Arrests coming due to college bball kickbacks

[LibertyTurns]

Dropping the hammer on Duke!

https://www.totalprosports.com/2020...f-all-wins-titles-from-2013-2019-by-the-ncaa/

If they punish IUPUI next, Dook will be hurting big time.

When does GT get smacked again for allowing an athlete to improperly substitute Dynamics & Bifurcations for Applied Combinatorics?

 

[dtm1997]

I wonder why...

 

[Techster]

I wonder why...

Interesting timing as well...

 

[RonJohn]

I wonder why...

(The standard I am not a lawyer disclaimer)

I haven't read an extreme amount about this suit, but the requested information seems more like an attempt to embarrass and intimidate into a settlement than something actually needed for the lawsuit. As I understand it, the agent is claiming that Williamson broke a contract and Williamson is claiming that the contract was not valid based on a North Carolina law.

The supposed purpose of the questions in the deposition are to determine if Williamson actually was a student-athlete. The North Carolina law defines a student-athlete as:

Student-athlete. - An individual who engages in, is eligible to engage in, or may be eligible in the future to engage in any intercollegiate sport.

Even if Williamson received benefits that would have made him ineligible if the NCAA had found out about them, he was engaged in athletics that year, and at the time the contract was signed was still eligible to engage in intercollegiate sports. So, the way I read it even if Williamson did receive all of the benefits that the agent is asking about in the deposition, he still would have protection from the North Carolina law, which protects student athletes from rogue agents.

I am not trying to defend Duke, nor say that they didn't do anything wrong. The agent hasn't said that she has any evidence or information that Williamson did receive anything other than rumors. Her lawyers are just asking fishing questions in a deposition for a lawsuit. I don't think the questions will every be answered, just based on how I see the lawsuit and the North Carolina UAAA law. I am not going to tie any hope about Duke being outed as dirty on an agent who is by all reports a very sketchy person.

 

[CuseJacket]

Judge says Zion Williamson must answer questions under oath about improper benefits at Duke

A Florida state court judge on Tuesday denied New Orleans Pelicans rookie Zion Williamson's request to stay discovery into whether he was eligible under NCAA rules when he played one season at Duke in 2018-19.

Florida 11th Circuit Court Judge David Miller ruled that Williamson will be required to answer interrogatories and requests for admissions from attorneys representing Gina Ford and Prime Sports Marketing, who are suing Williamson for $100 million for breaching their marketing agreement.

 

[Techster]

Judge says Zion Williamson must answer questions under oath about improper benefits at Duke

Duke & Coach K: Nike, stroke that motherf&cking check!!!

Nike: OK...

 

[GTRX7]

(The standard I am not a lawyer disclaimer)

I haven't read an extreme amount about this suit, but the requested information seems more like an attempt to embarrass and intimidate into a settlement than something actually needed for the lawsuit. As I understand it, the agent is claiming that Williamson broke a contract and Williamson is claiming that the contract was not valid based on a North Carolina law.

The supposed purpose of the questions in the deposition are to determine if Williamson actually was a student-athlete. The North Carolina law defines a student-athlete as:Even if Williamson received benefits that would have made him ineligible if the NCAA had found out about them, he was engaged in athletics that year, and at the time the contract was signed was still eligible to engage in intercollegiate sports. So, the way I read it even if Williamson did receive all of the benefits that the agent is asking about in the deposition, he still would have protection from the North Carolina law, which protects student athletes from rogue agents.

I am not trying to defend Duke, nor say that they didn't do anything wrong. The agent hasn't said that she has any evidence or information that Williamson did receive anything other than rumors. Her lawyers are just asking fishing questions in a deposition for a lawsuit. I don't think the questions will every be answered, just based on how I see the lawsuit and the North Carolina UAAA law. I am not going to tie any hope about Duke being outed as dirty on an agent who is by all reports a very sketchy person.

Your conclusion may be correct, but the standard necessary to compel discovery is a far lower bar than needed to actually win your case at trial. The federal rules state that "Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense" even going so far as to clarify that "Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable."

 

[RonJohn]

Your conclusion may be correct, but the standard necessary to compel discovery is a far lower bar than needed to actually win your case at trial. The federal rules state that "Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense" even going so far as to clarify that "Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable."

I am not trying to say that he won't be compelled to answer. From @CuseJacket 's post, it appears that a judge has ruled that he has to. I haven't read the article yet, but I assume Williamson's lawyers will appeal that decision.

