The NCAA HAS commited extortion

[stormsurge]

Tano, you can get ****ed as **** at an ex-player not testifying and refuting until after the allegations are held true, but let me ask you: If you are a former player and do not feel like answering these questions -for whatever reason - why would you allow yourself to be deposed? They're not employees of UM and may not want to get dragged into this one way or the other for whatever reason. They might be taking the approach of essentially daring the NCAA to name them and find allegations made by NS to be true. If the NCAA did that then they the player might then sue over these published "facts." Wouldn't the NCAA be in the uncomfortable position of trying to defend why they took the word of a convicted Ponzi schemer over a person who had every legal right to not answer questions?

 

[Tano]

Tano, you can get ****ed as **** at an ex-player not testifying and refuting until after the allegations are held true, but let me ask you: If you are a former player and do not feel like answering these questions -for whatever reason - why would you allow yourself to be deposed? They're not employees of UM and may not want to get dragged into this one way or the other for whatever reason. They might be taking the approach of essentially daring the NCAA to name them and find allegations made by NS to be true. If the NCAA did that then they the player might then sue over these published "facts." Wouldn't the NCAA be in the uncomfortable position of trying to defend why they took the word of a convicted Ponzi schemer over a person who had every legal right to not answer questions?

Absolutely, and it'd make the NCAA look like ********, but you can't sue someone just for being an *******.
Aside from that, why "dare the NCAA" to publish allegations as true? If I'm a former player and I truly don't want to be involved at all, I'm not answering the NCAA, but I'm also not going to waste my time and money suing them either.

 

[Scoot Scoot]

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

I don't post here but I read this forum about every hour or so. As a law student, my general understanding is that malice is not a true hurdle. Generally, to prove malice you must prove EITHER i) actual intent to do the particular harm done; OR ii) recklessness (that the actor was aware his actions posed substantial risk of causing the prohibited harm). Just thought I'd add some insight on how I understand the language of the statute and common law principles.

 

[CaneSuger]

Exactly.

The former players have rights. They are not members of the NCAA, and they are not bound by that association's rules. They can't be publicly coerced, flogged, or harassed in to cooperating with the NCAA.

Tano, you can get ****ed as **** at an ex-player not testifying and refuting until after the allegations are held true, but let me ask you: If you are a former player and do not feel like answering these questions -for whatever reason - why would you allow yourself to be deposed? They're not employees of UM and may not want to get dragged into this one way or the other for whatever reason. They might be taking the approach of essentially daring the NCAA to name them and find allegations made by NS to be true. If the NCAA did that then they the player might then sue over these published "facts." Wouldn't the NCAA be in the uncomfortable position of trying to defend why they took the word of a convicted Ponzi schemer over a person who had every legal right to not answer questions?

 

[CaneSuger]

The NCAA typically reports their findings on their website when an investigation is complete.

If I'm a former player, and I read on the NCAA's website that it's believed that I took money under the table from Nevin Shapiro, and all they have is Nevin Shapiro's word.... I'm suing the ********. That's defamation.

Tano, you can get ****ed as **** at an ex-player not testifying and refuting until after the allegations are held true, but let me ask you: If you are a former player and do not feel like answering these questions -for whatever reason - why would you allow yourself to be deposed? They're not employees of UM and may not want to get dragged into this one way or the other for whatever reason. They might be taking the approach of essentially daring the NCAA to name them and find allegations made by NS to be true. If the NCAA did that then they the player might then sue over these published "facts." Wouldn't the NCAA be in the uncomfortable position of trying to defend why they took the word of a convicted Ponzi schemer over a person who had every legal right to not answer questions?

Absolutely, and it'd make the NCAA look like ********, but you can't sue someone just for being an *******.
Aside from that, why "dare the NCAA" to publish allegations as true? If I'm a former player and I truly don't want to be involved at all, I'm not answering the NCAA, but I'm also not going to waste my time and money suing them either.

 

[Tano]

The NCAA typically reports their findings on their website when an investigation is complete.

