Tyrone Wheatley “Arrested” in Recent Years in Connection

Valdosta Daily Times: Tyrone Wheatley “Arrested” in Recent Years in Connection

with Dogfighting!

The letters the Valdosta Daily Times Editorial Staff probably won’t publish . . .not yet, that is!

Paul Turse, a.k.a. Samurai Raider E-mail samurairaider@comcast.net
Contributing Writer for Raiderdrive.com

Originally posted and updated on 08/10/2007

Updated on 10/16/2007 3:00 am ET

In his column “Supporting dogfighting is terrible,” Chris Walsh, from the Valdosta Daily Times, provides his readers with information regarding a few NFL players whom he cites as having been arrested in connection with dogfighting. Since many readers depend on media sources for their information, it is important that sportswriters provide sufficient details so that readers and fans can research and follow up on the facts presented in the stories they read. Unfortunately, not too many writers are inclined to give full background material in support of the often too vague and generalized accounts in the stories they print. It is quite possible that some of these sportswriters might have fallen victim to the "copy and paste" function on their computers, simply taking what other writers have stated and slapping that information into their own stories. Unfortunately, one slip of the mouse, when copying material, can create a trap that may catch many sloppy writers and editors, as well as trusting readers who rely on the press for accurate information.

In his story, Walsh provides this information for his readers: ”The NFL has the most players in jail or who have been arrested for participating or attending dog fights. Former Dallas Cowboys lineman Nate Newton, former Oakland Raiders running back Tyrone Wheatley and former Arizona Cardinals running back LeShon Johnson are among some of those arrested in recent years.” (Http://www.valdostadailytimes.com/sports/local_story_201004445.html). (Note that this link provides an update of the original story, published on July 20, 2007)

That statement in reference to former Raiders running back Tyrone Wheatley prompted me, on July 21, 2007, to send the following query to the editors of the Valdosta Daily Times:

While I strongly support Mr. Chris Walsh's condemnation of dog fighting in "Supporting dogfighting is terrible, "I am not sure his assertion that Tyrone Wheatley was arrested in conjunction with such an inhumane activity is

accurate. While it is true that Wheatley has praised the courage and spirit of the pit bull, has raised and sold the breed, it does not necessarily follow that he has ever been an advocate of, or involved in, the illegal activity. On the contrary, Wheatley has condemned the activity on several occasions.

In the message, I went on to cite Chris Colston's May 29, 2007, article, "Latest search warrant for Vick's

property put on hold," in which Wheatley states the following: “I've never professed my love of dogfighting,"

and Colston further notes that "Wheatley said he 'despises ' dogfighting and works with the Humane Society

to find homes for pit bulls.”

(Http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/falcons/2007-05-29-vick-warrant_N.htm.)

My message continued:

The fact that Wheatley has raised and sold the breed does not mean that he has done so in order to support

dog fighting. And while he has praised the fighting spirit of the pit bull, it does not necessarily follow that he

favors dogfighting or was arrested for it. Many combat veterans have raved about the courage and martial

ability of the enemy on the battlefield, but that does not mean that they shared the same moral and political

beliefs. On the contrary, these combatants were, more than likely, diametrically opposed to the values of

each other—that is why they were in combat.

On a personal note, I have been teaching judo to youngsters for over 40 years, and, believe me, I am

adamantly against fighting and have never encouraged my students to use their skills to settle a problem.

If Wheatley was arrested in conjunction with dog fighting, then Mr. Walsh should have specified the date and

time of this arrest and provided his readers with the specifics of the case. This inability to document his

assertion that Wheatley was arrested mars an otherwise fine piece of journalism.

To ensure that my e-mail was received, I sent this follow-up message, on July 25, 2007, to the editorial staff:

I am not sure if it is your policy to acknowledge receipt of letters to your staff, so I am just checking to see if

you have received my message.

On the same day (July 25), I received my first response—if you can call it that—from the Valdosta staff:

We run letters from our local readers.

Not to be put off, on July 26, 2007, I tried to clarify the information about Wheatley in the following message:

Thank you for clarifying your policy. However, it does not matter whether you run my comments or not. That is not really the issue. True, I am not a local reader. However, I am a reader, and therefore have a right to expect truthful and accurate information from media sources such as yours, especially when commentary and editorials are published on the Internet, where it is readily accessible to non-local readers. What I really was seeking was a response to my criticism of Mr. Walsh's story. In other words, does your editorial staff and Mr. Walsh stand by the allegation in the article, noted below, that Tyrone Wheatley was, at one time, arrested in connection with dog fighting? If so, can anyone on your staff provide the necessary documentation to support Mr. Walsh’s contention? These questions are asked on behalf of all of your readers—local and national—who depend on your publication for precise news and information.

Thank you for your kind attention to my questions.

Finally, on July 30, 2007, I received a message from writer Chris Walsh.

The contents of this message will, in the spirit of fair play, not be disclosed, at least not at this time. Let it suffice to say that the response was purportedly sent out, Walsh stated, to provide me with the sources of his information “so the air of this situation can be cleared.” He also noted that I should “feel free” to do my own research.

Rather than my presenting Walsh’s message, I believe that it is incumbent upon the writer and the Valdosta editors to publish my message seeking clarification of the Wheatley reference in the July 20, 2007, story and, above all, to formally publish Walsh’s clarification message to me, in the interest of professional journalism and proper research.

The main problem for most readers, in doing research, is that they are restricted to the Internet, which is often filled with hearsay evidence or copied and pasted opinions that other writers have provided. Without original research, based on primary sources, contrary views of the “facts” might be overlooked, or simply not stated by writers and bloggers—maybe because further research might diminish the sensationalism of the story or straighten out the writers’ slanted view or stop the spin they have started.

It seems to be overlooked that Wheatley has denied his “love” of dogfighting not only in the Colston article, mentioned above, but also in David Bush’s well-written July 29, 2001, article, “Wheatley says pit-bull quote misinterpreted (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2001/07/19/SP143144.DTL&hw=david+bush&sn=028&sc=869).

Says Wheatley: "I don't advocate dog fighting, never will."

It is unfortunate that, in the interest of unbiased, balanced writing and research, Walsh did not mention the Colston or Bush stories in his article in question. When writers discover information that is divergent with their own opinions or reporting, they are obligated to pursue and provide that information for their readers. Wheatley’s statements quoted above, which show his obvious intolerance of dog fighting, are not consistent with the bulk of the Wheatley “information,”

which has been circulating throughout the Internet. Unfortunately, the limitations of utilizing the Internet for accurate facts have not been fully realized by many writers and, especially, readers, who need more reliable information.

In his Essay on Criticism, Alexander Pope, an early eighteenth-century poet, noted that “a little learning is a dang'rous thing." Although written in 1771, this might have been a prophetic statement about the Internet . . . or was it about sportswriting!