The NCAA HAS commited extortion

[CANE4LIFE]

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.

Disagree, I think they should all just mail a letter back through their attorney's saying "My client categorically denies EVER having committed ANY infraction while at the University of Miami, nor do they have ANY evidence or recollection of ANY violations being committed at the University of Miami. Any further insinuation of such, without specific proof, will be considered defamatory and will result in legal action. Consider this all the cooperation we are giving. We DENY everything. Thank you for your time".

 

[rsa coral gables]

1. the gator lawyer is not leading the investigation. i'm pretty certain that she is equal to an "associate" in a law firm that might be doing the leg work but is being directed by a more senior attorney.

2. respectfully, citations to Florida law and to the FSU case are misplaced. pretty certain that all member institutions like UM who chose to be part of the NCAA have waived the right to sue the NCAA unless the NCAA breaches the organizational documents/agreements. the FSU case involved an access to information of a public institution and therefore is not relevant to this discussion. in that case the NCAA wanted to avoid the dissemination of the transcript of a penalty hearing and it lost.

3. the NCAA probably has the right to chose whatever standard it wants with respect to its own investigations and Miami cannot do crap about it.

having said all of the above, the tactic being used in heavy-handed and unfair and I think it will discredit the NCAA greatly. it also says a lot about the state of the investigation (the NOA has not been sent and is probably not imminent) and the amount of evidence or lack thereof that the NCAA appears to have

 

[deleted1562]

2. respectfully, citations to Florida law and to the FSU case are misplaced. pretty certain that all member institutions like UM who chose to be part of the NCAA have waived the right to sue the NCAA unless the NCAA breaches the organizational documents/agreements. the FSU case involved an access to information of a public institution and therefore is not relevant to this discussion. in that case the NCAA wanted to avoid the dissemination of the transcript of a penalty hearing and it lost.

The school wouldn't be the one to potentially file suit, the ex-players would be because it is their reputations that are being damaged.

3. the NCAA probably has the right to chose whatever standard it wants with respect to its own investigations and Miami cannot do crap about it.

The school may have to abide by the NCAA's rules, however "heavy-handed" they may be, but the ex-players are not members of the NCAA and are not subjects of its fiefdom. On top of that, every citizen of the United States has the 5th Amendment right to keep their mouth shut. The ex-players do not have to talk.

See bolded replies.

 

[cane305]

I'm really ****ed not at this bs tactic, but at the fact that we will have to wait another year or two to officially have this resolved.

What the ***** was the NCAA doing the past two years?

 

[rsa coral gables]

2. respectfully, citations to Florida law and to the FSU case are misplaced. pretty certain that all member institutions like UM who chose to be part of the NCAA have waived the right to sue the NCAA unless the NCAA breaches the organizational documents/agreements. the FSU case involved an access to information of a public institution and therefore is not relevant to this discussion. in that case the NCAA wanted to avoid the dissemination of the transcript of a penalty hearing and it lost.

The school wouldn't be the one to potentially file suit, the ex-players would be because it is their reputations that are being damaged.

3. the NCAA probably has the right to chose whatever standard it wants with respect to its own investigations and Miami cannot do crap about it.

The school may have to abide by the NCAA's rules, however "heavy-handed" they may be, but the ex-players are not members of the NCAA and are not subjects of its fiefdom. On top of that, every citizen of the United States has the 5th Amendment right to keep their mouth shut. The ex-players do not have to talk.

See bolded replies.

you are correct, but that has nothing to do with Miami or the investigation

 

[Bimini Twist]

We have a top notch law school. I have worked with some Miami grad lawyers (who don't work on saturdays) they have had their way with many of other lawyers in some civilian cases. Miami lawyer vs UFail lawyer no contest.
I would imagine that a lawyer writing an extortion letter get disbarred. Stupid is as stupid does.

 

[deleted1562]

2. respectfully, citations to Florida law and to the FSU case are misplaced. pretty certain that all member institutions like UM who chose to be part of the NCAA have waived the right to sue the NCAA unless the NCAA breaches the organizational documents/agreements. the FSU case involved an access to information of a public institution and therefore is not relevant to this discussion. in that case the NCAA wanted to avoid the dissemination of the transcript of a penalty hearing and it lost.

The school wouldn't be the one to potentially file suit, the ex-players would be because it is their reputations that are being damaged.

3. the NCAA probably has the right to chose whatever standard it wants with respect to its own investigations and Miami cannot do crap about it.

The school may have to abide by the NCAA's rules, however "heavy-handed" they may be, but the ex-players are not members of the NCAA and are not subjects of its fiefdom. On top of that, every citizen of the United States has the 5th Amendment right to keep their mouth shut. The ex-players do not have to talk.

See bolded replies.

you are correct, but that has nothing to do with Miami or the investigation

Seriously? Someone else can take that one if they'd like. I won't bother replying to that any more than this: Ignored.

 

[CanesAreAble]

I'm really ****ed not at this bs tactic, but at the fact that we will have to wait another year or two to officially have this resolved.

What the ***** was the NCAA doing the past two years?

Playing snake

 

[mirvin88]

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.

I'm on board with that. Tell them to **** off and hope the media storm blows up to humiliate then

 

[PuertoRiCane]

It really doesn't matter. At the end of the day, the NCAA will do what it wants and what they want is to bury UM. Until that happens, they won't stop.

 

[dookie blaylock]

2. respectfully, citations to Florida law and to the FSU case are misplaced. pretty certain that all member institutions like UM who chose to be part of the NCAA have waived the right to sue the NCAA unless the NCAA breaches the organizational documents/agreements. the FSU case involved an access to information of a public institution and therefore is not relevant to this discussion. in that case the NCAA wanted to avoid the dissemination of the transcript of a penalty hearing and it lost.

