Don Yaeger Discusses "Tarnished Heisman"

Many USC fans are already familiar with Don Yaeger from more than 20 years of sports reporting, 10 of which he spent as Associate Editor for Sports Illustrated. He has penned more than a dozen books, including Turning of the Tide, co-written with former Trojan start Sam Cunningham and John Papadakis.

His latest work is titled Tarnished Heisman, which chronicles a scandal threatening to strip Reggie Bush of his Heisman Trophy. Allegedly, marketer Lloyd Lake was central in funneling hundreds of thousands of dollars to Bush and his family while the running back was still an amateur athlete at USC. You can see earlier reviews of the book by clicking here and here. It hits store shelves on Tuesday.

Yaeger was frank and insightful in a conversation conducted by cellphone on Sunday afternoon. This Q&A, covering matters including Lake's credibility and potential consequences, is his first interview about the book.

How did you get involved with the Reggie Bush investigation?

Simon and Schuster, through a literary agent, had been in touch with and discussed the story with Lloyd Lake and what he allegedly had in the way of tapes. A deal was made to acquire the rights to his story. I've done a number of books for Simon and Schuster, including the Duke lacrosse book that came out last year. That had been reasonably controversial, and I think they recognized that I might be somebody that could turn it around in the very tight time frame that they had as well as not be afraid to take the subject on no matter which direction it was ultimately going to go.

Lake plays a huge role in this book. Who were the other most important sources?

Clearly family members, friends, and people that Lloyd mentioned in the interviews. We didn't ask him to introduce us to those people, initially, until I listened to him explain that "this person saw this happen." In one case, for example, it was an ex-girlfriend of his who has a restraining order against him! I knew that wouldn't necessarily be somebody where you'd hear, "Gosh, that's just somebody who loves Lloyd Lake." In fact, that's not always true. Another source was Lloyd Lake's sister's ex-husband. There are a lot of players here. They're not all related in perfect ways.

If you met Lloyd Lake on a casual basis, say, standing in line for a hot dog at a football game, how trustworthy does he seem?

I say in the Author's Note that we'd all love to have Mother Teresa as our source in every major story that we've worked on -- you and me and every other reporter out there. The unfortunate truth is that sometimes when you're dealing with a story that involves two people doing something wrong -- if you're going to get one of them to tell you what ultimately happened, it's somebody who's willing to do something wrong!

What you look for as a reporter is third-party corroboration. You're looking for other things that you'll go back and check. Sometimes it'll be the littlest of details. Was he blowing things out of proportion? Was he right on?

I don't know much about Lloyd Lake's criminal history and his past. Obviously I've read the police reports and other things, but I didn't know Lloyd Lake during that time period. As it came to this story, what we found, what he shared with us ... there were other reasons to believe him. And that was what made this whole project possible. Frankly, without the tapes, I don't think you do this book.

Why was Lake compensated for the tapes?

The compensation wasn't for the tapes, the compensation was for Lloyd Lake's story. That was a decision made before I got involved with the project.

Does that change the way that you approach dealing with Lake, or with the tapes, knowing that he's compensated? What considerations do you have as a journalist dealing with that sort of source?

Certainly. Probably the most important thing is to first tell the story of Lloyd Lake in complete detail so that nobody thinks you're sugar-coating it. I think if you read the chapter on Lloyd and his past, there's nothing in it in which we try to soften the nature of any of his crimes. There was no effort here to try to paint Lloyd Lake as a saint.

The second part when you're in that situation, you recognize that other journalists might open you up to criticism for that relationship. [You need to] do the work that it's going to take and check that you're not putting anything in the book that you don't feel you can justify with another source. I'll be glad to tell you that there were a handful of things that Lloyd Lake told us that he believes, that I don't have a whole lot of reason to disagree or disbelieve him, but we didn't put it in because we couldn't come up with another way to verify it.

Were those things particularly damning or were they in line with everything else that's in the book?

There were some of them that pointed more directly at the university. Again, we weren't going to put it in the book just because somebody said it. We drew a pretty strong line and we did a pretty good job of defending anything and everything that's in that book. That's why the book's been out for several days and you've not heard any USC criticism saying it's unfair, you've not heard any Reggie Bush criticism saying "that's not true."

There's a rumor in the book -- and you mention it as a "rumor" -- about Pete Carroll receiving an anonymous e-mail about the house in San Diego. Did I miss something or was there anything corroborating it?

In my reporting of that, I know that USC has been questioned about that from people who are investigating that case. The fact that it was part of the questions that USC is already facing, I felt strong enough about the possibility, at least as a discussion point, that it should be mentioned. There's nothing in there that says that it's true, we're saying it's one of the stories that made its way around. The reason we know it made its way around is because we know USC has been asked about it.

