Started By
Message
re: Wade and Miller wiretaps ruled "irrelevant" in federal trial.
Posted on 4/19/19 at 12:32 pm to secuniversity
Posted on 4/19/19 at 12:32 pm to secuniversity
quote:
You're confusing a court of law and the NCAA
no I'm not
quote:
Standards are different. There is no "beyond a reasonable doubt."
actually the NCAA does have a standard. It is stated in their by-laws. It is very similar to clear and convincing evidence in a court of law.
2
Posted on 4/19/19 at 12:32 pm to FightingTigers138
Posted on 4/19/19 at 12:32 pm to hg
quote:
Sec rant has been getting owned by everything LSU related lately
Yup, only the real big idiots are left chirping.
Posted on 4/19/19 at 12:36 pm to PearlJam
quote:
Was he not talking to other people on the phone?
Yes, and so far Dawkins through his attorney said the following:
quote:
Facing the possibility of multiple years in prison for his role in the college basketball bribery case that ended last month, Dawkins could choose to be more forthcoming in exchange for a lighter sentence. But he rejected a plea deal conditioned on cooperation prior to that trial, and has not wavered as he awaits an appeal of his conviction.
"That was not something that Christian was interested in doing," attorney Steve Haney said Thursday. "He's going to deal with it like a man should. He's not going to rat out other folks.
"He's not going to cooperate. He has some integrity ... He's not going to be a snitch."
Unless and until that changes, or Dawkins' co-defendants cut plea deals, universities have little choice but to proceed on the evidence at hand.
LINK
Once again, if somebody starts spilling the beans and/or producing receipts (see what's going on with Avenatti & Nike) then the NCAA will have *something*.
But right now they don't.
I shouldn't have to explain this over and over again to an Auburn fan.
Posted on 4/19/19 at 12:37 pm to PearlJam
quote:
Was he not talking to other people on the phone?
he was talking to one person, a person who has not a lot of credibility. They also can't force him to speak to them. And why would he? He starts talking and he could further incriminate himself for other things he's done the feds don't know about. Dawkins actually is going to prison and is being criminally charged. I highly doubt his attorney is going to advise him to speak with the NCAA. That's the only other person part of those conversations that would even potentially talk to them. Smart already did and denied everything. Smart's "mentor" already decline talking to them and they can't make him.
quote:Then the attorney would be disbarred and face possible criminal contempt charges. He's not going to risk going to jail and losing his license to help out the NCAA. They would also be sued civilly by Wade if he incurs monetary damages as a result of this supposed leak.
What if defense counsel leaked the actual wiretaps or transcripts of the actual wiretaps to the media and the media published them in full.
quote:
Do you think the NCAA would be precluded in some way from using that published wiretap or transcript in it's hearing regarding Will Wade?
I think the NCAA is not going to risk being sued by using illegally obtained evidence in an investigation or their own adjudicatory hearing.
quote:
Do you think someone could successfully sue the NCAA due to a chain of custody issue?
yes
quote:
he point is, the NCAA isn't bound by the rules of evidence in it's hearings.
no, but they're bound to follow the laws of the United States
quote:
If you think otherwise, you are wrong.
nah
Posted on 4/19/19 at 12:37 pm to lsufball19
quote:
actually the NCAA does have a standard. It is stated in their by-laws. It is very similar to clear and convincing evidence in a court of law.
Once again, lsufball19 running a clinic up in here.
LINK
quote:
Then again, as noted by Potuto - the former chair of the infractions committee - an NCAA hearing is not a legal proceeding. The NCAA's standard of proof is equivalent to "clear and convincing evidence" in a civil case, such as those involving parental rights, Potuto said.
"The burden of proof doesn't mean each piece of evidence has to reach that burden," she said. "It means in the complete totality of it you can get there, which means you may reject some of it."
Posted on 4/19/19 at 12:37 pm to BrerTiger
quote:correct
Once again, if somebody starts spilling the beans and/or producing receipts (see what's going on with Avenatti & Nike) then the NCAA will have *something*.
But right now they don't.
quote:you didn't have to explain it the first time. I haven't disagreed with that. I really only laughed at the idiot throwing around legal jargon out of context acting like he had a clue.
I shouldn't have to explain this over and over again to an Auburn fan.
Posted on 4/19/19 at 12:38 pm to BrerTiger
quote:
I shouldn't have to explain this over and over again to an Auburn fan.
Posted on 4/19/19 at 12:38 pm to FightingTigers138
quote:How so?
This also means the NCAA wont ever get their hands on those tapes.
