Started By
Message
Question on determining Cams ReInstatement
Posted on 12/2/10 at 12:02 am
Posted on 12/2/10 at 12:02 am
We know that after AU ruled him ineligible due to his fathers actions they immediatley applied for his reinstatement on the grounds that neither they nor Cam knew what had taken place at MSU.
Was the burden then on AU to prove in there reinstatement request that AU and Cam had no clue of the events in question, and if so what did they use to show that he had no knowledge other than Cams own word, OR was the burden back on the shoulders of the NCAA again to prove Cam had knowledge, which if they couldnt they had to rule him eligible?
Was the burden then on AU to prove in there reinstatement request that AU and Cam had no clue of the events in question, and if so what did they use to show that he had no knowledge other than Cams own word, OR was the burden back on the shoulders of the NCAA again to prove Cam had knowledge, which if they couldnt they had to rule him eligible?
3
Posted on 12/2/10 at 12:03 am to npt817
The REAL question is what new evidence did they learn Tuesday that they didn't have before the Bama game......or the UGA game?
NONE.
NONE.
Posted on 12/2/10 at 12:07 am to npt817
quote:Clearly the latter.
Was the burden then on AU to prove in there reinstatement request that AU and Cam had no clue of the events in question, and if so what did they use to show that he had no knowledge other than Cams own word, OR was the burden back on the shoulders of the NCAA again to prove Cam had knowledge, which if they couldnt they had to rule him eligible?
You cannot prove someone didn't know something.
Of course if the NCAA receives evidence that Cam DID know it will revisit his eligibility. So that whole 'money was too much' quote to which on one has publicly acknowledged having heard would be clear evidence that Cam knew.
One has to assume that the quote was either fabricated, or the credibility of the person claiming to have heard it is doubted by the NCAA. Otherwise today's ruling would have been different.
Posted on 12/2/10 at 12:08 am to BRTiger2005
I have been asking that as well. Since I doubt very seriously that they ramped up there investigation over the Thanksgiving holiday and weekend.
Posted on 12/2/10 at 12:15 am to npt817
quote:
OR was the burden back on the shoulders of the NCAA again to prove Cam had knowledge, which if they couldnt they had to rule him eligible?
According to their own rules, it doesn't matter whether or not Cam had any knowledge of the incident, only that Cam and/or a family member was involved in it. In their official response, they said that "Cam didn't know" as if that's what the rule says. The rule clearly says "... a student-athlete or any member of his/her family ...".
Why the SEC decided to tapdance around that rule, I have no idea.
Posted on 12/2/10 at 12:18 am to npt817
So basically Cam's eligibilty is based on the "Honor System" right now.
Posted on 12/2/10 at 12:21 am to npt817
quote:more like the disHonor system on behalf of Slive and SEC regulations.
So basically Cam's eligibilty is based on the "Honor System" right now.
Page 1 of 1
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News