If I'm a former player, and I read on the NCAA's website that it's believed that I took money under the table from Nevin Shapiro, and all they have is Nevin Shapiro's word.... I'm suing the ********. That's defamation.

Tano, you can get ****ed as **** at an ex-player not testifying and refuting until after the allegations are held true, but let me ask you: If you are a former player and do not feel like answering these questions -for whatever reason - why would you allow yourself to be deposed? They're not employees of UM and may not want to get dragged into this one way or the other for whatever reason. They might be taking the approach of essentially daring the NCAA to name them and find allegations made by NS to be true. If the NCAA did that then they the player might then sue over these published "facts." Wouldn't the NCAA be in the uncomfortable position of trying to defend why they took the word of a convicted Ponzi schemer over a person who had every legal right to not answer questions?

Absolutely, and it'd make the NCAA look like ********, but you can't sue someone just for being an *******.
Aside from that, why "dare the NCAA" to publish allegations as true? If I'm a former player and I truly don't want to be involved at all, I'm not answering the NCAA, but I'm also not going to waste my time and money suing them either.

Of which truth is an affirmative defense.
Meaning in the end, you're STILL subjecting yourself to have to testify under oath about what you did and didn't take. Do you not see how silly that is?
"I refuse to have my deposition taken! So I'm going to sue you when you draw your own conclusions based upon other evidence and GIVE you the power to take my deposition!"
If the goal is to NOT have your deposition taken, then that **** is retarded.

Aside from that, if the NCAA is able to present OTHER evidence that would lead it to rationally conclude that the allegations were true and can show a rational connection between the evidence and the allegation, then it can simply argue that it published its conclusions based upon THAT evidence, and not simply because the player refused to testify.

 

[stormsurge]

Tano, you can get ****ed as **** at an ex-player not testifying and refuting until after the allegations are held true, but let me ask you: If you are a former player and do not feel like answering these questions -for whatever reason - why would you allow yourself to be deposed? They're not employees of UM and may not want to get dragged into this one way or the other for whatever reason. They might be taking the approach of essentially daring the NCAA to name them and find allegations made by NS to be true. If the NCAA did that then they the player might then sue over these published "facts." Wouldn't the NCAA be in the uncomfortable position of trying to defend why they took the word of a convicted Ponzi schemer over a person who had every legal right to not answer questions?

Absolutely, and it'd make the NCAA look like ********, but you can't sue someone just for being an *******.
Aside from that, why "dare the NCAA" to publish allegations as true? If I'm a former player and I truly don't want to be involved at all, I'm not answering the NCAA, but I'm also not going to waste my time and money suing them either.

Unless they name me as having broken rules in which case I might then be sufficiently motivated (and who would blame them if this happened) reason to get involved.

Aside from that, if the NCAA is able to present OTHER evidence that would lead it to rationally conclude that the allegations were true and can show a rational connection between the evidence and the allegation, then it can simply argue that it published its conclusions based upon THAT evidence, and not simply because the player refused to testify.

OK. I believe you're talking about having serious corroborating evidence but that CE better be impressive. As a Canes fan, I'd feel better if the NCAA were to stick only to charges that had serious CE to buttress the claim versus what this letter seemed to state to my non-lawyer-trained eye which seemed to open the door a lot wider than that.

 

[CaneSuger]

What if the truth is that half of Shapiro's claims are BS? It's very, very possible that many of these former players are innocent of some, most, or all of the allegations.

There are many reasons for not wanting to cooperate with the NCAA... but the bottom line is that the NCAA has no moral or legal authority to compel them to.

"I don't want to cooperate with you because I'd rather sleep in, then I'll be busy grooming my dog and re-lacing my shoelaces" is a perfectly valid reason. They don't belong to the NCAA.

The NCAA better be **** sure that whatever they publish IS THE TRUTH, or, like I said, sue the ********.

The NCAA typically reports their findings on their website when an investigation is complete.

