It was an old story with Reilly did it a few weeks ago. At least a year old. It was even older when Real Sports did it this month.
I understand a ton of stories are written time and time again, but a feature on a high schooler? I don't think that compares to coverage of Lance Armstrong. And each time it has been presented as "look at this tremendous story we uncovered. You'll never believe it." I doubt four years into Armstrong's Tour de France run anyone was writing "You'll never believe it: This guy survived cancer."
I know it's a good story. It's cool the kids are still wrestling, and I'll even go so far as to say every time I've seen it, it has been fairly well done. BUT, did Reilly really have to write about it? I'm sure there are dozens and dozens of down-on-their luck high schoolers out there for him to follow. Why would he "borrow" an idea that has already been done and tell a story that has made its way around the nation?
Myself, I can't imagine seeing a very good story like this done very well on a national stage, and thinking "well, I should write that exact same thing, except in MY words! What a great story 'idea.'" When I miss a good feature like that on my beat, and someone else thoroughly covers it and does a very good job (barring it being someone incredibly important, and no, a high school wrestler isn't incredibly important) I don't rush out to try and suck up the last remaining drops of sentiment. I say "damn it," and try and get the next one.
I don't know ... to me, this story still being written is like someone today writing a story about the autistic kid shooting 3-pointers last basketball season. We get it. Great story. But given the resources and talent of those associated with SI and HBO, I expect not to see rehashed stuff.
So that's what I meant. Sorry if I wasn't clear. And you can't have those 30 seconds back either, Boobie.