According to
The NCAA has hit Penn State with a $60 million sanction, a four-year football postseason ban and a vacation of all wins dating to 1998, the organization said Monday morning.Did the NCAA even investigate this? Do they realize that the charges actually facing PSU administrators have not even been proven in a court of law yet? Does our US Constitution not guarantee us a right to due process? I guess that doesn't matter if the brainiacs at ESPN believe that the football culture needs to change.
 |
| Fried Nittany Lion is Today's Special! |
Here's a blog entry by a LAWYER about the situation:
According to ESPN and other media organizations, NCAA president Mark Emmert has elected to issue sanctions on Monday (July 23, 2012) against Pennsylvania State University, including a loss of scholarships and a multiple-year bowl ban. If the media reports are true, then the NCAA has charted an unprecedented, and perhaps unconstitutional, course of action. Federal and state courts have consistently held that membership organizations, including athletics associations like the NCAA, are required to provide procedures that protect their members against arbitrary and irrational action. Thus, an NCAA rule or decision cannot be applied unreasonably so that it creates different classes of schools. Accordingly, any NCAA sanction against Penn State at this stage may potentially violate federal and state notions of due and fair process for several reasons, including, but not limited to:
1.The conduct of Penn State and its employees, no matter how egregious, is not a violation of an existing NCAA rule. In fact, according to available information, the NCAA has never interpreted, or issued sanctions under, existing rules to address only criminal violations (or the cover-up of criminal violations). Further, the NCAA has chosen to make criminal activity an NCAA rules-violation in limited circumstances (i.e., Bylaw 10.2 (Knowledge of Use of Banned Drugs) and Bylaw 31.2.3.4 (Banned Drugs))—and the activities described in the report by former FBI director Louis J. Freeh are not addressed in the NCAA Division I Manual.The BOT and President Erickson will not fight this. I don't know why. Perhaps they are covering up an even bigger story, but I speculate there.
2.The NCAA did not establish and publish a process and procedure to address the issues relevant in Penn State’s case. Instead, the NCAA is utilizing an ad-hoc process that has not been explained fully to the membership or the public.
3.The NCAA is not adhering to its existing enforcement processes and procedures.
4.The NCAA is treating Penn State differently than other schools that were involved in sexual assault scandals or other serious criminal misconduct.
5.The NCAA failed to provide Penn State: (a) a written notice of allegations; (b) an opportunity to respond to the notice of allegations; (c) a hearing before an NCAA infractions committee to address the allegations; and (d) a process for an appeal of NCAA findings and sanctions.
As legal counsel for colleges and universities before NCAA committees, we are extremely concerned about the possible NCAA actions and urge the organization to comply with its existing processes and procedures to address the Penn State sexual abuse scandal. In addition, based on our review of the Freeh report, the issues facing Penn State are best left in the expert hands of the criminal and civil courts, the federal Departments of Justice and Education, the Pennsylvania General Assembly and the relevant accrediting agencies.
I can only hope that a class action suit driven by alumni or State College business interests can put an end to this madness.
ESPN thinks that Penn State needs to change their football culture. well, Penn State fans, welcome to
Posts
6 comments:
typical scumbag...oops i meant lawyer response ....to heck with psu being sexual enablers lets lawyer up
Being a member of the NCAA is done on a voluntary basis. PSU could simply choose to leave the NCAA rather than pay the fine and endure the punishment. It's not a violation of the constitution if they choose to submit to the NCAA's rules.
Yes I agree about all that you said and I am not a PSU fan, but as usual the ncaa is wrong. Being wronged by the ncaa back in the 70s i never have liked them in fact I played Naia sports because the ncaa sucks.
Plus here is my take on the sanctions
http://www.conquestchronicles.com/2012/7/23/3178460/why-the-psu-sanctions-dont-really-add-up
I have a bigger question for the author.
It appears to me that Mark Emmert's Q&A this morning (at the presser) revealed terms and conditions on the origins of the $60 million in penalty fines.
Specifically, members of the media asked Mr. Emmert about whether or not the $60 million in fines would be originating from budgets for other sports or academic programs.
According to this report at ESPN, the $60 million fine "will not come from taxpayers". ESPN claims that it will "come from a savings account within the athletic department".
As a donor to collegiate athletics (not Penn state), this is very troubling. I am now questionning the legitimacy of any financial contribution to any Division 1 school for any type of program. After all, why would I release contributions to the university, if the NCAA or other body can effectively seize my contribution and reallocate it per their directive?
Does the NCAA have the legal authority to impose financial damages on a governmental entity like a state funded university like Penn State?
Mark Emmert's decision strips the board of directors of the ability to allocate and control accounted funds. The bank handling Penn State must be quite upset about losing these funds and must be very concerned about where these $60 million are going.
More importantly, the legislature of a sovereign US state government must now allocate taxpayer funds to balance budget at the university. While ESPN may report that the funds are not originating in tax payer accounts, the funds were clearly offsetting and preventing the use of tax payer funds.
Now, the NCAA is virtually guaranteeing that the state of Pennsylvania must come up with the balance regardless of the ability to allocate state funds of $60 million?
If the savings account is funded with proceeds and contributions from donors, then the NCAA has stripped capital from Penn State and effectively that stolen capital comes from the people of Central and Western Pennsylvania.
This is NOT a minor issue as there are only about 300,000 working people around Central Penn. Effectively, the NCAA action creates a tax on the 300,000 working people of Central Penn due to the decision of a NCAA bureaucrat in Indiana.
The NCAA is not a federal tax authority and it is not a federal governmental agency.
The US Congress has given a unique regulatory position to NCAA, but it has not abdicated the role of the US Congress in regulating interstate commerce.
I am not aware of any other instance where the criminal misconduct of one individual and the unproven allegations of NON-conduct by three other individuals equated to a fiscal and fiduciary impact upon tax payers of one state to the benefit of another state.
This situation is now a federal jurisdictional issue with utter failure of the NCAA leadership to appropriately contain the legal impact of this case.
NCAA did not handle this matter correctly because they are acting across state lines and with this action have created an probable unconstitutional violation of law.
The student athlete's have lost due process rights in this action and while the court process would take longer than a transfer of the student, the disruption alone merits consideration of immediate filing of federal objections in the US District of choice (likely Washington DC).
Your thoughts?
Hmmm...It is my understanding that when you contribute as a donor to the Levi Lamb fund for Penn State athletics, you are contributing to Penn State athletics in an unrestricted manner, and the athletics department can do whatever it wants with those funds as long as they somehow support athletics. NCAA prohibited Penn State from cancelling non-revenue sports or eliminating scholarships for non-revenue sports. Dave Joyner suggested they could defer some building projects, athletic field maintenance, or other uses of Levi Lamb funds to maintain athletic facilities. So clearly they are talking about taking that out of the athletics budget for future improvements or something. Penn State Athletics has always been self-sufficient and not paid for by any state taxes or student tuition. In fact, Penn State Athletics also pays for club sports. Most other universities charge student activity fees for club sports. When you think about it, the Penn State total operating budget is $4.3 billion, of which only $227 million is provided by the state legislature. So I honestly don't see a tax impact on a $28 million liability per year.
Post a Comment