Violations at Duke??

[tornado]

not that the NCAA would ever care or ever look into anything at Duke...
but a NEW blockbuster story discloses pretty solid proof that just maybe Duke isn't so squeaky clean..........

A Duke senior walked into a jewelry store and bought $97,800 of bling/diamonds/jewelry and paid $30,000 of the tab right up front...
this is coming out in an article by YahooSports! and of course the NCAA wouldn't be interested at this time...

BUT - seriously, where does a college kid come up with nearly $100K to spend on jewelry $30K of which he kinda pays with pocket change!

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/ncaab--lance-thomas-lawsuit-could-test-integrity-of-ncaa-.html

The facts in this case seem pretty well established because the jewelry store has the documentation of the transaction and is now filing a lawsuit since the Duke player kept the jewelry but never paid the rest of the bill.

By giving the player time to pay off the remaining $67,800, this in effect constitutes a $67,800 loan - which is also kinda fishy when it's a highly rated college basketball player - especially since he simply kept the jewelry & $$ and never paid it back!

"In this case, did Rafaello & Co. (the jeweler) allow a 21-year-old to borrow
$67,800 because that 21-year-old was a starter on the eventual national
champions and thus considered a potential NBA player who would not only
be likely to pay the balance but become a return customer? Is it standard
practice to let young people make that substantial of a purchase with just
30 percent down?
If not, Duke could be in trouble."


if NCAA simply follows it's own rules here - this kid clearly received extra benefits and should be ruled ineligible and all Dukes wins, including their NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP should be taken away.

That means - BUTLER would be the "defacto" National Champion!!!

[tornado]

One of the blog pieces I read about this story says that at Duke each player signs agreements that require them to get staff permission before they do anything of this kind...they can't buy expensive things, take out loans, get special deals on any merchandise, be allowed to buy or own anything that isn't fully paid for, and especially - had better NOT even be in possession of anything that is expensive beyond their obvious means.

So - how could this have happened?? Is nobody watching the shop there at Duke?? I can't believe the kid bought all that bling then NEVER wore it!! Someone must have known!!
I just want to see some fairness & justice -- some schools get reprimanded and even hammered HARD when someone buys a hamburger for a player or when a player gets a summer job and is inadvertently paid a couple hundred $$ more than he apparently worked for...Come on NCAA - it's your serve!




BTW - here are pictures from the jewelry store catalog reportedly of some of the items he bought........






this one's a large file - so here's the link - http://www.prohiphop.com/images/graf...collection.jpg

[tornado]

Interesting article on how the NCAA absolutely shows incredible bias by letting the big schools off the hook when there's major violations...

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/09/10/ncaa-jurisdiction-limited-unc-academic-integrity-issues

similar - yet far lesser violations at Cal Tech prompted harsh NCAA action and sanctions - where is the fairness??

Others see this bias and label NCAA a laughingstock

http://www.thepilot.com/news/2012/sep/09/penalties-ncaa-wonders-why-its-laughingstock/

[amckillip]

Until I see ANYTHING that makes me believe anyone on the staff at Duke had anything to do with this or even knew about this I'm going to give Duke the benefit of the doubt that they've earned...

[tornado]

I also am not concluding guilt on Duke's part but there must have been at some naivete here if the guy is wearing $100K in jewelry around campus for several months from December thru the end of the school year.....
- though surely they bear at least the same responsibility as has been seen players are found to be ineligible after the fact -- it happened with Villanove & Howard Porter, UMass & Marcus Camby, etc........
It also happened when BU was judged to be guilty when POB had employment issues that were inadvertent & unknown to Bradley - and same when Memphis was also judged to bear responsibility even tho they were under the impression Derrick Rose took his SAT - but was later ruled to have not done so...
So...whether they KNOW about the violations or not - IF they played a player who was later ruled ineligible - then precedent has been set and & they are still on the hook for penalties.

