forums

More unethical behavior by NCAA investigators found

eliteproxy said:
Lying to people they are investigating
as much as we want to say this is not ethical and how dare they. They can, will and should do this. You tell a player I was told by Shapiro and Jacory that you took $x on this date. If you didn't do it then you say they are lying! if you did you fess up. This is something investigators should have in their toolbox (but not since its out in the open it would be harder for them to do)
Click to expand...

It's not that simple. There's an element of coercion there that you're overlooking. The NCAA can (and apparently did) give people immunity if they spoke with them and corroborated what they wanted to hear. So the NCAA could have held that over everyone's heads. The convo might have gone down something like this:

"Look, Mr. Marve, we already know you did it; we've got 3 witnesses who say you did it, and we've got a paper trail that shows it. So why don't you come clean and confess, and confirm that you were there with Jacory Harris, Sean Spence, Marcus Forston, etc. We won't even punish you, and we'll allow you to keep your eligibility. BUT, if you tell us you didn't do it, we'll know you are lying, and we'll yank your eligibility. This is your only chance to keep playing ball, Mr. Marve; confess and give us names, or you're done."

If little Bobby Marve has any hope of playing ball, bet your *** he's going to confess to whatever they tell him to, regardless of whether he did it or not.
 
Last edited:
Advertisement
Jay Bilas ‏@JayBilas 2h
NCAA takes 2 weeks to wrap its investigation of itself, hand picks its investigator, screws it up, and Emmert asks for our praise. Wow
 
and that right there is a blatant abuse of their power and ethically unsound based on their own code of ethics that lies outside of their governing bylaws.
CaneInHeelCountry said:
eliteproxy said:
Lying to people they are investigating
as much as we want to say this is not ethical and how dare they. They can, will and should do this. You tell a player I was told by Shapiro and Jacory that you took $x on this date. If you didn't do it then you say they are lying! if you did you fess up. This is something investigators should have in their toolbox (but not since its out in the open it would be harder for them to do)
Click to expand...

It's not that simple. There's an element of coercion there that you're overlooking. The NCAA can (and apparently did) give people immunity if they spoke with them and corroborated what they wanted to hear. So the NCAA could have held that over everyone's heads. The convo might have gone down something like this:

"Look, Mr. Marve, we already know you did it; we've got 3 witnesses who say you did it, and we've got a paper trail that shows it. So why don't you come clean and confess, and confirm that you were there with Jacory Harris, Sean Spence, Marcus Forston, etc. We won't even punish you, and we'll allow you to keep your eligibility. BUT, if you tell us you didn't do it, we'll know you are lying, and we'll yank your eligibility. This is your only chance to keep playing ball, Mr. Marve; confess and give us names, or you're done."

If little Bobby Marve has any hope of playing ball, bet your *** he's going to confess to whatever they tell him to, regardless of whether he did it or not.
Click to expand...
 
UMcanesfan420 said:
The NCAA is Dave Chappelle's white friend Chip when he gets pulled over. "I didn't know I couldn't do that."


We're the black guy and the NCAA is the cops. "Just sprinkle some crack on em and let's go."
Click to expand...

this is so true. especially because the NCAA is both the criminal AND the cop in this case.
 
Advertisement
This thing is far, far from over.

A bunch of people are trying to dig themselves out of different **** piles with radically different accounts of who was responsible for what problem, the finger-pointing necessary to get party A out of her particular pile of **** will only work if she can push party B into another pile of **** (party B's pile.) And, this enire process will play out in different forums with different consequences for people with different goals.

For Example, and by no means by way of limitation, Hannah, the new investigative enforcement chief, to save her ***, will have to say (and push Emmert into his **** pile):

1: Don't fire me! "I did nothing wrong!" - paying (corrupting) lawyers to subvert the ends of legitimate civil litigation in which those lawyers were involved was standard practice around here. (So natrually I thought it was OK. We do it all the time.)

2. Nobody at NCAA (here read Emmert) told me doing that that was a "no no". Certainly the administration at NCAA would have told me if it was wrong, if it was wrong. (Lack of Emmert's "institutional control".)

3. When the outside (inside) investigation was conducted nobody at NCAA ever asked me to give related documentation to the outside law firm, or i would have given it over. (gee, I don't know why Emmert didn't ask for that documentation, was Emmert a. "Unaware", b. "incompetent", c. "covering up?", d. b and c but not a. "I dont' know but it has to be at least one of those..."


