The Learning Leader Show With Ryan Hawk - 059: Mark Fainaru-Wada – Investigative Reporter, Steroids, Barry Bonds, and Concussions

Starting point is 00:00:00 If you're in the same situation, do you report it? Oh, absolutely. I mean, I don't see how you can't report that. I mean, I just, I mean, I think, I just think I don't see how you don't. I mean, this is a highly newsworthy thing where you've got, as you said, you know, a message being given at the highest levels to rookies by, you know, now we know it on video, a Hall of Fame player. I just don't see how that's not reportable.

Starting point is 00:00:23 But look, again, I mean, people make different decisions, and I can only speak to the kind of sort of decisions we would make. Are leaders born or are they made? Our host, Ryan Hawk, believes that leaders can be made through determined, focused work on learning the art and science behind the makeup of other successful leaders. Now it's time to inhale knowledge and exhale success. You're listening to The Learning Leader Show with Ryan Hawk. Hey and welcome to the Learning Leader Show. I am Ryan Hawk. Tonight's episode is absolutely fascinating.

Starting point is 00:01:08 It's with investigative reporter Mark Faneer Wada. He works for ESPN. With his colleague Lance Williams, he co-authored the New York Times bestseller Game of Shadows, Barry Bonds, Balco, and the steroids scandal that rocked professional sports. He also has written League of Denial with his brother Steve, which touches on traumatic brain injury and playing football in the NFL. On our very interesting conversation tonight, we touched on a number of topics. I think you'll find all of them fascinating, especially Mark's story and how he goes about finding sources, building relationships. We got into that. A couple other things we spoke on.

Starting point is 00:01:53 Investigating Barry Bonds and Marion Jones and Tim Montgomery and Jason Giambi and what it was like doing that investigative work to uncover and find out about their steroid use. Also, the fact that he was subpoenaed to give up his sources or face jail time. How does it affect you when that happens? How did it affect his family? We talked deeply about that, and it's just another fascinating part. And we also got into his most recent work, League of Denial, the traumatic head injuries potentially happening from playing football, as well as his story on Chris Borland and some fallout from that,

Starting point is 00:02:31 including the Chris Carter Fall Guy statement that he made that stemmed from that story. There's so much to get into on this one. I know you guys are going to enjoy it. It's Mark Faneiro Wada. All right, Mark, I'm extremely excited to have you here on the Learning Leader Show. You're unique, a little bit different from the typical featured leader I have on. And that's why I was so excited to have you on. And typically to get the episodes kicked off, I ask a question around world-class performers or high achievers and things that they've done.

Starting point is 00:03:13 And for you, I thought I'd ask a little bit different question, maybe the inverse of that, because you've spent time around world-class performers in high-year. achievers, you certainly have. But you've also investigated people who have achieved big things, however, maybe they did it by cheating, by using steroids or doing other means that other things that have led to high performance, but then they've, after that, have been caught. So I'm curious as to you, what are some of the common characteristics of people who have been caught cheating, who have lived a lie, so to speak, at least for part of their lives? Well, Ryan, it's a very interesting question. First, thanks for having me. I'm really flattered that you'd ask. Oh, yeah, absolutely.

Starting point is 00:03:56 And I think there certainly are common characteristics, at least on the appearances. I mean, I don't pretend to have, you know, close personal relationships with these people to the extent that I know them well. But I think that there's a clear sense of perhaps narcissism and hubris that goes with. And I think in some degrees to be able to succeed at the highest levels of sport and to perform at these. levels, not everyone, but I think it requires a level, obviously, of ego and confidence in oneself, that it sometimes can exceed that. And so I think you oftentimes see, you know, almost a level of indignation. Like when you, you know, when a lot of these people get caught, there's not a, there's frequently not a level of, a high level of sort of contrition. On the contrary, there's often a level of indignation. There's a, there's a sense of like, you know, either I didn't do

Starting point is 00:04:47 this, a denial or, or who are you to be challenging me on this? And so, I think to some degree you often see a decent amount of hubris, a decent amount of narcissism, and in some cases it's quite extreme. I mean, the level of denial that, for example, we saw from Marion Jones in the Boko Steroids case where she was just defiant in her denials that she had ever used performance-enhancing drugs to the point of wanting to sue people, including the U.S. anti-doping agency, was quite extreme, and I think reflect a character that you see sometimes in personalities like this. Do you think somebody like Marion Jones, I remember that vividly, and you still could see her on TV, and you could just tell she's lying.

Starting point is 00:05:27 It felt like Lance Armstrongs almost. Do you feel like they have this sense of like, okay, I'm already so far deep into this, there's no way out of it? I mean, what could be going through their mind? I mean, I'm always leery, you know, in the reporting that we do, I'm always leery of trying to get inside someone's head to the point of trying to say what they're thinking. I don't think that's my role. I think we spent a lot of time looking into Barry Bonds, for example, and I think we got insights into who he is, but in terms of motivations about why one says the things they do, I'm always a little reticent to go there.

Starting point is 00:06:03 I think it's clear that there's a level of protection that's happening, obviously, and this is about reputation, this is about career, this is about money, and so there's a high level of protection that goes on. And I think, you know, part of this is the culture of sport, right? I mean, athletes are, in many cases, largely protected throughout their careers. They're sort of different animals from the rest of us. They're nurtured, taking care of. Many things are done for them in cases, and they can focus strictly on their performance.

Starting point is 00:06:33 And to that point, when they have to sort of come out of that comfort zone, there's a level of defiance almost. And so I think that's what you see in these cases is defiance by many of the athletes. Yeah, I'm fascinated by it. And it's always a shame when it happens, but it's still a fascinating thing that you do. So, Mark, I want to take a step back and give you a minute to share the journey that you've had up to this point. Some of the things you've done in the intro of this episode, I've talked about, you know, all the great things, the books, the investigative reports. But I'd love to hear it directly from you as far as I said, hey, if somebody said, hey, Mark, what are some of the things that you've done, you've accomplished in your life, and what are you currently working on?

