Arrests coming due to college bball kickbacks

slugboy

slugboy

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
11,491
MtnWasp said:
The Gt penalty was not severe because of the strip Club Visit, the penalty was severe because LaBarrie lied upon NCAA inquiry.
Click to expand...

That was how they justified it in the report.

It’s possible that the NCAA’s arguments and their intentions line up, but I think at least some of this is that they wanted to bring down the hammer on someone, and needed an argument for doing it, and we were handy.

Despite the “repeat offender” label, if you were looking for “dirty programs” or “dirty coaches” to crack down on, I don’t think we or LaBarrie would crack the top 50.

In terms of “easy to prosecute”, I think we crack the top 25 list, though.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
GCdaJuiceMan

GCdaJuiceMan

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,969
**** duke
tenor.gif


Huge Thread

 

YJMD

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,622
kg01 said:
First, I think she's right to fight for what's hers. However, I still contend there's probably enough plausible deniability in place that Duque won't get anything.
Click to expand...

I can't imagine coach K or Zion getting on the official record here. If they can't get this stuff killed before discovery, I think they'll settle. She'll have a lot of leverage if they are motivated to keep information from NCAA scrutiny.
 
GTRX7

GTRX7

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,524
Location
Atlanta
RonJohn said:
The North Carolina law defines a student athlete as:

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.
Click to expand...

You raise another good point, but I think still slightly misunderstands the legal system. As you note, discovery is very liberal, and the law generally allows discovery of all relevant information. The point you seem to be raising now is that you believe that Zion's lawyers may have good argument that Zion may not have been permanently ineligible even if he did receive money, so a judge might just conclude that is the best argument and rule the agent's position "irrelevant." But that really isn't the way things works. The jury is the one that ultimately make judgment calls regarding arguments, not the judge. The judge can really only weigh in to stop a case if the judge concludes that there is no legal basis upon which a party can win, not just that he thinks that one party's arguments are better.

So, if the statute leaves it open that, by taking money, Zion could maybe be permanently ineligible or maybe not, the judge has to let that go to the jury. The only way the judge can stop that before a trial is if the judge views all facts in favor of the agent and assumes them to be true but then still concludes, even if true, legally, there is no way Zion could be deemed permanently ineligible under the law. If there is any way Zion could be deemed permanently ineligible, even if the judge thinks it is unlikely, the judge needs to let that go to the jury.

But, again, I agree that this will probably settle.
 

Deleted member 2897

Guest
GTRX7 said:
You raise another good point, but I think still slightly misunderstands the legal system. As you note, discovery is very liberal, and the law generally allows discovery of all relevant information. The point you seem to be raising now is that you believe that Zion's lawyers may have good argument that Zion may not have been permanently ineligible even if he did receive money, so a judge might just conclude that is the best argument and rule the agent's position "irrelevant." But that really isn't the way things works. The jury is the one that ultimately make judgment calls regarding arguments, not the judge. The judge can really only weigh in to stop a case if the judge concludes that there is no legal basis upon which a party can win, not just that he thinks that one party's arguments are better.

So, if the statute leaves it open that, by taking money, Zion could maybe be permanently ineligible or maybe not, the judge has to let that go to the jury. The only way the judge can stop that before a trial is if the judge views all facts in favor of the agent and assumes them to be true but then still concludes, even if true, legally, there is no way Zion could be deemed permanently ineligible under the law. If there is any way Zion could be deemed permanently ineligible, even if the judge thinks it is unlikely, the judge needs to let that go to the jury.

But, again, I agree that this will probably settle.
Click to expand...

Plenty of student athletes have been found to have cheated after the fact and its of zero importance to their lives going forward (not accusing you have saying that, this is just a natural place to reply in to make a few comments). I personally don't really care so much about what sort of legal arguments are made about Zion. I am just eternally hopeful the true facts come out so everyone can see what a rat-faced cheater Coach K and the Duke program are. We already have seen enough to know its real.
 
GTRX7

GTRX7

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,524
Location
Atlanta
bwelbo said:
Plenty of student athletes have been found to have cheated after the fact and its of zero importance to their lives going forward (not accusing you have saying that, this is just a natural place to reply in to make a few comments). I personally don't really care so much about what sort of legal arguments are made about Zion. I am just eternally hopeful the true facts come out so everyone can see what a rat-faced cheater Coach K and the Duke program are. We already have seen enough to know its real.
Click to expand...

Oh, yeah. Huge moral difference between a kid or his family breaking "NCAA rules" by accepting money to help the university by playing ball (particularly kids coming from less fortunate backgrounds whose families really need the money), and someone breaking a real law that causes injury to another. Nothing about the NCAA stuff is inherently immoral, it is just against NCAA "rules" (and soon may not even be against that).

And EFF Duke. Ratface is the worst. lol. Media often just love to play favorites and pick narratives about which coaches or which athletes do it "the right way," regardless of the actual facts.
 

Deleted member 2897

Guest
GTRX7 said:
Oh, yeah. Huge moral difference between a kid or his family breaking "NCAA rules" by accepting money to help the university by playing ball (particularly kids coming from less fortunate backgrounds whose families really need the money), and someone breaking a real law that causes injury to another. Nothing about the NCAA stuff is inherently immoral, it is just against NCAA "rules" (and soon may not even be against that).

And EFF Duke. Ratface is the worst. lol. Media often just love to play favorites and pick narratives about which coaches or which athletes do it "the right way," regardless of the actual facts.
Click to expand...

Duke and schools that do this often pull the SAs families into legal jeopardy though, because the gifts exceed limits and become taxable...so then you’re into tax fraud because you’re not filing your taxes correctly each year declaring these gifts. But yea, I’m more interested in just exposing the massive depth of cheating some of these programs have built themselves on.
 
Top