The school wouldn't be the one to potentially file suit, the ex-players would be because it is their reputations that are being damaged.

3. the NCAA probably has the right to chose whatever standard it wants with respect to its own investigations and Miami cannot do crap about it.

The school may have to abide by the NCAA's rules, however "heavy-handed" they may be, but the ex-players are not members of the NCAA and are not subjects of its fiefdom. On top of that, every citizen of the United States has the 5th Amendment right to keep their mouth shut. The ex-players do not have to talk.

See bolded replies.

you are correct, but that has nothing to do with Miami or the investigation

Seriously? Someone else can take that one if they'd like. I won't bother replying to that any more than this: Ignored.

he's actually right about that. 5th amendment only applies in government-sanctioned legal procedures and the ncaa is not a legal body.

 

[Scoot Scoot]

First, it is worth noting that 5th Amendment rights are less effective in civil cases (NCAA is closer to a civil action because it certainly isn't a criminal one). The Supreme Court does not forbid adverse inferences against parties to civil actions when they refuse to testify in response to probative evidence offered against them.

Second, is the NCAA taking the word of a Ponzi schemer? Yes but that testimony is firmer because Yahoo ran an in-depth investigative report, no matter how bs it may have been. Defamation is hard to prove because all the party that published information has to prove is that they believed it to be true and they did not commit gross error in their fact finding. The standard is higher when it comes to stories written about public figures, too. And professional players fall in that category.

 

[Bimini Twist]

First, it is worth noting that 5th Amendment rights are less effective in civil cases (NCAA is closer to a civil action because it certainly isn't a criminal one). The Supreme Court does not forbid adverse inferences against parties to civil actions when they refuse to testify in response to probative evidence offered against them.

Second, is the NCAA taking the word of a Ponzi schemer? Yes but that testimony is firmer because Yahoo ran an in-depth investigative report, no matter how bs it may have been. Defamation is hard to prove because all the party that published information has to prove is that they believed it to be true and they did not commit gross error in their fact finding. The standard is higher when it comes to stories written about public figures, too. And professional players fall in that category.

You lost me when you wrote " Yahoo ran an in-depth investigative report,"
Robinson had a "attribution theory" the way he investigated.

 

[rsa coral gables]

First, it is worth noting that 5th Amendment rights are less effective in civil cases (NCAA is closer to a civil action because it certainly isn't a criminal one). The Supreme Court does not forbid adverse inferences against parties to civil actions when they refuse to testify in response to probative evidence offered against them.

Second, is the NCAA taking the word of a Ponzi schemer? Yes but that testimony is firmer because Yahoo ran an in-depth investigative report, no matter how bs it may have been. Defamation is hard to prove because all the party that published information has to prove is that they believed it to be true and they did not commit gross error in their fact finding. The standard is higher when it comes to stories written about public figures, too. And professional players fall in that category.

we all have emotional/fanatical responses to the NCAA's actions, which, again, are extremely unfair and heavy-handed. however, those responses usually cloud clear, reasonable analysis of what is going on.

[btw, where is that premium board being discussed?]

i agree that the NCAA can generally do what it wants and that it will do so in this case because it wants to sanction UM. if former players want to sue the NCAA, that's fine, but that is not likely to deter the NCAA or lessen the penalties. and as a fan of UM, i could care less what a former player does to the NCAA because it does not assist the program today.

 

[Scoot Scoot]

First, it is worth noting that 5th Amendment rights are less effective in civil cases (NCAA is closer to a civil action because it certainly isn't a criminal one). The Supreme Court does not forbid adverse inferences against parties to civil actions when they refuse to testify in response to probative evidence offered against them.

Second, is the NCAA taking the word of a Ponzi schemer? Yes but that testimony is firmer because Yahoo ran an in-depth investigative report, no matter how bs it may have been. Defamation is hard to prove because all the party that published information has to prove is that they believed it to be true and they did not commit gross error in their fact finding. The standard is higher when it comes to stories written about public figures, too. And professional players fall in that category.

You lost me when you wrote " Yahoo ran an in-depth investigative report,"
Robinson had a "attribution theory" the way he investigated.

I think the story is filled with inaccuracies, holes and errors, don't get me wrong. But courts don't look favorably on a public figure attacking news stories and that's the larger point I was trying to make.

 

[Picksix]

Just more proof that lawyers should be round up, placed in concrete boots, and dropped off the back of a boat in deep waters. They're ruining this nation with all their legal BS. Nothing but a bunch of whores the whole lot of them...

 

[rsa coral gables]

Just more proof that lawyers should be round up, placed in concrete boots, and dropped off the back of a boat in deep waters. They're ruining this nation with all their legal BS. Nothing but a bunch of whores the whole lot of them...

until you need one, at which time you will pawn and mortgage your life away to defend yourself. :rollcanes:

 

[Dingaan1828]

Just more proof that lawyers should be round up, placed in concrete boots, and dropped off the back of a boat in deep waters. They're ruining this nation with all their legal BS. Nothing but a bunch of whores the whole lot of them...

That's really unfair. It's the 99% of lawyers that give the rest of them a bad name.

 

[Picksix]

Just more proof that lawyers should be round up, placed in concrete boots, and dropped off the back of a boat in deep waters. They're ruining this nation with all their legal BS. Nothing but a bunch of whores the whole lot of them...

That's really unfair. It's the 99% of lawyers that give the rest of them a bad name.

Nothing but a bunch of leeches who produce nothing...

Read the past few pages and it put's it all in perspective. The lawyers can't even agree on a single thing and they're lawyers? Like dogs humping each others legs...

 

[rsa coral gables]

dont personally attack me because you do not like what I say, perhaps you can respond with some intelligent, substantive response?