By CHARLES JAY

Part 8
DAMAGE CONTROL CAN HAVE A DAMAGING EFFECT
For all of you "journalists" out there who want to blindly take up the case of Greg Sirb, this story should serve as a caution - make sure you look before you leap

By CHARLES JAY, Editor/Publisher, TotalAction.com
Posted September 12, 2003

There is a tendency on the part of lazy "journalists" to look at a situation strictly on a "surface" level, and evaluate it without using research or any other kind of homework to enrich their perspective. The unsubstantiated accusation has little place in this world - that's why, when I compile something like SIRB-GATE, or OPERATION CLEANUP, for that matter, it comes with a considerable amount of documentation, and in the event an editorial opinion is put forth, it is BASED on that documentation.

An unsubstantiated OBSERVATION - whatever tone it carries with it - is not necessarily a good thing either. It's just as contrary to the principles of good journalism, and, if it is furnished in the form of a rebuttal, can ultimately lead to embarrassment.

Sometimes when you're trying to play the good guy and "defend someone", you leave yourself open to just as much criticism as if you were the "offensive" party.

Because I feel I've gone out of my way to be responsible, I'm simply not going to sit still for being painted as an aggressive bully, obtrusively beating up on "nice people" and bulldozing that which is good, benevolent and righteous in the big, bad boxing industry - especially by someone who has been irresponsible enough to make an unsubstantiated observation.

There are plenty of people in boxing willing to exploit opportunities, but I'm about to introduce you to a whole different kind of opportunist.

This is meant as a caution for those "journalists" who are being enlisted to "spread the word of Sirb", and venture to do so without regard for facts, evidence, or objective evaluation. If you do that, it's going to be at the risk of grave embarrassment, because you certainly haven't performed enough due diligence.

Under the circumstances, it's quite necessary to make an example of someone.

You know, I'm sitting here writing this on September 11, because what sprung immediately to mind was some of the fallout from efforts to help families of victims of the 9-11 tragedies in New York, Washington DC, and Pennsylvania.

I'm remembering how there were literally hundreds of millions of dollars raised by various charities, through numerous special functions, many of which involved famous celebrities. All of these efforts, at the time, were lauded as purely heroic, and indeed, amidst the groundswell of patriotism that surrounded everyone's sorrow during this period, it was quite understandable.

But there was one member of the media who endeavored to look "below the surface". I'm not a regular watcher of Bill O'Reilly, but to his credit, he was dogged in pursuing the story of what he came to discover was an unusual delay in getting the money to the families, not to mention the possibility that as little as 10% of the donations made to charities like the United Way were actually getting to those families - the lion's share of the remainder going to pay salaries and finance unrelated future programs.

O'Reilly was especially critical of some of the celebrities involved in these charity fund-raisers, because apparently they were not following up in terms of making sure the funds were going where they were supposed to. And he questioned their motives.

"The majority of these people are phonies, much more interested in their own images than solving any social problems," he said on his television show, The O'Reilly Factor.

During this period, there were a lot of people who adopted their own posture of righteous indignation. "How could he criticize these people who are trying to help the families?", was the cry.

Indeed, if you were just giving it a cursory look you may have deified charities like the United Way and the Red Cross, because after all, they seemed to be engaged in nothing short of a purely altruistic pursuit.

Well, that wasn't the case.

The American Red Cross suffered a particular degree of embarrassment, when it was uncovered that only about 25% of the $543 million it had taken in from donations, specifically earmarked for 9-11 families, was actually going to those intended recipients - the rest was being diverted to general Red Cross programs, and for salaries.

Part of the "mea culpa" was a press conference, at which a Red Cross spokesman said, "We deeply regret that our actions over the last eight weeks have not been as sharply focused as the American public wants or the victims of the tragedy deserve."

Eventually, congressional hearings were held, at which Eliot Spitzer (yes, ironically enough, the same guy who endorsed and made recommendations for Greg Sirb's Professional Boxers Assistance Foundation in the first place, through the NAAG) testified, : "I see the Red Cross, which has raised hundreds of millions of dollars that was intended by the donating public to be used for the victims of September 11 - I see those funds being sequestered into long-term plans for an organization."

And it's occurred to me that there are certain parallels that can be drawn (albeit on a smaller scale) between those situations and Sirb's PBAF, which as of the start of our investigation had given a MAXIMUM of 10.4% of its intake to those in need, and has been holding back the rest of it for more than two years. Image building appears to be part of the agenda for Sirb in running the organization, and part of that is the facade Sirb has tried to create through the press. It is unknown to me what other agendas the money is being used for.

And now we come to the case of someone who really wasn't interested in looking beneath the surface at all - an internet columnist named Rusty Rubin.

In a story he wrote on his boxing website on September 6, Rubin wants to leave the impression that he took a very discerning look at the material presented thus far in SIRB-GATE.

In his very first paragraph, he apparently feels he is making a revelation:

"In those articles Jay correctly states that no 501C3 non-profit status has been filed. Mr. Jay is correct, but the 501C3 doesn’t legally have to be filed until a certain amount of donations have been reached."

