forums

The NCAA HAS commited extortion

Tano said:
Look, the bottom line is that the NCAA doesn't abide by a "innocent until proven guilty" standard. This isn't a criminal case. If their regular practice and procedure for determining what goes into a Notice of Allegations is to take silence as an admission, then they'll do it ten times out of ten and let the chips fall where they may at the hearing with any circumstantial or corroborating evidence they have. In court, judges sometimes are allowed to weight a witness' silence or refusal to answer questions against him (note I am only saying that they can give weight to it). SO too may the hearing officials consider our former players' silence, but what they are not going to do is take silence as an admission of guilt, so this whole thing is moot in the end....The lawyers drafting the Notice of Allegations can take whatever the **** position they want. It's not going to mean **** if they can't prove it in the hearing, and they're going to get laughed out of the proceedings if their evidence is "Player X's refusal to cooperate in giving testimony." That's not evidence.

This isn't even a big deal. Chances are those things were going to be in the Notice of Allegations anyway, with or without the player testimony. But again, there's no malice here. It's more than likely in the regular scope of the NCAA infractions committee to include all allegations not responded to adequately in the Notice of Allegations, just to be thorough. What did you all expect them to do, just drop it on the spot and not pursue it? It'd be akin to a state attorney dropping a case during discovery because a witness suddenly went missing. That **** doesn't happen. It'll go to trial and if the state attorney can't prove his/her case without the witness, then the defendant skates. Same scenario here. THey can kick and scream all they want about how they'll take it as an admission of guilt, but that won't fly with the infractions committee at hearing anyway. If I'm a former player I casually throw up two middle fingers in the general vicinity of the NCAA and go about my business.
Click to expand...



I'm not going to read this but I am going to agree with you and +rep.



















/ur a good lawyer
 
Advertisement
What I make of it is that they subpoenaed internal emails from the NCAA in a defamation suit where they may or may not have taken the plaintiff's deposition....and that the judge tendered his ruling several years after the investigation ultimately concluded. May have some relevance as to defining malice, but the facts don't involve public correspondence, but rather private correspondence where ncaa figures were internally talking **** about the coach.
 
Tano, the lawsuit presumably uncovered these emails and these emails may now get the NCAA into hot water.

If the NCAA talked isht internally about USC and McNair, maybe they did this in other investigations including Miami's and if they now name some ex-Hurricane who sues for malice the emails in THIS case get uncovered too. Maybe NCAA will be more careful with Miami in light of this ruling so as to not invite this inspection into its records?

I'll hang up and await the response.
 
stormsurge said:
Tano, the lawsuit presumably uncovered these emails and these emails may now get the NCAA into hot water.

If the NCAA talked isht internally about USC and McNair, maybe they did this in other investigations including Miami's and if they now name some ex-Hurricane who sues for malice the emails in THIS case get uncovered too. Maybe NCAA will be more careful with Miami in light of this ruling so as to not invite this inspection into its records?

I'll hang up and await the response.
Click to expand...

Sure, MAYBE it'll be more careful, but just as an FYI, this wasn't a final order, meaning the trial is not over. Either way, you're making a big leap. Now you're venturing into territory that doesn't even involve the letter sent by the UF chick. Now you're venturing into territory that doesn't even involve the University of Miami and won't change the NCAA's ruling.

You're suggesting that MAYBE there are emails where the NCAA officials are talking **** and on the off chance that those exist, that MAYBE they talk **** about a specific player, and that MAYBE that specific player is one of the players who's testimony is being requested and MAYBE that player will ultimately sue....for defamation.

And again, either way, that will most likely not happen for the reasons stated above about forcing the plaintiff player to give a deposition....AND the fact that any damage to said player's reputation based solely on private emails (not published) would be minimal....and depending on the damage done to the player's reputation from the public investigation, it may not even be in the player's interest to sue.

Honestly, let's say Player X gets mentioned in the final allegations as a culprit. LEt's say Player X plays in the NFL. What's the consequence? What was the consequence for Reggie Bush? Did he lose endorsements? Did he lose his job? Get fined? Did it affect him in any tangible way AT ALL? Hard to really assert that it did.

What happens if it comes out that Willis McGahee accepted a suit? Or that Olivier Vernon got a bottle at Liv? How will they assert that their reputation has been damaged? And is the need to remedy that damage more valuable than the cost of legal fees to do so? Probably not.

Sorry for rambling. I'm watching the Heat game. Stream of consciousness and all that.
 
Advertisement
UM would not be imposing a two year bowl ban (a very serious penalty) and now talking about scholarship reductions if it believed the NCAA could not prove a majority of the Yahoo allegations. said differently for some of our slower readers, it appears UM believes that some of the Yahoo article allegations are provable because it has imposed a two year bowl ban and scholarship reductions. these measures indicate the seriousness of the allegations and their provability.

let's remember that we are talking about 10 years worth of violations, over a hundred players and dozens of coaches, personnel and administrators. if half of it is provable, even by circumstantial evidence, then the violations ARE MASSIVE. the NCAA has evidence and a lot of it. perhaps not as much and as valuable as they would like in order to bury UM, but they have enough to impose massive penalties.

let's not be fanatical about what seems to have occurred and is provable.

having said that, the letter is heavy handed and unfair and it will backfire, but people who view this crap as black and white (letter=we skate) might be narrowed minded. the letter does not equate innocence or the failure to prove all the allegations, but might suggest difficulty in proving some of the allegations.
 
You might be right RSA but maybe not. The only sanctions we have gotten so far. were for player corroborated compensation Now there may have been a few disgruntled ex players admit to some things. But beyond that it appears Shapiro has only receipts and the poorly credible Pee WEE backing him up. SO you have the testimony of an admitted liar in Allen who if one digs into his finances may still be compensated by Shapiro and the liar Shapiro with his mountain of receipts which prove NOTHING.
We arent skating because we gave up 2 bowl games and suspended key players .But i dont think the NCAA will give us more than 5 schollies for 3 years and no more bowl bans.There is grounds to show malice with this letter and this helps UM by making the NCAA more careful.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top