Like Mark Emmert said, "We know it when we see it." "Why," he opined, "we got the same problem here in our offices."
But like the external investigators, who did not interview (or castigate Mr. Emmert, the NCAA refused to interview the Miami Director of Athletics at the time who was incharge of that 'control', Paul Dee. Why should they, he later became Chairman of the Infractions Committee! Mr. Emerett, can you spell c-o-n-t-r-o-l ?
No need to re-hash the NCAA's own lack of control in this case, as its been well discussed. But it is interesting how the investigative branched DID learn from Ms. Perez when she states, "Lawyers find creative ways to do things." (paraphrased). How did they learn?
"he NCAA enforcement staff used a previously unknown interview technique referred to by one source as “self-corroboration” in the Miami case. ... . Essentially, self-corroboration allowed a subject – in this case Nevin Shapiro – to merely repeat testimony for it to be accepted into the record. Miami president Donna Shalala referred to it Tuesday night in her scathing statement regarding the notice of allegations received by the school.
Replied, Hurricane Donna, “The NCAA enforcement staff acknowledged to the University that if Nevin Shapiro, a convicted con man, said something more than once, it considered the allegation "corroborated"—an argument which is both ludicrous and counter to legal practice.”
In addition, the NCAA DOES know "extra benefits" when it sees them. How 'bout $4,500 to Nevin's commisary account? Not to mention a $20,000 promise to a 'recruit' for their legal team.
Lack of Institutional Control. It was obvious, or else we would have interviewed those people who were in control, A D Dee, and Head Coaches Frank Haith & Randy Shannon. Why should they ask those people anything, when it was obvious that they weren't in control?
Note: Please DO NOT disagree with anything I have written here because it is all absolutely true. Don't believe me? Read it again below & you will!
But like the external investigators, who did not interview (or castigate Mr. Emmert, the NCAA refused to interview the Miami Director of Athletics at the time who was incharge of that 'control', Paul Dee. Why should they, he later became Chairman of the Infractions Committee! Mr. Emerett, can you spell c-o-n-t-r-o-l ?
No need to re-hash the NCAA's own lack of control in this case, as its been well discussed. But it is interesting how the investigative branched DID learn from Ms. Perez when she states, "Lawyers find creative ways to do things." (paraphrased). How did they learn?
"he NCAA enforcement staff used a previously unknown interview technique referred to by one source as “self-corroboration” in the Miami case. ... . Essentially, self-corroboration allowed a subject – in this case Nevin Shapiro – to merely repeat testimony for it to be accepted into the record. Miami president Donna Shalala referred to it Tuesday night in her scathing statement regarding the notice of allegations received by the school.
Replied, Hurricane Donna, “The NCAA enforcement staff acknowledged to the University that if Nevin Shapiro, a convicted con man, said something more than once, it considered the allegation "corroborated"—an argument which is both ludicrous and counter to legal practice.”
In addition, the NCAA DOES know "extra benefits" when it sees them. How 'bout $4,500 to Nevin's commisary account? Not to mention a $20,000 promise to a 'recruit' for their legal team.
Lack of Institutional Control. It was obvious, or else we would have interviewed those people who were in control, A D Dee, and Head Coaches Frank Haith & Randy Shannon. Why should they ask those people anything, when it was obvious that they weren't in control?
Note: Please DO NOT disagree with anything I have written here because it is all absolutely true. Don't believe me? Read it again below & you will!