|
Articles
|
In her letter of termination to Neuheisel (June 11), Hedges writes, “Accordingly I have determined that your conduct, taken as a whole, constitutes “serious acts of misconduct” under Section (c) of your contract and conduct “seriously and prejudicial” to the best interests of the University and its athletic program under Section (8e) of your contract. Although if it is determined that your gambling violated NCAA rules, I would regard that as further grounds for termination under Section (8)(d). However, I have determined that just cause exists for your termination regardless of the ultimate conclusion on that issue. According to her letter, she’s terminating Neuheisel’s contract for acts of misconduct other than the gambling issue. The acts of misconduct concern his initial false denials to the NCAA regarding the gambling incident and his untruthfulness concerning his interview with the San Francisco 49ers. Hedges said his admitted gambling showed poor judgment, particularly in the context of his history of NCAA violations and his lack of contriteness regarding them. Neuheisel's NCAA violations, his lack of contriteness for them and the 49ers interview, taken as a whole, were not serious enough for Hedges to have fired him before the gambling incident was disclosed. So why are they big issues now? Assuming they are the straw that broke the camel's back, then the camel must have had a weak back. Tossing the camel out (a weak argument), leaves (1) the act of poor judgment and (2) his initial false denials to the NCAA regarding the gambling incident as the only valid reasons for dismal. (1) Poor Judgment. If entering the NCAA pool showed poor judgment, then why did UW attorney Dana Richardson send out an e-mail okaying participation in the 2003 March Madness basketball pool? The attorneys argued quite effectively that Neuheisel had every reason to use the Richardson memo as guidance for his gambling activity (see below). During an ESPN interview on Sunday night, Neuheisel had this to say, “I relied on the compliance interpretation from our compliance officer. This is what I relied upon, and it said my activity was completely permissible. “I think the NCAA has put on a lot of pressure because of some of the statements they made. I think that the day after I was questioned by the NCAA, Miles Brand said I should be fired. There was no way they could know all the facts. The university felt pressure to make a decision. I think it was simple as that. "The point of the matter is, if a school tells an employee that this is okay and the employee relies on that information, it seems a little bit unfair that the employee be the one to bare the brunt of that."
That leaves Neuheisel's initial false denials to the NCAA regarding the basketball pool as the final issue to be argued. (2) Bylaw 10.1. Under NCAA Bylaw 10.1, Sulkin and Crawford contend that the UW coach did not “Knowingly furnishing the NCAA or the individual’s institution false or misleading information concerning the individual’s involvement in or knowledge of matters relevant to a possible violation of an NCAA regulation.” In the main, the alleged violation of 10.1 involves the meeting Neuheisel and Hedges had with NCAA officials on June 6 concerning the gambling incident. Sulkin says "There never has been a coach that has been sanctioned for what Rick Neuheisel has done under 10.1. He was completely forthcoming on the first day. Barbara Hedges said so. Barbara Hedges says he was treated unfairly." The attorneys say that a tape recording of the meeting with the NCAA officials no longer exits, either having been destroyed accidentally or not recorded because of malfunction of the tape recorder. During the ESPN interview, Neuheisel said, “We’d been asked to talk to the NCAA about a recruit. The next thing I know they got me thinking I’d been involved with organized gambling, that there was criminal activity. And I was nervous. I’ve got my compliance person here and my athletic director here. What is going on here? And I was answering questions very carefully, very carefully. We had a break. The university attorney came over. I told him everything. I told him everything that happened. We then went back in and told the NCAA everything. “On Friday I was told now that 10.1 which is not being forthcoming was part of it, which I bristled at, because she (Hedges) was sitting there with me. I said, 'hey, you were there, we got blindsided. I told them everything.' She then said, ‘hey I didn’t want to put that in there. But our attorney insisted.’ And then when they finally pulled the trigger, that thing was loaded up with everything going back to Colorado." ---------------- Now let's discuss the issues in the termination letter in more detail, along with the responses to them by Neuheisel’s attorneys. On June 26, 2003. Rick Neuheisel’s attorneys, Bob Sulkin and Jerry Crawford, held a 45-minute press conference following their two-hour meeting with AD Barbara Hedges, in which they appealed her decision to suspend Neuheisel. Nueheisel, his wife and father attended the meeting.
