Ducks Attack Message Board Forum

(NCAA VP for enforcement) Roe Lach told Chizik, according to several coaches who were at the meeting. “And we’re not finished.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/14/sport ... .html?_r=2

"While Chizik has repeatedly said that he and Auburn did not break any rules in recruiting Newton, Roe Lach made it clear that the N.C.A.A. is not done investigating."

"It ain't over til it' over", comes to mind...

Honestly, I'm in the same boat as Tenn coach Derek Dooley (who right before the Lach-Chizik exchange made a comment about how the NCAA takes too long in their investigations & it's subsequent detriment on recruiting), the NCAA needs to streamline this process and speed things up. I understand why Chizik would be frustrated.

Seriously. What exactly is the delay? It doesn't take that much time or man-power to conduct 5-10 interviews. What else are they sleuthing in to?

wheaton4prez wrote:Seriously. What exactly is the delay? It doesn't take that much time or man-power to conduct 5-10 interviews. What else are they sleuthing in to?

Don't forget there were (are?) also investigations by the FBI and others of Auburn trustees and boosters. The NCAA waited until civil suits were settled in the Reggie Bush case before getting on the record testimony. It could easily be the same type of issue with Cam Newton.

maxduck wrote:

wheaton4prez wrote:Seriously. What exactly is the delay? It doesn't take that much time or man-power to conduct 5-10 interviews. What else are they sleuthing in to?

Don't forget there were (are?) also investigations by the FBI and others of Auburn trustees and boosters. The NCAA waited until civil suits were settled in the Reggie Bush case before getting on the record testimony. It could easily be the same type of issue with Cam Newton.

Yes, it is way more complicated than a (not-so) simple NCAA investigation. The involvement of law enforcement means there is a likelihood that there are many things that the NCAA might not be able to divulge to the public, yet. Also it opens up avenues that would not be open to the NCAA if it were just their investigation.

Ok. So, FBI agents talk slower than NCAA agents? It shouldn't take 6+ months to years to conduct a series of interviews. No matter who is conducting them.

wheaton4prez wrote:Ok. So, FBI agents talk slower than NCAA agents? It shouldn't take 6+ months to years to conduct a series of interviews. No matter who is conducting them.

Let's take a hypothetical situation. You are to investigate a possible "pay for play" situation at a school. You have no subpoena power and must rely on the voluntary cooperation of those you interview.

At the same time the FBI and other governmental agencies are investigating a major power broker at the same unnamed school, a person who has actively been very involved with the athletic program. In addition a gambler and prominent athletic booster is also under investigation and has been wiretapped. Speculation is he bribed public officials among other allegations, somewhat similar to illegally paying a player. Again both of these individuals are extremely involved with both the athletic department and program you have been assigned to check out.

Wouldn't you want to see what the FBI and others discover before you declare "case closed"?

maxduck wrote:

wheaton4prez wrote:Ok. So, FBI agents talk slower than NCAA agents? It shouldn't take 6+ months to years to conduct a series of interviews. No matter who is conducting them.

Let's take a hypothetical situation. You are to investigate a possible "pay for play" situation at a school. You have no subpoena power and must rely on the voluntary cooperation of those you interview.

At the same time the FBI and other governmental agencies are investigating a major power broker at the same unnamed school, a person who has actively been very involved with the athletic program. In addition a gambler and prominent athletic booster is also under investigation and has been wiretapped. Speculation is he bribed public officials among other allegations, somewhat similar to illegally paying a player. Again both of these individuals are extremely involved with both the athletic department and program you have been assigned to check out.

Wouldn't you want to see what the FBI and others discover before you declare "case closed"?

There is also the other end of that scenario; there is evidence of infractions but you can not reveal them as they are pieces of the FBI/IRS investigation.

If the FBI intended to sit on a wiretap for years, no, I dont think its fair to wait to see if they come up with something. And if we know enough about it to suspect FBI monitoring, that wiretap is useless.

The NCAA clearly has plenty of power to get people in quickly without a subpoena. Its pretty much been the substory of every case lately. If you dont cooperate, you get into more trouble. Time isn't going to change anything if some outside person refuses to interview.

wheaton4prez wrote:If the FBI intended to sit on a wiretap for years, no, I dont think its fair to wait to see if they come up with something. And if we know enough about it to suspect FBI monitoring, that wiretap is useless.

