not worth bickering over trivial issues.  Note, a statement should be issued by you, not your agent.

2)   Be proactive.  Criticism should never be your sole basis for issuing public statements.  At the very least, compel your publicist to make statements regarding causes you support (e.g., the fight against diabetes).  Unfortunately, your professional image could use a little boost.

3)   Take pride in your ability to positively influence those around you, particularly African American youth who have had limited exposure to strong African American male figures.

– NRH

Your Image Is Never Above The Law

The Justice System can be swift and unforgiving.

I recently published the following article on a website that caters to aspiring professional basketball players and college/NBA recruiters:

An unknown author once wrote, “remember, people will judge you by your actions, not your intentions.  You may have a heart of gold, but so does a hard-boiled egg.”  This statement is quite powerful.  It reminds us that one’s actions, not mere intentions, are everything.  This statement is particularly true when your image is a brand and ultimately your source of income.  Now, don’t get me wrong.  I am not, and never will be, an exceptionally talented athlete who plays a professional sport for a living.  In fact, I do what some people consider to be quite boring.  I am the quintessential “corporate desk jockey.”  At age 29, I practice law as a corporate litigator in New York City, suing companies and white-collar professionals on a daily basis.  As a result, I know and understand four critical things: (i) the power of money; (ii) what it is like to be a young professional; (iii) that one bad decision can translate into a courtroom appearance; and (iv) how quickly such an appearance can strip a professional of his career.  Accordingly, in this article, I will highlight certain legal factors every young professional athlete should consider in cultivating a positive image.

The Power of Money

In most cultures, money, at least in part, is a symbol of power.  With the right bank account, the World becomes your oyster.  I can recall thinking to myself as a kid (and every now and then as an adult), “what would I do if I won the lottery?”  Instantly, a million answers leapt into my head: I would spin a globe like Prince Akeem and randomly select a destination; I would fulfill each one of my need-for-speed desires by purchasing several European made sports cars; I would purchase a home in each of my favorite cities; and most importantly, I would not think twice about my actions, because why should I, I’m a millionaire, right?!?

In contrast to my delusions of lottery grandeur, sixty men actually win the “NBA lottery” each June, gaining the right to play for 1 of 30 National Basketball Association teams.  Last year’s average first-year salary for an NBA rookie drafted in the first round amounted to just under $1.7 million.  This number does not take into account the first-year endorsement money reaped by certain uniquely talented rookies.  Thus, in addition to the pressure of performing up to huge expectations on the court, NBA rookie players are given the daunting task of managing their lives off the court as newfound millionaires.  Recently, too many young professional athletes have squandered such money not because they purchased expensive cars and lavish homes, but because they miscalculated the legal ramifications of their actions.  Indeed, what these athletes didn’t realize is that their image is never above the law.  Notwithstanding O.J. Simpson’s success with the late, great Johnnie Cochran at his side, fortunately you can never buy your way out of a confrontation with the U.S. Justice System.  Moreover, a legal confrontation can arise at the blink of an eye, while tarnishing your image in an even shorter period of time.

The Young Professional

The definition of the young professional is quite expansive these days.  In an era where one of the most talented rap stars of all time is as successful in business at age 41 as he was with music at age 26, the professional title is no longer limited to those individuals associated with law, medicine, big-business or Wall Street.  The professional constitutes anyone from an athlete/entertainer to the Chief Executive Officer of a large corporation.

In carrying the professional title, one must accommodate the baggage that comes along with it, including the responsibility of making sound decisions.  Importantly, one’s inattention to this responsibility can amount to professional suicide.  For instance, over the past four years, the following group of professionals has consistently been the target of criticism and negative attention from the government, the media, and the average citizen: the Wall Street and corporate tycoons.  Understandably, a negative aura has followed this group of professionals because many of their most wealthy figures contributed to the demise of the U.S. economy (cough, cough…Bernard Madoff…cough).  I won’t bore you with the details, but, as you probably know, their reckless deeds did not go unpunished.  In fact, I can’t count on two hands the number of corporate executives, wealth managers or professional investors who have been recently fined and/or served jail time as a result of their violations of the U.S. securities laws and regulations.  Many, if not most of them, never anticipated that one bad decision would lead them down a path of fraud and deceit, and the eventual loss of their professional reputation and ability to earn a living.  At the end of the day, many of these white-collar criminals were stripped of their professions because of their greed and a complete disregard for anything other than making money.

So, you might be wondering, “where is he going with this?  I’m an up-and-coming professional athlete, not an executive capable of violating the U.S. securities laws.”  My point is simple; money can similarly cause the young professional athlete to lose sight of the most critical responsibility accompanying the title: maintaining a squeaky-clean image.

A Legal Confrontation Can Arise At The Blink of An Eye

As a male in my late twenties, I am certainly capable of making the occasional bad decision.  I’ll provide an example that all of us have either been in or seen played out on television: you decide to meet a friend at a crowded and chaotic bar.  While you’re attempting to grab a drink, a drunken guy bumps into you, spilling his beverage all over your crisp, new outfit.  To make things worse, the guy fails to acknowledge his wrong, giving you a look as if he’s owed an apology.  The two of you exchange a couple of unpleasant words, and eventually, you find yourself laying a hand on the guy, escalating the situation to a level further than it should have ever reached.

