4malamute.com

Articles
    Archives
    Season 2000
    Season 2001
    Season 2002
    Season 2003
    History Articles
    Spoofs
    Editorials
Dawg Food
    Schedule
    Links Page
    Statistics
Site Development
    About This Site
   
Cast
     Contact Us


                      



Calling Adrian Monk
Some loose ends need tidying.
By: Richard Linde, Updated 24 August 2003

Did Rick Neuheisel lie to NCAA investigators during the infamous meeting that took place on June 4, 2003? Are there any loose ends in the gambling imbroglio that need tidying up? The text from the audio tape recordings of the morning and afternoon sessions between Neuheisel and NCAA investigators has some surprising answers.

The text from the audio tapes obtained by the Seattle Times shows that Rick Neuheisel misled NCAA investigators in the morning session and then told the truth in a late afternoon session, those question-and-answer sessions being reminiscent of former president Bill Clinton’s "lies" to federal investigators, the effects of which took over one year to resolve.

Like Clinton in Whitewater, Neuheisel, in Gamblegate, parsed his words carefully, avoiding words, such as “bet,” that appear in NCAA bylaw 10.3. “There is no betting taking place. Basically what it is, is it's an auction,” he told investigators.

Clearly, Neuheisel was not as forthcoming in the morning session as he should have been. He should have been completely truthful, and he was not.

However, a careful parsing of Neuheisel's answers to investigators indicate that he didn't tell any boldface lies to them in the morning session, when he supposedly lied repeatedly. He misled the investigators, but he didn't lie to them, as shown by a literal interpretation of the answers Neuheisel gave to investigators.

Table 1. The results of our lie-detector test (from The Seattle Times *)

NCAA's question * Neuheisel's Answer * Truth or a lie?

“Okay, and at no time did you ever place a bid on any team?”

 

“I never placed a bet on any team.”

True, he never placed a bet on any team. "Bet" is the keyword. He participated in the auction.

"And that last year you placed a bet University of Maryland. You paid $7,000 for the University of Maryland and you have won the pool and you won $25,000."

 

"That is incorrect."

True. The amount of money is incorrect; Neuheisel did not place a bet.

“Okay. Okay and do you believe that anything that you did either last year or this year at this auction pool was in violation of NCAA rules?”

 

"No, because I did not place a bet."

True; Neuheisel did not place a bet, so he didn't violate NCAA Bylaw 10.3

"Coach could you explain if there was some misunderstanding, something that, if there was any, anything that would explain your presence in these amounts."

"Yeah, I can explain exactly why that would be misinterpreted because I am sitting there with friends and my friends are participating in the pool. There is no betting taking place. Basically what it is, is it's an auction."

True. He was sitting there with friends, who were participating in the auction. Neuheisel's answer is misleading but not a lie.

"Okay."

 

 

"I did not go there to gamble."

True. According to Webster's dictionary, the word gamble means "to bet on an uncertain outcome." Neuheisel participated in an auction but did not bet.
 

"Okay. Is the $7,000 a correct number as far as what they would have to pool their money to pay."

 

"I don't recall."

Where have we heard that phrase before?

"Coach, were you, were you concerned at all, did you have second thoughts about going."

 

"Uh, I won't go again [laughter] if that's the question. I can guarantee it. No, I didn't have any concerns at all because I know that we can't gamble and I know I can't place a bet or anything like that, but I wasn't, I was just there watching."

Misleading. True, Neuheisel wasn't gambling or placing a bet; however, he was watching and participating in an auction.

"Have you ever participated in a March Madness pool?"

 

"Yes."

True. He participated in small-betting pools at Washington, UCLA, and Colorado.

"Have you ever participated in March Madness pool at Washington?"

 

"I don't recall. Uh, I think there may have been one my first year there."

True, there was one in 1999.

"I have a couple of follow-up questions. I know you indicated that you (not) were involved at all in the group that owned Maryland. Did you contribute money, not necessarily for your own purpose, but did you let a friend borrow money to help purchase Maryland. Did you contribute any of your own funds?"

 

"I don't think so."

True, he loaned no money to his friends.

