Started By
Message
re: ScAUbinsky: Past Time for Bond and Bell to put up or shut up
Posted on 2/28/11 at 2:01 pm to WDE24
Posted on 2/28/11 at 2:01 pm to WDE24
My point is that the NCAA clearly didn't do a proper investigation before and relied heavily on Auburn's assumption of innocence. That they reinstated a player, that was still under investigation is contrary to every decision they've ever made concerning eligibility.
3
Posted on 2/28/11 at 2:02 pm to Alahunter
quote:
My point is that the NCAA clearly didn't do a proper investigation before and relied heavily on Auburn's assumption of innocence. That they reinstated a player, that was still under investigation is contrary to every decision they've ever made concerning eligibility.
I'm sorry, but do you work for the NCAA? Lots of "inside" bama guys on this board. It smells like the BOL.
Posted on 2/28/11 at 2:02 pm to Alahunter
quote:That has nothing to do with anything I have posted.
My point is that the NCAA clearly didn't do a proper investigation before and relied heavily on Auburn's assumption of innocence. That they reinstated a player, that was still under investigation is contrary to every decision they've ever made concerning eligibility.
All I have said is they didn't rely exclusively on info provided by AU. Also, I have stated that the reinstatement shows that, if the NCAA in fact heard the types prior to the decision (as is claimed), then the tapes obviously aren't as conclusive regarding Cam's knowledge as they are being portrayed.
Nothing more, nothing less.
ETA: FIY, Emmert in interview with ESPN_
quote:
I was very pleased with how that whole issue was handled. Our staff and enforcement did a great investigation, did it quickly and got to the facts as best we could find them…The fact of the matter is, as we got to the facts that we could uncover, they led to the right conclusion and it was that there is no evidence there was anything inappropriate with this young man and with that institution had occurred…The burden of proof for the NCAA is a little deeper than the burden of proof for a blogger.
This post was edited on 2/28/11 at 2:05 pm
Posted on 2/28/11 at 2:31 pm to Alahunter
quote:
My point is that the NCAA clearly didn't do a proper investigation before and relied heavily on Auburn's assumption of innocence. That they reinstated a player, that was still under investigation is contrary to every decision they've ever made concerning eligibility.
The NCAA did a thorough investigation of Newton. If he got paid it was way off the books because the NCAA, Auburn, and the SEC looked at EVERYTHING. Auburn made this assumption due to the fact there was no evidence that Newton knew anything. If this is the same old tape then it is merely a marketing ploy where someone is wanting a pay day and to keep Auburn and Newton in the press. If this is new then you have to wonder why it wasn't turned over to the NCAA or SEC when asked for late last summer.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News