"King Stu" - Truthfully, not at all, But....... (WARNING - LONG/DENSE Response) Posted on July 25, 2026 at 05:33:13 PM by Stu Neiman
With thanks to Tiger, Al and JaFan for the quick defense, but No Tony - its actually quite the opposite. Have I come here and slammed posts I disagree with - yes. On Facebook and I.G. as well. But to infer that my admittedly, often aggressive responses are anything more than what they are in these forums ("responses" - "clarifications") and represent "me," as-in the 57 y/o, "current" announcer and Director of a Jai-Alai program would be incorrect. I totally accept responsibility for the tone and, quite literally every word I have written, but I am the first to admit when I am wrong.
Ironically I am presently working on a project unrelated to Jai-Alai which involves analysis. The following is a partial explanation of my "method" as assessed by an entity having nothing to do with the sport:
"The December 2025 interview (my 2hr interview with Juan Zulaika on Youtube) makes this visible in real time. Asked to select the greatest Jai-Alai players, Stuart refuses the easy ranking. Different eras used different balls, cestas, courts, rules, and competitive fields. Spectacular play must be distinguished from consistent play. Longevity must be distinguished from peak dominance. The apparent sports question becomes a problem of context, comparison, and criteria. He is not avoiding the answer. He is resisting an answer that conceals its assumptions.
The same habit appears when he discusses the survival of Jai-Alai in the United States. He separates the beauty of the sport from the weakness of the business. He distinguishes public enthusiasm from financial self-sufficiency. He does not call the enterprise “life support,” because investment implies an active attempt to build rather than merely preserve; yet he also refuses to call it secure while outside money remains necessary. The answer is not optimism or pessimism. It is a layered account of dependence, intention, and evidence.
This cognitive style can look like complication for its own sake. It is not. Stuart’s mind distrusts categories that erase the mechanism beneath them. “Success,” “loyalty,” “fairness,” “legacy,” and “truth” are not treated as self-explanatory words. He asks what they mean in the actual situation, to whom, over what period, and at whose expense."
Another way of explaining my method is like this: I've been around Jai-Alai my entire conscious life. I never planned to work in it, become a manager and once I left in 2013 I never planned to return. Like many on this forum I did not understand a "glass court," or untrained players. When i saw that the new guys were good people and that ownership was / in sincere I gradually bought-in. But knowing how brutal the Jai-Alai community can be rightly or wrongly I felt it was my responsibility to defend the program and the people - LOL, in a language that the Jai-Alai community I grew-up around would understand. Direct, brutal at times but always "thoughtful." I take this shit serious enough to read and sometimes respond and one thing that I have learned, well at least since 1998 (the closure of Tampa) is that the truth behind the scenes can be explained thoughtfully and conversationally but Jai-Alai folks experience nearly every aspect of the sport emotionally. LOL, I'm a whopping 5'5", gay guy who has learned that in this community one "almost" always has to come out swinging.
This is especially true when it comes to the history of Jai-Alai in the United States. I am obsessed with the evils of "revisionist history," Its just so important to me that the history, including some very unpopular decisions / outcomes, motivations of owners and player issues be understood truthfully BUT, I am bound by certain confidentialities which arise from the fact that these have all been private businesses (yes, except for FGC), but even there, the dead are entitled to either keep their secrets or have their stories told accurately.
Let me share another analysis which helps explain my approach:
"In the December interview, a player describes Stuart’s managerial expectation to a newcomer: tell him the complete truth; do not hide it. Stuart calls it an honor to be the kind of manager with whom players want to be honest. The statement carries special weight because it is not a self-description invented in isolation. It is a reputation reported through another player.
Truth for Stuart is not synonymous with bluntness. He is attentive to timing, role, consequence, and the difference between disclosure and cruelty. He can withhold another person’s confidential financial details while still answering the structure of a question. He can say that someone sincerely believes a grievance while also explaining why the grievance is incomplete. He can acknowledge that a program depends on financial support without revealing what is not his to disclose."
