Speaker 1: So this all started back in February, and obviously everyone
Speaker 1: remembers when Brian Flores came out and made public his
Speaker 1: lawsuit against the league, and in the aftermath, Hugh Jackson
Speaker 1: had tweeted some cryptic things. Hugh had implied that something
Speaker 1: similar happened with the Browns. But when he made that claim,
Speaker 1: that's when the NFL first opened their investigation. On the
Speaker 1: special bonus episode of Sports Illustrated Weekly, former Brown's head
Speaker 1: coach Hugh Jackson claimed the organization misled him during the
Speaker 1: hiring process and set out to intentionally lose games. On Monday,
Speaker 1: the NFL said its internal investigation of those allegations found
Speaker 1: quote no evidence to substantiate the accusations. But while the
Speaker 1: NFL publicly stated that an NFL team did nothing wrong,
Speaker 1: according to the investigation, that doesn't necessarily mean the Browns
Speaker 1: didn't do what Jackson said they did. As I staffers
Speaker 1: Gary Grambling and Connor or from the Monday Morning Quarterback
Speaker 1: reviewed more than one thousand pages of documents pertaining to
Speaker 1: the allegations made by Jackson, they joined me to discuss
Speaker 1: the information they uncovered, how the Browns allegedly tanked and
Speaker 1: what it all means it's Tuesday, May three. I'm your
Speaker 1: host John Gonzalez from Sports Illustrated and I Heart Radio.
Speaker 1: This is Sports Illustrated Weekly. Hi, and we'll Selivan side
Speaker 1: the NFL Network news room with breaking news out of Cleveland.
Speaker 1: The Browns have fired head coach Hugh Jackson. This according
Speaker 1: to NFL Network inside or Ian Rappaport, Hugh was putting
Speaker 1: a pretty difficult position his first two years with the
Speaker 1: talent we had, and we felt like he deserved a
Speaker 1: chance of the third year, and unfortunately it didn't work
Speaker 1: out the way we all hoped it would. Former Brown's
Speaker 1: coach Hugh Jackson has added his voice to this conversation.
Speaker 1: What did he have to say? Basically, they said that
Speaker 1: something similar happened with the Browns, that that Hugh was
Speaker 1: paid to lose games in ten those seasons resulted in
Speaker 1: back to back number one overall picked. Jimmy Haslum, brown
Speaker 1: Z owner, responding to Hugh Jackson's allegations he was paid
Speaker 1: to lose games, has until the Knoxville News Sentinel, Hugh
Speaker 1: Jackson has never ever accepted any responsibility for our record
Speaker 1: during that time period. He's been masterful at pointing fingers,
Speaker 1: but has never accepted any blame. Garry Grambling and Connor
Speaker 1: or Welcome to Sports Illustrator Weekly. Good to be here.
Speaker 1: You guys. Uh A lot is going on with the Browns.
Speaker 1: You guys are in the mix of this. You reviewed
Speaker 1: more than a thousand pages of documents related to Hugh
Speaker 1: Jackson accusing the Browns of tanking. There's just so much
Speaker 1: going on here. I want to go back to the beginning.
Speaker 1: When do we first hear that the Browns were suspected
Speaker 1: of intentionally losing games? So this all started back in February,
Speaker 1: And obviously everyone remembers when Brian Flores came out and
Speaker 1: made public his lawsuit against the league, and in the aftermath,
Speaker 1: Huge Xon had tweeted some cryptic things, maybe one would
Speaker 1: say piggybacking off of Brian Flores his claim that Stephen
Speaker 1: Ross allegedly had offered him one hundred thousand dollars per
Speaker 1: loss with the Dolphins, and Hugh had implied that something
Speaker 1: similar happened with the Browns. He clarified a little bit
Speaker 1: as that week went on, but when he made that claim,
Speaker 1: that's when the NFL first opened their investigation. It's also
Speaker 1: when we first opened our investigation into this and and
Speaker 1: started to gather some information and figure out exactly what
Speaker 1: was going on and what exactly Hugh was talking about,
Speaker 1: and then we can get into it later. Because of
Speaker 1: a release agreement he signed, he is not really free
Speaker 1: to talk about this publicly. Connor, how much can you
Speaker 1: tell us about these documents that you guys gathered in
Speaker 1: that process when you go through the process of fighting
Speaker 1: against the NFL via this secretive arbitration process. These are
Speaker 1: the documents that you tried to present, right and tried
Speaker 1: to back up your case the st that you would
Speaker 1: want people to know in terms of what is your
Speaker 1: reasoning for believing that you were missled misrepresented by the
Speaker 1: terms of your deal, and what kind of evidence do
Speaker 1: you have that, hey, this wasn't all on the up
Speaker 1: and up. Yeah, so you've reviewed all these documents, You've
Speaker 1: spoken to a bunch of people, including Hugh Jackson's lawyer
Speaker 1: Joe Stafford. What evidence is there, what exactly is being alleged? Yeah,
Speaker 1: and we should make clear the Browns are denying that
Speaker 1: they intentionally lost or incentivized their coach to intentionally lose,
Speaker 1: and there's nothing along the lines of he got paid
Speaker 1: X amount of dollars for losing games. I had one
Speaker 1: player who is on those teams as we discussed this
Speaker 1: sort of be like, boy, you really have to read
Speaker 1: between the lines here, and that's kind of what it is.
