Bribery Scandal - FBI Probe - Book Richardson Involved

[catgrad97]

Dick Vitale has become the Rudy Giuliani of college hoops.

[U.P. Zona Fan]

Stop it, you're giving dick vittles too much credit.

[Merkin]

Someone posted on the FB UA basketball page that ESPN is suing ABOR/UA to get records via the FOI act.


https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-conte ... wcuEoYxofI

[UAEebs86]

Fuck ESPN

[Chicat]

Schlabach is the petitioner.

Shocking...

[MountainCat]

I finally get it... I wonder how much Bobby Hurley is paying Schlabach?

[zonagrad]

Schlabach and ESPN are dying for some actual facts they can hang their past reporting on. Then need vindication in the worst way. So far, their reports hinge on the tainted on stories of a defense attorney willing to say anything to throw attention away from his client and onto some high profile head coaches. Schlabach and ESPN violated the ethics of journalism by using a single, unnamed source without any corroboration. They were hoping Miller and Arizona wouldn't call their bluff. They were hoping for some leaked FBI wiretaps implicating someone like Sean Miller. And after three and a half years they still don't have anything substantial. This is their last hope for something tangible -- and it costs them nothing. Low risk, high reward. But if there was some "there, there" Arizona likely would've fired Miller long ago.

[azcat49]

They want info but schlabach can keep his source a secret. While legal it just seems hypocritical. Also sucks they are the judge and jury to public opinion and they have been for three years

[Spaceman Spiff]

They want info but schlabach can keep his source a secret. While legal it just seems hypocritical. Also sucks they are the judge and jury to public opinion and they have been for three years

Well, FOIA is what it is. It's kind of funny that Schlabach made his FOIA request for the NOA before we received the NOA.

This is solely an argument about timing. Arizona responded that they agree it's covered by FOIA, but due to the NCAA's confidentiality agreement, want to delay until the investigation and IARP prpcess have run.

ESPN wants the NOA now. Now vs later is the only real debate.

[zonagrad]

It used to be journalists would only use an unnamed source if they knew that source to be absolutely credible and honest with the information they were sharing and usually you could corroborate that info. That's not the case anymore. If someone associated with a case says something anonymously then ESPN will run with it if it fits their narrative. If this was Duke, it would take approximately 9 seconds for ESPN to get a call from Coach K's "people" and the story would be killed (and perhaps the reporter, too).

[aznavcat]

Wrote this a couple years ago...this whole thing still stinks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why Did ESPN Target Sean Miller/Arizona? Who exactly do they want to benefit from this?
Facts:
1) 9/2017 Book Richardson was taken into custody by the FBI.
2) Both Richardson and former coach Joe Pasternack were (allegedly?) recorded discussing money for recruits in the FBI investigation.
3) 2/15/18 - ASU (Bobby Hurley) loses to AZ (Sean Miller) for the sixth straight time in a big nationally televised game. Bobby Hurley, as a coach and competitor, must be very frustrated by this and wondering when, if ever, this is going to change.
10 days later…
3) 2/25/18 – Mark Schalbach, citing an unnamed source, breaks a huge ESPN story titled “FBI Wiretaps Show Sean Miller Discussed $100K Payment To Lock Recruit.”
Note: Multiple corrections to this story occur over the next few days but the reporter and key ESPN journalists continue to fully support it—the greater question is why?
4) Condemnation immediately follows from many ESPN journalists but none more than from Jay Bilas and Dick Vitale. What’s particularly striking is their sudden (as of the first report on 2/25/18) venomous hatred for Sean Miller/AZ based on heresay.
Heresay Defined:
Definition 1: information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate; rumor.
Definition 2: the report of another person's words by a witness, usually disallowed as evidence in a court of law.

Even after multiple corrections to Schalbach’s story, Bilas and Vitale continue to hold the view that Sean Miller offered money with NO factual knowledge of the case. It’s a blind belief in Schalbach’s story…but the more intriguing question, again, is why Sean Miller?