Posted on 4/19/19 at 12:40 pm to lsufball19
quote:lol
Do you think someone could successfully sue the NCAA due to a chain of custody issue?
yes
quote:Under the unlikely scenario I presented, the NCAA would have legally obtained the evidence.
think the NCAA is not going to risk being sued by using illegally obtained evidence in an investigation or their own adjudicatory hearing.
quote:yeah, but there is no law that requires it to establish a chain of custody for evidence it considers in its private adjudication of its own rules.
but they're bound to follow the laws of the United States
This post was edited on 4/19/19 at 12:42 pm
Posted on 4/19/19 at 12:42 pm to secuniversity
Oh well good thing our athletic director is besties with mark emmert who is also an LSU fan lmaoooooooooooo
This board lmaooooo
This board lmaooooo
Posted on 4/19/19 at 12:42 pm to LouisvilleKat
quote:
How so?
FBI counsel has said they aren't releasing anything not admitted to trial.
Judge ruled this morning that the Wade tape(s) are not being admitted to trial.
NCAA isn't getting anything from FBI, which is the only way they could use it.
Posted on 4/19/19 at 12:43 pm to ibldprplgld
quote:First I've heard of that.
NCAA isn't getting anything from FBI
Posted on 4/19/19 at 12:47 pm to LouisvilleKat
Oh wow this is awkward. You still think LSU is going down lmao
Posted on 4/19/19 at 12:48 pm to LouisvilleKat
quote:
First I've heard of that.
quote:
Emmert noted that the NCAA needed to file a request for the evidence because it is not automatically available. If the request is granted, the NCAA can then use the evidence as part of its own investigations into the recruiting scandals without needing to find the evidence on its own, which is a relatively new NCAA rule.
quote:
In a separate court filing in March, prosecutors representing the U.S. government in the case said they intended to oppose the release of the evidence, noting the NCAA had requested 24 exhibits of evidence that were not admitted into an October trial.
LINK
Posted on 4/19/19 at 12:49 pm to tigerbait2010
quote:I didn't say that. I just haven't heard anyone say the FBI isn't going to turn over evidence to the NCAA once all the trials are over.
Oh wow this is awkward. You still think LSU is going down lmao
They already accepted evidence against Louisville in the Brian Bowen case from the Feds so whatever happens from here on out I'm good.
Posted on 4/19/19 at 12:57 pm to gumpinmizzou
quote:
Sooooo.....why did y’all suspend Wade?
You think all of the posters here are F King? Dummy
Posted on 4/19/19 at 1:11 pm to PearlJam
quote:
Under the unlikely scenario I presented, the NCAA would have legally obtained the evidence.
receiving illegally leaked evidence is not legally obtaining evidence. That's akin to saying there's nothing legally wrong with receiving stolen property because you aren't the one who stole it.
quote:
yeah, but there is no law that requires it to establish a chain of custody for evidence it considers in its private adjudication of its own rules.
I'm saying if the NCAA uses illegally obtained evidence in their own hearings and use that evidence to issue a show cause against Wade, effectively costing him millions in current and future wages, then they would absolutely have grounds for a lawsuit. The NCAA would have used illegally obtained evidence by way of a violation of a protective order and then used that evidence to cost Wade a lot of money (i.e. his monetary damages). Criminally, no the NCAA wouldn't be liable. But as far as potential tort liability, yeah the NCAA isn't going to take that risk. Do you really think punishing Will Wade and/or LSU is worth that risk to them?
Let's be frank, the NCAA is not going to get those wiretaps and they're not going to get any testimony from the people involved in said wiretaps. The only hope they have is they find something else they don't already have through a subsequent investigation, which, as we all know, is going to be very difficult for them with no one talking and no subpoena power to obtain the documents evidence they'll need. They can't use anonymous sources, per their own by-laws, so the yahoo article, while it definitely sounds bad, is not something they can use as evidence.
This post was edited on 4/19/19 at 1:15 pm
Posted on 4/19/19 at 1:12 pm to ibldprplgld
quote:
You got that proof, baw? I
You ATPB assholes want proof now?
Posted on 4/19/19 at 1:13 pm to LouisvilleKat
quote:
First I've heard of that.
Go read the umpteen different articles. People have merely interpreted what they want them to say by implying that the FBI working with the NCAA means they are handing over their case file to the NCAA after the trial, when in fact they cannot legally, due to Federal Privacy Laws, disclose any documents obtained by their office (absent consent of Will Wade) unless said documents make their way into the court's public record. So if these wiretaps and Wade's testimony are not going to be admitted, then the FBI cannot legally release that information to the NCAA. The NCAA has already filed Motions attempting to intervene to acquire this evidence and those requests have been denied. They requested the same from the FBI and were also denied. They just don't have the legal authority to be privy to the information they want.
This post was edited on 4/19/19 at 3:12 pm
Page 4 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News