|
Articles
|
Did the NCAA violate its own rules? Hoping against hope By: Richard Linde, Updated 17 November 2003
On that day, quarterback Don Heinrich suffered a shoulder separation. In his article, Hewins described the atmosphere in the coach’s locker room after Heinrich had been taken to Providence hospital Without Heinrich, "The Arm," the Huskies went on to a 3-6-1 season, even though Hugh McElhenny, "The King," gained 936 yards on 136 carries for the season. Almost fifty-two years later, on June 4, 2003, the hope that Coach Rick Neuheisel had for turning Washington into the Florida State of the west died. On that day, he and UW officials met with Pac-10 and NCAA officials to talk about his participation in a “gambling pool.” * Yesterday’s meeting with the Pac-10 compliance and enforcement committee at Walnut Creek was about renewed hope. The UW hoped to convince Pac-10 officials it is not guilty of a failure-to-monitor charge and that its own self-inflicted penalties are sufficient. Neuheisel hoped to convince Pac-10 officials he made an honest mistake, as did a UW official when she misinterpreted an NCAA Bylaw. But really the meeting should have been about the violation of at least four NCAA Bylaws, namely, 10.1, 10.3, 32.3.6 and 32.3.7. Neuheisel is accused of violating the first two rules, while NCAA and Pac-10 officials may have violated the last two rules. If it's a quid-pro-quo situation, then why not dump the whole rotten affair in the bit bucket? For the accused, however, living under NCAA rules is not that simple: the NCAA functions as the prosecutor, judge and jury in any trial involving the breaking of its rules. Participants in that meeting included former head coach Rick Neuheisel and his lawyer Bob Sulkin, UW assistant athletic director Dana Richardson, UW law professor and faculty representative Ron Aronson, and UW athletic director Barbara Hedges. They met with four officials from the Pacific-10 conference, who will make recommendations to the full Pac-10 council, which meets in March. At yesterday’s meeting, UW officials had to hope that the presentation by Sulkin would make a good case for the ambiguity of Bylaw 10.3, the one that covers gambling. The Pac-10 has charged the UW with a “failure to monitor” in connection with the gambling by Neuheisel and other coaches on campus. You can’t have “failure to monitor” if placing bets in sports pools isn’t covered by the bylaw. There are almost as many interpretations of 10.3 floating around the web as the number of lice found in Saddam’s hair. In our opinion, NCAA Bylaw 10.3 refers to organized gambling events, and not to the placing of bets in March Madness basketball pools. In Neuheisel’s case, he and his friends were bidding in an auction format for one of the teams in the NCAA tournament. Allegedly, Neuheisel is believed to have wagered $2,790 on teams in the 2003 basketball tournament, winning $7,324. In 2002, he is alleged to have wagered $3,610, winning $4,799. At one time, even the folks at the UW thought 10.3 was somewhat circuitous in its wording. Professor Aronson reportedly asked the following questions some time ago: “Why doesn’t it (NCAA Bylaw 10.3) just say “no gambling”? Why does it distinguish between soliciting on intercollegiate and accepting for your own institution? Is there some special meaning of “solicit” and “accept”? You know, I could make a pretty good argument, in fact I think Dana’s made a pretty good argument for why there is something in here that is allowed.…” And then there was yesterday's bombshell. According to an article written by Angelo Bruscas of the Seattle P-I, Neuheisel left his tape recorder running after the June meeting concluded, recording a conversation he had with state assistant Attorney General Karen Nyrop. According to Bob Sulkin, Neuheisel’s lawyer, Nyrop told Rick that what he “should say (to the press) -- which is true -- is that what he was involved in was an auction; it was not gambling." During yesterday’s meeting, the NCAA had to be hoping that Sulkin didn’t make a cogent case about their sandbagging of Neuheisel during the June meeting when they questioned him about the sports pool. In an attempt to surprise Neuheisel, NCAA officials allegedly told a local newspaper to hold off on their gambling story until after the meeting. Allegedly, they told Pac-10 officials not to apprise the UW officials about the true purpose of the meeting. Whether those allegations are true or not, Neuheisel went into the June meeting thinking that its purpose was to talk about a couple of minor NCAA violations, not the gambling incident. According to NCAA bylaw 32.3.6, Neuheisel was entitled to have his lawyer present at the meeting. NCAA Bylaw 32.3.6 states that “When an enforcement staff member conducts an interview that may develop information detrimental to the interests of the individual being