Things to consider and you can draw your own conclusions:
1) Mark Schalbach doesn’t normally cover NCAA basketball—how did he develop and supposedly become the trusted reporter for this unnamed basketball source? Is it possible he’s a useful idiot for an ulterior motive?
2) Jay Bilas (Duke alum) and Dick Vitale (Duke lover) are obviously bringing out the knives on AZ basketball/Miller…could it be to help out their Duke buddy who has lost every game against AZ (0-6)?
3) Motive: Bobby Hurley/ASU is/was not going to supplant U of A basketball on the merits. He’s in the shadow of their rival and giant in-state program yet he’s expected (ASU’s AD Ray Anderson expects every ASU team to compete for National Championships) to beat the U of A on a consistent basis. Hurley is going against the U of A’s rich tradition, tremendous fan support, and Sean Miller. That’s daunting and change isn’t happening fast enough or not at all…he’s 0-6. Up until 25 Feb, the Wildcats still had 2 high-level recruits and, according to Jason Sheer, were on the verge of potentially landing a few more high-level recruits despite Book’s role in the FBI. How do you “blow up” a program that’s overshadowing yours? There’s an old saying, “it’s not that I must succeed, it’s that others must fail.” Concoct a narrative based on a half-truth (we do know Book was involved) and implicate the HC (Sean Miller) of the entire program. But you need media allies to make it work (ESPN, Bilas, Vitale etc.). They are driving the narrative.
4) Given that the FBI records are supposed to be sealed. Someone ought to investigate the reporter and his accomplices to find out why they’re so hell bent on believing this unnamed source. Another point, Bilas is a lawyer, he knows heresay is not factual evidence, yet he stands by it. Vitale just loves Duke and it’s safe to assume Bobby Hurley too.
I think most sense there’s something wrong with this story yet ESPN insists it’s absolutely 100% true (even the parts that are untrue are regarded as true). Who gains from it may leads us closer to the answer of why the story occurred in the first place.

[mofo]

Schlabach and ESPN are dying for some actual facts they can hang their past reporting on. Then need vindication in the worst way.

I don't think they do. The story ran and I'd say most outside of us die-hards believes it. I don't see this affecting ESPN at all unless there's some lawsuit against them to follow. If the IARP is ok with our self-sanction then the narrative will be that AZ got off easy and the NCAA needs to grow some balls if they want cheating programs like AZ to stop cheating (KU won't be mentioned).

Of course if there happens to be info in the NOA that ESPN can run with, they most certainly will, even if it has nothing to do with their Miller/Ayton accusation. This will be vindication enough (if they ever needed any). They appear to be trying to throw some more wood on what they perceive to be a dying fire at the moment. Perhaps they're trying to arm themselves now so when the next round of KU info is made public they can divert attention back to AZ.

If they get the NOA in the lawsuit, I'm very curious to see WHEN the choose to write about it.

It is what it is.

[zonagrad]

Schlabach and ESPN don't have to worry about accountability or accuracy -- at all. Citing an unnamed source is akin to making up a story that you think could be true. I don't doubt that an attorney for the accused (Dawkins) made a ton of comments to Schlabach or even another coach who "thinks he knows details of the investigation" made comments to Schlabach. Those comments don't need to be factual and there's no way at all for Schlabach to verify the accuracy of those comments. All Schlabach needs to do is attribute those comments to a "source close to the case." It's such a weak effort at journalism. What kind of source is "close to the investigation? That could be anyone, even someone who was even investigated themselves. 20 years ago a story like this would not see the light of day without multiple independent sources to verify the accuracy of such a profound accusation. But in this day in journalism truth is not part of the equation. To this very day Schlabach has zero idea if the details of his report are true or not. He has no way of knowing and sadly probably doesn't care. He can hide behind ESPN.

There's such a close knit fraternity when it comes to sports media that it's doubtful Schlabach will be proven a fraud. Yes, some other reports from CBS & Yahoo discounted the accuracy of the ESPN report -- but the damage to the Arizona program and the narrative was fixed for too long to make an impact.

