Paul James

[Stoppage Time]

Here is an article which explores a recent interview by Paul James, the former CMNT defender who has had a run of misfortune related to substance use. James makes some very interesting societal asks based upon his experiences as a homeless person living with a drug addiction.

https://edmontonjournal.com/news/canada/former-top-canadian-soccer-player-homeless-in-london

[Shway]

Pretty sure he already has a thread. 

[devioustrevor]

6 hours ago, Shway said:

Pretty sure he already has a thread. 

Yeah, I seem to remember reading about it here when he staged his hunger strike years ago.

I remember him from years ago.  He was a talking head on one of the sports networks, either Rogers or The Score, back in the day.

[An Observer]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-11588855/EXCL-did-former-World-Cup-star-end-streets-London.html
 

that’s the fuller article from the original writer. Nice to see Pesch showing him some acts of kindness

[Unnamed Trialist]

A lot of national players associations, and veterans associations of clubs, have funds and services to attend cases where players have mismanaged their resources, or have fallen into bad luck. Do we have anything like that in Canada?

One tough case in Spain and Barça is Julio Alberto, who was abused as a child in an orphanage, had a great career, but had and maybe still has drug problems, there was a sense of club and professional responsibility towards him. I'm not sure it's been effective, but I think they put a pension together for him.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julio_Alberto

 

[InglewoodJack]

He sounds like he has a good head on his shoulders. I hope someone with the power to do something reads this piece and gives him a chance to get back on the right path, even though it seems as though he's been given quite a few chances already.

[SpursFlu]

Reading this article it seems to me that he wants to blame everyone for his situation but himself. Until he takes accountability for his terrible life decisions he's not going anywhere 

[dyslexic nam]

1 hour ago, SpursFlu said:

Reading this article it seems to me that he wants to blame everyone for his situation but himself. Until he takes accountability for his terrible life decisions he's not going anywhere 

It is safe to say that you and I disagree on a fair bit, but on this I am in the same camp. I just can’t get on board for what he has historically said in relation to the way his life has gone.

The article says he tried crack for the first time in 1998.  But it was 1986 when he and four other players split $100,000 to throw a game.  That means he was doing some pretty sketchy shit long before his addiction - by his own account.  Taking a payoff to throw a game in an international sporting environment is not some minor oversight - it is a very calculated and intentional activity.  And it wasn’t done to feed an addiction - because that hadn’t happened yet.  Oh, and he escaped punishment by turning in his teammates.  

After a gig at York, he resigns in 2009.  He later claims he was forced out, but misses an entire year to actually pursue legal recourse.  And he acknowledged that he was a crack addict the whole time he was employed, during which time he tried and failed rehab twice.   Which means he expected to be retained as an employee, or compensated for leaving, while actively being addicted to crack.   

To me this is a tragic and terrible sequence of events.  But I just can’t get to the idea that he is a victim of unfair external forces.  It really seems like his life has gone down a shitty path as a result of a series of terrible choices.   Maybe that makes me heartless but it is what it is.  

[SpursFlu]

8 minutes ago, dyslexic nam said:

It is safe to say that you and I disagree on a fair bit, but on this I am in the same camp. I just can’t get on board for what he has historically said in relation to the way his life has gone.

The article says he tried crack for the first time in 1998.  But it was 1986 when he and four other players split $100,000 to throw a game.  That means he was doing some pretty sketchy shit long before his addiction - by his own account.  Taking a payoff to throw a game in an international sporting environment is not some minor oversight - it is a very calculated and intentional activity.  And it wasn’t done to feed an addiction - because that hadn’t happened yet.  Oh, and he escaped punishment by turning in his teammates.  

After a gig at York, he resigns in 2009.  He later claims he was forced out, but misses an entire year to actually pursue legal recourse.  And he acknowledged that he was a crack addict the whole time he was employed, during which time he tried and failed rehab twice.   Which means he expected to be retained as an employee, or compensated for leaving, while actively being addicted to crack.   