Here’s a second example: you meet an attractive young lady while you’re out with a few friends.  One thing leads to another, and she comes back to your home later that night.  You two have sex, and she departs the next morning before you even get an opportunity to learn more than her first name.  To your surprise, the young lady is 15 years old.  You’re 23.

I’ll provide a third and final example: a friend who you’ve known for almost your entire life presents an idea to you.  He recently learned that a well-off acquaintance of his stores large quantities of alcohol in his home.  He proposes that you provide him a ride to the acquaintance’s home, where he will gain entrance into the residence and take a couple bottles of alcohol for you all to share.  He promises that the acquaintance won’t even realize that such a small quantity of alcohol is missing.  He additionally assures you that if anything goes wrong, you’ll be okay because “giving him a ride doesn’t constitute a crime.”  You two go through with the plan and subsequently share the alcohol your friend procures.

Let’s dissect the former examples.  With respect to the first one, where did you go wrong?  Well, if you are, or soon will be, an NBA player, there are a number of appropriate answers to this question, for instance:

1)    If it’s during the NBA season, maybe the better decision would have been to stay at home and rest;

2)    You shouldn’t surround yourself with friends who regularly hangout in such environments;

3)    You should have immediately walked away from the situation, exiting the bar; or

4)    You should have hired professionals to accompany you and guard against such confrontations.

Now, these answers were likely obvious to many of you.  However, let me ask a much tougher question: do you know the possible legal ramifications of your actions in example one?  Unfortunately, a majority of you probably does not know the following answer to the question: common law battery constitutes an unlawful application of force to another, resulting in either bodily injury or an offensive touching.[1]  In many jurisdictions, merely laying a hand on another person rises to the level of offensive touching.  Moreover, battery is a general intent crime, meaning in order to be charged with or potentially convicted of the crime, you must only intend to act, not cause a specific result.  Therefore, in the first example, even if you only intended to lightly touch the other guy, if he reasonably felt offended or harmed by it, you could find yourself arrested and eventually inside a courtroom.

Let’s keep it moving.  With respect to the second example, the obvious answer as to where you went wrong is that you failed to actually learn anything substantive about your sexual partner.  What you may not know is that in New York State (and in many other U.S. States), a person under 17 years of age is legally incapable of consenting to sexual intercourse or other sexual contact.  Thus, in many jurisdictions, example two constitutes a statutory rape violation.  Because statutory rape is a strict liability crime, your ignorance regarding the woman’s age is irrelevant.  In other words, a court of law will not even address your state of mind in determining whether you committed the crime.

The third and final example unfortunately occurs too often.  Many people are ignorant to the fact that minimally aiding someone who commits a crime will get them in just as much trouble as the person who committed the crime.  Here, you were an accomplice to your friend’s burglary of the acquaintance’s home.  Burglary in New York and most U.S. States constitutes entering or remaining unlawfully in a building with the intent to commit a crime therein.  The crime that your friend intended to, and did eventually, commit is larceny, which, in its common law form, is a trespassory (wrongful and without permission) taking and carrying away of personal property of another with the intent of permanently depriving the owner.  Accomplice liability arises when a person intentionally aids or encourages another person in the commission of a crime.  The accomplice must actually intend that the crime occur.  In most jurisdictions, merely driving one to and/or from the scene of a crime rises to the level of accomplice liability.  Further, the Court typically finds the accomplice guilty of any crime the principle is guilty of committing.  Thus, in this example, a court of law likely would find you guilty of burglary, where it also convicts your friend of the crime.

A Day In Court Amounts To More Than A Day of Lost Wages

I provide the foregoing examples as proof that certain intentions, seeming so innocent, can effortlessly translate into imperfect actions.  For certain lucky individuals, these actions will be excused by present and/or future employers.  However, the professional athlete is rarely so lucky.  Professional athletes are akin to executive officers of a corporation; once the board of directors and shareholders (i.e., league commissioner, front office and fans) lose all of the confidence they once had in their leaders, the six to seven figure salaries dry up.  For instance, several prominent athletes have recently squandered guaranteed wages as a result of reasonably avoidable damage to their image:

Professional Athlete

Lost Wages

Tiger Woods As of July 2010, his endorsement deals had declined from $92 million to $70 million, including lost contracts with Gatorade, Accenture and AT&T.
Michael Vick As of August 2007, it was estimated that he would lose $100 million as a result of lost future salary, potential repayment of bonuses to the Falcons for defaulting on his contract, and endorsement money drying up.
Kobe Bryant He lost endorsement contracts with McDonalds, Nutella, and Coca-Cola, amounting to between $4 and $6 million of lost income.
Latrell Sprewell He lost the remaining three years of a four-year $32 million contract with the Golden State Warriors and a $500k-$700k per year endorsement contract with Converse.
O.J. Simpson He lost a $2.5 million per year endorsement contract with Hertz, his NFL commentary job with NBC, and his future appearances in the Naked Gun movie series.

Naturally, the question arises, what can future athletes do to avoid this dilemma?  First, at an early age, a person who intends to pursue a career in professional sports should be mindful of how his actions can adversely affect his image.  Second, he must realize that notwithstanding all of his hard work and the large player/endorsement contracts accompanying it, he has not earned the privilege to ignore the potential negative ramifications of his actions.  Third, he must seek out mentors who have been where he is going, as there’s plenty of truth to the old adage, “you are who you surround yourself with.”

– NRH


[1] Offensive touching loosely constitutes contact that a person of ordinary sensitivity would not permit.