Wednesday, October 18

Basketball coach Steve Alford releases statement apologizing for assault case comments


After much criticism, the men’s basketball coach released a statement explaining his past choices

UCLA basketball coach Steve Alford apologized on Thursday for comments he made about a sexual assault case involving one of his players at Iowa in 2002.

“I wanted to believe he was innocent, and in response to a media question, I publicly proclaimed his innocence before the legal system had run its course. This was inappropriate, insensitive and hurtful, especially to the young female victim involved, and I apologize for that,” Alford said in a written statement released Thursday morning.

The “he” Alford referred to was Pierre Pierce, a former standout guard at the University of Iowa. Alford repeatedly proclaimed Pierce innocent during an ongoing sexual assault case while he was the Hawkeyes’ head basketball coach – a gesture that was met with sharp backlash. A 2003 formal investigation by the University of Iowa found that Alford mishandled the case.

Alford’s apology came nine days too late for some UCLA fans, and 11 years too late for much of the University of Iowa community.

For many fans in both camps, it was also not enough.

The Iowa incident resurfaced shortly after UCLA hired Alford, when CBS Chicago writer Dan Bernstein wrote a column that was critical of Alford’s handling of Pierce’s sexual assault case.

Followers of both programs questioned why Alford didn’t issue the apology nine days earlier when he was first introduced at a UCLA press conference, during which a reporter asked about the Iowa case.

Many members of the Iowa community took to Twitter to express their frustration with the timing of the apology. They claimed it was too little, too late and called it insincere.

The fire was fueled by a another column from Bernstein, published Thursday, that criticized Alford for not addressing his involvement with the student organization Athletes in Action in the apology. The organization invited the victim in the case to a prayer meeting with Pierce to find an “informal resolution” to the case, according to the 2003 report by the University of Iowa.

The column also questioned Alford’s statement that the coach “came to (Pierce’s) defense before knowing all the facts,” noting that Alford continued to proclaim his player’s innocence after negotiations for a plea bargain began.

Iowa’s athletic department had no further comment on Alford’s apology than the same statement it has offered in the past – that it stands with the findings of the 2003 report that detailed the case.

The Daily Bruin asked more than 35 UCLA students about the apology on Thursday afternoon. Students were largely unaware of the apology, but reactions on social media websites ranged from apathy toward the situation to outrage that Alford had been hired in the first place.

Some members of the UCLA community said the move was wise on Alford’s part.

“I mean, he has to apologize,” said first-year business economics student Michael Masania. “He doesn’t really have a choice. It just further implicates him if he doesn’t atone for what he did.”

However, others contend that despite the negative criticisms, a rich basketball history will allow the program to roll with the punches.

“I don’t think this is really affecting us,” said fourth-year communication studies student Brett Lakey. “We’re still UCLA. We have a great history, we’ve got (John) Wooden always and all of the titles and stuff.”

In his written statement, Alford was apologetic for the effect his words had on the victim in the sexual assault case.

“I have learned and grown from that experience and now understand that such proclamations can contribute to an atmosphere in which similar crimes go unreported and victims are not taken seriously,” Alford said.

Athletic Director Dan Guerrero also issued a written statement Thursday morning in which he stood by Alford.

“Everyone has regrets in their past, but acknowledging them and learning from them shows true character,” Guerrero said in his statement.

Guerrero added that he was aware of the past controversy when he hired Alford and still saw him as “the right coach for UCLA.”

 

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterEmail this to someoneShare on Google+Share on Reddit

Comments are supposed to create a forum for thoughtful, respectful community discussion. Please be nice. View our full comments policy here.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Emily-Montan/1186887516 Emily Montan

    How disgusting! This is even more shameful because I had to deal with a basketball coach at Uni. of Maryland, College Park who did the same thing in the early 80s. You would think that the coaches would learn from each other. There is no excuse. I feel bad for the survivors of rape who are raped again by our justice system. Add these coaches bad behaviors and it is a triple rape. Guerrero has either failed to get a good education (not learning from the past) or ignored what was taught to him.

    He should be fired; I don’t accept his apology.

    • Bruin for life

      YOU have to start with our top guy at the white house, IF we had to fire everyone who did something wrong or stupid after 11 years. Lets not get too emotional about a “misjudgement” by CSA. As a coach, you make a commitment to your team that you will cover your player’s back IF THEY DO THE SAME FOR EACH OTHER. Just like the Marines, “brothers in arms”.
      He felt that if he did not back up his player, he will lose the respect of his team and coaching staff and IF he did back up his player and he was wrong, he would lose the respect of the entire community. He took a long shot (gamble) to protect his player and lost.
      Do we keep people in jail after they have served their time and paid their debt to society? NO, we release them and let them rehabilitate and become productive members of the society. WHY is it any different in his case? He has paid his debt to society by losing the respect of the community. That is a much bigger punishment for him than firing him………..
      NO respect or no job. I say NO RESPECT IS MORE PUNISHING than NO JOB.