To me this is a tragic and terrible sequence of events.  But I just can’t get to the idea that he is a victim of unfair external forces.  It really seems like his life has gone down a shitty path as a result of a series of terrible choices.   Maybe that makes me heartless but it is what it is.  

Sometimes you have to be cruel to be kind

[Soccerpro2]

22 minutes ago, dyslexic nam said:

It is safe to say that you and I disagree on a fair bit, but on this I am in the same camp. I just can’t get on board for what he has historically said in relation to the way his life has gone.

The article says he tried crack for the first time in 1998.  But it was 1986 when he and four other players split $100,000 to throw a game.  That means he was doing some pretty sketchy shit long before his addiction - by his own account.  Taking a payoff to throw a game in an international sporting environment is not some minor oversight - it is a very calculated and intentional activity.  And it wasn’t done to feed an addiction - because that hadn’t happened yet.  Oh, and he escaped punishment by turning in his teammates.  

After a gig at York, he resigns in 2009.  He later claims he was forced out, but misses an entire year to actually pursue legal recourse.  And he acknowledged that he was a crack addict the whole time he was employed, during which time he tried and failed rehab twice.   Which means he expected to be retained as an employee, or compensated for leaving, while actively being addicted to crack.   

To me this is a tragic and terrible sequence of events.  But I just can’t get to the idea that he is a victim of unfair external forces.  It really seems like his life has gone down a shitty path as a result of a series of terrible choices.   Maybe that makes me heartless but it is what it is.  

His mantra seems to be that a crack addiction is a mental health problem, and needs to be recognized as such and that's he's been treated wrongly as a result.

He's been beating this drum for a very long time.

I can't believe he's still playing the martyr after all this time. I still remember how he'd go off about perceived slights from years ago and how this person did him wrong etc. 

I believe it was Tam Nsaliwa stating when he played for him "it's like it was he was on crack" and then actually reading it was true many years later. That must have been startling.

[Treppy2]

Very sorry to hear about his current situation.

My memory of him is as player/coach of the CSL's Ottawa Intrepid in 1989. At one home match at Terry Fox Stadium, he punched an opponent so hard that we could hear the crack as the guy's jaw broke, even from across the running track that separated the pitch from the stands. Needless to say, he received a red card and was suspended for several matches.

[Obinna]

7 minutes ago, Soccerpro2 said:

His mantra seems to be that a crack addiction is a mental health problem, and needs to be recognized as such and that's he's been treated wrongly as a result.

He's been beating this drum for a very long time.

I can't believe he's still playing the martyr after all this time. I still remember how he'd go off about perceived slights from years ago and how this person did him wrong etc. 

I believe it was Tam Nsaliwa stating when he played for him "it's like it was he was on crack" and then actually reading it was true many years later. That must have been startling.

My two-cents:

• A crack addiction is indeed a mental health problem.
• All addictions are mental health problems.
• (Obviously) a crack addition is one of the worst mental health problems a person can have.
• Framing it as a "mental health problem" can mentally turn it into a "thing" that just happens to you, rather than something you are responsible for, which can feed the victim narrative. 
• I hope he can take responsibility, free himself of his mental health problem, turn his life around, and grow from the experience. 

[InglewoodJack]

I don't read the article as him blaming others. I think he's correctly acknowledging that drug addiction is a societal issue that is extremely difficult/impossible to overcome by himself. He feels as though York U should've given him assistance after they made him resign over his drug use. He believes that Canada soccer should've offered him support. He understands that a massive part of drug addiction is the stigma and how society pushes substance abusers to the margins, and how being known as an addict makes you a persona non grata. I have known addicts who have ended up in similar positions as James. Once you are on the street with nothing to your name, most people don't come back from that. We can call addiction a mental health problem, but it's also something that masks existing mental issues. We talk about how he took a bribe, how he cracked an opponent's jaw; I'm sure he ahs had many more instances of similar behaviour in the past. You need to cure those behaviors before you cure the addiction- how do you do that when you're on the street?