If I'm a former player, and I read on the NCAA's website that it's believed that I took money under the table from Nevin Shapiro, and all they have is Nevin Shapiro's word.... I'm suing the ********. That's defamation.

Tano, you can get ****ed as **** at an ex-player not testifying and refuting until after the allegations are held true, but let me ask you: If you are a former player and do not feel like answering these questions -for whatever reason - why would you allow yourself to be deposed? They're not employees of UM and may not want to get dragged into this one way or the other for whatever reason. They might be taking the approach of essentially daring the NCAA to name them and find allegations made by NS to be true. If the NCAA did that then they the player might then sue over these published "facts." Wouldn't the NCAA be in the uncomfortable position of trying to defend why they took the word of a convicted Ponzi schemer over a person who had every legal right to not answer questions?

Absolutely, and it'd make the NCAA look like ********, but you can't sue someone just for being an *******.
Aside from that, why "dare the NCAA" to publish allegations as true? If I'm a former player and I truly don't want to be involved at all, I'm not answering the NCAA, but I'm also not going to waste my time and money suing them either.

Of which truth is an affirmative defense.
Meaning in the end, you're STILL subjecting yourself to have to testify under oath about what you did and didn't take. Do you not see how silly that is?
"I refuse to have my deposition taken! So I'm going to sue you when you draw your own conclusions based upon other evidence and GIVE you the power to take my deposition!"
If the goal is to NOT have your deposition taken, then that **** is retarded.

Aside from that, if the NCAA is able to present OTHER evidence that would lead it to rationally conclude that the allegations were true and can show a rational connection between the evidence and the allegation, then it can simply argue that it published its conclusions based upon THAT evidence, and not simply because the player refused to testify.

 

[umhurricano]

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.

Exactly, same reason the Shapiro bankruptcy proceedings were so dangerous. The NCAA does not have subpoena power, but if you make this an actual court case it is more likely to hurt us because the NCAA can use public information uncovered in a court case as part of their case, dragging this thing out for years and making us look worse.

Our best bet here is the court of public opinion.

 

[deleted1562]

If a player were to sue the NCAA for extortion, why would the player have to depose precisely what the NCAA was allegedly extorting? It goes against all logic.

The way I see it is if Player X sues the NCAA for extortion, it makes no difference what was being extorted. It only matters if something was indeed being extorted.

That something could be anything, but it doesn't matter with regards to proving extortion except for proving that it could injure the reputation of a person. You don't need to know what happened to decide whether or not revealing such information could injure the reputation of a person -- it's pretty obvious that it could.

On top of that, you need to prove malicious intent.

To prove malicious intent you need to show willful doing of an injurious act without what is considered a lawful excuse. Malicious intent in this case, in my opinion, is obvious. The injurious act, as previously describe in my third paragraph, is forcing the release of information that could potentially harm the reputation of a person. The NCAA does not have what is considered a lawful excuse to be forcing aforementioned information be released because the former players are not members of the NCAA, and because the players have 5th Amendment rights stating "no person shall be held to answer for a ... crime ... unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury."

I think an extortion case is within reason, and the players would not need to depose their actions to prove extortion, but I'm not a lawyer.

 

[Gamineal]

If I am an attorney repping UM, my smile is from ear to ear this morning.

I would be too....more dragged out income flow..the real issue is for two years what have they been doing?? Waiting for us to self impose year after year?

 

[CaneSuger]

You all need to stop assuming that the only reason players aren't cooperating is because they have something to hide.

I know if I were a former player, I wouldn't cooperate with the NCAA regardless.

 

[jevoasis]

Clearly, they have a stack of receipts from bars & restaurants, but no names on them. Just cause NS said this or that player was there is not enough, so now they are desperate to put names to those receipts. If they can't, they know its impossible for them to justify using is as evidence against us...so, everyone needs to keep their ******* mouths shut, and let the 'deadline' come and go.

 

[CaneSuger]

NCAA told these former players, in other words, "you're still a slave. No matter how much money you got, you still ain't ****"

 

[tsimonitis]

Think back to a time 5/6 years ago when you were at a bar and drinking. Now name 6 people that were without a doubt there, how many drinks each one had, and which ones were on your tab.