Speaker 1: And that's why it's also going to be interesting to
Speaker 1: see how the NFL handles this, because there's nothing that says,
Speaker 1: go one in fifteen and we'll pay you X amount
Speaker 1: of dollars. What it does say is if we have
Speaker 1: a certain amount of draft capital, you, the head coach,
Speaker 1: gets a bonus for that. That's that's out of your
Speaker 1: control as a head coach, unless you lose a lot
Speaker 1: of games. The number is for the twenties sixteen draft
Speaker 1: ten draft picks in they want eleven draft picks. You
Speaker 1: get draft picks by having high picks. You have high
Speaker 1: picks by losing a lot of games, and then you
Speaker 1: flip those high picks into into more picks. There's also
Speaker 1: there's a bonus for Hugh Jackson that salary cap carry over,
Speaker 1: and the way the salary cap works, if you don't
Speaker 1: spend a certain amount of money, or I should say,
Speaker 1: if you are a certain amount under the cap for
Speaker 1: one season, you can carry that over to the next season.
Speaker 1: Hugh Jackson gets a bonus for that. Now, that's sort
Speaker 1: of a personnel bonus that you would typically give not
Speaker 1: to the head coach, because that is basically going to me,
Speaker 1: and your team will not be maximizing the kind of
Speaker 1: roster it can build at that point. I should clarify,
Speaker 1: probably the most unusual thing out of all of this,
Speaker 1: outside of the fact that perhaps Hugh Jackson was being
Speaker 1: indirectly incentivized to lose games, is this actually doesn't appear
Speaker 1: in his contract. Every coaching player contract has to go
Speaker 1: to the NFL for them to approve. There was a
Speaker 1: reference to this incentive package in the contract, but the
Speaker 1: actual details of the incentive package only appear in this
Speaker 1: booklet called the four Year Plan, which is an internal
Speaker 1: document that the Browns put out. It's very unusual that
Speaker 1: this never sort of made its way to the NFL
Speaker 1: for some sort of approval. Yeah, as you mentioned, Gary,
Speaker 1: it sounds like there's a lot of reading between the
Speaker 1: lines that they have to do here, because clearly the
Speaker 1: Browns weren't so explicit about this that they outlined at
Speaker 1: all that everybody would know immediately what was happening. There's
Speaker 1: a lot of euphemistic and gray language being used. But Connor,
Speaker 1: you guys wrote that the Browns have a trump card here, right,
Speaker 1: because they're not only denying all of these allegations, but
Speaker 1: they say that they've got proof that they didn't do this. Right. So,
Speaker 1: this is an interesting feature of most coaching contracts, and
Speaker 1: that is basically, if you get fired before the end
Speaker 1: of your contract and you would like to collect the
Speaker 1: remainder of your money, you sign a release. So basically,
Speaker 1: if you have any complaints, you have to go to
Speaker 1: the NFL's court and you have to play by the
Speaker 1: NFL's rules. And it's not like the NFL is a
Speaker 1: place that's like, oh, yes, here, hand us all this
Speaker 1: dammaging information about the league and our teams, and we
Speaker 1: would like to put this through the standard legal system
Speaker 1: where it can get out and have everybody be able
Speaker 1: to read it. No, everything kind of gets shut down
Speaker 1: and cut off. And that's kind of really at the
Speaker 1: heart of this story is I think that there's a
Speaker 1: lot of coaches who view this as an unnecessary and
Speaker 1: kind of overarching measure. They're really big companies out there
Speaker 1: who are ending these release agreements in contracts. So I
Speaker 1: want to board down a little bit on how they
Speaker 1: might have actually tanked. If hypothetically they did that. How
Speaker 1: could they do it because we have Hugh Jackson here
Speaker 1: saying that the Browns misled him, they intentionally lost games.