We don't frequently hear addicts who have hit rock bottom speak so eloquently about their issues, which is probably why he sounds like he's blaming others, because he's correctly speaking about the factors that lead to someone going from a stable member of society to someone living on the streets of london.

As a society, we don't do enough for addicts. There's still this belief that people need to truly hit rock bottom before they can accept help- it's this Halmark movie mentality where someone wakes up with nothing and embarks on a Rockyesque fitness montage to get their lives back. Not how it works. Hell, many shelters won't even take you in unless you're sober. It's hard out there.

I'm not sure what the solution is, because it's clear he's also burned a lot of chances people have given him. His story reminds me of Delonte West, the former NBA player who has been homeless for the past several years. Mark Cuban has basically had to take him under his wing and has handheld him through various stages of rehab, including several setbacks. He was at a Mavs gave last month, hopefully he's on a good track now. I think if James was on this year's CANMNT, he would've been offered more resources to help him, but in the 80s and 90s, the second you retire from sports, it's smellyalater and figure your own shit out.

[SoccMan]

I understand that he needs to take responsibility also for the way his life has turned out. It’s funny how we all assume he hasn’t acknowledged that he is also to blame for the way his life has turned out . Are we assuming this because he is still on the streets ? Or because of a few quotes we see in this story that was posted . Moreover, people bringing up a few incidents from the past and trying to prove that he was already a flawed individual. I actually think him moving back to the UK was a good move. He is back into a real soccer nation where I think more people will see how crazy it is that a former World Cup player and pro is living like this and a better chance of someone reaching out and helping . I just think this story resonates more in a soccer country like England with people there than it does here in Canada . If Paul was a former team Canada hockey player and this had happened to him I think a lot more people would have reached out to help and it would have been all over the media . But Paul is a former Canada soccer player and way back when the game was nothing  to where it is now . Like I said he probably made the best move moving to England where I think he has a much better chance of people helping .

[dyslexic nam]

Part of my probably-harsh take on things relates to past coverage of the issue that I have read where I very much interpreted him as pushing blame mostly outward.   Maybe that has changed and he deserves a more sympathetic interpretation than I am offering.   If it really is just a plea for better and more considerate treatment of those suffering from addiction than I can absolutely get behind that.  But some of the past things I have read seem to express a level of entitlement and a lack of accountability that I just couldn’t support.  For example I have a hard time thinking that an employer has a responsibility to keep you employed (no matter what) while you actively have one of the most destructive addictions we know about.  I can’t help but think being a crack addict makes you a pretty dysfunctional employee.  And if your position involves working closely and intimately with young and impressionable twenty-somethings, I would think that a university is entitled to hold you to a reasonably high standard of personal and professional behavior that would not extent to crack addiction and all the dysfunction that likely entails.   

[InglewoodJack]

2 hours ago, dyslexic nam said:

Part of my probably-harsh take on things relates to past coverage of the issue that I have read where I very much interpreted him as pushing blame mostly outward.   Maybe that has changed and he deserves a more sympathetic interpretation than I am offering.   If it really is just a plea for better and more considerate treatment of those suffering from addiction than I can absolutely get behind that.  But some of the past things I have read seem to express a level of entitlement and a lack of accountability that I just couldn’t support.  For example I have a hard time thinking that an employer has a responsibility to keep you employed (no matter what) while you actively have one of the most destructive addictions we know about.  I can’t help but think being a crack addict makes you a pretty dysfunctional employee.  And if your position involves working closely and intimately with young and impressionable twenty-somethings, I would think that a university is entitled to hold you to a reasonably high standard of personal and professional behavior that would not extent to crack addiction and all the dysfunction that likely entails.   

Maybe I'm reading a little too much between the lines here and I may be way off, but I think the point of him saying this was the point about York making him explicitly resign- this effectively means he quit which I believe in Canada means you aren't entitled to the same benefits as if you were laid off. Also, if drug addiction was handled as the illness it is, he could've received comp, medical leave, or at least stayed on his employer insurance plan. Once you resign, you're left with nothing. At least that's how I read it, I may be wrong. It seems like they took advantage of his pride and made him leave instead of firing him, which, unless he was showing up to work super high or was smoking crack in the locker rooms, you can't really do.

