Started By
Message
re: As the jar cracks - Johnny Manziel's downfall is upon us
Posted on 8/9/13 at 12:17 am to Maroon Flash
Posted on 8/9/13 at 12:17 am to Maroon Flash
This whole page is tl;dr
Well....last page.
Well....last page.
This post was edited on 8/9/13 at 12:18 am
0
Posted on 8/9/13 at 12:20 am to TeLeFaWx
quote:
We need all the Auburn-like karma we can get at the moment. War Cam Eagle.
Truth!
And if the Manziel's lawyer knows what he's talking about, this might be just enough to scare our QB straight.
Posted on 8/9/13 at 12:22 am to TutHillTiger
COMMITTEE ON INFRACTIONS
A. In General. The hearing procedures adopted by the membership have produced an infractions process that most resembles a type of administrative hearing akin to those employed in hearings conducted at public universities. Self-enforcement and the cooperative principle are at the heart of the process. The enforcement and hearing processes have evolved over time in response to concerns raised by the membership and others that a better and more balanced process could be implemented.
The COI does not investigate alleged major violations. It does not conduct pre-hearing witness interviews. It does not engage in pre-hearing fact-finding. It does not participate in pre-hearing conferences. It neither sees nor reviews correspondence between the enforcement staff and institutions or other interested parties. It neither sees nor reviews information surfaced by the enforcement staff, institution, coaches or staff members alleged to have committed major violations unless that information is made a formal part of the hearing record. NCAA staff liaisons to the COI work exclusively with the COI. They are not members of the enforcement staff. COI deliberations and case-relevant discussions are confidential within the COI.
3. Full and Fair Hearing Opportunity and Equality of Treatment. In many, if not most, cases heard by the COI, there is substantial agreement regarding the facts between the institution and the enforcement staff. Typically the institution and enforcement staff have engaged in a cooperative effort to uncover a clear picture of the circumstances surrounding potential violations. Often they participate at least in part in joint interviews. In these cases, as well as in cases in which there is substantial disagreement, institutions and individuals appearing before the COI have notice of the allegations charged against them and, in the enforcement case summary, a list of particulars regarding each allegation and the information relied on by the enforcement staff. At least some of this information will have been provided by the institutions during the investigation pursuant to the NCAA cooperative principle, which imposes an affirmative duty on member institutions to cooperate with the enforcement staff in investigating potential violations. ,,,,
Institutions, coaches, other staff members, and student-athletes who may be subject to imposition of a penalty have the right to appear, with counsel, at the COI hearing concerning their institution and to submit a written response. They also have available to them the complete file of information developed by the enforcement staff that is relevant to the case. They are entitled to submit interview transcripts or tapes, and any other documents they believe relevant to a full consideration of an alleged violation. Yet another aspect of the hearing process is that the COI may find a violation proved only if it is supported by information that is ''credible, persuasive, and of a kind on which reasonably prudent people rely in the conduct of serious affairs.'' Not only do NCAA rules mandate the exclusion from COI consideration of any information provided by a source that is not identified to the COI, institution, and individuals, subject to a penalty, but the COI considers with particular care the credibility of individuals providing information, the internal consistency of that information, and any corroborative information. In thus exercising its adjudicative function, the COI frequently does not make findings of violations. The final aspect of the due process afforded institutions and individuals is the availability of an appeal to the Infractions Appeals Committee, both on the merits of any particular finding and on the penalties imposed.
In sum, then, the procedural protections afforded in the COI adjudicative process include (a) notice of the allegations; (b) a list of particulars regarding each allegation that includes the names of individuals providing information and a summary of the information on which the allegation is based; (c) an opportunity pre-hearing to discuss the substance of the allegations and to present information leading to the enforcement's staff's amendment or withdrawal of allegations; (d) access to all information relevant to an allegation; (e) an opportunity, and sufficient time, to provide exculpatory or explanatory information and a written response to the allegations; (f) a requirement that information provided to the COI must come from sources identified to the COI and to the institution and any individuals appearing before the COI; (g) representation by counsel at the hearing; (h) a full opportunity at the hearing to present one's case; (i) an independent fact-finder; (j) fact-finding based only on that information made part of the hearing record; (k) a finding of violation requiring a high burden of proof; (l) a written report by the COI that sets forth the grounds for its decision; and (m) the opportunity to appeal adverse findings or penalties to the Infractions Appeals Committee.