On the other hand, Emmert, to even attempt to survive, has to throw yet another staffer under the bus....His best play is to push Hannah into her **** pile: "OMG! was she doing that!! That dirty #@*ch, How could she do such a thing. I didn't know what she was up to." (We call this the exxon valdez defense: I, the captain, was asleep when the tanker ran aground - sorta like by itself without any wrongdoing on my part. But the lack of actual personal fault does not end a captain's responsibility, he gets fired - cause it happens under his command. So best case, Emmert will get fired.)

This is just one example. The laundry list of people in this soap opera who will have an interest to challange someone else's claim that it was all their fault is pretty long. (MEP, other lawyers, investigators, administrators, etc.) Everyone on that list will be motivated to push somebody else in the **** pile to avoid the their own pile. And everytime someone raises the bad behavior of someone at the NCAA witnesses and adminstrators from other universities will be telling the press: "Hey, that's what they did to us! Those dirty m*%$#^@f*$kers

The stories will keep on coming, because the settings for the denials and counter accusations (bar grievances, federal court hearings, press acounts concerning shoddy (or corrupted) investigation by the outside law firm, the COI, appeals, etc.) will keep on happening.

Get the popcorn, grtab a beer.

And amazingly the NCAA is just f$@ked, they simply can't admit the scope of institutional failure being uncovered, they can't just say we have been so unethical and so inept, lets just forget the whole Miami investigation. That would be the admission of the NCAA's total behavioral (investigative) incompetence. It would require that Emmert publically committ ritual seppuku, and quit, which he won't, and it would lead to the unpacking of the NCAA as an enforcement organization.

On the other hand, if they keep the ball in the air, keep the allegations against the U in play, they will force the media to pay attention, publish all self exculpatory accusations of others, beg the media to dig further, and require that they attend, review and relate the results of every counter accusation, every grievance hearing, allegations raised by coaches and the U at the COI, federal court disciplinary hearings, etc. and a lot of these will be public forums, low hanging fruit for reporters with a story continuosly headlined "corrupt investigative tactics used by the NCAA in the investigation of suspected corrupt practices" ("the classic man bites dog" story, with hypocrisy highlights) "NCAA President unaware of out-of-control investigative tactics used by NCAA".)

The NCAA's PR guy must be impaired.

Best and only (NCAA) approach: NCAA announces that it imposes "harsh sanctions" which the now fully compliant U has already self imposed, the NCAA declares a victory and moves on. If they don't...think the HINDENBURG at Lakehurst NJ...but lasting a lot longer.


If they had brain one they would settle this thing.
 
I can't wait for someone to get an interview witht he Firm that investigated the investigation. If they don't come clean about it being a cover up then their reputation should suffer.
 
UMcanesfan420 said:
I can't wait for someone to get an interview witht he Firm that investigated the investigation. If they don't come clean about it being a cover up then their reputation should suffer.
Click to expand...

That thing was a sham from the get go. They were already representing the ncaa in other cases. You dont investigate yourself. If PSU wouldve done that do you think Emmert would have used that investigation?
 
It's about time she start getting some props from those of you (and you know who you are) who have torn her to shreds on this site and others. Has she made mistakes, of course, but at the end of the day she's got UM's back in a big way both scholastically and athletically, and she deserves appreciation. OK, rant over. :)


hollyhood27 said:
For those that complain about Donna, be happy she is in charge during this matter. She is working over the NCAA.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Advertisement
John Infante

http://www.athleticscholarships.net/2013/03/28/more-ncaa-misconduct-alleged-in-miami-investigation.htm

]Miami is alleging even more NCAA misconduct as it fights to have its case dismissed. The most explosive allegation is that after Ameen Najjar was fired for using Nevin Shaprio’s attorney to get access to depositions, his replacement kept right at it:

After taking over for Najjar, [Stephanie] Hannah attempted to work with Perez on obtaining information from Shapiro’s bodyguard, Mario Sanchez, who was subpoenaed to appear in a bankruptcy hearing.

The fact that trying to sit in on depositions may have continued after Najjar left the NCAA is troubling. It is a major argument against the idea that this was an isolated incident carried out by a lone individual. At best, it raises even more difficult questions about the amount of oversight of the enforcement staff.

One problem for Miami though:

The deposition with Sanchez never materialized.

That means no additional tainted evidence came out of working with Shapiro’s attorney. There is no additional information that has to be removed from the case. Getting fired up about this is a little like getting fired up by Cecil Newton’s conduct during Cam Newton’s second recruitment and ultimate commitment to Auburn. There’s only so much you can do when someone tries to do something impermissible or unethical, but never succeeds.