[TheCatInTheHat]

Very well-stated assessment.

[Spaceman Spiff]

FWIW, some of this might be prolonging litigation until the Supreme Court decides NCAA v. Alston.

It wouldn't end the IARP, but if the decision goes against the NCAA, you've gotta believe they'll have a lot of issues pushing sanctions. They've fairly explicitly argued that if they lose, it would open the door to athletes getting money from shoe companies for "internships."

Hard to come back from that L to arguing the worst allegations vs most of the FBI schools warrant heavy punishment.

[dmjcat]

Scheer is claiming that Miller was not consulted about the decision to self sanction

[prh]

Not at all surprising

[TheCat]

Well if this is true we probably just lost a coach when his contract runs out. Find it impossible to believe especially after Miller immediately said he agreed with decision.

[U.P. Zona Fan]

You can say you agree with something after the decision is made without you and still be disappointed in the decision or with how the decision was made.

[prh]

There's nothing else for Sean to say, it would create mayhem if he said he disagreed with it but was either overruled or not consulted.

[TheCat]

If he wasn't told or consulted he wont stay. It is not in his personality to be the tail of the dog. Would you stay at your job if important decisions were made about the group you managed without consulting you?

[Chicat]

If he wasn't told or consulted he wont stay. It is not in his personality to be the tail of the dog. Would you stay at your job if important decisions were made about the group you managed without consulting you?

For $3Million+ a year and no real prospects of getting that much or more on the horizon somewhere else? Yeah, I'd stick it out.

[DrWildcat]

If he wasn't told or consulted he wont stay. It is not in his personality to be the tail of the dog. Would you stay at your job if important decisions were made about the group you managed without consulting you?

For $3Million+ a year and no real prospects of getting that much or more on the horizon somewhere else? Yeah, I'd stick it out.

For sure! If he had other opportunities that were remotely close to what he has now, then this might just make it more likely that he would make the jump but he isn't leaving just to leave.

[zonagrad]

South Carolina gets two years from NCAA & no post-season ban:


https://www.espn.com/mens-college-baske ... ing-bribes

I wonder if Arizona will use the NCAA's penalty on South Carolina in their own argument where Book Richardson took bribe money to steer players not to Arizona but instead to an agent AFTER they were done playing at Arizona.

[84Cat]

What are the consequences for 2 years probation? So possibly we didn't need to self ban ourselves?

Edit: From what I can gather, SC will need to report to the NCAA how it is following the rules. If that is all that we will need to do, I can't wait to watch Dukie V's head explode

[IndianaZonaFan]

What are the consequences for 2 years probation? So possibly we didn't need to self ban ourselves?

Don’t tell the “we needed to self sanction sooner” crowd...

[zonagrad]

The problem with the whole narrative is that Book took a bribe and the optics were bad involving Miller & Dawkins. But there is literally (as far as I know) zero proof Arizona's players or recruits received improper benefits. Oh sure, there's plenty of bad press and innuendo about payments to Ayton or fixing grades for Alkins. But nothing at all concrete. But your average fan reads Schlabach and ESPN and takes those stories as gospel and then listens to Bilas and Vitale make comments about Miller and Arizona.

It doesn't matter what anyone THINKS. It's what you can PROVE. No different than a court of law. I don't want to get too optimistic because the NOI to Arizona hasn't been released. But I'm inclined to believe that Arizona won't get a ban (we took a ban ourselves this year) and we'll get a slap on the wrist similar to USC. If I'm wrong, someone please point out why because I might be missing some important info.

[IndianaZonaFan]

The problem with the whole narrative is that Book took a bribe and the optics were bad involving Miller & Dawkins. But there is literally (as far as I know) zero proof Arizona's players or recruits received improper benefits. Oh sure, there's plenty of bad press and innuendo about payments to Ayton or fixing grades for Alkins. But nothing at all concrete. But your average fan reads Schlabach and ESPN and takes those stories as gospel and then listens to Bilas and Vitale make comments about Miller and Arizona.