Speaker 1: But I'm wondering how they could pull that off without
Speaker 1: Hugh Jackson being at least implicit or even explicitly signing
Speaker 1: off on it. So the reason we kind of know
Speaker 1: what Hugh jackson sentiment in all of this is is
Speaker 1: one of the documents we have. It's a motion to
Speaker 1: vacate the NFL's arbitration. Now, he didn't go forward with
Speaker 1: this in Cuyahoga County in Ohio. I did ask his
Speaker 1: lawyer about that. His lawyer said, essentially he didn't like
Speaker 1: his chances of winning his case in Ohio based on
Speaker 1: the fact that he did sign or LEAs agreement. But
Speaker 1: the way this played out according to this filing, And
Speaker 1: again I do want to reiterate this is Hugh Jackson's
Speaker 1: lawyer prepared this. We all know lawyers are advocates for
Speaker 1: their clients. I don't want to present this as the
Speaker 1: absolute truth on this matter, But Hugh Jackson says that
Speaker 1: when he went through the interview process with the Browns,
Speaker 1: they essentially told him we got a buch of cap space,
Speaker 1: we have some draft capital, we're gonna start building this
Speaker 1: thing up. We're gonna we're gonna win some games. We're
Speaker 1: gonna give you what you need. The incentive package in
Speaker 1: the four year plan, which is about the heart of
Speaker 1: Jackson's accutations here, it was not in his contract. He
Speaker 1: did not see it at all. They didn't even tell
Speaker 1: him that this four year plan was being assembled until
Speaker 1: February according to this motion, and on top of that,
Speaker 1: it was not finalized until May twenty three. In the meantime,
Speaker 1: the Yatt whole offseason go through. The Browns were not
Speaker 1: active in the free agent market. As a lot of
Speaker 1: Browns fans know about the off season, they let Mitchell
Speaker 1: Schwartz go. They decided they did not want to meet
Speaker 1: his asking price. They'd rather have the compensed story pick.
Speaker 1: But you can fast forward to seventeen and the fact
Speaker 1: that they let Joe Hayden go, They let de Mario
Speaker 1: Davis go. Jackson had advocated for Colin Kaepernick in the
Speaker 1: off season of seen. They did not make that move,
Speaker 1: and to be clear, that was before Colin Kaepernick had
Speaker 1: begun his sort of public social justice campaign. So Jackson
Speaker 1: is kind of arguing, they told me one thing. I
Speaker 1: got in there and they just completely pulled the rug
Speaker 1: out from under me, and I had no players to
Speaker 1: work with. And obviously that's that's prevalent in the win
Speaker 1: loss record. There were also people in that building who realize,
Speaker 1: we just we have a team that can't win. We
Speaker 1: don't have an NFL caliber roster. Right now, Gary mentioned
Speaker 1: the bonus system in the four year plan, just so
Speaker 1: everybody understands what that is. Connor lay that out for us.
Speaker 1: I believe basically what this says here is that, for example,
Speaker 1: on the table for the coach to earn his bonus,
Speaker 1: for Hugh Jackson to earn his bonus, in in two
Speaker 1: thousands sixteen, the Browns head to make at least eleven
Speaker 1: picks in the NFL's draft, with five of those picks
Speaker 1: being in the first three rounds. You do that, you
Speaker 1: get your bonus. If the organization carried over at least
Speaker 1: fifteen percent of their salary cap, you get your bonus.