Are they being asked about it by the NCAA or can you say?

Obviously the NCAA and the Pac-10 are the folks who are investigating that case right now. I think you can rest assured one of those investigative arms is asking USC those questions.

Outside of the obvious, is there anything that surprised you in writing this book?

Sure. I read it in your online review of the book -- the point you made was Reggie driving a vintage Impala in his Heisman year, that was suped up and was a beautiful car, that wouldn't have stood out in a campus full of Mercedeses and BMWs. While I'll grant you that's true, most of those other people driving those Mercedeses and BMWs were not on track to win the Heisman Trophy. Many thought [Bush] would become the greatest running back in college football that year, somebody whose profile was so huge and so high. The sudden departure of the vehicle he had been driving the previous two years -- a pickup truck that was in very bad condition -- and the replacement of that vehicle in his Heisman Trophy year was a suped-up beautiful car that had every bell and whistle you'd ever want ... it does strike me as odd that it didn't catch anyone's attention. It does strike me as odd that in a university environment in which everything is scrutinized -- you're in Los Angeles, you're L.A.'s pro football team -- that it wasn't noticed by anyone is just hard for me to fathom.

You've got a website that's mentioned in the book. When is it going to go live and what are we going to see on it?

I think it probably goes live today or tonight.

It will have many of the documents that you see referenced throughout the book. It'll have the lease that was made up between Reggie's parents and Michael Michaels a full 60 days after they already moved into the house. It'll have pictures of the inside of the house, remembering that prior to that Reggie and his parents had spent years living in a two-bedroom apartment. You look at the beauty of this home -- that didn't catch anyone's attention. Again, kind of surprising. I'll grant you USC's answer to that, which is "it's not like we're going to check the living arrangement of all of our football players." Reggie wasn't all of the football players. He was among the three or four major superstars on that team. I do think that the NCAA and most other places will tell you that universities have a special responsibility to those people. In fact, that's part of an interview that's in the back of the book with the NCAA's director of enforcement.

Is there anything on that site that has Reggie Bush's signature or anything that directly implicates USC in any of this?

There are hotel documents and other things that have Reggie's signature. There are internal documents that show the working business plans for New Era that show Reggie's father attending meetings that involve New Era's senior executives. I think there's ample evidence in there that Reggie received improper benefits and that his parents, at the very least, were in negotiations to do even more.

Do you feel that the NCAA has been inconsistent with disciplinary issues in the past (ex: Washington vs. Michigan/Woodson punishments), or do you feel there's a method to the madness?

I have always argued that the NCAA has been inconsistent in its meting out of collegiate athletic "justice" -- I don't want to just say "justice," because these aren't crimes in most cases. [I've] had a lot of friends who have worked at the NCAA and people that I've talked to over the years who've left the NCAA. One of the things that's always said to me is there are a lot of factors that play into why they cannot get to certain things that you and I would expect they should be able to get to. If there's inconsistency it's largely because some of those factors have come into play.

Do you think there are changes they can make to improve the way they conduct business?

The problem you've got is that it's a whole lot easier for them to deal with issues that involve athletic department employees, or athletes, or representatives of the university's athletic interests (booster), and assets than it is to deal with marketing guys like Lloyd Lake and agents, as was the case in the Charles Woodson case. As long as you've got those people in the mix, and you'll always have those people in the mix, you can see and understand why they can't always get what they need to get.

Speaking of agents, USC was swarmed with them around the time the incidents in the book went down. In that kind of environment, is there anything that someone can do, be it the NCAA, schools, or somebody else?

Yeah. It sounds so simple: taking an eyes-wide-open approach. It's noticing that your Heisman Trophy candidate running back is showing up with a new car -- certainly a whole lot nicer and a whole lot more expensive than the car he was driving the previous two years -- and asking questions. Those are the kinds of things you can do as an athletic department. Again, USC may have a great reason why [they didn't know]. Maybe Reggie Bush never drove the car on campus. Maybe Reggie Bush lied on the documents they asked him to sign giving the details of the car he was driving. I don't know. All I do know is that from the 20,000-foot view that we get to share as journalists, that sure sets off a bell to me.

[A representative for the Heisman Trust] came out a while back and said Woodson wouldn't have his trophy taken away. What makes Reggie Bush more likely to lose his Heisman Trophy than Charles Woodson?

In order for somebody to have their Heisman taken from them, according to the rules that are on the Heisman ballot, they have to have committed an offense against college sports that would have caused them to lose their eligibility. I think that the evidence of Reggie's offense and his potential loss of eligibility, during the year in which he won the Heisman, is real. I think that there's ample evidence that Reggie and his parents were involved in activities that might well cause him to lose his eligibility. That would cause him to lose his Heisman.