However this is not the first time people have written of certain disparities at Duke or suspicions at Duke - such as when Duke landed Chris Duhon who suddenly started driving a fancy late model car far more ritzy than most underprivileged college students owned - and his mom suddenly got a nice cushy job at Duke. BTW - nothing ever came of that & NCAA never even checked...btw - Boozer's dad also landed a great job after verbaling to Duke...

http://truthaboutduke.com/duhon_nola.php

[DoubleJayAlum]

I also am not concluding guilt on Duke's part but there must have been at some naivete here if the guy is wearing $100K in jewelry around campus for several months from December thru the end of the school year.....
- though surely they bear at least the same responsibility as has been seen players are found to be ineligible after the fact -- it happened with Villanove & Howard Porter, UMass & Marcus Camby, etc........
It also happened when BU was judged to be guilty when POB had employment issues that were inadvertent & unknown to Bradley - and same when Memphis was also judged to bear responsibility even tho they were under the impression Derrick Rose took his SAT - but was later ruled to have not done so...
So...whether they KNOW about the violations or not - IF they played a player who was later ruled ineligible - then precedent has been set and & they are still on the hook for penalties.

The difference is all related to whether or not the person making the loan is a booster. If he isn't, Duke may not have any culpability and the player wouldn't be ineligible assuming he is the only Dukie that got this special "financing." If, however, the jeweler was a booster for the program (like the tattoo parlor owner in the Ohio St case or the company that paid POB) it is a completely different situation.

[Braves4Life]

The difference is all related to whether or not the person making the loan is a booster. If he isn't, Duke may not have any culpability and the player wouldn't be ineligible assuming he is the only Dukie that got this special "financing."

Excatly. I thought the same thing DoubleJay. Plenty of people are extended credit based upon their future employment earnings. How many doctors, dentists and lawyers would have been able to open a practice if not for the lender banking on their future potential earning power. I think, in the end, if it can't be proven where this Dookie came up with the down payment money that this case will just disappear due to lack of evidence or cause. After all, he was a potential future NBA player who put 1/3 down on this merchandise. Unfortunately for the lender, he's a rat who's chosen not to fulfill his legal obligation of repaying his loan... Happens all the time.

[tornado]

it doesn't matter - as precedent has proven -- the guy who cheated to help Derrick Rose wasn't a Memphis booster - but once Rose was declared ineligible, then Memphis had to forfeit all those wins using an ineligible player.

One college basketball expert says NCAA lacks the guts to properly and fairly punish their premier schools like UNC & Duke...

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/ncaab/story/2012/09/10/sonny-vaccaro-ncaa-lacks-guts-to-punish-unc-duke/57737534/1

..and other articles this morning reflect back to a similar situation over a decade ago when Corey Maggette at Duke accepted cash payments while he was still playing at Duke, and yet the NCAA gave a complete pass to Duke at that time, no penalties whatsoever, and bought the excuse that since Duke didn't know about it, they were completely off the hook.
Wonder why the NCAA didn't use the same argument when Bradley got punished in POB's extra benefits case?

http://www.sportsmyriad.com/2012/09/duke-lance-thomas-and-the-ncaas-strict-liability/

http://johnclay.bloginky.com/2012/09/10/could-strict-liability-apply-to-duke-over-lance-thomas/

http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/story/12096928

they ask the classic question...
"Why are other schools punished for ???strict liability??? while Duke isn??™t?"
...while lots of other opinions including Dickie V are pleading that Duke should be instantly exonerated because they are like unto a god and couldn't possible be crooked...

[DoubleJayAlum]

it doesn't matter - as precedent has proven -- the guy who cheated to help Derrick Rose wasn't a Memphis booster - but once Rose was declared ineligible, then Memphis had to forfeit all those wins using an ineligible player.

It most certainly does matter because getting a loan, in and of itself, will not make a player ineligible!

(For the record, I hate Duke and hope they get in serious trouble, but I also can look at things from an objective standpoint. Unless it can be shown that Joe the Jeweler was a Duke booster, the NCAA is going to have a hard time doing anything about the loan. The jeweler, as an independent American businessman can extend credit to anybody he wants under any terms he wants, so long as the terms don't run afoul of state usury laws. The real question is where the $30K used for the downpayment came from, but without subpoena powers, it might be hard for the NCAA to find out. I would add that if it was cash, the jeweler was required to report it via a certain IRS form or he (the jeweler) could be charged with money laundering. Even if the jeweler failed to complete the cash transaction reporting form though, Thomas can't be charged with a crime - only the jeweler can...

The issue with POB is completely different because he was paid for hours he never worked by a known booster to the Bradley program. On top of that, it is much easier to prove he was paid for hours he never worked (there is a paper trail in the paycheck, for one thing) than it is to try to track down where a kid got a hold of $30K. The car dealership should have just paid POB cash and both parties probably would have gotten away with breaking NCAA rules... )

[tornado]

It most certainly does matter because getting a loan, in and of itself, will not make a player ineligible!...

