The NCAA HAS commited extortion

[Tano]

The malicious element is the hurdle here. Where's the malice?

 

[Tano]

I believe malicious intent is fairly easy to establish, however, generally a claim of extortion cannot be predicated on a threat to do an act which a person has a lawful right to do. In other words, this may not be extortion because the NCAA jerks have the right to deem the silence as an admission.

This is just one of the many ways the NCAA is garbage...they are blatantly and transparently claiming UM is guilty until proven innocent based primarily on the testimony of a vindictive swindler. The Herald has taken the right tone and needs to dig a little deeper and point the spotlight back at the NCAA rather than the U. I am not surprised by the NCAA--I think they applied similar tactics in their investigation of Reggie Bush--but it is appalling nonetheless that the former players are being strong-armed into testifying and potentially further incriminating themselves and the U.

It's a Canes thing, you wouldn't understand! Get the **** out of Miami you stinkin NCAA!

The bold is why there's no malice. It would be hard to establish malice, and I think the burden is clear and convincing evidence, against the NCAA if they had already made several good faith efforts to conduct their investigation and were met with non-cooperation. I don't see how the malicious intent could be established if the intent is to complete a lawful investigation. If the intent was to defame UM or the players, then sure, that's malice. But it'd be very hard to prove that the NCAA had ill will here, IMHO.

 

[stormsurge]

Tano, even if the malice hurdle never gets cleared what about other potential problems this letter could cause the NCAA?

For instance, if some former players are ****ed enough to sue - even if they don't eventually win - then couldn't the litigation force the NCAA to give up their emails and communication logs? This could be quite embarrassing to them, and maybe worse.

Not a lawyer here but I am interested in your thoughts.

 

[howlinhurricane]

I think of the NCAA like the Commissioner of the NFL...yielding considerable power with little or no checks on this power. Jurisdiction is a foreign word to the NCAA. They are able to interpret their OWN rules as they see fit, including giving deference to a ponzi schemer with a rather large chip on his shoulder and idle time.

Giving the testimony more teeth by player admissions seems to me like a public relations tactic more than anything. The NCAA--based upon their recently disclosed letter (the publishing of which puts major egg on the face of the NCAA)--has already made up their mind that the infractions were made. It is now up to the former players to refute. I think we already know how this is going to play out if the NCAA believes the testimony of Shapiro.

 

[Tano]

Tano, even if the malice hurdle never gets cleared what about other potential problems this letter could cause the NCAA?

For instance, if some former players are ****ed enough to sue - even if they don't eventually win - then couldn't the litigation force the NCAA to give up their emails and communication logs? This could be quite embarrassing to them, and maybe worse.

Not a lawyer here but I am interested in your thoughts.

The players would sue for what, defamation? But truth is an affirmative defense to defamation, and now since you've filed suit against the NCAA, you've by de-facto given the NCAA subpoena power to deposition the player plaintiffs to develop their affirmative defense of truth....thereby accomplishing what they originally set out to do (obtain the player testimony). The last thing the players want to do is sue the NCAA on those grounds, because they'd then be court ordered to have their deposition taken.

 

[mirvin88]

Couldn't the malice be defamation?

 

[numerounocane]

Does the phrase arbitrary and capricious mean anything to y'all?

 

[Tano]

Couldn't the malice be defamation?

But again, truth is an affirmative defense to defamation. And no, malice is an element of defamation (or can be, in Florida for public figures).

 

[Tano]

Does the phrase arbitrary and capricious mean anything to y'all?

You can apply that to courts, but could you apply it to a private organization? I don't think so.

 

[mirvin88]

Couldn't the malice be defamation?

But again, truth is an affirmative defense to defamation. And no, malice is an element of defamation (or can be, in Florida for public figures).

I know but it's obvious they can't prove it if they are resorting to this

 

[CaneSuger]

Tano,

The players wouldn't sue until after the NCAA case is over. Think about it, all the letter does is threaten to defame the players by putting it out there that they are guilty of taking benefits from that lowlife Nevin Shapiro.

If they actually make good on that threat, THAT'S when you'd sue. Until then, there aren't really damages.

After the NCAA case is over, who really cares if they subpoena the players? At that point, the NCAA has a lot more to lose than Miami or the players do.

Tano, even if the malice hurdle never gets cleared what about other potential problems this letter could cause the NCAA?