Well, unless I've been writing in a different language, I could swear I covered that rather thoroughly in Part 2. Perhaps Rubin never got past the first part.

Rubin claims to have spoken with Lou DiBella, a $5000 contributor to the PBAF:

"In speaking to the funds biggest contributor, promoter Lou Dibella, who I know is sincere about caring for others, Lou tells me that he trusts Sirb, and he doesn’t care if the fund is non-profit or not, he knows his $5,000 gift will go to help those in need, and he trusts Greg completely."

I wonder if it ever occurred to Rubin to ask DiBella whether he would care to deny the quotes he made to me in connection with Part 1 of SIRB-GATE? Apparently not.

Let's move on.

Rubin says of Sirb,

"I spoke to Greg Sirb and he promised me a response in writing to the accusations, in writing, when I told him that I wanted to show both sides of the story before I printed any of it."

Where did he get the impression I never gave Sirb a chance to speak up? Perhaps from Sirb himself? The fact is, Greg Sirb was e-mailed on July 31 and was asked to provide answers to questions, not to mention documents relating to the PBAF. He refused. Greg Sirb was e-mailed again, following up on the original request, and pursuant to what I had been led to believe by Jake Hall (a board member of the PBAF) was a conference call between Sirb, Hall, and Tim Lueckenhoff (president of the ABC) to come up with a "response" to me. Once again, I didn't get an answer. I agreed with HIS and Lueckenhoff's request for a phone conversation, but when I explained to both of them that such a conversation was to be an interview completely on the record, they refused.

I waited from July 31 until August 24 to give Greg Sirb the opportunity to respond directly, but he declined. The only response that ever came my way was not in fact a response, but more like a regurgitation, delivered by Lueckenhoff on August 18, and it was relayed verbatim in Part 2 of SIRB-GATE.

The truth is, Greg Sirb doesn't want to give answers. He doesn't wish to make himsefl available for scrutiny. He cares only to be in a position where he can control the flow of information, and use people - whether willing or unsuspecting - toward that end.

It's clear he believed Rubin was weak enough to allow him to do that. He was right.

Congratulations, Rusty.

Greg Sirb wanted to give him a response in writing? Really? Why did he never give one to ME? Wasn't I the one who inquired in the first place? Think that one over for a while.

Just to show he was willing to "cover all the bases", Rubin was also ready to talk to Mike Acri, one of the quoted sources in SIRB-GATE:

"And I expect to speak to Mike Acri, a well known East Coast promoter whom I have known for some time, who has also been mentioned by Jay."

If you're in the mood for a chortle, let me explain how THAT was handled. Greg Sirb got Acri on the phone and asked if he would be willing to talk to Rusty Rubin, since, contrary to what had been written, Acri didn't really know the guy. Acri consented, because he has nothing to hide. Subsequently, Sirb tried to get Acri on a three-way conference call with Rubin, so that Acri could be interviewed while Sirb was sitting in on the phone conversation! Acri was not home to take that call, and thus he did not have to be a party to that piece of completely unethical and unconscionable behavior.

Rubin seemed to want to speak to everyone connected to this story except ME. Funny, since he never seemed to have any problem making contact when he wanted me to re-post one of his press releases, or wanted me to help find a celebrity for a charity cruise he was organizing.

Yes, it's par for the course, but I don't mind terribly, because my stories more or less speak for themselves.

And I don't think I owe Rubin more than a reciprocal degree of courtesy.

By the way, the best (or worst, if you're Sirb) is yet to come.

There was not one thing in his column that sought to directly controvert one piece of evidence I had presented. But hey - you can't blame a guy for trying. Sirb very badly wants to "spin" a rather un-spinnable story through someone he was happy to bring aboard and feels he can control.

And someone who doesn't particularly care about being factual. On January 29 of this year, Rubin wrote that Frank Warren, among others, had not given Gerald McClellan one red cent since McClellan's near-fatal injury against Nigel Benn, which happened on a card Warren co-promoted --

"Despite the boasting that we've all heard from Don King, the WBC and sometimes British promoter Frankie Warren, none of those listed here have given one dime to Gerald's huge medical bills in more than seven years."

Of course, that was not the case. And it brought a letter from Warren's in-house counsel, Stephen Heath, sent to one of the websites that published the column.

In the letter, Warren took "great exception to the comments made by Rusty Rubin" in his January 29 piece. "The comments made by Mr Rubin are defamatory of Mr Warren, as the meaning attributed to those words, is that Mr Warren does not properly look after the welfare of his boxers."

The letter goes on to say, "Turning to Mr Warren's dealings with Mr McClellan, it must be understood that Gerald McClellan was not promoted by Mr Warren, but was promoted by Don King. Notwithstanding that set of affairs, Mr Warren paid the sum of over $100,000 towards his medical expenses. The information you have been provided by Mr McClellan's wife is simply incorrect. Mr Warren would have been willing to assist further, however, against all of the medical advice generated in the United Kingdom, the McClellan family chose to return Gerald to the USA for private treatment there. I understand that had the effect of worsening his condition."