Starting point is 00:07:14 Well, I mean, I'm certainly, you know, I have sort of two stories that have come to define my career, I guess, and they've been, you know, I've just been really fortunate and blessed to work on, you know, two of the biggest stories in sports through my career. The Boko Steroid scandal certainly shaped and changed me in ways I never would have imagined. Among other things, I had the great fortune of working with Lance Williams. My colleague threw out on that at the San Francisco Chronicle and then on the book we wrote. And, you know, he's just not only a phenomenal reporter, but a great friend. and I learned a great deal from him about not only reporting, but about patience as we went through a lot of really challenging situations, including the threat of prison and whatnot for the government coming after us to try and get us to reveal our sources. So, you know, that was certainly a dramatic

Starting point is 00:07:59 period of time for me. You know, and then, you know, from there going to ESPN, I mean, I was a newspaper hack all my life, and I saw myself as a print guy. I never imagined going to ESPN. I never imagined doing television. It wasn't something I saw it or was a goal of mine. But when ESPN called or we began to sort of have conversations about seven years ago, as they were sort of creating and boosting a investigative unit, the opportunity just seemed too good to pass up. And, you know, and I've had a great fortune of working there now for seven years on a phenomenal show outside the lines. And then got to do this book with my brother, League of Denial, and the documentary that grew out of it. And I'm, you know, just incredibly proud and feel fortunate.

Starting point is 00:08:43 I, you know, as great as it was to work with Lance, you know, in some ways, be more amazing to work with my brother. He is a phenomenal journalist, Pulitzer Prize, one of the best journalist I know. And so to be able to work on this project with him was amazing. But, you know, I mean, I was sort of on a personal note, I have to say, like, you know, you do this kind of reporting and it's very all-consuming. And I love it and enjoy it, but it requires a level of sort of buy-in from your family in particular. And so, you know, I had a good fortune of being. with a wife and my wife, Nicole, and two kids who sort of get it and understand what I'm doing and are unwavering in their support for it. And, you know, when we were facing the prison

Starting point is 00:09:24 possibility of me and Lance, I mean, Nicole was incredible to sort of get us and the kids through all that. And so I just have been really incredibly fortunate to work on stories that matter and to have two incredible stories. I mean, to get one was really sort of, you know, anybody's dream, but to have a second story that was so powerful and meaningful and continues to give, really, the concussion story just won't go away. It's just, I've been really, really lucky. It's really incredible. And so I'm going to tackle those here in chronological order, so to speak. So, again, I'm fascinated by the work that you've done. I remember reading Game of Shadows, which the whole title of the book, for those who haven't read, is Game of Shadows, Barry Bonds,

Starting point is 00:10:07 Balko, and the steroids scandal, that rock. professional sports. I mean, this was all over the place when you guys released this book and everything that was involved. You also, you know, touched on Marion Jones, Tim Montgomery, Jason Giambi amongst other people as far as investigative reporting and to Balco and the steroids and everything that went into it. So I'm curious for the type of, a lot of listeners, I think, are similar or have some similarities to me. And that's, I have no idea. the day-to-day life of an investigative journalist. However, you'd be bored to death.

Starting point is 00:10:45 Well, I am fascinated by at least the results, what you guys eventually come up with. So I'm curious, could you describe what it's like day-to-day? Let's go back to that book. So Game of Shadows, you're working on doing the research, your investigation, all of it, to write this book. What's it like from a day-to-day perspective? Obviously, you have sources that you cannot discuss.

Starting point is 00:11:10 But I'm just talking about day-to-day and how it works to gather the information and then write it. Sure. I mean, it was very, I mean, that book is born out of all the reporting that Lansson and myself did at the Chronicle for, you know, two plus years. You know, we were doing a number of stories at the Chronicle, Breaking News, ultimately the stories of Bons''s grand jury testimony, Giambi's grand jury testimony, and others that continued to sort of propel the story. And so the book grew out of that work. So the bulk of the reporting was done while we were at the newspaper. And that was really just, you know, I mean, in many ways it was a routine.

Starting point is 00:11:47 You were just getting up every morning and pounding away. I mean, I think we knew ultimately, you know, the goal of that story was to get inside. You had a grand jury meeting in secret that we began to learn was investigating performance-enhancing drug use in sports. And so the goal was let's get inside this and find out what's happening. Will we be able to report the extent to which these athletes were using these drugs? I mean, we began to hear fairly early on from sources as we would reach out to people that this is what this investigation was a route about, that we were going to learn that bonds had been using these drugs extensively. But there's a huge leap to go from hearing that from a source or two to be able to actually getting that in the paper.

Starting point is 00:12:27 And it's not unlike a lot of things and that as you develop relationships, you're working to develop trust. And in this case, you know, the story was built entirely in playing out in secret, right? Because you had this grand jury in secret and people not really publicly discussing what was going on. And so you had to find people who knew what was going on who were willing to tell you that. And one of the dynamics that was at play for us as reporters was that you had once the government laid out the case and publicly identified what was happening and charged people. it was a really curious sort of case because what they did was they named these four essentially low-level drug dealers, basically. I mean, these were guys who were providing the drugs to the athletes.

