Connect with us

Published

on

Ole Miss defensive tackle DeSanto Rollins, who said he was recently kicked off the team for missing practices and meetings during a “mental health crisis,” is suing the university and coach Lane Kiffin for failure to provide equal protection, racial and sexual discrimination, and multiple other allegations, according to the lawsuit filed Thursday.

Rollins, a backup lineman whose career has been marred by injuries, is seeking $10 million in compensatory damages and $30 million in punitive damages. The lawsuit alleges that Kiffin intentionally took adverse action against Rollins “on account of race for requesting and taking a mental health break, but not taking adverse action against white student-athletes” for the same request. It alleges sexual discrimination on the basis that Ole Miss has not taken “adverse action against female student-athletes for requesting and taking a mental health break.”

“We have not received a lawsuit,” Ole Miss wrote in a statement issued through a school spokesman Thursday night. “DeSanto was never removed from the football team and remains on scholarship. In addition, he continues to have the opportunity to receive all of the resources and advantages that are afforded a student-athlete at the university.”

Kiffin declined to comment, deferring to the university’s statement.

The lawsuit, which was filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi Oxford Division and obtained by ESPN, alleges that at the time of the incident, Ole Miss “did not have written institutional procedures for routine mental health referrals.” It also states that Kiffin, the rest of the coaching staff and the football athletic trainers weren’t provided with “role-appropriate training about the signs and symptoms of mental health disorders and the behaviors of student-athletes to monitor that may reflect psychological concerns.”

According to the lawsuit, Rollins suffered multiple injuries during his career with the Rebels, including a concussion in the spring of 2022 and an injury to his right Achilles tendon that July. The lawsuit claims Rollins “suffered severe depression, anxiety, frustration, embarrassment, humiliation, a loss of sleep and loss of appetite” from the injury to his Achilles.

The lawsuit further states that nobody within the athletic department or football staff provided Rollins with materials about mental health or a mental health referral after the injury. He was reinstated to practice the following month, and in August, he aggravated a previous injury to the LCL in his left knee. In addition to the physical pain he suffered, the lawsuit states that Rollins suffered from “severe depression.”

On Nov. 28, 2022, Rollins met with defensive line coach Randall Joyner for an exit meeting, and Rollins said Joyner tried to persuade him to enter the transfer portal. Rollins declined to transfer. On Jan. 6, 2023, Rollins’ grandmother died, and he “continued to suffer severe depression,” according to the lawsuit.

On Feb. 27, 2023, Rollins met with Kiffin, who informed Rollins he was moving from defensive tackle to the scout team’s offensive line because he wouldn’t transfer. According to the lawsuit, Rollins asked Kiffin if this was “a choice or a command.” Rollins alleged that Kiffin told him “if he didn’t like it then he should quit.”

At that point, Rollins told Kiffin he was going to take “a mental break,” according to the lawsuit. Rollins went to his car and immediately called strength and conditioning coach Nick Savage and reiterated his need for a mental break.

His mother, Connie Hollins, said she called the school’s athletic trainer, Pat Jernigan, and told him Rollins was “suffering a mental health crisis.” She requested Jernigan get a counselor to speak with her son and monitor him.

According to the lawsuit, Jernigan scheduled a meeting for Rollins with Josie Nicholson, the school’s assistant athletic director for sport psychology. She encouraged him to take a step back and scheduled a follow-up session for March 7. When he returned for his next session, Nicholson told him Kiffin wanted to meet with him again, but Rollins said he wasn’t ready to see the head coach yet.

Rollins didn’t meet with Kiffin again until March 21, despite repeated requests from the football staff. During the meeting Rollins legally recorded Kiffin without his knowledge, and a copy of the transcript was included in the lawsuit. ESPN has heard the audio recording but was not able to independently verify it.

“Ok, you have a f—ing head coach, this is a job, guess what, if I have mental issues and I’m not diminishing them, I can’t not see my f—ing boss,” Kiffin said, according to the lawsuit and the audio recording. “When you were told again and again the head coach needs to see you, wasn’t to make you practice, wasn’t to play a position you don’t f—ing want to, ok? It was to talk to you and explain to you in the real world, ok? So I don’t give a f— what your mom say, ok, or what you think in the real f—ing world, you show up to work, and then you say, ‘Hey, I have mental issues, I can’t do anything for two weeks, but if you change my position I won’t have mental issues.’

“I guarantee if we f—ing called you in and said you’re playing defense, would you have mental issues?”

“I definitely would,” Rollins said.

During the audio exchange, Rollins is heard saying, “I mean, you’re acting like my issues aren’t real.”

“I didn’t say they’re not real,” Kiffin responded. “You show up when your head — when your boss wants to meet with you. It wouldn’t have been like this. If you would’ve come here when you kept getting messages the head coach wants to talk to you, you say ‘I’m not ready to talk to him.'”

“I wasn’t,” Rollins said.

“What f—ing world do you live in?” Kiffin asked.

“I don’t see why you have to be disrespectful, honestly,” Rollins said.

