Who Is the Bad Guy in McCoy Mess?

Tim Kawakami’s open hostility toward Steve Lavin would be laughable if it weren’t for the fact that so many people are under the delusion that The Times is still a reputable paper. Once a respected newspaper, The Times seems to be spinning out of control.

Journalistic objectivity has given way to petty sniping, sensationalism and a blatant disregard for any facts that get in the way of the attack, er, story. Talk about a lack of leadership--is anyone in charge there?

Kawakami’s frustration with UCLA’s refusal to discuss the McCoy matter is no excuse for his complete lack of professionalism. His animosity toward Lavin is apparent in press conferences and postgame interviews. Perhaps you should assign another beat writer before Tim causes further embarrassment to a once-proud paper.

GREG HICKS

Sherman Oaks

*

A 20-year-old shot-blocking malcontent apparently violates a drug policy that seems to condone everything but lighting up on the bench, and the UCLA athletic brass take a month and a half to get legal clearance to tell the kid to take a hike. Then the athletic department issues a statement so weak it reads like something drafted by the White House counsel’s office to redefine commonly understood terms--the kid “resigned” from the team, the statement says. And all the while, Coach Lav asks us to believe he hasn’t a clue what’s going on, but that the kid is a solid citizen. Nice to know they’re still teaching values in the public schools.

I hope the school doesn’t compound the insult and make the kid give back his Chevy when he leaves school to prepare for the NBA draft.

RICHARD A. FOND

Los Angeles

*

Nice to see that Jelani McCoy is a victim of “intense media scrutiny.” Jelani--take responsibility for your actions.DAVID PAUL

Laguna Beach

*

“Drug Policy is Lenient at UCLA!” A sensationalistic, muckraking headline to be sure. The only problem is that the story doesn’t support the statement. Only if we labor through the entire article do we discover that UCLA is actually only one of five Pac-10 schools that requires mandatory random drug testing. Moreover, after comparing the penalties for positive test results between UCLA and other Pac-10 schools, it’s clear that the penalties are generally the same and only the timing differs. If your goal is prevent drug abuse, UCLA’s program of constructive engagement is likely to be more successful than purely punitive measures.

If there was to be a headline on this poorly constructed expose it should have been “Drug Policy is Lenient at Stanford (and four other Pac-10 schools.)”

TONY HOWE

Corona Del Mar

*

Your in-depth examination of drug-testing programs in college athletics highlights the well-meaning but fuzzy thinking that went into designing many of them. Simply, what is their purpose? If it is to provide a level playing field for competition, then only bodily fluid testing for performance-enhancing drugs such as steroids and stimulants (cocaine and amphetamines) needs to be done. But you state that five of the Pac-10 schools test not randomly but only “for cause” or not at all (Stanford). That gives such a marked advantage to these five schools in terms of athlete eligibility that one can hardly call UCLA’s random testing policy lenient.

Some feel that to identify athletes who might be in trouble with drugs, one should also test for performance-impairing drugs of abuse (heroin, barbiturates, marijuana, etc.). Compared to the general population, few college athletes have drug problems, but of those few, the most common drug abused by far is alcohol, yet it is the one substance of abuse for which many schools, including UCLA, do not test. That sends a confusing, if unintended, message.

J. THOMAS UNGERLEIDER

Professor Emeritus of Psychiatry

UCLA Medical Center