|
Michael Jordan Update
With Michael Leahy
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, Jan. 24, 2001; 2 p.m. EST
On Oct. 1, 2001, a man who is arguably basketball's greatest star announced his intention to play for the Washington Wizards. That man was Micheal Jordan and fans, other players and the Wizards coaching staff started imagining a winning season. Almost four months later, the Wizards' road to success has been peppered with some losses as Jordan deals with a new, younger crop of opponents. He also has another challenge to cope with: the recent announcement that long-time wife Juanita is suing for divorce.
Washington Post staff writer Michael Leahy has been writing about Jordan's return to pro basketball throughout the NBA season. He was online Thursday, Jan. 24 at 2 p.m. EST, to discuss Jordan's impact on the Wizards, the sport of basketball and culture; his on-court successes and periodic struggles, and the questions surrounding tumult in his personal life.
Leahy, a staff writer for The Washington Post since 1999, has written about subjects ranging from the sudden celebrity of Donato Dalyrmple -- the housecleaner dubbed fisherman-savior of Elian Gonzalez -- to the tormented life of a paroled child murderer spared execution in the early '70s because a 1972 Supreme Court decision briefly rendered the death penalty unconstitutional. His last
story in The Washington Post Magazine was his April 2000 profile of Cal
Ripken Jr. A graduate of Yale University, Leahy lives with his wife Jane and son Cameron in Centreville, Va.
The transcript follows.
Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control
over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.
Michael Leahy: Hi there. I've donned my uniform, already received the cortisone shots for my writing hands and I'm ready to go. I'll be the ultimate arbiter of questions, but nearly all queries will be deemed in play.
Maui, Hawaii:
Mr. Leahy, Aloha!
Your coverage of Michael Jordan's comeback is compelling. How much time do you spend with Jordan and the Wizards to "get the story?"
Michael Leahy: I don't have any special access to Michael. Last year, for the Magazine story on Michael, I sat down with him alone for roughly an hour and a half. But that was before he made his decision to resume his playing career. Now there are not 50 journalists looking for one-on-one interviews but probably 1,000. So he hasn't granted any one-on-ones to print reporters who want to talk about "Michael." Still you see, hear and perceive an enormous amount simply by observing him around other people -- in locker rooms, in press hordes, around his friends, etc. And when he does talk, even after stories that in some parts are less than flattering, he is always quite professional and gracious in answering your questions. So it's worked out quite well so far.
Huntington Beach, Calif.:
Mr. Leahy:
Do you think that by following Michael Jordan exclusively since he has come back as a player that you will have enough insights and stories to potentially write a book on his third comeback? Additionally, what do you think of the media's role in this whole divorce deal? Remember how Michael got absolutely sick and tired of dealing with the media just bugging him endlessly in 1993 with the whole gambling and Richard Esquinas deal. Do you fear or think the same media hordes could drive him out again by repeatedly harping on something not related to basketball? Is it fair? I mean, David Letterman of all people is trusting tabloid stories now to make his jokes; personally I think that's ridiculous. I just wanted your take on all of it. Thank you.
Michael Leahy: Thanks for the question.
I haven't yet decided about doing a book, a decision I'll probably make sometime in the next couple of months.
Your question about the media's role in covering Juanita Jordan's petition for divorce and the resulting fall out is a good one and gets at the heart of a tough ethical issue for the public and press alike. Let's face it: we wouldn't have cared about a divorce issue as it effects 99.9 percent of Americans -- divorce being so commonplace. And we seldom care when an athlete or an entertainer messes up off the stage or out of the arena. The public hardly notices when Shaq (Shaquille O'Neal) gets suspended for three games for an on court melee and talks casually about how he has fathered four kids out of wedlock and how he is basically "not pure." We don't care when we hear of Mick Jagger's latest dalliance, and we're unruffled when we hear the latest rumors about Bill Clinton. So why has the Jordan story sent seismic waves through the culture? I think it's because he and his people have so persistently marketed him over the years as the personification of an ideal. You would think, watching the Nike commercials, that he is as much ethic as athlete. So, given all that marketing and the now hundreds of millions of dollars that Jordan and Jordan Inc. have made off that image, it probably is quite fair to assess his image and the effect of these latest stories on that image. It is little different than the kind of scrutiny that does, and probably should, attach to a political candidate who makes a great deal out of his moral virtues.