It doesn't matter what anyone THINKS. It's what you can PROVE. No different than a court of law. I don't want to get too optimistic because the NOI to Arizona hasn't been released. But I'm inclined to believe that Arizona won't get a ban (we took a ban ourselves this year) and we'll get a slap on the wrist similar to USC. If I'm wrong, someone please point out why because I might be missing some important info.

Not missing anything. I don’t get why the school or team should suffer in the first place.

A coach went rogue and took bribe money to steer players to an agency AFTER they go pro. In no way shape or form did Miller, players, or the program benefit from Book’s actions. I don’t understand everyone’s obsession with why this is so terrible and we should suffer major implications from it. Makes zero sense.

Schlabach’s article fucked us in the eyes of the public. It has no merit.

[Beachcat97]

Schlabach’s article fucked us in the eyes of the public. It has no merit.

No merit, just impact. A largely avoidable impact.

[SCCats]

Schlabach’s article fucked us in the eyes of the public. It has no merit.

Yes and Yes.

The big media machine decided it was going to fuck us. Then they did, in fact, fuck us over the course of multiple years.

In the eyes of a very, very high percentage of "casual sports fans" Miller's rep is trashed and will always be so.

Now how much of that continues to spill over onto/into Arizona's brand every day, that's tougher to know. But we've had now...jesus, three and a half years of spillage.

[AzCatFan2]

Based on the South Carolina decision, it's likely we get off with time served (1-year post season ban) and a similar, 2-year probation with no scholarship reductions or post-season ban. I think Book took more money, and more Arizona players names were involved, but the basics of what happened at S. Carolina and what happened at Arizona as far as what's provable are the same. I'm also hopefully the IARP decides our case by this summer. No reason to drag it along any further. As others have said, damage was done, we lost out on several recruits, missed the tournament twice because of the scandal, and it's time to move forward.

And sure, there will always be a cloud on Miller for some, but who cares. Haters are going to hate. Can't stop them. And if we come back with a Sweet 16 run or better next year, and follow it up with a good class, we're right back to being Arizona Basketball again.

[SCCats]

Based on the South Carolina decision, it's likely we get off with time served (1-year post season ban) and a similar, 2-year probation with no scholarship reductions or post-season ban. I think Book took more money, and more Arizona players names were involved, but the basics of what happened at S. Carolina and what happened at Arizona as far as what's provable are the same. I'm also hopefully the IARP decides our case by this summer. No reason to drag it along any further. As others have said, damage was done, we lost out on several recruits, missed the tournament twice because of the scandal, and it's time to move forward.

And sure, there will always be a cloud on Miller for some, but who cares. Haters are going to hate. Can't stop them. And if we come back with a Sweet 16 run or better next year, and follow it up with a good class, we're right back to being Arizona Basketball again.

Of course.

Unless that doesn't happen.

Time will tell.

[Postmaster]

That article didn’t make sense.
Said he took less than $6K in bribes. Then it says $22k, to direct kids to USC. (Wasn’t that his job?)
Also, a well written article would have explained the terms of the probation.

[dmjcat]

The problem with the whole narrative is that Book took a bribe and the optics were bad involving Miller & Dawkins. But there is literally (as far as I know) zero proof Arizona's players or recruits received improper benefits. Oh sure, there's plenty of bad press and innuendo about payments to Ayton or fixing grades for Alkins. But nothing at all concrete. But your average fan reads Schlabach and ESPN and takes those stories as gospel and then listens to Bilas and Vitale make comments about Miller and Arizona.

It doesn't matter what anyone THINKS. It's what you can PROVE. No different than a court of law. I don't want to get too optimistic because the NOI to Arizona hasn't been released. But I'm inclined to believe that Arizona won't get a ban (we took a ban ourselves this year) and we'll get a slap on the wrist similar to USC. If I I'm wrong, someone please point out why because I might be missing some important info.

Sorry Zona, but you are wrong.