Clearly, they have a stack of receipts from bars & restaurants, but no names on them. Just cause NS said this or that player was there is not enough, so now they are desperate to put names to those receipts. If they can't, they know its impossible for them to justify using is as evidence against us...so, everyone needs to keep their ******* mouths shut, and let the 'deadline' come and go.

 

[CANE4LIFE]

Couple of things here. COULDNT the players file a lawsuit naming the NCAA AND Shapiro for defamation? CLEARLY Shapiro has malice and ill intent, and the NCAA is acting on his behalf. They would obviously fight it, but its a PR black eye for the NCAA. They will be lumped in with a convicted felon, and liar, who is their "star witness".

Secondly, how is this letter NOT malice? It is a THREAT that they will assume a player is a RULE BREAKER, if they do not cooperate with the investigation. They are deliberately using COERCION to force someone to talk to them, at the THREAT, that they will then make a FINDING, that the world of a convicted FELON and LIAR's allegations are accurate.

What they are saying is "You talk to us, or we will make a finding that the convicted felon and LIAR Nevin Shapiro's claims against you are correct. They are saying that they are going to VALIDATE the allegations of a convicted liar, against a player, for nothing else than refusing to cooperate, WHICH, they are under NO obligation to do.

IMO this is defamation, and it IS malice. The MALICE is that they are going to publically claim that the stories of a convicted LIAR are TRUE against a former player, becuase that player refused to be interviewed, which they are under NO obligation to do.

That is like the New York Times saying, we are going to publish an article saying that OUR FINDINGS show that you are a CHILD MOLESTER, because you did not agree to be interviewed, regarding some allegation made by a convicted liar, that you molested kids.

This is coercsion, and the very TEXT of the letter SHOWS the malice. They are saying that they are going to believe the word of a convicted LIAR, with NO evidence, thus SMEARING the reputation of the player, for non-coperation. That is the basis of a lawsuit IMO.

 

[stormsurge]

Think back to a time 5/6 years ago when you were at a bar and drinking. Now name 6 people that were without a doubt there, how many drinks each one had, and which ones were on your tab.

Clearly, they have a stack of receipts from bars & restaurants, but no names on them. Just cause NS said this or that player was there is not enough, so now they are desperate to put names to those receipts. If they can't, they know its impossible for them to justify using is as evidence against us...so, everyone needs to keep their ****ing mouths shut, and let the 'deadline' come and go.

Especially if you claim to have done this many times with many different players. How the **** can anyone recall who was there and what you did for each unless you have written records?

 

[tsimonitis]

Dear Diary,

Today I went bowling with 3 Miami football player....

Think back to a time 5/6 years ago when you were at a bar and drinking. Now name 6 people that were without a doubt there, how many drinks each one had, and which ones were on your tab.

Clearly, they have a stack of receipts from bars & restaurants, but no names on them. Just cause NS said this or that player was there is not enough, so now they are desperate to put names to those receipts. If they can't, they know its impossible for them to justify using is as evidence against us...so, everyone needs to keep their ****ing mouths shut, and let the 'deadline' come and go.

Especially if you claim to have done this many times with many different players. How the **** can anyone recall who was there and what you did for each unless you have written records?

 

[Tano]

You guys aren't looking at this clearly.

This letter basically asserts that they'll take the word of a billion dollar ponzi schemer solely based on the lack of cooperation from the player. That might make it into the notice of allegations, but you all understand that they are still going to have to prove that at the NCAA hearing, right? Good luck with that.

"Derp derp we just assumed that because the player didn't want to talk that the allegations must be true"
- Well where's your evidence?
"lol wut?"
- Allegation dismissed

I'm starting to think that the best thing for the former players to do is to calmly extend both middle fingers to the NCAA and let that **** ride.

 

[TallyCane]

Either NCAA is a bunch of idiots or Nevin is a genius. Who can believe this guy.