Starting point is 00:13:15 And the government treated it like a basic traditional drug case where you're going after, you know, guys on the corner selling crack for whatever you sell crack for on the corner. And so, and then hiding the names of all the athletes. And I think to a lot of people, that was upside down, right? The athletes were, in many cases, million-dollar athletes making more by very, virtue of using these drugs. And so there were people on all sides of the case that were motivated to basically expose the athletes. And in the end, as reporters, we were playing off that. And we were constantly either on the phone every day, just sitting in our cubicles, sometimes cold calling

Starting point is 00:13:51 people, sometimes calling sources, talking to the same source over and over and over again, day after day after day, trying to pull pieces of information out of them or trying to convince them to give us documents and provide us with information that could show with, painstakingly the levels of cheating that were going on. And for an investigative reporter, the document is sort of the gold standard. I mean, that's really what you're after. And so for us, you know, the ultimate goal was to get a hold of documents that were going to lay out exactly what was happening.

Starting point is 00:14:22 And in the end, you know, with that idea that the athletes were being basically given a free pass, we were able to convince people to provide us with that information. And that's what it was. But it was really, I mean, it was no more than, then basically going to the office every day, getting on the phone, developing sources, and trying to convince those people to talk to us. And at times going days or even months without a story, all with a goal towards the end of producing that big story that was going to reveal a truth that was being shielded from the public.

Starting point is 00:14:51 Why was it being shielded from the public? Well, I think it's a really good question. I don't think anybody really knew. I think when the government announced the indictments in the Boko case in, I think it was February of 2004, You know, Langez had covered courts and cops for years, and his full expectation was that when this became public, you were going to look at the documents and you were going to see very clearly who was using what, when, and why. And it would be like sort of a one-off almost. You'd do that story. There would be a whole lot of hubbub around it, and then we'd be done with it.

Starting point is 00:15:21 But in fact, what ended up happening was when those papers were released, the government redacted the names or blacked out the names or used sort of generic terms to reference the athletes instead of Barry Bonnard. it would say a major league baseball player. Instead of Marion Jones, it would say an Olympic track athlete. And so there was this essential cover-up of the athletes. And I think, you know, the government never provided any, the government didn't provide much in the way of communication with the media, but it offered very little answers to the question of why it prosecuted the case that way, other than to suggest like we feel like we need to, we're going after the drug dealers. That's what our, that's what our charge is. And so as a result, you ended up, up with this basically like a vacuum of information around the case. The most notable stuff to the media

Starting point is 00:16:11 and to the public was which athletes were using why, what was the impact on their use? And in that way, there was a just gigantic void left by the way the case was prosecuted. Incredible. Fascinating how it all works. And so you mentioned that you and Lance were subpoenaed to essentially go and asked to give up your sources and for a reporter. I remember, I remember I actually had Jenny Vrentes from the MMQB, great writer on the podcast earlier at the beginning of this. And we talked about sources and about the importance of having them in the trust and relationship. And in your case, so you're threatened with going to jail if you don't give up your sources. I mean, I just can't fathom this.

Starting point is 00:16:55 So talk to me about that process, what was going through your mind. You already mentioned the support of your wife and family, but I'd love to hear more about that. I mean, it was, you know, it was certainly a crazy time. As Lance was very, very fond of saying, and he was completely right. A lot of people were going through many worse things than we were. And so we oftentimes tried to keep that perspective. And as I said earlier, you know, among the many things I learned from him was patience. And he was a gold line for that throughout the process. I mean, he's this very laid back, dry, deadpan Midwestern guy. I'm this sort of over-the-top emotional sort of Californian at times. And so I needed his sort of, sort of,

Starting point is 00:17:32 perspective frequently to keep from losing it. You know, it was certainly not a fun experience, but, you know, Lance and I oftentimes said to people, you know, the fundamental question of where we were put was not a difficult one at all. I mean, we were, it was not a fun situation to be in, but the question of giving up the sources was never an option. I mean, for so many reasons, not least of which is pragmatically, how would we ever do our jobs again? I mean, right? How was I ever going to go turn around? If I gave up a source, how was I ever going to then turn around and do my job again and say, oh, no, this time I'll be good. This time you can tell me something in confidence and I promise you I'm going to keep it. That just wasn't going to work. Never mind

Starting point is 00:18:14 being able to just look myself in the mirror and say, you know, I made a promise to somebody. I'm going to keep it. The promises that you make to sources, you never think it's going to come to this. This is an extreme situation. You just don't anticipate the government's going to come after you, let alone on a sports and steroids case. I mean, this was, This was not, you know, a case of terrorist threat. This was not a case of the threat to someone's physical well-being or livelihood. This was a sports and steroids case. And the idea of the government coming after us to give up our sources just seemed quite extreme. But I think for our purposes, that just wasn't a question. And so that was the easy part of the equation. The difficult part was more all the ancillary stuff that came with it. Suddenly becoming the story as opposed to reporting the story, you know, that just sucks. frankly. I mean, I, you know, nobody, you know, I don't want to be the story. I just want to, I just want to report about it. And so that was really a challenge. And, you know, I mentioned earlier I had kids. At the time this was all happening, my kids were, I think, eight and six,

Starting point is 00:19:16 seven and five, you know, went over the course of about a year. And, you know, the story began to become more public. And so it became become clear that there was a real possibility we would end up going to prison. And I think, you know, trying to sit down and explain that to an eight-year-old and a six-year-old is not easy. And that was probably the most unpleasant part of the whole experience. And thankfully, my wife is incredibly more articulate than I am and sensitive and passionate with the kids. And so, you know, but it's, you know, try explaining to an eight-year-old that, like, dad might go to prison for doing his job, right? I mean, it's just sort of a bizarre concept. You know, you can, you can explain to them the idea of keeping a promise. That's a reasonable thing