4. Proper application of rules and bylaws. Another function performed by the COI is to provide consistent, uniform, and informed application of NCAA bylaws and rules. While the NCAA interpretations process is designed to assure informed and uniform application of rules, by their nature these interpretations do not cover the world of potential issues. The student-athlete reinstatement process, as noted earlier, involves no fact-finding but relies instead on the rendition of the facts and circumstances as provided by an institution. The COI, by contrast, is in the unique position to evaluate rules and bylaws in the context of concrete factual situations. The COI takes seriously its responsibility to understand the thrust and significance of rules and bylaws as adopted by the membership and to assure their correct and fair application to the conduct and behaviors of institutions and their staffs.
5. Interests of the membership as a whole. There is a natural, perhaps inevitable, tension between the interests of an institution or individual involved in a particular infractions case and the interests of the membership as a whole. What might be the most pleasing resolution of a matter to an institution facing findings and penalties might be detrimental to the overall policy considerations and interests of the membership and, in fact, might be so perceived even by the particular institution once it is removed from the infractions process. The COI is ever mindful of the larger intercollegiate context into which its findings and reports must fit.
A. In General. The hearing procedures adopted by the membership have produced an infractions process that most resembles a type of administrative hearing akin to those employed in hearings conducted at public universities. Self-enforcement and the cooperative principle are at the heart of the process. The enforcement and hearing processes have evolved over time in response to concerns raised by the membership and others that a better and more balanced process could be implemented.
The COI does not investigate alleged major violations. It does not conduct pre-hearing witness interviews. It does not engage in pre-hearing fact-finding. It does not participate in pre-hearing conferences. It neither sees nor reviews correspondence between the enforcement staff and institutions or other interested parties. It neither sees nor reviews information surfaced by the enforcement staff, institution, coaches or staff members alleged to have committed major violations unless that information is made a formal part of the hearing record. NCAA staff liaisons to the COI work exclusively with the COI. They are not members of the enforcement staff. COI deliberations and case-relevant discussions are confidential within the COI.
3. Full and Fair Hearing Opportunity and Equality of Treatment. In many, if not most, cases heard by the COI, there is substantial agreement regarding the facts between the institution and the enforcement staff. Typically the institution and enforcement staff have engaged in a cooperative effort to uncover a clear picture of the circumstances surrounding potential violations. Often they participate at least in part in joint interviews. In these cases, as well as in cases in which there is substantial disagreement, institutions and individuals appearing before the COI have notice of the allegations charged against them and, in the enforcement case summary, a list of particulars regarding each allegation and the information relied on by the enforcement staff. At least some of this information will have been provided by the institutions during the investigation pursuant to the NCAA cooperative principle, which imposes an affirmative duty on member institutions to cooperate with the enforcement staff in investigating potential violations. ,,,,
Institutions, coaches, other staff members, and student-athletes who may be subject to imposition of a penalty have the right to appear, with counsel, at the COI hearing concerning their institution and to submit a written response. They also have available to them the complete file of information developed by the enforcement staff that is relevant to the case. They are entitled to submit interview transcripts or tapes, and any other documents they believe relevant to a full consideration of an alleged violation. Yet another aspect of the hearing process is that the COI may find a violation proved only if it is supported by information that is ''credible, persuasive, and of a kind on which reasonably prudent people rely in the conduct of serious affairs.'' Not only do NCAA rules mandate the exclusion from COI consideration of any information provided by a source that is not identified to the COI, institution, and individuals, subject to a penalty, but the COI considers with particular care the credibility of individuals providing information, the internal consistency of that information, and any corroborative information. In thus exercising its adjudicative function, the COI frequently does not make findings of violations. The final aspect of the due process afforded institutions and individuals is the availability of an appeal to the Infractions Appeals Committee, both on the merits of any particular finding and on the penalties imposed.
In sum, then, the procedural protections afforded in the COI adjudicative process include (a) notice of the allegations; (b) a list of particulars regarding each allegation that includes the names of individuals providing information and a summary of the information on which the allegation is based; (c) an opportunity pre-hearing to discuss the substance of the allegations and to present information leading to the enforcement's staff's amendment or withdrawal of allegations; (d) access to all information relevant to an allegation; (e) an opportunity, and sufficient time, to provide exculpatory or explanatory information and a written response to the allegations; (f) a requirement that information provided to the COI must come from sources identified to the COI and to the institution and any individuals appearing before the COI; (g) representation by counsel at the hearing; (h) a full opportunity at the hearing to present one's case; (i) an independent fact-finder; (j) fact-finding based only on that information made part of the hearing record; (k) a finding of violation requiring a high burden of proof; (l) a written report by the COI that sets forth the grounds for its decision; and (m) the opportunity to appeal adverse findings or penalties to the Infractions Appeals Committee.