The Charles Woodson case? Many people argue that he really didn't do those things, that he didn't take much, and that his greatest offenses occurred after he had played his last regular season game. Obviously he still played in a bowl game and could have lost his eligibility then, but that would have been after he won his Heisman. I'm just telling you what the Heisman voters have told me. Step one is that you would have to suffer an eligibility loss as a result of the NCAA investigation. That never happened in Charles Woodson's case.

Do you think it's likely that USC will face any sanctions based on the investigations that you've done?

I don't know about USC. The most direct allegation involving USC is really less an allegation than it is a question -- why didn't you know about this car? Let's bring it right down to that. I don't know if USC faces any sanction. It would not surprise me if Reggie Bush, in the end, did face some level of sanction.

Comments

[Sam Cliffs]

How come no court has proven anything. Forged signatures, rumors, false accusations... Don Yaeger is just another money grubbing fool trying who is just tainting himself. There is no real PROOF. All of these are allegations and this is just a fiction book. Why is it that just because someone publishes a lie, we should believe him. I should publish a book and Don Yaeger doing dugs, and molesting children...I think he did it right.

[Chris Inwien]

It's about time! Bush and USC were laughing at the NCAA because the NCAA doesn't have subpoena power. Their contempt for good sportsmanship and honesty were outrageous. No wonder those players wear jail tattoos!!

And how are you going to rely on an honor system like the NCAA's for enforcing the rules when the player and possibly the school's own officials are dishonest?

Let all the truth come out. Sam's question, "How come no court has proven anything," is answered, "because no one had the investigative power of subpoena." If they had, we'd have the facts by now, under the penalty of perjury (please note the Congressional steroids inquiry).

Sam, you watch and see if Reggie Bush sues the author for defamation and libel. He knows that, if he sues, the author can immediately subpoena EVERYTHING in what lawyers call "discovery."

If he doesn't sue, guess what? We can draw our own conclusions. My hunch - prediction -- is that Reggie Bush will not sue, he'll just try to ride it out and cash his check.

Out here in Virginia we have a guy named Michael Vick who tried to do the same thing. When he gets out of jail, we can ask him what he thinks of Reggie's case.

Chris Inwien

[Gerrrg]

a. "Griffin's carve name in driveway..." contains improper grammar and that image doesn't show concrete being carved; it shows concrete marked up.

b. Hotel bill evidence has 2 inconsistencies:
1. Michael Michaels' name is written by the same source two of three times; of the two times it was written by the same source, it lists his name in two different ways. Ask yourself, do you rewrite your name differently on the same document?
2. Reggie's signature in one instance has 6 strokes, in the other it has 7. The 'R' is remarkably different in the tail end.
c. The email from Reggie's lawyer referred to what I mentioned previously, about the illegality of surreptitiously recording telephone conversations. Lloyd Lake continues to get into more trouble with the law. Other than noting all the problems with Lake's position, the email contains nothing bad.
d. That lease agreement has a lot of inconsistent legal language; in particular it uses two adjacent prepositions on several paragraphs, which makes the sentence unclear as to the desired effect. What I want to know is, who was Michael Michaels faxing this to, on April 10, 2006? Did you notice the same fax number appears on the bottom (upside down) as is listed on the hotel room?
e. The Ornstein travel summary doesn't show Reggie's name, so he did not directly benefit from this.
f. Grand Jury subpoena obviously refers to investigation into surreptitious recordings of telephone conversations. Whatever happened to that, by the way?
g. New Era registered "newerasports.tv"? TV? They're not located in Tuvalu, so they wouldn't have a right to register this TLD name. Lake is in more trouble.
h. New Era's list of recruits is interesting. Why Haloti Ngata...and why spell his name wrong?
i. That SD Hyatt shows reference only to Michaels, and it has no signature. It is of no use.
j. Those phone records are for the California Mother Infant Project. Who works there? Anyone know?
k. The real zinger: All of New Era's documents use the NFL logo and pictures of USC uniforms, and literally dozens of logos and images taken from other corporations. If they had not received approval to reproduce their logos and other representation, they are in extremely deep trouble.

[Gerrrg]

Chris...

Vick did not do the same thing. Vick committed Federal felony offenses.

Secondly, there is a civil lawsuit under way - Lake's suit against Reggie Bush, and therefore there would be discovery, if the lawsuit goes that far. As you've already seen, most of the documents and testimony have already been aired by Lake and others. What is left to be heard are those recorded tapes of conversations - none of which may be legal and it may end up causing Lake more trouble.

Third, defamation and/or libel are difficult to prove. There is intent and the 1st Amendment that come to mind. If Bush doesn't sue, that does not in itself create a conclusion of guilt on behalf of Bush.