Starting point is 00:19:56 to try and explain. And they're starting to get that at that age. But the idea that I didn't do anything wrong or bad and I still might sort of go away from them, that's a really hard pill to swallow. And so, you know, that was the only point during the equation where I became really pissed off and upset and frustrated. You know, there were other things about it that were annoying and troublesome and, you know, took time away from our jobs. But that was the one part of it that was that I found the most, the most frustrating. Yeah, I was reading that. So when these types of things pop up every once in a while. People point to the work of Woodward and Bernstein and the Watergate scandal and their mysterious source deep thrown. It's just, for you, it had to be kind of a surreal

Starting point is 00:20:42 experience, I'm guessing, to have that and your name kind of side by side in order to try to make it so you guys don't have to go to jail and you can protect your sources. I mean, it was surreal on so many levels. First of all, I mean, I became a journalist for two reasons. One is I'm sort of baby brother following my big brother's footsteps. He's three years older than I am, and I saw what he was doing, and I just really loved it and wanted to do it. The second reason was I saw and all the presidents met and read it when I was a kid and just was fascinated by the idea of becoming a reporter. And so, you know, you fast forward to suddenly being immersed in this crazy world. And, you know, at one point we had Carl Bernstein write a letter on our behalf of the court. You know,

Starting point is 00:21:24 it was one of the most flattering things that ever had happened to me in my life. And it was, you know, sort of like a surreal, dreamy kind of thing come true. So, but when you're living it, you're just like, this is stupid, really. This is crazy, right? It's just an experience, you know, it's not an experience I would wish on anyone, but at the same time as Lance, like I said, would often point out, we were in a far better situation than most or many people could be in. And on this issue, you know, we were in really good shape because we had the full support of Hearst Corporation, which owned the Chronicle. And in particular, our lawyers, Eve Burton, who's just a bulldog of a lawyer and was just so bullish on the First Amendment and protecting us and her close colleague,

Starting point is 00:22:07 John Donnell. And we just, you know, we were able to survive this because we had that kind of support. I think there were other reporters at the time who were going through similar situations or who had gone through similar situations who didn't have that kind of support. And, you know, there's just no doubt. we survived and endured the situation for many reasons, but in large part because of Eve and John. Really incredible story. So then everything gets taken care of. It's 2007. You win the Dick Shapp Award for Outstanding Journalism, which then propels you to being offered by ESPN to come work for them. Yeah, I mean, I, you know, I'd covered Balco by that time for, I don't know, we started in 2003. It was 2007. So it was about a four-year problem.

Starting point is 00:22:53 process. You know, and I just like I said earlier, you know, I never imagined myself leaving newspapers. I've learned the Chronicle. At the same time, you know, the paper was going through a massive transition, massive cutbacks that we've only seen more of since. And ESPN was creating and boosting this unit built around investigative journalism. And they were putting in charge a guy named Dwayne Bray, a longtime newspaper guy himself, who was incredibly impressive. Vince Doria was running the show at ESPN. And my brother Steve had worked for him at the, but, and he was. at the Boston Globe. And I knew Vince a little bit from my days at the national and all sports newspaper.

Starting point is 00:23:30 So it just seemed like an opportunity that was too good to pass up, the chance to be in sort of on the ground for of a unit built around investigations with the kind of resources that ESPN has. And frankly, I will not lie to say. It also, you know, there's a dramatic difference between, you know, what I was getting paid at the clock from what I'm able to get paid at ESPN. Hey, it's okay. There's nothing wrong with that.

Starting point is 00:23:52 Yeah, so I, you know, there were a combination of things that just made it a no-brainer. You know, I had concerns about it going in. You know, there's the longstanding sort of newspaper versus TV attitude that print guys are always sort of snobbish about newspaper. And so I didn't really know what to expect on that front. You know, and then I think, you know, the level of, you know, potential conflict that existed at ESPN was a concern for me. And Steve and I, you know, he's older brother. so we talk a lot about stuff and I seek his advice. And, you know, I said, what about this issue? I mean, how am I really going to know whether we can do the kind of work we want to do? And, you know,

Starting point is 00:24:30 his answer was, I think, the right one, which is you won't know until you get there. You know, as it turned out, you know, it's been a flawless situation for the most part. You know, it's spent seven years there and no one's ever told me to back off a story. No one's ever suggested we shouldn't cover something. And on the contrary, they've been incredibly supportive of us doing the kind of investigative work, even of the NFL, that that matters the most. Let's transition a little bit. So it's December 2005.

Starting point is 00:24:57 There's a scientific paper on concussions in America's most popular sport, which is football. And here's one of the quotes. It says, professional football players do not sustain frequent repetitive blows to the brain on a regular basis. When you see that come out, what starts happening in your mind? That fuels to me like an inflection point, like a moment to where, you, you know, you, You're thinking, hang on a second. Maybe we need to dig into this. And years later, and I'm kind of speeding up the story, but years later, we see your book with your brother League of Denial.

Starting point is 00:25:34 Talk to me about that. Well, I think it's interesting. I mean, what happens with that is, you know, we, I certainly was not going around reading scientific papers back in 2005 about the NFL and concussions in a medical journal I'd never heard of. You know, I mean, at that time, I'm immersed in Balco and working on that. And there are people who are covering the concussion story in the early days of it. I mean, ESPN had Greg Garber doing some fantastic work. Peter Keating doing some fantastic work. Alan Schwartz at the New York Times began to cover it, too.