I don't think any of this attention will drive Michael underground. Your point about Richard Esquinas and the gambling controversy makes that very point. It didn't interfere really with Michael's life. I think Michael left the game the first time because he wanted a sabbatical from it. Baseball provided the sabbatical. But he's never avoided media.
I'll tell you what struck me as revealing about Michael's savvy with the press. When the stories first broke about his wife's petition, a Chicago Sun Times reporter asked him some questions about his relationship with his wife after a game. At the end of her second question, a Wizards PR person said, as he frequently does, "That's all, folks. Gotta go." But Michael, who is his own best PR maven, who has the best ear in the room for what comment he wants to conclude a press conference with, was not about to end the evening with a soundbyte on the Juanita controversy. So he took a basketball question, which he could answer while relentlessly upbeat. I've seen few politicians who handle the press as deftly as Michael Jordan.
Baltimore, Md.:
I know that you did a great story on a man who was on death row, and also a story on part of the Elian Gonzalez episode. And I was curious. Is covering Michael Jordan for his entire second returning season a meaningful experience for you?
Michael Leahy: It is very meaningful. In studying Michael, you get to look all at once at a man, a sport and his impact on the culture while he is grappling with many of the same midlife issues that a lot of us must deal with.
He is one of the three most celebrated athletes of the 20th century -- the other two being Ali and Babe Ruth. And Jordan's rise was quite different than Ali and Ruth's. Jordan arrived at that perfect confluence of media, marketing, sporting goods corporations, glamour, America's addiction for news about celebrities, the apex of interest in sports. It was all there for him.
And we see with Michael, in ways that we've seen with other celebrities but more profoundly with him, that we forgive a lot in the name of beauty and success. We overlook a great deal in the name of beauty -- Sinatra's voice, Kennedy's bearing, Jordan's flights. When we look back on this century, it will probably occur to historians that, among other things, for better and worse, this was the Century of Celebrity. Which raises the question, of course, as to whether or not we overuse words like "hero" when we speak of athletes and entertainers. So studying Michael raises all those kinds of questions. Yeah, I guess this is to say I've been fascinated throughout the process.
Alief, Tex.:
Your articles have been mesmermizing, leaving us with a feel like rubber-necking at a car crash site. I am fascinated and haunted by Michael Jordan's conduct. He is such a remarkable and tragic man. Isn't Michael Jordan's very strength -- his Herculean ability to focus and compartmentalize physical and emotional influences -- conversely a tremendous weakness when placed in the context of his repeated attempts to "prove" or validate himself on the court -- but in reality demonstrating punk behavior off the court and in his personal life?
Michael Leahy: Thanks for the kind comment. The biggest question I have at this moment is: WHERE'S ALIEF? I'll consult a Rand-McNally as soon as we get off the air.
You hit I think at a central point of these pieces. I would be careful to stay away from phrases like "punk behavior" -- among other reasons, we don't know enough about his off court behavior -- but I do think, and even people close to Michael acknowledge this, that his relentless focus on games of all kinds does complicate many relationships for him. And you're right: his focus is an indispensible component of his success. I'll give you an example, one to which I referred in the last article: We were in Milwaukee for a game, just a few days after the Juanita story broke. Michael had brought his two sons to the game. In fact, they rode the team bus with him. Not long after the bus arrived, the kids were led to their seats and Michael was in a very cramped visitors locker room in Milwaukee's Bradley Center watching tape of the Milwaukee Bucks. Outside, maybe 30 feet away, was a man taping a report and talking about the burdens and crisis in Michael Jordan's life. Meanwhile, the man at the center of the maelstrom was unflappable. He looked like any guy watching a VCR on a weeknight except that this man was riveted to a game. I mean, RIVETED. His teammate, Popeye Jones, now and then looked over his shoulder at an intruding reporter and cast an ear toward that glum radio voice floating in. Not Jordan. Jordan was pointing at the screen and talking about basketball. If anything said everything about focus, that moment was it for me. And it also said a great deal, as your question suggests, about the duality of his life. Thanks for a great question.
Atlanta, Ga.:
Do you believe that the divorce settlement proceedings and allegations of improper conduct will seriously harm Jordan's current and future endorsement contracts?
Michael Leahy: I think the short answer is we don't know. But it certainly is one of the most important questions here. I would say, again, if we were talking about the marketability of someone like Shaquille O'Neal, it would have no effect. But Michael Jordan and his people always have garnered huge sums, and incurred substantial risks, by so agressively marketing him as an ideal. Now this latest saga will raise questions for some people about authenticity. So it's hard to know how this will play out. Will it go away, as the gambling controversy largely did, or will it linger to the detriment of his longterm commercial prospects? I just don't know yet. I don't think anybody really does. It will take some time to know.