I agree - but we're not talking just getting a loan - we are talking getting a loan that is soooo unlikely to have ever been given to any other kid on Duke's campus - strongly suggesting that this loan was preferentially given because the loanee was potentially going to be a big name pro thus Lance got a special benefit that only an athlete would have gotten.
If you read every column on this topic - the two apparent violations are "potential" only at this point...

-where'd he get that kind of $$ - same kind of suspicion as Reggie Bush living in a luxury off-campus condo that he couldn't possibly have the means to pay for - strong suspicion someone else is supplying extra benefits

-and how does a college kid with no job, no income, and who is known to have come from a low-income background
ever get a loan of nearly $70K without putting anything down as collateral?
- again - strong suspicion of an extra benefit given to a potentially future-rich client that might buy more jewelry down the road...


Right now most people are giving Duke & Coach K the benefit of the doubt when it comes to knowing this was happening or enabling it...
but as I said - even if they are innocent in that, the player might still be deemed ineligible and Duke then would be on the hook for playing a kid who was later deemed ineligible - just like Michigan and Chris Webber, UMass & Marcus Camby, Villanova & Howard Porter, Memphis & Derrick Rose...etc....they would have to forfeit their wins and championship.

[DoubleJayAlum]

I agree - but we're not talking just getting a loan - we are talking getting a loan that is soooo unlikely to have ever been given to any other kid on Duke's campus - strongly suggesting that this loan was preferentially given because the loanee was potentially going to be a big name pro thus Lance got a special benefit that only an athlete would have gotten.

Agreed, but it is still only a violation if there is some tie between the jeweler and Duke (booster, etc.)

A single act by an opportunistic retailer that has zero ties to Duke is not a violation. Just think of the can of worms that would be opened - boosters from other schools would be able to do things to get their rivals best players in trouble. For instance, let's say the jeweler was a UNC fan and wanted Duke to get put on probation to help UNC's recruiting of top level prospects. Having a rule like you suggest would allow exactly that, which is why the rule does not read the way you suggest.

There has to be some sort of of nexus between the jeweler and Duke in order for Duke to have any culpability. The fact that the kid may have gotten a loan that others wouldn't get just because he is an athlete is probably a special benefit, but it isn't an IMPROPER special benefit unless Duke is linked to the jeweler.

[tornado]

Agreed, but it is still only a violation if there is some tie between the jeweler and Duke (booster, etc.)

A single act by an opportunistic retailer that has zero ties to Duke is not a violation. ....

I disagree - it certainly CAN be viewed as a serious violation....
all the stuff Reggie Bush got was from agents - NOT boosters...
any extra benefit given to a college athlete or prospective college athlete (a recruit) that are given because of his status as an athlete are impermissible benefits.
They DO NOT have to come from boosters to be violations.

Have you not been reading all the stuff that's been going on at UCLA and even Oregon - if they received money or any gift of any value from anyone because of their status - it IS a violation of the extra benefits rule

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaab-the-dagger-college-basketball-blog/ucla-two-top-recruits-remain-limbo-due-ncaa-133444602--ncaab.html

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=5578250

Here's a web site that explains the rules clearly....and defines an impermissible extra benefit
"A student-athlete cannot accept free or reduced merchandise or services from any merchant
unless that free or reduced cost item is also available to the general public."

http://www.mgoblue.com/compliance/mich-compliance-extrabenefit.html

[DoubleJayAlum]

I disagree - it certainly CAN be viewed as a serious violation....
all the stuff Reggie Bush got was from agents - NOT boosters...
any extra benefit given to a college athlete or prospective college athlete (a recruit) that are given because of his status as an athlete are impermissible benefits.
They DO NOT have to come from boosters to be violations.

Have you not been reading all the stuff that's been going on at UCLA and even Oregon - if they received money or any gift of any value from anyone because of their status - it IS a violation of the extra benefits rule

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaab-the-dagger-college-basketball-blog/ucla-two-top-recruits-remain-limbo-due-ncaa-133444602--ncaab.html

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=5578250

Here's a web site that explains the rules clearly....and defines an impermissible extra benefit
"A student-athlete cannot accept free or reduced merchandise or services from any merchant
unless that free or reduced cost item is also available to the general public."
http://www.mgoblue.com/compliance/mi...rabenefit.html

You aren't getting it. Who's to say that a member of the general public with the same future earning potential and ability to make a $30K downpayment would not have received the special financing from the jeweler? When it comes to a legal setting, it all comes down to what one can prove, not what one believes.