The IARP is NOT like a court of law. Its an NCAA created Kangaroo Court. And the NCAA has already stated (several times) that anything contained in the public FBI transcripts IS evidence. That includes Book talking about paying Rawles relative, and paying for Rawle Alkins HS transcript to get fixed. I share your hope that the self imposed ban is the end of the punishment, but lets not confuse the IARP and the NCAA with a court of law.

[AzCatFan2]

The problem with the whole narrative is that Book took a bribe and the optics were bad involving Miller & Dawkins. But there is literally (as far as I know) zero proof Arizona's players or recruits received improper benefits. Oh sure, there's plenty of bad press and innuendo about payments to Ayton or fixing grades for Alkins. But nothing at all concrete. But your average fan reads Schlabach and ESPN and takes those stories as gospel and then listens to Bilas and Vitale make comments about Miller and Arizona.

It doesn't matter what anyone THINKS. It's what you can PROVE. No different than a court of law. I don't want to get too optimistic because the NOI to Arizona hasn't been released. But I'm inclined to believe that Arizona won't get a ban (we took a ban ourselves this year) and we'll get a slap on the wrist similar to USC. If I I'm wrong, someone please point out why because I might be missing some important info.

Sorry Zona, but you are wrong.

The IARP is NOT like a court of law. Its an NCAA created Kangaroo Court. And the NCAA has already stated (several times) that anything contained in the public FBI transcripts IS evidence. That includes Book talking about paying Rawles relative, and paying for Rawle Alkins HS transcript to get fixed. I share your hope that the self imposed ban is the end of the punishment, but lets not confuse the IARP and the NCAA with a court of law.

Book talking to Dawkins about paying for Rawle's transcripts comes down to two convicted felons talking. There is no proof of money transfer. No other athlete from Rawle's school has ever been mentioned, and nobody from said school has ever been indicted for taking a bribe. One would think if a school official would fix the transcripts of one athlete for money, there would be others. So while the Rawle transcript fixing is an allegation allowed to be heard by the IARP, it's nothing more then a hearsay conversation between two convicted felons, and not proof anything was ever done.

The IAPR might come down a little harder on Arizona because there was more smoke than say South Carolina. But it can't be too harsh, otherwise, look at the precedent being set. Find any two guys connected to college basketball, talk about fixing a players transcript, and the school can get punished, despite no corroborating evidence any of it ever took place? Not going to happen.

I can see the IARP giving Arizona a similar punishment as South Carolina, considering we already self punished a year without post-season play. The Rawle transcripts and Ayton pay stuff make for good headlines, and there will always be those who believe it to be absolutely true. And it may all be true. But if we get punished based solely on the words of two guys talking crap, both of whom happened to be convicted felons, that would be awful.

[azcat49]

Yea I don’t understand what DMJ and other pu fits are alluding to. IF there was clear evidence Miller paid some player of Alkins grades were altered then Miller would be gone. He is here and has been supported so all there seems to be is unsubstantiated rumors

[Jefe]

[TheCat]

What is interesting to me in all of this is: The Board argues that it should be allowed to
turn over the NOA at the completion of the investigative portion of the IARP in order to prevent
the potential harm to any further investigation. The Board argues that it anticipates that this
investigative phase will be completed within three to six months and that this timing would be
reasonable under the public records law.

[dmjcat]

NOA is out

https://tucson.com/cffe5960-7e1b-11eb-9 ... c4cbe.html

Arizona was charged with five Level I (most serious) NCAA violations, including a lack of head-coach responsibility charge against coach Sean Miller, in the NCAA's Notice of Allegations that the school released Friday.

The school initially refused to release the NOA despite multiple public-records requests from the Star and other outlets, but was ordered to this week after ESPN won a lawsuit in the Arizona Superior Court.

The five Level I charges were:

1. Unethical recruiting conduct by former assistant coaches Book Richardson and Mark Phelps.

2. Unethical conduct by Richardson for accepting $20,000 in bribes (a charge Richardson admitted to and served a three-month prison sentence for).