Finally, did you not read what the author of the book had to say about USC's involvement? He did not say that USC was involved; he said that given the particular situation of Bush being a Heisman candidate, USC should have been on particular guard of looking at and into the changes of Bush's lifestyle.

[Sam S]

Bring back Norm Chow!

[all briun people]

Gerrrg; Thanks for the heads up on this stuff i head yeager on PMS on tuesday and this guy is watching his Ps and Qs and he sounded kind of wierd like he was on something, this guy is just trying to make a buck.

Chris Lake is a career criminal Bush has not broken any Laws, so what are smoking on the east coast?

[Brannn]

Gerrrg
Who is this guy Matlock??? You are living in fairy land bro, let's just break down your a-k story. Different signatures and different R strokes, common you've been watching too much court tv you're reaching. Language in lease agreements with improper language, who cares about a misplaced noun, verb or semi colon the fact is Bush family was LIVING IN THE HOUSE FOR FREE! (Hello) Ornstein's credit card statement not having Bush on it, bro where have you been for the last two years they already acknowledge a worker for Ornstein used the card for Bush as a loan. And the Grand Jury and FBI stated they would not pursue this issue months ago, so that's what happened to the Grand Jury subpoena. The failed business drafts and use of USC/ NFL logos, you are so off the case it's not even funny. There was no company no infringment of the logos.
Fact is Reggie took money from multiple people, libel and slander is hard to prove unless you have something concrete to use. They have a book sold for profit it doesn't get any more solid then that. The fact that Reggie settled out of court with Michaels should tell you something was up. Wake up and smell the soup cooking folks. SC is in touble

[pk-in-the-mesa]

Bran USC will not get any problems from this period.

[Rita McFarling]

I don't know who Chris Inwien is ( posted 1-14-08) but Chris, out there in Virginia, you do not have the slightest idea or do you have any verifiable facts to support your accusations of dishonesty and deceit by USC.
Where do you get your information Chris? some little po-dunk rural newspaper? Your tone sounds to me like the standard East Coast bias rhetoric that we in the Pac 10 have endured for generations. I think you were actually giddy as you delivered your demeaning diatribe. In particular your outrageous and degrading comments about the players, "jail tatoos, and contempt for good sportsmanship and honesty; " comparing Reggie to M.Vick.
I am convinced that you know nothing about the proud and magnificent history of this 127 yr. old private bastion of learning. Why would USC knowingly permit or condone such impaired moral values that would jeopardize the reputation and success of it's beloved football program, student-athletes, coaching staff, and alumni, fans and ultimately this time honored University. We have a coach whose morals are above reproach. Get on the net and research Pete Carroll and the contributions he has made to the Student-body, University and the L.A. community. All of our Trojan Family is anxiously awaiting the outcome of this horrendous drama. Reggie and his family may be the losers in the end. Their inexperience with greedy, criminal sports promoters and lack of social sophistication may be the emotions that fueled their lack of good judgement. Only time will tell, not uniformed/misinformed people like you.
R. McFarling, a Trojan wife, mother, sister-in-law, booster and fan since 1951. UCLA alum

[pk-in-the-mesa]

Fight on Rita

GO TROJANS IN THE COMP AGAINST THOSE BRIUNS THIS WEEKEND AND FOR EVER

[Steven Smith]

The proper historical analogy is Jim Thorpe. Thorpe was stripped of his two gold medals for playing semi-pro baseball, which in 1912 was the moral equivalent of a college athlete receiving an under-the-table payment. In time, the IOC had a change of heart, and Thorpe was eventually given his medals back, some three decades after his death. It would tarnish the credibility of the Heisman Trophy if the Downtown Athletic Club were to make the malum prohibitum regulations of the NCAA a criteria for whether someone was the best college football player in the country.

[Gerrrg]

Brannn, you don't get it. The book's authors are showing these things for all of us to view, and the point is that most of this stuff is worthless in a courtroom. I would think any decent attorney would rip the validity of these documents and any link directly to Reggie. So I say, let Lake's lawsuit go forward and have the evidence brought into a courtroom.

And on a separate note, ad nauseum, the only thing that ties USC to what happened is speculation. Lake speculating that USC should have known and people on the internet throwing the baby with the bathwater out back.

I know a lot of people enjoy this guilt-by-association, but it's ridiculous. I don't blame Virginia Tech for the Cho-massacre, do you? I don't blame Ohio State University for what happened to Maurice Clarett, do you? Do you really think universities should KNOW what their students and their families are doing 24-7?

I loathe to think of how our society is devolving into the nanny-state, where big brother is an acceptable fuctionary in this pseudo democracy.

[pk-in-the-mesa]

Gerrrg
Yes and could you imagine us being controled of are everyday actions and thoughts i guess this what the UCLA fan wants or maybe more handicap placks and cars and money from Sam Gilbert