"Did they split any winnings with you?"

"No."

True. Literally, his friends didn't split their winnings with Neuheisel; each of them kept their own portion of the pot, splitting the pot among themselves.

Only when Neuheisel realized that the NCAA had the goods on him did he tell the complete truth--was completely forthcoming. And that was later in the afternoon, according to the tapes obtained by the Seattle Times.

Neuheisel has repeatedly contended he was confused by the line of questioning, and said he thought he was being accused of "gamboling" with organized gamblers.

For example, the NCAA investigators asked Neuheisel whether he had an internet gambling account or whether had had an internet gambling account under somebody else’s name. He was asked whether the house keeps a percentage of the money wagered, and he told them “there is no house.” "Have you ever wired money by (sic) Western Union because that was an internet gambling account," one questioner asked.

Neuheisel's lawyer, Bob Sulkin, said Neuheisel's responses would seem much different if the original context, which implied involvement with illegal, organized gambling, were available.

End of story?

No. The Neuheisel gambling imbroglio is a never ending story, much like some physicists' view of the universe--a collapse, followed by a big bang, followed by a collapse.

Because of Neuheisel's big-bang episode, the paintings in Barbara Hedge’s office need straightening. The block “W” on Husky field is slightly askew.

Calling Mr. Monk, some loose ends need tidying.

"Mr. Monk," a TV show that appears on the USA channel, stars an obsessive-compulsive detective played by Tony Shalaub. Being able to discern facts and solve criminal cases like no one else, Mr. Monk is called in on cases that appear totally unsolvable.

Likewise, Mr. Monk needs to find some answers to some penetrating questions before partial closure can be reached regarding the gambling episode involving Rick Neuheisel. Full closure comes after his lawsuit with the NCAA and the UW is settled.

Here are the questions for Mr. Monk:

  • The Memo: Both Dana Richardson and Barbara Hedges let Neuheisel take the hit during the third meeting with the NCAA, both knowing that the memo written by Richardson permitted sports-pool gambling outside of the athletic department as long as the participant was not administering the pool. Apparently, no one told the NCAA investigators about the memo at that time. Why not?

  • The Lurker: Who was the Seattle Times reporter lurking outside of the meeting with the NCAA, when Neuheisel was told the nature of the meeting was confidential? Who informed the reporter of the meeting? What was the connection between the Seattle Times and the NCAA during this affair?

  • The Tipster: Who was the tipster who alerted the NCAA to Neuheisel’s participation in the pool?

  • The Missing Tape: What happened to the first tape made of the meeting in the morning?

  • The Amount: Although the NCAA prohibits the participation in sports pools, regardless of the amount of money wagered, NCAA officials say that small wagers warrant minor punishment while large wagers deem major punishment. What amount of money constitutes a large wager?  

  • The Setup: Did Neuheisel ask to participate in the pool or did his friends lure him into it?

Whether Neuheisel lied to the NCAA investigators or not is a moot point. The bottom line concerns Neueheisel’s alleged breaking of NCAA Bylaw 10.3, which is clearly aimed at organized gambling. That’s how the whole affair got started. It is our opinion that Neuheisel did not specifically violate the rule, though he may have violated the spirit of the rule; he certainly used bad judgment in entering the pool. And, initially, he misled the investigators when asked about his participation in the pool.

None of this alters the bottom line involving the breaking of Bylaw 10.3. If that should be the case, ironically, the whole imbroglio is much ado about nothing.

However, the much hyped affair, along with the 49ers interview, reflect on the former coach's character. When taken by surprise on a volatile issue, the coach's first inclination, seemingly, was to be mendacious rather than forthright. It is a defense mechanism built into a lot of people, even former Presidents of the United States.

---------------

Photo above: Athletic Director Barbara Hedges, 66, speaking to guests at Band Day, Don James Center, August 19, 2003. "Everybody in the country knows my age and my hair color," she said.


Richard Linde (a.k.a., Malamute) can be reached at malamute@4malamute.com

Original content related to this site,
including editorials, photos
and exclusive materials
© 4malamute.com, 2003
All Rights Reserved