From the other stories filed it appears he was in Turkey covering the USA basketball,(which makes sense since he interviewed the Turkish team GM et al.) So he probably was talking to the assistant coach over the phone(may not have had a recorder for that particular phone line. A lot of reporters do so much with their phones, I'm sort of surprised cell phones don't have a recording option available.

But neither here nor there.

I guess this is my question for WMR.

Is it more likely that Thamel;
a) took notes of the conversation as it was going, typed up the notes when he finished the interview, and kept the quotes in a file to refer to when writing the story.

b) Interviewed the coach but didn't bother to take notes, and after the interview didn't bother to type the notes into anything coherent, but rather pulled all the quotes from memory. Oh and despite not really wanting to do the interview, the coach remembered everything exactly as it was asked and answered a week later.

c) Thamel interviewed the coach, has notes, and purposefully took the answers out of context in order to smear Kentucky and Calipari.

WMR, despite your protests, I do not have a love affair with any particular journalist, but it's clear from your posts and accusations that you have little idea as to how the news gathering business works.
I don't doubt that there are journalists who have an agenda against UK, or have their own biases. But it would be more interesting to read if you could actually identify them with something a little more nuanced than, "Thamel wrote something mean about Kentucky. He's biased, he's a hack, he doesn't know what he's doing. The newspaper business sucks."