Houston, Tex.:
Do you see Michael Jordan isolating himself into his created persona much like Michael Jackson or Elvis? What should he do to draw himself away from that isolation?
Michael Leahy: Another terrific question. A number of people have expressed this concern about Michael Jordan. There is this strange cult of celebrity around him in moments, as probably best reflected in recent weeks by the news that Nike will be helping to launch a magazine simply entitled, "JORDAN." For some people the idea of JORDAN the magazine conjured images of Mao's little red book. What's going to be in there? Pithy little sayings? Life advice? Social positions interspersed with advice on how to battle a zone defense? That he is so reticent about virtually everything in his life, but marketing that life so relentlessly, does lead to the perception at once of a paradox and his own isolation. One gets the sense that the Jordan people have never quite figured out how to deal with what's become the big conundrum.
Troy, Mich.:
Were you surprised at the team's current standing and would you have drafted Kwamee Brown if you knew what you know today?
When do you expect the team to be in the playoff and how far will it go?
Michael Leahy: To be fair, I think basketball fans ought to acknowledge that this team is doing probably a little better than expected. The Wizards have won 19 games, equalling last season's win total. One could argue that the team is doing it with less, not more, talent. Whatever one might say about Juwan Howard, Rod Strickland and Mitch Richmond, all three of those guys brought a modicum of natural ability and considerable savvy to the court last year. With the exception of a young, still emerging and now injured Richard Hamilton, and a green rookie in Brendan Haywood, this team isn't deep in talent. Jordan's presence has made several of his teammates better players. But the relentless focus on him, and the fact that so much of this year's offense is built around a player who will be gone in a year or two, does spark important questions about what effect his presence has on the longterm fortunes of the Wizards and the development of players around him. When he leaves will the cupboard be more or less bare again? Will the Wizards be right back in the hellhole where they were at the end of last season?
Kwame Brown is, in the lexicon of sports, a "project." In another three years, he could be the next Tracy McGrady or he could be simply be... Kwame Brown.
Austin, Tex.:
Why is his game faltering? Just age?
Michael Leahy: Remember: He has had some great games -- 51 points in a game against Charlotte; 45 against New Jersey. He has also had some terrific FIRSTS halves -- only to be entirely shut down in the second half. The last two games are classic examples: 3-15 against Minnesota in the second half; 1-8 against Philadelphia in the second half.
He denies it, but he looks tired in many second halves. He dribbled the ball off his leg and out of bounds the other night deep into the second half and took a deep breath. In that moment, he looked like any 38-year-old athlete who was being asked to play beyond his limits.
After news broke of Michael's tendinitis problem, his old Bulls doctor, John Hefferon, advised Jordan and the Wizards to cut his minutes and even consider keeping him out of the second of back-to-back games. Wizards coach Doug Collins next said that he would be cutting down Michael's playing time to about 32 or 33 minutes a game. Collins quickly forgot his vow, in part because Michael pressured for more playing time, but in part because having Michael on the floor served Collins' interest at a time when Richard Hamilton went down with an injury. Now Michael's playing about 40 minutes a night -- and it shows, particularly in the second half of many games.
Vienna, Va.:
How committed do you think MJ will be to the Wizards when he retires again and heads back to the front office? Will he ever change his residency to this area?
Michael Leahy: I asked Jordan's agent, David Falk, a question along these lines just the other day in Chicago, before the Wizards game with the Bulls (Falk, for anyone who might not know, is Michael's agent and the man most responsible, other than Michael himself, for orchestrating Michael's career, on and off the court).
I posed the question in a slightly different way. I asked him if he could "rule out the possibility" that Michael might wish to buy the Chicago Bulls if and when Bulls ownership is ready to sell. David Falk's answer was at once careful and intriguing. He said that he would rule out nothing when it comes to Michael.
And I think that's the answer to your question, and the answer to all questions about Michael's future. Could anyone have predicted this comeback three years ago? Could anyone ever have dreamed that he would do this with the... Washington Wizards? The only predictable thing about Michael Jordan is that he will forever remain unpredictable.
Thanks again for so many great questions this afternoon. Look forward to talking with you down the line.
| |
© Copyright 2002 The Washington Post Company |