For instance, if some former players are ****ed enough to sue - even if they don't eventually win - then couldn't the litigation force the NCAA to give up their emails and communication logs? This could be quite embarrassing to them, and maybe worse.

Not a lawyer here but I am interested in your thoughts.

The players would sue for what, defamation? But truth is an affirmative defense to defamation, and now since you've filed suit against the NCAA, you've by de-facto given the NCAA subpoena power to deposition the player plaintiffs to develop their affirmative defense of truth....thereby accomplishing what they originally set out to do (obtain the player testimony). The last thing the players want to do is sue the NCAA on those grounds, because they'd then be court ordered to have their deposition taken.

 

[donutface]

Maybe the NCAA is smarter than we think and is trying to bait a lawsuit where then the players would have to speak and under oath.

 

[Tano]

Couldn't the malice be defamation?

But again, truth is an affirmative defense to defamation. And no, malice is an element of defamation (or can be, in Florida for public figures).

I know but it's obvious they can't prove it if they are resorting to this

Well you can choose to take that away from all this, but it's a dangerous game to play, because it gives the NCAA a public forum to dump all their evidence against us in a nice neat little package. A public flogging, if you will.

But more importantly, regardless what happens with this element of the investigation, the NCAA will still wield uninhibited power against us to smack us with loss of institutional control, or, and don't underestimate the importance of this, slam us with repeat offender status. And they don't necessarily need the player testimony to do that. We're self imposing and fully cooperating to avoid those two tags...but a lawsuit would go a long way in eliminating all of that good will.

Face it gents, the NCAA has us by the balls in more ways than one. It's a dangerous game to play to start talking about suing them. And if you want the players themselves to sue as a means to keep UM out of it, well...good luck....because you'd be giving the NCAA the legal right to subpoena the players anyway, which eliminates their intent to keep quiet and not snitch in the first place.

 

[mirvin88]

Maybe the NCAA is smarter than we think and is trying to bait a lawsuit where then the players would have to speak and under oath.

Just don't do anything until after the investigation is over. Who cares what comes out after that

 

[Tano]

Tano,

The players wouldn't sue until after the NCAA case is over. Think about it, all the letter does is threaten to defame the players by putting it out there that they are guilty of taking benefits from that lowlife Nevin Shapiro.

If they actually make good on that threat, THAT'S when you'd sue. Until then, there aren't really damages.

After the NCAA case is over, who really cares if they subpoena the players? At that point, the NCAA has a lot more to lose than Miami or the players do.

Tano, even if the malice hurdle never gets cleared what about other potential problems this letter could cause the NCAA?

For instance, if some former players are ****ed enough to sue - even if they don't eventually win - then couldn't the litigation force the NCAA to give up their emails and communication logs? This could be quite embarrassing to them, and maybe worse.

Not a lawyer here but I am interested in your thoughts.

The players would sue for what, defamation? But truth is an affirmative defense to defamation, and now since you've filed suit against the NCAA, you've by de-facto given the NCAA subpoena power to deposition the player plaintiffs to develop their affirmative defense of truth....thereby accomplishing what they originally set out to do (obtain the player testimony). The last thing the players want to do is sue the NCAA on those grounds, because they'd then be court ordered to have their deposition taken.

And how does that benefit the University? By then, the investigation would have completed and UM would have already been slammed with penalties for the allegations that they didn't refute via testimony.

 

[mirvin88]

Couldn't the malice be defamation?

But again, truth is an affirmative defense to defamation. And no, malice is an element of defamation (or can be, in Florida for public figures).

I know but it's obvious they can't prove it if they are resorting to this

Well you can choose to take that away from all this, but it's a dangerous game to play, because it gives the NCAA a public forum to dump all their evidence against us in a nice neat little package. A public flogging, if you will.

But more importantly, regardless what happens with this element of the investigation, the NCAA will still wield uninhibited power against us to smack us with loss of institutional control, or, and don't underestimate the importance of this, slam us with repeat offender status. And they don't necessarily need the player testimony to do that. We're self imposing and fully cooperating to avoid those two tags...but a lawsuit would go a long way in eliminating all of that good will.

Face it gents, the NCAA has us by the balls in more ways than one. It's a dangerous game to play to start talking about suing them. And if you want the players themselves to sue as a means to keep UM out of it, well...good luck....because you'd be giving the NCAA the legal right to subpoena the players anyway, which eliminates their intent to keep quiet and not snitch in the first place.