4. Proper application of rules and bylaws. Another function performed by the COI is to provide consistent, uniform, and informed application of NCAA bylaws and rules. While the NCAA interpretations process is designed to assure informed and uniform application of rules, by their nature these interpretations do not cover the world of potential issues. The student-athlete reinstatement process, as noted earlier, involves no fact-finding but relies instead on the rendition of the facts and circumstances as provided by an institution. The COI, by contrast, is in the unique position to evaluate rules and bylaws in the context of concrete factual situations. The COI takes seriously its responsibility to understand the thrust and significance of rules and bylaws as adopted by the membership and to assure their correct and fair application to the conduct and behaviors of institutions and their staffs.
5. Interests of the membership as a whole. There is a natural, perhaps inevitable, tension between the interests of an institution or individual involved in a particular infractions case and the interests of the membership as a whole. What might be the most pleasing resolution of a matter to an institution facing findings and penalties might be detrimental to the overall policy considerations and interests of the membership and, in fact, might be so perceived even by the particular institution once it is removed from the infractions process. The COI is ever mindful of the larger intercollegiate context into which its findings and reports must fit.
Posted on 8/9/13 at 12:22 am to TutHillTiger
C. Practical Considerations. The jurisdictional authority of the COI runs to member institutions and their staffs. The COI has no subpoena power or other ability to compel cooperation by those outside institutions, including even family members of student-athletes or prospective student-athletes. While decisions by the COI undeniably may have an impact on individuals who are not institutional staff members—boosters, for example—the direct authority to compel cooperation and to impose sanctions is exercised only on member institutions.
Cases within the jurisdiction of the COI are initiated by information received by the enforcement staff from a number of sources, including media reports. While often the first information about potential violations is reported by the involved institution, on occasion a major case is initiated by information provided by an individual seeking to remain anonymous. This process is no different from a confidential informer used in a criminal case or a law firm's use of a private investigator to follow investigative leads that ultimately produce information relevant to a court proceeding. In each case, the confidential source's information serves only as a directional signal, leading investigators to individuals with information both concrete and relevant to a charge. It is that information, and those individuals, on which and on whom the COI relies in making its findings. The use of confidential source information is a necessary component of an effective enforcement system. Without such information, many fewer major infractions cases would be identified and the commission of many major violations would go undiscovered—to the detriment of all those institutions and individuals who act with integrity and in compliance with the rules. In recognition of the procedural fairness due institutions and individuals, however, NCAA procedures dictate that information provided by a confidential source may not be presented to the COI and may not be relied on by the COI in making its findings.
Cases within the jurisdiction of the COI are initiated by information received by the enforcement staff from a number of sources, including media reports. While often the first information about potential violations is reported by the involved institution, on occasion a major case is initiated by information provided by an individual seeking to remain anonymous. This process is no different from a confidential informer used in a criminal case or a law firm's use of a private investigator to follow investigative leads that ultimately produce information relevant to a court proceeding. In each case, the confidential source's information serves only as a directional signal, leading investigators to individuals with information both concrete and relevant to a charge. It is that information, and those individuals, on which and on whom the COI relies in making its findings. The use of confidential source information is a necessary component of an effective enforcement system. Without such information, many fewer major infractions cases would be identified and the commission of many major violations would go undiscovered—to the detriment of all those institutions and individuals who act with integrity and in compliance with the rules. In recognition of the procedural fairness due institutions and individuals, however, NCAA procedures dictate that information provided by a confidential source may not be presented to the COI and may not be relied on by the COI in making its findings.
Posted on 8/9/13 at 12:27 am to TutHillTiger
Nobody is reading all that shite.
Posted on 8/9/13 at 12:29 am to TutHillTiger
In case you Aggies ever thought we were kidding about Alabama playing by it's own set of rules they actually tried to by the NCAA under the control of local Bama judges.
Footnote in Congessional Hearing on NCAA due process
(Footnote 22 return)
Interestingly, in the wake of a recent controversial investigation involving the University of Alabama's football program, the Collegiate Athletic Association Procedures Act was introduced in the Alabama House of Representatives in 2003. It would require that the NCAA provide due process to any Alabama institution accused of rules infractions and would give the Alabama state courts jurisdiction to review NCAA findings and penalties. Unless the Eleventh Circuit takes a different view of this issue than the Ninth Circuit did in Miller, this legislation, should it pass, would likely suffer the same fate as Nevada's did over a decade ago.