Starting point is 00:26:01 But it's really not until 2007 that the story gets any real legs. And I'm still sort of just transitioning to ESPN at that point, hadn't even thought about a concussion story. But it wasn't until the fall of 2011 when I got assigned a story about concussions in the NFL. that this sort of came onto my plate. And I was working on a story on a guy named Fred McNeil, a former Minnesota Vikings player, who had played a dozen years in the league at linebacker, two Super Bowls, and had become a successful lawyer after retiring, a partner in several different firms and very successful. But by the time we were doing a story on Fred, he had developed early onset dementia,

Starting point is 00:26:41 had lost his law partnerships, and was really only be able to sort of exist on a day-to-day basis with the help of his estranged wife and his two adult kids. And Fred was suing the Vikings, actually, for workers' compensation pay, arguing that his early onset dementia had been caused by football. And he was one of the first guys to file one of those lawsuits. And in the course of doing the reporting on that, I met this guy, Julian Bales, who had been the team neurosurgeon for the Pittsburgh Steelers, and had been immersed in this issue of football and brain damage. And Bales was familiar with Game of Shadows and the steroids work that I had done and asked if I was going to do a book on the topic. And I said, no, I mean, Peter Keating from our place or Alan Schwartz in the New York

Starting point is 00:27:26 Times or Jean-Marie Laskis at GQ who'd done a great piece, including one on Fred McNeil, surely they would be doing it. And Julian said, no, no, no one's doing a book. You should really do it. And I came back to the Bay Area where I live, and Steve also lives in the Bay Area. And he and I always talked about working on a project together. And I said, you know, what about this? And, you know, Steve is so good for many reasons. Among them is that he's sees long-form narrative really well very clearly. And he jumped at the idea of a book. And so we both had good fortune with books previously, and that helped us, I think, sell this. You know, he had his Pulitzer and I had Game of Shadows. He had another book, Big Boy Rules, that had done quite well.

Starting point is 00:28:05 And so we were able to sell the book. And it was at that point only that both of us, really from scratch, began to dig into the issue. And you fast forward to that paper you're reading from, I mean, I think it was interesting because the story had been covered in many ways, but nobody had really looked into what did the NFL know and when. So there had been sort of a lot of stories done on the issue. It was emerging clearly that the NFL had problems with this, but a really hard look at what did the NFL know and when did it know it and how did it manage, it just hadn't been done.

Starting point is 00:28:35 And I remember as Steve and I started to really dive into those research papers, that was the beauty of the reporting in many ways around the NFL is that they had put in writing in about the same. 16 different papers over the course of eight years what they thought about concussions in the NFL. They had created a scientific body, which, I mean, pretty amazing, right? When you think about it, the NFL has created a scientific body to study concussions in its sport. And that body is basically made up of like team doctors, team trainers, everybody who's just sort of in the throes. No real sort of neuroexperts. They just put in a bunch of guys. And so when you read those papers,

Starting point is 00:29:15 that quote you read was quite startling, I think, to us. And there's those kinds of quotes. That's our favorite one. That one's just, you know, you just can't believe they're saying that, right? I mean, that football players don't basically receive repetitive brain trauma for any sort of reason throughout playing the game. It seems crazy, right? That's like, I mean, I played up in college. I played in the arena league after.

Starting point is 00:29:38 You know, I have family, you know, a younger brother plays his 10th year. And so when I see that statement, I'm thinking, And how can anyone write that? I mean, like, I think even like 25 years ago, we knew we were, we were sustaining frequent blows to our head. I mean, every day in practice and the game. So I'm just, it blows me away to think that that was printed. I mean, I think, you know, one of the things that I think was frustrating for us during the reporting is we never, the NFL didn't make themselves available to us. So all we could do was read the statements and try to talk to these guys.

Starting point is 00:30:14 and they basically refused. So what was in everybody's mind at the time they're writing these things? You know, we talked to a few people who were involved in the papers. And, you know, the suggestion was basically at one point we talked to a guy who was part of those papers who said, well, I didn't write that part. So like, well, wait a minute, your name's on it. You know, your name's alter. Well, I didn't write that part of it. So that's the kind of stuff you got.

Starting point is 00:30:36 And so, you know, look, this is a $10 billion industry and growing. It's a big business, right? it's a corporation. And so I think, you know, as you look at the body of evidence that lays out from our book, you see sort of what's happening, which is a level of sort of protection, a denial of, you know, in many ways, trying to sort of circle the wagons and cover yourself. In some ways, not all that different than the way you see the individual athletes deal with the steroids problem. I know that your job is to be an investigative reporter and to just find the sources and the data,

Starting point is 00:31:11 the evidence, so to speak, and then report on that. But I'm going to ask you to put on your, a different hat right now. I ask you to put on just the, you know, what does Mark think hat? What do you think? Well, you're an intelligent guy. You're from Northwestern, highly educated, really, you know, well-spoken, obviously, great writer. So I'm curious just to get your thoughts now. This is not a reporting.

Starting point is 00:31:35 This is just your thinking. But when you, you know, you've done a lot of research. So your thought is probably backed with some. some facts. What do you see the future of the NFL in 5, 10, 15, 20? I mean, big names like Troy Aikman has said we've got, there's potentially huge problems. So it's not just, you know, like people who haven't played. I mean, Troy Aitman's a big time, you know, Hall of Famer. What do you think is the future of the league because of what's going on from a head injury perspective? I mean, I think Steve has often said this and I think he's right, which is I think

Starting point is 00:32:09 the science is going to end up determining that. In some ways, we're still very much in the infancy on the science, right? You've got the folks at Boston University, which are sort of the leading scientists on this issue, have studied the brains of 91 former NFL players. And of those 91 brains, 87 have had this neurodegenerative disease known as chronic traumatic encephalopathy and suffered in various ways, CTE, and suffered in various ways fairly dramatic in some cases, you know, dementia and neurocognitive problems to the point that some of them have killed themselves or had significant issues trying to live their lives. So that number in and of itself is a fairly dramatic number, right, 87 out of 91. At the same time, the BU folks will admit wholeheartedly, fully, that

Starting point is 00:32:55 this is a skewed data set. They're only getting the brains of people who are donating them to them. There has been no true longitudinal study that's going to show you what's the real prevalence, what's the real likelihood of getting CTE or dementia from playing football. And I think until we have that, I think that's going to be the sort of defining thing about where's the future of football headed. Because, you know, if, in fact, in the end, 10, 20, 30 percent of players, what's the threshold going to be where we decide, wait a minute, this is just not worth it? There's a moral dilemma in watching the sport when we know that there's a very real likelihood that someone playing is going to end up with brain damage. What's that threshold? And so I think that's part of the question.