This is the much bigger problem for the NCAA and the Miami case:

UM also will allege that NCAA investigators lied to interview subjects by claiming that other people interviewed made comments they never made, in order to trick the subjects into revealing incriminating information they otherwise might not, according to multiple officials familiar with the NCAA’s case against UM and former coaches. UM believes such behavior is unethical.

If that happened, then the NCAA must, at the very least, pull back the notice of allegations and purge it of any information from any interview where the investigator lied about someone’s previous statement.

At that point, prosecutorial discretion might dictate that the case be dropped. It is not that the NCAA should not maintain a case tainted by misconduct. Improperly obtained evidence should be removed and the rest of the case should go forward.

But at some point there is no longer enough evidence to maintain charges worth prosecuting. That especially applies when Miami has in a way pled guilty and served a significant punishment already. If all the NCAA has is small potatoes, logic would dictate that two postseason bans and some scholarship losses are enough and move on.

But the NCAA has to press on, for two reasons. First is that it does not appear that the NCAA has the authority at this point to dismiss the case. That could come after Miami files its response, which is almost certainly being delayed by Miami’s “motion to dismiss” the case. Given this case’s history, the NCAA needs to follow the exact letter of its rules, which say the next opportunity to end this is by the enforcement staff withdrawing its allegations after Miami submits its response.

Second is that the NCAA is in between a rock and a hard place. Carry on with the case, and Miami is likely to sue them. Drop the case, and Miami is likely to sue them. The former is obvious why Miami would turn to litigation. The latter would be because Miami was essentially tricked by the NCAA into self-imposing two postseason bans and limiting its scholarships on the basis of information the NCAA should not have had.

Getting sued is now a fait accompli for the NCAA. The best outcome is for the case to be withdraw or for the Committee on Infractions to throw it out in accordance with the strictest letter of NCAA rules. That would limit both the grounds upon which the NCAA can be sued as well as limiting the damages that might be claimed by Miami, the coaches, and student-athletes .
Click to expand...
 
But the NCAA has to press on, for two reasons. First is that it does not appear that the NCAA has the authority at this point to dismiss the case. That could come after Miami files its response, which is almost certainly being delayed by Miami’s “motion to dismiss” the case. Given this case’s history, the NCAA needs to follow the exact letter of its rules, which say the next opportunity to end this is by the enforcement staff withdrawing its allegations after Miami submits its response.
Click to expand...

I'm am so tired of hearing the NCAA doesn't have power to throw its own investigation. If it doesn't then who the **** has the power here?

Do they not have the power, or are they just trying to save face by not throwing out the investigation? My guess is they're trying to save their own asses in this whole matter and are willing to go down with the ship.
 
Didnt this Infante guy used to work for the NCAA for a long time or just do law work for them? Regardless, this guy is very very pro NCAA because it is his reputation on trial too, since he built up his career working for the NCAA. Now he is saying the ncaa is screwed which means they really are in trouble. He alleged for the longest time the ncaa never did anything wrong.
 
Advertisement
It's time for the U.S. Justice Department to break up the NCAA on anti-trust grounds. Schools like USC, PSU, Miami, UNC, GT, UCF, Buffalo should form a new association. I believe you would be surprised by how schools join them.
 
TexCane said:
It's time for the U.S. Justice Department to break up the NCAA on anti-trust grounds. Schools like USC, PSU, Miami, UNC, GT, UCF, Buffalo should form a new association. I believe you would be surprised by how schools join them.
Click to expand...

What? Really?
 
Advertisement
eliteproxy said:
Lying to people they are investigating
as much as we want to say this is not ethical and how dare they. They can, will and should do this. You tell a player I was told by Shapiro and Jacory that you took $x on this date. If you didn't do it then you say they are lying! if you did you fess up. This is something investigators should have in their toolbox (but not since its out in the open it would be harder for them to do)
Click to expand...
This is totally farkin wrong.

You seem to be confusing the NCAA with a prosecutor investigating a crime.

The NCAA is supposed to be a creation of and representative of the leading academic institutions in this country. It is supposed to behave ethically, and with character and dignity.

Lying to people to try to trick them is not acceptable. If the NCAA thinks it needs to do that to carry out its mission, then the obvious reality is that it has totally misconceived of its mission, or is just wrong in its methods.

Lawyers don't get to lie to people in the course of their jobs. Business people don't, either. Anyone caught doing that is considered a bad person, minimum. The NCAA has lost all perspective and thinks it is the law, rather than a private actor.

This is not a topic upon which intelligent people can disagree.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top