3. Unethical conduct by Phelps for asking a UA player to delete a text message thread related to an impermissible $500 loan he had provided, and lying to investigators.

4. Head coach responsibility for Miller for not demonstrating he promoted compliance.

5. Institutional lack of control for Arizona because of the men's basketball charges and two Level II charges involving swimming.

Phelps was also charged with two Level II violations:

-- For giving a player a $500 loan (Phelps and then-forward Keanu Pinder were suspended in November 2017 for breaking a rule the school would not specify publicly.)

-- For asking a player to help him recruit.

The other two Level II charges involved the UA swimming and diving program, one for arranging improper tryouts and the other for a lack of head coach responsibility by Augie Busch.

There are a number of aggravating and mitigating factors listed in the full Notice of Allegations, which is attached as a PDF file. It was released to the Star in response to another public records request by the Star on Wednesday in the wake of the Arizona Superior Court ruling.

If a school is found to have committed a standard Level I violation, the NCAA's penalty matrix calls for one or two years of a postseason ban. But an aggravated Level 1 carries a two to four year ban (while a mitigated Level 1 brings either no ban or a one-year ban).

Arizona announced on Dec. 29 it was self-imposing a postseason ban, indicating it might have believed a standard Level 1 conviction was the floor of what it might be facing.

However, the lists of aggravating factors are longer than the mitigating factors, indicating the case could be processed as aggravated Level I.

Among the aggravating factors listed included one for having "compromised the integrity of the investigation" and failing to cooperate.

The NCAA said UA refused to share the findings of its external investigation into men's basketball, and accused Arizona AD Dave Heeke and his compliance officer in October 2017 "drafted talking points ... that demonstrated from the outset a lack of commitment to cooperation and the acceptance of responsibility."



THe NCAA also said in May 2019 that UA outside counsel interviewed Richardson without first notifying the NCAA enforcement staff, and "failed to notify the enforcement staff when it discovered potential significant violations in the swimming and diving program."

In addition, the NCAA said "one or more violations caused significant ineligibility to a student-athlete." That could result in UA having to vacate wins or postseason appearances.

Other aggravating factors included:

-- Multiple Level I and Level II violations.

-- A history of major violations by Arizona (among all sports) in 2019, 2010, 1984, 1983, 1974 and 1961.

-- Lack of institutional control.

If Miller is found guilty of a Level I violation, he is contracted to lose $1 million of a booster-funded retention bonus, according to an amendment passed by the Arizona Board of Regents in April 2018. However, Miller has less than $1 million left to be paid under it, so the funds may have to be returned.

In September 2019, Miller said: "I will continue as hard as I can to promote and reinforce a culture of compliance just as I have done for the last 10 years."

After the school received the Notice of Allegations in October, it requested its infractions case be moved to the NCAA's new Independent Accountability Resolution Process. The case was accepted into the IARP in December but it has no timeline for resolution, and four other still-unresolved cases were in its system before Arizona's.

[Merkin]

NOA is out
-- A history of major violations by Arizona (among all sports) in 2019, 2010, 1984, 1983, 1974 and 1961.

Really, 1961?

2. Unethical conduct by Richardson for accepting $20,000 in bribes (a charge Richardson admitted to and served a three-month prison sentence for).

One of my biggest pet peeves, no idea why, is that so many people don't know the difference between jail and prison. See it on cop shows all the time too. Even Barney Fife calls the inmates "prisoners".

[Chicat]

Among the aggravating factors listed included one for having "compromised the integrity of the investigation" and failing to cooperate.

The NCAA said UA refused to share the findings of its external investigation into men's basketball, and accused Arizona AD Dave Heeke and his compliance officer in October 2017 "drafted talking points ... that demonstrated from the outset a lack of commitment to cooperation and the acceptance of responsibility."

This is such petty bullshit.

- A history of major violations by Arizona (among all sports) in 2019, 2010, 1984, 1983, 1974 and 1961.

This is hilarious bullshit. Were Heeke or Miller even alive in ‘61??

