forums

Here is their BULL S H I T REPORT...

Advertisement
LOLz at NCAA for not knowing how to properly print web page articles to PDFs

I also see NCAA letter heads are also good for other things besides vouching for felons.
 
The stuff about March 9 is really confusing and poorly written.

Is it March 9, 2011 or March 9, 2012?

March 9, 2011 – Witness 10 confirms he asked Fernandez to use airline miles to purchase his airline ticket leaving New York City August 28, 2010, and returning from Miami September 1, 2010, because the price of the flight to Miami was "high." Based on the email containing the flight itinerary, Fernandez purchased Witness 10's flight August 25, 2010. When asked how he knew how much to pay Fernandez, Witness 10 reported he "gave him amount that was fair for a ticket to Miami." (Witness 10's March 9, 2012, interview, Page No. 28) Prior to asking any questions regarding arrangement of Student 2's travel earlier that same month, Witness 10 terminated the interview.

As shown above, it was not until the March 9, 2011, interview with Witness 10 that the enforcement staff learned that Witness 10 had a close enough relationship with Fernandez where he felt comfortable requesting the use of Fernandez's airline miles and Witness 10 asked to use those miles because the cost of the airline ticket was too high. While this information is not directly related to Student-Athlete 2's ticket, the totality of the evidence after Witness 10's interview -specifically (1) Witness 10's close relationship with Fernandez; (2) Witness 10's use of Fernandez's airline miles later that same month; (3) confirmation that Student 2 did in fact travel home during that approximate time the summer after his freshman year; (4) confirmation of Witness 10's arrangements of Student 2's flight; (5) Witness 10's need to use airline miles due to the cost of flights; and (6) an email confirmation of the use of Fernandez's miles for a first class ticket purchased the day before in Student 2's name – led the enforcement staff to believe at that time that there was enough evidence to notify the institution that it believed that Student 2 received impermissible benefits.
 
Last edited:
Advertisement
Sum 1 reed dis **** & tranzlate fur dummiys lik me


Seriously im too lazy to read all that

Someone give cliff notes
 
80s said:
Sum 1 reed dis **** & tranzlate fur dummiys lik me


Seriously im too lazy to read all that

Someone give cliff notes
Click to expand...

ok let me clarify it for you

lets say you were flirting withe some girl and your girl found out and she wanted to get back at you so she goes and bangs some dude, you catch her and she writes you a 42 pages email talking about how she is not wrong.
 
Advertisement
I have a ton of issue with this whole thing, the primary being... what the **** is this 42 page document for? What does it do? It's a pointless piece of ****. It's not part of process, it's just kinda there. It's like someone who has to have the last word in an argument, beating a dead horse after everyone has stopped caring about the original argument.
 
riceman said:
I have a ton of issue with this whole thing, the primary being... what the **** is this 42 page document for? What does it do? It's a pointless piece of ****. It's not part of process, it's just kinda there. It's like someone who has to have the last word in an argument, beating a dead horse after everyone has stopped caring about the original argument.
Click to expand...

The NCAA enforcement staff submits the following as its response to the involved parties' written submissions on procedural issues in the University of Miami (Florida)[Miami (Florida)] case.

It is a response to our motion to dismiss.
 
Advertisement
So......they were able to put together that bloated, rambling response to our motion to dismiss within several days of receiving it but it took them over 2 years to complete this investigation?

Are you kidding me?

I can't wait to get these jokers in court. Our legal counsel will make them look like the stuttering attorney from My Cousin Vinny.
 
Consigliere said:
riceman said:
I have a ton of issue with this whole thing, the primary being... what the **** is this 42 page document for? What does it do? It's a pointless piece of ****. It's not part of process, it's just kinda there. It's like someone who has to have the last word in an argument, beating a dead horse after everyone has stopped caring about the original argument.
Click to expand...

The NCAA enforcement staff submits the following as its response to the involved parties' written submissions on procedural issues in the University of Miami (Florida)[Miami (Florida)] case.

It is a response to our motion to dismiss.
Click to expand...

It's a response to what amounts to a response. In other words... useless rambling. From Enforcement, who's part has already been played in the whole thing.
 
LMAO!!

Scroll Down to the section NCAA-1, and you will see that they forgot to substitute the names of the student athletes:



"Mike and Kieran,

After our phone conversation this evening, I spoke with Brynna and Ameen. We are in agreement that it is important to do
all we can to determine whether Durand Scott and Reggie Mitchell's eligibility has been jeopardized as quickly as
possible."



The NCAA just broke their own confidentiality bylaws AGAIN.

These doofuses need to just hang it up.
 
Advertisement
CaneSuger said:
LMAO!!

Scroll Down to the section NCAA-1, and you will see that they forgot to substitute the names of the student athletes:



"Mike and Kieran,

After our phone conversation this evening, I spoke with Brynna and Ameen. We are in agreement that it is important to do
all we can to determine whether Durand Scott and Reggie Mitchell's eligibility has been jeopardized as quickly as
possible."



The NCAA just broke their own confidentiality bylaws AGAIN.

These doofuses need to just hang it up.
Click to expand...

Reggie Mitchell

Lolz
 
The most noteworthy omission is Miami's allegation that enforcement had agreed that all interviews would be conducted together and then violated that agreement and conducted the slew of interviews with Shapiro without notifying UM. In fact, enforcement just about admits that it intentionally violated that agreement in the response by generally stating that sometimes taking such action is necessary in an investigation. To me, that's a pretty big deal--and the evidence is that enforcement barely could touch UM's allegation in the response and never did directly touch it.
 
So without rehashing the debate on whether we SHOULD sue, is our only recourse some sort of civil event where we are seeking punitive damages?????
 
I don't know any of the attorneys or their reputations, but something tells me the attorneys for Miami are going to have a field day against these guys at the hearing.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top