I was only saying that I had expected them to file motions to exclude the questions. The amount of the claim in the lawsuit seems excessive, even if they are legally entitled to damages from Williamson breaking the contract. The plaintiff in the case is a sketchy person. It doesn't look like these questions actually have any bearing on the case. The plaintiff, the amount of the lawsuit, and getting embarrassing and potentially damaging (to Duke) questions into the public eye, all make it seem to me that the plaintiff is using the legal system to force Williamson into a settlement. It doesn't look to me (untrained and not fully informed) like they actually would want the case to go to trial. My wild guess is that there will be a settlement with undisclosed details. The big question will be how much the settlement amount is. If things aren't going well for the agent, she can propose a settlement amount less than what Williamson would pay his lawyers to go all the way thru a trial and she will probably still come out ahead.

 

[GTRX7]

I am not trying to say that he won't be compelled to answer. From @CuseJacket 's post, it appears that a judge has ruled that he has to. I haven't read the article yet, but I assume Williamson's lawyers will appeal that decision.

I was only saying that I had expected them to file motions to exclude the questions. The amount of the claim in the lawsuit seems excessive, even if they are legally entitled to damages from Williamson breaking the contract. The plaintiff in the case is a sketchy person. It doesn't look like these questions actually have any bearing on the case. The plaintiff, the amount of the lawsuit, and getting embarrassing and potentially damaging (to Duke) questions into the public eye, all make it seem to me that the plaintiff is using the legal system to force Williamson into a settlement. It doesn't look to me (untrained and not fully informed) like they actually would want the case to go to trial. My wild guess is that there will be a settlement with undisclosed details. The big question will be how much the settlement amount is. If things aren't going well for the agent, she can propose a settlement amount less than what Williamson would pay his lawyers to go all the way thru a trial and she will probably still come out ahead.

I don't know much about the plaintiff, but I agree with you that by far the most likely scenario is settlement. It is not clear to me that Williamson will have the right to appeal this order, but even if he does, it is extremely unlikely such an appeal would be successful. Judges have wide latitude to use their judgment to determine what information might be "relevant" to a case. Such a decision could ordinarily only be overturned if it is found by an appeals court that the judge "abused their discretion," meaning that the judge's decision "lies beyond the pale of reasonable justification" under the circumstances. That is a very high standard. It is not sufficient for the appeals court to simply conclude that they would have reached a different decision.

 

[BeeRBee]

I am not trying to say that he won't be compelled to answer. From @CuseJacket 's post, it appears that a judge has ruled that he has to. I haven't read the article yet, but I assume Williamson's lawyers will appeal that decision.

I was only saying that I had expected them to file motions to exclude the questions. The amount of the claim in the lawsuit seems excessive, even if they are legally entitled to damages from Williamson breaking the contract. The plaintiff in the case is a sketchy person. It doesn't look like these questions actually have any bearing on the case. The plaintiff, the amount of the lawsuit, and getting embarrassing and potentially damaging (to Duke) questions into the public eye, all make it seem to me that the plaintiff is using the legal system to force Williamson into a settlement. It doesn't look to me (untrained and not fully informed) like they actually would want the case to go to trial. My wild guess is that there will be a settlement with undisclosed details. The big question will be how much the settlement amount is. If things aren't going well for the agent, she can propose a settlement amount less than what Williamson would pay his lawyers to go all the way thru a trial and she will probably still come out ahead.

In your earlier analysis you assumed that since he played the season he was an eligible student athlete under the NC law, which does seem like a reasonable assumption. However, in the article, from the plaintiff’s lawyer, their position is:

"If you're accepting improper benefits, you are not an eligible student-athlete, and the NCAA can rule retroactively that you are ineligible. It has happened numerous times before. ... This is not a set-in-stone determination that he's an eligible student-athlete, and we have the opportunity to prove that he was not eligible in that time frame, and that's what we're going to do."

which also seems reasonable.

Also, although I’m sure they will appeal in FL, they are also arguing that the FL case should be dismissed because of a case in NC Zion’s team filed seeking to invalidate the contract.

 

[RonJohn]

In your earlier analysis you assumed that since he played the season he was an eligible student athlete under the NC law, which does seem like a reasonable assumption. However, in the article, from the plaintiff’s lawyer, their position is:

which also seems reasonable.

Also, although I’m sure they will appeal in FL, they are also arguing that the FL case should be dismissed because of a case in NC Zion’s team filed seeking to invalidate the contract.

The North Carolina law defines a student athlete as:

Student-athlete. – An individual who engages in, is eligible to engage in, or may be eligible in the future to engage in any intercollegiate sport. If an individual is permanently ineligible to participate in a particular intercollegiate sport, the individual is not a student-athlete for purposes of that sport.

That is a much higher bar than what the plaintiff's lawyer is arguing. The law actually reads such that if an athlete is ineligible for some period of time, that he is still a student-athlete if he might be eligible in the future.