In a February 13, 2003 column, Rubin promptly stuck his tail between his legs:

"I'll have my crow well done, ala mode. .........In this column he states correctly that I had said that neither himself, Don King and the WBC have given one dime to Gerald McClellan. Obviously I was mistaken and misinformed about all three. "

You don't see ME writing a lot of stuff like that, do you? Would you like to know why? Because I don't have to.

You see, I make sure I KNOW what I'm talking about.

But another part of that Rubin column is revealing:

"Again, it was not my intent to hurt anyone in this article, just point out the facts, as they were told to me, and try to help an injured warrior and his family with high medical bills sustained in the ring."

He wanted to "just point out the facts, as they were told to me". What kind of sources is a guy using? Is HE getting "both sides of the story"? What level of responsibility does he represent?

What is it that continually motivates people to use those in need ("an injured warrior") to get on a self-righteous "high horse", in an attempt to elevate their own image as "Good Samaritans"? What's the finger-pointing about? And why can't people establish that kind of credibility on their own?

I've seen a lot of this. It's called "Ain't-I-A-Great-Guy" syndrome. Sirb has it too.

It kind of makes you wonder about a guy, when you see stuff like this:

"As someone who has recently been frustrated by the lack of response for a fund raising cruise for Greg Page and Gerald McClellan, I cannot in good faith, find any fault in someone going out of his way to help others in greater need, which is what seems to be the only thing I can find here, up till now. I’m sure that Mr. Jay means well in calling these items to our attention, and maybe he’s coming from a different place then I am............."

Rubin describes Sirb as "going out of his way to help others in greater need, which is what seems to be the only thing I can find here, up till now." When someone has given 10.4% of the money, AT MOST, in his fund to the actual intended recipients, and has not done anything positive with that money for over two years, while needy people could most definitely use it, I would suggest that person is going out of his way NOT to help others. But then again, I don't know what Rusty Rubin's standards are in that regard.

And I wonder whether Rubin has actually seen the contentious quotes about Sirb made by Page's wife, Patricia, in Part 7 of SIRB-GATE.

I don't see how a non-credible statement like the one by Rubin posted above - or any of them, for that matter - can possibly be made without some other kind of motivation behind it.

Gee, I would sincerely hate to think Rubin's siding with Sirb had anything to do with MONEY.

Let me explain. The cruise to which Rubin is referring is one he was trying to put together, which was scheduled to be held during Thanksgiving week (November 23-30), and where a portion of the proceeds were to go to Page and McClellan, two ex-fighters who certainly need the help. But when the cruise idea met with no success at all, and virtually no money had been taken in, Rubin sought to affix blame to others. Witness this, from an installment of "In Rusty's Corner" written on September 1st:

“I simply don’t understand why so many name fighters, who can afford to help, turn their back on these former greats--both in wheelchairs and both have loving families hampered by huge medical bills.

To me, this is an outrage. Boxing people should be helping their own, and boxing fans as well should be giving back to these warriors who gave them so much enjoyment over the years. There’s no excuse for this, unless the boxer has a fight lined up during that time and has to train for it. The only other legitimate excuse is lack of money, which we all can understand.

I’ve heard other excuses, like ‘He gets seasick’ or ‘He’s afraid of water.’ They have seasick pills, free on board for whoever needs it, and when was the last time anyone heard of a cruise ship sinking? I can understand and appreciate phobias, but I can’t understand the lack of respect from fellow ring warriors. There’s no excuse for not caring, especially for our brothers in boxing. This seeming lack of caring only hurts the image of our sport. "

In SIRB-GATE, I establish that Sirb has collected at least $6700 from donors, has given out only $700 to recipients, and if Sirb's own publicity efforts can be believed, there may be as much as $375,000 extra in the kitty.

That may look like a lot of cash "available" to someone, if you know what I mean.

Maybe one hand promised to wash the other? Maybe somebody decided to do a favor, then make a pitch? Maybe it's just a case of sucking up to someone you think can help you? I don't know. Once again, I'd hate to think that. But use your own judgment.

There is no doubt that if Rubin fashions a response to this story, it will be that, once again, I am attacking someone who "only wants to do good for fighters" (The smarter people out there know that's not the case, and aren't taken in by the phony appeal for sympathy).

Of course, as far as doing right by contributors, there might be a completely different story.

What's interesting is that even though Rubin has been working on this cruise for about the last six months, it was only in his September 1st column, as he was getting ready to cancel it, that he at long last revealed that of the $669 price for the cruise (not inclusive of airfare), only $80 (or 12%) of it was going to trickle down to Page and McClellan - something potential donors probably didn't know (they also didn't know they were only going to be able to deduct $80, because that wasn't spelled out).

Come to think of it, that kind of puts Rubin squarely in the same boat (if you pardon the pun) as Sirb.

Maybe there's an administrative position for him in the American Red Cross.

That's what you find, I guess, when you look below the surface.

Yes Rusty, I AM coming from a different place.

And believe me, it's a better place.

fightpage@totalaction.com