[SCCats]

Well then

[dmjcat]

NCAA penalty structure:

https://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/file ... 101212.pdf

A standard level 1 violation can result in 1-2 years post season ban (even worse if its "aggravated").

Worst case - In theory we could see a 5-10 year post season ban.........assuming its not "aggravated"

Since we have several schools in front of us in the IARP queue we should have a good idea just how hard they will come down on us before we face the Kangaroo court.

[Chicat]

So, no Ayton payment and no mention of Nassir Little right? Then what in the fuck are we actually talking about here?

Taking this to the IARP was the absolute right move. Fuck the NCAA.

[SCCats]

Is the IARP binding arbitration? Anyone know?

[dmjcat]

Is the IARP binding arbitration? Anyone know?

https://iarpcc.org/

The Independent Resolution Panel consists of 15 members with legal, higher education and/or sports backgrounds. Once a case is accepted into the IARP, a public disclosure is made and a hearing panel of five (IRP) members and one alternate is appointed by the IAOC. That panel will review the allegations issued by the CCU and the parties’ response to those allegations. It then conducts a hearing, decides whether violations occurred and prescribes penalties.

Decisions issued by the IRP are final and are not subject to appeal.

[SCCats]

Is the IARP binding arbitration? Anyone know?

https://iarpcc.org/

The Independent Resolution Panel consists of 15 members with legal, higher education and/or sports backgrounds. Once a case is accepted into the IARP, a public disclosure is made and a hearing panel of five (IRP) members and one alternate is appointed by the IAOC. That panel will review the allegations issued by the CCU and the parties’ response to those allegations. It then conducts a hearing, decides whether violations occurred and prescribes penalties.

Decisions issued by the IRP are final and are not subject to appeal.

So yes.

Wow, better hope the IRAP really is independent.

[dmjcat]

Is the IARP binding arbitration? Anyone know?

https://iarpcc.org/

The Independent Resolution Panel consists of 15 members with legal, higher education and/or sports backgrounds. Once a case is accepted into the IARP, a public disclosure is made and a hearing panel of five (IRP) members and one alternate is appointed by the IAOC. That panel will review the allegations issued by the CCU and the parties’ response to those allegations. It then conducts a hearing, decides whether violations occurred and prescribes penalties.

Decisions issued by the IRP are final and are not subject to appeal.

So yes.

Wow, better hope the IRAP really is independent.

I'm not a lawyer so I am not sure if the decision is "final" - final. It certainly appears that the decision is "Final" within the NCAA.

Its not clear to me if the UA could drag the NCAA into a real court (Federal) following a negative result with the IARP process. Perhaps we have a lawyer on the board??

[SCCats]

Is the IARP binding arbitration? Anyone know?

https://iarpcc.org/

The Independent Resolution Panel consists of 15 members with legal, higher education and/or sports backgrounds. Once a case is accepted into the IARP, a public disclosure is made and a hearing panel of five (IRP) members and one alternate is appointed by the IAOC. That panel will review the allegations issued by the CCU and the parties’ response to those allegations. It then conducts a hearing, decides whether violations occurred and prescribes penalties.

Decisions issued by the IRP are final and are not subject to appeal.

So yes.

Wow, better hope the IRAP really is independent.

I'm not a lawyer so I am not sure if the decision is "final" - final. It certainly appears that the decision is "Final" within the NCAA.

Its not clear to me if the UA could drag the NCAA into a real court (Federal) following a negative result with the IARP process. Perhaps we have a lawyer on the board??

That last line, "not subject to appeal", generally means no appeal to a real court.

[Spaceman Spiff]

Can I say this? That NOA is about 2x better than I could have hoped. Zero from the FBI beyond Book's conviction. Zero corroboration of ESPN's BS.

Phelps's thing with Pinder is the only other big deal and the NCAA accepted two games and repayment. The entire rest of the allegations are just repackaging Phelps/Pinder and Book taking a bribe.

It's insane they would want us punished any more than we've already done plus some probation and maybe a scholarship or two. ZERO about paying players.