Tennis firings raise questions over Athletics’ leadership

As uncovered by The Signal, last month’s firing of the men’s tennis staff has revealed serious problems with the program’s coaches that goes far beyond Georgia State Athletic’s initial characterization of the situation.

Copies of internal documents received by The Signal show troubling violations of University and NCAA policy that were only brought to light after the two coaches began to lose trust and ultimately point fingers at each other. Allegations of their misconduct collected by the University, which ultimately led to their dismissal, include allegations of gambling, improper use of University funds on non-sanctioned trips, numerous extended leaves of absence, alcohol use with student athletes, plus multiple alleged recruiting and NCAA violations.

This seemingly belies the initial statement put out by the Athletic Department that couched some of the violations as “minor” but told little else about the situation as a whole.

Further, it raises questions as to the leadership of Georgia State Athletics.

For example, why were these people hired in the first place? And if such seriously disturbing behavior was going on during trips with students, how was it not noticed or reported by others in the department that traveled with the team?

If others did catch on, why did it take so long to get rid of these toxic elements? Or worse, why was their behavior tolerated? Will they be held responsible for their act of covering it up like Assistant Coach Cesar Vargas was?

The fact is that it’s strange that Athletics hired coaches like Barthel and Vargas in the first place.

According to Athletics’ own investigation, Head Coach Joerg Barthel had a history of gambling at his previous job with the University of Nebraska. And Vargas was hired despite having any kind of Division-I coaching experience.

In a statement to The Signal, Athletics Director Cheryl Levick said that they had conducted a background check of Barthel prior to his hiring, but they found nothing to indicate a history of gambling.

“No gambling issues were found during a thorough hiring process and background check, including during talks with representatives of his previous employers,” Levick said. “He was highly recommended.”

However, apparently it was common knowledge among the tennis coaching staff that Barthel regularly gambled, or at least to Vargas, who further alleged that Barthel had a history going back to Nebraska, where he allegedly lost $1,500 betting with a student.

Moving forward, Levick said the Athletic Department will continue “to be proactive and due diligent” in its vetting of coaches and staff during its hiring process, but she did not suggest any specific changes to its recruiting or compliance practices.

But that same system clearly failed in this case. And because of it, the school’s reputation is damaged and program will likely be set back several years.

If it wasn’t for the assistant coach getting fed up with Barthel constantly missing practices and gradually falling out with him, it might never have gotten reported or been resolved.

That’s very strange.

With all the coaches, players, information directors and compliance officers, how were none of them able to figure out that this kind of behavior was going on right behind their backs and report it?

And if this was going on for so long with the tennis program, who’s to say similarly questionable behavior hasn’t gone on with other sports and not gone reported?

Unfortunately, these questions are embarrassing to the University and will likely leave egg on the faces of the entire Athletic Department as we seek to hire new coaches and recruit players in the future.

And that’s a shame because – outside of the behavior of the coaches – the men’s and women’s tennis programs may be in what’s seen as a golden age down the road after coming off of recent Sun Belt championship and hosting one of the top ranked players in the country, respectively.

Indeed, the integrity of the program and the entire Athletic department is at risk with these allegations. How the school continues to respond is important, but it should never have been allowed to get to this point.