- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 120,562
By Jon Machota and Bob Sturm 2h ago
Cowboys writers Jon Machota and Bob Sturm are back with their fourth discussion piece of the offseason. With the annual NFL Scouting Combine taking place this week in Indianapolis, Cowboys owner Jerry Jones and executive vice president Stephen Jones are expected to speak with reporters during the week.
A topic expected to be discussed is the ESPN report that the franchise reached a $2.4 million settlement after four members of their cheerleading squad accused former senior vice president of public relations Rich Dalrymple of voyeurism in their locker room.
Jerry Jones spoke briefly about the settlement Friday in an interview with NBC 5.
“We took these allegations very seriously,” Jones said. “We immediately began a look-see, an investigation into the situation. I can assure you that had we found that if need be, there would have been firings or there would have been suspensions. As it turns out, in the best interest of our cheerleaders, and the best interest of the organization, in the best interest of our fans, what we decided to do was show the cheerleaders how seriously we took these allegations. And we wanted them to know that we were real serious and so the settlement was the way to go.”
Machota and Sturm had the following conversation about that topic.
Machota: The part that stood out most from Jerry Jones’ comments was that he said the Cowboys wanted the cheerleaders to know how seriously they took the allegations so the settlement was the way to go. I’m not sure how many people view a settlement in that way. If there was no wrongdoing, why reach a settlement? There is also no mention of the other part of that story, and that’s that Dalrymple was accused of taking “upskirt” photos of Charlotte Jones Anderson, Jerry Jones’ daughter, in the Cowboys’ draft room during the 2015 NFL Draft. I expect to hear more from Jerry Jones on this during the week, but what did you think of his initial response?
Sturm: I agree. To show the cheerleaders how serious you were taking allegations that you then said that they didn’t find anything, you paid them each half a million dollars? I am familiar in Jerry speaking in confusing ways, but what in the world does that mean? If you found something, he should have been fired. If you didn’t find something, then you respectfully tell the ladies that there is no evidence of anything and we back our guy. Instead, you try to thread the needle that there is nothing to see here and then write a giant check to quiet anybody who would challenge that? This feels like a difficult story to believe and frankly, the acts of an organization that knows how to make potential trouble go away.
Machota: Another interesting aspect of this topic is that when news surfaced four weeks ago that Dalrymple was retiring, there was never an official comment from anyone with the team. There was never an official release. He had been there over 30 years, you’d think something would be said, and then this story comes out a couple of weeks later. It makes sense for Jerry to address the situation further this week, but there’s also probably a part of him that thinks this will get pushed in the background as time passes. I don’t see it going away like that, but he might believe that.
Sturm: I would say it’s more than a possibility. I would say that’s the status quo of 30 years of different things that have popped up over the course of time is that the news cycle makes things go away pretty quickly. And I think the Cowboys and Jerry Jones in particular have learned that people don’t have an attention span for waiting out the silence. They generally do move on to the next story in the newspaper and I think that’s already happened. Maybe it’s a rather genius way to handle scandal. And let’s be honest, Jerry Jones has about as much experience in handling scandal as anybody in the sports world, you would think, over 30 years. The weird thing, of course, is that his trusted advisor in all public relations situations his entire time working for the Cowboys is in fact Rich Dalrymple. Whether it’s a Michael Irvin thing or an Everett McIver thing or any of these things through the years, he probably has pulled Rich Dalrymple into the room to talk about how we should handle this with the public. That position is probably wide open right now. Maybe he only has family members advising him on this.
The other thing that’s out there on this, and this was brought up by a couple of my radio friends, is perhaps he’s slow-playing his comments to see if there are any other shoes to drop. Is there more information that Don Van Natta’s story has brought to light from others that might become another set of news stories? Now, this is complete speculation on my part, but I do think whenever we see stories of this nature, sometimes the first wave emboldens others to share their stories. Maybe this is textbook, wait until everything comes to light before we attempt to fix things.
Machota: That’s a good point. That’s certainly a possibility. Van Natta wrote in the story that they attempted to contact more than 100 former cheerleaders and other former team employees, so they clearly did a thorough job of reporting. Van Natta has a great reputation. There’s no reason to second guess his reporting. And some might believe this type of deep-dive would’ve uncovered everything. But there certainly could be others who come forward after reading his story, and that’s not just with the Cowboys, but other professional sports franchises. I think the way Jerry responds to questions about this topic, at the combine or in the future, will probably reveal a little more. But that also leads me to this, from what you’ve come across on the radio and social media, etc., do you think we care about this story more than most fans? Or do you think fans care a great deal?
Sturm: Trying to measure how much the public cares is definitely a difficult path to navigate. I’d like to think that everybody is in line with how things should be done. There’s a weird sort of sub thought process with regards to just the cheerleader role in sports and how it continues to upstage itself with modern thinking of right and wrong. And just how we surround our sporting events with as much sex appeal as possible. And there’s a weirdness to it all that continues to try to update with society. I think that’s interesting to measure and I do think some people care deeply and some people don’t care at all. But I think there’s even another level to this where some of us local writers and broadcasters have been ridiculed for not knowing any of this. Or not reporting on what rumors we knew about. I would say to those people, a big part of journalism is making sure you don’t deal in rumor and hearsay on things that would damage people deeply. Some people I know in the media had heard things of this nature, but they did not have anywhere close to enough compelling evidence to report on it, knowing that the threshold must be very high when you make accusations, and you must not come close to ruining someone’s reputation or career or life with an email rumor that somebody sent you once upon a time.
I would defend my colleagues locally by saying, I’m happy that nobody is just throwing rumors against the wall to see if they stick. You can’t do that in this business. Don Van Natta actually had legal documents, had copies of the non-disclosure agreements sent to him. He had air-tight reporting it appears. He reports on these things for a living. He doesn’t break down zone defenses or draft projections. He does this. And I’m happy he does because it requires a thorough understanding of crime and things that are off the field that I’m not trained in. I would defend the local media in this one situation. They were not turning a blind eye. I think they were making sure that they had their ducks in a row before they throw something out there that they can’t confirm.
Machota: So I’m not going to get into specifics about what I had heard and had not from this particular report. I’ll just say when you cover the Cowboys, and probably any other sports franchise, there are things you hear, on and off the field. You look into them. You get with people who you trust that might be more experienced in those particular areas and you do your best to get the facts. But as you said, the last thing you do is just run with a rumor that could potentially ruin someone’s career or life. This type of story is much different than reporting on a team’s interest in a draft prospect or a free agent.
Sturm: It’s going to be interesting how Jerry handles this. And it will be interesting to see how the Cowboys handle even replacing Rich Dalrymple and moving forward in that regard. It’s a big story. Anyone to suggest that this is a small deal, I think the Jones family would tell you, it’s quite the opposite right now. They probably are not taking this lightly, but they are being very calculated on what they want to say and when they want to say it. And that’s why this week in Indianapolis might be really interesting.