I can see Williamson's lawyers arguing that even if Williamson received some kind of benefits that he wouldn't have been declared permanently ineligible, and so the questions are irrelevant to the case. I can also see him being forced to answer the questions in discovery, because as I understand it parties are given pretty wide latitude to "discover" things in discovery. I still think that this is just an attempt to harass Williamson into a bigger settlement. I don't believe the plaintiff has any intention of going to a trial.

 

[mstranahan]

Another interesting angle is that these discovery questions are submitted in the FL case. Given that the NC case was filed first, the FL case will likely be thrown out since you can't try the same case in two jurisdictions and generally the first one filed is the one that is heard. If that's the case, I think Williamson's attorneys will ignore / delay any discovery requests related to the FL case and push for it to be closed as duplicative with NC

And I agree that discovery questions and threats to subpeona everyone under the sun are a pretty obvious attempt to embarrass Zion, Duke & Nike in hopes they'll stroke a big check to make this go away

 

[dtm1997]

Another interesting angle is that these discovery questions are submitted in the FL case. Given that the NC case was filed first, the FL case will likely be thrown out since you can't try the same case in two jurisdictions and generally the first one filed is the one that is heard. If that's the case, I think Williamson's attorneys will ignore / delay any discovery requests related to the FL case and push for it to be closed as duplicative with NC

And I agree that discovery questions and threats to subpeona everyone under the sun are a pretty obvious attempt to embarrass Zion, Duke & Nike in hopes they'll stroke a big check to make this go away

dook should be embarrassed for their sanctimonious attitude, while cheating just as much, possibly more, than everyone else.

Maintaining coach k's plausible deniability doesn't make them a clean program.

 

[RonJohn]

dook should be embarrassed for their sanctimonious attitude, while cheating just as much, possibly more, than everyone else.

Maintaining coach k's plausible deniability doesn't make them a clean program.

What I have said isn't meant to say that Duke is clean. I just don't see actual evidence of wrongdoing becoming public as a result of this lawsuit. It might. However, I think the fight it more over how big the settlement check is going to be than about the actual claims in the lawsuit.

 

[dtm1997]

What I have said isn't meant to say that Duke is clean. I just don't see actual evidence of wrongdoing becoming public as a result of this lawsuit. It might. However, I think the fight it more over how big the settlement check is going to be than about the actual claims in the lawsuit.

Not sure I even read your post.

I just wanted to reiterate dook cheats and are pompous, sanctimonious *******s.

 

[Techster]

Not sure I even read your post.

I just wanted to reiterate dook cheats and are pompous, sanctimonious *******s.

Players in pro leagues talk to each other. They were all recruited and all understand "the game". When NBA players openly make fun of Duke for cheating, you know it's no longer in the shadows anymore. Maybe one of the worst kept "secrets" in sports now. Duke cheats.

 

[ESPNjacket]

Players in pro leagues talk to each other. They were all recruited and all understand "the game". When NBA players openly make fun of Duke for cheating, you know it's no longer in the shadows anymore. Maybe one of the worst kept "secrets" in sports now. Duke cheats.

I'm not giving bar stool sports a click (they suck) but technically, if those are the words, he is right. Duke isn't paying anyone. Nike/others are.

Plausible deniability.

At this point it looks like the late '90s through 2020 model is done. For those who like college basketball, if you want it to be anything like it is now, you should support name, image, and likeness rights for players to be paid for endorsements directly. Without that it isn't going to end well for the game. It just takes the shadiness out of the way.

 

[Techster]

I'm not giving bar stool sports a click (they suck) but technically, if those are the words, he is right. Duke isn't paying anyone. Nike/others are.

Plausible deniability.

At this point it looks like the late '90s through 2020 model is done. For those who like college basketball, if you want it to be anything like it is now, you should support name, image, and likeness rights for players to be paid for endorsements directly. Without that it isn't going to end well for the game. It just takes the shadiness out of the way.

Agreed. But that's just moving money around for someone in the name of someone else. Same difference.

In terms of NIL, there has been some interesting developments that slipped by due to all the craziness going on:

 

[ESPNjacket]

Agreed. But that's just moving money around for someone in the name of someone else. Same difference.

In terms of NIL, there has been some interesting developments that slipped by due to all the craziness going on:

Above board and underground is not the same thing in my world. Legal, taxed payments for endorsements isn't the same thing as cheating the system, whether you like the system or not.

And, yes, the NCAA is asking Congress to do their work for them because they suck.

 

[Techster]

Above board and underground is not the same thing in my world. Legal, taxed payments for endorsements isn't the same thing as cheating the system, whether you like the system or not.

And, yes, the NCAA is asking Congress to do their work for them because they suck.

They are not doing it above board and legally. Nike/Adidas/UA are not paying athletes to attend a school...otherwise, they are no longer amatuers. If they are no longer amateurs, they shouldn't be playing for Duke/UNC/Kansas/Kentucky/etc.