Edited January 6, 2023 by InglewoodJack

[MM3/MM2/MM]

Wasn't there an article on here a few years back about him living on the streets of some Northern Ontario town (Timmins?)

[Obinna]

21 minutes ago, InglewoodJack said:

Maybe I'm reading a little too much between the lines here and I may be way off, but I think the point of him saying this was the point about York making him explicitly resign- this effectively means he quit which I believe in Canada means you aren't entitled to the same benefits as if you were laid off. Also, if drug addiction was handled as the illness it is, he could've received comp, medical leave, or at least stayed on his employer insurance plan. Once you resign, you're left with nothing. At least that's how I read it, I may be wrong. It seems like they took advantage of his pride and made him leave instead of firing him, which, unless he was showing up to work super high or was smoking crack in the locker rooms, you can't really do.

If everyone with a drug addiction was handled as having an illness covered by the insurance companies, wouldn't they be threatened with significant financial losses? Not saying that shouldn't be the case, or even saying there isn't a viable solution to this obvious problem, just making a guess at why they don't treat addiction for the illness it is.

Also, where do you draw the line? A crack-addiction is obviously very ugly, but one could get fired because of their addiction to pot and claim they have an illness, no? What about an eating addiction which leads to depression and poor job performance and ultimately job loss? Do we just draw the line at something we consider a "drug" when the illness is the "addiction", not the substance? 

There's no shortage of people with disabling addictions - it's just a matter of severity and drawing a line somewhere. Drawing any line will probably be imperfect and will no doubt leave people without coverage and support (or at least that's how some would spin it), and there would forever be pressure to expand the support to others. Maybe this is another reason why insurance companies don't open pandora's box and take this on?

[InglewoodJack]

Just now, Obinna said:

If everyone with a drug addiction was handled as having an illness covered by the insurance companies, wouldn't they be threatened with significant financial losses? Not saying that shouldn't be the case, or even saying there isn't a viable solution to this obvious problem, just making a guess at why they don't treat addiction for the illness it is.

Also, where do you draw the line? A crack-addiction is obviously very ugly, but one could get fired because of their addiction to pot and claim they have an illness, no? What about an eating addiction which leads to depression and poor job performance and ultimately job loss? Do we just draw the line at something we consider a "drug" when the illness is the "addiction", not the substance? 

There's no shortage of people with disabling addictions - it's just a matter of severity and drawing a line somewhere. Drawing any line will probably be imperfect and will no doubt leave people without coverage and support (or at least that's how some would spin it), and there would forever be pressure to expand the support to others. Maybe this is another reason why insurance companies don't open pandora's box and take this on?

According to Canada's human rights laws, you cannot fire someone for merely doing drugs, having an addiction, or a history of such. Judging by the fact that during Canada's most severe lockdowns, the weed stores were kept open to support people who couldn't go cold turkey, I assume that pot addiction is also not grounds for being fired.

This is also all through insurance- your employer is not paying you a full ride trip to a rehab centre, but insurance will provide you with steps to take to help combat your addiction. In the article, it says that James had told colleagues he wanted to step away from his job and go to rehab- this is something you can do by getting a doctor's note to take a leave of absence. He makes it seem as though following this, York asked him to formalize his resignation which effectively cut him off of his employer insurance and any support that an employer is expected to give their employee.

If you suffer from severe depression, your doctor will write you a get out of work letter, and you will be able to take a leave while still being able to take advantage of your insurance package. A good friend of mine went through that a few years ago, and it was probably the only way she was able to recover and get back on her feet.

[Obinna]

2 minutes ago, InglewoodJack said:

According to Canada's human rights laws, you cannot fire someone for merely doing drugs, having an addiction, or a history of such. Judging by the fact that during Canada's most severe lockdowns, the weed stores were kept open to support people who couldn't go cold turkey, I assume that pot addiction is also not grounds for being fired.