In her letter of termination to Rick Neuheisel, Hedges writes, “If it is determined that your gambling violated NCAA rules, I would regard that as further grounds for termination under Section (8) (d) (of his contract).” The Rule: NCAA rule 10.3 is the rule Neuheisel allegedly violated, and is as follows: Staff members of a member conference, staff members of the athletics department of a member institution and student-athletes shall not knowingly: (Revised: 4/22/98 effective 8/1/98) (a) Provide information to individuals involved in organized gambling activities concerning intercollegiate athletics competition; (b) Solicit a bet on any intercollegiate team; (c) Accept a bet on any team representing the institution; (d) Solicit or accept a bet on any intercollegiate competition for any item (e.g., cash, (e) Participate in any gambling activity that involves intercollegiate athletics or professional athletics, through a bookmaker, a parlay card or any other method employed by organized gambling. The Defense: On March 13, 2003, UW Assistant Athletic Director Dana Richardson interpreted rule 10.3 in relationship to forthcoming March Madness betting pools and sent an e-mail to all people in the athletic department, which stated, "The bottom line of these rules is that if you have friends outside of ICA (Intercollegiate College Athletics) that have pools on any of the basketball tournaments, you can participate...You cannot place bets with a bookie or organize your own pool inside or outside of ICA." The attorneys contend that Neuheisel had every right to follow Dana Richardson’s e-mail which permitted UW employees to participate in pools, as long as they were not administering the pool and not participating with friends inside intercollegiate athletics. They cite two phone calls made, one by Neuheisel and one by a friend of his, that prove Neuheisel was aware of the e-mail the day he was questioned by NCAA officials about the gambling activity. They also point to a deposition made by Neuheisel’s secretary that says she has the Richardson e-mail on her computer, that Richardson’s e-mails received high priority and that Neuheisel did not get his own email, so that is how, in the attorneys’ minds, Neuheisel saw it because his secretary discusses important e-mails with him. Sulkin points to 13 letters received from Division 1A coaches that support Neuheisel’s following of his compliance staff’s interpretation of the NCAA rules, they themselves viewing their compliance staff’s interpretations as essential to their job performance. Among them are Mike Bellotti (Oregon), Jim Tressell (Ohio State), and Joe Paterno (Penn State). According to ESPN, Neuheisel polled forty of his peers, who, to the man, said they would have assumed it was alright too. Joe Paterno told him that he didn’t know it was illegal to be in a pool. Sulkin introduces a “smoking gun,” a memo dated 20 June sent by Hedges to the ICA, stating, “Regardless of anything else you may have read or heard, from this day forwards it is the department’s firm policy that no betting activities of any kind, including betting pools, on intercollegiate athletics events will be permitted by and coach or staff employee of Intercollegiate Athletics.” In regards to 10.3, Crawford said that most people are losing track of the fact that “Dana Richardson’s interpretation was correct; (Professor) Aranson’s reaction to Richardson’s interpretation was correct.” “Bill Saum, the much quoted Bill Saum, the current director of gambling activities at the NCAA, who comes to that position by the way of the experience of being an assistant football coach at Defiance College, Bill Saum has stated publicly they are relying in their allegations on 10.3.e.” It (10.3.e) states, “Participate in any gambling activity that involves intercollegiate athletics or professional athletics, through a bookmaker, a parlay card or any other method employed by organized gambling.” “Organized gambling,” Crawford stresses. “I would ask the people of Washington, does that refer to participation in a pool, ‘Bracketville,’ something the NCAA heralds on the announcement of the brackets or does that refer to illegal gambling activity?” “I think it is clearly the latter. Most of the illustrations used are illegal gambling activity, and nothing of the sort occurred in this instance. In her letter of termination to Neuheisel, Hedges wrote that "your initial false and misleading answers to the NCAA investigator violated Article 10.1(d) of the NCAA bylaws, and are grounds for termination under Section 8(d) of your contract." NCAA Bylaw: NCAA Bylaw 10.1 (Unethical conduct), states “Unsolicited conduct by a prospective or enrolled student-athlete or a current or former institutional staff member (e.g., coach, professor, tutor, teaching assistant student manager, student trainer) may include, but is not limited to, the following: (d) Knowingly furnishing the NCAA or the individual’s institution false or misleading information concerning the individual’s involvement in or knowledge of matters relevant to a possible violation of an NCAA regulation. Defense: Sulkin says "There never has been a coach that has been sanctioned for what Rick Neuheisel has done under 10.1. He was completely forthcoming on the first day. Barbara Hedges said so. Barbara Hedges says he was treated unfairly." The attorneys point out that Neuheisel was completely forthcoming on the day the NCAA “blindsided him” and that Neuhiesel thought the initial discussions involved misleading information, and that’s the reason he was less then forthcoming when interrogated earlier in the morning. The attorneys say that a tape recording of the meeting with the NCAA officials no longer exits, either having been destroyed accidentally or not recorded because of malfunction. “Your initial false denials of your participation (in gambling pools) likewise must be seen in the context of your untruthfulness earlier this year with regard to interviews with the San Francisco 49ers, at which time you were told that further acts of dishonesty would not be tolerated.” Defense: The attorneys admit Neuheisel lied about the 49ers interview, but only because of a confidentiality agreement he had with the 49ers. They point out Neuheisel has no obligation under his contract to disclose to Hedges any communication or job interviews he had with professional teams, only with college teams. They say Neuheisel interviewed with the 49ers as a favor to Terry Donahue (an old friend), and never had any interest in the job, the lack of interest being clear to Bill Walsh four minutes into the meeting. Sulkin says the 49ers interview was never a basis for termination, because if it was, Neuheisel would have been fired for that. Crawford said no professional organization wants to name a new head coach, after someone publicly turns the position down. Richard Linde (a.k.a., Malamute) can be reached at malamute@4malamute.com
|
||||||||
|
Barbara Hedges needs to
reconsider her termination of Rick Neuheisel and permit him to stay on as the
head football coach at the UW. Bob Sulkin and Jerry Crawford, Neuheisel’s
lawyers, made it quite clear during their press conference that Neuheisel has
not violated NCAA Bylaws 10.1
and 10.3, which deal with unethical conduct.