“Get out of here,” Kiffin said. “Go, you’re off the team. You’re done. See ya. Go. And guess what? We can kick you off the team. So go read your f—ing rights about mental health. We can kick you off the team for not showing up. When the head coach asks to meet with you and you don’t show up for weeks, we can remove you from the team.

“It’s called being a p—y,” Kiffin said. “It’s called hiding behind s— and not showing up to work.”

The lawsuit alleges that “as a proximate result of the actions and inactions of the defendants … Rollins has suffered physical pain and emotional distress and anguish.” It also cites the Americans with Disabilities Act, alleging that Rollins was kicked off the football team because of his disability, which it states was a “mental impairment.” In addition to the allegations of gross negligence and negligence, the lawsuit alleges intentional infliction of emotional distress, stating that “Kiffin acted willfully, maliciously, recklessly, and wantonly in words and deeds toward Rollins.”

“No person should be subjected to this type of abuse when they’re suffering a mental health crisis,” Hollins said. “He just wanted some time to get through his grandmother’s death. It wasn’t even spring ball yet, but I don’t care, it could’ve been the regular season. Sometimes, everybody needs a break.”

Rollins and his attorney filed a tort claims demand letter May 3, but said in the lawsuit the defendants have not responded to it.

Rollins, an honor roll student expecting to graduate in December with a business degree, had played in only three games as a reserve defensive lineman heading into this season. He redshirted in 2020 and played in one game as a sophomore in 2021 as a backup defensive tackle against Austin Peay.

Rollins declined to comment, other than telling ESPN, “I love Ole Miss, but they do not love me.”

Continue Reading

Sports

Cindric docked points, fined for spinning Dillon

Published

on

By

Cindric docked points, fined for spinning Dillon

CHARLOTTE, N.C. — Austin Cindric was docked 50 points and fined $50,000 by NASCAR on Wednesday for intentionally spinning Ty Dillon in last weekend’s Cup Series race at Circuit of the Americas.

Dillon moved Cindric up the track early in the race and Cindric quickly retaliated by hooking Dillon in the right rear, spinning Dillon’s car.

NASCAR has made clear they will not tolerate drivers hooking competitors in the right rear to spin them because of the potential hazards. Bubba Wallace and Chase Elliott have both previously been suspended for similar actions.

The penalty drops Cindric of Team Penske from 11th to 35th in the standings heading into this weekend’s race at Phoenix Raceway.

NASCAR fined Carson Hocevar $50,000 and penalized him 25 points for intentionally wrecking Harrison Burton last year. Hocevar hooked Burton in the right rear while under caution at Nashville Superspeedway.

One of the reasons Cindric was not suspended, per a NASCAR official, is because it happened on a road course with lower speeds and tight confines — and the result didn’t draw a caution flag.

Wallace and Elliott both hooked other drivers on ovals with higher speeds that led to cautions.

In additional penalties announced Wednesday, NASCAR said two members of Kyle Larson‘s pit crew had been suspended two races for a tire coming off his car during last weekend’s Cup race at COTA. Brandon Johnson, the jackman, and front tire changer Blaine Anderson were both suspended.

Continue Reading

Sports

Briscoe wins appeal over spoiler at Daytona 500

Published

on

By

Briscoe wins appeal over spoiler at Daytona 500

CHARLOTTE, N.C. — Chase Briscoe and Joe Gibbs Racing won their appeal Wednesday when the National Motorsports Appeals Panel said his Toyota did not have an illegally modified spoiler when he won the Daytona 500 pole.

The victory restores the 100 points and 10 playoff points NASCAR had penalized Briscoe for the spoiler violation. The team also gets its 100 points and 10 playoff points back, and crew chief James Small’s four-race suspension was rescinded, as was the $100,000 fine to the team.

Briscoe is now tied for 14th in the season standings with Carson Hocevar headed into Sunday’s race at Phoenix Raceway. They are one point ahead of Kyle Larson, who is 16th in the season standings.

“The panel believes that the elongation of some of the holes on the number 19 Cup car spoiler base is caused by the process of attaching that specific spoiler base to the rear deck and not modification of the single source part,” the panel wrote.

Joe Gibbs said he was appreciative of the process “NASCAR has in place that allowed us the opportunity to present our explanation of what led to the penalty issued to our No. 19 team.

“We are thankful for the consideration and ruling by the National Motorsports Appeals Panel,” the team owner added. “It is obviously great news for our 19 team and everyone at Joe Gibbs Racing. We look forward to focusing on the remainder of our season starting this weekend in Phoenix.”

Briscoe also thanked the panel and NASCAR on social media “for giving us the option to show our evidence.” He also thanked Joe Gibbs Racing for preparing his car for his debut season with the team.

The appeals panel consisted of former motorsports marketing executive Dixon Johnston, former Speed Channel president Hunter Nickell and former South Boston Speedway general manager Cathy Rice.

Continue Reading

Sports

NASCAR countersues in dispute over charters

Published

on

By

NASCAR countersues in dispute over charters

CHARLOTTE, N.C. — NASCAR’s revenue-sharing charter system is under threat of being disbanded according to a Wednesday counterclaim filed by the stock car series against Michael Jordan-owned 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports that singles out Jordan’s longtime business manager.

