Home
Articles
Photos
Interviews
Forums
New posts
Search forums
Georgia Tech Recruiting
Dashboard
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Chat
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Georgia Tech Athletics
Georgia Tech Basketball
Arrests coming due to college bball kickbacks
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="RonJohn" data-source="post: 478248" data-attributes="member: 2426"><p>[USER=11]@kg01[/USER] I am not surprised that they were convicted, but I am disappointed. I think that the reason they were convicted is something that was said early on in this discussion, federal fraud is defined so broadly that "fraud" is whatever a federal prosecutor decides that it is. I saw reports a few years ago that said that a federal prosecutor could make charges and convict ANY adult person in the US because the laws are so broadly written. In this case, the judge kept the evidence admissible very closely tied to the prosecutors' definition of the "fraud" in this case. I didn't read transcripts from the trial, but as I understand it:</p><p></p><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The government asked the compliance departments at the schools how serious they are about enforcing NCAA regulations.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Yet, the defense was prevented from asking those compliance departments about how they responded to previous violations and what actions the schools took against the people who had committed those violations.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The government presented these schools as being "defrauded" by the defendants.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Yet, the defense was prevented from presenting evidence that other schools were in competition with these schools to get the players. Bowen's father denied that another school had made significant offers on the stand. The defense was prevented from playing tapes recorded by the FBI that supposedly have coaches from other schools asking for payments to players.</li> </ul><p>Also, the government was also able to convince the jurors that the coaches(who make the decisions about who to give scholarships to) are not authorized representatives of the universities. Maybe this is where I see it totally different. The coaches are indeed the ones who make decisions about scholarships. The coaches are the ones who are ultimately responsible for ensuring compliance with NCAA rules. The compliance departments: keep track of regulations, educate the coaches/players on regulations, and file paperwork. If the coaches and players are breaking NCAA rules to an extreme extent, the compliance departments are not going to be able to know that unless the coaches and/or players let them know. When CJP found out that there was an issue last year, he reported it to the compliance department to begin the processing of the issue. The compliance departments don't do detailed investigations of every financial transaction of every athlete on campus. The compliance departments don't monitor the communications of every athlete on campus to see if they are talking to sports agents. If the people in the compliance departments are the ones "responsible" for ensuring compliance and the coaches have no responsibility or authority, then the correct verdict was reached. I just don't see it that way. The coaches, who are the responsible authority at the universities, asked for the payments. Therefore, I can't see it as a "fraud" against the universities.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="RonJohn, post: 478248, member: 2426"] [USER=11]@kg01[/USER] I am not surprised that they were convicted, but I am disappointed. I think that the reason they were convicted is something that was said early on in this discussion, federal fraud is defined so broadly that "fraud" is whatever a federal prosecutor decides that it is. I saw reports a few years ago that said that a federal prosecutor could make charges and convict ANY adult person in the US because the laws are so broadly written. In this case, the judge kept the evidence admissible very closely tied to the prosecutors' definition of the "fraud" in this case. I didn't read transcripts from the trial, but as I understand it: [LIST] [*]The government asked the compliance departments at the schools how serious they are about enforcing NCAA regulations. [*]Yet, the defense was prevented from asking those compliance departments about how they responded to previous violations and what actions the schools took against the people who had committed those violations. [*]The government presented these schools as being "defrauded" by the defendants. [*]Yet, the defense was prevented from presenting evidence that other schools were in competition with these schools to get the players. Bowen's father denied that another school had made significant offers on the stand. The defense was prevented from playing tapes recorded by the FBI that supposedly have coaches from other schools asking for payments to players. [/LIST] Also, the government was also able to convince the jurors that the coaches(who make the decisions about who to give scholarships to) are not authorized representatives of the universities. Maybe this is where I see it totally different. The coaches are indeed the ones who make decisions about scholarships. The coaches are the ones who are ultimately responsible for ensuring compliance with NCAA rules. The compliance departments: keep track of regulations, educate the coaches/players on regulations, and file paperwork. If the coaches and players are breaking NCAA rules to an extreme extent, the compliance departments are not going to be able to know that unless the coaches and/or players let them know. When CJP found out that there was an issue last year, he reported it to the compliance department to begin the processing of the issue. The compliance departments don't do detailed investigations of every financial transaction of every athlete on campus. The compliance departments don't monitor the communications of every athlete on campus to see if they are talking to sports agents. If the people in the compliance departments are the ones "responsible" for ensuring compliance and the coaches have no responsibility or authority, then the correct verdict was reached. I just don't see it that way. The coaches, who are the responsible authority at the universities, asked for the payments. Therefore, I can't see it as a "fraud" against the universities. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
What jersey number did Justin Thomas wear?
Post reply
Home
Forums
Georgia Tech Athletics
Georgia Tech Basketball
Arrests coming due to college bball kickbacks
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top