No way in **** you do anything through the legal system now. After the investigation who cares if some defamed players want to clear their name and embarrass the NCAA

 

[Tano]

Aside from that, it wouldn't make any ****** sense to sue after the investigation is over. Because by suing, they have their depositions taken, where they would presumably REFUTE the allegations anyway....so why not just do that now and be done with this ****?

If they sue for defamation, they are going to have their depositions taken and they are going to have to refute the allegations or they'll lose the case under the affirmative defense of truth.

If they sue for defamation and have their depositions taken and DO refute the allegations, then I'm going to be ****ed as ****....because by then, the NCAA would have presumably already moved forward with its investigation and ruled that all the allegations are true....if that's the case, then why wouldn't the players have cooperated and refuted the allegations to alleviate the harshness of the penalty in the first place?!

It defies logic to wait until after the investigation is over to refute the allegations.

 

[mirvin88]

Aside from that, it wouldn't make any ****** sense to sue after the investigation is over. Because by suing, they have their depositions taken, where they would presumably REFUTE the allegations anyway....so why not just do that now and be done with this ****?

If they sue for defamation, they are going to have their depositions taken and they are going to have to refute the allegations or they'll lose the case under the affirmative defense of truth.

If they sue for defamation and have their depositions taken and DO refute the allegations, then I'm going to be ****ed as ****....because by then, the NCAA would have presumably already moved forward with its investigation and ruled that all the allegations are true....if that's the case, then why wouldn't the players have cooperated and refuted the allegations to alleviate the harshness of the penalty in the first place?!

It defies logic to wait until after the investigation is over to refute the allegations.

You sold me

 

[CaneSuger]

Any lawsuit for defamation wouldn't come from Miami, it would come from the players who were injured by the defamation. All Miami has done, to date, is cooperate and, in fact, they have tried to get former players to cooperate as well.

The former players are separate from the university, and they have rights here as well. They can't be compelled to testify by an association they're not even a member of. They never signed up for that. They can't be publicly flogged, shamed, or extorted, in to testifying. They have every right in the world to stand up for their own good name and to take legal action if they believe they have been harmed illegally.

Tano,

The players wouldn't sue until after the NCAA case is over. Think about it, all the letter does is threaten to defame the players by putting it out there that they are guilty of taking benefits from that lowlife Nevin Shapiro.

If they actually make good on that threat, THAT'S when you'd sue. Until then, there aren't really damages.

After the NCAA case is over, who really cares if they subpoena the players? At that point, the NCAA has a lot more to lose than Miami or the players do.

Tano, even if the malice hurdle never gets cleared what about other potential problems this letter could cause the NCAA?

For instance, if some former players are ****ed enough to sue - even if they don't eventually win - then couldn't the litigation force the NCAA to give up their emails and communication logs? This could be quite embarrassing to them, and maybe worse.

Not a lawyer here but I am interested in your thoughts.

The players would sue for what, defamation? But truth is an affirmative defense to defamation, and now since you've filed suit against the NCAA, you've by de-facto given the NCAA subpoena power to deposition the player plaintiffs to develop their affirmative defense of truth....thereby accomplishing what they originally set out to do (obtain the player testimony). The last thing the players want to do is sue the NCAA on those grounds, because they'd then be court ordered to have their deposition taken.

And how does that benefit the University? By then, the investigation would have completed and UM would have already been slammed with penalties for the allegations that they didn't refute via testimony.

 

[JHallCanes]

Aside from that, it wouldn't make any ****** sense to sue after the investigation is over. Because by suing, they have their depositions taken, where they would presumably REFUTE the allegations anyway....so why not just do that now and be done with this ****?

If they sue for defamation, they are going to have their depositions taken and they are going to have to refute the allegations or they'll lose the case under the affirmative defense of truth.

If they sue for defamation and have their depositions taken and DO refute the allegations, then I'm going to be ****ed as ****....because by then, the NCAA would have presumably already moved forward with its investigation and ruled that all the allegations are true....if that's the case, then why wouldn't the players have cooperated and refuted the allegations to alleviate the harshness of the penalty in the first place?!

It defies logic to wait until after the investigation is over to refute the allegations.

Well said.