Question for Dapper

[DCH]

let me ask you this Dapper, my reading of that bylaw you are posting seems to indicate that they can present Shapiro's allegations as evidence in and of itself so long as he is willing to be identified which he obviously is. Is that incorrect? Where is there a requirement that anything needs to be corroborated? Obviously the COI will and enforcement should take into consideration the source, but is there any requirement in and of itself that a third party allegation must be accompanied by corroborating evidence?

 

[DapperSlapper]

let me ask you this Dapper, my reading of that bylaw you are posting seems to indicate that they can present Shapiro's allegations as evidence in and of itself so long as he is willing to be identified which he obviously is. Is that incorrect? Where is there a requirement that anything needs to be corroborated? Obviously the COI will and enforcement should take into consideration the source, but is there any requirement in and of itself that a third party allegation must be accompanied by corroborating evidence?

There is no specific bylaw on it, but it's like "corpus delicti" (which translates to "body of a crime" more or less) in Florida criminal law. Without some independent evidence that a crime was committed, a confession in Florida is inadmissible. In an infractions hearing, one person's word that an infraction occurred is useless without some information that corroborates it (or shows THAT an infraction occurred).

 

[deleted1562]

if you read Charles Robinson's recent tweets, it corroborates much of what DapperSlapper is saying.

Don't care what that hack has to say

Wait a minute, are Charles Robinson's tweets backing up what the NCAA is doing or are they more on our side? There's no way they're on our side... Anyone care to post them?

 

[DapperSlapper]

Is it extortion?

I don't think the letter would qualify as extortion, but when I'm involved in criminal cases, I'm the one arguing (like Clay Davis) "There's no crime here!"

Former players will not be named in the Public Report so it's hard to say that they are being threatened with being exposed to disgrace or harm to their reputations. That's just my take off the top of my head.

 

[CaneWasher]

if you read Charles Robinson's recent tweets, it corroborates much of what DapperSlapper is saying.

Don't care what that hack has to say

Wait a minute, are Charles Robinson's tweets backing up what the NCAA is doing or are they more on our side? There's no way they're on our side... Anyone care to post them?

He said that the NCAA likely has evidence against the players who got the letter, and this is their way of saying that they gave us every chance to defend ourselves.

 

[Cane Steve]

if you read Charles Robinson's recent tweets, it corroborates much of what DapperSlapper is saying.

Don't care what that hack has to say

Wait a minute, are Charles Robinson's tweets backing up what the NCAA is doing or are they more on our side? There's no way they're on our side... Anyone care to post them?

He said that the NCAA likely has evidence against the players who got the letter, and this is their way of saying that they gave us every chance to defend ourselves.

I hope charles robinson dies in a fire.

 

[CaneWasher]

He also says, like Dapper, that they can't use this when they present their case before the COI.

 

[umhurricano]

His point makes sense, though, and is the most logical way to read the letter, IMO. If former players don't speak to the NCAA they can't deny charges made against them. Probably could in some instances and bad in others. We are probably inferring more from the letter than it tells us. Kind of reminds me of things recruits say...

 

[JerseyCanes]

^^^^ Which is a Farce!! Thats means every friggin ****Sucker who says that he gave ANY player something and has a picture of that player with him Means he's telling the truth? And Now he has to defend himself..... Total Bull****...

JC

 

[CaneWasher]

^^^^ Which is a Farce!! Thats means every friggin ****Sucker who says that he gave ANY player something and has a picture of that player with him Means he's telling the truth? And Now he has to defend himself..... Total Bull****...

JC

To me, that's not what they're saying. I read it as "we have actual proof against you, this is your last chance to provide something to mitigate the accusations".

 

[Dingaan1828]

^^^^ Which is a Farce!! Thats means every friggin ****Sucker who says that he gave ANY player something and has a picture of that player with him Means he's telling the truth? And Now he has to defend himself..... Total Bull****...

JC

To me, that's not what they're saying. I read it as "we have actual proof against you, this is your last chance to provide something to mitigate the accusations".

If they had the proof, they wouldn't bother sending these letters. I don't believe for a second that they are interested in mitigating anything. I think it's a shameless attempt to coerce people into self-incrimination.

 

[BigCaneAl]

Is it extortion?

I don't think the letter would qualify as extortion, but when I'm involved in criminal cases, I'm the one arguing (like Clay Davis) "There's no crime here!"

