PETA Falsely Takes Credit for NCAA Basketball Change

This week the National Collegiate Athletic Association voted to use synthetic basketballs in its tournament games rather than leather basketballs. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals’ Dan Shannon was quoted in an Associated Press story as taking credit for the change — a position reinforced by AP writers Dan Gelston’s focus on the animal rights group as the sole reason the NCAA made the change. In fact, Gelston appears to have fallen for PETA’s standard puffery.

In his article, Gelston wrote,

The leather basketballs used in NCAA tournaments have been permanently benched.

The organization said it would make the swtich next season to balls made of synthetic materials. The decision comes after animal-rights activists complained about the use of leather.

This implies that PETA had a lot of influence on the decision, but this is not accurate according to the NCAA.

AnimalRights.Net reader Craig Jakeway wrote to the NCAA to get to the bottom of this. The reply from Division I Men’s Basketball Championships Managing Director Gregory Shaheen tells a slightly different story than Gelston’s. According to Shaheen,

– The overwhelming majority of colleges and universities (NCAA membership) have used the composite basketball for several years. Of the 64 teams that participated in the first round of this year’s Division I Championship, 58 teams used a composite ball for all of their games this season. Each of the Final Four teams used a composite ball for all of their games this season.

– The composite ball provides greater “gribability” favored by players and coaches. The composite ball received “overwhelming” support by member-coaches of the National Association of Basketball Coaches at its annual convention.

. . .

  • The request from the People for Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) arrived as consideration of the change to the composite ball was already in progress. The comments from PETA were provided to the committees for their additional information, as was all other feedback from the aforementioned groups, for and against such a change. To indicate that PETA was a primary or sole influence in this decision is an overstatement. Rather, PETA provided reasoned input on the matter that was considered in conjunction with the variety of other substantial information on the subject. Specifically, regarding your comments on PETA, this process was specifically excluded from consideration of any political aspects of any entity involved. The decision was based on the merits of the factors indicated above. The NCAA did not issue a release on this matter.

The Associated Press ran a follow-up story written by sports writer Steve Wilstein that quoted Shannon suggesting that the whole idea to replace the few remaining leather balls used in the tournament with synthetic ones came directly from PETA. Shannon told Wilstein,

We proposed the idea to them. I don’t know that they would have come to the decision on their own. The information we provided and the argument we made in favor of synthetics swayed them.

But Wilstein then quotes Shaheen as saying that PETA’s request “was not even a factor” in the decision.

The real factor, as Wilstein notes, was almost certainly money. The NCAA switched from Rawlings to Wilson as its basketball supplier. Wilson has spent a lot of money marketing its $75 Ultimate basketball, which just happens to be made out of composite materials. PETA can claim that this was done to save animals, and the NCAA can claim it was done because the composites are superior to leather balls, but the bottom line is this deal was done because it makes more money for the NCAA and Wilson.

Just how dedicated are Shannon and PETA to the truth? Shannon told Gelston, “The production [of synthetic basketballs] is simpler and it doesn’t involve raising animals which is a very costly procedure.” Shannon told Wilstein that, “I would call it a victory for PETA, a victory for the NCAA and a victory for all the cows out there who are killed for their skins.”

But, of course, almost all leather sold in the United States is a byproduct of the meat industry. Nobody goes out and raises cows just to slaughter them to use to make basketballs. The NCAA’s switch to synthetic basketballs won’t prevent the slaughter of even a single cow.

But then, for PETA, it’s all about style over substance.

Sources:

No more leather basketballs for NCAA. Dan Gelston, Associated Press, May 14, 2002.

NCAA to Replace Leather Balls. Steve Wilstein, Associated Press, May 16, 2002.

PETA what an error!. E-mail message, Craig Jakeway, May 16, 2002.

UrbanWeb.Net Should Shut Down HuntingdonSucks.Com

The webmaster of HuntingdonSucks.Com recently posted an e-mail that Huntingdon Life Sciences had sent to the Internet Service Provider who provides hosting for that site. Below is the full text of what was posted on the anti-HLS site:

From: IT Support Manager [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2002 4:31 AM
To: ‘[email protected]’; ‘[email protected]
Cc: Legal Department; ‘[email protected]
Subject: Complaint against www.huntingdonsucks.com hosted by yourselves

Dear Sirs

Huntingdon Life Sciences are a Government licensed contract research organisation for the pharmaceutical and agrochemicals industries and as such are subject to abuse and harrassment from so-called “animal rights” groups.

Your organisation is hosting www.huntingdonsucks.com a website which openly supports a campaign to close down this company and amongst various untruths about this company exhorts people to participate in a denial of service attack on 14th June.

Clearly this specific page (text in full below along with the URL) and the content of the site in general are in flagrant breach of your acceptable use policies and relevant laws and we request you terminate this website forthwith.

Yours sincerely

IT Support Manager

HUNTINGDON LIFE.SCIENCES LIMITED

http://www.huntingdon.com

LEGAL NOTICE:-

This message is confidential and contains information which may be legally privileged. It is intended for the stated addressee(s) only. Access to this e-mail by anyone else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended addressee, any disclosure or copying of the contents of this e-mail or any action taken (or not taken) in reliance on it is unauthorised and is unlawful. If you are not the addressee, please inform the sender immediately.

Huntingdon Life.Sciences Limited registered in England No. 1815730. Registered office: Woolley Road, Alconbury, Huntingdon, Cambridgeshire PE28 4HS

Contrary to the claims of the webmaster and other animal rights activists, HuntingdonSucks.Com is attempting to suppress free speech and UrbanWeb.Net should refused to host the site.

HuntingdonSucks.Com is organizing a denial of service attack against Huntingdon Life Sciences scheduled for June 14, 2002. On that date HuntingdonSucks.Com plans to offer a web page where people can go to flood HLS’s web servers with requests in order to make it impossible for anyone else to access their web site. Such actions are blatantly illegal and those participating in organized denial of service attacks, regardless of the motivation, should be prosecuted.

Please consider sending an e-mail to [email protected] and [email protected] politely asking them why they continue to host a site that is openly organizing a denial of service attack.

Sources:

Electronic Civil Disobedience: Protest Online – 14th June 2002. HuntingdonSucks.Com, 2002.

HLS Try to Silence Us Again. HuntingdonSucks.Com, May 14, 2002.

SHAC Mob Harasses Elderly Couple

EDP24.Com Reported this week that a mob of angry activists from Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty showed up outside the home of PHyllis Clarke, 74, and Charles Clarke, 81, screaming at them about Huntingdon Life Sciences. Phyllis Clarke said,

At first I thought it was just over-excited schoolchildren playing in the road but it soon became obvious we were the target of this demonstration. There were these people wearing dark balaclavas shouting at us and asking where we worked.

Apparently the protesters believed that Phyllis or Charles Clarke worked at HLS or had some other connection with the company which they do not. Of course, trying to correct an animal rights activist with erroneous information is a Sisyphean task. Phyllis Clarke said,

I kept telling these people they had made a mistake but they would not listen and just became more abusive than ever. . . . Members of the mob kept asking me where I worked and would not listen even when I told them I was 74 and retired.

After the Clarkes placed an emergency call about 20 police arrived and forced the SHAC mob to leave house.

Another instance of that trademark animal rights compassion on display.

Source:

Couple targeted by animal rights protest. EDP24.Com, May 14, 2002.