Speaker 1: And so you could look at it from two ways,
Speaker 1: right that is, either in agreement to say Hey, okay,
Speaker 1: everybody's benefiting from this, so no one can say they
Speaker 1: didn't do it or at the time, mean, you have
Speaker 1: to understand that the NFL is really shifting towards more
Speaker 1: of a collaborative focus, like all the gms and coaches
Speaker 1: were coming in together and hired together and signed through
Speaker 1: contracts together. So you could look at it that way,
Speaker 1: or you could look at it as maybe this is
Speaker 1: just a really weird and off ball way for a
Speaker 1: franchise to say, hey, we're all on the same team
Speaker 1: here and so we all have the same goals sor Right,
Speaker 1: So there are all these allegations that the Browns were
Speaker 1: incentivizing losing, and among the many documents you guys reviewed
Speaker 1: were emails between Roger Goodell and Hugh Jackson. Right, yeah,
Speaker 1: so Hugh has been banging the drum on this for
Speaker 1: quite a while. According to his motion, he had first
Speaker 1: brought this up with the league in twenty sixteen, this
Speaker 1: approach of the Browns were taking, which he you know,
Speaker 1: it did not feel was in line with the competitive
Speaker 1: integrity of the NFL. He went through the arbitration process
Speaker 1: and afterwards he had a series of emails and letters
Speaker 1: that he sent to Roger Goodell that, as we say,
Speaker 1: they're kind of rife with all caps and bold fonts,
Speaker 1: and he is very upset. And even after he had
Speaker 1: lost his arbitration, which would have awarded him some sort
Speaker 1: of monetary reward, he wanted an investigation into the Browns
Speaker 1: for for allegedly tanking during these two seasons. And I
Speaker 1: think part of it for him became kind of a
Speaker 1: quest to, let's say, restore his reputation as a football
Speaker 1: coach after two and a half nightmare seasons in which
Speaker 1: he leaves with a three thirty six and one record,
Speaker 1: and he apparently feels that the organization is just as
Speaker 1: much as at fault for that as he is. So
Speaker 1: you mentioned the organization being at fault there. Sashi Brown
Speaker 1: was in charge of the Browns back then. He's now
Speaker 1: the team president for the Ravens. Connor, what does he
Speaker 1: have to say of anything about all this? Yeah, we
Speaker 1: got a no comment out of Baltimore. And yeah, I mean,
Speaker 1: I think Saucy is kind of an interesting figure there.
Speaker 1: From my understanding of how this all, he was basically
Speaker 1: supposed to be the arbiter between football and analytics, right.
Speaker 1: He was supposed to be the bridge that brought these
Speaker 1: two together in this experiment that Jimmy Haslum was running,
Speaker 1: and ultimately was really the first person to pay for this.
Speaker 1: He got fired and then I believe had a twenty
Speaker 1: month hiatus out of sports until he came back with
Speaker 1: the Washington Wizards and is now obviously the team president
Speaker 1: of the Ravens. But sort of a unique figure in
Speaker 1: this because even back to if you remember, there was
Speaker 1: I wouldn't say suspicion, but just everybody around the league's
Speaker 1: antenna was raised up and and some good curiosity in
Speaker 1: a way too. I think people wanted to know what
Speaker 1: he was doing and Paul Deepodesta, what they were doing
Speaker 1: with the Browns. They didn't have extensive background work in football,
Speaker 1: and how this was going to work. I think he's
Speaker 1: sort of one of that those interesting figureheads there, but
Speaker 1: one that had no interest in I don't think, at
Speaker 1: least Via Ravens spokesperson weighing in on this story, I
Speaker 1: want to play devil's advoc get here really quickly. Some
Speaker 1: people would say, why would the Browns need to intentionally
Speaker 1: tank when they've been unintentionally awful for decades? I mean,
Speaker 1: weren't haven't they already just been functionally tanking. You could
Speaker 1: certainly make that argument. The specific argument that Jackson would
Speaker 1: make was was obviously he's brought in there and they're saying, well,
Speaker 1: we have cap space, we have draft capital, We're ready
Speaker 1: to start building a winner. Here. One thing I do
Speaker 1: want to mention, and it is, look, it's difficult to
Speaker 1: get people to sort of be scandalized by tanking, right,
Speaker 1: and everyone loves when their team is, if not winning
Speaker 1: the Super Bowl. I think the next best thing for
Speaker 1: a lot of fans is, well, let's have like a
Speaker 1: really high draft pick and let's get a new quarterback
Speaker 1: or whatever it might be for the players on that team.
Speaker 1: And I spoke to one player who said he has
Speaker 1: been in touch with a lot of former teammates who
Speaker 1: feel this kind of ruined their careers being on this team.