Starting point is 00:33:37 I think the other piece of this, though, is that I think there is a real question about how's the sport going to shift what it's going to look like over time. You know, there's a theory that many people have espoused that, you know, you're going to see the sort of a class shift in the sport that more and more as parents are making the decision to not let their kids play, you're going to see a shift to lower income players. And probably in some ways we're already seeing it more and more. and that will change the sort of look of college football, the look of the NFL. You know, Steve and I reported two years ago a drop in participation rates of Pop Warner of 10% that Julian Bales attributed directly to concussions and the fears about them. And, you know, I think there was a Bloomberg study recently that showed that 50% of a parents wouldn't let their kids play football.

Starting point is 00:34:26 So as that sort of continues, and if it continues, what does football look like in the future? And I think we don't know yet, but I think clearly there's a change in a shift that's looming. What about you as a parent? Would you allow your son to play football? You know, I never had to face the issue. I have a soon-to-be 18-year-old son who had no interest in playing. And so I never had to fit. I think that ultimately I might have been paralyzed by the decision of my wife would have made it for us and said no.

Starting point is 00:34:56 Okay. And I would have respected that. I mean, I played high school baseball and basketball and loved it. And I think that playing sports is a, you know, hugely life-altering and character-building experience. And for me, on so many levels. And Steve played high school football and loved it. And he has a, it's interesting because he has a 16-year-old who threatened to play for a little bit. And I think Steve was going to let him play.

Starting point is 00:35:23 His point was, look, I don't think we know where the science is yet. And I don't want to, we make these risk-reward calculations all the time. And at this point, I'm not going to preclude him from doing something that I know was so valuable for me. But I think at the same time, we've been really clear to say, this is an incredibly personal decision. And, you know, we have a hard enough time parenting our own kids, let alone parenting somebody else's. So I never had to make the decision, thankfully. But I have a sense that we would have found something else other than football. Yeah.

Starting point is 00:35:53 And one other person we have in common is Chris Borland. And Chris was a guest. actually episode 19 of The Learning Leader Show here. Chris was my guest, and, you know, his story has become pretty famous because he played one year in the NFL, had a great season for the San Francisco 49ers, and he decided to walk away. And part of why he wanted to do that was because of his fear of what he was potentially doing to his head, for lack of a better term. And he mentioned you, and you guys recently published a story. after following Chris, or not following, but spending time with him over what I think was a six-month

Starting point is 00:36:36 period. Yeah, about five minutes. Five months. Five months. Five months. Five months. And in discussing, you know, his thought process. And he's, the reason I love Chris, he's such a thoughtful guy.

Starting point is 00:36:48 You can tell and educates himself before making decisions. He comes from a great family. Actually, we're from 10 minutes apart here where we grew up, went to neighboring high school. So it's a really small world. But interesting that we have him. in common. I'd love to hear about what you learned through your process of writing that story about him. Well, we found Chris fascinating. We really enjoy his company, among other things. And he was so gracious to spend so much time with us. I mean, we, it was such a weird dynamic the way this

Starting point is 00:37:19 all sort of developed. You know, when Chris, Chris first contacted us about two months before he retired, he'd read League of Denial, and he said he was, you know, he'd finished his first season with the 49ers, and he was looking to reach out to some of the experts and just talk to them about the issue. And I don't think we had any sense at the time that he was contemplating retirement. He didn't let on at all to that. Fast forward, and he calls us back and basically tells us he's retiring. And we broke that story. And I don't think Chris had any idea at the time that he made this decision that it was going to turn out to be as impactful or resonate in the way that it did. I think he thought it would be a quick story that maybe might make a little noise on SportsCenter and then be done.

Starting point is 00:38:00 I think his brother thought maybe it would be a blurb in the Dayton Daily News and then be over with. And I think these guys were just naive, clearly, about extent to which a decision that was so monumental would have. And so after we did that story on Chris and it exploded the way that it did, our bosses were really interested in what's Chris going to – Chris's life going to be like after this and what's he going to do. So we spent the following five months off and on just following him around. Steve actually spent a lot more time with him than I did, but we both were able to hang out with him and interview him a lot. And I think what was so striking is, as you said, he's such an articulate and thoughtful person. And what really was fascinating to watch was the further removed he was from the sport,

Starting point is 00:38:46 the more clear-headed he was about what he thought about it, and the more free he felt to discuss really the extreme violence that he saw. And it wasn't, I thought what was so fascinating was it wasn't so much that he felt free because he was no longer encumbered by a team and didn't want to betray his teammates, although that was true. But it was also that he just, you know, to be able to play the sport, you know, as you know, at the level that these guys are playing at, you know, it requires a level of compartmentalizing, right? The ability to sort of compartmentalize the violence, compartmentalize what you have to do daily to stay on the field. And I think as he got further and further away from the sport, he was able to articulate to us exactly what you have to do to play the game, but also why he began to feel like this just wasn't worth it, that in many ways there was a meaninglessness to it and a dehumanizing nature to it that just seemed too extreme. And I just thought that was so fascinating. And also, it was so clear that it was not at all, this is not some guy just willy-nilly saying stuff.

