As the Grove Burns Vol. 2: Ole Miss Responds to NOA

Incoming.

Reposted in case this gets pinned

Ole Miss response summarized:

1. We did no wrong

2. Fake News

3. Frick black people

4. Women's basketball coach something something lost to a team that lost to South Alabama

In.

Ole Miss is going to burn.

quote:

---

we have cooperated fully with the NCAA enforcement staff over the more than four-year-long process.

---

Given the NCAA's shitty investigation tactics and selective enforcement of some programs vs. others, I'd tell them to go frick themselves too.

From the Response:

The University has also concluded that Allegations Nos. 9, Allegation 12, 14-(e)-(g), Allegation 15 and Allegations 16-(b)-(c) either lack the sufficient level of credible and persuasive support necessary for the Committee to find a violation under the Bylaw 19.7.8.3 evidentiary standard or are contradicted by the objective and verifiable evidence. As with the institutional control and head coach responsibility allegations, the decision to contest these charges was not taken lightly. These allegations, however, rely almost exclusively on testimony from [Student-Athlete 39], a former University recruit and current [Institution 10] student- athlete, whose testimony was, at best, incomplete and inconsistent. In critical part, [Student-Athlete 39’s] testimony was either contradicted or not corroborated by his friends and family and, in several instances, refuted by objective facts. Nevertheless, the enforcement staff, and thus the Notice, embrace all of [Student- Athlete 39’s] accusations.1


1 In addition to [Student-Athlete 39’s] inconsistencies, the lack of corroboration, and the contradictory objective evidence, the denial of these allegations is based, in part, on the lack of any timely, meaningful ability to probe [Student-Athlete 39’s] story or his credibility. The University is particularly concerned that these allegations were borne of initial interviews with [Student-Athlete 39] that were conducted without notice to and/or participation by the University. See Exhibit IN-2, Email to Staff (October 19, 2016); Exhibit IN-3, Correspondence from University to COI (April 28, 2017). Moreover, after the University was brought into the investigation and allowed to attend [Student-Athlete 39’s] second interview, [Student-Athlete 39’s] counsel instructed [Student-Athlete 39] not to answer the University’s line of questions, and the enforcement staff did not demand his continued cooperation. The University was not allowed to attend or even passively listen in on [Student-Athlete 39’s] third interview. Further, when evidence led to the University requesting that [Institution 10] help with a limited interview of [Student-Athlete 39’s] coach, [College Head Coach 1], [Institution 10] rejected the request outright. Prior to submitting this response, the University sought permission from the Committee to interview both [Student-Athlete 39] and [College Head Coach 1], but the Committee denied that relief.

As a result, although the enforcement staff acknowledged in several e-mails with [Student-Athlete 39’s] counsel provided on its Box.com secure website for this case that [Student-Athlete 39] “and his credibility are central pieces in this investigation[,]” the University has never had a full and fair opportunity to probe [Student-Athlete 39’s] story or his credibility. In fact, [Student-Athlete 39’s] counsel matter-of-factly stated that he did not want to “subject[] [Student-Athlete 39] to cross examination type questions” in an e-mail to the staff explaining the decision to prohibit the University from participating in [Student-Athlete 39’s] interviews.

Along the same lines, the one-sided nature of the [Student-Athlete 39] investigation has created real doubts as to whether the information collected and currently available to the parties has been appropriately tested. See Exhibit IN-4, USA TODAY article (February 8, 2017) (discussing enforcement staff’s obligation to be “discerning consumer[] of information” and appropriately evaluate the information it receives). Faced with the enforcement staff’s treatment of [Student-Athlete 39], in combination with his inconsistent and incomplete story, the University has followed the Committee’s lead and emphasized objective sources of information and the importance of corroboration in taking positions on the allegations made by [Student- Athlete 39]. See e.g., University of Miami (October 22, 2013) (recognizing need to seek and find “corroboration
[3]

Rather than accepting or rejecting [Student-Athlete 39’s] claims wholesale, however, the University has taken each allegation and worked to sort out fact from fiction based upon the entire factual record. Some of [Student-Athlete 39’s] claims are credibly and persuasively supported in the record (i.e., Allegations Nos. 14-(a)-(d), 14-(h)-(i), 16-(a)). These allegations were either admitted by other involved individuals or corroborated by credible sources or objective evidence. As such, they stand in stark contrast to those allegations that the University denies. Overall, then, the [Student-Athlete 39] allegations present the Committee with the opportunity to address an important question for the enforcement staff and the NCAA membership: does an allegation of serious misconduct require corroboration beyond a general and inconsistent account of wrongdoing from a biased witness?

Just cut Freeze and Bjork and give us our spanking, im tired of this shite

OM: "We dindu nuffin"

NCAA: "Lol you are so fricked"

OM: "IT WAS A ROGUE BOOSTER AND ASSISTANT THAT WEVE TAKEN CARE OF!!!! SEE!!!!!"
NCAA: "lol k"