By the way, read the rest of the rules on your little link. Almost all of them contain this phrase, " from any U of M employee or booster of U of M's athletic programs."

By the way, receiving something from an agent (or runner for an agent) is not the same scenario as what happened with Thomas. There are special rules regarding agents that came into play in the Reggie Bush situation.

As to UCLA - did you even read the article you linked? Anderson's situation is tied to a UCLA BOOSTER! As for Muhammad, the claim is that financial advisers paid for Muhammad's unofficial visits to UCLA's campus, something for which UCLA directly benefited. To date, there is no direct tie to Duke and the Thomas Jewelry Affair (although we can hope one will be found like was eventually found with the Ohio State tattoo stuff). Until that happens though, let me repeat - it all comes down to what one can prove, not what one believes. Further, remember that the burden of proof is on the NCAA to prove that there is a link, not on Thomas (or Duke) to prove that there is not one.

[tornado]

You aren't getting it. ...

I hear ya and if the NCAA lets Duke slide it'll most certainly be because "they didn't know about it" which is why NCAA let Auburn slide even tho NCAA knew Cam Newton was being offered $$..
the big boys seem to get off easy when there are violations --

But I think it is you who isn't getting it...as my thoughts here parallel what everyone else in the nation is saying about Duke's culpability

- WE ALL KNOW BOOSTERS HAVE STRONG ACCOUNTABILITY - but the rule I cited has NOTHING to do with boosters and regards extra benefits even from total strangers who are NOT boosters if given because you are a jock.
This is why it's impermissible for a college student-athlete to trade his jersey or autograph for a tattoo even if the tattoo came from a NON-booster.
That rule has nothing to do with boosters - all extra benefits are illegal - even if from NON-boosters

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=5949724

but if it is me, then gobs of other people are also "not getting it" because here's what just about everyone writing on this subject is saying...

That this is a potentially serious violation because
"NCAA rules regarding amateurism prohibit athletes from receiving benefits
that aren't available to all students. ...
"the test" for such a violation is whether "the general student body, or someone
similarly situated, would be able to get the same benefit or treatment."

and

"Why would a jewelry store present such a considerable line of credit to a college student?
That’s something the NCAA is bound to consider, because if the answer were to involve
his status as a Duke basketball player and potential future NBA earnings,
Thomas quite possibly would have been guilty of accepting what the NCAA considers
to be impermissible “extra benefits.”"

http://aol.sportingnews.com/ncaa-basketball/story/2012-09-10/lance-thomas-duke-lawsuit-ncaa-2010-national-championship

and

"it could cost Duke their 2010 national championship"

http://www.sbnation.com/ncaa-basketball/2012/9/7/3301944/lance-thomas-jewelry-duke-2010-championship

and what undergrad Duke student could ever walk into a ritzy New York jewelry story and expect to get $70K in credit and walk out with $100K in bling? There's an obvious factor that is quite suspicious here, and that's precisely why it concerns Duke & the NCAA.
It is an obvious unheard-of situation unless the jewelry store extended him the credit BECAUSE OF WHO HE IS AND HIS STATUS AS A JOCK & FUTURE EARNINGS CAPABILITY.

[DoubleJayAlum]

Here's the really strange thing about the deal ----

Thomas wasn't even projected as a lottery pick, so if the loan was based only on his supposed future basketball earnings, the jeweler is pretty stupid (or is a certifiable jock sniffer).

Tornado, I've seen the quotes you cited and note that every single one of them contains a limiting word like "possibly" or "could". If the rule is as clear as you seem to believe it is, there would be no need for those modifiers, assuming that the columnists writing about this even know the rules in the first place. Having seen your past comments about columnists and national columnists in particular, I guess I am a bit surprised that you put such great faith in what they are saying in this particular case. Maybe it is just a case of believing what one wants to hear?

Note also that in this case, there are not (yet) allegations that Thomas traded jerseys, etc for anything. That would also be a violation, but under a completely different rule than the one you cite. Just like taking money from an agent is barred under a different rule, so is trading your gear or autographing gear and then trading it for tattoos, etc.