Speaker 1: Not only from a reputational standpoint, but when you are
Speaker 1: out there surrounded by kind of non NFL talent, you
Speaker 1: look bad on tape. This derails your career to an extent.
Speaker 1: And there is a group of players that they haven't
Speaker 1: gone too far forward yet, but they're at least discussing
Speaker 1: LEO action. I think what was so upsetting for a
Speaker 1: lot of guys who were there at the time. And uh,
Speaker 1: one of the guys who spoke on the record for
Speaker 1: this story is is a coach named Ken Delgado. He
Speaker 1: is actually currently with Hugh Jackson down in Grambling University,
Speaker 1: but he had been a long time assistant coach in
Speaker 1: college football. This was kind of his chance to break
Speaker 1: through in seen with his brown staff. That was his
Speaker 1: first NFL job. As he says, you know that this
Speaker 1: is everyone's dream job getting to the highest level of football.
Speaker 1: Here he did a, you know, on paper, a decent
Speaker 1: job with their defensive line. He was an assistant defensive
Speaker 1: line coach on Jackson's staff in Cleveland. He was out
Speaker 1: after the season and he just said straight up like, look,
Speaker 1: I'm realistic about this. I'm not going to get back
Speaker 1: into the league. That was my chance. I'm now branded
Speaker 1: as part of this one in thirty one run that
Speaker 1: the Browns had. No one's really going to pick up
Speaker 1: the phone and want to bring me back in. For
Speaker 1: the eyes who were there, they've sort of been branded
Speaker 1: with this really problematic two year run and it ended
Speaker 1: a lot of careers. And I think just to add
Speaker 1: to that, I mean when when we saw with the
Speaker 1: Miami Dolphins were initially doing under Brian Flores when they
Speaker 1: first got there. Our former colleague Jenny Rerentis went down
Speaker 1: to Miami and did a really excellent story on kind
Speaker 1: of the ethics of this kind of rebuild. And I
Speaker 1: do think that there are very real, as Gary mentioned,
Speaker 1: safety concerns. And it's kind of interesting when you talk
Speaker 1: to players across the spectrum where you know, certainly there
Speaker 1: are some players who have been in the NFL and
Speaker 1: have developed that sort of calloused cynicism. I think about
Speaker 1: what goes on in the league and it's like, yeah,
Speaker 1: this is just what happens, this is life. But I
Speaker 1: think there are some other people that like, hey, you know,
Speaker 1: if I'm playing next to somebody who doesn't know what
Speaker 1: they're doing, that's gonna get me hurt. You know. I
Speaker 1: think that's a similar refrain that you hear from, you know,
Speaker 1: whether it's firefighters or police officers or whatever, and it's like,
Speaker 1: you know, the test has to be hard because anyone
Speaker 1: who passes it is saving my behind. And so I
Speaker 1: think that there's an element of that, certainly with the NFL,
Speaker 1: where it's like, yeah, this thing you know, you have
Speaker 1: to be competitive because if everyone isn't good, then I
Speaker 1: get hurt. So there are repercussions in this that go
Speaker 1: beyond just Hugh Jackson or Jimmy Haslum or Paul D.
Speaker 1: Podesto or Sashi Brown. Not too much. Competitive integrity is
Speaker 1: such sort of a vague thing, but one of the
Speaker 1: big appeals of the NFL is the fact that any
Speaker 1: given Sunday, and that's not just any game, but any season.