The NCAA clearly has plenty of power to get people in quickly without a subpoena. Its pretty much been the substory of every case lately. If you dont cooperate, you get into more trouble. Time isn't going to change anything if some outside person refuses to interview.

Then why did the USC investigation only take what, five years?

maxduck wrote:

wheaton4prez wrote:If the FBI intended to sit on a wiretap for years, no, I dont think its fair to wait to see if they come up with something. And if we know enough about it to suspect FBI monitoring, that wiretap is useless.

The NCAA clearly has plenty of power to get people in quickly without a subpoena. Its pretty much been the substory of every case lately. If you dont cooperate, you get into more trouble. Time isn't going to change anything if some outside person refuses to interview.

Then why did the USC investigation only take what, five years?

That's kind of the point. SC's investigation shouldn't have taken 5 years. You can close cases and reopen them barring new developments, but keeping an investigation open essentially in perpetuity, because someone someday might step forward is ridiculous.

What happens in this Auburn case if the FBI turns up nothing remotely football related? Which is entirely possible. Now you've held open an investigation, damaged a school in recruiting, and come up with nothing.

Exactly. I'm going to call the NCAA what it is. Yet another poorly run organization with no oversight. They spend more money on commercials to convince people they do a good job than they do on correcting their shortcomings.

wheaton4prez wrote:Exactly. I'm going to call the NCAA what it is. Yet another poorly run organization with no oversight. They spend more money on commercials to convince people they do a good job than they do on correcting their shortcomings.

+100.

Thamel has written quite a few pieces trashing Auburn. If I'm not mistaken, he's a friend of Joe Schadd.

Starting to sound like "As the Plains Burn" in here with the FBI talk. The bingo trial has been going on for almost two months now and the only booster from any team to come up was Bear Bryant Jr(Alabama). The trial is/was expected to last about two months, so we're in the home stretch there. And honestly, I can't see the FBI releasing any such confidential documents to the NCAA anyhow. And regarding the "damning tapes", I personally know a woman very well who's job was to transcribe any and all the tapes involved in the trial. I asked her a few months ago if there was anything incriminating on those tapes, and she told me/us "no". Now she could be lying to just protect her job, but I feel if she had found something she would have let us know somehow. She's a very good friend of the family and also has a pretty big mouth.

Onto the topic. Chizik was actually continuing what TN coach, Derek Dooley was talking about. This occurred nearly two months ago during the SEC coaches meeting. His timing of releasing the article is questionable-it was the night of the ESPYs and Media Days is next week. So it's not like this was a shot out of the blue like some seem to believe. I'm glad he questioned the NCAA.

JHokanson
"Comments that take place in the meetings should stay in the meetings," SEC Exec. Asso. Commiss. Mark Womack on coaches talking to Thamel.
19 minutes ago

Onto the investigation itself, since that exchange. We believe it's more than likely over, yet being kept open. This isn't uncommon. Here's a post from our board that echoes a premium interview with someone who is on the inside. Phillip is the insider, McGlynn is Auburn's Compliance Director.

I can't quote this verbatim because it's on a premium forum, but the gist of it is that the interview Auburn's compliance director Rich McGlynn did with Phillip Marshall was a direct result of that exchange 43 days ago, because he called the head of investigations at the NCAA whom he has spoken with regularly. Speaking with him was what prompted McGlynn to finally break Auburn's silence on the matter.

If you read here, a recent(7/15) article regarding LSU's issues with Lyles, you'll see why this may be particularly interesting:

According to NCAA rules, all parties of the investigation must maintain the confidentiality of interviews to protect the integrity of an investigation," she said. "This includes the school and enforcement staff

http://www.shreveporttimes.com/article/ ... estigation



Anyway, that's what's going on on our side. Is it football season yet?

Why would UO fans care about AU anymore or if they are or aren't being investigated? We lost, it's over and if I've learned on thing from our own investigation is that other fans don't care about facts and neither does the media, so how can you take anything for face value that is in the media? If AU gets hit then they get hit, if not good for them. Their fans here have been classy, so I for one don't want to see them get in trouble.