Footnote in Congessional Hearing on NCAA due process
(Footnote 22 return)
Interestingly, in the wake of a recent controversial investigation involving the University of Alabama's football program, the Collegiate Athletic Association Procedures Act was introduced in the Alabama House of Representatives in 2003. It would require that the NCAA provide due process to any Alabama institution accused of rules infractions and would give the Alabama state courts jurisdiction to review NCAA findings and penalties. Unless the Eleventh Circuit takes a different view of this issue than the Ninth Circuit did in Miller, this legislation, should it pass, would likely suffer the same fate as Nevada's did over a decade ago.
Posted on 8/9/13 at 12:29 am to TutHillTiger
Good lord, nobody is gonna read that shite. Just stop.
Posted on 8/9/13 at 12:31 am to TutHillTiger
Posted on 8/9/13 at 12:40 am to TutHillTiger
But seriously, frick you and your wall of text.
Posted on 8/9/13 at 12:43 am to Roger Klarvin
Yeah I always forget that no one under 30 reads anymore.
Just read the part in bold where they say that often investigations start with a media
reports,
Cases within the jurisdiction of the COI are initiated by information received by the enforcement staff from a number of sources, including media reports.
Just read the part in bold where they say that often investigations start with a media
reports,
Cases within the jurisdiction of the COI are initiated by information received by the enforcement staff from a number of sources, including media reports.
This post was edited on 8/9/13 at 12:45 am
Posted on 8/9/13 at 12:46 am to TutHillTiger
But ESPN reported it as an investigation that was ALREADY ongoing.
Either it was or it wasn't. Whether or not one eventually occurs is irrelevant to the question at hand. Did ESPN lie about the status of the "investigation" or is the lawyer making a very poor choice by saying there isn't when there is?
Either it was or it wasn't. Whether or not one eventually occurs is irrelevant to the question at hand. Did ESPN lie about the status of the "investigation" or is the lawyer making a very poor choice by saying there isn't when there is?
Posted on 8/9/13 at 12:48 am to Roger Klarvin
quote:
Did ESPN lie about the status of the "investigation" or is the lawyer making a very poor choice by saying there isn't when there is?
Bingo. This is a tipping point.
Posted on 8/9/13 at 12:48 am to Roger Klarvin
quote:
Did ESPN lie about the status of the "investigation" or is the lawyer making a very poor choice by saying there isn't when there is?
Bingo. This is a tipping point.
Posted on 8/9/13 at 12:48 am to TutHillTiger
It's not that they don't read, it's that they don't care enough to read the shite you post on a sports message board at 1:00 in the morning.
Posted on 8/9/13 at 12:50 am to NATidefan
"There is no evidence of US presence in Baghdad"
Pic of Darren Rovell's Journalism Professor
And Darren Rovell lied, there is no NOI!
This post was edited on 8/9/13 at 12:55 am
Posted on 8/9/13 at 12:50 am to NATidefan
to be fair, he's right, I'm not reading that shite first thing in the morning either
Posted on 8/9/13 at 12:51 am to Roger Klarvin
That is a good question. Somebody is lying or twisting the truth.
However, if the lawyer said no one has received any notice of any NCAA investigation or we have no knowledge of any NCAA investigation then they both could be telling the truth, as I was trying to point out. They can start an investigations months before notifying A&M or anyone.
However, if the lawyer said no one has received any notice of any NCAA investigation or we have no knowledge of any NCAA investigation then they both could be telling the truth, as I was trying to point out. They can start an investigations months before notifying A&M or anyone.
Posted on 8/9/13 at 12:52 am to Maroon Flash
I imagine ESPN's legal department will have a busy 24 hours if it turns out that the NCAA hasn't conducted a formal investigation yet.
Posted on 8/9/13 at 12:55 am to Roger Klarvin
Agreed. Of course they may have just started an NCAA investigation now. In which case I am sure JFF will be suspended for the Bama game and back in time for the LSU game, just like Satan planned. 
Posted on 8/9/13 at 12:58 am to Roger Klarvin
quote:
They can start an investigations months before notifying A&M or anyone.
No Sir. An examination is not an investigation. A Notice Of Investigation is required for an investigation. That is why Coach Sumlin didn't know wtf was going on. There is no NOI and ESPN lied!
ESPN is throwing shite at the wall to see if they can get something to stick and gain traction.
It would insult the National Inquirer to compare them to ESPN.
This post was edited on 8/9/13 at 1:04 am
Page 221 of 340
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News