Speaker 1: The last three years we have had a Super Bowl
Speaker 1: participant who had a losing record the previous season. Giving
Speaker 1: those fans hope year to year is one of the
Speaker 1: things that really is appealing about the NFL. We're not
Speaker 1: even getting uh into the gambling aspect of this and
Speaker 1: n d O. If you believe that a team's head
Speaker 1: coach has been incentivized to lose game teams, especially towards
Speaker 1: the end of the season, that has a lot of
Speaker 1: repercussions as far as the gambling community goes. And obviously,
Speaker 1: as we all know, we have a lot of lee
Speaker 1: wise gambling in this country now and nobody draws more
Speaker 1: bets than the NFL does. The competitive integrity component is
Speaker 1: interesting to me because now we have the Browns and
Speaker 1: have we have allegations against them and tanking, and also
Speaker 1: the Dolphins have been accused of tanking. Connor are we
Speaker 1: to believe that they're the only two teams who might
Speaker 1: have done this, or do we suspect that other organizations
Speaker 1: might be exposed as well. I don't think that this
Speaker 1: is necessarily wholly unique. I think what's unique about the
Speaker 1: brown circumstance was that they decided to put it on paper,
Speaker 1: and I think that it also went too far. I
Speaker 1: think that anybody that's associated with that organization during that
Speaker 1: time would say it went too far. And I think
Speaker 1: that other teams have probably done softer versions of this,
Speaker 1: you know, many resets or or whatever, the kinder, gentler
Speaker 1: version of this that you want to say is, but
Speaker 1: nowhere near to I think the scale and the aggressiveness
Speaker 1: with which the Browns did did their's alright. So, despite
Speaker 1: all these documents and all these allegations, on Monday, the
Speaker 1: NFL said that the league's independent investigation found quote no
Speaker 1: evidence to substantiate the accusations of tanking. This feels like
Speaker 1: nothing to see here. The NFL is moving on situation.
Speaker 1: The Browns also issued a statement saying that they were
Speaker 1: pleased with the findings or the lack of findings, which
Speaker 1: that's hardly surprising. I'm wondering what the two of you
Speaker 1: make on where the NFL ultimately landed on this. I
Speaker 1: wouldn't say I was surprised. Um. Certainly there are elements
Speaker 1: of what seemed to be a legitimate building process by
Speaker 1: the Browns throughout Hugh Jackson's time. They're right, in two
Speaker 1: thousand seventeen they signed Kevin Zeitler, who was one of
Speaker 1: the uh who was one of the most prominent free
Speaker 1: agents on the market. Um, And there did at times
Speaker 1: certainly seemed to be some efforts to win games. And
Speaker 1: they also, you know, we got our hands on a
Speaker 1: letter from the Commissioner to Jimmy Haslum that said, Hey,
Speaker 1: one of the things we saw in here was that
Speaker 1: in this performance table that we had talked about before,
Speaker 1: Hugh Jackson did make edits to it, and so that
Speaker 1: would seem to to make him on board with what
Speaker 1: was going on here. So again, I think this entire
Speaker 1: process is depending on how you look at it. You know,
Speaker 1: do you think that incentivizing someone to have more draft
Speaker 1: picks in the first few rounds of the draft is
Speaker 1: legitimate or do you feel like that's just a way
Speaker 1: around incentivizing a tank, right, And so it's it's interesting.
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, I think the NFL landed where
Speaker 1: they were comfortable landing. I don't think that they want
Speaker 1: to open Pandora's box, especially with the Dolphins investigation going on,
Speaker 1: especially with everything happening regarding their gambling relationships and how
Speaker 1: everything's kind of not an uneven footing. I mean, it's
Speaker 1: all systems go, but you never want to portray this
Speaker 1: air of well, hey, there might not be things completely
Speaker 1: above board going on here. So what I would make
Speaker 1: of it is I think the NFL, if you had
Speaker 1: to ask me before the investigations started, where they would land,
Speaker 1: I was guessing probably somewhere around here. Yeah. So, despite
Speaker 1: the NFL trying to sweep all this onto the car,
Speaker 1: but you guys did some really excellent reporting on the subject.
Speaker 1: I highly recommend everybody go read their story about this
Speaker 1: on si dot com, which we will link to in
Speaker 1: our show notes, and listen to them on the mm
Speaker 1: QB podcast. Gary Grambling Connor Or thanks for us well,
Speaker 1: Thanks John, Thanks John. Sports Illustrated Weekly is a production
Speaker 1: of Sports Illustrated and I Heart Radio. For more podcasts
Speaker 1: from my Heart Radio, visit the I Heart Radio app,
Speaker 1: Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your favorite shows. And
Speaker 1: for more of Sports Illustrated It's best stories and podcasts,
Speaker 1: visit SI dot com. The special bonus episode of Sports
Speaker 1: Illustrated Weekly was produced by Cooper mckimp Isaac Lee is
Speaker 1: our sound engineer. Our senior producer is Dan Blue. Our
Speaker 1: executive producers are Scott Brody and me John Gonzalez. Thanks
Speaker 1: for listening. Our regularly scheduled episode will appear in your
Speaker 1: feed tomorrow Wednesday, May four,