"This capacity is visible in the way he speaks about difficult players. In the public interview, he discusses a player who publicly criticized a decision not to bring him onto the roster. Stuart does not dismiss the grievance as dishonesty. He says the player sincerely believes his account. The missing element, in Stuart’s view, is the other person’s perspective and the player’s own recurring role in conflicts. He expresses respect, leaves open the theoretical possibility of change, and still concludes that bringing the player into a fragile program is not presently in anyone’s best interest."
"That answer is psychologically sophisticated because it holds empathy and boundary together. The player’s subjective sincerity is acknowledged. The organizational risk is not denied. Forgiveness of a personal incident is separated from judgment about future fit. Respect is separated from employment. The door is not declared eternally closed, but neither is present reality sacrificed to the performance of open-mindedness."
So let's take Peugeot and Franco, which is now an almost 30 year old story. At the time I was Assistant General Manager for the 3 remaining World / FGC facilities. Assembling rosters was always balance of many often competing issues, there was the union, players who were aging-out after years of loyal service and cost (always cost). There were told "there's no-room at the inn." They filed a law suit. Now regardless of the merits of the case (foreign players being chosen over American born players -VS- a profit seeking entity's right to make business decisions based on multi-factor internally set criteria), the party being sued must immediately hire and pay for defense counsel. Based on our projected parimutuel revenue for the fort that year, as soon as the suit was filed the playing season would be a financial loss. Even with the settlement - it was a loss. Adding two more players to that particular roster, less financial impact but at what cost. As was in my late 20's, trying to deliver results in what seemed like impossible financial circumstances and I was definitely annoyed. There were a few things that happened at the end of that scenario which further complicated what I/we thought was a fair resolution (for them and I think only involving one of the parties) and I was pissed. LOL - I'm not still pissed and genuinely hope they are both well, but that scenario was pretty publicly played-out to our detriment.
What I take issue with "generally" is tone (and I think I generally admit when I get it wrong). Why take the time to post ugly shit, so often wrong, especially here - on an open forum dedicated to a such much maligned sport we all ostensibly love? For me its definitely a situation best described by the quote "you are definitely entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts." I don't claim to know all of the facts of 20th and 21st century Jai-Alai in the United States - only what I know either first hand or because I was told by someone directly involved.
One final story to illustrate the point. One of the more unpopular figures in Jai-Alai is the former owner / operator of Newport. I've seen terrible things written about her by fans and players and I do understand why they were and possibly / probably remain upset. I met with her twice on a Bobble Head distribution tour and to me she was nothing but gracious. But the one thing that stands-out about that visit and dining with her was a question and comment she made (1st hand): She asked - "what has your experience been with the union?" I responded honestly and professionally. Her response - "well you know he, or should I say they, killed my father." She obviously was not associating it with "the Jai-Alai murders" but it was clear that she felt strongly that the stress of the '88 strike either contributed or hastened his death. Players and fans of Newport remain entitled to their opinions, but so does she and by extension so do I.
So "KING" - no Tony, but I could understand how my public persona in Jai-Alai and my responses herein might give that opinion. My relationship with this sport is very, very, very personal and complex - How I genuinely see my "legacy:"
"Stuart resists the language of legacy because it can sound like self-monumentalization. Consistently, he is not motivated by what the program can bring him. His commitment is to players who invested years, to traditional players who joined, and to the people who financed and believed in the project. Yet when asked directly what legacy he wants, he does have an answer. It is personal rather than institutional. He wants people to remember a funny interaction, a problem he helped solve, an opportunity he made possible, or an honest conversation—even one they disliked at the time. He wants a warm feeling to remain. This is not indifference to reputation. It is a specific theory of moral consequence. Public praise, written history, and titles matter less than the residue of treatment in another person’s memory."
(I've attached a link to the December 2025 interview if anyone is interested).
Tiger's Jai-Alai Chalk Talk