Former players will not be named in the Public Report so it's hard to say that they are being threatened with being exposed to disgrace or harm to their reputations. That's just my take off the top of my head.

Sorry, I am not an attorney....but why do you have to be named, or harm done to your reputation for it to be extortion? Couldn't it simply be based on the threat of harm to the university which you ostensibly care about? The letter reads like cooperate or we'll hammer the U even harder.

 

[JerseyCanes]

^^^^ Which is a Farce!! Thats means every friggin ****Sucker who says that he gave ANY player something and has a picture of that player with him Means he's telling the truth? And Now he has to defend himself..... Total Bull****...

JC

To me, that's not what they're saying. I read it as "we have actual proof against you, this is your last chance to provide something to mitigate the accusations".

Why would a former player give himself up to a rogue organization it has NO authority over? Stay out of it. If they had it - they wouldn't need you. The NCAA aren't into being sympathetic to offenders.

JC

 

[Canesfan1899]

So your going to punish players and coaches that had no contact or relationship with these players from years ago because they have chosen not to talk. That makes sense. What a ******* sham this whole thing has turned into.

They could've made that ultimatum a year ago and had this thing all wrapped up. This tells me they don't have **** and are still hunting for the kill shot. What a bunch of ********.

 

[DapperSlapper]

So your going to punish players and coaches that had no contact or relationship with these players from years ago because they have chosen not to talk. That makes sense. What a ******* sham this whole thing has turned into.

They could've made that ultimatum a year ago and had this thing all wrapped up. This tells me they don't have **** and are still hunting for the kill shot. What a bunch of ********.

Who is going to punish anyone for not talking? As I posted from my first post on the issue of this letter last night, it is NCAA Enforcement that will take silence to be an admission. A former chair of the COI gave the same opinion today in Dennis Dodd's article. The COI will determine what has been proven. I strongly believe that the COI will not use silence as an admission of anything - I posted my reason for that belief in this thread. Several other attorneys in addition to me share that belief (even if the others have not said exactly why) - many of these opinions have been in media reports.

People are overreacting to this letter because they don't understand what it's saying. First, you have to recognize that NCAA Enforcement is different from the COI. Once you do that, it's easier to understand without getting all riled up.

 

[CaneDaddy]

Dapps, you gon be famous

Papa Cane ‏@ByPapaCane Here is a comprehensive thread on the NCAA issue and explanation by a very knowledgable Canes fan. http://ow.ly/1PG0lU @CanesInSight

Expand

• Reply
• Retweeted
• Favorite

 

[Canesfan1899]

So your going to punish players and coaches that had no contact or relationship with these players from years ago because they have chosen not to talk. That makes sense. What a ******* sham this whole thing has turned into.

They could've made that ultimatum a year ago and had this thing all wrapped up. This tells me they don't have **** and are still hunting for the kill shot. What a bunch of ********.

Who is going to punish anyone for not talking? As I posted from my first post on the issue of this letter last night, it is NCAA Enforcement that will take silence to be an admission. A former chair of the COI gave the same opinion today in Dennis Dodd's article. The COI will determine what has been proven. I strongly believe that the COI will not use silence as an admission of anything - I posted my reason for that belief in this thread. Several other attorneys in addition to me share that belief (even if the others have not said exactly why) - many of these opinions have been in media reports.

People are overreacting to this letter because they don't understand what it's saying. First, you have to recognize that NCAA Enforcement is different from the COI. Once you do that, it's easier to understand without getting all riled up.

I will step off the ledge as you seem far more educated on the intricacies of the NCAA than I.

 

[CaneWasher]

^^^^ Which is a Farce!! Thats means every friggin ****Sucker who says that he gave ANY player something and has a picture of that player with him Means he's telling the truth? And Now he has to defend himself..... Total Bull****...

JC

To me, that's not what they're saying. I read it as "we have actual proof against you, this is your last chance to provide something to mitigate the accusations".

If they had the proof, they wouldn't bother sending these letters. I don't believe for a second that they are interested in mitigating anything. I think it's a shameless attempt to coerce people into self-incrimination.

I sure hope you're right!

 

[bolivar]

Question: Is there any proof that the UM compliance office or Athletic Dept had any knowledge of all of these claims? If not, why punish the school for something that they had no knowledge of?

 

[cane305]

Now that I have calmed down and read all the threads and posts, it appears that this new letter really isn't worth much substance.