The contentiousness began after more than two years of negotiations on new charter agreements — NASCAR’s equivalent of a franchise model — and the 30-page filing contends that Jordan business manager Curtis Polk “willfully” violated antitrust laws by orchestrating anticompetitive collective conduct in connection with the most recent charter agreements.

23XI and Front Row were the only two organizations out of 15 that refused to sign the new agreements, which were presented to the teams last September in a take-it-or-leave-it offer a mere 48 hours before the start of NASCAR’s playoffs.

The charters were fought for by the teams ahead of the 2016 season and twice have been extended. The latest extension is for seven years to match the current media rights deal and guarantee 36 of the 40 spots in each week’s field to the teams that hold them, as well as other financial incentives. 23XI and Front Row refused to sign and sued, alleging NASCAR and the France family that owns the stock car series are a monopoly.

NASCAR already has lost one round in court in which the two teams have been recognized as chartered organizations for the 2025 season as the legal dispute winds through the courts.

What is NASCAR counterclaiming?

In the new counterclaim, Polk is repeatedly singled out as the ringleader against the current charter proposals. NASCAR attorney Christopher Yates went so far as to tell The Associated Press that Polk, who in addition to being Jordan’s business manager is a co-owner of 23XI along with three-time Daytona 500 winner Denny Hamlin, does not understand the NASCAR business model.

“Curtis Polk basically orchestrated and threatened a boycott of one of the qualifying races for a major event and others did not go along with him,” Yates said. “He got other teams to boycott a meeting that was required by the charter. When you have a threatened boycott of qualifying races that are covered by media that’s not a good thing for other race teams, not a good thing when you are trying to collectively grow the sport.”

The qualifying race in question was the 2024 pair of 150-mile duels that set the field for the Daytona 500.

“I don’t think Mr. Polk really understands the sport,” Yates told the AP. “I think he came into it and his view is it should be much more like the NBA or other league sports. But it’s not. No motorsport is like that. He’s done a lot of things that might work in the NBA or might be OK in the NBA but just are not appropriate in NASCAR.”

Who is violating the antitrust act?

NASCAR’s complaint alleges “the undisputed reality is that it is 23XI and FRM, led by 23XI’s owner and sports agent Curtis Polk, that willfully violated the antitrust laws by orchestrating anticompetitive collective conduct in connection with the terms of the 2025 Charter Agreements.”

“It is truly ironic that in trying to blow-up the Charter system, 23XI and FRM have sought to weaponize the antitrust laws to achieve their goals,” the counterclaim says, alleging Polk’s threats are “attempting to misuse the legal system as a last resort to secure new terms.”

Bob Jenkins, an entrepreneur, owns Front Row Motorsports and joined 23XI in the lawsuit when he declined to sign the 2025 charter agreement last September.

NASCAR’s counterclaim asks for an injunction eliminating guaranteed starting spots for charter teams. NASCAR wants the four combined charters held by 23XI and Front Row before the lawsuit to be returned to NASCAR, and it wants to dissolve the two charters each team purchased ahead of the 2025 season for their own individual expansion.

“There’s a misperception out there that somehow 23IX and Front Row might achieve something that other teams can take advantage of, and that’s just not right,” Yates told the AP. “This is not going to be a renegotiation. NASCAR has no intent of renegotiating the terms of the charter. Front Row and 23XI are threatening the charter system and its continuation, and NASCAR is fine without the charter system.

“The charter system was created at the request of the teams. That was before 23XI and Curtis Polk’s time, I don’t think they understand that history. But if they succeed with their lawsuit and the charter system goes away, that’s OK.”

What do 23XI and Front Row want?

Yates told the AP he’s asked Jeffrey Kessler, the attorney representing 23XI and Front Row, what is it the two teams want and cannot get a straight answer.

“The mere fact that the lawsuit calls the system into question, I really think 23XI and Front Row are being pretty selfish in terms of what they are trying to do, and I don’t think they are taking into account the 32 teams that have signed the charters and think it is a good deal for them,” Yates said. “Do some of them think they should have gotten more? I’m sure. Does NASCAR think it should have gotten more? Absolutely. But NASCAR does not see the charter system as necessary.”

Jordan has said he’s suing NASCAR on behalf of all the teams so that even the smallest ones can receive equal footing in terms of benefits as a participant in the top motorsports league in the United States.

Among the improvements in the 2025 charters is a more equitable revenue share, but missing is the demand that teams wanted the charters to become permanent. NASCAR at its discretion can claw back charters from underperforming teams or eliminate the system completely. Yates said NASCAR has no intention of renegotiating the charters signed in September by 13 organizations, nor did he see a scenario in which NASCAR settles the lawsuit.

“Polk and 23XI’s other owners openly professed that they wanted to change NASCAR’s economic model by demanding more money for the teams from NASCAR media revenues, instead of teams competing against each other,” Yates said. “However, 23XI and FRM did not merely reject the terms of the 2025 Charters. Rather, those teams embarked on a strategy to threaten, coerce, and extort NASCAR into meeting their demands for better contract and financial terms.”

Continue Reading

Trending