questioned, that individual may be represented by personal legal council throughout the interview.” It is quite clear that the June 4 interview was detrimental to the interests of Rick Neuheisel; he was fired because of it, one of the reasons being that he initially lied to investigators in violation of NCAA Bylaw 10.1 Neuheisel has said that he was confused by the line of questioning and thought the investigators were discussing organized gambling. The tape recording of that initial meeting with NCAA officials has been lost, misplaced or damaged. In any case, it’s not available. NCAA Bylaw 32.3.7 deals with the disclosure of the purpose of the interview by investigators. In this case, the NCAA did not fully disclose the purpose of its interview with Neuheisel and UW officials. "There were clearly things that they (Pac-10 officials) were interested in, but I found in my view that they were particularly troubled by the way the NCAA has handled this investigation. That is, the NCAA misled Rick for the purpose of that (initial) interview," Sulkin said after the meeting. In conclusion, Neuheisel is hoping that Pac-10 won’t stiff him with a “show cause” edict. If that should happen, a Pac-10 school wishing to hire him within a certain period of time would have to show why it shouldn’t be penalized for employing him.
* Footnote As a result of its investigation, the Pac-10 has charged the UW with the following violations: -- Gambling, including Neuheisel's participation in a high-stakes gambling pool on college basketball as well as a number of other pools throughout the athletic department. -- Improper undercharging for boat rides for football recruits as well as improper contact with a booster. -- A failure to properly monitor the athletic department. . The UW has penalized itself for sports pools activities which occurred within the football office in 1999, 2001 and 2002. Several football coaches participated in the 1999 pool, including current head coach Keith Gilbertson. Gilbertson says he did not participate in the 2001/2002 pools, although the person who ran the pool claims he did, in contradiction to a previous statement made by him. The UW has found the pool operator's testimony unreliable. Letters of reprimand, admonishment and caution were placed in the files of the sports pool’s participants, each receiving one such type of letter depending on the severity of the violation. Participants in the boat ride collectively donated $120 to charity, which was the cumulative amount of money that was undercharged for the ride. The UW has also penalized itself for the boat ride to Neuheisel’s house, whereby a booster piloted a boat that transported recruits in violation of NCAA contact rules. Also, proper reimbursement for the boat ride was not made. The UW’s self-imposed penalties included the firing of Neuheisel for his participation in a high-stakes gambling pool and his initial lies to NCAA investigators; its self-imposed sanctions include the loss of eight-recruiting visits by football prospects during the 2004/05 season because of the boat ride violations. In its investigation of the UW, the Pac-10 charged the UW with a “failure to monitor” its athletic department. At yesterday’s meeting, the UW challenged that charge, arguing that that it has one of the best compliance staffs in NCAA football. The compliance and enforcement committee will present its finding to the full Pac-10 council in March. The Pac-10 council will review the findings and either rubber stamp it or modify it. All ten Pac-10 presidents will meet and give final approval as to that investigative report. In June, the NCAA will review the Pac-10’s final investigative report and either approve it or recommend that further action be taken, which could include the addition of further measures, but not a reduction. The most serious measure could be an upgrading of the “failure to monitor,” if that is found to be the case, to a “lack of institutional control,” a conclusion it reached in its review of the “Fruit Basket” scandal of 1992/93. We rather doubt that will happen, since the NCAA has a myriad of issues to face. One concerns statements made to the press before all the facts had been assembled regarding the high-stakes gambling incident. There are issues that deal with a potential violation of at least two of its own bylaws. The alleged relationship with a local newspaper regarding the timing of the release of the gambling story is still another issue. Reference: Bruscas, Angelo, “Neuheisel says tape supports his case,” The Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 16 December 2003. Richard Linde (a.k.a., Malamute) can be reached at malamute@4malamute.com |
|
|
“The day that hope died” was written by Jack Hewins, an
Associated Press writer, about an event that occurred on September 8, 1951, two
weeks before the Huskies’ season opener.