Starting point is 00:39:49 I mean, there's no, there was not like a massive level of spontaneity about it. On the contrary, it was a 24-year-old kid. I mean, and he is a kid. He's 24 years old, right? Who's basically just out of college. He played one year in the NFL articulating what I think is lost on a lot of fans, frankly, because, you know, we're not, you're not playing the game. You're not down in the field.

Starting point is 00:40:11 You don't deal with the daily basis. You just watch this incredibly enjoyable athletic sport and are sort of immune to understanding the depths of the violence of it. And I thought that was the most fascinating thing about spending time with Chris. It's a great story. A lot came from it, including even side stories that I'm sure you didn't think of, which was the Chris Carter Fall Guy comment that Chris mentioned, Chris Borland mentioned, although he refused to mention Chris Carter's name, at least for the story.

Starting point is 00:40:42 But that later came out from others, which created an entire other firestorm of comments. from your story that you probably couldn't see that part coming. No, I think, I think, you know, when we heard that there was a video of this, you know, we had no idea that there was a video. I mean, obviously, had we that would change the dynamic of, you know, Chris told us a story, and it was a fascinating story, and he was clear, like, I'm not going to talk about where I heard this or who I saw or anything like that. You know, I'm not going to let that be reported.

Starting point is 00:41:12 But it was clear that it was a story that was really he was troubled by, and that's why we went with it because it was it was an experience he'd had where he'd gone to the rookie symposium and he'd sat there while a veteran NFL player had said look if you get into any trouble get yourself a fall guy and make sure you take care of that fall guy we'll let him know we'll bail him out and and that was the significance of the story and so when it sort of took a left turn and exploded and suddenly somebody found a video that showed that Chris Carter was the guy who said it I think you know, we were shocked and, you know, we just continued to sort of be where we were, which is like, look, we were reporting this the way we did.

Starting point is 00:41:56 We made promises to Chris, and that's how we're reporting it, and that's a whole sort of another issue for anybody else to deal with. That becomes, like, not to get too much into it, but, like, part of the sourcing even, like Chris is almost, I don't know if you told you're not, and you don't have to answer, obviously, but there are parts of his story, but you want to make sure what he's telling you was true, And just talk to the guy for 20 minutes and you know the guy's not going to lie to you. But still, you want to confirm that he's true, but there's parts of it that you just can't report on. Yeah, I mean, I think without getting into the source issue, I think there's a level of needing to figure out, you know, everything that Chris is saying is true and how do you back that up and all that.

Starting point is 00:42:34 And I think, you know, that's a process we try to go through on every story and we do the extent we can. And, you know, I mean, I think the thing that came out of that story, Not just that piece, but all of it is, you know, nobody came back and disputed anything that Chris had said. There was no argument about what of these things that had happened. So I think, you know, we felt comfortable going in to the story and obviously coming out of it that we'd reported it correctly. But to the point of sourcing, I mean, it's always something I'm really leery getting into. Yeah, completely understand. The thing that blows my mind is who in the world thought it was a good idea to put a guy on stage with a gold jacket, which signifies he's in the Hall of Fame?

Starting point is 00:43:14 and then let him say those things about getting yourself a fall guy because you're going to get in trouble, meaning saying, you know, you're going to do illegal things. So make sure somebody else, you know, takes the fall for you. And then they put it on video and leave it on the official NFL website for years. What in the world are they thinking? I mean, this is where I'm like, you know, again, we've never had the NFL really talked to us about anything. So I'm allowed to try and figure out what's inside somebody's head. I do think to me one of the fascinating next questions for that story, which I have not seen

Starting point is 00:43:46 answered is, okay, so I saw the NFL come out and say, you know, to the message, regardless of who said it, we don't approve of that message. We never approved of it. We let it be known that we didn't approve of it. But I don't think anybody got up in front of those rookies and said, this is a problem. This is a huge problem and don't agree with what was said. We don't agree with it. And on the contrary, I think that, as I understand from the story, that the other rookies,

Starting point is 00:44:11 you know, were present, got their presentation. The AFC rookies got their presentation. And so I'd be really curious exactly what the NFL's reaction was at that time in that moment and how they dealt with it thereafter moving forward. But I just haven't seen that story. Well, there is a reporter from the MMQB who was actually embedded at the symposium. And he wrote, I got to forget his name. Robert Slentco.

Starting point is 00:44:34 Yes, exactly. And he wrote a story stating that that was one moment that he was stuck because the NFL. NFL came to him and said, listen, you can print just about everything else, but you can't print that. So they knew it was bad, but then they still let the video go on the NFL.com, which I don't understand. So that kind of brings up another question. So if somebody, as a reporter, an investigator, reporter, journalist, and you're embedded or you're doing something, that's got to be a really tough position to be in where Klemko was in, where he's like, well, that's not really being true to, you know, the story, because this is a big part of it, something that I think,

Starting point is 00:45:11 is newsworthy, yet they're telling me I can't write about it, even though they told me coming into this that I, you know, I'm embedded. I can write what I, what I see here. Yeah, I mean, I don't, you know, it's interesting thing. I don't, you know, I can't sort of judge or comments or the decisions other people make. I mean, I will say this. I saw Clemcoe tweet about this, you know, and suggest that this is not an unusual thing. It's unusual to me. I mean, you know, Steve and I have talked about this. And there was a sense that he was. was saying that, like, you know, this is sort of what we all do or this is what we have to do at times and even maybe we had done it in regards to Borland. And I think we were clear with Robert

Starting point is 00:45:51 and through the process. Like, that's not normal. I don't, you know, I haven't had an experience in whatever many years I've been doing this where someone said, okay, we're going to be able to police what you use and what you don't use and retroactively make those kinds of decisions. I mean, Steve was embedded with the U.S. government in Iraq. I mean, covering the war in the military, military. And I mean, he said he's never had an experience like that. So, you know, I think you really want to be leery about getting into situations in which you're allowing yourself to be essentially censored. And so in this case, you know, again, I wasn't in it. I wasn't part of it. And so the decisions that he made are there's a lot, you know, SIs alone. But it's not something I'm familiar with