This is also all through insurance- your employer is not paying you a full ride trip to a rehab centre, but insurance will provide you with steps to take to help combat your addiction. In the article, it says that James had told colleagues he wanted to step away from his job and go to rehab- this is something you can do by getting a doctor's note to take a leave of absence. He makes it seem as though following this, York asked him to formalize his resignation which effectively cut him off of his employer insurance and any support that an employer is expected to give their employee.

If you suffer from severe depression, your doctor will write you a get out of work letter, and you will be able to take a leave while still being able to take advantage of your insurance package. A good friend of mine went through that a few years ago, and it was probably the only way she was able to recover and get back on her feet.

I was asking those questions from a broader, societal context - but in the case of James, I agree with you that York did him dirty (in this version of the story).

Re-reading your previous post and I may have misinterpreted. I took it as "if drug addiction was handled as the illness it is (by his employers insurance plan), he could've received comp...." 

Perhaps you meant "by his employers" (i.e. had they not fired him...etc)?

[The Pessimist]

Not to deviate from the topic of addiction, but in the Daily Mail article it says:

"We sit in Victoria Embankment Gardens and James looks down at a picture from the World Cup in Mexico in 1986. There he is, in a white Canada shirt, red shorts and white socks, sticking out his leg to sweep the ball away from the smaller opponent trying to shield it from him: France’s No.10, Michel Platini.

Canada lost all their group games but gave a good account of themselves."

 

Does the last sentence sound familiar?

[SoCalTransport]

14 hours ago, An Observer said:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-11588855/EXCL-did-former-World-Cup-star-end-streets-London.html
 

that’s the fuller article from the original writer. Nice to see Pesch showing him some acts of kindness

After reading this article, and seeing the amount of ligation. My instincts are telling me "scammer".

 

 

[costarg]

10 hours ago, Obinna said:

My two-cents:

• A crack addiction is indeed a mental health problem.
• All addictions are mental health problems.
• (Obviously) a crack addition is one of the worst mental health problems a person can have.
• Framing it as a "mental health problem" can mentally turn it into a "thing" that just happens to you, rather than something you are responsible for, which can feed the victim narrative. 
• I hope he can take responsibility, free himself of his mental health problem, turn his life around, and grow from the experience. 

Question is..... did the mental health issue pop up before the crack use or did the crack use trigger the mental health issue?  Tonnes of both scenarios exist.  We know all about the ones with mental health issues searching for an escape, but we all know starting crack, heroin, meth even without a mental health issue is asking for the worst, and these people do it to themselves.

I feel it's safe to say he wouldn't be where he is today if he hadn't touched crack in the first place.  Lots of people have tried to help him and he's burned every single bridge.  Drugs are all that matter to this man, he'll sell everything and everyone for his next hit.

Sure mental health issues are difficult, but you can overcome it.  However once you layer that with crack, you're done, and society, family and friends will suffer way more than you do.

[costarg]

18 hours ago, InglewoodJack said:

Maybe I'm reading a little too much between the lines here and I may be way off, but I think the point of him saying this was the point about York making him explicitly resign- this effectively means he quit which I believe in Canada means you aren't entitled to the same benefits as if you were laid off. Also, if drug addiction was handled as the illness it is, he could've received comp, medical leave, or at least stayed on his employer insurance plan. Once you resign, you're left with nothing. At least that's how I read it, I may be wrong. It seems like they took advantage of his pride and made him leave instead of firing him, which, unless he was showing up to work super high or was smoking crack in the locker rooms, you can't really do.

There was lots said and written of his stint at York, two very different versions of the story.  From what I read it seems to me that just like lots of other people, York tried to help him, but he didn't want help, he just wanted more drugs.  

[The Ref]

I met Paul when he was in charge of one of the younger national teams.  I remember having good conversations.  He was serious and knowledgeable directing and selecting the young lads.