Starting point is 00:46:35 and it's not something I think we would ever sort of expect to do at ESPN. Yeah, I was going to say if you're in the same situation, do you report it? Oh, absolutely. I mean, I don't see how you can't report that. I mean, I just, I mean, I think, I just think I don't see how you don't. I mean, this is a highly newsworthy thing where you've got, as you said, you know, a message being given at the highest levels to rookies by, you know, now we know it on video, a Hall of Fame player. I just don't see how that's not reportable. But look, again, I mean, people make different decisions and I can only speak to the kind of sort of decisions we would make. So, I mean, the fear is obviously it ruins a relationship. It ruins, you know, maybe him potentially or any writer being getting access to the NFL or teams.

Starting point is 00:47:18 So how do you offset, you know, the reporting and doing your job, as you said, you said, absolutely, you'll do it. And then potentially the relationship that you may not have anymore. Well, I think you have to make some clear decisions going in, right? I mean, look, I mean, all the, it's not unusual at all to sort of have discussions with sources throughout the reporting process. in which, you know, reporters, sources want to go on the record or off the record or whatever during the process and you're fighting to get everything on the record. That's not unusual. And I think we all sort of go through that process. I think the idea, though, of going in with some sense that there will be a retroactive decision about what you can and can't use,

Starting point is 00:48:00 that's not a sort of thing. And I think you just need to be really clear with your sources and the people you're working with going in, what are the parameters going to be, what it's going to be acceptable, and, you know, and continuing to sort of work and develop that level of trust. And I think that's what you do. And, you know, you get to a place of comfort and you report how you do. And I'm not speaking specifically to this situation. Because, again, I wasn't in it and I wasn't party to sort of what they did or how they did it. I'm just saying, I think you, you know, you work on establishing relationship with your sources and you, you know, and if there's going to be some level of question around what's usable or what's not. You want to be able to be really clear

Starting point is 00:48:41 from the onset about how this is going to work. Yeah, it makes a lot of sense. This is fascinating for me, Mark. I could probably talk to you for hours because I'm just really curious about, you know, just all, everything of how this works. And I'm happy that this is different than a normal talk that I have. And I think that's good. And I know, maybe it's not for everyone, but I think it's fascinating. So I'm curious as to, as you progress, what's next? Are the things you're currently working on? Or maybe there's a dream project or reporting you would like to do at some point in the future. What would that be?

Starting point is 00:49:15 You know, I don't know that, oh, I have anything that's sort of like screaming at me that we have to do this or I want to be sort of looking at this moving forward. You know, we work in this phenomenal unity, SPN, where we have the resources to be able to do this kind of work, which is not cheap, and have the sort of. and have the support to do it. And so, you know, as stories arise that they want done or that we want to do, and they're good ones, we seem to have the opportunity to do them, which is great. I think the concussion story, I think Steve and I thought for a while we were done with it, and we were ready to move on to something else. But in fact, you know, it sort of keeps on giving and new stuff seems to happen.

Starting point is 00:49:52 I mean, I would never have imagined the Borland story would happen the way that it did and then produce yet another story that to us was quite interesting to cover. So I think there's more fodder sort of all around the NFL and colleges and the concussion issue that I'm sure we're going to continue to look at. But in terms of sort of a specific project, I don't have anything right now that we would have in mind. And of course, I probably wouldn't go into terrible detail if we did. Yeah, absolutely. It makes so much sense. Well, Mark, again, I just appreciative of your time, your investment, you being extremely open.

Starting point is 00:50:30 and sharing your thoughts, as well as the, you know, the processes that you go through to come up with these incredible stories that we're all fortunate to have been able to read and watch you on TV. Where would you, obviously, you just turn on ESPN occasionally, and you'll see you outside the lines, but where would you send people to find you online? You know, ESPN.com, all of our stories end up on the website, and so there's a search engine there to sort of see what we've been up to and what kind of stuff I've been working on. And, you know, that's where most of our stuff lives. The Borland piece ran on ESPN.com and also in the magazine. But the website is, you know, it's phenomenal. And the reach is just continues to be shocking. I was told that our Borland story got like 2.5 million pages.

Starting point is 00:51:16 And as Steve pointed out, that's more than the combined circulation of every newspaper I ever worked for. So it's pretty, it's pretty impressive. And we're, you know, really lucky to have that kind of a platform. 2.5 million. Wow. That's incredible. Yeah, Don Van Addis piece. Don Van Addis and Seth Wickersham's piece on SpyGate and DeflateGate recently. I think that hit 4 million plus. Jeez. It's incredible.

Starting point is 00:51:42 Incredible. It really is. Wow. Well, Mark, thank you again so much for being here. You've been fantastic. I look forward to talking to you again as we both progress on our journeys, man. That's my pleasure. Thanks for having me, Ryan. I really appreciate it. Absolutely. Thanks, man. Talk to you. All right. This episode of The Learning Leader Show is over, but we have plenty more to keep you locked in until next time.

Starting point is 00:52:05 Head over to Learning Leadershow.com for more information and to request your favorite entrepreneur, CEO, world-class athlete, or anyone else that inspires you. You can also talk to Ryan directly by reaching out to him on Twitter at Ryan Hawk 12. Thanks again, and we'll see you next time on The Learning Leader Show.

The Learning Leader Show With Ryan Hawk - 059: Mark Fainaru-Wada – Investigative Reporter, Steroids, Barry Bonds, and Concussions

There aren't comments yet for this episode. Click on any sentence in the transcript to leave a comment.